2024-247-Minutes for Meeting July 17,2024 Recorded 8/30/2024\xv1ES
0
{ BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2024-247
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal
08/30/2024 1:11:56 PM
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
9:00 AM
WEDNESDAYJuly 17, 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/meetings.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT:
• George Potter stated his concerns about wildfires and their potentially catastrophic
results. Saying he lives in La Pine where the recent Darlene 3 fire originated, he
spoke to the increase of the transient population living in encampments on BLM
property, some within 200 yards of his house. Although BLM allows camping in one
spot for a limited period, some camps have been in the same spot for two or more
years. Nearby residents have been threatened with violence and are at risk of
having their property burglarized or vandalized, and it is no longer safe to walk the
trails near their homes as those are now used for vehicle access to encampments.
• Fallon Bandemer shared that she lives in La Pine and owns property that borders
BLM land, less than one mile from where the Darlene 3 fire started. Saying that the
concept of public land is sacred to her, she said she has been followed home and
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 1 OF 13
threatened with weapons and dogs, and once had to file a CPS report after
witnessing the mistreatment of a child in the encampments. She said her family has
had to prepare to evacuate three different times due to fires, and asked for the
Board's assistance in addressing these problems.
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda.
1. Approval of Excess General Liability and Cyber Security Insurance Renewal
2. Authorization to purchase a Schwarze M6 Avalanche Street Sweeper
3. Approval of Service Partner Agreements with EDCO and United Way of Central
Oregon
4. Approval of Interlocal Agreement between Deschutes County 4-H and Extension
Service District and Oregon State University
5. Approval of minutes of the Budget Committee May 21 and 23, 2024 meetings
CHANG: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner DeBone acknowledged the purchase of insurance for cybersecurity
and related efforts on the part of the County to shore up these defenses.
Commissioner Chang said next year, the Board should evaluate its allocation of
funds to United Way, which are in turn distributed to other organizations. It might
be better to directly allocate funds to those recipient organizations unless utilizing
United Way as a pass -through gains some benefit.
Commissioner Adair suggested inviting United Way to present information to the
Board regarding how it expends these funds.
ACTION ITEMS:
6. Notice of Intent to Award a contract for Market Research and Strategic
Master Plan Design Services for the Deschutes County Fair & Expo
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 2 OF 13
Geoff Hinds, Fair & Expo Director, said after a Request for Proposals was issued
seeking a qualified individual or agency to provide market research and master
plan design services to the Fair & Expo, four proposals were received. The
proposals were scored using a qualifications -based review process, with the
department selecting Populous Architect, P.C. as the top -ranked proposer.
Hinds explained that the selected consultant will be contracted to perform the
following tasks:
1. Explore current market conditions, customer demographics, and future
trends impacting the event and fair industry, and assist with preparing
and planning for the future of the Deschutes County Fair & Expo property.
2. Develop a comprehensive master plan for the Deschutes County Fair &
Expo facility that lays out a clear, well-defined and actionable strategy for
the future development and use of the facility.
Commissioner DeBone spoke to the many opportunities available and expressed
appreciation that the County is investing in the future of the Fair & Expo by doing
this work. Hinds agreed that the goal is to carefully and comprehensively
evaluate the potential uses of the Fair & Expo property and how it can benefit as
many parties as possible.
Commissioner Chang was concerned that the County is not any closer to
finalizing the desired land exchange with DSL than it has been in the past. He
questioned proceeding with planning for property that is anticipated to be
acquired if it isn't realistic that the land exchange will happen any time soon.
Hinds agreed this timeframe is unclear, and said this was accounted for in the
RFP which refers to the possibility of proceeding in two phases if necessary.
Commissioner DeBone was ready to move forward with addressing the
unsanctioned camping happening on County -owned land, which must be cleared
and cleaned up before it can be developed for economic development purposes.
DEBONE: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2024-590, a
Notice of Intent to Award a contract for Market Research and Strategic
Master Plan Design Services for the Deschutes County Fair & Expo
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 13
Commissioner DeBone commented that hotels have been constructed in
proximity to the Fairgrounds, which enhances the possibility of conventions or
similar events and activities.
7. Application for a grant from the Criminal Justice Commission to combat
organized retail theft
Kathleen Meehan Coop, District Attorney's Office, explained that if awarded, the
District Attorney's Office would use the grant to partner with the Bend Police
Department to combat organized retail theft. The goals of this partnership would
be to establish relationships with key retailers and develop a plan on how best to
address organized retail theft.
In response to Commissioner Adair, District Attorney Steve Gunnels confirmed
that organized retail theft happens in Deschutes County, and poses a challenge
for both retail loss prevention and law enforcement. Gunnels said it's intended to
address this challenge with training and collaboration between law enforcement
and retail businesses, adding that if the profitability of organized retail theft can
be reduced, these incidents will decrease.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, Gunnels said the most problematic
incidents involve large-scale shoplifting schemes with multiple persons taking
large amounts of items in a very short time, which often results in tremendous
losses for the affected retailers.
DEBONE: Move to authorize the submittal of an application for a Criminal
Justice Commission Organized Retail Theft Grant
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
8. Resolution No. 2024-037 imposing public use fire restrictions on
unprotected lands and County -owned lands
Kevin Moriarty, County Forester, said beginning in 2014, Deschutes County has
imposed public use restrictions to help prevent wildfire starts on unprotected
lands and lands owned by Deschutes County. Saying that Resolution No. 2024-
037 would impose these restrictions in the interest of public safety, Moriarty gave
examples of some of the restrictions relating to smoking, open fires, chainsaws,
fireworks and all -terrain vehicles, among other activities.
BOCC MEETING
J U LY 17, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 13
Commissioner Adair asked to know when the County approved these restrictions
last year. Moriarty said the restrictions were not adopted last year, due to him
having recently arrived to the position of County Forester and not being aware of
the County's annual adoption of legislation to impose public use fire restrictions
in alignment with similar restrictions imposed by the Oregon Department of
Forestry.
Commissioner Chang asked how these restrictions will be publicized. Moriarty
said the County can issue a press release and also share the information with the
Sheriff's Office and Project Wildfire to help disseminate it.
Commissioner Chang supported adequate communication of the restrictions,
saying this would have a positive impact on compliance.
Commissioner Adair agreed on the need for more public messaging, given that
most wildfires are started by humans. She said next year, this resolution should
be brought to the Board in May to allow more time to get the word out.
Commissioner DeBone noted this resolution would be in effect until October
15th unless otherwise extended.
CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024-037 declaring a state of
emergency and imposing public use fire restrictions
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
9. Chair -initiated discussion on Sunbreak Ranch and Lane County Pilot
Program
Commissioner Adair shared that she reached out to the governor's office asking
for a re-evaluation of the Gales property outside of Bend's Urban Growth
Boundary for siting a managed homeless camp. She also sent the governor a
packet of information regarding the experiences of residents whose homes are in
proximity to encampments in the China Hat area. In response, the State's
Housing and Homelessness Initiative Director has asked that Commissioner Adair
provide more information.
Saying that the County should establish a managed camp on the Gales property,
Commissioner Adair noted the availability of $1.1 million in State funds to
construct pods for homeless persons. She suggested that the Board send a letter
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 13
to the governor's office urging action on this proposal while stressing the
importance of providing case management services. She acknowledged the
efforts of Chuck Hemingway to realize a managed camp on the Gales property.
Commissioner Chang referred to his multi -year advocacy for siting some kind of
homeless shelter on the Gales property, noting that the Board previously
approved a safe parking ordinance which specifically allows this type of program
on properties within one mile of the UGB and could be pursued on the Gales
property without State involvement if that property was rezoned.
Commissioner Adair spoke to the risk of fires starting in encampments, which
can quickly spread and jeopardize others.
Commissioner Chang agreed that the State should be asked to support expanded
case management, which has proven effective in helping to transition people out
of homelessness.
Commissioner DeBone noted that the Gales property is privately owned. He did
not support taking action to rezone someone's private land unless they directly
seek such assistance.
Discussion ensued regarding sending a letter to the governor on these subjects.
The Board was in consensus to direct staff to draft a letter for its review.
Commissioner DeBone asked that the Gales be involved in the drafting of any
letter to the governor which concerns their property.
10. Public Hearing: Appeal of Psilocybin Service Center
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner, presented a brief background of the application
for a conditional use permit and site plan review to establish a psilocybin service
center within the Juniper Preserve destination resort (formerly Pronghorn). The
decision of the Hearings Officer denied the application based on: the screening of
the parking lot; clearance areas for service drives; and the adequacy of
transportation access. Saying that about 220 public comments have been
received, Stuart summarized key issues raised in opposition and in support.
The public hearing was opened at 10:39 am.
Corinne Celko, representing the applicant, Juniper Institute LLC, reviewed that
after Deschutes County voters twice approved allowing psilocybin use, the Board
amended County Code to allow psilocybin service centers in destination resorts.
When Juniper Institute applied for a license via a conditional use permit, the
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 13
Hearings Officer found that the proposed service center is compatible with the
surrounding area. Three issues are the sole focus of today's appeal hearing:
screening, clear vision areas, and adequacy of transportation access.
Saying that the matters of screening and clear vision areas can be met through
conditions of approval, Celko stated disagreement with the decision of the
Hearings Officer regarding the adequacy of the transportation access, referring
to the submission of a letter which fully describes the applicant's argument
against the Hearings Officer's decision. Celko argued that the scope of the access
to the service center property does not include the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) right-of-way to the resort. Noting that the Hearings Officer
found that the internal resort transportation access from Nicklaus Drive and
Pronghorn Drive is adequate for the center, Celko disputed that the Hearings
Officer was correct to question the adequacy of access from the BLM road.
Commissioner DeBone clarified that the question at hand pertains to the
transport of psilocybin along a federally -owned road.
Celko argued that the law is clear that the County cannot involve itself in a
dispute between two private property owners, and neither can it interpret the
meaning of terms or conditions of a private contract. She said it is wrong for the
Hearings Officer to assert that the applicant cannot transport certain material
across BLM property when there is no contractual provision which states this.
Celko continued that the easement granted by the BLM to the resort does not
refer to the Controlled Substances Act, although it does state that the holder of
the easement must comply with all applicable laws, which are listed in the
easement. She said it's likely that many people have transported cannabis along
this road, which has not led to an automatic breach or termination of the BLM
ROW easement.
Celko added that the BLM was notified of this application and appeal, and has
not specifically commented on it although BLM did note that the transport of
psilocybin across federal land is not legal. Saying it is not the intent of the
applicant to threaten the viability of the entire resort, she said because the
Oregon Health Authority allows a licensee who grows and manufactures
psilocybin to transport it, the applicant for the conditional use permit at Juniper
Preserve would not be transporting this material itself.
Celko then explained the applicant's responses to the matters of screening and
clear vision areas and its proposals for amending its application to comply with
the decision of the Hearings Officer with respect to these.
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 7 OF 13
Bill Walsh, representing the owners of Juniper Preserve, stated his availability to
answer any questions from the Board.
Melissa Sanchez, representing the applicant, said the company is committed to
implementing robust safety measures.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Celko said the townhomes adjacent to the
service center are owned by the resort and not by permanent residents.
Commissioner Chang asked if there is an alternative road access to Juniper
Preserve. Noting that cannabis can be transported over 1-5, Celko said there is no
alternative to using the BLM road to access the resort.
• Piper Lucas wondered if transporting psilocybin on BLM land would open
the County to liability and saw no reason that the owners of the resort
would put the resort at risk. She supported the proposal and encouraged
the Board to approve it.
• Andrew Stamp, speaking on behalf of the Pronghorn Community
Association (PCA), said the PCA opposes this application due to the non-
compliance with federal law as far as transporting psilocybin across BLM
land. He said there is no proof that the BLM right-of-way is a contract and
that this access is more akin to a license or a permit, and thus revocable
by the BLM. He said while the federal government has specifically said it
will not enforce cannabis laws, it has not said the same for psilocybin.
• Jeff Finnigan differentiated between transporting cannabis for personal
use and transporting psilocybin for commercial purposes. He was
concerned with the possible negative impacts a service center might have
on property values if the use is considered to be illegal or questionable
and potential sellers are required to disclose an illicit operation to
potential buyers.
• Cara Golden said approving the service center would be in violation of
federal law. She objected that the proposal directly impacts residents of
Pronghorn, but the applicant is not a resident and therefore not similarly
affected. She worried that the BLM right-of-way could be unilaterally
rescinded and stressed that the BLM has stated it is illegal to transport
psilocybin on its road. She urged that the appeal be denied.
• Patricia Lucas spoke to the access issue, saying that although the applicant
argues that the BLM right-of-way is not part of the access consideration
since the property is directly accessed from Pronghorn Drive and Nicklaus
Drive, it nevertheless acknowledges that the primary access to the resort
is via a road owned by BLM. She asked that the Board reject the appeal.
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 8 OF 13
• Paul Golden said the primary access to the resort is the BLM-permitted
road over federal land, and that road must be used in compliance with
federal law. He urged that the Board reject the appeal.
• Carey Brennan said the "applicable law" is not undefined and cannot be
taken to mean "Oregon law." Adding that the BLM permit for
transportation access was granted in association with the federal Land
Policy and Management Act and the right-of-way must be used in
accordance with federal law, he said the holder of a grant remains
responsible for all third -party users and their compliance with federal law.
He was concerned that allowing the service center would risk the
termination of the BLM right-of-way for everyone.
• Nunzie Gould noted there is no platted road to the building, and the
County has never deeded a road through this property. She opposed the
proposal on the basis of the deficiency of the proposed transportation
access.
In rebuttal, Celko reiterated the applicant's position that the BLM grant of right-
of-way is a contract, and a private contract is outside of the authority of land use
decisions. She said cannabis and psilocybin are both similarly situated and illegal
under federal law, yet the federal government has not stated it will not not
enforce cannabis regulations.
Celko added that because both Oregon and Deschutes County have authorized
psilocybin service centers, even though psilocybin is not legal under federal law,
the federal illegality issue should not be considered and the application should
not be denied on that basis.
Celko concluded that the BLM ROW grant is between the BLM and the holder,
which is the owner of the resort, and the resort owner is not made responsible
for ensuring that cannabis is not transported to the resort over the BLM road.
In response to Commissioner DeBone, Celko said the revised site plan shows
compliance with the clear area vision requirements and the screening
requirements.
Stuart said if the Board decides to leave the written record open, all comments
will be uploaded to the record and the Board will need to determine which of
them can be considered in deliberations, due to the limited de novo nature of the
hearing of the appeal.
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 9 OF 13
The public hearing was closed at 12:06 pm.
The Board was in consensus to close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the
written record open until 4 pm on July 24th. The applicant's rebuttal will be due
on July 31st and its final legal argument due on August 7th.
A recess was announced at 12:07 pm. The meeting was reconvened at 1:00 pm.
11. Public Hearing to consider accepting a petition to form the Tumalo Basin
Sewer District
Dave Doyle, County Counsel, introduced the proposal to form the Tumalo Basin
Sewer District, saying that the required second hearing has been scheduled on
August 7th. Noting there are 90 registered electors within the proposed
boundaries of the district, he said if at least14 of them submit a request to call for
an election, that would happen in November. No such requests have yet been
received.
The public hearing was opened at 1:04 pm.
Robert Fish, one of the chief petitioners for the formation of the district, reviewed
the history of the Tumalo area, which over time has come to be substantially
developed with very few undeveloped properties remaining. He explained that
the effort to establish a sewer district was sparked by the Tumalo 2040
Community Plan update which highlighted the desire for local input and control
over development and infrastructure. Fish said reasons for forming the sewer
district include environmental stewardship and economic considerations.
Nancy Blankenship outlined the legal process followed for the formation of the
sanitary district, saying that supporters secured far more than the needed
minimum number of signatures from landowners.
Linda Swearingen described the public outreach conducted thus far, including an
open house in February. She explained how the proposed district boundary was
determined, with anyone who asked to be excluded left outside of the boundary.
Jeff England with Parametrix added that once the district is formed, more
properties can be added at any time. England said the economic feasibility
conducted assumes a $5 million project cost and projects revenues and expenses
for the first ten years of district operation. Noting that 290 total dwelling units are
estimated at full build -out of the system, England said the economic feasibility
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 10 OF 13
assumes a system development charge of $8,000 per dwelling unit and monthly
rates of $80 per unit.
Ryan Rudnick with Parametrix reviewed the next steps to be taken after the
district is formed, including identifying a preferred wastewater system design and
pursuing grant and other funding opportunities.
• Jeannine Fraley expressed her support for this effort, which is community -
driven and not imposed by a developer. Stating her desire to protect
Tumalo as well as the river, she said being in the district will increase
property values.
• Martha Gross feared the possibility of septic waste contaminating the
ground or river and wanted the area kept pristine for future generations.
She supported the proposal and said there is an immediate need in the
community for a sewer district.
• Dale Peer was concerned about failing septic systems near the river and
elsewhere in the community, saying these pose a risk of contamination
and other grave consequences. He felt very strongly that a sewer district is
needed, even though his own property is already served by a sand -filtered
septic system with back-up pumps.
• Jim Dunn expressed his full support of the proposal as well as his
appreciation for the leadership from Robert Fish on this initiative.
• Nunzie Gould expressed concern that property owners might someday be
required to hook up to the system. Saying the big picture has not been
completely presented, she referred to the established boundary of the
unincorporated Tumalo area and the potential for annexation. She said
intense growth follows the establishment of sewer systems and asked
how the lots which have been platted at 20 feet wide will be developed.
• Tony Norris supported the proposal, saying that a new septic system costs
about $40,000 and the alternative of hooking up to a sanitary sewer
system would require a much lower investment by private property
owners. He did not want to see Tumalo change very much as it has over
the last 20-plus years.
Doyle presented draft Board Order No. 2024-024 which would accept the
formation petition and set a final public hearing on August 7t"
Commissioner DeBone noted that, if formed, a district board would oversee the
new sewer district —this board would be an independent entity with no oversight
by the County. Commissioner Chang confirmed that the State Department of
Environmental Quality and the Oregon Health Authority would be responsible for
such oversight.
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 11 OF 13
The public hearing was closed at 2:04 pm.
CHANG: Move approval of Order No. 2024-024 accepting the petition to form
the Tumalo Basin Sewer District and setting the final public hearing
for August 7, 2024
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Doyle said the record will remain open on this matter up to the time of the
second public hearing on August 7tn
OTHER ITEMS:
• Commissioner DeBone reported correspondence received regarding HB 4003 which
directed the Oregon State Police to study ways to address Oregon's shortage of
medical examiner services and report back to the legislature next year.
• Commissioner Adair said the rates for homeowner insurance policies are rising
exorbitantly, and sometimes policies are outright canceled. She supported raising
the limit of $600,000 for the insured value of a home.
• Commissioner Chang reported on the recent REDI board meeting, saying many
questions were posed about County zoning outside of Redmond and what is
allowed or not allowed under that zoning. He suggested that someone from CDD
present to REDI on this subject.
• Commissioner Adair reported on yesterday's FireFree meeting, which included a
presentation from Pacific Power on adding meteorologists to assess weather
conditions.
• Commissioner DeBone reported on a meeting yesterday hosted by Congressman
Bentz regarding the Darlene 3 fire in La Pine, noting that Commissioner Adair was
also in attendance.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
The Board entered Executive Session at 2:10 pm under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property
Negotiations.
At 2:44 pm, the Board exited Executive Session to direct staff to proceed as discussed.
BOCC MEETING
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 12 OF 13
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 pm.
DATED this l) Q'
day ofKQJj 2024 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners. \\
ATTEST:
RECORDING SECRETARY
BOCC MEETING
PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR
ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
JULY 17, 2024 PAGE 13 OF 13
E S
'A BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2024
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
(541) 388-6570 I www.deschutes.org
AGENDA
MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and
can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session.
Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link:
http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To attend the meeting virtually via Zoom, see below.
Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda.
Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing
citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
• To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3oqdD.
• 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
1. Excess General Liability and Cyber Security Insurance Renewal
2. Authorization to purchase a Schwarze M6 Avalanche Street Sweeper
3. Approval of Service Partner Agreements with EDCO and United Way of Central Oregon
4. Approval of Interlocal Agreement between Deschutes County 4-H and Extension Service
District and Oregon State University
5. Approval of minutes of the Budget Committee May 21 and 23, 2024 meetings
ACTION ITEMS
6. 9:05 AM Notice of Intent to Award a contract for Market Research and Strategic
Master Plan Design Services for the Deschutes County Fair & Expo
7. 9:20 AM Application for a grant from the Criminal Justice Commission to combat
organized retail theft
8. 9:35 AM Resolution No. 2024-037 imposing public use fire restrictions on unprotected
lands and County -owned lands
9. 9:40 AM Chair -initiated discussion on Sunbreak Ranch and Lane County Pilot Program
10. 10:00 AM Public Hearing: Appeal of Psilocybin Service Center
LUNCH RECESS
July 17, 2024
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
Continued ACTION ITEMS
11. 1:00 PM Public Hearing to consider accepting a petition to form the Tumalo Basin
Sewer District
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
12. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations
ADJOURN
July 17, 2024
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3
BOARD OF COIVINIISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
• Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda
• Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only
Topic of Input or Testimony:
Is this topic an item on today's agenda?
Xr Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) No
Name
C)„(1-ji_
Address 609 Li Hukii ik) (.7-"c
LA
Phone #s
E-mail address
GQL) \"1C.A
Date: )7-anLi
THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECO 1 ING SECRETARY
•
BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recor
Yes
No
\ ;71,/
Sov-4-14, troi 0_07A,A_
C;(ivtA_ ‘ij
;AAA-- 0-v-j±-iih.o7-t
a-A-5301
0 (,)
/A A
\rucA4A-a
LAPINE TRANSIENT DISPERSED CAMPING PROBLEM
In Deschutes County
July 15.2U24
By George Potter
50940 Huntington Rd.
La Pine, OR 97739
208-503-2131
The recent Darlene Sfire inLaPine on June 2Sburned nearly 4,000 acres and threatened
homes and the city of La Pine itself. Reports indicate that it was human caused and originated
in a transient camp in the BLM.
|called 911ot approximately 1:30PW1when me saw adark smoke plume bellowing 1/4nli|8
directly behind our house on South Huntington Road. Within an hour the fire had advanced
rapidly in a northeasterly direction towards the city and obliterating any view of Paulina Peak.
We checked in with our neighbors and I began watering down the lawn as tanker planes made
low passes over our house. This was a repeat of the Darlene 1 fire two years ago. However the
wind took that one to the southeast. We received evacuation notices 1,2 and 3.
WILL ADARLENE4FIRE BLOW |NAWESTERLY DIRECTION?
We bought our home on Huntington Road nearly 10 years ago. We had horses at the time and,
having just retired from Oregon State Parks, and my wife from teaching, we loved the idea of
access to the trails in the BLM as well as all the outdoor recreation La Pine has to offer.
That dream hs being crushed for uaand many of our neighbors in the area due to the
unregulated and growing transient problem inthe BLM forest surrounding La Pine.
The underlying issue is that we have a transient population that is unmonitored, unregulated,
destructive, and dangerous aswell @mhazardous tothe environment, wildlife and residents of
the community.
|T|SATOUGH PROBLEM AND NOONE WANTS TOTAKE OWNERSHIP
LoPine doesn't want hodeal with it, the Sheriffs office says they have nojurisdiction because it
belongs toBLK8and BLIVI claims tobaunderstaffed and doesn't have the resources. |nthe
meantime, LA PINE BURNS and the transient population gnJvvs and destroys the forest.
The trails xv8once rode and walked are now dirt highways. Trees are cut down, more roads any
cut into the forest for makeshift campsites for derelict vehicles and and burned out campers.
Our neighbors no longer walk the trails due to the threats and trash dumps.
Our land adjoins adesignated wildlife corridor for migration. There has been acamp there for
the past 3years. The last few years have seen steady decline inthe wildlife populations in
this corridor. This spring I've seen two deer when inthe past it's been small herds.
THERE tSASOLUTION TOTHE PROBLEM ALREADY |NPLACE:
The BLMpolicy days. It is not
enforced here. We have camps that have been there for months and years. If we expect these
people tobegood neighbors the BLK8camping rules must beenforced. The 14day limit im
during a3Oday period. After 14days amove ofatleast 25miles isrequired.
Camp sites must have been previously established. Personal property or refuse must not be
left behind. If a transient leaves, the trash and abandoned vehicles and sewage is disgusting.
It's no wonder the people avoid the BLM around La Pine.
My career with Oregon State Parks and also with the Oregon State Forestry recreation program
working with the public has made the following point abundantly clear.
REGULATIONS AND RULES MUST BE ENFORCED TO BE EFFECTIVE!
A wise man once told me "Inspect What You Expect."
An expectation with no inspection and follow through is worthless.
This seems to me to be the issue in our forests. The camping rules pertaining to stay limits,
trash and human waste disposal and fire have not been enforced for so long that they are
blatantly ignored with no fear of consequences.
THE HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT
In 2003 Congress passed the HFRA which directs federal agencies to collaborate with
communities in developing a Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).
A CWPP can apply for federal funds or grants to address SPECIAL CONCERNS to reduce the
risk of catastrophic loss as a result of wildfire.
CWPP's have been developed for South Deschutes County with community input. Two
predominant environmental issues raised by participants were:
1. Wildlife habitat
2. Maintain defensible space
The agencies have done a wonderful job of tree thinning and undergrowth control in many area
as evident along Findley Butte Road which was, no doubt, instrumental in controlling the
Darlene Fire.
HOWEVER, NOW IS THE TIME TO ADDRESS THE CAUSES OF THESE FIRES.
It seems obvious that as long as we turn a blind eye to the problem of the unregulated
transient camps, the fires will continue to happen. The forest will burn and property will be
destroyed while wildlife habitat and the environment are damaged. Firewise Defensible Space
is a great program but with transient camps starting fires 200 yards away the value is greatly
reduced.
So, with the HFR act and the CWPP study in place it appears that this should not be brushed
aside as simply a BLM understaffing problem. It's a Deschutes County problem and a La Pine
problem as well. Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to stop the fires before they start.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Perhaps, with federal aid available, BLM Recreation Ranger positions could be created to work
in south county and enforce the regulations for dispersed camping that are already in place.
Time stamp photos of camp sites and frequent wellness visits would let the campers know
what is expected of them and the consequences for noncompliance.
The creation of a managed campground near the city with toilets, water and a campground
host, similar to existing BLM and Forestry campgrounds, would provide a degree of security to
the campers that are indeed homeless due to personal issue. They could be monitored and
provided services.
Now they are just left to disappear into the forest. Bus service might be provided to allow them
to come to town for supplies, medical help and other services that are available.
Perhaps with federal help the National Guard could be called into service to sweep the area
from time to time to identify unregulated camps.
The inmate highway cleanup crews might also be made available to help clean up the dump
sites in the BLM.
Sincerely,
George Potter
ES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or. Testimony
f
Subject: ar/�y t-7,7-e
Name /47----)
Address /C hic.4%fr
7 7- 32r
///, ,
Date: /' l • 2/
Submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
On June 11, 2024 we rushed home because a fire had started in the Darlene area. Again.
We prepared to evacuate. Again.
Two weeks later (to the day) on June 25, was the start of Darlene 3.
This time we were angry.
We didn't need to see the viral video to know how Darlene 3 started.
Every single Darlene fire has started in the same area.
That area is less than a mile due east from our back gate.
Darlene 1, 2, and 3 have started Tess than a mile from our home.
Because I've spoken up my personal safety has been threatened.
Some of the people who live in the nearby encampments have even figured out where I live.
Three times we have prepared to evacuate.
Three times our sense of safety has been destroyed.
Three times we've had to wonder if this is the time we lose everything.
When so many insist nothing will be done, nothing will change.
When officers tell my family there's nothing they can legally do.
When calls directed to the BLM offices feel dismissive.
When everyone we turn to claims it's not within their jurisdiction to protect us.
I ask you — who should we turn to?
So I'm here.
Turning to all of you.
Before it's too late.
For my family and so many others.
What will we do to prevent Darlene 4?
Please don't turn away.
Hello everyone and thank you.
Myname isFallon 8andennec
Nearly ten years ago, my family and I followed our dream of owning a piece of La Pine.
VVefound seventeen acres, justoutside oftown, that backed upto0LW1land.
The concept of public land is sacred to us, coming from Chicago where things like that don't
exist.
This was our family dream come true.
We had no idea that it would all begin tofeel like a nightmare.
The troubles started small.
People driving 6Omph past our home atall hours.
Cars nearly hitting usand our dogs nnwalks.
Being threatened (with weapons) for accidentally passing by encampments.
Having dogs set on us and having to outrun them.
being f0|invved hOmnm.
VV8S1opped going out onthe 8LK4land atGli.
|nZO2O,nlyfanni|vstartedouroxvnbusinessou�ofo:r;noperty
We had a large shop built and have been growing here ever since'
July l3,202lchanged our lives forever.
We'll never forget the clarksmoke plume rising onthe horizon asthe first Darlene fire spread.
We rushed to fill the tanks on our 1990 Sutphen Pumper, our full size fire engine.
Thanks to the bravery of first responders, our home, our business, and our neicrhbnrhnnrl %Ai3c
safe.
But fire is not the only threat these encampments pose.
Not long after the first Darlene fire, a man and a woman showed up at our back gate well after
midnight. They flashed their headlights and honked until we woke up and came outside.
�hou�n��threatenin�u3an�our�o��.Th�y�|�ino��vve�a6dhv2nintotheir�anmp.
We had noidea ifthey were armed orwhat they wanted.
When the officer had arrived, they had left.
Hetold usheknew who they were, where they camped.
That hewould talk 1Othem.
Butour sense ofsafetywas never the sanme.
While snowmobiling on BLM land on the 14 th of January 2024, my family came across a woman
dragging her toddler through feet ofsnow, miles out into the woods.
She refused our offers for help, but vxewere so concerned about her child that Vvecalled the
Sheriff's office. | filed a CPS report the next day because | couldn't get his cries for help out of
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Approval of Excess General Liability and Cyber Security Insurance Renewal
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Approval of the Risk Manager to pay an invoice for $373,963 to the Oregon Public Entity
Excess Pool for insurance.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Deschutes County purchases excess general liability insurance for claims over $1 million
and up to $ 9 million. The insurance is purchased through the Oregon Public Entity Excess
Pool (OPEEP). For FY 24-25, the cost for this coverage is $ 278,200. Last fiscal year, the cost
was $ 235,404. The cost increase is attributable to an increase in cost for insurance, claims
experience, and growth of the County.
In addition, for FY 24-25, Deschutes County is purchasing additional excess general liability
insurance for claims that are $10 million - $20 million. This coverage will cost an additional
$60,063 and will be reimbursed by the State of Oregon (OHA) to assist with the costs
associated with liability insurance for Aid and Assist Community Restoration Services. In
future fiscal years, Risk Management staff does not plan to continue purchasing this
additional excess general liability insurance unless the State of Oregon continues its
reimbursement program.
Finally, the OPEEP invoice includes a cost of $35,700 for cyber liability insurance, which is
the same cost as FY 23-24.
Attached is the OPEEP invoice for $ 376,963 which requires Board approval due to the
dollar threshold exceeding the amount the County Administrator can approve.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The cost for the insurance coverage is included in Risk Management's FY 24-25 budget.
ATTENDANCE:
Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator/Risk Manager
Excess Liability
2024-2025 Renewal Invoice
Named Member
Deschutes County
PO Box 6005
Bend, OR 97708
Oregon Public
Entity Excess Pool
Member Number: 20007
Invoice Date: 7/8/2024
Invoice Number: OPEEP-DESC-I2024-00
Coverage
Description
Amount
Excess Liability
Contribution
$278,200
Coverage
Description
Amount
Additional Excess Liability
Contribution
$60,063
Coverage
Description
Amount
Excess Cyber Liability
Contribution
$35,700
Total Due: $373,963
Balances are due by 08/22/2024. Late fees will accrue thereafter.
Make Checks Payable To: OPEEP / 15875 Boones Ferry Rd. Box 1469, Lake Oswego, OR 97035
ACH Direct Payment: Please request Authorization form and instructions from
Kelsie Perry at kperry@cisoregon.org or 503-763-3844.
v1-ES
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Application for a grant from the Criminal Justice Commission to combat
organized retail theft
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to authorize the submittal of an application for a Criminal Justice Commission
Organized Retail Theft Grant.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The District Attorney's Office (DAO) seeks Board authorization to apply for a Criminal
Justice Commission Organized Retail Theft grant for the purpose of partnering with the
Bend Police Department (BPD) to address organized retail theft. The DAO and BPD will
work together to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the organized retail theft
(ORT) environment in our community. Both agencies believe ORT is occurring more
frequently than it is being charged, and that developing strong working relationships
with retailers will aid in connecting individual thefts to larger, more organized crime
operations.
The goals of the program are to establish relationships with key retailers and develop a
plan on how best to address ORT going forward. A Memorandum of Understanding
between DAO and BPD would define the program, which is expected to identify training
opportunities on ORT, connect with other communities across the state which have
successful retailer relationships, and host a series of community -based retailer
meetings.
If granted, the funds will be used to support a part time FTE for project management at
the DAO, retail theft training for BPD and DAO staff, travel, and the promotion and
hosting of local retailer meetings.
The grant cycle would be for ten months starting September 1, 2024 and ending June 30,
2025. This is the first time the Criminal Justice Commission has offered this grant.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
If approved, the application would result in a grant award of approximately $50,000.
About $23,000 would be used for a 0.2 FTE program manager; $3,000 for meeting
facilitation, materials, and promotion; and $24,000 for travel and training.
There is no requirement for matching funds.
ATTENDANCE:
Kathleen Meehan Coop, Management Analyst
CJC's Comments Regarding Application Questions:
1. These narrative application questions focus on how the applicant
addresses the following funding priorities:
• Ability to address organized retail theft that places retail
employees, the public, or both, at risk of physical injury.
• Ability to identify and address fencing networks
connected to organized retail theft.
• Ability to identify and address the underlying causes of
organized retail theft by focusing on individuals or groups
who have committed or are at risk of committing
organized retail theft.
• Evidence of collaboration with retailers or law
enforcement agencies to support the reduction of
organized retail theft in the jurisdiction served by the
grant.
• Grant -funded operations designed to have a regional or
statewide beneficial effect on the reduction of organized
retail theft.
• Other criteria that the Commission chooses to include in
the Organized Retail Theft Grant Program solicitation.
2. It is strongly recommended that applicants first read through all
application questions and closely review the list of required
documentation listed in the Grant Solicitation.
2/8
1. Describe the jurisdiction your program will serve if awarded funds.
The Deschutes County/Bend Organized Retail Theft program will address organized retail theft (ORT) in Deschutes
County, specifically focusing on the City of Bend.
Deschutes County has a population of over 208,000 and is demographically 0.6% Black, 1.1% American Indian &
Alaskan Native, 1.4%Asian, 0.2% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 3.1% two or more races, 8.3% Hispanic or
Latino, and 85.8% White — non -Hispanic. The county is 3,018 square miles and is defined as a Metro area, but
half of the county zip codes are identified as rural areas by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy.
The City of Bend is the county seat, home to nearly half of the county's population, and is intersected by Hwy 97 a
major North/South transportation corridor. Bend is also the location of the majority of the jurisdiction's retail stores
(approximately 325 retailers). This not only makes Bend the primary shopping location for Bend and other
Deschutes County residents but also for residents from all across Central Oregon. Given the higher population
density and the higher number of retail stores, of which many are larger well-known national chains, we suspect
Bend retailers are experiencing the most organized retail theft within our community.
3/8
2. Describe the organized retail theft -related problem within the defined jurisdiction that your program seeks to
address.
Within the last 24 months (June 2022-May 2024) the Deschutes County DistrictAttorney's Office (DCDA) has
charged five organized retail theft (ORT) cases. Although that number may be comparatively small, it reflects a
150% increase in ORT cases from the prior four years (2018-2021).
The Bend Police Department (BPD) and the DCDA are in agreement that ORT is occurring in our community at a
higher rate than the number of charged cases indicates. This is in part due to our jurisdiction lacking an ORT-
dedicated team to investigate these crimes. Because we do not have strong relationships with the local retailers,
we believe the retail stores are not reporting all of the thefts they are experiencing. In addition, we know that many
of the larger retail stores are tracking shrinkage and loss, but since they are currently not sharing that information
with law enforcement and prosecutors, we are missing out on opportunities to make connections between crimes.
Given the short timeframe of this grant opportunity and the current capacity at each agency, we would like to start
our work in the area of ORT by specifically focusing on developing collaborative relationships between our local
retailers and law enforcement. In particular, building relationships with the large -box stores in Bend that have the
resources and personnel to assist with ORT data collection. Establishing these relationships will provide us with a
better understanding of the scope of ORT crimes in our jurisdiction.
3. How does your organization identify or intend to identify the underlying causes of organized retail theft by
focusing on individuals or groups who have committed or are at risk of committing organized retail theft?
The ORT team's plan to establish collaborative relationships with retailers is in part because we want to create a
level of trust that will lead to data -sharing agreements, which will aid us in identifying the underlying causes of ORT
in our jurisdiction.
Access to the information that retail stores collect on ORT offenders is a critical element in the development of our
ORT program and stopping this crime. Currently, even if we had an ORT team with dedicated investigators at BPD,
the lack of data from the retailers would result in us still not having a true understanding of the ORT environment in
Bend. However, with access to comprehensive ORT information from multiple sources, we will increase our ability to
identify who is involved in the crimes and gain a true understanding of what the underlying causes are within our
jurisdiction, so we can take the most appropriate steps and interventions going forward.
4/8
4. How does your organization identify or intend to identify and address fencing organizations connected to
organized retail theft?
While we believe that fencing is occurring, we will not be addressing this issue directly during this funding cycle. We
anticipate that the information gleaned from our future retailer partners will help us learn more about the extent of
this problem in Bend. The information collected during this funding period will then help us determine the best
approach to addressing this challenge as we draft our ORT plan.
5. Does your organization have existing infrastructure (i.e. personnel, equipment) with a primary focus of
addressing organized retail theft?
No
6. How will your organization use grant funds to investigate, disrupt, deter or reduce organized retail theft
within the program's jurisdiction?
Our goals during this shortened grant period (10 months) are to: 1) Provide BPD & DCDA training in ORT and
retailer relationship building, 2) Build relationships with local retailers that will lead to data -sharing agreements, and
3) Develop a comprehensive ORT crime plan for FY26. To do this we will be requesting funds to support the FTE of
a part-time program manager to oversee the collaboration between DCDA and BPD, and the relationship building
with the local retailers. The program manager will:
a) Serve as the liaison between the agencies,
b) Draft the DCDA/BPD MOU,
c) Organize training opportunities and meetings with other communities to inform our plans for engaging with local
retailers in Bend,
d) Create materials for and conduct outreach to Bend's retail community,
e) Coordinate and host the retailer meetings,
f) Write the data -sharing agreements with selected retailers, and
g) Oversee the development of the Bend ORT plan.
Funds will also be requested to cover travel to participate in a retail asset protection conference in Washington, DC
in April 2025, attend meetings in other Oregon counties with ORT programs, and host and promote the retail
meetings in Bend.
5/8
7. How does your organization address or intend to address organized retail theft that places retail employees,
the public, or both, at risk of physical injury?
By hosting informational listening sessions with retailers, we will gain a better understanding of the risk our retailers
and their employees are currently experiencing. This information will guide us as we develop our comprehensive
ORT plan, which we will implement when we have a dedicated ORT team that includes BPD ORT investigators.
We suspect that our ORT plan will likely include training for retail staff to address safety issues, but may also
include additional elements which we will glean from these retailer listening sessions. It is the purpose of this phase
of our project to gain a better understanding of what our local retailers are experiencing so we can address those
specific challenges directly and more effectively going forward.
8. How does your organization currently track or plan to track your efforts to reduce organized retail theft?
What concrete measures (i.e. number of individuals charged, items recovered, value of items recovered) will
you use?
When we establish our ORT plan at the end of our project, we will outline specific measures to track our success
based upon what we learn from our local retailers regarding the specifics types of crimes they are experiencing and
by asking which metrics are most valuable and important to them. Metrics may include: tracking cases charged, law
enforcement follow-up and investigation of crimes, the quantity and value of merchandise recovered, and/or the
perceived level of safety retailers' employees are experiencing. This qualitative and quantitative information will
likely be collected through a regular survey sent out to retailers under the comprehensive ORT plan we will be
developing.
We would also use the case management database systems at the DCDA and BPD to track the number of reports
received from retailers, investigations started, as well as convictions that result from those investigations. This data
would provide us with a solid picture of the problem within the community and would inform us on the progress
being made from a law enforcement and prosecution standpoint. In addition, we would track the number of ORT
crime victims and the value of the items stolen, to offer us with a perspective of how these crimes are impacting the
community at -large.
6/8
9. Does your organization have collaborative partnerships in place with local law enforcement?
Yes
a. If yes, describe these partnerships and explain how they will be utilized to support and measure the
reduction of organized retail theft within the program's jurisdiction.
The BPD and DCDA have frequently collaborated on community projects. Both agencies are part of LPSCC and
have a strong working relationship. When funding is secured we will establish an MOU to outline the specific steps
each agency will take to implement this grant project, which will begin our efforts to support and measure the
reduction of organized retail theft in Bend.
The DCDA will take the lead on providing project and grant management. The DCDA and BPD will identify team
members to assist with the project and attend program planning and training. Senior management, along with the
selected ORT team members from each agency will participate in quarterly project meetings. The ORT team will
also participate in the community retail meetings and in the discussions to prepare for and evaluate the feedback
from the retailers. Key individuals from the team will engage in follow-up discussions with interested retailers to help
establish the retail partnership data -sharing agreements. This work will occur over 10 months from September 1,
2024, to June 30, 2025.
Kathleen Meehan Coop will serve as the part-time program manager at DCDA. She has extensive experience with
project management. Meehan Coop has been with DCDA for nine years overseeing special programs. She has an
MBA and M.Ed., and a background in program development and grant management.
10. Does your organization have collaborative partnerships in place with retailers, community groups, or
associations impacted by organized retail theft?
No
7/8
11. Describe your program's specific and achievable time -based goals to reduce organized retail theft within
your jurisdiction.
By June 30, 2025, under a joint DCDA/BPD MOU, Deschutes County will have:
a. An understanding of the current ORT environment within Bend
b. Obtained additional ORT training
c. Established data -sharing agreements with at least two larger retailers in Bend
d. Developed a long-term plan to reduce ORT in our jurisdiction
To achieve these goals, the ORT team will meet with representatives from other Oregon jurisdictions that have
successful ORT programs. We will host a series of informational listening sessions to hear directly from local
retailers about what they have been experiencing and their ORT concerns. These meetings will show our
commitment to stopping these serious crimes and provide an opportunity to discuss how we all might work together
to address this problem.
Next, we will convene meetings with select retailers to learn more about the type of data they collect, discuss what
information is needed to successfully investigate and prosecute these crimes, establish methods to share
information, and outline what each partner can expect from each other through the data -sharing agreements.
Finally, the ORT team will draft an ORT plan based on what they have learned, which will include an outline of our
jurisdiction's ORT priorities, tracking measures and how those measures will be collected and analyzed, how the
underlying causes of ORT will be addressed, and what resources will be needed to successfully address ORT.
DETAILED TIMELINE
Quarterly Project Meetings - Sep 2024 and Jan & Mar 2025
Meetings with Other OR Communities - Oct -Dec 2024
Pre & Post Retail Planning Meetings - Nov & Dec 2024 and Mar & Apr 2025
Group Retailer Meetings - Jan, Feb & Mar 2025
Individual Retailer Meetings - Mar, Apr & May 2025
Retailer Data -Sharing Agreements -Apr, May & Jun 2025
Develop Bend ORT Plan - May & Jun 2025
8/8
vTES
0
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Chair -initiated discussion on Sunbreak Ranch and Lane County Pilot Program
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Chair Patti Adair asked staff to schedule a Board meeting item to discuss examples of
managed camps for people who are houseless:
• Sunbreakranch.com - San Diego, CA area
• Lane County Pilot Program (intensive outreach engagement)
Attached are notes from Chair Adair on these two projects.
As an update on the DSL land exchange work, County staff met with City of Redmond staff
to discuss conceptual ideas for a supported/managed camp on the County -owned 45-acres
Southeast of Redmond. City staff provided a copy of the Redmond City Code covering
"Supportive Shelter Standards" - Section 8.370 (attached). County and City staff are
scheduled to meet with Redmond Service Providers on July 16, 2024 for discussion and
input on operating a supported/managed camp on the County -owned 45-acres. County
staff plans to come back to the Board of County Commissioners with draft options for the
45-acres. The options will include a "supported camp" up through a staffed "managed
camp.
II
BUDGET IMPACTS:
TBD
ATTENDANCE:
Chair Patti Adair
The Triage Model for Homeless Resolution- Sunbreakranch.com (San Diego, CA}
Sunbreak Ranch is a proposed central navigation center, designed to house people,
identify their needs and move them with care and proper treatment to more permanent
housing or treatment centers. It is an emergency , regional "triage" center where everyone
in need will have a clean, healthy, safe and secure place to reside and sleep.
Sunbreak will be a voluntary village where individuals can reside in a series of designated
and protected areas for families, single mothers, seniors, veterans, those with dogs and so
on. The physical layout of the facility is important to achieving those goats. There will be
individual sections for men, women, families, and a place where individuals can pitch their
tents if that is their desire. There will also be an area for safe parking (RVs and cars) for
those people who want to maintain those as their residence. Ideally, there wilt also be a
significant number of pods (current funding available through the state) for individuals who
qualify.
The following services will be provided: clean toilets, showers, dining hall, medical tent,
storage (shipping containers) facilities, onsite homeless service providers, mental health
counselors, substance abuse specialists and vocational trainers.
Each individual or family is treated individually with a thorough examination of their needs.
Individuals and their families are brought in from unsanctioned camps /streets and are
evaluated by professionals which include current service providers. Once the assessment
is complete, a clear program can be established to meet those individual needs. The goal
is to place the person(s) on a path to recover from homelessness and to rejoin society as a
productive member.
This will be a managed facility, 24/7, with private security (and/or police) to maintain a safe
environment away from the criminals who prey on the homeless on the streets. There wilt
also be trash pickup & potable water. A bus line will serve the location multiple times per
day. The facility wilt be kept clean with residents helping to maintain a neat, organized
facility.
It is anticipated that there will be ultimately three facilities to address Deschutes County,
each holding up to 200 (???) residents - One in Bend, one in Redmond and one in LaPine,
all following the same model. Best to begin with one in Bend ( with approx.. 50-100, then
scale) and once up and running smoothly, duplicate the model in Redmond and La Pine.
All other unsanctioned encampments in Deschutes County ( public lands included) will be
closed and restored. Those who are living unsheltered, wilt be given a choice to move to a
village or leave the county. The enforcement of the camping laws are critical in order to
protect our county from additional human caused wild fires that are being generated in the
current unsanctioned camps.
Why use the concept of triage? Homeless individuals are in one way or another
"wounded" and need help to recover. Triage accounts for individual needs rather than
some blanket solution which may only address part of the problem. They need to be dealt
with on an individual basis with the proper services so their specific needs can be
addressed.
Funding: a combination of private & public funding wilt most likely be needed. Costs will
need to be streamlined and efficient.
Notes from Pilot Program in Lane County —Andrea, Human.ervices Division
Over the last year , Lane County has sponsored a pilot program which utilized intensive
outreach engagement, a multi- disciplinary approach, to improve services and sites (for
approx. 90 days) before relocation to permanent housing . It was a targeted , organized
approach. They selected 2 encampments: 1) with 6 households and 2) the other with 18
households. Their outreach team consisted of 3 people and they performed regular (ideal
is daily) outreach. One year later 100% of the households in site #1 are still housed . For
site #2 — 88% are housed, 5% are enrolled (?) and 5% exited to homelessness.
They stated it was critical to get buy in from the camp residents at the beginning. They
created a by name list and entered into HMIS. They dedicated some efforts to a master
lease program which local Landlords which was funded by EO money. They were also able
to utilize Governor All In Housing Funds, and Diversion Funds (for move in funds &
reconnection to family) . The Diversion program used a small amount of funding, but was
very successful.
The partnerships between public works, law enforcement and local businesses were
critical. They stated that the challenges included buy in from stakeholders & streamlined
communication.
In Lane county there is a dedicated Landlord Liaison who works to help mitigate risk and
offers incentives to not look so hard at tenant credit scores. Polk County also has a
someone working on Landlord relationships.
Mike Savara from the State, also spoke and mentioned the Governor's desire to continue
programs to help people from becoming homeless. They wilt be launchinga longterm
rental program through the entire state including an Elder Rental Assistance Program.
Sec. 8.370. Supportive Shelter Standards.
1. Applicability.
A. Any proposal for a supportive shelter which is identified as a qualifying emergency shelter under ORS
197.782 shall be reviewed for compliance with State law and approved accordingly.
B. See Use Tables 8.135, 8.137, 8.190, 8.220 and 8.260.
2. Review and Application. Supportive shelters shall be reviewed as a Development Action. An approved site
plan shall identify an appropriate timeline and process for periodic review and renewal. A complete
application for a Support Shelter proposal shall include:
A. Pre -development. A completed Pre -development Application prior to submission.
B. Site Plan. A site plan which demonstrates compliance with standards of this Section.
C. Lease or Legal Use Agreement. A copy of the lease document or equivalent that outlines the legal
agreement between the applicant and the property owner to use the subject property for the
supportive shelter proposal, if the applicant is not the property owner.
D. Financial Security Proposal. Proof of financial security in compliance with Subsection (6.D.) of these
standards.
E. Operating Plan. A plan outlining and identifying the operations, security, and case management
services.
G. Narrative. A narrative explaining the supportive shelters compliance with these standards. This
includes a description of the managing agency, the name and contact information of the designated
contact person from the managing agency, and a copy of the draft Code of Conduct that would be
provided to authorized shelter residents.
3. Shelter Unit. A shelter unit provides shelter from the elements. Shelter units are not dwelling units, and no
structure that could meet building code as a dwelling unit shall be used as a shelter unit. Shelter units shall
obtain all building permits determined to be necessary by the Building Official and may not contain natural
gas appliances, propane heaters, or generators.
Shelter Unit Types:
A. Tents, yurts, and membrane or fabric structures, as per ORS 197.746.
B. Recreational Vehicles or other privately owned Vehicle (as defined by Section 5.325 of City Code).
C. Site -built, modular, or prefabricated structures, or similarly built structures, which do not contain
permanent provisions for cooking.
4. Development Standards.
A. Height and Setbacks. Building height and setback standards of the underlying zone shall apply to any
supportive shelter site.
1. Setback standards shall only be applied to permanent structures, such as common area buildings.
2. No shelter units regardless of type may be sited closer than ten feet to any public right-of-way.
B. Density. No supportive shelter site shall exceed a density of 25 shelter units per net acre.
5. Site Layout and Characteristics.
A. Proximity and Spacing. Shelter units of various types may be collocated, provided they are clearly
delineated, and development standards are met. Shelter units must be sited with adequate separation
(Republication)
Created: 2024-03-04 17:22:04 [EST]
Page 1 of 4
between shelter types and units to provide for safety and privacy. Spacing will vary depending on
shelter -type, fire -separation requirements, ADA compliance, emergency egress pathways, and
emergency access for first responders.
B. Parking. Parking areas shall be provided for use by shelter residents, staff, and visitors pursuant to
Sections 8.500 through 8.515 (Off -Street Parking and Loading Requirements). Additional spaces shall be
provided for authorized shelter residents using privately owned vehicles as shelter units. Parking shall
be approved based on capacity proffered by managing agency providing services.
C. Storage. No outdoor storage is permitted, excluding bicycles or similar mobility devices, except as
provided in a designated and approved storage area. Residents shall be provided with enclosed, secure
storage for their belongings.
D. Fencing. The supportive shelter site shall be fenced and screened from sight except at entry and exit
places. The fencing and screening shall be no less than six feet in height and shall be maintained. The
Community Development Director may allow for deviations or reduced fencing or screening standards.
E. Signage. A sign must be posted with the name and phone number of the managing agency. This sign is
exempt from sign standards but must be posted at the entrance to the supportive shelter site and shall
not be illuminated or exceed six square feet in size.
F. Common Area Facilities. Common areas for use by the authorized shelter residents and staff shall be
provided to ensure adequate trash and recycling services. At least one toilet and hand -washing station
shall be provided and maintained. These common areas may provide access to water, sanitation,
laundry, cooking, warming or cooling areas, through permanent or temporary facilities. The Oregon
Health Authority may require public health best practices for shared health and sanitation facilities.
Common areas may also be furnished with facilities needed by the managing agency to provide other
supportive services, such as case management, counseling, daycare, kennel space, skill development,
or similar.
G. Compliance. The layout of the supportive shelter site and all structures shall comply with any
applicable Federal, State, and local requirements, including but not limited to Fire, Environmental
Health, Building, and Engineering requirements and will not pose any unreasonable risk to public
health or safety.
1. Ensure units and support structures are accessible in accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended and in accordance with the City of Redmond Building
Code.
6. Site Management. An approved supportive shelter site must be actively managed and maintained by a
managing agency in order to operate and serve shelter residents. A shelter site that is not being actively
managed or maintained by a managing agency for a period of six or more months will be considered to be an
abandonment of the use unless an extension or another approval is obtained. A shelter site found to be
operating without being actively managed and maintained by a managing agency will be considered to be in
violation of this Section.
A. Managing Agency. The managing agency may be any governmental, housing authority, nonprofit,
religious agency or public benefits corporation (as defined in ORS 65.001). The managing agency must
have a designated contact person and their contact information must be kept up to date for the City's
use and reference.
B. Active Management and Maintenance. A managing agency can demonstrate active management and
maintenance of the supportive shelter site by having a local or on -site presence and being available to
accept and respond to telephone calls during business hours and to any potential after-hours
emergency.
(Republication)
Created: 2024-03-04 17:22:04 [EST]
Page 2 of 4
1. Supportive Services. A managing agency must be providing supportive services to each authorized
shelter resident for the entire duration that the shelter has residents. Staff must be able to assist
residents in obtaining necessary documentation, such as government identification and vehicle
registration and insurance. Additional on -site services may include case management services for
housing, financial, vocational, educational, physical or behavioral health care, public benefits, and
any other similar services incidental to shelter.
C. Code of Conduct. The managing agency shall not authorize a shelter resident without providing each
resident with a code of conduct form to review and sign. The managing agency has the right to refuse
entry or discontinue use for any individual. The code of conduct shall be written in a language
understandable to the resident and shall contain policies and information that set out regulations
regarding:
1.
2.
How individuals who may stay on the premises will be selected.
How many days someone may stay on the premises.
3. Supervision and identification of the supportive services or case management to be provided.
4. What structures or other items may be placed or stored on the premises.
5. Conduct, noise disturbance, pets, location and expected use of all common area facilities, and
visitation.
6. Prohibition of open flames on the premises, or within vehicles unless contained in a Recreational
Vehicle (RV) currently titled and registered with the State of Oregon Department of Motor
Vehicles.
7. Other information or policies the managing agency feels necessary to include.
D. Financial Security. The managing agency at the time of application shall provide a financial security
proposal to ensure the removal of the improvements should the shelter site approval expire or become
void. This may be in the form of a bond, petition, cash, or other adequate method. The financial
security itself shall be provided to the City and secured before the shelter site may begin operation, or
else the operation of the supportive shelter will be considered to be in violation of this code.
E. Enforcement.
1. Approval of a supportive shelter site shall not be construed to abrogate or limit the jurisdiction or
authority of the Redmond Police Department or any other law enforcement agency.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section or City Code, the City Manager or designee
may:
A. Revoke authorization of a supportive shelter site for violations of the requirements of this
Section.
B. Prohibit a supportive shelter site on a property if the City finds that any activity related to
the shelter site on that property constitutes a nuisance or other threat to the public
welfare.
2. Nothing in this Section of this code creates any duty on the part of the City or its agents to ensure
the protection of persons or property with regard to permitted supportive shelter sites.
(Ord. No. 2023-07, 12-19-2023)
Editor's note(s)—Section 8.370 Building Setbacks for the Protection of Solar Access was amended by Ord. No.
2012-04 passed April 24, 2012. Later, was amended by Ord. No. 2020-15 passed November 10, 2020. Later,
was deleted by Ord. No. 2022-04 passed June 28, 2022.
(Republication)
Created: 2024-03-04 17:22:04 [EST]
Page 3 of 4
(Republication)
Created: 2024-03-04 17:22:04 [EST]
Page 4 of 4
0-(ES
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Appeal of Psilocybin Service Center
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Open the public hearing for file no. 247-24-000292-A, an appeal of a Hearings Officer
Decision denying a psilocybin service center.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options:
• Continue the hearing to a date and time certain;
• Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and
time certain;
• Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or
• Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On July 17, 2024, the Board will hold a public hearing on an appeal of a Hearings Officer's
decision for a psilocybin service center within Juniper Preserve (formerly Pronghorn)
destination resort. A public hearing was held before the Deschutes County Hearings
Officer, and a Hearings Officer Decision denying the subject application was mailed on April
29, 2024. The Applicant filed a timely appeal of this decision and on May 29, 2024, the
Board voted to hear this appeal.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
1 ES
COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
DATE: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT: July 17th Public Hearing for Appeal of Psilocybin Service Center
The Board of County Commissioners ("Board") is conducting a public hearing on July 17, 2024, to
consider an appeal of a Hearings Officer Decision denying a request for a psilocybin service center.
The subject request is for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review (land use file nos. 247-23-
000614-CU, 247-23-000615-S P).
I. BACKGROUND
The Applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to establish a psilocybin
service center at Juniper Preserve (formerly Pronghorn) destination resort. The subject property is
zoned Exclusive Farm Use and Destination Resort Combining Zone and is located in the core area
of Juniper Preserve. The applicant proposes to administer psilocybin to clients within an existing
structure, under licensing from the Oregon Health Authority.
A public hearing was held before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer on March 12, 2024, and a
Hearings Officer decision denying the applications was mailed on April 29, 2024. The applicant
appealed the Hearings Officer's decision on May 10, 2024 (appeal file no. 247-24-000292-A). At a
work session on May 29, 2024, the Board voted to hear this appeal, and a second work session was
held on July 1, 2024, to prepare for the public hearing.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Staff has received over 180 written comments over the course of this review. This includes 153
public comments that were received prior to the March 12th hearing, 25 comments that were
received during the subsequent open record period, and nine comments that were received
following the mailing of the Hearings Officer Decision. Key issues raised by those in opposition
included:
• The proposal's compatibility with existing Resort uses and functions;
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 I P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org : www.deschutes.org/cd
• The Resort's existing access across BLM land;
• The proposal's compatibility with the Resort's Final Master Plan;
• The Resort's distance from emergency services;
• Impact to property values.
Key issues raised in support included:
• Appropriateness of the proposed location;
• Community benefits of psilocybin treatment;
• The proposed use is permitted in the zone and does not require a modification to the
Resort's Final Master Plan.
III. HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION
A Hearings Officer decision denying the applications was mailed on April 29, 2024. The Hearings
Officer's denial was based on the Applicant's failure to demonstrate compliance with four criteria of
Deschutes County Code, which were related to the screening of the parking lot, the service drive
clear vision area, and transportation access to the proposed site. The criteria that the denial was
based on are as follows:
• DCC 18.116.030(F)(1), relating to the screening of the parking lot.
• DCC 18.116.030(F)(7), relating to clearance areas for service drives.
• DCC 18.124.060(G), relating to the screening of the parking lot.
• DCC 18.128.015(A)(2), relating to the suitability of the site based on the adequacy of
transportation access.
IV. HEARING FORMAT
The Board voted to hear this appeal limited de novo, meaning testimony and evidence must address
the four criteria that were the basis for the Hearings Officer's denial. The Board also voted to
establish the following time limits for oral testimony:
• 30 minutes for the Applicant
• 10 minutes for public agency staff
• 3 minutes for general members of the public
• 10 minutes for the Applicant's rebuttal
V. NEXT STEPS
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options:
• Continue the hearing to a date and time certain;
• Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time
certain;
• Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or
• Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined.
Page 2 of 3
VI. RECORD
The record for File Nos. 247-23-000614-CU, 247-23-000615-SP, 247-24-000292-A are as presented
at the following Deschutes County Community Development Department website:
https://www.desch utes.org/cd/page/247-23-000614-cu-247-23-000615-sp-psilocybi n-service-
center-juniper-preserve
Attachments:
1. Hearing's Officer Decision for file nos. 247-23-00614-CU, 247-23-000615-SP
Page 3 of 3
DECISION AND FINDINGS OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING DATE:
HEARING LOCATION:
APPLICANT/OWNER:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
REQUEST:
247-23-000614-CU,247-23-000615-SP
March 12, 2024
Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
Applicant:
Owners:
Map and Tax Lot:
Account:
Situs Addresses:
Juniper Institute LLC
Pronghorn Intangibles LLC
161316D000500
251126
23050 Nicklaus Drive,
Bend, OR 97701
A conditional use and site plan review to establish a psilocybin
service center in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone, and
Destination Resort (DR) Combining Zone.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF DECISION: This Decision DENIES the Application.
I. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Zone (DR)
Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions
Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review
Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) for the Pronghorn Destination Resort
Final Master Plan (FMP) for the Pronghorn Destination Resort
Page I 1
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
A. Request and Nature of Proceeding
This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as a request by the Applicant to approve a psilocybin
service center ("Service Center"). The Service Center is proposed to be located at Juniper Preserve, a
destination resort approved in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone ("EFU Zone"), which was originally
referred to as the Pronghorn Destination Resort ("Juniper Preserve"). The relevant areas of the Juniper
Preserve are within the EFU Zone, and the Subject Property is also subject to the County's Destination
Resort (DR) combining zone ("DR Zone"). The Applicant seeks two land use approvals — a Conditional
Use Permit and a Site Plan Review.
As described by the Applicant, the Service Center will operate under a license from the Oregon Health
Authority ("OHA"). OHA regulates the production, processing, and use of psilocybin under the Oregon
Psilocybin Services Act. The Applicant proposes to conduct activities related only to the use of psilocybin
and would conduct the licensed activities in an existing structure on the Subject Property.
The County reviews conditional uses in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in
Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") Chapter 18.128 and Title 22. The proposed use must also
satisfy the standards of the underlying EFU Zone — set forth in DCC Chapter 18.16 — which in turn requires
compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions, and
Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review. Because the Subject Property is in the DR Zone, provisions in DCC
Chapter 18.113 are applicable, as are provisions of the Conceptual Master Plan ("CMP") and the Final
Master Plan ("FMP") for Juniper Preserve.
B. Application, Notices, Hearing
The Applicant submitted the Application on August 8, 2023. On September 7, 2023, staff of the County's
Community Development Department ("Staff') provided notice to the Applicant that it did not deem the
Application to be complete ("Incomplete Letter"). On January 26, 2024, the Applicant submitted
supplemental information in response to the Incomplete Letter and requested that the Application be
deemed complete at that time.
On February 15, 2024, Staff mailed a Notice of Public Hearing ("Hearing Notice"). The Hearing Notice
stated the Hearing would be held on March 12, 2024.
Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on March 12, 2024,
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.
Page 12
The Hearing concluded at 9:05 p.m. Prior to the conclusion of the Hearing, and at the request of the
Applicant, I announced that the written record would remain open as follows: (1) any participant could
submit additional materials until March 19, 2024 ("Open Record Period"); (2) any participant could
submit rebuttal materials (evidence or argument) until March 26, 2024 ("Rebuttal Period"); and (3) the
Applicant could submit a final legal argument, but no additional evidence, until March 29, 2024, at which
time the record would close. Staff provided further instruction to participants, noting that all post -Hearing
submittals needed to be received by the County by 4:00 p.m. on the applicable due date. No participant
objected to the post -Hearing procedures.
C. Review Period
As noted above, the Applicant submitted additional materials in response to the Incomplete Letter on
January 26, 2024, requesting that the Application be deemed complete at that time. Using January 26,
2024, as the date of completeness, the original deadline for a final County decision under ORS 215.427 —
"the 150-day clock" — was June 24, 2024. As noted above, however, the Applicant requested a 17-day
extension of the written record.
Pursuant to DCC 22.24.140(E), a continuance or record extension is subject to the 150-day clock, unless
the Applicant requests or otherwise agrees to the extension. Here, the Applicant requested the extension.
Under the Code, therefore, the additional 17 days the record was left open do not count toward the 150-
day clock. Adding that time period to the original deadline, the new deadline for the County to make a
final decision is July 11, 2024.
D. Staff Report
On March 5, 2024, Staff issued a report setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting evidence in the
record at that time ("Staff Report").
In the report's conclusion, Staff requests the Hearings Officer to determine if the applicant has met the
burden of proof necessary to approve a conditional use permit and site plan review for the Service Center.
The Staff Report does not make a specific recommendation, but the Staff Report does make some specific
findings and proposes the imposition of several conditions of approval if the Application is approved.1
Because some of the information and analysis provided in the Staff Report is not refuted, portions of the
findings below refer to the Staff Report and, in some cases, adopt sections of the Staff Report as my
findings. In the event of a conflict between the findings in this Decision and the Staff Report, the findings
in this Decision control.
* * *
1 During the Hearing, Staff acknowledged that some the proposed conditions were erroneously included
in the Staff Report. Because this Decision denies the application, I do not address all of Staff's proposed
conditions.
Page 13
E. Record Issues
The Applicant's final legal argument contains new evidence in the form of an "Exhibit A", which includes
a register page from the Bureau of Land Management and an Assignment of Right of Way. The
instructions provided to participants at the end of the Hearing included a statement that the Applicant's
final legal argument should not include new evidence. A footnote in the Applicant's submittal states that
the Hearings Officer "may take judicial notice of the BLM Assignment," but does not offer any citation
to the Code or to state law to explain that statement. Because it is not clear from the Applicant's submittal
that there is a legal basis for taking "judicial notice" of this particular document, and because other
participants were not afforded an ability to comment on that document, I am excluding it from the record
and will not refer to that particular evidence in this Decision.
III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Hearing Notice and Staff Report identified the Code sections listed in Section I above as the applicable
standards and criteria governing the Application. Participants in this proceeding were invited to identify
other criteria and to explain why those criteria must apply. The findings in this section address the relevant
criteria listed in the Staff Report and, where appropriate, additional criteria identified by participants. The
Applicant submitted an updated Site Plan as Exhibit A to its submittal dated March 19, 2024. The findings
below refer to that document whenever they make a reference to the Site Plan.
A. DCC Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
The EFU Zone is the base zone for the Subject Property. DCC 18.16.035 expressly states that destination
resorts are allowed as a conditional use in the EFU Zone, subject to all applicable standards of the DR
Zone, which are set forth in DCC Chapter 18.113. Pursuant to DCC 18.113.020(B), when the DR Zone
provisions are applicable, "they shall supersede all other provisions of the underlying zone." Because the
Subject Property is within an approved destination resort and the DR Zone provisions apply, those
provisions supersede the provisions in the EFU Zone. I therefore find it is not necessary to address any of
the dimensional or other standards in the EFU Zone as part of the consideration of this Application.
B. DCC Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Zone — DR
1. DCC 18.113.020, Applicability
This Code provision applies DCC Chapter 18.113 to proposals relating to the development of destination
resorts. The Subject Property is part of a larger area that has been approved as a destination resort as
defined in DCC Title 18. The provisions of DCC Chapter 18.113 therefore apply, and, as noted above,
these provisions supersede all other provisions in the underlying EFU Zone.
2. DCC 18.113.025, Application to Existing Resorts
This Code provision states that "[e]xpansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination
resorts" must meet certain criteria. The Applicant does not propose an expansion of the Juniper Preserve
destination resort and, instead, proposes a specific development within an area already contemplated for
Page 14
future commercial development as part of Juniper Preserve's approval. One participant opposed to the
Application identified DCC 18.113.025 as being applicable. However, that participant did not explain why
this Code provision applies to the Application, much less explain why this Code provision is not satisfied.
Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC 18.113.025 is not applicable to the proposal in the Application.
3. DCC 18.113.030, Uses in Destination Resorts
This Code provision lists several uses that are allowed in a destination resort, provided that the use is
intended to serve persons at the destination resort and is approved in a final master plan. Section (D) of
this provision lists various commercial services and specialty shops designed for visitors to the resort,
including psilocybin service centers licensed by the OHA, as set forth in DCC 18.113.030(D)(7)(a). Of
note, that more specific Code provision provides an exception and states that "[f]or a lawfully established
destination resort, the establishment of a psilocybin service center in any area approved for commercial
services or specialty shops pursuant to an approved final master plan does not require modification of an
approved conceptual master plan or final master plan."
The Applicant states that the Service Center will be licensed by the OHA. Because the record does not
contain evidence that OHA has already issued such a license, I find that this standard can be met only by
a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to obtain the OHA license prior to initiation of the use.2
The FMP for Juniper Preserve establishes various "areas" of the approved destination resort. The Subject
Property is in "Area 1." The County's decision approving the destination resort (File No. M-02-1)
expressly states that Areas 1-4 may include commercial uses. One participant in this proceeding objected
to the Application based, in part, on their assertion that the Service Center cannot be integrated into the
"core" commercial facilities of the destination resort, which include a spa, pool, and restaurants. However,
the Code does not require new commercial uses to be "integrated with" existing commercial uses and,
instead, requires only that the Service Center be in an "area approved for commercial service or specialty
shops." I therefore agree with the conclusion in the Staff Report that the Service Center is in an area
approved for commercial services, which is permitted without the need to modify Juniper Preserve's CMP
or FMP, pursuant to DCC 18.113.030(D)(7)(a).
4. DCC 18.113.040, Application Submission
This Code provision lists the application submittal requirements for a destination resort. Sections (A) and
(B) of this Code provision relate to the initial conceptual master plan and the final master plan. Juniper
Preserve has already received approval of its CMP and FMP, and these Code provisions are no longer
applicable. Instead, specific development in the approved destination resort must comply with the FMP,
which is addressed in more detail below. DCC 18.113.040(C) also states that a specific development must
satisfy site plan criteria. The Application seeks approval of the Applicant's proposed Site Plan, and the
standards for site plan review are also addressed in more detail below. Based on the foregoing, I find that
2 Although this Decision ultimately denies the Application, these findings identify various conditions of
approval that would be necessary to meet specific criteria.
Page 15
this criterion is met as long as the proposal is consistent with the FMP and as long as the site plan review
criteria are satisfied.
Compliance with FMP
Pages 7-9 of the Staff Report addresses Juniper Preserve's FMP and whether the Application is in
compliance with the FMP (and its associated conditions of approval). I find that the Staff Report's
summary of compliance with the FMP is accurate, and I adopt that portion of the Staff Report as my
findings, as modified by the following findings, which also address issues raised by other participants in
this proceeding.
The County initially approved the FMP for the destination resort as part of File No. M-02-1 ("Resort
Approval"). The Staff Report incorrectly quotes Condition G of the Resort Approval as addressing
commercial uses, whereas Condition G actually addresses solar standards, and that condition required
the applicant to "document compliance with the applicable solar access standards at the time of site plan
review...". DCC 18.113.060(G)(1) states that any standards in the underlying zone relating to solar
access "shall not apply within a destination resort". Thus, at the time of this Site Plan Review, there are
no applicable solar standards to apply as part of Condition G, and the Application remains in compliance
with that portion of the FMP.
Condition H of the Resort Approval states that the applicant must "limit commercial uses within the
resort to those permitted in the DR Combining Zone and those listed in CMP Exhibit 15." Some
participants in this proceeding objected to the Application on the basis that a psilocybin service center is
not listed as one of the contemplated uses in Exhibit 15 of the CMP. I find this objection does not
warrant denial of the Application. It is not surprising that the CMP did not list a psilocybin service
center as a commercial use, because such uses did not become lawful under Oregon law until the
enactment of the Oregon Psilocybin Services Act. Even so, the FMP allows commercial uses listed in
Exhibit 15 of the CMP and the uses allowed in the DR Zone. The Applicant does not rely on Exhibit 15
of the CMP and, instead, proposes the Service Center because it is an allowed commercial use in the DR
Zone by virtue of DCC 18.113.030(D)(7), and allowed expressly without the need to modify the CMP or
the FMP. Based on the foregoing, the Application is consistent with Condition H of the Resort
Approval.
5. DCC 18.113.050, Requirements for Conditional Use Permit and Conceptual Master
Plan Applications
The provisions in this Code section relate to the application for a conceptual master plan for a
destination resort. The County has already issued a CMP and FMP for Juniper Preserve. Further, DCC
18.113.030(D)(7) allows the approval of a psilocybin service center without the need to modify the
CMP or FMP.
One participant opposed to the Application identified DCC 18.113.050, and specifically subsections
(B)(5)(a-d), (B)(6), (B)(12), and (B)(18), as being applicable. However, that participant did not explain
why those Code provisions apply to the Application, much less explain why those Code provisions were
not satisfied.
Page 6
Because DCC 18.113.050 relates specifically to the application for a CMP, and because this Application
does not require a new or modified CMP, I find that these provisions are not applicable.
6. DCC 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts
DCC 18.113.060 establishes various minimum standards for the initial approval and phasing of a
destination resort. The only portion of this Code section identified in the record as being applicable is
DCC 18.113.060(G), and specifically subsections (G)(1) and (G)(2)(a)(1) of that section. Subsection
(G)(1) simply states that most dimensional standards of the underlying zone do not apply and, instead,
such standards are to be established as part of the CMP approval process. However, that provision does
state that, at a minimum, a 100-foot setback must be maintained from all streams and rivers, and that
rimrock setbacks must be as provided by other Code provisions. This criterion is satisfied because no
streams, rivers, or rimrock are present within the vicinity of the proposal.
Subsection (G)(2)(a)(1) requires an exterior setback of 350 feet from commercial development to the
exterior property lines. According to the portion of the Staff Report addressing this standard, which is
not refuted by other participants, the Service Center is located more than 350 feet from all exterior
property lines.
One participant opposed to the Application identified DCC 18.113.060(L)(2)(F) as being applicable.
However, that participant did not explain why that Code provision — which requires a destination resort
to maintain records documenting its rental program related to overnight lodging — applies to the proposal
in the Application, much less explain why those Code provisions were not satisfied.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the applicable provisions of DCC 18.113.060 are satisfied.3
C. DCC Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions
1. DCC 18.116.020, Clear Vision Areas
This Code provision requires a clear area (i.e. an absence of visual obstructions) at the intersection of two
streets at a property corner. According to the Staff Report, there is a clear vision area for the property
located at Nicklaus Drive, a private road that fronts the property. However, the Staff Report does not
identify which intersection of two streets is applicable, and the record materials indicate only a single
street in the area. Instead, the referenced "intersection" appears to be the area where the parking lot
connects to Nicklaus Drive. In that area, the Applicant's Site Plan shows a clear vision area, based on a
40-foot triangle as allowed by DCC 18.116.020(B), in which there will be only low landscaping. No
participant objects to this design or otherwise asserts this Code provision is not satisfied. The Staff Report
3 Neither the Applicant, the Staff Report, nor any other participant has asserted that the remaining
provisions of this DCC Chapter — DCC 18.113.070 through DCC 18.113.120 — are applicable to the
proposal in the Application.
Page l 7
recommends, and the Applicant does not object to, a condition of approval requiring this clear vision area
to be maintained.
2. DCC 18.116.030, Off street Parking and Loading
DCC 18.116.030 requires the Applicant to demonstrate how required off-street parking and loading will
be accommodated. Sections (A) and (C) of that provision simply require compliance with this Code
provision as part of the permitting process. These findings address the remaining subsections in detail,
and they conclude that the Applicant has not met its burden with respect to DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) or DCC
18.116.030(F)(7).
DCC 18.116.030(B) addresses off-street loading requirements. That Code provision, however, requires
off-street loading berths for commercial uses only where the proposed floor area is 5,000 square feet or
more. The Service Center is proposed in a building that is 2,940 square feet. No loading berths are
therefore required. Subsection (B)(5) of this Code provision does prohibit the use of required parking
spaces for loading or unloading activities unless done at a time of day when parking is not required. The
Staff Report recommends, and the Applicant does not object to, a condition of approval to ensure
compliance with that prohibition.
DCC 18.116.030(D) addresses off-street parking requirements. The Applicant originally stated that it
would rely in part on existing parking developed for Juniper Preserve to meet any parking requirements.
The Applicant then submitted a transportation analysis indicating that 11 parking spaces would be
required, but the Applicant still intended to provide some of those spaces by using existing parking. In
subsequent submittals, however, the Applicant provided an update to its transportation analysis, prepared
by a transportation engineer, confirming that 14 parking spaces are required. The Applicant's Site Plan
shows that all 14 parking spaces will be located on site in a parking area to the east of the primary structure
and that the Applicant is not relying on off -site or existing parking to meet that requirement.
The County's Senior Transportation Planner reviewed the Applicant's transportation analysis, including
its updates and the parking analysis, and agreed with its assumptions and methodologies. The Senior
Transportation Planner also recommended that all 14 parking spaces be included as new stalls on the
Subject Property.
One participant to this proceeding disagreed with the Applicant's transportation analysis, specifically
objecting to the "discount" to traffic counts based on the engineer's assumption that there would be a high
overlap of trips related to the Service Center and trips that are already generated as a result of guests
traveling to and from Juniper Preserve. That objection was based on the fact that the transportation
engineer based that discount on traffic counts at other destination resorts, which the objecting participant
asserted are not relevant because they predate more recent, but unidentified, requirements of Statewide
Planning Goal 8. That participant did not attempt to quantify an appropriate amount of trips that should
be considered or otherwise identify the number of parking spaces that must be provided.
Having reviewed the expert analysis of the Applicant's transportation engineer, the response of the
County's Senior Transportation Planner, and the opposing comments in the record, I find that the
Applicant's transportation analysis, as supplemented during the course of this proceeding, sufficiently
Page 18
establishes the trip generation rates and required parking that must be considered as part of this Decision.
Specifically, the Applicant is required to provide 14 new parking spaces. The Applicant's Site Plan
demonstrates how those off-street parking spaces will be provided on the Subject Property.
DCC 18.116.030(E) contains several general provisions relating to off-street parking. Subsections (E)(1)
through (E)(3) of this Code provision relate to parking when there is more than one use on a parcel, when
an applicant proposes to have joint parking facilities, or when an applicant proposes to rely on off -site
parking. Because the Applicant proposes to have dedicated parking for the Service Center, and to locate
that parking on the same site as the Service Center, these provisions are either not applicable or are
satisfied. Subsection (E)(4) of this Code provision prohibits the use of parking facilities for storage or for
truck parking. The Staff Report recommends, and the Applicant does not object to, a condition of approval
to ensure compliance with that prohibition. Subsection (E)(5) of this Code provision prohibits locating
parking spaces in a required front yard setback. The Applicant's Site Plan reflects that its proposal is
consistent with that prohibition.4 Finally, subsection (E)(6) of this Code provision is not applicable, as it
relates to parking credits in certain areas where on -street parking may be provided.
DCC 18.116.030(F) contains several provisions relating to the development and maintenance of off-street
parking areas. Of note, DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) requires that a non-residential parking area for more than
five vehicles must be effectively screened by a fence or landscaping if adjacent to a residential use. The
record identifies residential uses adjacent to the proposed parking area (across Nicklaus Drive). The Site
Plan does not depict any fence or screening vegetation. To the contrary, the proposed landscaping on the
south side of the parking lot is expressly identified as being low and non -obscuring in order to maintain a
clear vision area. The Applicant states that this landscaping can achieve both purposes — i.e. that it can be
non -obscuring for purpose of the clear vision area but still screen the parking lot from adjacent properties.
In the absence of more detailed information or argument from the Applicant with respect to this criterion,
I find that the Applicant has not met its burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with this Code
provision.5
DCC 18.116.030(F)(2) requires lighting for off-street parking to be arranged in a manner that will prevent
light from shining directly on adjoining residential properties "in a residential zone." The record indicates
that the Subject Property, and other properties in the Juniper Preserve development, are in the EFU Zone,
which is not a residential zone. However, the FMP for the destination resort also indicates that one of the
4 See also the findings below relating to DCC 18.124.070(D) concluding that the Subject Property is not
subject to any yard requirements.
5 The Staff Report suggests that this criterion could be satisfied by a condition of approval requiring the
Applicant to either show landscaping or a sight -obscuring fence on a revised site plan. However, as
noted above, the Applicant and the Staff Report appear to identify this area as needing to remain visually
clear to meet the requirements of DCC 18.116.020. While it may be debatable that DCC 18.116.020
applies to the intersection of the parking lot and Nicklaus Drive, the materials in the record do not allow
me to resolve these competing proposals in the Application — one that would keep the area clear of
visual obstructions and one that would allow the same area to be visually screened. While it may be
possible to resolve that discrepancy with a different Site Plan, that burden lies with the Applicant, and
the Applicant has not met that burden based on the materials in the current record.
Page I 9
tax lots in Juniper Preserve is in the Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10) zone, which it describes as "rural
residential." The Application materials do not state whether the adjoining residential developments are in
a residential zone or in a non-residential zone. However, the Site Plan shows the location of a new light
for the parking lot, which appears to be distant enough from adjoining residential properties to prevent
direct light from shining on those properties, regardless of what those properties are zoned. Even so, the
record is not clear that no direct light on adjoining residential properties is possible, and I find that this
criterion can be met only through a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to prevent light from
projecting directly upon the adjoining residential properties in a residential zone.
DCC 18.116.030(F)(3) requires groups of more than two parking spaces to be designed in a manner that
prevents the need to back vehicles into a street or right-of-way. The Site Plan shows all 14 parking stalls
using a common parking area, without the need to back vehicles into a street or right-of-way. DCC
18.116.030(F)(4) requires the area of a parking lot used by vehicles to be paved and drained for all weather
use. The Site Plan depicts the parking lot area as being paved and drained in compliance with this Code
provision. The Staff Report recommends, and the Applicant does not object to, a condition of approval to
ensure compliance with the paving and drainage requirements.
DCC 18.116.030(F)(5) governs access aisles. As proposed on the Site Plan, the access aisle for the parking
lot is 39 feet wide. Other provisions in the Code indicate that the minimum width of a two-way access
aisle should be 24 feet. No participant to this proceeding has asserted that the 39-foot access aisle, which
exceeds the minimum provided in the Code, is not sufficient. I therefore find that this Code provision is
satisfied based on the Applicant's proposal.
DCC 18.116.030(F)(6) and (7) govern service drives, which the record indicates are any vehicle
maneuvering surfaces that connect to a road or street but that are not immediately adjacent to a parking
space. Based on the figures in the record, the portion of Nicklaus Drive between the parking lot and the
southwest corner of the Subject Property qualifies as a service drive and, therefore, is subject to this Code
provision. The Staff Report does not fully describe the extent of the service drive, but does conclude that
a service drive exists in this area. Neither the Applicant nor any other participant disputes that conclusion.
Under DCC 18.116.030(F)(6), the number of service drives must be limited to the minimum number of
drives needed to accommodate anticipated traffic. Further, any service drive must be designed to facilitate
the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for vehicles and pedestrians. The Site Plan indicates that
Nicklaus Drive, which already exists, is 21 feet wide, sufficient to accommodate traffic. Further, the
Applicant has proposed new paths to augment existing paths that will be used for ingress and egress by
pedestrians. While some participants in this proceeding questioned the overall safety of the proposal, no
participant asserted that this criterion had not been, or could not be, satisfied by the final Site Plan the
Applicant proposed. Based on the foregoing, I find that the Applicant has met its burden to show
compliance with DCC 18.116.030(F)(6).
I do not arrive at the same conclusion for DCC 18.116.030(F)(7). That Code provision requires service
drives to have a minimum vision clearance area as specified in that provision. The Site Plan does not
appear to identify that clearance area at all, much less provide any calculations to show that the vision
Page
10
clearance is adequate and consistent with the language of the Code. I therefore find the Applicant has not
met its burden of demonstrating compliance with this Code provision.
DCC 18.116.030(F)(8) requires a parking lot to be designed to prevent a parked motor vehicle from
extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. As proposed on the Site Plan, no parking
stalls would be oriented toward an adjacent property line or street right of way. I therefore find that this
Code provision is satisfied.
DCC 18.116.030(G) establishes the specific design of parking stalls. As proposed on the Site Plan, all
parking stalls will be 9 feet wide and 20 feet in length, consistent with the requirements of this Code
section.
Based on the foregoing, most of the requirements of DCC 18.116.030 are satisfied, or can be satisfied
with the imposition of conditions of approval described above. However, because I have concluded that
the Applicant has not met its burden with respect to DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) or DCC 18.116.030(F)(7), I
find that DCC 18.116.030 is not fully satisfied.
3. DCC 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking
DCC 18.116.031 imposes certain bicycle parking requirements for any alteration of a use that requires a
site plan review. These Code provisions therefore apply to the proposal in the Application.
DCC 18.116.031(A)(1) and (2), together, impose a minimum requirement of one bicycle parking space
for every five required motor vehicle parking spaces for a commercial use like that proposed in the
Application. Further, such bicycle parking must include at least two sheltered parking spaces. For purposes
of this Application, which requires 14 motor vehicle parking spaces, the Applicant must have a minimum
of three bicycle parking spaces, two of which are sheltered. The Applicant proposes five sheltered bicycle
parking spaces, which exceeds the required minimum. I therefore find that this criterion is satisfied.
DCC 18.116.031(B) governs the design requirements of a bicycle parking facility. Under subsection
(B)(1), sheltered bicycle parking can be provided by racks inside a building, which is what the Applicant
proposes. Further, under subsection (B)(2), bicycle parking must be sufficiently separated from motor
vehicle parking, and directional signs must be used where bicycle parking is not directly visible or obvious
from a public right-of-way. While the Applicant's proposal adequately separates bicycle and motor
vehicle parking, the Applicant does not address the signage requirement. The Staff Report recommends,
and the Applicant does not object to, a condition of approval to ensure compliance with that portion of the
6 It is possible that either the Applicant or Staff intended that the "driveway" from the parking lot to
Nicklaus Drive is the service drive, and the Applicant has identified a vision clearance area there.
However, Nicklaus Drive is not a private street, on the Subject Property, and appears to function as a
service drive. This is consistent with the observation in the Staff Report that a service drive exists on the
southwest side of the Subject Property. Without a better explanation from the Applicant regarding the
absence or presence of service drives, these findings are based on the information provide in the Staff
Report and on the Site Plan.
Page 111
Code. Under subsection (B)(3), a bicycle parking space must be at least two feet by six feet in dimension,
with a vertical clearance of seven feet. While the Site Plan depicts the lateral dimensions of the bicycle
parking spaces, it does not address the vertical dimensions. I therefore find that this portion of the Code
can be met only with the addition of a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to maintain the
required vertical clearance. Finally, under subsection (B)(5), the Applicant must provide certain security
measures, for example by providing racks to which a bike can be locked, and in a manner that
accommodates cables and U-shaped locks. The Applicant does not describe the specifics of the proposed
racks it will use. I therefore find that this criterion is satisfied only with the addition of a condition of
approval that describes the required security measures of the proposed bicycle racks.'
4. DCC 18.116.380, Psilocybin Manufacturing, Service Centers, and Testing
Laboratories
DCC 18.116.380 imposes additional requirements on psilocybin uses. Pursuant to DCC 18.116.380, these
requirements apply to psilocybin service centers in the EFU Zone and, therefore, are applicable to the
Application. Of the remaining provisions in this section, only those in DCC 18.116.380 apply to the
Service Center, as the others address psilocybin manufacturing and processing, which are not part of the
Applicant's proposal.
DCC 18.116.380(D)(1) and (2) are not relevant to the Application, as they address co -location of a
psilocybin crop and uses outside of the EFU Zone, respectively, neither of which the Applicant proposes.
DCC 18.116.380(D)(3) and (4) impose certain distance requirements, and the Service Center must be at
least 1,000 feet from a school and comply with the setback requirements of the underlying zone. According
to the Applicant, there is no school within 1,000 feet of the Service Center, and no evidence in the record
indicates otherwise. As relevant to this Application, the underlying zone is the EFU Zone, but also the DR
Zone. As noted above, the dimensional standards in the DR Zone supersede similar provisions in the EFU
Zone, and those provisions are addressed in more detail in other findings.
DCC 18.116.380(D)(5) limits the hours of operation of a psilocybin service center to between 6:00 a.m.
and 11:59 p.m. on the same day, unless a facilitator determines, in accordance with state administrative
rules, that a session should go longer. The Applicant has proposed hours of operation consistent with this
requirement, specifically limiting hours of operation between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. during summer
months and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. during winter months, subject to the same caveat that a
facilitator acting in accordance with state law may need to extend a session.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the applicable provisions in DCC 18.116.380 are satisfied.
The Staff Report addresses DCC 18.116.035, which imposes bicycle commuter facility requirements
on certain developments, but concludes that these requirements are not applicable to the proposal. I
agree, and no other participant has asserted otherwise. I therefore find it is not necessary to address those
requirements.
Page 112
D. DCC Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review
1. DCC 18.124.030. Approval Required.
DCC Chapter 18.124 sets forth the standards and criteria for a Site Plan Review. Pursuant to DCC
18.124.030, Site Plan Review is required for, among other uses, commercial uses that require parking
facilities. As discussed in earlier findings, the Applicant's proposed commercial use requires parking and,
therefore, this Site Plan Review is required.
2. DCC 18.124.060, Approval Criteria.
DCC 18.124.060 sets forth the specific approval criteria that must be satisfied for a site plan to be
approved. The findings below address the relevant sections of this Code provision and, in general, find
that the criteria are satisfied. The findings do, however, conclude that DCC 18.124.060(G) is not satisfied.
DCC 18.124.060(A) requires that a proposed development "relate harmoniously" to both the natural
environment and existing development. As the Staff Report notes, prior interpretations of the County's
Board conclude that this Code provision requires an applicant to demonstrate that the site plan arranges
the development in a way that evaluates the natural environment and existing development in the area,
and that by doing so, requires the Applicant to demonstrate that it has minimized visual impacts and
reasonably preserved natural features including views and topographic features. In making that
interpretation, the County's Board expressly drew a distinction between the analysis of the site plan
required by this Code provision and the consideration of the compatibility of the proposed use required
by other Code sections. Only the Site Plan is relevant to this Code provision.
To demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.124.060(A), the Applicant relies in part on the fact that it will
use an existing building for the Service Center and that no new buildings are proposed. The Application
initially proposed accessory uses like a yurt, but those accessory features no longer appear on the Site
Plan. The Applicant asserts that the existing building (which is being treated as a new building for purposes
of this Application) uses colors that are similar to nearby buildings and the natural environment. The
record contains photographs and other information showing the building. The Applicant also asserts that
neither the existing building nor the new plantings adversely affect natural features. The Applicant notes
that the Subject Property was chosen for the Service Center specifically because of its desire to find a
place where patrons of the Service Center would be surrounded by the natural environment in a
harmonious way.
Some participants in this proceeding addressed the manner in which the Service Center relates to the
surrounding environment. Comments from those participants, however, largely questioned the
Applicant's desire or "need" to locate the Service Center in a natural environment, or disputed that the
surrounding area actually provides a natural or serene environment (e.g. because of surrounding homes
and events that might occur nearby). Other comments in the record object to the approval of the Service
Center based on incompatibility with surrounding uses, but not based on an asserted lack of harmonious
relation with the natural environment or existing development. The Staff Report states that the existing
development and new vegetation are likely to maintain and enhance the natural features of the Subject
Property. Having reviewed the arguments of the participants, the Staff Report, the Site Plan, and photos
Page 113
of the building, I find that the Applicant has met its burden of demonstrating compliance with DCC
18.124.060(A).
DCC 18.124.060(B) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that the landscape and existing topography will
be preserved to the greatest extent possible. This Code provision also requires preserved trees and shrubs
to be protected. The Applicant proposes additions and augmentations to the existing landscaping, and the
only changes to topography are for minor grading relating to stormwater management. This is possible
because the Applicant will use an existing building, and the only changes in landscaping will result from
new plantings, especially around the new parking area. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code
provision is satisfied. The Staff Report recommends a related condition of approval requiring the
Applicant to protect all trees and shrubs not required to be removed by the development. The Applicant
does not oppose such a condition.
DCC 18.124.060(C) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that the site plan provides a safe environment,
while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. The
Applicant asserts that the site is designed to promote safety because it is bordered on three sides by open
space uses (presumably reducing potential conflicts) and that it will have a perimeter fence and be "self-
contained" with its own parking. The Site Plan also proposes walking paths to allow entry and exit by
pedestrians away from areas used by motor vehicles. The fence and landscaping will help with the
transition from private to public spaces. With respect to the psilocybin component of the Service Center,
the Applicant notes that its patrons will be required to stay on site and have a transportation plan to and
from the site, both of which are required by state law and help maintain the safety of the Service Center
use.
Multiple participants provided comments relating to safety. Those comments largely address a concern
that a patron of the Service Center will somehow impact the safety of neighbors once they leave the
Service Center. Those comments, however, do not tie that concern to any specific part of the Site Plan.
One comment that is potentially relevant, however, is a concern that the site could be unsafe if there are
conflicts with other users of nearby foot and cart paths. The Applicant responds that the location of the
Service Center is separated from the main lodge and the recreational Trailhead Center, and even farther
from a playground area, where such conflicts might occur.
Having reviewed and weighed the arguments and evidence of the participants and the Site Plan, I find that
DCC 18.124.060(C) is satisfied.
DCC 18.124.060(D) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that, when appropriate, the site plan shall
provide for the special needs of disabled persons. The Application states that the Applicant will meet this
criterion through the building permit process, which requires compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Staff Report similarly states that other considerations for disabled persons
are determined as part of the issuance of building permits. No participant disputes that statement or
otherwise asserts that the Site Plan does not comply with this Code provision. Based on the foregoing, I
find that this Code provision is satisfied.
DCC 18.124.060(E) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that the location and number of points of
access, the interior circulation patterns, the separation of pedestrians from vehicles, and the overall parking
Page 114
arrangement is harmonious with buildings and structures. The Applicant relies on the location of the
driveway and parking areas as evidence that this criterion is met, because any conflicts with bicycles,
pedestrians, and motor vehicles should be minimal. The proposed parking and circulation are distant from
neighboring buildings and structures, which supports the Applicant's position. The size of the parking lot
and availability of paths for pedestrians allow for adequate circulation patterns. Based on the foregoing, I
find that this Code provision is satisfied.
DCC 18.124.060(F) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that surface drainage systems are designed to
prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, and water quality. The Applicant relies on a
report from an engineer to demonstrate the adequacy of the drainage system, and no participant disputes
the information in that report. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
DCC 18.124.060(G) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that areas and facilities for storage, machinery,
and equipment, and loading and parking are buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site
and on neighboring properties. The Applicant relies on existing screening and vegetation around the
existing building to minimize the impact of all on site uses on neighboring properties, as well as the
additional vegetation that will be planted. The Staff Report agrees that the barrier fence is adequate to
screen the one piece of equipment proposed (an electrical panel). This screening criterion, however, also
applies to parking areas. As explained in earlier findings, the Applicant has not met its burden of
demonstrating the vegetation screening the parking area is adequate. Based on the foregoing, I find that
this Code provision is not satisfied unless and until the Applicant also demonstrates compliance with DCC
18.116.030(F).
DCC 18.124.060(H) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that above ground utility installations will be
located to minimize visual impacts. The only above -ground utility installation proposed is an electric
panel. As noted above, that panel, which already exists, is screened with existing vegetation and will be
further screened by a barrier fence. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
DCC 18.124.060(I) does not impose any additional criteria and, instead, incorporates any specific criteria
imposed by the underlying zone, such as setbacks. Those criteria are addressed in other findings in this
Decision.
DCC 18.124.060(J) requires exterior lighting to be shielded so that it does not directly project off site. The
Applicant states that any exterior lighting will be fully shielded to prevent glare or light leakage and that
specific fixtures will be "dark sky" compliant. Staff recommends, and the Applicant does not object to, a
condition of approval requiring the Applicant to implement that proposal. Based on the foregoing, I find
that this Code provision is satisfied with that condition.
DCC 18.124.060(K) requires the Applicant to show adequate transportation access to the site. If necessary,
the Applicant must implement mitigation measures for transportation impacts. The Applicant asserts that
the existing transportation system provides adequate access to the site, and notes that access is from
Pronghorn Club Drive to Nicklaus Drive, both of which are paved to the standard required in the FMP.
The Applicant also submitted a transportation study, prepared by a transportation engineer, documenting
the adequacy of transportation access. The County's Senior Transportation Planner reviewed and provided
comments on the transportation analysis. Neither the Applicant's engineer nor the County's Senior
Page 115
Transportation Planner identified a need for specific improvements to the transportation system. As noted
above, one participant did object to the methodology in the transportation analysis, but did not offer an
alternative methodology, and that participant did not suggest that any mitigation measures are required.
Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.'
3. DCC 18.124.070, Required Minimum Standards
DCC 18.124.070 contains additional minimum standards applicable in various scenarios, many of which
are not relevant to the Application. I adopt the findings in the Staff Report as my findings relating to DCC
18.124.070, except for the specific subsections of this Code provision discussed in this section, which
replace the findings relating to those same subsections in the Staff Report.
DCC 18.124.070(B)(1)(a) requires that commercial uses subject to site plan approval must have a
minimum of 15 percent of the lot area landscaped. The record indicates the Subject Property is
approximately 8.4 acres in size. The Site Plan provides the dimensions of the various new landscaping
and also states that the total landscape coverage is 29% of the lot, in excess of the minimum in the Code.
No participant addresses the Applicant's calculation. Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC
18.124.070(B)(1)(a) is satisfied.
DCC 18.124.070(B)(2) imposes landscaping requirements specific to parking areas. Under Subsection
(B)(2)(a), the parking area must have defined landscaping totaling no less than 25 square feet per parking
space. For this Application, the Applicant is therefore required to have at least 350 square feet of defined
landscaping in the parking lot area. The Site Plan identifies more than 1,000 square feet of defined
landscaping around the parking lot area. Subsections (B)(2)(b) through (B)(2)(e) require the parking area
to be separated from a lot line adjacent to a roadway by a landscaped strip at least 10 feet in width (with
appropriately spaced trees, low shrubs, or vegetative ground cover), and from any other lot line by a
landscaped strip at least 5 feet in width, with all landscaping being at least 5 feet in width and in defined,
uniformly distributed areas. The Site Plan shows that the parking area has 10-foot wide landscaped beds
on the side adjacent to Nicklaus Drive (with low shrubs), and 5-foot wide landscaped strips on all other
sides. The landscaping is in defined areas and uniformly distributed. No participant has asserted that these
landscape configurations are inadequate. Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC 18.124.070(B)(2) is
satisfied.
DCC 18.124.070(C)(2)(c) imposes certain requirements relating to pedestrian access and circulation.
Under that Code provision, walkways must be paved and at least 5 feet wide. The Applicant's proposed
paved walkways are at least 10 feet wide. This Code provision also requires walkways bordering parking
spaces to be at least 7 feet wide, with some exceptions. The Site Plan does not include any walkways that
border a parking space. Finally, this Code provision requires walkways to be as direct as possible. The
8 Multiple other participants provided comments arguing that the transportation system is not adequate
based on an assertion that the Applicant is not authorized to use the portion of the transportation system
that crosses BLM property to the extent that uses involves the transport of psilocybin, which is a
federally controlled substance. Those arguments are addressed below in separate findings.
Page 116
walkways on the Site Plan do include some curves, but those curves match grades that accommodate
drainage swales. Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC 18.124.070(C)(2)(c) is satisfied.
DCC 18.124.070(D) imposes additional site plan standards on commercial development. The primary
requirement in that Code section is subsection (D)(1), which requires that a commercial development be
sited at the front yard setback line where the lot has one frontage. Subsection (D)(3) provides a process
for increasing the front yard setback. The Applicant initially asserted that this Code provision does not
apply because the building is an existing building. The Applicant later asserted that this Code provision
does not apply because no setback requirements of the underlying zone are applicable where the DR Zone
applies. The Staff Report, however, asserted that the building is being treated as a new building (because
it was originally approved to be a temporary structure), that the setback requirement applies, and that the
building is not at the front yard setback. The Applicant responded by requesting an increase in the front
yard setback. I find that one of the Applicant's initial assertions is the correct one. Under DCC
18.113.060(G), yard requirements in the underlying zone do not apply to structures in the DR Zone. Thus,
the front yard requirement of DCC 18.16.070(A) does not apply and, unless a front yard setback is
identified in the CMP or FMP, there are no front yard setbacks to consider for purposes of applying DCC
18.124.070(D)(1). Neither the CMP nor the FMP appears to establish a specific front yard setback, and
no participant has identified the source of a specific front yard setback. Based on the foregoing, I find that
DCC 18.124.070(D)(1) is not applicable to the specific proposal in this Application because there is no
front yard setback to consider.
E. DCC Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use
1. DCC 18.128.010, Operation
DCC 18.128.010 confirms the applicability of the County's conditional use criteria, noting that a
conditional use listed in DCC Title 18 shall be permitted, altered, or denied in accordance with the
standards and procedures of DCC Title 18, DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures
Ordinance, and the County's Comprehensive Plan ("Plan"). Pursuant to 18.113.030(D)(7), a psilocybin
service center is allowed in the DR Zone subject to the conditional use criteria in DCC 18.128.015. The
Application is therefore being reviewed in accordance with the procedures of DCC Title 18, DCC Title
22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance, and the Plan.
Although no participant identified other specific procedures that apply to the consideration of the Service
Center as a conditional use, or disputed the applicability of the procedures in DCC Titles 18 and 22
identified in the Staff Report, one participant did provide comments indicating that the County should
invoke its Code enforcement provisions. The basis of that comment relates to the existing building on the
Subject Property, which was originally permitted as a temporary structure that was to be removed after 18
months. I find that it is not necessary to address the Code's enforcement process as part of my
consideration of the Application. As noted in the Staff Report, the existing building can be permitted as a
new building as part of this process. That is, the Application is being reviewed as if the building did not
exist and, as a result, is being considered under current regulations. If the Application is ultimately
approved, the building will conform to the Code and any current Code violation is essentially cured. If the
Application is not approved, the County still has the ability to initiate Code enforcement proceedings.
Page 117
Either way, resolution of any alleged Code violation is not necessary as part of considering the proposal
in the Application.
2. DCC 18.128.015, General Standards Governing Conditional Uses
This Code provision sets forth specific standards for uses other than single family dwellings that apply in
addition to the standards of the underlying zone. The applicable provisions of this Code section are set
forth below in italics.
A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the
proposed use based on the following factors:
1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use;
2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and
3. The natural and physical features of the site, including,
but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and
natural resource values.
This Code provision requires an analysis of the suitability of the site for the proposed use based on the
listed factors. The Applicant asserts that the site is suitable for the Service Center. In support of that
assertion, the Applicant notes that the site allows it to implement the safety and other operating measures
required by OHA for a psilocybin service center, and that the physical features of the site already
accommodate the type of building it wishes to permit. For example, the site can accommodate a perimeter
fence that helps control access, a building where facilitated sessions can occur, and landscaping that
employs materials, foliage, and colors that blend with the surrounding and contribute to a natural setting
the Applicant wishes to market to its patrons.
With the exception of the adequacy of transportation access to the site, which is addressed in more detailed
findings below, no participant asserts that the site itself is not suitable for the proposed use, or otherwise
specifically asserts that this Code provision is not satisfied. One participant, however, did imply that the
site is not as suitable as the Applicant states because of the potential for loud noises from residents and
nearby events that are likely to occur. The Applicant, however, does not assert that the use requires a
complete absence of noise and, rather, juxtaposes the level of activity at the resort (with some noise)
relative to what is experienced in an urban area (with more noise). Having weighed the arguments of the
participants, and based on the foregoing, I find that the site is suitable for the proposed use based on factors
relating to the site, design, operating characteristics, and natural and physical features. However, as
discussed below, I do not find that the site is suitable based on the adequacy of transportation access and,
therefore, DCC 18.128.015(A) is not satisfied.
B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on
surrounding properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A).
This Code provision is similar to DCC 18.128.015(A) but focuses on the proposed use's compatibility
with surrounding properties rather than on the suitability of the site itself.
Page 118
The Applicant provides an analysis of this Code provision largely by focusing on the operational
characteristics of the site, which is subject to the regulatory controls applicable to the Service Center and
the patrons of the Service Center, by virtue of OHA regulations. The Applicant's analysis essentially
concludes that there are no offsite impacts from its proposed use because "psilocybin clients cannot simply
drop into a service center, consume psilocybin, and then leave the licensed premises, while under the
effects of psilocybin." Instead, a facilitated session at the Service Center will require a patron to first meet
with a licensed facilitator to determine if a psilocybin treatment will be administered. If a session does
occur, OHA regulations require the patron to remain on site until the facilitator determines the patron is
no longer under the effects of psilocybin. Because the psilocybin component of the use is required to be
contained, and the site is designed to accommodate that requirement, the Applicant asserts the site design
is compatible with surrounding uses.
The vast majority of comments in the record opposing the Service Center address general concerns about
the use of psilocybin, or even the efficacy of psilocybin. I agree with the Applicant that these comments
are largely irrelevant to the approval criteria unless, for example, they identify something unique about
the psilocybin use that relates to the design of the site. Having weighed the arguments and information
provided by all participants, I find that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding properties when
considering: (1) the site itself, which is in a commercially -designated area; (2) the operating characteristics
described above; (3) transportation access (based on the findings below); and (4) the natural and physical
features of the site, which will largely remain unchanged except for the addition of landscaping, and which
will enhance compatibility with surrounding uses. DCC 18.128.015(B) is therefore satisfied.
Adequacy of Transportation Access to the Site
One area where the opposing comments do directly tie psilocybin to the approval criteria relates to the
adequacy of transportation access to the site. This factor is relevant to both DCC 18.128.015(A) and (B).
The former requires consideration of this factor for assessing the suitability of the site to accommodate
the use, and the latter requires consideration of this factor for assessing compatibility of the use with
surrounding uses.
Multiple participants commented that access to the site is not adequate because it relies, in part, on the use
of a road over BLM property. Specifically, access to Juniper Preserve occurs over the BLM property, and
BLM has issued a "Right of Way Grant" for that purpose ("BLM ROW"). The Applicant notes, as
supported by its transportation analysis, that the BLM ROW is sufficient based on its size, structure, and
design, and that no improvements to the BLM ROW are required. The opposing comments do not dispute
the physical adequacy of the BLM ROW and, instead, assert that the Applicant is prohibited from using
the BLM ROW because it intends to transport psilocybin over the BLM ROW, which those comments
claim would be a violation of federal law and in violation of BLM's approval for use of the BLM ROW.
These Code provisions expressly require consideration of the "adequacy of transportation access to the
site." The record does not indicate that the County's Board of Commissioners has interpreted this Code
provision with respect to its geographic scope, or with respect to the interplay of each of the factors in
DCC 18.128.015(A)(1) through (3). That is, this Code provision could be interpreted narrowly to apply
only to the access to the site from other areas of Juniper Preserve, or it could be interpreted more broadly
to apply to any access to the site, the use of which could affect the site or surrounding properties. Similarly,
Page 119
the Code could be interpreted such that suitability based on one of the factors in DCC 18.128.015(A)(1)
through (3) is sufficient, or it could be interpreted such that suitability must be based on all three factors.
In the absence of such interpretations, and because the Applicant and other participants appear to agree
that the Applicant must rely on the BLM ROW in some manner (indeed, it was included in the Applicant's
transportation analysis), I conclude that the BLM ROW is part of the access to the site that must be
considered. Because all parties address the adequacy of transportation and assume it is necessary to
consider, I also conclude it is necessary to consider transportation access even though I have already found
the site is suitable based on other factors in DCC 18.128.015(A)(1) through (3).
With one exception, the opposing comments in the record do not claim that the Applicant's use of the
BLM ROW would have any impact on other uses. Instead, most comments are better characterized as
addressing DCC 18.128.015(A) and whether the site itself is suitable if the BLM ROW cannot be used for
the Applicant's intended purpose. The exception is a comment in the record that if the Applicant violates
the terms of the BLM ROW, BLM could revoke the BLM ROW altogether, thereby preventing anyone
from accessing Juniper Preserve, which would therefore be incompatible with all other uses at this
destination resort.
Turning to DCC 18.128.015(A) first, it is undisputed that some of the transportation access to the site the
Applicant contemplates is acceptable under the BLM ROW approval. For example, there is no dispute in
the record that guests of the resort can use the BLM ROW to access the resort and, therefore, get to the
Service Center. The question therefore arises whether a particular component of transportation access the
Applicant contemplates (transporting psilocybin across the BLM ROW) renders the entirety of the
transportation access to the site inadequate if the BLM ROW cannot be used for that purpose. I find, based
on this record, that it does.
The Applicant argues that the opposing comments require the Hearings Officer to resolve a private dispute
under the BLM ROW. Specifically, the Applicant asserts that the BLM may or may not enforce the precise
terms of the BLM ROW; essentially that it is speculative to determine now whether the Applicant will or
will not be allowed to transport psilocybin across the BLM ROW. The Applicant characterizes this issue
as a dispute between the various parties to the BLM ROW instrument, and argues that such disputes are
not appropriate for resolution as part of the land use process.
I agree with the Applicant that a land use approval is typically not the correct venue for resolving the
rights of parties to a specific agreement. But such an exercise is not necessary here. Instead, the Hearings
Officer must look to the evidence in the record and make findings based on the preponderance of the
evidence in the record to determine if a criterion is satisfied. The evidence in this record is that: (1) use of
the BLM ROW requires compliance with federal law; (2) federal law prohibits transportation of psilocybin
across federal lands; and (3) the Applicant intends to use transportation access to the site across federal
land to transport psilocybin. The Applicant acknowledges that its proposed use is not allowed by the
express terms of the BLM ROW. Whether or not BLM ultimately enforces the requirements of the BLM
ROW is therefore not relevant; on the face of the documents alone, the Applicant has not established that
it can do what it proposes to do. I do not agree with the Applicant's assessment that denial of the
Application on this basis amounts to enforcing federal law or somehow jeopardizes psilocybin use across
the state. My analysis looks only to the evidence in the record. A different record may result in a different
Page 120
conclusion, for example where transportation access does not rely solely on crossing federal lands, or
where the transportation of psilocybin is not required because it is grown on site.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating that the site is
suitable for the proposed use pursuant to the transportation access factor of DCC 18.128.015(A)(2). I
conclude the opposite, however, with respect to DCC 18.128.015(B). That Code provision more directly
addresses the extent to which the proposed use could impact surrounding uses in terms of transportation
access. I have already concluded that the Applicant's transportation analysis adequately demonstrates that
the transportation system is adequate and that no physical upgrades to the system are required for its use,
meaning that surrounding uses will also be able to rely on that same transportation system without being
impacted by the Service Center. The sole risk to surrounding users identified in the comments is the
potential that BLM could somehow revoke the BLM ROW approval if the Applicant's use is unlawful.
Here, the Applicant's argument is relevant, and this opposing comment invokes a potential dispute
between BLM and those granted access to use the BLM ROW. Whether BLM chooses to pursue such a
remedy under the BLM ROW, and the rights other users may be able to retain or lose in that situation, is
speculative. Further, the Applicant has also proposed a condition of approval that would require it to
suspend operations if BLM determines the Applicant's use violates the BLM ROW. Such a condition
would reduce the potential for conflicts with other uses, thereby rendering the Applicant's use compatible.
C. These standards and any other standards of DCC 18.128 may be met by the
imposition of conditions calculated to ensure that the standard will be met.
As explained in prior findings, I find it appropriate to identify several conditions of approval that could
be imposed if the Applicant's request were granted. I identify those solely to determine whether or how
the Applicant can meet a criterion. Because this Decision ultimately denies the Applicant's request and
there is not approval of the proposal, however, the conditions of approval are not actually being unposed.
* * *
* **
* * *
Page121
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Application does not meet the applicable standards for a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review. Specifically, I find that the Applicant has not met its burden
with respect to the following Code provisions:
• DCC 18.116.030(F)(1), relating to the screening of the parking lot
• DCC 18.116.030(F)(7), relating to clearance areas for service drives
• DCC 18.124.060(G), relating to the screening of the parking lot
• DCC 18.128.015(A)(2), relating to the suitability of the site based on the adequacy of
transportation access
The Application is therefore DENIED.
Dated this 26th day of April 2024.
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Page 122
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: f.5( nr hiA -e*((I Le_ Date: 1.11,2-411
Name t p-e v 1:... 0 L0,5
Address (( '� 2`1 C) Ze—e6k -� ,
-?1-e,(4J1 Cire-
Phone #s (von' • 351 • o 1-` -
E-mail address tio_exo Ftee,ytuc1L5 c.
X
n Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Yes
Opposed
C avLA' 1 0O1— o�-
4 if
\-5 ,J9-4"-IYAcA--(;) ein
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: /47
Name
Address"7 z
/i /-2 lyry
G,
Date: 7—
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided _ '-Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: 16 410 Se ifl , {A - Date:
Name cuct.
Address VS 'c
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [ Yes.
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
Gu c��6z22)1.)\
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Address
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Date: it
P vum kertAl (Yiel
q50
34A/LJI
E-mail address
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to staff for the rccor
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
it] Opposed
Yes
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: (/6..ILOc ��rvic;��t-Bate: DLO
Name A-tA,
Address 649 16,7?rc ,y.,'L
k. ) CR -I- o
)
Lck
Phone #s
E-mail address
n Favor Neutral/Undecided
[[�pposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
l
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: °6 /it/
Name
Address
E-mail address
n Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
TI
Yes
Opposed
Subject:
Name
Address
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
0
Phone #s
E-mail address
n Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Opposed
Tumalo Basin Sewer District
c
O
:L:
ai
*.r.;
Formation
July 17, 2024
Chief Petitioners: Rob Fish and Martha Gross
Consultants: Nancy Blankenship, Linda Swearingen,
Jeff England (Parametrix), Ryan Rudnick (Parametrix)
0
co
b
C
O
o .
CO. J `. 0 LL J 0
eC
CC
N
a)
ra
O a • N Q
A
L 76 E`o' L >a
O 4.7
.. N f�
roc E >,:CD
in
N o as
co
N N
TO E u ° N
•L O .,_, c N
O N al N •N
Infrastructure Evolution: The shift
a)
O L
cN �
E N
(1) N
N
N N a)
}' O a
N Q O
"fro E V >
u 00
j rcsOc
O O N s 3
4- C N on
oc
co
N U
CD cn
Q.) i .jam N
N on On 0_ V .° 10 N
C 'p . -c a) (� C • r6
ID
On
o c on 4_, L (a c N M_- c (S O
can l al C `�'- -0 N 3 > O M" •--
E C = ° •N .N -o a) L. a) (CS 4-1
r1 OC E E N c U ro O ° c�i� C
C O E V N: -p E a=-' 'c N O a
• �; U a) U U • U• O 2 ,N i O on «3
^�,vo v
•�- ��'� c r, c o_ a-oL
> V1 V J ..J O a) N N O 'y E 0- O Q
W a c w- °U cn E >12 E O
According to Oregon Revised Statutes:
ORS 198, Special Districts, Generally
ORS 450, Sanitary Districts
c a) a) u >
N
Y 4-, _c U t�i� -0
i i +-+ c a)
as L
CD
-, Cr;
U `. 0 N
N O 0
0 p N > U N A
U -p c >+ Jo
d-
as
a) . c� ® 0 0 �' c
® O) a U cccS
U p 3 N
O_, co U N i
N = S2 >�
CI> a) !a
o v) 4' ccS —0 U U E
4-, c ct M a) > 4J
0 0 0 N 0 On `'' ® a o
E ' c N -$
n n MI 00 -c� N cC3
N c >` a--' ( N a)
N ' On E r
o
a) N i L N On N i U
On
> N U_ 0 0_ 0 0 C
}, >, L 0U • _CD/) td
L
0 Q. 70 c_C
N 'i c� c 0 4-)
0 a) i o c �'-„ +_�
a. i— 0_ W O ® 5-
l
c
Two Public Hearings:
1st on July 17
1
c0
o oo
os
v�� N
p. 00
0%
aU c C
u 0 c0
0 c
'v >. In
to of O t aJ c
0 enO .
C a — N on
C N'-0c
i -0
�MIa ova,
a''''v o c 05
'
o
�H E a)
O-O
ON ��o
o O =1i} u
N N
.� N
C' tis
C N 'L
uriC0 Ks on
L a
•L C C
C , 'on •L
3
O i W
C .3 c
(13
O
District will not have a
^00
00 =
C 'C
-C rcl
a`).0
N.,
...c-0
til 4-0 = N C
x N
CZ
V)
O N ate.+
= 0
N a V
a
t0V
w0
CO
L)
Petition Signatures
Door-to-door outreach for signatures within proposed boundary
a)
O
fri
0
Lfl
IINIMMOM
Area Represented by all Signatures
Total Acreage within Proposed District Boundary
N
N
110
0
J
cv
0
cc
m
co
d
ctu
•Y
N
a.
0
.t BOUND a'
CC
w
;, APO ED TUMAL• B i
V
6
Wocs
o
O
CO
TBSD Committee identified an initial
service area in the core of
unincorporated Tumato
o U
i CD
-0= � > T O O
C= Q � ',4,
(O p L_ o o .0 :
c n• c CD E a a U) co c a
a)2 dap ass)
-0 � 0 O a) Ca o
a ° bow � E 7 a
L_-cc') a) a) E cn ca • '417m
2 r -O `' E 0 U CD- U-0 a)
CD x
U O O s= CU ' i C
o • a a),_ E o- N co • aS
CO Ca 4— E E E a)c O O • ca
• a) i O D L_ co a-+ i
.-D Qa E �° 2 � a) a) =
U a cn E O O O
:E°cao �d _c Off:
I— . _ Cn E--_0 o �. _ .-,
m
6
m
ated .ommunit _ou .ar
Financial framework that
CU
V "0'�
CO C CO
O CI..
co U Q"
Co
'OD a..' O
120
"0 a-+ 0C C..)a--
O Cn CA CU 0 .�' C D
4-- • CO _0 Q0 c °vC—
CD (�j i 0 U) 'OD � Ct3 0 co
+-, ' i CCf .4":1 N C O Q O
Cr) • CJ) N a C CCS L
O 0 O O 0 C2 CO CD CO Ca
E ccc000OO
N O O O
EM
Assumed $5M project cost.
7
(`>
i=i �n
LJ
4J
[000,000.P
LiJ
•ao
-o
a)
E
2 -0
(1)
4—
a)
co"
u)11) a)
co
-o o_
• a.
(I)
c5
a) CD
_C _C
0
4—,
-0
a) a)
co-o
-o
o_
(/)
a LLJ
LLI
c--
A, A
151 additional EDU's estimated
290 total EDU's estimated at build -out
imate Summa
.0
co
c
0
V.CNVWZAIM,,,,AMegagNin,--Ait
Assumed $5 Million Sewer Project Cost for analysis purposes.
(i)
4—)
(/)
0
4—)
01)
• r—%
0
eL
0.0
••en-
5.;
-0
cn ▪ • •
22 0
c
• o
2 0
-a C13
a)
c 'OD
a) -In—
"
CI) :s5
"
" 0
• (,)
a) 2
_a 4_,
0
▪ 0
u) 0
4_,
O C
C.)..
•••••••1 co
O▪ ci
• E
<
re S to success
11Winfffifliltzmointmeotionteliav
D s and on-:oin: rate
E
c
c
0
0
0 Oh Ch
0 ("4 IN l0 eri a -I r4
0 0 0 Ch •zt 00 41' N- N
c;`
in er• r-t C•4 r4 Ln Ln
C Cr V' 1./1
.. v▪ 4 111 r- N
,--1 fel r-i CO N. m r-I k.4
oc
co
E
co
>>,
0
Survey & Engini
Construction & Funcling Administration (5%):
Legal & Permitting (5%
_,
co a)
c) _c
cn
0 0
C 4:-
0 Ci)
• — -0
C tin C CU° 0 0
O C = •+-°=
;7:, E 0 — 4-' 0
CO a) ci) a) •›— 4-,
*E5
E accil 0
.-a- a)
c .,--. CD -I-, • — CO
CD E
0.. >, 4-+ c 0 CO C
4-1Cf)
(/) IS . 2
1_ 'OA (-) 4C1)
CO : I 73C )
= CD • — +-,=
_CD
,.,
O CD
E in too •c
cc (/) 1.1.1 (/)
ed Project Tota
0-
e,>
r
A
N
zissffi� '^"r�v�.�z°, N.w�.�>�r�,72.� 2���':�ss�:��;
Subject:
Name
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
to ts-%t-\ el- Date: '"1 • 11. 2L/
Address (L11'?t> ZCat. 41-170
Phone #s sit 171 • 633b
E-mail address JPa-rvcwn c matt COM
n Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Opposed
Yes No.
E
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject liter o fAr 411-1-- Date: -7°'(94
Name AdA�.`-
Address 111'15a3jAIS
Phone #s 54) 1% PI`t-'
E-mail address °MI 44 G D 84,11
0 6
n Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Yes
Opposed
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: l 04,4t 3e1 2
Name Tim -
Address (ec..4771I to OcP Q
Phone #s S.L l y HIS"— ct
E-mail address .1,,,t hr' Qj Qeyvtr
Date:3 .L4 /7,2i
yd-
r� In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents�as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Yes
Opposed
b4t,e-°1(
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: T Date: kT 7
Name�
Addressid'�
Phone ##s 5 "!
E-mail address
In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to staff for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Yes
Opposed
cr„,,r,c `c, kls+ervL5
Y-)
A "i'vLik-
( S