2024-264-Minutes for Meeting August 28,2024 Recorded 9/18/2024L�\)j E S C,G
2{ , BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2024-264
,Steve Dennison; County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 09/18/2024 4:18:1 1 PM
C�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII
2024-264
WEDNESDAY August 28, 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 Administrative Assistant Angie Powers.
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:
• Carl Shoemaker of Bend recited in Italian a quote by Benito Mussolini. He translated
it as the definition of fascism being the matrimony between corporations and the
state.
• Jeff Burgin spoke in opposition to the Fort Thompson campground project proposal,
stating that he doesn't feel the campground would benefit locals but would create
havoc for the neighboring residents.
• Dorinne Tye provided remote testimony and spoke about Bend Airport aircraft
activity and the associated 5G interference to neighboring communities. She
suggested an audit be completed on flight instruction companies operating out of
the airport.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 28, 2024 PAGE 1 OF 9
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda.
Approval of Board Order No. 2024-033 authorizing the sale of real property
located at 67 NW Greenwood in Bend to Pfeifer & Associates, and further
authorizing the Deschutes County Property Manager to execute the documents
associated with the sale
2. Approval of a contract with Youth Villages, Inc. for pediatric mental health care
and other services
3. Approval of Board Signature on letter appointing Anthony Accinelli as the La Pine
area representative to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
4. Approval of minutes of the BOCC July 17, 2024 meeting
CHANG: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried.
ACTION ITEMS:
5. Proclamation: Cascades Futurity Events Days
Commissioner Adair spoke about the Cascades Futurity Event Days upcoming at
the Deschutes County Fair and Expo Center. Julie Clarke was in attendance,
sharing that she began this event eight years ago. In the first year of operation,
275 stalls were sold, while 576 stalls have been sold for this year's event, adding
that this is the only premier event in the Northwest. Over the last few years, this
event has brought in approximately $7 million in tourism dollars annually. She
considers the proclamation an honor.
Commissioner Adair expressed a desire for the Fair and Expo Center to be able to
acquire more than one type of dirt for the arena for different equestrian events.
Clarke shared that they stage their special dirt at the Fair and Expo Center, noting
that all different disciplines have different footing requirements.
The proclamation was read aloud by the Board.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 28, 2024 PAGE 2 OF 9
N.
DEBONE: Move approval of the proclamation declaring September 5-15, 2024
as "Cascades Cutting Horse Futurity Event Days" in Deschutes County.
CHANG: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried.
Public Hearing: Highway 20 Mini -Storage Text Amendment
Chair Adair opened the public hearing at 9:15 a.m.
This hearing is regarding file no. 247-24-000044-TA and relates to an applicant -
initiated text amendment to allow mini storage as a conditional use in the MUA-
10 zone in certain areas along Highway 20 east of Bend. The applicant is Eastside
Bend, LLC.
Nicole Mardell, Senior Planner, noted that a similar text amendment is being
proposed for a mini storage facility along Highway 97 and wished to clarify that
this hearing is separate and distinct.
Mardell described the order of the hybrid hearing: staff report, applicant
testimony and evidence, agency testimony and evidence, interested persons
testimony and evidence, and questions to staff or applicant. Hearing procedures
were summarized, and the hearing record's website link was shared.
No commissioner disclosed any conflicts of interest, nor did any party wish to
challenge any commissioner based on conflicts.
Mardell provided a brief staff report, stating this is an applicant -initiated text
amendment. The applicant, Eastside Bend LLC, has proposed changes to Multi
Use Agricultural zone (MUA) code section 18.32 to allow mini storage as a
conditional use in areas within 2,500 feet of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB),
adjacent to highway 20, and on parcels sized between 10 and 35 acres.
Based on the proposed language and an analysis, there are three properties east
of Bend that may currently qualify. Mardell displayed a map outlining these
properties.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, Mardell stated there are no current
properties within the vicinity of Sisters that are eligible. Currently, mini storage as
a use is allowed in six zones in Deschutes County: Terrebonne Commercial,
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 28, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 9
Terrebonne Commercial -Rural, Tumalo Industrial, Sunriver Business Park, Rural
Commercial and Rural Industrial (Deschutes junction).
Mardell noted that agency comments have been received into the record from
four agencies: Bend Parks and Recreation, Bend Fire, ODOT, and the Deschutes
County Transportation Planner. Agency comments and concerns were
summarized. To -date, three public comments have been received and Mardell
also summarized.
The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the proposal. The
key issues for those in opposition were urban use on rural lands (sprawl) and
impacts to scenic views. Those in support argue the proposed use has limited
impacts and is less intensive than other conditional uses. Those in support
highlighted it fills in a gap in the transition area between urban and rural.
Mardell noted the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the
Highway 97 mini storage proposal, noting that those in attendance during
deliberations for each mini storage proposal differed. Responding to
Commissioner Chang, Mardell said that one key difference with the Highway 97
proposal is there are several (approximately 25) eligible properties. Another
difference is the maximum parcel size was 30 acres.
Mardell highlighted the options before the Board following today's hearing.
The applicant, Eastside Bend LLC, provided testimony. Gary Miller, property
owner, introduced himself. He believes the property has good egress and ingress
via the Hamby Rd. and Highway 20 roundabout and believes the location will
have a minimal impact on traffic. He said any future mini storage facility will be
landscaped and buffered.
Matt Robinson, DOWL Land Use Planner, presented slides about the project. The
text amendment would allow mini storage facilities, including boat/RV storage, in
the MUA zone subject to a conditional use permit review. He noted this
application is not proposing a mini storage facility, and any future properties
proposing a facility would be subject to the conditional use process, including a
public comment period. They would be subject to DCC 18.128, which allows the
County considerable discretion in reviewing any future mini storage proposals.
Robinson summarized the applicant's arguments in favor of allowing mini storage
as a use in the MUA zone.
Michael Mcgean, Attorney for the applicant, addressed some of the legal issues
which have been brought up to -date. He also addressed some of the Planning
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 28, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 9
Commission's findings. He said the MUA zone is intended to be transitionary in
nature and the Planning Commission determined this is a conditional use. He
noted existing conditional uses that have more traffic impacts, such as dog
boarding facilities, churches and veterinary clinics.
Mcgean addressed the Goal 14 consideration, for open space rural protections. A
four -point test considers factors based on the number of employees and
impacts, whether it requires city services, whether the proposed use is resource -
dependent, and whether the use is inherently urban or rural. The mini storage
use has a low employee count and low impact. It does not require city services.
Highway 20 is the main resource a mini storage facility would depend upon.
Whether the use is inherently urban or rural is a gray area. In closing, Mcgean
requested the Board consider accepting the proposal.
Commissioner Chang spoke about a site -specific rural rezone versus a legislative
text amendment change. He highlighted his concerns about the MUA zone
impacts of the Highway 97 and Highway 20 mini storage proposals as they
change the landscape. He cited the example of a data center, and although not
highly impactful to traffic flow it changes the landscape. He noted the UGB is
constantly evolving as are zoning changes. He suggested the applicant pursue a
site -specific rezone versus pursuing a legislative text amendment change.
Mcgean noted some built-in guardrails, such as screening criteria, that are
already built into the conditional use permit.
Miller discussed his reasoning for requesting a text amendment change with
conditional use permit as opposed to an outright use. He acknowledged the
Board's important responsibility of protecting the future as elected officials.
Robin Hayakawa, Central Oregon LanclWatch Rural Lands Advocate, spoke as an
individual in opposition to the proposed text amendment. He cited
noncompliance with the Comprehensive Plan and MUA-10. He also cited
procedural concerns, in that the proposal requests the Board to make quasi-
judicial decisions. Another concern relates to Goal 14, in allowing an urban use
on rural lands. He mentioned a 2005 Yamhil) County case of mini storage use
directly outside of the UGB, in which it was determined to be noncompliant with
Goal 14. He recommended the Board deny the text amendment.
Dorinne Tye provided remote testimony, and expressed concerns that land use
decisions should be community -driven and not applicant -driven. She spoke in
opposition to this application.
Commissioner Chang noted the City of Bend's intent to pursue an Urban Area
Reserve, and asked Community Development Department (CDD) staff in
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 28, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 9
attendance for clarification on how this designation in this area and land use
interact. He cautioned against making decisions that may conflict. Mardell noted
that notice of this proposal was sent to City of Bend Planning staff, but no
comments were received. She did receive a comment from the City of Redmond
for the Highway 97 proposal, to exclude Redmond Urban Reserve properties.
Mardell noted this process is applicant -initiated and is legislative in nature.
Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director, shared that he met with City
of Bend staff regarding Senate Bill (SB) 1537 the day prior. This bill relates to a
one-time expedited UGB amendment. The City of Bend is eligible to take
advantage of this expansion based on socioeconomic factors related to renters,
homeowners, and displacement. The City of Bend will initiate another UGB
amendment opportunity and will extrapolate out for Urban Reserves. While
Urban Reserves are an important tool, he doesn't anticipate the City of Bend will
execute Urban Reserves anytime soon. Urban Reserves are a holding / combining
zone and protects future transportation corridors while preventing up -zoning. In
summary, he doesn't feel this application conflicts with Urban Reserves within the
next six years or so.
Mardell noted the record for this proposed text amendment is still open, and this
will be one of the Board's decision points today.
Mcgean offered answers to any follow-up questions. He noted the Yamhill County
case has been addressed, and he doesn't believe mini storage is an inherently
urban use. Relating to compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, he does
believe the use is compatible with MUA-10. The applicant is not asking for the
record to remain open for any additional time.
The public hearing was closed at 10:26 a.m.
CHANG: Close the oral record and hold the written record open for two weeks
(to close at 4 p.m. on September 11, 2024).
ADAiR: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Mardell noted that written materials must be received by 4 p.m. on September 11,
2024 and provided guidelines for submittal of comments. Responding to
Commissioner Adair, she shared that the Board will likely hear the Highway 97 mini
storage proposal during the first week of October, if this aligns with the applicant's
schedule.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 28, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 9
OTHER ITEMS:
• Commissioner Adair toured Dirt World and acreage east of Redmond with Dep.
Blalack the day prior. She viewed a garden with mature irrigated plants at a
homeless encampment, noting that many camps were deep into the woods. It is her
hope to reach those who want help to help make a difference in their lives. She
noted the urgency of executing the land exchange with Department of State Lands
(DSL).
• Commissioner DeBone said that the City of Redmond is searching for a
commissioner liaison to work on issued related to homelessness east of Redmond
as it relates to the DSL land exchange. Commissioners Chang and Adair both
expressed interest in serving as liaison. Lelack noted the working group would meet
every other week and the first meeting will take place next Thursday, September 5th
at 10:30 a.m. Commissioner Adair supported alternating between herself and
Commissioner Chang to attend every other meeting. It was determined that
Commissioner Adair will attend the first meeting on September 5t", Commissioner
Chang will attend on September 19t", then they will alternate as liaisons moving
forward.
• Commissioner DeBone recently met with Chuck Hemmingway and Home More
Network representatives on siting a managed camp on 5 acres of EFU land near
Juniper Ridge outside the UGB. As the County is not authorized to do so,
Commissioner DeBone wished to determine which path forward the Board wishes
to take. Discussion ensued related to the Board's effort to rezone on resource land
to allow for managed camps. Commissioner Chang stated that land use constraints
should not be used as excuses to not act on establishing projects that can provide
great benefits to those experiencing homelessness. Commissioner Chang noted
that, should the Gales property EFU rezone come before the Board, they would all
likely need to recuse themselves.
o Lelack stated that this topic (North Juniper Ridge and what the County can
and cannot do there) will be added to next week's BOCC Wednesday meeting
agenda to discuss prior to the September 5t" Joint Meeting with the City of
Bend.
• Commissioner DeBone spoke about the proposed campground project at Drafter
Rd. near La Pine. The Board will meet with the City of La Pine in two months at their
joint annual meeting. He asked the Board if they should proceed with an RFP for the
project or standby. Commissioner Adair wishes to speak to La Pine City Manager
Geoff Wullschlager. Commissioner DeBone briefly discussed the topic with four of
five La Pine City Councilors recently. Commissioner Chang spoke to Mayor Richer
about the proposal, adding that La Pine seeks assistance with fixing the Highway 97
@ Burgess Rd. intersection due to the increased traffic the campground would
create. Commissioner Chang expressed hesitancy about supporting such a large
transportation investment.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 28, 2024 PAGE 7 OF 9
• The Heart of Oregon Corps' BlitzBuild event was attended by all three
commissioners. The constructed shelters will be placed onsite at Oasis Village.
• Commissioner DeBone attended the Four Rivers Vector Control District's recent
Board meeting. The Board is seeking clarity on their budget and the choices the
Board are making. There can be five public members on their budget committee,
and Commissioner DeBone offered to serve if needed. The Vector Control District is
required to present its annual work plan to the BOCC annually.
• Commissioner DeBone participated in a septic system inspection during a ride -
along with La Pine Septic Service. There he learned about septic systems and gained
valuable knowledge on alternative treatment technology Orenco systems. He noted
that some systems in La Pine are being removed as they are connected to
community sewer. He advocated for recycling system components, but this is a
legislative matter as components are currently prohibited from reuse by state law.
• Commissioners DeBone and Chang attended Deschutes River Recreation Homesites
(DRRH) #9 annual HOA meeting. Residents spoke about fire hydrants and sewers.
They expressed concerns about large storage buildings on lots not suitable for
septic systems. Duties of the County, Special Road Districts, and water/sewer
districts were discussed.
• Commissioner Chang attended an event celebrating the Boys and Girls Club
summer program. He spoke to the importance of such programs, allowing parents
to work, coupled with the challenges of childcare being economically viable.
• Commissioner Chang attended an annual Giving Plate's event thanking community
partners. As a sign of gratitude for their ARPA investments, the Board was
presented with a plaque which Commissioner Chang brought with him.
• All three commissioners attended the AOC Wildfire Hazard Map virtual discussion
on Monday. Commissioner Chang was disappointed in the lack of knowledge for the
purpose of the map and what it's intended to be used for, noting that discussions
got off -topic at times.
Commissioner Adair noted the next BOCC meeting is on Wednesday, September 4t" at 9:00
a.m. There is no meeting on Monday, September 2nd due to the Labor Day holiday.
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:03 a.m.
DATED this 1/— day o2024 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR
ATTEST:
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 28, 2024 PAGE 8 OF 9
RE RDING SECRETARY
ANTHONY DERONE, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 28, 2024 PAGE 9 OF 9
�0-� E S CO
q� G�� BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2024
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
(541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org
MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and
can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session.
Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link:
http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To 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 emaiiing
citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD.
® To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and
*6 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
• When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist.
You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a
panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in
sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the
agenda.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments
may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734..
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Board Order No. 2024-033 authorizing the sale of real property located at 67
NW Greenwood in Bend to Pfeifer & Associates, and further authorizing the Deschutes
County Property Manager to execute the documents associated with the sale
2. Approval of a contract with Youth Villages, Inc. for pediatric mental health care and
other services
3. Consideration of Board Signature on letter appointing Anthony Accinelli as the La Pine
area representative to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
4. Approval of minutes of the BOCC July 17, 2024 meeting
ACTION ITEMS
5. 9:10 AM Proclamation: Cascades Futurity Event Days
6. 9:20 AM Public Hearing: Highway 20 Mini -Storage Text Amendment
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.
ADJOURN
August 28, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 2
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
�Q"ES C
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
a {
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: C ,, Date:
Name��`�1����
Address w LQ � C, L00
Phone #s
E-mail address
XTv,i4rnI A T"Al niAAA FO onnnQi-ti
J No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretaryfor the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
o
ov2{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: Date:
07
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address 1
In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
5UI,,L
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETINq BEGINS
e
:;W
vT E S COG2�
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Highway 20 Mini -Storage Text Amendment
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Open the public hearing. Upon conclusion of the staff presentation and public comments,
the Board may choose to:
• Hold the oral and written record open and continue the hearing to a date certain
• Close the oral record and hold the written record open to a date certain
• Close both the oral and written record and set a date certain for deliberations
• Close both the oral and written record and begin deliberations
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing to gather testimony on a
proposal involving an applicant -initiated text amendment to allow mini -storage as a
conditional use in certain areas of the MUA-10 zone along Highway 20 (file no. 247-24-
000044-TA).
The full record is located on the project page: www.deschutes.org/HM20Storage
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Nicole Mardeli, AICP, Senior Planner
Will Groves, Planning Manager
IIT, l:1IT,1].7_101 all IT,
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ("Board")
FROM: Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: August 28, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Mini -Storage in MUA-10 Zone Adjacent to Hwy 20
The Board will conduct a public hearing to gather testimony on this proposal during the Board's regularly
scheduled meeting on August 28, 2024, in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend or
virtually via zoom. The proposal is an applicant -initiated legislative amendment. The applicant seeks to
allow mini -storage as a conditional use on certain MUA-10 properties adjacent to U.S. Highway 20 (file
no. 247-24-000044-TA). There is a separate applicant -initiated text amendment to allow mini -storage
along Highway 97, which is not associated with this application.
All record materials can be found on the project website: www.deschutes.org/Hwy20Storage.
PROPOSAL
In January 2024, Eastside Bend LLC applied for a legislative amendment related to mini -storage in the
Multiple Use Agricultural - 10 Acre Minimum (MUA-10) zone. Attached to this memo are the applicant's
proposed amendments (Attachment A), proposed findings (Attachment B), and a map of eligible
properties (Attachment Q. The applicant proposes to add mini -storage as a conditional use in the zone,
if the following siting criteria are met:
• The property is at least 10 acres and no greater than 35 acres (multiple contiguous parcels may
be considered in the aggregate to meet the requirements of this section);
• Adjacent to U.S. Highway 20; and
• Within 2,500 feet of an urban growth boundary (UGB).
In addition to these locational criteria, future applications would also need to comply with requirements
for 18.128 Conditional Uses, including the general compatibility standards (18.128.015) and specific
requirements for mini -storage uses (18.128.300) related to screening, parking, and landscaping
(Attachment D). The Post -Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) notice to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) was sent on April 18, 2024.
11. BACKGROUND
Mini -storage is defined in the Deschutes County Code as "commercial development of multiple storage
units for rental to the public':' The table below summarizes the existing zones in which the use is allowed
and related siting standards or requirements.
Zone
Standards / Requirements
Unincorporated Communities
Terrebonne Commercial (TeC)
Conditional use, limited to buildings not exceeding 4,000
square feet of floor space with no exterior displays or
storage of industrial equipment, vehicles, or products.
Terrebonne Commercial - Rural (TeCR)
Conditional use, limited to buildings not exceeding 10,000
square feet of floor space. Additional compatibility, traffic,
and parking requirements. Additional requirements for
large scale use if over 4,000 square feet.
Terrebonne Industrial (Tul)
Allowed subject to site plan review, not to exceed 40,000
square feet of floor area. 50-foot setback from residential
properties. Maximum 45-foot height adjacent to residential
properties. Design and compatibility criteria.
Sunriver Business Park (SUBP)
Conditional use, limited to buildings not exceeding 20,000
square feet of floor area. Additional limitations related to
traffic and screening. Additional setbacks required when
adjacent to residential uses.
Other Zones
Rural Commercial (RC)
Conditional use, limited to 2,500 square feet in Spring River,
35,000 square feet in other RC zoned areas. Additional
setbacks required when adjacent to farm and forest land.
Rural Industrial (RI)
Conditional use, limited to 7,500 square feet. Requirements
related to traffic, parking, ingress/egress, screening, hours of
operation. Additional setbacks required when adjacent to
residential uses.
With the exception of the Terrebonne Industrial zone, mini -storage is generally allowed through a
conditional use permit in Deschutes County and contains zone -specific criteria in addition to the general
criteria.
III. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Notice of the public hearing was sent to agencies on May 8, 2024 and posted in the Bend Bulletin on May
29 and again on August 14, 2024.. Comments from the following agencies were received:
1 18.04 Definitions
-2-
• Bend Parks and Recreation District: recommended an additional criterion be added to require
easements for mapped park and trail projects as part of mini -storage development.
• Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT): noted that access would need to be addressed at
the time of individual property development, if the amendment moved forward. Requested
additional transportation analysis and trip generation rates for mini -storage facilities.
• Bend Fire & Rescue: responded to a Commission question regarding existing conditional use
standards for access related to mini -storage facilities.
Two public comments were received. Each expressed concern regarding the proposal and compliance
with Goal 14, limiting urban uses on rural land. Central Oregon Landwatch raised additional concerns
regarding compliance with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, Statewide Planning Goal 5, and
compatibility with the zone's purpose statement.
The applicant provided additional information during the open record period following the hearing,
including a transportation analysis and findings related to issues raised in public comment.
Two comments were submitted after the record had closed and were not considered by the Planning
Commission, and are now available in the record for Board consideration. One public comment
expressed general opposition to the proposal due to a lack of need and impact on scenic views. An
additional agency comment was received from the County's Senior Transportation Planner and provided
context on additional transportation analysis needed prior to development, if the amendment were to
move forward.
IV. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Staff presented information on the proposed amendments at a Planning Commission work session on
May 23, 20242. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 133 and left the written record
open until June 20 at 4:00 p.m. The Planning Commission held deliberations on July 251, ultimately
recommending denial of the proposal with three (3) Commissioners voting to deny and two (2)
Commissioners voting to approve the proposal.
Commissioners in opposition to the proposal expressed the following concerns:
• There is not a compelling reason that rural residents need additional storage for personal
belongings or equipment, as they already have larger lot sizes.
• Development in close proximity to the urban growth boundary (UGB) would encourage use by city
residents and could contribute to sprawl or leapfrog development.
• The proposal is not consistent with the purpose of the MUA-10 zone, which promotes residential
uses and preservation of open space.
• The proposal would negatively impact the scenic resource along Highway 20.
Z https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-48
s https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-49
n https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-55
-3-
Commissioners in support of the proposal expressed the following benefits of the proposal:
• Minor traffic and visual impacts as noted in the application materials.
• Provides a transition between urban development in the UGB and rural development
• There is ambiguity in case law on this topic, but the use is already allowed in other rural zones.
• Would serve the community as not many zones allow for mini -storage and supply is low.
A similar application, related to mini -storage along Highway 97, received a recommendation of approval
by the Planning Commission at their August 8, 2024 meeting with a vote of 4-0. The Planning Commission
requested that staff note this decision to the Board, as the members in attendance at each meeting
varied.
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.
Attachments:
A. Proposed Text Amendments
B. Proposed Finding
C. Eligible Property Map
D. Conditional Use Standards
-4-
Attachment A: Proposed Text Amendments
Chapter 18.32 Multiple Use Agricultural Zoen; MUA
18.32.030 Conditional Uses Permitted
The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128:
A. Public use.
B. Semipublic use.
C. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. The commercial activity shall be associated
with a farm use occurring on the parcel where the commercial use is proposed. The commercial
activity may use, process, store or market farm products produced in Deschutes County or an
adjoining County.
D. Dude ranch.
E. Kennel and/or veterinary clinic.
F. Guest house.
G. Manufactured home as a secondary accessory farm dwelling, subject to the requirements set
forth in DCC 18.116.070.
H. Exploration for minerals.
I. Private parks, playgrounds, hunting and fishing preserves, campgrounds, motorcycle tracks and
other recreational uses.
J. Personal use landing strip for airplanes and helicopter pads, including associated hangar,
maintenance and service facilities. No aircraft may be based on a personal use landing strip
other than those owned or controlled by the owner of the airstrip. Exceptions to the activities
permitted under this definition may be granted through waiver action by the Aeronautics
Division in specific instances. A personal use landing strip lawfully existing as of September 1,
1975, shall continue to be permitted subject to any applicable regulations of the Aeronautics
Division.
K. Golf courses.
L. Type 2 or Type 3 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
M. A facility for primary processing of forest products, provided that such facility is found to not
seriously interfere with accepted farming practices and is compatible with farm uses described
in ORS 215.203(2). Such a facility may be approved for a one year period which is renewable.
These facilities are intended to be only portable or temporary in nature. The primary processing
of a forest product, as used in DCC 18.32.030, means the use of a portable chipper or stud mill
or other similar method of initial treatment of a forest product in order to enable its shipment
to market. Forest products, as used in DCC 18.32.030, means timber grown upon a parcel of
land or contiguous land where the primary processing facility is located.
N. Destination resorts.
O. Planned developments.
P. Cluster developments.
Q. A disposal site which includes a land disposal site for which they Department of Environmental
Quality has granted a permit under ORS 459.245, together with equipment, facilities or buildings
necessary for its operation.
R. Time share unit or the creation thereof.
S. Hydroelectric facility, subject to DCC 18.116.130 and 18.128.260.
T. Storage, crushing and processing of minerals, including the processing of aggregate into
asphaltic concrete or Portland cement concrete, when such uses are in conjunction with the
maintenance or construction of public roads or highways.
U. Bed and breakfast inn.
V. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a
wetland subject to DCC 18.120.050 and 18.128.270.
W. Religious institutions or assemblies, subject to DCC 18.124 and 18.128.080.
X. Private or public schools, including all buildings essential to the operation of such a school.
Y. Utility facility necessary to serve the area subject to the provisions of DCC 18.124.
Z. Cemetery, mausoleum or crematorium.
AA. Commercial horse stables.
AB. Horse events, including associated structures, not allowed as a permitted use in this zone.
AC. Manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park on a parcel in use as a manufactured
home park or recreational vehicle park prior to the adoption of PL 15 in 1979 and being operated as
of June 12, 1996, as a manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park, including any expansion
of such uses on the same parcel, as configured on June 12, 1996.
AE. A new manufactured home/recreational vehicle park, subject to Oregon Administrative Rules
660-004-0040(8)(g) that:
a. Is on property adjacent to an existing manufactured home/recreational vehicle park;
b. Is adjacent to the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary; and
c. Has no more than 10 dwelling units.
AE. The full or partial conversion from a manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park
described in DCC 18.32.030 (CC) to a manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park on the
same parcel, as configured on June 12 1996.
AF. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC
18.116.250(A) or (B).
AG. Guest lodge.
AH. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and
maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the excavation and
mining for facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off -site use, storage, and sale of excavated material.
Al. Mini -storage facilities including watercraft, and RV storage. Mini -storage facilities are allowed on
parcels that are:
a. Within 2,500 feet of an urban growth boundary;
b. Adjacent to U.S. Highway 20; and
a-c. A minimum of 10 acres in size and not to exceed 35 acres in size. Multiple contiguous
parcels may be considered in the aggregate to meet the requirements of this section.
HISTORY
Adopted by Ord. PL-15 on 111111979
Amended by Ord. 80-206 §3 on 1011311980
Amended by Ord. 83-033 §2 on 611511983
Amended by Ord. 86-018 §7 on 613011986
Amended by Ord. 90-014 §§27 and 35 on 711211990
Amended by Ord. 91-002 §7 on 21611991
Amended by Ord. 91-005 §§19 and 20 on 31411991
Amended by Ord. 91-020 §1 on 512911991
Amended by Ord. 91-038 §1 on 913011991
Amended by Ord. 92-055 §2 on 811711992
Amended by Ord. 93-043 §§4A and 8 on 812511993
Amended by Ord. 94-008 §11 on 61811994
Amended by Ord. 94-053 §2 on 121711994
Amended by Ord. 96-038 §1 on 611211996
Amended by Ord. 97-017 §2 on 311211997
Amended by Ord. 97-029 §2 on 511411997
Amended by Ord. 97-063 §3 on 1111211997
Amended by Ord. 2001-016 §2 on 312812001
Amended by Ord. 2001-039 §2 on 1211212001
Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §4 on 412812004
Amended by Ord. 2009-018 §1 on 111512009
Amended by Ord. 2015-002 §1 on 71812015
Amended by Ord. 2016-015 §3 on 71112016
Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §4 on 412112020
Amended by Ord. 2021-004 §2 on 512712021
Amended by Ord. 2021-013 §5 on 41512022
Amended by Ord. 2023-001 §4 on 513012023
Amended by Ord. xxxx-xxx §x on x/xx/xxxx
Attachment B - Applicant's Findings
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Deschutes County, Oregon
A Land Use Application For:
Legislative Text Amendment to the Deschutes County Code
Applicant:
Eastside Bend LLC
721 South Brea Canyon Road, Suite 7
Diamond Bar, California 91789
Prepared by:
Alk
0
DOWL
963 SW Simpson Avenue; Suite 200
Bend, Oregon 97702
Submitted: January 23, 2024
Revised: April 11, 2024
DOWL #2481.16033.01
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative April 11, 2024
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................4
2.0 Project Summary..............................................................................5
PROJECTDESCRIPTION................................................................................................... 5
3.0 Proposed Revisions to Deschutes County Code ...........................6
18, 32. 030 CONDITIONAL USES PERMITTED.......................................................................
6
4.0 Compliance with the Deschutes County Code...............................8
TITLE18 COUNTY ZONING..............................................................................................
8
TITLE 22 DESCHUTES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES ORDINANCE ........................
10
5.0 Compliance with the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ...
13
CHAPTER 1: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING.......................................................................
13
CHAPTER 3: RURAL GROWTH........................................................................................
13
CHAPTER 4: URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT..................................................................
14
6.0 Compliance with the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.............15
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT.....................................................................................
15
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING.......................................................................................
15
GOAL 3: AGRICULTURAL LANDS.....................................................................................
15
GOAL4: FOREST LANDS...............................................................................................
15
GOAL 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES.......... 16
GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCE QUALITY ...................................................... 16
GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS ................................... 16
GOAL 8: RECREATIONAL NEEDS.................................................................................... 17
GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 17
GOAL10: HOUSING...................................................................................................... 17
GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES................................................................... 17
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................... 17
GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION................................................................................ 18
GOAL14: URBANIZATION.............................................................................................. 18
7.0 Conclusion......................................................................................19
Exhibits
A. Application Form
B. Goal 5 ESEE Analysis
Page 3
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
1.0 Introduction
Applicant & Owner: Eastside Bend LLC
721 South Brea Canyon Road, Suite 7
Diamond Bar, California 91789
Planner: DOWL
309 SW 6tn Avenue; Suite 700
Portland, OR 97204
Contact: Matthew Robinson
Phone: 971.229.8318
Email: mrobinson(a-)_dowl.com
Legal Counsel: Francis Hansen & Martin
1148 NW Hill Street
Bend, OR 97703
Contact: Michael McGean
Phone: 541.389.5010
Email: michaelafrancishansen.com
Zoning: Text Amendment to Conditionally Permitted Uses
in the Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA) Zone
11, 2024
Page 4
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
2.0 Proiect Summa
Project Description
ril 11. 2024
Eastside Bend LLC (applicant) is proposing a legislative amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.32 (Multiple
Use Agricultural Zone; MUA) of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) that would designate mini -storage uses,
including watercraft and RV storage, as a conditionally allowed use within the Multiple Use Agricultural
Zone (MUA). The proposed text amendment would have the effect of allowing mini -storage on parcels that
are:
Zoned MUA;
• At least 10 acres in size and no greater than 35 acres in size;
• Adjacent to U.S Hwy 20; and
• Within 2,500 feet of an urban growth boundary (UGB).
The allowance of mini -storage supports the County's rural residents by providing opportunities to store
personal property, including equipment, recreational vehicles, and boats. Further, other Deschutes County
(County) zones already allow mini -storage, such as the Rural Industrial (R-1) zone, which is another zone
intended to serve rural communities. The proposed text amendment will limit mini -storage to parcels in the
MUA zone that are in close proximity to existing UGBs and adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20, thereby promoting an
orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses. Finally, by subjecting mini -storage uses to the
conditional use process, it can be ensured that these facilities are designed and developed to be compatible
with the rural character of the County while simultaneously providing economic benefit to the community.
Given the proposed mini -storage use would be allowed on parcels adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20, the use would
be subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM), which applies to all areas within
one-fourth mile of the centerline of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), which includes U.S. Hwy 20. Per DCC 18.84.010, the
purpose of the LM zone is to maintain scenic and natural resources of the designated areas and to maintain
and enhance scenic vistas and natural landscapes as seen from designated roads, rivers, or streams. Per
Table 5.5.1 within Section 5.5 of Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5 Inventory for Open Spaces, Scenic Views
and Sites, all land within one -quarter mile of the centerline of U.S. Hwy 20 is subject to the LM zone and is
an inventoried Goal 5 resource. Given this proposed text amendment requires a post -acknowledgement
plan amendment (PAPA), which could have the effect of allowing a new use (mini -storage) that could be
conflicting with a Goal 5 resource, the applicant has prepared an Environmental, Social, Economic and
Energy (ESEE) analysis that evaluates the tradeoffs with fully prohibiting, limiting, or allowing the conflicting
use. The applicant's Goal 5 ESEE analysis is included as Exhibit B with this application in support of the
proposed text amendment.
An application form signed by the applicant is included as Exhibit A with this application. This document
serves as the applicant's burden of proof, and demonstrates compliance and consistency with applicable
provisions of the DCC, goals and policies of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, as well as the
Statewide Planning Goals. The appropriate filing fee will be provided upon this application's submittal.
Page 5
BOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative April 11, 2024
3.0 Proposed Revisions to Deschutes County Code
The following revisions to the DCC are proposed. New text is indicated in bold and underlined type. No
text is proposed to be deleted.
18.32.030 Conditional Uses Permitted
The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128:
A. Public use.
B. Semipublic use.
C. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. The commercial activity shall be
associated with a farm use occurring on the parcel where the commercial use is proposed.
The commercial activity may use, process, store or market farm products produced in
Deschutes County or an adjoining County.
D. Dude ranch.
E. Kennel and/or veterinary clinic.
F. Guest house.
G. Manufactured home as a secondary accessory farm dwelling, subject to the requirements set
forth in DCC 18.116.070.
H. Exploration for minerals.
I. Private parks, playgrounds, hunting and fishing preserves, campgrounds, motorcycle tracks
and other recreational uses.
J. Personal use landing strip for airplanes and helicopter pads, including associated hangar,
maintenance and service facilities. No aircraft may be based on a personal use landing strip
other than those owned or controlled by the owner of the airstrip. Exceptions to the activities
permitted under this definition may be granted through waiver action by the Aeronautics
Division in specific instances. A personal use landing strip lawfully existing as of September
1,1975, shall continue to be permitted subject to any applicable regulations of the Aeronautics
Division.
K. Golf courses.
L. Type 2 or Type 3 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
M. A facility for primary processing of forest products, provided that such facility is found to not
seriously interfere with accepted farming practices and is compatible with farm uses
described in ORS 215.203(2). Such a facility may be approved for a one year period which is
renewable. These facilities are intended to be only portable or temporary in nature. The
primary processing of a forest product, as used in DCC 18.32.030, means the use of a portable
chipper or stud mill or other similar method of initial treatment of a forest product in order
to enable its shipment to market. Forest products, as used in DCC 18.32.030, means timber
grown upon a parcel of land or contiguous land where the primary processing facility is
located.
N. Destination resorts.
0. Planned developments.
P. Cluster developments.
Ak Page 6
DOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
11, 2024
Q. A disposal site which includes a land disposal site for which they Department of
Environmental Quality has granted a permit under ORS 459.245, together with equipment,
facilities or buildings necessary for its operation.
R. Time share unit or the creation thereof.
S. Hydroelectric facility, subject to DCC 18.116.130 and 18.128.260.
T. Storage, crushing and processing of minerals, including the processing of aggregate into
asphaltic concrete or Portland cement concrete, when such uses are in conjunction with the
maintenance or construction of public roads or highways.
U. Bed and breakfast inn.
V. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in
a wetland subject to DCC 18.120.050 and 18.128.270.
W. Religious institutions or assemblies, subject to DCC 18.124 and 18.128.080.
X. Private or public schools, including all buildings essential to the operation of such a school.
Y. Utility facility necessary to serve the area subject to the provisions of DCC 18.124.
Z. Cemetery, mausoleum or crematorium.
AA. Commercial horse stables.
AB. Horse events, including associated structures, not allowed as a permitted use in this zone.
AC. Manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park on a parcel in use as a manufactured
home park or recreational vehicle park prior to the adoption of PL 15 in 1979 and being
operated as of June 12, 1996, as a manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park,
including any expansion of such uses on the same parcel, as configured on June 12,1996.
AD. A new manufactured home/recreational vehicle park, subject to Oregon Administrative
Rules 660-004-0040(8)(G) that:
1. Is on property adjacent to an existing manufactured home/recreational vehicle park;
2. Is adjacent to the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary; and
3. Has more than 10 dwelling units.
AE. The full or partial conversion from a manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park
described in DCC 18.32.030 (CC) to a manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park on
the same parcel, as configured on June 121996.
AF. Wireless telecommunication facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of
DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B).
AG. Guest lodge.
AH. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and
maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the
excavation and mining for facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off -site use, storage, and sale
of excavated material.
Al.Mini-storage facilities, including watercraft, and RV storage. Mini -storage facilities are
allowed on parcels that are:
1. Within 2,500 feet of an urban growth boundary;
2. Adjacent to U.S. Highway 20; and
3. A minimum of 10 acres in size and not to exceed 35 acres in size. Multiple contiguous
parcels may be considered in the aggregate to meet the requirements of this section.
Page 7
DOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
4.0 Compliance with the Deschutes County Code
April 11, 2024
Applicable provisions of the DCC are set forth below with findings demonstrating consistency of the
proposed text amendment with these provisions.
Title 18 County Zoning
Chapter 18.32 Multiple Use Agricultural Zone; MUA
18.32.010 Purpose
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various
areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the
capacity of the natural resources of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited
to full-time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to conserve forest
lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to
maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to establish
standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development
by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
Response: Stated plainly, the intent of the MUA zone is to preserve the rural character of Deschutes
County while still permitting development that is consistent with that character and within
the capacity of the land. The MUA zone is not a resource zone but is considered exception
land, which is intended to allow for other types of uses rather than just resource -oriented
uses (such as agricultural operations or timber harvesting)'. This is exemplified through
the number of non -resource related uses permitted within the MUA zone per DCC
18.32.020 and 18.32.030, including:
• Public and semipublic uses (such as libraries or governmental administration
buildings, for example);
• Private and public schools;
• Kennels and/or veterinary clinics; and
• Religious institutions.
These uses are not resource related, but are still integral to rural communities and the
livability of Deschutes County's rural areas, and have been shown to be able to be
constructed within MUA zoned lands in a manner that is consistent with and complimentary
to the desired rural character of the County. Similarly, mini -storage is needed for rural
residents who do not have options to meet storage needs within their own properties, or
cannot afford to construct their own on -site storage shed/building. The allowance of mini -
storage supports rural residents by providing opportunities to store personal property,
including equipment, recreational vehicles, and watercraft, for example. Creating greater
opportunities for mini -storage facilities can also support Deschutes County's numerous
recreational amenities given their ability to accommodate recreational equipment for use
at these amenities. Outdoor recreation is an essential component of Deschutes County's
economy and livability, and the proposal allows a recreation -supportive use that is
compatible with the County's rural character.
Additionally, mini -storage would only be allowed as a conditional use, subject to the
conditional use review procedure per DCC 18.128 and the mini -storage specific standards
See Moody v. Deschutes County, 220 Or LUBA, 3 n.1 (1992).
https://www.oregon.gov/luba/Docs/Opinions/1992/01-92/91169. pdf
Page 8
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
April 11, 2024
per DCC 18.128.300, which provides the review authority additional discretion in their
review to apply conditions of approval on a mini -storage use that is sensitive to specific
site conditions and adjacent development patterns. Given this use would also be limited to
parcels adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20, it would also be subject to the LM zone per DCC 18.84,
including the use limitations per DCC 18.84.050, design review standards per DCC
18.84.080, and setback requirements per DCC 18.84.090, all of which help ensure
compatibility between site design and the scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes the
LM zone is intending to preserve. Together, the conditional use and LM zone standards, in
conjunction with the County's site plan review process per DCC 18.124, ensure that any
mini -storage facilities can be developed in a manner that is consciousness of the carrying
capacity of the land, any on -site natural and scenic resources, as well as adjacent
development patterns and land uses.
For these reasons, the proposed mini -storage use is consistent with the purpose statement
of the MUA zone above.
Chapter 18.136 Amendments
18,136.010 Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map
changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi judicial map
amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning
Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
Response: The applicant is proposing a legislative text amendment to DCC 18.32.030, Conditional
Uses Permitted, in order to allow mini -storage as a conditional use in the MUA zone. The
applicant is not proposing a quasi-judicial map amendment, as the proposed text
amendment will not alter the County's zoning or comprehensive plan map(s). Because a
legislative amendment is proposed, the provisions per DCC 22.12 are applicable, and
hearings before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners are required. A signed application form is included with this application as
Exhibit A and the appropriate filing feel will be provided upon submittal of this application.
18.136.020 Rezoning Standards
The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by
rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: (...]
Response: The applicant is proposing a legislative text amendment to DCC 18.32.030, Conditional
Uses Permitted, in order to allow mini -storage as a conditional use in the MUA zone. The
applicant is not proposing a quasi-judicial map amendment, as the proposed text
amendment will not alter the County's zoning map. The provisions of this section are not
applicable.
18.136.030 Resolution of Intent To Rezone (...]
Response: The applicant is proposing a legislative text amendment to DCC 18.32.030, Conditional
Uses Permitted, in order to allow mini -storage as a conditional use in the MUA zone. The
applicant is not proposing a quasi-judicial map amendment, as the proposed text
amendment will not alter the County's zoning map. The provisions of this section are not
applicable.
18.136.040 Record of Amendments
All amendments to the text or map of DCC Title 18 shall be filed with the County Clerk.
Page 9
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
April 11, 2024
Response: If approved, the adopted text amendment will be filed with the Deschutes County Clerk as
required.
Chapter 18.140 Administrative Provisions
18.140.070 Filing Fees
An application required by DCC Title 18 shall be accompanied by a filing fee in the amount set by
order of the Board of County Commissioners.
Response: An application form signed by the applicant is included with this application as Exhibit A.
The appropriate filing feel will be provided with the submittal of this application.
Title 22 Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.08 General Provisions
22.08.005 Pre -Application Conference
A pre -application conference is encouraged for complex applications or for applicants who are
unfamiliar with the land use process. The purpose of the conference shall be to acquaint the
applicant with the substantive and procedural requirements of the applicable land use ordinances,
to provide for an exchange of information regarding applicable requirements of the comprehensive
plan, zoning ordinance or land division ordinance and to identify issues likely to arise in processing
an application. The applicable zoning ordinance may require that a preapplication conference be
held for particular types of applications.
Response: DCC 18.136 does not identify that a pre -application conference is required prior to
submittal of text amendment applications and the applicant did not hold a pre -application
conference.
22.08.010 Application Requirements
B. Applications for development or land use actions shall:
1. Be submitted by the property owner or a person who has written authorization from
the property owner as defined herein to make the application;
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment is not specific to any single property as
development is not proposed. An application form signed by the applicant is included with
this application as Exhibit A.
2. Be completed on a form prescribed by the Planning Director;
Response: An application form provided by the Deschutes County Community Development
Department, and signed by the applicant, is included with this application as Exhibit A.
3. Include supporting information required by the zoning ordinance and that
information necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria; and
Response: This document serves as the applicant's burden of proof and demonstrates that the
applicable regulations and policies governing the approvability of this request are met. An
application form signed by the applicant is included with this application as Exhibit A, as
required by this ordinance.
4. Be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, unless such fees are waived by the
Board of County Commissioners.
Page 10
BOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative April 11, 2024
Response: The appropriate filing feel will be provided upon submittal of this application.
5. Include an affidavit attesting to the fact that the notice has been posted on the
property in accordance with DCC 22.24.030(B).
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment is subject to and will follow the public notice
requirements of DCC 22.12.020. Per DCC 22.12.020(B), posted notice may be required at
the planning director's discretion.
C. The following applications are not subject to the ownership requirement set forth in DCC
22.08.010(B)(1):
1. Applications submitted by or on behalf of a public entity or public utility having the
power of eminent domain with respect to the property subject to the application; or
2. Applications for development proposals sited on lands owned by the state or the
federal government.
Response: This application is not being submitted by or on behalf of a public entity or public utility and
no development is proposed on lands owned by the state or federal government.
D. A deposit for hearings officers' fees maybe requested at anytime prior to the application
being deemed complete and, if the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant
will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer.
Response: Per DCC 22.12.040 this legislative text amendment is subject to hearings before the
Deschutes County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. As a
hearing before a hearings officer is not required, this provision is not applicable.
Chapter 22.12 Legislative Procedures
22.12.010 Hearing Required
No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the Planning
Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless otherwise required by
state law.
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment will be reviewed by both the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners as required by this provision.
22.12.020 Notice
A. Published Notice.
1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing.
2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a statement
describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration.
B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and where
necessary to comply with ORS 203.045.
C. Individual Notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC 22.08.010(A), shall
be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as required by ORS 215.503.
D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers
published in Deschutes County.
Page 11
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
11, 2024
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment will be noticed as required by the provisions of
this section. Posted notice and individual notice will be provided if determined to be
necessary by the planning director.
It is the applicant's position that because the proposed legislative text amendment does
not apply to any specific property, individual notice per paragraph C above is not required
for this application. Because this is an application for a legislative text amendment, not an
action to amend an existing comprehensive plan or any element thereof, or adopt a new
comprehensive plan, Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 215.203 (Measure 56 notice) is not
applicable (see ORS 215.203(3)). Therefore, no property will have to be rezoned in order
to comply with the proposed amendment to DCC 18.32.030 if any adopting ordinance is
approved.
22.12.030 Initiative of Legislative Changes
A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees
as well as by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Commission.
Response: An application form signed by the applicant is included with this application as Exhibit A.
The appropriate filing fee will be provided upon this application's submittal.
22.12.040 Hearings Body
A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this order.
1. The Planning Commission.
2. The Board of County Commissioners.
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment will be reviewed by both the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners as required by this provision.
B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be reviewed
by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of Commissioners.
Response: This legislative text amendment is being initiated by an individual, not the Board of County
Commissioners. This provision is not applicable.
22.12.050 Final Decision
All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance.
Response: If approved, the proposed legislative text amendment will be adopted by ordinance as
required.
Page 12
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
April 11, 2024
5.0 Compliance with the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
The goals and policies of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to the proposed
text amendment are listed below with applicant findings demonstrating the proposal's consistency with
these goals and policies.
Chapter 1: Comprehensive Planning
Section 1.3 Land Use Planning Policies
Goal 1: Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the
objective evaluation of facts.
Policy 1.3.3: Involve the public when amending County Code.
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment will comply with the provisions of DCC 22.12,
which requires public notice of the proposal and hearings before the Deschutes County
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings and notice
will provide opportunities for members of the public to engage with the review bodies and
provide input and testimony on the proposed text amendment in support of this goal and
policy.
Chapter 3: Rural Growth
Section 3.4 Rural Economic Policies
Goal 1: Maintain a stable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a health
environment.
Policy 3.4.1: Promote rural economic initiatives, including home -based businesses,
that maintain the integrity of the rural character and natural environment.
a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic
development opportunities.
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment is consistent with the County's intent to review
land use regulations and identify legal and appropriate rural economic development
opportunities. The applicant's proposal provides a new rural economic development
opportunity within specific and targeted areas of the MUA zone. By requiring approval of a
conditional use permit for the proposed mini -storage use, it can be ensured that the
integrity of the rural character and natural environment is maintained. As the mini -storage
use is considered commercial development that will require on -site parking, site plan
review is also required per DCC 18.124.030(B)(3), which will further ensure that proposed
mini -storage facilities are designed and constructed in a manner that's compatible with
adjacent development patterns and uses.
As identified in Section 3.0 of this narrative, the proposed amendment restricts the
development of mini -storage facilities to parcels that are a minimum of 10 acres in size,
adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20, and in close proximity to existing UGBs. These proposed
parameters will also help maintain the integrity of the rural character and natural
environment within the MUA zone in support of this goal and policy.
Policy 3.4.2: Work with stakeholders to promote new recreational and tourist
initiatives that maintain the integrity of the natural environment.
Response: Allowing mini -storage facilities as a conditional use in limited areas of the MUA zone will
support new and existing recreational and tourism areas, such as the Prineville Reservoir
and the Deschutes National Forest, by providing facilities for the storage of recreational
equipment, including boats and recreational vehicles. By providing dedicated storage
Page 13
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
11, 2024
facilities, the proposed text amendment supports this policy by reducing the visual impacts
of vehicles and equipment parked and stored in residential or public spaces and limiting
the possibility that toxic fluids from these vehicles and equipment could inadvertently leak
into the natural environment.
Policy 3.4.7: Within the parameters of State land use regulations, permit limited
local -service commercial uses in higher -density rural communities.
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment supports this policy by allowing a new local -
serving commercial mini -storage use in higher -density rural communities when also in
close proximity to established UGBs and U.S. Hwy 20.
Section 3.5 Natural Hazard Policies
Goal 1: Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from
natural hazards.
Response: Allowing mini -storage facilities in rural areas that are in close proximity to existing UGBs
and adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20 supports this goal by providing opportunities for the public to
store their property in safe and secure facilities that are inherently less likely to be affected
by natural hazards due to their proximity to urban -level services provided within established
and nearby UGBs. In addition, having mini -storage facilities in close proximity to U.S. Hwy
20 will offer residents a means to quickly gather critical necessities that might be needed
in response to natural hazards.
Section 3.6 Public Facilities and Services Policies
Goal 1: Support the orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and
services.
Policy 3.6.8: Coordinate with rural service districts and providers to ensure new
development is reviewed with consideration of service districts and providers needs
and capabilities.
Policy 3.6.9: New development shall address impacts on existing facilities and plans
through the land use entitlement process.
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment is consistent with these policies because mini -
storage facilities would be subject to the conditional use criteria of DCC 18.128 as well as
the site plan review standards of DCC 18.124, which will ensure that public facilities,
including utilities and transportation facilities, can be adequately provided to the facility and
that any disproportionate impacts are adequately mitigated.
Chapter 4: Urban Growth Management
Section 4.2 Urbanization Policies
Goal 1: Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth
boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between
urban and rural lands.
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment would allow mini -storage facilities as a
conditional use in limited areas of the MUA zone that must be within 2,500 feet of an
established UGB. Geographic proximity to UGBs will contribute to the orderly and efficient
transition between urban and rural lands, and their resulting development patterns,
because storage facilities can be used for the storage of personal property (such as boats
and recreational vehicles), which will promote rural recreation while limiting the non -farm
commercial use of rural lands (such as for the storage of such equipment).
Page 14
DOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
6.0 Compliance with the
on Statewide Plannina Goals
11, 2024
The applicable Statewide Planning Goals are set forth below with findings demonstrating the proposal's
consistency with each Goal. Goals 15 through 19 are not applicable to the proposed text amendment.
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To ensure opportunities for citizens to be involved in the development of public policies and all
phases of the planning process.
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment will comply with the provisions of DCC 22.12,
which requires public notice of the proposal and hearings before the Deschutes County
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings and notice
will provide opportunities for members of the public to engage with the review bodies and
provide input and testimony on the proposed text amendment consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
To maintain a transparent land use planning process in which decisions are based on factual
information and reviewed in accordance with implementing ordinances.
Response: Applicable provisions of the DCC, goals and policies of the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan, and the Statewide Planning Goals are addressed throughout this
narrative, demonstrating consistency of the proposed mini -storage use with the purpose of
the MUA zone. This proposal will be reviewed by both the Deschutes County Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissions, ensuring a transparent land use
planning process with ample opportunities for public comment and input in support of Goal
2.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Response: This application is for a legislative text amendment to the DCC. As such, it is not proposing
to rezone agricultural lands or otherwise impact the County's supply of land available for
agricultural purposes. Further, the MUA zone is not an exclusive farm use zone, it is
considered exception land, which is intended to allow for other types of uses than just
agricultural ones2. Rather, the purpose of the MUA zone per DCC 18.32.010 is to "preserve
the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent
with that character..." As demonstrated through this narrative, by allowing mini -storage
facilities as a conditional use, it can be ensured that the rural character of the MUA zone
and the County at large is maintained. Goal 3 is met.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest
economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous
growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with
sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational
opportunities and agriculture.
Response: This application is for a legislative text amendment to the DCC within the MUA zone. It is
not proposing to rezone or alter the County's supply of forest resource lands. Goal 4 is met.
2 See Moody v. Deschutes County, 220 Or LUBA, 3 n.1 (1992).
https://www.oregon.gov/luba/Docs/Opinions/1992/01-92/91169.pdf
Page 15
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
1 11, 2024
Response: The proposed new mini -storage use would be allowed on certain parcels adjacent to U.S.
Hwy 20, which would be subject to the LM zone, which applies to all areas within one-
fourth mile of the centerline of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the
County's Comprehensive Plan. Per DCC 18.84.010, the purpose of the LM zone is to
maintain scenic and natural resources of the designated areas and to maintain and
enhance scenic vistas and natural landscapes as seen from designated roads, rivers, or
streams. Per Table 5.5.1 within Section 5.5 of Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5 Inventory for
Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites, all land within one -quarter mile of the centerline of
U.S. Hwy 20 is subject to the LM zone and is an inventoried Goal 5 resource.
Because the proposed text amendment to DCC 18.32 requires a PAPA, which would have
the effect of allowing a new use (mini -storage) that could be conflicting with a Goal 5
resource within the County's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, Oregon Administrative Rule
(OAR) 660-023-0250 requires an ESEE analysis for the proposed mini -storage use. The
applicant has prepared a Goal 5 ESEE analysis in support of the proposed text
amendment, which is included with this application as Exhibit B. The following is excerpted
from the Goal 5 ESEE analysis' conclusion:
"This analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use would result in the most
positive consequences of the three decision scenarios. A decision to limit the new
mini -storage use would avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to
either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting use. The LM zone's application of use
limitations per DCC 18.84.050, design review standards per DCC 18.84.080, and
setback requirements per DCC 18.84.090 all help ensure compatibility between
site design and the scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes the LM zone is
intending to preserve. Further, the mini -storage use would only be allowed
conditionally, subject to the conditional use review procedure per DCC 18.128 and
the mini -storage specific standards per DCC 18.128.300, which provides the
review authority additional discretion in their review to apply conditions of approval
on a mini -storage use that is sensitive to specific site conditions and adjacent
development patterns. For the reasons concluded through this ESEE analysis,
limiting the conflicting use is recommended for the proposed zoning text
amendment."
For the reasons concluded within the ESEE analysis, the applicant has demonstrated that
the proposed mini -storage use can be allowed in a limited manner, subject to the
development standards and provisions of the LM zone within DCC 18.84. Goal 5 is met.
Goal 6: Air. Water and Land Resource Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of air, land, and water resources consistent with state and
federal regulations.
Response: This application is for a legislative text amendment to the DCC within the MUA zone and
impacts to air, water and land resource quality are not proposed. Goal 6 is met.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
Response: Allowing mini -storage facilities in rural areas that are in close proximity to existing UGBs
and adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20 supports Goal 7 by providing opportunities for the public to
Page 16
BOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
April 11, 2024
store their property in safe and secure facilities that are inherently less likely to be affected
by natural hazards due to their proximity to urban -level services. In addition, having mini -
storage facilities in close proximity to U.S. Hwy 20 will offer residents a means to quickly
gather critical necessities that might be needed in response to natural hazards.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to
provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Response: Allowing mini -storage facilities as a conditional use in limited areas of the MUA zone will
support new and existing recreational areas, such as the Prineville Reservoir and the
Deschutes National Forest, by providing facilities for the storage of recreational equipment,
including boats and recreational vehicles, in support of Goal 8.
Goal 9: Economic Development
To inventory commercial and industrial lands, identify future demand, and plan for ways to meet
that demand.
Response: The proposed legislative text amendment supports Goal 9 because it will have the effect
of allowing new and varied economic activity within the MUA zone that will allow the general
public additional economic and business opportunities.
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Response: This application is for a legislative next amendment to the DCC within the MUA zone and
will have no impact on the County or state's ability to provide for the housing needs of the
state's citizens.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan, develop, and maintain public facilities and services that serve the needs of the community
in an orderly and efficient manner.
Response: This application is for a legislative text amendment to the DCC within the MUA zone and
will have no direct impact on public facilities or services. However, by permitting mini -
storage facilities only through a conditional use permit process and also requiring site plan
review, it can be ensured that adequate public facilities and services are available to serve
future mini -storage facilities, and that any disproportionate impacts are adequately
mitigated. Goal 11 is met.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Response: This application is for a legislative text amendment to the DCC within the MUA zone and
will have no direct impact on the County or state transportation system. However, by
permitting mini -storage facilities through a conditional use permit process and subject to
site plan review standards, it can be ensured that adequate transportation connections to
mini -storage sites are provided and that any disproportionate impacts to the transportation
system are adequately mitigated. Further, by limiting mini -storage facilities in the MUA
zone to parcels that are in close proximity to UGBs and adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20, the
proposal ensures that these facilities are provided convenient access to the County's
residents. Goal 12 is met.
Page 17
BOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
April 11, 2024
Response: This application is for a legislative amendment to the DCC within the MUA zone and will
have no direct impact on energy conservation efforts. By subjecting mini -storage uses to
the conditional use process, it can be ensured that these facilities are developed and
designed with best practices, including energy efficient design standards. Goal 13 is met.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate
urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use
of land, and to provide for livable communities.
Response: Goal 14 is intended to regulate the conversion of rural lands to urban -level uses in order to
help ensure efficient use of land and livable communities. The proposed legislative text
amendment is not proposing to amend any UGBs within the County or otherwise convert
rural lands to urban uses. The proposal would allow mini -storage as a conditional use and,
as a narrowly defined use, would limit the proliferation of such uses in a manner that would
conflict with Goal 14.
Further, the allowance of mini -storage supports rural residents by providing opportunities
to store personal property, including equipment, recreational vehicles, and boats. In
addition, other County zones already allow mini -storage, such as the R-I zone, another
zone intended to serve rural communities, which tends to indicate that it is at least a
compatible use in an urban to rural transition zone. The proposed text amendment will limit
the potential location of mini -storage to parcels in the MUA zone that are in close proximity
to existing UGBs and adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20, thereby limiting the potential for "leapfrog"
development and ensuring that any new mini -storage uses will occur in close proximity to
the UGB from which any future expansion would occur. Further, by subjecting mini -storage
uses to the conditional use process, it can be ensured that these facilities are developed
and designed to be compatible with the rural character of the County.
The question whether a given use is urban or rural depends on the factors identified in
Shaffer v. Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989)3. Those factors include whether the
use (1) employs a small number of workers; (2) is significantly dependent on a site -
specific resource and there is a practical necessity to site the use near the resource; (3) is
a type of use typically located in rural areas; and (4) does not require public facilities or
services.
The first factor here would be met because the proposed mini -storage facility would employ
a very small number of workers —with at most one or two single regular on -site employees
during limited hours of operation.
The second factor is satisfied by the site -specific dependency on U.S. Hwy 20 East and
the rural and recreational resources east of Bend. As the site will naturally attract and
provide storage for boats, RVs, off -road vehicles and other recreational equipment there is
a practical necessity to site the storage facility in the particular area where Bend transitions
to those larger rural areas with many residents. By contrast, this is not a mini -storage use
that is proposed to be located directly between two nearby cities with evidence of
3 https://www.oregon.gov/luba/Docs/Opinions/1989/07-89/89015.pdf
Page 18
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Land Use Narrative
1 11, 2024
operational characteristics demonstrating the facility was serving primarily urban residents,
as in Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill Co., 49 Or LUBA 529, 538 (2005)4.
The third factor would also appear to be satisfied, as mini -storage facilities tend to be
located in both rural and urban areas alike, and are indeed conditionally permitted uses in
the Rural Industrial (RI) zone as discussed above. See DCC 18.100.020(M). The nature of
the proposed use is not inherently "urban" in the sense that rural users have the need for
self -storage, as discussed above generally with respect to the purposes of the MUA zone.
Finally, the fourth factor is satisfied, because the use is not reliant upon and does not
require the extension of public facilities or services like water or sewer.
These factors are not conclusive or determinative, but are considered together. Columbia
Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or. LUBA 171, 211 (2014)5. When these factors are
considered together, they do not suggest that the proposed use is any more "urban" in
character rather than "rural."
Under these circumstances, Goal 14 is met.
7.0 Conclusion
As evidenced through this narrative and associated documents, the applicant's proposed text amendment
to the Deschutes County Code is consistent with the applicable local and state policies and regulations
governing the allowance of this request. Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests Deschutes County
approval of this application.
4 https://www.oregon.gov/luba/Docs/Opinions/2005/06-05/05057.pdf
5 https://www.oregon.gov/tuba/Docs/Opinions/2014/08-14/14017.pdf
Page 19
BOWL
MUA ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR MINI -
STORAGE USES
Deschutes County, Oregon
Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) Analysis
Prepared for:
Eastside Bend LLC
721 South Brea Canyon Road, Suite 7
Diamond Bar, California 91789
Prepared by:
963 SW Simpson Avenue; Suite 200
Bend, Oregon 97702
Submitted: April 11, 2024
DOWL #2481.16033.01
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ril 11, 2024
1.0
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 5
1.1
OVERVIEW OF REQUEST & PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................5
1.2
DESCRIPTION OF THE CONFLICTING USE..........................................................................................
5
2.0
ESEE ANALYSIS..................................................................................................
6
2.1
ESEE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................................
6
2.2
EXISTING LOCAL PROTECTIONS........................................................................................................
7
2.3
ESEE ANALYSIS AREA DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................
7
3.0
SITE SPECIFIC ESEE ANALYSIS.......................................................................9
3.1
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES............................................................................................................
9
3.2
SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES...............................................................................................................
11
3.3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................................................................................................
12
3.4
ENERGY CONSEQUENCES..............................................................................................................
12
3.5
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Affected Parcels (ESEE Analysis Area)........................................................................................ 8
Page 3
DE3WL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Anal
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
COID
Central Oregon Irrigation District
County
Deschutes County
DCC
Deschutes County Code
DLCD
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
DOWL
DOWL, LLC
ESEE
Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy
GIS
Geographic Information System
HWY 20
U.S. Highway 20 (Central Oregon Highway)
LCDC
Land Conservation and Development Commission
LM
Landscape Management Combining Zone
LUBA
Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
MUA
Multiple Use Agricultural Zone
OAR
Oregon Administrative Rules
ODOT
Oregon Department of Transportation
ORS
Oregon Revised Statutes
PAPA
Post -Acknowledgement Plan Amendment
ROW
Right -of -Way
RV
Recreational Vehicle
SF
Square Feet
UGB
Urban Growth Boundary
April 11, 2024
Page 4
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Analysis April 11, 2024
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of Request & Project Description
Eastside Bend LLC (applicant) is proposing a legislative amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.32 (Multiple
Use Agricultural Zone; MUA) of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) that would designate mini -storage uses,
including watercraft and RV storage, as a conditionally allowed use within the Multiple Use Agricultural
Zone (MUA). The proposed text amendment would have the effect of allowing mini -storage on parcels that
are:
• Zoned MUA;
• At least 10 acres in size and no greater than 35 acres in size;
• Adjacent to U.S Hwy 20; and
• Within 2,500 feet of an urban growth boundary (UGB).
Given the proposed use would be allowed on certain parcels adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20, the use would be
subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM), which applies to all areas within
one-fourth mile of the centerline of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). Per DCC 18.84.010, the purpose of the LM zone is to
maintain scenic and natural resources of the designated areas and to maintain and enhance scenic vistas
and natural landscapes as seen from designated roads, rivers, or streams. Per Table 5.5.1 within Section
5.5 of Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5 Inventory for Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites, all land within one -
quarter mile of the centerline of U.S. Hwy 20 is subject to the LM zone and is an inventoried Goal 5 resource.
Because the proposed legislative amendment to DCC 18.32 requires a post -acknowledgement plan
amendment (PAPA), which would have the effect of allowing a new use (mini -storage) that could be
conflicting with a Goal 5 resource on the County's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory (scenic views from U.S.
Hwy 20), Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023-0250 requires an Environmental, Social, Economic
and Energy (ESEE) analysis for the proposed mini -storage use.
In 1992, Deschutes County prepared an ESEE analysis for scenic resources, including for scenic
viewsheds and natural landscapes, and implemented the LM zone, which is intended to limit "conflicting
uses" while still allowing development to occur (Ordinance 92-052). While more specific regulations of the
LM zone are discussed in Section 2.2 of this document, it is important to note that the LM zone provides a
maximum building height of 30-feet to help preserve scenic viewsheds from the highway. Additionally, many
of the allowed uses within the MUA zone per DCC 18.32.020 and 18.32.030 are of a similar size and scale
as a mini -storage facility, such as public/semipublic uses (such as libraries or governmental administrative
buildings), public and private schools, or veterinary clinics, demonstrating that the proposed mini -storage
use is not a departure from the size and scale of development already allowed within the MUA and LM
zones'.
1.2 Description of the Conflicting Use
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administers Statewide Planning
Goal 5 Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023-000, which states that the purpose of Goal 5 is "...to conserve
and protect significant Goal 5 natural resources."
Goal 5 Administrative Rule OAR 660-0023-0230(1) identifies Goal 5 scenic views and sites as lands "that
are valued for their aesthetic appearance". The Goal 5 ESEE analysis describes the economic, social,
environmental, and energy consequences of allowing, limiting, or prohibiting a new use that could conflict
with the previously documented and protected scenic views from U.S. Hwy 20.
Goal 5 Administrative Rule OAR 660-023-0010 defines "conflicting use" as follows:
' Per DCC 18.84.030, uses permitted in the underlying zone are also permitted in the LM zone.
Page 5
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Analysis
11.2024
(b) "Conflicting use" is a land use, or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to
land use regulations, that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource (except
as provided in OAR 660-023-0180(1)(b)). Local governments are not required to regard
agricultural practices as conflicting uses.
Goal 5 Administrative Rule (OAR 660-023-0040) describes how conflicting uses are identified:
(2) Identify conflicting uses. Local governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist, or could
occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. To identify these uses, local
governments shall examine land uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones applied
to the resource site and in its impact area. Local governments are not required to consider
allowed uses that would be unlikely to occur in the impact area because existing permanent
uses occupy the site. The following shall also apply in the identification of conflicting uses:
(a) If no uses conflict with a significant resource site, acknowledged policies and land use
regulations may be considered sufficient to protect the resource site. The determination that
there are no conflicting uses must be based on the applicable zoning rather than ownership
of the site. (therefore, public ownership of a site does not by itself support a conclusion that
there are no conflicting uses.)
(b) A local government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource sites
are conflicting uses, with another significant resource site. The local government shall
determine the level of protection for each significant site using the ESEE process and/or the
requirements in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230 (see OAR 660-023-0020(1)).
For this ESEE analysis, the conflicting use is the proposed mini -storage use within the MUA zone for certain
parcels situated along U.S. Hwy 20. Due to the location of the LM zone along U.S. Hwy 20, which is intended
to "maintain and enhance scenic vistas and natural landscapes as screen from designated roads, rivers, or
streams", the new mini -storage use could conflict with this Goal 5 resource and an ESEE analysis is
required.
2.0 ESEE ANALYSIS
2.1 ESEE Analysis Requirements
This ESEE analysis is based on a proposed new mini -storage use within the MUA zone for certain parcels
adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20, which could be conflicting with scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes viewed
from the highway, which are an inventoried Goal 5 resource within the Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan. The County's LM zone per DCC 18.84 is intended to allow development within the LM zone in a way
that is compatible with preserving these views and existing landscapes.
An ESEE analysis evaluates the trade-offs associated with different levels of resource protection. As
required by the Goal 5 Rule, the evaluation process identifies the consequences of allowing, limiting, or
prohibiting conflicting uses in areas containing significant resources, including scenic views. Pursuant to
the Goal 5 Rule, OAR 660-023-0040, the ESEE analysis requires the following steps:
1. Identify the conflicting uses;
2. Determine the impact area;
3. Analyze the ESEE consequences of the conflicting use; and
4. Develop a program to achieve Goal 5
For the purpose of this ESEE analysis, the conflicting use is the proposed mini -storage use within the
MUA zone for certain parcels adjacent to Hwy 20 that are subject to the LM zone, as discussed in
Section 1.1. The impact area for this ESEE analysis consists of the parcels the proposed text
amendment would affect (also referred to as the "affected parcels" within this document), which have
been identified using geographic information systems (GIS), and are described in more detail in
Page 6
BOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Analysis April 11, 2024
Section 2.3 of this document. An ESEE consequences analysis for the impact area is provided in
Section 3.0 of this document. As described in Section 2.2 below, Deschutes County already maintains
a program for achieving Goal 5 specific to the scenic views and natural landscapes viewed from U.S.
Hwy 20, which are an inventoried Goal 5 resource within Deschutes County and are protected though
the establishment of the LM zone.
2.2 Existing Local Protections
As previously discussed, the proposed new mini -storage use within the MUA zone would be allowed on
certain parcels adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20, which would be subject to the County's LM zone, which is intended
to maintain scenic and natural resources of the designated areas and to maintain and enhance scenic
viewsheds and natural landscapes as seen from designated roads, rivers, or streams (including U.S. Hwy
20). The LM zone was established as a result of an ESEE analysis prepared by Deschutes County in 1992
for scenic resources, including for scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes (Ordinance 92-052). The LM
zone is intended to limit conflicting uses while still allowing development to occur.
Within the LM zone, uses permitted in the underlying zone (either outright or conditionally) are permitted
within the LM zone, subject to use limitations per DCC 18.84.050, design review standards per DCC
18.84.080, and setback requirements per DCC 18.84.090. These standards and requirements are intended
to allow development to occur while ensuring compatibility and preservation of scenic vistas and natural
landscapes viewed from the highway in compliance with Goal 5. Notably, the LM zone limits building heights
to 30-feet, which largely ensures scenic viewsheds can be preserved when viewed from a designated road
(such as U.S. Hwy 20). Additionally, many of the allowed uses within the MUA zone per DCC 18.32.020
and 18.32.030 are of a similar size and scale as a mini -storage facility, such as public/semipublic uses
(such as libraries or governmental administrative buildings), public and private schools, or veterinary clinics,
demonstrating that the proposed mini -storage use is not a departure from the size and scale of development
already allowed within the MUA and LM zones. The LM zone also gives the review authority discretion to
require certain improvements or modifications to protect views through site design, such as supplemental
landscaping for screening, as well as specification of certain building materials and colors, depending on
the development proposed and the location of the development site. This discretion further ensures
compatibility with scenic vistas and natural landscapes viewed from U.S. Hwy 20.
The proposed new mini -storage use would also only be allowed conditionally, subject to the conditional use
review procedure per DCC 18.128 and the mini -storage specific standards per DCC 18.128.300. The
County's conditional use process provides the review authority with ample discretion in their review of a
proposed use to ensure that it remains compatible with adjacent development and uses through
consideration of site, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use, adequacy of transportation
access to the development site, and the natural and physical characteristics of the site.
Lastly, any development within the MUA zone would also be subject to the MUA zone development
standards per DCC 18.32, unless superseded by the LM zone or through a condition of approval applied
through the conditional use review process. Any development proposed that includes buildings, parking or
site grading would also be subject to the County's site plan review process per DCC 18.124.
2.3 ESEE Analysis Area Description
As described in Section 1.1, the new proposed mini -storage use would only be allowed on parcels that
meet the following requirements:
• Zoned MUA;
• At least 10 acres in size and no greater than 35 acres in size;
• Adjacent to U.S Hwy 20; and
• Within 2,500 feet of an urban growth boundary (UGB).
Through a GIS analysis of Deschutes County's zoning and tax lot data, it was determined that the proposed
mini -storage use would only affect three parcels, all generally located between Hamby Road/Ward Road
Page 7
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Analysis April 11, 2024
on the east and the Bend UGB on the west. These parcels are identified as tax lots 1712350001201,
1712350001600 and 1712350001400 and are shown on Figure 1 below. U.S. Hwy 20 only traverses
through two UGBs, Bend and Sisters, and there are no MUA-zoned lands adjacent to the Sisters UGB.
While there are ample MUA-zoned lands immediately north of the Bend UGB along U.S. Hwy 20 (Bend -
Sisters Highway), there are no parcels that also meet the acreage size requirements and minimum distance
from the UGB to qualify for the proposed new mini -storage use. For the purpose of this ESEE analysis and
the consideration of a new conflicting use, the ESEE analysis impact area is limited to the portions of tax
lots 1712350001201, 1712350001600 and 1712350001400 within the LM zone and their associated natural
landscapes and scenic views.
Figure 1: Affected Parcels (ESEE Analysis Area)
Q NittYLW Paro�a i
: U6an Gra�lli Bu�Mery '.
LLUrr Gr�v�lll BoiitldrY 3,SP�R Butter
� 0.xirile: Cauvy Bv�rJiry '.
2.3.1. Existing Conditions
The three affected parcels are located just east of the Bend UGB. This location is optimal for the storage
of boats, RVs and recreational equipment as it is along the travel route to vast public lands and lakes to the
east providing recreational opportunities, as well as the eastern route around the City to connect to North
Hwy 97. This location provides the opportunity for local residents to store large recreational vehicles and
equipment along two major transportation corridors to recreational opportunities, thereby decreasing
vehicle miles traveled and carbon emissions.
The three affected parcels are all zoned MUA on the County's zoning map. Adjacent zoning designations
include Urbanizable Area Reserve (UAR10) to the west, Exclusive Farm Use — Tumalo/Redmond/Bend
Subzone (EFUTRB) to the south and east, land within the Bend UGB (but outside Bend city -limits) zoned
Standard Density Residential (RS) to the south and west, and additional MUA zoned land to the south.
All three affected parcels are currently vacant and relatively flat, with elevations varying by approximately
10 feet across each parcel. A Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) canal lateral crosses tax lots
1712350001400 and 1712350001201 generally flowing east to west. Vegetation within each parcel is
relatively sparse, consisting of vegetation typical of Central Oregon such as sagebrush, bitterbrush and
BOWL
Page 8
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Analysis April 11, 2024
scattered juniper trees. Vegetation along each parcel's frontage with U.S. Hwy 20 is mostly limited to scrub
and taller grasses. An overhead power and communication line runs along the frontage of tax lot
1712350001600 on the south side of U.S. Hwy 20.
Views from U.S Hwy 20 to the north are limited as terrain begins to gently slope upward, but Cline Butte is
occasionally visible on clear days. Additionally, the recent construction of a roundabout at U.S. Hwy 20's
intersection with Hamby Road and Ward Road, and the resulting grade changes, have further reduced
views across tax lot 1712350001400 to the north when travelling on the highway. Views from U.S. Hwy 20
to the south are more prominent, with Paulina Peak partially visible, with the aforementioned overhead
power and communication lines partially obscuring this viewshed. Views from U.S. Hwy 20 heading
westbound (toward Bend) include the high Cascades, including Mount Bachelor and South Sister. Views
from U.S. Hwy 20 heading eastbound (toward Burns) are limited, largely due to the new roundabout.
Immediately adjacent rural residential development (on tax lots 1712350001205, 1712350001100 and
1712350001401) obscure views from U.S. Hwy 20 to the north depending on the vantage point.
2.3.2. Site Alterations
Specific site alterations on the three subject parcels are not proposed at this time. This ESEE analysis is
limited to evaluating a new proposed use (mini -storage) that could be conflicting with scenic viewsheds and
natural landscapes viewed from U.S. Hwy 20. As discussed in Section 2.2, if the new mini -storage use text
amendment is approved, any new development eventually proposed would be subject to the County's land
use review process and numerous development regulations intended to ensure compatibility with scenic
views and natural landscapes through the implementation and application of the LM zone to new
development on parcels subject to the LM zone.
3.0 SITE SPECIFIC ESEE ANALYSIS
An ESEE analysis describes the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing,
limiting, or prohibiting a possible conflicting use with an inventoried Goal 5 resource. For the purpose of this
ESEE analysis, the conflicting use is the new proposed mini -storage use within the MUA zone for certain
parcels along U.S. Hwy 20, which would be subject to the County's LM zone, which is intended to maintain
scenic and natural resources of the designated areas and to maintain and enhance scenic viewsheds and
natural landscapes as seen from designated roads, rivers or streams (including U.S. Hwy 20). For the
purpose of this analysis, "allow", "limit", and "prohibit" are defined as follows:
Allow Conflicting Uses: "Allowing" the conflicting use means that Deschutes County is not applying
additional protections to Significant Goal 5 scenic resources beyond baseline protection provided by other,
non-Goal-5 local, state, and/or federal requirements.
Limit Conflicting Uses: "Limiting" conflicting uses strikes a balance between completely developing
Significant Goal 5 resources and completely protecting them. This alternative involves developing lands in
ways that minimize negative environmental and economic tradeoffs, supporting the development goals
embodied in local and regional land use plans, and protecting the most important Goal 5 Significant scenic
resources. In 1992, Deschutes County prepared an ESEE analysis for scenic resources, including for
scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes, and implemented the LM zone, which is intended to limit
conflicting uses while still allowing development to occur (Ordinance 92-052). Limiting the conflicting use,
in this case, would mean applying the standards and regulations of the LM zone to the new mini -storage
use.
Prohibiting Conflicting Uses: "Prohibiting" conflicting uses would prevent development actions that
conflict with, or degrade, Significant Goal 5 resources. This scenario emphasizes resource protection.
Protection measures would exceed baseline protections provided by other local, state, and/or federal
requirements.
3.1 Economic Consequences
The following describes the economic consequences for each of the three protection scenarios.
Page 9
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Anal
3.1.1. Prohibiting Conflicting Use (Full Protection)
11, 2024
The consequences of prohibiting the conflicting use would be mixed. The consequences for the scenic
views and existing natural landscapes could be positive if the affected parcels were not otherwise
developed under available permitted or conditionally permitted use development allowances within the
MUA zone. The visual quality of the ESEE analysis area could be maintained, potentially maximizing
preservation of each parcel's visual qualities. As noted in in the County's original ESEE analysis for scenic
resources (Ordinance 92-052), "maintaining or enhancing visual quality makes the county a more attractive
place to visit, thereby attracting more visitors and inducing people to stay longer'. It should be noted that
the vegetation on the affected parcels within the LM zone is already limited as discussed in Section 2.3.1,
and viewsheds to the north and south are minimal and already reduced through adjacent rural residential
development and overhead utilities along the highway's south frontage. Views to the west toward the high
Cascades would not be impacted by development of the affected parcels.
The economic consequences related to prohibiting the mini -storage use would be negative. A new use and
development opportunity would not be permissible, limiting the creation of additional job opportunities, and
positive economic activity would not be generated through mini -storage development. Prohibiting the use
could mean fewer storage opportunities for the Deschutes County community, and rural residents in close
proximity to the affected parcels would have to travel further to other mini -storage facilities located within
UGBs, such as Bend. Full protection would also completely limit vegetation removal, minimizing
development potential of a parcel and/or increasing costs to develop, leading to design requirements such
as longer driveways or access roads in order to access areas of a development site beyond the LM zone.
3.1.2. Limit Conflicting Use (Limited Protection)
Limiting the conflicting use through the application of the LM zone, thereby helping to ensure any future
development on the affected parcels is subject to the use and development regulations of the LM zone per
DCC18.84, such as height limitations, would allow the conflicting use to occur in a manner that is sensitive
to the scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes. Limiting the use while still allowing development to occur
would have generally positive economic consequences. A new use and development opportunity would be
allowed, which could create additional job opportunities for the County's residents and generate positive
economic activity. The creation of new mini -storage uses would provide a necessary service in closer
proximity to rural residents and limit the need to drive into Bend for a similar storage need.
Similarly, limiting the conflicting use in a manner that is sensitive to scenic views and natural landscapes
helps to maintain the visual quality of Deschutes County, ensuring that Deschutes County is an attractive
place to visit, and as noted in the County's 1992 ESEE analysis, enticing more visitors which can generate
positive economic activity in the County. As discussed in Section 2.2, the LM zone's application of use
limitations per DCC 18.84.050, design review standards per DCC 18.84.080, and setback requirements per
DCC 18.84.090 all help ensure compatibility between site design and the scenic viewsheds and natural
landscapes the LM zone is intending to preserve. Notably, the LM zone limits building heights to 30-feet,
which largely ensures scenic viewsheds can be preserved when viewed from a designated road (such as
U.S. Hwy 20). Further, the mini -storage use would only be allowed conditionally, subject to the conditional
use review procedure per DCC 18.128 and the mini -storage specific standards per DCC 18.128.300, which
provides the review authority additional discretion in their review to apply conditions of approval on a mini -
storage use that is sensitive to specific site conditions and adjacent development patterns.
3.1.3. Allow Conflicting Use (No Protection)
The consequence of allowing the conflicting use without any protections would be mixed. The
consequences for the affected parcel's natural landscapes and the viewsheds from U.S. Hwy 20 would be
negative. Future mini -storage use development, without limitations, could significantly impact viewsheds
and remove all existing natural vegetation, which would diminish the affected parcel's visual quality and
could reduce the County's attractiveness to new business interests and tourists. The economic
consequences related to allowing the new mini -storage use would be positive, given one of the affected
parcels could develop without concern for scenic viewsheds or existing natural landscapes, helping to
ensure the economic benefits stated above in Section 3.1.2, including potential job creation and positive
economic activity.
Page 10
DOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Analysis April 11, 2024
3.2 Social Consequences
The following describes the social consequences for each of the three protection scenarios.
3.2.1. Prohibitinq Conflicting Use (Full Protection)
The consequences of prohibiting the conflicting use would be mixed. The consequences for the scenic
views and natural landscapes could be positive if the affected parcels were not otherwise developed under
available permitted or conditionally permitted use development allowances within the MUA zone. The visual
quality of the affected parcels could be maintained and natural landscapes could be preserved. As
discussed in the County's 1992 ESEE analysis, maintaining the County's visual quality enhances the
livability of Deschutes County. As Deschutes County continues to urbanize, primarily through growth within
the Bend and Redmond UGBs, maintaining scenic quality in the County's rural areas will remain important.
However, as mentioned, the vegetation on the affected parcels within the LM zone is already limited, and
viewsheds to the north and south are minimal and already reduced through existing rural residential
development and overhead utilities. Views to the west toward the high Cascades would not be impacted by
development of the affected parcels.
The social consequences related to prohibiting the mini -storage use would be negative. An additional
employment opportunity would not be created and additional storage opportunities for County residents
would not be possible. Deschutes County is a destination for outdoor recreation, with many County
residents, as well as visitors, utilizing the extensive public lands and waterways for sport and leisure. Many
County residents rely on storage facilities to store recreational equipment, vehicles and watercraft, and
prohibiting the mini -storage use would limit options for mini -storage facilities outside of UGBs, requiring
rural residents to drive further to meet this need, which could limit the County's livability potential.
3.2.2. Limit Conflicting Use (Limited Protection)
Limiting the conflicting use through the application of the LM zone, thereby helping to ensure any future
development on the affected parcels is subject to the use and development regulations of the LM zone per
DCC 18.84, would allow the conflicting use to occur in a manner that is sensitive to the scenic viewsheds
and natural landscapes. Limiting the use while still allowing development to occur would have generally
positive social consequences. A new use and development opportunity would be allowed, creating
additional employment and storage opportunities for the County's residents. Given the importance of
outdoor recreation to the social fabric of Deschutes County, providing opportunities for residents to store
recreational equipment, vehicles and watercraft for personal use in locations in the County more proximal
to the outdoor recreation uses would be beneficial to the County's livability. Further, providing mini -storage
uses in closer proximity to rural residents limits the need to drive further into UGBs for this service, allowing
rural residents to spend more time on other pursuits, which could further increase livability for residents.
Limiting the conflicting use in a manner that is sensitive to scenic views and natural landscapes will also
help preserve and maintain the visual quality of Deschutes County, further enhancing the County's livability.
As mentioned in Section 3.2.1, maintaining the County's visual quality in rural areas will remain important
as the County continues to urbanize and grow within UGBs. The use limitations and development standards
applied through the LM zone, such as a maximum building height of 30-feet, can help to ensure that any
future development for mini -storage uses on the affected parcels is done in a manner that is considerate of
scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes, and the conditional use review procedure provides the review
authority with additional discretion that can ensure compatibility with specific site conditions and adjacent
development patterns.
3.2.3. Allow Conflicting Use (No Protection)
The consequences of allowing the conflicting use without any protections would be mixed. The
consequences for the affected parcel's natural landscapes and the viewsheds from U.S. Hwy 20 would be
negative. Future mini -storage development, without limitations, could completely block viewsheds and
remove all existing natural vegetation, which would diminish the affected parcel's visual quality, thereby
reducing Deschutes County's overall scenic and visual quality. The consequences related to allowing the
new mini -storage use would be positive, as stated above in Section 3.2.2, including potential job creation
Page 11
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Analysis April 11, 2024
and additional opportunities for storage in support of Deschutes County's recreational opportunities, which
is integral aspect of the County's livability.
3.3 Environmental Consequences
The following describes the environmental consequences for each of the three protection scenarios.
3.3,1. Prohibiting Conflicting Use (Full Protection)
The consequences of prohibiting the conflicting use would be mixed. The consequences for the scenic
views and existing natural landscapes could be positive if the affected parcels were not otherwise
developed under available permitted or conditionally permitted use development allowances within the
MUA zone. Existing landscapes and natural vegetation could be maintained, including existing trees and
underbrush, which may provide habitat qualities. Existing vegetation also helps prevent erosion. The scenic
qualities of the affected parcels could also be maintained, although scenic qualities do not necessarily
provide environmental benefit. As mentioned, existing vegetation within the affected parcels is already
limited, and adjacent rural residential development, as well as U.S. Hwy 20 itself, may limit the functional
values of any habitat areas within the affected parcels.
The environmental consequences related to prohibiting the mini -storage use could be negative due to the
fact that the proposed text amendment would allow the development of mini -storage facilities in closer
proximity to rural residents. This proximity to rural residential areas could reduce drive times, thereby
reducing carbon emissions for local business and residents who wish to utilize these facilities, given they
would not have to drive to a UGB to meet this need.
3.3.2. Limit Conflicting Use (Limited Protection)
Limiting the conflicting use through the application of the LM zone, thereby helping to ensure any future
development on the affected parcels is subject to the use and development regulations of the LM zone per
DCC18.84, would allow the conflicting use to occur in a manner that is sensitive to the subject parcel's
existing natural vegetation and any habitat qualities this vegetation provides. In addition, a new use and
development opportunity would be allowed. The creation of additional mini -storage facilities in closer
proximity to rural residents, as well as public lands that offer recreational amenities, could reduce drive
times and carbon emissions as rural residents would no longer have to drive to a UGB to utilize these
services. The LM zone use limitations and development standards would apply, helping to ensure
compatibility between site design and scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes that the LM zone is
intending to preserve, as discussed in Section 3.1.2. Notably, the LM zone limits building heights to 30-feet,
which largely ensures scenic viewsheds can be preserved when viewed from a designated road (such as
U.S. Hwy 20). Therefore, limiting the conflicting use would generally have positive environmental
consequences.
3.3.3. Allow Conflicting Use (No Protection)
The consequences of allowing the conflicting use without any protections would be mixed. The
consequences for the affected parcel's natural landscapes and the viewsheds from U.S. Hwy 20 would be
negative. Without limitations, future mini -storage development could completely remove existing natural
vegetation, and harm any habitat qualities this vegetation provides. The environmental consequences
related to allowing the new mini -storage uses would be positive for the reasons stated in Section 3.3.2,
including reduced drive times and carbon emissions as nearby rural residents would no longer have to drive
to a UGB to access mini -storage facilities.
3.4 Energy Consequences
The following describes the energy consequences for reach of the three protection scenarios.
3.4.1. Prohibiting Conflicting Use (Full Protection)
The consequences of prohibiting the conflicting use would be mixed. The consequences related to the
scenic views and existing natural landscapes could be positive if the affected parcels were not otherwise
Page 12
DOWL
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Analysis April 11, 2024
developed under available permitted or conditionally permitted use development allowances within the
MUA zone. The visual qualities of the affected parcels could be maintained, potentially maximizing
preservation of each parcel's visual quality. This means that nearby County residents, including those within
the Bend UGB, could enjoy these viewsheds without having to drive further for similar views, increasing
energy use. It should be noted that the vegetation on the affected parcels within the LM zone is already
limited as discussed in Section 2.3.1, and viewsheds to the north and south are minimal and already
reduced through adjacent rural residential development and overhead utilities. Views to the west toward
the high Cascades would not be impacted by development of the affected parcels.
The energy consequences related to prohibiting the mini -storage use would be negative. Additional
opportunities for the development of mini -storage facilities in closer proximity to rural residents could not
occur. The opportunity for these facilities to be constructed in closer proximity to rural residential areas
could reduce drive times, thereby reducing energy consumption necessary for local businesses and nearby
residents who wish to utilize these facilities, given they would not have to drive to a UGB to meet this end.
3.4.2. Limit Conflicting Use (Limited Protection
Limiting the conflicting use through the application of the LM zone, thereby helping to ensure any future
development on the affected parcels is subject to the use and development regulations of the LM zone per
DCC18.84, would allow the conflicting use to occur in a manner that is sensitive to the subject parcel's
existing natural vegetation and scenic viewsheds as viewed from U.S. Hwy 20, meaning nearby County
residents can continue to enjoy the visual qualities provided by the affected parcels without having to drive
further for similar views. The creation of additional mini -storage facilities in closer proximity to rural residents
could reduce drive times and energy usage as rural residents would no longer have to drive to a UGB to
utilize these services. The LM zone use limitations and development standards would apply, helping to
ensure compatibility between site design and scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes that the LM zone
is intending to preserve, as discussed in Section 3.1.2. Notably, the LM zone limits building heights to 30-
feet, which largely ensures scenic viewsheds can be preserved when viewed from a designated road (such
as U.S. Hwy 20). Therefore, limiting the conflicting use would generally have positive energy consequences.
3.4.3. Allow Conflicting Use (No Protection)
The consequences of allowing the conflicting use without any protections would be mixed. The
consequences for the affected parcel's natural landscapes and the viewsheds from U.S. Hwy 20 would be
negative. Without limitations, future mini -storage development could completely remove existing natural
vegetation and block viewsheds, minimizing the visual qualities of the affected parcels, meaning nearby
residents would have to drive further for similar views. The energy consequences related to allowing the
mini -storage uses would be positive for the reasons stated in Section 3.4.2, including reduced energy
consumption as nearby rural residents would no longer have to drive to a UGB to access mini -storage
facilities.
3.5 Conclusion
The applicant's proposal provides an analysis of the relative trade-offs between the County's protection of
scenic views and natural landscapes and the proposed legislative amendment to the DCC that would
designate mini -storage uses, including watercraft and RV storage, as a conditionally allowed use within the
MUA zone for certain parcels adjacent to U.S. Hwy 20. The addition of mini -storage as a conditionally
allowed use within the MUA zone provides an additional opportunity for job creation, positive economic
development and an additional service for nearby residents that would limit the need to drive into a UGB to
access this service.
Prohibiting the conflicting use would preserve the affected parcel's natural landscapes and viewsheds but
would not allow a new use that could generate a number of benefits for rural residents as identified
throughout Section 3.0 of this analysis. This would result in multiple negative consequences as follows:
• No positive economic growth benefit or job creation from the construction of potential new mini -
storage facilities.
Page 13
MUA Zone Text Amendment for Mini -Storage Uses
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy Anal
April 11, 2024
• Drive times and energy consumption for rural residents could not be reduced and these residents
would need to continue to drive into a UGB to access this service.
• Additional mini -storage facilities that can accommodate recreational equipment, vehicles,
watercraft and RVs would not be permissible in the MUA zone, and an opportunity to support
Deschutes County's extensive outdoor recreational amenities, which is integral to the County's
social fabric, could not occur.
Limiting the conflicting use through the application of the LM zone, thereby helping to ensure any future
development on the affected parcels is subject to the use and development regulations of the LM zone per
DCC18.84, such as a maximum building height of 30-feet, would allow the conflicting use to occur in a
manner that is sensitive to the scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes. Through a decision to limit the
new mini -storage use, the following could be achieved:
• Scenic viewsheds and natural landscapes within the affected parcels could be largely preserved
through existing DCC regulations applied through the LM zone, ensuring these views can continue
to be enjoyed by Deschutes County residents and visitors alike in support of the County's livability.
• Positive economic growth benefits could occur from the potential of new mini -storage facilities that
cater primarily to rural residents.
• Additional job opportunities could be created.
• Drive times, energy consumption and carbon emissions could be reduced through the development
of mini -storage facilities that are in closer proximity to nearby rural residents.
Additional mini -storage facilities that can accommodate recreational equipment, vehicles,
watercraft and RVs could be constructed in support of Deschutes County's numerous recreational
amenities. Further, the affected parcel's location along U.S. Hwy 20, a key travel route to vast public
lands and lakes to the east, provides an opportunity for local residents to store recreational
equipment along a major transportation corridor to these recreational amenities, which could also
reduce vehicle miles travelled and carob emissions.
Allowing the conflicting uses with no protection could allow new mini -storage uses within the affected
parcels, with most of the results listed above, but would have the greatest impact to the scenic viewsheds
and natural landscapes since no development standards or other regulations, such as those applied
through the LM zone, would be enforced.
This analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use would result in the most positive consequences of
the three decision scenarios. A decision to limit the new mini -storage use would avoid many of the negative
consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting use. The LM zone's application of
use limitations per DCC 18.84.050, design review standards per DCC 18.84.080, and setback requirements
per DCC 18.84.090 all help ensure compatibility between site design and the scenic viewsheds and natural
landscapes the LM zone is intending to preserve. Further, the mini -storage use would only be allowed
conditionally, subject to the conditional use review procedure per DCC 18.128 and the mini -storage specific
standards per DCC 18.128.300, which provides the review authority additional discretion in their review to
apply conditions of approval on a mini -storage use that is sensitive to specific site conditions and adjacent
development patterns. For the reasons concluded through this ESEE analysis, limiting the conflicting use
is recommended for the proposed zoning text amendment.
� O W L
Page 14
247-24-000044-TA `\\UIESC,
�y a
o <
„=700' Highway 20 Mini -Storage Text Amendments
Attachment D
Conditional Use Criteria
18 128.015 General Standards Governing Conditional Uses
Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single-family dwellings, conditional
uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in
which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter:
1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.
18.128.020 Conditions
In addition to the standards and conditions set forth in a specific zone or in DCC 18.124,
the Planning Director or the Hearings Body may impose the following conditions upon a
finding that additional restrictions are warranted.
1. Require a limitation on manner in which the use is conducted, including restriction
of hours of operation and restraints to minimize environmental effects such as
noise, vibrations, air pollution, glare or odor.
2. Require a special yard or other open space or a change in lot area or lot dimension.
3. Require a limitation on the height, size or location of a structure.
4. Specify the size, number, location and nature of vehicle access points.
5. Increase the required street dedication, roadway width or require additional
improvements within the street right of way.
6. Designate the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of
a parking or loading area.
7. Limit or specify the number, size, location, height and lighting of signs.
8. Limit the location and intensity of outdoor lighting and require shielding.
9. Specify requirements for diking, screening, landscaping or other methods to protect
adjacent or nearby property and specify standards for installation and maintenance.
10. Specify the size, height and location of any materials to be used for fencing.
11. Require protection and preservation of existing trees, vegetation, water resources,
wildlife habitat or other significant natural resources.
12. Require that a site plan be prepared in conformance with DCC 18.124.
18.128.300 Mini -Storage Facility
1. Each individual space for rent or sale shall be less than 1000 square feet.
2. Mini -storage shall be limited to dead storage. Outside storage shall be limited to
boats, recreational vehicles and similar vehicles placed within designated spaces on
an all-weather surfaced area which is surrounded by a sight -obscuring fence at least
six feet in height.
3. Yards shall be permanently landscaped.
4. Yard dimensions adjacent to residential zones shall be the same as required yards
within the residential zone.
S. Parking shall be provided for office space associated with the mini -storage facility at
one (1) space for every 300 square feet of office space. A minimum of two (2)
parking spaces shall be provided for all mini -storage facilities regardless of office
size.
6. All structures shall be fenced and visually screened.
7. Traffic lanes shall be 12 feet wide with an additional 10-foot parking lane, except
where the traffic lane does not serve the storage units. All areas provided for vehicle
access, parking and movement shall be improved to minimum public road
standards.
8. A residence for a caretaker or 24-hour on -site manager is permitted.
9. There shall be only one access from each adjacent street.
10.Outside lighting, including shading to prevent glare on adjacent properties, may be
required for safety and security purposes.
rP1. oAwr0�N
LANDWATCH
August 28, 2024
Filed via hand delivery and email: Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
c/o Nicole Mardell, Senior Planner
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Application file no, 247-24-000044-TA; proposed text amendments to Multiple Use
Agricultural zone to allow storage facilities as a conditional use
Dear Chair Adair and Deschutes County Commissioners,
On behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch ("LandWatch"), thank you for the opportunity to
submit public comment on these proposed text amendments ("proposed amendments") to the
Deschutes County Code ("DCC"). LandWatch provided written and oral comment to the Planning
Commission, which voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the proposed amendments. This comment
letter reproduces and expands on our written comments to the Planning Commission.
LandWatch is opposed to the proposed amendments that would allow storage facilities as a
conditional use within the county's Multiple Use Agricultural Zone ("MUA-10"). For the reasons
below, the proposed amendments are contrary to law and should be denied.
I. Introduction and background
This application proposes to allow mini -storage facilities as a new conditional use within
the County's MUA-10 zone and in the County's inventoried Goal 5 Scenic Views resource area.
As the June 13, 2024 staff report provided to the Planning Commission lays out, such storage
facilities are already allowed in several other County zones: Terrebonne Commercial, Terrebonne
Commercial — Rural, Terrebonne Industrial, Sunriver Business Park, Rural Commercial, and Rural
Industrial. All these zones are either located in unincorporated communities regulated under OAR
Chapter 660 Division 22 (special rules regulating land uses in unincorporated communities) or in
the Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial zones which apply to "existing areas of isolated rural
1
U N r P 0 €a E G ON www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
commercial/industrial development that do not fit under Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22."'
The proposed amendments would expand opportunity for storage facility use to the
MUA-10 zone, but would constrain the eligibility for the use to only three properties located
adjacent to the Bend urban growth boundary on its east side.2 Two of those three properties are
owned by the applicant, Eastside Bend, LLC. In its corporate filing with the Oregon Secretary of
State, Eastside Bend, LLC lists a Diamond Bar, California address as both its principal place of
business and the address of its sole member.3 Up until 2019, both Eastside Bend, LLC's properties
were designated Agriculture and zoned EFU. In Ordinance No. 2019-006, the County approved
Eastside Bend, LLC's application to redesignate both of these properties from Agricultural to
Rural Residential Exception Area and rezone both properties from EFU to MUA-10.'
The third property is owned by Te Amo Despacio LLC. Up until July 2023, this property
was also designated Agriculture and zoned EFU. In Ordinance No. 2023-010, the County
approved the owner's application to redesignate the property from Agricultural to Rural
Residential Exception Area and rezone the property from EFU to MUA-10.5
For all three properties, the owners sought the County's Rural Residential Exception Area
plan designation and MUA-10 zoning, knowing full well the allowed uses of the MUA-10 zone,
and presumedly knowing that while several other County zones allow storage facilities, the
MUA-10 zone does not.
As staff noted at the May 30, 2024 Planning Commission Work Session, although the text
amendment application would currently apply to only these three properties, that could change.
More properties could become eligible under two scenarios: (1) a UGB amendment, and (2) by
aggregating multiple contiguous properties to meet the proposed amendments' acreage
requirements. While the application would immediately apply to only three properties, they
concede on their face that additional properties may be eligible through aggregation.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP") at page 15.
2 The proposed amendments would allow multiple contiguous properties to be aggregated to
meet proposed minimum acreage requirements. The implications of this allowance are discussed
below.
3 LandWatch PC comments Exhibit 1 (Oregon Secretary of State business registration)
a LandWatch PC comments Exhibit 2 (Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2019-006)
5 LandWatch PC comments Exhibit 3 (Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2023-010)
N TQ A 0 taw G 0 www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
II. The proposed amendments conflict with the purpose of the MUA-10 zone.
The fundamental purpose of the MUA-10 zone is the preservation of the "rural character"
of the County.' The Deschutes County Code's (DCC) Purpose Statement lays out how the
MUA-10 zone functionally preserves rural character: by only permitting development consistent
with that character; by preserving agricultural lands for diversified or part-time agricultural uses;
by conserving open space, natural, and scenic resources; and by maintaining and improving the
"land resources" of the County. The purpose statement of the zone is an applicable criteria, and an
application that does not further or at least adhere to the purpose of the zone should properly be
denied.
A storage facility's incompatibility with preserving rural character in MUA-10 is apparent
when compared to other uses permitted outright or conditionally within the zone. Uses permitted
outright within the zone include part-time agricultural use, residential use, and non-commercial
horse stables.' Conditional uses permitted within MUA-10 include veterinarian clinics, bed and
breakfasts, campgrounds, public parks, schools, and churches.' A throughline between these uses
is that they provide for elements protected by the MUA-10 zone, including residential use,
agricultural use, and enjoyment of open space. These uses are consistent with a rural lifestyle and
the rural character of the land protected within the zone. In contrast, mini -storage facilities are
characterized by retail offices, tall metal fences, corrugated metal roofs, and impermeable concrete
pads and/or extensive hardpack gravel.'
More to the point, allowing storage facilities within the zone also would not "preserve
agricultural land... for diversified or part-time agricultural uses."10 Instead, it would do quite the
opposite. Once parcels within the county's MUA-10 zone have been converted to a storage facility
that land will not be suitable for the smaller agricultural uses for which the MUA-10 zone
facilitates. The MUA-10 zone is not a commercial or industrial zone; it is a residential and
small-scale agricultural zone that conditionally allows a small handful of accessory rural
commercial uses. Large storage facilities are incompatible with the MUA-10 zone.
6 DCC 18.32.010 Multiple Use Agricultural Zone; MUA
' DCC 18.32.020 Uses Permitted Outright.
s DCC 18.32.030 Conditional Uses Permitted.
9 DCC 18.128.300 Mini -Storage Facility.
10 DCC 18.32.010 Purposes.
Finally, allowing the proposed conditional use would not protect natural and scenic
resources, nor would it conserve open spaces. The applicant tries to wish away this contradiction
by pointing to the Landscape Management (LM) combining zone as evidence that mini -storage
facilities will not harm natural or scenic resources. At a certain point, however, an overlay zone
like LM can only do so much to disguise what is in essence, a large parking lot with hundreds of
metal and concrete garages therein. Furthermore, no amount of dimensional standards can
reconcile the construction of a more than 10 acre mini -storage facility with the zone's express
purpose of conserving open space. Relatedly, and as discussed below, the proposed amendments
would violate Goal 5 by allowing a conflicting use with the County's inventoried Scenic Views
Goal 5 resource along the Highway 20 corridor. Permitting such a conditional use within the
MUA-10 zone would be antithetical to its declared purpose and this application should properly be
denied.
III. No demonstrated need for the amendment exists and the proposed amendments
are unsupported by an adequate factual base, violating Statewide Planning Goal
2.
While demonstrated need is not an applicable criteria for approval, Statewide land use
planning Goal 2 does require zoning code text amendments to be supported by an adequate factual
base." The applicant has claimed that "mini -storage is needed for rural residents who do not have
options to meet storage needs within their own properties...""- Here, though, the record is devoid
of evidence of demand for storage facilities within the MUA-10 zone. The reason for the lack of
demand is self-evident: properties within the MUA-10 zone are subject to 10-acre minimum lot
sizes, meaning that residents within the zone have ample room to store their possessions on their
property. The applicant themselves testified to the Planning Commission that they are planning to
develop storage facilities on vacant land inside the Bend UGB. There is no need for additional land
for storage facilities in the rural county.
Further, even if true, the applicant's unsupported claim of need is not reason enough to
justify amending the text of the Deschutes County zoning code. Residents of the MUA-10 zone
may "need" access to many commercial/industrial retail businesses, but commercial or industrial
" OAR 660-015-0000(2)
12 Application at page 8.
4
m N Y R .0 P ;w c 0 �a wvvw,�ral�.9rg
LANDWATCH
storage —like almost every other imaginable commercial or industrial use— is not a permitted use
within the zone. This is by design. With lands properly zoned and uses restricted as they are,
Deschutes County has consistently been ranked as one of the fastest -growing counties in not only
the state, but the entire country. Deschutes County's impressive growth rate is owed at least in part
to the high quality of life associated with County protection of its rural lands, which provide open
space, quiet, scenic values, wildlife habitat, and opportunities for county residents to engage in
diversified or part-time agriculture. County zones like MUA-10, which do not allow urban,
commercial/industrial uses, are fundamental to why Deschutes County is such an attractive place
to live. As a result, MUA-10 should be protected from the proposed text amendment, the need for
which is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
IV. The application conflicts with DCC 22.04 because the application seeks a
quasi-judicial decision for three specific properties under the guise of a legislative
land use proceeding.
a. Deschutes County Code
An important issue is whether this land use application should be processed legislatively or
quasi judicially. The DCC defines "legislative changes" as those that "generally involve broad
public policy decisions that apply to other than an individual property owner. These include,
without limitation, amendments to the text of the comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, or the
subdivision or partition ordinance and changes in zoning maps not directed at a small number of
property owners." DCC 22.04.020 (emphasis added). The DCC also defines "legislative" as "a
planning or zoning action resulting in a general rule or policy which is applicable to an open class
of individuals or situations." DCC 18.04.030 (emphasis added). This application would
immediately apply to only two property owners, one of whom is the applicant themself. This is a
quasi-judicial application, and not a legislative application, and the County has erred in processing
this application pursuant to its legislative procedures.
Whether this application is processed quasi -judicially or legislatively has significant effects
on the substantial rights of the parties. If properly processed quasi -judicially, the procedural rights
of ORS 197.797 and DCC Title 22 would apply. Those rights, for example, include mandatory
notice of hearings to certain property owners pursuant to ORS 197.797(2)-(3). They also include
the right to request the opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments, and testimony. ORS
E
v E N rA O R E G 0 :M www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
197.797(6). The DCC requires that where other provisions of the code provide greater opportunity
for public notice and comment, those procedures shall apply. DCC 22.08.060. Additionally, if
properly processed quasi judicially, different criteria may be applicable. LandWatch and the
public's substantial rights to informed participation in the land use process are prejudiced by the
processing of this application legislatively versus quasi judicially.
b. Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers
Support for properly considering this application to be a proposal for a quasi-judicial land
use decision can be found in caselaw as well. DCC 22.04.020 further provides that "[t]he
distinction between legislative and quasi-judicial changes must ultimately be made on a
case -by -case basis with reference to case law on the subject." The case -by -case test for whether a
land use application is quasi-judicial was articulated in Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v Benton
County.13 There, the Oregon Supreme Court determined that a land use application is quasi-judicial
if (1) the process is bound to result in a decision; (2) the decision is bound to apply preexisting
criteria to concrete facts; and (3) the action is directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation
or a relatively small number of persons.14 The more definitely that each factor is answered in the
positive, the more likely the decision under consideration is a quasi-judicial land use decision.15
Each of the factors must be weighed, and no single factor is determinative. L6
Under the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test, the first and second factors weigh in favor of
considering Eastside Bend's application a request for quasi judical land use decision. The first
factor is answered in the positive because the application process is bound to result in a decision.
In this case, the County will decide whether or not to approve the proposed text amendment. The
DCC allows for applicant -initiated text amendments. DCC 22.12.030. Text amendments
applications must be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners. DCC 22.12.040. Text amendments "shall be adopted by ordinance." DCC
22.12.050. The result of this application will be a decision to either adopt or not adopt the
t3 Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v Board of Com'rs for Benton Cnty., 287 Or. 591 (Or., 1979).
14 Id. at 602-603.
15 Sullivan a Polk County, 49 Or LUBA 543, 548 (2005) (citing Valerio v Union County, 33 Or
LUBA 604, 607 (1997)).
16 Sullivan a Polk County, 49 Or LUBA 543, 548 (2005) (citing Estate of Gold v City of Portland,
87 Or App 45, 740 P2d 812 (1987)).
GM hi YAK 0P EGt1..M
LANDWATCH
proposed text amendment.
www.coiw.org
The second factor is also answered in the positive because the proposed text amendment
applies preexisting criteria (the applicable procedures under Title 22, the DCCP policies, and the
Statewide Land Use Planning Goals) to concrete facts (the applicant's burden of proof). This sort
of low bar for satisfying the second factor has led the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) to
conclude that among the factors, the second is "less important than the other two" particularly
where, like here, the potential decision adopts a new land use law."
The third factor of the Strawberry Hill 4-Wheelers test —whether the action is directed at a
closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons— hews the most
decisively in favor of the application being considered quasi-judicial. Rather than simply
proposing county -wide amendments to the MUA-10 zone, the text amendment imposes a series of
geographic requirements for a property within the zone to be eligible for a conditional use permit
(CUP). The result of the applicant's deliberate geographic siting limitations for mini -storage
facilities is a text amendment so narrowly circumscribed that three specific properties, under only
two ownerships, are implicated by the proposal.
The third factor also asks whether "the land use consequences are disproportionately
concentrated on a relatively small pool of persons, as opposed to a larger region or the general
population."18 Again, the answer is undeniably yes. Of the three properties implicated by the
application, two belong to the applicant. This means that the most profound land use
consequences (or benefits) of the amendment are concentrated on no more than two total parties:
the applicant and an adjacent landowner (Te Arno Despacio LLC). Pools of persons cannot get
any smaller than two and here, the benefits are concentrated on the applicant and one other
property owner.
What is more, while the application is original in substance, the legal strategy employed by
Eastside Bend, LLC is not new at all. LUBA has already had occasion to review land use
applications that only apply to a very limited number of parcels owned by an applicant, and has
repeatedly deemed such proposals to have the characteristics of a quasi-judicial land use decision.
" Carver a Deschutes County, 58 Or LUBA 323, 6 (2009).
" Van Dyke a Yamhill County, _ Or LUBA _, slip op. at 4, LUBA No. 2018-061 (December
20, 2018).
7
t Q A_ .0 P E G 0 N www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
In Thomas a City of Veneta, 44 Or LUBA 5, 14 (2003), LUBA held that the third Strawberry Hill
4 Wheelers factor was satisfied when only two tax lots were directly affected by the challenged
decision. Similarly, in Sullivan a Polk County, 49 Or LUBA 543 (2005) LUBA determined that a
decision that amends the comprehensive plan and zoning maps for a 20-acre parcel under single
ownership is properly viewed as a quasi-judicial decision under Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers.
Finally, in Dean a City of Oakland, 33 Or LUBA 806 (1997) LUBA found that when a land use
decision focuses primarily on the specific provisions of a proposal and the characteristics of the
land owned by the person making the proposal, the decision satisfies the third of the Strawberry
Hill 4 Wheelers factors and may be quasi-judicial rather than legislative.
In this application, the applicant's objectives are clear: to pave the way for developing
mini -storage facilities on the specific parcels of land they personally own. Instead of attempting a
quasi-judicial amendment of the zoning of their personal properties, however, the applicant has
elected to seek an amendment to the text of the DCC in such a way that stands to benefit only
themself. Such an approach conflicts with both the spirit and substance of Statewide Planning Goal
2 and DCC 22.04. Moreover, because all three Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers factors indicate that
land use decision is quasi-judicial in character, the application should properly be considered a
request for a quasi-judicial land use decision, not a legislative text amendment.
V. The proposed amendment conflicts with the goals and policies of the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP").
The DCCP is a declaration of public purpose describing the kind of county the community
wants. The County cannot adopt changes that are in direct conflict with other provisions in the
plan.19 All zoning decisions of the County must be in accordance with the Plan, and a zoning
ordinance that allows a more intensive use than that prescribed in the Plan must fail.20 Here, the
applicant's proposed text amendment substantially conflicts with the requirements of the DCCP
and should therefore be denied.
a. Chapter 1: Introduction
19 ORS 197.175(2)(d); 197.835(5)(a); see also Rea v City of Seaside, 26 Or LUBA 444 (1994).
2° Baker v. City ofMilwaukie, 271 Or 500, 514 (1975).
8
N T T c A w G 0 N www,colw.org
LANDWATCH
The purpose of the Rural Residential Exception Area plan designation is "[t]o provide
opportunities for rural residential living outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated
communities, consistent with efficient planning of public services." DCCP at page 15. The
proposed amendments are in conflict with this plan language because they authorize a new
commercial or industrial use in the Rural Residential Exception Area ("RREA") plan designation,
which is intended to facilitate residential and not commercial/industrial uses.
b. Chapter 3: Rural Growth Management
Chapter 3 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan outlines planning goals for Rural
Growth Management. The proposed text amendment conflicts with several of these goals and
policies.
Goal 1 provides that the County should: "[m]aintain a stable and sustainable rural
economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment." Allowing a single applicant
to amend the text of the county code in a manner that only affects very few properties and that
proposes to allow a new commercial or industrial use within a rural zone does not promote a
"stable" rural economy. It does the opposite by creating unpredictability for property owners
within the zone who already engage in permitted uses, like agricultural or residential use.
Policy 3.4.1 calls upon the county to "` [p]romote rural economic initiatives, including
home -based businesses, that maintain the integrity of the rural character and natural
environment."21 The proposed text amendments fail to promote rural economic initiatives. Instead,
allowing storage facilities as a commercial/industrial use would permit a large-scale business
venture to develop a facility which is antithetical to the "rural character" that Policy 3.4.1 requires
the County to promote.
Subsection (a) of Policy 3.4.1 further instructs the county to review land use regulations
and "identify legal and appropriate rural economic development opportunities."22 The County has
already determined what "appropriate" economic development on land zoned MUA-10 should
include, making such opportunities conditionally available via DCC 18.32.030, which support the
rural character of the zone. Allowing mini -storage facilities would be inappropriate when
2` LandWatch PC comments Exhibit 3, page 15.
22 LandWatch PC comments Exhibit 3, page 15.
3
w F R, _ ...0 P E G www.coiw.org
LANDWATCH
compared to these existing rural uses.
c. Chapter 4: Urban Growth Management
Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan specifies how the County plans to work with cities
and unincorporated communities to accommodate growth while preserving rural character and
resource lands. Goal 1 instructs the County to "[c]oordinate with cities, special districts and
stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly
and efficient transition between urban and rural lands."23 Again, the proposed text amendment
does not comply with this Goal. The application does not "support urban growth boundaries," as
required by the County Comprehensive Plan. It does the opposite. The application proposes to
undermine the UGB by conditionally allowing an urban use in a zone where it is wholly
inappropriate.
Nor does the application provide for an orderly and efficient transition between urban and
rural lands. It is not orderly and efficient to amend the county zoning code to provide a special use
only applicable to three properties. Moreover, the application points to the fact that the amendment
would only allow the storage facilities within 2,500 feet of the Bend UGB as evidence that this
will aid an orderly transition. Again, this overlooks the purpose of the MUA-10 zone. The
MUA-10 zone, with its constrained list of allowed uses, provides for the orderly and efficient
transition between urban and rural land. The applicant's attempt to create gradients of allowable
uses within the zone --where a non-agricultural commercial/industrial retail use is only permitted
near the UGB-- is unnecessary and only serves to blur the line between the urban uses permitted
in the UGB, and the rural uses protected by MUA-10.
For the above reasons, the proposed text amendments conflict with the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan, and the application should be denied.
VI. The uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone are limited to the uses for which an exception
to the Goals was originally taken; OAR 660-004-0018.
Most properties in County's RREA plan designation and MUA-10 zone are subject to an
exception to Goal 3 and/or Goal 4. These goal exceptions were taken when the County's first
z3 LandWatch PC comments Exhibit 3, page 11.
10
E ?h€ T R _, 0 q G 0 Ns www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance were acknowledged by DLCD as in compliance with
the statewide planning goals. Many areas of the County that would otherwise have been zoned
EFU or Forest under Goal 3 and Goal 4 were "physically developed" or "irrevocably committed"
to nonresource uses, and designated RREA in the DCCP and zoned MUA-10 or Rural Residential
(RR). Further, and as discussed below, the proposed amendments would require an exception to
Goal 14.
State administrative rule governs the uses allowed in exceptions areas, and specifies that
only the uses recognized or justified by an applicable goal exception are allowed in the exception
area:
"Exceptions to one goal or a portion of one goal do not relieve a jurisdiction from
remaining goal requirements and do not authorize uses, densities, public facilities and
services, or activities other than those recognized or justified by the applicable
exception. Physically developed or irrevocably committed exceptions under OAR
660-004-0025 and 660-004-0028 and 660-014-0030 are intended to recognize and
allow continuation of existing types of development in the exception area. Adoption
of plan and zoning provisions that would allow changes in existing types of uses,
densities, or services requires the application of the standards outlined in this rule."
(OAR 660-004-0018(1))
As the last sentence of this rule explains, changes to the types of land uses allowed in exception
areas require adherence to the rule's standards. The proposed amendments here would allow such
a change in uses, but without addressing these standards.
Further, "[fJor industrial development uses and accessory uses subordinate to the industrial
development, the industrial uses may occur in buildings of any size and type provided the
exception area was planned and zoned for industrial use on January 1, 2004, subject to the
territorial limits and other requirements of ORS 197.713 and 197.714." OAR 660-004-0018(2)(d).
The proposed storage facility use is either a commercial or industrial use.24 For purposes of OAR
660-004-0018(2)(d), we argue that the proposed storage facilities are an industrial use and are not
allowed because the properties to which the amendments would apply were not planned and zoned
for industrial use on January 1, 2004. The three properties to which the proposed amendments
would immediately apply here are not subject to Goal exceptions, but rather were redesignated and
rezoned away from the Agricultural plan designation and EFU zoning in recent years without
24 See note 3, supra.
11
C F; N T
R OREGOMM www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
taking Goal exceptions. However, the proposed amendments would apply to additional properties
under two scenarios: (1) a UGB boundary amendment, and (2) by aggregating multiple contiguous
properties to meet the proposed amendments' acreage requirements. Since most lands in the
County's MUA-10 zone are subject to acknowledged exceptions to Goals 3 and/or 4, the additional
properties that the proposed amendments would apply to under the two scenarios will most likely
be exceptions lands. Accordingly, the proposed amendments must, but do not, demonstrate
compliance with OAR 660-004-0018.
Above, we argue that the proposed amendments, as framed, seek a quasi-judicial text
amendment. If they are indeed quasi-judicial and limited to only three properties which are not
exception lands, then OAR 660-004-0018 may not apply. But if, as staff and the text of the
proposed amendments state, the proposed amendments would apply to additional lands in the
MUA-10 zone which are likely exception areas, then OAR 660-004-0018 does apply. The
applicant cannot have it both ways; it cannot evade the vital procedural rights that inhere to
quasi-judicial land use applications and also evade the demonstration of compliance with OAR
660-004-0018 that a legislative proposal that applies to exception areas requires.
We also note that the County has a zone - at DCC 18.112 Limited Use Combining Zone -
that sets out the process for allowing a specific use where a goal exception has been taken. Rather
than amending the MUA-10 zone wholesale to accommodate one specific use, DCC 18.112
provides the local path for allowing a specific use on exception lands.
VII. The proposed ESEE analysis is inadequate and fails to protect the significant Scenic
Views Goal 5 resource.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 is "to conserve and protect significant Goal 5 natural
resources."25 As the applicant acknowledges, the proposed text amendment to DCC 18.32 would
have the effect of allowing a new use that conflicts with a significant Goal 5 resource inventoried
in the DCCP.26 Accordingly, the County must "apply Goal 5,,,21 which includes conducting an
Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis to determine the extent of
�r P 0 P E e, �> �� wvvw.colw.csrg
LANDWATCH
protection desirable for the resource and developing a program to achieve the Goal.28 The ESEE
must consider applicable statewide goals and acknowledged plan requirements.29
As part of their application, the applicant included a proposed ESEE analysis which
concluded that limiting the conflicting use through the application of the County's LM zone under
DCC 18.84 would result in "the most positive consequences".30 LandWatch disagrees.
As a threshold matter, the application's reliance on the protections of the LM zone alone to
protect the Goal 5 resource is inadequate. The LM zone was implemented in 1992, and was
designed to limit the visual impacts of the uses in the MUA-10 zone and other zones present along
the County's Scenic Views corridors that were allowed in 1992. The LM zone is an overlay zone,
meaning that any uses permitted in the underlying zone are also permitted in the LM zone.31 put
another way, the efficacy of the LM zone comes from its deliberate coordination with the uses
permitted by the underlying zone. At the time of conception, those uses did not include storage
facilities meaning that the power of the LM zone is therefore vulnerable when the effect of an
application is to add to the allowable uses within the underlying zone. Because the application
proposes to do just that, the applicant's claims that the requirements of the LM overlay will protect
Goal 5 resources are not reassuring, even before conducting an ESEE analysis.
a. The proposed ESEE analysis uses the wrong impact area.
As discussed supra, the proposed amendments and accompanying ESEE analysis assume
that only three properties are affected. However, additional properties would be affected by the
proposed amendments under two circumstances: a UGB amendment, or aggregating multiple
properties. As such, the proposed ESEE analysis is inadequate in that it limits its analysis to only
three properties and not all properties within the County's inventoried Scenic Views resource area
in the MUA-10 zone.
Relatedly, the Goal 5 resource at issue is not limited to a single site or three properties, but
rather the resource is the entire Scenic Views corridor along "Highway 20 East to Millican" which
28 OAR 660-023-0040
29 OAR 660-023-0040(4)
30 Revised Application at Exhibit B, page 14.
3 ` DCC 18.84.030.
13
N r R a 0 P E G 0 Aa wwrw.e01W.0rg
LANDWATCH
spans "25 miles."32 Adding a new conflicting use of storage facilities along this corridor will
degrade the Scenic Views resource to the travelling public of the entire corridor. A valid ESEE
analysis requires the County to consider the uses in the MUA-10 zone and how each use, alone or
in combination, could be a conflicting use with the values for which the corridor was protected: the
local economy, the environment, social well being, scenic views, and open space.33 It is the entire
25-mile corridor being devoid of significant visual impacts that is a significant resource to the
County; it is not whether individual properties along that corridor do or do not contain visual
impacts.
b. The applicant's proposed ESEE analysis is unconvincing and unsupported by an adequate
factual base.
In terms of the economic component of the ESEE analysis, the applicant has claimed that
limiting the conflicting storage facilities would result in job creation and generate positive
economic activity.34 LandWatch disagrees. The jobs created by storage facilities are low in both
number and pay. Moreover, the applicant, Eastside Bend LLC is a limited liability corporation
based out of Diamond Bar, California. Accordingly, the vast majority of the economic activity
(storage fees) could be siphoned out of the county to a corporation based out of state. Finally, at
their core, storage facilities sell "empty" space. Selling Deschutes County's properly -zoned
MUA-10 land so that residents may warehouse their possessions is not an efficient economic use.
Conditionally allowing storage facilities would come at the economic opportunity cost of other
activities the MUA-10 zone is designed to protect: part-time agriculture, farm stands,
campgrounds, horse stables, home businesses, rural housing, and the other uses already outright or
conditionally permitted within the zone. The economic costs of allowing or limiting the conflicting
use outweigh the benefits, and the proposed use should be prohibited.
For much the same reason that the applicant's economic analysis is incorrect, so is the
social analysis. As noted previously, storage facilities provide limited job opportunities and
represent a net drain on the local, rural economy. The application suggests that a lack of
32 LandWatch PC comments Exhibit 4 (Ordinance No. 92-052), LandWatch PC comments
Exhibit 3 at page 7.
33 Id.
34 Applicant's ESEE Analysis at page 10.
14
IN r P ., 0 A E G a N3 wwwrwr.colwo.org
LANDWATCH
mini -storage in rural areas of the county harms the County's livability and ability to engage in
recreation.35 LandWatch disagrees. Rural Deschutes County livability is high, recreation
opportunities are available, and rural residents deserve better than to have available land converted
into a storage warehouse. From a social perspective, the costs of allowing or limiting the
conflicting use outweigh the benefits, and the proposed use should be prohibited.
Environmentally speaking, allowing a use that would involve pouring acres of impervious
concrete will functionally destroy land that has been determined to have agricultural value,
eliminate habitat for wildlife, and magnify the urban heat island effect for the City of Bend, which
has been found to have the 14th-most intense effect in the nation already.36 From an environmental
perspective, the costs of allowing conflicting use substantially outweigh the benefits, and the
proposed use should be prohibited.
Finally, the application claims that prohibiting the mini -storage would have negative
energy consequences is not credible or supported by substantial evidence. Enabling Deschutes
County residents to store their items and vehicles off their property in a rural area, is only likely to
increase the amount of vehicle miles traveled. From an energy perspective, the costs of allowing or
limiting the conflicting use outweigh the benefits, and the proposed use should be prohibited.
Because the applicant's ESEE analysis is unconvincing and unsupported by an adequate
factual base, and because the economic, social, environmental and energy benefits are substantially
outweighed by the costs of allowing the proposed conflicting use, the proposed use should
continue to be prohibited in areas inventoried for Goal 5 protections.
VIII. The application conflicts with Statewide Planning Goal 14 because it proposes to
allow an urban use on rural lands and in a location where almost all customers
served by mini -storage would reside within the Send UGB.
Statewide Planning Goal 14 is to "provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural
to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities." Goal 14
35 Applicant's ESEE Analysis at page 11.
ss Research brief by Climate Central. (2021, July 14). Hot Zones: Urban Heat Islands. Retrieved
from flaps: urhan-heat-1sian&;; Exhibit 1, page 3.
15
N T.,P A. 0 PG 0 N www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
"generally prohibits urbanization of `rural land"' and prohibits development that "will undermine
the effectiveness of an established UGB."37 Here, the application asks the County to violate Goal
14 by allowing an urban use on rural land.
a. Shaffer Factors
In the applicant's revised burden of proof, they interpret the factors provided in Shaffer u
Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989) in an attempt to establish that "mini -storage" is
properly considered a rural use.38 The Shaffer factors include whether the use (1) employs a small
number of workers; (2) is significantly dependent on a site -specific resource and there is a
practical necessity to site the use near the resource; (3) is a type of use typically located in rural
areas; and (4) does not require public facilities or services. In LandWatch's view, the first and
fourth factors are not highly determinative as to whether mini -storage should properly be
considered a rural or urban use. The fact that mini -storage facilities employ few workers and
require limited services is more a reflection of the fact that they sell dead space than any sort of
rural character they possess. In contrast, the second and third factors cut decisively in favor of a
finding that mini -storage is an urban use.
The second factor asks whether mini -storage as a use is site -dependent and there is a
practical necessity to be near a resource. The applicant has claimed that the resource in question is
U.S. Hwy 20 and the recreational opportunities east of Bend.3' LandWatch disagrees. The
proposed conditional use is clearly not "significantly dependent" upon being near Highway 20.
Mini -storage facilities are as dependent upon being near the highway as virtually any other
car -based use. Instead, the applicant's proposal to permit mini -storage is only significantly
dependent upon its proximity to Highway 20 because that is where the properties owned by the
applicant are located. The applicant admitted as much during the 6/13/2024 Planning Commission
hearing. When Commissioner Cyrus asked why highway proximity was an important condition,
the applicant explained that they were trying to minimize the scope of the proposed amendment,
not that mini -storage use depended on being located "near the resource". In this view, it does not
37 1000 Friends of Oregon v Land Conservation & Development Commission ("Curry County'),
301 Or 447, 474 (1986).
38 Applicant's Burden of Proof, page 18.
39 Revised App Materials, Page 18.
16
N rf A. . 0 1-1 E 0 'M www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
appear that the mini -storage facility is actually associated with any site -specific resource like the
second Shaffer factor requires. Instead, the most significant proximity requirement for the
applicant, and the rationale behind the proposed geographic limitations, is only to ensure that
their specific properties are eligible for the conditional use. In that view, the second Shaffer factor
strongly favors a finding that mini -storage is not a rural use because it is not site dependent based
on a practical necessity to be near a resource.
Similarly, the third factor also favors a a finding that mini -storage is not an appropriate
rural use because mini -storage is not "typically located in rural areas". The applicant points to the
fact that mini -storage is a permitted use within Deschutes County's Rural Industrial (RI) and
Rural Commerical (RC) zone as evidence that the use is found in both urban and rural zones. This
argument is not convincing because these zones are uncommon in Deschutes County. RI zoning is
essentially only found on a few parcels in Deschutes Junction. RC zoning only occurs in small
areas in Spring River, Deschutes Junction and Pine Forest/Rosland. These zones and uses
permitted within them are not "typical" of rural land.
Moreover, the test provided by the third Shaffer factor is not whether mini -storage is
conditionally allowed in other rural zones. The factor asks whether the uses are typically actually
located in rural areas. Here, the answer is even more clearly no. In the applicant's June 13, 2024
presentation to the Planning Commission, they included an aerial map of mini -storage locations
in Deschutes County. The map in question showed that there are not, in fact, mini -storage
facilities in Deschutes Junction, Spring River, or any other rural area in the County. The applicant
is attempting to have it both ways by arguing that the lack of the mini -storage in rural areas is a
reason to approve the proposed amendment, and that at the same time, mini -storage is a use
"typically" found in rural areas. A look at the applicant's own map shows that mini -storage is not
a use typically found in rural areas of the county, and accordingly, the third Shaffer factor strongly
suggests that mini -storage should be considered an urban use.
b. LUBA has determined that allowing mini -storage facilities on rural land at the intensity
proposed here offends Goal 14.
While LandWatch strongly disagrees with the applicant's characterization of storage
facilities as a rural use, it is also appears that the Board of County Commissioners does not need to
17
N r�R 0 n w G 0 N www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
consider the Shaffer factors, nor must they arrive at a conclusion of whether mini -storage is
properly considered a rural use. The reason BOCC need not conductr such an analysis is because
LUBA has already determined that permitting storage facilities at the scale and proximity to a
UGB is proposed here is not consistent with Goal 14, thereby rendering a new case by case
determination under Shaffer unnecessary. Instead, relying on existing LUBA caselaw, the BOCC
should properly deny this application as a proposal that would violate Goal 14 by urbanizing rural
land.
In Friends of Yamhill County v Yamhill County, 49 Or LUBA 529 (2005), an applicant
applied for comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments to permit an expansion of an existing
mini -storage business on land zoned Rural Residential to a total area of 37,426 square feet. The
County approved Intervenor's application upon the condition that the proposed mini -storage
facility not exceed 39,000 total square feet. The County arrived at such a size limitation based on
OAR 660-022-0030(11), which limits the size of industrial uses in unincorporated communities to
"small scale, low impact uses," defined in relevant part as a "building or buildings not exceeding
40,000 square feet of floor space."" The County reasoned that if the facility would qualify as an
allowable "small scale, low -impact use" within an unincorporated community, a storage facility
outside of an unincorporated community would be permissible so long as it was smaller than
40,000 square feet.
On appeal, LUBA observed that regardless of whether mini -storage was a commercial or
industrial use, Goal 14 requires that the use of rural lands be less intensive than that allowed within
UGBs or the boundaries of unincorporated communities.` As a result, the difference in intensity of
a use limited by the County to 39,000 square feet outside of an unincorporated community as
compared to the 40,000 sq/ft limitation within the unincorporated community "is so minimal that
the consideration lends little weight to the county's conclusion that the facility is consistent with
Goal 14."42 Put another way, LUBA determined in Friends of Yamhill County that any land use
decision to allow mini -storage facilities on rural land requires the size of such facilities
meaningfully smaller than what is allowed within an unincorporated community.
That is not what has been proposed here. Here, the applicant has proposed allowing storage
q r� w r a E G 0 M www.colw.org
LANDWATCH
facilities on properties that are a minimum of 10 acres in size, with no limitation on the structural
size of the development itself. Considering one acre alone is more than 43,000 square feet,
approval of this code text amendment opens the door for uses many times as intensive as what was
proposed in Friends of Yamhill County. Indeed, on 6/13/2024 hearing in front of the Planning
Commission, the applicant opined that 15 acres would be a feasible size for the mini -storage
facility they intend to develop in the future. Based on Friends of Yamhill County, such a
development would patently violate Goal 14 by allowing a use many times more intensive in terms
of size than what is permitted within unincorporated counties under OAR. Accordingly, the
proposed text amendment offends OAR 660-022-0030(11) and the application should be denied.
c. L UBA has determined that "no reasonable person could conclude " that permitting
storage facilities adjacent to UGBs "is consistent with Goal 14. "43
The allowable size of the building or structure under a proposed amendment is not the only
or necessarily the best approach for demonstrating whether uses allowed on rural lands are
consistent with Goal 14. Instead, LUBA noted that "the location of the proposed facility, its
proximity to UGBs, and its operational characteristics, particularly the population it is likely to
serve, are more telling factors."44 This framework mirrors the Shaffer test and also strongly
supports a finding that the proposed text amendment offends Goal 14.
To start, the proposed geographic restrictions on the mini -storage facilities support a
finding that such a conditional use on rural residential land conflicts with Goal 14. The application
proposes requiring developments to occur adjacent to Highway 20 and within half a mile of the
Bend UGB. The applicant credits these restrictions with "limiting the potential for `leapfrog'
development and ensuring that any new mini -storage uses will occur in close proximity to the
UGB from which any future expansion would occur .,14' LandWatch argues that instead of limiting
leapfrog development, his application paves the way for run-of-the-mill urban sprawl.
The deliberations in front of the Deschutes County Planning Commission on July 25, 2024
recognized as much. There, Commissioner Kelley noted that she favored the amendment because
of the proximity requirements limiting mini -storage to areas within half a mile of the UGB, and
43 1d. at 538.
44 Id
45 Application at Exhibit A, page 18.
19
: 1
P ;r G 0 IN aneww.colw.csrg
LANDWATCH
noted that someone who was driving out of the City would not even notice the difference between
urban uses within the UGB and a mini -storage facility right outside. Commissioner Kelley is
correct, but respectfully, reached the wrong conclusions. Commissioner Kelley and others almost
certainly would not notice the transition of the zones as they left the Bend UGB and entered
MUA-10 zone because mini -storage strongly resembles other urban, commercial, or industrial uses
not permitted outside of the City limits. Accordingly, LandWatch agrees with Commissioner
Hovekamp, who concluded that what Commissioner Kelley was describing was "the definition of
sprawl". As a result, the application proposes to solve a problem of its own making by offering as
consolation the idea that storage facilities will at least be near other similar uses occurring within
the UGB. The first factor identified in Friend of Yamhill County —the location of proposed
facilities and proximity to a UGB— favors a finding that mini -storage more closely resembles an
urban use than a rural use.
The second factor identified in Friends of Yamhill County — "operational characteristics,
particularly the population it is likely to serve"— also strongly favors a finding that storage
facilities are properly considered an urban use because the proposed text amendment will result in
storage facilities likely to serve urban populations. In the applicant's Goal 14 response, they note
that the use has "site specific dependency" related to rural and recreational resources east of Bend,
and claim that the site will "naturally attract and provide storage for boats, RVs, off -road vehicles
and other recreational equipment" for rural residents.46 This claim appears baseless. As Planning
Commissioner Altman opined during the 7/25/24 Planning Commision deliberations, "[I]t just
doesn't make sense to me that you're going to live out in the Country and you're going to drive to
town to get your stuff." Instead, Commissioner Altman went on to say that "this would be the
commercialization of this zone and that it would be primarily used by people in the City, so I don't
think that the argument that it would serve rural residents holds up."
In Friends of Yamhill County, the question of whether the storage facilities are likely to
result in serving urban or rural customers proved to be a determinative. In the applicant's proposed
findings, they attempt to distinguish their application from the fact pattern provided in Friends of
Yamhill County, noting that there, the proposed facility was sited in between two UGBs,
McMinnville and Lafayette, and that there was also evidence in the record that the facility was
serving urban customers. While these assertions are correct, they are not persuasive. A
46 Revised Application at Exhibit A, page 18.
20
LANDWATCH
mini -storage facility need not be sited between two cities to serve an urban customer base. One
large UGB should be more than sufficient. Moreover, while it is not LandWatch's burden to prove
that the proposal to allow mini -storage will result in a predominantly urban customer base, it feels
important to note that in Friends of Yamhill County there was undisputed evidence that 83% of the
customers using the storage facility were urban residents.47 To think that a different, non -urban
customer base will arise here simply because the City of Lafayette (population 4,42348) is not to
the east of Bend seems doubtful. Therefore, like in Friends of Yamhill County, because the
proposed mini -storage facilities are likely to serve an urban population, the proposed text
amendment should be denied for failing to comply with Goal 14.
d. New Goal 14 exception is required; OAR 660-004-0040
Finally, when a local government amends its land use regulations for acknowledged
exception lands to allow for a greater intensity of use, a new Goal 14 exception will be required.
OAR 660-004-0040(4)(b), which specifies how Goal 14 applies to rural lands in acknowledged
exception areas planned for residential uses, requires that even rural residential lands that have
been acknowledged must comply with Goal 14, "if such a local government later amends its plan's
provisions or land use regulations that apply to any rural residential area, it shall do so in
accordance with this rule." LUBA very recently affirmed that rezoning of rural residential
exception areas to allow greater intensity of uses requires justification and adoption of a new
exception to Goal 14.49
IX. Conclusion
LandWatch respectfully requests the BOCC deny the proposed amendments to the text of
Deschutes County's MUA-10 zone for the reasons outlined above. Thank you for your attention to
these views. Please notify us of any decisions or further opportunities to comment in this matter.
47 Friends of Yamhill County, at 536.
411 ().tt()y. 'data. er�su..< ;iK�t >1iI� Ci iy tt� city, Qrcgori?g-- 1()0 ;X00[, S 140 7(.)0
49 DLCD v. Clackamas County, _ Or LUBA _, slip op at XX (LUBA No. 2023-078, May 31,
2024). https://www.oregon.gov/luba/Docs/Opinions/2024/05-24/23078.pdf
Regards,
/s/ Robin Hayakawa
Robin Hayakawa
Rural Lands Advocate
Central Oregon LandWatch
2843 NW Lolo Drive, Ste 200
Bend, Oregon 97703
(541)647-2930
robin@colw.org
/s/ Rory Isbell
Rory Isbell
Staff Attorney & Rural Lands Program Director
Central Oregon LandWatch
2843 NW Lolo Drive, Ste 200
Bend, Oregon 97703
(541)647-2930 x804
rory@colw.org
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 Hot Zones: Urban Heat Islands - Research Brief by Climate Central
WWW.001w,org
22