2024-227-Minutes for Meeting June 12,2024 Recorded 8/8/2024TES C,0&
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2o2��22�
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 08/08/2024 11:59:26 AM
NvE
y II I I I III I In 111111111111111111
4 2024-227
WEDNESDAY June 12, 2024
Barnes Sawyer Rooms
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Tony DeBone and Phil Chang. Also present were County
Administrator Nick Lelack, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley and
BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal webpage www.deschutes.org/meet'LDZS—.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Adair reported that last year, Best Care had 26 drug overdoses in its facilities. Thus
far this year, there has been just one.
CITIZEN INPUT:
• Bruce Halperin spoke regarding the proposed campground on County -owned
property at Fort Thompson Lane, saying that 176 RV units are in the process of
being developed on the south side of Bend and space is also available at the Fair &
Expo Center to accommodate more RVs. He questioned how many RV sites are
needed in Deschutes County, said an RV park at Fort Thompson would be
unnecessary and financially risky, and concluded that serious weaknesses and flaws
in the camping feasibility study have been called out but not addressed.
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 1 OF 16
Commissioner Chang responded that it is very early in the exploration of this
concept, no decisions have been made, and a need for more recreational amenities
has been identified.
• Carl Shoemaker commented on the cost of health insurance and how much needed
healthcare is not covered by insurance, even for veterans such as him.
• Ron Boozell objected to what he perceived as an unreasonable tolerance of persons
who do not respect the procedures and decorum of the Board's meetings, with
some people speaking out of turn and/or from the audience.
• Dorinne Tye said many Americans are harmed by airplane emissions and noise, and
many airports hire people to shoot birds in their vicinity.
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda.
Approval of Board signature of Document No. 2024-461, a contract with Helion
Software for assessment and taxation software
2. Approval of appointment of Phil Anderson to the Audit Committee for a term
ending on June 30, 2026
3. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking Robin Ingram, and
reappointing Sandy Storrie, Michael Pennavaria, Lynn McAward and Thomas
Schuchardt, for service on the Dog Control Board of Supervisors.
4. Consideration of Board Signature on letters reappointing Cody Meredith and
David Rosenberg for service on the Ambulance Service Area Committee
5. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Darci Palmer for service
on the Central Oregon Housing Authority (dba Housing Works) Board
6. Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking Jim Starnes for service on
the Facility Project Review Committee
7. Consideration of Board Signature on letters reappointing Rodney Dieckhoff and
Duncan Atwood for service on the Three Rivers Vector Control District Board
8. Approval of minutes of the April 29 and May 20 and 22, 2024 Budget Committee
Meetings
CHANG: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 2 OF 16
Commissioner DeBone acknowledged the many appointments and expressed
appreciation to those who volunteer their service on a board or committee.
ACTION ITEMS:
9. Public Hearing to consider Ordinance No. 2024-005 which would amend
Deschutes County Code section 8.08, Noise Control
Cody Smith, Assistant Road Director/County Engineer, explained that under
Deschutes County Code, public agencies cannot run any equipment between 10
pm and 7 am unless by permit. This restriction affects many road maintenance
activities, especially wintertime operations such as snow and ice removal. The
proposed amendments would exempt routine road maintenance work from
noise variance permitting requirements —thereby rendering these outright
permitted —and also allow for an administrative permit process for other types of
necessary work.
Commissioner Chang agreed for the need to exempt overnight snow and ice
removal from requiring a noise variance permit. He asked to know how often
other projects and activities require overnight work.
Smith provided examples of work that is better done during off -hours rather
than in the day on high -volume roads to mitigate the impacts on drivers. Also,
certain work is best done in lower rather than higher temperatures.
In response to Commissioner DeBone, Smith said any permit issued for road
improvement activities between 10 pm and 7 am would require public
notification in advance of the work.
The public hearing was opened at 9:29 am. There being no one who wished to speak,
the public hearing was closed at 9:30 am.
Commissioner DeBone supported the proposed change, noting there is often a
short window of time to get these kinds of projects completed.
Commissioner Chang asked if the Board could receive notification of these
administrative permits as they are issued. Smith said bidding documents
developed for larger projects specify allowable work hours, and those would be
adjusted only if necessary.
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 16
DEBONE: Move approval of first and second reading of Ordinance No. 2024-005
by title only
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Chair Adair read the title of the ordinance into the record two times.
CHANG: Move approval of emergency adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-005
amending Title 8.08, Noise Control, of the Deschutes County Code
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
10. Order No. 2024-017 designating the Deschutes County District Attorney to
represent the State's interest in civil commitment proceedings
Dave Doyle, County Attorney, explained the request to transfer work involving
civil commitment proceedings from County Legal to the District Attorneys office,
effective July 1, 2024.
Commissioner Chang commented that the DA's office has indicated it may need
another FTE to take on this work.
DEBONE: Move approval of Order No. 2024-017 designating the Deschutes
County District Attorney to represent the State's interest in civil
commitment proceedings
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
11. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-004, amending
Deschutes County Code 8.35 regarding weed control
Dave Doyle explained the proposed amendment to Deschutes County Code to
task the Road Department with distributing weed control information rather than
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 16
the County Clerk. Following a public hearing on May 291h, the Board approved
first reading of the ordinance.
CHANG: Move approval of second reading of Ordinance No. 2024-004
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Chair Adair read the title of the ordinance into the record.
CHANG: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-004 amending Title 8.35, Weed
Control, of the Deschutes County Code
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
12. Public Hearing: Consideration of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
recommendation to select the Hooker Creek "Moon Pit" property for siting
the County s future solid waste management facility
Tim Brownell, Director of the Solid Waste Department, presented the
recommendations of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) to: select the
Hooker Creek "Moon Pit" property for siting the County's future solid waste
management facility; mitigate impacts to area wildlife and recreation; and
prioritize waste prevention and recovery in the interest of reducing facility costs
and greenhouse gas emissions. After reviewing the timeline of the County's
efforts to locate a suitable site for a new landfill to replace the Knott landfill when
it reaches capacity, which is projected to happen in 2030, Brownell introduced
Ryan Rudnick and Dwight Miller from Parametrix who served as consultants on
this project.
Rudnick presented a comparison of the two finalist sites —Moon Pit and Roth
East —and explained how these compared with other sites in terms of proximity
to populated areas and impacts on wildlife. He said the Roth East site would likely
pose more impacts to wildlife, in particular sage grouse, and as such would
require approval from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Miller presented a comparison of the estimated costs for each site, saying that
because the Moon Pit site is projected to cost more in terms of acquisition and
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 16
development, the estimated monthly residential bill for Moon Pit would be
$28.05 to $28.83, while this would be $27.56 to $27.73 for Roth East. He reviewed
the public input process undertaken during the evaluation of the possible sites,
saying more than 1,500 comments have been received thus far, with impacts to
wildlife being a top concern.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Brownell said the Moon Pit property has an
industrial well that produces 11,000 gallons per minute, while Roth East has a
well that produces 50 gallons per minute. Brownell added that the immediate
response to any fire would come from on -site staff using water trucks.
Brownell said SWAC's recommendation that the Board select the Moon Pit site
for the new landfill was unanimous.
The public hearing was opened at 10:36 am.
• Robin Vora, who served on the SWAC, shared his belief that the Highway 97 and
Rickard Road sites were passed up too quickly, with the former in particular
attractive from both cost and environmental standpoints. He said if these sites
are not to be considered, he supported approval of the Moon Pit site.
• Mike Riley, representing the Environmental Center, supported siting the new
landfill in Deschutes County in the interest of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. He favored selecting the Moon Pit site as it is already disturbed and
said it will be important to mitigate impacts on wildlife and recreational
amenities.
• Ben Gordon, representing Central Oregon Land Watch, agreed that both of the
finalist sites have pros and cons, and neither lacks challenges to development.
He agreed with SWAC's recommendation that impacts on recreational amenities
and wildlife be mitigated.
• Tony Aceti said while he agreed that the Moon Pit property would be a better
site for a landfill, the acquisition costs of nearly $16 million seem excessive.
• Ann White, representing the Oregon Desert Association, said locating a landfill at
the Moon Pit site will affect wildlife and recreational amenities and stated her
agreement with the recommended mitigation of these impacts.
• Saying that Hooker Creek would be required to rehabilitate the Moon Pit site if it
was not acquired for a landfill or some other purpose, Robin Vora suggested
factoring this consideration in when negotiating the purchase price.
• Dorinne Tye shared her concern about converting more EFU land to non -farm
uses.
• Mark Salvo, representing the Oregon Natural Desert Association, encouraged
support for a strong mitigation program as described. He also asked that the
Board keep the public record open on this matter following the public hearing to
allow the submission of additional written comments.
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 16
The public hearing was closed at 10:55 am.
Responding to Commissioner Chang regarding the possible existence of Native
American cultural resources on the Moon Pit site, Rudnick said a formal survey
would be conducted of all areas not directly impacted by the mining activity.
Colton Kyro from Parametrix presented information on the natural resources
assessment conducted of both the Moon Pit and Roth East sites, and described
required and optional mitigation measures and the estimated costs of these.
Commissioner Chang asked if stakeholders judge the proposed mitigation to be
sufficient. Brownell responded that the draft order states that the County shall
develop and implement a robust and comprehensive mitigation strategy.
Commissioner Chang had questions about water availability and rights and how
much water would cost at the Moon Pit site. He inquired about the value of the
mineral rights on this property and how the County might be able to extract
some of that value, and further wanted to know estimated costs of the planned
mitigation.
Commissioner Adair asked which water rights the County would obtain with the
site acquisition and the potential cost of those. Brownell said Hooker Creek has
offered to provide water via a lease until the County can obtain its own water
rights. The proposed lease would cost $85,000 per year.
Commissioner Chang was interested to secure water rights for the long-term
operation of the facility. He proposed structuring a purchase agreement to share
risks and rewards in terms of the site's mineral resources, given the uncertainty
of what these are worth.
In response to Commissioner DeBone, Brownell said following the acceptance of
SWAC's recommendations, the next step would be to issue an RFP for the next
scope of work.
CHANG: Move to close the oral record for this matter, hold the written record
open to 4 pm on WednesdayJune 26th, and schedule deliberations
for shortly afterwards
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 7 OF 16
A break was taken at 11:33 am. The meeting resumed at 11:39 am.
13. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request
for property on the northeast corner of the Deschutes junction Highway 97
overpass
Caroline House, Senior Planner, presented the staff report on this matter, saying
the property consists of three tax lots totaling approximately 20.36 acres. The
Hearings Officer recommended denial of the requested zoning change unless the
applicant demonstrates compliance with Statewide planning Goal 5 in relation to
scenic view protections along Highway 97. House said public comments have
been received both in support of and in opposition to the proposed change.
The public hearing was opened at 11:44 am.
Pat Kliewer, consultant for the applicant, referred to maps showing the location
of the property, describing it as very rocky. Saying that the property is adjacent to
a dense residential area, she said the site is not agricultural land as evidenced by
the soils report which confirms that two-thirds of the site is class 7 and 8 soils.
She said the soil is shallower than normal soil depths and it is impossible to grow
even hay. Adding there is no evidence that any crops have ever been grown on
the property, she said neither is it suitable for livestock, due in part to its
proximity to Highway 97.
Commissioner DeBone asked about compliance with Goal 5 requirements.
Kliewer surmised that the landscape management zone would instead be
applicable. Saying a high -density development is not planned, she understood
the County's need to validate that the view corridor will be protected even if the
property is rezoned. She noted that much of the property is four feet below the
highway and spoke to the view of the property as seen from Highway 97.
Commissioner Adair noted that the record indicates the property is in farm tax
deferral and asked to know how long it has been in this status. Kliewer
responded that she did not know.
In response to Commissioner Adair, Kliewer said the property has 14.6 acres of
water rights, most of which are one foot deep. Commissioner Chang asked to
know how many acre feet of water rights this amounts to.
• Tony Aceti supported the application, saying it has been proven that these
soils cannot be farmed. He agreed there are no scenic views to the west,
noted that to the east, the railroad tracks rise 15 feet above the property,
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 8 OF 16
and said in any case, none of the views are of mountains or pastures. He
believed the zoning change would enable a higher and better use of the
land and facilitate economic development.
• Gary Kitzrow introduced himself as a certified soil scientist and said the
property could not be used for hay production or livestock grazing.
• Carol Macbeth, representing Central Oregon Land Watch, opposed the
application due to its non-compliance with Goals 3, 5 and 14, saying that
the ESEE analysis does not apply to a site but rather to an entire corridor,
and thus would have to be redone in order to have applicability. She said
a nearby orchard having the same soils as the subject property is able,
with irrigation, to render its soils class 3. Saying that it's possible to use
property with class 7 soils for grazing, she concluded that information in
the record indicates that the property has previously been used for many
agricultural uses.
Commissioner DeBone said the landscape management zone could be used to
protect the scenic view. Macbeth responded there is scenic value in the land
being agricultural in and of itself.
• Dorinne Tye opposed the rezone and supported retaining EFU-zoned land.
In rebuttal, Kliewer spoke to the historical development and uses of the property,
noting the highway was constructed in 1937. She disputed that certain past uses,
such as a small petting zoo, constituted agricultural uses under State law.
Mark Rubbert confirmed that the soil is very shallow and a profit cannot be made
in farming it. He listed uses surrounding the property, including various
commercial and industrial uses.
Will Groves, Planning Manager, reminded that the purpose of the landscape
management zone is not to preserve scenic views; rather, it is to provide
attractive scenery to the travelling public. He said the ESEE will need to be edited
to address the correct requirements of the Goal 5 resource.
The public hearing was closed at 1:12 pm.
DEBONE: Move to close the oral portion of the record at this time, leave the
written record open until 4 pm on June 26th, and grant the applicant
until 4 pm on July 3r1 to submit rebuttal testimony and until 4 pm on
July 101h to submit its final legal argument
CHANG: Second
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 9 OF 16
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
A break was taken at 1:15 pm. The meeting resumed at 1:39 pm.
Items #21 and #24 were taken ahead of the remaining agenda items.
21. Memorandum of Understanding with Neighborlmpact, Housing Works and
the Central Oregon Builders Association to establish a Workforce Housing
Program for Median -Income Earners (HOME Fund)
Nick Lelack, County Administrator, said the proposed Memorandum of
Understanding has been revised in accordance with the Board's direction on May
8th
Commissioner DeBone reminded that the purpose of this program is to
incentivize the construction of housing for those earning between 80 and 120
percent of the average median income. He said the program can be adjusted in
the future if needed.
Commissioner Adair added that the County is providing the funding for this
program, which anticipates the building of ten houses for affordable workforce
housing.
Dan Emerson, Budget and Financial Planning Manager, clarified that the FY 2025
Budget includes $320,000 for this program.
Commissioner Chang was disappointed in what he judged to be the low amount
of funding for this program and also that the deed restriction period was reduced
to 20 years from 30.
DEBONE: Move approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with
Neighborlmpact, Housing Works and the Central Oregon Builders
Association to establish a Workforce Housing Program for
Median -Income Earners (HOME Fund)
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 10 OF 16
24. Proposed Economic Development Loan Conversion for Cognitive Surplus
Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, summarized the purpose of the
economic development loan program.
Steve Curley, Director of Redmond Economic Development, Inc. (REDI), explained
that when the loan to Cognitive Surplus was approved, the agreement required
that the wages of new and relocated employees amount to an average of
$57,065.56 per year. Because the average wage in Deschutes County was only
$47,595, however, the company's actual average annual wage of $49,092
exceeded the County's average wage, fulfilling the requirements of the program.
REDI asks that the contract with Cognitive Surplus be amended to reflect the
program's minimum wage as described. REDI also asks that the loan to Cognitive
Surplus be forgiven as the company was required to hire 15 new staff, but has
hired 21.
Cognitive Solution's Operations Manager Karl (no last name provided) gave a
brief overview of the company's history and operations, stressing its strong
environmental standards as evidenced by its commitment to offset carbon costs
associated with shipping products.
DEBONE: Move approval of an amendment to contract 2021-288 to change the
average annual wage from $57,067.53 to $49,092 and authorize the
County Administrator to convert a $26,000 economic development
forgivable loan made to Cognitive Surplus into a grant
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG:
DEBONE
ADAI R:
Yes
Yes
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
14. Public Hearing: FY 2025 Deschutes County Fee Schedule and consideration
of Resolution No. 2024-026 adopting the Fee Schedule
Laura Skundrick, Management Analyst, said no changes were made to the
proposed FY 2025 fee schedule since it was presented to the Board last month.
The public hearing was opened at 2:00 pm. There being no one who wished to speak,
the public hearing was closed at 2:01 pm.
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 11 OF 16
CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024-026 adopting the FY 2025
Deschutes County Fee Schedule and providing an effective date
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
The Board convened as the governing body of the Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District.
15. Public Hearing: FY 2025 Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District Fee Schedule
and consideration of Resolution No. 2024-027 approving the fee schedule
Laura Skundrick, Management Analyst, said no changes were made to the
Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District Fee Schedule from FY 2024.
The public hearing was opened at 2:02 pm. There being no one who wished to speak,
the public hearing was closed at 2:02 pm.
DEBONE: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024-027 FY 2025 Deschutes County
9-1-1 Service District Fee Schedule and providing an effective date
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
The Board convened as the governing body of the County Extension and 4H Service District.
16. Public Hearing: FY 2025 Deschutes County Extension and 4H Service District
Fee Schedule and consideration of Resolution No. 2024-028 approving the
fee schedule
Laura Skundrick, Management Analyst, said no changes were made to the
Deschutes County Extension and 4H Service District Fee Schedule from FY 2024.
The public hearing was opened at 2:03 pm. There being no one who wished to speak,
the public hearing was closed at 2:03 pm.
CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024-028 adopting the FY 2025
Deschutes County Extension and 4H Service District Fee Schedule and
providing an effective date
DEBONE: Second
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 12 OF 16
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
The Board convened as the governing body of the Sunriver Service District.
17. Public Hearing: FY 2025 Sunriver Service District Fee Schedule and
consideration of Resolution No. 2024-029 adopting the fee schedule
Laura Skundrick, Management Analyst, said no changes were made to the
proposed FY 2025 Sunriver Service District Fee Schedule since it was presented to
the Board last month.
The public hearing was opened at 2:04 pm. There being no one who wished to speak,
the public hearing was closed at 2:04 pm.
DEBONE: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024-029 adopting the FY 2025
Sunriver Service District Fee Schedule and providing an effective date
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
The Board convened as the governing body of the Black Butte Ranch Service District.
18. Public Hearing: FY 2025 Black Butte Ranch Service District Fee Schedule and
consideration of Resolution No. 2024-030 adopting the fee schedule
Laura Skundrick, Management Analyst, said no changes were made to the Black
Butte Ranch Service District Fee Schedule from FY 2024.
The public hearing was opened at 2:05 pm. There being no one who wished to speak,
the public hearing was closed at 2:05 pm.
CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024-030 adopting the FY 2025 Black
Butte Ranch Service District Fee Schedule and providing an effective
date
DEBONE: Second
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 13 OF 16
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
The Board reconvened as the governing body of Deschutes County.
19. First reading of Ordinance 2024-002: Redmond Airport Master Plan Update
Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner, reminded that these updates to
Deschutes County Code section 18.80.030 were proposed by the City of
Redmond and the Redmond Municipal Airport to conform to the updated
Redmond Airport Master Plan. Following an initial public hearing on January 31,
2024 and a continued public hearing on February 21, 2024, the Board voted to
adopt the legislative text amendments as proposed.
CHANG: Move approval of first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-002 by title only
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Chair Adair read the title of the ordinance into the record.
20. Community Development Department Draft FY 2024-25 Work Plan
Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director, reminded that the Board
conducted a public hearing on the draft Community Development Department FY
2024-25 Work Plan on May 15. During the subsequent open record period, two
written comments were received concerning agricultural buildings.
DEBONE: Move approval of the Community Development Department
FY 2024-25 Work Plan
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
22. Request to Accept Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds
Lee Randall, Facilities Director, said the Department of Energy has approved
$78,310 in Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant for Deschutes County
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 14 OF 16
for a technical assistance voucher to complete an energy audit and develop an
energy efficiency and conservation strategy. Randall added that this grant is
foundational to other grant opportunities.
DEBONE: Move to approve the acceptance of a grant from the Department of
Energy to complete an energy audit and develop an energy efficiency
and conservation strategy
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
23. Oregon Health Authority Health -Related Social Needs Capacity Building
Grant
Trevor Stephens, Business Manager for Community Justice, said while this
application has already been submitted in order to meet the deadline, it can be
withdrawn if the Board does not support it. He explained that, if awarded, the
funds would be used to assist persons on supervision by Adult Parole &
Probation with their housing needs. Stephens elaborated on how the funds
would be used, explaining efforts to optimize the utilization of allocated
resources by tracking and billing for housing services, among other proposed
uses.
Commissioner Chang asked if Health Services is also applying for this grant.
Stephens said DCHS is applying for technical assistance funds, which is a different
category —hence the two applications will not directly compete with each other.
CHANG: Move to authorize Community Justice to apply for a Health -Related
Social Needs Capacity Building Grant from the Oregon Health
Authority in the amount of $345,000
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
OTHER ITEMS:
• Commissioner Adair reminded of the request from COACT for a letter of support as
it seeks funding from ODOT for the Transportation Safety Action Plan.
Commissioners Adair and Chang indicated their willingness to sign the letter.
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 15 OF 16
• Commissioner Adair reported on a COHC meeting, saying the organization is
interviewing for an executive director.
• Commissioner DeBone reported on a Sunriver La Pine Economic Development
(SLED) meeting where the subject of future La Pine commercial areas was discussed.
• Commissioner DeBone shared that Travis Downing, manager at the Sunriver
Brewing Co., recentlyjoined SLED.
• Commissioner Chang announced that representatives from the Oregon Water
Resource Commission will be in Bend tomorrow.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At 2:23 pm, the Board entered Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property
Negotiations.
The Executive Session concluded at 3:09 pm, after which the Board directed staff to
proceed as discussed.
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:09 pm.
DATED this 7day ofAONA_2024 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners. `
ATTEST:
11 11 M''O'
RECORDING SECRETARY
J
PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR
ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING JUNE 12, 2024 PAGE 16 OF 16
v-T E S CC)G�
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 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/3mminzyr. 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
agenda.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments
may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734..
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Board signature of Document No. 2024-461, a contract with Helion Software
for assessment and taxation software
2. Approval of appointment of Phil Anderson to the Audit Committee for a term ending on
June 30, 2026
3. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking Robin Ingram, and reappointing
Sandy Storrie, Michael Pennavaria, Lynn McAward and Thomas Schuchardt, for service
on the Dog Control Board of Supervisors.
4. Consideration of Board Signature on letters reappointing Cody Meredith and David
Rosenberg for service on the Ambulance Service Area Committee
5. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Darci Palmer for service on the
Central Oregon Housing Authority (dba Housing Works) Board
6. Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking Jim Starnes for service on the
Facility Project Review Committee
7. Consideration of Board Signature on letters reappointing Rodney Dieckhoff and Duncan
Atwood for service on the Three Rivers Vector Control District Board
8. Approval of Minutes of the April 29 and May 20 and 22, 2024 Budget Committee
Meetings
ACTION ITEMS
9. 9:10AM Public Hearing to consider Ordinance No. 2024-005 which would amend
Deschutes County Code section 8.08, Noise Control
June 12, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 4
10. 9:25 AM Order No. 2024-017 designating the Deschutes County District Attorney to
represent the State's interest in civil commitment proceedings
11. 9:30 AM Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-004, amending
Deschutes County Code 8.35 regarding weed control
12. 9:35 AM Public Hearing: Consideration of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
recommendation to select the Hooker Creek "Moon Pit" property for siting
the County's future solid waste management facility
13. 10:35 AM Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request
for property on the northeast corner of the Deschutes Junction Highway 97
overpass
14. 11:35 AM Public Hearing: FY 2025 Deschutes County Fee Schedule and consideration of
Resolution No. 2024-26 adopting the Fee Schedule
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 SERVICE DISTRICT
15. 11:40 AM Public Hearing: FY 2025 Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District Fee Schedule
and consideration of Resolution No. 2024-027 approving the fee schedule
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY € T€NSION AND 41`111 SER% ICE DISTRICT
16. 11:45 AM Public Hearing: FY 2025 Deschutes County Extension and 4H Service District
Fee Schedule and consideration of Resolution No. 2024-028 approving the
fee schedule
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT
17. 11:50 AM Public Hearing: FY 2025 Sunriver Service District Fee Schedule and
consideration of Resolution No. 2024-029 adopting the fee schedule
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BLACK BUTTE RANCH SERVICE DISTRICT
18. 11:55 AM Public Hearing: FY 2025 Black Butte Ranch Service District Fee Schedule and
consideration of Resolution No. 2024-030 adopting the fee schedule
RECONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY
19. 12:00 PM First reading of Ordinance 2024-002: Redmond Airport Master Plan Update
20. 12:10 PM Community Development Department Draft FY 2024-25 Work Plan
June 12, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 4
LUNCH RECESS
Continued ACTION ITEMS
21. 1:OOPM Memorandum of Understanding with Neighborlmpact, Housing Works and
the Central Oregon Builders Association to establish a Workforce Housing
Program for Median -Income Earners (HOME Fund)
22. 1:15 PM Request to Accept Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds
23. 1:20 PM Oregon Health Authority Health -Related Social Needs Capacity Building Grant
24. 1:35 PM Proposed Economic Development Loan Conversion for Cognitive Surplus
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 i 92.660(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.
25. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations
ADJOURN
June 12, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 4 of 4
June 12, 2024
Commissioners:
It is very difficult to discuss the proposed Ft. Thompson campground with the Commission as
your minds seem to be made up and you do not want to accept valid, reasonable questions or
critiques.
Commissioner DeBone wants the county to have more market rate RV parks with a non -
recreational emphasis and extended stays. The ECONW does next to nothing to document a
deficient supply of this product, although the deficiency is probably real. So how many new RV
sites do we theoretically need? And where? We have no clue.
The solution is probably already upon us. One hundred seventy-six RV units are being built
right now on the south side of Bend, but the Commission does not seem to want to
acknowledge this project. According to the ECONW report, this is almost double the long term
shortage of hotel rooms in the county. Further, the Commission has begun a process to
considerably expand the Expo Center, including the RV park. That would easily take care of
another chunk of the shortfall. Finally, there is a possibility that some form of RV park can be
developed on the Bender Road property, addressing more shortfall. The result is that
cumulatively, another RV park at Ft. Thompson is unneeded and financially risky.
This process began at the Commission retreat in January 2v22 JJ hen Commissiuner Chang IlSied
his upcoming priorities. He stated that he wanted to build a recreational campground at Ft.
Thompson. His reasoning was that Deschutes county needs more campgrounds, and this new
campground would help get dispersed campers out of forest areas.
It very much seems that his mind has been made up since the beginning and difficult facts or
processes are not going to get in the way. His comments then, and since, are often not
supported by facts, or are inaccurate. An example of this is at the 2022 retreat he said. " We
have not built any new campgrounds in over 40 years..." First, he conveniently did not mention
that the County has consciously not been a parks provider. Second, he did not count the Expo
Center RV park which is 10 years old.
At last week's meeting he said the ECONW study; "...lays out the demand for camping in our
region pretty well." Well, maybe for him it does, but not for many of us. We have been
documenting serious weaknesses and flaws in the study and have had zero responses. He has
not even attempted to explain how he will force dispersed campers to use the Ft. Thompson
campground.
Last week the Commission talked about having a work session to allow for better public
discussion of the Ft. Thompson proposal. I am getting discouraged of the value of that meeting.
If you are really going to support and document your arguments, great. If you are going to
respond to our valid questions and critiques, great. If you are going to continue to ignore all
the inconsistencies and problems we have identified, what's the point of a work session?
Bruce Halperin
20655 Sunbeam Ln.
Bend, OR 97703
U�J-ces co`
o ?� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: Wist eta J Thki Date:
Name Ga.}» L 1. ,flesh% k&k
Address 3 i x N9
e� OR., 97T4t
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor X 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
BOARD OF
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Approval of appointment of Phil Anderson to the Audit Committee for a term
ending on June 30, 2026
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval to appoint Phil Anderson as a public member of the Audit Committee for a
term ending on June 30, 2026.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Deschutes County Audit Committee provides oversight to the external and internal
audit functions of the County. It helps ensure the audit function retains organizational
II IU1epel lUel lce II V111 NviiuCaI ad a d m 1:nilstrati ve pressures. The Audit Committee`s
organizational documents are codified in the Deschutes County Code Chapter 2.15.
The Audit Committee consists of
• One representative from the Board of County Commissioners
• Six public members (two positions are optional)
• Two Department Heads (traditionally one of the Department Head positions is held
by an elected official)
Audit Committee terms are two years long and are staggered so as to not have all of the
committee members turn -over in any given year. Members may be reappointed to
successive terms. The County Administrator and Finance Director are precluded from
serving on the committee.
Following Stan Turel's declination to be reappointed, the committee held an open
recruitment for the open position. The position was advertised on the County website and
through County social media. There were six applicants and a subcommittee consisting of
Patti Adair (Deschutes County Commissions and Audit Committee member), Daryl Parrish
(Audit Committee Chair), and Audit staff interviewed the applicants. All applicants were
highly qualified and expressed a strong interest in serving the County and promoting
transparency and accountability. The subcommittee selected Phil Anderson for the
committee because of the diverse experience he would bring to the committee,
commitment to ethics, and deep roots in the County. The subcommittee appreciated the
participation of all applicants and is recommending that they apply for other County
committees.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Elizabeth Pape, County Internal Auditor
�vIES CO
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consideration of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
recommendation to select the Hooker Creek "Moon Pit" property for siting the
County's future solid waste management facility
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Following the public hearing, the Board may:
• Hold the oral and written record open and continue the hearing to a date certain
Close the oral record and hold the written record open to a date certain
Close both the oral and written record and set a date certain for deliberations
• Close both the oral and written record and begin deliberations
BACKGROUiJD AND POLICY iI��TLiCAT iOivS:
In 2019, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the Deschutes County Solid
Waste Management Plan (SWMP) that outlined several key issues related to managing solid
waste in the County for the next 20 years and beyond. A primary recommendation of the
SWMP was the siting, permitting, and building of a new in -County landfill to replace Knott
Landfill when it reaches its capacity.
In April 2022, the BOCC appointed the SWAC that consisted of representatives of each of
the fourmunicipal jurisdictions, both franchise haulers, as well as five citizens -at -large, and
a representative of the environmental community. The role of the SWAC was to review and
recommend the criteria and process to be used to evaluate prospective sites and to apply
the criteria in the assessment and selection of a finalist location to recommend to the
BOCC for consideration. The SWAC, working with Department of Solid Waste staff and
Parametrix, the consulting firm awarded the contract to assist in the site assessment
process, developed the Site Selection Criteria (SSC) Technical Memorandum for the siting of
a new solid waste management facility. The BOCC held a work session with staff to discuss
and amend the document, and they approved the SSC in June of 2022.
The site selection process reviewed over 200 areas of interest in the County, then reviewed
31 (thirty-one) through the Broad Screening Evaluation process. This was followed by the
Focus Screening Evaluation of twelve potential sites in the County. During this phase the
SSC was amended by the BOCC at SWAC's recommendation to include the Federal Aviation
Administration's advisory memorandum that expanded the airport exclusionary zone from
10,000 feet from the Bend and Redmond airports runways to a five -mile exclusionary zone
from the airport property boundary to minimize the potential for airplane bird strikes. The
SWAC recommended two sites in the eastern portion of the County for Final Site
Evaluation. The SWAC received the initial summary report for review in February 2024, a
full draft report and technical memos for review in March, and a final draft report at their
April meeting, at which the SWAC came to a unanimous recommendation of the Moon Pit
site for BOCC consideration.
The Committee also recommended that the Board of County Commissioners:
• Work with stakeholders to develop and implement a robust and comprehensive
mitigation strategy that reflects community values to minimize impacts to area
wildlife and recreation
• Prioritize waste prevention and recovery and move as quickly as possible to
implement those strategies to reduce the overall costs and greenhouse gas
emissions of the new landfill
For a copy of the full Solid Waste Management Facility Final Site Evaluation Report and
Appendices and all relevant SWAC meeting details, visit deschutes.org/managethefuture.
The Solid Waste Department has established a public hearing page at
www.deschutes.org/soIidwaste/page/solid-waste-management-facility-location-proposal to
view public comments and other relevant materials pertaining to the public hearing.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The Solid Waste Department has included $2,700,000 in the FY24/25 budget for the i ext
stage of the procurement and permitting process. The overall project development is
anticipated to cost between $50-60 million to procure, permit, develop and commence
operation in 2030.
ATTENDANCE:
Tim Brownell, Director of Solid Waste
Dwight Miller, Project Manager, Parametrix
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Adopting the Recommendations of the
Solid Waste Advisory Committee for the * ORDER NO. 2024-021
Development of a New Solid Waste Management
Facility in Deschutes County at the Hooker Creek
"Moon Pit" Site
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Plan adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) in 2019 recommended the development of a new Landfill (Solid Waste
Management Facility) in Deschutes County, and
WHEREAS, the County issued a Request for Proposal in 2021 for consultant services to assist in
development of site selection and screening process and provide technical assistance in site review,
and BOCC approved appointment of Parametrix to provide those services, and
WHEREAS, the BOCC appointed a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG) of twelve members
representing the four local jurisdictions, franchise waste and recyclables collection service providers, a
Sunriver community representative, an environmental community representative, and at -large
community members to review and recommend a Site Selection Criteria (SSC) Technical
Memorandum outlining the process to assess potential locations. The BOCC approved the SSC on
June 22, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Parametrix, with assistance and direction of the SWAC, utilized the SSC to review over
200 areas of interest, which was narrowed to 33 sites for broad -site screening, further reduced to 12
sites for focused screening, and ultimately reviewing two sites for significant technical assessment; and
WHEREAS, the process received over 1000 written comments, hundreds of attendees at various
meetings, and dozens of public comments at SWAC meetings; and
WHEREAS, after careful review the SWAC was unanimous in their recommendations to the BOCC
for their consideration to move forward with the Moon Pit location for the permitting of a new Solid
Waste Management Facility in Deschutes County.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON,
HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. The Solid Waste Department, in coordination with other County Departments, to
negotiate the purchase rights to the Hooker Creek Moon Pit Aggregate Mine property for the purposes
of securing the necessary environmental permits and land entitlements in pursuit of the development of
a new Solid Waste Management Facility (Municipal Solid Waste Landfill) to serve Deschutes County
for the foreseeable future.
PAGE 1 OF 2- ORDER No. 2024-021
Section 2. The County shall work with stakeholders to develop and implement a robust and
comprehensive mitigation strategy that reflects community values to minimize impacts to area wildlife
and recreation.
Section 3. The Solid Waste Department to prioritize waste prevention and recovery and move
as quickly as possible to implement those strategies to reduce the overall costs and greenhouse gas
emissions of the new landfill.
Dated this of 52024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2- ORDER No. 2024-021
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
Deschutes County Solid Waste
Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Prepared for
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
May 2024
Parametrix
page intentionally blank
for double -sided Printing
Deschutes County Solid Waste
Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Prepared for
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
61050 SE 27th Street
Bend, OR 97702
Prepared by
Parametrix
150 NW Pacific Park Lane, Suite 110
Bend, OR 97701
T.541.508.7710 F. 1.855.542.6353
www.parametrix.com
May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Parametrix. 2024. Deschutes County Solid Waste
Management Facility (SWMF) Final Site Evaluation.
Prepared for Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
by Parametrix, Bend, Oregon. May 2024.
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
2. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Background..............................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Purpose of Study...................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 County, State, and Federal Landfill Siting Restrictions......................................................... 2-2
2.3.1 Federal.......................................................................................................................2-2
2.3.2 State...........................................................................................................................2-3
2.3.3 County........................................................................................................................2-3
2.4 Moon Pit Site Information....................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 Roth East Site Information...................................................................................................... 2-4
3. Conceptual Facility Layouts.........................................................................................................
3-1
3.1
Landfill Footprint......................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2
Perimeter Access Road and Ditch..........................................................................................
3-1
3.3
Excavation Plan............................................................:::.......::::::::..••...... ............................
3-2
3.4
Liner System............................................................................................................................
3-2
3.5
Primary Leachate Collection and Removal System...............................................................3-2
3.6
Secondary Leachate Collection and Removal System..........................................................
3-3
3.7
Cell Construction and Fill Sequence.......................................................................................
3-4
3.8
Final Configuration..................................................................................................................
3-4
3.9
Closure and End Use...............................................................................................................
3-4
4. Existing Conditions, Impacts, and Mitigation...............................................................................4-1
4.1 Site Development and Permitting........................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Location and Topography., ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Zoning and Existing Land Use................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.3 Potential Permits.......................................................................................................4-3
4.2 Transportation System............................................................................................................ 4-4
4.2.1 Daily Landfill Activities at Both Sites........................................................................ 4-4
4.2.2 Moon Pit Site............................................................................................................. 4-4
4.2.3 Roth East Site............................................................................................................ 4-4
4.2.4 Overall Conclusions.................................................................................................. 4-5
4.3 Water Infrastructure Assessment........................................................................................... 4-5
May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
4.3.1
Moon Pit..................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.3.2
Roth East...................................................................................................................
4-6
4.4
Electrical
Power Supply...........................................................................................................
4-7
4.4.1
Moon Pit Electrical Infrastructure Needs................................................................
4-7
4.4.2
Roth East Electrical Infrastructure Needs...............................................................4-7
4.5
Flood Risks
...............................................................................................................................4-7
4.5.1
Moon Pit Site.............................................................................................................
4-7
4.5.2
Roth East Site............................................................................................................
4-8
4.6
Geology/ Hyd rogeo logy .............................................................................................................4-8
4.6.1
Geology......................................................................................................................4-8
4.6.2
Hydrogeology.............................................................................................................4-9
4.7
Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility.....................................................................................4-10
4.7.1
Moon Pit...................................................................................................................4-10
4.7.2
Roth East.................................................................................................................
4-12
4.8
Environmental
Site Assessment Phase I..............................................................................4-14
4.8.1
Moon Pit...................................................................................................................4-14
4.8.2
Roth East.................................................................................................................
4-15
4.9
Air Quality,
Weather, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................4-16
4.9.1
Moon Pit...................................................................................................................4-17
4.9.2
Roth East.................................................................................................................
4-18
4.10
Natural
Resources.................................................................................................................4-20
4.10.1
Moon Pit Site Characteristics.................................................................................4-20
4.10.2
Moon Pit Site Protected Species, Habitat, and Permitting ....... ............................
4-20
4.10.3
Moon Pit Site Development Compensatory Mitigation.........................................4-22
4.10.4
Moon Pit Site Summary..........................................................................................4-23
4.10.5
Roth East Site Characteristics................................................................................4-23
4.10.6
Roth East Site Protected Species, Habitat, and Permitting.................................4-23
4.10.7
Roth East Site Development Compensatory Mitigation.......................................4-25
4.10.8
Roth East Site Summary.........................................................................................4-26
4.11
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.......................................................................................4-26
4.11.1
Archaeological and Historical Resources..............................................................4-26
4.11.2
Cultural Resources Literature Search and Records Review................................4-26
4.11.3
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey.........................................................4-27
ii May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Contents (continued)
4.11.4 Cultural Resources Impacts...................................................................................4-28
4.11.5 Cultural Resources Mitigation................................................................................4-28
4.12 Community Assessment........................................................................................................4-29
4.12.1 Site -Specific Community Assessment Summary..................................................4-29
4.12.2 Community Characteristics....................................................................................4-29
4.12.3 Continued Outreach................................................................................................4-30
4.12.4 Siting Evaluation Outreach Summary....................................................................4-30
5. Cost Analysis................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Capacity and Projected Life....................................................................................................
5-1
5.2 Population to be Served..........................................................................................................
5-1
5.3 Accepted and Prohibited Wastes............................................................................................
5-1
5.4 Rate of Waste Disposal...........................................................................................................
5-1
5.5 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................................
5-2
5.6 Initial Development Costs.......................................................................................................
5-2
5.6.1 Moon Pit Site.............................................................................................................
5-2
5.6.2 Roth East Site............................................................................................................
5-2
5.7 Refuse Cell Construction.........................................................................................................
5-3
5.8 Description of Operation.........................................................................................................
5-4
5.9 Daily and Intermediate Cover.................................................................................................
5-5
5.10 Landfill Closure........................................................................................................................5-5
5.11 DEQ Permitting.........................................................................................................................
5-5
5.12 Summary of Cost Analysis.......................................................................................................
5-6
6. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................6-1
FIGURES
Figure 1. Final SWMF Sites in Deschutes County.................................................................................. 2-2
Figure2. Moon Pit Site Map.................................................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 3. Moon Pit Site Photograph........................................................................................................ 2-4
Figure4. Roth East Site Map.................................................................................................................. 2-5
Figure5. Roth East Site Photo................................................................................................................ 2-5
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 iii
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Conteftizats (continued)
TABLES
Table 1. Soil Usage Summary for Moon Pit...........................................................................................4-11
Table 2. Soil Usage Summary for Roth East.........................................................................................4-14
Table 3. Public Comments Received by County (December 2022-October 2023)............................4-30
Table 4. Estimate of per acre Cost for Landfill Cell Development at Moon Pit.....................................5-3
Table 5. Estimate of per acre Cost for Landfill Cell Development at Roth East...................................5-4
Table 6. Comparison of Estimated Annual Operating Costs..................................................................5-5
Table 7. Landfill Site Cost Comparison ............... ..................................................................................... 5-7
APPENDICES
A Site Comparison Summary Table
B Site Screening Report
C Site Owner Solicitation Responses
D Preliminary Design Drawings
E Development and Permitting Evaluation
F Transportation Assessment
G Water Assessment
H Electrical Power Supply Review
I Flood Risk Analysis
J Geology/Hydrogeology Assessment
K Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Report
L Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Moon Pit link) (Roth East link)
M Air Quality, Weather, and Greenhouse Gas Analysis
N Natural Resource Assessment
O Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
P Community Assessment
Q SMWF Cost Estimates
R Comments from Agencies and Organizations
Iv May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
#H:#V
horizontal to vertical
pg/m3
micrograms per cubic meter
AAGR
average annual growth rate
AST
aboveground storage tank
ASTM
ASTM International
bgs
below ground surface
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
CEC
Central Electric Cooperative
DCC
Deschutes County Code
DEQ
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
DOGAMI
Oregon Department of Geology And Mineral Industries
ECSI
Environmental Cleanup Site Information
EFU
Exclusive Farm Use zone
EFUHR
Exclusive Farm Use - Horse Ridge zone
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA
environmental site assessment
F
Fahrenheit
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
GCL
geosynthetic clay liner
gpd
gallons per day
gpm
gallons per minute
HDPE
high -density polyethylene
LCRS
leachate collection and removal system
LF
linear foot
LM
Landscape Management Combining zone
MCL
maximum contaminant levels
MSW
municipal solid waste
NWI
National Wetland Inventory
OAR
Oregon Administrative Rules
ODFW
Oregon Department of Fish And Wildlife
PM
particulate matter
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC
recognized environmental condition
May 2024 1553-2509-011 V
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
SF
square feet
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
SM
Surface Mining zone
SMIA
Surface Mining Impact Area zone
SPT
standard penetration tests
SWAC
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
SWMF
solid waste management facility
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WA
Wildlife Area Combining zone
WillametteCRA
Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, Ltd
vi May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Deschutes County is faced with the imminent challenge of Knott Landfill reaching capacity by 2029,
necessitating the selection of a new solid waste management facility (SWMF) that will include a
landfill to serve the County for at least 100 years. As recommended in the 2019 Deschutes County
Solid Waste Management Plan and directed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Solid Waste
Department has been working with the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) through a
public process to identify potential locations for a new SWMF in Deschutes County. Following a
rigorous site selection process, the Moon Pit and Roth East sites, both situated east of Bend near US
20, emerged as the final candidate sites. The County and its consultant team, led by Parametrix,
commenced an exhaustive multidisciplinary investigation to evaluate the efficacy of each site for
development. This report offers a comprehensive analysis of the findings for each site, aiming to
guide the County in the selection of a preferred location for the new SWMF.
The Moon Pit site property shape results in a complex layout that is less efficient than that at the
Roth East site. Despite a lower capacity -to -acreage ratio, Moon Pit benefits from existing
infrastructure including an access road, gate, scales, and well, potentially reducing some upfront
development costs. However, its active surface mine status and zoning complexities require careful
consideration. The site has an established paved access road with direct access to US 20, but it
crosses through Bureau of Land Management lands which could lead to a lengthy federal
environmental review process for a change in use. Moon Pit also offers existing water supplies,
though securing future water right permits may pose challenges.
Conversely, the Roth East site features a more efficient layout, resulting in a better capacity -to -
acreage ratio. As an undeveloped grazing property, it lacks existing infrastructure, demanding
upfront capital for access road construction. Zoned as Exclusive Farm Use, Roth East faces a
conditional use permit process including a Farm Impact Test which is subject to appeals filed with
the land use board of appeals (LUBA). New water infrastructure and water rights permits would be
needed at the Roth East site to meet anticipated water demands.
Significant geological differences also exist between the two sites. Moon Pit is in a ridge -bounded
valley with shallow bedrock that would require blasting for excavation. As a result, cell development
costs are expected to be substantially higher at Moon Pit. However, the potential aggregate resource
value, established mining operation, Surface Mine zoning, and Oregon Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries permit for the site present the opportunity for aggregate resource extraction to
subsidize landfill excavation costs. Roth East, on the other hand, lies in the Millican Valley with
unconsolidated alluvial deposits that could be excavated with conventional equipment and used
on -site for development and landfill cover needs.
As part of the public process for the siting evaluation, the County received and responded to
comments from community members, public agencies, and other interested parties. Many of the
public comments about the finalist sites note potential impacts to area wildlife and recreation use
that may be caused by landfill development or operations. Comments about the Moon Pit site note
the nearby Badlands Wilderness Area, while comments about the Roth East site raise its proximity to
Millican Valley residents and the Pine Mountain Observatory.
Moon Pit's development is perceived to have fewer visual and residential impacts, given its remote
location and topographic screening by ridges on three sides. It also faces fewer archaeological risks
due to its prior disturbance for gravel mining. In terms of wildlife impact, the Moon Pit site poses
May 2024 1553-2509-011 1-1
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
potential impacts to a golden eagle nest and essential habitat for mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and
sage -grouse. Mitigation costs for these potential wildlife impacts are estimated at $700,000, with
additional operations and maintenance costs of up to $800,000 for mitigation sites.
Roth East is expected to endure longer permitting, review, and appeal timelines because it is largely
undeveloped, may possess archaeological resources, and is challenged by public concerns about
potential disturbances to nearby residences and recreational activities. In terms of wildlife impact,
Roth East faces greater potential impacts to mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and sage -grouse habitat
(sage -grouse has a potential for future listing as an endangered species if population declines
continue). The estimated wildlife mitigation costs of $1.5-8.1 million and additional operations and
maintenance costs of up to $2.5 million for mitigation sites.
The Parametrix team prepared planning level opinions of probable cost (costs) for both sites. These
opinions have ranges of -30% to +50%, which is an appropriate level of accuracy for comparison of
sites. Moon Pit initial development costs range between $50 to $64 million, which includes $15.4 to
$15.9 million for land acquisition. Roth East development costs are approximately $36 to $44
million, with $5.5 to $7 million allocated for land acquisition. Moon Pit's landfill cell development
costs range from $705,000 to $1,075,000 per acre, while Roth East's cell development cost is
approximately $394,000 per acre. Moon pit annual operating costs are $7.6 million, with Roth East
higher at $8.4 million. Moon Pit's average cost per ton for disposal (capital plus operations) ranges
between $43 to $48, while Roth East's average cost is just under $45 per ton. The cost ranges
presented here for Moon Pit depend on the extent and cost of cell excavation that could occur as a
part of aggregate mining operations on -site. Initial capital costs are significantly higher at Moon Pit,
which will necessitate higher tip fees for the first 20 years. However, total cumulative costs are
estimated to be similar over the projected lifespans.
T i ie decisions between Moon i Pit and Roth East hinges on a nuanced evaluation of advantages,
challenges, and costs. Moon Pit provides existing infrastructure and potential cost offsets but faces
zoning and access road complexities as well as substantially higher upfront development costs. Roth
East boasts efficiency and favorable soil conditions, but is challenged by greater infrastructure
needs, water availability risks, wildlife impacts, landowner concerns, recreational concerns, and
longer haul routes (resulting in higher haul costs and related greenhouse gas emissions). Because
the Moon Pit site is already disturbed and will continue to support surface mining (regardless of
landfill siting), development of a new landfill at the Roth East would be expected to cause a greater
incremental disruption to the surrounding area than at the Moon Pit site. Deschutes County's
ultimate selection should prioritize long-term sustainability, environmental protection, and economic
viability, ensuring the chosen site best aligns with the County's waste management goals and
community values.
See Appendix A for the site comparison summary table.
1-2 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Introduction
2.1 Background
The 2019 Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) outlined a roadmap for
managing solid waste in the county over the next 20 years. The plan was developed with the input of
various stakeholders, including residents, institutions, businesses, cities, and service providers. The
SWMP evaluated alternatives for managing the county's waste, including new technologies and the
option to transport waste outside the county to other solid waste management facilities.
The SWMP revealed that 84% of survey respondents supported the position that waste generated in
Deschutes County should be disposed of within the county, with 93% supporting the
recommendation to site a new landfill in the county. Two primary options were considered:
1. Transport waste to regional landfills located between 135 and 185 miles from Deschutes County
near the Columbia Gorge.
2. Site and build a new landfill in Deschutes County.
After evaluating these options, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) reached a consensus
that the best approach for providing a long-term and cost-effective waste management system was
to site and construct a new in -county landfill. This decision was based on several key factors,
including the ability to control decisions for managing the county's waste stream, environmental and
other impacts resulting from transporting waste, favorable conditions in Deschutes County for siting
a new landfill, and the cost-effectiveness of building and operating an in -county landfill.
The SWMP also acknowledged the challenges of siting a new landfill and the potential for a
protracted process to successfully obtain permits. However, it was noted that the geographic and
demographic conditions in the county are favorable compared to locations west of the Cascade
Mountains where siting has not been successful.
The goal is to have a solid waste management facility sited, developed, and operational prior to the
closure of Knott Landfill, the County's current solid waste management facility, which is expected to
reach capacity by 2029. The new landfill would meet all regulatory requirements and any new state
and local requirements that supersede previous regulations for environmental protection. The new
landfill will have the capacity to satisfy the County's waste projections for at least 100 years.
In 2023, the Site Screening Evaluation was completed as part of the process to site a new landfill
within Deschutes County, including siting criteria development, site identification, broad site
screening, and focused site screening. This site screening study identified and evaluated potential
landfill sites based on regulatory requirements, environmental considerations, and engineering
considerations. In regular coordination with the SWAC as a part of a public process with
opportunities for public comment, this process initially identified over a hundred potential sites and
narrowed this list down to two final candidate sites through identification of fatal flaws, broad site
screening, and focused site screening. A copy of the site screening report is included in Appendix B.
2.2 Purpose of Study
Two finalist sites for the new County solid waste management facility (SWMF), referred to as Moon
Pit and Roth East, have progressed to the final evaluation stage. See Figure 1 for a map showing site
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 2-1
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
locations. The County is now in the last phase of selecting the landfill site. During this final phase,
the County will determine which of the two sites is more suitable for developing a sanitary landfill
that complies with all relevant local, state, and federal regulations. A key aspect of this selection
process is to assess the potential for addressing existing conditions that could hinder development.
Other critical factors for evaluation include the projected costs of development and the site -specific
risks that could delay development and initial operations beyond 2029, when Knott Landfill is
projected to reach capacity.
ccas rnursrcn sunny
v Eydoary ramnu r tp,l
(..�
~\
„Fmnti:sr rau,rrtasr.nrn+.,�:..1
°
i
PmOzrty Boundary (Final Sites)
r
�
{
E yEa,rAldls o,d franzler Slat�a„s (Dascl,utec
/
I
4
aras+c,ncs
<o„mr noondary (orsrem.•x ro.)
k
_ Moon Pit Site
f
(
Figure 1. Final SWMF Sites in Deschutes County
2.3 County, State, and Federal Landfill Siting Restrictions
In 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency initiated authority under the existing Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to regulate the siting of new municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfill units. Subpart B of the RCRA Subtitle D (40 CFR 258.60) regulations restrict the siting of new
landfills based on the six federal criteria listed below, followed by state and local criteria also
applicable to landfills.
i
■ Airport Safety: Airport safety is not a concern at either of the two sites.
■ Floodplains: No floodplains are present on either site.
■ Wetlands: No wetlands are present on either site.
■ Fault Areas: Previous studies and the current investigations revealed no faults active in the
past 10,000 years (Holocene period) at either site.
■ Seismic Impact Zones: No seismic impact areas are located on either site.
■ Unstable Areas: No unstable areas are located on either site.
2-2 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
2.3.2 State
■ Floodplains: See federal, above.
■ Critical habitat for threatened or endangered species: No sensitive species or habitat are
located on either site.
■ Sensitive hydrogeological environments: None are located on either site.
2.3.3 County
■ The proposed site shall not create a fire hazard, litter, insect or rodent nuisance, or air or
water pollution in the area: These hazards will be controlled by final site design and
operations (not part of this report).
■ The proposed site shall be located at least 0.25 miles from any existing dwelling, home, or
public road (except the access road): Both sites meet this criterion.
■ The proposed site shall be provided with a maintained all-weather access road: The need to
construct an all-weather road is assumed for both sites as part of the cost evaluation.
■ The Moon Pit site will require a change to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to
allow a landfill as a reclamation use in the Surface Mine (SM) zone.
2.4E Moon Pit Site Information
Location: Deschutes County, Township 19S, Range 14E, Sections 1-2, 12
Situs Address: 26300 Hwy 20, Bend, OR 97702
Tax Lot Number: 1914000000200
Owner: Moon Pit, LLC (owned by Hooker Creek Companies, LLC)
Area: 440 acres
Existing Use: Aggregate Surface Mine
Terrain: Flat to rolling in the northwest, rising toward the southeast, bounded by ridges
Proximity: Approximately 16 miles southeast of Bend
Nearby Features: Adjacent to the Oregon Badlands Wilderness and its trails, including the
Badlands Rock Trailhead (approximately 700 feet from the site boundary)
See Appendix C for Site Owner Solicitation Responses with terms and prices for acquisition.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 2-3
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Figure 2. Moon Pit Site Map
Figure 3. Moon Pit Site Photograph
2.5 Roth East Site Information
Location:
Deschutes County, Township 2OS, Range 15E, Sections 1, 11, 12,. 13, 14
Situs Address:
56200 Pine Mountain Rd, Bend, OR 97701
Tax Lot Number:
2015000000301
Owner:
Roth, Stephen F & Clancy R
Area:
Approximately 1,706 acres
Terrain:
Flat to rolling, gradually rising toward the southern portions
Proximity:
Approximately 24 miles southeast of Bend
Nearby Features: Adjacent to a rural residential property in the northeast, OHV trails of the Millican
Valley OHV Trail System to the north and west, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)-managed land to the south, and Pine Mountain (a paragliding launch area
and observatory site) within the Deschutes National Forest to the south
2-4 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
See Appendix C for Site Owner Solicitation Responses with terms and prices for acquisition.
Figure 4. Roth East Site Map
Figure 5. Roth East Site Photo
May 2024 1553-2509-011 2-5
page intentionally blank
for double -sided printing
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
This section describes the design criteria used in the development plans for each site and shows
how these criteria were used to determine the shape of each landfill in its final configuration.
The layouts for Moon Pit and Roth East that were developed for this evaluation are conceptual.
These conceptual layouts represent a level of accuracy that will remain undefined until the actual
landfill is designed. These conceptual layouts are based on regulatory agency requirements, state-of-
the-art standard landfill design practices, typical operating procedures for a municipal solid waste
landfill and site -specific geologic information generated for this evaluation. Conceptual landfill
layouts can be more accurately designed as more information becomes known or made available.
The information gathered for this study is preliminary and does not represent the level of information
necessary to design a landfill beyond a conceptual level.
3.1 Landfill Footprint
Each conceptual landfill footprint was dictated by the following site constraints and design criteria:
■ Develop a landfill with at least 100 years of solid waste disposal capacity.
■ Provide a 150-foot buffer between the property line and refuse disposal area at Moon Pit.
■ Provide a 550-foot buffer between the property line and refuse disposal area at Roth East.
■ Provide an area for leachate (liquid resulting from water flowing through solid waste) and
surface water management at the downstream side of each landfill.
■ Continue to maintain the on -site wells at Moon Pit.
Based on these constraints, the footprint for each of the sites was established as shown on
Drawings C1 and D1(Appendix D).
Drawings C2 and D2 (Appendix D) show the perimeter access roads that would be constructed as
landfilling progresses. This road would provide access for vehicles hauling refuse to the landfill and
for future maintenance activities.
Located adjacent to the access road would be a perimeter ditch. On Moon Pit, this ditch would
channel surface water flow around the landfill to a discharge point on the west perimeter adjacent to
the landfill entrance. On Roth East, the ditch system would channel surface water flow around the
landfill to a discharge point on the north perimeter.
Design criteria that have been established for the perimeter road and ditch system are as follows:
■ Minimum slope of 1.0% to enable the perimeter road ditch to drain.
■ Minimum 50-foot bench width for liner, final cover system anchor trenches, and access road.
■ Minimum roadway width of 24 ft.
■ Minimum exterior side slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 3-1
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
■ Minimum interior side slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.
■ Surface water run-on and run-off control system sized to handle the 24-hour, 25-year design
storm.
3.3 Excavation Plan
The bottom elevation for the landfill at each site was established by the need to provide proper
drainage slopes to the leachate collection system. Drawings C2 and D2 (Appendix D) show the
subgrade plan for each of the two sites.
At Moon Pit, leachate drains by gravity to 8 leachate collection sumps located along the west
perimeter. At Roth East, leachate drains by gravity to 4 leachate collection sumps located along the
north perimeter.
Design criteria used to develop the subgrade plans are as follows:
■ Minimum bottom slope toward the leachate transmission line of 4% to promote drainage.
■ Minimum leachate transmission line slope of 2%.
■ Maximum excavated side slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.
■ Ability to access and clean leachate transmission lines.
3.4 Liner System
The design for the primary landfill liner system proposed for both sites is shown in Detail 1 of
Drawings A6 and B6 (Appendix D). Components from top to bottom for the landfill floor area include:
■ A separating geotextile used to prevent clogging of the drainage layer and provide additional
protection to the liner system.
■ A 12-inch drainage layer used to transmit leachate to the leachate collection system that
maintains less than 1 foot (30 cm) of hydraulic head on the liner.
■ A geonet composite used to transmit leachate to the leachate collection system and protect
the underlying geosynthetics.
■ A 60-mil high -density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane which is used to contain leachate.
■ A geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) used as the lower component within the liner system.
■ A cushioning layer (1/4-inch minus material) used to provide a stable foundation for the liner
system and protect the overlying GCL from the excavated subgrade.
■ A prepared subgrade that is used to provide a uniform surface for liner system construction.
This liner profile meets the requirements for an alternative liner system under RCRA Subtitle D and
applicable Oregon rules. The GCL is being used in place of compacted soil due to the lack of
availability of fine-grained, cohesive, low -permeability soils at or within the vicinity of either site.
3.5 Primary Leachate Collection and Removal System
The leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) includes the drainage layer within the liner
system, perforated leachate collection pipes and collection trenches. Each landfill has been
3-2 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
designed with a series of leachate collection trenches, with the collection pipes located within these
trenches as shown in Detail 3 of Drawings A6 and B6 (Appendix D). The LCRS has been designed to
operate by gravity and maintain less than 1-foot (30 cm) depth of leachate over the liner as required
by RCRA Subtitle D. The leachate collection lines extend up both the east and west sidewalls at
Moon Pit and the north and south sidewalls at Roth East as solid pipe to allow for clean -out access
from both ends.
The entire base of Moon Pit slopes toward the west so that both the drainage layer and the leachate
collection lines drain to collection sumps located along the base of the sideslope on the west side of
the landfill (Drawing C2). The entire base of Roth East slopes toward the north so that both the
drainage layer and the leachate collection lines drain to collection sumps located along the base of
the sideslope on the north side of the landfill (Drawing D2). These collection sumps are depressed,
lined areas within the landfill where leachate will be temporarily stored. An 18-inch HDPE riser will
allow a pump to be used for the removal of leachate from the sump. The sideslope riser would be
accessible from the perimeter of the landfill during all phases of the landfill development. Liquid
level sensors would be used within the sumps to detect the depth of leachate on the liner system.
The following design criteria were used in the analysis:
■ Granular drainage layer in -place hydraulic conductivity greater than or equal to 1 cm/sec.
■ Less than 3% of the granular drainage layer fines passing No. 40 sieve.
■ Collection pipe slope greater than or equal to 2%.
■ Drainage layer slope toward the leachate collection trench greater than or equal to 4%.
■ Cleanouts would be provided at both ends of all collection pipes with sweep bends used to
allow cleanout equipment access.
Average annual precipitation at both sites is less than 10 inches per year. For the analysis, it is
assumed that a 1-acre double composite -lined leachate pond would be required at each of the sites
for evaporation and/or containment for leachate recirculation.
3.6 Secondary Leachate Collection and Removal System
A secondary LCRS beneath the leachate collection trenches and sumps, as shown in Detail 3 on
Drawings A6 and B6 (Appendix D), is provided in the cost analysis for each of the sites.
Components of the secondary leachate collection and removal system from top to bottom include:
■ A 16-ounce cushioning geotextile.
■ A geonet composite to transmit leachate.
e A 60-mil HDPE geomembrane.
■ A GCL as the lower component within the secondary liner system.
■ A cushioning layer (1/4-inch minus material) used to provide a stable foundation for the liner
system and protect the overlying GCL from the excavated subgrade.
■ A prepared subgrade used to provide a uniform surface liner system construction.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 3-3
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
3.7 Cell Construction and Fill Sequence
The landfill planned for each of the sites would be developed in a series of stages. Each stage, or
refuse cell, would be developed as additional refuse disposal capacity is required. The landfill at
Moon Pit has been divided into 33 refuse cells, and at Roth East into 37 refuse cells. The order of
cell development is shown on Drawings C200 and C200, respectively (Appendix D). Each of these
cells, when combined with previous cells, would generally provide 3 years of landfill capacity.
The following criteria served as the basis for layout of the individual cells and construction
sequencing:
■ To control capital expenditures and minimize leachate production, each cell would provide a
minimum of 3 years of disposal capacity.
■ Each cell would have a minimum dimension of 300 feet in any direction to allow for truck
turnaround.
■ To minimize construction cost, excavation for future refuse cells would be performed as part
of daily and intermediate cover borrow operations, liner system construction, final cover
system construction, or access road construction.
■ To conserve space and minimize costs, on -site stockpiling would be kept to a minimum.
■ To minimize leachate production, each cell would be filled to final closure elevation and
closed with a final cover cap as quickly as possible.
3.8 Final Configuration
The final grading plan for each landfill site when fully developed is shown in drawings C4 and D4
(Appendix D). Filling to these elevations would provide a total of 64 million cubic yards of air space
(capacity) at Moon Pit and 80 million cubic yards of net air space at Roth East. The grading that is
shown is based on the following design criteria:
■ Minimum top of landfill slope of 3%.
■ Maximum final outer side slope of 4H:1V.
■ Match access road grade around the landfill perimeter.
At Moon Pit, the depth of refuse at completion would vary from zero at the landfill perimeter to
240 feet at the landfill center. At Roth East, the depth of refuse at completion would vary from 0 at
the landfill perimeter to 180 feet at the landfill center. Drawings C5 and D5 show the MSW fill
depths when each landfill is completed.
3.9 Closure and End Use
The objective in closing either landfill would be to minimize potential threats to human health and
the environment. RCRA Subtitle D requires at least 30 years of post -closure monitoring and
maintenance activities. In addition, it specifies that a final cover system be installed that:
■ Minimizes infiltration and erosion.
■ Minimizes the escape of waste or waste constituents to the groundwater, surface water or
the atmosphere.
3-4 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
■ Minimizes the maintenance activities that would be required.
The final end use for either site after closure is limited due to (1) potential settlement within the
landfilled area; (2) the generation of landfill gas as refuse decomposes; and (3) the presence of
landfill gas, leachate and surface water control facilities. Consequently, final land uses are typically
passive recreation or open space, including vegetative restoration for wildlife.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 3-5
page intentionally blank
for double -sided. printing
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
rh Existing
4.1 Site Development and Permitting
See Appendix E for full reports and more information on site development and permitting.
. .1 Location and Topography
4.1.1..1 Moon Pit Site
The Moon Pit site is a 440-acre property located in Deschutes County at Township 19S, Range 14E,
Sections 1-2, 12, with tax lot number 1914000000200. The site is located about 16 miles
southeast of Bend. The site consists of flat to rolling terrain in the northern portion of the site and
gradually rises to the central and southeastern portions.
The northern portion of the site is adjacent to the Oregon Badlands Wilderness (managed by the
BLM) and its hiking and horseback riding trails, including the Badlands Rock Trailhead, which is
located approximately 700 feet from the site boundary.
The Roth East site is located in Deschutes County about 24 miles southeast of Bend at Township
20S, Range 15E, Sections 1, 11, 12, 13, 14. The tax lot number is 2015000000301, and the site is
approximately 1,700 acres. The site consists of flat to rolling terrain that gradually rises to the south.
The northeastern portion of the site is adjacent to a rural residential property that includes a
residence and farm outbuildings. Off -highway vehicle (OHV) trails associated with the Millican Valley
OHV Trail System are north and west of the site. BLM-managed land is located adjacent to the
southern portion of the property. Pine Mountain, a well-known paragliding launch area and the site of
the University of Oregon's Pine Mountain Observatory is located within the Deschutes National Forest
to the south of the site.
The Moon Pit site is zoned Surface Mining (SM) with a Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA) overlay.
Adjacent zoning includes Exclusive Farm Use - Horse Ridge (EFUHR), Flood Plain (FP) zone, Surface
Mining Impact Area (SMIA) overlay, and Sage Grouse Habitat Area (General and Low -Density). Nearby
zoning includes Open Space and Conservation (OS&C), Landscape Management Combining Zone
(LM) overlay, and WA overlay. There is an area of floodplain located north and northwest of the site.
The existing use consists of an active surface mine. Land disposal sites are listed as a conditional
use in the SM zone (Deschutes County Code [DCC] 18.52.050), with the requirement that a "valid
DEQ permit on the effective date of Ordinance No. 92-066 for a Land Disposal Site," exists for the
use. This means that only Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)-permitted landfills in
place prior to the 1992 ordinance are allowed as conditional uses in the SM zone. As there is
currently no landfill in operation at the site, land disposal is not a permitted use in the current zone.
May 2024 1553-2509-011 4-1
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Three potential land use approval pathways were identified that could provide the necessary zoning
changes that would allow landfill operations on the Moon Pit site. See Appendix E for additional
information.
3. Requesting a zone map amendment to change the base zoning from SM to Multiple Use
Agriculture 10-Acre Minimum (MUA10). This option requires showing the protected mineral
resource has been exhausted.
4. Proposing a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow landfill use as an approved
reclamation action to use on a site after mining is complete. This option requires coordination
with the Oregon Department of Geology And Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) and the Department of
Land Conservation and Development. A text amendment would maintain the SM zone and SMIA
combining zone, but it would require two separate hearings (hearings officer followed by Board of
Commissioners).
5. Proposing a new landfill overlay zone for the site that would allow land disposal sites on lands
designated with the overlay zone. This option requires a map and text amendment to County
code and adoption of the landfill overlay to the site. During discussions with the County Planning
Department, the County noted that the overlay should have occurred before the landfill siting
process and overlays are used to limit uses or provide more restrictive development standards,
not to add allowed uses and less restrictive standards.
The Roth East property is zoned EFUHR with the overlays of Forest Use 1(F1), LM, Sage Grouse
Habitat Area - Low Density, SMIA, and WA. The SMIA overlay only covers a small area in the
northernmost portion of the lot.
Surrounding zoning includes EFUHR, SM, and F1. The existing use is rural undeveloped land that is
used for grazing.
Land disposal sites are listed as a conditional use on non -high value farmland zoned Exclusive Farm
Use (EFU; DCC 18.16.031). The site is designated as containing farmland of statewide importance
only, which corresponds to soil types identified as non -high value farmland, therefore land disposal is
a conditional use on this site.
A conditional use review would be required to approve a landfill operation at this site in compliance
with DCC Chapter 18.128 Conditional Use, and specifically with DCC 18.128.015 General
Standards, which require the applicant to demonstrate that there is adequate transportation access
to the site, the natural and physical features of the site are considered suitable, and demonstrating
that the use will be compatible with existing and projected surrounding uses.
The standards for disposal sites as conditional uses found at DCC 18.128.120 Disposal Site would
also apply. These standards were used as part of the screening criteria to identify and evaluate
potential new landfill sites.
Additionally, because the site is within an EFU zone, DCC 18.16.040 requires that conditional uses
must meet the requirements of what is known as a Farm Impacts Test, described in ORS 215.296(1)
and included in the DCC at 18.16.O40.A. which states that the proposed use will not force a
significant change or significantly increase the cost in accepted farm or forest practices on
surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest practices, and that the actual site on which the use is to
be located is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. The Farm Impacts Test
could lead to the Land Use Board of Appeals. See Appendix E for more information.
4-2 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
The following are potential required permits. See Appendix E for more information.
Depending on the zoning strategy chosen for the site, one or more County land use approval permits
would be required including a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review.
The Moon Pit site's existing access road crosses land owned and managed by the BLM and granting
the County access rights could constitute a new right-of-way easement which would be subject to the
National Environmental Policy Act because BLM would be issuing a permit or making a decision. An
environmental assessment would be prepared if it is deemed unlikely that a proposed action would
have a significant effect on the environment, or an environmental impact statement would be
prepared if the proposed action would have a significant effect on the environment.
Oregon Revised Statutes 459 requires that a solid waste facility apply to the DEQ for a Solid Waste
Disposal Permit prior to starting operation.
A DOGAMI Transfer of Surface Mining Permit may be required. However, if this permit process is not
applicable to the site, then an Operating Permit may be required. Unless the County is mining
aggregate for off -site export and use, mining operations related to landfill development and
operations are not considered surface mining operations under DOGAMI and are covered under
DEQ's permitting process (see ORS 517.750(16)(b)(F).
Oregon DEQ requires monitoring point sources and diffuse area -wide sources for potential air
contaminants. An Oregon Title V Air Quality Operating Permit will also be required. Under this permit
program, the facility has to report on compliance with conditions of its permit at least every six
months.
Natural Resource permits or compliance approvals that would be required include an Eagle
Incidental Take Permit; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Wildlife Habitat Mitigation
Policy (OAR 635-415-0000); Greater Sage -Grouse Area Combining Zone (DCC 1-8.89.060); and
Wildlife Area Combining Zone (DCC 18.88.030).
4.1..3.2 Roth East Site
The following are potential required permits. See Appendix E for more information.
One or more County land use approvals or permits would be required for the EFU zoned site
including a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Landscape Management Review (either
Visible or Non -Visible).
An Oregon DEQ Solid Waste Disposal Permit would be required for this site.
Similar to the Moon Pit site, the Roth East site would be required to monitor point sources and
diffuse area -wide sources for potential air contaminants. It would also be required to apply for and
follow the regulations under Oregon's Title V Air Quality Operating Permit.
Natural Resource permits or compliance approvals that would be required include ODFW's Wildlife
Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415-0000); Wildlife Area Combining Zone (DCC 18.88.030);
Greater Sage -Grouse Area Combining Zone (DCC 18.89.060); Sage -Grouse (OAR 635-140-0000).
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 4-3
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
4.2 Transportation System
A brief description of the daily transportation activities anticipated at both sites, as well the location
and the associated findings with each is presented below. Appendix E Appendix F provides a
summary of the overall transportation -related considerations and findings for both sites.
. .1 Daily Landfill Activities at Both Sites
The Solid Waste Department anticipates that the daily activities would be comprised of the following:
■ The landfill would not be open to public use so all traffic generated by the site would be
associated with employees, the transfer of materials via truck, and service providers.
■ Seven employees would be on -site per day for operations and maintenance.
■ Approximately 35 haul trucks would transfer materials to the site per day, 7 days per week
Based on these estimates, either site would generate a total of 84 vehicle trips on a typical day
(i.e., seven employee trips in and seven trips out and 35 truck trips in and 35 truck trips out). All the
existing transfer stations are located to the northwest of both sites being considered so the majority
of traffic would use US 20 to travel to/from the northwest of each.
4.2.2 Moon it Site
The Moon Pit site is located between Bend and Millican and currently functions as an active surface
mine. The mine is accessed via an existing roadway that intersects US 20 opposite the Horse Ridge
Frontage Road to the south. The use of this existing roadway would minimize the upfront capital
expenditures needed if this site were selected.
The existing access road to the mine also provides access to the Badlands Wilderness area and
trailhead, which could create a perception about the interaction between large trucks and trail users.
Given that large trucks use the road today, it is suggested that if this site is selected, the County add
signage along the route to alert landfill drivers to the location of the Badlands Trailhead parking lot.
Field observations revealed that pavement repair and some roadway widening may be needed at
various locations along the existing access. Given that the access road abuts BLM lands, any
widening of the roadway to accommodate the landfill trucks would be subject to BLM review which
could be timely and costly, depending on the extent of repairs/widening needed.
As such, if this site is selected, a detailed engineering evaluation of the structural sufficiency of the
existing roadway and the need to re -pave and/or widen in places would need to occur and can
inform overall costs of this site. However, this site offers transportation and cost -related benefits that
are more optimal than those offered at the Roth East location.
..3 RofEast Site
The Roth East site is located southwest of the Newt Morris Road/US 20 intersection. There is an
existing dirt road to the property that connects to Pine Mountain Road. As such, access to a landfill
at this site would occur via the existing Pine Mountain Road/US 20 intersection or via construction of
a new access between Pine Mountain Road and Newt Morris Road that would connect to US 20. If
the existing dirt roadway connecting to Pine Mountain Road is used for access, this road would need
to be reconstructed to provide for both employee and truck traffic. In addition to anticipated trips
4-4 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
described above for both sites, up to 5 water truck trips may be needed per day to supplement
exempt well water supplies at the Roth East site during the summer months.
Given that this site has no existing improved access road to US 20, the primary cost and siting
considerations relate to the construction of an access roadway of sufficient width and structural
integrity between the site and US 20. The need for a new roadway would require more upfront capital
expenditures compared to the Moon Pit site. A detailed engineering study would be needed to
assess the potential routes between the site and US 20. A preliminary review of possible alignments
identified at least four potential routes but more detailed evaluation is needed. This evaluation will
need to consider the length of the route between the site and US 20, how and where the route
intersects with US 20 (particularly related to the availability of sight distance along US 20), the
potential for impacts to and/or avoiding the adjacent BLM properties, and the availability of
right-of-way.
Finally, if the Roth East site were selected and the existing Pine Mountain Road/US 20 intersection
were the preferred access to the landfill, it is recommended that the County consider improving the
intersection to a traditional intersection design (T intersection) and adding wayfinding signage at
both the US 20 intersection and along the site access route.
From a transportation perspective, it appears that the Moon Pit site might be the optimal site given
the presence of the existing access road and its use by large trucks serving the existing surface
mine. However, if either site is selected, it is recommended that a detailed engineering study of
roadway construction (and/or reconstruction) feasibility be conducted to better understand potential
capital expenditures as well as impacts to adjacent BLM lands.
4.3 Water Infrastructure Assessment
Examination of Knott Landfill's 2020 water usage data revealed that average daily water demand
drops below 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) in the winter months and peaks around 50,000 gpd in the
summer months. The total annual water use for landfill operations in 2020 was approximately
6.8 million gallons. See Appendix G for more information.
Based on these historical water usage patterns, it is recommended that water rights are obtained
with an annual duty of 21.5 acre-feet, based on an estimated annual use of 7.0 million gallons per
year. Maximum daily demand for future operations is estimated to be 100,000 gallons per day (gpd),
assuming a peak month average daily flow of 50,000 gpd multiplied by a peak day factor of 2. A well
production rate of 208 gallons per minute (gpm) is recommended to supply this maximum daily
demand of 100,000 gpd during an 8-hour time frame. Additionally, a water storage capacity of
200,000 gallons is recommended to sustain maximum day demand and fire suppression water
storage needs in the event well or power supply issues.
Both sites are located within the Deschutes Groundwater Study Area, where mitigation is required for
new water right permits. In late 2023, the Oregon Water Resources Department declared an
indefinite basin -wide pause on processing new water right applications in this area, citing injury to
the hydrologic health of the basin. As a result of these two factors, the timeframe for securing and
mitigating for new water rights permits may extend beyond 2029 when the new landfill will need to
be operational. If Oregon Water Resources Department considers these two sites to be part of the
General Zone of Impact, General Zone temporary mitigation rights may be a viable short-term option
with an understood cost of around $3,300 per year. General Zone permanent mitigation credits
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 4-5
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
could also be a possible long-term option from private water rights brokers at around $200,000 to
$250,000.
RIFEEFUTTIVir
There are two wells on -site at Moon Pit, referred to as Well A and Well B. Well A was installed in 1986
and is currently inactive. Well B has been operational since 1994, is capable of producing
1,000 gpm, and is primarily utilized for on -site dust suppression. Water right permit G-12860 is
appurtenant to the Moon Pit site property for industrial use (dust control and gravel washing). The
maximum use rate for this permit is 1.09 cubic feet per second, which is equivalent to 490 gpm and
significantly greater than the anticipated future landfill operation water requirements. Although
transfer the water rights is not offered with the property acquisition, the seller is willing to lease a
partial water right to the County for landfill operational needs at a reasonable cost until the County
can secure its own water rights.
The Moon Pit site is located inside the Deschutes Groundwater Study area and the General Zone of
Impact Area. If a new water right permit is needed, General Zone temporary mitigation rights may be
a viable short-term option until permanent mitigation requirements can be satisfied. The estimated
costs for water infrastructure upgrades are $215,000 for water rights, $100,000 for well
improvements, $400,000 for a water storage tank, and $50,000 for site water piping, totaling an
estimated $765,000. See Appendix G for more information.
The Roth East site, located within the Deschutes Groundwater Study area and the General Zone of
Impact Area, has one existing well, the Powell Well (DESC 194), which is primarily used by a nearby
residence and for stock watering. The occurrence of groundwater at the Roth East proposed facility
site area is unknown, and available data suggest depth to first water is around 500 feet. The Powell
well can produce 50 gpm with no drawdown, suggesting it can produce water at a higher rate.
However, the reported well production occurred in 1990 following well installation, and the current
well yield capacity is unknown. The well would need to be upgraded or replaced to function as a
supply well for a future solid waste facility.
The existing Powell Well (also referred to as the "Deep Well") on the Roth East site does not have
water rights and is thus limited to the exempt well production rate of 5,000 gallons per day. Until
water rights can be secured, it is assumed that water trucks from Knott Landfill would be needed to
meet elevated water demands in March -October. It may be possible to purchase and transfer water
rights from an existing water rights holder in the vicinity.
There are no identified water rights appurtenant to the Roth property. The closest identified water
right to the Roth East site is a water right issued to the Bend Trap Club (water right permit G-16505).
If a new water right permit is needed, General Zone temporary mitigation rights may be a viable
short-term option until permanent mitigation requirements can be satisfied. The estimated costs for
water infrastructure upgrades are $215,000 for water rights, $500,000 for well improvements,
$400,000 for a water storage tank, $50,000 for site water piping, and a new water truck fill station,
totaling an estimated $1,190,000. See Appendix G for more information.
4-6 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
4.4 Electrical Power Supply
The Moon Pit landfill site, served by Central Electric Cooperative (CEC), necessitates significant
upgrades to the existing electrical infrastructure to meet both initial and future power demands. The
site requires a new electrical service that is adequately sized to power initial landfill loads and future
landfill gas power generation.
The specific anticipated landfill electrical loads at Moon Pit include a Scale House/Electric Gate,
Off ice/Admin Building, Maintenance Building, Water Supply Well Pump, eight Leachate Pump
Stations, and a Gas Vacuum Blower. The need for 8 Leachate Pump Stations distinguishes Moon Pit
from Roth East in terms of power demand.
To accommodate these needs, CEC would need to upgrade and extend about 9.5 miles of existing
overhead utility lines from the closest three-phase power connection point to the Moon Pit location.
This includes upgrading 2.6 miles of an existing single-phase pole line and extending new three-
phase power lines (overhead or underground) for an additional 7 miles along US 20 with potential
easements through BLIVI property. The estimated utility cost for these upgrades is approximately
$2,000,000. See Appendix H for more information.
Roth East also falls under the jurisdiction of CEC for its electrical needs. Similar to Moon Pit, Roth
East will need a new electrical service tailored to support both the initial landfill operational
requirements and future landfill gas power generation.
Anticipated landfill electrical loads for Roth East are similar to those at Moon Pit but with only four
Leachate Pump Stations indicating a lower power demand compared to Moon Pit.
The infrastructure upgrade for Roth East involves approximately 2.3 miles of overhead utility line
enhancements from the nearest three-phase connection point. This comprises upgrading about
1.2 miles of an existing single-phase pole line and extending new three-phase lines (overhead or
underground) an additional 1.1 miles toward the landfill location possibly requiring easements
through private property. The estimated utility upgrade cost is $700,000; this is significantly lower
than that of Moon Pit. See Appendix H for more information.
4.5 Flood Risks
The flood risk assessment for the Moon Pit site reveals that while the site itself is not directly within
mapped flood hazard areas, the northern part of the site is near the 100-year floodplain for the Dry
River, an ephemeral stream. This proximity increases the risk of flood impacts, especially from
intense thunderstorms and periods of rapid snowmelt, which can lead to flash flooding. The site is
influenced by a relatively large upstream drainage basin of approximately 3 square miles, which
further elevates the risk of flash flooding.
Several existing drainage channels on the site convey runoff from the upstream drainage basin
northwest toward Dry River. The assessment emphasizes the potential impacts of climate change,
which may increase flood frequencies and extents. To mitigate these risks, the assessment
May 2024 1553-2509-011 4-7
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
recommends further study and the implementation of mitigation strategies, such as conservatively
sized perimeter ditches, to manage and reduce flood risks effectively. See Appendix I for more
information.
The flood risk assessment for the Roth East site indicates that the site is not directly within mapped
flood hazard areas. However, there is an upstream drainage basin of approximately 1 square mile
that presents a moderate risk of flash flooding. This risk is particularly pronounced during intense
thunderstorms and periods of rapid snowmelt, which can result in significant runoff.
Several channels on the site collect runoff from the northeast slope of Pine Mountain and drain
north through the site, discharging to Dry River, an ephemeral stream, near US 20. The assessment
highlights that the mapped floodplain for Dry River crosses US 20 in several locations, posing a
secondary flood risk to site access. To address this risk, coordination with state transportation and
hazard mitigation agencies is recommended to identify detours and alternate routes in case of
disruptions to US 20 due to flooding. See Appendix I for more information.
4.6 Geology/Hydrogeology
The Moon Pit site is located within the High Lava Plains physiographic province with pre -Holocene
northwest trending normal faults bounding Moon Pit, expressed by the site's fault bounded basin
(Appendix J). This setting provides the opportunity to readily screen the operations from public view.
In the southeastern two-thirds of Moon Pit, the surface geology consists of mid -Miocene -aged basalts
that erupted from vents within the Brothers Fault Zone and High Lava Plains to create the Bear
Creek Buttes. In the northwestern third of the site, the surface geology comprises alluvium that is
believed to have been deposited by the Dry River drainage. Gravel -rich alluvium and the underlying
basalt bedrock are quarried in this portion of the site. The northwest portion of the Site contains up
to 42 feet of layered sand and gravel alluvial sediment overlying approximately 20 to 30 feet of
basalt. This unit of basalt is underlain by approximately 6 feet of inter -flow sediment.
Test pits excavated in 1993, boreholes advanced in 1996, and test pits advanced in 2023 (Delve)
identified the following general strata in the alluvial (northwest; approximately 135-acre) portion of
Moon Pit:
■ Sand with silt topsoil - Lightweight pumiceous topsoil, foamier and more organic than
underlying sediment, thickness up to about 5 feet.
■ Gravel with sand and cobbles - Horizontally bedded, thickness about 8 to 10 feet.
■ Sand with fine gravel - The predominant soil type in this portion of the site; thickness up to
42 feet.
■ Quaternary basalt - Believed to be a continuation of the Oregon Badlands basalt that has
been capped with alluvial sediment deposited within fault -bounded basins at the northwest
edge of Bear Creek Buttes.
The Roth East site is also located within the High Lava Plains physiographic province with only
pre -Holocene faults present nearby that affected the deposition of volcanic features surrounding
Roth East (Appendix J). Unlike Moon Pit, there are no visible expressions of these older faults. Roth
East lies southeast of the Millican Valley, a dry high desert perched basin bordered to the south by
4-8 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
the Pine Mountain and to the north by Bear Creek Buttes. The Roth East development area would
require more effort to screen operations as compared to Moon Pit as it lies atop alluvial deposits
forming the northern flank of Pine Mountain. The deposits include talus, slope wash, fanglomerates
and windblown material.
A geophysical study carried out by Siemens and Associates in 2023 estimated at least 300 feet of
unconsolidated alluvial deposits overlying bedrock beneath the proposed development area. During
the 2023 geotechnical investigation, borings drilled in the upper 150 feet of subsurface strata
encountered subrounded basalt and tuff gravel mixed with varying proportions of silt and sand in
6- to 12-inch layers typical of alluvial deposits. Groundwater or saturated strata was not encountered
in the borings. Bedrock was also not encountered. Roth East's surface soil includes a notable
quantity of pebbles and cobbles, which gradually diminishes in size and quantity downslope toward
the lacustrine Millican Valley floor to the northwest. See Appendix J for more information.
The Moon Pit site is located near the eastern edge of the Upper Deschutes Basin. The regional
groundwater flow direction from Moon Pit within the basin is to the north-northwest. Two water wells
are located on -site, DESC 5750 (Well A), which was developed in 1986 and is currently not in use,
and DESC 9126 (Well B), which was developed in 1994 and is currently used. Well B is located at an
elevation of approximately 3,600 feet and reports a depth to water of 852 feet, indicating a
groundwater elevation of approximately 2,750 feet. The yield for Well B is estimated at 1,000 gpm
based on purging rates from the owner during the well sampling procedure.
Given the depth to groundwater is greater than 800 feet and the geology consists of a heterogeneous
and disconnected suite of volcanic units the potential for vertical migration of fluids from Moon Pit to
reach groundwater is low.
Water samples collected from Well B and analyzed for the typical suite of landfill parameters indicate
very good quality with no constituents reported above the EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL)
and only one parameter (iron) at a concentration above the OAR 340-40 numerical groundwater
quality reference levels. Slight exceedances of trace metals can be expected from water supply well
grab samples not specifically designed for compliance groundwater monitoring.
Roth East is located along the far east margin of the Upper Deschutes Basin. The regional
groundwater flow direction from the Millican Valley is likely to the north-northwest, roughly following
topography and the path of Dry River, which once catastrophically drained Lake Millican. There are
no wells in close proximity to the proposed development area. However, based on modelling using
existing water wells the regional groundwater elevation at the proposed development area is
anticipated to be approximately 3,800 feet above mean level.
A well located near the southwestern corner of Roth East (DESC 1.94; a.k.a., the Powell Well or Deep
Well) and situated approximately 1.1 miles from the proposed development area at an elevation of
roughly 4,800 feet (600 feet above the Millican Valley floor), reports a depth to water of 970 feet
(groundwater elevation of approximately 3830 feet) and a yield of 50 gpm. Given this well was
designed for residential uses the yield for a larger diameter well designed for industrial uses would
likely provide a higher yield. The geophysical investigation conducted by Siemens and Associates
indicates that first bedrock is located at a depth of greater than 300 feet below the surface of the
proposed development area, corresponding to an approximate elevation range of 4,150 to
4,300 feet.
Water wells within the presumed footprint of prehistoric Lake Millican (below an elevation of
approximately 4,300 feet) have reportedly encountered a saturated zone near the bottom of the
May 2024 1553-2509-011 4-9
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
approximately 450-foot-thick sedimentary sequence, with low yields. It is unknown whether this
shallower saturated zone is present beneath Roth East's development area. Assuming there is no
saturated zone above the bedrock in the development area, the groundwater would be expected to
be at least 500 feet below the development area. The potential for vertical migration of fluids from
Roth East through the thick sedimentary sequence and the unknown thickness of volcanic bedrock
to groundwater is low.
Groundwater samples were collected from the Powell Well (DESC 194) following purging and the
stabilization of the field indicator parameters and analytical results of typical landfill parameters
indicate very good water quality with no constituents reported above the EPA MCL or the OAR 340-40
numerical groundwater quality reference levels. See Appendix J for more information.
4.7 Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility
Delve Underground conducted a preliminary geotechnical feasibility assessment related to the siting
of a new landfill on a 346-acre portion of the Moon Pit property. A copy of the preliminary
geotechnical feasibility report is included in Appendix K.
The preliminary geotechnical feasibility assessment included a combination of a desktop study and
limited geotechnical explorations consisting of test pits to provide a preliminary summary of the
subsurface conditions. The subsurface exploration program included 12 test pits excavated to
depths ranging from 2.6 to 7.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). All but two test pits were terminated
as a result of practical refusal of equipment on shallow bedrock. Bedrock observations were limited
to exposures created by quarrying activities, which indicated a variability within the underlying rock
mass. No laboratory tests have been performed to assess the adequacy of bedrock for future use as
a construction aggregate.
The preliminary assessment of the site did not identify geotechnical critical flaws for future
development as a municipal solid waste landfill. However, because of the shallow nature of bedrock
encountered, earthwork and site excavation will require extensive drilling and blasting methods to
excavate future waste cells to their proposed depths. Additional key summaries include:
® Faults that bound the graben (geologic term for earth crust between two faults and on which
the Moon Pit quarry is situated) are not included within the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary
Fault and Fold Database. Alluvial units and the Newberry Volcano lava flow do not exhibit
offsets along the northwest projections of the faults; therefore, the faults are interpreted to
be inactive.
® Shallow bedrock is persistent throughout the site and covered with a thin (less than 10 feet
thick) veneer of undifferentiated alluvium and loess. Thicker amounts of alluvium may be
present where it has not been mined out in the northwestern portion of the site.
■ Practical refusal with conventional equipment occurred during the excavation of all test pits
which resulted in termination less than 10 feet bgs. Shallow bedrock conditions will likely
require drilling and blasting techniques to excavate the desired depth of the waste cells.
® Bedrock exposed in quarry exposures in the southeastern portion of the site consisted of a
complex sequence of basaltic lava flows and cinder -filled interbeds. Both lava flow and
interbeds generally varied between 2 and 10 feet thick.
® Review of seismic surveys and cross sections compiled by Siemens & Associates within the
David Evans and Associates, Inc. report entitled "Deschutes County Landfill Site Evaluation"
4-10 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
(prepared for Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste, dated August 7, 1996) indicated
an irregular bedrock contact with varying depths of sediment accumulation within the
northwest portion of the site. Some drill and blast mining (for basalt rock products) was
conducted in this area but was discontinued because of poor rock quality.
■ Depth to groundwater is anticipated to be well below the bottom of the proposed landfill cells
(see Section 4.6.2).
■ Based on the shallow bedrock conditions and the waste cells excavated into the underlying
bedrock, Delve does not anticipate issues with bearing capacity or settlement associated
with future site development.
■ On -site materials will require laboratory testing to assess whether materials meet the
specification of intended use per Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction.
■ Site Class B is preliminarily recommended for future seismic design based on the materials
encountered in the subsurface exploration program.
■ Review of the site development plans by G. Friesen Associates, Inc., dated September 26,
2023, indicate 3H:1V (horizontal to vertical) slopes along the perimeter of the waste cells.
These slopes are suitable at this time based on the current understanding of the subsurface
conditions and that waste cells will be excavated into the underlying bedrock.
As noted above, the results of this study are based on a limited subsurface investigation and should
be considered preliminary in nature. Additional site characterization will be required to complete the
geotechnical characterization of this site if it is selected for final design, as well as to determine the
quality of rock for potential on -site use.
The estimated thickness of subsurface materials encountered at the time of exploration and the
anticipated use of materials is presented in Table 1. Across the site, the average thickness of
overburden materials (alluvium, loess, and colluvium) is estimated to be 5 feet, plus or minus 3 feet.
No laboratory tests have been performed to assess the durability of bedrock for future use as a
construction aggregate. Note that the current coverage of test pits is inadequate for fully assessing
the subsurface conditions for a 346-acre development, and lateral variations of materials likely exist.
Table 1. Soil Usage Summary for Moon Pit
Estimated
Geologic Unit
ASTM Classification
Thickness (feet)
Anticipated Use'
Alluvium/Loess2
Silty SAND (SM)
1 to 5.5
Daily cover
Well -graded GRAVEL with sand and cobbles (GW)
Well -graded SAND with silt (SW-SM)
Colluvium3
Well -graded GRAVEL (GW)
>6
Daily cover
Bedrock
Well -graded GRAVEL with silt and SAND (GW-GM)
1 to 4
Daily cover for gravel -sized or
(extremely
Well -graded GRAVEL with sand (GW)
finer; crush/screen oversize
weathered) 4
rock clasts for drain rock,
Silty SAND with gravel and cobbles (SW)
structural fill, and road base
Bedrocks
N/A
Unknown
Crush for drain rock,
(unweathered)
structural fill, and road base
Notes:
1 Anticipated uses are assumed. No laboratory testing has been performed and bedrock quality is currently unknown. Laboratory testing
is required for approval of on -site use.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 4-11
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
2 Alluvium and loess accumulation throughout the undisturbed areas of the site and overlies bedrock, and old alluvial gravels previously
mined in the northwest portion of the site.
3 Colluvium limited to areas adjacent to fault scarp and only encountered in TIP-3 and TP-4.
4 Bedrock encountered within test pits represents the upper weathering profile and contains varying amounts of sand and fines.
Bedrock quality is currently unknown and requires evaluation and laboratory testing to determine durability and quality.
5 Bedrock quality determination is beyond the scope of this exploration although visual observations of cuts and other exposures
suggest high variability ranging from poor to moderate.
Delve Underground conducted a preliminary geotechnical feasibility assessment related to the siting
of a new landfill on a 382-acre portion of the Roth East property. A copy of the preliminary
geotechnical feasibility report is included in Appendix K.
The preliminary geotechnical feasibility assessment included a combination of a desktop study and
limited geotechnical explorations consisting of four geotechnical borings, and two parallel
geophysical surveys utilizing electrical resistivity and seismic resistivity. Borings were advanced to
depths ranging from between 46.5 to 150 feet bgs and were terminated in predominantly gravelly
alluvial fan deposits. Bedrock was not encountered within the borings and is estimated to be at a
depth of approximately 400 feet based on the results of the geophysical surveys.
Disturbed soil samples were collected in conjunction with standard penetration tests (SPT) using a
standard split -spoon sampler and a modified California split -barrel sampler. However, because of the
relatively small sampler opening sizes (i.e., 1.375 to 2.4 inches), they do not provide an adequate
sample size to accurately describe a predominantly gravel soil type.
The preliminary assessment of the site did not identify geotechnical critical flaws for future
development as a municipal solid waste landfill. Additional key summaries include the following:
■ The unnamed faults near Millican Valley (U.S. Geological Survey fault ID 841) have an age
constraint of less than 750 thousand years (ka); considerably older than the 12,000 years
Holocene age defined by RCRA Subtitle D.
■ The Pine Mountain catchment basin now drains to the northwest of Pine Mountain, and the
paleochannel that previously supplied sediment for the alluvial fan beneath the site is now
separated from the upslope catchment basin, and thus inactive. The elimination of this
sediment supply likely resulted from faulting of the linear ridge with a poor age constraint but
is likely older than mid Quaternary (>750,000 years), and considerably older than the
Holocene.
■ The geomorphic relationship between the alluvial fan and surrounding topography suggests
that the fan is mid Quaternary or older in age, and that the upslope sediment supply for the
fan was disconnected around the same time, or before the faulting and uplift of the knob by
the unnamed faults near Millican Valley.
■ Faulting of the knob is likely older than the Holocene (12,000 years) and not a hazard for the
future development of the site. However, a lack of Holocene deposition of sediments within
the site makes the age constraint relative to preliminary observations elsewhere within
Millican Valley.
® Preliminary review of the limited extent of lidar (light detection and ranging) within the
western extent of Millican Valley near Horse Ridge does not indicate any offsets of Newberry
Volcano lava flows, alluvial fans, or sediments associated with Lake Millican. All units within
this area are late Pleistocene in age, thus indicating faulting along the unnamed faults of
Millican Valley is older than 12,000 years, and not active by the RCRA Subtitle D definition of
Holocene (10,000 years to 12,000 years). However, the lack of deformation and offset within
4-12 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
these units may indicate (1) a lack of deformation within the last 100,000 years, (2)
geomorphic overprinting as a result of a prolonged recurrence interval, and (3) discontinuous
fault structures across the basin.
■ Preliminary geotechnical drilling encountered coarse -grained soils to a maximum depth of
150 feet bgs that largely consist of gravels of varying sizes, consistent with materials
generally encountered within an alluvial fan. The materials appear to be predominantly
gravels, but SPT samples limit the ability to quantify the amount of gravel because of
sampling intervals and the limited size of what can enter the sampling tube.
■ Geophysical surveys indicate that up to 400 feet of what are interpreted as coarse -grained
soils are within the limits of the survey profiles. The boundary of the site has changed from
the time of original planning of the subsurface program, and it has since been moved farther
to the southwest; this area currently lacks coverage from the geophysical survey. Shallowing
of bedrock should be anticipated toward the south of the site near the linear ridge.
■ Based on the materials encountered, conventional earth -moving equipment for mass grading
and excavation of soil is anticipated; however, large boulders on the order of 4-foot diameter
may be encountered.
® Based on the materials encountered, issues with bearing capacity or settlement associated
with future site development are not expected.
■ On -site materials are likely suitable for use in site development pending future lab testing to
identify the durability of the material.
® Site Class C is recommended for future seismic design based on the materials encountered
in the subsurface exploration program.
■ Site development plans by G. Friesen Associates, Inc., dated September 26, 2023, indicate
3H:1V (horizontal to vertical) slopes along the perimeter of the waste cells. These slopes are
suitable at this time based on the current understanding of the subsurface conditions, but
additional input may be required as plans for site development progress.
■ Site development plans by G. Friesen Associates, Inc., dated September 26, 2023, indicate
excavation extending to close proximity of the linear ridge. This area lacks subsurface
information because of the limitation of the exploration program, and shallow bedrock may
be encountered. To reduce cost overrun, a comprehensive geotechnical exploration program
should be completed as a future phase of work if this site is selected for future development.
As noted above, the results of this study are based on a very limited subsurface investigation and
should be considered preliminary in nature. Additional site characterization will be required to
complete the geotechnical characterization of this site if it is selected for final design, as well as to
determine the quality of gravels within the alluvial fan deposit for potential on -site use.
The estimated thickness of subsurface materials encountered at the time of the explorations and the
anticipated use of materials is presented on Table 2. Across the site, the average thickness of
overburden materials (alluvial fan deposits) is estimated to be greater than 150 feet. No laboratory
tests have been performed to assess the durability of gravels within the overburden materials for
future use as a construction aggregate. Note that the current coverage of borings and geophysical
surveys is inadequate for fully assessing the subsurface conditions for a 382-acre development, and
lateral variations of materials likely exists.
May 2024 1553-2509-011 4-13
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Table 2. Soil Usage Summary for Roth East
Geologic Unit
ASTM Classification
Estimated
Thickness
Anticipated Use 1
Alluvial Fan
Silty SAND (SM)
>150 feet
Daily cover; crush/screen
Deposits 2
Well -graded SAND with silt (SW-SM)
for drain rock, structural
fill, and road base
Silty GRAVEL (GM)
Well -graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM)
Well -graded GRAVEL with sand (GW)
Bedrock
N/A
Unknown
Unknown
Notes:
1 Anticipated uses are assumed. No laboratory testing has been performed to determine the durability of on -site gravel. Durability tests
will be required before final approval of on -site use.
2 Gravel percentage poorly constrained due to the limited opening diameter within the SPT and ModCal sampling tube.
3 Bedrock was not encountered in the geotechnical drilling exploration and estimated at around 400 feet below grade by geophysical
exploration.
4.8 Environmental Site Assessment Phase I
Parametrix conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Moon Pit Alternative
including a review of available documentation pertaining to the subject property, a site
reconnaissance, and a review of relevant public agency documents. The Phase I ESA was conducted
in general accordance with ASTM Standard E1527-21, which defines the generally accepted industry
practices and procedures currently applicable at the time and place of this study. The purpose of the
Phase I ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) on or near the subject
property.
A review of historical aerial photographs, topographic maps, and the Hooker Creek construction
materials website indicate that the subject property was undeveloped until the late 1980s/early
1990s, when aggregate mining operations began. A former asphalt plant was reportedly located on
the subject property. Historical aerials can be referenced in the Phase I ESA, Appendix L.
As part of the Phase I ESA, regulatory database -listed sites by federal and Oregon agencies were
reviewed. Additionally, a compilation of historical uses of the subject property and site vicinity was
reviewed to determine whether past operations pose a risk to the subject property. The subject
property is listed on the Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) database. A comment dated
April 24, 1997, notes that there is no release reported and that the site was added to the ECSI list
for tracking purposes. The listing indicates that historical site use at the subject property is unknown,
but it may have been used by the military during World War II (historical document review did not
indicate any military usage on the subject property). No contamination at the site has been
documented. Listing of the site on the ECSI database for tracking purposes does not represent a
REC to the subject property. A full list of the databases reviewed can be found in Appendix L.
Parametrix conducted a site examination on October 5, 2023. The site examination consisted of
observing the area, providing observations of the general environmental conditions, and visually
assessing the area for evidence of hazardous substances and petroleum products. Two diesel
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are in use at the property: an approximately 250-gallon AST near
the gate and a 10,000- to 20,000-gallon AST that provides fuel to the generator for the groundwater
4-14 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
supply well on -site. Minor staining was noted near the 250-gallon AST. De minimis staining was also
noted near the site entrance, in operation areas, at the equipment boneyard, and in the vicinity of
the former asphalt plant. None of the staining appeared to be extensive or associated with active
releases. A number of labeled and unlabeled drums (some still containing liquids) were also noted
throughout the site, primarily in the boneyard and near the generator building. Photographs taken
during the site reconnaissance can be found in the Phase I ESA, Appendix L.
The former presence of the asphalt plant operations, as well as observed petroleum staining in
several areas of the property, represents a REC to the subject property.
Based upon the conclusions of this investigation of the subject property, a limited Phase II ESA is
recommended on the subject property to delineate shallow soil contamination, if any, and to
establish baseline conditions. The Phase II ESA should include surface and shallow depth soil
sampling in the former asphalt plant area, as well as other operational areas, near ASTs, and in
areas of observed petroleum staining.
Parametrix conducted a Phase I ESA of the Roth East Alternative including a review of available
documentation pertaining to the subject property, a site reconnaissance, and a review of relevant
public agency documents. The Phase I ESA was conducted in general accordance with ASTM
Standard E1527-21, which defines the generally accepted industry practices and procedures
currently applicable at the time and place of this study. The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to
identify RECs on or near the subject property.
A review of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps indicate that the subject property has
been undeveloped, aside from a single residence (constructed after 1994), since at least 1951.
Historical aerials can be referenced in the Phase I ESA, Appendix L.
As part of the Phase I ESA, regulatory database -listed sites by federal and Oregon agencies were
reviewed. Additionally, a compilation of historical uses of the subject property and site vicinity was
reviewed to determine whether past operations pose a risk to the subject property. The subject
property and adjacent properties are not listed on any regulatory database that would indicate a past
or current release or storage of hazardous materials. A full list of the databases reviewed can be
found in Appendix L.
Parametrix conducted a site examination on October 4, 2023. The site examination consisted of
observing the area, providing observations of the general environmental conditions, and visually
assessing the area for evidence of hazardous substances and petroleum products. There is one
residence on the subject property along with a couple of outbuildings and ranch infrastructure
(corrals, cattle watering trough, etc.). A domestic water well is located on the subject property, and a
large water storage tank was noted on the ridge above the well. Two small (approximately
250-gallon), locked fuel ASTs were noted in the vicinity of the other ranch infrastructure. The ASTs
appeared to contain residual fuel. No staining or distressed vegetation was noted in the vicinity.
Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance can be found in the Phase I ESA, Appendix L.
May 2024 1553-2509-011 4-15
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
4.8.2.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions
No RECs were identified for the Roth East site during Phase I ESA.
4.8.2.2 Recommendations
Based upon the conclusions of this investigation of the subject property, no further environmental
investigation is warranted at this time.
4.9 Air Quality, Weather, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Parametrix prepared a technical memorandum that summarizes local air quality data, weather data,
and a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis for the Moon Pit and Roth East sites. Please see Appendix M. It
also discusses facilities in close proximity to the site that may contribute to local air quality issues.
The weather data from the past five years were acquired from two weather stations east of Bend,
Oregon. The data included minimum and maximum temperatures, daily precipitation, PM2.5 and
ozone (air quality) data, and wind speed and direction data.
The wind rose diagram from Redmond Roberts Field indicates dominant wind directions out of the
northwest and southeast, with the most frequently occurring wind speeds between 8 and 13 miles
per hour (mph). The Moon Pit site is located between two weather stations, and the Roth East site is
located farther east of the Horse Ridge station. General sustained wind speeds and gusts at the
Horse Ridge station are higher than at the Calgary Loop station indicating that wind conditions at
Roth East are likely more intense than at the Moon Pit site, though these station data do not
necessarily represent site conditions. During development and operation of the landfill, an on -site
weather station will be located at the site to inform the County's adaptation of landfill operations
based on current weather conditions.
Local air quality data was reviewed from the past five years, which were downloaded from the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) website. The closest publicly owned air quality
monitoring station is located at Prineville Davidson Park. The maximum PM2.5 level measured at
this station was recorded on September 12, 2020. The spikes in monitored PM2.5 are likely
associated with large wildfires in Oregon, Washington, and California during those time periods. The
maximum ozone level was recorded on September 12, 2020. The vicinity of both sites is
predominantly vacant, undeveloped land. There are no industrial or power -generating plants within a
3-mile radius of either site that would contribute to areawide air quality conditions.
Mapped wildfire risk data indicate that both the Moon Pit and the Roth East sites have a high burn
probability. According to the U.S. Forest Service, burn probability is based on the likelihood of over
250 acres burning at a given location (determined by wildfire simulation modeling). A high probability
indicates between 1 in 500 and 1 in 50 chance of a wildfire over 250 acres in a single year. For both
sites, fire protection measures would be in -place and the selected site is expected to function as a
fire break - relatively devoid of fuel sources - that would interrupt the continuation of wildfires
moving towards the site.
GHG emissions were calculated for scenarios involving the haul transportation of municipal solid
waste from transfer stations to Moon Pit and Roth East. The baseline fleet transition that was
evaluated (diesel to renewable natural gas [RNG] to electric) resulted in a contribution of Moon Pit of
-50,000 MT CO2e whereas Roth East would generate-75,000 MT CO2e of GHG emissions over the
2029 to 2129 timeframe. The transition to renewable diesel is already underway, and RNG is also a
reasonable, present-day option. These fuel transitions would reduce GHG emissions further but also
offer opportunities for cost reduction and revenue streams.
4-16 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
The 5-year record of temperature data collected at the BEND station reported a minimum
temperature of -7 degrees Fahrenheit (F) on February 23, 2022, and a maximum temperature of
107 degrees F on June 30, 2021. Temperature data at this station are spotty for the latter part of
2022 and 2023. Additional station data can be referenced in the Air Quality Technical Report,
Appendix M.
• ,,
The 5-year record of precipitation data collected at the BEND station reported sixteen precipitation
events exceeding 0.5 inches in a day, occurring in fall, winter, and spring. Fewer significant
precipitation events occurred during summer. Average daily precipitation data collected at the BEND
station reported eleven daily averages above 0.2 inches and significantly lower averages during
summer months. Additional station data can be referenced in the Air Quality Technical Report,
Appendix M.
Lightning susceptibility in the vicinity of the Moon Pit site is relatively low (a risk index score of 20.7
based on FEMA National Risk Index methodology I.
Dominant wind directions at the Redmond Roberts Field station (22 miles northwest of the site) are
out of the southeast. Most often occurring wind speeds are between 8 and 13 miles per hour. The
Calgary Loop (EW8160) weather station reports sustained winds up to 18 miles per hour and gusts
up to 31 miles per hour. The US 20 Horse Ridge station reports sustained winds up to 26 miles per
hour and gusts up to 43 miles per hour. Winds speeds at the Moon Pit site are expected to be
between these ranges.
i
Available relevant air quality data from the past 5 years were downloaded from the DEQ website.2
The closest publicly owned air quality monitoring station is located at Prineville Davidson Park,
approximately 25.4 miles northeast of the site. Air quality data from this station monitors particulate
matter, or PM2.5, and ozone. PM2.5 is atmospheric particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5
micrometers. Ozone can cause oxidation of electronics and sensitive instruments.
The maximum PM2.5 level (518.1 micrograms per cubic meter [pg/m3]) measured at the Prineville
Davidson Park station was recorded on September 12, 2020. These data were supplemented with
PM2.5 data from the Bend NE 8th and Emerson station, which is 16 miles northwest of the site. The
maximum PM2.5 level (547.1 pg/m) measured at the Bend NE 8th and Emerson station was
recorded on August 16, 2021. The spikes in monitored PM2.5 are likely associated with large wildfires
in Oregon, Washington, and California during those time periods. Local and regional wildfires are
generally the largest contributor to spikes in airborne particulates in eastern Oregon.
1 https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/lightning
2 https::/Zoragi.deg.state.or.us/Rem/stationreport
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 4-17
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
The maximum ozone level (39 parts per billion) was recorded on September 12, 2020.
4.9.1.5 Local Air Quality Activities and Impacts
The vicinity of the site is predominantly vacant, undeveloped land. There are no industrial or power -
generating plants within a 3-mile radius that would contribute to areawide air quality conditions.
4.9.1.6 Wildfire Risk
The Moon Pit site is mapped by the US Forest Service as having a high burn probability. Although the
frequency of lightning strikes is higher near Moon Pit, the extent of historical fires suggests that fires
near the Moon site are typically smaller and less -likely to propagate. The soils and landforms of the
Moon Pit site have low vegetation production potential which limits the accumulation of fuels. Thus,
fire events historically have been typically limited to a few trees. Stand replacement, and mixed -
severity fire events were infrequent (more than 150 years).
The 5-year record of temperature data collected at the BEND station reported a minimum
temperature of -7 degrees Fahrenheit (F) on February 23, 2022, and a maximum temperature of
107 degrees F on June 30, 2021. Temperature data at this station are spotty for the latter part of
2022 and 2023. Additional station data can be referenced in the Air Quality Technical Report,
Appendix M.
The 5-year record of precipitation data collected at the BEND station reported sixteen precipitation
events exceeding 0.5 inches in a day, occurring in fall, winter, and spring. Fewer significant
precipitation events occurred during summer. Average daily precipitation data collected at the BEND
station reported eleven daily averages above 0.2 inches and significantly lower averages during
summer months. Additional station data can be referenced in the Air Quality Technical Report,
Appendix M.
Lightning susceptibility in the vicinity of the Roth East site is relatively low (a risk index score of 20.7
based on FEMA National Risk Index methodology 3.
Dominant wind directions at the Redmond Roberts Field station (22 miles northwest of the site) are
out of the southeast. Most often occurring wind speeds are between 8 and 13 miles per hour. The
US 20 Horse Ridge station reports sustained winds up to 26 miles per hour and gusts up to 43 miles
per hour. Wind speeds at the Roth East site are expected to generally resemble what has been
observed at this weather station.
Concerns have been raised by the public regarding high winds, whirlwinds carrying dust and debris,
and thermal draft that are utilized by paragliders. These concerns relate to landfill operations, as
3 https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/lightning
4-18 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
strong winds can exacerbate various environmental and operational challenges. Wind has the
potential to spread litter and debris beyond the landfill boundaries. Additionally, airborne particles
carrying odors from decomposing waste may be dispersed, causing nuisance to nearby communities.
Operationally, high winds can disrupt daily landfill activities, affecting waste deposition and
compaction processes. To mitigate wind -related risks, landfill operators often implement engineering
controls such as windbreaks, cover systems, and dust suppression measures. Regular monitoring
and contingency plans are crucial to promptly address adverse weather conditions and ensure the
effective and environmentally responsible management of landfill sites.
Available relevant air quality data from the past 5 years were downloaded from the DEQ website.4
The closest publicly owned air quality monitoring station is located at Prineville Davidson Park,
approximately 31 miles northeast of the site. Air quality data from this station monitors particulate
matter, or PM2.5, and ozone. PM2.5 is atmospheric particulate matter with a diameter less than
2.5 micrometers. Ozone can cause oxidation of electronics and sensitive instruments.
The maximum PM2.5 level (518.1 pg/m3) measured at the Prineville Davidson Park station was
recorded on September 12, 2020. These data were supplemented with PM2.5 data from the Bend NE
8th and Emerson station, which is 25 miles northwest of the site. The maximum PM2.5 level
(547.1 pg/m3) measured at the Bend NE 8th and Emerson station was recorded on August 16,
2021. The spikes in monitored PM2.5 are likely associated with large wildfires in Oregon, Washington,
and California during those time periods. Local and regional wildfires are generally the largest
contributor to spikes in airborne particulates in eastern Oregon.
The maximum ozone level (39 parts per billion) was recorded on September 12, 2020.
4.9.2.5 Local Air Quality Activities and Impacts
The vicinity of the site is predominantly vacant, with a handful of rural residential properties located
throughout the area. There are no industrial or power -generating plants within a 3-mile radius that
would contribute to areawide air quality conditions.
4.9.2.6 Wildfire Risk
The Roth East site is mapped by the US Forest Service as having a high burn probability. This site has
more productive soils supporting sage steppe and more invasive species, especially cheatgrass, that
have a higher potential of carrying wildfire. Where there is an abundance of invasive nonnative
species such as cheatgrass, areas that used to burn once every 20 to 100 years can now burn every
7.5 to 15 years in sage steppe habitat.
4 https://oracii.deq.state.or.us/Report/stationreport
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 4-19
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
4.10 Natural Resources
The site is located in the Smith Canyon -Dry River (HUC 170703050710) watershed, with general
slope to the northwest. The site consists of an active aggregate material mine interspersed with
juniper woodland and shrubland. The site is incidentally grazed by cattle entering through gaps in
fencing. The site is bordered by BLM land and is nearby to Oregon Badlands Wilderness. The
topography of the site is slightly sloped to the northwest with hillsides directly outside the site to its
north, east, and south. The site elevation ranges from 3,600 to 3,860 feet.
Present within the site is 167.1 acres of juniper woodland and 10.9 acres of shrub steppe. The
remainder of the site consist of disturbed mined out areas, roads, and buildings (206.82 acres). The
vegetation in the juniper woodland was dominated by western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis), big
sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), cheatgrass (Bromus
tectorum), bluebunch wheat grass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), and Idaho fescue (Festuca
idahoensis). Shrub steppe habitat was dominated by big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, cheatgrass,
bluebunch wheat grass, and Idaho fescue. Other native species found include antelope bitterbrush
(Purshia tridentate), cushion wild buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium), common yarrow (Achillea
millefolium), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), and Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda).
Common weedy species found within disturbed areas include cheatgrass, night -flowering catchfly
(Silene noctiflora), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Mexican fireweed (Bassia scoparia), and tumble
mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). Mexican fireweed is listed as a noxious weed by the Oregon
Department of Agriculture.
4.10.2 1a Protected
oon Pit Site
4.10.2.1 Wetland and Waters
An artificial pond built within uplands adjacent to a mine cell in the site's northwest was found to
have wetland characteristics (Appendix N). The pond was originally used for gravel and sand washing
but is now used for dust control and for fire suppression. Three streambeds are mapped as
intermittent seasonally flooded riverine features by National Wetland Inventory to occur within the
eastern half of the site. These features are located in gullies with upland vegetation. The gullies
lacked stream bed and bank features and did not contain hydric soils or hydrophytic vegetation
(Appendix N). These gullies are likely ephemeral systems that only have flow during spring melt in
high snowpack years. The artificial pond and the ephemeral gullies would not be considered
jurisdictional. No other wetland or water features were observed on -site. Site development would not
require permitting under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and Oregon's Removal -Fill
Law (OAR 196-795-990).
Federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat are not likely to be
present using habitat found within the site (Appendix N); therefore, site development would not
initially require permitting under Section 10 or Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. If greater
4-20 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
sage grouse ([sage -grouse] Centrocercus urophasianus) or pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)
are listed as threatened or endangered during planning and construction of the SWMF or during
major operational changes once constructed, the County would need to consult with USFWS for
compliance under Section 10 or Section 7 of the ESA (Appendix M).
The site is within 2 miles of a golden eagle nest and its development will result in a permanent
alteration of habitat and an Eagle Incidental Take Permit may be required for project development.
The permit would be used for consultation and to determine a take statement and associated
required mitigation. Potential mitigation can be conducted via an in -lieu fee which is calculated as
take over time. Alternatively, Deschutes County could allocate money to a local utility company to
retrofit utility poles to protect raptors and other birds from electrocution through a Memorandum of
Agreement. See Appendix N for further information Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act and
requirements for permitting site development.
Various migratory birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 may forage on
or nest on the site. To avoid and minimize effects to migratory birds, initial site development
(vegetation clearing and grubbing) should be conducted during the non -nesting season. If vegetation
disturbance occurs during the nesting season, the site should be surveyed for nesting birds by a
qualified biologist. See Appendix N for further information on Migratory Bird Treaty Act species that
may be present on -site and for construction best management practice to minimize impacts.
y
The site is entirely within mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and elk (Cervus canadensis) winter range
designated by ODFW and is partially in a Wildlife Area Combining Zone for North Paulina Winter
Range designated by Deschutes County. The site is also entirely within essential and limited
pronghorn (Antilocapra americans) habitat as designated by ODFW. Tracks and scat of mule deer
and elk were observed throughout the site. The habitat on -site is of low to moderate quality for these
big game species (Appendix N). Site development would result in a permanent loss of 167.1 acres of
juniper woodland and 10.9 acres of shrub steppe which would require mitigation (see below in
Section 4.10.3)
The Site is not sage -grouse habitat (Appendix N). However, site development would result in indirect
impacts that would impact low density sage -grouse habitat. Indirect impacts can include sound
disturbance and from increased densities of ravens (Corvus corax). Landfills can result in elevated
densities of ravens due to additional food sources and roosting locations. Ravens predate on sage -
grouse and higher abundance of the species within sage -grouse habitat has been linked with lower
sage -grouse reproductive success.
In coordination with ODFW, the estimated impact of site development on sage -grouse is a loss of
7.8 functional acres which would require mitigation (see below in Section 4.10.3).
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 4-21
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Mule Deer and elk winter range and essential and limited pronghorn habitat are considered
Category 2 habitat by ODFW's Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415-0000). Category 2
habitat is deemed to be essential for a species, populations, or species assemblage (OAR 635-415
0025). Avoidance of impacts through alternatives to the proposed action are recommended. If
impacts are unavoidable, mitigation of impacts would be required through in -kind, in -proximity,
habitat mitigation to achieve "no net loss" and a "net benefit" of habitat quantity or quality (OAR
635-415-0025(B)).
A mitigation plan would need to be developed to characterize compensatory mitigation to impacts to
167.1 acres of juniper woodland and 10.9 acres of shrub steppe. Because impacts to mule deer and
elk winter range essential and limited pronghorn habitat spatial overlap, mitigation for each can be
stacked into one mitigation project. Mitigation may involve making on -site habitat improvements or
acquiring a parcel of land with those habitats to prevent its development (avoided loss) or improve
its habitat (enhancement). Enhancement can include a combination of actions that may include
livestock grazing restrictions, weed treatment, native revegetation/restoration, fire readiness, and
fence removal/fence upgrade. Further information on mitigation options for mule deer, elk and
pronghorn habitat can be found in Appendix N.
4.10.3.2 Sage -Grouse
Site development would be considered a large-scale development (>40 acres) which would impact
significant sage -grouse habitat and thus is considered a conflicting use (OAR 660-023-0115(7)).
Conflicting uses require compliance with the mitigation hierarchy and ODFW's Sage -grouse Mitigation
Program and Policy. The development of the site must show that the overall public benefits outweigh
the damage to the significant sage -grouse habitat (DCC 18.89.110). The development of the SWMF at
the site must demonstrate that impacts to sage -grouse habitat are unavoidable and the project was
developed to minimize impacts. The extent of direct and indirect impacts on significant sage -grouse
habitats must be mitigated for and provide a net conservation benefit to sage -grouse (OAR 635-140-
0010(e)).
Site development would result in the loss of 7.8 functional acres of sage -grouse habitat. To achieve a
net conservation benefit, ODFW requires compensatory mitigation to restore 115% of impacted
functional acres. Thus, a mitigation plan would need to be developed to characterize the restoration of
9 functional acres of sage -grouse habitat. Mitigation actions include acquisition of bank credits,
payment in -lieu, and permittee responsible on or off -site mitigation. At present, there is no mitigation
bank available with approved credits. ODFW is currently reviewing documents for a mitigation bank
that could be a future option for mitigation for site development. The estimated in -lieu fee cost
provided by ODFW is $500,000. The in -lieu fee cost should be considered as the maximum cost for
sage -grouse mitigation. Perm ittee-responsible on -site mitigation is not possible given the extent of the
SWMF on the site. Off -site mitigation could involve acquiring a parcel of land and performing mitigation
actions or working with private or public landowners on a conservation plan. Common mitigation
measures that could result in restoration of sage -grouse habitat include juniper removal, cattle grazing
management, reseeding of native forbs and grasses, fence removal, and invasive removal. Further
information on mitigation options for sage -grouse habitat can be found in Appendix N.
4-22 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
The development of the SWMF at the site would require minimization and avoidance through site
design, employing best management practices during construction and operations to avoid impacts
to Migratory Bird Treaty Act -protected species, and to mitigate for impacts to golden eagle habitat,
mule deer and elk winter range, essential and limited pronghorn habitat, and significant sage -grouse
habitat. The initial cost of mitigation is estimated to be $700,000 with $800,000 in operations and
maintenance. These values are approximations of costs for site development and should only be
used for site selection comparisons for the SWMF. Further development of a mitigation plan and
coordination with ODFW, the County, and others would be required to determine the cost of natural
resource mitigation for the development of the SWMF at Moon Pit. Further information on cost
estimates can be found in Appendix N.
The site is located in the Mahogany Butte -Dry River (HUC 170703050706) watershed, with general
slope to the northwest. The site consists of sage brush steppe environment with native and non-
native grasses and bunchgrasses and is currently used for grazing. The site is bordered by private
lands that are also used for grazing. The topography of the site is slightly sloped to the north. The site
elevation ranges from 4,480 to 4,600 feet.
4.10.5.2 Vegetation
The site is entirely composed of shrub steppe habitat. Vegetation within the site is dominated by big
sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, crested wheat grass (Agropyron cristatum), and Idaho fescue. Other
native species found include western juniper, bluebunch wheat grass, cushion wild buckwheat,
antelope bitterbrush, lupine (Lupinus species), and prairie June grass (Koeleria macrantha). Invasive
and non-native species present in low densities included cheatgrass, spotted knapweed (Centaurea
stoebe), tumble mustard, medusahead rye (Taeniatherum canput-medusae), and clasping pepper
weed (Lepidium perfoliatum). Medusa rye and spotted knapweed are listed as noxious weeds by the
Oregon Department of Agriculture.
4.10.6 Roth East Site Protected Species, Habitat, and Permittin2;
,4.10.6.1
Within the site, nine streambeds are mapped as intermittent seasonally flooded riverine streambeds
by National Wetland Inventory. These features are located in gullies with upland vegetation. The
gullies lacked stream bed and bank features and did not contain hydric soils or hydrophytic
vegetation (Appendix N). These gullies are likely relict topographical features from previous climatic
conditions and are currently ephemeral systems that may only have flowing water during spring of
high snow pack years. No other wetland or water features were observed on -site. Site development
would not require permitting under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and Oregon's
Removal -Fill Law (Oregon Administrative Record [OAR] 196.795-990) as features present on -site are
not jurisdictional.
May 2024 1553-2509-011 4-23
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat are not likely to be
present using habitat found within the site (Appendix N); therefore, Site development would not
initially require permitting under Section 10 or Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. If sage -
grouse or pygmy rabbit are listed as threatened or endangered during planning and construction of
the SWMF or during major operational changes once constructed, the County would need to consult
with USFWS for compliance under Section 10 or Section 7 of the ESA (Appendix M).
4.10.6.3 Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act
The site is not within 2 miles of a golden eagle or bald eagle nest and thus site development is
unlikely to impact these species. Site development would not require permitting under the Bald and
Gold Eagle Protection Act.
4.10.6.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Various migratory birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 may forage on
or nest on the site. To avoid and minimize effects to migratory birds, initial site development
(vegetation clearing and grubbing) should be conducted during the non -nesting season. If vegetation
disturbance occurs during the nesting season, the site should be surveyed for nesting birds by a
qualified biologist. See Appendix N for further information on Migratory Bird Treaty Act species that
may be present on -site and for construction best management practice to minimize impacts.
4.10.6.5 Big Game Range
The site is entirely within mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and elk (Cervus canadensis) winter range
designated by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and is partially in a Wildlife Area
Combining Zone for Deer Winter Range designated by Deschutes County. The site is also entirely
within essential and limited pronghorn (Antilocapra americans) habitat as designated by ODFW and
is within a Wildlife Area Combining Zone for Antelope Range as designated by Deschutes County.
No tracks or scat of these big game species were observed on -site. The habitat on -site is of
moderate to high quality for these big game species. Site development would result in a permanent
loss of 309.3 acres intact shrub steppe habitat which would require mitigation (see below in
Section 4.10.7)
4.10.6.6 Sage -Grouse
The site is entirely within low -density greater sage -grouse habitat and is adjacent to core area
sage -grouse habitat as designated by ODFW. The site is used lightly by sage -grouse during the
summer and winter and is located within a corridor that connects leks located to the site's east and
west (Appendix N).
The habitat on -site is of moderate quality for sage -grouse. Site development would result in direct
and indirect impacts to sage -grouse habitat. Direct habitat includes habitat removal whereas indirect
impacts can include noise disturbance during construction and operations and predation from
increased densities of ravens (Corvus corax). Landfills can result in elevated densities of ravens due
to additional food sources and roosting locations. Ravens predate on sage -grouse and higher
abundance of the species within sage -grouse habitat has been linked with lower sage -grouse
reproductive success.
4-24 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
In coordination with ODFW, the estimated impact of site development on sage -grouse is a loss of
173.3 functional acres which would require mitigation (see below in Section 4.10.7).
Mule Deer and elk winter range and essential and limited pronghorn habitat are considered Category
2 habitat by ODFW's Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415-0000). Category 2 habitat is
deemed to be essential for a species, populations, or species assemblage (OAR 635-415-0025).
Avoidance of impacts through alternatives to the proposed action are recommended. If impacts are
unavoidable, mitigation of impacts would be required through in -kind, in -proximity, habitat mitigation
to achieve "no net loss" and a "net benefit" of habitat quantity or quality,(OAR 635-415-0025(B)).
A mitigation plan would need to be developed to characterize compensatory mitigation to impacts to
309.3 acres of shrub steppe. Because impacts to mule deer and elk winter range essential and
limited pronghorn habitat spatial overlap, mitigation for each can be stacked into one mitigation
project. Mitigation may involve making on -site habitat improvements or acquiring a parcel of land
with those habitats to prevent its development (avoided loss) or improve its habitat (enhancement).
Enhancement can include a combination of actions that may include livestock grazing restrictions,
weed treatment, native revegetation/restoration, fire readiness, and fence removal/fence upgrade.
Further information on mitigation options for mule deer, elk and pronghorn habitat can be found in
Appendix N.
Site development would be considered a large-scale development (>40 acres) which would impact
significant sage -grouse habitat and thus is considered a conflicting use (OAR 660-023-0115(7)).
Conflicting uses require compliance with the mitigation hierarchy and ODFW's Sage -grouse
Mitigation Program and Policy. The development of the site must show that the overall public
benefits outweigh the damage to the significant sage -grouse habitat (DCC 18.89.110). The
development of the SWMF at the site must demonstrate that impacts to sage -grouse habitat are
unavoidable and the project was developed to minimize impacts. The extent of direct and indirect
impacts on significant sage -grouse habitats must be mitigated for and provide a net conservation
benefit to sage -grouse (635-140-0010(e)).
Site development would result in the loss of 173.7 functional acres of sage -grouse habitat. To
achieve a net conservation benefit, ODFW requires compensatory mitigation to restore 115% of
impacted functional acres. Thus, a mitigation plan would need to be developed to characterize the
restoration of 199.3 functional acres of sage -grouse habitat. Mitigation actions include acquisition of
bank credits, payment in -lieu, and permittee responsible on or off -site mitigation. At present, there is
no mitigation bank available with approved credits. ODFW is currently reviewing documents for a
mitigation bank that could be a future option for mitigation for site development. The estimated
in -lieu fee cost provided by ODFW is $7.6 million. The in -lieu fee cost should be considered as the
maximum cost for sage -grouse mitigation. On -site mitigation would involve improving habitat
conditions within the parcel of land on or adjacent to the impact site, whereas off -site mitigation
could involve acquiring a parcel of land and performing mitigation actions or working with private or
public landowners on a conservation plan. Common mitigation measures that could result in
restoration of sage -grouse habitat include juniper removal, cattle grazing management, reseeding of
native forbs and grasses, fence removal, and invasive removal. Further information on mitigation
options for sage -grouse habitat can be found in Appendix N.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 4-25
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
The development of the SWMF at the site would require minimization and avoidance through site
design, employing best management practices during construction and operations to avoid impacts
to Migratory Bird Treaty Act -protected species, and to mitigate for impacts to mule deer and elk
winter range, essential and limited pronghorn habitat, and significant sage -grouse habitat. The initial
cost of mitigation is estimated to be $1,500,000 with $2,500,000 in operations and maintenance.
The maximum cost of mitigation is estimated to be $8,800,000 with $7,600,000 for in -lieu payment
to ODFW for sage -grouse habitat impacts. These values are approximations of costs for site
development and should only be used for site selection comparisons for the SWMF. Further
development of a mitigation plan and coordination with ODFW would be required to determine the
cost of natural resource mitigation for the development of the SWMF at Roth East. Further
information on cost estimates can be found in Appendix N.
4.11 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
A reconnaissance survey for archaeological and historical resources was completed by Willamette
Cultural Resources Associates, Ltd. (WillametteCRA) at the Moon Pit and Roth East locations in
September 2023. The intent of the reconnaissance survey was to assess the potential for cultural
resources at each location and provide further actions that may be necessary to address cultural
resources requirements. The reconnaissance was not a compliance -level survey (by state or federal
standards) as the project areas were not surveyed systematically to cover all of the potential impact
areas, and identified resources were not formally recorded with the Oregon State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). The following is a summary of WillametteCRA's reports, which are
included in their entirety in Appendix 0.
WillametteCRA performed a records and literature review of sites and survey data on file with the
Oregon SHPO, General Land Office maps and survey notes, historic topographic maps and aerial
photographs, and historical references in the WillametteCRA in-house library.
Three previous archaeological surveys have occurred within portions of the Moon Pit location. These
prior surveys resulted in the identification of two archaeological resources within Moon Pit, and three
archaeological resources immediately adjacent to Moon Pit. These resources are primarily single
precontact lithic artifacts and small lithic scatters. The exception to this is a large multicomponent
site near to Moon Pit. This site (35DS2384) is comprised of multiple precontact rock art panels,
several concentrations of lithic debitage, multiple formed tools, and remnant features of a historic
period farmstead/ranch bracketing a slot canyon located north of Moon Pit. The site has been
recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Historic maps and aerial imagery depict no developments within Moon Pit with the exception of
informal roads/trails. Historically, no buildings or structures were present.
Moon Pit is located on a parcel that encompasses both a relatively level lowland and gentle slopes
leading up to Horse Ridge in the south, as well as a level upland area in the northwest. Relic
drainages bisect the property in the southeast and east. Intensive mining and quarrying activity has
4-26 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
modified the topography and hydrology of the project parcel over the last 20 to 30 years. Given the
proximity of a large, NRHP-eligible archaeological site (35DS2384), the presence of drainages, and
the distribution pattern of previously identified sites in the broader vicinity, portions of the parcel
undisturbed by mining activity have a moderate to high probability of containing precontact
archaeological resources. Based on previous archaeological investigations, sparse lithic scatters
and/or lithic isolates that may represent ephemeral habitation areas related to 35DS2384 are likely
present.
Extant buildings and structures within the parcel do not date to the historic period and there are no
historic built environment resources within or in the immediate vicinity of Moon Pit. WillametteCRA
suspects there is a low probability for historic -period archaeological resources.
There has only been one previous archaeological study within Roth East; however, it did not involve
field survey. As a result, the Roth East location has never been surveyed and there are no previously
recorded archaeological resources.
A review of historic maps and aerial imagery of Roth East shows historic development limited to
informal roads and trails and limited agricultural activity. There is one structure present in the north
central portion of Roth East visible as early as the 1960s. Modern aerial imagery suggests the ruins
of the structure may still be present.
Roth East is located on a parcel that encompasses both a relatively level lowland, and gentle slopes
leading up to Pine Mountain in the south and a level upland area in the northeast part of the project
that overlooks the valley. Relic drainages bisect the property. Given the lack of previous survey,
presence of drainages, and the distribution pattern of previously identified sites in the broader
vicinity, the area has a high probability of containing precontact archaeological resources. Based on
previous archaeological investigations, sparse lithic scatters and/or lithic isolates that may represent
ephemeral habitation areas are likely present.
There are no historic built environment resources in Roth East. Historic map research shows little to
no historic -period development within or near the project area. WillametteCRA suspects there is a
low probability of historic -period archaeological resources in Roth East. The exception to this would
be the potential ruins of the 1960s structure, which would be recorded as an archaeological
resource.
4.11.3 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance
The reconnaissance -level field survey consisted of meandering transects spaced approximately
20 meters apart within each quadrant. Archaeological resources were noted and mapped with a GPS
(global positioning system) but were not formally recorded or delineated.
WillametteCRA staff conducted a visual inspection of approximately 100 of the 560 total acres. The
previously recorded resources were not relocated during the reconnaissance. Five new
archaeological resources (three sites and two isolates) were identified. The sites were all small lithic
scatters comprised of flakes, flaked tools, and formed tools, including a possible Plateau
side -notched point. Obsidian was among the raw materials represented. The isolates were both
single historic hole -in -top cans.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 4_27
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
WillametteCRA staff conducted a visual inspection of approximately 128 of the 645 total acres.
Twelve archaeological resources (six sites and six isolates) were identified during the
reconnaissance. The majority of resources (n=10) were precontact lithic isolates (one artifact) or
sparse lithic scatters. The precontact sites vary in size and content, with the largest and most diverse
site consisting of 14 artifacts. This artifact assemblage included a projectile point, flakes, and flaked
tools. The projectile point resembled a Plateau side -notched point which dates to ca. 1500 years
before present.
In general, the precontact archaeological resources at Roth East consisted of flakes and formed
tools made from obsidian and fine-grained volcanic material. The historic resources consisted of a
scatter of cans and lumber, and a spoked wheel.
.11®4 Cultural Resources Impacts
A comparison of the relative density of cultural resources between Moon Pit and Roth East indicates
that Roth East has more abundant cultural resources. Both locations are considered to have a
moderate to high probability for precontact archaeological resources and a low probability for
historic -period archaeological resources. No historic built environment resources are anticipated.
Present land use is a relevant factor contributing to the difference in cultural resource densities
between Moon Pit and Roth East. At Moon Pit, half of the proposed landfill footprint is disturbed by
gravel and rock mining, which greatly reduces the potential for cultural resources, particularly intact
archaeological resources. Since Roth East is largely undisturbed, the potential for discovery of intact
cultural resources is greater.
4.11.5 Cultural Resources Mitigation
Based on the available data, Roth East carries the greatest degree of schedule and cost risk. A
formal survey of both Roth East and Moon Pit would better define the potential schedule and cost
implications. Below is the general process for addressing cultural resources which impacts the
schedule and cost.
A systematic pedestrian survey of the entire area proposed for development is recommended. If an
archaeological site or isolate is identified, and the project has the potential to impact it, then the
resource needs to be delineated and formally evaluated under Oregon state law (assuming there is
no federal nexus to the project). With some exceptions, evaluating whether an archaeological
resource is significant requires an Oregon SHPO archaeological permit. To obtain a SHPO permit, a
Secretary of Interior -qualified archaeologist on the Oregon SHPO's approved list must apply. The
application requires a research design, which takes time to prepare. Once submitted, the application
goes through a 30-day review period (realistically closer to 35 days) with SHPO during which time
interested Tribes may comment. SHPO or tribal comments or questions about the application may
delay the process. Once the permit is obtained, field investigations may commence. The duration of
the field investigations depends on the complexity of the resource. Once field investigations and
post -field analysis are completed, the permit holder presents the findings (report and resource
forms) to SHPO for concurrence. SHPO has 30 days to review the findings.
If the resource is determined significant, then impacts to the resource will need to be avoided or
mitigated (e.g., archaeological data recovery, public interpretation, etc.); mitigation is specific to the
individual resource and impact. If the resource is determined not significant, then the resource is not
protected by Oregon law and requires no avoidance or mitigation, and the project may proceed as
planned. If SHPO disagrees with a finding or requests more information to support a finding, the
4-28 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
SHPO review clock starts over at 30 days. Under state law, Oregon SHPO has the final say as to
whether a resource is significant.
4.12 Community Assessment
4.12.1 Site -Specific Community Assessment Summary
The Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste is working with a SWAC to evaluate siting options
for the new solid waste management facility. The SWAC has been meeting regularly since April 2022
to review and discuss information during the multi -step siting evaluation. In June 2023, the SWAC
recommended further study of the Moon Pit and Roth East finalist sites.
The County is looking to enter into negotiations with a willing seller and is engaged in direct outreach
with the Moon Pit and Roth East property owners. Both sites are in the same census tract in
Deschutes County (41017000100). The census tract population is approximately 1,962 people and
is not identified as disadvantaged.
■ For the Moon Pit site, there are no known residences within 1 mile of the site and one
residence within 2 miles of the site. There are a variety of active recreational uses in the
vicinity of the site, including the Badlands Rock Trailhead and parking area and general
outdoor use by mountain bikers (outside the Badlands Wildlands Wilderness) and others.
■ For the Roth East site, there are two known residences within 1 mile of the site and eight
within 2 miles of the site location. There are a variety of active recreational uses in the
vicinity of the site, including an off -road vehicle trail system, a Pine Mountain launch area for
paragliders and hang gliders, a shooting range, and general outdoor use by mountain bikers,
hikers, birdwatchers, and others.
Throughout the siting evaluation, the County has been working to share information with interested
parties and the community and collect public input in writing and during public meetings held with
the SWAC. As part of ongoing outreach, the County has contacted area residents, public agencies,
Tribes, recreation and environmental interests, and others. No response has been received from
contacted Tribes (as of May 22, 2024). In addition to individual community members, agencies and
organizations that submitted comments included the Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, East Cascades Audubon Chapter, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Central Oregon
Landwatch, League of Conservation Voters, University of Oregon Department of Physics/Pine
Mountain Observatory, and the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association. These
written comments from agencies and organizations are included in Appendix R.
Based on the comments received, the Moon Pit and Roth East site locations in a comparatively less
developed part of the county have been viewed as a positive by some community members, while
others highlight considerations about operational hauling costs and winter roadway conditions.
Site -specific concerns expressed by local community members generally relate to potential
environmental issues, health risks or other local impacts. For the Moon Pit site, this includes
consideration of the proximity to the Badlands Wilderness, concerns about nearby cultural resources,
and potential disruption of area recreation uses. For the Roth East site, this includes consideration of
potential local impacts to Millican Valley landowners, light pollution and related impacts to the Pine
Mountain Observatory, and potential disruption of area recreation uses such as paragliding.
May 2024 1553-2509-011 4-29
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Specifically, the potential for high winds at Roth East to spread debris and dust and concerns about
contamination of local groundwater have been noted.
For both sites, there are concerns about potential impacts to habitat and area wildlife resulting
from site development and operation. Of the two sites, development of Roth East is generally
viewed as having more potential visual and residential impacts while development of Moon Pit is
perceived as having minimal new impacts because of its current use as a gravel mine. Because
the Moon Pit site is already disturbed and will continue to support surface mining (regardless of
landfill siting), concerns were raised that development of a new landfill at the Roth East site
would cause a greater disruption to the surrounding area than at the Moon Pit site.
An abbreviated tabular summary of public comments for the two sites is presented below in Table
3. These comments are part of the public record for the siting evaluation work and have been
made available to the project team, SWAC, and Board of County Commissioners.
Table 3. Public Comments Received by County (December 2022-October 2023)
Moon Pit Site Roth East Site
Total Public Comments 224 300
Top Categories Wildlife
Wildlife
(over 100 mentions) 218 sage grouse, 218 eagles and
274 sage grouse, 227 general,
raptors, 216 deer
245 deer, 208 elk, 205 cougar
Environment
Environment
218 noise
267 noise
Recreation
Zoning
206 general
243 wildlife
Zoning
Recreation
206 wildlife
225 general, 131 paragliding
Notes: Some comments identified in this summary referenced the area near the
site (e.g., Badlands Wilderness or Millican Valley) not the
specific site. The full record is available through the County's project webpage at deschutescounty.gov/managethefuture.
Once a final site is selected, the site permitting process is expected to include additional outreach
and public process such as notifications and opportunities for comment. This consultation with
federal, state, and local agencies, along with Tribal governments, can help identify strategies to
mitigate potential impacts during site development and operations. Along with informative outreach
for the broader community, providing ongoing opportunities for two-way communication with
adjacent property owners, local community groups, and interested parties is recommended to invite
feedback and help identify concerns and potential solutions. For example, continued briefings and
small group discussions with stakeholder organizations and interested parties, backyard and small
group engagement with neighbors to discuss property -specific considerations, and periodic meetings
with the SWAC are suggested methods of sharing information and inviting input.
:; , �; .
is w;� .. � ....
The County is committed to a transparent process and is working with a SWAC to evaluate siting
options. SWAC members are appointed and represent incorporated cities, franchise haulers, the
Environmental Center, and the community at -large. The SWAC has been meeting regularly since April
2022 to review and discuss information during the multi -step siting evaluation. The meetings allow
for in -person and online attendance and include public comment periods.
4-30 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
As part of the siting evaluation process, County staff have received and responded to hundreds of
public comments. These comments are part of the public record for the siting evaluation work and
have been made available to the project team, SWAC, and Board of County Commissioners.
In addition to the SWAC meetings, the County has been sharing information and inviting community
input using a range of outreach tools including updates to the Board of County Commissioners, direct
outreach and mailings to property owners and site neighbors, direct outreach to Tribes, briefings to
community groups and public agencies, news media interviews and press releases, e-news updates,
group mailings to interested parties, and a community open house. The County has also created a
project webpage and a StoryMap dedicated to the siting evaluation process with information about
the project timeline, maps, frequently asked questions, and various resource links. See Appendix P
for more information in the Community Assessment.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 4-31
page intentionally blank
for double -sided printing
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
S. Cost Analysis
The Parametrix team prepared planning level opinions of probable cost (costs) for both sites. These
opinions have ranges of -30% to +50%, which is an appropriate level of accuracy for comparison of
sites. See Appendix C for Site Owner Solicitation Responses with terms and prices for acquisition.
See Appendix Q for SWMF waste projections and cost estimates for development and operations at
each site.
5.1 Capacity and Projected Life
Moon Pit has an estimated airspace capacity of 64 million cubic yards over 346 acres. The available
airspace on this footprint provides a project lifespan of 100 years.
Roth East has a footprint of 387 acres with an estimated 80 million cubic yards of airspace. The
projected life of the landfill is 125 years based on the preliminary design. The MSW disposal area
footprint on the site has the possibility of expansion horizontally and vertically and could provide over
250+ years of solid waste disposal capacity for Deschutes County residents if needed.
5.2 Population to be Served
As with the existing Knott Landfill, the new Deschutes County landfill would serve the population of
Deschutes County. Portland State University Population Research Center issued the Coordinated
Population Forecast for Deschutes County (2022-2072) in 2022 with estimates of current and
future population. The population estimate for Deschutes County in 2022 is 207,921. The forecast
predicts that the population in Deschutes County will continue to grow over the next 50 years, but
with a declining average annual growth rate (AAGR) that falls from 2.2% in 2022 down to 1.1% 2047.
For the remainder of the forecast period (2047-2072) it is projected that the AAGR will hold steady
at 1.1%. For municipal solid waste projections, it was assumed that this terminal 1.1% AAGR would
continue into the future for the remainder of the 100-year landfill planning period. See Appendix Q
for population projection tables.
5.3 Accepted and Prohibited Wastes
The SWMF will accept MSW from Deschutes County transfer stations. The site will continue following
the current waste screening and acceptance policies that are currently in place at Knott Landfill.
Hazardous waste will not be accepted for disposal at the new landfill site.
5.4 Rate of Waste Disposal
It is estimated that the annual total waste generated in Deschutes County in 2020 was
296,500 tons. Of this total, it is estimated that 98,000 tons of material was recycled which
computes to a recovery rate of 33%. In 2020, the quantity of waste that was landfilled at Knott
Landfill was 198,000 tons. Deschutes County has implemented a recovery rate goal of 45% waste
diversion by 2025. For municipal solid waste projections, it was assumed that the recovery rate
would increase at a rate of 1% per year, up to 45% in 2038, and then remain at 45%. The annual
waste disposed is still estimated to grow even with the increased recovery rate due to population
growth in the county.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 5-1
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
The current annual per capita waste generation in Deschutes County is approximately
3,050 lbs./capita. It is assumed that this per capita waste generation rate will remain steady through
planning period. Waste generation, recovery rates, and waste projections were based on the
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Plan (2019), 2018-2021 Material Recovery and Waste
Generation Rates Reports, and 2022 Knott Landfill Tonnage Analysis provided by Deschutes County
Solid Waste. See Appendix Q for waste projection tables.
5.5 Mineral Resources
Moon Pit has potential for mineral and surface mining operations on site due to the existing surface
mine. The mining can continue in areas where the landfill is planning future fill and expansion. This
can assist in subsidizing the initial and ongoing operations cost associated with the landfill. Surface
mining can be utilized to subsidize landfill operation costs through re -purposing of mined areas. This
dual utilization optimizes the economic potential of the land, helping offset the expenses associated
with landfill development and operation. By repurposing mined areas for waste disposal, operators
can effectively rehabilitate the land for a new purpose, contributing to sustainable land use
practices. Balancing economic benefits with environmental stewardship is essential to ensure a
sustainable and responsible approach to resource extraction and waste management.
Roth East has enough material on -site for all the current and future landfill needs. This includes
drainage, daily cover, and final cap cover.
5.6 Initial Development Costs
The Parametrix team prepared planning -level opinions of probable cost (costs) for both sites. These
opinions have ranges of -30% to +50%, which is an appropriate level of accuracy for comparison of
sites. See Appendix C for Site Owner Solicitation Responses with terms and prices for acquisition.
See Appendix Q for SWMF Cost Estimates for development and operations at each site.
® ®1 Moon Pit Site
Initial development costs are estimated at $50 to $64 million, which includes $15.4-15.9 million for
land acquisition. Landfill cell development costs are estimated at $705,000 to $1,075,000 per acre.
Annual operating costs are estimated at $7.6 million per year, which includes $2.5 million/year for
waste hauling. The estimated average cost per ton is $43 to $48 in 2023 dollars, to dispose of 37.6
million tons over a 100-year lifespan. The cost estimate ranges presented here depend on the extent
and cost of cell excavation that could occur as a part of on -site aggregate mining operations.
5.6.2 RothEast Site
Initial development costs are estimated at $36 to $44 million, which includes $5.5-7.0 million for land
acquisition and $1.5-7.6 million for natural resource mitigation. Landfill cell development costs are
estimated at $393,000 per acre. Annual operating costs are estimated at $8.4 million/year, which
includes $3.3 million/year for waste hauling. The estimated average cost per ton is $44 in 2023
dollars, to dispose of 46.3 million tons over a 113-year lifespan. If the disposal capacity is increased
beyond 200 years, the cost per ton could be significantly reduced.
5-2 May 2024 1553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
5.7 Refuse Cell Construction
Moon Pit cell construction costs are estimated at $1.1 million per acre, primarily due to the presence
of rock at the site. Excavation for refuse cells will require rock drilling, blasting and crushing to produce
daily, intermediate, and final cover material, as well as materials for cell development and roads. Table
4 shows the estimated cost for the development of future landfill cells. The construction costs that are
shown are based on the most recent prices paid by Deschutes County at the Knott Landfill.
If the required Rock Drilling, Blasting, and Crushing (2-inch Minus) can be completed by contractors at
a reduced unit cost of $4 per cubic yard in consideration for the aggregate resource, the estimated
cost of cell development reduces to $705,240 per acre. If this rock removal work is not subsidized by
the aggregate resource value and a unit cost of $12 per cubic yard is assumed, the estimated cost of
cell development is $1,074,600 per acre, as shown below in Table 4. Due to fluctuating aggregate and
construction market conditions, the cost of cell development is expected to fall within the range of
$700,000 to $1.1 Million per acre at Moon Pit. The range of costs presented for Moon Pit in this
section and in Appendix Q are predominantly driven by these assumed unit costs for Rock Drilling,
Blasting, and Crushing.
Table 4. Estimate of per acre Cost for Landfill Cell Development at Moon Pit
Item
Unit
Quantity
Cost
Estimated
Cost (2023$)
Excavation
CY
38,000
$ 4.00
$ 152,000
Rock Drilling, Blasting, and Crushing (2-inch Minus)
CY
34,200
$ 12.00
$ 410,400
Embankment
CY
6,000
$ 2.00
$ 12,000
6-inch Soil Cushion Layer
CY
900
$ 10.00
$ 9,000
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
SF
48,000
$ 1.00
$ 48,000
Geomembrane
SF
48,000
$ 0.90
$ 43,200
Cushioning Geotextile
SF
12,000
$ 0.85
$ 10,200
Geonet Composite
SF
48,000
$ 0.95
$ 45,600
12-inch Drainage Layer
CY
1,600
$ 10.00
$ 16,000
Separating Geotextile
SF
36,000
$ 0.85
$ 30,600
8-inch Leachate Collection Pipe
LF
300
$ 30.00
$ 9,000
Landfill Gas Collection System
Lump Sum
1
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000
Subtotal
$ 796,000
Engineering and Administration (15%)
$ 119,400
Contingencies (20%)
$ 159,200
Estimated per acre Cell Development Cost
$ 1,074,600
Assumptions:
1. Approximately 90% of the excavation volume will require rock drilling, blasting and crushing.
2. Rock drilling, blasting, and crushing cost assumes no contractor mining, just processing for County uses.
CY = cubic yards; SF = square feet
May 2024 1553-2509-011 5-3
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
The MSW disposal area at Roth East is located in an area that can be excavated by the County as
part of their Daily, Intermediate and Final Cover Borrow operations. Because of this, the estimated
cost for the development of future landfill cells at the Roth East site is considerably less than Moon
Pit. Table 5 shows the estimated cost for the development of future landfill cells at Roth East. The
estimated cell construction cost is $394,000 per acre which is about one-third of the cost for cell
development at Moon Pit.
Table 5. Estimate of per acre Cost for Landfill Cell Development at Roth East
Estimated
Item
Unit
Quantity
Unit Cost
Cost (2023 $)
Rough Excavation'
CY
-
$ 4.00
$ 0
Finish Excavation2
CY
15,000
$ 4.00
$ 60,000
Embankment
CY
5,000
$ 2.00
$ 10,000
6-inch Soil Cushion Layer
CY
900
$ 10.00
$ 9,000
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
SF
48,000
$ 1.00
$ 48,000
Geomembrane
SF
48,000
$ 0.90
$ 43,200
Cushioning Geotextile
SF
12,000
$ 0.85
$ 10,200
Geonet Composite
SF
48,000
$ 0.95
$ 45,600
12-inch Drainage Layer
CY
1,600
$ 10.00
$ 16,000
Separating Geotextile
SF
36,000
$ 0.85
$ 30,600
8-inch Leachate Collection Pipe
LF
300
$ 30.00
$ 9,000
Landfill Gas Collection System
Lump Sum
1
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000
Subtotal
$ 291,600
Engineering and Administration (15%)
$ 43,740
Contingencies (20%)
$ 58,320
Estimated per acre Cell Development Cost
$ 393,660
Assumption:
1. Two thirds of cell excavation would occur as a part of daily cover borrow operations by Deschutes County Solid
Waste staff.
2. One-third of total excavation if fine grading to cell subgrade design elevations.
CY = cubic yards; SF = square feet
5.8 Description of Operation
The landfill will not be open to the public and will therefore have minimal landfill staff when
compared to a landfill that has a high volume of commercial haulers and the public. The daily
operation of the landfill involves a systematic process to manage waste disposal efficiently. Scale
house operators will weigh, screen, and direct inbound waste materials to their proper locations. It is
anticipated that disposal, waste compaction, daily cover and other fill operations will be similar to
what is currently happening at Knott Landfill.
5-4 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid waste Department
Table 6 shows the estimated total annual operating costs for hauling waste to Moon Pit and Roth
East from the County's transfer stations and disposing of it in the landfill.
Table 6. Comparison of Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Moon Pit
Roth East
Administrative Labor Subtotal
$
1,288,000
$
1,288,000
Equipment Owning and Operating
Subtotal
$
1,614,000
$
1,614,000
Environmental Monitoring Subtotal
$
868,000
$
902,000
Haul Cost Subtotal
$
2,536,000
$
3,280,000
Miscellaneous Subtotal
$
1,269,000
$
1,332,000
Total Annual Operating Costs
$
7,576,000
$
8,417,000
5®9 Daily and Intermediate Cover
Daily cover and intermediate cover operations are critical aspects of landfill management. Daily
cover involves the application of a protective layer of soil or alternative materials over the exposed
waste at the end of each operational day. This cover helps control odors, prevents the attraction of
pests, and reduces windblown debris. It also contributes to overall site aesthetics. Intermediate
cover, on the other hand, is applied periodically during active landfill operations to control erosion,
manage surface water runoff, and create a barrier between waste and the environment. Both daily
and intermediate covers play key roles in minimizing environmental impacts and maintaining
regulatory compliance within the landfill operation. The cover cost for Moon Pit and Roth East has a
negligible difference, both sites will operate under the same cover assumptions with similar cost. The
additional costs of obtaining cover materials at Moon Pit are captured in the cell development capital
costs noted above.
5.1.0 Landfill Closure
It is anticipated that Moon Pit and Roth East will have similar closure costs. The total estimated cost
for each site includes final contouring and grading, landfill gas collection systems, geotextile cushion,
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), geomembrane, geonet composite layer, 24-inch topsoil/soil protective
layer, seed, fertilizer and mulch, cover system irrigation, and monitoring and maintenance. The final
cost for closure at both site locations is estimated to be $378,000 per acre. Again, the additional
costs of obtaining cover materials at Moon Pit are captured in the cell development capital costs
noted above.
5.11 DEQ Permitting
Both landfill sites will require a Solid Waste Disposal Site Permit from DEQ. The DEQ permit for
landfill operations is to ensure that the landfill operates in compliance with environmental laws and
regulations. This permit outlines specific conditions and requirements that the landfill must adhere
to, including waste acceptance criteria, operational practices, monitoring procedures, and closure
plans. DEQ permits are designed to mitigate potential environmental hazards associated with
landfills, such as soil and water contamination, air pollution, and wildlife disruption. The permit
process involves a comprehensive review of the landfill's design, construction, and operational plans,
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 5-5
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
with a focus on minimizing the impact on surrounding ecosystems and communities. Moon Pit and
Roth East both have an estimated initial permitting cost of $1.5 million.
5.12 Summary of Cost Analysis
Each site has a unique set of design challenges that contribute to their overall cost over the life of
the landfill. Initial development, land acquisition, operations, and final cover all play a part in the
total cost to design, operate, and close a landfill. The SWMF will accept MSW from Deschutes County
transfer stations, any increased cost to the public is reflected in the tipping fees in table 6.
For the Moon Pit site, upfront costs are expected to be higher, but annual operational costs are
expected to be lower. Initial development costs are estimated at $50 to $64 million, which includes
$15.9 million for land acquisition. Landfill cell development costs are estimated at $705,000 to
$1,075,000 per acre. Annual operating costs are estimated at $7.6 million per year, which includes
$2.5 million per year for hauling waste. The estimated average cost per ton is $43 to $48, to dispose
of roughly 38 million tons over a 100-year lifespan.
The cost estimate ranges presented for Moon Pit depend on the extent and cost of cell excavation
that could occur as a part of aggregate mining operations on -site. If permitting and aggregate market
conditions are favorable, there is greater upside potential for the Moon Pit site with the opportunity
for aggregate mining to subsidize landfill excavation costs. Initial capital costs are significantly higher
at Moon Pit, which would necessitate higher tip fees for the first 30 years.
For the Roth East site, upfront costs are expected to be lower, but annual operational costs are
expected to be higher due to the extended haul distance. Initial development costs are estimated at
$36-44 million, which includes $5.5-7.0 million for land acquisition. Landfill cell development costs
are estimated at $393,000 per acre. Annual operating costs are estimated at $8.4 million per year,
which includes $3.3 million per year for waste hauling. The estimated average cost per ton is $44, to
dispose of roughly 46 million tons over a 113-year lifespan. While the Roth East site is offered at a
lower acquisition price and will have lower cell excavation costs, the additional operational costs for
further waste hauling are projected to drive total cumulative costs beyond that of Moon Pit around
year 83 of operations (circa 2112).
For both sites, it is assumed that upfront acquisition and development costs would be financed with
a 30-year bond at a 4.75% interest rate. The total cost of debt service, landfill operations, and cell
expansion have been analyzed for the first 30-years to estimate the cost per ton and related tipping
fees required to cover these costs during this time period (2030-2059). For Moon Pit, the estimated
30-yr cost per ton is $59-$68 and the tipping fee is $106-$115 per ton. For Roth East, the estimated
30-yr cost per ton is $53-$55 and the tipping fee is $100-102 per ton.
To further understand these costs in terms of impacts to County residents, increases to household
garbage collection bills and self -haul disposal costs were estimated. Household garbage collection
bills are estimated to increase from the assumed current rate of $25 per month to around $29 per
month with Moon Pit and $28 per month with Roth East. Self -haul household waste and construction
debris disposal costs are estimated to increase from the current rate of $14 (for up to 4001b load
covered & secured) to $21-$23 with Moon Pit and around $20 with Moon Pit. Table 7 below
compares the estimated costs and disposal fees associated with each site.
5-6 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
Table 7. Landfill Site Cost Comparison
ItPm Moon Pit Roth East
Operating Period
2029-2129
2029-2142
Estimated Lifespan (years)
100
113
Land Acquisition Costs
$15,870,000
$5,500,000 to $6,898,000
Initial Development Costs
$35,266,900 to $49,036,900
$30,580,740 to $37,215,609
Total Initial Costs (Land + Development)
$51,136,900 to $64,906,900
$36,080,740 to $44,113,609
Landfill Cell Development Costs
$193,125,000 to $347,094,000
$142,905,000
Closure Costs
$131,404,000
$146,548,000
Operating Costs
$1,259,744,358
$1,720,346,129
Post -Closure Operations Costs
$9,068,316
$9,068,316
Total Lifespan Costs
$1,643,978,574 to $1,812,217,574
$2,054,948,185 to $2,062,981,054
Total Waste Disposal Projection (tons)
37,686,654
46,319,902
Avg. Cost per Ton over Lifespan
$43 to $48
$44
Upfront Capital Costs Financed'
$79,551,043 to $101,969,346
$68,419,316 to $83,651,914
30-yr Operational Costs (2030-2059)
$96,021,924 to $123,081,891
$328,800,270
30-yr Total Costs (2030-2059)
$344,700,390 to $386,439,390
$397,219,586 to $412,452,184
30-yr Waste Disposal Projection (tons)
7,462,195
7,462,195
30-yr Cost per Ton
$59 to $68
$53 to $55
30-yr Tipping Fee
$106 to $115
$100 to $102
Est. Monthly Residential Collection Bil12
$28.05 to $28.83
$27.56 to $27.73
Monthly Res. Collection Bill $ Increase2
$3.05 to $3.83
$2.56 to $2.73
Monthly Res. Collection Bill % Increase2
12% to 15%
10% to 11%
Est. Self -Haul Disposal Costa
$21.18 to $23.02
$20.01 to $20.42
Self -Haul Disposal Cost $ Increase 3
$7.18 to $9.02
$6.01 to $6.42
Self -Haul Disposal Cost % Increase 3
51% to 64%
43% to 46%
1. Acquisition and development costs financed with 30-yr bond at a 4.75% annual interest rate.
2. Increase of $0.85 for every $10 increase above current $70/ton tipping fee. Residential collection bill assumed at $25/month.
3. Based on current cost of $14 for up to 0-400 Ibs of household/construction waste disposal with load covered & secured.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 5-7
page intentionally blank
for double -sided printing
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
f,Conclusion
The selection of a new site for the Deschutes County SWMF is a complex decision that requires
careful consideration of various factors. The two candidate sites, Moon Pit and Roth East, each
present unique advantages and challenges.
Moon Pit offers the advantage of existing infrastructure, including an access road, gate, scales, and
well, which could reduce site development costs. The site's current use as a gravel mine provides
some "free" airspace and reduces initial excavation needs. However, the site's layout is more
complex and less efficient than Roth East, resulting in a lower capacity -to -acreage ratio and the need
for more leachate pump stations. The presence of shallow bedrock increases excavation costs,
although this could be offset by potential aggregate mining operations. Risks may emerge from the
land use approval process and a potentially extended National Environmental Policy Act process for
the access road. The Moon Pit site has upside potential and downside risk related to aggregate
mining for cell excavation, depending on marketability of on -site rock. Initial capital costs are
significantly higher at Moon Pit, which would necessitate higher tip fees for the first 20 years.
However, the existing and useful transportation network that provides direct access from US 20 is a
significant advantage. The Moon Pit site is generally viewed as having fewer visual and residential
impacts, and because the site is currently used as a gravel mine, there is a perception that use as a
landfill would pose minimal new impacts.
Roth East, on the other hand, has a more efficient square shape, resulting in a better capacity -to -
acreage ratio and fewer leachate sumps/pumps. The mix of sand, gravel, and cobbles within the
excavation depth on -site is very favorable for efficient landfill development and operation. However,
there is no existing infrastructure on -site and no existing improved access road between the site and
US 20 support landfill operations. Potential risks may arise from the Farm Impacts Test which could
lead to a Land Use Board of Appeals appeal which can be a lengthy process. While the Roth East site
is offered at a lower acquisition price and would have lower cell excavation costs, the additional
operational costs for further waste hauling are projected to drive total cumulative costs beyond that
of Moon Pit around year 83 of operations (circa 2112). Of the two sites, development of Roth East is
generally viewed as having more visual and residential impacts, Appendix P.
Given these considerations, both sites appear to be viable options for the new County SWMF. The
Moon Pit site is appealing due to its existing infrastructure, lower haul costs, and lower degree of
impacts to residences and wildlife. The Roth East site is appealing with its efficient layout, favorable
excavation conditions, and potential for a longer lifespan. This decision is a significant step toward
ensuring the long-term sustainability of waste management in Deschutes County. The selection of
either site will ultimately depend on the specific priorities and needs of the County.
This process for selection of the preferred SWMF site involved thorough review, discussion, and
consideration of study findings, leading to a formal recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. The process for reviewing information and selecting the preferred Deschutes County
SWMF site involves several key milestones in 2024:
® February 20 SWAC Meeting: Review executive summary, site comparison table, and study
findings with the SWAC, providing the SWAC opportunity to submit written comments.
■ March 8: Distribute draft report for SWAC members, commissioners, and other relevant
parties for detailed review and consideration, prior to March SWAC meeting.
■ March 19 SWAC Meeting: Review and discuss draft report with the SWAC.
May 2024 1 553-2509-011 6-1
Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF)
Final Site Evaluation
Deschutes County Solid Waste Department
■ April 5: Submit final report to Deschutes County Solid Waste for distribution to SWAC
members, commissioners, and other relevant parties for detailed review and consideration.
■ April 16 SWAC Meeting: SWAC members provide a formal recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners regarding their preferred site for the new County SWMF.
■ June 12: First Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing.
■ July (date TBD): Second Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing and Board selection
of preferred County SWMF site.
On April 16, 2024, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee unanimously recommended the Moon Pit
site for Board of County Commissioners consideration as the location for the new Solid Waste
Management Facility. Key reasons for this recommendation included:
■ The site is currently being used as an aggregate surface mine and is already disturbed
■ Based on the current use, there is less likelihood of new impacts to area wildlife or recreation
■ The site is comparatively closer to existing facilities which will help manage haul costs and
greenhouse gas emissions
The Committee also recommended that the Board of County Commissioners:
■ Work with stakeholders to develop and implement a robust and comprehensive mitigation
strategy that reflects community values to minimize impacts to area wildlife and recreation
■ Prioritize waste prevention and recovery and move as quickly as possible to implement those
strategies to reduce the overall costs and greenhouse gas emissions of the new landfill
6-2 May 2024 1 553-2509-011
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
On June 12, 2024, beginning at 9 a.m., the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
will hold a public hearing at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend,
Oregon, to consider selection of a preferred location for a future Solid Waste Management
Facility that will be needed once Knott Landfill, Deschutes County's only landfill, reaches
capacity in 2029.
The work of the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) and the Solid Waste
Management Facility Final Site Evaluation Report is available at the project planning page
deschutes.org/managiethefuture. The SWAC is unanimously recommending the Hooker Creek
"Moon Pit" property located in eastern Deschutes County, Oregon, as the location for the new
Solid Waste Management Facility. The proposed site is currently a privately owned aggregate
surface mine.
The Board of County Commissioners hearing will be streamed live and will be recorded at
deschutes.org/meetings. Public input may be provided by attending in person, or via Zoom by
computer or phone, during the public comment portion of the agenda. Written comment may also
be submitted prior to midnight on June 10 by emailing managethef iture a deschutescounty.gov
or calling 541-317-3177.
Zvi' E S CO
0
2� BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request for
property on the northeast corner of the Deschutes Junction Highway 97 overpass
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
First, hold the public hearing. Thereafter, either continue the public hearing to a date
certain, close the oral portion of the record and leave the written record open for a certain
period, or commence deliberations.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
A public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") is scheduled on June
12, 2024, for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. The subject
properties are located at the northeast corner of the Deschutes Junction Highway 97
overpass (location map attached to the staff memorandum). The applicant requests
approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designation of the subject
properties from Agricultural ("AG") to Rural Industrial ("RI") and a corresponding Zone Change
to rezone the subject properties from Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") to Rural Industrial ("RI"). No
exceptions to the Statewide Planning Goals are requested.
The BOCC hearing will be the second of two required hearings for this proposal. The first
hearing was held on March 21, 2023, before a Deschutes County Hearings Officer. The
Hearings Officer found the applicant demonstrated compliance with all applicable standards
except the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 related to protected scenic resources.
For this reason, the Hearings Officer recommended the BOCC deny the applicant's requests
unless the applicant subsequently demonstrates compliance with Goal 5.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Caroline House, Senior Planner
Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner
Legal Counsel
X\0-C ES
mac'
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC")
FROM: Caroline House, Senior Planner
DATE: June 12, 2024
RE: Public Hearing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change Request (ref.
File Nos. 247-22-000573-ZC & 247-22-000574-PA)
On June 12, 2024, a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners is scheduled for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. This hearing will be the second of two
(2) required hearings for this proposal.
I. PROPOSAL
Last Ranch, LLC ("Applicant") requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the
designation of the subject properties from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Industrial (RI) and a
corresponding Zone Change to rezone the subject properties from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural
Industrial (RI). No exceptions to the Statewide Planning Goals are requested. The subject properties
are located at northeast corner of the Deschutes Junction overpass adjacent to Highway 97 (see
attached location map) and was formerly known as the "Funny Farm".
11. BACKGROUND
The first hearing for this proposal was held on March 21, 2023, before a Deschutes County Hearings
Officer and the Hearings Officer found the Applicant demonstrated compliance with all applicable
standards except the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 related to protected scenic
resources. For this reason, the Hearings Officer recommended the BOCC deny the Applicant's
request unless the Applicant subsequently demonstrates compliance with Statewide Planning Goal
5.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 is a broad statewide planning goal that covers more than a dozen
protected resources. The resources range from wildlife habitat, to scenic views, and surface mines.
To protect and plan for them, local governments are asked to create a number of inventories and
the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan identifies certain roadways and rivers/streams as
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org/cd
inventoried Goal 5 scenic view resources. In this case, the subject properties are located within the
inventoried Highway 97 Goal 5 scenic view resource.
The BOCC recently reviewed a similar Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request
submitted by LBNW, LLC, where the same issue of compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 was
before the Board. In that case, the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA') remanded the previously
approved LBNW, LLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request back to the
County for further review to confirm new uses allowed in the RI Zone, that were previously not
allowed in the EFU Zone, would not conflict with the Highway 97 Goal 5 protected scenic resource.
In the summer of 2023, LBNW, LLC initiated a Deschutes County remand application and submitted
supporting materials, such as an expanded Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy ("ESEE")
analysis, to demonstrate compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Based on the submitted
materials, the BOCC again approved the LBNW, LLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone
Change request. This decision was not appealed and became final in the fall of 2023.
The Applicant waited forthe LBNW, LLC remand application to be approved and has since submitted
additional materials to demonstrate compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Based on staffs
review of the Applicant's most recent submittals, the Applicant has taken a similar approach to
LBNW, LLC's remand application to demonstrate compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and
the Applicant will be presenting their arguments to the BOCC at public hearing.
Staff notes, during the Hearings Officer's review, Central Oregon LandWatch and 1,000 Friends of
Oregon submitted comments in opposition to the Applicant's proposal.
III. SCOPE OF REVIEW
As the subject properties include lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code
22.28.030(C) requires the applications to be heard de novo before the BOCC, regardless of the
Hearings Officer's recommendation.
At the hearing, the BOCC will be asked to consider the materials in the record, new materials and
arguments presented by the Applicant, and testimony from other interested parties.
IV. BOARD OPTIONS
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the BOCC can choose one of the following options:
1. Continue the hearing to a date and time certain;
2. Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time
certain;
3. Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or
4. Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined.
247-22-000573-ZC, 574-PA Page 2 of 3
1��ilJil��1�1
This proposal is not subject to the statutory 150-day review timeline.
VI. RECORD
The record is presented at the following Deschutes County Community Development Department
website:
https://www.d esch utes.org/cd/page/247-22-000573-zc-247-22-000574-pa-last-ranch-I lc -
comprehensive -plan -amendment -zone -change
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Draft Ordinance No. 2024-006
247-22-000573-ZC, 574-PA Page 3 of 3
247-22-000573-ZC / 247-22-000574-PA ���°GK
1"=800'
Location Map �`''
N:\Custom\County\CDD\Planning\PeterG\SB391_Eligible_Properti es July 14, 2022
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code Title 23, the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan, to Change the
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for
Certain Property From Agriculture to Rural
Industrial, and Amending Deschutes County
Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning
Map, to Change the Zone Designation for
Certain Property From Exclusive Farm Use to
Rural Industrial.
*
* ORDINANCE NO. 2024-006
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
WHEREAS, Last Ranch, LLC ("Applicant"), applied for changes to both the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map (247-22-000574-PA) and the Deschutes County Zoning Map (247-22-
000573-ZC), to change the comprehensive plan designation of the subject property from
Agricultural (AG) to Rural Industrial (RI), and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm
Use (EFU) to Rural Industrial (RI); and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was
held on March 21, 2023, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on June 12, 2023, the
Hearings Officer recommended denial unless the Applicant demonstrates the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal
5;
WHEREAS, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), the Board of County Commissioners ("Board")
heard de novo the applications to change the comprehensive plan designation of the subject
property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Industrial (RI) and a corresponding zone change from
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Industrial (RI); now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as
follows:
PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2024-006
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is
amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted
on the map set forth as Exhibit "B" from AG to RI, with both exhibits attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation
from EFU to RI for certain property described in Exhibit "A' and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit
"C", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative
History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference
herein, with new language underlined.
Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance the
Decision of the Board of County Commissioners as set forth in Exhibit "F" and incorporated by
reference herein. The Board also incorporates in its findings in support of this decision, the
Recommendation of the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit "G" and, and site specific Economic,
Social, Environmental, and Energy analysis, attached as Exhibit "H", each incorporated by reference
herein.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 90t" day after the date of
adoption.
Dated this of , 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2024-006
Date of 1 "'Reading: day of 2024.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2024.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Patti Adair —
Anthony DeBone—
Phil Chang
Effective date: day of 2024.
ATTEST
Recording Secretary
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2024-006
Exhibit "A" To Ordinance 2024-006
Legal Description of Subject Property
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Real property in the County of Deschutes, State of Oregon, described as
follows:
PARCEL I :
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SEI/4
NW1/4) OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 16 SOUTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE
MERIDIAN, ALSO DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF PARCEL 1, PARTITION PLAT 1993-32,
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
STARTING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SE1/4 NWI/4; THENCE SOUTH 89 40' EAST ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SE1/4 NW1/4,1,084.21 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE PILOT
BUTTE CANAL AS NOW LOCATED; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF
SAID PILOT BUTTE CANAL AS NOW LOCATED, 1,415 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SEi/4 NWI/4; THENCE NORTH 89 50'30" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SE1/4
NW1/4, 484.6 FEET TO THE SW CORNER OF SAID SE1/4 NW1/4; THENCE NORTH 0 00,
1,330.89 FEET TO THE NW CORNER OF SAID SEi/4 NW1/4, BEING THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. EXCEPTING A STRIP OF LAND HERETOFORE CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF
OREGON FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. ALSO, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SWi/4 NW1/4) OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 16 SOUTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE DALLES-CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY NO.
97.
PARCEL II:
THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4 NW1/4)
OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 16 SOUTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN,
ALSO DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF PARCEL 1, PARTITION PLAT 1993-32, DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE DALLES-CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY AND
NORTHERLY OF THE NICHOLS MARKET ROAD.
PARCEL III:
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
26, TOWNSHIP 16, SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, ALSO
DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF PARCEL 1, PARTITION PLAT 1993-32, DESCHUTES COUNTY,
OREGON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE DALLES-CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY NO.97 AND SOUTHERLY
AND WESTERLY OF THE PILOT BUTTE CANAL.
NOTE: This legal description was created prior to January 1, 2008.
PROPOSED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
® Plan Amendment Boundary COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Exhibit "B"
to Ordinance 2024-006
� V
0 200 400 800
Feet
May 31,2024
Patti Adair, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of , 2024
Effective Date: , 2024
PROPOSED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Q Zone Change Boundary OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
County Zoning ZONING
Patti Adair, Chair
EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Exhibit "C"
to Ordinance 2024-006 Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
MUA10 -Multiple Use Agricultural
RR10 - Rural Residential
RC - Rural Commercial
RI - Rural Industrial
� V
" 200 400 800
Mmmmq Feet
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of 2024
Effective Date: 2024
May 31, 2024
TITLE 23 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 and
found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated
by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. [Repealed by Ordinance 2013-001, §11
D. [Repealed by Ordinance 2023-017)
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
T. [Repealed by Ordinance 2016-027 §1]
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein.
V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
AC. [repealed by Ord. 2019-010 §1, 2019]
AD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
Al. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
AJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein.
AL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
AM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AO. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
AR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
AT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
AU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
AW. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AX. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AY. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AZ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
BA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2022-011, are incorporated by reference herein. (superseded by Ord. 2023-015)
BC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2022-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
BD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
BF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-010 are incorporated by reference herein.
BG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
BH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-015, are incorporated by reference herein.
BI. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-025, are incorporated by reference herein.
BJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
BL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-017, are incorporated by reference herein.
BM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
BN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2024-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan)
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2011-027 §10 on 111912011
Adopted by Ord. 2011-003 §2 on 111912011
Amended by Ord. 2011-017 §5 on 1113012011
Amended by Ord. 2012-012 §1, 2, 3, 4 on 812012012
Amended by Ord. 2012-005 §1 on 1111912012
Amended by Ord. 2013-002 §1 on 11712013
Repealed by Ord. 2013-001 §1 on 11712013
Amended by Ord. 2013-005 §1 on 112312013
Amended by Ord. 2012-016 §1 on 31412013
Amended by Ord. 2013-009 §1 on 51812013
Amended by Ord. 2013-012 §1 on 81812013
Amended by Ord. 2013-007 §1 on 812812013
Amended by Ord. 2014-005 §2 on 212612014
Amended by Ord. 2014-006 §2 on 311512014
Amended by Ord. 2014-012 §1 on 81612014
Amended by Ord. 2014-021 §1 on 1112612014
Amended by Ord. 2015-029 §1 on 1113012015
Amended by Ord. 2015-010 §1 on 1212112015
Amended by Ord. 2015-021 §1 on 212212016
Amended by Ord. 2015-018 §1 on 312812016
Amended by Ord. 2016-001 §1 on 41512016
Amended by Ord. 2016-022 §1 on 912812016
Repealed & Reenacted by Ord. 2016-027 §1, 2 on 1212812016
Amended by Ord. 2016-005 §1 on 212712017
Amended by Ord. 2016-029 §1 on 312812017
Amended by Ord. 2017-007 §1 on 111112017
Amended by Ord. 2018-002 §1 on 112512018
Amended by Ord. 2018-005 §2 on 1011012018
Amended by Ord. 2018-008 §1 on 1012612018
Amended by Ord. 2018-008 §1 on 1012612018
Amended by Ord. 2018-008 §1 on 1012612018
Amended by Ord. 2018-006 §1 on 1112012018
Amended by Ord. 2018-011 §1 on 1211112018
Amended by Ord. 2019-004 §1 on 311412019
Amended by Ord. 2019-003 §1 on 311412019
Amended by Ord. 2019-002 §1 on 41212019
Amended by Ord. 2019-001 §1 on 411612019
Amended by Ord. 2019-010 §1 on 51812019
Amended by Ord. 2019-011 §1 on 511712019
Amended by Ord. 2019-006 §1 on 611112019
Amended by Ord. 2019-019 §2 on 1211112019
Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §26 on 412112020
Amended by Ord. 2020-003 §1 on 512612020
Amended by Ord. 2020-002 §1 on 512612020
Amended by Ord. 2020-008 §5 on 912212020
Amended by Ord. 2020-007 §1 on 1012712020
Amended by Ord. 2020-006 §1 on 1111012020
Amended by Ord. 2020-009 §4 on 11/1712020
Amended by Ord. 2020-013 §1 on 1112412020
Amended by Ord. 2021-002 §3 on 412712021
Amended by Ord. 2021-005 §1 on 611612021
Amended by Ord. 2021-008 §1 on 613012021
Amended by Ord. 2022-001 §2 on 711212022
Amended by Ord. 2022-003 §2 on 711912022
Amended by Ord. 2022-006 §2 on 712212022
Amended by Ord. 2022-010 §1 on 1012512022
Amended by Ord. 2023-001 §1 on 31112023
Amended by Ord. 2022-013 §2 on 311412023
Amended by Ord. 2023-007 §19 on 412612023
Amended by Ord. 2023-010 §1 on 612112023
Amended by Ord. 2023-018 §1 on 813012023
Amended by Ord. 2023-015 §3 on 911312023
Amended by Ord. 2023-025 §1 on 1112912023
Amended by Ord. 2024-001§1 on 0113112024
Amended by Ord. 2024-003§3 on 0212112024
Amended by Ord. 2023-017§1 on 0312012024
Amended by Ord. 2023-016§3 on 051812024
Amended by Ord. 2024-006§3 on TBD
Sect'ovL 57-12 LegtsLat�Ve �ftstoru
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table S.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Effective
Chapter/Section
Amendment
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
201 1-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
Community Plans,
Deschutes Junction,
Comprehensive Plan update
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments to
201 1-027
10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
23.40A, 23.40B,
ensure a smooth transition to
23.40.065, 23.01.010
the updated Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix C
(added)
System Plan
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4.1, 4.2
La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary
2012-016
12-3-12/3-4-13
3.9
Housekeeping amendments to
Destination Resort Chapter
Central Oregon Regional
2013-002
1-7-13/ 1-7-13
4.2
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2013-009
2-6-13/5-8-13
1.3
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Newberry Country: A Plan
2013-007
5-29-13/8-27-13
3.10, 3.1 1
for Southern Deschutes
Count
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-016
10-21-13/ 10-21-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Sisters
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
2014-012
4-2-14/7-1-14
3.10, 3.1 1
Housekeeping amendments to
Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-02 I
8-27-14/ I I -25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver UrbanUnincorporated
Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utilit
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010, 5.10
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-021
1 1-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-029
1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Tumalo
Residential 5-Acre Minimum
to Tumalo Industrial
2015-018
12-9-15/3-27-16
23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3
Housekeeping Amendments
to Title 23.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Text and
2015-010
12-2-15/ 12-2-15
2.6
Map Amendment recognizing
Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat
Inventories
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-00 I
12-21- 15/04-5-16
23.0 1.0 10; 5.10
designation of certainproperty
from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial (exception
area
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to add an
exception to Statewide
2016-007
2-10-16/5-10-16
23.01.010; 5.10
Planning Goal I I to allow
sewers in unincorporated
lands in Southern Deschutes
Count
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non-
2016-005
1 1-28-16/2-16-17
23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
Comprehensive plan
2016-022
9-28-16/ 1 1-14-16
23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/ 10-30-17
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
20 18-002
I -3- 18/ I -25- 18
23.0 I , 2.6
Amendment permittingchurches
in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining Mineral
2018-006
8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
and Aggregate Inventory;
modifying Goal 5 Inventory of
Cultural and Historic
Resources
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2018-0 I I
9- 12- 18/ 12- I I -18
23.0 I.010
designation of certainproperty
from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Plain Comprehensive Plan
2018-005
9-19-18/ 10-10-18
Community Plan,
Designation; Comprehensive
Newberry Country Plan
Plan Amendment adding Flood
Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
2018-008
9-26- 18/ 10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
potential of new properties tobe
designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
to Rural Residential Exception
Area; Modifying Goal 5
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; Modifying Non -
Significant Mining Mineral and
A re ate Inventor
Comprehensive Plan and Text
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Amendment to add a new
zone to Title 19: Westside
Transect Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
2019-003
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
2019-004
02- 12- 19/03- 12- 19
23.01.010, 4.2
Redmond Urban GrowthArea
for the expansion of the
Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate
the refinement of the Skyline
Ranch Road alignment and the
2019-01 1
05-01-19/05-16/ 19
23.01.010, 4.2
refinement of the West Area
Master Plan Area I boundary.
The ordinance also amends
the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2019-006
03-13-19/06-1 1-19
23.01.010,
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments incorporating
language from DLCD's 2014
2019-016
1 1-25-19/02-24-20
23.01.01, 2.5
Model Flood Ordinance and
Establishing a purpose
statement for the Flood Plain
Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2019-019
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2020-001
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Redmond Urban Growth
Boundary through an equal
exchange of land to/from the
Redmond UGB. The exchange
property is being offered to
better achieve land needs that
2020-002
2-26-20/5-26-20
23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2
were detailed in the 2012 SB
1544 by providing more
development ready land
within the Redmond UGB.
The ordinance also amends
the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment with exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 11
2020-003
02-26-20/05-26-20
23.01.01, 5.10
(Public Facilities and Services)
to allow sewer on rural lands
to serve the City of Bend
Outback Water Facility.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
roundabouts at US 20/Cook-
2020-008
06-24-20/09-22-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
O.B. Riley and US 20/01d
Bend -Redmond Hwy
intersections; amend Tables
5.33 1 and 5.332 and amend
TSP text.
Housekeeping Amendments
2020-007
07-29-20/ 10-27-20
23.01.010, 2.6
correcting references to two
Sage Grouse ordinances.
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to update the
County's Resource List and
2020-006
08-12-20/ 1 1-10-20
23.01.01, 2.1 1, 5.9
Historic Preservation
Ordinance to comply with the
State Historic Preservation
Rule.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add reference
2020-009
08-19-20/ 1 1-17-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
to J turns on US 97 raised
median between Bend and
Redmond; delete language
about disconnecting
Vandevert Road from US 97.
Comprehensive Plan Text
And Map Designation for
Certain Properties from
Surface Mine (SM) and
Agriculture (AG) To Rural
2020-013
08-26-20/ 1 1 /24/20
23.01.01, 5.8
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) and Remove Surface
Mining Site 461 from the
County's Goal 5 Inventory of
Significant Mineral and
Aggregate Resource Sites.
Comprehensive Plan Map
202 I -002
01-27-2 I /04-27-2 I
23.0 1.01
Designation for CertainProperty
from Agriculture
AG To Rural Industrial (RI)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property from
2021-005
06-16-21 /06-16-21
23.01.01, 4.2
Agriculture (AG) To
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and text
amendment
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property Adding
2021-008
06-30-21/09-28-21
23.01.01
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and Fixing
Scrivener's Error in Ord.
2020-022
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-001
04-13-22/07-12-22
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exce tion Area RREA
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-003
04-20-22/07-19-22
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exce tion Area RREA
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2022-006
06-22-22/08-19-22
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
07-27-22/ 10-25-22
Comprehensive Plan Map
2022-01 1
(superseded by
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Ord. 2023-015)
Property from Agriculture
AG To Rural Industrial RI
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2022-013
12-14-22/03-14-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting the location for the
2023-001
03-01-23/05-30-23
23.01.010, 5.9
Lynch and Roberts Store
Advertisement, a designated
Cultural and Historic
Resource
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-007
04-26-23/6-25-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-010
06-21-23/9-17-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-018
08-30-23/ 1 1-28-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
2023-015
9-13-23/ 12-12-23
23.0 I.010
Designation for CertainProperty
from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2023-025
1 1-29-23/2-27-24
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2024-001
01-31-24/4-30-24
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2024-003
2-21-24/5-21-24
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
(SM) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
23.01(D) (repealed),
2023-017
3-20-24/6-18-24
23.01(BL) (added), 3.7
(amended), Appendix C
Updated Transportation
System Plan
(replaced)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
2024-006
TBD
23.01.010
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 10
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
=Mailinge:
une 13, 2023
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING DATE:
HEARING LOCATION:
APPLICANT/OWNER:
SUBJECT PROPERTIES:
247-22-000573-ZC / 247-22-000574-PA
March 21, 2023, 6:00 p.m.
Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
Mark Rubbert; Last Ranch, LLC
Map and Tax Lots:
161226B000101
161226B000700
161226B000800
Situs Addresses:
No Situs Address
64994 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, OR 97701
64975 Deschutes Pleasant Road, Bend, OR 97701
REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Properties
from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Industrial (RI) and a
corresponding Zone Change to rezone the properties from
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial (RI).
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the record is not sufficient to
support the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change, specifically with respect to the
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5. The Hearings Officer therefore recommends the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners DENY the Application unless the Applicant demonstrates the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5.
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Page I 1
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM)
Chapter 18.100, Rural Industrial Zone
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Appendix C, Transportation System Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) - Chapter 660
Division 12, Transportation Planning
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals
Division 33, Agricultural Land
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Chapter 215.010, Definitions
Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment
11. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
A. Nature of Proceeding
This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as a request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment ("Plan Amendment") to change the designation of the Subject Properties from Agricultural
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI). The Applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map
Amendment ("Zone Change") to change the zoning of the Subject Properties from Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial (RI). The basis of the request in the Application is the Applicant's assertion
that the Subject Properties do not qualify as "agricultural land" under the applicable provisions of the
Oregon Revised Statutes or Oregon Administrative Rules governing agricultural land. Based on that
assertion, the Applicants are not seeking an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 for the Plan
Amendment or Zone Change.
B. Notices, Hearing, Record Materials
The Application was filed on July 13, 2022. Following notice from the Deschutes County Planning
Division ("Staff") that the Application was incomplete, the Applicant provided responses to the
incomplete letter on November 14, 2022, and confirmed no further information or materials would be
provided. Staff therefore deemed the Application to be complete as of that date.
Page 12
On January 26, 2023, after the Application was deemed complete, Staff mailed a Notice of Public Hearing
to all property owners within 750 feet of the Subject Properties ("Hearing Notice"). The Hearing Notice
was also published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, January 29, 2023. Notice of the Hearing was also
submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD").
Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on March 21, 2023,
opening the Hearing at 6:00 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 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 approximately 8:17 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 April 4, 2023 ("Open Record Period"); (2) any participant could submit rebuttal materials (evidence
or argument) until April 11, 2023 ("Rebuttal Period"); and (3) the Applicant could submit a final legal
argument, but no additional evidence, until April 18, 2023. 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.
A representative for the Applicant submitted a document on April 18, 2023, the due date for the
Applicant's final legal argument. That document responds to some of the arguments previously raised by
other participants. However, it also includes statements and attachments that were not previously in the
record. Because the Applicant's final legal argument should have included only argument and no new
evidence, I have not considered any of the evidentiary materials in that submittal that were not already in
the record.'
C. Review Period
Because the Application includes a request for the Plan Amendment, the 150-day review period set forth
in ORS 215.427(1) is not applicable.2 The Staff Report also concludes that the 150-day review period is
not applicable by virtue of Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") 22.20.040(D). No participant to
the proceeding disputes that conclusion.
' Specifically, this submittal includes: (1) a letter, dated November 29, 2015, relating to County file 247-
14-000456; (2) excerpts from a soil study relating to County file PA-11-7; and (3) testimony from the
Applicant regarding its attempt to offer the Subject Properties to others for agricultural use.
2 ORS 215.427(7).
Page 13
III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Staff Report
On March 7, 2023, Staff issued a report setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting evidence in the
record at that time ("Staff Report" ).3
The Staff Report, although it expresses agreement with the Applicant in many places, does not make a
final recommendation. Instead, the Staff Report asks the Hearings Officer to determine if the Applicant
has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the Plan Amendment and the Zone Change. Other
participants objected to the Application, but did so primarily based on legal arguments and through the
submittal of additional evidence that supported those legal arguments, rather than dispute the evidence
provided by the Applicant and summarized in the Staff Report. As a result, much of the evidence provided
by the Applicant and summarized in the Staff Report remains unrefuted.
B. Findings
The legal criteria applicable to the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change were set forth in the
Hearing Notice and also appear in the Staff Report. No participant to this proceeding asserted that those
criteria do not apply, or that other criteria are applicable. This Recommendation therefore addresses each
of those criteria, as set forth below.
1. Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals
Pursuant to ORS 197.175(2), if the County amends its Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP" or "Plan"), it must
do so in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals (each a "Goal" and, together, the "Goals"). Because
the Plan has been acknowledged, the Plan Amendment must adhere to the procedures for a post -
acknowledged plan amendment ("PAPA") set forth in state statutes and rules. The fundamental disputes
raised in this proceeding relate to whether the Application satisfies the requirement for a PAPA and, more
specifically, whether the Applicant is required to take an exception to Goal 3, Goal 5, and Goal 14. The
disposition of those issues is relevant to the Applicant's ability to show compliance with the other criteria
applicable to the Plan Amendment and Zone Change. These findings will therefore address those issues
first.4
3 Other than the evidence provided by the Applicant, much of the evidence in the record was submitted
after the date of the Staff Report.
4 COLW, during the Hearing, also stated that the Application requires an exception to Goal 6 and Goal
11. I find that neither of those arguments were presented with enough detail that allows me to address
them in this Recommendation. With respect to Goal 6, COLW appears to be arguing that the Applicant
cannot satisfy Goal 6 without identifying the specific uses that will be developed on the Subject
Properties. However, COLW does not address the Application materials, which describe compliance
with Goal 6 through the County's acknowledged regulations in DCC Chapter 18.100. Based on the
materials in the record, I find that Goal 6 is satisfied and does not require an exception. With respect to
Page 14
Goal 3 — Agricultural Lands
Goal 3 and its implementing rules protect agricultural lands for farm uses The Applicant's proposed
Plan Amendment and Zone Change is premised on its assertion that the Subject Properties do not qualify
as "Agricultural Land" under Goal 3 and its implementing rules and, therefore, do not require protection
under Goal 3. Other participants in this proceeding — namely 1000 Friends of Oregon ("1000 Friends")
and Central Oregon Land Watch ("COLW") — assert that the Subject Properties do qualify as
"Agricultural Land" and, as a result, that the Plan Amendment requires the Applicant to seek an
exception to Goal 3.
All participants addressing this issue rely on the language in OAR 660-033-0020(I) that defines
"Agricultural Land" as follows:
(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes:
(A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -
VI soils in Eastern Oregon;
(B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in
ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability
for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of
water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns;
technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming
practices; and
(C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on
adjacent or nearby agricultural lands.
(b) Land in capability classes other than I-IVII-VI that is adjacent to or
intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IVII-VI within a farm unit, shall
be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped
or grazed;
The NRCS designation for the Subject Properties indicates they are predominantly Class I through Class
VI soils. Under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A), the Subject Properties would therefore qualify as Goal 3
agricultural land. Notwithstanding that designation, the Applicant relies on an Agricultural Soils
Capability Assessment (an "Order 1 soil survey") for the Subject Properties. The expert conclusion in
the Applicant's Order 1 soil survey is that the Subject Properties consist predominantly of Class VII and
Goal 11, COLW provided no additional detail other than the bare statement that an exception is
required. Again, COLW does not refute the information in the Application addressing this Goal, and I
find that, based on that information, Goal 11 is satisfied and does not require an exception.
s See, e.g., OAR 660-033-0010.
Page 15
Class VIII soils that are unsuitable for farm use and, therefore, do not qualify as agricultural land under
Goal 3.
1000 Friends and COLW do not dispute any of the facts or conclusions regarding the soil conditions set
forth in the Order 1 soil survey. Rather, they each argue that the NRCS designation is conclusive under
the Goal 3 implementing rules as a matter of law. COLW specifically argues the "Hearings Officer
cannot rely on information other than the predominant NRCS land capability classification to determine
whether the subject property meets LCDC's special definition of `agricultural land."'
The legal argument 1000 Friends and COLW present — that only the NRCS designation can be relied on
— is contrary to other state statutes and administrative rules addressing this issue. As the Land Use Board
of Appeals ("LUBA") recently explained, "ORS 215.211 allows a site -specific analysis of soils where a
person believes that such information would, compared to the information provided by the NRCS, assist
a county in determining whether land is agricultural land."6 In that case, which is remarkably similar to
the present case, the applicant sought a PAPA to change a property's Plan designation from AG to RI
with a corresponding zone change from EFU-TRB to RI. The applicant in that case also relied on a site -
specific Order 1 soil survey prepared by a qualified soil scientist. LUBA upheld the County's reliance
on that soil survey as part of its determination that the property at issue in that case consisted
predominantly of Class VII and Class VIII soils unsuitable for farming.
Based on the language in ORS 215.211 and LUBA's acknowledgment of that statute, I find that the
County is not precluded from considering the Order 1 soil survey when applying OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(A), as long as doing so is consistent with OAR 660-033-0030(5), which implements ORS
215.211.
I again note that, because the participants raising this issue argued that the Hearings Officer must rely
only on the NRCS classification, no participant disputed the information or conclusions in the Order 1
soil survey, nor did they dispute whether the survey complies with OAR 660-033-0030(5). Even so, I
find that the record shows the Applicant's Order 1 soil survey does comply with that administrative rule,
as explained in the following findings.
OAR 660-033-0030(5)(a) requires that the alternative to the NRCS include more detailed data on soil
capability and be "related to the NRCS land capability classification system." Information provided by
the Applicant's soil scientist states that the NRCS classification for the Subject Property was completed
at a very broad scale and based on high altitude photography, whereas the Order 1 soil survey has more
detailed data based on onsite field research. Further, the soil scientist states that the Order 1 soil survey
uses the same NRCS classification system, but applies more precise mapping of soil map units with
better distribution and quantification of each unit.
OAR 660-033-0030(5)(b) requires the person seeking to use the alternative soil survey to request DLCD
"to arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen
6 Central Oregon Land Watch v. Deschutes County, Or LUBA
2023) ("LUBA No. 2023-008").
Page 16
(LUBA No. 2023-008, April 24,
by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045." The Applicant asserts this
requirement is met through its coordination with DLCD, and the record includes a letter from DLCD
indicating the Order 1 soil survey is consistent with the agency's reporting requirements.
The remaining portions of this rule are procedural in nature and there is no dispute among the
participants whether these procedures apply to the Application or whether the Applicant followed those
procedures.
Based on the foregoing, and considering the more detailed evidence provided by the Applicant's soil
scientist against the NRCS designation of the Subject Properties, I find that that the Subject Properties
do not qualify as agricultural land under Goal 3 as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A). That does
not end the inquiry, however, as 1000 Friends and COLW each argue that the Subject Properties qualify
as agricultural land under the other sections of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a).
Turning to OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B), the Subject Properties may qualify for Goal 3 protections if
they are "suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility;
suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation
purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming
practices."
1000 Friends argues that the Subject Properties are currently in farm tax deferral status, have water
rights, and contain certain farm structures such as a goat barn and farm implement garage. COLW
provides an exhaustive list of various farm commodities that occur throughout the County and, like 1000
Friends, asserts that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the Subject Properties cannot be used for
some of those purposes.
The Applicant provides an exhaustive history of the site and its relationship to various farm activities.
According to that history, the chain of owners for the Subject Property since 1941 has mostly consisted
of retirees who were not engaged in farming. Prior to that time, there were apparently limited farming
activities on the site at a time when the Subject Properties were part of larger holdings that also had farm
uses. While the Subject Property does have some historical water rights, the Applicant notes that not all
of those rights have been developed. Other structures were apparently used for small-scale hobby
farming activities rather than for profitable farm uses. More recent uses of the site, however, included
use as a roadside attraction called the "Funny Farm" which, according to the Applicant, at one point had
a "hot dog eating goat."
Testimony opposing the Application describing how the property could be used, and the Applicant's
testimony describing how the property has been used, do not resolve this issue. Instead, OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(B) requires an assessment of whether the Subject Properties are "suitable for farm use as
defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a)" based on the various factors set forth in this rule. To that end, only the
Applicant has fully addressed those factors.
With respect to soil fertility and cattle grazing, the Applicant relies on the Order 1 soil survey to
demonstrate that the soils are not fertile and that the property is unsuitable for grazing. The Applicant
notes that this also makes it difficult to provide food for other non -grazing animals. With respect to
Page 17
climatic conditions, the Applicant notes the limited growing season, cold temperatures, and current
drought conditions also hamper farin activities. While some water for farm irrigation purposes is
available, the Applicant notes that irrigating the soils on the Subject Property is not warranted in light of
their low classification. The Applicant also asserts that existing land use patterns in the area are not
conducive to agriculture, for example because the Subject Properties are surrounded by non -farm uses
and disrupted by the transportation system.
Overall, the Applicant asserts that the technological and energy inputs required to conduct farm uses are
too great, which the Applicant believes is a major reason the Subject Properties have not historically
been farmed.
ORS 215.203(2)(a) defines "farm use" in part as "the current employment of land for the primary
purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding,
management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fair -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."
Considering the factors set forth in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B), I find that it is more likely than not
that the Subject Properties are not suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a). While it may
be possible to conduct some farm activities on the site, that is not the same as employing the land for the
primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money from those activities. The low productive soils serve as
an initial limit on any profitable farm activities. As the Applicant's soil scientist notes, even irrigating
the soils found on site does not improve their quality for farm uses. The Subject Properties are relatively
small, irregularly -shaped, and bisected by a rocky outcropping, compounding the difficulties associated
with the soil conditions. The portion of the site with the best soils is even smaller and not large enough
to support meaningful farming activities. Further, while historical use of the site is not determinative of
its current suitability, it is notable that the majority of the farming activities taking place on the site
occurred at a time when the Subject Properties were part of a larger tract, or were part of a residential
use.
Finally, under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C), the Subject Properties may still be considered agricultural
land if they include land "that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby agricultural lands."
1000 Friends asserts that the presence of a Central Oregon Irrigation District ("COID") canal on the
Subject Properties, which is used to convey irrigation water to other farms, demonstrates the Subject
Properties qualify as agricultural land under this rule. That argument, however, is difficult to follow
because it is based on the assertion that the Applicant "must address the proposed rezone's potential
impact on agricultural uses in the surrounding area based on the presence of the COID irrigation canals
on and abutting the property." This rule does not appear to impose any sort of "impacts test," and the
question is whether the Subject Properties, not a canal on the property owned by a third party, are
necessary to permit farm practices on adjacent and nearby lands. In contrast, the Applicant notes that
very few farm practices occur on adjacent and nearby lands, even on nearby lands that currently have a
farm use designation. The Applicant was unable to identify any land that relies on the Surrounding
Properties for their faun practices. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find that the
Applicant has met its burden of addressing that rule provision.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Applicant has met its burden of demonstrating the Subject
Properties do not qualify as agricultural lands under Goal 3 and, as a result, an exception to Goal 3 is not
required.
Goal 5 — Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
Goal 5 and its implementing rules protect natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces.
Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(3), the County does not have to apply Goal 5 as part of a PAPA "unless
the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource." One scenario in which a PAPA may affect a Goal 5 resource is when
the "PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource
site on an acknowledged resource list."'
COLW argues that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change is in direct conflict with a Goal 5 resource and,
therefore, requires compliance with Goal 5. The Goal 5 resource COLW refers to is the County's
designation of a scenic corridor along Highway 97 between Bend and Redmond as a scenic resource.
The County regulates conflicting uses with the Highway 97 scenic resource through the application of the
Landscape Management Combining Zone ("LM Zone"), which the County applies to the area that is
within one -quarter mile of the highway. The Subject Properties fall within the area subject to that zone.
The Applicant does not fully respond to COLW's Goal 5 argument. Instead, the Applicant asserts that
there is no need to apply Goal 5 in light of the County's acknowledged Plan, which contains the LM Zone.
According to the Applicant, to the extent there are any conflicts with the scenic resource, those will be
resolved at the time when specific development occurs and the County requires site plan approval for any
structures within the LM Zone. The Applicant specifically states that "[t]he zone change and plan
amendment do not trigger this provision."
The Applicant's argument appears consistent with prior County decisions. However, LUBA No. 2023-
008 is again instructive, and it rejects the Applicant's approach to Goal 5. In that case, LUBA explained
that its prior decisions require a local jurisdiction "to apply Goal 5 if the PAPA allows a new use that
could conflict with Goal 5 resources." LUBA then directly addressed the situation presented in this case
and analyzed "whether the new RI zoning allows uses on the subject property that were not allowed under
the previous EFU zoning and whether those uses could conflict with protected Goal 5 resources."
LUBA's decision acknowledged that the County previously conducted the appropriate Goal 5 analysis for
other RI -zoned properties and applied the LM Zone to protect the Highway 97 scenic resource from
conflicting uses on those properties. However, LUBA determined that, in the absence of evidence showing
the prior Goal 5 analysis considered impacts from RI -type development on all properties, that analysis did
not consider whether RI uses on farm -zoned property affected a Goal 5 resource. Indeed, LUBA concluded
OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b).
Page 19
that "the county could not have, in its [prior Goal 5 analysis], evaluated whether development of those
new uses on the subject property would excessively interfere with the protected scenic resource because
those uses were not allowed on the property" at that time. Because the County's decision in that case
allowed "new uses that could conflict with inventoried Goal 5 resources," LUBA concluded the County
was required to address Goal 5 and, specifically, to comply with OAR 660-023-0250(3).
Based on that LUBA decision, I find that the Applicant's argument that Goal 5 is not applicable is
incorrect. The Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow new uses on the Subject Property that
could conflict with a protected Goal 5 resource. It may be possible for the Applicant to show that the
County's prior Goal 5 analysis considered such development on the Subject Properties, or, if not, the
Applicant may be able to demonstrate that the new uses allowed on the Subject Properties do not
significantly affect a Goal 5 resource. However, I find that the current record does not allow me to address
either option. I therefore find that I cannot recommend approval of the Application on this basis and the
Applicant must address this issue further before the Application is approved.
Goal 14 — Urbanization
Goal 14 and its implementing rules "provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use." See OAR 660-015-0000(14).
COLW asserts that the Application violates Goal 14. COLW's specific argument is that the designation
of the Subject Properties to the RI zone would constitute urbanization of the Subject Properties. COLW
asserts that the County must further analyze the Application and either make a determination that the Plan
Amendment "does not offend the goal because it does not in fact convert rural land to urban uses, or it
may comply with the goal by obtaining acknowledgment of an urban growth boundary based upon
considering [sic] of factors specified in the goal, or it may justify an exception to the goal."
The heart of this issue is whether the RI zone actually authorizes urban uses. COLW argues that this can
be determined only by the application of a "Shaffer analysis." The Shaffer analysis is a reference to Shaffer
v. Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989), in which LUBA concluded that the determination of whether
a use is urban or rural must be made on a case -by -case basis, considering factors discussed in that case
(e.g. workforce size, dependency on resources, public facility requirements).
The flaw in COLW's argument is that the County has already determined that all uses in the RI Zone are
rural in nature. That decision was upheld on review by LUBA and the Court of Appeals. See Central
Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2022-075, Dec. 6, 2002); aff'd 324
Or App 655 (2023). In that case, LUBA concluded in part:
the county correctly determined that the policies and provisions of the DCCP and
DCC that apply to the RI zone are independently sufficient to demonstrate that
PAPAs that apply the RI plan designation and zone to rural land are consistent with
Goal 14 and that uses and development permitted pursuant to those acknowledged
provisions constitute rural uses, do not constitute urban uses, and maintain the land
as rural land.
Page 110
LUBA addressed the same issue in LUBA No. 2023-008. In that case, LUBA reiterated its holding and
rationale in an earlier case, again concluding "that the county was entitled to rely on its acknowledged RI
zone to ensure compliance with Goal 14.
The two prior LUBA cases, one of which has already been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are clear.
The County's RI zone complies with Goal 14. For that reason, I find that the Applicant has demonstrated
the Application does not propose urban uses and Goal 14 is satisfied without the need to take an exception
to that Goal.
2. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative
map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-
judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on, forms provided by the
Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
The owner of the Subject Properties has requested a quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and filed an
application for that purpose, together with an application for the requested Zone Change. No participant
to this proceeding objects to this process. I find it appropriate to review the Application using the
applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards
The applicant. for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served
by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are. -
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with
the plan's introductory statement and goals.
According to the Applicant, this Code provision requires a consideration of the public interest based on
whether: (1) the Zone Change conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and (2) the change is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan's introduction statement and goals. No participant to this proceeding disputes
that interpretation. I also find that this is the appropriate method for applying this Code provision.
With respect to the first factor, the Applicant asserts the Application conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
because it conforms to the procedural components of the Comprehensive Plan, re -designates the Subject
Properties to a designation allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, does not result in the loss of resource
land, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses and character of the land in the vicinity of the
Subject Properties. With the exception of the assertion that no loss of resource land will result — addressed
in more detail above relating to Goal 3 — no participant in this proceeding objects to the Applicant's
assertions in this regard.
Page 111
With respect to the second factor, the Applicant notes that introductory statements and goals in the
Comprehensive Plan are not approval criteria, and no participant to this proceeding asserts otherwise.
Additionally, the Applicant identifies several Comprehensive Plan policies and goals, and then analyzes
whether the Application is consistent with those policies and goals. The Applicant specifically points to
some of the policies and goals in Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management, of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Applicant states that the Application is consistent with those policies and goals, largely based on their
reference to "Deschutes Junction", which is the area encompassing the Subject Properties, and the
historic non -resource use of that area. While some participants to this proceeding dispute the extent to
which the Plan Amendment and Zone Change would "urbanize" the Subject Properties, there does not
appear to be any dispute about the historical non -resource use of the Deschutes Junction area or whether
the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with the goals and policies the Applicant identifies.
As explained in more detail in earlier findings, the contested issues in this proceeding address whether the
Application satisfies the standards for a Plan Amendment as required by state law (e.g. whether the request
requires an exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 5, and 14). The arguments raised in support of those
contested issues do mention some policies in the County's current Plan. However, those policies are relied
on as the basis for arguing that certain exceptions are required to the Goals, and they are not presented in
support of any specific argument that the Application violates Plan policies. Even so, for the same reason
that the Application is consistent with the Goals (other than Goal 5), I find that the Application conforms
to the Plan. Additional findings addressing Plan goals and policies are set forth later in this
Recommendation.
However, because the Plan also contains goals and policies implementing Goal 5, which I have concluded
has not been satisfied, I cannot conclude that the Zone Change conforms to all Plan policies, particularly
those that implement Goal 5, discussed below. I therefore find that this Code provision is not satisfied
unless and until the Applicant demonstrates compliance with that Goal.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the proposed zone classification.
Only the Applicant and Staff offer any evidence or argument with respect to whether the Zone Change is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the RI zoning district. Unlike almost every other zoning district,
DCC 18.100, which governs uses in the RI zoning district, does not contain a purpose statement. The RI
zoning district, appears to implement the Rural Industrial plan designation in the Comprehensive Plan,
and Section 3.4 of the Comprehensive Plan provides the following:
The county may apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to specific
property within existing Rural Industrial exception areas, or to any other
specific property that satisfies the requirements for a comprehensive plan
designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules,
this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Development Code,
and that is located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth
boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning brings these
areas and specific properties into compliance with state rules by adopting
zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less
Page 112
intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in
OAR 660-022.
As the Staff Report notes, the Subject Properties are not within existing Rural Industrial exception areas,
but they are located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. This Code section
is therefore satisfied only if the Application "satisfies the requirements for a Comprehensive Plan
designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules, the DCCP and the Deschutes
County Development Code."
This recommendation determines that the Application satisfies the requirements for a Plan designation
change, except as it relates to Goal 5. I therefore find that this Code provision is not satisfied unless and
until the Applicant demonstrates compliance with that Goal.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare
considering the following factors:
The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and, facilities.
Only the Applicant addresses this Code provision, and the Applicant provided the following as support
for why this criterion is met:
• The Applicant has received "will serve" letters from applicable service providers.
• Public facilities and services are available to serve future industrial development.
• On -site wastewater and sewage and disposal systems can be developed to meet specific user needs.
• The proposal satisfies the Transportation Planning Rule.
The Staff Report asks the Hearings Officer to determine the scope of public services and facilities that
must be reviewed as part of this Code provision. However, such a determination is likely to change on a
case -by -case basis, informed in part by the zoning designation being requested. As it applies to this case,
the Applicant has identified fire, police, electric power, domestic water, wastewater, and transportation as
being relevant. No participant has disputed the necessity of those services or identified other services that
are necessary. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I
find that this Code provision is satisfied as set forth in the Application.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and
policies contained within the Conprehensive Plan.
The Applicant states that the Applicant's proposal is consistent with all applicable Plan goals and
policies. In support of that statement, the Applicant refers to its discussion of those goals and policies as
they relate to DCC 18.136.020(A). The only discussion of those goals and policies by other participants
relates to their arguments that certain statewide Goals have not been satisfied. Those arguments are
addressed above. Although I conclude the Application is consistent with most Plan goals and policies,
for the same reasons I concluded DCC 18.136.020(A) is not satisfied, I conclude that this Code
provision is not satisfied; the current record does not demonstrate that impacts on surrounding land uses
will be consistent with some of the Plan's goals and policies implementing Goal 5.
Page 113
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake
was made in the zoning of the property in question.
Only the Applicant offers any evidence or argument with respect to this Code provision. According to the
Applicant, the original zoning of the Subject Properties did not take into account several factors, including
the low agricultural capability of the site. Further, conditions have changed over time, especially with
respect to the transportation system in the area and the development of other non -resource uses. No other
participant addresses this Code provision or otherwise disputes the Applicant's characterization of the
change in circumstances.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this
Code provision is satisfied.
3. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
The Applicant and the Staff Report identified several Plan goals and policies that may be relevant to the
Application.8
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 2 of the Plan relates to Resource Management. Section 2.2 of that Chapter relates specifically to
Agricultural Lands.
Goal 1, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry.
According to the Applicant, it is pursuing the Plan Amendment and Zone Change because the Subject
Properties do not constitute "agricultural lands", and therefore, it is not necessary to preserve or maintain
the Subject Properties as such. In support of that conclusion, the Applicant relies primarily on a soils report
showing the Subject Properties consist predominantly of Class VII and Class VIII non-agricultural soils.
Such soils have severe limitations for agricultural use as well as low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow
soils, abundant rock outcrops, low available water capacity, and major management limitations for
livestock grazing.
Other comments in the record assert that the Subject Properties qualify as agricultural land because of
their NRCS classification, or because they satisfy other definitions of "agricultural land" in OAR 660-
030-0020(1). Those arguments are addressed in earlier findings, which conclude the Subject Properties
are not agricultural land.
8 The Applicant and Staff Report note that earlier County decisions have concluded that many Plan goals
and policies are directed at the County rather than at an Applicant in a quasi-judicial proceeding. I
generally agree with respect to Plan goals, which provide the context for Plan policies. Plan goals are
therefore listed in this section to better explain the Plan policies that are being applied and considered.
However, some of the findings below do address the goal language specifically. Where the goal
language is not discussed, I have deemed that goal to not apply directly to a quasi-judicial application.
Page 114
With respect to the agricultural industry, the Applicant provides an analysis of surrounding land uses and
notes that the surrounding area contains mostly non-agricultural uses. Some opposing comments in the
record can be construed as asserting that the conversion of this land to an industrial use has a larger impact
on the agricultural industry. However, those comments presume that the Subject Properties are agricultural
land. Not only are the Subject Properties not agricultural land, the Applicant has demonstrated that no
other farm parcels rely on this parcel.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Application is consistent with this Plan goal.
Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study
and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are
adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3.
The Applicant has not asked to amend the EFU subzone that applies to the Subject Properties. Instead, the
Applicant requests a change under Plan Policy 2.2.3 and has provided evidence to support rezoning the
Subject Properties to the RI zone.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan.
Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that
qualify as non -resource land, for individual EFUparcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon
Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant requests approval of the Plan Amendment and Zone Change to re -designate the Subject
Properties from Agricultural to Rural Industrial and to rezone the Subject Properties from EFU to RI. The
Applicant does not seek an exception to Goal 3 for that purpose, but rather seeks to demonstrate that the
Subject Properties do not meet the state definition of "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 and its
implementing rules.
The Staff Report notes that the County has previously relied on LUBA's decision in Wetherell v. Douglas
County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006), where LUBA states as follows:
As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820
(1988), there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow
nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm use or
forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and
Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate
the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under
the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues the latter option, it
must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning
designation, neither Goal 3 or Goal 4 applies to the property.
The facts presented in the Application are similar to those in the Wetherall decision and in other
Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change applications. Under this reasoning, the Applicant
Page 115
has the potential to prove the Subject Properties are not agricultural land, in which case an exception to
Goal 3 under state law is not required.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Policy 2.2.3 is satisfied only if the Plan Amendment is consistent with
state law. As discussed in previous findings, I have concluded that the Applicant has not demonstrated
compliance with Goal 5, which is a necessary requirement of the Plan Amendment. The Application is
therefore not consistent with this portion of the Plan unless and until the Applicant demonstrates
compliance with Goal 5.
Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how
EFUparcels can be converted to other designations.
The Applicant assert this plan policy is not an approval criterion and, instead, provides direction to
Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other
designations and that the Application is consistent with this policy. The Applicant also notes that prior
County decisions interpreting this policy have concluded that any failure on the County's part to adopt
Plan policies and Code provisions describing the circumstances under which EFU-zoned land may be
converted to a non -resource designation does not preclude the County from considering requests for
quasi-judicial plan amendments and zone changes.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan as described by the Applicant.
Goal 3, Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local
and emerging agricultural conditions and markets.
Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands.
This Plan policy requires the County to identify and retain agricultural lands that are accurately designated.
The Applicant proposes that the Subject Properties were not accurately designated, as discussed in more
detail in the findings above. While some participants have argued that the Subject Properties should retain
an agricultural designation, no participant has expressly asserted that the Application is inconsistent with
this Plan policy.
Based on the earlier findings that the Subject Properties are not agricultural land, I find that the Application
is consistent with Policy 2.2.13.
Section 2.5 of Plan Chapter 2 relates specifically to Water Resource Policies. The Applicant has
identified the following goal and policy in that section as relevant to the Application.
Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies.
Policy 2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant
land uses or developments.
Page 116
FINDING: The Applicant asserts that the Applicant is not required to address water impacts associated
with development because no specific development application is proposed at this time. Instead, the
Applicant will be required to address this criterion during development of the Subject Properties, which
would be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with Policy 2.5.24.
Section 2.7 of Plan Chapter 2 relates specifically to Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites and is the
County's implementation of Goal 5. Among the specific policies in this Section are:
Goal 1, Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and
scenic view and sites.
Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and visually important
areas including those that provide a visual separation between communities such as the open
spaces of Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually prominent.
Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites.
The initial Application did not address these policies, but the Applicant did provide supplemental
information and argument in response to a comment from Staff.
The Applicant assert that these policies are met because the Subject Properties are not visually prominent
and are relatively hidden by and lower than Highway 97 and other transportation facilities. The Applicant
notes that a I00-foot setback and 30-foot height limit will ensure that any new structures will be sensitive
to the LM zone.
COLW, although it did not address these policies directly, argues that the Plan Amendment is not
consistent with Goal 5 because it allows new uses that may conflict with a Goal 5 resource — the scenic
corridor along Highway 97. I find that these issues are related and, therefore, consider COLW's argument
applicable to these policies.
The Applicant responds to that argument by relying on the County's application of the LM zone as the
protection for that resource. The findings above, however, conclude that the current record is not sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with Goal 5.
Only the Applicant addresses whether the Application will allow development that is "sensitive to" scenic
resources. Based on the Applicant's unrefuted evidence and argument, I find that the Application is
consistent with Policy 2.7.5.
However, I do not arrive at the same conclusion for Policy 2.7.3. For the same reasons set forth in the
earlier findings relating to Goal 5, I find that the Application is not consistent with policy 2.7.3. The policy
Page 117
requires the County to support efforts to identify and protect scenic resources. The County has identified
the scenic corridor along Highway 97 as a scenic resource. That resource is protected through the County's
application of the LM zone. That protection, however, was put into place in the context of the Subject
Properties being zoned for farm use rather than industrial uses. The Applicant must demonstrate that the
County can continue to protect that inventoried resource with the Plan Amendment. It is not clear from
the record if the LM Zone protects the resource with the Plan Amendment.
Chapter 3 of the Plan relates to Rural Growth. Within that chapter, Section 3.4 relates specifically to Rural
Industrial uses. The Applicant and Staff have identified the following language in that section as relevant
to the Application.
In Deschutes County some properties are zoned Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial. The
initial applications for the zoning designations recognize uses that predated State land use laws.
However, it may be in the best interest of the County to provide opportunities for the establishment
of new Rural Industrial and Rural Commercial properties when they are appropriate and
regulations are met. Requests to re -designate property as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial
will be reviewed on a property -specific basis in accordance with state and local regulations.
Rural Industrial
The county may apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to specific property within existing
Rural Industrial exception areas, or to any other specific property that satisfies the requirements
for a comprehensive plan designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative
Rules, this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Development Code, and that is located
outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan
designation and zoning brings these areas and specific properties into compliance with state rules
by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive
than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022.
The language in this portion of the Plan is addressed in findings above relating to DCC Section
18.136.020(B). Those findings are incorporated here by this reference.'
Section 3.4 of Plan Chapter 3 relates to the County's goals for its rural economy.
' The Staff Report also identifies Policy 3.4.36 as applicable. That policy simply states that properties
for which it can be demonstrated Goal 3 does not apply may be considered for the RI designation under
the Plan. Because I have concluded that the Subject Properties are not agricultural land and do not
qualify for Goal 3 protections, the Application is consistent with that policy and the County can consider
applying the RI designation.
Page 118
Goal 1, Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a
healthy environment.
Policy 3.4.1 Promote rural economic initiatives, including home -based businesses, that maintain
the integrity of the rural character and natural environment.
a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic
development opportunities.
Policy 3.4.3 Support a regional approach to economic development in concert with Economic
Development for Central Oregon or similar organizations.
Addressing these policies, the Applicant asserts that the rural industrial designation will maintain a stable
and sustainable rural economy that is compatible with a rural lifestyle. In support of that argument, the
Applicant notes the potential number of jobs that can occur on the Subject Properties, some of which can
be held by rural residents. No participant refutes the Applicant's evidence or argument in this regard.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with these policies.
Lands Designated and Zoned Rural Industrial
Policy 3.4.23 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.
Whether the Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow urban uses is the same issue raised in
COLW's arguments that an exception to Goal 14 is required. Those arguments are addressed in more
detail in the findings above relating to Goal 14. Those findings are incorporated here and, based on those
findings, I find the Application is consistent with this Plan policy.
Policy 3.4.27 Land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within the Rural
Industrial sites do not adversely affect agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding area.
The Applicant asserts that there are no forest uses in the surrounding area, and that assertion is
unchallenged by any participant.
The Applicant addresses the agricultural component of this Plan policy by asserting that the Plan
Amendment and Zone Change do not have an adverse effect on agricultural uses in the surrounding area.
The Applicant notes there is one hobby farm nearby, and a nearby parcel with apple trees. The Applicant
consulted with the owners of both properties, each of which indicated the Applicant's proposal will not
Page 119
adversely affect them. The Applicant states it has also done an exhaustive inventory of uses within half
mile of the site and found no conflict with any agricultural uses. No participant to this proceeding asserts
this policy is not met or otherwise refutes the evidence the Applicant relies on.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this Plan policy.
Policy 3.4.28 New industrial uses shall be limited in size to a maximum floor area of 7,500 square
feet per use within a building, except for the primary processing of raw materials produced in
rural areas, for which there is no floor area per use limitation.
Policy 3.4.31 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by DEQ approved on -site sewage
disposal systems.
Policy 3.4.32 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by on -site wells or public water
systems.
The Applicant asserts that these policies are codified in Chapter 18.100 governing the RI Zone and are
implemented through those provisions. The Applicant also notes that the current residential and future
industrial uses are already being served by and will be served by a public water system. No participant to
this proceeding asserts this policy is not met or otherwise refutes the evidence the Applicant relies on.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with these policies.
Section 3.5 of Plan Chapter 3 relates to natural hazards. Goal I of that section is to "protect people,
property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards." Addressing this Plan
goal, the Applicant notes that there are no mapped flood or volcano hazards on the Subject Properties and
that there is no evidence of increased risk from hazards from wildfire, earthquake, or winter storm risks.
No participant to this proceeding asserts this goal is not met or otherwise refutes the evidence or argument
the Applicant relies on.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 3.7 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 relates specifically to Transportation. The Applicants and
Staff have identified the following goal and policy in that section as relevant to the Application.
Page 120
Appendix C — Transportation System Plan
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN
Goal 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and
diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility
and tourism.
Policy 4.1 Deschutes County shall:
a. Consider the road network to be the most important and valuable component of the
transportation system; and
b. Consider the preservation and maintenance and repair of the County road network to
be vital to the continued and future utility of the County's transportation system.
Policy 4.3 Deschutes County shall make transportation decisions with consideration of land use
impacts, including but not limited to, adjacent land use patterns, both existing and planned, and
their designated uses and densities.
Policy 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as
criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do
not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system.
The Applicant asserts that the Application is consistent with these policies. In support of that assertion,
the Applicant relies on a Transportation Impact Analysis ("TIA") prepared by a transportation engineer.
The County's Senior Transportation Planner reviewed the TIA, which the Applicant notes constitutes the
County's consideration of land use impacts and roadway function, classification, and capacity. No
participant to this proceeding asserts these goals and policies are not met or otherwise refutes the evidence
or argument the Applicant relies on.10
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 3.10 of Plan Chapter 3 contains provisions for "Area Specific Policies."
io The Staff Report notes that the County previously denied an application on the Subject Properties
based in part on certain traffic impacts. Staff requests the Hearings Officer address whether that prior
decision has any bearing on the present Application. I find that it does not. As noted by the County's
Senior Transportation Planner, that decision predates various transportation improvements the County
made on Highway 97. The Applicant can rely on the more recent TIA that is based on the transportation
system as it currently exists.
Page 121
Goal 1, Create area specific land use policies and/or regulations when requested by a community
and only after an extensive public process.
Deschutes Junction
Policy 3.10.5 Maximize protection of the rural character of neighborhoods in the Deschutes
Junction area while recognizing the intended development of properties designated for
commercial, industrial and agricultural uses.
The Applicant addresses this Plan policy with a detailed description of the history, previous owners,
surrounding uses and the transportation system of the Deschutes Junction area. The Applicant asserts that
the Plan Amendment and Zone Change is consistent with how the Deschutes Junction area has developed
and the rural character of that particular area. No participant to this proceeding asserts these goals and
policies are not met or otherwise refutes the evidence or argument the Applicant relies on."
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan.
4. Oregon Administrative Rules
In addition to the administrative rules discussed in the findings above relating to Goal 3, Goal 5, and Goal
14, the Applicant and the Staff Report identify and address several administrative rules as potentially
applicable to the Application. No other participant in this proceeding identified other applicable rules."
11 The Staff Report also identifies Policies 3.10.6 through 3.10.8 as potentially relevant and asks the
Hearings Officer to determine either if the policies apply or if they are satisfied. Policy 3.10.6 and 3.10.
require the County to review impacts to the transportation system. The County has done that through the
review of the Applicant's TIA. Policy 3.10.8 requires the County to review other policies and initiate a
Deschutes Junction Master Plan. I find that policy to be directed solely to the County and not applicable
to a quasi-judicial land use application.
" Some administrative rules the Applicants address, or which appear in the Staff Report, have been
omitted from this Recommendation where the rule does not expressly impose an approval criterion.
Page 122
OAR 660-006-0005
(7) "Forest lands " as defined in Goal 4 are those lands acknowledged as forest lands, or, in
the case of a plan amendment, forest lands shall include:
(a) Lands that are suitable for commercial forest uses, including adjacent or nearby
lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices; and
(b) Other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and f sh and wildlife resources.
The Applicant asserts that the Subject Properties do not qualify as forest land and, therefore, the
administrative rules relating to forest land are not applicable.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this administrative rule.
OAR 660-033-0030
(1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as
agricultural land.
(2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a lot or
parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However,
whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere
identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of
agricultural land set .forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This inquiry requires the
consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a
lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I -IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3
nonetheless defines as agricultural "lands in other classes which are necessary to permit
farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands ". A determination that a lot
or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by substantial evidence that
addresses each of the factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1).
(3) Goal 3 attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining
whether it is agricultural land. Neat -by or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be
examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either "suitable for farm use" or "necessary
to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands" outside the lot or
parcel.
This Recommendation finds that the Subject Properties do not qualify as agricultural land as defined by
administrative rule, and they are not suitable for farming. Based on the foregoing, I find that the
administrative rules do not require the Subject Properties to be inventoried as agricultural land. This
conclusion, however, does not alter other findings in this Recommendation relating to the process for
Page 123
redesignating the Subject Properties and the requirement to demonstrate the Plan Amendment is consistent
with Goal 5.
OAR 660-012-0060
(1) fan amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use
regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided
in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of
this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation
facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection
based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified
in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic
projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the
amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation
demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the
significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP
or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the pef formance of an existing or planned transportation facility
that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified
in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
This administrative rule is applicable to the Plan Amendment because it involves an amendment to an
acknowledged comprehensive plan. The Applicant asserts that the Plan Amendment will not result in a
significant effect to the transportation system. In support of that assertion, the Applicant submitted its TIA
(and supplemental information), discussed above. No participant to this proceeding disputed the
information in the TIA or otherwise objected to the use of that information. The County Transportation
Planner agreed with the TIA's conclusions as supplemented.
Page 124
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application satisfies this administrative rule.
(2) If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local
government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified
function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the
remedies listed in (a) through (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test
in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this
rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11)
to approve an amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion
may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional
capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion.
(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the
planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation
facility.
(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities,
improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent
with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding
plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the
transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be
provided by the end of the planning period.
(c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance
standards of the transportation facility.
(d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a
development agreement or similar fitnding method, including, but not limited to,
transportation system management measures or minor transportation
improvements. Local governments shall, as part of the amendment, specify when
measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided.
(e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly
affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected
facility, or improvements at other locations, if:
(A) The provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written
statement that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the
significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in
consistency for all performance standards;
Page 125
(B) The providers of facilities being improved at other locations provide
written statements of approval; and
(C) The local jurisdictions where facilities are being improved provide written
statements of approval.
While the Applicant's TIA concludes that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change would not have a
significant effect on the transportation system, that analysis appears to be premised on various
recommendations. As stated in the TIA:
1. It is recommended that right of way dedications along Pleasant Ridge Road be provided to
the County standard as part of any future development application. County standards
identify a 60-foot standard for Collectors.
2. The existing driveway onto Pleasant Ridge Road may require relocation to support
realignment of Graystone Lane's connection to Pleasant Ridge Road. The need for access
relocation should be addressed as part of any future land use application and coordinated
with the County's transportation planning and engineering departments. An approved
approach permit is required by the County for property access.
3. At the time of future property development transportation system development charges will
be applied, based on the specific use, to help fund regional transportation system
improvements.
Although these findings conclude that the record as a whole does not support approval of the Application,
the County Board may arrive at a different conclusion. If it does, I recommend the Board incorporate the
recommendations from the TIA in any final decision.
Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 15 of OAR chapter 660 sets forth the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, with which all
comprehensive plan amendments must demonstrate compliance. The Applicant asserts the Application is
consistent with all applicable Goals and Guidelines. Except for Goal 3, Goal 5, Goal 6, Goal 11, and Goal
14, which are addressed in more detail in earlier findings, and in the absence of any counter evidence or
argument, I adopt the Applicants' position on the remining Goals and find that the Plan Amendment and
Zone Change are consistent with the applicable Goals and Guidelines as follows:
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to the
public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the Applicants to post
a "proposed land use action sign" on the Subject Properties. Notice of the Hearings held regarding
this application was placed in the Bend Bulletin. A minimum of two public hearings will be held
to consider the Application.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies and processes related to zone change applications are
included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes
County Code. The outcome of the Application will be based on findings of fact and conclusions
of law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2.
Page 126
Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the Subject Properties do not include any
lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. here are no mapped flood or volcano
hazards on the subject property. Wildfire, earthquake, and winter storm risks are identified in the
County's DCCP. The subject property is not subject to unusual natural hazards nor is there any
evidence in the record that the proposal would exacerbate the risk to people, property,
infrastructure, the economy, and/or the environment from these hazards on -site or on surrounding
lands.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs. The property is not a recreational site. The proposed plan amendment
and zone change do not affect recreational needs, and nonspecific development of the property is
proposed. Therefore, the proposal does not implicate Goal 8.
Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state
for a variety of economic activities. The Applicant asserts that the proposed plan amendment and
zone change are consistent with this goal because it will provide opportunities for economic
development in the county in general, and in the Deschutes Junction area in particular, by allowing
the property to be put to a more productive use.
Goal 10, Housing. There are already two houses on site, which can be used, adaptively reused or
demolished. The proposed plan amendment and zone change will not affect existing or needed
housing and Goal 10 is not applicable.
Goal 12, Transportation. This application complies with the Transportation System Planning
Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, the rule that implements Goal 12. Compliance with that rule also
demonstrates compliance with Goal 12.
Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The Applicant's proposal, in and of itself, will have no effect on
energy use or conservation since no specific development has been proposed in conjunction with
the subject applications. The record shows that providing additional economic opportunities on the
subject property may decrease vehicle trips for persons working in the Deschutes Junction area,
therefore conserving energy.
Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon.
Page 127
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicant has NOT met the burden of proof with respect to the
standards for approving the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change. I therefore recommend to the
County Board of Commissioners that the Application be DENIED unless the Applicant can meet that
burden.
Dated this 12" day of June 2023
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Page 128
Exhibit "H" - Site Specific Economic, Social,
Environmental, and Energy analysis
APPENDIX 2.
Introduction
T,4 s ,Qxpanded Economic Social Environmental Energy (ESEE) analysis was prepared by-tHe
applican[�rt1ae,,Board of County Commissioners' consideration to suppleitien( the Board's
findings supporting Grdtnance No 2022-011(File Leos:-2472'1-000881-PA / 000882-ZC) or a
subsequent Ordinance that the Boat-- y:adopt as part of these remand proceedings. The
applicant had. suba ftftted a more condensed vers76n--Eo-tlhe record on June 23, 2023. This
ES-El=�dd sses all permissible and conditional uses listed in DCC rB.1..Qp.
-As- r entionet� i+n tla�t-s�hnai t I, iA)though the subject property is located within the
Landscape Management Road combining zone, the resource that the LM combining zone
looks to protect - scenic views - is diminished at this point along Highway 97. The scenic
impacts from a conflicting use whether it be a feed lot, a substation, a cell tower, or a building
to house a welding business are all generally the same. None of the allowed or conditional
uses would enhance or detract from the view at this point along Highway 97 due to the fact
that there is a hill that obscures views to the west and there is a rural residential subdivision
developed on the hill. of roof4ops;-siding.of4he-l-totises; _
�zhe hill, and the existing-structuresonthe.subject property. Additional structures for various
types of uses on the subject property will only minimally affect the view. If there were
unobstructed views of, for example, the Three Sisters or other Cascade peaks, or perhaps a
view of the Deschutes River, those impacts could be significant. This is not the case for the
subject property and the viewshed provided by the adjoining property to the west.
As the Board considers whether or how to allow new conflicting uses, the context of the site
and the value it contains as a Goal 5 resource is important. Here, the relevant context
includes: diminished viewshed quality, existing development
on adjoining property, and
development on the subject property.
__----------
Conflicting Use Positive Economic
Negative Economic
Consequences of Allowing
Consequences of Allowing
Continuing to allow each of
Tne County's original ESEE
j tie conflicting uses would
analysis contained in
provide direct economic
Ordinance 92-052 notes that
I benefits to the owners of the
Itlhe economic impact of
subject properties as well as
maintaining the visual quality
Common to all Conflicting Uses ( the various industries that
of the area would be
would market and develop
positive. Deschutes County
the new uses.
would retrain a desirable
place to live, thereby
j1 For commercial uses,
maintaining neighborhood
ongoing employment
property values. M;ntaining
Page 51 of 208
Conflicting Use
Farming or forest use.
Primary processing, packaging,
treatment, bulk storage and
distribution of the following
products:
Page 52 of 208
Positive Economic
Consequences of Ailowi
opportunities and income
streams are anticipated.
The subject property would
offer needed services to the
rural land owners between
Bend and Redmond.
Conversations with
commercial brokers reveal
high demand and low
vacancies for Industrial land
in Central Oregon. The
Quarterly Compass
Commercial industry report
identifies that there is 0.80%
vacancy rate in the Bend
industrial market and a
2.4510 vacancy rate In the
Redmond industrial market.
Additional supply of such
industrial land will provide
business opportunities.
Farm or forest uses on the
subject property are already
permissible via the existing
EFU zoning and the property
has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the LM
regulations. Allowance of
such uses was contemplated
in the original ESEE and does
not warrant a new ESEE here
as it is a not a new conflicting
use.
Additional job opportunities
associated with processing,
packaging and distribution of
various agricultural, timber -
related and aggregate -
related products on site
would be a positive
economic consequence for
Negative Economic
Consequences of Allowing
or enhancing visual quality
makes the county a more
attractive place visit, thereby
attracting more visitors and
inducing people to stay
longer."
Although those observations
are still generally true 30
years later, it is undeniable
that at this location along
Highway 97 the scenic
viewshed is of marginal
value. Accordingly, there
would be minimal detraction
to the viewshed from RI
development on site. The
identified conflicting uses
permissible in the RI zone on
this particular site will have a
minimal negative economic
consequence on the
property or the county
overall.
Farm or forest uses on the
subject property are already
permissible via the existing
EFU zoning and the property
has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the Llvl
regulations. Allowance of
such uses was contemplated
in the original ESEE and does
riot warrant a new ESEE here
as it is a not a new conflicting
Processing, packaging and
distribution of various
agricultural, timber -related
and aggregate -related
products on site would have
no negative economic
consequences which differ
from the "Common"
Conflicting Use
1. Agricultural products,
including foodstuffs, animal and
fish products, and animal feeds.
2. Ornamental horticultural
products and nurseries.
3. Softwood and hardwood
products excluding pulp and
paper manufacturing.
4. Sand, gravel, clay and other
mineral products.
Residence for caretaker or night
watchman on property.
I
Freight Depot, including the
loading, unloading, storage and
distribution of goods and
materials by railcar or truck.
M
Contractor's or building
materials business and other
construction -related business
Including plumbing, electrical,
roof, siding, etc., provided such
use is wholly enclosed within a
building or no outside storage is
Page 53 of 208
Positive Economic
Consequences of Allowing
the community. Such uses
could provide needed
construction materials
(hardwood products &
sand/gravel) in closer
proximity to projects located
in the vicinity versus driving
to Redmond or Bend for
such products.
_..-----._._ _..__._
A residence for a caretaker
would provide economic
benefit to the caretaker and
construction of such a
residence would be positive
economic activity for the
housing construction
industry in central Oregon, it
could also have a positive
economic consequence by
deterring theft of materials
on site impacting the specific
business.
Additional job opportun.iUes
arising from a Freight Depot
on site would be a positive
economic consequence for
the community.
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community.
3
Negative Economic
Consequences of Allov<
economic consequences
noted above.
Additionally, processing
facilities on the subject
property are already
conditionally permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and
the property has been zoned
EFU since the 1992 adoption
of the UUt regulations.
Allowance of such uses was
contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a
new ESEE here as it is a not a
new conflicting use.
There are no negative
economic consequences
fror n a residence for a
caretaker- on the property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above. i
Cistruction of likely
necessary access
improv6-nlents to Highway 97
for a use vdith such
could interrupt traffic and
caure"deIlys which canes_,
disrupt economic activity.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this "type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
Conflicting Use Positive Economic I Negative Economic
Consequences of Allowing I Consequences of Aliowl
permitted unless enclosed by
sight -obscuring fencing.
Ice or cold storage plant.
Wholesale distribution outlet
including warehousing but
excluding open outside storage.
Welding, sheet metal or machine
shop provided such is wholly
enclosed within a building or all
outside storage is enclosed by
sight -obscuring fencing.
Page 54 of 208
Additional job opportunities
frorn allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community. For example,
The benefits offered to the
local brewery and cidery
industries could be
substantial.
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community.
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such econornic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community. For example,
such a service at this location
could be a benefit to local
homeowners and businesses
who need such service
without the need to drive to
Redmond or Bend for such
services.
H
There are no negative -
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"common" economic
consequences noted above.
struction of likely ny
r"
nec ary access
irn v ents to way 97
for a use wi ctgcI
substantia tea impacts
could i en upt traf and
ca e delays which can
isrupt economic activity. A
There are no negative
economic consequences
frorn this type of use locating
on he subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above..
Conflicting use
Kennel or a Veterinary clinic.
Positive Economic
Consequences of Allowing
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community. Such a service
at this location could be a
benefit to local homeowners
and businesses who need
such service without the
need to drive to Redmond or
Bend for such services.
Lumber manufacturing and i Additional job opportunities
wood processing except pulp and from allowing such economic
paper manufacturing. ( activity on site would be a
I positive economic
consequence for the
community.
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.
Additional job opportunities
from a class I or II road
project on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community.
Class tit road or street project. ;Additional job opportunities
from allowing a class III road
project on site would be a
positive econoric
consequence for the
i community.
Page 55 of 208
Negative Economic
Consequences of Allowing
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ frorn the
"Common" economic
consequences noted abovea
Additionally, commercial dog
boarding kennels on the
subject property are already
permissible via the existing
EFU zoning and the property
has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the I-M
regulations. Allowance of
such uses was contemplated
in the original ESEE and does
not warrant a new ESEE here
as it is a not a new conflicting
use.
There are no negative
economic consequences
f'oin this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above -
Loss of potential economic
use of the land resulting
from the Class I or II road
project could be a negative
economic consequence for
the community and land
owner. _
Loss of potential economic
use of the land resulting
from the Class I or II road
project could be a negative
economic consequence for
the community and land
owner.
Conflicting Use
Operation, maintenance, and
piping of existing Irrigation
systems operated by an
Irrigation District except as
provided in DCC 18.120.050.
Concrete or ready -mix plant
Petroleum products storage and
distribution.
Page 56 of 208
Positive Economic
>equences of Atlowing
is an existing Central
oregcn Irrigation District
canal tkat splits the property.
Continued operation,
maintenance and,potentiai
piping are positive economic
consequences as irrigattotl
water drives agricultural
economic activity. Further
piping such canal faci�j ie's
would likely improve the
view shed, furth6ir enhancing
the econoi fc value of
16S County's view
seen from the
i 'Subject property
VSuch a use on the subject
Property could benefit
nearby residents and
agricultural uses by
providing needed services in
close proximity. it also
provides potential
employment opportunities.
Ready mix plants in Bend
and Redmond are all at least
10 miles from this location.
Projects in the rural
residential areas in this
vicinity would benefit from
the shorter trip_
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community,
6
Negative Economic
Consequences of Allowing
There are no negative
economic consequenc&5'
from this type of yse ioeating
on the subject
because o{ AKe existing
Central-bregon Irrigation
DIAct facilities adjacent to
.1nd on the property.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
Conflicting Positive Economic
Use
Negative Economic
�Consequences
Conse uences of Allowing
of Allowing
Storage, crushing and processing Additional job opportunities
There are no negative
of minerals, including the + from allowing such economic
economic consequences
processing of aggregate into I activity on site would be a
from this type of use locating
asphaltic concrete or Portland positive economic
on the subject property
iCement Concrete. I consequence for the
which differ from the
community. Further,
"Common" economic
availability of such materials
consequences noted above.
to local land and business
owners could be of benefit
removing time and cost to
travel to Bend or Redmond
---------- .------ ---.._... _... ------ for such resource_
...... --
Commercial feedlot, stockyard, J pp
y Additional job opportunities
-_----_--_..-----.__--.-----____--
There are no negative
sales yard, slaughterhouse and , from allowing such economic
economic consequences
rendering plant. i activity on site would be a
from this type of use locating
positive economic
on the subject property
1 i consequence for the
I
which differ fron , the
community. Further, such a
°CoRnmon" economic
use at this location close to
consequences noted above.
` I agricultural uses in central
Oregon may provide
j additional options for
j livestock and similar
—._— --. o eralions.
Raliraad trackage and related The Burlington Northern
The Burlington Northerr,
facilities. Santa Fe railroad is roughly
Santa Fe railroad is roughly
iit9l@O feet east of the
700 feet east of the ',)'- -
I property with Highway 97
property with Highway 97
and the COID canal between,
and the COID canal between.
Although such facilities are
allowed technically in RI
Although such facilities are
the
allowed technically in the RI
Zone, it is highly unlikely the
subject property would ever
Zone, it is highly unlikely the
I
subject property would ever
actually be utilized for
actually be utilized for
railroad trackage and related
I facilities.
railroad trackage and related
Accordingly, the
facilities. Accordingly, the
economic consequences of
economic consequences of
all such uses are
allowing such uses are
minimal in this case, --- —
minimal in this case. I
Page 57 of 208
Conflicting use
Pulp and paper manufacturing,
Any use permitted by DCC
18.100.010, which is expected to
exceed the following standards:
1. Lot coverage in excess of
70 percent.
2. Generation of any odor,
dust, fumes, glare,
flashing lights or noise
that is perceptible
without Instruments 500
feet from the property
line of the subject use.
Manufacture, repair or storage
of articles manufactured from
bone, cellophane, cloth, cork,
feathers, felt, fiber, glass, stone,
paper, plastic, precious or
semiprecious stones or metal,
wax, wire, wood, rubber, yarn or
similar materials, provided such
uses do not create a disturbance
because of odor, noise, dust,
smoke, gas, traffic or other
factors.
Processing, packaging and
storage of food and beverages
including those requiring
distillation and fermentation.
Page 58 of 208
Positive Economic
Consequences of Aliowini&
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community,
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community.
! Additional job opportunities
Ifrom allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community. Further, the
materials used for such
manufacturing could drive
additional local business
opportunities for those
looking to source such
materials.
Additional job opportunities
fl'oryl allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community. The benefits
offered to the local brewery
and cidery industries could
be substantial.
Negative Economic
Consequences of Alibwing
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
`Common" economic
consequences noted above.
Although outside of the
identified impact area, uses
that generate odor, fumes,
glare, flashing lights or noise
perceptible beyond 5oo feet
could impact property values
OF the rural residential
homes on the subdivision,
directly west. This Would
have negative economic
consequences for those
landowners.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
Conflicting Use
Public Land Disposal Site
Transfer Station, including
recycling and other related
activities.
Mini storage facility
Automotive wrecking yard
totally enclosed by a sight -
obscuring fence.
Wireless telecommunications
facilities, except those facilities
meeting the requirements of
DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B).
Utility facility.
Page 59 of 208
Positive Economic -
Con -sequences of Allowin&
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
Positive economic
consequence for the
community.
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
Positive economic
consequence for the
community. Providing for
the storage needs of
business and property
owners in proximity would
be an economic benefit as
well to reduce cost of driving
to Bend or Redmond,
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community.
Due to the limited staffing
required on site to operate
such facilities, economic
benefits likely focus on job
opportunities associated
with construction of such
facilities and increased
bandwidth in the vicinity.
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site kroould be a
positive economic
consequence for the
community,
Negative Economic
isequences of Allow
Although outside ofthe K
identified impact area, a
transfer station at this
location could have a
negative impact on the value
of the homes in the rural
residential subdivision
directly west of the subject
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above,
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
Conflicting Use
Manufacturing, storage, sales,
rental, repair and servicing of
equipment and materials
associated with farm and forest
uses, logging, road maintenance,
mineral extraction, construction
or similar rural activities.
Electrical substations.
Page 60 of 208
Positive Economic
Consequences of Allov
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
Positive economic
consequence for the
community. The central
location of this facility would
be an economic benefit to
farms and similar uses in the
area saving travel time.
Due to the limited staffing
required on site to operate
such facilities, economic
benefits likely focus on job
Opportunities associated
with construction of such
facilities
10
Negative Economic
Con se uences of Allowing
Additionally, commercial
utility facilities on the subject
property are already
conditionally permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and
the property has been zoned
EFU since the 1992 adoption
Of the LM regulations.
Allowance of such uses was
contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a
new ESEE here as it is a not a
new conflicting use.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
Additionally, commercial
utility facilities on the subject
property are already
conditionally permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and
the property has been zoned
EFU since the 1992 adoption
of the LM regulations.
Allowance of such uses was
contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a
new ESEE here as it is a not a
new conflicting use.
Conflicting Use
Marijuana retailing, subject to
the provisions of DCC 18.116,330.
Psilocybin testing laboratories.
Page 61 of 208
Positive Economic
Consequences of Allowing
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
Positive economic
consequence for the
community.
Additional job opportunities
from allowing such economic
activity on site would be a
Positive economic
consequence for the
community,
Negative Economic
_Consequences of Allowing
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
which differ from the
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
There are no negative
economic consequences
from this type of use locating
on the subject property
r,Ehich differ from Vie
"Common" economic
consequences noted above.
Conflicting Use Positive social Consequences of Negative Social Consequences of
Common to all
Conflicting Uses
Farming or forest use.
Primary processing,
packaging, treatment,
bulk storage and
distribution of the
following products:
1. Agricultural
products, including
foodstuffs, animal and
fish products, and
animal feeds.
2. Ornamental
horticultural products
and nurseries.
3. Softwood and
hardwood products
Page 62 of 208
The variety of uses permissible in
the RI zone would offer positive
social consequences to nearby
residents in the rural areas
between Redmond and Bend by
offering needed services and
employment opportunities. A
welding sheet metal or machine
shop, for example, located on site
could offer any agricultural
Operations in the area access to
those needed services without
having to drive to Redmond or
Bend.
Farm or forest uses on the subject
property are already permissible
via the existing EFU zoning and the
property has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the LM
regulations. Allowance of such uses
was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a new
ESEE here as it is a not a new
conflicting use,
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
12
The social value of the LM zone to
preserve the natural appearance of
landscape could be marginally
impacted. As noted in Ordinance 92,
052, Ih]aving good visual quality areas
more accessible to the public
enhances the livability of Deschutes
County. As Deschutes County
continues to urbanize, the need for the
Public to have ready access to areas of
good visual quality will become more
important" The same observations
are equally true today, although
mitigated in this case by the
diminished viewshed from Highway 97
Fadjacent to the subject properties.-.---,-
rm or forest uses on the subject
property are already permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
Property has been zoned EFU since the
1992 adoption of the LM regulations.
Allowance of such uses was
contemplated in the original ESEE and }
does not warrant a new ESEE here as it
is a not a new conflicting use, j
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating j
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site. There `
are therefore minimal negative social
consequences of allowing such uses
on site. I
Additionally, processing facilities on
the subject property are already
conditionally permissible via the
existing EFU zoning and the property
has been zoned EFU since the 1992
adoption of the LM regulations.
Allowance of such uses was
Conflicting Use
excluding pulp and
paper manufacturing.
4. Sand, gravel, clay
and other mineral
products.
Residence for
caretaker or night
watchman on
property.
M
Freight Depot,
including the loading,
unloading, storage and
distribution of goods
and materials by
railcar or truck.
VA
Contractor's or
building materials
business and other
construction -related
business including
plumbing, electrical,
roof, siding, etc.,
provided such use is
wholly enclosed within
a building or no
Page 63 of 208
Positive Social Consequences of
A residence for a caretaker could
create a positive social
consequence by deterring theft of
materials on site and surrounding
properties.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
13
Negative Social Consequences of
contemplated in the original ESEE and
does not warrant a new ESEE here as it
is a not a new conflicting use.
While any development on the subject
Property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
i prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore minimal negative social
consequences of allowing such uses
j on site.
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
jj to the subject property will not be
I significantly improved through
II prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore minimal negative social
consequences of allowing such uses
on siteAdditionaliy, construction of
"Tt essary access improvements to
Hig hw 7 for a use with su ii ntial j
traffic impact�ould inteupt traffic
and minimally affP7_Z"s) c views on j
Highvvay 97,,,potentially h �-tg a
negative social consequence
aJtcn ;ing such uses on sit
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic I
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore minimal negative social k
consequences of allowing such uses
on site.
Conflicting Use i Positive Social Consequences of i Negative Social Consequences of
i Allowing
outside storage Is
permitted unless
enclosed by sight -
obscuring fencing.
Ice or cold storage
plant.
Wholesale distribution
outlet Including
warehousing but
excluding open outside
storage.
11
Welding, sheet metal
or machine shop
provided such Is
wholly enclosed within
a building or all
outside storage is
enclosed by sight -
obscuring fencing.
Page 64 of 208
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
The positive social value of allow✓ing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
Opportunities,
14
While any development on the subject
Property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore minimal negative social
consequences of allowing such uses
on site.
Wubj
hile any development on the sect
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited j
Iscenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through j
Prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore minimal negative social
consequences of allowing such uses
Oil site.1Xdditionaily, construction
cessary access improvers ruts to
Hig 97 for a use wiLJrsubstantial
traffic irnp cou d interrupt traffic
and minimal! scenic views on I
y�
Highwa3 potentiail being a
near✓ social consequenceof,
,<owing such uses on site. _.
While any development on the subject j
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore rninima; negative social I
consequences of allowing such uses
on site.
Conflicting use
Kennel or a Veterinary
clinic.
Lumber manufacturing
and wood processing
except pulp and paper
manufacturing.
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,
Page 65 of 208
Positive Social Consequences of
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities. Such a service at
this location could be benefit to
local homeowners and businesses
who need such service for livestock,
pets, etc. without the need to drive
to Redmond or Bend for such
services.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
Opportunities. There may be
additional positive social
consequences of a new business
tied to Central Oregon's timber
industry roots.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities. There may also be
new "short cuts" that benefit
residents of the area - a positive
social consequence for those
residents.
15
Negative Social Consequences of
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
Prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore minimal negative social
consequences of allowing such uses
on site.
Additionally, commercial clog boarding
kennels on the subject property are
already permissible via the existing
EFU zoning and the property has been
zoned EFU since the 1992 adoption of
ithe LM regulations. Allowance of such
uses was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a new ESEE
here as it is a not a new conflicting use.
While airy development on the scrbject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
Significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore minimal negative social
consequences of allowing such uses
on site.
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating j
to the subject property wiil not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore minimal negative social
consequences of allowing such uses
on site. Further, any minimal negative I
social consequence is likely to diminish
further when the construction of such J
road or street project is comnlarari
Conflicting Use
Class III road or street
project.
Operation,
maintenance, and
piping of existing
irrigation systems
operated by an
Irrigation District
except as provided in
DCC 18.120.050.
S
Concrete or ready -mix
plant.
Page 66 of 208
Positive Social Consequences of
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities. Further, if such a
project improved traffic flow on
Highway 97, there could be positive
social consequences from allowing
such a use.
There is an existing Cena-al Oregon
irrigation District canal tkaat_Spil#s6A
the property. Continued operation,
maintenance and potential piping
are positive social consequences as
irrigation water drives agrict.ritural
economic activity and a rural
country lifestyle.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
16
�1 Negative social Consequences of
l _ Altowing� _
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
,cenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site. There
are therefore minimal negative social
consequences of allowing such uses
on site. Further, any minimal negative
social consequence is likely to diminish
further when the construction of such
road or street project is completed
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
I quality from Highway 97, the limited
' scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site.
Additionally, there is an existing canal
on the subject property. There are i
therefore minimal negative social j
consequences of allowing such uses
i
on site.
While any development on the subject
Property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site.
Additionally, while a concrete plant is
Potentially among uses that present
the most significant impacts to scenic
views, the proposed RI zone limits the
scale of any operation on the subject
property. For example, the height of
any building within the RI zone is I
limited to 4S feet pursuant to DCC I
1 S.100,040. Therefore the impact will
not be as significant compared to a
similar use developed within a UG6.
Conflicting Use
Petroleum products
storage and
distribution.
Storage, crushing and
processing of minerals,
including the
processing of
aggregateinto
asphaltic concrete or
Portland Cement
Concrete.
Commercial feedlot,
stockyard, sales yard,
slaughterhouse and
rendering plant.
Page 67 of 208
Positive Social Consequences of
The positive social value of allowin
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities. Additional facilities
for livestock operations would be of
value to the local ranching
community.
17
Negative Social Consequences of
g
I While any development on the subject
Property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site.
Additionally, while petroleum storage
and distribution is potentially among
uses that present the most significant
impacts to scenic views, the proposed
Ri zone limits the scale of any
ioperation on the subject property. For
example, the height of any b�iilding
within the RI zone is limited to 45 feet
pursuant to DCC 18-100,040. Therefore
the impact will not be as significant
compared to a similar use developed
�—within a UGB. !
1 While any development on the s— ubject---
property could impact the scenic '
quality from Highway 97, the Ann-ted
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject propertywiil not be
fsignificantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site.
Additionally, while mineral operations
are potentially among uses that
present the most significant impacts to i
scenic views, the proposed RI zone i
limits the scale of any operation on the
subject property. For example, the
height of any building within the RI
zone is limited to 45 feet pursuant to
DCC 18.100.040. Therefore the impact '
will not be as significant compared to a
similar use developed within a UGB.
While any development on the subiect
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating j
to the subject property will not be j
significantly improved through
Prohibiting such uses on site. I
conflicting Use
Railroad trackage and
related facilities.
M
Pulp and paper
manufacturing.
Page 68 of 208
Positive Social consequences of
Allowing
The Burlington Nort,.er Santa "Fe
railroad is roughly `feet east of
the property with Highway 97 and
the COID canal between. Although
such facilities are allowed
technically in the RI Zone, it is highly
unlikely the subject property would
ever actually be utilized for railroad
trackage and related facilities.
Accordingly, the social
consequences of allowing such
uses are minimal in this case.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
Opportunities.
is
Negative Social consequences of
_ Allowin
Additionally, while slaughterhouses
and rendering plants are potentially
among uses that present the most
significant impacts to scenic views, the
Proposed RI zone limits the scale of
any operation on the subject property.
For example, the maximum size of any
I building within the RI zone is limited to
7,500 square feet of floor space
pursuant to DCC 18.100.040. Therefore
the impact will not be as significant
compared to a similar use developed
within a UGbheight of any structure to
45 feet under DCC-18.100.040.
Therefore, the impact will not be
SI nlflCant.
The Burlington NortlaSrhi Santa Fe
railroad is roughly f` S feet east of the
property with Highway 97 and the
COID canal between. Although such
facilities are allowed technically in the 1i
RI Zone, it is highly unlikely the subject
property would ever actually be
utilized for railroad trackage and
related facilities. Accordingly, the
social consequences of allowing such
uses are minimal in this case.
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be I
significantly improved through i
prohibiting such uses on site. ;
Additionally, uvl-iile pulp and paper
manufacturing plants are potentially j
among uses that present the most
significant impacts to scenic views, the
proposed RI zone limits the scale of
any operation on the subject property.
For example, the height of any building
within the RI zone is limited to 45 feet
pursuant to DCC 18.100.040. TherPfnrp 11
Conflicting Use fI positive Social Consequences of
----,--._—(__ Allowing
Any use permitted by The positive social value of allowing
DCC 18.100.010, which I such uses on site is access to
is expected to exceed ` additional potential employment
the following opportunities.
standards-
1. Lot coverage in
excess of 70
percent.
2. Generation of
any odor, dust,
fumes, glare,
flashing lights
or noise that is
perceptible
without
instruments
500 feet from
the property
line of the
subject use.
Manufacture, repair or IThe positive social value of allowing
storage of articles I such uses on site is access to
manufactured from I additional potential employment
bone, cellophane, opportunities.
cloth, cork, feathers,
felt, fiber, glass, stone,
paper, plastic, precious
or semiprecious stones
or metal, wax, wire,
wood, rubber, yarn or
similar materials,
provided such uses do C
not create a
disturbance because of
19
Page 69 of 208
Negative Social Consequences of
Allowing
the impact will not be as significant
compared to a similar use developed
within a UG6.
Although outside of the identified
impact area, uses that generate odor,
fumes, glare, flashing lights or noise
perceptible beyond 50o feet could
impart property values and lifestyles of
the neighbors in the rural residential
subdivision directly west of the subject
property. Limited enjoyment of
outdoor areas on their private
Property could result. This would have
negative social consequences for those
landowners,
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site.
Conflicting Use Positive Social Consequences of Negative social Consequences of
_— Allowing Allowing
odor, noise, dust, - I - — — -- --- -
smoke, gas, traffic or
other factors. I
Processing, packaging
and storage of food
and beverages
including those
requiring distillation
and fermentation.
Public Land Disposal
Site Transfer Station,
Including recycling and
other related
activities.
Mini -storage facility.
Automotive wrecking
yard totally enclosed
by a sight -obscuring
fence.
Wireless
telecommunications
facilities, except those
facilities meeting the
Page 70 of 208
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
Such a facility could improve
wireless access for our increasingly
wireless -device dependent society.
20
While any development on the subject
j property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
+prohibiting such uses or, site
Although outside of the identified
impact area, a transfer station at this
location could have a negative impact
j on the value of the homes in the rural
residential subdivision directly west of
the subject property and associated
dust, odors and other externalities
I could impact outdoor lifestyles of
those property owners. Both are
negative social consequences of
allowing this particular use. _
While any development on the he
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be i
significantly improved through
_prohibiting_ such uses on site, A
While any development on the subject
Property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site. j
Tier 3 wireless telecommunications
facilities as they are defined in DCC
1$.176,250(C) could be taller than 75
feet with required aviation lighting. The
site and figtrt i�aUs Of such a racility
Conflicting use
requirements of DCC
18.116.256(A) or (B).
Positive Social Consequences of
Utility facility. 1 The positive social value of allowing
i such uses on site is access to
f additional potential employment
opportunities.
Manufacturing,
storage, sales, rental,
repair and servicing of
equipment and
materials associated
with farm and forest
uses, logging, road
maintenance, mineral
extraction,
construction or similar
rural activities.
Page 71 of 208
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities. Businesses that
have a connection to some of
central Oregon's traditional
industries such as logging and
farming could have overall positive
social consequences.
21
Negative Social Consequences of
Allowing
�of this magnitude would be difficult if
not impossible to mitigate. Light
pollution could be a concern and
impact the many rural residential
properties in direct and close
Proximity, Additionally, the proposed
RI zone limits the height of any
structure to 45 feet under DCC
18,100,040. Therefore, the impact,,vill
not be significant.
i while any development on the subject
propery could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating '
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site, i
i
Additionally, commercial utility
facilities on the subject property are
already conditionally permissible via
i
the existing EFU zoning and the j
property has been zoned EFU since the
1992 adoption of the LM regulations. j
Allowance of such uses was I
contemplated in the original ESEE and
does not warrant a new ESEE here as it i
is a not a new conflicting use. I
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through r
Prohibiting such uses on site.
Conflicting Use
Electrical substations.
Marijuana retelling,
subject to the
provisions of DCC
18.116.330.
Psilocybin testing
laboratories.
Page 72 of 208
Positive Social Consequences of
Due to the limited staffing required
on site to operate such facilities,
social benefits likely focus on
access to job opportunities
associated with construction of
such facilities
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
The positive social value of allowing
such uses on site is access to
additional potential employment
opportunities.
Negative Social Consequences of
_ Allowing
While any development on the subject
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site.
j Additionally, comrnercial utility
facilities on the subject property are
already conditionally permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
property has been zoned EFU since the
1992 adoption of the Llvl regulations.
Allowance of such uses was
contemplated in the original ESEE and
does not warrant a neW ESEE here as it
is a not a new conflicting use.
While any development on the subject
propery could impact the scenic
quality frorn Highway 97, the limited
scenic quality from Highway 97 relatingI
to the subject property will not be
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site.
_._.- -- .;
While any dev—elopme._nt on the subject i
property could impact the scenic
quality from Highway 97, the limited 1
scenic quality from Highway 97 relating i
to the subject property will not be I
significantly improved through
prohibiting such uses on site.
Conflicting Use
Farming or forest use.
Primary processing,
packaging, treatment,
bulk storage and
distribution of the
following products:
1. Agricultural
products, including
foodstuffs, animal and
fish products, and
animal feeds.
2. ornamental
horticultural products
and nurseries.
3. Softwood and
hardwood products
excluding pulp and
paper manufacturing.
4. sand, gravel, clay
and other mineral
products.
Residence for
caretaker or night
watchman on property
Page 73 of 208
Positive Environmental
Conse uences of Allowing_
Farm or forest uses on the
subject property are already
permissible via the existing EFU
zoning and the property has
been zoned EFU since the 1992
adoption of the LM regulations.
Allowance of such uses was
contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a
new ESEE here as it is a not a
new conflicting use.
The positive environmental
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced travel
distance and associated reduced
carbon emissions for suppliers
of agricultural products,
ornamental horticultural
products, softwood and
hardwood products or aggregate
products in the vicinity without
having to travel to Bend or
Redmond or elsewhere for
processing, packaging,
treatment, storage or
distribution of their product.
The positive environmental
consequence ofacaretaker
residence on site is the reduced
travel distance and associated
reduced carbon emissions that
result from the commute to and
from the site from a community
in central Oregon. Additionally, a
caretaker or night watchman
23
Negative Environmental
_ Conse uences of Aliowin
Farm or forest uses on the subject
property are already permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
property has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the LM
regulations. Allowance of such uses
was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a new
ESEE here as it is a not a nevv
conflicting use.
Development of the site with facilities
for such uses could remove existing
trees and brushes that provide
habitat for small vertebrates.
Increased dust from aggregate
activities could impact all, quality for
those in close proximity.
Additionally, processing facilities on
the subject property are already
conditionally permissible via the
existing EFU zoning and the property
has been zoned EFU since the 1992
adoption of the LM regulations.
Allowance of such uses was
contemplated in the original ESEE
and does not warrant a new ESEE
here as it is a not a new conflicting
use.
Development of the site with facilities
for such uses could remove existing
trees and brushes that provide
habitat for small vertebrates.
Conflicting Use positive Environmental Negative Environmental
Consequences of Allowing - Consequences of Allowing
may be able to alert potential
wildfires on the subject property.
Freight Depot, Due to the nature of the-4Development Of the site with facilities
including the loading, materials managed at freight I for such uses could remove existing
I unloading, storage and ,, depots, such a use could offer trees and 'brushes that provide
distribution of goods I agricultural uses in the area a habitat for small vertebrates,
and materials by closer distribution point for
railcar or truck. commodities such as hay,
reducing carbon emissions for
transport of such products.
Contractor's or building The positive environmental Development of the site with fanlities
materials business and I consequences of such a use for such uses could remove existing
other construction -
Would be the reduced travel I trees and brushes that provide
related business I distance and associated reduced I habitat for small vertebrates.
I including plumbing, carbon emissions for such
j electrical, roof, siding, businesses serving the local
etc., provided such use homes and businesses.
Is wholly enclosed
within a building or no
outside storage is
i permitted unless
enclosed by sight -
obscuring fencing.
ice or cold storage The positive environtn�ental pevelopment of the site for such a�
plant. consequences of such a use use could remove existing trees and
would be the reduced travel brushes that provide habitat for small
distance and reduced carbon vertebrates,
emissions for those businesses
that requires this type of storage
in southern Deschutes County
versus having to access cold
storage in Redmond.
Wholesale distribution The positive environ nnentai Development of the site for such a
- - .__
outlet including consequences of such a use use could remove exisUn, trees !
warehousing but would be the reduced travel brushes that provide habitat for s{ all
excluding open outside distance and reduced carbon vertebrates.
storage. emissions for local businesses
and property owners who could
i I access such service without
24
Page 74 of 208
Conflicting use positive Environmental Negative Environmental
Conse uences of Aliowin
— 1_._- Conse uences oP Allowim
having to travel to Redmond or -- A
Bend, w
Welding, sheet metal or
machine shop provided
such is wholly enclosed
within a building or all
outside storage is
enclosed by sight -
obscuring fencing.
Kennel or a Veterinary
clinic.
Lumber manufacturing
and wood processing
except pulp and paper
manufacturing.
Page 75 of 208
The positive environmental
consequences of such a use
would be the reduceci travel
distance and reduced carbon
emissions for local businesses
and property owners who could
access such service without
having to travel to Redmond or
_Bend.
The positive environmental
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced travel
distance and reduced carbon
emissions for local businesses
and property owners who could
access such services without
having to travel to Redmond or
Bend.
Such a use could offer a shorter
trip for hauling lumber from
areas in central Oregon versus to
Mills in Redmond or La Pine
thereby potentially reducing
carbon emissions.
25
1
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
----._..
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Additionally, commercial dog
boarding kennels on the subject
Property are already permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
Property has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the LM
regulations. Allowance of such uses
was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a new
ESEE here as it is a not a new
conflicting use.
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Conflicting Use
Class I and ll 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. _
Class Ili road or street
project.
Operation,
maintenance, and
piping of existing
Irrigation systems
operated by an
Irrigation District
except as provided in
DCC 18.120,050.
1
Concrete or ready -mix
plant.
Page 76 of 208
Positive Environmental
conse�c uences of Allowing
There are minimal positive
environmental consequences
from such a project on the
subject property other than a
potential minimal reduction in
travel time for area residents
and businesses that may benefit
from such a project.
There are minimal positive
environmental consequences
from such a project on the
subject property versus a
minimal reduction in travel tine
for area residents and
businesses that may benefit
from such a project.
There is an existing Central
Oregon Irrigation District canal
#1at-sp4its the property.
i Continued operation,
maintenance and potential
piping of the canal provide
minimal environmental benefit
save for continued delivery of
water to agricultural uses and
habitat offered by such uses.
Such a use on the subject
property could benefit nearby
residents and agricultural uses
by providing needed services in
close proximity. Ready mix
plants in Bend and Redmond are
all at least 10 miles from this
location. Projects in the rural
residential areas in this vicinity
would henefit from the shorter
trip. This would reduce the
carbon footprint of such projects
if travel distance is cut
substantially.
26
Negative Environmental
_ Consequences of Allowing
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
There are no negative environmental
consequences of allowing such uses
on site.
The dust from such uses can
introduce particles into the air,
reducing air quality for the many
nearby rural residential properties
(especially for those with
compromised respiratory systems).
Particulate matter (PM) emissions
from batch plants if inhaled, can
affect the heart and lungs and cause
serious healti-i effects, including
increased risk of heart attacks,
aggravation of asthma, and
decreases in lung function. See EPA
Particulate Matter Pollution link on
list of attachments.
Conflicting Use
Positive Environmental
Negative Environmental
Petroleum products
Conse uences of Allowing
Such uses typically do not
Conse�c uences of Allowing u
Development of the site for such a
storage and
distribution.
contain a retail component so
use could remove existing trees and
would not offer a closer fueling
brushes that provide habitat for small
option for local businesses and
vertebrates,
Property owners. There are
limited positive environmental
consequences of such a use at
_._
Storage, crushing and
the site. _
The positive environmental
Development of the site for such a
processing of minerals,
including the
i consequences of such a use
use could rernove existing trees and
processing of aggregate
would be the reduced travel
distance and reduced carbon
brushes that provide habitat for small .
into asphaltic concrete
emissions for local businesses
vertebrates. Dust frorn such uses
couid adversely impact nearby
or Portland Cement
Concrete.
and property owners who could
residents and business owners with
access such goods without
respiratory issues.
having to travel to Redmond or
Bend. _
Commercial feedlot,
The positive environmental
Development of the site for such a
stockyard, sales yard,
slaughterhouse and
I consequences of such a use
I would be the reduced travel
!!! use couid remove existing trees and
rendering plant. I
distance and reduced carbon
brushes `hat provide habitat for small
vertebrates. Dust from such uses
erissions for local livestock
could adversely impact nearby
operations that could benefit
residents and business owners with
from such a facility at this
I respiratory issues.
_
Railroad trackage and
location.
The Burlington Northe.n_Santa
�9'Meet
The Burlington Northern Sant Fe
related facilities. I
Re railroad is roughly
ra'Iroad is roughly.k7p feet of 00
east of the property with
east -5
the property with Highway 97 and the
Highway 97 and the COID canal
COID canal between. Although such
between. Although such facilities
facilities are allowed technically in the
14
are allowed technically in the RI
R! Zone, it is highly unlikely the
Zone, it is highly unlikely the
subject property would ever- actually
subject property would ever
be utilized for railroad trackage and
actually be utilized for railroad
trackage and related facilities.
related facilities. Accordingly, the
environmental i
Accordingly, the environmental
consequences of
allowing such uses are mininial in this
Consequences of allowing such
case.
uses are minimal in this case.
I
?7
Page 77 of 208
Skidmore Consulting, LLC
Land Use Planning & Development Services
Conflicting Use
Pulp and paper
manufacturing.
Any use permitted by
DCC 18-100.010, which
Is expected to exceed
the following
standards:
1. Lot coverage in
excess of 70
percent.
2. Generation of
any odor, dust,
fumes, glare,
flashing lights
or noise that is
perceptible
without
instruments 50o
feet from the
property line of
the subject use.
Manufacture, repair or
storage of articles
manufactured from
bone, cellophane,
cloth, cork, feathers,
felt, fiber, glass, stone,
paper, plastic, precious
or semiprecious stones
or metal, wax, wire,
wood, rubber, yarn or
similar materials,
provided such uses do
not create a
disturbance because of
odor, noise, dust,
Page 78 of 208
Positive Environmental
Consequences of Allowing
Such uses typically do not
contain a retail component local
businesses and property owners
could access. There are limited
positive environmental
consequences of such a use at
the site.
Expansion of the lot coverage for
permitted uses generally
wouldn't provide positive
environmental consequences of
such uses on the subject
property. Additional emissions
would not a be a positive
environmental consequence.
The positive environmental
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced travel
distance and reduced carbon
emissions for local businesses
and property owners who would
use such services or provide ra,,v
materials for manufacturing
purposes.
28
Negative Environmental
_ Consequences of Allowln
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates. Dust from such uses
could adversely impact nearby
residents and business owners with
/
res iratorissues.
_ respiratory ._._ ._ -_.
Although Outside of the identified
impact area, uses that generate odor,
fumes, glare, flashing lights or noise
perceptible beyond 500 feet coulci
have negative environmental
consequences impacting all, quality
for nearby businesses and property
owners. Development of the site far
such a use could remove existing
trees and brushes that provide
habitat for small vertebrates with the
increased lot coverage allowance.
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Conflicting Use Positive Environmental Negative Environmental
Consequences of Allowing Conuences of Allowim.
smoke, gas, traffic or__'Con
— --
other factors.
Processing, packaging
and storage of food and
beverages including
those requiring
distillation and
fermentation.
Public Land Disposal
Site Transfer Station,
including recycling and
other related activities.
Mini -storage facility
Automotive wrecking
yard totally enclosed
by a sight -obscuring
fence.
Wireless
telecommunications
facilities, except those
facilities meeting the
requirements of DCC
18.116.250(A) or (B).
Page 79 of 208
The positive environmental
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced travel
distance and reduced carbon
i emissions for local businesses
and property owners who would
use such services.
The positive environmental
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced travel
distance and reduced carbon
emissions for local businesses
and property owners who would
use such services.
--...
The positive environmental
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced travel
distance and reduced carbon
emissions for local businesses
and property owners who would
use such services. __
The positive environmental
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced travel.
distance and reduced carbon
emissions for local businesses
and property owners who would
use such services.
There are no knovvn
environmental benefits from
such a use at the site.
29
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Development of the sae for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for smail
vertebrates.
Development of the site for such a T
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
i
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small i
vertebrates.
Conflicting Use Positive Environmental Negative Environmental
consequences of Allowing _Consequences of Allowing
Utility facility. Positive environmental Development of the site for such
consequences of such a use on use could remove existing trees and
site are limited. brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Manufacturing,
storage, sales, rental,
repair and servicing of
equipment and
materials associated
with farm and forest
uses, logging, road
maintenance, mineral
extraction,
construction or similar
rural activities. _
Electrical substations.
Page 80 of 208
The positive environmental
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced travel
distance and reduced carbon
emissions for local businesses
and property owners who would
use such services.
The positive environrinental
consequences of such a use on
site are limited.
WE
Additionally, commercial utility
facilities on the subject property are
already conditionally permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
Property has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the LM
regulations. Allowance of such uses
was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant anew
ESEE here as it is a not a new
Conflicting use. _
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for smail
vertebrates.
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Additionally, commercial utility
Facilities on the subject property are
already conditionally permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
property has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the LM
regulations. Allowance of such uses
was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a new
ESEE here as it is a not a new
conflicting use.
Conflicting Use
Positive Environmental
_
Consequences of Allowing
Marijuana retailing,
The positive environmental
subject to the
consequences of such a use
I
provisions of DCC
would be the reduced travel
18.116.330.
distance and reduced carbon
i emissions for local businesses
and property owners who would
use such services versus having
to travel to Bend.
Psllocybin testing
There are limited pos—itive
laboratories.
environmental consequences of
allowing such a use on site.
31
Page 81 of 208
Negative Environmental
_ Conse uences of Allowing
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Development of the site for such a
use could remove existing trees and
brushes that provide habitat for small
vertebrates.
Conflicting Use
Farming or forest use
Primary processing,
packaging, treatment,
bulk storage and
distribution of the
following products:
1. Agricultural
products, Including
foodstuffs, animal and
fish products, and
animal feeds.
2. Ornamental
horticultural products
and nurseries.
3. Softwood and
hardwood products
excluding pulp and
paper manufacturing.
4. Sand, gravel, clay
and other mineral
products.
Residence for
caretaker or night
watchman on property
Page 82 of 208
Positive Energy Consequences
_ of Allowing
Farm or forest uses cn the
subject property are already
permissible via the existing EFU
zoning and the property has
been zoned EFU since the 1992
adoption of the Livi regulations.
Allowance of such uses was
contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a
new ESEE here as it is a not a
new conflicting use.
The positive energy
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced travel
distance and conserved energy
for suppliers of agricultural
products, ornamental
horticultural products, softwood
and hardwood products or
aggregate products in the vicinity
without having to travel to Bend
or Redmond or elsewhere for
processing, packaging,
treatment, storage or
distribution of their product.
Such a use would reduce energy
usage associated with travel to
and frorn the site for security
needs.
32
Negative Energy Consequences of
Farm or forest uses on the subject
property are already permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
property has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the LM
regulations. Allowance of such uses
was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a new
ESEE here as it is a not a new
conflicting use.
The energy usage for these uses
would vary. There could be
substantial energy needs for
processing raw materials into
consumer goods.
Additionally, processing facilities on
the subject property are already
conditionally permissible via the
existing EFU zoning and the property
has been zoned EFU since the 1992
adoption of the LM regulations.
Allowance of such Uses vias
contemplated in the original ESEE
and does not warrant a new ESEE
here as it is a not a new conflicting
use.
There are lin-iited negative energy
consequences associated with such a
use on site,
Conflicting Use
_
Freight Depot,
including the loading,
unloading, storage and
distribution of goods
and materials by
railcar or truck.
Positive Energy Consequences
of Allowing
! Due to the nature of the
materials managed at freight
depots, such a use could offer
agricultural uses in the area a
closer distribution point for
commodities such as hay,
reducing the amount of energy
needed to transport items to
market.
Negative Energy Consequences of
_ Allowing_ —__—]
There are limited negative energy
consequences associated with such a
use on site,
i
Contractor's or building
The positive energy
There are limited negative energy j
materials business and
consequences of such a use
consequences associated with such a
other construction-
would be the reduced
use on site,
related business
consumption of energy for such
including plumbing,
businesses serving the local
electrical, roof, siding,
homes and businesses versus
etc., provided such use
contractors having to drive from
is wholly enclosed
Redmond or Bend.
within a building or no
outside storage is
permitted unless
i
enclosed by sight -
obscuring fencing.
I
Ice or cold storage
The positive energy
The energy usage associated with a
plant.
consequences of such a use
cold storage plant is anticipated to be
would be the reduced energy
substantial,
consumption for those
businesses that requires this
type of storage in southern
Deschutes County versus having
to access cold storage in
Redmond.
Wholesale distribution
The positive energy
There are limited negative energy
outlet including
consequences of such a use
consequences associated with such a
warehousing but
would be the reduced energy
use on site.
excluding open outside
consumption for local
storage.
businesses and property owners
who could access such service
without having to travel to
Redmond or Send.
Welding, sheet metal or
The positive energy
There are limited ne ative ever
machine shop provided
consequences of such a use
consequences associated with such a
such is wholly enclosed
would be the reduced energy
use on site.
within a building or all
consumption for local
outside storage is _
businesses and property owners
33
Page 83 of 208
Conflicting Use i positive Energy Consequences Negative Energy Consequences of
of Allowing Allowin
enclosed by sight- who could access such service —
obscuring fencing. without having to travel to
Redmond or Bend.
Kennel or a Veterinary
clinic.
Lumber manufacturing
and wood processing
except pulp and paper
manufacturing.
Class i and 11 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.
Class IH road or street
project.
Page 84 of 208
The positive energy
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced energy
consumption for local
businesses and property owners
who could access such services
without having to travel to
Redmond or Bend.
Such a use could orfer a shorter
trip for hauling lumber from
areas in central Oregon versus to
mills in Redmond or La Pine
thereby potentially reducing
energy consumption.
There are limited positive energy
consequences from such a use
on site.
There are limited positive energy
consequences from such a use
on site other than a potential
rninimal reduction in travel time
for area residents and
businesses that may benefit
from such a oroiect.
34
There are limited negative energy
consequences associated with such a
use on site.
Additionally, cornmerciai dog
boarding kennels on the subject
property are already permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
property has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the LM
regulations. Allowance of such uses
was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a new
ESEE here as it is a not a new
conflicting use.
There are limited negative energy
consequences associated with such a
use on site.
There are limited negative energy
consequences associated with such a
use on site.
There are limited negative energy
consequences associated with such a
use on site.
Conflicting Use
positive Energy Consequences
of Allowing
Negative Energy Consequences of
_ _ Allowing_ _
Operation,
There is an existing Central
There are no negative energy
maintenance, and
Oregon Irrigation District canal
consequences of allowing such uses
piping of existing
that splits the property,
on site.
irrigation systems
Continued operation,
operated by an
maintenance and potential
Irrigation District
piping of the canal provide
except as provided in
positive energy consequences by
DCC 18.120.050.
assuring continued delivery of
water to agricultural uses
primarily through gravity
IIh��
delivery.
Concrete or ready -mix
Such a use on the subject
There are no negative energy
plant.
property could benefit nearby
consequences of allowing such uses
residents and agricultural uses
on site.
by providing needed services in
close proximity. Ready mix
plants in Bend and Redmond are
all at least 10 miles from this
f
location. Projects in the rural
residential areas in this vicinity
i
would benefit from the shorter
trip and reduced energy
consumption.
Petroleum products
Such uses typically do not
There are no negative energy
storage and
contain a retail component so
( consequences of allowing such uses
distribution. I
would not offer a closer fueling
on site.
option for local businesses and
property owners. There are
j
limited positive energy
consequences of such a use at
the site.
Storage, crushing and
The positive energy l
There are no known negative energy
processing of minerals,
consequences of such a use i
consequences of allowing such uses j
including the
would be the reduced travel
on site.
processing of aggregate
distance and reduced energy
into asphaltic concrete
consumption for local
or Portland Cement
businesses arid property owners
Concrete.
who could access such goods
without having to travel to
— —
Redmond or Bend.
3;
Page 85 of 208
Conflicting Use
Commercial feedlot,
stockyard, sales yard,
slaughterhouse and
rendering plant.
Railroad trackage and
related facilities.
Pulp and paper
manufacturing.
Any use permitted by
DCC 18.100.010, which
is expected to exceed
the following
standards:
1. Lot coverage In
excess of 70
percent.
2. Generation of
any odor, dust,
fumes, glare,
flashing lights
or noise that is
perceptible
without
instruments 500
feet from the
Page 86 of 208
Positive Energy consequences
_ of Allowing
The positive energy
consequences of such a use
t.lould be the reduced energy
consumption for local livestock
operations that could benefit
from such a facility at this
location. _
The Burlington NorthecnS to �a$n
Fe railroad is roughly ,feet
east of the property with
Highway 97 and the COID canal
between. Although such facilities
are allowed technically in the RI
Zone, it is highly unlikely the
subject property would ever
actually be utilized for railroad
trackage and related facilities.
Accordingly, the energy
consequences of allowing such
uses are minimal in this case.
Such uses typically do not
contain a retail component local
businesses and property owners
could access. There are lilinited
positive energy consequences of
such a use at the site.
There are no identified positive
energy consequences from such
a use on site.
36
(Negative Energy Consequences of
There are no known negative energy
consequences of allolidng such uses
on site.
The Burlington Nortoef ,Santa Fe
a> �r.
railroad is roughly 0 eet east of
the property with Highway 97 and the
COID canal between. Although such
facilities are allowed technically in the
RI Zone, it is highly unlikely the
subject property would ever actualiv
be utilized for railroad trackage and
related facilities. Accordingly, the
energy consequences of allowing
such uses are minimal in this case.
Pulp and paper manufacturing could
require substantial energy
consumption.
There are no known negative energy
consequences from such a use on
site.
Conflicting Use
Positive Energy Consequences
of Allowing
Negative Energy Consequences of j
Alloyn
property line of
j
the subject use.
�Manufacture, repair or
The positive energy
There are no known negative energy
storage of articles
consequences of such a use
consequences from such a use on i
manufactured from
would be the reduced energy
site.
bone, cellophane,
consumption for local
cloth, cork, feathers,
businesses and property owners
f
felt, fiber, glass, stone,
who would use such services or
paper, plastic, precious
provide raw materials for
or semiprecious stones
manufacturing purposes.
or metal, wax, wire,
wood, rubber, yarn or
similar materials,
provided such uses do
not create a
disturbance because of
odor, noise, dust,
smoke, gas, traffic or
other factors.
Processing, packaging
The positive energy
There are no known negative energy
and storage of food and
consequences of such a use
consequences from such a use on
beverages Including
would be the reduced energy
site.
those requiring
consumption for local
distillation and
businesses and property owners
fermentation.
who would use such services.
Public Land Disposal
The positive energy
Thee are no known negative energy
Site Transfer Station,
consequences of such a use
consequences from such a use on
Including recycling and
would be the reduced energy
site.
other related activities,
consumption for local
businesses and property owners
who would use such services
Mini -storage facility.
The positive energy
There are no known negative energy
consequences of such a use
consequences From such a use on
would be the reduced energy
site.
consumption for local
businesses and property owners
who would use such services.
37
Page 87 of 208
Conflicting Use
Positive Energy Consequences
of Allowing `
Negative Energy Consequences df
_ Allowi_.n� _ .. __.i
Automotive wrecking
The positive energy
There are no known negative energy
yard totally enclosed
consequences of such a use
consequences from such a use on
by a sight obscuring
would be the reduced energy
site.
fence.
consumption for local
i
businesses and property owners
who would use such services.
Wireless
There are no known energy
There are no known negative energy
telecommunications
benefits from such a use at the
consequences from such a use on
facilities, except those
site.
site.
facilities meeting the
requirements of DCC
18.116.250(A) or (B).
Utility facility. There could be positive energy
consequences of such a use on
site if developed for photovoltaic
energy production or an energy
substation.
Manufacturing,
storage, sales, rental,
repair and servicing of
equipment and
materials associated
with farm and forest
uses, logging, road
maintenance, mineral
extraction,
construction or similar
rural activities.
Page 88 of 208
The positive energy
consequences of such a use
would be the reduced energy
consumption for local
businesses and property owners
who Would use such services.
38
There are no known negative energy
consequences from such a use on
site.
Additionally, commercial utiiity
facilities on the subject property are
already conditionally permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
property has been zoned EFU since
the 11992 adoption of the LNi
regulations. Allowance of such uses
was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a new
ESEE here as it is a not a new
conflicting use.
There are no known negative energy
consequences from such a use on
site.
Conflicting Use
Positive Energy Consequences
of Allow! , _
Negative Energy Consequences of
' _Allowing_ - i{
Electrical substations.
There would be positive energy
There are no known negative energy
consequences of such a use at
consequences from such a use on i
this site as it would provide
site.
additional energy capacity for
the comrTrunity.
Additionally, commercial utility
facilities on the subject property are
already conditionally permissible via
the existing EFU zoning and the
property has been zoned EFU since
the 1992 adoption of the LM
regulations. Allowance of such uses
was contemplated in the original
ESEE and does not warrant a new
ESEE here as it is a not a new
conflicting use.
Marijuana retailing,
The positive energy
There are no known negative energy
subject to the
consequences of such a use
consequences from such a use on
provisions of DCC
would be the reduced energy
1
site.
1
18.116.330.
consumption for local
businesses and property owners
who would use such services
versus having to travel to Bend.
Psilocybin testing
There are no known positive
There are no known negative energy
laboratories.
energy consequences from such
consequences from such a use on
a use on site.
site.
39
Page 89 of 208
Allowing Conflicting Uses, Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, or Limiting Conflicting Uses:
The ESEE consequences of the permitted and conditional uses in DCC 18.100 have been
analyzed and are provided for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners in
deciding this land use application. This exhaustive list provides sufficient detail to consider
the economic, social, environmental and energy factors to balance in making this decision
regarding the proposal and the Landscape Management Roads Goal 5 resource.
40
Page 90 of 208
�vTES CO
o� 0�� BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: First reading of Ordinance 2024-002: Redmond Airport Master Plan Update
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of first reading of Ordinance 2024-002 by title only.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City of Redmond and Redmond Municipal Airport request a legislative text
amendments Deschutes County Code section 18.80.030 regarding the AS Combining Zone
imaginary surfaces and noise contour boundaries to conform to the updated Redmond
Airport Master Plan. Following an initial public hearing on January 31, 2024 and a continued
public hearing on February 21, 2024, the Board voted to adopt the text amendments as
proposed.
The full record is located on the project webpage:
https://www.deschutescounty. ov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta-redmond-airport-master-
plan-ramp-text-amendment
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: June 5, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance 2024-002 - Redmond Airport Master Plan
(RAMP) Update Text Amendment
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider a first reading of Ordinance 2024-002 on
June 12, 2024, related to a request for an applicant -initiated Legislative Text Amendment to the
Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport,
submitted by the City of Redmond and Airport representatives. The first reading of Ordinance 2024-
002 follows the conclusion of Board deliberations on February 21, 2024.
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant, City of Redmond and Redmond Municipal Airport, is requesting a Legislative Text
Amendment to the AS Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) imaginary surfaces and noise contour
boundaries. The Oregon Department of Aviation defines aviation -related imaginary surfaces as
"imaginary areas in space and on the ground that are established in relation to the airport and its
runways". These imaginary surfaces allow for specific aviation uses and actions within them regarding
travel to, from, or around a given airport. The noise contour boundary indicates the distance from
the airport at which certain noise decibel -ratings could be disturbing to residential properties and
land uses. The subject proposal would update the Runway and Approach information and include a
corresponding update amending the AS map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for imaginary
surfaces and the new 55 DNL (Average Day -Night Sound Level) noise contour boundaries associated
with the Redmond Municipal Airport. The subject Text Amendment would bring the descriptions of
imaginary surfaces contained in DCC 18.80.030 into alignment with the Airport's approved 2018
Master Plan update.
Staff submitted a 35-day Post -Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) notice to the Department
of Land Conservation and Development on September 18, 2023. Agency notice was sent to relevant
agency partners on September 19, 2023.One generic agency comment was received from the County
Building Safety Division stating that, if structural development is involved with the project, to
coordinate with Deschutes County for permitting requirements. The second agency comment was
from the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODAV) expressing no specific comments other than their
support for approval of the application. Notice of the proposal was sent to all property owners within
Deschutes County whose property would be affected by the newly -adjusted imaginary surfaces and
55 DNL noise contour boundaries on September 20, 2023. The Notice explained the scope of the
proposal, provided a project -specific website related to the application, and gave meeting
information for the initial Hearings Officer public hearing held on November 7, 2023'. Following the
Hearings Officer's public hearing, a recommendation for approval was mailed to relevant parties on
December 15, 2023. On December 15, 2023, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer issued a
recommendation evaluating compliance with all applicable review criteria and ultimately
recommending approval of the proposed Text Amendment.
The Board conducted a work session on January 29, 20242 followed by an initial public hearing on
January 31, 20243. During the initial public hearing, the Board voted to continue the public hearing
until February 21, 20244. At the conclusion of the continued public hearing, the Board deliberated on
the matter and voted unanimously to approve the proposal as drafted.
These relevant dates and events are outlined in Table 1, below.
Table 1 - RAMP Review Timeline
Date Event
September 18, 2023 Notice provided to DLCD
September 19, 2023 Notice of Application sent to agency partners
September 20, 2023 Notice of proposal sent to all property owners affected by the new surfaces
November 7, 2023 Hearings Officer Public hearing
December 15, 2023 Hearings Officer issued recommendation of approval for the proposal
December 30, 2023 Notice of Public Hearing published in the Bulletin newspaper
January 29, 2024 Board work session in anticipation of public hearing
January 31, 2024 Initial public hearing before the Board
February 4, 2024 Notice of Continued Public Hearing published in the Bulletin newspaper
February 21, 2024 Continued public hearing before the Board, deliberations, and vote of approval
11. NEXT STEPS
As the airport's surrounding properties include lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes
County Code 22.28.030(C) required the application to be heard de novo before the Board, regardless
of the determination of the Hearings Officer. Per DCC Section 22.20.040(D), the review of the
proposed Text Amendment (reflecting quasi-judicial aspects of the proposal) is not subject to the 150-
day review period typically associated with land use decisions.
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-LpibIJ5EA
Z https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/board-county-commissioners-meeting-153
s https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/board-county-commissioners-meeting-149
4 https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/board-county-commissioners-meeting-155
Page 2 of 3
The record is available for inspection at the Planning Division and at the following link:
https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta-redmond-airport-master-plan-ram -
text -amendment.
111111. NEXT STEPS / SECOND READING
The Board is scheduled to conduct the second reading of Ordinance 2024-002 on June 26, 2024,
fourteen (14) days following the first reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance 2024-002 and Exhibits
Exhibit A: Legal Description
Exhibit B: Proposed Zoning Map Changes (Figure 1-4)
Exhibit C: Proposed Text Amendments
Exhibit D: Hearings Officer Recommendation
Page 3 of 3
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code 18.80.030(A-F), to update the Airport Safety * ORDINANCE NO. 2024-002
("AS") Combining Zone Imaginary Surfaces and
Noise Contour Boundaries for the Redmond Airport.
WHEREAS, City of Redmond applied under land use file number 247-23-000252-TA for a text
amendment to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone; A-S, to update
the imaginary surface information and noise contour boundaries associated with the Redmond Airport to align
with the 2018 Redmond Airport Master Plan (RAMP) Update; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on
November 7, 2023 before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on December 15, 2023 the Hearings
Officer recommended approval of the proposed text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered this matter after a duly noticed initial
public hearing on January 31, 2024, and a duly noticed continued public hearing on February 21, 2024, and
concluded that the proposed changes are consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and that the public
will benefit from changes to the land use regulations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C), the proposal shall be heard de novo
before the Board; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone; A-S, is amended to
read as described in Exhibit "C", attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined
and deleted language set forth in str-ikethfough.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18 Zoning Map, is amended to change the zoning boundaries as
described in Exhibit "A" and as depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit `B", with both exhibits attached and
incorporated by reference herein.
I/%
PAGE I OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2024-002
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, Exhibit "D",
attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 90" day after the date of adoption.
Dated this of 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of I" Reading:
Date of 2" `' Reading
Commissioner
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone
Philip Chang
Effective date
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair
PHILIP CHANG, Commissioner
day of 2024.
day of , 2024.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Yes No Abstained Excused
day of , 2024.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2024-002
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION PER
REDMOND AIRPORT RUNWAYS AND CENTERLINE MONUMENTS
LOCATED IN SECTIONS 22 AND 23, T 15S, R 13E, W.M.,
CITY OF REDMOND, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
BEGINNING AT A 3" BRASS CAP IN A MONUMENT WELL MARKING THE CENTERLINE
OF RUNWAY 5-23, FROM WHICH THE NORTHEAST END OF SAID RUNWAY BEARS
S60°48'30"W, 100.45 FEET, AND ALSO FROM WHICH A 3-114" ALUMINUM CAP
MARKING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22 BEARS N68°44'43"W, 2936.28
FEET, THENCE S01 °54'00 "W, 3798.08 FEET TO A HOLE IN A CONCRETE BASE
MARKING THE CENTERLINE OF RUNWAY 11-29, FROM WHICH THE SOUTHEAST END
OF SAID RUNWAY BEARS N57°39'23"W, 0.06 FEET, THENCE N87'21'17"W, 6165.75
FEET TO A 3" BRASS CAP IN A MONUMENT WELL MARKING THE CENTERLINE OF
RUNWAY 5-23, FROM WHICH THE SOUTHWEST END OF SAID RUNWAY BEARS
N60"48'30"E, 61.03 FEET, THENCE NO3`58'03"E, 3471.88 FEET TO A 2-112"
BRASS CAP MARKING THE CENTERLINE OF RUNWAY 11-29, FROM WHICH THE
NORTHWEST END OF SAID RUNWAY BEARS N57`39'23"W, 0.18 FEET, AND ALSO
FROM WHICH A 2-112" BRASS CAP MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 22 BEARS N60°02'38"W, 2320.18 FEET, THENCE N89°32'47"E, 6045.06
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION ARE BASED ON OREGON STATE PLANE SOUTH
ZONE COORDINATES, MEASURED IN INTERNATIONAL FEET.
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR
< L
REGON
CH 09, 2021
EW G. BANTON
96574
RENEWS: 12/31/25
PREPARED: APRIL 30, 2024
G�� D pow[ ly 9H10
fissU V10
P.O. BOX 131, REDMOND, OR 97756
(541) 548-6778 24-033CTRL.DWG
Exhibit A to Ordinance 2024-002
o
Z ao
M., Fn ��Wouu�i� �o]CUnlo
`•�� —off � � � rcOO W�oax � �`
J U f U
tL = d
� � J
� � • 2 �� U U¢ O r$ N W �
O W � cl.U3� W M W M2 Vt
ran $ § RW f NOvtihK 2 W ti
mjo J � ❑ • C� ¢ WW >¢ 222��Y 3� Z
00 � oo m�m W mti3C�m W o U
_______---___80'86L£_MAO,bS.IOS
-- mm-
r\
3 I / I\ e,�otd I of I WM�ooa?Q��w z
Q / I�5 I no Y"'�oln rri�iwm~
W tip/ I \ I law cn 215mS�3��
ZWZ I •�/ I \ � I w l 33oi'uwoti `"w¢o 0
2 W 2 2 M 2 M Z
�QO a/ oll ih�A°j I z 2N o
TRANS ¢�
pOZ I / MI � ^�� /yh I I �waCoW3`i cWia�z zw
"1121
_ 5t' / I� 2 moo U32�a3WN o¢
MWQ=�cW.,o
z
Z N K ¢`t W WaI�W O W? 2
U w P i 3 U �
` HIM
zoa m�
V1 Q Q JS SJ� n �
O N W I I \ I
�
jv visz�
WHO,
ciwo of
O¢002o Y. 2JW
Own
UVN¢O
FW2mwn 2� NOa
O h ow I / \`� I oa oW oN�¢¢a Wo 00 �wcwi
o N� I ado I W W �z�z,l-",4W Wo aUo
oSwQ�zo¢ of Wo�Z
0o W¢ww
3N�a2W3
TAW 3„£0,8S.PON---------
•jNll���� g 5 Oj VOiO¢p O3U
NOUa WU2
O �W �W U of U
5Rt m
WIN
e �Ra
ENG\NF'� 3� o22 m�2� Ilk
} O i w0
Z_ WO Wm¢
/Ory m¢ wON yo� 22m0
aoo 4zwo
o00 �Wz2
v ry�
6 SU/tt' G G zN� Uo¢Oj 3om;vz zS=v1
p ¢ o ozo z�
N� � Z aao ool owwa1 Smw
�nm oa�aaoo ov� ¢tiW2
)bb3N39 SC
Jefferson County
Deschutes County Crook County
City of A
m Bend
Legend
Highway
EMCounty Boundary
Part 77 Surfaces
®® Urban Growth Boundary
Crook County
Deschutes Coun
FIGURE 1
PROPOSED ZONING MAP CHANGE
Exhibit "B"
to Ordinance 2024-002
0 1.5 3 6
Miles
February 21, 2024
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Patti Adair, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of , 2024
Effective Date: —2024
nm
nm:
Inun
-�
ee■ •
um■
unn
/1
i imin u
1 ®11'.':T
■
FIGURE 2
PROPOSED ZONING MAP CHANGE
Legend Exhibit "B"
Highway to Ordinance 2024-002
Runway
Runway Protection Zone
® � Redmond Urban Growth Boundary 0 025 0.5 Wiles
February 21, 2024
OF
�CIO
gAk
CRY
Rp
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Patti Adair, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of 2024
Effective Date: 2024
® _-NWPOP L-AR-AVE
Cj A F m
U, n
FO= W MAPLE AVE �_-NW MAPLEAVE=`O p _ ® p
z z Z rn vi m C O
u~i —NW KINGWOOD AVE LU r (P yS u=~i z H 0
i O = m—w_�_—_
z NW.IViY(AVE 21z 3 z Z F- (nn _=>�,,.� G
W_HEMLGCK-AVE z1 "-�-"�-'-""z�zIN
N `F-M Z W
_ U) <n n z ■
z
z
z a z m
-A
r1 � u, z N � ■
ANTLERVE-WANTLFR-AVE Y = F F r 7n EFNTL•ER•AVE-E•ANTLER•A4E
r : ti m f�
rnSW[SW UAV�'�;
iHIGHL°ANDAVE
SW`OBSIDIAN•AVE N
I �� EHWY 126 EfHWY 126
SW•QUARTZ•AVE A
3 SW REINDEER AVE
SW SALMON 'AVE'�
�€-`''
N SW•WICKIUPAVE
� mi
N � ^c t ." �, 'j'-'� � Cam' � •: G��� � a �K <,� `"sP�`a�"
Ell
a .ate-xe
■� Secondary
■ �� ® Impact Area
■
Legend
Highway
r< Direct Impact Area
Secondary Impact Area
County Boundary
ON Redmond Redmond Urban Growth Boundary
FIGURE 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROPOSED ZONING MAP CHANGE OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Exhibit "B"
to Ordinance 2024-002
V V
0 2,000 4,000 8,000
Feet
February 21, 2024
Patti Adair, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST., Recording Secretary
Dated this day of , 2024
Effective Date: 2024
FIGURE 4
Legend PROPOSED ZONING MAP CHANGE
Highway Exhibit "B"
Runway to Ordinance 2024-002
Noise Contour (55 DNL)
County Boundary rv�Vl
® Redmond Urban Growth Boundary 0 1,750 3,500 7,000
Feet
February 21, 2024
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Patti Adair, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this _day of , 2024
Effective Date: 2024
I E S CO
4� 2�
ate_.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT C - PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
FILE NUMBER(S): 247-23-000252-TA
SUBJECT PROPERTY: The subject Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone and 55 DNL noise
contour boundaries
are
associated with the Redmond Municipal
Airport (Airport), which
includes
the following addresses and tax lots:
• Tax Lot
1513220000100
0
1050 SE Sisters Ave
0
675 SE Salmon Ave
0
1050 SE Sisters Ave (A-B)
0
679 SE Salmon Ave
0
1120 SE Sisters Ave
0
681 SE Salmon Ave
0
1120 SE Sisters Ave (A-E)
o
683 SE Salmon Ave
0
1300 SE USFS Dr
o
685 SE Salmon Ave
o
1320 SE USFS Dr
o
687 SE Salmon Ave
0
1350 SE USFS Dr
0
689 SE Salmon Ave
0
1410 SE USFS Dr (A-B)
o
691 SE Salmon Ave
0
1552 SE USFS Dr
0
693 SE Salmon Ave
0
1605 SE Ochoco Way
0
701 SE Salmon Ave
0
1694 SE USFS Dr
0
705 SE Salmon Ave
0
1900 SE Airport Way (A-1 to
o
743 SE Salmon Ave
A-3; B; C-1 to C-2; D; E; F-1
0
765 SE Salmon Ave
to F-14; G1 to G14; H to V)
o
875 SE Veteran's Way
0
2215 SE USFS Dr
0
880 SE Veteran's Way
o
2234 SE 6th St
0
888 SE Veteran's Way (A to G; H-1 to H-2; I-
o
2234 SE Salmon Ave
1 to 1-7; J-1 to J-2; K-1 to K-7)
o
2700 SE Airport Way
o
905 SE Salmon Ave
0
625 SE Salmon Ave
o
907 SE Salmon Ave
o
644 SE Salmon Ave
o
911 SE Salmon Ave
0
645 SE Salmon Ave
o
665 SE Salmon Ave
• Tax Lot 1513000001500 • Tax Lot 1513000001503
0 1730 SE Ochoco Way o 3840 SW Airport Way
0 1740 SE Ochoco Way
0 1764 SE Ochoco Way . Tax Lot 1513280000101
o 2000 SE USFS DR (A to D) 0 3000 SW Airport Way
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Exhibit C —Ordinance k"6�3�,$76,faz6bO250-tAdd@ldeschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org/cd
APPLICANT: City of Redmond
411 SW 91h St
Redmond, OR 97756
Redmond Municipal Airport
2522 Jesse Butler Cir
Redmond, OR 97756
REQUEST: The applicant, City of Redmond, has applied for a Text Amendment to
the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) to update the
Runway and Approach information and a corresponding update
amending the AS map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for
imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL (Average Day -Night Sound
Level) noise contour boundaries.
STAFF CONTACT: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
Phone: 541-317-3148
Email: tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta-
red mond-a i rport-m aster-pla n-ra m p-text-a mend ment
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Deschutes County Code
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures
Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 3, (Rural Growth Management), Section 3.4, Rural Economy
Oregon Revised Statutes
O RS 836.610
ORS 836.616
Oregon Administrative Rules
OAR Chapter 660, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals 1-14
OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, Transportation
OAR Chapter 660, Division 13, Airport Planning
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Exhibit C — Ordinance A%Ai66� 3��$76AZ6�0025PAdd@deschutes .org @ www.deschutes.org/cd
II. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS:
The proposed text amendments are also detailed in the referenced applicant's burden of proof
materials, included as an attachment. Below are the proposed changes with removed text shown
in strikethro g.1 and newly -added text identified by underline.
Title 18, County Zoning_
Chapter 18.80 Airport Safety Combining Zone; A-S
Section 18.80.030 Redmond Municipal Airport
The Redmond Municipal Airport is a Category 1, Commercial Service Airport. Its function is to
accommodate scheduled major/national or regional commuter commercial air carrier service.
The two existing annroximately 7 040' long by 1 00' 1 50' wide "other than utility" paved runways
are located at an airport elevation of 3,080.7' 3,0:7:7'. The proposed extension to runway the
primary runway and the planned new parallel runway are both identified on the FAA -adopted
Airport Layout Plan. Therefore, these improvements are used in the layout of the Airport Safety
and Combining Zone. The same safety zone dimensional standards used for R ^Way 4-22- the
primary runway will also apply to the planned parallel runway.
A. Primary Surface - For Redmond, the primary surfaces are 1,000' wide by 7,406' 7,440'
long for the crosswind runway Runway 1 n_2Q, 1,000' wide by 9,100' long for the primary
runway Runway ^ 22, and 1,000' wide by 6,600' 7� long for the proposed new parallel
runway.
B. Transitional Surface - The surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the
runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7:1 from the sides of
the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces Transitional surfaces
for those portions of the precision approach surface which project through and beyond
the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally
from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline
rp
-becausse it I:ias a total of three potential runways with two possible approaches. Rulm - A - f _�Y
4-:22 ;Ad the planned paraliel r, iwl y will both have precision approaches. Runway-4-0-
precision approach on each end The precision RP-7forpris -a 1,000'vvide _T
1 700' long by 1,01 U wide trapezoid
C. Approach Surface - The current ILS precision approach surface to the primary runway
runway and the planned precision approaches to the Runway 4 a future parallel
runway 4-2-2, are 1,000' wide by 50,000' long by 16,000' wide, with an upward approach
slope ratio of 50:1 (one foot vertical for each 50 feet horizontal) for the first 10,000', then
a slope ratio of 40:1 for the remaining 40,000'. The non -precision approach surface is 500'
wide by 10,000' long by 3,500' wide, with an upward approach slope ratio of 34:1.
Exhibit C - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA Page 3 of 4
Exhibit C - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
D. Horizontal Surface - The surface boundary is comprised of connected arcs drawn 10,000
feet outward and centered on the ends of the primary surface. The elevation of the
horizontal surface for the Redmond Airport is 3,22--7 230 feet (150' above airport
elevation),
E. Conical Surface - The surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the
horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4 000' up to an elevation
of 3,430.7'.
F. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Two different RPZs apply to the Redmond Airport
because it has a total of three potential runways with two possible approaches The
primary runway and the planned parallel runway will both have precision approaches
The crosswind runway has a non -precision approach on each end The precision RPZ
forms a 1,000' wide by 2,500' long by 1 750' wide trapezoid while the non -precision RPZ
forms a 1,000' wide by 1,700' longue 1 510' wide trapezoid The RPZ begins 200' from the
surveyed runway end point.
Exhibit C - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit C — Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
Mailing Date:
Friday, December 15, 2023
HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
REDMOND AIRPORT MASTER PLAN (RAMP) UPDATE - TEXT AMENDMENT
FILE NUMBER(S): 247-23-000252-TA
SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Airport
Safety Combining Zone and 55 DNL noise contour
boundaries
are associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport
("Airport"), which includes the following addresses and tax lots:
• Tax Lot
1513220000100
0
1050 SE Sisters Ave
o
675 SE Salmon Ave
0
1050 SE Sisters Ave (A-B)
0
679 SE Salmon Ave
0
1120 SE Sisters Ave
o
681 SE Salmon Ave
0
1120 SE Sisters Ave (A-E)
o
683 SE Salmon Ave
o
1300 SE USFS Dr
o
685 SE Salmon Ave
0
1320 SE USFS Dr
o
687 SE Salmon Ave
0
1350 SE USFS Dr
o
689 SE Salmon Ave
0
1410 SE USFS Dr (A-B)
o
691 SE Salmon Ave
o
1552 SE USFS Dr
o
693 SE Salmon Ave
0
1605 SE Ochoco Way
o
701 SE Salmon Ave
0
1694 SE USFS Dr
o
705 SE Salmon Ave
o
1900 SE Airport Way (A-1 to
o
743 SE Salmon Ave
A-3; B; C-1 to C-2; D; E; F-1
0
765 SE Salmon Ave
to F-14; G1 to G14; H to V)
o
875 SE Veteran's Way
0
2215 SE USFS Dr
o
880 SE Veteran's Way
o
2234 SE 6th St
o
888 SE Veteran's Way (A to G; H-1 to H-2; I-
o
2234 SE Salmon Ave
1 to I-7; J-1 to J-2; K-1 to K-7)
0
2700 SE Airport Way
o
905 SE Salmon Ave
o
625 SE Salmon Ave
o
907 SE Salmon Ave
0
644 SE Salmon Ave
o
911 SE Salmon Ave
0
645 SE Salmon Ave
0
665 SE Salmon Ave
• Tax Lot 1513000001500 0 Tax Lot 1513000001503
0 1730 SE Ochoco Way o 3840 SW Airport Way
o 1740 SE Ochoco Way
0 1764 SE Ochoco Way • Tax Lot 1513280000101
0 2000 SE USFS DR (A to D) o 3000 SW Airport Way
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
APPLICANT: City of Redmond
411 SW 911 St
Redmond, OR 97756
Redmond Municipal Airport
2522 Jesse Butler Cir
Redmond, OR 97756
REQUEST: The City of Redmond ("Applicant") applied for a Text Amendment to the
Airport Safety ("AS") Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) to update the
Runway and Approach information and a corresponding update
amending the AS map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for
imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL ("Average Day -Night Sound
Level") noise contour boundaries.
STAFF CONTACT: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
Phone: 541-317-3148
Email: tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta-
redmond-airport-master-plan-ramp-text-amendment
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures
Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 3, (Rural Growth Management), Section 3.4, Rural Economy
Oregon Revised Statutes
ORS 836.610
ORS 836.616
Oregon Administrative Rules
OAR Chapter 660, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals 1-14
OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, Transportation
OAR Chapter 660, Division 13, Airport Planning
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 2 of 27
II. BASIC FINDINGS
LOT OF RECORD: DCC 22.04.040(B) does not require lot of record verification for Text Amendment
applications and, as a result, lot of record verification is not required for the subject application.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The AS Combining Zone and 55 Day -Night Sound Level ("DNU) noise contour
boundary includes the Redmond Municipal Airport ("Roberts Field") and surrounding properties
affected by the imaginary surfaces of the AS Combining Zone, which collectively total approximately
1,934 acres. The Redmond Municipal Airport is developed with a number of aviation -related uses
including taxiways, runways, internal roads and parking areas, and several structures. The Tax Lots
associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport (1513220000100, 1513000001500, 1513000001503,
1513280000101) abut or contain several City of Redmond roadways to the west and north (SE Jesse
Butler Cr [city local], SE Salmon Ave [city local], SE 6th St [city local], SE Airport Way [city arterial], SE
Veteran's Way [city arterial], SE Sisters Ave [city local], SE USFS Dr [city local], SE 101h St [city local]).
Highway 126 (a State Primary Highway) adjoins the Airport property along its northern boundary.
SE Sherman Rd and Redmond -Powell Butte Market Road border the Airport property to the east
and are functionally classified as County -owned Rural Local roadways. Additional portions of SE
Sherman Rd (to the east of the Airport) are owned and maintained by the Bureau of Land
Management ("BLM") and are functionally classified as Rural Local roadways.
PROPOSAL: The submitted Burden of Proof includes the following background on why this Text
Amendment is necessary for the Airport:
"The applicant, City of Redmond, owner of the Redmond Municipal Airport, proposes the enclosed
amendments to the text of Chapter 18.80 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance and the
County's Official Zoning Map to reflect the proposed improvements identified in the 2018 Airport
Master Plan.
The Airport Master Plan evaluated the Airport's needs over a 20 year planning period for airfield,
airspace, terminal area, and landside facilities. The goal of the plan was to document the orderly
development of Airport facilities essential to meeting City needs, in accordance with FAA standards,
and in a manner complementary with community interests. The Plan resulted in a 20 year
development strategy envisioned by the City of Redmond, reflective of the updated Airport Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), and graphically depicted by the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawings.
The approved Plan allows the City to satisfy FAA assurances and seek project funding eligible under
the respective federal and state airport aid program. City of Redmond Ordinance No. 2018-18
updated the Redmond Transportation System Plan, inclusive of the 2018 Airport Master Plan,
making it the transportation element of the Redmond Comprehensive Plan."
The proposed language of the Text Amendment is included as Attachment 1 and summarized as
follows:
• The Applicant proposes to change the introductory language of DCC 18.80.030 including
changes to airport elevation, and descriptions of the existing runways.
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 3 of 27
• The Applicant proposes to change the Primary Surface, Approach Surface, and Horizontal
Surface dimensional description(s) at DCC 18.80.030(A, C, and D).
• The Applicant proposes to remove the existing language of DCC 18.80.030(B) and replace it
with a description of the Airport's Transitional Surface.
• The Applicant proposes to add descriptions of the Airport's Conical Surface and Runway
Protection Zone at DCC 18.80.030(E) and (F), respectively.
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on September 19, 2023, to
several public agencies and received the following comments:
Deschutes County Building Safety Division, Randy Scheid September 20 2023•
"The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire
& Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the
appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review."
The following agencies/entities did not respond to the notice: Arnold Irrigation District, Bend Metro
Parks & Rec., ELM Prineville District, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Forestry,
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Department of State Lands, Deputy State Fire
Marshal, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Deschutes
County Fire Adapted Communities Coordinator, Deschutes Countv Forester; Deschutes County
Road Department, Deschutes County Sheriff, Deschutes National Forest, ODOT Region 4 Planning,
Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Department of Water Resources, Redmond Area Parks
& Rec. District, Redmond City Planning, Redmond Fire & Rescue, Swalley Irrigation District,
Terrebonne Domestic Water District, Three Sisters Irrigation District, Watermaster - District 11,
BNSF Railway, Cascade Natural Gas Co., Central Electric Co-op, Oregon Department of Aviation,
Redmond Airport, Redmond Public Works, and Redmond School District.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners
whose property would be affected by the new AS Combining Zone and 55 DNL noise contour
boundaries on September 20, 2023. Comments were received from Central Oregon Irrigation
District ("COID") and Dorinne Tye.
COID, Spencer Stauffer, September 22, 2023:
'Re: 247-23-000252-TA
Deschutes County Assessor's Map 15-13-00, Tax Lots 1500 and 1503
Deschutes County Assessor's Map 15-13-22, Tax Lot 100
Deschutes County Assessor's Map 15-13-28, Tax Lot 101
Please be advised that Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) has reviewed the TextAmendment
to the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) to update the Runway and Approach
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 4 of 27
information and corresponding update amending the AS Zoning Map to reflect the new zoning
boundaries for imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL (Average Day -Night Sound Level) noise
contour boundaries. (dated August 29, 2023). CO/D has no facilities or water rights on the subject
property (TAXLOT., 15-13-00, Tax Lots 1500 and 1503, 15-13-22, Tax Lot 100, 15-13-28, Tax Lot
101)."
Dorinne Tye, November 7, 2023
An email was received, during the conduct of the November 7, 2023 Hearing, from Dorinne Tye
("Tye"). The Tye email raised a number of issues and objections to the proposal in this case. The
Hearings Officer attempted to identify and characterize Tye's email issues below.
Tye stated that aircraft noise creates negative psychological and general health impacts. The
Hearings Officer considered Tye's "noise" impact comments in the findings for any relevant approval
criterion.
Tye asserted that "shifting noise contours requires avigation easements." Tye provided no legal
citations to assist the Hearings Officer regarding what relevant approval criteria/criterion the
"avigation easement" argument applied. Further, Tye failed to provide citations or other legal
authority, with sufficient specificity, to allow the Hearings Officer to comprehend or analyze the
"avigation easement" issue.
Tye asserted that shifting noise contours may violate one or more EPA guidelines. The Hearings
Officer finds that T_ve failed to develop the "EPA" argument with sufficient specificity to allow the
Hearings Officer to comprehend and analyze that issue.
Tye suggested that Applicant's proposed shifting of noise contours violates the US Constitutional
provision that prohibits the taking of private property withoutjust compensation. Tye did reference
the U.S. Supreme Court case Nollan v. California Coastal Commission in the context of the "taking"
issue. Tye indicated that the court in Nollan required a "nexus" test to be satisfied. The Hearings
Officer finds that Tye failed to connect the Nollan "nexus" test, with sufficient specificity, to the
present application. The Hearings Office finds that Tye failed to provide specific facts or evidence
to support her Nolan argument(s). The Hearings Officer finds that Tye failed to adequately develop
the Nollan "nexus" test argument such that the Hearings Officer could provide a legally competent
response.
Tye asserted that the process leading up to the issuance of the Staff Report and the hearing in this
case did not provide for adequate citizen involvement. The Hearings Officer addresses Tye's "citizen
involvement" argument in the findings for relevant approval criterion below.
Tye stated that "there must be adequate consideration and mitigation of airside impacts and related
road traffic impacts, especially from an airport..." The Hearings Officer notes that Tye raised no
specific road traffic impacts that should be considered in a negative or positive light. The Hearings
Officer addresses traffic impacts in the findings for relevant approval criterion below.
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 5 of 27
Tye referenced an "Airport Easement Ordinance" and stated that such law had been found
unconstitutional. The Hearings Officer opened the internet link in Tye's email and determined the
referenced Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals decision related to a Hillsboro, Oregon ordinance.
The Hearings Officer finds Tye did not provide any legal authority that would lead the Hearings
Officer to conclude that a Hillsboro ordinance was relevant to this case.
NOTICE REQUIREMENT: As mentioned previously, on September 20, 2023, the Planning Division
mailed notice to all property owners whose property would be affected by the new AS Combining
Zone and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries. This type of notice is commonly referred to as a
Measure 56 Notice. A separate Notice of Application was mailed to relevant agencies on September
19, 2023. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, October 8, 2023.
Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development on September 18, 2023. The Applicant complied with the posted notice requirements
outlined in DCC 22.24.030(B) and submitted a Land Use Sign Affidavit confirming that the required
notice was posted on October 25, 2023, for at least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing
date of November 7, 2023.
REVIEW PERIOD: According to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 22.20.040(D), the review of the
proposed quasi-judicial Text Amendment application is not subject to the 150-day review period.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary Findings. A public hearing was held on November 7, 2023 (the "Hearing")
providing the Applicant, Deschutes County Planning Staff ("County Staff") and members of the public
an opportunity to provide oral and written comments related to the application in this case. Only
the Applicant and County Staff offered oral testimony and written comments at the Hearing. One
person submitted written comments (Tye email referenced above) in opposition. With the exception
of the Tye email submission there is no evidence or argument in the record to dispute specific
sections or language contained in the Staff Report. The Hearings Officer incorporates the Hearings
Officer's comments included in the Public Comments section above, related to the Tye email, as
additional findings for this section.
The Staff, in the Staff Report (page 11), opined that the policies set forth in the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Section 3.4 Rural Economy Policy 3.4.6 are not a specific approval criterion.
Staff stated that if the Hearings Officer concluded that these policies were relevant approval criteria
the Hearings Officer should provide findings in support of the Hearings Officer's position. The
Hearings Officer concurs with Staff that the policies (i.e., Policy 3.4.6) are not mandatory approval
criterion.
Finally, as noted above, only the Tye email raised any issues with the Staff Report. Specifically, the
Tye email raised questions concerning noise, citizen involvement and transportation related
findings. The Hearings Officer supplemented the Staff findings related to noise, citizen involvement
and transportation issues. Therefore, except as noted above, the Hearings Officer adopts the Staff
findings in the Staff Report as the Hearings Officer's findings.
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 6 of 27
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or
legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner
for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on
forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures
of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The Applicant, as the property owner, requested a quasi-judicial Text Amendment with corresponding
quasi-judicial Map Amendment. The Applicant has filed the required land use application forms for the
proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of
the Deschutes County Code.
DCC 22.04.020 includes the following definition:
'Quasi judicial' zone change or plan amendment generally refers to a plan amendment or zone
change affecting a single or limited group of property owners and that involves the application of
existing policy to a specific factual setting. (The distinction between legislative and quasi judicial
changes must ultimately be made on a case -by -case basis with reference to case law on the
subject.)
The subject application is not a request to change the zoning or Comprehensive Plan designation of the
subject property. However, as described below, the quasi-judicial process of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is the most applicable guidance regarding Text Amendments that are not squarely
legislative. Therefore, staff includes the definition of a quasi-judicial process above for reference and
also addresses the provisions of DCC 22.28.030, below, regarding final action on Comprehensive Plan
amendments. Potentially relevant to this case, the Bend Municipal Airport most recently went through
a Text Amendment in Deschutes County file 247-20-000482-TA. The Hearings Officer decision for file
247-20-000482-TA made the following findings regarding whether the application should be processed
as a quasi-judicial Text Amendment.
Based on the foregoing, the Hearings Officer finds that, in this case, the ultimate adoption of the
Text Amendments is a two-step process. The role of the Hearings Officer is to apply the law, not to
change it. In the first step of the process, the Applicant has a right under the DCC to submit and to
have considered an application to amend the Code's text. This phase of the process is quasi-
judicial in nature and it is appropriate to have a hearing and to build a record following the
principles of a quasi-judicial process. As part of that process, the Hearings Officer is addressing
the application of the County's exiting laws. The second step of the process is for the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners ("Board) to adopt an ordinance to incorporate any text
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 7 of 27
amendments to the Code. Amendments to the text of a zoning ordinance are a change in the
County's law, and only the Board can make such a change. In other words, the Hearings Officer is
without authority to amend the County's Code. The Hearings Officer, however, can make a
recommendation to the Board based on what develops in the quasi-judicial phase of the process.
The Oregon Supreme Court case Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers provides guidance on how to distinguish
between a legislative and quasi-judicial process, and outlines a three-part test that continues to be
applied throughout case law. The Court of Appeals applied and expanded on the Strawberry Hill 4
Wheelers decision in Hood River Valley v. Board of Ctv. Commissioners 193 Or App 485, 495, 91 P3d
748 (2004):
Given those concerns, '[t]he fact that a policymaking process is circumscribed by * * *procedural
requirements [such as public hearings] does not alone turn it into an adjudication.' Id. at 604.
Rather, at least three other considerations generally bear on the determination of whether
governmental action represented an 'exercise of * * *quasi judicial functions.' ORS 34.040(1). First,
does 'the process, once begun, [call] for reaching a decision,' with that decision being confined by
preexisting criteria rather than a wide discretionary choice of action or inaction? Strawberry Hill
4 Wheelers, 287 Or at 604. Second, to what extent is the decision -maker 'bound to apply
preexisting criteria to concrete facts? Id. at 602-03. Third, to what extent is the decision 'directed
at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons? Id. at 603.
Those three general criteria do not, however, describe a bright -line test. As we noted in Estate of
Gold v. City of Portland, 87 Or App 45, 51, 740 P2d 812, rev den, 304 Or 405 (1987), Strawberry
Hill 4 Wheelers 'contemplates a balancing of the various factors which militate for or against a
quasi-judicial characterization and does not create [on] 'all or nothing' test[.]' (Citation omitted.)
In particular, we noted that the criteria are applied in light of the reasons for their existence -viz.,
'the assurance of correct factual decisions' and 'the assurance of fair attention to individuals
particularly affected. " Estate of Gold, 87 Or App at 51 (quoting Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers, 287 Or
at 604).
As noted above, the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test requires a case -specific analysis of all three factors
in combination. Individuals most affected by the proposed Text Amendment include the Redmond
Municipal Airport and neighboring property owners, all of whom were mailed notice pursuant to DCC
22.24, 030.
Staff addresses each component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test below:
Results in a decision
The applicant has submitted an application for a Text Amendment, in order to amend text related to
the Redmond Airport's AS Combining Zone in DCC 18.80.030 and to update applicable AS overlayzoning
boundaries and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries identified in associated zoning maps and County
records. The request will result in either an approval or a denial, and a decision will be issued by the
Board of County Commissioners (Board) pursuant to DCC Title 22. As opposed to a policy change
initiated bystaff or decision -makers, which has a wide discretionary choice between action and inaction,
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 8 of 27
the subject request was submitted as a land use application by the property owner and the County must
take final action on it. Staff finds the subject amendment clearly meets this component of the Strawberry
Hill 4 Wheelers test and may be considered a quasi-judicial process.
Apply existing criteria
The subject request is being reviewed based on criteria in DCC Chapter 18.136, Amendments, and
applicable state statutes. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 836.616, Rules for airport uses and activities,
provides a list of the uses that may be permitted within an airport under a local jurisdiction's land use
code. Staff is unclear about the specific applicability of ORS 836,616 to the subject application as there
are no changes to permitted uses within the Airport, but includes that provision, below if the Hearings
Officer finds it applies to the subject application. The application is being reviewed to confirm
compliance with the DCC along with applicable OARS and ORSs, and staff therefore finds existing criteria
are being applied to the subject application. Consequently, the application meets this component of the
Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test for a quasi-judicial process.
Small number of persons
The AS Combining Zone encompasses the Airport, with the Zone's imaginary surfaces located above a
limited number of surrounding properties. The subject property from with the AS Combining Zone is
based is owned and operated by the City of Redmond, who manages leases and oversees uses within
the Redmond Municipal Airport. While staff notes the Redmond Municipal Airport is utilized by members
of the public and various businesses, changes to the airports imaginary surfaces and 55 DNL noise
contour boundaries can only be established on the property If the City of Redmond initiates or
authorizes an application. The subject request will impact the development potential of the Airport
property and a limited number of surrounding properties. Therefore, staff finds the subject request
complies with this component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test and may be categorized as quasi-
judicial.
When the factors above are considered in combination, staff finds they indicate the subject Text
Amendment is a quasi-judicial process. As noted in Hood River Valley v. Board of Cty. Commissioners
the differentiation between a legislative and quasi-judicial process is important to ensure all affected
parties are given a fair process. In this case the proposal was noticed to all property owners who would
potentially be affected by the proposal and processing the request through a quasi-judicial process will
provide for a public hearing before a Hearings Officer and final action by the Board. For these reasons,
staff finds the request meets the three-part test outlined in Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers as well as the
intent of a quasi-judicial process."
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures
Section 22.12.010, Hearing Required
No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 9 of 27
public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the
Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless
otherwise required by state law.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
'As described above, staff finds the subject request is a quasi-judicial Text Amendment. However, the
procedural steps will be similar to those outlined in the Hearing's Officer decision for file 247-20-000482-
TA, which finds amendments to allowed airport uses carry the qualities of a legislative act. The subject
amendments will be adopted through an ordinance, consistent with the process for a legislative
amendment. The Planning Director has exercised their discretion not to set a hearing before the
Planning Commission."
Section 22.12.020, 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.
B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and
where necessary to comply with ORS 203.04.5,
C. Individual Notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC
22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as
required by ORS 215.503.
D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other
newspapers published in Deschutes County.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"Notice of the proposed Text Amendment was published in the Bend Bulletin. As noted above, the
applicant complied with the posted notice requirement and staff mailed notice to all property owners
who would be affected by the newly -proposed AS zoning and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries. Notice
was provided to the County public information official for wider media distribution."
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 Commissioners or the Planning Commission.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 10 of 27
"The applicant has submitted the required fees and requested a Text Amendment. Staff finds the
applicant is granted permission under this criterion to initiate a legislative change and has submitted
the necessary fee and materials."
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.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
'As described above, the subject application meets the definition of a quasi-judicial application. For this
reason, this application was referred to a Hearings Officer rather than the Planning Commission for a
recommendation. The adoption of the proposed text amendments will follow a legislative process
because it must be approved by the Board. For the purpose of this criterion, staff notes the application
has properties of both a quasi-judicial and legislative amendment."
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 Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The subject application was not initiated by the Board. Staff finds this criterion does not apply."
Section 22.12.050, Final Decision
All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"Staff finds this criterion requires action by the Board to effect any legislative changes to Deschutes
County Code. If the proposed Text Amendment is approved, it will become effective through the Board
adoption of an ordinance."
Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
Section 22.28.030, Decision On Plan Amendments And Zone Changes
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 11 of 27
A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission when
acting as the Hearings Body shall have authority to make decisions on all quasi-
judicial zone changes and plan amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi-
judicial plan amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
B. in considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial plan
amendments on which the Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision, the
Board of County Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review
initiated by the Board, adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further
testimony will be taken by the Board.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
'As detailed above, staff finds the proposal should be viewed as a quasi-judicial plan amendment. For
this reason, staff finds these criteria apply. This application is being referred to a Hearings Officer for a
recommendation. If an appeal is not filed and the Board does not initiate review, the Board shall adopt
the Hearings Officer's recommendation as the decision of the county."
C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or
concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo
before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal,
regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission.
Such hearing before the Board shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as
an appeal to the Board under DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The subject Text Amendment does not require a goal exception and does not concern lands designated
for forest or agricultural use as the base zoning of the airport subject property is within the City of
Redmond's jurisdiction. For this reason, a de novo hearing before the Board is not required."
D. Notwithstanding DCC 22.28.030(C), when a plan amendment subject to a DCC
22.28.030(C) hearing before the Board of County Commissioners has been
consolidated for hearing before the hearings Officer with a zone change or other
permit application not requiring a hearing before the board under DCC 22.28.030(C),
any party wishing to obtain review of the Hearings Officer's decision on any of those
other applications shall file an appeal. The plan amendment shall be heard by the
Board consolidated with the appeal of those other applications.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"No other application is being consolidated with the subject Text Amendment. Staff finds this criterion
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 12 of 27
does not apply."
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Section 3.4, Rural Economy
Goal 1. Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles
and a healthy environment.
Policy 3.4.6 Support and participate in master planning for airports in Deschutes
County
FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings related these policies as
additional findings. Further, the Hearings Officer finds that the Staff Report findings set forth below
and the underlying documentation submitted by the Applicant, constitute substantial evidence in
this case. While perhaps not relevant to these findings the Hearings Officer addresses, at the end
of this section, Tye email comments related to transportation (road impacts). The Hearings Officer
agrees with and therefore adopts the following Staff Report comments:
"The County's Comprehensive Plan includes a number of guiding policies such as the rural economy
goal cited above. In addition, Appendix C - Transportation System Plan includes goals specific to airport
planning. Staff finds the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies are implemented through Deschutes
County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan goals themselves are notspecific approval criteria. However,
to the extent the Hearings Officer finds this policy is an applicable approval criterion, staff notes that
the proposed text amendments will support master planning for the Redmond Municipal Airport. The
subject amendments are proposed to implement the changes within the 2018 Redmond Airport Master
Plan, the purpose of which is to document the orderly development of Airport facilities essential to
meeting the City of Redmond's needs, in accordance with FAA standards, and in a manner
complementary to community interests."
Tye, in the Tye email, stated the following related to transportation issues:
"There must be adequate consideration and mitigation of airside impacts and related road traffic
impacts, especially from an airport with the highest airborne lead in the state."
The Hearings Officer finds Tye statement that "there must be adequate consideration" of "road
traffic impacts" is a reasonable and fair comment. However, without additional evidence or
argument related to how the instant application fails to "adequately consider road traffic" the
Hearings Officer is unable to meaningfully respond. The Hearings Officer finds the Tye email
comment related to road traffic is not developed sufficiently to allow the Hearings Officer to make
a reasonable analysis and decision.
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 13 of 27
OREGON REVISED STATUTES
Chapter 836 - Airports and Landing Fields
836.610, Local government land use plans and regulations to accommodate airport
zones and uses; funding; rules.
1) Local governments shall amend their comprehensive plan and land use regulations
consistent with the rules for airports adopted by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission under ORS 836.616 and 836.619. Airports subject to the
rules shall include:
(a) Publicly owned airports registered, licensed or otherwise recognized by the
Department of Transportation on or before December 31, 1994, that in 1994
were the base for three or more aircraft, and
(b) Privately owned public -use airports specifically identified in administrative
rules of the Oregon Department of Aviation that.
(A) Provide important links in air traffic in this state,
(B) Provide essential safety or emergency services, or
(C) Are of economic importance to the county where the airport is
located.
(2)(a) Local governments shall amend their comprehensive plan and land use regulations
as required under subsection (1) of this section not later than the first periodic
review, as described in ORS 197.628 to 197.651, conducted after the date of the
adoption of a list of airports by the Oregon Departnment o f Aviation under subsection
(3) of this section.
(b) A state agency or other person may provide funding to a local government to
accomplish the planning requirements of this section earlier than otherwise
required under this subsection.
(3) The Oregon Department of Aviation by rule shall adopt a list of airports described
in subsection (1) of this section. The rules shall be reviewed and updated periodically
to add or remove airports from the list. An airport may be removed from the list
only upon request of the airport owner or upon closure of the airport for a period of
more than three years. [1995 c.285 §4, 1997 c.859 52]
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The AS Combining Zone stems from the Redmond Municipal Airport, which is a publicly -owned airport.
The proposed changes relate to dimensions and boundaries of the imaginary surfaces of the AS
Combining Zone and the 55 DNL noise contour boundary. No changes to the Airport's operational uses
or activities are proposed and, as a result, the provisions of ORS 836.616 do not apply to the subject
application. Additionally, staff recognizes that the underlying zoning for the Airport is based on City of
Redmond zoning districts over which the County has no jurisdiction for the Airport's allowed uses or
activities."
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 14 of 27
836.619, State compatibility and safety standards for land uses near airports• rules
Following consultation with the Oregon Department ofAviation, the Land Conservation and
Development Commission shall adopt rules establishing compatibility and safety
standards for uses of land near airports identified in ORS 836.610 (Local government land
use plans and regulations to accommodate airport zones and uses) (1). [1997 c.859 §8
(enacted in lieu of 836.620)]
FINDING: Applicable Oregon Administrative Rules are addressed below.
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Division 13 - Airport Planning
OAR 660-013-0010, Purpose and Policy
(1) This division implements ORS 836.600 through 836.630 and Statewide Planning Goal
12 (Transportation). The policy of the State of Oregon is to encourage and support
the continued operation and vitality of Oregon's airports. These rules are intended
to promote a convenient and economic system of airports in the state and for land
use planning to reduce risks to aircraft operations and nearby land uses.
(2) Ensuring the vitality and continued operation of Oregon's system of airports is
linked to the vitality of the local economy where_ the airports are located, This
division recognizes the interdependence between transportation systems and the
communities on which they depend.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The above provision is a purpose and policy statement related to OAR 660 Division 13. The applicant's
burden of proof statement includes the following response to this provision:
By adopting these amendments, the County continues to encourage and support the continued
development, operation and vitality of the Redmond Municipal Airport. The amendments are
consistent with ORS 836.600 through 836,630 and Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation).'
Staff notes the applicable provisions of ORS 836.600 through ORS 836,630 are reviewed in previous
findings. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, including Goal 12, are reviewed in subsequent findings."
OAR 660-013-0030, Preparation and Coordination of Aviation Plans
(2) A city or county with planning authority for one or more airports, or areas within
safety zones or compatibility zones described in this division, shall adopt
comprehensive plan and land use regulations for airports consistent with the
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 15 of 27
requirements of this division and ORS 836.600 through 836.630. Local comprehensive
plan and land use regulation requirements shall be coordinated with acknowledged
transportation system plans for the city, county, and Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) required by OAR 660, division 12. Local comprehensive plan and
land use regulation requirements shall be consistent with adopted elements of the
state ASP and shall be coordinated with affected state and federal agencies, local
governments, airport sponsors, and special districts. If a state ASP has not yet been
adopted, the city or county shall coordinate the preparation of the local
comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements with ODA. Local
comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements shall encourage and
support the continued operation and vitality of airports consistent with the
requirements of ORS 836.600 through 836.630.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement.
'The proposed Deschutes County code text and map amendments do not affect the adopted
transportation planning documents. This proposed set of amendments are consistent with local
comprehensive plans and the State Aviation System Plan. By adopting these amendments, the
County continues to encourage and support the continued development, operation and vitality of
the Redmond Municipal Airport.'
Staff concurs with this description and finds the proposed amendment to the DCC will encourage and
support the continued operation and vitality of the Airport."
OAR 660-013-0050. Implementation of Local Airport Planning
A local government with planning responsibility for one or more airports or areas within
safety zones or compatibility zones described in this division or subject to requirements
identified in ORS 836.608 shall adopt land use regulations to carry out the requirements of
this division, or applicable requirements of ORS 836.608, consistent with the applicable
elements of the adopted state ASP and applicable statewide planning requirements.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement. -
'Revisions to DCC Chapter 18.80, specifically DCC 18,80.030, are proposed as part of this
application and the revisions update the text of the uses allowed in the safety zone, consistent with
OAR 660-013-0050.'
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 16 of 27
This administrative rule imposes a mandatory requirement on the County to adopt land use regulations
consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted state Aviation System Plan ("ASP') and applicable
statewide planning requirements. The applicant proposes to amend the Airport Safety (AS) Combining
Zone, which implements this administrative rule. Other applicable statewide planning requirements are
addressed below, and staff finds this criterion will be met."
OAR 660-013-0070, Local Government Safety Zones for Imaginary Surfaces
(1) A local government shall adopt an Airport Safety Overlay Zone to promote aviation
safety by prohibiting structures, trees, and other objects of natural growth from
penetrating airport imaginary surfaces.
(a) The overlay zone for public use airports shall be based on Exhibit 1
incorporated herein by reference.
(b) The overlay zone for airports described in ORS 836.608(2) shall be based on
Exhibit 2 incorporated herein by reference.
(c) The overlayzone for heliports shall be based on Exhibit 3 incorporated herein
by reference.
(2) For areas in the safety overlay zone, but outside the approach and transition
surface, where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surface
such that existing structures and planned development exceed the height
requirements of this rule, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet
in height. A local government may adopt other height exceptions or approve a height
variance when supported orted by the airport sponsor, _the Oregon Department of
Aviation, and the FAA.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement:
'The acknowledged DCC Chapter 18.80 implements the requirements of this regulation, and this
application proposed to amend the existing provisions only to update the location and dimensions
of the existing safety zones.'
The County has adopted an Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone, and staff therefore finds subsection (1),
is met. Subsection (2), above, allows a jurisdiction to adopt height exceptions to the imaginary surfaces
of the Airport Safety Overlay Zone when supported by the airport sponsor, the Oregon Department of
Aviation, and the FAA. No height exceptions are included in the subject proposal. Notice of Application
for the subject proposal was sent to the Oregon Department of Aviation on September 19, 2023 and no
comments were received."
OAR 660-013-0080, Local Government Land Use Compatibility Requirements for Public Use
Airports
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 17 of 27
(1) A local government shall adopt airport compatibility requirements for each public
use airport identified in ORS 836.610(1). The requirements shall:
(a) Prohibit new residential development and public assembly uses within the
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) identified in Exhibit 4,
(b) Limit the establishment of uses identified in Exhibit 5 within a noise impact
boundary that has been identified pursuant to OAR 340, division 35
consistent with the levels identified in Exhibit 5,
(c) Prohibit the siting of new industrial uses and the expansion of existing
industrial uses where either, as a part of regular operations, would cause
emissions of smoke, dust, or steam that would obscure visibility within
airport approach corridors,
(d) Limit outdoor lighting for new industrial, commercial, or recreational uses or
the expansion of such uses to prevent light from projecting directly onto an
existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach corridors except
where necessary for safe and convenient air travel,
(e) Coordinate the review of all radio, radiotelephone, and television
transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines with the Oregon
Department of Aviation;
(f) Regulate water impoundments consistent with the requirements of ORS
836.623(2) through (6), and
(g) Prohibit the establishment of new landfills near airports, consistent with
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules.
(2) A local government may adopt more stringent regulations than the minimum
requirements in section (1)(a) through (e) and () based on the requirements of ORS
836.623(1).
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement.
'The acknowledged DCC Chapter 18.80 implements the requirements of this regulation, and this
application does not propose to amend the acknowledged regulations, other than to change the
dimensions and locations of the protected areas consistent with the currently adopted Airport
Layout Plan.'
Staff agrees with the applicant's response and finds that no substantive changes to allowable uses,
activities, or regulations associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport are included in the subject
proposal."
OAR 660-013-0160, Applicability
This division applies as follows:
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 18 of 27
(1) Local government plans and land use regulations shall be updated to conform to
this division at periodic review, except for provisions of chapter 859, OR Laws 1997
that became effective on passage. Prior to the adoption of the list of airports
required by ORS 836.610(3), a local government shall be required to include a
periodic review work task to comply with this division. However, the periodic review
work task shall not begin prior to the Oregon Department of Aviation's adoption of
the list of airports required by ORS 836.610(3). For airports affecting more than one
local government, applicable requirements of this division shall be included in a
coordinated work program developed for all affected local governments concurrent
with the timing of periodic review for the jurisdiction with the most land area
devoted to airport uses.
(2) Amendments to plan and land use regulations may be accomplished through plan
amendment requirements of ORS 197.610 to 197.625 in advance of periodic review
where such amendments include coordination with and adoption by all local
governments with responsibility for areas of the airport subject to the requirements
of this division.
(3) Compliance with the requirements of this division shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and OAR 660, division
12 related Airport Planning.
(4) Uses authorized by this division shall comply with all applicable requirements of
other laws.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of OAR 660-013-0140 amendments to acknowledged
comprehensive plans and land use regulations, including map amendments and
zone changes; require full compliance with the prrwicinnc of thic di:fisi^;;, except
where the requirements of the new regulation or designation are the same as the
requirements they replace.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report
statements:
"The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement:
'These amendments are being accomplished by code amendments authorized by OAR 660-013-
0160(2). The amendments comply with all of OAR 660-013 and other legal requirements'
Staff agrees with the above statement and notes that it appears the proposal complies with the
applicable provisions of OAR 660 Division 13 and other relevant legal requirements outlined in this staff
report."
DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a
land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 19 of 27
or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place
measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed
under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility if it would.
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan),
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this
subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected
conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area
of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an
enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic
generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the
significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility,
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility such that it would not meet the performance standards
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan, or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility that is otherwise projected to not mPet the performance
standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report for this
section. In addition, the Hearings Officer, at the end of the section, addresses the Tye email
transportation (road impacts) comments: The incorporated Staff findings are:
"The Applicant does not propose any changes to the uses and activities outlined within the City Zoning
Districts associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport. The Airport's underlying zoning districts, as
administered by the City of Redmond, dictate the allowable uses and activities associated with the
Airport. Because no changes are proposed to the uses and activities at the Airport, staff finds there are
no foreseeable traffic impacts from the proposed amendments. The amendments themselves propose
changes to the written descriptions, including dimensional aspects, of the Airport's imaginary surfaces
and 55 DNL noise contour boundary. Because there are no proposed changes to the base zoning, there
are no foreseeable traffic impacts associated with the proposal and, as a result, the Transportation
Planning Rule under OAR 660 Division 12 is not triggered."
The Hearings Officer finds Tye statement that "there must be adequate consideration" of "road
traffic impacts" is a reasonable and fair comment. However, without additional evidence or
argument related to how the instant application fails to "adequately consider road traffic" the
Hearings Officer is unable to meaningfully respond. The Hearings Officer finds the Tye email
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 20 of 27
comment related to road traffic is not developed sufficiently to allow the Hearings Officer to make
a reasonable analysis and decision.
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OAR 660-015, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals and the Applicant's responses are quoted below:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Over the course of the master plan there were five Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC) meetings and two public open house events held in 201612017 as part of the
prescribed public involvement process.
These amendments are being adopted by a process that provides the opportunity for citizen
involvement by including public hearings before adoption. The County will hold public hearings
before its Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners before any text and map
amendments are adopted.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: Tye, in the Tye email, provided the following citizen
involvement related comments:
"The airport has NOT ADEQUATELY ATTEMPTED TO INCLUDE NON AVIATION BENEFACTOR
CITIZENS, nor had citizen feedback or approval TO GET THIS BBUSY OR BIG in light if what that
means for our farms, ecosystems, wildlife, outdoor recreation, public dollars and citizen
impacts."
The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's reference to five planning advisory committee
meeting and two public open house events to be credible. The Hearings Officer finds that
notice of this land use action has been posted/published. The Hearings Officer finds that a
quasi judicial hearing and a legislative hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
are required. The Hearings Officer finds the public has had and continues to have rights to
participate in this planning process. The Hearings Officer finds Tye's citizen involvement
comments are not persuasive.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure
an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: These amendments are being adopted through the land use planning
process as set forth in DCC 22.12. The decision made in this matter is based on the applicable
goals, statutes, regulations as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan.
The amendments will provide guidelines for future decisions.
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 21 of 27
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with Applicant's Response
comments.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments pertain to aircraft operations within
imaginary surfaces and what land uses are allowed outright, conditionally, or not allowed within
those surfaces. There are agricultural lands to the east, south, and north of the airport. These
lands are zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). However, the combination of the uses permitted in the
EFU zone, the size of the affected parcels, the height limit of the zone, the distance from the
airport's runways, and the vertical gradient of the AS zones al/ combine to preclude any adverse
effects from the imaginary surfaces onto the EFU lands. Additionally, much of the EFU lands are in
federal ownership and thus are exempt from local land use controls. Thus, the proposed changes
to the mapped AS features are consistent with Goal 3.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff notes that the land uses allowed outright, conditionally, or
prohibited in association with the Redmond Municipal Airport are dictated by the Airport's
base zones, which are within the jurisdiction of the City of Redmond.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response
and Staff Comment.
Goal 4: Forest Lands.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not affect any designated Forest Lands
so Goal 4 does not apply.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with Applicant's Response.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not affect any inventoried Goal 5 natural
resources, scenic or historic area or open space. The proposed amendments do not affect any
natural, scenic, historic, open space, or surface mining resources adjacent to the Redmond
Municipal Airport that may have been protected through the application of a combining zone.
STAFF COMMENT: The County's Goal 5 protections are partially implemented through DCC
Chapter 18.84, the Landscape Management Combining Zone. This overlay zone protects
scenic resources through design limitations and additional protections for designated
roadways, rivers, and streams. The subject property is not located within the Landscape
Management Combining Zone and is not subject to these provisions.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response
and Staff Comment,
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 22 of 27
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources. To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water and land resources of the state.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Goal 6 is primarily concerned with the preservation of air, land and
water resources from pollution. The amendments are consistent with Goal 6 because they do not
allow any additional impact on air, water or land quality compared to what is allowed under
current zoning.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not affect any areas subject to natural
hazards, so Goal 7 does not apply.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the
state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary
recreational facilities including destination resorts.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: General Aviation operations (aviation activities conducted by
recreational and business aircraft users) makes up a significant portion of the aircraft operations
at the Redmond Municipal Airport. Commercial flights into Redmond provide many visitors the
first step on their way to enjoy Oregon's recreational activities. The proposed amendments do not
negatively affect any areas relative to the recreational needs of the community, thus the proposed
amendments are consistent with Goal 8.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response.
Goal 9: Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the
state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of
Oregon's citizens.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not affect any economic activities as they
currently exist, so Goal 9 does not apply.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response.
Goal 10: Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 23 of 27
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Redmond Municipal Airport is subject to federal grant restrictions
which do not permit residential use at the airport. Goal 10 is therefore, not applicable to this
application.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and
efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for
urban and rural development.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not include any amendments that would
affect the Airport's water and sewer service. The proposed changes are therefore consistent with
Goal 11.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response.
Goal 12: Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Redmond Municipal Airport is part of the County's multi -modal
transportation system. The proposed amendments include minor text modifications and map
amendments to airport safety zones to reflect future facility improvements identified in the 2018
Airport Master Plan. The proposed changes are therefore consistent with Goal 12 to provide and
encourage a safe transportation system.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response. Further, the Hearings Officer incorporates as additional findings for Goal 12 the
Preliminary Findings (related to Tye email transportation [road impacts]) and the findings for
OAR 660-012-0060.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Redmond Municipal Airport has been established in its location for
decades and it would not be feasible to relocate the airport. Given that it cannot be relocated,
provisions that allow it to continue to function do not affect the energy needed to go to and from
the airport. The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 13.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response.
Goal 14: Urbanization.
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 24 of 27
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Goal 14 is not applicable because proposed changes to the airport
safety overlay zones is outside of any urban growth boundary. The proposed amendments are
consistent with Goal 14.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response.
Goals 15-19.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Redmond Municipal Airport is not in and does not affect any area
subject to Goals 15-19. The Airport is not within the Willamette River Greenway, is not adjacent to
a river, and is not located no the Oregon Coast. These goals are therefore not applicable to this
application.
HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's
Response.
PLANNING GOALS SUMMARY: The Hearings Officer notes that Staff generally accepted the
Applicant's responses and concluded that the application was in compliance with the applicable
Statewide Planning Goals has been effectively demonstrated. The Hearings Officer concurs with
Staff summary related to the satisfaction of this application of the Statewide Planning Goals.
IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has met/satisfied all relevant criterion and
policies to justify the proposed Text Amendment.
VI. DECISION
Recommended Approval of:
Text Amendment as set forth in Attachment 1.
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
11.0
,.;
i/40
Gregory J. Frank
Date: December 13, 2023
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 25 of 27
ATTACHMENT 1 -PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
FILE NUMBER: 247-23-000252-TA
The proposed text amendments are also detailed in the referenced applicant's burden of proof
materials, included as an attachment. Below are the proposed changes with removed text shown
in ctrikethro g.1 and newly -added text identified by underline.
Title 18, County Zoning:
Chapter 18.80 Airport Safety Combining Zone; A-S
Section 18.80.030 Redmond Municipal Airport
The Redmond Municipal Airport is a Category 1, Commercial Service Airport. Its function is to
accommodate scheduled major/national or regional commuter commercial air carrier service.
The two existing aPPFGvimateh, :7,n4n' IGRg by 100'-" 59' wide "other than utility" paved runways
are located at an airport elevation of 3,080.7' 3,077'. The proposed extension to runway the
rip mary runway and the planned new parallel runway are both identified on the FAA -adopted
Airnnrt I ayo it Plan. Therefore these improvements are i iceri in the layout Of the,oirnnrt cafet`
Combining Zone. The same safety zone dimensional standards used for Runway 4 22 the
primary runway will also apply to the planned parallel runway.
B. RunwayPreteE>:ien Zene—(RPZ)—Twe different RPZs apply to the RedT ^^d Airport
because it- has a tetal of three potential ruRways with twe possible apprQ_;;r_-ht_ar_,. IR,_,P�Ata)�
4-�;? and the plaRned parallel rl 1AW y will both have precision approache-S. RwRWay4g-
7Q hnc n nnn_nroricinn nnnrnnGh OR enrh earl The precicinn DD7 fArma -. 1 nnn'..'de b
r QRg by i
1 ,7nn' Inner by 1,91 04vide trapezoid
C. Approach Surface - The current IIS precision approach surface to the primary runway
runway 22 and the planned precision approaches to the Runway 4 and future parallel
runway 4-2-2, are 1,000' wide by 50,000' long by 16,000' wide, with an upward approach
slope ratio of 50:1 (one foot vertical for each 50 feet horizontal) for the first 10,000', then
a slope ratio of 40:1 for the remaining 40,000'. The non -precision approach surface is 500'
wide by 10,000' long by 3,500' wide, with an upward approach slope ratio of 34:1.
D. Horizontal Surface - The surface boundary is comprised of connected arcs drawn 10,000
feet outward and centered on the ends of the primary surface. The elevation of the
horizontal surface for the Redmond Airport is 3,2-2-7 230 feet (150' above airport
elevation).
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 26 of 27
E. Conical Surface - The surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the
horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4 000' up to an elevation
of 3,430.7'.
F. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Two different RPZs apply to the Redmond Airport
because it has a total of three potential runways with two possible approaches. The
primary runway and the planned parallel runway will both have precision approaches.
The crosswind runway has a non -precision approach on each end. The precision RPZ
forms a 1 000' wide by 2 500' long by 1 750' wide trapezoid while the non -precision RPZ
forms a 1 000' wide by 1 700' long by 1 510' wide trapezoid. The RPZ begins 200' from the
surveyed runway end point.
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
247-23-000252-TA Page 27 of 27
a a a
�7 F7 �7
N N N
Ln Ln Ln
V N N N
C C C
O O O
.41
m ru c6
C C C
N a N
E E E
E E >_
O O O
u u u
a) a) v
N = = =
Q- O O O
Lo LO
Ln Ln
r` r`
O
r`
O O rn
-0 -0 CC
a C C O
jV O O
} E E "O
j -O -O C
++ N N N
-u w Cr- Co
u
L 0
Cu A
Ln 7 Y
CO E
N w
C N
N
N O
a i N N
Ln O
f6 Cf' N a--1
w
O
L
u
L
Cu
C)
bb
C.
LU
N
2�
J
L
N
to Qj
roo u
O-
L
a
76
Q
'O .E _u
CO O
C
Qj
C 41
O 2
3 Q) o
O U Cr F—
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
Mailing Date:
Friday, December 15, 2023
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has recommended approval of the land use application(s)
described below:
FILE NUMBERS: 247-23-000252-TA
SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Airport
Safety Combining Zone and 55 DNL noise contour
boundaries
are associated
with the Redmond Municipal Airport
("Airport"), which
includes the following addresses and tax lots:
• Tax Lot 1513220000100
o
1050 SE Sisters Ave
o
675 SE Salmon Ave
o
1050 SE Sisters Ave (A-B)
o
679 SE Salmon Ave
o
1120 SE Sisters Ave
o
681 SE Salmon Ave
0
1120 SE Sisters Ave (A-E)
o
683 SE Salmon Ave
o
1300 SE USFS Dr
o
685 SE Salmon Ave
o
1320 SE USFS Dr
o
687 SE Salmon Ave
0
1350 SE USFS Dr
o
689 SE Salmon Ave
0
1410 SE USFS Dr (A-B)
o
691 SE Salmon Ave
0
1552 SE USFS Dr
o
693 SE Salmon Ave
o
1605 SE Ochoco Way
o
701 SE Salmon Ave
o
1694 SE USFS Dr
o
705 SE Salmon Ave
o
1900 SE Airport Way (A-1 to
o
743 SE Salmon Ave
A-3; B; C-1 to C-2; D; E; F-1
0
765 SE Salmon Ave
to F-14; G1 to G14; H to V)
o
875 SE Veteran's Way
0
2215 SE USFS Dr
o
880 SE Veteran's Way
o
2234 SE 6th St
o
888 SE Veteran's Way (A to G; H-1 to H-2; I-
o
2234 SE Salmon Ave
1 to 1-7; J-1 to J-2; K-1 to K-7)
0
2700 SE Airport Way
o
905 SE Salmon Ave
o
625 SE Salmon Ave
o
907 SE Salmon Ave
o
644 SE Salmon Ave
o
911 SE Salmon Ave
o
645 SE Salmon Ave
o
665 SE Salmon Ave
Tax Lot 1513000001500 0 Tax Lot 1513000001503
0 1730 SE Ochoco Way o 3840 SW Airport Way
0 1740 SE Ochoco Way
0 1764 SE Ochoco Way • Tax Lot 1513280000101
0 2000 SE USFS DR (A to D) o 3000 SW Airport Way
11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2*Jlj 3;gft�5--tb0252@Addgdeschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org/cd
APPLICANT: City of Redmond
411 SW 9" St
Redmond, OR 97756
Redmond Municipal Airport
2522 Jesse Butler Cir
Redmond, OR 97756
REQUEST: The City of Redmond ("Applicant") applied for a Text Amendment to the
Airport Safety ("AS") Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) to update the
Runway and Approach information and a corresponding update
amending the AS map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for
imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL ("Average Day -Night Sound
Level") noise contour boundaries.
STAFF CONTACT: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
Phone: 541-317-3148
Email: tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta-
red mond-a i rport-master-pla n-ra rn p-text-a mend me nt
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures
Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 3, (Rural Growth Management), Section 3.4, Rural Economy
Oregon Revised Statutes
ORS 836.610
ORS 836.616
Oregon Administrative Rules
OAR Chapter 660, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals 1-14
OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, Transportation
OAR Chapter 660, Division 13, Airport Planning
247-23-000252-TA Page 2 of 3
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application meets applicable criteria and
recommends approval of the application.
As a procedural note, the hearing on November 7, 2023, was the first of two required public hearings per
DCC 22.28.030(c). The second public hearing will be held before the Board of County Commissioners at a
future date to be determined.
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.
247-23-000252-TA
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA
o
o.
\\\\ \ _ �\}\\ \ 'EEO\�\
> >(5 -
\
;)\ (,)z\:\\)::/:y:«,:/;>}>>2)y\\\\
®!/\�}/}�jr:�!-::4::::0
!_l::/:-0.l,����������»m:»;:�ml:&:!:>��
$J\§[\)[\[\()\\\[\[§\\\\/)/§j\\§\\))\§\)\({\\
) (
§ \ E
uu\\@ _
f2m§\
: \/
§)\\55§§\\
J����///%e%
({\{)§%\((§§/})/Ee:§§§
GBU D - arena 2024 m2-&a2somS>TA
BOARD
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Community Development Department Draft FY 2024-25 Work Plan
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
1. Move to approve the CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan as recommended by the Planning
Commission; or
2. Move to approve the CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan as recommended by the Planning
Commission with amendments decided by the Board of County Commissioners (Board)
at this meeting.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The purpose of this agenda item is for the Board to deliberate and adopt the CDD FY 2024-
25 Work Plan. The Board conducted a public hearing on the Draft CDD FY 2024-25 Work
Plan and 2023 Annual Report on May 15 and received two written comments during the
open record period.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Director
CDD Management Team
DATE: June 5, 2024
SUBJECT: Deliberations — Community Development Department Draft Fiscal Year 2024-25 Work Plan
SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to deliberate and adopt
the Community Development Department (CDD) Fiscal year (FY) 2024-25 Work Plan (Attachment A).
II. BACKGROUND
The Board conducted a public hearing on the Draft CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan and 2023 Annual Report on
May 15, 2024 and received two written comments during the open record period (Attachment B' , Previously,
g p p-._.- t �,y v,
the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and offered recommendations pertaining to the Planning
Division's long range work plan.
III. BOARD DECISIONS
Below are decision points for the Board to consider in adopting the CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan as it
pertains to the Planning Division:
1. Affirm or amend the projects in Table 1, which are priority discretionary and non -discretionary
projects.
2. Affirm or amend the Planning Division operational responsibilities, regional coordination duties,
and code maintenance tasks in Table 2.
3. Affirm or amend the low priority projects in Table 3.
The Planning Commission endorsed all of the prominent projects listed in Tables 1 and 2, considering all of
them noteworthy for the community. To the extent that resources become available, they recommended
several projects that contribute to livability, economic development, and environmental sustainability:
1 one resident recommended revising Deschutes County Code to allow agricultural exempt buildings on properties not receiving
farm tax deferral status. Another expressed concerns of expanding agricultural exempt building opportunities.
o Community engagement o Farm stands / agritourism o Informational panels
o Dark skies o Housing related Items
Table 1 captures priority discretionary and nondiscretionary projects that are supported by the Board, grant
funded, or in process.
Table 1— Priority Discretionary and Non -discretionary Projects
Priority Projects
1. Current Planning z 4. Clear and Objective Standards for Housing (HB 3197)
2. Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update 5. Natural Hazards —Amend Comprehensive Plan and
County Code to address defensible space and fire-
resistant building material requirements per SB 762
update the Newberry Country Plan
(2021) and SB 80 (2023), Wildfire Mitigation.
Table 2 identifies ongoing Planning Division operational responsibilities, regional coordination duties, and
code maintenance tasks. These projects in their totality range from "minor" to "moderate," requiring staffing
resources that span 4 to 8 months to complete.
Table 2 — Operational Responsibilities, Coordination Duties, and Code Maintenance
Category
Projects
1. Destination Resort and Overnight Lodging Reporting.
2. Marijuana inspections.
Operational
3. Population estimates and forecasting.
Responsibilities
4. Staffing HLC, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and Deschutes River
Mitigation and Enhancement Committee.
5. Participate in 2025 Legislative Session.
6. Support internal County departments (new landfill siting, etc.).
7. City of Bend / Bend Park District `-
• Coordinate with City of Bend on growth management issues, including technical
analyses related to housing and employment needs.
• Coordinate with Bend Parks and Recreation District for future park development in
southeast Bend.
8. City of La Pine
• Participate with Property Management and the City of La Pine process to update
and amend the County -owned Newberry Neighborhood comprehensive plan
Coordination Duties
designations, master plan and implementing regulations.
• Participate in La Pine 2045 Comprehensive Plan Update process.
9. City of Redmond
• Coordinate to implement the Redmond Comprehensive Plan 2040.
• Coordinate on CORE3, a multi -stakeholder regional emergency coordination
center.
• Coordinate to update the Joint Management Agreement and Urban Holding-10
zone lands per HB 3197 requirements.
2 Current Planning responsibilities are non -discretionary. Local land use decisions are subject to specific deadlines per state law.
ORS 215.427.
Category I Projects
15. Si
:ion and Development Rulemaking
iertains to Goal 5 - Cultural Areas, Farm and Forest
)rovements, and Eastern Oregon Solar Siting.
ive amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
igon Department of Environmental Quality and Onsite
otect South County groundwater.
J.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Community
efine family for unrelated persons HB 2538, non -familial
oaches to address rural housing and homelessness as
uests associated with certain types of development on a
transportation System Development Charge program.
• Coordinate with Bend Metropolitan Planning Organizationon regional projects
and comprehensive planning.
• Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation on roadway projects
and interchange area management plans.
17. Housekeeping Amendments
Code Maintenance • Initiate Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Text amendments to comply with and
implement new or revised state laws.
and
Table 3 lists discretionary zoning text amendments. These are "lower" priority projects, requiring staffing
resources that span 4 to 12 months or longer to complete.
-3-
Table 3 — Low Priority Zoning Text Amendments
Category I Projects
1.
Allow "self -serve" farm stands in Rural residential Exception Areas Comply with House
Bill 3109 (2021) pertaining to establishment of childcare facilities in industrial zones.
2.
Childcare facilities in Industrial Zones
3.
Define family for unrelated persons per HB 2538 (Non -familial Individuals).
4.
Forest Zone Code —Review for compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule.
5.
Lot Line Adjustments and Re -platting.
6.
Medical Hardship Dwellings —review for consistency with state law.
Zoning Text
7.
Minor variance 10% lot area rule for farm and forest zoned properties.
Amendments
g.
Outdoor Mass Gatherings update.
9.
Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act (Wireless Telecommunication Amendments).
10.
Sign code to become consistent with federal law.
11.
Title 19, 20, 21—Language related to Class I, II, and III road projects as allowed uses.
12.
Title 22—Procedures Ordinance for consistency with state law and planning department
interpretations.
13.
Wetland Regulation Clarification for Irrigation or Artificially Created Wetlands.
IV. DRAFT MOTIONS
1. Move to approve the CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission;
or
2. Move to approve the CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission
"pith the amendments deCiriari by the Roard at this meeting.
Attachments:
A. Draft CDD FY 2024/2025 Work Plan and 2023 Annual Report
B. Public Comments
-4-
w� -A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
FY 2024-25 Work Plan &
2023 Annual Report - DRAFT
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
P.O. Box 6005
Bend, OR 97703
www.deschutes.org/cd
(541) 388-6575
Building Safety
Code Enforcement
Coordinated Services
Onsite Wastewater
Planning
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 4
MissionStatement4
...............................................................................................
Purpose.................................................................................................................
4
Adoption...............................................................................................................
4
Elected& Appointed Officials.............................................................................................
5
Board of County Commissioners FY 2024-2025 Goals & Objectives ........................
6
PopulationGrowth................................................................................................................
8
Budget& Organization..........................................................................................................
9
FiscalIssues..........................................................................................................
9
OperationalChallenges......................................................................................
9
BudgetSummary ..............................................................................................
10
StaffSummary ...................................................................................................
10
OrganizationalChart........................................................................................
10
PerformanceManagement............................................................................................. 11
2023 Performance Management Results ...................................................... 11
2023 Year in Review..........................................................................................13
2024-2025 Performance Measures By Division ............................................. 13
BuildingSafety.................................................................................................. 13
CodeEnforcement............................................................................................ 13
CoordinatedServices.........................................................................................13
OnsiteWastewater............................................................................................ 13
Planning..............................................................................................................14
AdministrativeServices.......................................................................................................15
Overview............................................................................................................. 15
2023 Year in Review.......................................................................................... 15
2024-25 Work Plan Projects............................................................................. 16
StaffDirectory .................................................................................................... 16
BuildingSafety....................................................................................................................... 17
Overview............................................................................................................. 17
2023 Year In Review.......................................................................................... 17
2024-25 Work Plan Projects............................................................................. 19
StaffDirectory .................................................................................................... 20
CodeEnforcement...............................................................................................................21
Overview............................................................................................................. 21
2023 Year in Review........................................................................................... 21
2024-25 Work Plan Projects............................................................................ 22
StaffDirectory ..................................................................................................... 23
CoordinatedServices..........................................................................................................24
Overview............................................................................................................. 24
2023 Year in Review.......................................................................................... 24
2024-25 Work Plan Projects............................................................................ 24
StGff DIrC to ......... ...... ..................................................................... 2 5
OnsiteWastewater...............................................................................................................26
Overview............................................................................................................. 26
2023 Year in Review.......................................................................................... 26
2024-25 Work Plan Projects............................................................................ 28
StaffDirectory .................................................................................................... 28
Planning..................................................................................................................................29
Overview............................................................................................................. 29
CurrentPlanning............................................................................................... 29
"Long Range Planning........................................................................................ 29
Transportation Planning...................................................................................29
Floodplain & Wetlands Planning................................................................... 29
2023 Year in Review.:...................................................................................... 30
2024-25 Work Plan Projects ......................................................................... 36
StaffDirectory ................................................................................................... 39
Community Involvement Report.................................................................................. 40
Community Development Mission Statement
The Community Development Department (CDD) facilitates orderly growth and development in the
Deschutes County community through coordinated programs of Building Safety, Code Enforcement,
Coordinated Services, Onsite Wastewater, Planning, and education and service to the public.
Purpose
The 2023 Annual Report and FY 2024-25 Work Plan highlight the department's accomplishments, goals and
objectives and are developed to:
• Report on achievements and performance.
• Implement the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) goals and objectives.
• Implement the Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" Standards.
• Effectively and efficiently manage organizational assets, capabilities and finances.
• Fulfill the department's regulatory compliance requirements.
• Address changes in state law.
• Enhance the county as a safe, sustainable and highly desirable place to live, work, learn, recreate,
visit and more.
Adoption
The BOCC adopted this report on TBD, after considering public, stakeholder and partner organization input
and Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission recommendations. The Work Plan often
includes more projects than there are resources available. CDD coordinates with the BOCC throughout the
year to prioritize and initiate projects, Projects not initiated are often carried over to future years.
4 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Anthony DeBone, Chair, January 2027
Patti Adair, Vice Chair, January 2027
Phil Chang, Commissioner, January 2025
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Nick Lelack, County Administrator
Whitney Hale, Deputy County Administrator
Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator
PLANNING COMMISSION
Toni Williams—Chair,'South County Area,'6/30/25
Jessica Kieras — Vice Chair, Redmond Area, 6/30/26
Susan Altman - Bend Area, 6/30/28
Matt Cyrus — Sisters Area, 6/30/26
Nathan Hovekamp — Vice Chair, Bend Area, 6/30/27
Kelsey Kelley —Tumalo Area, 6/30/27
Mark Stockamp„— At Large, 6/30/27
HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION
Rachel Stemach — Chair, Bend Area, 3/31 /28
Dennis Schmidling — Vice Chair, City of Sisters, 3/31/28
Eli Ashley —At Large, 3/31/26
Lore Christopher —At Large, 3/31/2026
Christine Horting;lones — Ex-Officio, 3/31 /28
Marc Hudson - At Large, 3/31 /2028
Lilian Syphers — Ex-Officio, 3/31/2028
HEARINGS OFFICERS
Tommy Brooks
GregoryJ. Frank
Alan Rappleyea
Laura Westmeyer
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Dave Thomson - Chair, At Large, 6/30/24
David Green Vice Chair, At Large, 6/30/26'
Rachel Zakem — Secretary, At Large 6/30/26
Neil Baunsgard Bend, 6/30/24
Christopher Cassard — At Large, 6/30/24
Sabrina Haggerty — At Large, 6/30/24
Wendy Holzman — At Large, 6/30/26
Mason Lacy - At Large, 6/30/26
Jennifer Letz - Sisters, 6/30/2026
Matt Muchna --Redmond, 6/30/2026
David Roth -'Bend, 6/30/2026
Mark Smith - At Large, 6/30/24
Open — La Pine, 6/30/2026
5 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Board of County Commissioners
FY 2024-25 Goals & Objectives
Mission Statement: Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-
effective manner.
Safe Communities (SC): Protect the community through planning, preparedness, and delivery of coordinated
services.
• Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety and crisis management
services.
• Reduce crime and recidivism and support victim restoration and well-being through equitable
engagement, prevention, reparation of harm, intervention, supervision and enforcement.
• Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies, natural hazards and disasters.
Healthy People (HP): Enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and their residents.
• Support and advance the health and safety of all Deschutes County's residents.
• Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs.
• Ensure children, youth and farriiiies have equitable access to mental health services, housing, nutrition,
child care, and education/prevention services.
• Help to sustain natural resources and air and water quality in balance with other community needs.
• Apply lessons learned from pandemic response, community recovery, and other emergency response
events to ensure we are prepared for future events.
A Resilient County (RC): Promote policies and actions that sustain and stimulate economic resilience and a strong
regional workforce.
• Update County land use plans and policies to promote livability, economic opportunity, disaster
preparedness, and a healthy environment.
• Maintain a safe, efficient and economically sustainable transportation system.
• Manage County assets and enhance partnerships that grow and sustain businesses, tourism, and
recreation.
Housing Stability and Supply (HS): Support actions to increase housing production and achieve stability.
• Expand opportunities for residential development on appropriate County -owned properties.
• Support actions to increase housing supply.
• Collaborate with partner organizations to provide an adequate supply of short-term and permanent
housing and services to address housing insecurity.
6 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Board of County Commissioners
FY 2024-25 Goals & Objectives, Continued
Service Delivery (SD): Provide solution -oriented service that is cost-effective and efficient.
• Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems.
• Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards.
• Continue to enhance community participation and proactively welcome residents to engage with
County programs, services and policy deliberations.
• Preserve, expand and enhance capital assets, to ensure sufficient space for operational needs.
• Maintain strong fiscal practices to support short and long-term county needs.
• Prioritize recruitment and retention initiatives to support, sustain, and enhance County operations.
7 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
DESCHUTES COUNTY POPULATION FORECAST
450,000
400,000
392,790
350,OAN7
344,542
308,994
300,000
270,041
250,000
233,537
213,802
198,253
200,000
157,733
150,00
115,367
100,000
74,958
62,142
50,000
30,442
23,10in 0
11
0
1960
1970
1980 i990 20O 2010 2020 2024 2030 2040 2050 2060 2072
This graph provides a snapshot of the County's growth since 1960 and the coordinated 50-year Portland
State University (PSU) Oregon Population Forecast Program through 2072.
HISTORICAL AND PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY FORECAST TRENDS
d d
� 8
Deschutes County
114,827
157,733
1.3%
213,802
298,937
392,790
Bend
52,163
77,010
1.6%
107,643
160,361
225,619
Redmond
15,524
26,508
1.7%
38,789
60,060
82,601
Sisters
961
2,038
3.1%
3,674
7,911
14,881
La Pine
899
1,653
2.3%
2,877
5,129
8,336
Unincorporated
45,280
50,524
0.3%
60,819
65,476
61,352
*AAGR: Average Annual Growth Rate
8 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Fiscal Issues
• On December 31, 2023, CDD completed its second consecutive year of permitting volume decreases
resulting in an estimated 21 % to 30% decrease and stabilizing at volumes experienced during the
2014 - 2016 time period. The decrease in permitting volumes resulted in overall staff reductions by
20 positions. A short-term challenge will be to navigate this period of decreasing revenue while
focusing on service delivery and staff training and education while reducing expenditures, where
possible.
• Ensure financial stability and sustained high quality services during a period of decreased permitting
volumes, continued staff turnover and increased costs by establishing a multi -year financial strategy
during the budget process, providing a clear course of action to manage CDD's reserve fund
balances.
• CDD continues to respond to inquiries regarding rural development opportunities, implement
legislative and BOCC priorities and be responsive to potential County programs, such as Short -Term
Rental Licensing. Many of these require research and in-depth responses, but do not result in
permits or corresponding revenue. This "non -fee generating" work, a public good, is consuming
limited resources to efficiently process a variety of permits.
Operational Challenges
• Maintaining productivity while experiencing continued staff resignations and completing compre-
hensive training and development plans for new staff. During 2023, CDD welcomed 3 new staff,
eliminated 14 vacant positions, initiated the layoff of 4 staff and will carry a total of 50 positions
to FY 2024-25. An estimated 40% of CDD staff have 5 years or less experience with the depart-
ment.
• Coordinating with the Human Resources Department to evaluate, propose and implement strate-
gies to attract and retain staff to meet service demands in a highly competitive market.
• Continue succession planning to prepare for anticipated staff retirements. An estimated 22% of
current staff will be eligible for retirement within the next 3 to 8 years based on length of service.
• Implementing short-term modified lobby hours due to staff resignations resulting in a staffing
shortage.
• Implementing new laws from the 2024 Legislative Session.
• Processing complex and controversial code enforcement cases and improving procedures for
property abatement.
• Continue addressing affordable housing through collaboration with cities, the County's Property
Manager, and rural land use strategies.
• Continuing improvement of the department's website and other electronic internal and external
services to improve efficiencies and service delivery.
9 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Budget Summary
Staff Summary
Organizational Chart
10 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
CDD is committed to a comprehensive approach to managing performance. The department achieves its
goals and objectives by strategically establishing and monitoring performance measures and by adjusting
operations based on those results. The performance measures allow staff to:
The following graphs represent a sample of CDD's performance measures for 2023. For a complete
review of performance measures, please follow this link: https://deschutes.org/cd/.
2023 Performance Management Results
Code Enforcement
Voluntary Compliance
105% 100% 100%
100% m7� .96% 98°70 96% 94% 94% 970� 94% 95%
90%
85%
80% 83%
75%
70%
65%
Jan 2023 Mar 2023 May 2023 )u12023 Sept 2023 Nov 2023
--=-a—Voluntary Compliance ® — Target -90%
Performance Measure: Achieve 90% voluntary compliance in Code Enforcement cases.
Percentage of Applications Submitted Online
(Building Safety and Onsite Wastewater)
72.1% 72.4%
69.1% 69 6/
62.7%
)an2023 Mar 2023 May 2023 jul 2023 Sept2023 Nov 2023
—s—Average Online Submissions — — Target High -80%
Performance Measure: Achieve a goal of 70%to 80%of applications submitted online.
Annual Average of 94% - Target Achieved Annual Average of 70% Submitted Online- Target Achieved
Community Development Building Safety
54 SFD Dwelling Acceptance to Ready to Issue Residential Plan Review Turnaround in Days
49.0 55
`�:� 46.2 48.3 47.8
49 47.1
45.4 42.9 45.1 ,_,�,,,,..�,� 42.9 36.2
44.8q '' 45 39.3 �'
44 � � 41.8 N,419 35.5
35
39.0 q1\29.5,E
39
35,7 4�
35.9 \ 25 1...5 'Jo
34 is
Jan 2023 Mar 2023 May 2023 )u12023 Sept 2023 Nov 2023 )an 2023 Mar 2023 May 2023 )ul 2023 Sept 2023 Nov 2023
�,.., �— # of Days from Acceptance to Ready to Issue ® o Target - 30 Days o
Target Low- 8 Days ®Target High - 10 Days
Performance Measure: Complete new home permit processwithin 30 days. Performance Measure: Achieve average plan review turnaround time between 8 and 10 days
Annual Average of 41.2 Days - Target Not Achieved
Annual Average of 35.4 Days - Target Not Achieved
CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023 Performance Management Results, continued
Building Safety
13 Field Inspector Average Stops per Day
11 102 10.3 10.3
10 9.4 9.7 9.4 94 211,. 9.4
9 ,�., 8 7 . - ��.. a 90 , d�-.,„ 8.4 �1k, 4 8.1
8 0 ® o - - - - v - - - - - - ® o
7
6
5
fan 2023 Mar 2023 May 2023 )u12023 Sept 2023 Nov 2023
Field Insp Ave Stops per Day - - Target Low- 8 Stops
Target High - 12 Stops
Performance Measure: Achieve an average of 8 to 12 inspection stops perday, per
Annual Average of 9.4 Stops Per Day - Target Achieved
105% Building Safety
Inspections Completed Same Day as Requested 99.0%
99.0%
/ 976/ 977% 9729V5/ 974%
96.6
95%
90% ® - ® o - - - - - - - - ® - - - o
85%
jan 2023 Mar 2023 May 2023 i012023 Sept 2023 Nov 2023
% Building lnspCompleted OnTime - - Target Low -90%
® Target High - 100%
Performance Measure: Achieve 90%to 100% of inspections completed on same day as
requested.
Annual Average of 97.6% - Target Achieved
Onsite Wastewater Onsite Wastewater
New System Permit Issuance Time Pre -cover Inspections Completed On Time
17.4 105%
17.0 7°
15.0e1
13.0 12.3
11.0 8:9 ,
9.0 7.7 79�10.2i 9.8
7.0 5.4 5.0_
5.0
3.5 6.9
`F.
3.0
ian2-023 Mar 2023 May 2023 )u12023 Sept2023 Nov 2023
New Sys Permit Issue Time - - Target - 12 Days
Performance Measure: Issue new onsite septic permitswithin 12days of completed app.
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100% V gym, ®.v. v - x �.. g� .��..�
1.9 92%
95%
85%
80%
75%
Jan 2023 Mar 2023 May 2023 1012023 Sept 2023 Nov 2023
®_ Pre -Cover Insp Completed On Time - Target Low -90%
Target High- 100%
Performance Measure: Achieve 90%to 100% of pre -cover inspections completed on same
Annual Average of 8.9 Days - Target Within Range Annual Average of 99.3% Completed - Target Achieved
Current Planning
Land Use Decisions With Prior Notice
74.0
75.0 ® 66.5
65.0 57.3
55.0
44.2 �` 45.1 45A
45.0
35.0 42.4 `t 42.6
25.0 23.0
15.0 193
5.0 9.0
,an 2023 Mar 2-023 May 2023 )u12023 Sept 2023 Nov 2023
-a-Average Days ToComplete - - Target -45 Days
Performance Measure: Issue all administrative decisions with notice within 45 days of
completed application.
Current Planning
Land Use Decisions Without Prior Notice
35.0 32.0
29.0 30.2
28.4 27,7 28.5
a e° '
Ilk, Ill A,
25.0 ��22.5 2 � �
35.0 115.0
15.5 10.3
5.7
5.0
ian 2023 Mar 2023 May 2023 Jul 2023 Sept202-3 Nov 2023
-iiAverage Days To Complete -- Target -21Days
Performance Measure: Issue all administrative decisions without notice within 21 days of
completed application.
Annual Average of 42 Days - Target Achieved Annual Average of 23.1 Days - Target Within Range
12 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023 Year in Review
✓ Continued to invest significant resources in comprehensive training and development plans for new
staff.
✓ In Code Enforcement, transitioned to a system of reporting the number of properties with code enforce-
ment violations rather than the total number of violations.
✓ Revised reporting to eliminate periods of time waiting for applicant response.
FY 2024-25 Performance Measures By Division
CDD's 2024-25 performance measures align the department's operations and work plan with BOCC
annual goals and objectives and the County's Customer Service "Every Time" Standards.
Building Safety
• Achieve 8-12 inspection stops per day to provide quality service. (BOCC Goal & Objective SD-1
• Achieve an average turnaround time on building plan reviews of 8-10 days to meet or exceed state
requirements. (BOCC Goal & Objective SD-1)
• Achieve 90-100% of inspections completed the same day as requested. (BOCC Goal & Objective SD-1)
Code Enforcement
• Achieve 90% voluntary compliance in code enforcement cases. (BOCC Goal & Objective SC-1)
• Achieve case adjudication within 150 days of case assignment. (BOCC Goal & Objective SC-1)
Coordinated Services
• Achieve structural permit ready -to -issue turnaround time for Coordinated Services of 4 days or less.
(BOCC Goal & Objective SD-1)
Onsite Wastewater
• Achieve compliance with the Alternative Treatment Technology (ATT) Septic System Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) reporting requirements of 95% to protect groundwater. (BOCC Goal & Objective
H P-4)
• Achieve the issuance of onsite septic system permits within 12 days of completed application. (BOCC
Goal & Objective SD-1)
• Achieve 90-100% of Pre -cover inspections completed the same day as requested. (BOCC Goal &
Objective SD-1)
13 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
FY 2024-25 Performance Measures By Division, continued
Planning
• Sustain the issuance of land use administrative decisions with notice within 45 days and without no-
tice within 21 days of completed application. (BOCC Goal & Objective SD-1)
— Update Deschutes County Code (DCC) to comply with HB 3197 Clear and Objective Code Up-
date Project, which requires clear and objective standards for housing development in rural res-
idential exception areas, unincorporated communities, and for accessory farm worker accom-
modations..(B000 Goal & Objectives SC-3, HP-4, and RC-1)
Natural Resources:
— Natural Hazards —Develop a work plan to amend the Comprehensive Plan and County Code
requiring defensible space and fire-resistant building materials per SB 762 and SB 644—Wildfire
Mitigation. (BOCC Goal & Objectives SC-3, HP-4, and RC-1)
14 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Overview
Administrative Services consists of the Community Development Director, Senior Management Analyst, two
Systems Analysts and one Administrative Assistant. The Administrative Services Division provides oversight
for all departmental operations and facilities, human resources, budget, customer services, technology and
performance measures. Analyst staff are responsible for the integration of technology across all CDD divi-
sions, coordination with the cities as well as providing direct service to the public via application training
and support, web -based mapping, reporting services and data distribution.
2023 Year in Review
✓ Improved electronic processes in the Accela Code Enforcement module including a temporary solution
to accept payments for fines and fees while a permanent solution is being explored.
✓ Implemented monthly operational meetings with each division.
✓ Coordinated with Human Resources to create job series within the permit technician and code
enforcement specialist classifications.
✓ Issued Request for Proposal for Hearings Officer services.
✓ Participated in conflict de-escalation and safety and awareness trainings presented by the Deschutes
County Sheriff's Office (DSCO).
✓ Provided addressing services to the City of Redmond on contract.
✓ Facilitated division website updates including improved application instructions and informational pages
for new opportunities such as rural accessory dwelling units (ADU) and recreational vehicles as rental
dwellings.
15 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
FY 2024-25 Work Plan Projects
• Continue to reconfigure Accela to improve Code Enforcement case management and planning land
use module interoperability.
• Continue to participate in a County -led effort to create a county -wide Pre -disaster Preparedness Plan.
• Continue to update CDD's Continuity Of Operation Plan, as necessary, based on lessons learned and
ensure staff are aware of their roles and responsibilities during an emergency.
• Coordinate with the Human Resources Department to evaluate, propose and implement strategies to
attract and retain staff to meet service demands in a highly competitive market.
Coordinate with Human Resources to participate in the wage and equity study.
• Continue to explore and research opportunities to increase CDD's sustainable business practices while
maximizing the efficiency of operations in a cost effective manner.
• Continue improvements to CDD's enhanced website which is more customer -centric. Improved
content will allow customers to better understand CDD's policies and procedures and create an
improved customer experience that acts as a guide for understanding the process of development in
Deschutes County while also expanding online application instruction content.
• Research help desk service software to assist with tracking citizen inquiries and staff responses.
• Expand Code Enforcement reporting capabilities.
Staff Directory
Peter Gutowsky
Community Development Director
(541) 385-1709
Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org
Tim Berg
Applications System Analyst III
(541) 330-4648
Tim. Berg@deschutes.org
Ines Curland
Applications System Analyst II
(541) 317-3193
Ines.Curland@deschutes.org
Tracy Griffin
Administrative Assistant
(541) 388-6573
Tracy.Griffin@deschutes.org
Sherri Pinner
Senior Management Analyst
(541) 385-1712
Sherri.Pinner@deschutes.org
16
CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Overview
Building Safety consists of one Building Official, one Assistant Building Official and thirteen Building Safety
Inspectors. The Building Safety Division administers and implements state and federal building codes
through a process of education and a clear and consistent application of the specialty codes. The division
provides construction plan reviews, consultation and inspection services throughout the rural county and
the cities of La Pine and Sisters. The division also provides services to Lake, Jefferson, Klamath and Crook
counties, the cities of Bend and Redmond, and the State of Oregon Building Codes Division on an as -
needed basis.
2023 Year in Review
✓ Issued 395 new single-family dwelling permits in 2023. The distribution of these new homes for
Deschutes County's building jurisdiction included:
— Rural/unincorporated areas: 275
— City of La Pine: 62
— City of Sisters: 58
✓ Completed inspections on major projects such as:
— Sisters School District New Elementary School
— Mt. Bachelor Skyliner Chairlift
— La Pine Manufactured Home Park Addition
— Deschutes County Library Renovations
— La Pine Septic to Sewer -City water and sewer to existing homes
— Numerous single-family dwellings in i Sisters IVvoodlai uds Subdivision
— Numerous two-family dwellings for Forestbrook Vacation Homes in Caldera Springs
— Numerous single-family dwellings in La Pine's Reserve in the Pines Subdivision
— Caldera Spring's Forest House, an aquatics complex with pools, fitness center and restaurant
✓ Completed major building plan reviews for:
— La Pine CHC Wellness Center
— Morningstar Family Relief Nursery Facility in La Pine
— Huntington Apartment Complex (9 buildings) in La Pine
— Sunriver Public Safety Building Renovation
— New Negus Transfer Station in Redmond
— US Forest Service Sisters Ranger Station Administration Office
17 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023 Year in Review, continued
✓ Participated in CDD's SB 391 Rural ADU presentation to the community.
✓ Participated in CDD's SB 1013 RV's as Residential Tenancies discussions.
✓ Provided A -level Commercial Electrical and Plumbing inspections for the City of Redmond.
✓ Participated in the Oregon Skilled Trades Show/Fair to discuss career opportunities in building safety.
✓ Several staff attended the National Fire Academy Fire Plans Examiner course.
✓ Implemented the State's Mechanical Minor Label Program.
✓ Participated in CDD's website update meetings.
✓ Participated in discussions with the City of Sisters staff on possible local ordinance for fire mitigation
standards within city limits.
✓ Participated in pre -application meetings for the new Bend Airport Control Tower and Cab.
✓ Staff continued to obtain their inspection certifications.
New Single Family Dwelling Permits issued
840
775
740
640
640 e
i
569 574 560
540
440
340
240
140
40
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
18 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
FY 2024-25 Work Plan Projects
• Continue succession planning in anticipation of future retirements and explore staffing needs such as
obtaining additional certifications to enhance department efficiencies.
• Continue certification cross -training to maintain the division's goal of having fully certified residential
inspection staff.
• Update informational brochures, handouts and forms: i.e. accessory structures, special inspection
agreement form, residential additional energy measure, etc.
• Explore the use of iPad's for field inspector access to building codes in lieu of printed materials.
• Coordinate with the Human Resources Department to evaluate, propose and implement strategies to
attract and retain staff to meet increasing service demands in a highly competitive market.
• Explore implementing a Master Permit Program for the cities of Sisters and La Pine in single -contractor
subdivisions as a way to reduce plan review fees, review time and create efficiencies.
• Continue to promote video inspections for difficult to access areas, such as underfloor areas that are
covered.
• Review job descriptions and update for clarity.
Examples of failed inspections
19 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Staff Directory
Randy Scheid
Building Official
(541) 317-3137
Randy.Scheid@deschutes.org
Krista Appleby
Assistant Building Official
(541) 385-1701
Krista.Appleby@deschutes.org
Keri Blackburn
Building Inspector III
(541) 388-6577
Keri.Blackburn@deschutes.org
Mark Byrd
Building Inspector III
(541) 749-7909
Mark. Byrd@deschutes.org
Rainer Doerge
Building Inspector III
(541) 480-8935
Rairier.Doerge@deschutes.org
Ami Dougherty
Building Inspector II
(541) 385-3217
Ami.Dougherty@deschutes.org
Travis Eggleston
Building Inspector 1
(541) 480-8934
Travis, Eggleston@deschutes.org
David Farrin
Building Inspector III
(541) 385-1702
David. Farrin@deschutes.org
Owen Gilstrap
Building Inspector III
(541) 480-8948
Owen.Gilstrap@deschutes.org
John Kelley
Building Inspector 111
(541) 797-3582
John, Kelley@deschutes.org
Michael Liskh
Building Inspector III
(541) 280-0342
Michael.Liskh@deschutes.org
Brian Moore
Building Inspector 111
(541) 385-1705
Brian.Moore@deschutes.org
Aaron Susee
Building Inspector 111
(541) 749-7370
Aaron.Susee@deschutes.org
Laurie Wilson
Building Inspector 111
(541) 383-6711
Laurie.Wilson@deschutes.org
Nicholas Wood
Building Inspector 1
(541) 213-0653
Nicholas.Wood@deschutes.org
20 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Overview
Code Enforcement consists of four Code Enforcement Specialists with one designated as Lead. The pro-
gram is managed by an Administrative Manager and is supported by a law enforcement deputy from the
DCSO and CDD's operating divisions. The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for investigating code
violation complaints to ensure compliance with land use, onsite wastewater disposal, building and solid
waste codes (by contract with the Solid Waste Department), and provides direct service to the cities of La
Pine and Sisters for building code violations under the Building Safety program. The program's overriding
goal is to achieve voluntary compliance. If necessary, cases are resolved through Circuit Court, justice
Court or before an Administrative Hearings Officer proceeding. The program continues to adapt to the
county's challenges of growth and diversification, incorporating new measures to ensure timely code com-
pliance.
While voluntary compliance is the primary objective, an ever-growing number of cases require further code
enforcement action because of delayed correction or non-compliance. Through the refinement of depart-
mental procedures for administrative civil penalty, Code Enforcement is obtaining compliance from cita-
tions rather than court adjudication, resulting in greater cost recovery. A disconcerting trend is the need
for county abatement in some cases. In abatement, the county corrects the violations. Abatement action
is reserved for matters of chronic nuisance and public health and safety. In response to this trend, Code
Enforcement is closely coordinating with other county departments in the development and enactment of
abatement plans.
2023 Year in Review
✓ Received 721 new cases and resolved 490 during the year.
✓ Conducted the first public education session since the pandemic to educate the public on the Code
Enforcement program.
✓ Analyzed the Code Enforcement program and revised procedures resulting in efficiencies for case
assignment, management and proceedings.
✓ Continued to partner with county departments to resolve difficult cases. Coordination ensures efficient
operations and avoids overlapping efforts, thus allowing staff to conduct a thorough investigation on
behalf of community members.
✓ Continued to offer staff remote work options and flex schedules for efficiency and staff retention.
✓ Continued to utilize the designated DSCO deputy for site visits as a safety measure.
✓ Continued to refine remote hearing's officer proceedings and engagement strategies to ensure an
opportunity for citizens to participate.
✓ Secured funding from Solid Waste to enact an abatement process.
✓ Updated the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedure Manual.
✓ Implemented payment of court fines and fees in Accela.
✓ Improved website to include frequently asked questions among other topics.
21 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
FY 2024-25 Work Plan Projects
• Improve methods of communication with complainants regarding case status and case closure.
• Continue to improve public education through website updates and public education.
• Improve the tracking process for medical hardships.
• Complete process of creating a Code Enforcement Specialist job series offering promotional paths for
staff.
• In coordination with the Onsite Wastewater Division, develop an efficient process for the Operation &
Maintenance (0&M) program reporting violations.
• Coordinate with DSCO and Risk Management to develop and implement annual field safety classes.
• Coordinate with the Human Resources Department to evaluate, propose and implement strategies to
attract and retain staff to meet service demands in a highly competitive market.
• Create a workflow and tracking system for the abatement program as well as identify professional
services to be used for property abatements.
• Revise online complaint submittal process to include photos, geographic information systems and
communication in an effort to improve efficiency and record keeping.
• Update DCC 1.16 Abatement language to include appeal processes.
• Revise Code Enforcement dashboard to include management tools to ensure relevant data is utilized.
• Explore software revisions to improve record keeping.
• Review and revise performance measures to ensure relevancy.
• Refine abatement procedure based on experiences observed in 2024.
Formalize staff training program and track training topics and education hours.
Annual Cases Opened and Closed
22 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Staff Directory
Carter Larkin Code Compliance Specialist (541) 617-4708 Carter.Larkin@deschutes.org
Dan Smith Code Compliance Specialist (541) 385-1710 Daniel.Smith@deschutes.org
Jeff Williams Code Compliance Specialist (541) 385-1745 Jeff.Williams@deschutes.org
Carolyn Young Code Compliance Specialist (541) 617-4736 Carolyn.Young@deschutes.org
23 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Overview
Coordinated Services consists of an Administrative Manager, one Administrative Supervisor, three Permit
Technician II's, and two Permit Technician I's. The Coordinated Services Division provides permitting and
front line direct services to customers. While coordinating with all operating divisions, staff ensure accurate
information is provided to the public, while minimizing wait times and ensuring the efficient operation of the
front counter and online services.
2023 Year in Review
✓ Permit Technicians continued to provide exceptional customer service to in -person customers as well as
virtually through the Accela online portal.
✓ Implemented one-on-one training to customers for electronic application submittals and inspection
scheduling.
✓ Created a Permit Technician job series to offer promotional opportunities to staff and as a retention
strategy.
✓ Several staff obtained their International Code Council Permit Technician Certification.
✓ Implemented system of assigning a permit technician to assist with complex Code Enforcement property
research.
✓ Improved website information.
✓ Regularly attended pre -application meetings.
✓ Continued to update the Standard Operating Procedures Manual which serves as an additional resource
for staff consistency and succession � planning.
iii ig.
FY 2024-25 Work Plan Projects
• Reinstate a lead position to train new staff, assist with complex workload demands and for succes-
sion planning.
• Revise CDD's decommissioning plan process and procedure and create a new record type to track
completion.
• Revise internal process and procedure for legitimizing unpermitted structures.
• Develop a project -based inspections list and identify the best method for notifying customers.
• Continue participation in CDD's website updates.
24 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Office Location & Lobby Hours
117 NW Lafayette Ave, Bend, OR 97703
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM,
Wednesday 9:00 AM-4:00 PM
Staff Directory
Angie Havniear
Administrative Manager
(541) 317-3122
Angela.Havniear@deschutes.org
Jennifer Lawrence
Administrative Supervisor
(541) 385-1405
Jennifer.L.Lawrence@deschutes.org
Corey Green
Permit Technician
(541) 388-671 1
Corey.Green@deschutes.org
Miu Green
Permit Technician
(541) 385-3200
Miu.Green@deschutes.org
Jessie Henderson
Permit Technician
(541) 385-1730
Jessica. Henderson@deschutes.org
Avery Johnson
Permit Technician
(541) 383-4435
Avery.Johnson@deschutes.org
Adam Weisgerber
Permit Technician
(541) 322-7193
Adam.weisgerber@deschutes.org
25 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Overview
Onsite Wastewater consists of one Onsite Wastewater Manag-
er, one Onsite Wastewater Specialist III, and two Onsite
Wastewater Specialists II's. The Onsite Wastewater Division
regulates onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic) to as-
sure compliance with state rules, and monitors environmental
factors for public health and resource protection. They pro-
vide site evaluations, design reviews, permitting, inspections,
technical assistance, and education and coordination with the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for onsite
wastewater treatment and dispersal systems. Staff inspects
sewage pumper trucks, reports on the condition of existing
wastewater systems, maintains an O&M tracking system, pro-
vides the public with information on wastewater treatment sys-
tems and regulations and investigates sewage hazards to pro-
tect public health and the environment. Staff are also engaged
in the proactive pursuit of protecting the groundwater in
Deschutes County and continue to work with DEQ on permit-
ting protective onsite wastewater systems in southern
Deschutes County.
2023 Year in Review
✓ Assessed 169 sites for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems, and issued 801 permits and
authorizations for new and existing onsite treatment and dispersal systems. Applications continued to
increase in complexity and technical requirements.
✓ Repaired 203 failing or substandard systems correcting sewage health hazards and protecting public
health and the environment.
✓ Increased electronic permit submittal and inspection scheduling through outreach and education of
customers, particularly licensed professionals. The division received 71.6% of applications online
compared to 45.7% in 2022.
✓ Provided seventeen property owners in south county with rebates of $3,750 per property for upgrading
conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems to nitrogen -reducing pollution reduction systems.
✓ Provided technical assistance to Terrebonne Sanitary District Formation Committee.
✓ Provided technical assistance for the Tumalo sewer feasibility study.
✓ Verified an estimated 1,750 septic system maintenance contracts for the O&M tracking system.
✓ Worked with DEQ on permitting protective onsite wastewater systems in south county. Participated in
dozens of variance hearings for modified advanced treatment systems on severely limited sites.
✓ Coordinated with DEQ staff for a south county groundwater and drinking well sampling event.
✓ Supported and provided technical assistance for Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) in
reviewing applications for DEQ Onsite Financial Aid Program to assist property owners with septic
repairs. The COIC program has assisted dozens of property owners and the program will continue until
funds are exhausted.
✓ Two trainees became fully Registered Environmental Health Specialists.
26 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Onsite Permits Issued
27 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
FY 2024-25 Work Plan Projects
• Work with DEQ staff on planning for and funding of long-term and regular well sampling events
approximately every 10 years to monitor changes in water quality in South County.
• Participate in the Upper Deschutes Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Local Advisory
Committee.
• Continue to provide financial assistance opportunities to South County property owners to upgrade
conventional systems to nitrogen -reducing pollution reduction systems through Nitrogen -Reducing
System Rebates and the Neighborlmpact Non -conforming Loan Partnership.
• Review current groundwater protection policies for South County and continue review of variance
applications with DEQ onsite staff to ensure the goals of water resource protection are addressed.
Highest risk areas may require greater scrutiny.
• Prepare for development to occur in the Newberry Neighborhood in La Pine by reviewing financial
assistance programs for groundwater protection efforts. This may include creation of a financial
advisory group consisting of community members.
• Continue providing technical assistance support for the Terrebonne Sanitary District formation and
Tumalo sewer feasibility study.
• Coordinate with the Planning Division regarding land use applications and code amendments that could
impact onsite wastewater processes.
• Update website information for onsite wastewater and groundwater protection.
improve rho, (IR.1A -rr rom her `reatina ctanH_:lrrd fnrm� anti nhtaining arnrn,rn\/al to rPni JrP the forms
• II � INI VVe the Vlxivl F l u , -Y ib -+
from DEQ and work with service providers to implement the improvements.
• Consult with DEQ and the BOCC to develop plans for addressing nitrate pollution in South County.
• Provide guidance to the public at large and at pre -application meeting for projects involving ADU's.
• Support staff in obtaining Professional Soils Scientist Certification. This certification will strengthen the
technical skills of Onsite staff and provide greater professional status for the entire program.
Staff Directory
Todd Cleveland
Onsite Wastewater Manager
(541) 617-4714
Todd.Cleveland@deschutes.org
Keoni Frampton
Onsite Wastewater Specialist II
(541) 330-4666
Keoni.Frampton@deschutes.org
Kevin Hesson
Onsite Wastewater Specialist III
(541) 322-7181
Kevin.Hesson@deschutes.org
Lindsey Holloway Onsite Wastewater Specialist II (541) 388-6596 Lindsey.Holloway@deschutes.org
28 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Overview
Planning consists of one Planning Director, one Planning Manager, two Principal Planners, one Senior
Planner, two Senior Long Range Planners, one Senior Transportation Planner, four Associate Planners, and
one Assistant Planner. The Planning Division consists of two operational areas: Current Planning and Long
Range Planning. Current Planning processes individual land use applications and provides information to
the public on all land use related issues. Long Range Planning addresses the future needs of the county
through updates to the comprehensive plan, changes to the county code and other special projects.
Current Planning
Responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with DCC and state law, including zoning,
subdivision and development regulations, and facilitating public hearings with Hearings Officers and the
BOCC. Staff is also responsible for verifying compliance with land use rules for building permit applications
and septic permits; coordinating with Code Enforcement to respond to complaints and monitor conditions
of approval for land use permits; performing road naming duties; providing assistance at the public
information counter, over the telephone and via email; and addressing in the rural county and the cities of
La Pine and Redmond under contract.
Long Range Planning
Responsible for planning for the future of Deschutes County, including developing and guiding land use
policy with the BOCC, Planning Commission, community and partner organizations. It is in charge of
updating the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, coordinating with cities and agencies on
various planning projects taking place in the region, including population forecasts with PSU and cities. Staff
also monitors and participates in annual legislative sessions, and serves on numerous local, regional and
statewide committees primarily focusing on transportation, natural resources, growth management and
economic deveioprnent.
Transportation Planning
Provides comments and expertise on land use applications, calculates System Development Charges as part
of land use application review process or upon request; provides comments to the County's Risk
Management Department regarding traffic issues for permitted events; participates in the annual County
Capital Improvement Plan process with the Road Department; applies for grants for enhanced bicycle and
pedestrian facilities in coordination with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC); participates
in Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) funded refinement planning; coordinates road issues with
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) for urban interface plans;
and serves on several local and regional transportation committees, most notably BPAC, the Bend
Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Central Oregon Area
Commission on Transportation TAC.
Floodplain & Wetlands Planning
Responsible for providing comments and expertise on land use applications, code enforcement, and general
property inquiries that require development, fill, or removal in mapped floodplain and wetland areas. Staff
maintains Certified Floodplain Manager certifications to provide customers with up-to-date and accurate
information regarding Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations, surveying requirements,
and construction requirements. Coordination is frequently required with external agencies including FEMA,
US Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW), and United States Forest Service.
29 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023 Year in Review
✓ Counter coverage averaged 188 customer
visits a month compared to 222 in 2022,
✓ Staff responded to 2,821 emails and 2,549
phone call inquiries. This equates to over
235 emails and 212 phone calls per month.
✓ Received 685 land use applications
compared to 895 in 2022, a decrease of
23.5% from prior year.
✓ The Planning Division received 7 non -farm
dwelling applications compared with 10 in
2022.
✓ Five final plats were recorded in 2023 or are
in the process of being recorded, creating a
total of 94 residential lots or parcels.
Land Use Applications Received
30 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan 2023 Annual Report
2023 Year in Review, continued
Twenty-three'(23) land use applications were reviewed by Hearings Officers compared to 13 in 2022. They
include:
✓ Plan Amendment/Zone Changes from Surface ✓ Plan Amendment Zone Changes from Exclusive
Mining to Non -Resource Zoning (1) Farm Use to Non -Resource Zoning (4)
✓ Declaratory Rulings for Initiation of Use of Prior ✓ City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
Approvals (2) Amendment / HB 3318 (1)
✓ Appeals of Staff Decision (1) ✓ Modification of Conditions to an Approved Land
✓ Remand Hearings (2) Use Permit (2)
✓ Redmond Wetlands and Wastewater Treatment
✓ Redmond Airport Master Plan (1) Complex (1)
✓ Quasi-judicial Hearings for Land Use ✓ Bend Airport Text Amendment (1)
Applications (7)
The BOCC conducted 23 quasi-judicial land use hearings or proceedings compared to 16 during 2022.
✓ Appeals declined for review by the BOCC (2)
✓ Outdoor Mass Gatherings (1)
• Improvement Agreements (2)
✓ City of Bend UGB Amendment (1)
✓ Road Name Change (1)
✓ Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm
Use for a Meadery (1)
✓ Plan Amendment Zone Changes from Exclusive
Farm Use to Non -Resource Zones(5)
✓ Plan Amendment/Zone Changes from Surface
iMining to Non -Resource Zoning (1)
✓ Thornburg Destination Resort (1)
✓ Other Hearings or Proceedings (8)
Six (6) appeals were filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals compared to 10 in 2022:
✓ Thornburg Destination Resort ✓ Eden (710 Properties) Plan Amendment/Zone
✓ 710 Properties Change
✓ Template Dwelling (Remand) ✓ Marken Plan Amendment/Zone Change
✓ 2T Sustainable Guest Ranch
One (1) Petition to Incorporate was reviewed by the BOCC:
✓ Mountain View Incorporation Application—BOCC reviewed a petition to incorporate anew city east of
Bend, encompassing a 265-square mile area near Millican. The proposal was denied and new inter-
nal processes were established to clarify fees and procedures for future application submissions.
31 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023 Year in Review, continued
Legislative Amendments
The BOCC adopted:
✓ Amateur Radio Facility Text Amendments —Clarified requirements for establishment of amateur (HAM)
radio facilities on property in Deschutes County.
✓ Conventional Housing Combining Zone Amendment —Repealed this combining zone to remove the
restriction to place pre -fabricated and manufactured housing on certain properties.
✓ Historic Landmarks Commission Housekeeping Amendment —Clarified the composition of the
commission, eliminating the reference to Deschutes County Pioneer Association, which no longer exists.
✓ Rural Accessory Dwelling Unit Amendments —Pursuant to SB 391, these amendments allowed an owner
of a lot or parcel within rural residential exception areas to construct one ADU subject to certain
restrictions and limitations.
✓ Wildfire Hazard Building Code Amendment —Corrected local language that would have required wildfire
hardening building codes for all properties located in the Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Zone. This
amendment was required based on adoption of new state standards to the Oregon Residential
Specialty Code.
✓ Bend Airport Air Traffic Control Tower Amendments —allowed for the establishment of an air traffic
control tower as an outright permitted use with a maximum height of 115 feet.
Deschutes 2020-2040 Transportation
System Plan (TSP) Update
The TSP produced a list of prioritized transportation
projects, update goals and policies, changes to func-
tional classifications of selected county roads, im-
proved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, increased
transit stops in unincorporated communities, and
overall improvement to the county's transportation
system.
Deschutes 2020-2040 Tumalo Com-
munity Plan (TCP) Update
The TCP updated demographic information, commu-
nity profile descriptions and updated goals and poli-
cies as derived from public outreach, research, and
technical analysis from the Tumalo unincorporated
community.
32 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023 Year in Review, continued
Deschutes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Deschutes County 2040 Project
Planning staff initiated the process to update the county's Comprehensive Plan in May 2022. The initial
phases of the project focused on conducting background research to form the technical basis for the plan
update, and collecting community feedback to identify the key issues, goals, and challenges facing the
county for the next 20 years. In 2023, staff, the project consultant, and the Planning Commission entered
the final phases of the project, focused on refining new goal and policy concepts, conducting a subsequent
round of community engagement, completing the initial draft of the updated Deschutes County 2040
Comprehensive Plan, and initiating the adoption process. Notable accomplishments include:
✓ Utilized community and technical advisor input to draft new chapter narrative content, goals and
policies for the updated Comprehensive Plan..
✓ Conducted a second round of community engagement to gather feedback on key policy options,
including use of the $5,000 Technical Assistance Grant from Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) for virtual engagement and software tools. Summary of engagement activities to
date:
66 meetings -in -a -box with 422 participants
8 in -person open houses with 296 attendees
2 online surveys with 361 respondents
4'pop-up' in -person activities
29,000 social media impressions
1,500 unique websitevisitors
13 project update e-mails
E-mail listsery with 556 subscribers
✓ Met with Planning Commission six times to
refine goal, policy, and narrative content.
Released the draft plan for public review in
August 2023. Held three public hearings
before the Planning Commission.
✓ Received the Achievement in Community
Engagement Award from Oregon's Citizen
Involvement Advisory Committee resulting
in a 2023 Oregon Planning Conference
presentation on community engagement
techniques.
33 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023 Year in Review, continued
Grants
CLG Grant
Planning staff administered an 18-month $5,500 CLG Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) to assist Deschutes County with its historic preservation programs.
Technical Assistance Grant
In November 2022, DLCD awarded the department a $5,000 Technical Assistance Grant to fund the use of
specialized software tools to assist in virtual outreach for the county's Comprehensive Plan Update. The
grant was utilized during the second round of community engagement during Spring 2023.
Transportation Growth Management Grant
Planning staff coordinated with ODOT to execute a $75,000 Transportation and Growth Management
Grant to update the TCP bike/ped/transit elements and implement the rural trails portion of the Sisters
Country Vision Action Plan.
Coordination with Other Jurisdictions, Agencies and Committees
BPAC
BPAC met 12 times, commenting on regional TSP updates, trail connections between cities and recreation
areas, bicycle and pedestrian safety issues and ODOT projects, among others. BPAC held the Tri-County
Bicycle and Pedestrian Summit in Sunriver in October.
ODOT
Participated in Baker Road -Lava Butte Multi -use Path and Lava Butte -La Pine Multi -use Path TAC; Baker Road
Interchange Area Management Plan TAC; quarterly meetings with ODOT, Road Department, and cities of
Bend and Redmond to review traffic modeling needs; stakeholder committee for ODOT study on wildlife
passages for US Hwy 20 between Bend and Santiam Pass; Transportation Planning and Analysis traffic
modeling discussion; US Hwy 97 Safety Study coordination; and US Hwy 20 (Greenwood Ave.) 3rd Street /
Powell Butte Hwy Refinement Plan.
Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee
Convened two Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee meetings to adopt work plan,
budget for mitigation funds, and receive updates from ODFW and Central Oregon Irrigation District.
Newberry Regional Partnership
Coordination with team of public and private citizens in developing a community vision for southern
Deschutes County.
34 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023 Year in Review, continued
Coordination with Other, jurisdictions, Agencies and Committees
City of Bend —Coordinated with City staff regarding:
✓ Bend Airport Master Plan Update
✓ Bend Airport control tower Text Amendment
✓ Bend UGB Amendment / HB 4079 / Affordable Housing Project
✓ Long-term Planning for the Outback Water Filtration Facility
✓ Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization TAC
✓ Bend UGB Amendment / HB 3318 / Stevens Road Tract
City of La Pine —Coordinated with City staff regarding:
✓ Land use applications for effects on county road system.
✓ Participation with Property Management and the city to update and amend the county owned Newberry
Neighborhood comprehensive plan designations, master plan and implementing regulation.
City of Redmond —Coordinated with City staff regarding:
✓ CORE3—Plan amendment Zone Change and UGB Amendment for a dedicated, multi -agency
coordination center for emergency operations and training led by COIC.
✓ Redmond Wetlands Complex —Relocation and expansion of wastewater treatment plant.
✓ Update Airport Safety Zone associated with the Redmond Airport Master Plan Update.
City of Sisters —Coordinated with City staff regarding:
✓ Participation in the implementation of Sisters Country Vision Plan and Sisters Comprehensive Plan.
Deschutes County
✓ Provided updates to BOCC regarding SB 391 Rural ADUs, SB 762 Wildfire Mitigation, wildlife inventories
produced by ODFW, PSU population updates, short-term rentals, TCP update and dark skies project.
35 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
FY 2024-25 Work Plan Projects
Development Review
Respond to phone and email customer inquiries within 48 to 72 hours.
• Conduct pre -application meetings and respond to customer inquiries (counter, phones, and emails).
• Respond to phone and email customer inquiries within 48 to 72 hours.
• Issue all administrative (staff) decisions for land use actions that do not require prior notice within 21
days of determination of a complete application.
• Issue all administrative (staff) decisions for land use actions requiring prior notice within 45 days of
determination of a complete application.
• Process Hearings Officer decisions for land use actions and potential appeals to the BOCC within 150
days per State law.
• Continue to improve website accessibility to the public to view records associated with complex land
use applications.
Natural Resources
• Groundwater Protection —Support efforts by the DEQ and Onsite Wastewater Division to protect
south county groundwater.
• Natural Hazards —Pending state legislative changes and updates to Fire Risk Mapping in 2023, devel-
op a work plan to amend the Comprehensive Plan and County Code requiring defensible space and
fire-resistant building materials per SB 762 and SB 80 (2021 and 2023, Wildfire Mitigation).
• Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan —Initiate recommended development code amendments.
• Sage -Grouse —Continue to participate as a cooperating agency with the BLM and amend the Com-
prehensive Plan and Zoning Code to incorporate a new sage grouse inventory from the ODFW.
Dark Skies Update —Revisit the county's existing outdoor lighting ordinance (DCC 15.10) and update
regulations to reflect current best practices and technology. This process will guide future education-
al outreach materials designed to inform residents about dark skies best practices.
36 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
FY 2024-25 Work Plan Projects, continued
Comprehensive Plan Update
• Initiate update to Newberry Country Plan including outreach, technical coordination, collaboration with
La Pine 2045 and Newberry Regional Partnership, and updates to plan goals, policies, and narrative.
Transportation Planning
• Process road naming requests associated with certain types of development on a semi-annual basis.
• Administer the County's Transportation SDC program.
• Coordinate with Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization on regional projects and planning.
• Coordinate with ODOT on roadway projects and interchange area management plans.
City of Bend Coordination
• Coordinate with City of Bend on growth management issues, including technical analyses related to
housing and employment needs.
• Coordinate with Bend Parks and Recreation District for the development of park space in SE Bend.
City of La Pine Coordination
• Participate with Property Management and the City of La Pine to update and amend the county -owned
Newberry Neighborhood comprehensive plan designations, master plan and implementing regulations.
• Participate in La Pine 2045 Comprehensive Plan Update process.
City OT" Kedmond Coordination
• Coordinate to implement their Comprehensive Plan Update.
• Coordinate on CORE3, a multi -stakeholder regional emergency coordination center.
• Coordinate to update the joint Management Agreement and UH-10 zone lands per HB 3197.
• Coordinate planning efforts for McVey interchange on South Highway 97 to access Large Lot Industrial
Lands though either a Goal Exception process or legislative equivalent.
City of Sisters Coordination
• Participate in the implementation of Sisters Country Vision Plan and their Comprehensive Plan and City
of Sisters Comprehensive Plan Update.
• Participate in Sisters Urban Growth Boundary Expansion process.
DLCD Rulemaking
• Monitor rulemaking as it pertains to Goal 5 - Cultural Areas, Farm and Forest Conservation Program
Improvements, and Eastern Oregon Solar Siting.
• If required, initiate legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code .
37 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
FY 2024-25 Work Plan Projects, continued
Growth Management Committees
• Coordinate and/or participate on Deschutes County BPAC, Project Wildfire, and Deschutes River
Mitigation and Enhancement Committee.
Historic Preservation—CLG Grant
• Administer 2023-24 and 2024-25 Certified Local Government Grants from SHPO.
Housekeeping Amendments
• Initiate housekeeping amendments to ensure county code complies with state law.
Housing Strategies
• Amend county code to define family for unrelated persons per HB 2538 (Non -familial Individuals).
• Explore options and approaches to address rural housing and homelessness as allowed under state law.
Legislative Session (2023-24)
• Participate in legislative or rulemaking work groups to shape state laws that benefit Deschutes County.
Planning Commission Coordination
• Coordinate with the BOCC to establish strategic directions for the Planning Commission.
'LV11111g Text Amendments
• Allow "self -serve" farm stands in Rural residential Exception Areas Comply with House Bill 3109 (2021)
pertaining to establishment of childcare facilities in industrial zones.
• Childcare facilities in Industrial Zones.
• Clear and Objective Code Update —initiate an 18-month process to update county code to comply with
HB 3197. Coordinate with DLCD hired consultant and staff to perform code revisions.
• Define family for unrelated persons per HB 2538 (Non -familial Individuals).
• Forest Zone Code —Review for compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule.
• Lot Line Adjustments and Re -platting.
• Medical Hardship Dwellings —review for consistency with state law.
• Minor variance 10% lot area rule for farm and forest zoned properties.
• Outdoor Mass Gatherings update.
• Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act (Wireless Telecommunication Amendments).
• Sign code to become consistent with federal law.
• Title 19, 20, 21—Language related to Class I, II, and III road projects as allowed uses.
• Title 22—Procedures Ordinance for consistency with state law and planning department interpretations.
• Wetland Regulation Clarification for Irrigation or Artificially Created Wetlands.
38 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Staff Directory
Will Groves
Planning Manager
(541) 388-6518
William.Groves@deschutes.org
Anthony Raguine
Principal Planner
(541) 617-4739
Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org
Jacob Ripper
Principal Planner
(541) 385-1759
Jacob.Ripper@deschutes.org
Kyle Collins
Associate Long Range Planner
(541) 383-4427
Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org
Dan DiMarzo
Assistant Planner
(541) 330-4620
Daniel. DiMarzo@deschutes.org
Caroline House
Senior Planner
(541) 388-6667
Caroline.House@deschutes.org
Haleigh King
Associate Planner
(541) 383-6710
Haleigh.King@deschutes.org
Nicole Marcell
Senior Long Range Planner
(541) 317-3157
Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org
Nathaniel Miller
Associate Planner
(541) 317-3164
Nathaniel.MiIler@deschutes.org
Tarik Rawlings
Senior Transportation Planner
(541) 317-3148
Tarik.Rawlings@deschutes.org
Tanya Saltzman
Senior Long Range Planner
(541) 388-6528
Tanya.Saltzman@deschutes.org
Audrey Stuart
Associate Planner
(541) 388-6679
Audrey.Stuart@deschutes.org
39
CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023
Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, requires cities and counties to create a citizen involvement
program that provides opportunities for community participation in land use planning processes and
decisions.
Land use legislation, policies and implementation measures made by Oregonians nearly 50 years ago
helped shape Oregon's urban and rural environments. Likewise, choices made today will ultimately shape
these areas in the future. Successful land use planning occurs through an open and public process that
provides room for information gathering, analysis and vigorous debate. Deschutes County's Community
Involvement program is defined in Section 1.2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
This chapter identifies the County Planning Commission as the committee for citizen involvement. It also
contains the County's Community Involvement goal and corresponding five policies that comply with Goal 1.
This report briefly discusses the noteworthy community involvement actions undertaken by the Planning
Division in 2023. The report is intended to provide county residents and stakeholders with a tool to assess
its effectiveness and offer additional suggestions the County can utilize to ensure that its diverse
communities remain actively involved in land use planning discussions.
40 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
2023
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission convened 22 times to
consider:
✓ 2023 Housekeeping Amendments
✓ Amateur (HAM) Radio Facility Text Amend-
ments
✓ CDD FY 2023-24 Annual Report & Work Plan
✓ Conventional Housing Combining Zone Re-
peal
✓ Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Update
✓ Destination Resort Amendments
✓ Mule Deer Winter Range Inventory Update
✓ RV's as Rental Dwellings
✓ Transportation System Plan Update 2020-
2040
✓ TCP Update and public hearing.
Historic Landmarks Commission
Convened 3 times in 2023 to consider:
✓ CDD FY 2022-23 Annual Report & Work Plan
✓ CLG Grant Application
✓ Deschutes County 2040—Project Briefing
✓ Regional Coordination
✓ Updates from Bend and Redmond Historic Landmarks
Commission.
41 CDD FY 2024-25 Work Plan / 2023 Annual Report
Attachment B
From: daniel bacametal.com <daniel@bacametal.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 1:44 PM
To: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>; Phil Chang <Phil.Chang@deschutes.org>; Tony DeBone
<Tony.DeBone@deschutes.org>; William Groves <WilIiam.Groves@deschutes.org>
Subject: Agricultural definition
Some people who received this message don't often get email from daniel@bacametal.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hello Commissioners and Will Groves of the Community Development Department. I
spoke with you on the 10th about implementing a change to the county code that defines
what a farm is. This was in regards to being able to build an agricultural building on an EFU
zoned property. since this affects rural farming and agricultural properties. Deschutes
county currently has a code in place that a property cannot be defined as a "farm"unless
that property is in tax deferment. Even if your property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use. Farm is
in the name yet it is not a farm. I believe this is a great hinderance to more farming and
agricultural uses being implemented on those properties. I suggest that a Property that is
zoned EFU should not need to be in tax deferment in order for it to be considered a farm.
Farming and agricultural is in major decline here in Deschutes county, especially since
there is not a very high profit return on farming and agricultural endeavors. This financial
burden is compounded by the fact that building permits are significantly more for a
property that is not uCiiiiGu as a iaiui.
figured I should provide some background of our land use especially in regards to an
agricultural manner. I built our house myself with my own 2 hands, completing it in 2019.
We have been making outside land improvements ever since then. We have chickens that
we sell there eggs. And this year I started over 200 plants primarily tomatoes in our dining
room. I would like to continue to expand our agricultural production, but there is very little
revenue in the farming industry. This makes it difficult to justify permitting and building
costs associated with a new building. Hence the need to build an agricultural building.
Which is less building fees and materials costs. It is also not subject to structural
inspections which allows the use of non grade stamped lumber and reclaimed building
materials to be used. I have milled my own lumber in the past, particularly for my houses
siding and flooring. Being able to source my building materials locally such as juniper and
pine also greatly reduces building costs as well as carbon impact with this local sourcing.
At my previous property off of Erickson rd near the airport, I perused more agricultural
uses. We had cows, sheep, goats, chickens. I was even awarded a grant from COID for the
improvements I made to that property. I would like to continue to improve our current
property by building an agricultural building. I spoke with Nicole Mardell over the phone
and she informed me that this might be a matter to be included in your 2024-2025
Community Development Department's annual work plan. I would like to recommend that
this issue please be included. I would also like to be informed as to when that work plan is
it to meet and receive public feedback. I have included some photos of some of this years
chicks and of The chicken coop which is mobile it is in the backyard out the window. It is
purple. Also the tomato starts in our dinning room.
Daniel Baca
541-706-1990
https•//ddec1-0-en-
ctp trendmicro com•443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?urt=www.bacametal.com&umid=8f9a04
8a-6c16-42b8-85f9-9aa4169f4f5f&auth=eb57fbfd9ea9cdaa3b558713c132cdbc67404c41-
73bb6a6b9c973e3299f27c67ba9db2ac7005e093
Peter Gutowsky
Subject: Re: Suggestion for Reviewing Agricultural Building Permit Process
From: Todd Straughan <toddstrauRhan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 10:47 AM
To: citizeninput <citizeninput@deschutes.orR>
Subject: Suggestion for Reviewing Agricultural Building Permit Process
r
Some people who received this message don't often get email from toddstraughan@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Subject: Suggestion for Reviewing Agricultural Building Permit Process
County Commissioners,
I would like to offer input for your consideration regarding the agricultural (AG) building permit process. After carefully
listening to the concerns raised during the recent Board meeting on 5/15/24, 1 believe there are significant issues that
merit your attention.
Here are some key points to consider:
• In most cases, the structures can still be built without an AG permit. The appeal of the AG permit for the property
n%ninor is thin lack of insnectinnc by thin C`ni inty and thin Inwer cnst of the nermit itself-
.. 1-1 is ,.., .. ... r _� ...- ---• -i ____ _..- 1-�--1 ---- - -- - - - - ----
• Abuse of AG Permits: There have been instances of property owners obtaining AG permits; however, using the
structure for non -farming purposes. Without appropriate oversight, this misuse of permits undermines the
integrity of the process.
• Lack of Oversight: There is a need for increased oversight to ensure that AG permits are being used for legitimate
farming activities and that any modifications to permitted structures align with agricultural needs (no ADU's, etc. in
these buildings).
• Uncertain Future Use: The current process does not address the possibility of a property owner ceasing
agricultural activities, leaving the status of AG -permitted buildings in question.
• Assessment of the new buildings: Because these AG permits do not get inspections by CDD, the Assessor's staff
are often left to estimate the structure's completion and size due to the lack of access, which could cause over
assessment of these structures.
Considering these concerns, I suggest a comprehensive review of the AG building permit process. This review
could include:
1. Implementing stricter oversight measures to prevent misuse of AG permits and possible fines
from misuse.
2. Establishing mechanisms to verify ongoing agricultural use of permitted buildings to see if
the use changes.
3. Enhancing communication and coordination between relevant departments to improve
efficiency and transparency.
I believe that addressing these issues will not only promote fairness and accountability within our community but also
contribute to the sustainable development of agricultural resources in our county.
vT ES C0
G2�
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Request to Accept Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Move to approve the acceptance of a grant from the Department of Energy to complete an
energy audit and develop an energy efficiency and conservation strategy.
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Energy has funded the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant
(EECBG) program from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The EECBG program is designed
to assist states, local governments, and Tribes in implementing strategies to reduce energy
use, reduce fossil fuel emissions, and improve energy efficiency.
-rl,.., n,.....�*..,",..-,� F C.-.,..-..., 4,�.- .-J �-74 ?'I n cC/'Qr f� �.,AS for Deschutes County for
I1 IC Depal t I ICI Il of E ICI gy I las appr oven -p / U,J I v ink EEC -BUG i ui iu.� o Desc iu es Coup i�yr o
a technical assistance voucher to complete an energy audit and develop an energy
efficiency and conservation strategy.
ATTENDANCE:
Lee Randall, Facilities Director
Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager
L�01 E S Co
G
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Oregon Health Authority Health -Related Social Needs Capacity Building Grant
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of the application for a Health -Related Social Needs Capacity Building Grant
from the Oregon Health Authority.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) is focusing efforts on eliminating health inequities by
2030; one area of focus is on Health -Related Social Needs (HRSN). As part of these efforts,
OHA is allowing Oregon Health Plan (OHP) funding to be utilized for climate, housing, and
nutritional supports. Part of these efforts will entail expanding the number of providers
who can help OHP members access these supports. OHA recently announced a grant
opportunity through vugi i local Community n i iui city Care Organizations
ncauvi is
If awarded, Adult P&P proposes using these funds to help support clients on supervision
with their housing related needs., The majority of clients on supervision are OHP members
or are OHP eligible and thus would be eligible for these HRSN housing funds. Stable
housing is vital to public safety, stabilization and community integration, and necessary for
individual and community wellness and livability.
Specifically, Community Justice proposes using these funds to secure a consultant to
evaluate the department's housing processes, suggest adjustments, and develop new
processes to optimize utilization of HRSN resources. This will involve developing policies,
creating HRSN billing practices, and strengthening billing and reporting/grant management
capacity.
Funds are sought to procure a billing system which will enable tracking and billing for
housing services. Funds would also support increased FTE capacity in the form of .25 FTE of
an administrative analyst position, one full-time peer -based mentor (likely a contracted
position), and .10 FTE allocation for Community Justice's business manager. The
administrative analyst will play a central role in connecting clients with housing providers,
fostering collaboration with landlords and property managers, and ensuring the necessary
infrastructure for funding housing support is in place. They will oversee tracking and billing
processes, liaise with the consultant to refine operational procedures, and ensure
compliance with grant and billing requirements for HRSN funds. The business manager will
report out and provide the grant management and administrative support for the funds as
well as the billing process.
The mentor would support clients in accessing services such as OHP, navigating funding
assistance applications, liaising with property management companies, and facilitating
rental applications. Integrating peer -based services enhances effectiveness and promotes
health equity in housing access. The mentor will also acquaint themselves with available
HRSN providers and assist clients in accessing additional resources to overcome barriers to
housing.
As Community Justice learned of these funds near the grant deadline, the application has
already been submitted. If the Board does not support proceeding, the application will be
withdrawn.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
$345,000 in grant funds which, if awarded, would be received and spent in FY25 and FY26.
ATTENDANCE:
Trevor Stephens, Business Manager for Community Justice
Nicoli Brower, Administrative Analyst Adult Parole and Probation
Trevor Stephens
Deschutes County Community Justice
Community Capacity Building Funding Application
Mrs. Deevy Holcomb
63360 NW Britta Street Building #1
Bend, OR 97703
r. Trevor Stephens
63360 NW Britta Street Building #1
Bend, OR 97703
Deschutes County Community Justice
trevor.stephens@deschutes.org
0: 541-330-8261
trevor.stephens@deschutes.org
0: 541-330-8261
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application 1
Trevor Stephens
Application Form
Instructions
Deschutes County Community Justice
In order to receive funding, organizations must complete and sign this application form in its entirety. For this form
to be considered complete, all components must be filled out, a budget request must be attached and the
application must be signed by the authorized representative from the entity applying for funding.
Please answer all required and applicable optional questions. Questions that have a text -response show a
character count and instructions state a word count. Please follow word count maximums in your answers.
If you have questions about this application or need technical support, reach out to Elliot Sky at
Elliot.Sky@pacificsource.com or call 541-225-2813.
Applicant r anizai n infor ai n
The purpose of this section is to collect general information about the Applicant Organization. Please complete the
information requested in the questions below.
Applicant Organization Name*
Deschutes County Community Justice
Point of Contact Name*
Trevor Stephens
Point of Contact Title*
Business Manager
ContactPoint ot - •'. .,
541-330-8261
Point of Contact Email Address*
trevor.stephens@deschutes.org
Mailing Address: Street Address*
63360 NW Britta Street Building #2
Mailing Address: City*
Bend
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application 2
Trevor Stephens
Mailing Address: State*
Oregon
.•• • ��-
3
Deschutes County Community Justice
Eligibility Criteria
Organizations must meet minimum eligibility criteria to receive Community Capacity Building Funding.
Please attest to the following:*
The organization is capable of providing or supporting the provision of one or more HRSN services to Medicaid
beneficiaries within the state of Oregon.
Yes
Please attest to the following:*
The organization intends to contract with one or more CCOs or with the Fee -for -Service Third Party Contractor (FFS
TPC) to serve as an HRSN provider for at least one HRSN service.
Yes
Please attest to the following:*
The organization demonstrates a history of responsible financial administration via recent annual financial reports,
an externally conducted audit, experience receiving other federal funding or other similar documentation.
Yes
Organization 'types*
The following organization types are eligible to apply for and receive Community Capacity Building Funding. Please
select the box that most closely aligns with your organization type (select more than one, as needed):
City, county and local government agencies
Who will be served
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application 3
Trevor Stephens Deschutes County Community Justice
The purpose of this section is to collect information about the population served by your organization and to learn
more about its culturally responsive and specific strategies to engage individuals.
1. Counties served.*
Please indicate which counties your organization will provide J services.
Deschutes
I • •1111 1111111111-• •• • • „ • �1111 •-ill I •- •-
about:*
1) the current working relationship and knowledge of that county
2) current or planned partnerships to support the work proposed and
3) the work being proposed in that county, including how their specific population(s) of focus in each county will
benefit from the proposed work.
If your organization does not have existing relationships in the county, you must describe how you intend to build
those relationships. (300 words max)
M Deschutes County Community Justice -Adult Parole & Probation collaborates extensively with county
services providers, community -based organizations, and public -safety stakeholders, to engage approximately
1000 adults on supervision. We engage with the Court, DA, and Sheriff, and maintain strong partnerships with
Behavioral Health. A significant upcoming initiative, slated for July 1, 2024, involves embedding a behavioral
health specialist within our office to work directly with our clients who often face barriers to traditional
behavioral health services and require innovative and flexible engagement strategies.
u Furthermore, we have robust relationships and contract with a variety of community -based treatment,
shelter, and housing providers, ensuring access to resources which adults on supervision often face difficulty
in accessing. Currently, we contract 12 sober living beds and seven transitional shelter beds monthly, and
often seek or access additional funding to meet demand.
0 We intend to utilize capacity building funds to assess our existing processes and partnerships, exploring
opportunities to leverage HRSN funding to expand housing services for our clients. We estimate that 90-9S%
of our clients are OHP-eligible and many of them have housing needs. We have recently taken steps to better
understand OHP and train an internal OHP assister to expedite service access.
0 While we offer some housing assistance, demand surpasses available resources, particularly for clients
transitioning from incarceration or facing homelessness. Establishing a system to utilize HRSN funds for
housing support would significantly benefit our clients. Additionally, we aim to diversify options beyond
transitional housing, facilitating smoother transitions to permanent housing.
0 Stable housing is vital to public safety, stabilization and community integration for our clients, and
necessary for individual and community wellness and livability. The focus of our request is to enhance
collaboration, leverage funding opportunities, and expand housing for our clients by both maximizing
available resources and increase available options.
. Populations to be served*
Please select the populations to be served by your organization. Select only the specific populations you will
serve from each list below:
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application
Trevor Stephens Deschutes County Community Justice
HRSN Services Covered Populations: (See STCs for Population Description)
Adults and youth released from incarceration
Individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness
Individuals with a high -risk clinical need in a region experiencing extreme weather
American Indian/Alaska Native/Indigenous communities:
Black/African American/African communities:
Latino/a/x communities:
Rural communities:
Houseless communities:
People with behavioral health conditions:
Other communities not listed above (please describe):
Women on supervision and clients with restrictions that prevent them from utilizing many shelter and
transitional housing resources.
4. language access provided by your organization. Please indicate your organization's capacity to speak and write
in languages other than English. Also indicate whether the language capacity comes from a native or non-native
speaker.
Language 1:
Spanish
:g
Spoken fluently by native speaker(s)
Spoken fluently by nonnative speaker(s) or access to an interpretation service
Written by native speaker(s)
Written by nonnative speaker(s) or access to translation service
Language 2:
Other languages and ASL (ASL services and utilize telephonic and virtual interpretation services)
Language 2e
Spoken fluently by nonnative speaker(s) or access to an interpretation service
Written by nonnative speaker(s) or access to translation service
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application
Trevor Stephens
Deschutes County Community Justice
Language 3:
Language 3:
Language 4:
Language 4:
(Optional) Other language access offered by your organization not already listed
above:
Organizational Background Information
Describe how your organization will use Community Capacity Building Funding to build capacity to provide HRSN
services to populations of focus. Ensure the response includes a description of how the Organization will promote
health equity through the delivery of HRSN service. (250 words max)
M Historically, individuals on supervision experience barriers to accessing housing. When resources are
scarce, providers and communities are often unable or unwilling to assume perceived and real liability
related to criminal backgrounds, acute or chronic homelessness, and/or dual -diagnoses. As an agency who
provides services, stabilization and supervision for justice -involved individuals, we increasingly attempt to
take on this liability through internal resources or when capacity allows, build relationships with existing
providers to ease barriers and expand access. This takes significant subject matter expertise. To enhance our
capacity, we propose using these funds to secure a consultant to evaluate our housing processes, suggest
adjustments, and develop new processes to optimize utilization of HSRN resources. This will involve
developing policies, creating HSRN billing practices, and strengthening our reporting/grant management
capacity.
M Working alongside staff, the consultant will implement these improvements. Aligning with Oregon's
health equity objectives, we strive to establish a system ensuring that all individuals, regardless of race,
ethnicity, language, disability, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or social class, have equal
access.
0 Our approach will prioritize inclusivity, drawing on the principles of targeted universalism: we want all
individuals to experience stable housing, but know that different subgroups experience different barriers and
have different needs to achieve this goal. We will engage a longstanding community advisory group,
comprising representatives from minoritized communities, and individuals with lived experience in the
criminal justice system, to ensure that our efforts toward health equity in housing services are robust and
reflective of local needs.
6. Culturally and linguistically responsive and trauma informed services*
Describe how your organization provides culturally and linguistically responsive and trauma informed services to
the populations served. (250 words max)
0 Since 2020, Community justice has actively engaged with a community advisory group comprising
representatives from minoritized communities, and individuals with lived experience in the recovery and
criminal justice systems, to provide feedback on our system and potential changes we can make. This group
convenes regularly to offer insights and suggestions, which we would utilize for activities supporting by the
capacity building funds.
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application 6
Trevor Stephens Deschutes County Community Justice
M Deschutes County experiences overrepresentation in its Criminal Justice System, recent data (2015-2019)
indicates that Black men, Hispanic men and Native American men (and Native American women in some
areas) make up a higher percentage of those on supervision compared to the general demographic profile of
Deschutes County.
M Recently, we conducted a gender responsivity assessment and an equity assessment, both of which have
led to action steps for organizational improvement. In collaboration with the District Attorney's office and
local law enforcement, our offices facilitated staff training to become certified Oregon Trauma -Informed Care
trainers. We recently provided training for all staff members in trauma -informed care.
0 Simultaneously, we've internally prioritized gender responsiveness, relaunching gender -responsive
cognitive behavioral therapy and establishing gender -specific caseloads for clients identifying as women.
0 To enhance linguistic responsiveness, we have implemented hiring preferences for Spanish-speaking
candidates and contracted interpretation services covering various languages, including American Sign
Language. We also have some staff members who are native Spanish speakers. While these measures are
relatively new, we anticipate that they will significantly reduce barriers for clients navigating the criminal
justice system.
7. Please note below which HRSN services initiative (Climate Support, Housing, Nutrition Supports, Outreach and
Education) your organization has experience with.
For each applicable service,
1) describe below your experience providing these services and
2) describe how your organization intends to provide this service as an HRSN service provider.
Fill out all that apply.
A. Climate Services:
Describe your organization's experience providing climate services. Please also explain how you intend to provide
climate services as an HRSN provider. (200 words max)
B. Housing Supports:
Describe your organization's experience providing housing support services. Please also explain how you intend to
provide housing support services as an HRSN provider. (200 words)
• As a community corrections agency, we work to reduce barriers that hinder our clients' success while on
supervision. A major challenge many of our clients face is the lack of housing.
• We have collaborated closely with partners to address this issue. This collaboration includes bed
scheduling, release planning and often financial support. These options range from contracted sober housing
beds to transitional housing arrangements and contracted shelter beds.
• Our partnerships extend to organizations such as Oxford Houses, treatment providers, and community -
based shelter providers. To optimize the utilization of HRSN funding and ensure the sustainability and
effectiveness of our housing efforts, it's imperative that we conduct a thorough assessment and overhaul of
our current processes. By implementing clear policies and procedures, we aim to streamline operations and
maximize the impact of our resources.
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application 7
Trevor Stephens
Deschutes County Community Justice
• Leveraging our existing relationships, we will continue to collaborate with our partners, utilizing their
expertise and resources. Additionally, we aim to explore opportunities for expanding our housing options,
including forging partnerships with landlords and property management companies. This expansion will
enable us to offer more long-term, stable housing solutions to support our clients' journey towards
rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
G. Nutrition Supports:
Describe your organization's experience providing nutrition support services. Please also explain how you intend to
provide nutrition support services as an HRSN provider. (200 words)
D. Outreach and Education:
Describe your organization's experience providing outreach and education services. Please also explain how you
intend to provide outreach and education services as an HRSN provider. (200 words)
Allowable Funding Uses*
The purpose of this section is to collect information about:
• the purpose of your funding request;
• funding need and justification; and
• how funding will be utilized.
Eligible entities may request Community Capacity Building Funding to support the development and
implementation of HRSN services across four categories:
1) Technology
2) Development of Business or Operational Practices
3) Workforce Development and
4) Outreach, Education and Partner Convening
* Please note that the Infrastructure Protocol which outlines the allowable funding uses is pending CMS approval.
Once approved, the final CMS approved Infrastructure Protocol will be updated and available on the OHA Waiver
webpage.
8. Check the boxes for each category in which you are seeking funding. You must also provide a short description
of
1) why funding is needed and
2) how it will be used to build capacity to participate in the HRSN program
3) your organizations experience in this category.
Check all that apply.
A. Technology:
Procuring IT infrastructure/data platforms to support HRSN.* (see below for more details)
* Examples of Procuring IT infrastructure/data platforms to support HRSN:
• Authorization of HRSN services
• Referral to HRSN services
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application
Trevor Stephens
• HRSN service delivery
• HRSN service billing
• HRSN program oversight, monitoring and reporting
If seeking funding for Technology
Please describe the following:
1) why funding is needed
2) how it will be used to build capacity to participate in the HRSN program and
3) your organizations experience in this category.
(250 words max)
Deschutes County Community Justice
0 We are seeking funds to procure a billing system, which, alongside the expertise of our consultant, will
enable us to seamlessly track and bill for housing services. While we are exploring existing off -the -shelf
solutions utilized by other entities, we remain open to the possibility that such a tailored system may not
currently exist. In such a scenario, we are prepared to collaborate with our internal IT team to either modify
existing systems or develop a bespoke solution to meet our management needs." The funds we are requesting
will support these efforts and at this time we do not have an alternative funding sources to support
acquisition of this system.
�- - •• - • - • •r^ • . "' -
Development of policies/procedures related to:* (see below for more details)
Administrative items* (see below for more details)
Planning needs for the implementation of the HRSN program
Procurement of administrative supports to assist with the implementation of the HRSN program
* Development of policies/procedures related to:
• HRSN referral and service delivery workflows
• Billing/invoicing
• Data sharing/reporting
• Program oversight/monitoring
• Evaluation
• Privacy and confidentiality
* Administrative items necessary to perform HRSN duties or expand HRSN service delivery capacity (e.g.,
purchasing of a commercial refrigerator to expand capacity to provide additional medically tailored meals to
qualifying members)
If seeking funding for Development of Operational or Business Practices
Please describe the following:
1) why funding is needed and
2) how it will be used to build capacity to participate in the HRSN program
3) Organizations experience in this category.
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application
Trevor Stephens
(250 words max)
Deschutes County Community Justice
0 As part of this funding request, we aim to engage a consultant to assist us in crafting the policies and
procedures necessary to facilitate billing for HRSN funds on behalf of our clients for housing. Presently, our
administrative capacity does not allow us to undertake this task independently, hence the need for consultant
support to spearhead the process, aiming for readiness to bill for services by November 2024. The consultant
will work closely with staff including the administrative analyst, business manager, and mentor.
0 We have initiated preliminary discussions with potential service providers, identifying options with
expertise in health systems and practices that align with our objectives. The consultant will collaborate
closely with our existing staff, community partners, and clients to gain deeper insights into our specific needs
for this process. Integration with current procedures and incorporation of requisite modifications for billing
and tracking compliance are integral aspects that the consultant will address.
M Additionally, we aspire to explore the implementation of mentor -based recovery services within our
model. The consultant will play a pivotal role in designing and conceptualizing this program within our
framework.
Q Workforce Development:
Cost of hiring and training new staff
Salary and fringe for staff* (see below for more details)
* Salary and fringe for staff that will have a direct role in overseeing, designing, implementing, and/or executing
HRSN responsibilities. Time limited to a period of 18 months. Organizations may not access this funding for the
same individual more than once.
* Necessary certifications, training, technical assistance, and/or education for staff participating in the HRSN
program (e.g., on culturally competent and/or trauma informed care)
If seeking funding for Workforce Development
Please describe the following:
1) why funding is needed and
2) how it will be used to build capacity to participate in the HRSN program
3) Organizations experience in this category.
(250 words max)
0 These funds would support increased FTE capacity in the form of .25 FTE of an administrative analyst
position, one full-time peer -based mentor, and .10 FTE allocation for our business manager. The
administrative analyst will play a central role in connecting clients with housing providers, fostering
collaboration with landlords and property managers, and ensuring the necessary infrastructure for funding
housing support is in place. They will oversee tracking and billing processes, liaise with the consultant to
refine operational procedures, and ensure compliance with grant and billing requirements for HRSN funds.
The business manager will report out and provide the grant management and administrative support for the
funds as well as the billing process.
M Simultaneously, we aim to leverage peer -based mentorship, a proven effective approach within the
community justice population, to assist clients in navigating housing complexities in central Oregon. This
mentor will support clients in accessing services such as OHP, navigating funding assistance applications,
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application 10
Trevor Stephens
Deschutes County Community Justice
liaising with property management companies, and facilitating rental applications. We believe integrating
peer -based services will enhance effectiveness and promote health equity in housing access. The mentor will
also acquaint themselves with available HRSN providers and assist clients in accessing additional resources
to overcome barriers to housing.
®) Outreach, Education, and Partner Convening:
[Unanswered]
* Community engagement activities necessary to support HRSN program implementation and launch (e.g.,
roundtable to solicit feedback on guidance documents)
If seeking funding for Outreach, Education and Partner Convening
Please describe the following:
1) why funding is needed and
2) how it will be used to build capacity to participate in the HRSN program
3) Organizations experience in this category.
(250 words max)
M We are not seeking specific funds for outreach and partner convening, but we understand that our county
public health/behavioral health department is seeking capacity funds for technology improvements and that
there is a local consortium with Neighborhood Impact and other community providers to seek capacity
building funds. We did not have time to work with them to submit our application, but we have made them
aware of our intent to submit an application for housing funding. We have established relationships with
these entities and plan to work with them whenever possible when we share mutual clients or have clients
who could benefit from the their services as HRSN providers.
Other CCO applications*
9. Has your organization applied to or been awarded funds from other CCOs for the Community Capacity Building
Funding?
[We
if yes, please provide de • which CCOsand for 1/' wordS
max) I
Required cu
Budget Document*
Please download budget document from link here. Fill out this document and upload to this application below.
Deschutes County Community Justice Community Capacity Building Budget 05-31-2024.xlsx
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application 11
Trevor Stephens
Deschutes County Community Justice
Attestations and Certification*
Please down loadAttestations and Certification document here. Fill out this document and upload to this
application below.
Attestations and Certification CCBF grant Deschutes County Community Justice.pdf
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application
12
Trevor Stephens
File Attachment Summary
Deschutes County Community Justice
Applicant File Uploads
• Deschutes County Community Justice Community Capacity Building Budget 05-31-
2024.xlsx
• Attestations and Certification CCBF grant Deschutes County Community Justice.pdf
Community Capacity Building Funding
Printed On: 31 May 2024 Application 13
PLEASE NOTE: This is a standard CCBF Application Template for reference only. All community capacity building fund (CCBF) applications
must be submitted directly to a coordinated care organization (CCOs). Please refer to the CCO CCBF contact list to connect directly with a
CCO in your area for any additional information on the application process.
Purpose of This File The state has been authorized to spend up to $119 million on Community Capacity Building Funding investments necessary to
support the development and implementation of the Health -Related Social Needs (HRSN) program. Organizations who wish to
receive HRSN Community Capacity Building Funding must submit this funding request and an application to the Coordinated
Care Organization (CCO) operating in their service area indicating how they intent to use this funding.
To submit your budget request, you must complete Tab 3 (Budget Request)
Once that tab has been completed, certify the documents by typing the name of the person submitting the budget application
and date
Tab
Instructions
Tab Completion Checklist
Instructions (this
This budget request outlines the expenses CBOs expect to incur to build capacity to
On the tab "Budget Request"
tab)
participate in the HRSN program. Budget requests and applications are due to [insert CCO]
complete all the boxes in yellow.
by [insert date].
Budget Request
To begin, please complete the following at the top of this budget request:
1. Ensure that you have completed
• Your organization's name in [insert cell].
all pieces of information listed at
• Name of the person to contact about the Community Capacity Building Funds application
the top of the form in yellow
in [insert cell]
• Email and phone number for the contact above in [insert cell].
• The date the report is sent to [insert CCO] in [insert cell].
Section A
Section A:
1. In Column C describe the
• This section contains the funding amount requested based on the appropriate four
proposed use of the requested
domain areas: (i) Technology; (ii) Development of business or operational practices; (iii)
funds. Ensure that you have listed
Workforce development; and (iv) outreach, education and stakeholder convening.
only allowable uses of the fund as
defined on Tab "CCBF Allowable
Uses"
2. In Column D list out the total
amount of funds that coincide with
the same line in Column C. You
may add more lines under a
category if needed.
Section B
Section B:
1. Ensure the report has the name
• This section certifies the accuracy of the amounts requested above.
and title of the person who
prepared the budget [insert cell]
and date [insert cell].
Allowable uses for Community Capacity Building Funds are in 4 categories:
1. Technology
2. Development of Business or Operational Practices
3. Workforce development and;
4. Outreach, education and convening
Procuring IT infrastructure/data platforms needed to enable, for example:
o Authorization of HRSN services
o Referral to HRSN services
o HRSN service delivery
o HRSN service billing
o HRSN program oversight, monitoring and reporting
o Modifying existing systems to support HRSN
o Development of an HRSN eligibility and services screening tool
o Integration of data platforms/systems/tools
o Onboarding to new, modified or existing systems (e.g., community information exchange)
o Training for use of new, modified or existing systems (e.g., community information exchange)
(o Development of polices/procedures related to:
o HRSN referral and service delivery workflows
o Billing/invoicing
o Data sharing/reporting
o Program oversight/monitoring
o Evaluation
o Privacy and confidentiality
o Training/technical assistance on HRSN program and roles/responsibilities
o Administrative items necessary to perform HRSN duties or expand HRSN service delivery capacity (e.g., purchasing of a
commercial refrigerator to expand capacity to provide additional medically -tailored meals to qualifying members)
o Planning needs for the implementation of HRSN program
o Procurement of administrative supports to assist implementation of HRSN program
o Cost of recruiting, hiring and training new staff
o Salary and fringe for staff that will have a direct role in overseeing, designing, implementing and executing HRSN
responsibilities, time limited to a period of 18 months. Organizations may not access this funding for the same individual
more than once.
o Necessary certifications, training, technical assistance and/or education for staff participating in the HRSN program (e.g.,
on culturally competent and/or trauma informed care)
o Privacy/confidentiality training/technical assistance related to HRSN service delivery
o Production costs for training materials and/or experts as it pertains to the HRSN program
o Production of materials necessary for promoting, outreach, training and/or education
o Translation of materials
o Planning for and facilitation of community -based outreach events to support awareness of HRSN services
o Planning for and facilitation of learning collaboratives or stakeholder convenings
o Community engagement activities necessary to support HRSN program implementation and launch (e.g., roundtable to
solicit feedback on guidance documents)
o Administrative or overhead costs associated with outreach, education or convening.
CCO Name: PacificSource Community Solutions - Central Oregon Region
Community Capacity Building Grant Funding Request
Deschutes County
Community
Applicant Organization Name Justice DATE SENT:
Applicant Contact Name Trevor Stephens 5/31/2024
trevor.stephens@desc
Applicant Email Address hutes.or
Applicant Phone Number 541-330-8261
BREAKDOWN. ..le Funding Domain
A ' BUDGET REQUEST
Description of Item/Activity Requested, by Allowable Use Category
Budget Request
FOR CCO USE ONLY
Approved Budget
$25,000.00
:.r
Billing software and report tracking purchase or internal design
2,
B- ea a ®. o
Consultant
•0 oil of
$ 60,000.00
$
3.
i- • .•
Administrative Analyst (18 months) .25 FTE
.o 00o io
$
$ 60,000.00
Housing Peer Mentor (18 months) 1.0 FTE
$ 165,000.00
4.
Business Manager (18 months) .10 FTE
® MZMZM�•���
$ 35,000.00
$
5
w.., `,f „r_.,Fzs" 5'a« :«,.. ... z s: =uY),8$z3iS.
$ 345,000.00
$ -
B ICERTIFICATE
I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the budget outlined above is true, complete and accurate, and the
funding items listed above are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the federal award. I am
aware that any false, fictitious or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil
or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise.
Trevor Stephens, Community Justice Business Manager
5/31/2024
PREPARED BY (Type Name and Title) DATE
Legend
Yellow cells - require input
Gray cells - auto populate
Blue cells for CCO use only
Attestations and Certification
As an authorized representative of the Organization, the Organization attests as follows and agrees to the
following conditions:
1. The funding received through the HRSN Community Capacity Building Funding initiative will not
duplicate or supplant reimbursement received through other federal, state and local funds.
2. Funding received for the HRSN Community Capacity Building Funding initiative will only be spent on
allowable uses as stated above.
3. The Organization will submit progress reports on HRSN Community Capacity Building Funding in a
manner and on a timeframe specified by the CCO.
4. The Organization understands that the CCO may suspend, terminate or recoup HRSN Community
Capacity Building Funding in instances of underperformance and/or fraud, waste and abuse.
5. The Organization will alert the CCO if circumstances prevent it from carrying out activities described in
the program application. In such cases, the Organization may be required to return unused funds
contingent upon the circumstances.
6. As the authorized representative of the Organization, I attest that all information provided in this
application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Signature DQ Y
Name and Title Deevy Holcomb, Director Deschutes County Community Justice
Date 5-31-24
181879-0 tlh Page 31 of 52
OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023