2024-292-Minutes for Meeting September 04,2024 Recorded 10/14/2024E S COG�<
BOARD OF
I COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County C J2024-292
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 10/14/2024 11:09:43 AM
(\y,E_���� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIitIIIlit IIiIII
2024-292
9:00 AM WEDNESDAY September 4, 2024
Barnes Sawyer Rooms
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Tony DeBone and Phil Chang. Also present were
County Administrator Nick Lelack, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley and
BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal webpage www.deschutes.org/meetings.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT:
• Carl Shoemaker said faulty assistance received from Central Oregon Representative
Payees and associated mismanagement of his finances has resulted in him
experiencing significant economic distress.
Commissioner Adair encouraged Mr. Shoemaker to visit the County's Veterans
Services Office and ask for Sean Kirk, to see what assistance is available for him as a
veteran.
• Dorinne Tye spoke to the need for clean air and water and said the County is
abdicating its duty to protect citizens from flight training schools which terrorize
many and have tremendous negative impacts on the environment and human
health.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 1 OF 12
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was consideration of the Consent Agenda.
1. Approval of Document No. 2024-672, accepting a Drug -Free Communities Grant
from the CDC
2. Approval of minutes of the BOCC July 22, 2024 meeting
DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
ACTION ITEMS:
3. Proclamation: Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
Caroline Suiter, Mental Health Promotion Strategist, presented an overview of
the County's suicide prevention program, describing available resources.
Bethany Kuschel, Suicide Prevention Project Coordinator, announced upcoming
events to raise awareness of suicide prevention.
The Commissioners read the proclamation into the record.
CHANG: Move approval of the proclamation declaring September 2024 to be
"Suicide Prevention Awareness Month" in Deschutes County
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner Adair referred to the rate of veteran suicides and reminded that
the County's Veterans Services Office is a resource for military veterans and their
families.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 2 OF 12
4. North juniper Ridge Managed Camp or Similar Temporary Sheltering
Opportunities Discussion and Preparation for joint Meeting with the
Bend City Council
Nick Lelack, County Administrator, reminded that last week Commissioners
directed staff to schedule a Board discussion on the legal opportunities to
establish a managed camp or similar temporary sheltering opportunities on City -
or County -owned property, zoned Exclusive Farm Use, at the north end of juniper
Ridge. Tomorrow afternoon, the Board of County Commissioners and Bend City
Council will conduct a joint meeting, including an agenda item to discuss
managed camp strategies in support of the Coordinated Houseless Response
Office and specifically opportunities at the north end of juniper Ridge.
Commissioner Adair advocated for establishing a temporary managed camp to
protect against wildfires.
Commissioner Chang asked for information about key considerations and
concerns --particularly potential legal issues —regarding a possible managed
camp at North juniper Ridge.
Dave Doyle, County Counsel, said the County cannot site a homeless facility on
Resource -zoned land, but this may be allowed on land zoned for Open Space and
Conservation (OS&C). He said depending on what specific use is proposed and
where, the County may experience procedural obstacles and perhaps formal
legal challenges to establishing a managed camp.
Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director, referred to about 50 acres of
land zoned Open Space and Conservation located on the east side of Highway 97.
Commissioner Adair encouraged action, saying this situation has gone on for a
long time and only gotten worse with fires burning every day.
Commissioner DeBone questioned why it would be better to use land zoned
OS&C than resource land that has never been farmed for profit. He stressed the
need to turn the corner on unsanctioned dispersed camping, which is a grave
problem on federal land because the two -week stay rule is not enforced.
Commissioner Chang said this year's point in time counts in Bend and Redmond
returned lower numbers this year due to the increased provision of shelter and
housing.
Commissioner Adair said it would benefit the community to direct dispersed
campers to a temporary managed camp that had security and offered resources.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 12
Commissioner DeBone supported collaborating with the City to temporarily
consolidate campsites and offer services on County -owned land outside of Bend
in the juniper Ridge area north of Beechcraft Lane.
5. Public Hearing and Consideration of Order 2024-030 approving the
Pahlisch Homes annexation
Dave Doyle, County Counsel, said Pahlisch Homes submitted a petition to annex
approximately 50 acres into the Bend Park & Recreation District, after which the
Assessor's Office and County Clerk reviewed and certified the petition. The City of
Bend has approved the petition, and no objections have been filed on this
proposal.
The public hearing was opened at 10:02 am.
Dorinne Tye inquired about the reason for this annexation, asking to know who
benefits by it. Commissioner Chang explained that such annexations transfer
property into the Bend Park & Recreation District, after which the property
owners pay taxes to help fund the capital needs and operations of the district's
parks and facilities.
There being no one else who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:04
am.
DEBONE: Move approval of Board Order No. 2024-030, approving the
annexation of approximately 50 acres into the Bend Park &
Recreation District at the request of Pahlisch Homes (Easton
annexation)
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
6. Newberry Geothermal Project Update
David Stowe from The Ardell Group provided an update on the research
conducted by AltaRock Energy of Seattle and its partners to determine the
feasibility and viability of enhanced geothermal systems for renewable energy
production at the Newberry National Volcanic Monument in the Deschutes
National Forest. The purpose of the research is to develop and test geothermal
reservoir technology and its potential to generate electricity in areas that have
underground heat but little or no natural water.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 12
Noting that a significant amount of data has already been collected at this site
since the project was launched in 2012, Stowe said new work scheduled to
commence the second week of September will aid in developing advanced
modeling scenarios for further research and development.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Stowe agreed to provide a list of the additives
being put into the ground along with the water from which energy is extracted after
it's geothermally heated.
Discussion ensued regarding other power generation sources and how the cost of
these and their known environmental impacts compare with geothermal systems.
7. Grant opportunity to explore the development of a recreational
Campground on County -owned property at Fort Thompson Lane
jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, sought Board direction on whether to
apply for a County Opportunity Grant from the Oregon State Parks and
Recreation Department to develop a Master Conceptual Plan, including a point of
access assessment, for a recreational campground located on County -owned
property at Fort Thompson Lane. Patterson noted that applications are due on
October 1 St
Commissioner DeBone supported conducting a point of access assessment to
gain clarity on whether the property could be accessed from Highway 97.
Commissioner Adair said the County could reconsider applying for the grant next
year when the access question has been answered.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Patterson said the access issue could be
addressed as part of a master plan, and as such be an eligible expenditure for a
grant.
Commissioner Chang said by itself, the access analysis might not constitute a
successful grant application. He supported pursuing a full master planning
process to include an access analysis.
Referring to the 50% required match from grant recipients, Commissioner Adair
did not support expending any County funds on this project until the access
question is determined. Commissioner DeBone supported a limited County
allocation of matching funds to seek a grant to conduct an access analysis, saying
the County could submit the completed Camping Feasibility Study as
documentation of the process, research and discussion thus far.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 12
Commissioner Chang supported conducting a full transportation analysis which
would determine the access issue along with associated information such as the
estimated number of vehicle trips expected to be generated by a campsite and
other uses at this location.
Commissioner Adair noted the potential significant impacts on Highway 97 and
said the County first needs a decision from ODOT as to whether access from
Highway 97 would be allowed.
Commissioner Chang moved to authorize an application for a grant to the
Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department's County Opportunity Grant
Program to fund planning for a new camping and recreational facility for the
County -owned property at Fort Thompson Lane. There was no second to the
motion.
DEBONE: Move approval of an application for funding for an access point
assessment in partnership with the Oregon State Parks and
Recreation Department's County Opportunity Grant Program and
direct that the Camping Feasibility Study be included as part of the
application materials
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
8. Board Order No. 2024-034 authorizing Facilities Director and/or County
Administrator approval and signature on budgeted costs for the
Courthouse Expansion construction project
County Counsel Dave Doyle reminded that the Board previously approved the
guaranteed maximum price of $36,722,789 for the Courthouse Expansion
construction project. At this time, staff seeks approval of an order authorizing the
Facilities Director and/or County Administrator to approve and sign for
expenditures above their standard authority thresholds so long as the charges
are included within the guaranteed maximum price approved by the Board in
February.
Lee Randall, Facilities Director, provided a brief update on the status of the
construction of the Courthouse expansion project.
Responding to Commissioner Adair, Randall said the project's expected
completion date is April or May of 2026.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 12
W
CHANG: Move approval of Order No. 2024-034 authorizing Facilities Director
and/or County Administrator approval and signature on budgeted
costs for the Courthouse Expansion construction project
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
A break was announced at 10:54 am. The meeting resumed at 10:59 am.
Deliberations: Remand of 710 Properties/Eden Properties Plan Amendment
and Zone Change
Haleigh King, Associate Planner, presented a matrix of decisions to guide the
Board's deliberations of a remand decision of the Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change application proposed by
710 Properties, LLC. The public hearing before the Board was held on July 24th.
King reviewed the process undertaken to this point, including a public hearing
before the Board on July 24th. Saying that the open record period closed on
August 21 s', King noted that a comment received on August 28th cannot be taken
into consideration. In accordance with State law, the Board must issue a decision
no later than October 24th.
Commissioner DeBone reminded that the Board is not being asked to approve or
deny the application, but rather buttress the record with sufficient findings in
support of its previous decision.
King noted that the decision matrix summarizes information from the applicant
and testimony from other parties on each decision point.
The Board proceeded to consider each decision point, expressed in the form of a
question, as follows:
1. Is the subject property suitable for farm use in conjunction with other property?
King explained the purpose of this question is to address the definition of
Agricultural Land and Farm Use pursuant to ORS 215.203 and OAR 660- 033-0030
which require that "nearby or adjacent land ... shall be examined to the extent
that a lot or parcel is either'suitable for farm use' or'necessary to permit farm
practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands' outside the lot or parcel."
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 7 OF 12
A majority of the Board was in consensus that, based on the evidence in the
record, the subject property is not suitable for farm use in conjunction with
other property.
2. Is the subject property suitable for the feeding, breeding, management, and sale
of livestock and poultry or the stabling or training of equines for the primary
purpose of obtaining a profit in money if feed was imported from off -site?
A majority of the Board was in consensus that the subject property is not suitable
for the feeding, breeding, management, and sale of livestock and poultry or the
stabling or training of equines for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in
money if feed was imported from off -site.
3. Is the subject property suitable for the construction or maintenance of equipment
and facilities used for farm activities even where those farm activities occur on
otherlands?
King reminded that the suitability test ties back to the potential for profitability.
Commissioner DeBone commented that no one would farm if they were unable
to realize a profit.
A majority of the Board was in consensus that the subject property is not suitable
for the construction or maintenance of equipment and facilities used for farm
activities even where those farm activities occur on other lands.
4. Is retention of the property's agricultural designation necessary to permit farm
practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands?
This question was taken up at the conclusion of the Board's deliberations; see page 10.
5. Is it necessary for the Agricultural Land/EFU designation be retained to permit
farm practices to occur on adjoining or nearby agricultural lands due to traffic
impacts?
King reminded that the applicant has proposed a potential condition of approval
that any future development be limited to a maximum of 71 dwellings.
A majority of the Board was in consensus that it is not necessary for the
Agricultural Land/EFU designation be retained to permit farm practices to occur
on adjoining or nearby agricultural lands due to traffic impacts.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 8 OF 12
6. Is it necessary to retain Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoning to permit farm practices
to be undertaken on adjacent and nearby agricultural lands due to water impacts
related to the use of exempt groundwater wells by future owners of lots on the
subject property?
Commissioner Chang said the Deschutes Water Basin has experienced a
significant decline of groundwater levels. While he acknowledged the primary
reason for this is reduced precipitation, he said this is compounded by the
extraction of water from the ground. He advised that if each of the 71 proposed
homes has its own exempt well, it would be best to meter these to ensure a
negligible impact on groundwater levels.
Commissioner Adair responded that this area has the second -highest producing
well in Central Oregon at 8,000 gallons per minute. She encouraged the removal
of some of the juniper trees on the property and appreciated that the applicant
has proposed to restrict the landscaped area of each individual parcel to one -
quarter acre.
Commissioner DeBone said while it's acknowledged there will be an impact on
groundwater, this area is served by a robust aquifer.
A majority of the Board was in consensus that it is not necessary to retain EFU
zoning to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent and nearby
agricultural lands due to water impacts related to the use of exempt
groundwater wells by future owners of lots on the subject property.
7. Will potential nuisance and trespass impacts associated with the application
request prevent the continuation of farm practices on nearby or adjacent land?
A majority of the Board was in consensus that potential nuisance and trespass
impacts associated with the application request will not prevent the continuation
of farm practices on nearby or adjacent land.
8.a. Does the Board concur with the applicant's approach to analyze compliance with
DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal 1 as it relates to DCC 18.36.020(C)(2), which
requires that "impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the
specific goal and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan"?
Surmising that this property was not bought with the intention to use it for
agriculture although it was zoned exclusively for farm use, Commissioner Chang
said such sales raise the market value of agricultural lands while simultaneously
making the use of them for agriculture much more tenuous.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 9 OF 12
Noting that "open space" is not a land use designation and commenting on the
State's one -size -fits -all land use system, Commissioner DeBone agreed that the
land uses surrounding the subject property are not affected in terms of their
agricultural value.
A majority of the Board concurred with the applicant's approach to analyze
compliance with DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal 1 as it relates to DCC
18.36.020(C)(2), which requires that "impacts on surrounding land use will be
consistent with the specific goal and policies contained within the Comprehensive
Plan."
8.b. Considering the proposed conditions of approval agreement, will the impacts of
the zone change on surrounding land use be consistent with DCCP Agricultural
Lands Goal 1—to "[p]reserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural
industry," considering water, wastewater, and traffic impacts?
Commissioner Adair quoted from the July 22nd statement of conclusion from
Brian Rabe, as follows: "The potential for adverse impacts to groundwater
quality from septic systems at this site is low ... Use of this site for any profitable
commercial farm use, including grazing or a feed lot, is impractical."
A majority of the Board agreed that, considering the proposed conditions of
approval agreement, the impacts of the zone change on surrounding land use
will be consistent with DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal 1—to "[p]reserve and
maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry," considering water,
wastewater, and traffic impacts.
The Board then addressed question 4., as follows:
4. Is retention of the property's agricultural designation necessary to permit farm
practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands and avoid/prevent
impacts to nearby farm lands?
A majority of the Board was in consensus that retention of the property's
agricultural designation is not necessary to permit farm practices to be
undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands and avoid/prevent impacts to nearby
farm lands.
King said staff will work with the applicant to craft a draft decision for the Board's
review.
DEBONE: Move to close the deliberations on this matter and direct staff to return
with a draft decision approving the application for the Board's
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 10 OF 12
consideration
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: CHANG:
DEBONE:
ADAI R:
OTHER ITEMS:
No
Yes
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 = 1
Commissioner Chang reported on yesterday's Public Health Advisory Board meeting
at which Deschutes County epidemiologist Mathew Christensen shared changes in
Oregon's drug overdose and mortality numbers in contrast with national and state
statistics. According to Dr. Christensen, overdose visits to the emergency room
have declined steadily since August of 2023, and the overdose rate per 100,000
persons in Deschutes County is at less alarming levels than in other Oregon
counties. Commissioner Chang suggested that Dr. Christensen be invited to present
this information to the full Board.
Commissioner Adair asked that Neighborlmpact update the Board on results of the
large investment made in childcare by the County.
Chris Doty, Road Director, presented a draft letter from the Board to the State's joint
Committee on Transportation regarding the eroding effect of recent inflation hikes
on planned capital projects and the need to maintain the 50-30-20 split of State
Highway Fund revenue sharing. Doty said members of the joint Committee will
travel to Deschutes County next week to meet with local leaders, at which time he
planned to present the letter and address these two major concerns with the
Committee members.
CHANG: Move to sign the letter to the joint Committee on Transportation as
drafted
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner DeBone said he will also bring up EV vehicle registration fees and
bicycle fees.
Commissioner Adair announced that Robert Townsend, formerly ODOT's Central
Oregon Area Manager, is leaving the agency.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: None
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 11 OF 12
Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley announced that the scheduled Executive Session
will not take place today.
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:41 pm.
DATED this I day of D 2024 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
-6- :-�)j ��W (a�
RECORDING SECRETARY
PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR
ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 PAGE 12 OF 12
�V1 E S CO
t
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 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 emailing
citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
• To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD.
• To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and
*6 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
• When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist.
You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a
panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in
sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the
agenda.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments
may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org oryou may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734..
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Document No. 2024-672, accepting a Drug -Free Communities Grant from
the CDC
2. Approval of minutes of the BOCC July 22, 2024 meeting
ACTION ITEMS
3. 9:10 AM Proclamation: Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
4. 9:25 AM North Juniper Ridge Managed Camp or Similar Temporary Sheltering
Opportunities Discussion and Preparation for Joint Meeting with the
Bend City Council
5. 9:45 AM Public Hearing and Consideration of Order 2024-030 approving the
Pahlisch Homes annexation
6. 9:55 AM Newberry Geothermal Project Update
7. 10:10 AM Grant opportunity to explore the development of a recreational campground
on County -owned property at Fort Thompson Lane
8. 10:25 AM Board Order No. 2024-034 authorizing Facilities Director and/or County
Administrator approval and signature on budgeted costs for the Courthouse
Expansion construction project
9. 10:30 AM Deliberations: Remand of 710 Properties/Eden Properties Plan Amendment
and Zone Change
LUNCH RECESS
September 04, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
Continued ACTION ITEMS
9. Continuation of Deliberations: Remand of 710 Properties/Eden Properties Plan
Amendment and Zone Change
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
11. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation
ADJOURN
September 04, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3
7wpvv.Ovil i %rViRii Y{. i i.V1 i V
STAFF BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Patrick Sheehan of Central Oregon Representative Payees
has so screwed up my finances that I don't know if I will have my home next year. He
failed to pay the full amount of my propery taxes last April and I had to pay $50
off of my debit card on the spot upstairs on the second floor of this building to
keep from paying interest on Patrick's failure to pay my property taxes in full in
April.
My phone service is now cut off because he failed to pay last month when he told me
he would
Several times I have had to pay $25 Dollar fees because of overdrafts at my bank
because of his mismanagement of my funds
The attitude I have gotten from the Veteran's Clinic on Cortney Drive here in Bend
Oregon is "It's not my job description"
In summary, Patrick Sheehan of Central Oregon Representative Payees is not on the
side of Veterans
MEETING DATE: September 4, 2024
SUBJECT: North Juniper Ridge Managed Camp or Similar Temporary Sheltering
Opportunities Discussion and Preparation for Joint Meeting with the Bend City
Council
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
None.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On August 28, 2024, Commissioners directed staff to schedule a Board discussion on the
legal opportunities to establish a managed camp or similar temporary sheltering
opportunities on City or County -owned property, zoned Exclusive Farm Use, at the north
end of Juniper Ridge.
On September 5, the Board of County Commissioners and Bend City Council will conduct a
joint meeting, including an agenda item to discuss managed camp strategies in support of
the Coordinated Houseless Response Office and specifically opportunities at the north end
of Juniper Ridge.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
To be determined.
ATTENDANCE:
Nick Lelack, County Administrator
Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator
David Doyle, Legal Counsel
Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel
Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director
Kristie Bollinger, Property Manager
I
c
o c
c M
O 4- U
_0 C o
C ca 0-
0 0 ate+ ~ E
�, E c nn
a) 06 v Qv �v
f° O 0 w m U L
ao
c = N u an
CO O c 0--a
a
tw
0 o cn � c u cL L v v
GJ Z v I � OD °' 0 z z
•� as �, v •- c > = v v
® .� _ 0 0 0 c 0 0
a c� m
a) > cn c3 L 41
cr
BG c 41 G� o T E 0
� O o m u m (D z=
b0
C
Y
rl
3
v
C
bA +o
C c
0
C �
11 ''3 I
1..L
a-0
E
Qu
U
c
w
4-+
C O
00
U
75
n:
a)
fu
U
O
fu
C
10
v
C
co
0 m
O 2
O N
��
u
v
0
d f0
cr-0
w t
Oo
cr- ro
"m
0 L
`- O
C
C
u
0 m
=3
c a
7
LJ..
LL _
Q
0-0
ro 0
ro
CD s
(D
bA
v v
V z
cu
L u
4-7
vyi
bDvm
U
c
0 0
L.
—
U
(n
a)
c
U- 0) v
-0 wa1
Z)
0 El
a,
C S m
m
=wcm
=m
u C)uj 0
Up
ri 000
O
00
O
Lo
rH t �
rq
i/} i/� V!
M
0
Ln
V)
N
N
t
i
C
E
75 `v
4-J a c
a.� L
U Q. °
Ln'2
0 rn
DJ
t1A 0 3
m
v v
C �Ifat o
V L
L
/��
O
N �Y
L
0 L f6 v
E m
L f6
L r0 -
N CO
w
O
O
o OOo
O r-� O
uiLn
c
0
a)
4
c
0
U
m
3
C
m
ca
•V
w
a
c
0
u
N
ct
N
ct
O
c�
4-4
ct
ca
CK3
+'
..-,
N
• bA
ct
C
c
c7j
ct
1
ct
DID
ti
U
Q
t
ct
N
0 0 0
i ES coG��
BOAR® OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: September 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Newberry Geothermal Project Update
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
None —information only.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Since 2012, Alta Rock Energy of Seattle has conducted research at the Newberry National
Volcanic Monument in the Deschutes National Forest to determine the feasibility and
viability of enhanced geothermal systems for renewable energy production. The purpose
of the project is to develop and test geothermal reservoir technology and its potential to
generate electricity in areas that have underground heat but little or no natural water.
The Bureau of Land Management issued a lease for this research, which involves a 10,000-
foot deep geothermal well. Other project partners are the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory and Oregon State University.
A significant amount of data has already been collected at this site. New work, which is
scheduled to commence the second week of September, will aid in developing advanced
modeling scenarios for further research and development.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
David Stowe, The Ardell Group
�01 E S CO
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: September 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Grant opportunity to explore the development of a recreational campground on
County -owned property at Fort Thompson Lane
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Option 1: Move to approve an application for a grant to the Oregon State Parks and
Recreation's County Opportunity Grant Program to fund planning for and/or
developing new camping and/or support facilities for the County -owned property
at Fort Thompson Lane.
Option 2: Move to not approve an application for a grant to the Oregon State Parks and
Recreation's County Opportunity Grant Program to fund planning for and/or
developing new camping and/or support facilities for the County -owned property
at Fort Thompson Lane.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department has a County Opportunity Grant Program
(COGP) to fund qualified projects for Oregon counties. Staff seeks guidance from the Board
on whether to apply for this grant opportunity. If the Board directs the submission of an
application, staff recommends the application specify that any funds granted would be
used to develop a Master Conceptual Plan, including a point of access assessment, for a
recreational campground located on County -owned property at Fort Thompson Lane.
The grant opportunity opened August 1, 2024. Applications are due by October 1, 2024.
Eligible Projects include:
• Acquisition -Acquiring property for public camping facilities
• Development -Developing new campgrounds and/or support facilities
• Rehabilitation - Rehabilitating grounds or structures to meet ADA requirements
• Planning - Planning for future development of overnight camping facilities, including
park master plans
Match criteria: Counties with more than 30,000 residents require a 50% local match.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
It is estimated that a Master Conceptual Plan will cost between $150,000 - $200,000. If the
Board directs staff to apply for the grant and funds are awarded, staff estimates that the
County cost share for the plan would be between $75,000 - $100,000.
The COGP is expected to be awarded in the Spring of 2025 and staff anticipates that any
County cost share could be included in the FY 2026 budget. Potential funding sources could
include Fund 130 (Park Acquisition and Development) or Fund 165 (Video Lottery).
ATTENDANCE:
Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager
Brenda Fritsvold
From: Phil Chang
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:57 AM
To: Brenda Fritsvold; Jen Patterson
Cc: Angie Powers
Subject: FW: Public Comment on Ft Thompson Road property
Attachments: E Andrews -Ft Thompson comment.pdf
Please record this in citizen input for the Sept 4 meeting.
IKS
From: Emmy Andrews <emmy.andrews@cotamtb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 9:44 AM
To: Phil Chang <Phil.Chang@deschutes.org>; Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>; Tony DeBone
<Tony.DeBone @deschutes.org>
Subject: Public Comment on Ft Thompson Road property
Caution: External email to Deschutes County: If unexpected or unfamiliar, be cautious with links and
attachments. Contact your IT Dept if unsure.
Hello Commissioners, please find attached a public comment on the Ft Thompson Road property. While I am
the Executive Director of COTA, these are my personal comments as a citizen of Deschutes County.
COTA's Board of Directors, which represents our 2,250 dues -paying members and tens of thousands of trail
lovers, also supports further study of this project; however, we are not able to provide an official organization
letter in time for your meeting next week.
Thanks for your leadership and consideration.
Respectfully,
Emmy Andrews
Executive Director
Central Oregon Trail Alliance (COTA)
Phone: 415-531-5732
Facebook I Instagram I Linkedln I Website
E-Mail Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and legally privileged information and is
intended only for the use of the addressee. Any dissemination or distribution of this message is prohibited. If
you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the original
message.
E-Mail Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and legally privileged information and is
intended only for the use of the addressee. Any dissemination or distribution of this message is prohibited. If
you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the original
message.
Emmy Andrews
2066 NE Hollow Tree Lane
Bend OR 97701
August 29, 2024
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to express my opinions about further study of the Fort Thompson Road
property. I am the Executive Director of the Central Oregon Trail Alliance (COTA), and my
knowledge informs my opinions; however, these are my personal comments as a citizen of
Deschutes County for the past 17 years.
I think it would be a terrible missed opportunity not to further study the potential to use
this land as a revenue neutral (or revenue positive) public amenity, specifically a
recreational open space with a campground. I strongly encourage you to think about the
good of ALL the citizens of Deschutes County and take the next steps to consider this
project.
I attended the July Commissioners meeting on this topic and spoke in favor of the project.
At that meeting I saw what I have unfortunately seen too often in my career: a small group
of people who are fearful of and resistant to change ruining it for the rest of us.
Fear of change is a natural psychological phenomenon. It's our survival instinct manifesting
itself, trying to keep us safe by encouraging us to stick with what we know. But fear of
change can also hold us back from embracing opportunities to improve our lives.
I do have empathy for the neighbors who resist change. They like things the way they are.
The problem is, as I look around the County I moved to in 2008 and see how much it has
changed in 17 years, holding change at bay and keeping things the way they are clearly isn't
possible. The way I see it, we have two options: envision the change we want, or do
nothing, and live with the change we get.
Even if you, Commissioners, choose to side with the small group that fears change,
everything else will continue to change —the County's population will grow, the need for
housing will grow, the houseless population may very well grow. I believe that if the
property continues to sit idle, these changes will put mounting pressure on the County to
do something with the land, potentially leading to selling it, in which case it will likely
become a few private estates. To me this is a huge loss, and most citizens of Deschutes
County have no idea there is even an opportunity this big that is about to be lost.
At the Commissioners meeting there was a couple who identified themselves as
management consultants and took issue with ECONorthwest's economic report. Of course
you can pick apart any model that forecasts the future. But all of us have enough economic
knowledge to know one thing: costs increase over time. Therefore, it will never be cheaper
than it is now to invest in making this property a public amenity, and you will be able to
generate more revenue from the property over time. The park/campground will be cheaper
to build the sooner you act, and it will make more money the more time passes.
The campground will obviously be popular. I ride around the woods west of town often and
see hundreds of Sprinter vans and RVs dispersed camping on the edge of town. A
reasonably priced place to stay in Bend with access to trails right out your door and a
wealth of local restaurants and services right nearby is such a win. That's where I'll be
telling my visiting friends they should stay!
This property belongs to the citizens of Deschutes County, and it should be used to benefit
us all. I live in NE Bend and our access to nature -based recreation pales in comparison to
our Westside peers. In addition, a recent Bend Park and Recreation District survey found
that more trails is the number one amenity requested by residents and that 90% of
residents report using trails. Clearly if a trail system were built on this property, it would be
loved by locals. Locals would bike with their kids and walk and run with their dogs all day,
every day. These "eyes on the property' would result in spotting and reporting conditions
such as encampments or fires. Conversely, the situation you have now is a large property
where a person can easily do all manner of things unseen and unreported. With the recent
fire at Dirt City, having eyes on the property should be among the County's top priorities.
At the Commissioners meeting I spoke a bit about the ways a trail system could be
designed on the property to preserve neighboring residents' privacy. This is a relatively
easy thing to do using buffers and landscape features such as rock outcrops and trees. A
well -designed trail system will keep people where we want them to go and discourage off -
trail exploration. You can rest assured the project can be done in a way that impacts on
neighboring residents will be minimal. I'll bet some of them will end up using the park often
and wondering why they ever opposed it. That's the magic that happens when leaders have
the foresight to look past fear and work for positive change.
I encourage you as leaders to see the resistance to change for what it is —natural, but not
possible —and continue to study this project.
Respectfully,
Emmy Andrews
Deschutes County resident
Brenda Fritsvold
From: Phil Chang
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:58 AM
To: Brenda Fritsvold; Jen Patterson
Cc: Angie Powers
Subject: FW: Fort Thompson
This one too
From: Ken Moore <nowdow@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:42 AM
To: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>; Phil Chang <Phil.Chang@deschutes.org>; Tony DeBone
<Tony.DeBone@deschutes.org>
Subject: Fort Thompson
Some people who received this message don't often get email from nowdowkhotmail.com. Learn why this is
important
5. Caution: External email to Deschutes County: If unexpected or unfamiliar, be cautious with links and
attachments. Contact your IT Dept if unsure.
re: Fort Thompson
Commissioners,
I am a Deschutes County resident and homeowner on Sunbeam Lane, adjacent to the proposed Fort
Thompson development parcel. As a neighbor, I am intimately familiar with the property and the challenges
the campground and park proposal pose.
I personally do not object to the development of Fort Thompson as a campground and park. Benefits may
exceed liabilities if executed thoughtfully. Development would preserve a large open space area, discourage
illegal and harmful activities, and provide Deschutes County residents with additional recreational
opportunities.
However, I do have some concerns.
First, is the challenge of access. The ECO Northwest study offered a poorly researched solution, as it involves
an easement across private property (tax lot 1612330000800), which the current owner strongly objects
to. Neither ECO Northwest nor the County contacted the current property owner to assess their
thoughts. Any point of access off Hunnell Road would result in a significant increase in traffic and negatively
impact the bucolic character of the neighborhood.
Second, the proposal as put forth by ECO Northwest suggested two preferred locations for the
campground. "Opportunity Area 1" would be highly intrusive on the privacy and security of many existing
properties on Sunbeam Lane, Lowe Lane, and Hunnell Road. I find this location highly
objectionable. "Opportunity Area 2" comprises 115 acres and offers greater flexibility in locating g a
campground away from existing homes, Highway 97, and Swalley infrastructure. The remaining five
"Opportunity Areas" of Fort Thompson were not addressed as potential campground locations, for
unidentified reasons.
Third, lack of citizen involvement has resulted in a poorly presented proposal, fueled baseless rumors and
fears, and resulted in a hostile reception. The ECO Northwest study is partially to blame, as it is full of
unverifiable assumptions, a flawed financial analysis, and misinformation.
As a Deschutes County resident and Sunbeam Lane homeowner who will be directly impacted by the Fort
Thompson development, I am in favor of applying for a State grant to further study the possibilities for the
Fort Thompson parcel. Areas of focus should include, but not be limited to, identifying access, placement of a
campground and other improvements, a detailed and realistic financial analysis, and citizen involvement. An
unbiased and thorough study is a prudent, responsible, and effective use of taxpayer funds.
Thank yo u.
Ken Moore
20640 Sunbeam Lane
Bend OR 97703
2
Brenda Fritsvold
From: Phil Chang
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 9:05 AM
To: Jen Patterson; Brenda Fritsvold
Subject: FW: Support for exploring Ft. Thompson park
Please record this message to the public record for our Weds meeting. Thanks.
From: Lindsey Wilcox <lindseycwilcox@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 7:52 AM
To: Tony DeBone <Tony.DeBone@deschutes.org>; Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>; Phil Chang
<Phil.Chang@deschutes.org>
Subject: Support for exploring Ft. Thompson park
Caution: External email to Deschutes County: If unexpected or unfamiliar, be cautious with links and
attachments. Contact your IT Dept if unsure.
Hi Commissioners,
I hope this email finds you well and rested following the long weekend. We spent it appreciating the wilderness
and reflecting on just how lucky we are to live here!
I am sending a quick note your way to express support for moving forward with the grant to explore a park at
Ft. Thompson. I recognize that I was a very strong detractor at the outset of the conversation but upon further
reflection I think the property offers the County with a unique opportunity to preserve an open space that would
benefit locals and non -locals alike.
There is substantial work to be done to assess the financial and logistical viability of the property (e.g., access,
water, buffer zones from local property owners) but the concept is absolutely worth further exploration. I, as
would the myriad of resident fauna, would welcome a cost -neutral park in our neighborhood!
I am in full support of the grant application to conduct more study on the potential park at Ft.
Thompson.
Thank you for your continued collaboration on this opportunity.
Best,
Lindsey Wilcox
503-701-4393
Brenda Fritsvold
From: Phil Chang
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 9:06 AM
To: Jen Patterson; Brenda Fritsvold
Subject: FW: Proposal for a County preserve
Attachments: Proposal for a County Preserve.docx
This one too.
From: Rich Niederhof <getrdun@ykwc.net>
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 4:29 PM
To: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>; Phil Chang <Phil.Chang@deschutes.org>; Tony DeBone
<Tony.DeBone@deschutes.org>
Subject: Proposal for a County preserve
Caution: External email to Deschutes County: If unexpected or unfamiliar, be cautious with links and
attachments. Contact your IT Dept if unsure.
Attached is a proposal for you to consider, especially appropriate now as you consider and discuss uses for
the 550 acre county land.
Rich Niederhof
Proposal for a Deschute County Nature Preserve
Sept. 2, 2024
Oregon as a state, and Deschutes County in particular, remain, in 2024, as an attractive land of natural beauty
due to several far-sighted individuals living and taking action... some over 100 years ago.
These visionaries "looked" beyond the incredibly strong pressures and demands on our land and natural
resources that existed at those times, They stood their ground against ... exploitative industries and
"developers"!
Please recall and appreciate President Teddy Roosevelt, naturalist and preservationist John Muir, and foresters
Gifford Pinchot and Aldo Leopold, nationally, and in Oregon Gov. Oswald West (Ore. Public Beaches Bill),
and especially Hector Macpherson and Gov. Tom McCall for the Oregon Land Use Act and the LCDC that
followed.
They worried about what the nation, and Oregon, would look like "in 50 years ...... which is now, today!
So what will Deschutes County, and the Bend -to -Redmond area in particular, look like in 50 years??
I ask you to represent us citizens as PROTECTORS and STEWARDS of the Deschutes County lands for which
you are responsible... and to be responsible to us current and future residents.
Your 550 acres of county land are in what has been called (by "exploitative industries and developers") the
"Golden Triangle" between Bend and Redmond. The 550 acres primarily west of US 97 are currently almost
entirely surrounded by quality residents and farms. The population growth pressures of the next half century on
this entire area will be intense... will eventually Redmond and Bend become almost one urban area? Think
about it.
We have witnessed just such in the Portland area... South to Willsonville, West to Hillsboro and east almost to
Sandv ... PORTLANDIA. As it is now derisively known.
And as the ultimate... inevitable... "urbanizational" joining of Bend and Redmond enfolds, the true necessity
and value of this preserve intensifies... and the stewardship wisdom of those responsible for this area ... you...
will become increasingly expected.... and appreciated and honored if done wisely.
Please have the wisom and vision of the Roosevelts, Muirs, Leopolds, Pinchots, and McCalls and protect this
area... for the next 50 years ... and beyond
Right now is the time to look at what the men above saw and did ... the�recognized areas to be saved ....saved
as is, right now.
Please Preserve a significant portion if not all of this 550 acres, because....
The 550 acres is almost entirely an ancient juniper forest that has existed there for several thousand years with
minimal human impact. It qualifies for the rarely used term of a "climax forest." Unless affected by climate
change or human insertion, it is stable..... it has been and always will be a varied -aged western juniper and
sagebrush forest. There is little evidence of wildfire impact (little to no fine fuels to carry the fire between
trees). That is until we open it to human occu ap tion , such as a campground or playground... which brings
human -caused ignition... and cheat grass...THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTER to extensive Eastern Oregon,
Washington, and Nevada range and juniper fires .Enter careless campers, homeless squatters, or hikers and an
ancient forest will be no more.
Junipers grow naturally in the 8+ inch to 12+ inch average rainfall zone in Central Oregon, and this parcel sits
almost exactly in the ideal mid- range ... it is what nature and God intended to be there. It is also sequestering a
surprisingly large amount of carbon in both the juniper and woody sagebrush (and bitterbrush). Don't let the
"size" fool you; the wood is high in BTU's per cubic foot (higher than any other local species), meaning greater
carbon storage and therefore greater CO2 release on burning or decomposition/chipping, currently the only
means of "disposal". Best left sequestered, as is.
And the variety of wildlife it calls home is extensive and native to this area. Thanks to research data taken on or
near the identical adjacent Greenlee Land Preserve, there is documentation of this, from mountain lion to
marmot. Many of these animals will decline in number or go absent without such natural undisturbed areas.
Who will represent and protect them from ... human invasion? As cartoon character Pogo said, "We have met
the enemy and they is us".
Available water from surrounding human use and the seasonal Swalley Canal through the middle also makes it
an ideal wildlife sanctuary... another consideration for the County Commissioners. A recent Bulletin article and
a presentation a year ago by ODFW biologist on diminishing wildlife and habitat should give you pause.
I propose Deschutes County declare a majority if not all this area as a preserve, IN PERPETUITY,
limited primarily in "use" to preservation, research, and education, awith VERY limited recreation, with
only approved human presence in keeping with the "uses". This "fits into the County Comprehensive
Plan HIGHLIGHTED below:
FROM THE County COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In Deschutes County, most rural areas are reserved for agricultural, forestry, or other resource -based purposes
and are safeguarded as outlined in the Resource Management section of the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of
this section of the plan is to steward the county's agricultural, forested, natural, and
cultural resources efficiently, catering to current needs while preserving their
benefits for future generations. The Fort Thompson project site includes
Agricultural lands (Ag) and Open Space and Conservation (OS&Q
resources.
I am convinced a majority of county residents would support this land being designated a natural preserve, and
something that will NOT cost us taxpayers much, if any,
As you are aware, in 2023, Fran and Bob Greenlee, as environmentally conscientious lifelong county residents,
committed 30 acres of their own land to just such a preserve in perpetuity, again limited in use to preservation,
research, and education. This is a "high dollar" commitment from Bob and Fran.
I would love for you to follow this commitment, as well as the other visionaries of the past, with a like
dedication to the future of our land, the preservation of our land, in perpetuity.
As with the Greenlee Land Trust, the involvement of COCC, OSU, adjacent landowners, and the ODF and
ODFW would result in minimal taxpayer monies to the organization and "maintenance" of this preserve.
The only initial cost is to secure the area from illegal human and especially vehicular trespass, by -far the
primary negative impact on the land. Appropriate fencing/gating and signage is initially necessary.
Please, do what is BEST FOR THE LAND. For the future. For the wildlife. And us. .
"The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts" - Aldo Leopold.
"Don't it always seem to go - Singer Joni Mitchell
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They tore down paradise
And put up a parking lot" ......Or in Bend, a Costco ....
Rich Niederhof
Professional Forester
COCC Professor Emeritus
Trustee, Greenlee Land Trust
MEETING DATE: September 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Deliberations: Remand of 710 Properties/Eden Properties Plan Amendment and
Zone Change - 247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC)
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
At the conclusion of deliberations, the Board can choose one of the following options:
• Continue deliberations to a date and time to be scheduled; or
• Close deliberations and propose a motion to approve or deny the application, and
direct staff to return at a later date with a draft decision.
To the extent the Board decides to approve the Plan Amendment and Zone Change, a motion
as follows will likely be appropriate:
The Board moves to approve the remanded Plan Amendment and Zone Change for file
nos. 247-24-000395-A, 247-21-001043-PA, and 247-21-001044-ZC.
To the extent the Board decides to deny the Plan Amendment and Zone Change, that motion
will need to be crafted to address the Board's specific concerns, as discussed in the
deliberations.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of Commissioners (Board) will deliberate on September 4, 2024 to consider a
remand decision of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) regarding a Plan
Amendment and Zone Change application proposed by 710 Properties, LLC (Applicant)
originally approved by the Board under files 247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC. A public hearing
was held on July 24, 2024. The full record is located on the project webpage:
https://www deschutes org/cd/page/tuba-remand-247-24-000395-247-21-001043-pa-and-
247-21-001044-zc-eden-central-properties
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Haleigh King, Associate Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Haleigh King, Associate Planner
DATE: August 28, 2024
SUBJECT: Deliberations - Remand of Eden Properties Plan Amendment and Zone Change - 247-
24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC)
The Board held a public hearing on July 24, 2024, to consider a remanded decision of the Oregon
Land Use Board of Appeals, affirmed by the State Court of Appeals. The remanded decision is a
request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) for nine tax
lots totaling approximately 710 acres to the west of Terrebonne and north of Highway 126. The
Board is scheduled to deliberate on September 4, 2024 in consideration of the request.
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant, 710 Properties, LLC/Eden Central Properties, LLC, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to re -designate the subject properties from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception
Area and a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural
Residential (RR-10). The subject property totals ±710 acres in size.
The application was originally approved by a Board majority on December 14, 2022 following a public
hearing held on August 17, 2022, a subsequent open record period. Following Board approval, the
application was appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and the Court of Appeals
and was remanded back to the County for additional review on a number of specific issue areas
discussed below. The remand was then initiated by the applicant for County review on June 26, 2024.
The final day in which the County must issue a final decision is October 24, 2024.
II. OPEN RECORD PERIOD
Following the July 24, 2024 hearing, the written record was left open for a total of 28 days consisting
of the following: 14 days for New Evidence and Testimony, seven (7) days for Rebuttal, and seven (7)
days for Applicant's Final Legal Argument.
During the initial 7-day segment of the 28-day open record period, staff received 27 public comments,
including the applicant's submittal which included Exhibit Nos. 48 to 75, as new evidence and
testimony. During the second 7-day segment of the open record period, staff received four (4)
rebuttal responses to the new evidence and testimony that was received, including the applicant's
submittal which included Exhibit Nos. 76 to 111. The Applicant's final legal argument was received on
August 21, 2024, at the conclusion of the open record period and includes Exhibit Nos. 111-115.
The new evidence and testimony received during the open record largely reiterated concerns and
arguments that were raised during public testimony of the Board's public hearing on July 24, 2024.
During this first open record period, Staff received an agency comment from Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) restating their concerns with the application and referencing
their original April 19, 2022 letter to be reentered into the record. Other concerns include, but are
not limited to, impacts to wildlife, impacts to groundwater and aquifer levels, future potential
development of the subject property, traffic impacts, and the validity of the applicant's argument
regarding the property's suitability for farm use, as defined by state statute.
The rebuttal testimony received during the open record period largely reiterated concerns and
arguments that were raised during public testimony and during the first open record period
including, but are not limited to, traffic impacts on surrounding farm operations, water impacts,
general land use compatibility, and the subject property's qualifications as agricultural land, or lack
thereof.
III. BOARD DELIBERATIONS
On September 4, 2024 the Board will deliberate on the remanded Plan Amendment and Zone Change
requests. If the Board finds that additional deliberations are necessary, the Board may schedule a
future date for continued deliberations. Due to the limited time to process the remand application,
Staff will include a placeholder for this item on the September 16, 2024 Board agenda if the Board
chooses to continue deliberations. If the Board finds no additional deliberations are necessary, the
Board may vote the application.
Board Decision Matrix
Staff has provided a decision matrix summarizing the issue areas, and information from the open
record period and previous public hearings as an attachment to this memorandum. As identified on
the decision matrix, there are decision points for the Board to determine whether issues areas have
been sufficiently addressed.
IV. NEXT STEPS
If the Board determines that additional deliberations are necessary, staff will include a place holder
for this item on the September 16, 2024 agenda. If the Board concludes their deliberations during
the September 4, 2024 meeting, the Board may then vote on whether to approve or deny the Plan
Amendment and Zone Change. If the Board renders a vote during the September 4, 2024 or any
future meeting, staff will coordinate with the Board to return for a future meeting to review the draft
decision, draft ordinance and relevant exhibits. If appropriate, the first reading of the ordinance can
be initiated at that time.
Page 2 of 3
V. MOTION
To the extent the Board decides to approve the Plan Amendment and Zone Change, a motion as
follows will likely be appropriate:
The Board moves to approve the remanded Plan Amendment and Zone Change for file nos. 247-
24-000395-A, 247-21-001043-PA, and 247-21-001044-ZC.
To the extent the Board decides to deny the Plan Amendment and Zone Change, that motion will
need to be crafted to address the Board's specific concerns, as discussed in the deliberations.
VI. RECORD
The record for File Nos. 247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) are as presented at the
following Deschutes County Community Development Department website:
https://www deschutes org/cd/page/luba-remand-247-24-000395-247-21-001043-pa-and-247-21-
001044-zc-eden-central-properties
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Board Decision Matrix
Page 3 of 3
BOCC Decision Matrix - Remand of Eden Properties Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Land Use File No. 247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC)
No.
Issue Area/Approval
Criterion
LUBA Final Order and
Applicant Response
Opponent Testimony
Board Decision Points
Opinion
The Board's 2022 decision identifies nearby or adjacent lands
and the farm uses occurring there on at Rec-97-100. The former
B. and E. Buchanan, adjacent owners and operators of
Volwood Farms, Nicol Valley Farms, Stabb and Buchanan
Keystone Natural Beef, state they would use the
properties are the only nearby or adjacent lands engaged in
property to expand their cattle ranching operation and
farm use.
they assert the subject property is suitable for seasonal
grazing for the following reasons (2024-07-24 Public
Definition of Agricultural
(pg. 37) "Relating the
The Buchanan property was the only property identified as
Comment):
Land and Farm Use pursuant
profitability of farm related
keeping livestock.
. No need for irrigation, winter moisture is
to ORS 215.203 and OAR 660-
activity solely to the activity
sufficient for seasonal grazing
Based on the evidence in
033-0030
on the subject property
The applicant asserts the subject property is not suitable for
. Turnout period for grazing cows on site would
the record, is the subject
places undue weight on
irrigated agriculture due to the prohibitive cost of financing the
start in April/May and continue to early August
property suitable for farm
OAR 660-033-0030(3)
profitability. The board of
acquisition of water rights and the development and operation
. Introduce drought tolerant grasses
use in conjunction with
requires that "nearby or
commissioners improperly
of wells, pumps, and irrigation pivots.
. Grazing land with characteristics of the Eden
adjacent land, regardless of
weighed the consideration
property is a well -accepted farming practice in
other property?
ownership, shall be
of profitability of the
Applicant's Open Record Exhibits 73 and 111 include testimony
Central Oregon
examined to the extent that
subject property operating
from rancher Rand Campbell finding combined operations with
. Utilize property as a breeding development
1. then the
a lot or parcel is either
independently."
the Buchanans would not be profitable and would not be
center for their registered cattle.
Board can continue
Boaarr
'suitable for farm use' or
'necessary
undertaken by reasonable farmer with intention to make a
. Terrain is conducive for a feedlot -type setting
reviewing the
applications and
to permit farm
profit in money - relied on accepted farm practice of raising,
due to rocky hillsides and uneven terrain
move onto the
practices to be undertaken on
The Board decision fails to
selling cattle at auction to estimate cattle revenue.
providing muscular training and maintaining
other issue areas.
adjacent or nearby lands'
consider the ability to use
Applicant Open Record Exhibit 107 - Declaration of Robert
hoof health
outside the lot or parcel."
the subject property with a
Turner who spoke with former Volwood Farms owners who
. Submitted business plan, dated July 24, 2024.
2. If yes, then the
primary purpose of
stated they would not consider combining operations with the
Is the subject property
obtaining a profit in money
Eden Property due to lack of irrigation, improvement costs due
DLCD (2024-08-07 Comment):
Board must deny
suitable for farm use in
in conjunction with other
to fencing,inadequate forage, difficult seeding process due to
q g g P
. Record provided b applicant does not full
p Y P P Y
the application.
conjunction with other
property.
lack of water and arid climate for successful germination.
explore Buchanan opportunity as it relates to
property?
the possible farm uses.
Central Oregon ranch owner/operator Russ Mattis submitted
. "Accepted farming practices of the greater
comment (July 23, 2024) stating they would not consider grazing
Central Oregon region include seasonal rotation
the subject property alone or in conjunction with his ranch
of livestock over multiple properties and large
properties due to setup costs for fencing, rock removal,
areas, many of which do not contain irrigation
establishing water rights.
rights."
247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) BOCC Decision Matrix
Page 1 of 9
No.
Issue Area/Approval Criterion
L�UBA Final Order and Opinion
Applicant Response
Opponent Testimony
Board Decision Points
(pg. 41) ...the board of commissioners'
interpretation is not supported by the text of OAR
Definition of Agricultural Land and
660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) or ORS 215.203(2)(a), both of
Applicant's Final Legal Argument relies on
Imported Feed
which are silent as to the source of the feed that is
necessary to sustain animals involved in farm uses.
evidence submitted to the record from
rancher Rand Campbell who analyzes the
Central Oregon LandWatch 2024-07-
g
***
economic viability of livestock, poultry, and
24) asserts:
Based on the evidence in the
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) defines
"Land
Whether livestock, poultry, and equines are
stabling and training of equine operations -
, Nearby feed stores in
y
record, is the subject property
p p y
agricultural land as in other soil
sustained with forage grown on -site or feed
see Applicant's Exhibits 43 (cattle, goats), 47
Redmond area can deliver
suitable for the feeding,
classes that is suitable for farm use as
imported from off -site, their feeding, breeding,
(goats, sheep suitability factors), 50
feed directly to area farms
breeding, management, and
defined in ORS
management, sale, stabling,and trainingpotentiallyand
(suitability for chickens), 108 (horse
ranches for variety of
sale of livestock and poultry or
215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration:
qualify as farm uses. The board of commissioners
q Y
operations), 111 (cattle operations with the
livestock, equine, poultry uses.
the stabling or training of
• soil fertility,
Y
misconstrued OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) or ORS
Buchanan Coyner Road property).
Common practice to supply or
p pp Y
equines for the primary
q p y
2
• suitability for grazing,
215.203(2)(a) in concluding that land is suitable for
supplement feed from feed
purpose of obtaining a profit in
• climatic conditions,
farm uses involving animals only if sufficient feed
Mr. Campbell's analysis of the imported feed
stores.
money if feed is imported from
• existing and future availability of
can be grown on -site.
g
and suitability issue is also supported by
• No specific economic analysis
off -site?
water for farm irrigation purposes.
***
exhibits filed by the applicant, regarding
included.
• existing land use patterns,
(pg. 42) It may be that, even if feed is imported from
livestock, poultry and equine uses. See,
• technological and energy inputs
off -site, the subject property is not suitable for the
1 p p Y
Exhibits 2-6, 12, 14 (significant financial
1. If no, then the Board can
required, and
feeding,breeding, management, and sale of
g' g
losses for Lower Bridge alpaca operation),
K. Nonella, Equine Nutritionist (2024-
continue reviewing the
• accepted farming practices
livestock and poultry or the stabling or training of
20-24, 26-29, 32, 37, 64, 77.
07-30 asserts that the subject
)
applications and move
equines for the primary purpose of obtaining a
property is well -suited for the
onto the other issue
Based on the above factors, is the subject
profit in money, given the factors listed in OAR 660-
Mr. Campbell's analysis of combined
stabling, training, and boarding of
areas.
property suitable for the feeding,
033-0020(1)(a)(B). However, the board of
operations concludes that importing feed is a
equines as horses need dry land
breeding, management, and sale of
commissioners did not reach that conclusion. On
money -losing proposition. He found that
acreage as well as goats due to
2. If yes, then the Board
livestock and poultry or the stabling or
remand, the count will have an opportunity to
Y pp Y
the more hay a rancher needs to purchase
adaptation to grid climates and
must deny the
training of equines for the primary
evaluate the testimonythat 710 properties cites
p p
and feed their cattle, the less profitable they
browsing habits.
application.
purpose of obtaining a profit in money �
through the proper lens and reach its own
will be" and "[i]ncreasing the number of cow -
feed is imported from off-site
conclusion.
calf pairs would also lead to further losses
due to reliance on expensive outside hay."
247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) BOCC Decision Matrix
Page 2 of 9
No.
Issue Area/Approval Criterion
LUBA Final Order
Applicant Response
Opponent' Testimony
Staff Comment
and Opinion
Board Decision Points
The Johnsons and others assert
This use is limited, by its express terms, to the on -site
that the subject property is
Definition of Agricultural Land and
construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities
suitable for the construction of
Equipment and Facilities to support
used for farm uses. Construction is the act of building
new homes so is appropriate
Farm Activities
something, typically a large structure, and maintenance
for the construction of any type
is keeping the structure in good repair once it is built.
of farm structure.
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) defines
These acts, and these acts alone, are allowed by this
agricultural land as "Land in other
(pg. 44) "Under
part of the definition of "farm use." The use does not
The Buchanans say they would
soil classes that is suitable for farm
ORS 215.203(2)(a),
include the uses that occur within the structure or with
like to store farm equipment on
use as defined in ORS
"farm use" includes
the equipment once constructed or maintained. The
the property.
Similar to what DLCD noted in their
215.203(2)(a), taking into
the [on -site]
storage of farm equipment and/or farm products is only
comment, Staff understands that
Given the factors )( OAR
consideration:
construction and
a farm use if it meets other parts of the definition of
DLCD asserts that the use
stand alone commercial farm and
• soil fertility,
maintenance of
"farm use." ORS 215.203(2)(b).
allowed is "the construction
ranch stores are not permitted in the
is the property
is the property suitable
itabl
• suitability for grazing,
equipment and
and maintenance of equipment
EFU Zone without a primary farm use
for the construction or
3
• climatic conditions,
facilities used for
The preparation and storage of farm products and b -
p p g p y
and facilities used to support
pp
on the subject property or otherwise
� p p y
maintenance of
• existing and future
farm activities"
products is defined separately and earlier in ORS
farm practices including barns,
"in conjunction with farm use."
equipment and facilities
availability of water for farm
whether they
215.203(2)(b) as a "farm use." That use is limited to the
agricultural storage sheds and
used for farm activities
irrigation purposes.
occur on the
preparation and storage of products and by-products
other preparation facilities,
Staff understands the remanded
even where those farm
• existing land use patterns,
subject property or
raised on such land. Farm equipment storage is
processing facilities allowed by
issue requires additional evidence
activities occur on other
• technological and energy
elsewhere.
allowed if it is a part of the current employment of the
ORS 215.255, hay covers, cattle
and conclusions regarding the
lands?
inputs required, and
land for farm activities conducted with the primary
lanes, driveways, holding pens,
suitability of the property for on -site
• accepted farming practices"
p g p
45 'The board
(pg. )
purpose of obtaining a profit in money. The subject
p p g p y �
and similar improvements and
p
construction and maintenance of
1. If no, then the
of commissioners
property is not suitable for conducting a "farm use" with
structures included in the
equipment and facilities used for
Bar
Board can
ORS 215.203(2)(a) defines farm use
misconstrued OAR
that intention.
definition of farm use..."
farm activities, even if those activities
continue
in part as, "Farm use also includes
660-033-
occur on other lands.
reviewing the
the on -site construction and
0020(1)(a)(B) and
The remaining issue is whether the subject property is a
Farm and ranch stores without
applications and
maintenance of equipment and
ORS 215.203(2)(a)
suitable place to construct or maintain a farm structure
a primary farm use on the
move on iother
facilities used for the activities
in concluding that
or farm equipment on the subject property for a farm
subject parcel is a commercial
issue areas .
described in this subsection."
land is suitable for
use occurring on another property if the property
activity in conjunction with
that farm use only
suitable for farm use. As a result, the applicant
farm use so the applicant's
2. yes, then the
Given the factors in OAR 660-033-
if the farm
assessed whether the property is suitable for farm
evidence is irrelevant. DLCD
B
Board must deny
00200)(a)(B),
activities occur on
equipment repair facilities that serve "farm uses" only
acknowledges that the property
the PA/ZC.
is the property suitable for the
the same land."
and the construction of farm equipment or structures
lacks'urban services' and
construction or maintenance of
on site for use elsewhere. A review of the seven
'adequate transportation' to
equipment and facilities used for
suitability factors shows that the property is not suitable
support a more intense use of
farm activities even where those
for these uses and other similar uses based on three or
the subject property but says
farm activities occur on other lands?
more of the seven suitability factors, as detailed in the
that residential development
Applicant's Final Legal Argument.
would exceed the traffic
generated by a single farm
equipment business.
247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) BOCC Decision Matrix
Page 3 of 9
Issue
Issue Area/Approval
Criterion
LUBA Final Order and Opinion
Applicant Response
Opponent Testimony
Staff Comment
Board Decision Points
The County's findings identify the
surrounding farm practices on tables that
are a part of its decision (Rec-98-100).
The tables in the decision identify
The findings, however, do not establish
adjacent and nearby lands and the
compliance with OAR 660-033-
farm practices occurring on those
0020(1)(a)(C). This OAR "requires an
lands. The impacts test must be
evaluation of the impacts that
applied to those lands and those
Staff recommends that the Board
redand rezoning land from
farm practices. The only likely
Redside argues that holdings of the
follow the test as set out LUBA
Definition of Agricultural
agricultural to non -resource will have on
exception is the Buchanan's use of
Stop the Dump case apply even though
Aesignating
and the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Land - Part 2 - Legal Test
adjacent or nearby lands and a
their property for wintering cattle
the case addresses the "no significant
recommends that the Board Staff
ff
Is retention of the property's
determination of whether those impacts
owned by Keystone Natural Beef
impacts" test; a test more stringent
"necessary
apply to "necessary to permit farm
agricultural designation
will prevent farm practices on those
which was not identified by the
than the to permit farm
practices" test to the properties
necessary to permit farm
Is retention of the
lands" making it necessary to retain EFU
g � Y
tables but was treated as an area
practices test. (2024-08-14 J. Howsley)
identified as adjacent and nearby
practices on adjacent or
4
property's agricultural
farm use by LUBA for the combined
nearby lands?
designation necessary to
zoning.
operations test.
DLCD agrees that the "necessary to
properties in its prior decision.
permit farm practices on
permit farm practices" test applies and
1. If no, then the Board
adjacent or nearby
Opponents did not address the
claims that evidence has been
Staff recommends that the Board
can continue
lands?
The County's findings on remand must
relevance of LUBA's finding that the
provided that residential use may have
review the farm ractices
p
reviewing the
evaluate the impacts of water, traffic,
p
County had identified farm practices
"significant impacts related to traffic
identified in its prior decision and
applications and
OAR 660-033-
nuisance and trespass and determine
and adjacent and nearby lands and
and new water demands" and that the
determine whether the "necessary"
move on to other
0020(1)(a)(C) defines
whether any of those impacts will prevent
did not confine their evidence to
applicant had not, as of August 7, 2024
test is met. Staff also recommends
issue areas.
"agricultural land" as
farm practices from continuing on
lands and farm practices identified
provided substantial evidence that
that, in an excess of caution, that
"Land that is necessaryb
adjacent or nearby lands.
Y the tables.
retaining EFU zoning is not necessary
g g Y
the Board also address farm
2. If es, then the Board
Y
to permit farm practices
to permit farm practice on adjacent or
practices related to the Buchanan
must deny the PA/ZC.
to be undertaken on
Opponent Redside applies elements
nearby lands.
and Two Canyons LLC cattle
adjacent or nearby
The Court of Appeals agreed with LUBA
of the "significant impacts" test of
operations in its decision.
agricultural lands."
that the retention of EFU must meet the
Stop the Dump and ORS 215.296(1);
"high standard" that it is truly "necessary
not the more stringent "prevent farm
to permit farm practices on adjacent or
practices" test established by LUBA
nearby agricultural lands." The Court
and the Court of Appeals.
found that "necessary" means "whatever
is essential for some purpose" and "things
that must be had."
247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) BOCC Decision Matrix
Page 4 of 9
No.
Issue Area/Approval
Criterion
LUBA Final Order
and Opinion
Applicant Response
Opponent Testimony'
Board DecisionPoints
The subject property does not adjoin and lacks access to Lower
Redside claims Two Canyons, LLC moves cattle
Bridge Way and Buckhorn Road, rural collector streets designed to
between two farm properties owned by Two
carry a significant amount of vehicle traffic. Any access that might be
Canyons, LLC along Lower Bridge Way and a short
obtained across public lands will be limited to utility and emergency
distance on Buckhorn Road.
access only. Eden Central traffic will use Coyner Avenue for access
and, therefore, will not interfere with Two Canyons, LLC's cattle
Mr. Buchanan says that Eden Central traffic will
driving operation (about 50 head of cattle).
conflict with slow -moving vehicles. He says he
Definition of
would have no way of continuing our operation
Agricultural Land -Part
While the Board
Joe Bessman, P.E (Applicant's Exhibit 49) has filed photos and detailed
"if' he cannot get haying equipment down Coyner
Given the applicant's proposed condition of
concluded that traffic
information re farm vehicles to support his opinion that Co
PP P Coyner
Avenue and onto his ranch.
approval agreement, is it necessary for the
2A, Traffic
impacts would not
Avenue and its shoulders are wide enough to allow the Buchanan
Agricultural Land/EFU designation of the
OAR 66(a)(C)
prevent farm practices
haying and farm equipment and Eden Central traffic to pass while
Mr. Buchanan says that the EFU zone should be
Eden Central property to be retained to
5
0020(1)(a)(C)
on adjacent and
�
travelingdown this road.
reserved to prevent conflicts with farm
P P
permit farm practices to occur on adjoining
defines "agricultural
nearby lands, the
equipment and cattle trucks that use Coyner
or nearby agricultural lands due to traffic
land" as "Land that is
findings do not set out
g
Mr. Buchanan does not claim that other potential conflicts will
P
Avenue and the not infrequent escape of small
q p
?
impacts.
the facts which the
prevent him from continuing accepted farm practices on his property.
calves onto the road.
necessary to permit
farm practices to be
Board believed and
open range law requires drivers to compensate Mr. Buchanan for
P g q p
1. If no, then the Board can continue
undertaken on adjacent
relied upon and did
harm to calves. Improved, relatively inexpensive fencing would cure
Other opponents say that slow -moving farm
reviewing the applications and move
or nearby agricultural
not explain how those
P
the existing calf escape problem.
g P P
vehicles use Coyner Avenue and other roads that
y
onto the other issues areas.
lands."
facts led to this
pass properties that are not adjacent or nearby
conclusion.
Other opponents claim traffic will interfere with farm use but not that
PP
lands.
2. If yes, then the Board must deny the
traffic impacts will prevent farm practices. Opponent Lori Johnson
PA/ZC.
states, in her July 16, 2024 letter that EFU zoning "is not necessary to
Redside claims there is undisputed testimony of
permit farming practice in the area" and Kelsey Nonella agrees.
livestock crossings in the record citing a statement
that the "farming community" has livestock
There are no livestock crossings along the route of travel to Hwy 126
crossing (singular).
from the Eden Central property.
The Applicant includes a Condition of Approval limiting residential
development to a maximum of 71 dwellings.
247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) BOCC Decision Matrix
Page 5 of 9
No.
Issue Area/Approval
Criterion
LUBA Final Order and
Opinion
Applicant Response
Opponent Testimony
Board Decision Points
As determined by the Board in 2022, "[a] professional water study
conducted by GSI Water Solutions, Inc. found that the use of exempt
wells to meet the water needs of new residents would be unlikely to
have a measurable interference on agricultural wells and domestic
wells in the area around the subject property."
OWRD's Regional Manager Kyle Gorman testified in initial application
Given the applicant's
proceedings that groundwater is available, that the aquifer is "robust"
Opponents argue that the groundwater is dropping and,
proposed condition of
f
and that the aquifer in the area potentially influenced by pumping
therefore, no new homes should be allowed to be built on
approval agreement, it
(Lower Bridge) is declining slowly over time due primarily to drought.
the Eden Central property. Opponents assert that a rural
necessary to retain EFU
development of this size would lower the groundwater
zoning to permit farm
Definition of Agricultural Land
Findings in the Board's
The fact that the level of groundwater is dropping gradually is not
and require area wells to be redrilled. Many commenters
practices to be undertaken
on adjacent and nearby
6
decision must address
evidence that water use by 71 homes will result in a discontinuation of
pointed to a variety of data regarding groundwater levels
agricultural lands due to
- Part 2B. Water
water impacts and
p
irrigated farming on any adjacent or nearby farm property.
in the region and well log records that show that some
water impacts related to
determine whether
ether
area wells have be redrilled due to dropping groundwater
pp g g
the use of exempt
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C)
retaining the g
Bob Long of CwM-H2O (2024-08-07 J. Howsley New Evidence) poses and
levels.
groundwater wells by
defines "a
"agricultural land" as
g
zonin and
g Ian
p
answers questions not asked by LUBA other than to state that any
future owners of lots on
"Land that is necessary to
Y
designation
g
exempt water use, no matter how small, will increase the rate of decline
Redside introduced a letter written by Bob Long, RG, LHG,
the Eden Central property?
permit farm practices to be
(Agriculture/EFU) is
of groundwater. He offers no evidence that shows that the conclusions
CWRE (2024-08-07 J. Howsley New Evidence) that crafts
undertaken on adjacent or
necessary t/ permit
Y P
of the GSI Water Solutions water analysis are incorrect. He fails to
and answers questions other than those posed by LUBA in
1. If no, then the
nearby agricultural lands."
farm practices on
p
quantify the impacts of water use by Eden Central wells or to establish
its decision. B. Long concludes that because exempt water
Board can continue
adjacent or nearby
that the Eden Central use, alone, will impose any additional costs to
users are not required by law to provide mitigation, any
reviewing the
agricultural lands.
pump groundwater or to challenge GSI's finding that interfere with
exempt use no matter how small will cause some decline
applications and
agricultural wells is unlikely water use by Eden Central will interfere with
in groundwater. He asserts that any slight decline will
the Volwood well closest to the Eden Central.
adversely affect agricultural water use and operations by
move onto the
increasing the cost of pumping well water and potentially
other issues areas.
The Applicant proposes to include a Condition of Approval (Pg. 27 of
requiring new wells to be drilled as water levels decline.
Final Legal Argument and Exhibit 114) to voluntarily reduce the
2. yes, then the
amount of water that could be used from exempt wells for irrigation
B
Board must deny
from the permitted 1/2 acre of irrigation to 1/4 acre. The Applicant
the PA/ZC.
proposes this to be memorialized in a Restrictive Covenant recorded
to the property's title.
The Applicant also includes a Condition of Approval limiting residential
development to a maximum of 71 dwellings.
247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) BOCC Decision Matrix
Page 6 of 9
No.
Issue Area/Approval
Criterion
LUBA Final Order and
Opinion
Applicant Response
Opponent Testimony
Board Decision Points
No party asserts on remand that nuisance and trespass
impacts will prevent farm practices from being
undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands or present any
testimony or evidence that these potential impacts will do
SO.
The existing EFU zoning on the subject property could
allow up to 24 non -farm dwellings and while the RR10
zoning would allow more dwellings, the impacts imposed
Findings in the Board's
will be the same as the minimal impacts imposed by a
Considering the proposed conditions
decision must determine
nonfarm dwelling.
DLCD argued in 2022 that it was not clear how water,
of approval agreement (Applicant's
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C)
whether potential nuisance
traffic, nuisance and trespass impacts under the new
Exhibit 114), will potential nuisance
and trespass impacts associated with
7
Definition of Agricultural Land
and trespass impacts will
ORS 30.930-.947, the "Right to Farm" law limits nuisance
RR-10 zoning would impact area farm operations.
the application request prevent the
- Part 2C. Nuisance and
occur as a result of uses
allowed b the RR10 zone
y
and trespass lawsuits against farm operators.
continuation of farm practices on
Trespass
and, if so, whether retaining
The applicant asks the County to impose a condition of
In 2024, DLCD argues that testimony indicates that
RR10 uses "may have significant impacts related to new
nearby or adjacent lands?
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a
the existing zoning and plan
approval agreement (Applicant's Exhibit 114), enforceable
residential traffic and new water demands" but does
1. If no, then the Board can
defines "agricultural landd"" as
designation
by a recorded restrictive covenant, that requires: (a) those
not claim that testimony indicates that nuisance and
continue reviewing the
"Land that is necessary to
y
(A riculture/EFU) is
g
who build new homes to sign the Countys EFU waiver of
trespass impacts will be significant or will prevent farm
applications and move onto
permit farm practices to be
P P
necessaryto permit farm
P
remonstrance agreement that protects accepted farm
practices from being undertaken on adjacent or nearby
the other issues areas.
undertaken on adjacent
practices on adjacent or
practices; and (b) that requires new homes to meet a
lands. This reflects the fact that evidence and
nearby agricultural lands..""
nearby agricultural lands.
special 1 00'setback from properties engaged in farm use;
arguments on remand about impacts has not included
2. If yes, then the Board must
and (c) to construct and fence on or near the common
concerns about trespass or nuisance.
boundary (where missing) and post and maintain no
deny the PA/ZC.
trespassing signs along or close to the boundary with the
former Volwood Farms property at intervals of 250' - the
only farm property that adjoins the subject property at
more than one point and that is not separated from it by a
road. These measures will significantly minimize potential
nuisance and trespass conflicts between farm and
nonfarm uses.
The Applicant includes a Condition of Approval limiting
residential development to a maximum of 71 dwellings.
247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) BOCC Decision Matrix
Page 7 of 9
No.
Issue Area/Approval
LUBA Final Order and Opinion
Criterion
Applicant Response
Opponent Testimony
Board Decision Points
The County is due deference in interpreting provisions of
its code and comprehensive plan that are not mandated
(Pg 73-74) The County's findings are
by State law. In this case, neither the code nor the plan
not inadequate for failing to address
text is mandated by state law. The applicant asks that the
DCC 18.136.020(C)(2) and
surrounding non -resource lands.
County interpret the Goal 1 and the impacts test of DCC
Does the Board concur with the
DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal 1
18.136.020(C)(2), as they relate to impacts of the proposed
Applicant's approach to analyze
However, findings that an increase
PA/ZC, as requiring compliance with the impact test
compliance with DCCP Agricultural
-Impacts on Surrounding Land
from 24 to 71 dwellings have no
g
formulated by LUBA based on the provisions of OAR 660-
Opponents did not, on remand, weigh in on
Lands Goal 1 as it relates to DCC
Use. Board Interpretation of
greater water, wastewater or traffic
033-0020(1)(a)(C). That test will preserve and maintain
the issue of the proper interpretation of DCC
18.36.020?
the Code and Goal
impacts on surrounding agricultural
agricultural lands and the agricultural industry by
1. If yes, the Board can continue
8a
lands and the agricultural industry,
protecting surrounding agricultural lands. That test
18.136.020(C)(2) and DCCP Agricultural Lands
reviewing the application
DCC 18.136.020(C)(2) requires
"impacts
and findings relying on the distance of
g y g
includes both adjoining and nearby lands that surround
Goal 1. They did claim that water, wastewater
materials and move onto the
that on surrounding
the property and surrounding
the property and the County has already properly
and traffic impacts would occur and that the
P
next issue area.
land use will be consistent with
agricultural lands to address these
g
identified those lands. Ensuring that farm practices on
application, therefore, should be denied. The
the specific goal and policies
impacts are inadequate because it is
those lands will be able to continue assures that those
traffic and water impacts have been
2. If no, how does the Board
contained within the
unclear how this fact will mitigate
g
lands and the industry will be preserved.
addressed by this matrix under the analysis of
wish to interpret compliance
Comprehensive Plan."
water, wastewater or traffic impacts
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a}(C). Issues related
with the above stated
and achieve compliance with DCC
p
The proposed interpretation of DCCP Agricultural Lands
to wastewater impacts are addressed
provisions and the impacts
DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal 1
"[p]reserve
18.136.020(C)(2) and DCCP
Policy Goal 1 is reasonable because Goal 1 is implemented
below.
test.
is to and maintain
Agricultural Lands Goal 1. The County
by DCCP Policies 2.2.1 - 2.28. Policy 2.2.3 allows plan and
agricultural lands and the
must consider evidence of on impacts
p
zone map amendments for non -resource land "as allowed
agricultural industry."
surrounding agricultural lands vis-a-
by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this
vis water, wastewater, and traffic.
Comprehensive Plan" - rules that include OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(C) that addresses impacts to adjoining and
nearby lands.
247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) BOCC Decision Matrix
Page 8 of 9
Issue Area/Approval
LUBA Final Order
Applicant Response
Opponent Testimony
No.
Criterion
and Opinion
Board Decision Points'
The applicant addressed water and traffic issues in its response to the
requirements of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C). That response also
establishes that the impacts on surrounding lands will be consistent with
DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal 1.
Certified Professional Soil Scientist and Registered Wastewater Specialist Brian
Rabe, CPSS, WWS, based on his expertise and experience in addressing septic
system and soils issues and his site -specific soil survey of the Eden Central
property, advised "given the location of the property and the size of potential
Redside attorney James Howsley offered
DCC 18.136.020(C)(2) and DCCP
residential lots, it is my professional opinion that there will be no wastewater
his opinion that the permeability of
The Count must
Y
impacts on nearby or surrounding agricultural lands or the farm uses or farm
subsoils "means that wastewater from
Considering the proposed
Agricultural Lands Goal 1 -
consider evidence of
practices on such lands." Applicant Exhibit 36. Mr. Rabe specifically rejected
septic drain fields will flow down to the
conditions of approval agreement
pp g
Impacts on Surrounding Land
8b
impacts on
claims made by Redside's attorney, that nitrate testing of agricultural wells was
groundwater at a relatively high rate" and
(Applicant's Exhibit 114), will the
Use - Analysis of Impacts
surroundingnecessary
and provided evidence that nitrates are beneficially used in
that there is no evidence of current or
impacts of the zone change on
DCC 18.136.020(C)(2) requires
a g
agricultural lands vis-
agriculture (Applicant Exhibit 48). He also rebutted Mr. Buchanan's claim that
potential nitrate levels in nearby wells
surrounding land use be consistent
that impacts on surrounding
a- vis water,
"the drainage of sewage from 71 homes would result in significant negative
and that testing wells for nitrates is
with DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal
8
land use will be consistent with
wastewater, and
changes in our farm practices" stating that no evidence support the claim
g P g pp
required to find that septic stems will
q p Y
1, considering water, wastewater,
the specific goal and policies
traffic and determine
(Applicant Exhibit 76).
not impact groundwater quality.
and traffic impacts?
contained within the
whether they are
Comprehensive Plan."
consistent with DCCP
The Applicant proposes to include a Condition of Approval (Pg. 27 of Final Legal
Mr. Buchanan claims that "the drainage
1. If yes, then the Board can
Agricultural Lands
g
Argument and Exhibit 114) to voluntarily reduce the amount of water that could
of sewage from 71 homes would result in
continue reviewing the
DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal 1
Goal 1.
be used from exempt wells for irrigation from the permitted 1/2 acre of irrigation
significant negative changes in our farm
applications and move to
is to [p]reserve and maintain
to �/4 acre. The Applicant proposes this to be memorialized in a Restrictive
practices" but did not identify any farm
approve the application.
agricultural lands and the
landinds
Covenant recorded to the property's title.
practices that would be impacted or offer
agricultural
scientific proof of this assertion. See, Billy
2. If no, the Board must deny
The Applicant includes a Condition of Approval limiting residential development
Buchanan letter of 2024-08-07 and
the application.
to a maximum of 71 dwellings.
testimony at July 24, 2024 hearing.
Other conditions the Applicant proposes include:
® 100-foot setbacks from lands engaged in farm use and receiving farm
tax deferral
• Residential access only from NW Coyner Avenue. Other access points
are emergency only.
No destination resort may be established on the property.
• Waiver of Remonstrance precluding complaints against nearby farm
practices.
247-24-000395-A (247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) BOCC Decision Matrix
Page 9 of 9
September 12, 2024
Joint Committee on Transportation
Attn: Co -Chair McLain, Co -Chair Gorsek, Vice -Chairs and Committee Members
Submitted via: JCT.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov
RE: Testimony in support of 2025 legislative transportation funding package
Dear Co -Chair McLain, Co -Chair Gorsek, Vice -Chairs and Committee Members,
Welcome to Central Oregon and Deschutes County! Thank you for taking the time to tour the many counties,
cities and ODOT Regions in our state in consideration of your role in helping prepare a transportation funding
package for contemplation in the 2025 legislative session.
By now you have heard from many counties and cities regarding the need for a significant transportation
funding package next session. Like many other local governments, our request and input can be summarized
succinctly in the following points:
1. Inflation: While HB 2017 was described as a generational funding package when passed in 2017, the
unfortunate impacts of unforeseen and unprecedented inflation have completely eroded the
purchasing power of that prior investment. The 33% increase in state fuel tax implemented by HB 2017
has been eclipsed by a 44% increase in construction costs in the subsequent seven year period. The
legislature should also consider indexing transportation revenue sources to inflation to replace
infrequent and politically unsavory large scale funding adjustments with manageable annual increases
as dictated by economic conditions.
2. 50-30-20 State Highway Fund Apportionment: It is imperative to maintain the 50-30-20 split of State
Highway Fund revenue in a new funding package. Counties in Oregon are highly, if not exclusively
dependent upon the 30% State Highway Fund revenue apportionment to maintain and operate (and
improve) their transportation systems. Unlike cities, counties are restricted from using property tax
and have few viable or permissible tools to generate local transportation funding (prohibition on
franchise fees, local fuel tax establishment complexities, etc).
While ODOT's well -advertised maintenance and operations shortfall and large project over -runs will drive the
transportation funding conversation within the legislature in 2025, it is important to note that local
governments encounter the same challenges in meeting maintenance needs and delivering capital projects.
61 150 SG_ 27th Street Bend, Oregon 97702
�(541) 388-6581 road@deschutes.org wuvw.deschutes.org
Thank you again for conducting extensive outreach across the state to gather information in advance of the
2025 legislative session.
Yours truly,
Chris Doty, PE
Road Department Director, Deschutes County Road Department
chris.doty@deschutes.org
61 150 SE 27th Street Bend, Oregon 97702
(5 41 ) 388-6581 road@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org