2025-93-Ordinance No. 2025-003 Recorded 4/8/2025REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2025-93
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 04/08/2025 2:55:47 PM
/X'=fa� Illil�lll�llllllllllIllll
g 2025-93
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code Title 23, the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan, to Change the
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for
Certain Property From Agriculture to Rural
Industrial, and Amending Deschutes County
Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning
Map, to Change the Zone Designation for
Certain Property From Exclusive Farm Use to
Rural Industrial.
*
* ORDINANCE NO. 2025-003
*
P.7
WHEREAS, Last Ranch, LLC ("Applicant"), applied for changes to both the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map (247-22-000574-PA) and the Deschutes County Zoning Map (247-22-
000573-ZC), to change the comprehensive plan designation of the subject property from
Agricultural (AG) to Rural Industrial (RI), and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm
Use (EFU) to Rural Industrial (RI); and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was
held on March 21, 2023, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on June 12, 2023, the
Hearings Officer recommended denial unless the Applicant demonstrates the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal
5;
WHEREAS, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), the Board of County Commissioners ("Board")
heard de novo the applications to change the comprehensive plan designation of the subject
property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Industrial (RI) and a corresponding zone change from
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Industrial (RI); now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as
follows:
PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2025-003
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is
amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted
on the map set forth as Exhibit "B" from AG to RI, with both exhibits attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCCTitle 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation
from EFU to RI for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit
"C", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative
History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference
herein, with new language underlined.
Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance the
Decision of the Board of County Commissioners as set forth in Exhibit "F" and incorporated by
reference herein. The Board also incorporates in its findings in support of this decision, the
Recommendation of the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit "G" and, and site specific Economic,
Social, Environmental, and Energy analysis, attached as Exhibit "H", each incorporated by reference
herein.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 90t" day after the date of
adoption.
Dated this of 2025
ATTEST:
(?W&6
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2025-003
Date of 1 st Reading: 19" day of March, 2025.
Date of 2nd Reading: 21d day of April, 2025.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Anthony DeBone X _
Patti Adair X
Phil Chang _ X
Effective date: 15Y day of July, 2025.
ATTEST
Recording Secretary
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2025-003
Exhibit "A" To Ordinance 2025-003
Legal Description of Subject Property
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Real property in the County of Deschutes, State of Oregon, described as
fellows:
LTM"
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SE1/4
NWI/4) OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 16 SOUTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE
MERIDIAN, ALSO DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF PARCEL 1, PARTITION PLAT 1993-32,
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
STARTING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SE-1/4 NWI/4; THENCE SOUTH 89 40' EAST ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SE1/4 NWi/4,1,084.21 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE PILOT
BUTTE CANAL AS NOW LOCATED; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF
SAID PILOT BUTTE CANAL AS NOW LOCATED, 1,415 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SE1/4 NW1/4; THENCE NORTH 89 50"30" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SEI/4
NW1/4, 484.E FEET TO THE SW CORNER OF SAID SE1/4 NW1/4; THENCE NORTH 0 00,
1,330.89 FEET TO THE NW CORNER OF SAID SEi/4 NW1/4, BEING THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. EXCEPTING A STRIP OF LAND HERETOFORE CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF
OREGON FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. ALSO, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SWI./4 NW1/4) OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 16 SOUTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE DALLES-CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY NO.
97.
PARCEL II:
THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4 NW1/4)
OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 16 SOUTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN,
ALSO DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF PARCEL 1, PARTITION PLAT 1993-32, DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE DALLES-CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY AND
NORTHERLY OF THE NICHOLS MARKET ROAD.
PARCEL III:
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
26, TOWNSHIP 16, SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, ALSO
DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF PARCEL 1, PARTITION PLAT 1993-32, DESCHUTES COUNTY,
OREGON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE DALLES-CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY NO.97 AND SOUTHERLY
AND WESTERLY OF THE PILOT BUTTE CANAL.
NOTE: This legal description was created prior to ]anuary 1, 2008.
QPlan Amendment Boundary
Comprehensive Plan
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Exhibit "B"
to Ordinance 2025-003
V V
200 400 800
Feet
March 24, 2025
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OFDESCHUT S OU OREGON
T6n De op e Chair
P tti Adair, vice Chair
_. 0 P l dJ 6; 0 —
Phil hang, Commission
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of , 2025
Effective Date: July 01, 2025
® Zone Change Boundary
County Zoning
EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend
MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural
RR10 - Rural Residential
RC - Rural Commercial
RI - Rural Industrial
PROPOSED
ZONING
Exhibit "C"
to Ordinance 2025-003
� V
0 200 400 aoo
Feet
March 24, 2025
BOARD OF COUNTY C MMISSIONERS
OF CHUT CO OREGON
on DeB�o e, Chair
Patti Adair, Vice Chair
- ®1PP0SGD
Phil Chang, Commission
ATTEST. Recor�g Secrre�t_ar
Dated this day ofi(2A /, 2025
Effective Date: JtKy 01, 2025
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 and
found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated
by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. [Repealed by Ordinance 2013-001, §1]
D. [Repealed by Ordinance 2023-017]
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
T. [Repealed by Ordinance 2016-027 §11
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein.
V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
AC. [repealed by Ord. 2019-010 §1, 2019]
AD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
Al. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
A1. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein.
AL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
AM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AO. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
AR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
AT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
AU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
AW. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AX. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AY. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AZ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
BA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2022-011, are incorporated by reference herein. (superseded by Ord. 2023-015)
BC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2022-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
BD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
BF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-010 are incorporated by reference herein.
BG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
BH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-015, are incorporated by reference herein.
BI. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-025, are incorporated by reference herein.
BJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
BL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-017, are incorporated by reference herein.
BM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
BN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-017, are incorporated by reference herein.
BO. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
BP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2024-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2024-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
BR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan(http://www.deschutes.org/compplan)
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2011-027 §10 on 111912011
Adopted by Ord. 2011-003 §2 on 111912011
Amended by Ord. 2011-017 §5 on 1113012011
Amended by Ord. 2012-012 §1, 2, 3, 4 on 812012012
Amended by Ord. 2012-005 §1 on 1111912012
Amended by Ord. 2013-002 §1 on 11712013
Repealed by Ord. 2013-001 §1 on 11712013
Amended by Ord. 2013-005 §1 on 112312013
Amended by Ord. 2012-016 §1 on 31412013
Amended by Ord. 2013-009 §1 on 51812013
Amended by Ord. 2013-012 §1 on 81812013
Amended by Ord. 2013-007 §1 on 812812013
Amended by Ord. 2014-005 §2 on 212612014
Amended by Ord. 2014-006 §2 on 311512014
Amended by Ord. 2014-012 §1 on 81612014
Amended by Ord. 2014-021 §1 on 1112612014
Amended by Ord. 2015-029 §1 on 1113012015
Amended by Ord. 2015-010 §1 on 1212112015
Amended by Ord. 2015-021 §1 on 212212016
Amended by Ord. 2015-018 §1 on 312812016
Amended by Ord. 2016-001 §1 on 41512016
Amended by Ord. 2016-022 §1 on 912812016
Repealed & Reenacted by Ord. 2016-027 §1, 2 on 1212812016
Amended by Ord. 2016-005 §1 on 212712017
Amended by Ord. 2016-029 §1 on 312812017
Amended by Ord. 2017-007 §1 on 111112017
Amended by Ord. 2018-002 §1 on 112512018
Amended by Ord. 2018-005 §2 on 1011012018
Amended by Ord. 2018-008 §1 on 1012612018
Amended by Ord. 2018-008 §1 on 1012612018
Amended by Ord. 2018-008 §1 on 1012612018
Amended by Ord. 2018-006 §1 on 1112012018
Amended by Ord. 2018-011 §1 on 1211112018
Amended by Ord. 2019-004 §1 on 311412019
Amended by Ord. 2019-003 §1 on 311412019
Amended by Ord. 2019-002 §1 on 41212019
Amended by Ord. 2019-001 §1 on 411612019
Amended by Ord. 2019-010 §1 on 51812019
Amended by Ord. 2019-011 §1 on 511712019
Amended by Ord. 2019-006 §1 on 611112019
Amended by Ord. 2019-019 §2 on 1211112019
Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §26 on 412112020
Amended by Ord. 2020-003 §1 on 512612020
Amended by Ord. 2020-002 §1 on 512612020
Amended by Ord. 2020-008 §5 on 912212020
Amended by Ord. 2020-007 §1 on 1012712020
Amended by Ord. 2020-006 §1 on 1111012020
Amended by Ord. 2020-009 §4 on 11/1712020
Amended by Ord. 2020-013 §1 on 1112412020
Amended by Ord. 2021-002 §3 on 412712021
Amended by Ord. 2021-005 §1 on 611612021
Amended by Ord. 2021-008 §1 on 613012021
Amended by Ord. 2022-001 §2 on 711212022
Amended by Ord. 2022-003 §2 on 711912022
Amended by Ord. 2022-006 §2 on 712212022
Amended by Ord. 2022-010 §1 on 1012512022
Amended by Ord. 2023-001 §1 on 31112023
Amended by Ord. 2022-013 §2 on 311412023
Amended by Ord. 2023-007 §19 on 412612023
Amended by Ord. 2023-010 §1 on 612112023
Amended by Ord. 2023-018 §1 on 813012023
Amended by Ord. 2023-015 §3 on 911312023
Amended by Ord. 2023-025 §1 on 1112912023
Amended by Ord. 2024-001§1 on 0113112024
Amended by Ord. 2024-003§3 on 0212112024
Amended by Ord. 2023-017§1 on 0312012024
Amended by Ord. 2023-016§3 on 051812024
Amended by Ord. 2024-003§3 on 0512112024
Amended by Ord. 2024-012§1 on 1011612024
Amended by Ord. 2024-011§1 on 1111812024
Amended by Ord. 2024-007§1 on 1010212024
Amended by Ord. 2024-010§1 on 0111412025
Amended by Ord. 2025-001§1 on 0210512025
Amended by Ord. 2025-003§3 on 0311912025
10
SeotWv�, 5.12 l_tot-SLat�Ve t-t�stor�
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table S. 12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Chapter/Section
Amendment
Effective
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
201 1-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
Community Plans,
Comprehensive Plan update
Deschutes Junction,
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments
20 I I -027
10-3 I- I I/ I I -9- I I
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 I,
to ensure a smooth
23.40A, 23.40B,
transition to the updated
23.40.065, 23.01.010
Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix
System Plan
C (added)
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4. I, 4.2
La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary
Housekeeping amendments
2012-016
12-3-12/3-4-13
3.9
to Destination Resort
Chapter
Central Oregon Regional
2013-002
1-7-13/ 1-7-13
4.2
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2013-009
2-6-13/5-8-13
1.3
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
certain property within City
of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary
Newberry Country: A Plan
2013-007
5-29-13/8-27-13
3.10, 3.1 1
for Southern Deschutes
Count
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
10-21-13/ 10-21-
Amendment, including
2013-016
13
23.01.010
certain property within City
of Sisters Urban Growth
Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01.010
certain property within City
of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary
2014-012
4-2-14/7-1-14
3.10, 3.1 1
Housekeeping amendments
to Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Sunriver
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
Urban Unincorporated
Community Forest to
Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Sunriver
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
Urban Unincorporated
Community Forest to
Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010, 5.10
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-021
1 1-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-029
1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-
23.01.010
designation of certain
15
property from Tumalo
Residential 5-Acre Minimum
to Tumalo Industrial
2015-018
12-9-15/3-27-16
23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3
Housekeeping Amendments
to Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Text
2015-010
12-2-15/ 12-2-15
2.6
and Map Amendment
recognizing Greater Sage -
Grouse Habitat Inventories
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-001
12-21-15/04-5-16
23.01.010; 5.10
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture
to Rural Industrial (exception
area
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to add an
exception to Statewide
2016-007
2-10-16/5-10-16
23.01.010; 5.10
Planning Goal I I to allow
sewers in unincorporated
lands in Southern Deschutes
Count
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non-
2016-005
1 1-28-16/2-16-17
23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
Comprehensive plan
Amendment, including
2016-022
9-28-16/ 1 1-14-16
23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2
certain property within City
of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture
to Rural Industrial
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/ 10-30-
23.01.010
designation of certain
17
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
2018-002
1-3-18/ 1-25-18
23.01, 2.6
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining
2018-006
8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; modifying Goal 5
Inventory of Cultural and
Historic Resources
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2018-01 1
9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Plain Comprehensive Plan
2018-005
9-19-18/ 10-10-18
Community Plan,
Designation; Comprehensive
Newberry Country Plan
Plan Amendment adding
Flood Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
2018-008
9-26-18/ 10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
potential of new properties
to be designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S. 12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
to Rural Residential
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
Exception Area; Modifying
Goal 5 Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory;
Modifying Non -Significant
Mining Mineral and Aggregate
Inventor
Comprehensive Plan and
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Text Amendment to add a
new zone to Title 19:
Westside Transect Zone.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
02-12-19/03-12-
designation of certain
2019-003
19
23.01.010, 4.2
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
2019-004
02-12-19/03-12-
23.01.010, 4.2
Redmond Urban Growth
19
Area for the expansion of
the Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate
the refinement of the Skyline
Ranch Road alignment and
2019-01 1
05-01-19/05-16/ 19
23.01.010, 4.2
the refinement of the West
Area Master Plan Area I
boundary. The ordinance
also amends the
Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTERS SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2019-006
03-13-19/06-1 1-
23.01.010,
designation of certain
19
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments
1 1-25-19/02-24-
incorporating language from
2019-016
20
23.01.01, 2.5
DLCD's 2014 Model Flood
Ordinance and Establishing a
purpose statement for the
Flood Plain Zone.
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2019-019
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
19
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2020-001
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
19
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Redmond Urban Growth
Boundary through an equal
exchange of land to/from the
Redmond UGB. The
exchange property is being
offered to better achieve
2020-002
2-26-20/5-26-20
23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2
land needs that were detailed
in the 2012 SB 1544 by
providing more development
ready land within the
Redmond UGB. The
ordinance also amends the
Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment with exception
to Statewide Planning Goal
2020-003
02-26-20/05-26-
23.01.01, 5.10
11 (Public Facilities and
20
Services) to allow sewer on
rural lands to serve the City
of Bend Outback Water
Facility.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
06-24-20/09-22-
roundabouts at US 20/Cook-
2020-008
20
23.01.010, Appendix C
O.B. Riley and US 20/01d
Bend -Redmond Hwy
intersections; amend Tables
5.33 1 and 5.332 and amend
TSP text.
07-29-20/ 10-27-
Housekeeping Amendments
2020-007
23.01.010, 2.6
correcting references to two
20
Sage Grouse ordinances.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments to update
08-12-20/ 1 1-10-
the County's Resource List
2020-006
20
23.01.01, 2.1 1, 5.9
and Historic Preservation
Ordinance to comply with
the State Historic
Preservation Rule.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
2020-009
08-19-20/ 1 1-17-
23.01.010, Appendix C
reference to J turns on US
20
97 raised median between
Bend and Redmond; delete
language about disconnecting
Vandevert Road from US 97.
Comprehensive Plan Text
And Map Designation for
Certain Properties from
Surface Mine (SM) and
Agriculture (AG) To Rural
2020-013
08-26-20/ 1 1 /24/20
23.01.01, 5.8
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) and Remove Surface
Mining Site 461 from the
County's Goal 5 Inventory of
Significant Mineral and
Aggregate Resource Sites.
Comprehensive Plan Map
2021-002
01-27-21 /04-27-
23.01.01
Designation for Certain
21
Property from Agriculture
AG To Rural Industrial RI
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
06-16-21 /06-16-
Certain Property from
2021-005
21
23.01.01, 4.2
Agriculture (AG) To
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and text
amendment
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
06-30-21/09-28-
Certain Property Adding
2021-008
21
23.01.01
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and Fixing
Scrivener's Error in Ord.
2020-022
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-001
04-13-22/07-12-
23 01.010
designation of certain
22
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-003
04-20-22/07-19-
23.01.010
designation of certain
22
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area RREA
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
06-22-22/08-19-
designation of certain
2022-006
22
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
07-27-22/ 10-25-
Comprehensive Plan Map
2022-01 1
22
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
(superseded by
Property from Agriculture
Ord. 2023-0IS)
AG To Rural Industrial RI
12-14-22/03-14-
Comprehensive Plan Map
23
Designation for Certain
2022-013
(supplemented
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
and controlled by
(AG) to Rural Residential
Ord. 2024-010)
Except on Area RREA
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting the location for
2023-001
03-01-23/05-30-
23.01.010, 5.9
the Lynch and Roberts Store
23
Advertisement, a designated
Cultural and Historic
Resource
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-007
04-26-23/6-25-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
10 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-010
06-21-23/9-17-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
08-30-23/ 1 1-28-
Designation for Certain
2023-018
23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
2023-015
9-13-23/ 12-12-23
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2023-025
1 1-29-23/2-27-24
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2024-001
1-31-24/4-30-24
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
23.01(BM) (added), 4.7
Updated Tumalo Community
2023-016
5-8-24/8-6-24
(amended), Appendix B
Plan
(replaced)
23.01(D) (repealed),
2023-017
3-20-24/6-20-24
23.01(BJ) (added), 3.7
Updated Transportation
(amended), Appendix C
System Plan
(replaced)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2024-003
2-21-24/5-21-24
23.01.010, 5.8
property from Surface Mining
(SM) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA);
Modifying Goal 5 Mineral and
Aggregate Inventor
Repeal and Replacement of
10-02-24/ 12-31-
23.0 1 (A)(repealed)
2030 Comprehensive Plan
2024-007
24
23.01(13K) (added)
with 2040 Comprehensive
Plan
Comprehensive Plan Map
10-16-24/01-14-
Designation for Certain
2024-010
25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
1 1-18-24/02-17-
Designation for Certain
2024-01 1
25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Redmond Urban
Growth Area (RUGA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2024-012
1-8-25/4-8-25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map Amendment
2025-001
2-5-25/2-5-25
23.01.010
updating the Greater Sage -
Grouse Area Combining
Zone boundary.
Comprehensive Plan
2025-003
3-19-25/4-2-25
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
12 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit "F" to Ordinance 2025-003
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FILE NUMBERS: 247-22-000573-ZC / 247-22-000574-PA
SUBJECT PROPERTY/
OWNER: Mailing Name: LAST RANCH LLC
Map and Tax Lots: 161226B000101 / 161226B000700 / 161226B000800
Accounts: 180410 / 132961 / 132960
Situs Addresses: No Situs Address / 64994 Deschutes Market Road,
Bend, OR 97701 / 64975 Deschutes Pleasant Road, Bend, OR 97701
APPLICANT: Mark Rubbert
APPLICANT'S
REPRESENTATIVE: Patricia A. Kliewer, MPA
STAFF PLANNER: Caroline House, Senior Planner
Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Agricultural to Rural Industrial
and Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") to Rural Industrial
(" RI") Zone.
1. SUMMARY OF DECISION
In this decision, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board') considers whether to
approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Hearings
Officer Brooks recommended denial in his June 13, 2023, recommendation
('Recommendation"), after a Public Hearing held on March 21, 2023, The
Recommendation of denial was based on the requirements of Statewide Planning
Goal 5. The Board considered the applications de novo, incorporating the Record
below, and a public hearing before the Board was held on June 12, 2024.
On December 4, 2024, following deliberation, the Board voted 2-0 finding the
applicant had met their burden of proof, and moved to approve the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications on the subject property.
File Nos. 247-22-000573-ZC, 247-22-000574-PA
The Recommendation is hereby incorporated as part of this decision, including any
and all Hearings Officer interpretations of the County Code, and modified as follows.
In the event of conflict, the findings in this decision control.
II. BASIC FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the code interpretations, findings of
fact, and conclusions of law in the Recommendation as set forth in Section I,
Applicable Criteria, and Section 11, Basic Findings. The Recommendation is attached
as Exhibit G to Ordinance 2025-003. The Board adds the followingto the basic findings
in the Recommendation.
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: A public hearing was held before a Hearings Officer on
March 21, 2023, and the Recommendation was issued on June 13, 2023. The Board
conducted a de novo hearing on June 12, 2024. The Board left the written record open
until June 26, 2024, for all parties to submit new evidence and testimony; until July 3,
2024, for all parties to submit rebuttal; and until July 11, 2024, for the applicant's final
argument. On July 2, 2024, prior to the close of the written record, the applicant
requested an extension of the record to allow submission of additional materials
related to compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the associated Economic,
Social, Environmental, and Energy ("ESEE") analysis. On July 10, 2024, and pursuant to
Order No. 2024-027, the Board modified the open record period. The extended
written record period was left open until August 14, 2024, for all parties to submit
new evidence and testimony; until September 4, 2024, for parties to submit rebuttal;
and until September 18, 2024, for the applicant's final argument.
The Board rendered its oral decision after deliberation on December 4, 2024,
approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change and
modifying the Recommendation findings as described herein. This written Decision
memorializes that oral decision.
B. REVIEW PERIOD: The subject applications were submitted on July 13, 2022, and
deemed incomplete by the Planning Division on August 12, 2022. The applicant
provided responses to the incomplete letter and confirmed no further information or
materials would be provided in response to the County's incomplete letter on
November 14, 2022. Therefore, the subject applications were deemed complete on
November 14, 2022. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D)(1), the review
of the proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change applications are not
subject to the 150-day review period.
File Nos. 247-22-000573-ZC, 247-22-000574-PA 2
Ill. FINDINGS
This Board adopts the Recommendation except as supplemented below.
A. Subject Property as "Agricultural Land" with respect to Soils
Statewide Planning Goal 3, OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A)
FINDING: The Board adopts the Recommendation unanimously, finding that the
Subject Property is predominantly NRCS Class VII and VIII soils, and consequently is
not Agricultural Land.
B. Subject Property as "Agricultural Land" with respect to Factors
Statewide Planning Goal 3, OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B)
FINDING: The Board adopts the Recommendation unanimously, finding that the
Subject Property is not Agricultural Land when considering factors established by the
Goal, the Administrative Rules, Oregon Revised Statutes, and relevant common law.
A review of the seven suitability factors of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) shows that the
property alone or in conjunction with adjacent or nearby lands is not suitable for
construction and maintenance uses that serve farm uses occurring elsewhere based
on two or more of the seven suitability factors. The suitability factors are discussed
below.
Soil Fertility
The Board finds soil fertility is not relevant to the suitability of the subject property as
it relates to the on -site construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities.
Suitability for Grazing
The Board finds the grazing capability of the subject property is not relevant to the
suitability of the subject property as it relates to the on -site construction and
maintenance of equipment and facilities.
Climatic Conditions
The Board finds climatic conditions are not relevant to the suitability of the subject
property as it relates to the on -site construction and maintenance of equipment and
facilities. Given the property's access to Highway 97, climatic conditions would not
File Nos. 247-22-000573-ZC, 247-22-000574-PA 3
likely preclude or otherwise hinder the construction and maintenance of equipment
and facilities on -site.
Water Availability
The Board finds water availability is not relevant to the suitability of the subject
property as it relates to the on -site construction and maintenance of equipment and
facilities.
Existing Land Use Pattern
As noted previously, there are very few farms nearby, with most of the farm uses
occurring to the east of the railroad. To the south are lands zoned RI and developed
with industrial uses, including a mini -storage facility; an RV and boat storage facility;
and a facility for the processing, storage and distribution of masonry products. To the
west is Highway 97 along with various uses including farm, residential and industrial
uses.
We find that it is not an accepted farm practice in Deschutes County to engage in the
construction and maintenance of farm equipment or facilities anywhere other than
on the property where farm practices are occurring; at a farm equipment
maintenance facility; or a factory located within an urban growth boundary or rural
industrial area. In fact, the convenient access to Highway 97 and the redesignation of
the subject property to RI zoning could result in a facility for the maintenance of farm
equipment.
Technology and Energy Inputs
The technology and energy inputs necessary to establish a facility for construction
and/or maintenance of farm equipment would be significant, though not impossible.
While a business person could certainly expend the capital necessary to establish
such a facility in the EFU Zone, we continue to hold to our findings in the 710 Properties
remand decision on this issue. A more appropriate location for a facility for the
construction and/or maintenance of farm equipment are properties where the farm
practices are occurring or a facility within an urban growth boundary or rural
industrial area.
For the reasons detailed above, the Board finds the subject property is not suitable
for farm use considering the factors in OAR 660-033-020(1)(a)(B).
File Nos. 247-22-000573-ZC, 247-22-000574-PA 4
C. Subject Property as "Agricultural Land" when considering Adjacent or
Nearby Agricultural Lands
Statewide Planning Goal 3, OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C)
FINDING: 1000 Friends presents the following arguments,
The farm practices occurring in the large block of agricultural land in which the
subject property is located are not adequately identified, and there is
essentially no analysis of whether the property's agricultural zoning and
exclusive farm use zoning is necessary to permit those farm practices on
adjacent and nearby lands.
For these reasons, 1000 Friends concludes the application has not demonstrated
compliance with OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C).
Regarding identification of farm practices on the subject property and on the nearby
lands, the Hearings Officer made the following findings,
The Applicant provides an exhaustive history of the site and its relationship to
various farm activities. According to that history, the chain of owners for the
Subject Property since 1941 has mostly consisted of retirees who were not
engaged in farming. Prior to that time, there were apparently limited farming
activities on the site at a time when the Subject Properties were part of larger
holdings that also had farm uses. While the Subject Property does have some
historical water rights, the Applicant notes that not all of those rights have
been developed. Other structures were apparently used for small-scale hobby
farming activities rather than for profitable farm uses. More recent uses of the
site, however, included use as a roadside attraction called the "Funny Farm"
which, according to the Applicant, at one point had a "hot dog eating goat."
The Board finds the applicant has sufficiently described current and historic farm
practices on the subject property, along with farm practices on adjacent and nearby
farm uses. The Board notes that 1000 Friends does not identify any specific farm
lands and associated farm practices which should have been identified for analysis
under this standard.
Regarding the proposed change in zoning and its effect on adjacent and nearby
farms, the Board again notes that there are very few farm uses in the area.
Additionally, there are several constraints associated with the subject property which
would make it challenging for any nearby farm to beneficially use the subject property
in support of farm practices. Highway 97 lies along the entirety of the western
boundary of the subject property. The Pilot Butte Canal lies along the entirety of the
File Nos. 247-22-000573-ZC, 247-22-000574-PA 5
eastern boundary of the subject property. Further to the east, farm uses are
separated from the subject property by the railroad. Beyond these physical
constraints, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that any nearby farm has an
interest in using the subject property to support any nearby farm practices. Finally, a
change to RI zoning would result in similar levels of development that exist in the RI
zoned lands to the south and southwest. The development of these lands does not
appear to have impacted the ability of the few farms in the area to continue to
operate.
For the reasons stated above, the Board finds there are very few adjacent or nearby
farms, and no evidence to suggest that a nearby farm would benefit from agricultural
use of the Subject Property.
D. Goal 5 and Conflicting Uses
Statewide Planning Goal 5, OAR 660-23-0250(3)
FINDING: As noted previously, Hearings Officer Brooks found that the applicant did
not adequately address Goal 5 and recommended denial on that basis. Hearings
Officer Brooks noted that the applicant may be able to show that the County's prior
Goal 5 analysis considered industrial development on the subject property or
demonstrate that the new uses allowed on the subject property do not significantly
affect a Goal 5 resource.
Pursuant to 660-023-0250(3), the county does not have to apply Goal 5 as part of a
Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendment ("PAPA") unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5
resource. Pursuant to OAR 660-023-250(3)(b), a PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource if the
PAPA would allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant
Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list. In this case, the Goal 5
resource is the Highway 97 scenic corridor.
In response to the Recommendation of denial, the applicant submitted arguments to
demonstrate that at the time of the 1992 ESEE analysis associated with the Highway
97 scenic corridor, the zoning and development standards within the scenic corridor
allowed a wider variety of uses and a more intensive level of development than would
be allowed under today's RI Zone.' This corridor included properties zoned RI at the
time of the 1992 ESEE. For these reasons, the applicant argues that the proposed RI
Zone on the subject property will not introduce new uses that would conflict with the
Highway 97 scenic corridor. In the alternative, the applicant submitted an ESEE
analysis to evaluate which uses in the proposed RI Zone should be allowed; which
uses should be allowed with restrictions; and which uses should not be allowed.
' Carrie Richter email dated August 14, 2024.
File Nos. 247-22-000573-ZC, 247-22-000574-PA 6
The Board agrees with the applicant that the proposed RI zone will not introduce new
uses that would conflict with the Highway 97 scenic corridor. Consequently, the Board
finds the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change complywith Goal 5. The
Board further finds that because the proposal would not introduce new conflicting
uses, a site specific ESEE analysis is not required.
E. Goal 6 and Protection of Air, Water and Land Resources
Statewide Planning Goal 6
FINDING: The Board unanimously adopts the Recommendation, finding Goal 6 is
satisfied. Consequently, the Board finds no exception to Goal 6 is required.
F. Goal 11 and Public Facilities Plans
Statewide Planning Goal 11, OAR 660-011
FINDING: The Board unanimously adopts the Recommendation, finding Goal 11 is
satisfied. The objection in the record is not developed with enough specificity for this
Board to address it. For this reason, the Board finds no exception to Goal 11 is
required.
G. Quasi-judicial vs Legislative Process
Finding: 1000 Friends argues that the county does not have the legal authority to
remove the agricultural lands designation from a single tract of land in the EFU Zone
in a quasi-judicial process. 1000 Friends further argues that redesignation of
agricultural land must follow the legislative process set out at ORS 215.788, with
subsequent notice of the redesignation to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development ("DLCD") pursuant to ORS 215.794.
Contrary to 1000 Friends' argument, the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") made
the following ruling in Central Oregon LandWatch et al. v. Deschutes County, 330 Or App
321 (2024),
ORS 215.788 authorizes counties to conduct legislative reviews of geographic
areas, and it prescribes the process that counties must follow in conducting
those reviews. However, that statute does not prohibit counties from
considering applications to redesignate and rezone individual properties in
quasi-judicial proceedings... The board of commissioners did not misconstrue
ORS 215.788 or exceed its authority in redesignating and rezoning only the
subject property in a quasi-judicial process.
File Nos. 247-22-000573-ZC, 247-22-000574-PA 7
The Board finds the quasi-judicial process for the subject Plan Amendment and Zone
Change is permitted.
IV. DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board of
County Commissioners hereby APPROVES the Applicant's application for a Deschutes
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the Subject Property.
File Nos. 247-22-000573-ZC, 247-22-000574-PA
Mailing Date:
Tuesday, June 13, 2023
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING DATE:
HEARING LOCATION:
APPLICANT/OWNER:
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
247-22-000573-ZC / 247-22-000574-PA
March 21, 2023, 6:00 p.m.
Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
Mark Rubbert; Last Ranch, LLC
Map and Tax Lots:
161226B000101
161226B000700
161226B000800
Situs Addresses:
No Situs Address
64994 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, OR 97701
64975 Deschutes Pleasant Road, Bend, OR 97701
REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Properties
from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Industrial (RI) and a
corresponding Zone Change to rezone the properties from
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial (RI).
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the record is not sufficient to
support the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change, specifically with respect to the
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5. The Hearings Officer therefore recommends the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners DENY the Application unless the Applicant demonstrates the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5.
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Page I 1
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM)
Chapter 18.100, Rural Industrial Zone
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Appendix C, Transportation System Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) - Chapter 660
Division 12, Transportation Planning
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals
Division 33, Agricultural Land
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Chapter 215.010, Definitions
Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
A. Nature of Proceeding
This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as a request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment ("Plan Amendment") to change the designation of the Subject Properties from Agricultural
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI). The Applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map
Amendment ("Zone Change") to change the zoning of the Subject Properties from Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial (RI). The basis of the request in the Application is the Applicant's assertion
that the Subject Properties do not qualify as "agricultural land" under the applicable provisions of the
Oregon Revised Statutes or Oregon Administrative Rules governing agricultural land. Based on that
assertion, the Applicants are not seeking an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 for the Plan
Amendment or Zone Change.
B. Notices, Hearing, Record Materials
The Application was filed on July 13, 2022. Following notice from the Deschutes County Planning
Division ("Staff') that the Application was incomplete, the Applicant provided responses to the
incomplete letter on November 14, 2022, and confirmed no further information or materials would be
provided. Staff therefore deemed the Application to be complete as of that date.
Page 12
On January 26, 2023, after the Application was deemed complete, Staff mailed a Notice of Public Hearing
to all property owners within 750 feet of the Subject Properties ("Hearing Notice"). The Hearing Notice
was also published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, January 29, 2023. Notice of the Hearing was also
submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD").
Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on March 21, 2023,
opening the Hearing at 6:00 p.m. The Hearing was held in person and via videoconference, with the
Hearings Officer appearing remotely. At the beginning of the Hearing, I provided an overview of the
quasi-judicial process and instructed participants to direct comments to the approval criteria and standards,
and to raise any issues a participant wanted to preserve for appeal if necessary. I stated I had no ex parte
contacts to disclose or bias to declare. I invited but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction
over the matter or to my participation as the Hearings Officer.
The Hearing concluded at approximately 8:17 p.m. Prior to the conclusion of the Hearing, I announced
that the written record would remain open as follows: (1) any participant could submit additional materials
until April 4, 2023 ("Open Record Period"); (2) any participant could submit rebuttal materials (evidence
or argument) until April 11, 2023 ("Rebuttal Period"); and (3) the Applicant could submit a final legal
argument, but no additional evidence, until April 18, 2023. Staff provided further instruction to
participants, noting that all post -Hearing submittals needed to be received by the County by 4:00 p.m. on
the applicable due date. No participant objected to the post -hearing procedures.
A representative for the Applicant submitted a document on April 18, 2023, the due date for the
Applicant's final legal argument. That document responds to some of the arguments previously raised by
other participants. However, it also includes statements and attachments that were not previously in the
record. Because the Applicant's final legal argument should have included only argument and no new
evidence, I have not considered any of the evidentiary materials in that submittal that were not already in
the record.'
C. Review Period
Because the Application includes a request for the Plan Amendment, the 150-day review period set forth
in ORS 215.427(1) is not applicable .2 The Staff Report also concludes that the 150-day review period is
not applicable by virtue of Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") 22.20.040(D). No participant to
the proceeding disputes that conclusion.
' Specifically, this submittal includes: (1) a letter, dated November 29, 2015, relating to County file 247-
14-000456; (2) excerpts from a soil study relating to County file PA-11-7; and (3) testimony from the
Applicant regarding its attempt to offer the Subject Properties to others for agricultural use.
2 ORS 215.427(7).
Page 13
III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Staff Report
On March 7, 2023, Staff issued a report setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting evidence in the
record at that time ("Staff Report" ).3
The Staff Report, although it expresses agreement with the Applicant in many places, does not snake a
final recommendation. Instead, the Staff Report asks the Hearings Officer to determine if the Applicant
has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the Plan Amendment and the Zone Change. Other
participants objected to the Application, but did so primarily based on legal arguments and through the
submittal of additional evidence that supported those legal arguments, rather than dispute the evidence
provided by the Applicant and summarized in the Staff Report. As a result, much of the evidence provided
by the Applicant and summarized in the Staff Report remains unrefuted.
B. Findings
The legal criteria applicable to the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change were set forth in the
Hearing Notice and also appear in the Staff Report. No participant to this proceeding asserted that those
criteria do not apply, or that other criteria are applicable. This Recommendation therefore addresses each
of those criteria, as set forth below.
1. Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals
Pursuant to ORS 197.175(2), if the County amends its Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP" or "Plan"), it must
do so in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals (each a "Goal" and, together, the "Goals"). Because
the Plan has been acknowledged, the Plan Amendment must adhere to the procedures for a post -
acknowledged plan amendment ("PAPA") set forth in state statutes and rules. The fundamental disputes
raised in this proceeding relate to whether the Application satisfies the requirement for a PAPA and, more
specifically, whether the Applicant is required to take an exception to Goal 3, Goal 5, and Goal 14. The
disposition of those issues is relevant to the Applicant's ability to show compliance with the other criteria
applicable to the Plan Amendment and Zone Change. These findings will therefore address those issues
first.4
3 Other than the evidence provided by the Applicant, much of the evidence in the record was submitted
after the date of the Staff Report.
4 COLW, during the Hearing, also stated that the Application requires an exception to Goal 6 and Goal
11. I find that neither of those arguments were presented with enough detail that allows me to address
them in this Recommendation. With respect to Goal 6, COLW appears to be arguing that the Applicant
cannot satisfy Goal 6 without identifying the specific uses that will be developed on the Subject
Properties. However, COLW does not address the Application materials, which describe compliance
with Goal 6 through the County's acknowledged regulations in DCC Chapter 18.100. Based on the
materials in the record, I find that Goal 6 is satisfied and does not require an exception. With respect to
Page 14
Goal 3 — Agricultural Lands
Goal 3 and its implementing rules protect agricultural lands for farm use.' The Applicant's proposed
Plan Amendment and Zone Change is premised on its assertion that the Subject Properties do not qualify
as "Agricultural Land" under Goal 3 and its implementing rules and, therefore, do not require protection
under Goal 3. Other participants in this proceeding — namely 1000 Friends of Oregon (" 1000 Friends")
and Central Oregon Land Watch ("COLW") — assert that the Subject Properties do qualify as
"Agricultural Land" and, as a result, that the Plan Amendment requires the Applicant to seek an
exception to Goal 3.
All participants addressing this issue rely on the language in OAR 660-033-0020(1) that defines
"Agricultural Land" as follows:
(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes:
(A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -
VI soils in Eastern Oregon;
(B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in
ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability
for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of
water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns;
technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming
practices; and
(C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on
adjacent or nearby agricultural lands.
(b) Land in capability classes other than 1-IVII-VI that is adjacent to or
intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IVII-VI within a farm unit, shall
be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped
or grazed;
The NRCS designation for the Subject Properties indicates they are predominantly Class I through Class
VI soils. Under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A), the Subject Properties would therefore qualify as Goal 3
agricultural land. Notwithstanding that designation, the Applicant relies on an Agricultural Soils
Capability Assessment (an "Order 1 soil survey") for the Subject Properties. The expert conclusion in
the Applicant's Order 1 soil survey is that the Subject Properties consist predominantly of Class V1I and
Goal 11, COLW provided no additional detail other than the bare statement that an exception is
required. Again, COLW does not refute the information in the Application addressing this Goal, and I
find that, based on that information, Goal 11 is satisfied and does not require an exception.
5 See, e.g., OAR 660-033-0010.
Page 15
Class VIII soils that are unsuitable for farm use and, therefore, do not qualify as agricultural land under
Goal 3.
1000 Friends and COLW do not dispute any of the facts or conclusions regarding the soil conditions set
forth in the Order 1 soil survey. Rather, they each argue that the NRCS designation is conclusive under
the Goal 3 implementing rules as a matter of law. COLW specifically argues the "Hearings Officer
cannot rely on information other than the predominant NRCS land capability classification to determine
whether the subject property meets LCDC's special definition of `agricultural land."'
The legal argument 1000 Friends and COLW present — that only the NRCS designation can be relied on
— is contrary to other state statutes and administrative rules addressing this issue. As the Land Use Board
of Appeals ("LUBA") recently explained, "ORS 215.211 allows a site -specific analysis of soils where a
person believes that such information would, compared to the information provided by the NRCS, assist
a county in determining whether land is agricultural land." 6 In that case, which is remarkably similar to
the present case, the applicant sought a PAPA to change a property's Plan designation from AG to RI
with a corresponding zone change from EFU-TRB to RI. The applicant in that case also relied on a site -
specific Order 1 soil survey prepared by a qualified soil scientist. LUBA upheld the County's reliance
on that soil survey as part of its determination that the property at issue in that case consisted
predominantly of Class VII and Class VIII soils unsuitable for farming.
Based on the language in ORS 215.211 and LUBA's acknowledgment of that statute, I find that the
County is not precluded from considering the Order 1 soil survey when applying OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(A), as long as doing so is consistent with OAR 660-033-0030(5), which implements ORS
215.211.
I again note that, because the participants raising this issue argued that the Hearings Officer must rely
only on the NRCS classification, no participant disputed the information or conclusions in the Order 1
soil survey, nor did they dispute whether the survey complies with OAR 660-033-0030(5). Even so, I
find that the record shows the Applicant's Order 1 soil survey does comply with that administrative rule,
as explained in the following findings.
OAR 660-033-0030(5)(a) requires that the alternative to the NRCS include more detailed data on soil
capability and be "related to the NRCS land capability classification system." Information provided by
the Applicant's soil scientist states that the NRCS classification for the Subject Property was completed
at a very broad scale and based on high altitude photography, whereas the Order 1 soil survey has more
detailed data based on onsite field research. Further, the soil scientist states that the Order 1 soil survey
uses the same NRCS classification system, but applies more precise mapping of soil map units with
better distribution and quantification of each unit.
OAR 660-033-0030(5)(b) requires the person seeking to use the alternative soil survey to request DLCD
"to arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen
6 Central Oregon Land Watch v. Deschutes County, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2023-008, April 24,
2023) ("LUBA No. 2023-008").
Page 16
by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045." The Applicant asserts this
requirement is met through its coordination with DLCD, and the record includes a letter from DLCD
indicating the Order 1 soil survey is consistent with the agency's reporting requirements.
The remaining portions of this rule are procedural in nature and there is no dispute among the
participants whether these procedures apply to the Application or whether the Applicant followed those
procedures.
Based on the foregoing, and considering the more detailed evidence provided by the Applicant's soil
scientist against the NRCS designation of the Subject Properties, I find that that the Subject Properties
do not qualify as agricultural land under Goal 3 as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A). That does
not end the inquiry, however, as 1000 Friends and COLW each argue that the Subject Properties qualify
as agricultural land under the other sections of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a).
Turning to OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B), the Subject Properties may qualify for Goal 3 protections if
they are "suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility;
suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation
purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming
practices."
1000 Friends argues that the Subject Properties are currently in farm tax deferral status, have water
rights, and contain certain farm structures such as a goat barn and farm implement garage. COLW
provides an exhaustive list of various farm commodities that occur throughout the County and, like 1000
Friends, asserts that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the Subject Properties cannot be used for
some of those purposes.
The Applicant provides an exhaustive history of the site and its relationship to various farm activities.
According to that history, the chain of owners for the Subject Property since 1941 has mostly consisted
of retirees who were not engaged in farming. Prior to that time, there were apparently limited farming
activities on the site at a time when the Subject Properties were part of larger holdings that also had farm
uses. While the Subject Property does have some historical water rights, the Applicant notes that not all
of those rights have been developed. Other structures were apparently used for small-scale hobby
farming activities rather than for profitable farm uses. More recent uses of the site, however, included
use as a roadside attraction called the "Funny Farm" which, according to the Applicant, at one point had
a "hot dog eating goat."
Testimony opposing the Application describing how the property could be used, and the Applicant's
testimony describing how the property has been used, do not resolve this issue. Instead, OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(B) requires an assessment of whether the Subject Properties are "suitable for farm use as
defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a)" based on the various factors set forth in this rule. To that end, only the
Applicant has fully addressed those factors.
With respect to soil fertility and cattle grazing, the Applicant relies on the Order 1 soil survey to
demonstrate that the soils are not fertile and that the property is unsuitable for grazing. The Applicant
notes that this also makes it difficult to provide food for other non -grazing animals. With respect to
Page 17
climatic conditions, the Applicant notes the limited growing season, cold temperatures, and current
drought conditions also hamper farm activities. While some water for farm irrigation purposes is
available, the Applicant notes that irrigating the soils on the Subject Property is not warranted in light of
their low classification. The Applicant also asserts that existing land use patterns in the area are not
conducive to agriculture, for example because the Subject Properties are surrounded by non -farm uses
and disrupted by the transportation system.
Overall, the Applicant asserts that the technological and energy inputs required to conduct farm uses are
too great, which the Applicant believes is a major reason the Subject Properties have not historically
been farmed.
ORS 215.203(2)(a) defines "farm use" in part as "the current employment of land for the primary
purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding,
management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for
dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry
or any combination thereof."
Considering the factors set forth in OAR 660-033-0020(l)(a)(B), I find that it is more likely than not
that the Subject Properties are not suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a). While it may
be possible to conduct some farm activities on the site, that is not the same as employing the land for the
primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money from those activities. The low productive soils serve as
an initial limit on any profitable farm activities. As the Applicant's soil scientist notes, even irrigating
the soils found on site does not improve their quality for farm uses. The Subject Properties are relatively
small, irregularly -shaped, and bisected by a rocky outcropping, compounding the difficulties associated
with the soil conditions. The portion of the site with the best soils is even smaller and not large enough
to support meaningful farming activities. Further, while historical use of the site is not determinative of
its current suitability, it is notable that the majority of the farming activities taking place on the site
occurred at a time when the Subject Properties were part of a larger tract, or were part of a residential
use.
Finally, under OAR 660-033-0020(l)(a)(C), the Subject Properties may still be considered agricultural
land if they include land "that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby agricultural lands."
1000 Friends asserts that the presence of a Central Oregon Irrigation District ("COID") canal on the
Subject Properties, which is used to convey irrigation water to other farms, demonstrates the Subject
Properties qualify as agricultural land under this rule. That argument, however, is difficult to follow
because it is based on the assertion that the Applicant "must address the proposed rezone's potential
impact on agricultural uses in the surrounding area based on the presence of the COID irrigation canals
on and abutting the property." This rule does not appear to impose any sort of "impacts test," and the
question is whether the Subject Properties, not a canal on the property owned by a third party, are
necessary to permit farm practices on adjacent and nearby lands. In contrast, the Applicant notes that
very few farm practices occur on adjacent and nearby lands, even on nearby lands that currently have a
farm use designation. The Applicant was unable to identify any land that relies on the Surrounding
Page 18
Properties for their farm practices. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find that the
Applicant has met its burden of addressing that rule provision.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Applicant has met its burden of demonstrating the Subject
Properties do not qualify as agricultural lands under Goal 3 and, as a result, an exception to Goal 3 is not
required.
Goal 5 — Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
Goal 5 and its implementing rules protect natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces.
Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(3), the County does not have to apply Goal 5 as part of a PAPA "unless
the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource." One scenario in which a PAPA may affect a Goal 5 resource is when
the "PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource
site on an acknowledged resource list."'
COLW argues that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change is in direct conflict with a Goal 5 resource and,
therefore, requires compliance with Goal 5. The Goal 5 resource COLW refers to is the County's
designation of a scenic corridor along Highway 97 between Bend and Redmond as a scenic resource.
The County regulates conflicting uses with the Highway 97 scenic resource through the application of the
Landscape Management Combining Zone ("LM Zone"), which the County applies to the area that is
within one -quarter mile of the highway. The Subject Properties fall within the area subject to that zone.
The Applicant does not fully respond to COLW's Goal 5 argument. Instead, the Applicant asserts that
there is no need to apply Goal 5 in light of the County's acknowledged Plan, which contains the LM Zone.
According to the Applicant, to the extent there are any conflicts with the scenic resource, those will be
resolved at the time when specific development occurs and the County requires site plan approval for any
structures within the LM Zone. The Applicant specifically states that "[t]he zone change and plan
amendment do not trigger this provision."
The Applicant's argument appears consistent with prior County decisions. However, LUBA No. 2023-
008 is again instructive, and it rejects the Applicant's approach to Goal 5. In that case, LUBA explained
that its prior decisions require a local jurisdiction "to apply Goal 5 if the PAPA allows a new use that
could conflict with Goal 5 resources." LUBA then directly addressed the situation presented in this case
and analyzed "whether the new RI zoning allows uses on the subject property that were not allowed under
the previous EFU zoning and whether those uses could conflict with protected Goal 5 resources."
LUBA's decision acknowledged that the County previously conducted the appropriate Goal 5 analysis for
other RI -zoned properties and applied the LM Zone to protect the Highway 97 scenic resource from
conflicting uses on those properties. However, LUBA determined that, in the absence of evidence showing
the prior Goal 5 analysis considered impacts from RI -type development on all properties, that analysis did
not consider whether RI uses on farm -zoned property affected a Goal 5 resource. Indeed, LUBA concluded
OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b).
Page 19
that "the county could not have, in its [prior Goal 5 analysis], evaluated whether development of those
new uses on the subject property would excessively interfere with the protected scenic resource because
those uses were not allowed on the property" at that time. Because the County's decision in that case
allowed "new uses that could conflict with inventoried Goal 5 resources," LUBA concluded the County
was required to address Goal 5 and, specifically, to comply with OAR 660-023-0250(3).
Based on that LUBA decision, I find that the Applicant's argument that Goal 5 is not applicable is
incorrect. The Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow new uses on the Subject Property that
could conflict with a protected Goal 5 resource. It may be possible for the Applicant to show that the
County's prior Goal 5 analysis considered such development on the Subject Properties, or, if not, the
Applicant may be able to demonstrate that the new uses allowed on the Subject Properties do not
significantly affect a Goal 5 resource. However, I find that the current record does not allow me to address
either option. I therefore find that I cannot recommend approval of the Application on this basis and the
Applicant must address this issue further before the Application is approved.
Goal 14 — Urbanization
Goal 14 and its implementing rules "provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use." See OAR 660-015-0000(14).
COLW asserts that the Application violates Goal 14. COLW's specific argument is that the designation
of the Subject Properties to the RI zone would constitute urbanization of the Subject Properties. COLW
asserts that the County must further analyze the Application and either make a determination that the Plan
Amendment "does not offend the goal because it does not in fact convert rural land to urban uses, or it
may comply with the goal by obtaining acknowledgment of an urban growth boundary based upon
considering [sic] of factors specified in the goal, or it may justify an exception to the goal."
The heart of this issue is whether the RI zone actually authorizes urban uses. COLW argues that this can
be determined only by the application of a "Shaffer analysis." The Shaffer analysis is a reference to Shaffer
v. Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989), in which LUBA concluded that the determination of whether
a use is urban or rural must be made on a case -by -case basis, considering factors discussed in that case
(e.g. workforce size, dependency on resources, public facility requirements).
The flaw in COLW's argument is that the County has already determined that all uses in the RI Zone are
rural in nature. That decision was upheld on review by LUBA and the Court of Appeals. See Central
Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2022-075, Dec. 6, 2002); aff'd 324
Or App 655 (2023). In that case, LUBA concluded in part:
the county correctly determined that the policies and provisions of the DCCP and
DCC that apply to the RI zone are independently sufficient to demonstrate that
PAPAS that apply the RI plan designation and zone to rural land are consistent with
Goal 14 and that uses and development permitted pursuant to those acknowledged
provisions constitute rural uses, do not constitute urban uses, and maintain the land
as rural land.
Page 110
LUBA addressed the same issue in LUBA No. 2023-008. In that case, LUBA reiterated its holding and
rationale in an earlier case, again concluding "that the county was entitled to rely on its acknowledged RI
zone to ensure compliance with Goal 14.
The two prior LUBA cases, one of which has already been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are clear.
The County's RI zone complies with Goal 14. For that reason, I find that the Applicant has demonstrated
the Application does not propose urban uses and Goal 14 is satisfied without the need to take an exception
to that Goal.
2. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative
map changes shall be as set, forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-
judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the
Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
The owner of the Subject Properties has requested a quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and filed an
application for that purpose, together with an application for the requested Zone Change. No participant
to this proceeding objects to this process. I find it appropriate to review the Application using the
applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards
The applicant for- a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served
by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are:
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with
the plan's introductory statement and goals.
According to the Applicant, this Code provision requires a consideration of the public interest based on
whether: (1) the Zone Change conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and (2) the change is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan's introduction statement and goals. No participant to this proceeding disputes
that interpretation. I also find that this is the appropriate method for applying this Code provision.
With respect to the first factor, the Applicant asserts the Application conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
because it conforms to the procedural components of the Comprehensive Plan, re -designates the Subject
Properties to a designation allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, does not result in the loss of resource
land, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses and character of the land in the vicinity of the
Subject Properties. With the exception of the assertion that no loss of resource land will result — addressed
in more detail above relating to Goal 3 — no participant in this proceeding objects to the Applicant's
assertions in this regard.
Page 111
With respect to the second factor, the Applicant notes that introductory statements and goals in the
Comprehensive Plan are not approval criteria, and no participant to this proceeding asserts otherwise.
Additionally, the Applicant identifies several Comprehensive Plan policies and goals, and then analyzes
whether the Application is consistent with those policies and goals. The Applicant specifically points to
some of the policies and goals in Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management, of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Applicant states that the Application is consistent with those policies and goals, largely based on their
reference to "Deschutes Junction", which is the area encompassing the Subject Properties, and the
historic non -resource use of that area. While some participants to this proceeding dispute the extent to
which the Plan Amendment and Zone Change would "urbanize" the Subject Properties, there does not
appear to be any dispute about the historical non -resource use of the Deschutes Junction area or whether
the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with the goals and policies the Applicant identifies.
As explained in more detail in earlier findings, the contested issues in this proceeding address whether the
Application satisfies the standards for a Plan Amendment as required by state law (e.g. whether the request
requires an exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 5, and 14). The arguments raised in support of those
contested issues do mention some policies in the County's current Plan. However, those policies are relied
on as the basis for arguing that certain exceptions are required to the Goals, and they are not presented in
support of any specific argument that the Application violates Plan policies. Even so, for the same reason
that the Application is consistent with the Goals (other than Goal 5), I find that the Application conforms
to the Plan. Additional findings addressing Plan goals and policies are set forth later in this
Recommendation.
However, because the Plan also contains goals and policies implementing Goal 5, which I have concluded
has not been satisfied, I cannot conclude that the Zone Change conforms to all Plan policies, particularly
those that implement Goal 5, discussed below. I therefore find that this Code provision is not satisfied
unless and until the Applicant demonstrates compliance with that Goal.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the proposed zone classification.
Only the Applicant and Staff offer any evidence or argument with respect to whether the Zone Change is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the RI zoning district. Unlike almost every other zoning district,
DCC 18.100, which governs uses in the RI zoning district, does not contain a purpose statement. The RI
zoning district, appears to implement the Rural Industrial plan designation in the Comprehensive Plan,
and Section 3.4 of the Comprehensive Plan provides the following:
The county may apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to specific
property within existing Rural Industrial exception areas, or to any other
specific property that satisfies the requirements for a comprehensive plan
designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules,
this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Development Code,
and that is located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth
boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning brings these
areas and specific properties into compliance with state rules by adopting
zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less
Page 112
intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in
OAR 660-022.
As the Staff Report notes, the Subject Properties are not within existing Rural Industrial exception areas,
but they are located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. This Code section
is therefore satisfied only if the Application "satisfies the requirements for a Comprehensive Plan
designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules, the DCCP and the Deschutes
County Development Code."
This recommendation determines that the Application satisfies the requirements for a Plan designation
change, except as it relates to Goal 5. I therefore find that this Code provision is not satisfied unless and
until the Applicant demonstrates compliance with that Goal.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare
considering the following. factors:
The availability and efficiency ?fproviding necessary public services and.facilities.
Only the Applicant addresses this Code provision, and the Applicant provided the following as support
for why this criterion is met:
• The Applicant has received "will serve" letters from applicable service providers.
• Public facilities and services are available to serve future industrial development.
• On -site wastewater and sewage and disposal systems can be developed to meet specific user needs.
• The proposal satisfies the Transportation Planning Rule.
The Staff Report asks the Hearings Officer to determine the scope of public services and facilities that
must be reviewed as part of this Code provision. However, such a determination is likely to change on a
case -by -case basis, informed in part by the zoning designation being requested. As it applies to this case,
the Applicant has identified fire, police, electric power, domestic water, wastewater, and transportation as
being relevant. No participant has disputed the necessity of those services or identified other services that
are necessary. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I
find that this Code provision is satisfied as set forth in the Application.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and
policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant states that the Applicant's proposal is consistent with all applicable Plan goals and
policies. In support of that statement, the Applicant refers to its discussion of those goals and policies as
they relate to DCC 18.136.020(A). The only discussion of those goals and policies by other participants
relates to their arguments that certain statewide Goals have not been satisfied. Those arguments are
addressed above. Although I conclude the Application is consistent with most Plan goals and policies,
for the same reasons I concluded DCC 18.136.020(A) is not satisfied, I conclude that this Code
provision is not satisfied; the current record does not demonstrate that impacts on surrounding land uses
will be consistent with some of the Plan's goals and policies implementing Goal 5.
Page 113
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake
was made in the zoning of the property in question.
Only the Applicant offers any evidence or argument with respect to this Code provision. According to the
Applicant, the original zoning of the Subject Properties did not take into account several factors, including
the low agricultural capability of the site. Further, conditions have changed over time, especially with
respect to the transportation system in the area and the development of other non -resource uses. No other
participant addresses this Code provision or otherwise disputes the Applicant's characterization of the
change in circumstances.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this
Code provision is satisfied.
3. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
The Applicant and the Staff Report identified several Plan goals and policies that may be relevant to the
Application.8
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 2 of the Plan relates to Resource Management. Section 2.2 of that Chapter relates specifically to
Agricultural Lands.
Goal 1, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry.
According to the Applicant, it is pursuing the Plan Amendment and Zone Change because the Subject
Properties do not constitute "agricultural lands", and therefore, it is not necessary to preserve or maintain
the Subject Properties as such. In support of that conclusion, the Applicant relies primarily on a soils report
showing the Subject Properties consist predominantly of Class VII and Class VIII non-agricultural soils.
Such soils have severe limitations for agricultural use as well as low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow
soils, abundant rock outcrops, low available water capacity, and major management limitations for
livestock grazing.
Other comments in the record assert that the Subject Properties qualify as agricultural land because of
their NRCS classification, or because they satisfy other definitions of "agricultural land" in OAR 660-
030-0020(l). Those arguments are addressed in earlier findings, which conclude the Subject Properties
are not agricultural land.
S The Applicant and Staff Report note that earlier County decisions have concluded that many Plan goals
and policies are directed at the County rather than at an Applicant in a quasi-judicial proceeding. I
generally agree with respect to Plan goals, which provide the context for Plan policies. Plan goals are
therefore listed in this section to better explain the Plan policies that are being applied and considered.
However, some of the findings below do address the goal language specifically. Where the goal
language is not discussed, I have deemed that goal to not apply directly to a quasi-judicial application.
Page 114
With respect to the agricultural industry, the Applicant provides an analysis of surrounding land uses and
notes that the surrounding area contains mostly non-agricultural uses. Some opposing comments in the
record can be construed as asserting that the conversion of this land to an industrial use has a larger impact
on the agricultural industry. However, those comments presume that the Subject Properties are agricultural
land. Not only are the Subject Properties not agricultural land, the Applicant has demonstrated that no
other farm parcels rely on this parcel.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Application is consistent with this Plan goal.
Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study
and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are
adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3.
The Applicant has not asked to amend the EFU subzone that applies to the Subject Properties. Instead, the
Applicant requests a change under Plan Policy 2.2.3 and has provided evidence to support rezoning the
Subject Properties to the RI zone.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan.
Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that
qualify as non -resource land,,for individual EFUparcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon
Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant requests approval of the Plan Amendment and Zone Change to re -designate the,Subject
Properties from Agricultural to Rural Industrial and to rezone the Subject Properties from EFU to RI. The
Applicant does not seek an exception to Goal 3 for that purpose, but rather seeks to demonstrate that the
Subject Properties do not meet the state definition of "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 and its
implementing rules.
The Staff Report notes that the County has previously relied on LUBA's decision in Wetherell v. Douglas
County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006), where LUBA states as follows:
As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820
(1988), there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow
nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm use or
forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and
Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate
the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under
the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues the latter option, it
must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning
designation, neither Goal 3 or Goal 4 applies to the property.
The facts presented in the Application are similar to those in the Wetherall decision and in other
Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change applications. Under this reasoning, the Applicant
Page 115
has the potential to prove the Subject Properties are not agricultural land, in which case an exception to
Goal 3 under state law is not required.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Policy 2.2.3 is satisfied only if the Plan Amendment is consistent with
state law. As discussed in previous findings, I have concluded that the Applicant has not demonstrated
compliance with Goal 5, which is a necessary requirement of the Plan Amendment. The Application is
therefore not consistent with this portion of the Plan unless and until the Applicant demonstrates
compliance with Goal 5.
Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how
EFU parcels can be converted to other designations.
The Applicant assert this plan policy is not an approval criterion and, instead, provides direction to
Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other
designations and that the Application is consistent with this policy. The Applicant also notes that prior
County decisions interpreting this policy have concluded that any failure on the County's part to adopt
Plan policies and Code provisions describing the circumstances under which EFU-zoned land may be
converted to a non -resource designation does not preclude the County from considering requests for
quasi-judicial plan amendments and zone changes.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan as described by the Applicant.
Goal 3, Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent withh local
and emerging agricultural conditions and markets.
Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands.
This Plan policy requires the County to identify and retain agricultural lands that are accurately designated.
The Applicant proposes that the Subject Properties were not accurately designated, as discussed in more
detail in the findings above. While some participants have argued that the Subject Properties should retain
an agricultural designation, no participant has expressly asserted that the Application is inconsistent with
this Plan policy.
Based on the earlier findings that the Subject Properties are not agricultural land, I find that the Application
is consistent with Policy 2.2.13.
Section 2.5 of Plan Chapter 2 relates specifically to Water Resource Policies. The Applicant has
identified the following goal and policy in that section as relevant to the Application.
Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies.
Policy 2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant
land uses or developments.
Page 1 16
FINDING: The Applicant asserts that the Applicant is not required to address water impacts associated
with development because no specific development application is proposed at this time. Instead, the
Applicant will be required to address this criterion during development of the Subject Properties, which
would be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with Policy 2.5.24.
Section 2.7 of Plan Chapter 2 relates specifically to Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites and is the
County's implementation of Goal 5. Among the specific policies in this Section are:
Goal 1, Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and
scenic view and sites.
Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and visually important
areas including those that provide a visual separation between communities such as the open
spaces of Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually prominent.
Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites.
The initial Application did not address these policies, but the Applicant did provide supplemental
information and argument in response to a comment from Staff.
The Applicant assert that these policies are met because the Subject Properties are not visually prominent
and are relatively hidden by and lower than Highway 97 and other transportation facilities. The Applicant
notes that a 100-foot setback and 30-foot height limit will ensure that any new structures will be sensitive
to the LM zone.
COLW, although it did not address these policies directly, argues that the Plan Amendment is not
consistent with Goal 5 because it allows new uses that may conflict with a Goal 5 resource — the scenic
corridor along Highway 97. 1 find that these issues are related and, therefore, consider COLW's argument
applicable to these policies.
The Applicant responds to that argument by relying on the County's application of the LM zone as the
protection for that resource. The findings above, however, conclude that the current record is not sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with Goal 5.
Only the Applicant addresses whether the Application will allow development that is "sensitive to" scenic
resources. Based on the Applicant's unrefuted evidence and argument, I find that the Application is
consistent with Policy 2.7.5.
However, I do not arrive at the same conclusion for Policy 2.7.3. For the same reasons set forth in the
earlier findings relating to Goal 5, I find that the Application is not consistent with policy 2.7.3. The policy
Page 117
requires the County to support efforts to identify and protect scenic resources. The County has identified
the scenic corridor along Highway 97 as a scenic resource. That resource is protected through the County's
application of the LM zone. That protection, however, was put into place in the context of the Subject
Properties being zoned for farm use rather than industrial uses. The Applicant must demonstrate that the
County can continue to protect that inventoried resource with the Plan Amendment. It is not clear from
the record if the LM Zone protects the resource with the Plan Amendment.
Chapter 3 of the Plan relates to Rural Growth. Within that chapter, Section 3.4 relates specifically to Rural
Industrial uses. The Applicant and Staff have identified the following language in that section as relevant
to the Application.
In Deschutes County some properties are zoned Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial. The
initial applications for the zoning designations recognize uses that predated State land use laws.
However, it may be in the best interest of the County to provide opportunities for the establishment
of new Rural Industrial and Rural Commercial properties when they are appropriate and
regulations are met. Requests to re -designate property as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial
will be reviewed on a property -specific basis in accordance with state and local regulations.
Rural Industrial
The county may apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to specific property within existing
Rural Industrial exception areas, or to any other specific property that satisfies the requirements
,for a comprehensive plan designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative
Rules, this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Development Code, and that is located
outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan
designation and zoning brings these areas and specific properties into compliance with state rules
by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive
than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022.
The language in this portion of the Plan is addressed in findings above relating to DCC Section
18.136.020(B). Those findings are incorporated here by this reference.9
Section 3.4 of Plan Chapter 3 relates to the County's goals for its rural economy.
9 The Staff Report also identifies Policy 3.4.36 as applicable. That policy simply states that properties
for which it can be demonstrated Goal 3 does not apply may be considered for the RI designation under
the Plan. Because I have concluded that the Subject Properties are not agricultural land and do not
qualify for Goal 3 protections, the Application is consistent with that policy and the County can consider
applying the RI designation.
Page 118
Goal 1, Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a
healthy environment.
Policy 3.4.1 Promote rural economic initiatives, including home -based businesses, that maintain
the integrity of the rural character and natural environment.
a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic
development opportunities.
Policy 3.4.3 Support a regional approach to economic development in concert with Economic
Development for Central Oregon or similar organizations.
Addressing these policies, the Applicant asserts that the rural industrial designation will maintain a stable
and sustainable rural economy that is compatible with a rural lifestyle. In support of that argument, the
Applicant notes the potential number of jobs that can occur on the Subject Properties, some of which can
be held by rural residents. No participant refutes the Applicant's evidence or argument in this regard.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with these policies.
Lands Designated and Zoned Rural Industrial
Policy 3.4.23 To assure that urban uses are not permitted on rural industrial lands, land use
regulations in the Rural Industrial zones shall ensure that the uses allowed are less intensive than
those allowed.for unincorporated communities in OAR 660-22 or any successor.
Whether the Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow urban uses is the same issue raised in
COLW's arguments that an exception to Goal 14 is required. Those arguments are addressed in more
detail in the findings above relating to Goal 14. Those findings are incorporated here and, based on those
findings, I find the Application is consistent with this Plan policy.
Policy 3.4.27 Land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within the Rural
Industrial sites do not adversely affect agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding area.
The Applicant asserts that there are no forest uses in the surrounding area, and that assertion is
unchallenged by any participant.
The Applicant addresses the agricultural component of this Plan policy by asserting that the Plan
Amendment and Zone Change do not have an adverse effect on agricultural uses in the surrounding area.
The Applicant notes there is one hobby farm nearby, and a nearby parcel with apple trees. The Applicant
consulted with the owners of both properties, each of which indicated the Applicant's proposal will not
Page 119
adversely affect theirs. The Applicant states it has also done an exhaustive inventory of uses within half
mile of the site and found no conflict with any agricultural uses. No participant to this proceeding asserts
this policy is not met or otherwise refutes the evidence the Applicant relies on.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this Plan policy.
Policy 3.4.28 New industrial uses shall be limited in size to a maximum floor area of 7,500 square
feet per use within a building, except for the primary processing of raw materials produced in
rural areas, for which there is no floor area per use limitation.
Policy 3.4.31 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by DEQ approved on -site sewage
disposal systems.
Policy 3.4.32 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by on -site wells or public water
systems.
The Applicant asserts that these policies are codified in Chapter 18.100 governing the RI Zone and are
implemented through those provisions. The Applicant also notes that the current residential and future
industrial uses are already being served by and will be served by a public water system. No participant to
this proceeding asserts this policy is not met or otherwise refutes the evidence the Applicant relies on.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with these policies.
Section 3.5 of Plan Chapter 3 relates to natural hazards. Goal 1 of that section is to "protect people,
property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards." Addressing this Plan
goal, the Applicant notes that there are no mapped flood or volcano hazards on the Subject Properties and
that there is no evidence of increased risk from hazards from wildfire, earthquake, or winter storm risks.
No participant to this proceeding asserts this goal is not met or otherwise refutes the evidence or argument
the Applicant relies on.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 3.7 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 relates specifically to Transportation. The Applicants and
Staff have identified the following goal and policy in that section as relevant to the Application.
Page 120
Appendix C — Transportation System Plan
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN
Goal 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and
diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility
and tourism.
Policy 4.1 Deschutes County shall:
a. Consider the road network to be the most important and valuable component of the
transportation system; and
b. Consider the preservation and maintenance and repair of the County road network to
be vital to the continued and future utility of the County's transportation system.
Policy 4.3 Deschutes County shall make transportation decisions with consideration of'land use
impacts, including but not limited to, adjacent land use patterns, both existing and planned, and
their designated uses and densities.
Policy 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as
criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do
not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system.
The Applicant asserts that the Application is consistent with these policies. In support of that assertion,
the Applicant relies on a Transportation Impact Analysis ("TIA") prepared by a transportation engineer.
The County's Senior Transportation Planner reviewed the TIA, which the Applicant notes constitutes the
County's consideration of land use impacts and roadway function, classification, and capacity. No
participant to this proceeding asserts these goals and policies are not met or otherwise refutes the evidence
or argument the Applicant relies on.10
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 3.10 of Plan Chapter 3 contains provisions for "Area Specific Policies."
io The Staff Report notes that the County previously denied an application on the Subject Properties
based in part on certain traffic impacts. Staff requests the Hearings Officer address whether that prior
decision has any bearing on the present Application. I find that it does not. As noted by the County's
Senior Transportation Planner, that decision predates various transportation improvements the County
made on Highway 97. The Applicant can rely on the more recent TIA that is based on the transportation
system as it currently exists.
Page 121
Goal 1, Create area specific land use policies and/or regulations when requested by a community
and only after an extensive public process.
Deschutes Junction
Policy 3.10.5 Maximize protection of the rural character of neighborhoods in the Deschutes
Junction area while recognizing the intended development of properties designated for
commercial, industrial and agricultural uses.
The Applicant addresses this Plan policy with a detailed description of the history, previous owners,
surrounding uses and the transportation system of the Deschutes Junction area. The Applicant asserts that
the Plan Amendment and Zone Change is consistent with how the Deschutes Junction area has developed
and the rural character of that particular area. No participant to this proceeding asserts these goals and
policies are not met or otherwise refutes the evidence or argument the Applicant relies on."
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Plan.
4. Oregon Administrative Rules
In addition to the administrative rules discussed in the findings above relating to Goal 3, Goal 5, and Goal
14, the Applicant and the Staff Report identify and address several administrative rules as potentially
applicable to the Application. No other participant in this proceeding identified other applicable rules.'2
11 The Staff Report also identifies Policies 3.10.6 through 3.10.8 as potentially relevant and asks the
Hearings Officer to determine either if the policies apply or if they are satisfied. Policy 3.10.6 and 3.10.7
require the County to review impacts to the transportation system. The County has done that through the
review of the Applicant's TIA. Policy 3.10.8 requires the County to review other policies and initiate a
Deschutes Junction Master Plan. I find that policy to be directed solely to the County and not applicable
to a quasi-judicial land use application.
" Some administrative rules the Applicants address, or which appear in the Staff Report, have been
omitted from this Recommendation where the rule does not expressly impose an approval criterion.
Page 122
OAR 660-006-0005
(7) "Forest lands " as defined in Goal 4 are those lands acknowledged as forest lands, or, in
the case of a plan amendment, forest lands shall include:
(a) Lands that are suitable for commercial forest uses, including adjacent or nearby
lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices; and
(b) Other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
The Applicant asserts that the Subject Properties do not qualify as forest land and, therefore, the
administrative rules relating to forest land are not applicable.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this administrative rule.
OAR 660-033-0030
(1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as
agricultural land.
(2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a lot or
parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However,
whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere
identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of
agricultural land set .forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This inquiry requires the
consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a
lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I -IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3
nonetheless defines as agricultural "lands in other classes which are necessary to permit
farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands ". A determination that a lot
or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by .substantial evidence that
addresses each of the factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1).
(3) Goal 3 attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining
whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be
examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either "suitable for farm use" or "necessary
to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands" outside the lot or
parcel.
This Recommendation finds that the Subject Properties do not qualify as agricultural land as defined by
administrative rule, and they are not suitable for farming. Based on the foregoing, I find that the
administrative rules do not require the Subject Properties to be inventoried as agricultural land. This
conclusion, however, does not alter other findings in this Recommendation relating to the process for
Page 123
redesignating the Subject Properties and the requirement to demonstrate the Plan Amendment is consistent
with Goal 5.
OAR 660-012-0060
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use
regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided
in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of
this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation
facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection
based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified
in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic
projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the
amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation
demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the
.significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the.functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP
or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified
in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
This administrative rule is applicable to the Plan Amendment because it involves an amendment to an
acknowledged comprehensive plan. The Applicant asserts that the Plan Amendment will not result in a
significant effect to the transportation system. In support of that assertion, the Applicant submitted its TIA
(and supplemental information), discussed above. No participant to this proceeding disputed the
information in the TIA or otherwise objected to the use of that information. The County Transportation
Planner agreed with the TIA's conclusions as supplemented.
Page 124
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application satisfies this administrative rule.
(2) If 'a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local
government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified
,function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the
remedies listed in (a) through (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test
in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of,this
rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11)
to approve an amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion
may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional
capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion.
(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the
planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation
facility.
(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities,
improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent
with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding
plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the
transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be
provided by the end of the planning period.
(c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance
standards of the transportation facility.
(d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a
development agreement or similar ficnding method, including, but not limited to,
transportation system management measures or minor transportation
improvements. Local governments shall, as part of the amendment, specify when
measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided.
(e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly
affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected
facility, or improvements at other locations, if:
(A) The provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written
statement that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the
significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in
consistency for all performance standards;
Page 125
(B) The providers of facilities being improved at other locations provide
written statements of approval; and
(C) The local jurisdictions where facilities are being improved provide written
statements of approval.
While the Applicant's TIA concludes that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change would not have a
significant effect on the transportation system, that analysis appears to be premised on various
recommendations. As stated in the TIA:
1. It is recommended that right of way dedications along Pleasant Ridge Road be provided to
the County standard as part of any future development application. County standards
identify a 60-foot standard for Collectors.
2. The existing driveway onto Pleasant Ridge Road may require relocation to support
realignment of Graystone Lane's connection to Pleasant Ridge Road. The need for access
relocation should be addressed as part of any future land use application and coordinated
with the County's transportation planning and engineering departments. An approved
approach permit is required by the County for property access.
3. At the time of future property development transportation system development charges will
be applied, based on the specific use, to help fund regional transportation system
improvements.
Although these findings conclude that the record as a whole does not support approval of the Application,
the County Board may arrive at a different conclusion. If it does, I recommend the Board incorporate the
recommendations from the TIA in any final decision.
Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 15 of OAR chapter 660 sets forth the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, with which all
comprehensive plan amendments must demonstrate compliance. The Applicant asserts the Application is
consistent with all applicable Goals and Guidelines. Except for Goal 3, Goal 5, Goal 6, Goal 11, and Goal
14, which are addressed in more detail in earlier findings, and in the absence of any counter evidence or
argument, I adopt the Applicants' position on the remining Goals and find that the Plan Amendment and
Zone Change are consistent with the applicable Goals and Guidelines as follows:
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to the
public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the Applicants to post
a "proposed land use action sign" on the Subject Properties. Notice of the Hearings held regarding
this application was placed in the Bend Bulletin. A minimum of two public hearings will be held
to consider the Application.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies and processes related to zone change applications are
included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes
County Code. The outcome of the Application will be based on findings of fact and conclusions
of law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2.
Page 126
Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the Subject Properties do not include any
lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. here are no snapped flood or volcano
hazards on the subject property. Wildfire, earthquake, and winter storm risks are identified in the
County's DCCP. The subject property is not subject to unusual natural hazards nor is there any
evidence in the record that the proposal would exacerbate the risk to people, property,
infrastructure, the economy, and/or the environment from these hazards on -site or on surrounding
lands.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs. The property is not a recreational site. The proposed plan amendment
and zone change do not affect recreational needs, and nonspecific development of the property is
proposed. Therefore, the proposal does not implicate Goal 8.
Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state
for a variety of economic activities. The Applicant asserts that the proposed plan amendment and
zone change are consistent with this goal because it will provide opportunities for economic
development in the county in general, and in the Deschutes Junction area in particular, by allowing
the property to be put to a more productive use.
Goal 10, Housing. There are already two houses on site, which can be used, adaptively reused or
demolished. The proposed plan amendment and zone change will not affect existing or needed
housing and Goal 10 is not applicable.
Goal 12, Transportation. This application complies with the Transportation System Planning
Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, the rule that implements Goal 12. Compliance with that rule also
demonstrates compliance with Goal 12.
Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The Applicant's proposal, in and of itself, will have no effect on
energy use or conservation since no specific development has been proposed in conjunction with
the subject applications. The record shows that providing additional economic opportunities on the
subject property may decrease vehicle trips for persons working in the Deschutes Junction area,
therefore conserving energy.
Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon.
Page 127
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicant has NOT met the burden of proof with respect to the
standards for approving the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change. I therefore recommend to the
County Board of Commissioners that the Application be DENIED unless the Applicant can meet that
burden.
Dated this 12t" day of June 2023
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Page128
E S COG2A
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: April 2, 2025
SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance 2025-003 - Last Ranch Plan Amendment & Zone
Change involving approximately 20.36 acres at 64994 Deschutes Market Road,
Bend, and 64975 Deschutes Market Road, Bend
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
1. Move approval of second reading of Ordinance No. 2025-003 by title only.
2. Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2025-003.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the
designation of the subject properties from Agricultural ("AG") to Rural Industrial ("RI"), with
a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the subject properties from Exclusive Farm Use
("EFU") to Rural Industrial ("RI").
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner