Loading...
2025-165-Minutes Recorded 5/29/2025JI E S cOG�� i BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 9:00 AM Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2025-165 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 05/29/2025 3:40:10 PM 2025-165 BOCC MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY April 23, 2025 Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack; Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley; and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 am and shared that Commissioner Adair is attending the Oregon ACT and Modal Advisory Committee meeting in Keizer today. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: • Ron Boozell encouraged talking about diversity, equity and access issues and said he expects the County's DEIA Committee to be reinstated. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of Resolution No. 2025-011 accepting the annual Oregon Department of Revenue CAFFA assessment and taxation grant BOCC MEETING APRIL 23, 2025 PAGE 1 OF 9 2. Approval of a revised amendment to the Behavioral Health Provider Services Agreement with PacificSource Community Solutions 3. Approval of Order No. 2025-015, setting a temporary speed limit of 45 MPH on NW 19th Street between NW Odem and NW Sedgewick Avenues 4. Approval of Document No. 2025-362, a contract with Helion Software for Assessment and Taxation software Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking Thomas Spearjr., for service on the Public Safety Coordinating Council 6. Approval of the BOCC March 19 and April 2, 2025 meeting minutes 7. Approval of the minutes of the April 11, 2025 BOCC Legislative Update meeting CHANG: Move Board approval of the Consent Agenda as presented DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: (absent) CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 0 ACTION ITEMS: 8. Annual Update from Visit Central Oregon Laura Skundrick, Management Analyst, introduced the presentation from Visit Central Oregon (VCO), which each year receives Transient Room Tax (TRT) funding from the County. Scott Larson, president and CEO of Visit Central Oregon, presented a financial update, noting that VCO currently has $834,603 in reserves. Commissioner DeBone spoke to the possibility of using TRT funds to guarantee a certain level of revenue for a new flight operator at Redmond Municipal Airport. Larson agreed it is important to support flight services and described efforts to attract visitors who spend more money while in Central Oregon. Continuing, Larson explained how revenues received from Travel Oregon are utilized and presented information on advertising and marketing expenditures, saying that VCO's website and visitor guide are its main ways of connecting with potential and repeat visitors. He shared that VCO recently completed drafting a BOCC MEETING APRIL 23, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 9 5-year strategic plan and has issued an RFP for marketing services. Tom O'Shea, chair of the VCO Board, stressed the importance of targeting grants to proven tourism generators, promoting off-season tourism in partnership with Visit Bend while taking care to not duplicate efforts, and determining future growth sources. Commissioner DeBone commented that Sisters hosts the world's largest outdoor quilt show, and Mount Bachelor has added bicycle trails and zip lines to attract visitors in the off -ski season. In response to Commissioner Chang, O'Shea expected the coming year to be good for tourism in Central Oregon, despite the economic uncertainties. 9. Public Hearing: Temporary Hardship Dwelling Text Amendments Nicole Mardell, Senior Planner, explained the procedures for the hearing. The public hearing was opened at 10:05 am. Mardell provided background on the staff -initiated text amendments relating to temporary hardship dwellings. Explaining that the County allows property owners to temporarily utilize a secondary dwelling for the care of a property owner (or relative) with a medical condition, she said the secondary dwelling can be a recreational vehicle/RV, manufactured home, or, in a resource zone, an existing building under certain conditions. In addition to updating references and reorganizing content for readability, the proposed changes would clarify that a hardship dwelling could be used for an aged person or for one who is infirmed. They would also: clarify the term "existing building" in terms of a temporary hardship use; make clear that if a property has a temporary hardship dwelling it can have no other secondary dwelling; and extend the term of each permit and renewal period from one year to two. Mardell said after holding a public hearing on these changes, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the amendments except for allowing the use of existing buildings as a hardship dwelling in the RR-10 and MUA-10 zones. There being no one who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:14 am. The Board was in consensus to conduct deliberations on the proposed amendments at this time. BOCC MEETING APRIL 23, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 9 Commissioner Chang sail it is important to offer this opportunity and to safeguard against abuse of the opportunity. The Board reviewed the relevant policy decisions, as follows: Expand the opportunity to use an existing secondary building (e.g., a shed, barn or other accessory structure) as a temporary hardship dwelling —already permitted in the EFU and Forest zones —to unincorporated communities and the Rural Commercial zone. Mardell noted that State regulations do not allow the use of accessory buildings as temporary hardship dwellings in the RR-10 and MUA-10 zones. Will Groves, Planning Manager, added that such uses would still be subject to setbacks and other regulations. Modify the definition of the term "existing building," which is currently defined as a building in existence on or before March 29, 2017, to be a building for which final inspection approval was received at least two years before the application to convert it to a temporary hardship dwelling is submitted. • Limit the modification of existing buildings when used for temporary hardship dwellings to minor improvements in the existing building floor area (such as the installation of kitchen facilities) to ensure the use can be converted back to a non- residential use if the temporary hardship dwelling is no longer needed. Impose certain requirements on RVs used as temporary hardship dwellings relating to a vehicle's condition, components and siting, including that it must have a toilet and a sink. In response to Commissioner Chang, Groves confirmed that the County has a process for decommissioning medical hardship dwellings when no longer needed or allowed. He added that it may be possible to transition some of these dwellings to an ADU, subject to required permits and inspections. CHANG: Move Board approval of the proposed amendments to County Code relating to temporary hardship dwellings DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: (absent) CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 0 Mardell said staff will return with a draft ordinance for the Board's formal action. BOCC MEETING APRIL 23, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 9 10. Public Hearing: Reconsideration of the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Senior Planner Nicole Mardell reminded that the Board previously agreed to hear this matter limited de novo and explained the restriction on testimony provided during the hearing. She reviewed that subsequent to the Board's adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-007 which formally approved the County's 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan, an appeal was filed by Central Oregon LanclWatch (COLW) to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. Mardell summarized information from the petitioner's brief concerning the County's repeal and replacement of its 2011 Comprehensive Plan, including COLW's assertion that some of the Plan's policies violate statewide planning Goal 14. Speaking to the intersection between the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and County Code with respect to cluster and planned developments, Mardell said the County does not intend to amend its Code as part of this process. The public hearing was opened at 10:44 am. Rory Isbell, representing Central Oregon LanclWatch, said several policies in the updated Comprehensive Plan violate statewide land use planning Goal 14, which controls urbanization. Speaking to the process used by the County to update its Comprehensive Plan, he reminded that as it embarked on this effort, the County had sought input on the entire Plan, not just what staff was proposing be changed. Continuing, Isbell asserted that some policies in the updated Plan are not in compliance with Goal 14, particularly Policy 3.3.6.a., which allows unlimited conversion of rural farm and forest lands for residential, industrial, and commercial uses, and Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15. He stated COLW's opposition to the urbanization of rural lands and reminded that uses for exception areas cannot be extended without a new goal 14 exception. Commissioner DeBone noted that cluster developments allow for limited development while preserving desired open space. Isbell said allowing such developments outside of UGBs constitutes extending a UGB into a rural area, thereby frustrating the purpose of having a UGB. Commissioner DeBone spoke to private property rights and to rules which limit what some property owners can do on their land. Commissioner Chang argued that allowing development of rural farmland requires bestowing new property rights very different from the rights previously held for decades. BOCC MEETING APRIL 23, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 9 Commissioner DeBone said over time, case law narrows private property rights, further limiting these. Discussion ensued of proposed and approved rezones of property from resource land to rural residential or other zones to allow their development. Commissioner Chang found COLW's argument that unlimited rezones violate Goal 14 to be valid, especially as the County has no process for considering such rezones except for on a case -by -case basis which does not allow for gauging their cumulative impacts on the rural landscape overtime. Commissioner DeBone said all of the rezones approved by the BOCC have been done according to the criteria determined by the County and as reviewed by a Hearings Officer. Adding that since 1979, the statewide land use system has been one -size -fits -all and referring to the reality of development pressure, he noted there is no land use designation for "open space" and objected to telling property owners that their land must remain as resource because that benefits others although it is the owner who pays property taxes on it. Commissioner Chang said it is not taking away property rights to not rezone a property from exclusive farm use to rural residential, but approving such a rezone does grant new property rights. • Joe Craig shared the definition of Goal 14 and said urban sprawl negatively affects wildlife and the natural environment. He opposed spot zoning of farm and forest land, believed that such rezoning violates Goal 14, and spoke against allowing more intense development —Including cluster housing —outside of UGBs. Assuring that he understands the values Craig is representing, Commissioner DeBone reminded that only 21 % of the property in Deschutes County is privately owned. He explained that in 1973 when all of the land in Oregon was zoned by the State, it was not feasible to evaluate every single parcel. This resulted in some parcels being zoned as "resource" without regard to what zoning would be most appropriate for them given their particular characteristics. Saying that the State's land use planning system protects farmers, Commissioner Chang said when land is vulnerable to being rezoned from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), this vulnerability drives up the cost of EFU-zoned land and makes it very challenging for farmers to practice that craft and trade. • Mary Powell, representing the League of Women Voters of Deschutes County, said the League does not support the 2040 County Comprehensive Plan because it BOCC MEETING APRIL 23, 2025 PAGE 6 OF 9 allows unlimited rezoning of agricultural and forest lands for residential, commercial and industrial uses and does not protect wildlife habitat, transportation infrastructure or water resources from the impacts of development. She urged the Board to readdress policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 to meet Goal 14 requirements. Mary Wallis stated that she values natural resources and does not want to live in an area that has urban sprawl. Adding that she opposes spot zoning, she spoke to the negative effects of having fewer resources available for farming and urged ensuring that the Comprehensive Plan protects land zoned for exclusive farm use. Explaining that the MUA10 zone allows only one dwelling per ten acres, Commissioner DeBone said the system has many checks and balances to protect open space and accommodate agricultural uses while allowing the rezoning of properties which cannot be farmed for a profit. He added that housing prices rise in the absence of sufficient opportunities for residential development. Commissioner Chang said 5,000 or 6,000 of the more than 30,000 housing units outside of the county's incorporated cities are empty for most of the year. Adding that one of the reasons he voted against the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is because he does not believe it incorporates or reflects the substantial public comment provided during the update process, he reminded that under State law, UGBs must be expanded to meet the 20-year projected growth requirements of their communities. Sandra Fox said that the Comprehensive Plan violates Goal 14, which requires that new industry, housing developments, and commercial uses be confined to UGBs. She was concerned about the risk of wildfire and the effects of further development on wildlife and stated her support for preserving farmland and forests. She concluded that the growth of the County's population has resulted in increased traffic and overwhelmed the health care system. Ashley Karitis expressed deep concern that the County's 2040 Comprehensive Plan falls short of protecting the County's forest and farm lands and fails to comply with Goal 14. Saying that spot zoning is notoriously unsustainable and disrupts farming operations in addition to increasing the cost of farming, she supported protecting wildlife habitat and groundwater levels. She concluded that while plenty of developable land exists within the UGBs for future housing, the county's resources cannot support 400,000 people. There being no one else who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 12:01 pm. The Board was in consensus to leave the written record open until Wednesday, May 21 St and to continue the public hearing to the same date. A lunch recess was announced at 12:05 pm. The meeting reconvened at 1:00 pm. BOCC MEETING APRIL 23, 2025 PAGE 7 OF 9 11. Annual Update: Economic Development of Central Oregon (EDCO) Management Analyst Laura Skundrick introduced the presentation from Economic Development of Central Oregon (EDCO), which each year receives video lottery funds from the County. EDCO CEO Jon Stark said EDCO focuses on recruiting and serving businesses in five key industries: headquarters and administrative centers; high technology; lifestyle products; advanced manufacturing; and science and research. He presented information on EDCO programs and activities, including investor engagement and coaching companies on how to reach their goals, and reported on pending projects by industry. Stark next reviewed EDCO's operating budget, noting revenue sources from membership fees, grants, and contracts. He narrated a chart showing EDCO's recent and current funding requests to the County, listed by the various chapters (Sunriver- La Pine, Redmond, etc.), and shared employment and unemployment data along with area GDP numbers for Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties. He stated EDCO's intent to return to the BOCC at the midpoint of the fiscal year to inquire about the status of video lottery fund revenues and whether any surplus revenues could be awarded to EDCO. Patricia Lucas from the Sunriver-La Pine chapter (SLED) reported the signing of the agreement for the incubator project in La Pine, which should be completed by next August. She also reported that the La Pine Community Health Center is 90% complete and said SLED is tracking the progress of nine projects totaling 67,000 sf. Eric Strobel from the Sisters Country chapter spoke to the expansion of BASX out to Sisters from Redmond and reported on the establishment of a much -needed childcare facility. Steve Curley from REDI reported on projects which are underway or will soon commence, including work on the 200-acre industrial lot on the west side of Redmond. He announced that the Made in Redmond tour is coming up on June 13tn Brian Vierra, EDCO's Venture Catalyst, commented on the impacts of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and said industries which do not innovate will fail. Stark concluded that EDCO has embarked on a new three-year strategic planning process and hoped the resulting plan will be finalized in late)une. BOCC MEETING APRIL 23, 2025 PAGE 8 OF 9 OTHER ITEMS: • Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, presented a request from Stroke Awareness Oregon that the County sponsor a fundraising event. Commissioner DeBone noted that the Board has $10,000 available in video lottery funds specifically for event sponsorship. The Board was in consensus to sponsor the "Leadership for Change" event hosted by Stroke Awareness Oregon at the bronze level ($1,200). Commissioner Chang reported on the Wolf Depredation and Financial Compensation Committee meeting this past Monday, which included a rigorous and challenging discussion of how to allocate the $50,000 in State funds to livestock producers and others. Commissioner DeBone shared plans to recognize the 50-year anniversary of the end of Vietnam War at next Wednesdays Board meeting. Commissioner Chang spoke to the many people who have immigrated to the United States as refugees from a war -torn country. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:08 pm. DATED this Day of 2025 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: RECORDING SECRETARY ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR 33 AK PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER BOCC MEETING APRIL 23, 2025 PAGE 9 OF 9 Oregon ACT and Modal Advisory Committee Chairs' Meeting Meeting Agenda April 23, 2025 Keizer Civic Center 930 Chemawa Road NE Keizer, OR 97303 Iris B Conference Room t t tt 5011 10:30 AM A) Welcome and Welcome & introductions, meeting purpose & goals Introductions (10 mins, OTC Chair Brown, Vice Chair Beyer, City of Keizer Mayor, Cathy Clark) 10:40 AM B) OTC Updates OTC updates (15 mins, OTC Chair Brown, Vice Chair Beyer) 10:55 AM C) What We Meeting survey responses Heard (5 mins, PDAD Administrator, Amanda Pietz) 11:00 AM D) Legislative ODOT update, Q&A Session Update (45 mins, Assistant Director for Government & External Relations, Lindsay Baker) 11:45 AM E) Lunch Break Lunch and networking 12:15 PM F) Open Q&A Lunch continued & open Q&A (30 mins, All) 12:45 PM G) Capital Overview, ACT/Modal role, feedback on prioritization Investment of goals - workshop Plan (50 mins, PDAD Administrator Amanda Pietz, D&O Administrator Amy Ramsdell, Strategic Initiatives Manager Kayla Hootsmans) 1:35 PM H) Hot Topics Hot Topic Items (20 mins, ACT & Modal Chairs) 1:55 PM I) Closing Meeting wrap-up Remarks (5 mins, PDAD Administrator, Amanda Pietz) BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony MC1(i ,�fT, Date:5 Subject: Name Address benA Phone #s E-mail address Zl a' In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1Yes F1 No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETINGBEGINS As A We, S,�E Vnbt On 4:-�Ve.� Of) ��ll MEETING DATE: April 23, 2025 SUBJECT: Annual Update from Visit Central Oregon RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A, Information only. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff from Visit Central Oregon will provide the Board with current status and updates on FY25 programs as well as provide information looking toward FY26 programs. BUDGET IMPACTS: Deschutes County is including a payment to VCO of $3,305,854 in the FY 2026 proposed budget based on a projected Transient Room Tax (TRT) revenue increase of 2.0% over FY 2025 budget. The payment is based on actual Room Tax Revenue collections less administrative costs and can fluctuate up or down. Payment for FY 2025 is projected to be $3,301,914. ATTENDANCE: Scott Larson, President & CEO, Visit Central Oregon Laura Skundrick, Management Analyst N O M �w a a V 4� s V r®� 0 M 4� Ln a 0 (D 0 _a b.. �T z 0 I I—� LU V) Ud C,_' CLU u 0 m� fl"f lid N L�1 N L!_ "'W a e N � t r M r� x r` Aa Ln _ 7- 0 9 e�n Y k pn - v 110, At Y" Vti'+ 2� tom; v a d 771 � t y ®R UK* tw � .E E � � � 0 CL � � � � � � � � � � 0J 7 \ \ } \ \ § \ \ z \ / g s CO ME z 0 Q) CO '76 OD -0 co 00 m E E I- of)M C) I- CL E Cf- LU cm Lr) Cl- ® a ,Zt 0) m a) ry In F- ry C,.) 0 r-j 00 ry 00 00 C to ® 00 00 m Ch c'4 cNI m 0 `n ® et CD — Ln V)• � ji O ® rn Ln ry rH ® Ln 00 Ln � m V) Qj ui ®6 -0 0. o 0 d � o m c cn w Q) +d ® 4-1 U0 � � � � � c a mc w /� \! \\ » 0 RIM � ) <a -mm 0 \) : � � c Lu 0 a , mm «: 0 ?. 4A um Ell 9 LL x IA C 0 0 w 0 C c COEM 0 EM Em mm > d- 4) LAm c %—j 0) W Ma C > d- d- C a La 0) 0 4) 0 9m Iwo ON CL x 0 0 IA OEM EM 0 V i E 17� y . OR a > _ . r y: , .. . . . 0 a m I Im9t, o° o MET-,, 2 «: � \ / � \ \ \ �\.� . k� ■ . }.< n LAr g:/ ƒ .. . a . ...��� .: : ./ \ \\ a \/ \ e 9 ■ ► \ \ \ ; / „ a , a %. % %u 6 \ \.\.:.ƒ.:.�.§ -e%= ... ....,.©. % = e § k K 8 # § $ % m V Z e\ § � 4 & z 2/ / 2 / E x j M { \ tCL �2 \ k 2 k § / V\ :\ / B R 2$ 0 v P/+ C7 z D 0 CL CL '30 (1) p w ix w u CL R � w� W M r r n a x ` r l A l+ .,.J U�.{3 t 75 s9 4 vd ;a3 Y � �� ��� dF �� �_ �nz�w O � ; 4�U� ¢¢�� m O°'�w LLn � y�a�. i w'Ju �o�� z aWga w Z J 0o • O a N wuo vfi yQ c •' Ql w rn � ro c r� � 5 Q a A 8 o 3 c Ctl! 8°s `o 8� m m 8 EC s Y. 3 d ro O O "n ai •� ro d co .. r ° m o 3 N 0 ro IA ,,^^ L V o A Z£ 0 C O O r E� o m t m wg0 L L 2 0 2 ui (A m (D LA 0 (A 4-J r (A CA 0 .— LM 0 (A b.0 La U 0 w U 0 9. LM 4-a L. 0 (A 0 ui u 4-a r . 0 -0 so= saffm > U +j r ,L X (A 3 0 0 w LM 0. tw >4 0 0 r L. m E u E rw r. E 0 WHOM m 0 bA LM 0 offmam u momm I LiJ o Z W z cc0> I !`. 6,1 grill SK >to D rn N W Q zOwgut W M� IN f L a mg y,. 111 M J r, o ;N O ID o u.l C> T a� $; 7 CD) C � rt U o CO L1J' " O rr CD .: CS D - Lll _ -, l LLI � ? W 0. m r; l U WO =V M-K � y .. O O m 1 Q pQ W t9 O W� µ d 2 � ".: (n a yD �� y -: �.. 0 z 6}\\}�§� � $ <}{< : , �� � !��\� ��� � <:` !z<I y . � \ \» §}\}{ �|� ���°� (:§: k \}� (\i � \\\\ j\� �- ; � : �:<< �`i 5,<: : , w E- z > N -6 y HIS I � .� � a� y� �. . ... .�\.��.� �» ° - <� \ » y\©\ 3� O / i O O 4. c } c Im 2 O L V_0 IA •� E c a = o ,O L Q. >yz fi ,< z �,I R� •m W L O 00 0 E 0 4� a .. V - � Ln .. _ N N W • y i Q� a 4) W 12 0 • v • • • • 0 lot m as I • 9 e I z z b �'v1�, ' ��w • c 0 0 >= 4A LU > 4- 0 12 E E in D- U) CL, LAJ z cd 99 0 C) 0 U) 4) U) slo 0 CL r L 0 4) (13 0 iN e- 0 0 0 4-1 0 Q 0 0 +j u E E E N -C C,.j IA cu 0 L- 0 -W C) C: c (U + n E , E CN E 0 0 C: W 0 4J t A Gi -0 c 0 I- 0 t in o tm I di 4J c (N 41 r_ 0 E COL 2- vi co 0 rmn, Ili r_ ei -0 im IV LA (b I- CL vi - 0 C: C: CL -0 :3 0 14- — +1 Qj kA CC, 0 0 C: -- 4-J a N > a) c 0 aj ul 41 — W c L- 0 ILI &- 0 4J 0 L. 44 44 '6 4-J c: ID f- 4- 0 ai L- 4J 4j c U ICL Ln Q0 41 to 2 IR VI C: at (U E LA Ln 0 GJ L- (U 0 L- Ln 0 4-- -B a E cu E GO c o V) 0 CL 0 0 0 1 CL (U — 41 o CL 4-J 4J 0 44 E >� 0 4,1 0 0 Imo— CN, -u 41 LA o E 0 CN u u tj — — 4-4 C c C C,4 cx 4-J qj *0 0 ai r- (A (Ul E, 0 D -C U a 0 E !E E u) mm -0 C o 4J 0 CE U J a > ] 0 , z CL ra 4J M C 4J _:e 0 M a c E 0 E 0 44 CJ 0 m 0 cE 0 0 0 0 CL E 0 c o 'A E 0 a, m a 0 M 41 41 JA 0 C: vi OJ C 0 Cl 01 4J %P 4-J CN (U LM CJ ry > (U r .r j 0 C: 0 a 4LJM E -0 0 0 m u u E u it ir z 0 0 z z 0 w u 0 , W 0: - 0 (n w w U. 0 -0 rffiffTul Lit) A 4-1 x as z 0 4- LU vi Aw 44 0 o CL 0 rL z 0 z eL _ C v c 0 0 L V p a } c v L 0 c E c V L L > 0 L a C C i 0 V 0' o!f C a1 Gi 2 = L C O —O L c i0a°-Ea�>_o c.> a� 0 L m i-aDC,CO0 OoaaM i 0 oa00 - C IL w N 0 M=�a.N0.-> L — L C 1A a =VOQ:2mLu>E- W W V Q E.0 Z c } U. a as L •� o V 11Wfi - LL. O H = N h C •- 010 v O 0 *, L 1� ina'a a-j>- °' � a— 0 0 m j2. •- o .>- .- o= C •- w 0 o v 0 W W> N LL N t � 0J i MD > e> L C } co C qa ,c Im a O C)` a c co 0 O CO 41. •ate v O � CO } s -Z � ° v� y a "a cOi O Q VA CU co Q •� voi3oo a°i �G wLAJ Boa ors I =>,c 1N O N C U p O} QOO@�ON dV Cv><( Q �.0 v ImoC Z' -c ca a °ma. m o C o O N N co U in 4) O N In +' 0 0 4 N C •C N O LAJ s �._3 E 09 d d cu t CO E p,'W o ,c a C) C: 0 0 cn a� � o y a a co a� i V Q.�o`O m •O s'���'W d oQ � z c)�Vco v,� O -Q�� r, +- O � m -a co .o Y N -0v6 i L (a)d L O �C � a �_ ._��O •> O U 1 Cl) cri Q.}Gc1 cr C Y�`aoi _a•> �ao)Z3 Q m ca o •3 r a s a�° �rz > s o ai ° 1— C o c a st °Q Qa V a'E �Z- 01? Qz E Q ,� 'oo°C � oQ � •1 �c)� a a = IA um O 41 p LU o s i o aft Q °Q d d O d a 3 Y NN ro : H V Oa y' LL"�� a c Z3 N C)0) d o C N N Q p C-) 00 1L ` O� °�' 0 �U to O oa?`'�o �u. oj4--Ln m pa. +L- i� o N } O O a� 0 d N y O= L L N OO W N G1 G1 O O G! O .� •_ L Q p L N 3 -Q N a C N N °° N 0)-- co a a) 0— a� 0 v Q m c O Q-) ,C cc 0 wy a_fy �voi d 1 0 0° a �° M = V U° coi d M � 3 V �C C C° O LL 0� a co OQ Q) d a) d mCU oC �o vi � a o = Q Q d N O li a1 O N it .; U Y 0)0 �Z- c E ,. > CEO �•V E Om� Q.c arc Q } v v Lu a m 0 L C } a _ N N d L } d c °C as .cam a � c •c � m .a 'a 0 i N N i d a C-0 d 03 �«_ 0 Z ai p O d d L d� L � � V Q c _a .0 ; al 0 C as i c IA c 'd. a) �. Q •; a O .0 y' O Q, L a y i = N 0 C. s N v ®} N ma dm L a o d ° d L 0 v V c '� c p 3o 'a 100 _ .y - v .3V CLc a oC 00 > m t 0 a 0 c 0 "a .c C y G a 0 C d° N •. L 'a N Q. N =' V a 0 C O i C d d p a s E CC m = O C W WC E G) N to .G •Q' {11 toV V a Q a2a c 0 v o c 0 c W w E -C o ul c m o C} E E E a d a s Y N a a {il 0 = E 1 o V L Q. L a a w d L OIAQ Q I C ocs COL.c aac C a dl N :� Q► N _ .3 O'C 0 C } +d- 16 C C Q d y of is6 -aa� VA F y VA:E dmm 1- VA a. 0 a .� V L VA L a 0 0 1- a a L L d s '� mac a°f, a°', 3`� d L L � V H ® L •4� � a � - 3 V a � v Ln 0 0 0 a � � � \\ � ^ \\ � �\ � � \\ a . . T E S COG2a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: April 23, 2025 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Temporary Hardship Dwelling Text Amendment RECOMMENDED MOTION: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; • Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or • Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to consider amendments to Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code relating to temporary hardship dwellings (file no. 247-25- 000078-TA). All record materials can be found on the project website: https://bit.ly/25-78- TA. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner Will Groves, Planning Manager Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel C.�0-� ES �oG risk COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner DATE: April 16, 2025 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Temporary Hardship Dwelling Text Amendment The Deschutes Board of Commissioners (Board) will conduct a public hearing on April 23, 2025, to consider amendments to Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code relating to temporary hardship dwellings (file no. 247-25-000078-TA). The hearing will take place in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend and virtually via Zoom. Attached to this memorandum are the proposed text amendments and a staff report summarizing the changes. Within the proposed amendments, added language is shown underlined and deleted shown as strikethro g . All record materials can be found on the project website: https://bit.ly/25-78-TA. 1. BACKGROUND This is a legislative text amendmentto Deschutes County Code (DCC), Title 18, County Zoning. The primary purpose of the amendment is to conform local requirements to state law and provide consistency for the review of hardship dwellings across multiple county zones. Notable changes include: • Reorganized content for readability; • Amended outdated references; • Clarified hardship dwelling can be used for the "aged" as well as the "infirmed"; • Clarified "existing building" use and definition for the purpose of the section; • Clarified hardship dwelling can be the only second dwelling on the property; • Amended renewal requirement from every one year to two years; • Listed the use in all permissible zones for readability. Since 1979, Deschutes County has allowed property owners to obtain a temporary use permit for a secondary dwelling on a property, with the intent the dwelling would be used for the care of a property owner or relative of the property owner with a medical condition. This would allow for the person with the medical condition to maintain independence and continue to live on a rural property while also receiving necessary medical attention. Recreational Vehicles (RVs), manufactured homes, or existing buildings (only in resource zones) are eligible to be used as hardship dwellings. Since the last major update to the requirements for hardship dwellings, the state has undergone rulemaking in farm and forest (resource) zones, providing more detailed guidance on the eligibility and requirements for establishing the use. OAR 660-004-0040(8)(f) provides limited guidance on hardship dwellings in rural residential exception areas, only noting that the dwelling type for such use is limited to Recreational Vehicles (RVs) and manufactured homes. To staff's understanding, there is no other state guidance for the regulation of temporary hardship dwellings in zones that allow for a single- family dwelling as a permitted use and are outside of farm, forest, and rural residential exception areas. The purpose of this proposal is to amend the code for greater consistency with state rules and statutes and to establish a consistent review process for hardship dwelling applications across all County zones in which the use is permitted. II. OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENTS The amendment package will affect the following DCC sections: • Revision of section to comply with state requirements o 18.116.090: Temporary Hardship Dwelling requirements • Removal of duplicative requirements found in 18.116.090 o 18.16: Exclusive Farm Use Zone o 18.36: Forest Use 1 Zone o 18.40: Forest Use 2 Zone • Minor amendment - listing temporary hardship dwelling under permitted uses o 18.32: Multiple -Use Agricultural Zone o 18.60: Rural Residential Zone 0 18.65.020, 021, 022: Rural Service Center Unincorporated Community Zones 0 18.66.020, 030, 040, 050: Terrebonne Rural Community Zones 0 18.67.020, 030, 040: Tumalo Rural Community Zones o 18.74.020: Rural Commercial Zone 0 18.108.030, 110: Sunriver Unincorporated Community Zones 0 18.110.020, 030: Resort Community Zone In approaching the amendments, staff has integrated state requirements where possible, for all zones in which a hardship dwelling is permitted, to ensure a consistent and clear process for applicants and county staff. The amendments in DCC 18.116.090 provide the same general requirements for temporary hardship dwellings whether they are in a resource zone or a non -resource zone that allows for a single-family dwelling. In addition, the farm Page 2 of 5 and forest zones maintain existing requirements for compliance with the farm impacts test and ineligibility for a replacement dwelling associated with a temporary hardship dwelling. Ill. POLICY CHOICES Deschutes County can provide local interpretation of requirements that are not expressly addressed in the OAR or Oregon Revised Statute (ORS). Staff has identified several policy choices for the Board to consider. Use of Existing Building as a Temporary Hardship Dwelling Property owners can currently utilize an RV or manufactured home for a temporary hardship dwelling in all zones. In farm and forest zones, existing buildings (sheds, accessory structures, barns) are also permitted to be converted for use as a temporary hardship dwelling, per the OAR and ORS. The proposed text amendment package proposes to allow the use of existing buildings in the following zones: • 18.65.020, 021, 022: Rural Service Center Unincorporated Community Zones • 18.66.020, 030, 040, 050: Terrebonne Rural Community Zones • 18.67.020, 030, 040: Tumalo Rural Community Zones • 18.74.020: Rural Commercial Zone • 18.108.030, 110: Sunriver Unincorporated Community Zones • 18.110.020, 030: Resort Community Zones During Planning Commission deliberations, staff discovered the restriction in OAR 660-004- 040 noted above and amended the original proposal to exclude the use of existing buildings as hardship dwellings in the RR-10 and MUA-10 zones. To staff's understanding, there are no state restrictions on the zones listed above. Existing Building Definition State regulations do not define "existing buildings" for temporary hardship dwellings. Currently, the code definition is a building "in existence on or before March 29, 2017". To provide additional flexibility, while still seeking to avoid a scenario in which a new building is constructed for temporary use, the proposed text amendments alter the definition to be a rolling eligibility date of two years from the date of final inspection of a building to the submittal date of the temporary use permit for a hardship dwelling. If the application is submitted prior to the two-year date, it does not constitute an "existing building." Modification of Existing Buildings The proposed text amendments would add a restriction on the modification of existing buildings to be used as temporary hardship dwellings. The intent of the requirement is to limit modifications to minor improvements in the existing building floor area (such as the installation of kitchen facilities) to ensure the use can be converted back to a nonresidential use if the temporary hardship dwelling is no longer needed. The limitation is drafted as follows: "Any modifications to the existing building for the hardship dwelling must be contained within the existing building floor area." Page 3 of 5 RV Comp rient_Requirements Code Enforcement has processed several cases involving non -operational RVs that are unfit for habitation. The text amendments preserve existing requirements related to the necessary components and siting of an RV and also clarify that an RV must have a sink and a toilet. Although more restrictive than state law, CDD staff are supportive of carrying forward these requirements to ensure RVs are safe for occupants when used as a temporary hardship dwelling. The proposed text amendments include the following component language: A recreational vehicle hardship dwelling must comply with all of the following requirements: 1. The recreational vehicle must have a sink and toilet, 2. The recreational vehicle must comply with all setbacks of the underlying zone(s); 3. The recreational vehicle must be fully licensed, 4. The recreational vehicle must be ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system, and must be attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, 5. A recreational vehicle hardship dwelling located in a special flood hazard area must comply with DCC 18.96. 6. Permanently attached additions are prohibited. The Board is welcome to raise additional items for discussion if desired. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION The Commission held a public hearing on March 13, 20251. Two agency comments were provided in advance of the hearing: • Redmond Fire and Rescue: recommended code provisions related to fire access roads be updated through a separate text amendment process. • County Senior Transportation Planner: noted the proposal complies with the Transportation Planning Rule and Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12. One public comment was received prior to the hearing expressing general support for the amendments. One member of the public provided verbal testimony at the public hearing, expressing general support for the original proposal to allow use of existing buildings in rural residential zones and sought additional information on the applicability of requirements for a site -specific proposal. Commissioners closed the oral portion of the public hearing and left the written record open until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 19, 2025. Planning Commissioner Altman submitted clerical edits to the proposed text into the record. Staff submitted LUBA Case No. 2021-053 in the record, which pertained to a temporary hardship dwelling application in Lane County. No additional public comments were received during the open record period. https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-63 Page 4 of 5 The Planning Commission voted 6--0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment package as drafted by staff, with the amendment to exclude the use of existing buildings as a hardship dwelling type in the RR-10 and MUM 0 zones. V. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; • Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or • Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined. Attachments: • Proposed Amendments and Draft Findings Page 5 of 5 16 116 090 Temporary Hardship Dwelling A. As used in this section, "hardship" means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged or infirmed person or persons experienced by the existing resident or relative B. As used in this section, "relative" means a grandparent, step -grandparent, grandchild. step - grandchild.. parent. steD-parent, child, step -child, brother, sister, sibling} step -sibling, either blood or legal relationship, niece, nephew, uncle, aunt, or first cousin. C_. , A temporary use permit for the term of the hardship for one of the following hardship dwelling types- maybe granted on a lot or parcel in additi mttaconjunction with an existing primary dwelling_ 1. One manufactured home of any class;. 2_ or oOne recreational vehicle subiect to the criteria under subsection (F): or 3_ -The temporary residential use of an existing buildings ubject to the following: a. -.An existing dwelling -building is one that was constructed at least two years prior to the date of application for the subiect_tempo_ r_arv_residential use permit For the purposes of this section, "constructed" means the Building Division approved the final inspection at least two years prior to the date of application for the subject temporary use permit. Any modifications to the existing building for the hardship dwelling must be contained within the existing building -floor area. a-b.This tvoe of medical hardship dwellinf isnot permitted on properties within the • - Use ' • ` 1 or • - 1 zone Ifflay be granted when a rnedieal condition exists. In the Exeiusive Farm Use and Forest zones only, an existing building may be tised as a temporary dweiiing. For the purposes of this section, "existing" mleans the A-.D. The hardship dwelling must use the same onsite septic disposal system used by the existing primary dwelling, provided that the existing onsite septic system is adequate to accommodate the hardship dwelling. If the hardship dwelling will be connected to a community sewer system this requirement does not apply. eondffion rndst be either one of the property owners or a reiative of one of the property $:E Prior to initiating the use, the property owner must obtain all necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building and Onsite Wastewater Divisions. For the purposes of this seetion, a relative is defined as a grandparent, step-gramdparent, grandehitd, parent, step- F. A recreation vehicle hardship dwelling must comply with all of the following requirements: 1 The recreational vehicle must have a sink and toilet; 2 The recreational vehicle must comply with all setbacks of the underlvin zone(s): 3 The recreational vehicle must be fully licensed: 4 The recreationalvehicle must be readyfor highway use on its wheels or iackin system, and must be attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices; 5 A recreational vehicle hardship dwelling located in a special flood hazard area must comply with DCC 18.96; and 6 Permanent attached additions are prohibited. G. One temporary use permit for a hardship dwelling is permitted provided there is no guest house, recreational vehicle as a rental dwelling, or accessory dwelling unit on the subject lot or�arcel A recreational vehicle permitted under DCC 18 116 095(C) is allowed in addition to a hardship dwelling. C H The hardship shall be verified by astate-licensed medical practitioner's written statement. DI_The temporary use permit shall be reviewed annuaRrevery two years to ensure ongoin fer compliance with the terms of DCC 18.116.090. J. Within three months of the end of the hardship one of the following must occur: 1. The manufactured dwelVinghome shall be removed demolished or converted to an allowed use in the underlying zone(s): 2. er tThe recreational vehicle shall be vacated, and disconnected from any electric, water or septic sewer facility connection: or +.-3. Exeitisive Farm Use and Forest zones For an existing building used as a hardship dwellings the building must -tilt be converted to a permitted �STaeiat use in the underlying zone(s). within go days faRowing the date the HISTORY Adopted by Ord. PL-15 on 111111979 Amended by Ord. 89- 004 §5 on 312411989 Amended by Ord. 91-005 §45 on 3/4/1991 Amended by Ord. 2008-022 §2 on 11/1012008 Amended by Ord. 2012-007§5 on 51212012 Amended by Ord.2017-001 §1 on212712017 Amended by Ord. 2023-001 §16 on 5/30/2023 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18.16.050 Standards For Dwellings In The EFU Zones Dwellings listed in DCC 18.16.025 and 18.16.030 may be allowed under the conditions set forth below for each kind of dwelling, and all dwellings are subject to the landowner for the property upon which the dwelling is placed, signing and recording in the deed records for the County, a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 or 30.937. H. Temporary hardship dwelling. A temporary hardship dwelling listed in DCC 18.16.030 is allowed utee following eonditiasubject to th DCC 18 116 090, and the requirements of this chapter. - - - - :- - L. Ld - - NOV.,--. I i E . Rqu: - -- ::::.-: - - ip tUMUMMIME 1-1 bi-1110W wit- ------------ of an aged: : parent,grandparent, grandehiid, ::brother; res*dent. BGC -: •- HISTORY Adopted by Ord. PL-15 on 111111979 Repealed & Reenacted by Ord. 91-020 §1 on 512911991 Amended by Ord. 91-038 §§1 and 2 on 913011991 Amended by Ord. 92-065 §3 on 1112511992 Amended by Ord. 94-026 §1 on 511111994 Amended by Ord. 95-007§15 on 3/1/1995 Amended by Ord. 98-030 §1 on 511311998 Amended by Ord. 98-033§1 on 12/2/1998 Amended by Ord. 2004-001 §2 on 711412004 Amended by Ord. 2004-013 §2 on 912112004 Amended by Ord. 2004-020 §1 on 1011312004 Amended by Ord. 2008-001 §2 on 51612008 Amended by Ord. 2009-014 §1 on 6/22/2009 Amended by Ord. 2012-007§2 on 5/2/2012 Amended by Ord. 2014-010 §1 on 412812014 Amended by Ord. 2018-006 §5 on 1112012018 Amended by Ord. 2021-013 §4 on 41512022 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx CHAPTER-18.36 FOREST_UE®Nla�i_ 18.36.010 Purpose 18.36.020 Uses Permitted Outright 18.36.030 Conditional Uses Permitted 18.36.040 Limitations On Conditional Uses 1.8.36.050 Standards For Single -Family Dwellings 18. 36 060 Siting Of DWe[Unas And Structures 18.36.070 Fire Siting Standards For Dwellings And Structures 18 36 080 Fire Safety Design Standards For Roads 18.36.055 Stocking Requirement 18.36.090 Dimensional Standards 18.36.100 Yards And Setbacks 18.36.110 Stream Setbacks 18.36.12 —State Law Controls 18.36.130 Rimroc —Setbacks 18.36.140 Restrictive Covenants 18.36.030 Conditional Uses Permitted The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed in the Forest Use Zone, subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.36.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18. X. An existing building, or a manufaettireel dwelling in conjumetion= a ternporary use for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ..For thepurposesbuilding in existence on or before March 29, 201-7—.•• • . residence in conjunction with an existing dwelling. A temporary dwelling for medical hardship is conditionally allowed subject to tite DCC 18 116.090 ft&wet"s DCC 18.36.040 and 18.36.060 of this der. As used an this section, 4-.2. Aten;porary residence approved under this subsection is not eligible for replacement under OAR 660-006-025. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. PL-15 on 111111979 Amended by Ord. 86-018 98 on 6/30/1986 Amended by Ord. 90-014 §28 on 711211990 Amended by Ord. 92-025 §2 on 411511991 Amended by Ord. 91-038 §1 on 913011991 Amended by Ord. 92-068 §1 on 121711992 Amended by Ord. 94-038 §1 on 101511994 Amended by Ord. 2000-033 §1 on 121612000 Amended by Ord. 2004-020 §6 on 1011312004 Amended by Ord. 2007-020 §4 on 2/6/2008 Amended by Ord. 2012-007§4 on 51212012 Amended by Ord. 2018-006 §7 on 1112012018 Amended by Ord. 2020-007§11 on 1012712020 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx CHAPTER 18.40 FOREST USE ZONE; F-2 18.40.010 Purpose 18.40.020 Uses Permitted Outright 18.40.030 Conditional Uses Permitted 18.40.040 Limitations On Conditional Uses 18.40.050 Standards For Single-Fam y Dwellings 18.40.060 Siting Of Dwellings And Structures 18 40 070 Fire Siting Standards For Dwellings And Structures 18.40.080 Fire Safes Design. Standards For Roads 18 40 085 Stocking Requirement 18.40.090 Dimensional Standards 18.40.100 Yards And Setbacks 18.40.110 Stream Setbacks 18.40.120 State Law Controls 18.40.130 Rimrock Setback 18.40.03 -Conditional Uses Permitted The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed in the Forest Use Zone, subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.40.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18: temporaryA. Anex*stngbtiiLdong,c)raiiiaiitifnettiredlioi=ne*nee)iijuiietionwitliaiiexist:ngdweiliiigaso defined in ORS 215.283. For the purposes - btl:Wing was in exffistenee on : •• • • 1. A temporary hardsh dwelling is conditionally allowed subject to the provisions in 18.116.090, asvvella-sDCC 18 40 040 and 18 40 060 of this chapter. s • h- `"`" " means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged ot -------------------- 7`1 0;—, - MFOU rs'WaiNF. -- - - - - : : • - - -0U7 Rill NAZZMP.1 A1a:S:T�:Ilf.ul�la9L�l 4:2. A temporary residence approved under this subsection is not eligible for replacement under OAR 660-006-025. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. PL-15 on 1 :'/1/1979 Amended by Ord. 86-018 §8 on 6/30/1986 Amended by Ord. 90-014 §28 on 711211990 Amended by Ord. 92-025 §2 on 411511991 Amended by Ord. 91-038 §1 on 913011991 Amended by Ord. 92-068 §1 on 121711992 Amended by Ord. 94-038 §1 on 101511994 Amended by Ord. 2000-033 §1 on 121612000 Amended by Ord. 2004-020 §6 on 1011312004 Amended by Ord. 2007-020 §4 on 2/6/2008 Amended by Ord. 2012-007§4 on 5/2/2012 Amended by Ord. 2018-006 §7 on 1112012018 Amended by Ord. 2020-007§11 on 1012712020 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx CHARTER 18.60 RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE; RR-10 18 60.010 Purposes 18 60 020 Uses Permitted Outright 18.60.030 Conditional Uses Permitted 18.60.035 Destination Resorts 18.60.040 Yard And Setback Re u� irements 18.60.050 Stream Setback 18.6006 -Dimensional Standards 18.60.070 Limitations On Conditional Uses 18.60.080 Rimrock Setback 18.60.090 Oregon Water Wonderland Unit 2 Sewer District Limited Use Combinin Zone 18.60.020 Uses Permitted Outright The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. A. A single-family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070. B. Utility facilities necessary to serve the area including energy facilities, water supply and treatment and sewage disposal and treatment. C. Community center, if shown and approved on the original plan or plat of the development. D. Agricultural use as defined in DCC Title 18. E. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230. F. Class III road or street project. G. Noncommercial horse stables as defined in DCC Title 18, excluding horse events. H. Horse events, including associated structures, involving: 1. Fewer than 10 riders; 2. Ten to 25 riders, no more than two times per month on nonconsecutive days; or 3. More than 25 riders, no more than two times peryear on nonconsecutive days. Incidental musical programs are not included in this definition. Overnight stays by participants, trainers or spectators in RVs on the premises is not an incident of such horse events. I. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. J. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. K. Historic Home Accessory Dwelling Units, subject to DCC 18.116.350. L. Residential Accessory Dwelling Units, subject to DCC 18.116.355. M. Residential Home. f*�N Temporary Hardship Dwelling, subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. AL 5 on 111111979 Amended by Ord. 91-005 030 & 31 on 31411991 Amended by Ord. 91-020 §1 on 512911991 Amended by Ord. 93-043 §8 on 8/25/1993 Amended by Ord. 94-008 §12 on 6/8/1994 Amended by Ord. 2001-016 §2 on 312812001 Amended by Ord. 2001-039 §5 on 1211212001 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §7 on 412812004 Amended by Ord. 2019-009 §2 on 9/3/2019 Recorded by Ord. 2019-009 §2 on 9/3/2019 Adopted by Ord. 2023-014 §2 on 121112023 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §7 on 1/7/2025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18.55.010 Purpose 18 65 020 RSC; Commercial/Mixed Use District (Brothers Hampton, Millican Whistlestop And Wildhuntl 18.65.021 Alfalfa RSC: Commercial/Mixed Use District 18.65.022 Alfalfa RSC- Residential District 18.85.023 RSC: Omen Space District 18.65.03 -Standards For All Districts 18.65.020 RSC Commercial/Mixed Use District (Brothers, Hampton, Miltican, Whistlestop And Witdhunt A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright, subject to applicable provisions of this chapter: 1. Single-family dwelling. 2. Manufactured home, subject to DCC 18.116.070. 3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 4. Residential home. 5. Two-family dwelling or duplex. 6. Agricultural uses, as defined in Title 18, and excluding livestock feed lot or sates yard, and hog or mink farms. 7. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230. 8. Class III road and street project. 9_Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. 9:10 Temporary Hardship Dwelling, subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 2002-002 §2 on 61512002 Amended by Ord. 2002-028 §1 on 712412002 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §11 on 4/28/2004 Amended by Ord. 2015-004 §2 on 412212015 Amended by Ord. 2016-015 §4 on 71112016 Amended by Ord. 2018-006 §8 on 1112012018 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §6 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2022-014 §2 or) 4/4I20?3 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §8 on 11712025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 1$.65.021 Alfalfa RSC° Commercial/Mixed Use District In Alfalfa, the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted: A. Uses Permitted Outright. 1. Single-family dwelling. 2. Manufactured home, subject to DCC 18.116.070 3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 4. Residential home. 5. Residential facility. 6. Two-family dwelling or duplex. 7. Agricultural uses, as defined in Title 18, and excluding livestock feed lot or sales yard, and hog or mink farms. 8. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230. 9. Class III road and street project. 10. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. �$11 Temporal Hardshi�Dwelling, subject to DCC 18 116.090• HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 2002-002 §2 on 6/5/2002 Amended by Ord. 2018-006 §8 on 1112012018 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §6 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2022-014 §2 on 41412023 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §8 on 11712025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18.65.022 Alfalfa RSC° Residential District A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright, subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter: 1. Agricultural uses, as defined in'fitle 18, subject to the restrictions in DCC 18.65.021(D'), and excluding Livestock feed lot or sales yard, and hog or mink farms. 2. Single family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070. 3. Two-family dwelling or duplex. 4. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. 5. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230. 6. Class III road or street project. 7. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 8. Residential home. $:9. Tempor� Hardship Dwellin subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 2002-002 §2 on 61512002 Amended by Ord. 2002-028 §1 on 7/24/2002 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §12 on 4/28/2004 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §6 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2020-010 §2 on 71312020 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §8 on 11712025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18.66.010 Purpose 18 66 020 Residential (TeR) District 18.66.030 Residential-5 Acre Minimum (TeRS) District 18.66.040 Commercial e— District 18.66.050 Commercial -Rural jTeCR)District 18.66.060 Standards For All Districts 18.66.070 Right -Of -Way Development Standards 18.66.020 Residential (TeR) District The Terrebonne Residential District allows a mixture of housing types and densities suited to the level of available water and sewer facilities. The purpose of this district is to allow new residential development that is compatible with the rural character of the area. A. Permitted uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan review: 1. Single-family dwelling or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070. 2. Two-family dwelling. 3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 4. Agricultural uses as defined in DCC 18.04, involving: a. Keeping of cows, horses, goats, sheep or similar farm animals, provided that the total number of such animals over the age of six months is limited to the square footage of the lot or parcel divided by 20,000 square feet. b. Keeping of chickens, fowl, rabbits or similar farm animals, provided that the total number of such animals over the age of six months does not exceed one for each 500 square feet of property. 5. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards of DCC 18.66.070 and 18.116.230. 6. Class III road or street project. 7. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. 8. Residential home. >9 Temporary Hardship Dwelling, subject to 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 97-003 §2 on 61411997 Amended by Ord. 97-063 §3 on 1111211997 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §13 on 4/28/2004 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §7 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2020-010 §3 on 7/3/2020 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §9 on 11712025 Amended byOrd. 2025-xxx 18.66.030 Residential-5 Acre Minimum TeR4_District The purpose of the Terrebonne Residential-5 Acre Minimum District is to retain large rural residential lots where community sewer and water are not available. A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan review: 1. Single-family dwelling or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070. 2. Two-family dwelling. 3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 4. Agricultural uses as defined in DCC 18.04, involving: a. Keeping of cows, horses, goats, sheep or similar farm animals, provided that the total number of such animals over the age of six months is limited to the square footage of the lot or parcel divided by 20,000 square feet. b. Keeping of chickens, fowl, rabbits or similar farm animals over the age of six months, provided that the total numbers of such animals does not exceed one for each 500 square feet of property. 5. Class I and 11 road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards of DCC 18.66.070 and 18.116.230. 6. Class III road or street project. 7. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. 8. Residential home. �9 Tem_porary Hardship Dwelling, subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 97- 003 §2 on 6/4/1997 Amended by Ord. 97-063 §3 on 1111211997 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §14 on 412812004 Amended by Ord. 20207001 Von 4/21 /2020 Amended by Ord. 2020-010 §3 on 71312020 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §9 on 11712025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18.66.040 Commercial (TeCI ®istrict The Terrebonne Commercial District is intended to allow a range of commercial and limited industrial uses to serve the community and surrounding rural area. A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan review: 1. Single-family dwelling or two-family on a lot or parcel existing on June 4, 1997. 2. Manufactured home on a lot or parcel existing on June 4, 1997, subject to DCC 18.116.070. 3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 4. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards of DCC 18.66.070 and 18.116.230. 5. Class III road or street project. 6. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. 7. Residential home on a lot or parcel existing on June 4, 1997. �:8 Temporal Hardship Dwelling, subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 97-003 §2 on 6/4/1997 Amended by Ord. 97-063 §3 on 1111211997 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §15 on 412812004 Amended by Ord. 2015-004 §3 on 412212015 Amended by Ord. 2016-015 §5 on 71112016 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §7 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2020-010 §3 on 7/3/2020 Amended by Ord. 2 221-004 §3 on 512712021 Amended by Ord. 2022-014 §3 on 4/4/2023 Amended by Ord. 2024-00$ §9 on 11712025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18.66.050 Commercial-RuraltT—eCR) District The Terrebonne Commercial -Rural District allows a mix of commercial and industrial uses common to a farming community. A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan review: 1. Single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel existing on June 4, 1997. 2. Manufactured home on a lot or parcel existing on June 4, 1997, subject to DCC 18.116.070. 3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 4. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards of DCC 18.66.070 and 18.116.230. 5. Class III road or street project. 6. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. 7. Residential home on a lot or parcel existing on June 4, 1997. �8 Temporal Hardship Dwelling, subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 97- 003 §2 on 6/4/1997 Amended by Ord. 2001-016 §2 on 3/28/2001 Amended by Ord. 2001-039 §7 on 1211212001 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §16 on 4/28/2004 Amended by Ord. 2015-004 §4 on 412212015 Amended by Ord. 2016-015 §5 on 71112016 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §7 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2021-004 §3 on 5/27/2021 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §9 on 11712025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18 67 010 Purpose 18_67_020 Residentiat (TuR) District 18.67.030 Residential-5 Acre Mini -mum TuR5) District 18.67 040 Commercial (TuC) District 18.67.05 -Re sea rch And Development(TuRE) District 18 67 060 Industrial (Tul) District 18 67 070 Flood Plain (TuFP) District 18.67.080 Standards For All Districts 18 67 090 Right -Of -Way Development Standards 18 67 020 Residential (TuR) District The Tumalo Residential (TuR) District allows a mixture of housing types and densities suited to the level of available water and sewer facilities. The purpose of this district is to allow new residential development that is compatible with the rural character of the area. A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan review. 1. Single-family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070. 2. Two-family dwelling. 3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 4. Agricultural uses as defined in DCC Title 18, involving: a. Keeping of cows, horses, goats, sheep or similar farm animals, provided that the total number of such animals over the age of six months is limited to one for each 20,000 square feet. b. Keeping of chickens, fowl, rabbits or similar farm animals, provided that the total number of such animals over the age of six months does not exceed one for each 500 square feet of property. 5. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards of DCC 18.67.080 and 18.116.230. 6. Class III road or street project. 7. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. 8. Residential home. �9 Temporary Hardship Dwelling, subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 97-033 §2 on 612511997 Amended by Ord. 97-063 §3 on 1111211997 Amended by Ord. 2001-016 §2 on 312812001 Amended by Ord. 2001-039 §8 on 1211212001 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §17 on 412812004 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §8 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2020-010 §4 on 7/3/2020 Amended by Ord. 2021-013 §8 on 41512022 Amended by Ord. 2024- 008 §10 on 11712025 Amended Ord 2025-xxx 18.67.03- Residential-5 Acre Minimum (iuR5) District The purpose of the Tumalo Residential-5 Acre Minimum District is to retain large rural residential lots. A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan review. 1. Single-family dwelling or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18,116.070. 2. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 3. Agricultural uses as defined in DCC 18.04, involving: a. Keeping of cows, horses, goats, sheep or similar farm animals, provided that the total numbers of such animals over the age of six months is limited to the square footage of the lot or parcel divided by 20,000 square feet. b. Keeping of chickens, fowl, rabbits or similar farm animals over the age of six months, provided that the total numbers of such animals does not exceed one for each 500 square feet of property. 4. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards of DCC 18.67.080 and 18.116.230. 5. Class III road or street project. 6. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. 7. Residential home. �:8 Temporal Hardsh� Dwelling, subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 97- 333 §2 on 6/25/1997 Amended by Ord. 97-063 §3 on 1111211997 Amended by Ord. 2000-033 §11 on 121612000 Amended by Ord. 2001-016 §2 on 312812001 Amended by Ord. 2001-039 §8 on 1211212001 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §18 on 412812004 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §8 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2020-010 §4 on 71312020 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §10 on 1/7/2025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18.67.040 Commercial (TUC) District The Tumalo Commercial District is intended to allow a range of limited commercial and industrial uses to serve the community and surrounding area. A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan review. 1. Single-family dwelling or duplex. 2. Manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070. 3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 4. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards of DCC 18.67.060 and 18.116.230. 5. Class III road or street project. 6. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. 7. Residential home. 8 Temporary Hardsh Dwelling, subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 97-033 §2 on 6/25/1997 Amended by Ord. 97-063 §3 on 11/12/1997 Amended by Ord. 2000-033 §11 on 121612000 Amended by Ord. 2001-016 §2 on 3/28/2001 Amended by Ord. 2001-039 §8 on 1211212001 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §19 on 412812004 Amended by Ord. 2004-013 §7 on 912112004 Amended by Ord. 2015-004 §5 on 412212015 Amended by Ord. 2016-015 §6 on 71112016 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §8 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2020-010 §4 on 7/3/2020 Amended by Ord. 2021-004 §4 on 512712021 Amended by Ord. 2021-013 §8 on 4/5/2022 Amended by Ord. 2022-014 §4 on 41412023 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §10 on 11712025 Amended by Ord 2025-xxx. 18 74 010 Purpose 18.74.02 -Uses Permitted Deschutes Junction And Deschutes River Woods Store 18.74.0 55 Uses Permitted: Spring River 18.74.027 Uses Permitted• Pine Forest And Rosland 18 74 030 Development Standards 18.74.050 Maps 18.74.020 Uses Permitted; Deschutes Junction And Deschutes River Woods Store A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan review: 1. Single-family dwelling. 2. Manufactured home subject to DCC 18.1 16. 070. 3. Two-family dwelling. 4. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.1 16.280. 5. Agricultural uses. 6. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition or subdivision, or subject to the standards and criteria established in DCC 18.116.230. 7. Class III road or street project. 8. A lawfully established use existing as of 11 /05/02, the date this chapter was adopted, not otherwise permitted by this chapter. 9. Residential home. 9 10 Temporal Hardship Dwelling subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 2002-019 §2 on 8/7/2002 Amended by Ord. 2004-002 §20 on 412812004 Amended by Ord. 2008-008 §1 on 3/18/2008 Amended by Ord. 2015-004 §7 on 412212015 Amended by Ord. 2016-015 §7 on 71112016 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §9 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2020-010 §5 on 71312020 Amended by Ord. 2021-013 §9 on 41512022 Amended by Ord. 2022-014 §5 on 41412023 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §1 1 on 11712025 Amended by Ord 2025-xxx CHAPTER 18.108 URBAN UNINC(aRP®RATED COMMUNITY ZONE: SUNRIVER 18 108.010 Purpose 18 10802 -Standards For All Districts 18.108.030 Single Family Residential• RS District 18.108 040 Multiple Family Residential; RM District 18.108.050 Commercial* C District 18.108.055 Town Center; TC District 18.108.060 Resort; R District 18.108.070 Resort Marina; RA District 18.108.080 Resort Golf Course- RG District 18.108.090 Resort Equestrian; RE District 18.108.100 Resort Nature Center; RN District 18.108.110 Business Park; BP District 18 108 120 Community General; CG District 18.108.130 Community Recreation; CR District 18.108.140 Communit�Limited CCL District 18.108.1150 Community Neighborhood• CN District 18.108.160 Airport; A District 18.108.170 Utility; U District 18.108.175 Utility; U District/Limited Use Com aiDiRg District 18.108. 880 Forest; F District 18 108 190 Flood Plain; FP Combining District 18 108 030 Single Family Residential: RS District A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: 1. Single-family dwelling. 2. Recreational path. 3. Residential home. 3:4 Temporary Hardship Dwelling, subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Repealed & Reenacted by Ord. 97-078 §2 on 1213111997 Amended by Ord. 98-035 §2 on 6/10/1998 Amended by Ord. 2004-013 §11 on 912112004 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §12 on 4/2112020 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §13 on 11712025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18.108.110 Business Park: BP �i3riit A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: 1. Residential uses existing as of March 31, 1997. 2. Administrative, educational and other related facilities in conjunction with a use permitted outright. 3. Library. 4. Recreational path. 5. Post office. 6. Religious institutions or assemblies. 7. Child care facilities, nurseries, and/or preschools. 8. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space housing any combination of: Retail/rental store, office and service establishment, including but not limited to the following: a. Automobile, motorcycle, boat, recreational vehicle, trailer or truck sales, rental, repair or maintenance business, including tire stores and parts stores. b. Agricultural equipment and supplies. c. Car wash. d. Contractor's office, including but not limited to, building, electrical, plumbing, heating and air conditioning, painter, etc. e. Construction equipment sales, rental and/or service. f. Exterminator services. g. Golf cart sales and service. h. Lumberyard, home improvement or building materials store. i. Housekeeping and janitorial service. j. Dry cleaner and/or self-service laundry facility. k. Marine/boat sales and service. L. Restaurant, bar and cocktail lounge including entertainment. m. Marijuana wholesaling, office only. There shalt be no storage of marijuana items or products at the same location. 9. A building or buildings e,,�ch not exceeding 20,000 square feat of floor space housing any combination of: a. Scientific research or experimental development of materials, methods or products, including engineering and laboratory research. b. Light manufacturing, assembly, fabricating or packaging of products from previously prepared materials, including but not limited to cloth, paper, Leather, precious or semi-precious metals or stones, etc. c. Manufacture of food products, pharmaceuticals and the like, but not including the production of fish or meat products, or the rendering of fats and oils. d. Warehouse and distribution uses in a building or buildings each less than 10,000 square feet of floor area. 10. Employee housing structures. �-8-:11 Temporal Hardship Dwelling subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Repealed & Reenacted by Ord. 97-078 §2 on 12/31/1997 Amended by Ord. 2012-002 §1 on 212712012 Amended by Ord. 2015-004 §9 on 412212015 Amended by Ord. 2016-015 §9 on 71112016 Amended by Ord. 2019-008 §1 on 3/6/2019 Amended by Ord. 2020-004 §1 on 211912020 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §12 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2021-004 §6 on 512712021 Amended by Ord. 2021-013 §12 on 41512022 Amended by Ord 2025-xxx CHAPTER 18.110 RESORT COMMUNITY ZONE 18.110.010 Purpose 18.110.020 Seventh Mountain/Widgi Creek And Black Butte Ranch Resort Districts 18.110.030 Widgi Creek Residential District 18.110.040 Black_.Butte Ranch Surface Mining/Limited Use Combinin District 18.110.050 Black Butte Ranch-Utility/Limited Use Combining District 18.110.060 Development Standards 18.110.020 Seventh Mountain/Widgi Creek And Black Butte Ranch Resort Districts A. Uses permitted outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.110.050: 1. Single-family dwelling. 2. Residential home. 3. Timeshare units existing as of January 1, 1984 at Black Butte Ranch. 4. Timeshare units at the Inn of the Seventh Mountain. 5. The following resort recreational facilities: Recreational path, picnic and barbecue area, park, playground, and sport courts for basketball, volleyball, and similar small-scale recreation activities. 6. Livestock and horse grazing on common area in Black Butte Ranch. 7. Police or security facility. 8 Temporary Hardship Dwelling subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 2001-048 §2 on 1211012001 Amended by Ord. 2014-009 §1 on 81612014 Amended by Ord. 2014-025 §1 on 911512014 Amended by Ord. 2020-001 §13 on 412112020 Amended by Ord. 2024-008 §14 on 11712025 Amended by Ord. 2025-xxx 18.110.030 Widgi Creek Residential District The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.110.060: A. Single-family dwelling. B. Residential home. C. Residential facility. D. Timeshare units. I)-E. _Temporary Hardship -awe subject to DCC 18.116.090. HISTORY Adopted by Ord. 2001-048 §2 on 1211012001 Amended byOrd. 2025-xxx FINDINGS HARDSHIP DWELLING TEXT AMENDMENTS APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance 11. BACKGROUND: This is a legislative text amendment to Deschutes County Code (DCC), Title 18, County Zoning. The primary purpose of the amendment is to conform local requirements to state law and provide consistency for the review of hardship dwellings across multiple county zones. Notable changes include: • Reorganized content for readability; • Amended outdated references; • Clarified hardship dwelling can be used for the "aged" as well as the "infirmed'; • Clarified "existing building" use and definition for the purpose of the section; • Clarified hardship dwelling can be the only second dwelling on the property; • Amended renewal requirement from every one year to two years; • Listed the use in all permissible Title 18 zones for readability. Since 1979, Deschutes County has allowed property owners to obtain a temporary use permit for a secondary dwelling on a property, with the intent the dwelling would be used for the care of a property owner or relative of the property owner with a medical condition. This would allow for the person with the medical condition to maintain independence and continue to live on a rural property while also receiving necessary medical attention. The current requirements for hardship dwellings were drafted in 2008. Since that time, the state has undergone rulemaking in farm and forest (resource) zones, providing more detailed guidance on the eligibility and requirements for establishing the use. OAR 660-004-0040(8)(f) provides limited guidance on hardship dwellings in rural residential exception areas, only noting that the dwelling type for such use is limited to Recreational Vehicle (RV)s and manufactured homes. To staff's understanding there is no other state guidance for regulation of temporary hardship dwellings in zones that allow for a single-family dwelling as a permitted use and are outside of farm, forest, and rural residential exception areas. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 A, (541) 388-6575 (@d@deschutes.org wwodeschutes.org/cd The purpose of this proposal is to amend the code for greater consistency with state rules and statutes and to establish a consistent review process for hardship dwelling applications across all County zones in which the use is permitted. III. STATE REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL INTERPRETATIONS As noted above, the state of Oregon regulates hardship dwellings in both Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) and in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS). These regulations only apply to hardship dwellings in resource zones - the Exclusive Farm Use Zone (DCC 18.16) and Forest Zones (18.32 and 18.40). ORS 215 283(2)(L) Uses Permitted in Exclusive Farm Use Zones and ORS 215.755(2) - Other Forestland Dwellings require: • The use is subject to ORS 215.296 (Farms Impacts Test) for the EFU zone. • One manufactured dwelling, recreational vehicle, or temporary residential use of an existing building, in conjunction with the existing dwelling as a temporary use for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative of the resident. • Within three months of the end of the hardship, the manufactured dwelling or recreational vehicle shall be removed or demolished or in the case of the existing building, the building shall be removed or returned to an allowed nonresidential use. • The governing body or designee shall provide for periodic review of the hardship claimed under this paragraph. • A temporary residence is not eligible for replacement under subsection (1)(p) of this section. OAR 660 006 0025(4)(t) Forest Lands - Uses Authorized in Forest Zones and OAR 660-033-01300 0) Agricultural Lands Minimum Standards for Permitted and Conditional Uses require: • As used in this section, "hardship" means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged or infirm person or persons experienced by the existing resident or relative as defined in ORS chapter 215. o ORS 215 definition for relative: a relative is defined as a grandparent, step grandparent, grandchild, parent, step-parent, child, step -child, brother, sister, sibling, step -sibling, either blood or legal relationship, niece, nephew, uncle, aunt or first cousin. • The temporary residence may include a manufactured dwelling, or recreational vehicle, or the temporary residential use of an existing building. • A manufactured dwelling shall use the some subsurface sewage disposal system used by the existing dwelling, if that disposal system is adequate to accommodate the additional dwelling. If the manufactured home will use a public sanitary sewer system, such condition will not be required. • Governing bodies shall review the permit authorizing such manufactured homes every two years. • Within three months of the end of the hardship, the manufactured dwelling or recreational vehicle shall be removed or demolished or, in the case of an existing building, the building shall be removed, demolished or returned to an allowed nonresidential use. • Department of Environmental Quality review and removal requirements also apply. The state provides limited guidance on regulations pertaining to hardship dwellings on non - resource lands. The requirement below, which was presented to the Planning Commission during 247-25-000078-TA Findings Page 2 of 8 the deliberation process, applies to rural residential exception areas (MUA-10 and RR-10 zones) but does not provide guidance for the use in other nonresource zones, such as in unincorporated communities. OAR 660 004 0040(8)(f) - Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas requires: Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section or section (10) of this rule, a local government shall not allow more than one permanent single-family dwelling to be placed on a lot or parcel in a rural residential area. Where a medical hardship creates a need for a second household to reside temporarily on a lot or parcel where one dwelling already exists, a local government may authorize the temporary placement of a manufactured dwelling or recreational vehicle. In approaching the amendments, staff has integrated state requirements where possible, for all zones in Title 18 in which a hardship dwelling is permitted, to ensure a consistent and clear process for property owners and county staff. Deschutes County can provide local interpretation of requirements that are not expressly addressed in OAR or ORS. In coordination with the County's Building, Code Enforcement, Coordinated Services, and Onsite Wastewater Divisions, staff identified several policy choices for consideration. Use of Existing Building as a Temporary Hardship Dwelling Property owners can currently utilize an RV or manufactured home for a temporary hardship dwelling in all zones. in farm and forest zones, existing buildings (sheds, accessory structures, barns) are also permitted to be converted for use as a temporary hardship dwelling, per the OAR and ORS. The proposed text amendment package proposes to allow the use of existing buildings in the following zones: • 18.65.020, 021, 022: Rural Service Center Unincorporated Community Zones • 18.66.020, 030, 040, 050: Terrebonne Rural Community Zones • 18.67.020, 030, 040: Tumalo Rural Community Zones • 18.74.020: Rural Commercial Zone • 18.108.030, 110: Sunriver Unincorporated Community Zones • 18.110.020, 030: Resort Community Zones During Planning Commission deliberations, staff discovered the restriction in OAR 660-004-040 noted above and amended the original proposal to exclude the use of existing buildings as hardship dwellings in the RR-10 and MUA-10 zones. To staff's understanding, there are no state restrictions on the zones listed above. Existing Building Definition State regulations do not define "existing buildings" for temporary hardship dwellings. Currently, the code definition is a building "in existence on or before March 29, 2017". To provide additional flexibility, while still seeking to avoid a scenario in which a new building is constructed for temporary use, the proposed text amendments alter the definition to be a rolling eligibility date of two years from the date of final inspection of a building to the submittal date of the temporary use permit for 247-25-000078-TA Findings Page 3 of 8 a hardship dwelling. If the application i5, submitted prior to the two-year date, it does not constitute an "existing building." Modification of Existing Building The proposed text amendments would add a restriction on the modification of existing buildings to be used as temporary hardship dwellings. The intent of the requirement is to limit modifications to minor improvements in the existing building floor area (such as the installation of kitchen facilities) to ensure the use can be converted back to a nonresidential use if the temporary hardship dwelling is no longer needed. The limitation is drafted as follows: "Any modifications to the existing buildingfor the hardship dwelling must be contained within the existing building floor area." RV Component Requirements Code Enforcement has processed several cases involving non -operational RVs that are unfit for habitation. The text amendments preserve existing requirements related to the necessary components and siting of an RV and also clarify that an RV must have a sink and a toilet. Although more restrictive than state law, CDD staff are supportive of carrying forward these requirements to ensure RVs are safe for occupants when used as a temporary hardship dwelling. The proposed text amendments include the following component language: A recreational vehicle hardship dwelling must comply with all of the following requirements: 1. The recreational vehicle must have a sink and toilet, 2. The recreational vehicle must comply with all setbacks of the underlying zone(s); 3. The recreational vehicle must be fully licensed; 4. The recreational vehicle must be ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system, and must be attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices; 5. A recreational vehicle hardship dwelling located in a special flood hazard area must comply with DCC 18.96. 6. Permanently attached additions are prohibited. The Planning Commission supported the proposed text amendment package in its entirety, with the minor amendment to exclude the use of existing buildings as a hardship dwelling type in the MUM 0 and RR-10 zones. Staff requests the Board evaluate these policy options during the hearing process. IV. BASIC FINDINGS: The Planning Division determined minor changes were necessary to clarify existing standards and in various sections of the Deschutes County Code (DCC). Staff initiated the proposed changes and notified the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development on February 6, 2025 (File no. 247-24-000078-TA). As demonstrated in the findings below, the amendments remain consistent with the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and the Statewide Planning Goals. 247-25-000078-TA Findings Page 4 of 8 V. FINDINGS: CHAPTER 22.12, LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES Section 22.12.010. Hearing Required No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless otherwise required by state law. FINDING: This criterion will be met because a public hearing was held before the Deschutes County Planning Commission (Commission) on March 13, 2025, and a public hearing will be held before the Board of County Commissioners (Board) on April 23, 2025. Section 22 12.020, Notice Notice A. Published Notice 1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing. 2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration. FINDING: This criterion will be met as notice will be published in The Bulletin newspaper at least 10 days prior to each public hearing. B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045. FINDING: Posted notice was determined by the Planning Director not to be necessary. C. Individual notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC 22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as required by ORS 215.503. FINDING: The proposed amendments are legislative and do not apply to any specific property. Therefore, individual notice is not required. D. Media notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in Deschutes County. 247-25-000078-TA Findings Page 5 of 8 FINDING: Notice was provided to the County public information official for wider media distribution. This criterion has been met. Section 22 12 030 Initiation of Legislative Changes. A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees as well as by the Board of County Commissioners. FINDING: The application was initiated by the Deschutes County Planning Division at the direction of the Board and has received a fee waiver. This criterion has been met. Section 22 12.040. Hearings Body A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this order. 9. The Planning Commission. 2. The Board of County Commissioners. B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of Commissioners. FINDING: This criterion is met as the Commission held a public hearing on March 13, 2025. The Board held a public hearing on April 23, 2025. Section 22.12.050 Final Decision All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance FINDING: The proposed legislative changes included in file no. 247-25-000078-TA will be implemented by ordinances upon approval and adoption by the Board. OAR 660-015, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES Goal 1: Citizen Involvement: FINDING: The amendments do not propose to change the structure of the County's citizen involvement program. Notice of the proposed amendments was provided to the Bulletin for the Board public hearing. Goal 2: Land Use Planning: FINDING: The purpose of the amendment is to integrate requirements from Oregon Administrative Rule and Oregon Revised Statutes. The proposal has a factual base and is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning districts. This goal is met. Goal 3• Agricultural Lands: 247-25-000078-TA Findings Page 6 of 8 FINDING: The proposed amendments integrate requirements from Oregon Administrative Rule and Oregon Revised Statute for hardship dwellings on agricultural lands. Additionally, the rules provide more express guidance for hardship dwellings on non-agricultural lands to avoid conflicts to farm operations on neighboring properties. This goal is met. Goal 4: Forest Lands: FINDING: The proposed amendments integrate requirements from Oregon Administrative Rule and Oregon Revised Statute for hardship dwellings on forest lands. Additionally, the rules provide more express guidance for hardship dwellings on non -forest lands to avoid conflicts to forest operations on neighboring properties. This goal is met. Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources: FINDING: The proposed amendments do not include changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan policies or implementing regulations for compliance with Goal 5. This goal does not apply. Goal 6: Air Water and Land Resources Quality: FINDING: The proposed amendments do not include changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan policies or implementing regulations for compliance with Goal 6. This goal does not apply. Goal 7• Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: FINDING: The proposed amendments do not include changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan policies or implementing regulations for compliance with Goal 7. This goal does not apply. Goal 8: Recreational Needs: FINDING: The proposed amendments do not include changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan policies or implementing regulations for compliance with Goal 8. This goal does not apply. Goal 9: Economic Development: FINDING The proposed amendments do not include changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan policies or implementing regulations for compliance with Goal 9. This goal does not apply. Goal 10: Housing: FINDING: The proposed amendments provide more flexibility for hardship dwellings, as allowed by state law. The amendments will provide clarity on a housing type for vulnerable populations in the rural county. This goal is met. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services: FINDING: The proposed amendments do not include changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan policies or implementing regulations for compliance with Goal 11. This goal does not apply. Goal 12: Transportation: FINDING: The proposed amendments do not include changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan policies or implementing regulations for compliance with Goal 12. This goal does not apply. Goal 13: Enemy Conservation: 247-25-000078-TA Findings Page 7 of 8 FINDING: The proposed amendments do not include changes to the County`s Comprehensive Plan policies or implementing regulation; for compliance with Goal 13, This goal does not apply. Goal 14: Urbanization: FINDING: The proposed amendments integrate requirements from Oregon Administrative Rule and Oregon Revised Statute for hardship dwellings. The use is already permitted in the underlying zoning districts, there is no alteration to allowance of development density on rural lands. This goal does not apply. Goals 15 through 19 FINDING: These goals are not applicable to the proposed plan and text amendments because the County does not contain these types of lands. 2011 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 3 Rural Growth Management Section 3.3. Rural Housing Policies Policy 3.3.5 Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a diversity of housing opportunities, including initiating discussions to amend State Statute and/or Oregon Administrative Rules to permit accessory dwelling units in Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and Rural Residential Zones. FINDING: The intent of the text amendment is to amend regulations for temporary hardship dwellings to be consistent with state law and administrative rule for resource zones. The amendments will also provide a consistent process for regulation of hardship dwellings in both nonresource and resource zones. These requirements will ensure development continues to comply with all state rules and will maintain the rural character of the County through intentional placement of temporary housing associated with a hardship. VI. CONCLUSION: Based on the information provided herein, the staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed text amendments as drafted. 247-25-000078-TA Findings Page 8 of 8 �vT E S CO Qh� G2� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: April 23, 2025 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Reconsideration of the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update RECOMMENDED MOTION: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board may: • Continue the hearing to a date certain; • Close the hearing and leave the written record open to a date certain; • Close the hearing and set a date for deliberations; or • Close the hearing and commence deliberations. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to reconsider Ordinance No. 2024-007 which adopted the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan ("2040 Plan") The associated file number is 247-25-000145-PA. The record is available on the project website https•//bit.ly/Deschutes204OReconsideration. The hearing will be limited de novo, meaning that only testimony related to the Petitioner's Brief submitted by Central Oregon Landwatch will be allowed. The Petitioner's Brief is found on the project website under "Application Materials." BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner Will Groves, Planning Manager Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel UJ _E S 'C 0 11 ` iw FROM: MEMORANDUM Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner Will Groves, Planning Manager Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel DATE: April 16, 2025 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Reconsideration of Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update The Deschutes Board of Commissioners (Board) will conduct a public hearing on April 23, 2025, to reconsider Ordinance 2024-007, related to the adoption of the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2040 Plan). The associated file number is 247-25-000145-PA. The record is available on the project website https•//bit ly/Deschutes204OReconsideration. The hearing will be limited de novo, meaning that only testimony related to the Petitioner's Brief submitted by Central Oregon Landwatch will be allowed. The Petitioner's Brief is included as Attachment A and found on the project website under "Application Materials". I. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS TO DATE On October 2, 2024, the Board voted 2-1 to adopt Ordinance 2024-007, repealing and replacing the 2011 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ("2011 Plan") with the 2040 Plan (file no. 247-23-000644-PA). The decision was subsequently appealed by Central Oregon Landwatch (COLW) to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The 2040 Plan is not in effect until the appeal process is resolved. On February 20, 2025, the County received the Petitioner's Brief from COLW outlining areas of concern within the adopted 2040 Plan. Staff determined that new issues were raised in the Petitioner's Brief that were not previously discussed at the local level. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.835(3) and 197.797, also known as the "raise it or waive it" doctrine, do not apply to legislative proceedings, therefore, applicants are not required to raise all arguments during the local hearings process to preserve those issues for appeal ORS and Oregon Administrative Rule allow local governments to reconsider a legislative decision in response to new issues raised by LUBA appellants. The LUBA appeal process is paused for the Board to conduct a new hearing and to consider additional testimony, following which it will make a decision on reconsideration. The Board voted on March 5, 2025, to adopt Order No. 2025-004 initiating reconsideration of the 2040 Plan. LUBA confirmed this approach through LUBA Order No. 2024-080, on March 12, 2025. The county is required to complete the hearing process and file a reconsideration decision by September 8, 2025. II. PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND KEY ISSUES FOR RECONSIDERATION The following is a summary of the key issues raised in the Petitioner's Brief. A Repeal and Replacement of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance 2024-007 stated that the effect of the 2040 Plan was to "repeal and replace" the 2011 Plan. COLW characterizes the 2040 Plan as "newly adopted," rather than "amended," because the Ordinance recitals state that it repealed and replaced the 2011 Plan. Based on this language, COLW challenges certain acknowledged goals and policies in past versions of the Comprehensive Plan that were not revisited in the 2040 Plan. COLW argues that those goals and policies that were not revised in the 2040 Plan now need to demonstrate compliance with Oregon Statewide land use goals, including Goal 14, related to urbanization of rural lands. Staff Response: This is a collateral attack on Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that have been acknowledged and in place for years.' The County did not intend to undermine or call into question existing acknowledged policies through the adoption of the 2040 Plan. Use of the phrase "repeal and replace" was employed to simplify the adoption of the 2040 Plan as the 2011 Plan was amended and reformatted to match the state land use goals. A "redlined" copy of the 2040 Plan ("Redlined 2040 Plan"; Attachment B) is attached. This document shows the 2040 Plan content that was pre-existing and those introductory statements, policies and goals that were specifically addressed by adopted amendments. The Redlined 2040 Plan provides the following: • Strikeout and underline comparison of 2011 and 2040 Goal and Policy Language • References to Chapter, Section, Page, and highlights of chapter narrative content that was carried over from the 2011 Comprehensive Plan. 1 Oregon case law defines "collateral attack" as an attempt to challenge the validity of an earlier land use decision in a subsequent, unrelated proceeding. It is disallowed. When a decision is considered final, it cannot be reopened for review in a different context and/or at a later date. Page 2 of 5 Attachment C compares the 2011 and 2040 Plan language with respect to policies challenged in COLW's Petitioner's Brief. More information on the contested policies is found below. B. Goal 14 Compliance - Urbanization of Rural Land COLW alleges that certain provisions of the 2040 Plan violate Goal 14 because they allow "unlimited conversion" of resource -zoned properties to residential, industrial, and commercial uses. The specific goals and policies that COLW challenges are: a. Policy 3.3.6.a. Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that qualify as non -resource land, for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rule, and this Comprehensive Plan. b. Goals 9.2 and 9.3 and Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial goals and policies (see full language in Attachments B and Q. COLW alleges that the policy language does not require that plan amendments apply adequate Goal 14 analysis, including site -specific application of the Curry County factors2. LUBA has issued several decisions on plan amendment and zone change applications and held that the language in the above policies is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Goal 14. COLW asserts that, because the 2040 Plan repealed and replaced the 2011 Plan, the County should include policy language that specifically requires Goal 14 analysis for plan amendment and zone change applications, regardless of whether the land will remain rural or contain potentially urban levels of development. Additionally, COLW alleges that the effect of Policy 3.3.6.a. would be to allow extension of the County's rural residential exception areas (Multiple Use Agricultural - MUA 10 and Rural Residential - RR10), Rural Industrial, and Rural Commercial areas without requiring a new Goal 14 exception. Staff Response: As noted in the first issue area, this argument is a collateral attack on previously adopted and acknowledged policies. Policy 3.3.6.a was not addressed in the County's review and adoption of the 2040 Plan but was simply carried over from the 2011 Plan verbatim, in addition to many policies within 9.2.1-9.3.15. Goals 9.2 and 9.3 were added in the 2040 Plan because those sections previously did not contain goals. The County determined that the inclusion of Goals, under which previously existing policies are now listed, is a best practice. These two goals could simply be removed by z 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Development Commission and Curry County, 301 Or 447, 456, 724 P2d 268 (1986). The Supreme Court held that the county and the Land Conservation and Development Commission had to determine whether the plan allowed no "urban uses" outside of urban growth boundaries unless those "urban uses" were supported by exceptions to land use planning Goal 14 prior to acknowledgement that the plan complied with the goals. Page 3 of 5 the Board on reconsideration to resolve the issues raised by COLW in its appeal. Revisions made to policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 were for purposes of simplification. The Board may decide to revert to the original language from the 2011 Plan to resolve these appeal issues. Individual plan amendment and zone change applications are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable ORS, administrative rule, and Oregon Statewide land use goals. Compliance with Goal 14 and other state requirements will be addressed during the application review process. As noted above, LUBA has not found the 2011 plan policy language is contrary to Goal 14, to date. C. Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code and Comprehensive Plan COLW argues that the MUA-10 and RR-10 zones allow for urban levels of density through cluster and planned developments (PUD).3 Each zone, respectively, allows for cluster or planned developments as conditional uses. The standards for these types of developments either do not include a required minimum lot size (PUDs) or allow smaller than 10-acre minimum lot sizes (cluster developments), which COLW argues violates Goal 14 and could lead to urban levels of density if resource -zoned land is rezoned to MUA-10 or RR-10. Staff Response: DCC 18.32.040 and 18.60.060(C) are acknowledged zoning regulations that have been in effect since 1992.4 This argument is an impermissible collateral attack. III. FORMAT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING The hearing will be held limited de novo. Only testimony related to the Petitioner's Brief submitted by Central Oregon Landwatch to the Oregon Land Use Board Appeals will be allowed. Any interested person may participate in the limited de novo hearing, but issues for discussion are limited as noted. The Board has set the following time limits, which can be modified or eliminated at any time: • Public Agencies: 10 min • General Public: 3 min IV. PUBLIC COMMENT Notice of the public hearing was mailed to prior hearing participants on April 3, 2025, and posted in the Bend Bulletin on April 4, 2025. Staff also sent a courtesy notice via the constant 3 Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.32.040(A) and 18.60.060(C). 4 Ordinance 92-055. Page 4 of 5 contact mailing list. The County's Public Information Officer issued a press release on April 9, 2025, and posted on the County's social media on April 16. As of the date of this memo, 34 public comments have been received. The comments primarily express concern regarding Goal 14 compliance related to the rezoning of farm and forest lands to residential and industrial zones. V. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board may: • Continue the hearing to a date certain; • Close the hearing and leave the written record open to a date certain; • Close the hearing and set a date for deliberations; or • Close the hearing and commence deliberations. Attachments: A. Central Oregon Landwatch Petitioner's Brief B. Redlined 2040 Plan C. Comparison Table of Contested Policies - 2011 and 2040 Comprehensive Plan Language Page 5 of 5 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, V. DESCHUTES COUNTY, Respondent, and CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Intervenor -Respondent. LUBA Case No. 2024-080 PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR REVIEW Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Staff Attorney Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97703 Tel.: (541) 647-2930 Attorney for Petitioner Central Oregon LandWatch David Doyle, OSB #901477 Deschutes County Counsel's Office 1300 Wall Street, 2" d Floor Bend, OR 97701 Tel.: (541) 388-6625 Attorney for Respondent Deschutes County D. Adam Smith, OSB #170317 Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, PC 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 Tel.: (541) 749-1759 Attorney for Intervenor -Respondent Central Oregon Irrigation District I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. STANDING OF PETITIONER.................................................................... l II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................................. l A. NATURE OF THE LAND USE DECISION .......................................... I B. RELIEF SOUGHT.................................................................................. I C. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...............................................................2 D. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS...................................................3 III. LUBA' S JURISDICTION.......................................................................... 5 IV. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR..........................................................5 The decision at Policy 3.3.6.a violates Goal 14 by allowing unlimited conversion of rural farm and forest lands protected by Goal 3 and Goal 4 to residential uses. A. PRESERVATION OF ERROR...............................................................5 B. LEGAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW....................................................6 C. ARGUMENT...........................................................................................6 1. First sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by not ensuring that future PAPA decisions will comply with Goal 14 as required by the Curry County decision........................................................................8 2. Second sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by allowing the unlimited rezoning of rural Agricultural and Forest lands withoutGoal 14 review...............................................................................12 3. Third sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by allowing future conversion of Agricultural and Forest lands to residential uses without any locational inquiry.............................................................18 4. Fourth sub -assignment of error: The MUA and RR zones were created to apply to exception lands and facilitate specific land uses for which goal exceptions were taken, and the decision's extension of those zones to non -exception areas absent new goal exceptions violates Goal 14 andOAR 660-004-0018..............................................................................20 5. Fifth sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by allowing the application of the County's MUA and RR zones to lands designated Agricultural and Forest..............................................................24 Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon Land Watch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 ii V. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR...................................................30 The decision at Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 violates Goal 14 by allowing unlimited conversion of rural Agricultural- and Forest - designated lands to commercial and industrial uses. A. PRESERVATION OF ERROR.............................................................30 B. LEGAL STANDARDS Of REVIEW...................................................30 C. ARGUMENT.........................................................................................30 1. First sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by not ensuring that future PAPA decisions will comply with Goal 14 as required by the Curry County decision......................................................................33 2. Second sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by allowing the unlimited rezoning of rural Agricultural and Forest lands withoutGoal 14 review...............................................................................33 3. Third sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by allowing future conversion of Agricultural and Forest lands to industrial and commercial uses without any locational inquiry..................................36 4. Fourth sub -assignment of error: The RI and RC zones were created to apply to exception lands and facilitate specific land uses for which goal exceptions were taken, and the decision's extension of those zones to non - exception areas absent new goal exceptions violates Goal 14 and OAR 660- 004-0018...................................................................................................... 38 VI. THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR.......................................................42 The decision violates Goal 2 by failing to provide an adequate factual base upon which to determine whether compliance with Goal 14 is achieved where the decision allows unlimited redesignation and rezoning of lands designated Agriculture and Forest to residential, industrial, and commercial development. A. PRESERVATION OF ERROR.............................................................42 B. LEGAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW..................................................42 C. ARGUMENT.........................................................................................43 VII. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................46 Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Josephine County ("Marvin IF), _ Or LUBA slip op at 9 (LUBA No. 2021-116, June 2, 2022) ..................10, 11, 28, 43, 45 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Development Commission ("Curry County'), 301 Or 447, 724 P2d 268 (1986) ...2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 29, 33, 35, 36, 45 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239 nl 1, 259 P3d 1021 (2011)..............................................................:........................................42, 43 Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772(1975)...........................25 Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County ("710 Properties'), _ Or LUBA _, slip op at 36 (LUBA No. 2023-006, July 28, 2023), aff'd, 330 Or App 321 (2024)......................................................13 15 16 17 Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County ("Aceti III'), 79 Or LUBA 253 (2019)................................................................................................38, 41 Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County ("Aceti V"), _ Or LUBA _, slip op at 17-18 (LUBA No 2022-075, Dec 6, 2022), aff'd, 324 Or App 655, 525 P3d 895(2023)......................................................9, 14, 15, 17, 34, 35, 39 Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County ("LBNW LLC'), _ Or LUBA _, slip op at 12 (LUBA No. 2023-008, April 24, 2023)..14, 15, 17, 34, 35, 36 Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County ("Marken'), _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2023-049, February 15, 2024)....................................................29 Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council v. City of Portland, 289 Or App 739, 412 P3d 258(2018)..................................................................................42, 43 Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County, 61 Or LUBA 240 (2010) ..........10, 11 DLCD v. Clackamas County ("Clackamas County'), 335 Or App 205 (2024).7, 10,11, 13, 14,15 DLCD v. Columbia County, 24 Or LUBA 32 (1992)..........................................5 DLCD v. Klamath County, 40 Or LUBA 221 (2001)..................................23, 40 Doob v. Josephine County, 32 Or LUBA 376 (1997)..................3, 19, 28, 29, 38 Doty v. Coos County, 42 Or LUBA 103(2002)...........................................23, 40 Geaney v. Coos County, 34 Or LUBA 189 (1998)................................23, 24, 40 Hatley v. Umatilla County, 256 Or App 91, 109 n6, 301 P3d 920 (2013)...........5 Hood River Valley Residents Committee v. Hood River County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2017-014, June 29, 2017)..................................................... 23, 40 Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 IV Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Coos County, 55 Or LUBA 545 (2008)...........................................................................................10, 11, 29, 45 Parmenter v. Wallowa County, 21 Or LUBA 490 (1991), affd, 114 Or App 362, 835 P2d 152, rev den, 314 Or 574, 840 P2d 1296 (1992)........................5 Restore Oregon v. City of Portland, 301 Or App 769, 458 P3d 703 (2020)......43 Roads End Sanitary District v. City of Lincoln City, 48 Or LUBA 126 (2004) ..5 Shaffer v. Jackson County, 16 Or LUBA 871 (1988)........................................19 Tides Unit v. City of Seaside, 13 Or LUBA 84 (1984)......................................43 Wood v. Crook County, 49 Or LUBA 682 (2005).......................................27, 28 Statutes ORS197.015(10)(a).............................................................................................5 ORS197.175(2)(a).....................................................................................6, 7, 24 ORS197.175(2)(b)...............................................................................................6 ORS197.625(1)(b).........................................................................................7, 24 ORS197.797........................................................................................................5 ORS197.825(1)...................................................................................................5 ORS197.830........................................................................................................1 ORS197.830(2)................................................................................................... l ORS197.835(3)...................................................................................................5 ORS197.835(6).........................................................................................6, 7, 24 ORS 197.835(9)(a)(D).........................................................................................6 ORS197.853(6)...................................................................................................6 Rules OAR 660-004-0018.................................................... 3, 20, 21, 24, 3 8, 40, 41, 42 OAR660-004-0018 (1)................................................................................. 21,41 OAR660-004-0018(2).......................................................................................22 OAR 660-004-0018(2)(a)...................................................................................22 OAR660-004-0018(2)(c)...................................................................................23 OAR660-004-0040............................................................................................10 OAR660-015-0000(2).......................................................................................42 OAR661-010-0071(1)(c)..................................................................................... 6 Deschutes County Code DCC18.100.010-020...........................................................................................2 DCC18.100.020.................................................................................................45 DCC18.128.200(B)(2).......................................................................................27 DCC 18.128.210(D)(3)..................................................................................2, 27 DCC18.32.030(0).............................................................................................27 Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 V DCC18.32.030(P)..............................................................................................26 DCC18.32.040(A).........................................................................................2, 26 DCC18.60.030(E).............................................................................................27 DCC18.60.030(F)..............................................................................................26 DCC18.60.060(C).............................................................................................26 DCC18.74.020(B).............................................................................................45 Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 I 1 I. STANDING OF PETITIONER 2 Petitioner Central Oregon LandWatch (hereinafter "Petitioner") appeared 3 before Respondent Deschutes County during the proceedings leading to the 4 challenged decision. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal 5 pursuant to ORS 197.830 and thus has standing to appeal pursuant to ORS 6 197.830(2). 7 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 8 A. NATURE OF THE LAND USE DECISION 9 This is an appeal of an October 2, 2024 land use decision made by the 10 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (the "decision" or 11 "Ordinance No. 2024-007") that adopts a new 2040 Deschutes County 12 Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP"). The decision repeals the prior 2030 Deschutes 13 County Comprehensive Plan and replaces it with the new 2040 DCCP. 14 The County's decision is a final land use decision subject to review by 15 the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"). The County Board's decision, 16 including the adoption Ordinance 2024-007, the new DCCP, and findings, is 17 found at Record ("Rec.") 24, and is attached at Appendix ("App.") 1. 18 B. RELIEF SOUGHT 19 Petitioner respectfully requests that LUBA reverse or, in the alternative, 20 remand the decision. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 2 1 C. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2 This case is about a lack of comprehensive planning in the newly- 3 adopted Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP), leading to violations 4 of statewide land use planning Goal 14. The new DCCP, at Policy 3.3.6.a and 5 Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 allows unlimited conversion of Agricultural- and Forest- 6 designated properties to residential, industrial, and commercial uses. Some of 7 those residential uses have no minimum lot size. DCC 18.128.210(D)(3). The 8 closer those residential uses are to an urban growth boundary (UGB), the 9 greater the residential density is allowed. DCC 18.32.040(A). For industrial 10 uses, the new DCCP allows concrete plants, freight depots, manufacturing, i 1 distribution outlets, and wrecking yards, anywhere throughout the county. DCC 12 18.100.010-020. 13 The plan requires no Goal 14 analysis for these conversions, which is 14 counter to the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. 15 Land Conservation & Development Commission ("Curry County'), 301 Or 16 447, 724 P2d 268 (1986) and many subsequent LUBA decisions. 17 Whether a land use on land outside of an urban growth boundary (UGB) 18 maintains land as rural land, or urbanizes rural land in violation of Goal 14, 19 requires a locational inquiry. Curry County, 301 Or at 504 n33; Doob v. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 3 1 Josephine County, 32 Or LUBA 376, 381 (1997). The new DCCP allows 2 conversions of Agricultural and Forest lands without requiring this locational 3 inquiry. 4 The zones to which the new DCCP allows conversion of Agricultural and 5 Forest lands were developed to accommodate areas subject to "previously built" 6 and "irrevocably committed" goal exceptions, and the new DCCP's 7 authorization of extending those zones to new lands without taking new goal 8 exceptions violates Goal 14 and OAR 660-004-0018. 9 The haphazard, unplanned development allowed by the new DCCP is 10 contrary to Goal 14's mandate "[t]o provide for an orderly and efficient 11 transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and 12 urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of 13 land, and to provide for livable communities." 14 De SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS 15 The County's prior comprehensive plan was adopted in 2011. Rec. 225. 16 The County began developing a new DCCP in April of 2022. Rec. 1436. This 17 work including several Planning Commission ("PC") meetings on September 8, 18 2022, October 12, 2022, November 10, 2022, December 8, 2022, March 9, 19 2023, March 23, 2023, March 30, 2023, June 8, 2023, June 22, 2023, July 27, Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 0 1 2023, and August 24, 2023. During this time period, extensive public input was 2 gathered, both during PC meetings, at various outreach events, and through an 3 "on-line open house." The County won an award for its extensive community 4 engagement work. Rec. 1436. The County notified DLCD of its proposed 5 post -acknowledgment plan amendment (PAPA) to adopt a new DCCP on 6 August 30, 2023. Rec. 4953. The extensive public input informing the new 7 DCCP received by the County prior to this date is not included in the Record. 8 A large majority of respondents to the County's on-line open house 9 indicated that they oppose "encourag[ing] rural residential development outside 10 urban areas." Rec. 3415. Similarly, a large majority of respondents oppose 11 "rezoning low productivity farmland with poor soil to allow greater 12 opportunities for housing." Rec. 3418. 13 The PC held a hearing on the draft 2040 DCCP on October 26, 2023. 14 Rec. 4703. The PC held continued public hearings on the draft 2040 DCCP on 15 November 2, 2023, Rec. 3826, November 9, 2023, Rec. 3774, December 7, 16 2024, Rec. 3261, and December 14, 2024, Rec. 3246. 17 The Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") held a public hearing on 18 the draft 2040 DCCP on April 10, 2024. Rec. 2464. The BOCC held continued 19 public hearings on April 23, 2024 in the Sunriver unincorporated community, Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 5 1 Rec. 1964, on April 30, 2024 in the City of Sisters, Rec. 1528, and on May 8, 2 2024. Rec. 1220. On October 2, 2024, the BOCC voted 2-1 to adopt the new 3 DCCP and adopted Ordinance 2024-007. Rec. 24-25, App. 1-2. 0 III.LUBA'S JURISDICTION 5 The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners made a final decision 6 under ORS 197.015(10)(a). LUBA has jurisdiction to review such local land 7 use decisions pursuant to ORS 197.825(1). g IV. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 9 The decision at Policy 3.3.6.a violates Goal 14 by 10 allowing unlimited conversion of rural farm and forest lands 11 protected by Goal 3 and Goal 4 to residential uses. 12 A. PRESERVATION OF ERROR 13 The "raise it or waive it" waiver doctrine in ORS 197.835(3) and ORS 14 197.797 applies only to local government quasi-judicial proceedings and not to 15 legislative land use proceedings. Hatley v. Umatilla County, 256 Or App 91, 16 109 n6, 301 P3d 920 (2013); DLCD v. Columbia County, 24 Or LUBA 32, 36 17 (1992); Parmenter v. Wallowa County, 21 Or LUBA 490, 492 (1991), aff d, 114 18 Or App 362, 835 P2d 152, rev den, 314 Or 574, 840 P2d 1296 (1992); Roads 19 End Sanitary District v. City of Lincoln City, 48 Or LUBA 126, 129 (2004). Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 0 1 Nevertheless, Petitioner did raise below that DCCP Policy 3.3.6.a would 2 violate state law by allowing unlimited rezoning of farmland. Rec. 970, 971, 3 4383, 4389, 4401. 4 B. LEGAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW 5 LUBA shall reverse or remand an amendment to a comprehensive 6 plan if the amendment is not in compliance with the statewide planning goals. 7 ORS 197.853(6). Local governments must prepare, adopt, amend, and revise 8 comprehensive plans in compliance with the statewide planning goals, ORS 9 197.175(2)(a), and must enact land use regulations to implement their 10 comprehensive plans. ORS 197.175(2)(b). LUBA must reverse or remand a 11 local decision if it concludes the local government improperly construed the 12 applicable law. ORS 197.835(9)(a)(D). LUBA shall reverse a land use 13 decision when the decision violates a provision of applicable law and is 14 prohibited as a matter of law. OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c). 15 C. ARGUMENT 16 The decision violates Goal 14 by adopting land use regulations that allow 17 unlimited redesignation and rezoning of land designated Agriculture and Forest, 18 and zoned Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") and Forest, to residential uses. All 19 comprehensive plan amendments must comply with the 19 statewide planning 20 goals. ORS 197.175(2)(a); ORS 197.835(6); DLCD v. Clackamas County Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon Laud Watch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 7 1 ("Clackamas County'), 335 Or App 205 (2024). Goal 14 is no exception. 2 "[A]ny decision which allows `urban uses' of `rural land' converts that land and 3 must comply with or take exception to Goal 14, even if that decision does not 4 change the use of the land." Curry County, 301 Or 447 at 501-02 (emphasis 5 original). 6 The decision here repeals the County's former comprehensive plan in its 7 entirety and replaces it with a new DCCP. App. 1, Rec. 24. The plan policies 8 in Deschutes County's new comprehensive plan challenged here may have 9 existed in its prior comprehensive plan, which was acknowledged by DLCD. 10 But the ordinance adopting the County's new plan ordains that "[t]he 2010 i 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 2011-003, is 12 repealed and replaced with the 2040 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan[.]" 13 Rec. 24 (Ordinance No. 2024-007). With the former plan entirely repealed and 14 replaced, the entirety of the new plan must satisfy ORS 197.175(2)(a) and ORS 15 197.835(6), both of which require comprehensive plans to comply with the 16 goals. The new DCCP is specifically not "acknowledged." ORS 17 197.625(1)(b). Any prior acknowledgment of the County's former 18 comprehensive plan does not control whether the new DCCP complies with the 19 Goals. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 �3 1 In the new DCCP, the County adopts Policy 3.3.6.a, which allows plan 2 and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels: 3 "Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, 4 including for those that qualify as non -resource land, for individual 5 EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative 6 Rules and this Comprehensive Plan." (App. 38, Rec. 61) 7 The decision's findings in response to Goal 14 offer no findings supporting 8 whether Policy 3.3.6.a complies with Goal 14. Rec. 222-223. 9 By failing to assure that the conversion of Goal 3- and Goal 4-protected 10 lands to nonresource uses under Policy 3.3.6.a will not urbanize rural land, the 11 decision violates Goal 14's prohibition against allowing urban uses on rural 12 land. Curry County, 301 Or 447, 724 P2d 268 (1986). Below, Petitioner 13 asserts five sub -assignments of error that independently explain why Policy 14 3.3.6.a violates Goal 14. 15 1. First sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by 16 not ensuring that future PAPA decisions will comply with Goal 17 14 as required by the Curry County decision. 18 Goal 14 of the state land use planning goals is "[t]o provide for an 19 orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate 20 urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to 21 ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities." Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 0 1 Prior to the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in Curry County, Goal 14 2 compliance was not required for decisions that removed Goal 3 or Goal 4 3 protections from rural land. Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County 4 ("Aceti V"), _ Or LUBA _, slip op at 17-18 (LUBA No 2022-075, Dec 6, 5 2022), aff'd, 324 Or App 655, 525 P3d 895 (2023) ("In 1979 and 1981, 6 exceptions to Goal 14 were not required for rural commercial and industrial 7 uses.") In Curry County, the Court held that exceptions to Goal 3 or Goal 4 did 8 not ensure compliance with Goal 14, and described several factors that must be 9 considered in the Goal 14 inquiry absent more specific guidance from the Land 10 Conservation and Development Commission: 11 "Exceptions to Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4 and other 12 resource goals cannot generally suffice as exceptions to Goal 14 13 because the former necessitate only a determination that a narrow 14 category of uses, the particular resource uses that are required by 15 the Goal, are impracticable, while the latter necessitates a finding 16 that not merely resource uses, but all other rural uses, are 17 impracticable." Curry County, 301 Or 447 at 485. 18 *** 19 "1000 Friends' three -acre rule proposes a larger lot size than 20 LCDC and LUBA have considered as possibly urban in most 21 cases; it also makes no allowance for considering other factors 22 which LCDC and LUBA have treated as important, such as the 23 size of the area, its proximity to acknowledged UGBs, and the 24 types and levels of services which must be provided to it. LCDC's 25 lawyer stated at oral argument that `because of the varying density 26 of urban fabric you'll find in the State of Oregon, it's virtually Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 10 1 impossible to draw a line and say, one -acre lots are urban, two -acre 2 lots are rural."' Curry County, 301 Or 447 at 505-506. 3 LUBA summarized the Curry County factors and applied them to a 4 residential development proposal outside of a UGB in Oregon Shores 5 Conservation Coalition: 6 "(a) the size of the area in relationship to the developed use 7 (density); (b) its proximity to an acknowledged UGB and whether 8 the proposed use is likely to become a magnet attracting people 9 from outside the rural area; and (c) the types and levels of services 10 which must be provided to it." Oregon Shores Conservation 11 Coalition v. Coos County, 55 Or LUBA 545, 550 (2008). 12 See also Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County, 61 Or LUBA 240, 243 13 (2010); 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Josephine County ("Marvin IF), _ Or 14 LUBA _, slip op at 9 (LUBA No. 2021-116, June 2, 2022) ("an exception to 15 Goal 14 would only be required if the factors discussed in [Curry County] make 16 such an exception necessary. Those factors include lot size, density, proximity 17 to urban growth boundaries, and services that will be needed for the residential 18 development."). (internal citations omitted) 19 The Court of Appeals recently held that Goal 14 prohibits county land 20 use decisions that authorize rezoning of rural lands to allow increased 21 residential density. Clackamas County, 335 Or App 205 (2024). That case 22 largely dealt with "rural residential areas," defined and regulated by OAR 660- 23 004-0040. Importantly, it also clarified that prior acknowledgment of a Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 11 1 comprehensive plan by LCDC does not insulate a county from the requirement 2 that future amendments to a county's land use regulations must independently 3 comply with the Goals and any other relevant state law. Clackamas County, 4 335 Or App at 223. 5 Together, these cases (Curry County, Oregon Shores Conservation 6 Coalition, Columbia Riverkeeper, Marvin II, and Clackamas County) provide 7 that Goal 14 applies to plan amendments affecting rural land, that counties must 8 apply the factors derived from Curry County to development proposals outside 9 a UGB to determine whether Goal 14 is met, and that prior acknowledgment of 10 a comprehensive plan by LCDC does not insulate a county from the 11 requirement that future comprehensive plans or amendments to a county's land 12 use regulations must independently comply with Goal 14. 13 Here, the decision, via Policy 3.3.6.a, fails to ensure that plan 14 amendments authorized by that policy will apply the Curry County factors to 15 show compliance with Goal 14. The absence of any requirement in the DCCP 16 or DCC to show that conversions of Agricultural or Forest land under Policy 17 3.3.6.a do not urbanize rural land violates Curry County and Goal 14. 18 As discussed below, past experience shows that compliance with Goal 14 19 has not been required for PAPAs authorized under the County's prior Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon Land Watch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 12 comprehensive plan, which included the same language as the new DCCP's 2 Policy 3.3.6.a. The new DCCP, at Policy 3.3.6.a, violates Goal 14 by not 3 ensuring that compliance with Goal 14 must be shown for the plan amendments 4 that Policy enables. 5 2. Second sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 6 by allowing the unlimited rezoning of rural Agricultural and 7 Forest lands without Goal 14 review. 8 The decision here repeals the County's former comprehensive plan in its 9 entirety and replaces it with a new DCCP. App. 1, Rec. 24. In the new DCCP, 10 the County adopts Policy 3.3.6.a, which allows plan and zoning map 11 amendments for individual Agricultural parcels: 12 "Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, 13 including for those that qualify as non -resource land, for individual 14 EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative 15 Rules and this Comprehensive Plan." (App. 38, Rec. 61) 16 This policy violates Goal 14. This policy may be interpreted to mean, 17 and has in fact been interpretated to mean, that the County may amend the plan 18 designation and zoning of individual properties but without analyzing those 19 decisions for compliance with Goal 14, because other properties zoned with the 20 County's residential and Rural Industrial zones have been previously 21 acknowledged as compliant with the Goals, including Goal 14. However, a 22 "zoning map change [is] an amendment of a land use regulation; thus, it [is] Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 13 1 subject to the requirements for a plan amendment, including evaluation under 2 the goals." Clackamas County, 335 Or App at 222. That the current decision 3 does not actually amend the plan designation of any property is immaterial; it is 4 Policy 3.3.6.a that enables all future plan and zoning map amendments. 5 Recent plan amendment decisions by Deschutes County have evaded 6 Goal 14 review on the grounds that the County's comprehensive plan and 7 zoning ordinance had been acknowledged as in compliance with Goal 14. For 8 example, in 2023 LUBA relied on past acknowledgment of the County's 9 comprehensive plan, which included similar policies allowing comprehensive 10 plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels, as sufficient to 11 forego site -specific Goal 14 analysis for a decision that rezoned a 710-acre 12 Agricultural property for residential use: 13 "[T]he board of commissioners did not err in relying on DLCD's 14 acknowledgment of the 2016 amendments and in concluding that it 15 was not necessary to conduct a site -specific analysis for 16 compliance with Goal 14." Central Oregon Land Watch v. 17 Deschutes County ("710 Properties'), _ Or LUBA _, slip op at 18 36 (LUBA No. 2023-006, July 28, 2023), aff'd, 330 Or App 321 19 (2024). 20 Similarly, LUBA has relied on past acknowledgment of DCCP policies 21 allowing comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments of individual EFU Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 14 properties was sufficient to forego site -specific Goal 14 analysis for a decision 2 that rezoned a 20-acre EFU property for industrial use: 3 "We conclude that the county correctly determined that the 4 policies and provisions of the DCCP and DCC that apply to the RI 5 zone are independently sufficient to demonstrate that PAPAs that 6 apply the RI plan designation and zone to rural land are consistent 7 with Goal 14 and that uses and development permitted pursuant to 8 those acknowledged provisions constitute rural uses, do not 9 constitute urban uses, and maintain the land as rural land." Aceti V, 10 slip op at 8. 11 In yet another case, LUBA found that the County may forego a site -specific 12 Goal 14 analysis for a decision that rezoned another 20-acre EFU property for 13 industrial use because of existing comprehensive plan policies and land use 14 regulations: 15 "For the reasons set out in Aceti V, we conclude that the county 16 was entitled to rely on its acknowledged RI zone to ensure 17 compliance with Goal 14, and we do not address this element of 18 the assignment of error further." Central Oregon LandWatch v. 19 Deschutes County (`ZBNW LLC'), _ Or LUBA _, slip op at 12 20 (LUBA No. 2023-008, April 24, 2023). 21 All three of these cases relied on comprehensive plan policies similar to those 22 included in the new DCCP. We reiterate, though, that those former plan 23 policies were repealed, and the new DCCP is unacknowledged. App. 1, Rec. 24 24. 25 In Clackamas County, LUBA and the Court of Appeals addressed the 26 applicability of Goal 14 to a proposal to upzone a rural residential -zoned Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 15 1 property to a different county zone that allowed a higher density. Clackamas 2 County, 335 Or App at 207. Even when the comprehensive plan designation of 3 land would not change, but the zoning would, LUBA and the Court concluded 4 that "Goal 14 is intended to apply also to zoning map changes that increase 5 density." Id. at 221. 6 This holding from Clackamas County stands in contrast with the three 7 Deschutes County PAPA decisions cited above (710 Properties, Aceti V, and 8 LBNW LLC) that have redesignated and rezoned Agricultural land for higher- 9 density uses but have found that a site -specific analysis is unnecessary to show 10 compliance with Goal 14. 11 The new DCCP violates Goal 14 by allowing unlimited conversion of 12 Agricultural and Forest lands to residential, industrial, and commercial uses 13 without any Goal 14 review. Goal 14's prohibition on urbanizing rural land 14 requires site -specific inquiries. The County's decision adopting Policy 3.3.6.a 15 into the new DCCP violates Goal 14 by not requiring such site -specific 16 analyses. The result is a plan that allows unplanned, disorderly, and inefficient 17 siting of residential, industrial, and commercial uses both in far-flung corners of 18 the County and near UGBs. Under the new DCCP, these conversions of 19 Agricultural and Forest land can occur without any future inquiry into the Rory Isbell, OSB 4173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 16 1 factors for urbanization of rural land from Curry County. 710 Properties, _Or 2 LUBA _, slip op at 36. 3 In these previous Deschutes County decisions, LUBA and the Courts 4 have held that redesignating and rezoning individual farm properties to the 5 County's RREA plan designation and RR and MUA zone did not violate Goal 6 14's prohibition on urbanizing rural lands. In this appeal of the DCCP policies 7 that authorize all such conversions, LandWatch asserts that unlimited 8 redesignating and rezoning individual farm properties to the County's RREA 9 plan designation and RR and MUA zone does violate Goal 14. At the County's 10 current rate of conversion — around 3,000 acres spread across 24 individual 11 Agricultural -designated properties have been rezoned, or are pending rezoning, 12 to residential and industrial use in the past 15 years — 50, 100, or 500 properties 13 could be rezoned in the coming years. Redesignating and rezoning 100 14 additional properties, assuming each is 80 acres in size, would convert 8,000 15 acres of Agricultural and Forest lands to residential, industrial, or commercial 16 uses. Assuming a 10-acre minimum lot size, this could allow 800 new 17 dwellings and/or industrial or commercial uses on the County's rural lands. 18 Allowing this level of new residential, industrial, and commercial development 19 scattershot throughout the County violates Goal 14. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 17 1 Goal 14 is "[t]o provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural 2 to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment 3 inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide 4 for livable communities." As explained in the fifth subassignment of error, 5 infra, the residential zones (MUA and RR) allowed by Policy 3.3.6.a include 6 conversion to planned developments with urban -scale minimum lot sizes. 7 Petitioner asserts that Goal 14, which mandates "an orderly and efficient 8 transition from rural to urban land use," imposes a limit on the amount of 9 unplanned residential and industrial sprawl a county may allow. The recently- 10 adopted DCCP surpasses that limit by allowing unlimited residential and 11 industrial sprawl, without any regard to where or how much such sprawl is 12 allowed. 13 The decisions in 710 Properties, Aceti V, and LBNW LLC cited above 14 found that no site -specific Goal 14 inquiry need be made for a quasi-judicial 15 PAPA application that rezones individual Agricultural -designated properties. 16 In each case, LUBA held that prior acknowledgment of the County's 17 comprehensive plan as compliant with Goal 14 was sufficient to ensure that 18 PAPAs would comply with Goal 14. In other words, LUBA held that the only 19 opportunity to challenge Goal 14 compliance of a decision that converts Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 I Agricultural land to residential or industrial use is upon comprehensive plan or 2 zoning ordinance adoption and acknowledgment. Petitioner makes such a 3 challenge now in the current appeal. The County's decision here adopting a 4 new DCCP, which includes policies allowing the piecemeal and unlimited 5 upzoning of lands currently protected by Goal 3 and Goal 4, violates Goal 14. 6 Unless the County's new comprehensive plan is remanded directing the 7 County to limit the proliferation of new residential, industrial, and commercial 8 uses throughout the County, Goal 14 review will continue to be evaded. The 9 Oregon Supreme Court in Curry County made clear that Goal 14 review of uses 10 located outside UGBs requires inquiries into both locational (where in relation 11 to UGBs) and intensity (density of development, number of employees, reliance 12 on public services and infrastructure, etc.) factors. The County's new 13 comprehensive plan violates Goal 14 by failing to include any policies requiring 14 such review for future PAPAs. 15 3. Third sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 16 by allowing future conversion of Agricultural and Forest lands 17 to residential uses without any locational inquiry. 18 The locational component of Goal 14 was first articulated in Curry 19 County, where the Oregon Supreme Court discussed lot size, density, 20 "proximity to acknowledged UGBs," and types and levels of services and Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 19 1 infrastructure as relevant to the Goal 14 inquiry. Curry County, 301 Or at 505. 2 The Court wrote: "LCDC says that `what is urban will depend greatly on the 3 locale and the factual situation at a specific site[.]' We agree with LCDC that 4 what is `urban' depends heavily on the context[.]" Id. at 504 n33. 5 LUBA later clarified the site -specific nature of the Goal 14 inquiry in 6 Doob v. Josephine County, where LUBA found that the Supreme Court's 7 holding in Curry County means that PAPAS on rural lands require a site- 8 specific analysis to determine compliance with Goal 14: 9 "[A] determination that a decision does not allow urban uses must 10 address the relevant site -specific factors identified in Curry 11 County. These include the location of the use relative to urban 12 growth boundaries and availability of urban services. Curry 13 County, 301 Or at 505, 508-511. Neither parcel size nor the 14 presence (or absence) of urban services such as public water and 15 sewer is necessarily determinative. The county may not simply rely 16 on the acknowledged status of its zoning ordinance if the ordinance 17 and acknowledgment order do not establish a determination by 18 LCDC that zoning at one -acre density complies with Goal 14 19 regardless of where it may be sited." Doob v. Josephine County, 32 20 Or LUBA 376, 381 (1997) (citing Shaffer v. Jackson County, 16 21 Or LUBA 871, 874 (1988). 22 Goal 14 requires a site -specific analysis, which is especially evident in 23 the factor requiring an examination of a property's proximity to a UGB. Policy 24 3.3.6.a in the County's new DCCP does exactly what Doob prohibits: it allows 25 the County to rely on the acknowledged status of its zoning ordinance to assert Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 20 that rezoning EFU- and Forest -zoned land throughout the county does not 2 violate Goal 14. This lack of a locational inquiry in Agricultural and Forest 3 land conversions that the DCCP authorizes is a misinterpretation and 4 misapplication of Goal 14, Curry County, and Doob. 5 4. Fourth sub -assignment of error: The MUA and RR zones were 6 created to apply to exception lands and facilitate specific land 7 uses for which goal exceptions were taken, and the decision's 8 extension of those zones to non -exception areas absent new 9 goal exceptions violates Goal 14 and OAR 660-004-0018. 10 The County created its Rural Residential Exception Area plan i 1 designation when it adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1979: 12 "During the preparation of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan it was 13 apparent that many rural lands had already received substantial 14 development and were committed to non -resource uses. Areas 15 were examined and identified where Goal 3 and 4 exceptions were 16 taken. At this time exceptions to Goals 11 and 14 were not 17 required. The total area excepted was 41,556 acres. These lands 18 were residentially developed, committed to development or needed 19 for rural service centers." (App. 167, Rec. 190 (DCCP at E-41)) 20 The County applied its Rural Residential (RR) and Multiple Use 21 Agricultural (MUA) zones to the RREA plan designation, created in 1979. 22 Land in the RREA plan designation and MUA and RR zones were areas where 23 "previously built" and "irrevocably committed" exceptions to the Goals were 24 taken upon acknowledgment of the County's first comprehensive plan. App. 25 167, Rec. 190. The uses allowed in these zones were tailored to allow the Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 21 1 continuation of land uses already in existence on those exception lands, 2 pursuant to OAR 660-004-0018(1) ("Physically developed or irrevocably 3 committed exceptions [..] are intended to recognize and allow continuation of 4 existing types of development in the exception area.") 5 New DCCP Policy 3.3.6.a allows the MUA and RR zones to be applied 6 to lands not subject to goal exceptions, permitting all the uses allowed in those 7 zones to occur without justifying new goal exceptions. Although the MUA and 8 RR zones were previously acknowledged to properly implement the goal 9 exceptions taken for the County's "previously built" and "irrevocably 10 committed" residential areas, which comprised 41,556 acres, App. 167, Rec. 11 190, it does not follow that the MUA and RR zones do not urbanize rural land 12 in violation of Goal 14 when applied to areas not subject to "previously built" 13 and "irrevocably committed" goal exceptions. Allowing the expansion of uses 14 for which goal exceptions have been taken to lands where no goal exception has 15 been taken violates Goal 14 and OAR 660-004-0018. 16 OAR 660-004-0018(1) explains how planning and zoning for goal 17 exception areas is limited to allowing continuation of existing types of 18 development exclusively in the exception area: 19 "Exceptions to one goal or a portion of one goal do not relieve a 20 jurisdiction from remaining goal requirements and do not authorize Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 22 1 uses, densities, public facilities and services, or activities other 2 than those recognized or justified by the applicable exception. 3 Physically developed or irrevocably committed exceptions 4 under OAR 660-004-0025 and 660-004-0028 and 660-014- 5 0030 are intended to recognize and allow continuation of existing 6 types of development in the exception area. Adoption of plan and 7 zoning provisions that would allow changes in existing types of 8 uses, densities, or services requires the application of the standards 9 outlined in this rule." 10 At OAR 660-004-0018(2), the rule limits residential uses allowed in exception 11 areas: 12 "(2) For `physically developed' and `irrevocably committed' 13 exceptions to goals, residential plan and zone designations shall 14 authorize a single numeric minimum lot size and all plan and zone 15 designations shall limit uses, density, and public facilities and 16 services to those that satisfy (a) or (b) or (c) and, if applicable, (d): 17 (a) That are the same as the existing land uses on the 18 exception site; 19 (b) That meet the following requirements: 20 (A) The rural uses, density, and public facilities and 21 services will maintain the land as `Rural Land' as 22 defined by the goals, and are consistent with all other 23 applicable goal requirements; 24 (B) The rural uses, density, and public facilities and 25 services will not commit adjacent or nearby resource 26 land to uses not allowed by the applicable goal as 27 described in OAR 660-004-0028; and 28 (C) The rural uses, density, and public facilities and 29 services are compatible with adjacent or nearby 30 resource uses[.]" 31 OAR 660-004-0018(2)(a) requires that "residential plan and zone designations" 32 shall authorize land uses "that are the same as the existing land uses on the 33 exception site." (emphasis added) Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 LUBA has repeatedly held that local governments may not authorize new land uses in goal exception areas that vary from the land uses for which Goal exceptions were taken, and may not extend zones created to facilitate goal exceptions to new lands absent a new goal exception. Geaney v. Coos County, 34 Or LUBA 189, 200 (1998) (redesignating and rezoning land for commercial uses without taking a new goal exception violates Goal 14 and OAR 660-004- 00 1 8(2)(c)); DLCD v. Klamath County, 40 Or LUBA 221, 227 (2001) (that a zone has been applied to rural property and acknowledged does not mean that zone can be applied to any rural property in the future without allowing an urban use in violation of Goal 14); Doty v. Coos County, 42 Or LUBA 103, 115 (2002) ("The acknowledgment of a zone as being generally in compliance with the goals does not ipso facto mean that all uses that may be approved under that zone are necessarily rural in nature."); Hood River Valley Residents Committee 14 v. Hood River County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2017-014, June 29, 2017) 15 16 17 18 19 (holding that a prior goal exception to permit an industrial use on land protected by Goal 4 did not permit a new commercial use absent a new exception to Goal 14). Here, new DCCP Policy 3.3.6.a allows all of the uses of the RR and MUA zones to be applied to unlimited acres of new lands without taking new Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 24 1 exceptions to Goal 14. OAR 660-004-0018 and Geaney, 34 Or LUBA at 200, 2 disallow extending the RR and MUA zones to new lands absent new goal 3 exceptions. 4 5. Fifth sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by 5 allowing the application of the County's MUA and RR zones to 6 lands designated Agricultural and Forest. 7 The two residential zones that DCCP Policy 3.3.6.a allows to be applied 8 to lands designated Agricultural and Forest are the MUA and RR zones. 9 Policies similar to Policies 3.3.6.a may have existed in the County's prior 10 comprehensive plan, which was acknowledged by DLCD. But, again, the 11 ordinance adopting the County's new DCCP ordains that "[t]he 2010 Deschutes 12 County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 2011-003, is repealed and 13 replaced with the 2040 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan[.]" App. 1, Rec. 14 24. With the former plan entirely repealed and replaced, the entirety of the new 15 plan must satisfy ORS 197.175(2)(a) and ORS 197.835(6), both of which 16 require comprehensive plans to be in compliance with the goals. The new 17 DCCP is not "acknowledged." ORS 197.625(1)(b). The entirety of the new 18 DCCP must be acknowledged as in compliance with the Goals, notwithstanding 19 any prior acknowledgment of the prior comprehensive plan. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 25 1 Further, the Deschutes County Code (DCC) cannot conflict with the 2 DCCP; in other words, any section of the DCC that is not authorized by an 3 acknowledged DCCP or that conflicts with the DCCP is invalid. Baker v. City 4 of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 514, 533 P2d 772, 779 (1975) ("[W]e conclude that 5 a comprehensive plan is the controlling land use planning instrument for a city. 6 Upon passage of a comprehensive plan a city assumes a responsibility to 7 effectuate that plan and conform prior conflicting zoning ordinances to it. 8 We further hold that the zoning decisions of a city must be in accord with that 9 plan and a zoning ordinance which allows a more intensive use than that 10 prescribed in the plan must fail.") (emphasis added). The seminal Oregon land 11 use case Baker v. City of Milwaukie is directly applicable here, as it requires 12 local governments to conform zoning codes to newly -adopted comprehensive 13 plans. Id. 14 In challenging Deschutes County's newly -adopted comprehensive plan, 15 we implicitly also challenge the County's MUA and RR zones which the Plan 16 effectuates. However, this appeal is not a collateral attack on the MUA and RR 17 zones; it is an attack on the new DCCP that authorizes those zones' application 18 to Agricultural and Forest lands converted to nonresource lands. Rory Isbell, O5B #173780 Central Oregon Land Watch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W Deschutes County implements its Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) plan designation through two zones, the MUA zone and the RR zone. The minimum lot size of the MUA zone is 10 acres, except that the DCC allows a "five -acre minimum lot size or equivalent density" in the MUA zone when a property is within one mile of a UGB: "The minimum lot size shall be 10 acres, except planned and cluster developments shall be allowed an equivalent density of one unit per seven and one-half acres and planned and cluster developments within one mile of an acknowledged urban growth boundary shall be allowed a five acre minimum lot size or equivalent density." (DCC 18.32.040(A)) (emphasis added) The RR zone also has a minimum lot size of 10 acres, and the DCC also allows a "five -acre minimum lot size or equivalent density" when property is within one mile of a UGB in the RR zone: "Minimum lot size shall be 10 acres, except planned and cluster developments shall be allowed an equivalent density of one unit per 7.5 acres. Planned and cluster developments within one mile of an acknowledged urban growth boundary shall be allowed a five - acre minimum lot size or equivalent density. For parcels separated by new arterial rights of way, an exemption shall be granted pursuant to DCC 18.120.020." (DCC 18.60.060(C)) For both the MUA and RR zones, a density of one dwelling unit per five acres is allowed within one mile of a UGB. Both the MUA and RR zones conditionally allow cluster developments. DCC 18.32.030(P), DCC 18.60.030(F). In a cluster development, the minimum Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 27 1 lot size for residential dwellings in both the MUA and RR zone is two acres, 2 with a maximum of three acres: 3 "The area not dedicated to open space or common use may be 4 platted as residential dwelling lots or parcels that are a minimum of 5 two acres and a maximum of three acres in size. Their use shall be 6 restricted to single-family use. Single-family use may include 7 accessory uses and County authorized home occupations. Uses 8 permitted in the open space area may include the management of 9 natural resources, trail systems or other outdoor uses that are 10 consistent with the character of the natural landscape." (DCC 11 18.128.200(B)(2)) 12 Both the MUA and RR zones also conditionally allow planned 13 developments. DCC 18.32.030(0), DCC 18.60.030(E). In a planned 14 development in both the MUA and RR zones, there is no minimum lot size: 15 "The minimum lot area, width, frontage and yard requirements 16 otherwise applying to individual buildings in the zone in which a 17 planned development is proposed do not apply within a planned is development. An equivalent overall density factor may be utilized 19 in lieu of the appropriate minimum lot area." (DCC 20 18.128.210(D)(3)) 21 A county zone with "no minimum parcel size" in planned developments 22 allows residential "densities that clearly could be inconsistent with Goal 14." 23 Wood v. Crook County, 49 Or LUBA 682, 693 (2005). Deschutes County's 24 MUA and RR zones impose no minimum lots sizes for planned developments. 25 DCC 18.128.210(D)(3). The new DCCP at Policy 3.3.6.a allows these zones to 26 be applied to new lands without taking exceptions to Goal 14. The DCCP, as Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 lt:? 1 implemented by the MUA and RR zones, is inconsistent with Goal 14. Wood, 2 49 Or LUBA at 693. 3 The MUA and RR zones' allowance of planned developments with lot 4 sizes lower than the minimum lot size of the zones, which is 10 acres, 5 authorizes an urban level of density. This is precisely the conclusion of LUBA 6 in Marvin II, slip op at 9: 7 "Because the JCC allows the creation of PUDs with lot sizes lower 8 than the zone minimum lot size and the board of commissioners 9 relied on the ability to form PUDs to meet applicable criteria, 10 petitioners argue that there is not substantial evidence in the record 11 that density will not be at an urban level. We agree." 12 Nearly the same was found in Doob v. Josephine County, 32 Or LUBA 364, 13 373-374 (1997) (rural residential zone that only limits the number of lots but 14 does not impose minimum lot sizes is insufficient to show compliance with 15 Goal 14). The new DCCP at Policy 3.3.6.a allows these zones to be applied to 16 new lands without taking exceptions to Goal 14. The DCCP, as implemented 17 by the MUA and RR zones, is inconsistent with Goal 14. Marvin II, slip op at 19 Aside from densities and minimum lot sizes, the new DCCP at Policy 20 3.3.6.a allows conversion of Agricultural and Forest lands to the RREA plan 21 designation and its MUA and RR zones in close proximity to UGBs. History Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 29 1 shows that the County will rezone Agricultural -designated properties to these 2 zones for lands adjacent to UGBs. Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes 3 County ("Marken'), _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2023-049, February 15, 4 2024). Proximity to UGBs is one of the Curry County factors. Doob, 32 Or 5 LUBA at 381; Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, 55 Or LUBA at 550. As 6 described above, the MUA and RR zones specifically allow an increased 7 density of residential development, and smaller lot sizes, when within close 8 proximity (1 mile) to a UGB. New DCCP Policy 3.3.6.a violates Goal 14 by 9 failing to require any consideration of proximity to a UGB when rezoning 10 Agricultural and Forest lands to the MUA and RR zones. 11 Policy 3.3.6.a of the new DCCP authorizes redesignating and rezoning 12 Agricultural and Forest lands to the MUA and RR zones. The closer those 13 zones are to UGBs, the more likely their residents will also rely on urban public 14 services and infrastructure. The "types and levels of services," Oregon Shores, 15 55 Or LUBA at 550, that would be provided to residents of properties converted 16 to RREA under Policy 3.3.6.a would nearly all be from urban service providers, 17 especially when within one mile of a UGB. Future residents of such lands 18 would drive on urban roads, attend urban schools, ride urban public transit, visit 19 urban libraries, use urban healthcare services, rely on urban public safety Rory Isbell, 0S13 #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 30 1 services, and patronize urban commercial services. Any new development in 2 the MUA and RR zones near UGBs will undoubtedly rely on a variety of urban 3 services, becoming essentially an extension of urban populations, but existing 4 outside UGBs and outside acknowledged exception areas. Policy 3.3.6.a 5 frustrates the effectiveness of Deschutes County's UGBs, which also violates 6 Goal 14. 7 V. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 8 The decision at Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 violates Goal 14 by 9 allowing unlimited conversion of rural Agricultural- and 10 Forest -designated lands to commercial and industrial uses. 11 A. PRESERVATION OF ERROR 12 See the Preservation of Error for the First Assignment of Error. 13 Petitioner raised below that DCCP Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 would violate 14 state law by allowing unlimited rezoning of farmland for industrial and 15 commercial uses. Rec. 969-971, 4393-4397, 4401. 16 B. LEGAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW 17 See the Standards of Review under the First Assignment of Error. 18 C. ARGUMENT 19 In addition to Policy 3.3.6.a, the subject of Petitioner's First Assignment 20 of Error, the decision adopts policies into the new DCCP that allow unlimited 21 redesignation and rezoning land designated Agriculture and Forest and zoned Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 31 1 Exclusive Farm Use and Forest to industrial and commercial uses. The new 2 DCCP adopts several goals and policies that allow and support the unlimited 3 siting of new industrial and commercial uses throughout the rural county: 4 "Goal 9.2: Support creation and continuation of rural commercial 5 areas that support rural communities while not adversely affecting 6 nearby agricultural and forest uses." (App. 85, Rec. 108) 7 "Policy 9.2.1: Allow for new Rural Commercial zoning 8 designations if otherwise allowed by Oregon Revised Statute, 9 Administrative Rule, and this Comprehensive Plan." (App. 85, 10 Rec.108) 11 "Goal 9.3: Support the creation and continuation of rural industrial 12 areas that support rural communities while not adversely affecting 13 nearby agricultural and forest uses." (App. 86, Rec. 109) 14 "Policy 9.3.2. To assure that urban uses are not permitted on rural 15 industrial lands, land use regulations in the Rural Industrial zones 16 shall ensure that the uses allowed are less intensive than those 17 allowed for unincorporated communities in OAR 660-22 or any 18 successor." (App. 86, Rec. 109) 19 "Policy 9.3.15: Properties for which a property owner has 20 demonstrated that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply may be considered 21 for Rural Industrial designation as allowed by State Statute, 22 Oregon Administrative rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Rural 23 Industrial zoning shall be applied to a new property that is 24 approved for the Rural Industrial Plan designation." (App. 87, 25 Rec.110) 26 Similarly to Policy 3.3.6.a, the decision's findings in response to Goal 14 offer 27 no findings supporting whether these policies comply with Goal 14. App. 199- Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 32 1 200, Rec. 222-223. Interestingly, the findings do discuss these policies in 2 response to Goal 9: Economic Development: 3 "Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 are retained from the 2011/1979 Plan. These 4 policies govern existing Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial 5 designated properties. These properties were previously evaluated 6 under OAR 660-023 and determined to have pre-existing 7 commercial or industrial uses that do not fit into any of the 8 unincorporated community categories." (App. 196, Rec. 219) 9 In this finding, the County accurately describes how most of its Rural Industrial 10 and Rural Commercial lands are subject to "previously built" and "irrevocably 11 committed" goal exceptions, and the County's RI and RC zones were 12 developed to allow the continuation of those uses on exception lands. These 13 findings are inadequate, however, to justify what Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 actually 14 allow, which is the unlimited application of the RI and RC zones to Agricultural 15 and Forest lands across the County without taking new goal exceptions. 16 Similar to the First Assignment of Error, Petitioner asserts five 17 subassignments of error below, each independently arguing that Policies 9.2.1- 18 9.3.15 violate Goal 14. Several of these subassignments are similar to the 19 subassignments argued in the First Assignment of Error, but with meaningful 20 distinctions applicable to Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 that specifically authorize 21 industrial and commercial uses on lands designated Agriculture and Forest. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 33 1 1. First sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 by 2 not ensuring that future PAPA decisions will comply with Goal 3 14 as required by the Curry County decision. 4 Petitioner incorporates by reference the entire First sub -assignment of 5 error of the First Assignment of Error, supra, as applied to Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15. 6 Just as Policy 3.3.6.a violates Goal 14 by not ensuring that compliance 7 with Goal 14 must be shown for plan amendments that redesignate resource 8 land to rural residential uses, Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 violate Goal 14 by not 9 ensuring that compliance with Goal 14 must, be shown for plan amendments 10 that redesignate resource land to industrial and commercial uses. 11 2. Second sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 12 by allowing the unlimited rezoning of rural Agricultural and 13 Forest lands without Goal 14 review. 14 Petitioner incorporates by reference the entire First sub -assignment of 15 error of the First Assignment of Error, supra, as applied to Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15. 16 Just as Policy 3.3.6.a allows unlimited rezoning of "EFU" lands to rural 17 residential uses, Policy 9.3.15 allows unlimited redesignation of lands currently 18 designated under "Goals 3 and 4" to industrial uses: 19 "Policy 9.3.15: Properties for which a property owner has 20 demonstrated that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply may be considered 21 for Rural Industrial designation as allowed by State Statute, 22 Oregon Administrative rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Rural 23 Industrial zoning shall be applied to a new property that is 24 approved for the Rural Industrial Plan designation." (App. 87, 25 Rec. 110) Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 34 1 LUBA has found that past acknowledgment of DCCP policies allowing 2 comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments of individual EFU properties 3 was sufficient to forego site -specific Goal 14 analysis for a decision that 4 rezoned a 20-acre EFU property for industrial use: 5 "We conclude that the county correctly determined that the 6 policies and provisions of the DCCP and DCC that apply to the RI 7 zone are independently sufficient to demonstrate that PAPAs that 8 apply the RI plan designation and zone to rural land are consistent 9 with Goal 14 and that uses and development permitted pursuant to 10 those acknowledged provisions constitute rural uses, do not 11 constitute urban uses, and maintain the land as rural land." Aceti 12 V, slip op at 8. 13 In another case, LUBA found that the County may forego a site -specific Goal 14 14 analysis for a decision that rezoned another 20-acre EFU property for 15 industrial use because of existing comprehensive plan policies and land use 16 regulations: 17 "For the reasons set out in Aceti V, we conclude that the county 18 was entitled to rely on its acknowledged RI zone to ensure 19 compliance with Goal 14, and we do not address this element of 20 the assignment of error further." LBNW LLC, slip op at 12. 21 Goal 14's prohibition on urbanizing rural land requires site -specific and 22 locational inquiries. The County's decision to adopt Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 23 violates Goal 14 by including policies that allow unlimited rezoning of 24 Agricultural and Forest lands but without requiring such site -specific Goal 14 25 analyses. The result is a plan that allows unplanned, disorderly, and inefficient Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 35 1 siting of industrial and commercial uses both in far-flung corners of the County 2 and near UGBs. Under the new DCCP, these conversions of Agricultural and 3 Forest land can occur without any future inquiry into the factors for 4 urbanization of rural land from Curry County and LUBA's decision in Shaffer 5 v. Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922, 928 (1989). 6 Just as we argue in the Second sub -assignment to the First Assignment of 7 Error, supra, the new DCCP violates Goal 14's "orderly and efficient transition 8 from rural to urban land use" by allowing unlimited industrial and commercial 9 sprawl, without any regard to where or how much such sprawl is allowed. The 10 decisions in Aced V and LBNW LLC found that no site -specific Goal 14 inquiry 11 need be made for a quasi-judicial PAPA application rezones individual EFU- 12 zoned properties to industrial use. In both cases, LUBA held that the County 13 could rely on its acknowledged comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to 14 satisfy Goal 14. 15 Petitioner challenges the unacknowledged new DCCP now. Goal 14 16 requires "orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use," and 17 Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 fail to ensure such a transition by authorizing unlimited 18 and haphazard industrial and commercial uses throughout the county. With two 19 haphazard conversions already recently completed (see Aced V and LBNW Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 36 1 LLC), and with others pending locally, it is not unreasonable to assume that 2 Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 will enable many more haphazard rezonings of 3 Agricultural and Forest land to industrial and commercial uses. The County's 4 new comprehensive plan violates Goal 14 by failing to include any policies 5 requiring site -specific Goal 14 review for future PAPAs requesting rezoning to 6 industrial and commercial uses. 7 3. Third sub -assignment of error: The decision violates Goal 14 8 by allowing future conversion of Agricultural and Forest lands 9 to industrial and commercial uses without any locational 10 inquiry. 11 Petitioner incorporates by reference the entire Third sub -assignment of 12 error of the First Assignment of Error, supra, as applied to Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15. 13 Three years after the Curry County decision, LUBA described the Curry 14 County factor test for determining whether a decision converts rural land to 15 urban industrial uses in violation of Goal 14 in Shaffer v. Jackson County, 17 16 Or LUBA 922, 928 (1989): 17 "Under the Supreme Court's decision in [Curry County], it may 18 well be there is nothing inherently rural or urban about residential, 19 commercial, industrial or other types of uses. Rather there are 20 merely a number of relevant factors to be considered, such 21 as parcel size, intensity of use, necessity for urban facilities and 22 proximity to a UGB." (emphasis added) Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 91A 1 In that same decision, LUBA declared a number of other factors that must be 2 considered when determining whether a particular land use offends Goal 14's 3 prohibition on siting urban industrial uses on rural lands: 4 "(1) relevant characteristics of the proposed use (such as number of 5 employees, noise, odor, dust and other pollutants emitted, 6 associated traffic); (2) the ultimate use of the products of the 7 proposed use (e.g., whether for urban or rural uses, and in what 8 proportions); (3) the characteristics of urban development in 9 nearby UGBs; (4) where other similar uses in the county are 10 located; and (5) whether there is a practical necessity to locate 11 the proposed use in the rural area, close to a site specific 12 resource." Shaffer, 17 Or LUBA at 946. (emphasis added) 13 The Shaffer case, which concerned a Goal 14 challenge to a decision that 14 allowed industrial uses on rural lands, confirmed that Goal 14 requires a 15 locational inquiry. The decision here, through Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15, allows the 16 siting of new industrial and commercial uses on Agricultural and Forest lands 17 without any site -specific or locational analysis. Addressing a property's 18 proximity to a UGB, the characteristics of urban development in nearby UGBs, 19 where other similar uses in the county are located, and whether there is a 20 practical necessity to locate the proposed use in the rural area close to a site- 21 specific resource, Shaffer, 17 Or LUBA at 946, all depend on where a property 22 is located. A county may not rely on the acknowledged status of its zoning 23 ordinance to assert that rezoning EFU- and Forest -zoned land throughout the Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Leto Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 K: 1 county to industrial and commercial uses does not violate Goal 14. Doob, 32 2 Or LUBA at 381. The new DCCP, through Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15, violate Goal 3 14 by allowing conversion of Agricultural and Forest lands to industrial and 4 commercial uses without any locational inquiry. 5 4. Fourth sub -assignment of error: The RI and RC zones were 6 created to apply to exception lands and facilitate specific land 7 uses for which goal exceptions were taken, and the decision's 8 extension of those zones to non -exception areas absent new 9 goal exceptions violates Goal 14 and OAR 660-004-0018. 10 Petitioner incorporates by reference the entire Fourth sub -assignment of 11 error of the First Assignment of Error, supra, as applied to Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15. 12 The County adopted its RI plan designation when it adopted its first 13 comprehensive plan in 1979 to facilitate a handful of properties containing 14 commercial and industrial development that predated state land use laws. 15 Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County ("Aceti III'), 79 Or LUBA 16 253, 255 (2019). The County's Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning 17 applied to those specific exception areas. Id. The RI zone was amended in the 18 early 2000s to ensure uses in the exception areas were less intensive than uses 19 allowed in unincorporated communities following LCDC's adoption of its 20 unincorporated communities rules. Id. at 256. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2943 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 39 In the Aceti V case, LUBA found that application of the County's RI zone to new lands did not violate Goal 14 because provisions of the DCCP and DCC authorizing the RI zone had previously been acknowledged by LCDC as allowing industrial uses less intensive than the uses allowed in unincorporated communities: "[C]ounty 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. The acknowledged DCC chapter 18.100 provisions that will apply to all development on the property will ensure that any allowed uses and development constitute rural use of rural land, consistent with Goal 14." Aceti V, slip op at 17-18. Here, the new DCCP repeals and replaces the former comprehensive plan. App. 1, Rec. 24. The policies and provisions of the DCCP that authorize new industrial and commercial uses on Agricultural and Forest lands must be shown to be compliant with Goal 14 anew. Petitioner asserts that Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 violated Goal 14 by allowing the County's Rural Industrial and Rural Commercial zones to be applied to additional lands without taking exceptions to Goal 14. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 M 1 Although the RI and RC zones may have been acknowledged to properly 2 implement the goal exceptions taken for the County's "previously built" and 3 "irrevocably committed" industrial and commercial areas, it does not follow 4 that the RI and RC zones do not urbanize rural land in violation of Goal 14 5 when applied to areas not subject to "previously built" and "irrevocably 6 committed" goal exceptions. Allowing the expansion of uses for which goal 7 exceptions have been taken to lands where no goal exception has been taken 8 violates Goal 14 and OAR 660-004-0018. 9 Again, as argued in the Fourth subassignment to the First Assignment of 10 Error, supra, LUBA has repeatedly held that local governments may not 11 authorize new land uses in goal exception areas that vary from the land uses for 12 which Goal exceptions were taken, and may not extend zones created to 13 facilitate goal exceptions to new lands absent a new goal exception. Geaney v. 14 Coos County, 34 Or LUBA 189,200 (1998); DLCD v. Klamath County, 40 Or 15 LUBA 221, 227 (2001); Doty v. Coos County, 42 Or LUBA 103, 115, (2002); 16 Hood River Valley Residents Committee v. Hood River County, _ Or LUBA 17 (LUBA No. 2017-014, June 29, 2017). 18 The RI and RC zones were amended in the early 2000s to ensure that the 19 uses in the 1979 industrial and commercial exception areas "remain rural and Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 41 1 that the uses allowed are less intensive that those allowed in unincorporated 2 communities." Aceti III at 256. A use being "less urban" than uses allowed in 3 an unincorporated community does not suffice to prove an industrial or 4 commercial use complies with Goal 14 on lands not subject to a Goal 14 5 exception. New DCCP Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15, which allow unlimited RI and RC 6 uses throughout the county, would change the legal standard for compliance 7 with Goal 14 from proof of whether a use is urban or rural, the standard set by 8 the Supreme Court in Curry County, to a standard of whether a use is simply 9 less urban than a use in an unincorporated community. That standard does not 10 exist in Goal 14 or in any other applicable law. 11 Moreover, this uncodified "less urban than a use in an unincorporated 12 community" rule for Goal 14 compliance is contrary to OAR 660-004-0018, 13 which limits uses in goal exception areas to the uses for which a goal exception 14 was taken. The rule makes clear that "exceptions to one goal or a portion of 15 one goal do not relieve a jurisdiction from remaining goal requirements and do 16 not authorize uses, densities, public facilities and services, or activities other 17 than those recognized or justified by the applicable exception." OAR 660-004- 18 0018(1). "Physically developed or irrevocably committed exceptions [] are Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 42 1 intended to recognize and allow continuation of existing types of development 2 in the exception area." Id. (emphasis added). 3 Here, new DCCP Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 allow all of the uses of the RI and 4 RC zones to be applied to unlimited acres of new lands without taking new 5 exceptions to Goal 14. OAR 660-004-0018 disallows extending the RI and RC 6 zones to new lands absent new goal exceptions. 7 VI. THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 8 The decision violates Goal 2 by failing to provide an 9 adequate factual base upon which to determine whether 10 compliance with Goal 14 is achieved where the decision allows 11 unlimited redesignation and rezoning of lands designated 12 Agriculture and Forest to residential, industrial, and 13 commercial development. 14 A. PRESERVATION OF ERROR 15 See the Preservation of Error for the First and Second Assignments of 16 Error. 17 B. LEGAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW 18 Legislative land use decisions must be supported by an adequate factual 19 base. Goal 2; OAR 660-015-0000(2); Columbia Pacific Building Trades 20 Council v. City of Portland, 289 Or App 739, 755, 412 Pad 258 (2018); 1000 21 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239,268 nl 1, 259 P3d 1021 (2011). Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 43 1 An "adequate factual base" for a legislative land use decision is 2 synonymous with the requirement that a decision be supported by substantial 3 evidence. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App at 268 nl 1. LUBA 4 determines if a decision is supported by substantial evidence by determining if, 5 viewing the record as a whole, a reasonable person could make the disputed 6 finding. Restore Oregon v. City of Portland, 301 Or App 769, 778, 458 P3d 7 703, 710 (2020); Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council, 289 Or App at 8 755. An order adopting a legislative land use decision must clearly and 9 precisely state what the local government found to be the facts and fully explain 10 why those facts lead it to the decision it makes. Tides Unit v. City of Seaside, 13 11 Or LUBA 84 (1984). 12 C. ARGUMENT 13 The decision violates Goal 2 because it is unsupported by a factual base 14 that shows that future plan amendments under Policies 3.3.6.a and Policies 15 9.2.1-9.3.15 will not result in the urbanization of rural land in violation of Goal 16 14. 17 Comprehensive plan and zoning code amendments are unsupported by 18 substantial evidence when they allow the creation of new residential lots but 19 without showing that density will not be at an urban level. Marvin II, slip op at Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon Laud Watch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 MA 1 10 ("Because the JCC allows the creation of PUDs with lot sizes lower than the 2 zone minimum lot size and the board of commissioners relied on the ability to 3 form PUDs to meet applicable criteria, petitioners argue that there is not 4 substantial evidence in the record that density will not be at an urban level. We 5 agree."). 6 As discussed in the Fifth subassignment to the First Assignment of Error, 7 supra, the County's MUA and RR zones allow planned developments with no 8 minimum lot size, and cluster developments with 2-acre minimum lot sizes. 9 The decision, via Policy 3.3.6.a, allows these zones to be extended to 10 Agricultural and Forest lands throughout the County. Absent evidence in the 11 record to the contrary, the decision is unsupported by an adequate factual base 12 showing that lands rezoned to MUA and RR under Policy 3.3.6.a will not be 13 developed with urban levels of density. 14 The decision is similarly unsupported by an adequate factual base 15 showing that the effectiveness of the County's UGBs will not be frustrated by 16 rezoning Agricultural and Forest lands throughout the County to the County's 17 MUA and RR zones under Policy 3.3.6.a and the County's RI and RC zones 18 under Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15. Proximity to an acknowledged UGB and whether 19 the proposed use is likely to become a magnet that draws people from outside Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 IR 1 the rural area, and whether the proposed use is likely to rely on urban 2 infrastructure and services, are factors that must be considered in the Goal 14 3 analysis. Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, 55 Or LUBA at 550; Marvin 4 II, slip op at 9. Nowhere in the decision, its findings, or the whole record does 5 the County point to facts demonstrating that Policy 3.3.6.a and Policies 9.2.1- 6 9.3.15 will not frustrate the effectiveness of UGBs under these factors derived 7 from Curry County. 8 The decision is similarly unsupported by an adequate factual base 9 demonstrating that the uses in the RI and RC zones are not urban in nature such 10 that an exception to Goal 14 is required before they may be applied. The RI 11 zone uses include pulp and paper manufacturing, plastic factories, and fiber 12 factories, DCC 18.100.020; the RC zone uses includes grocery stores, taverns, 13 and restaurants. DCC 18.74.020(B). The decision lacks factual information 14 showing that allowing the uses of the RI and RC zones on any Agricultural- or 15 Forest -designated property, as allowed by Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15, will not 16 urbanize rural land in violation of Goal 14. 17 An exception to Goal 14 is required before the zones can be approved for 18 application on rural lands. The decision is unsupported by an adequate factual 19 base showing that Policy 3.3.6.a and Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 comply with Goal 14. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 .1 VII. CONCLUSION 2 LandWatch respectfully requests that LUBA reverse or, alternatively, remand the County's decision in this case. 4 DATED this day of February, 2025. Rory Isbell OSB #173780 Attorney for Petitioner Central Oregon LandWatch Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH BRIEF LENGTH AND TYPE SIZE REQUIREMENTS Brief length I certify that PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR REVIEW complies with the word count limitation for a Petition for Review in OAR 661-010- 0030(2)(b) and contains 10,089 words. Type size I further certify that the size of the type in PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR REVIEW is not smaller than 14 point for both the text of the brief and footnotes as required by OAR 661-010-0030(2)(e). Rory Isbell OSB #173780 Attorney for Petitioner Central Oregon LandWatch Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2943 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on. February , 2025, I filed the original of PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR REVIEW for LUBA Case No. 2024-080 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 201 High Street SE, Suite 600, Salem, Oregon, 97301-3398, pursuant to OAR 661-010-0075(2)(a)(B), by first-class mail with the U.S. Postal Service. DATED this day of February, 2025. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Attorney for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February , 2025,1 served a true and correct copy of PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR REVIEW for LUBA Case No. 2024-080, by first class mail on the following: David Doyle Deschutes County Counsel's Office 1300 Wall Street, 2nd Floor Bend, OR 97701 D. Adam Smith Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, PC 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 DATED this day of February, 2025. Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Attorney for Petitioner Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 APPENDIX Rec. App. Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2024-007 24 (including new DCCP and findings) Rory Isbell, OSB #173780 Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)647-2930 N Qi L. ci N OD :3 U X W p ca N _O U Ca n C) N is O z 0 O Z C in > UOA co :3 G 6 a) (n +�-• O O bA to C6 U Ca W SZ O C: 0- O U N C O O 0) E s in E Y -0 -0 U M O. W O N 7 bA O C ca C C a) 4�cu U 0 c O NbA N H O -O O 1 O J pr Q cc Q. U) .. E o -aO .,� CO bA C N ++ V a O E O a) cnQ- aa+)i O o = R t L m> a) c O U E aC O Q. co Op a�i ++ to C6 = V1 •+1 L , O O U.0 O N� O LL R N O O a) m co a m W CD U a) -0 J a CoCo Q i- .� a) L. _ ca U bA O m _U co •y h -> a a a, A:� -0_ a) p m � C C v +1 Co COO ca a) - cn a) U N y 3 —C)•L OUA R .L U t C C ._ U) O O Ca Q. d d N UA —O N O Q o W fl O -a > Q d O E I.I. O C OO V w" d - r C �'" , O ',� Q N V) bA C o O o d +., a1 fn O coi C N b0 0 Q Q N O) CZs= O E E C E d O a) U E N a3 �o°mUN t� y co N U Ca E .a)ca c o U cn E ° C _c L o NCIO C, �, a a. a m o O O a,' O N C6 CD i Ca N Q 0 CDL a+ }' J Q -� Ca a) > pOp V) O U U U O m C a) a'.. QC_ E N y <n n a "a O Q O a) fa C W toN +•+ CO R o M > *' •N O wo a E m N ca L M CD C > Q O O Q 'a CD i ai U U UOA d a C) —0N = a) d > O O O VOl O Q O M N bp O c CL > O (a L N ca rn a = O b0.a N O a) c�a -O O N i ay7 fn E : o m E - � c C, E .y E E C O E + O O O' o N O c L N O� O N a ca �' u) U a 8 .� ca 0 c U ro 0 m cu bA c a U a) n o co bA c a a) co U d m co co w o Co � c U cu w a) a) C6 c cq U co w a) a) L O tz c 2 U co w a) co c U co w tw O nn _ cu J p O N O > co a LO N a) E ++ O .Q CO CD O ) o a i En o Y to N c i (U d O a a LO O U O CL co E in a) p0 N Cl O NadN) N CL d E N O V Wd U O N bA a) N 0 O o Q �Cj O .0 N (LS Ci 0 c +. (.� Q p N N N >+ N Q c j i 0 a c .fl w N N cu p O U 0 0 co a) i O 0 O U Q cu E bA E O O p N a Y a) x a) > 0 •Ecu O O. N a bA N Co Y p U O N Cp i a) a) 'o O N N O U a a) U a) 0 _ (o i bA co c0 i a) •G a N i O S N N W 0 i i O C L c E () O w O O a m O a) U O a) c m N N N f6 U N N 0 O Y a) .0 cTs N O N 'x N E c 0 O co U O D O a a) N a) � co p N co to (n O o U co c O c CDc \O i °� a) N c`o C6 aa)i N a) Er- O O OO o 00 o > c0 co 5 G a-' x O oOc N c a co N c a) co a) N �- Q is �II 0 }, a) v= a) U N N a) W .r W cc Z a) N Q = O bA Q H p cr Q M p �. N c6 N O c N U < ,R p � Co CV pcc Ca � �C co cc � Cy do O� a 2 2 ai N M ai 0 E O o 0 oi E 6) in co a a) a) W CN Y vOi ` � Ca N a O 0 vi O c OC O N — cc O+ o N c Q o U - a) N a a) C } U uj C6 a) J CO Q O- 1,(j N O cu O ,� C6 N C N a) N i i Ca C1 Cal N co N cn a Ca N a EO YO po" N N N O N O 0 U 0 0 .� a) � E N O N O a) m N O O C) .L7 m a c '�'� Y +� LO U Z C a) O O O Z E o T Y j a) E O N >, - fo > 'Q co L Co N iZ Q = N -Q Cuco U � N U N N CD a)U = O N O Q � 0 0 c m N 0 Q" > O _ O O co Q � Q O N N N c= Q O co Y C6 J C6 U i Li +-' N >� Z .Q O (CS 'V Q•' N d Cli a O d > c0 '- 0 Co O N cc c N p a c N 0 o Q CCf p .� p E O CB c0 a) N N Y C6 a C .- N co L (o a a) U N N N N C o a a) ti O +++ bA i a=+ O ca ; CD N � •� = '� cN O - b.0 Q a) �O N Q Y a) E ice-+ 0 //O�� V O Y Q 0 N i 7 bA a OU N N N >, O ca fLS 0 x m E _<N cu a tz N Y O N N Q a ca a) p ;F, Y a N i i cu a) x w O N a) '_ o,: c a) .— O O C13cc U to a) M O � �_ O ,+0-' E a) (n 2N .2 N N bA c U ca U co N a O :3 N E Co co E d Co O O O �- N +� O a p Up.O cr d 0 M _, i - p v- O `C a) +� n O O p c a C N N ci N N m bn N U 3: co a" O - •X Qaj LD � C Y +J O co U)0 N J N c0 Z a LOC) Q C C Q 0 1 Q U .> M a) o LO M w v (n m o o d ac60 Ch 0 co cM co U O N Y M CV 7 M Y E O M O M co cM D N v w ca bCq ca U co X Cll by ca :3 co N L U d. co W bOn ca m cq U ccca w C) N Ca O (D O Z O ao � Z> C O i Cll bA ca = N U co bpA ca W cq U w co d b.0 ca bA Ja U cc w >, N w ca N N C E a N vi p _ O O O N .N *�' N CO O '�'' ao U Ca O N (ll i C .c O ,C) C U O O i N p c c N O CO 'O h p C O ) c O c c N O U O N c O U O Cll a� N '� O <n ca is O -a_ N m N N .t-- CL U N (p N O O Q � 7 p by N p ❑. N N 00 � O ;�' �O N 7 C c N E N CO Q N N c d C O N Co E CO N cn .p O U OI NO N O C) X C4 N O N O UO O O H c6 CD .� N "O U O O pE U N i O (a N p >+ N N N .F. U C C6 ca O U "- N C ca a N N a) O C O O N O cO x ca N N >` C `- Q H O i Ca O O Cn O ci C:)F - E ULO N N Q O � CD ca d U N cr-vi -0 In O y ca '- O N � E O ((o N r�1 TH � N U N p > tn N r0 N a x N N c6 (n +J Co M O Cll Ca -6 U U M 00 p CL O C C � •� L C N 'O O N N �, c-i + 0O cp E O '+-� O '+� O p ` — U 'O p_ p N cC6 N N Ca U N N C > H Q n fUn N C i= J JO (0 O N U fU O ca (a r•,I cn Ca w C w fn CoC_� O C Ca N R N E Nj CD O U O C N >. M E O cn ` O _ ~ (O Cll O '� fl_ O •R N O C c p O d c-1 N O N C 'C iv •'"' N i >, '�' N bA O I— a-+ N N = *'' N 04 J O O '+_' .+... O N ri p L > 7 O io C N c N N 00 O > M O (.0 M d c x Co c-0 CD O � c6 U � C� .� ca d 'O Gi .E NN - CO Cn OC 1 a� ca N 7a 76 > c Q N �F O "O cn C OC i N N O cn MO O bA O C c C .N CDC N co fU +U' ® C C fll — C c CDCD C) C d O ca o — ci N N O O O O bA (n Iff N C c Q co O N N 00 O -C C co a) "O c Cll c i � Q < N <n J N N d Q N Ca 'O N i + + UO O N- N O � "a ca = .— � -0 N O X (O N E `p E C o O Fca- vi N+ v- O CDi +• N E � N N N Q ON O C)O Q N >+ N O* d O' U N O . bA M `� M ca E N ca O p bA p. u C •C O~ 70 O aU+ N (ll .Q Q Cll ri C. D U C C6 N O U t6 2� a) + U Co N O N C C C O Q E O to i Ca -O � O C U = .�... O , Ca i O CO O X N N r-i N C ca .0 N fn > to N W +-� C = N U N O H(D rl O U (n 7 CO -6 .0 w"o = C ,�+ N C. O Cll N -O +-+ CU U N D �, c-1 c) U = N vj C O N ca o N CD W E N d L N cy N m d ca - X Ca N n O U O d O _ N O OOC U bA CO .O Ca c N O J C Q O m i aO+ O N •F N N C '- U .,_, N M N ��+ N Cn L r N N N O E O ++ p ca d N d O 'O N d C O 4 C � U 0 C ca d U c x C E M O M .E M U C� .� ry CD M CC � I� N � +° cu U co W N p Z _.W -co U C) L c0 U C m Ca U X W X ca a C p C O i - O bA 70- C:m U C = C)cc J ~ -0 U tOII � C O N O p 0 O c .�, Cll E U c N O C O O N _0 'a C O U '- U L mO O U O" O "O N .Q = N O c C L N 'c "O �L+ N cu O 'O 0 C w Cll N N N C O O �-• a>. 00 Y V C 7 'p O a N -0 W C N N O d � C6 M � co N C -0 U fO Cll N O +� a) N N � � ' C c-i � � O N c6 L O � _C c0 N iO CD N O t q M Cll U .p+ Cll bb N C B m uj N N .0 C p Pli C '3 CC i N-i O +�.I cO C .M N E c0 U E > .a, C f0 X O 0 O N O UA C .a) C) s i M ' CUO N W N O —� N — OL '� N m O a °c .0 c 'F N c¢o ° o p c is C Cll 'd •C _Q U C N ' p + O n c .N U O N X T '�, N 0 -C N W .c cr N O p ll U O "6 c +L+ c fO O OL �C N N= N w O ate-+ •X .� N y U '� Q CO N Q L + N CU cu +' (N6 U p "O O Cll N O U +p-� U CD - L O N N O -0 c0 p O cc 0 vO- U N N O M O O C d Y _ U +O+ N d O COO O N N (v) U- O J cO y "O N 2i N N C N O N O N 0 70 CL L co O N W N Q C C O p c N O O O C N O a... Cll cu O N U C N co. cu C i U CO N V U0A N a-+ C6 = O +-+ C6 Q a) O co N Q C O M c0 O CQ C C O N A 5 N �' �. O aN-1 0 0_ N +-' U O N p "O O F— c s-i +-' O L O U : N V) 0 c W N N Q c0 N E E. L d' '.W 0_ O Z N c LO CO p _l O rl r.{ .fl ® c d O U r N 00 i N O M e1-1 O M C15 'a M N p C = N 6 c6 O O X O C 0 O 0 p 6) O ._ N N O 0 � C H N J W cV .— N N O_ U CY) co 6j LL N U X O 70 _ C _ -O w C U C -� C CXO O _O .� C O cu O O_ N O ~ N U C N i d O N i O 9? _ �.,. O. ,._..0_. •>- N..Z3... ,cq.. 0. Cll N N > B ,w 0. 'O C C p O c � � .Q _. �_ +J c0 C m ._ i d -0 Cll N N N CO L N O bA C O c N -0 C C CZ � cu N z O 0 O N O +-' U c C6 'C O CU C m CEO O L O N CZ CU = L -p N O CQ 'Q fU ++ Cll L O (O N O c c m >, .L .. U O C N U O CO -Q r..l N L +-� E > C % 7 O C I cOo c U 0 0 O O O o a.+ O- F C'V O i U CO % i.. C _ +� C O_ a--' N U N N O U C -O O E iN+ cO N O MM >. mO c9 N a)+� O N •X C N is X + C O cOi1 OC ` 1 M(D Q W 7 c6 Cll N bc.0 N N 0� N Q N O + O :O � co O +-+ `'I *'' C—LO N •� •� -O a--� Q C (ti c UO c C cn a) C O- CO N l� O Q +�-+ .fl p +-+ Y '� iO N N O O t6 d ..0 r•1 LU sr-y N c .� N N Cp U Q N ,c N E 0 2•v a. N (D �' CO ,c O C O_ O a) "O c0 m N — O N -0- N In N o a)N U •CO U bA Cll N N N -L5 N (6 CU O N d N N O N LO c N 0 •� X .0- N N Cll 0 ,C ate-+ Cll N N V f6 cu N U JII C: . 0 m CU c0. U M a)V C L p +, C fa) C .0 Q O N N O 'p c O UO0 N O CD�0 U +J N C)p L 'Sn O C N M cO �. CL6 E N U O N Q = O_ _ N N _C O C N '0 O O a OO C C4�0 Q pC � O Q O N C N O p O N O c N Cll p N +. C �--1 rl � (D "O .Q O' U O C "O U S m N U yip C O +-' tO 1— -J C N C tO J N Q � CO E tt) r-i -c Q t7j U+ p N c CO X CO O ++ O m E d O c — U � C6 0) co N CO X W L O Q d N N N �-J X C_ N O N U N O O s-I c O N O CD O i -0 IZTZ3� C M O O N N O O c`M C 0 J CXO 0 c0 0 0 C p O .— ._ U N M m cO ch U- N 0 ,- L . cu m )aoW r m m W co w C O ca U co co co C c> cu W co O iQ U ca m C cq U co W co co C v W C U W O co C O+ E O O O 2� O O O Y p C O > 0, O c6 bA C i6 O E N N N C M C CL N O O a) > cO6 cn M UCcLC6.) -0 m In c6 O O -0E CD O O N C Q CO � CZ CC NC . O to r(n Cl Z) 6 O >+ O X Q cn C O C c u N .O O 6 b(vcCNnA NC ±• O _p O +, II O. C cn U D o O C' a) C O •}OpOO X O m 0E 6 CL 6 U 6 O O 6 pOcCn[ +: }(D C O X O E C Cp O O U E p > O O O C .O y N O N O C O +�.+ O V O CD 4- O .Q c6 O +O-� A1 O N O pC > N EU C C JO E "p O O E p 0 C c6 OO C C CCU a) c0 CLa= O x O O p C- OCCL OM m CLb LN O N N E na) U O N UO Oc6 O aC C N+ cn O iU E O O.O Q "p m O d C OL O C C O bA C6 U Q 4 O O O c: E +-� N ?� '] .p Q. E N O O U C s-i U O +� (6 L llA L +. 7 N C O C Q OL M �O c = W C p .� 2 V N N 2 6j -C OG O O '� C O ` ` _ N O �-1 O N N C CO= O cn O Lo O O N Q R •i N N C r"� >j rl ci X t+ X N 3 O Q N p O O C O O CO O CO � O c) cC6 O E C M O N (6 M m E a ,bC_A c6 Q O O N c6 Cp C O '� cn p- _ O U C C6 U C U C U C O 0 U U to E U — E +� E O M C M O Q O ._ O O _ O .�., __ O ,C OL __ O N C O O O C O O c6 O C) O W O o-i v- O O) > Q 0 >. -0 0- C O d d CL d N w- O d O U cn U+ O d C O E _ O .a > O c6 Q t6 In I— ' .O O L C E N N N N C •� O m E O C 0 � in m cu i >` O O -O O N N O C M 'L O O O_ CC O U L L O c6 in dj O C E O O N O > N O 4- N n in N V) O C:)p N U C bA E O Ci O �p> O a) UA O QO �+F•' N C Q C N C O O to Q cn 0 6 6 E E E U O C O Mn cz CL U b in cn -0 O CL co cu O X O C cu C y O O .p C,) cCN y O � C) XON � C O C Q-0� � -Q O _O 0 O C�vi Co O Q C QC (DO C E O O U m WO Eb O- .O c6 E N d a) � E o m(v L CL Op C)OL C) ma) N l 6 ♦ C) 0E N 0- cn O cn C14 Na'O OJ p > C: Q C: Q O Q n d �n N •� MM M p ? N� M Cl) M c c > VE N O 'C d im W O d X O 6 O Nd�O O c LL C) 1 0 � _ MN cyi U a cn c6M BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a � REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Sub'J ect: 2. y Date: 23 2 Name Address' 2 i 1 MI 1, oto DJ' l l7 Phone #s E-mail address LOW In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided V Opposed OSubmitting written documents as part of testimony?, Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS 64 C. N T P m OREGON www.colw.org LANDWATCH April 23, 2025 filed via hand delivery and email: Nicole.mardell@deschutes.org Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners c/o Nicole Mardell, Senior Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Re: 247-25-000145-PA Reconsideration; Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Chair DeBone, Vice -Chair Adair, and Commissioner Chang, Thank you for accepting public testimony on Deschutes County's application to reconsider its recently adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. As you are aware, Central Oregon LandWatch ("LandWatch") appealed that new Plan to LUBA and argued that the Plan fails to comply with statewide land use planning Goal 14 (Urbanization). We are pleased that the County has withdrawn the new Plan for reconsideration. Below we offer comments in response to the staff memo for today's hearing and request that the County make significant amendments to the new Plan in order for it to comply with Goal 14. I. LandWatch's appeal is not a collateral attack. In our appeal of the County's new 2040 Comprehensive Plan, we argue that several plan policies violate Goal 14. The April 16, 2025 staff memo for today's hearing argues that LandWatch's appeal amounts to a collateral attack on prior versions of the County's comprehensive plan and zoning code. Our appeal is not a collateral attack. Oregon local governments have an ongoing responsibility to "[p]repare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the commission." ORS 197.175(2)(a). An appeal to LUBA that argues that a land use decision fails to comply with Goal 14, even though the decision did not amend any language of the comprehensive plan, is not barred as a collateral attack on the comprehensive plan. Dept. of Land Conservation & Development v. Clackamas County, 335 Or App 205, 221, 558 P3d 64, 74 (2024). y k-. ?. ��� » r C E N? P OREGON www.colw.org LANDWATCH Here, Deschutes County prepared, adopted, amended, and/or revised its comprehensive plan over the course of several years, leading to last year's adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-007 and a new comprehensive plan. LandWatch's appeal argues that the new comprehensive plan prepared, adopted, amended, and/or revised by the County is not in compliance with Goal 14. Whether some policies contained in the new plan were also contained in the old plan does not make LandWatch's appeal a collateral attack. The County chose to prepare, adopt, amend, and/or revise its comprehensive plan, but it was under no legal obligation to do so. Now that it has adopted a new comprehensive plan, that entire plan must comply with the Goals. ORS 197.175(2)(a). The staff memo's position that LandWatch's appeal of the County's new comprehensive plan is a collateral attack results in an absurd outcome. If a lack of compliance with the Goals does indeed exist in the County's comprehensive plan, as LandWatch argues, when and how would that noncompliance be addressed? Under the County's position in the staff memo, that noncompliance would survive in perpetuity — an absurd result. In adopting Ordinance No. 2024- 007, the County sought acknowledgment that its entire comprehensive plan and land use regulations comply with the Goals. ORS 197.015(1). It cannot now pick and choose which portions of that plan it seeks to be acknowledged. To achieve "compliance with the goals," the County must ensure that its "comprehensive plan and regulations, on the whole, conform with the purposes of the goals and any failure to meet individual goal requirements is technical or minor in nature." ORS 197.627. LandWatch's appeal does not assert technical or minor noncompliance with the goals. It asserts substantial and significant noncompliance with Goal 14 of certain comprehensive plan policies, and land use regulations implementing those policies, that allow unlimited conversion of rural farm and forest lands for residential, industrial, and commercial uses, in some cases with no minimum lot sizes for new residential lots. To achieve compliance with the Goals, as required by ORS 197.175(2)(a), the County must show that these policies, "on the whole," ORS 197.627, conform with the purpose of Goal 14 to accommodate population growth inside urban growth boundaries. Further, to achieve acknowledgement from DLCD, the County must submit to DLCD "[a] list by ordinance number and adoption date and six copies of the plans and implementing ordinances or land use regulations, inventories and other factual information to be reviewed." M�� �.<.. .) t 3 C F MT11 PIAO_REGo! www.colw.org LANDWATCH OAR 660-003-0010(2)(a). Lased on the PAPA notices the County submitted to DLCD, discussed further in section II below, the County sought to have the entirety of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan be reviewed for compliance with the Goals. If that is not the case, then we have seen no evidence showing that the County sought only a portion of its new 2040 Comprehensive Plan to be reviewed for compliance with the Goals. Factually, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is a significantly amended and revised comprehensive plan compared to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The County sought public input on all aspects of its former comprehensive plan, including on all 14 statewide goals applicable to Deschutes County. The new plan, which has an all -new chapter, goal, and policy structure, is informed by the vast amount of County, consultant, and public input the County received. Some of the new plan policies mirror those in the former plan, but that is presumably because the Board of County Commissioners decided, upon receiving the vast amount of staff, consultant, and public input, that it should readopt those policies into the new plan. Why else would the County have sought so much input on the entirety of the plan if it did not anticipate possible amendments to the entirety of the plan? If the County only intended to amend certain portions of the old plan, it would have said so. As we explained in our Petitioner's Brief, several past LUBA and Court of Appeals decisions have found that whether the County's comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations are compliant with Goal 14 can only be challenged when the county amends its comprehensive plan, and not in response to quasi-judicial post -acknowledgment plan amendment applications. See Central Oregon Land Watch v. Deschutes County ("710 Properties'), _ Or LUBA slip op at 36 (LUBA No. 2023-006, July 28, 2023), aff'd, 330 Or App 321 (2024). That time is now. Without such review, the question of the comprehensive plan's compliance with Goal 14 will continue to evade review. LandWatch's appeal is not a collateral attack on the County's old comprehensive plan, but a direct challenge to the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan for which the County sought acknowledgment. II. Throughout its comprehensive plan update process, the County represented to LandWatch, DLCD, and the public that its intent was to "repeal and replace" the former comprehensive plan y.:, �r CET R _OREGON www.colw.org LANDWATCH It is convenient for the County, upon LandWatch's appeal of its new comprehensive plan, to now assert that it never intended to repeal and replace its former comprehensive plan. That position, however, is contrary to both the notices of proposal and adoption of post - acknowledgment comprehensive plan amendment (PAPA) that the County submitted to DLCD. Both notices summarize the proposed PAPA as "Repeal and Replace 2010 Comprehensive Plan with Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update." Exhibits 1 and 2 (screenshots of DLCD PAPA online database). LandWatch and the public rely on these PAPA notices to inform the scope of proposed PAPAs, and we believed the County meant what it said when it said the proposed PAPA would "repeal and replace" the County's former comprehensive plan. The County is collaterally estopped from asserting otherwise now, when LandWatch and the public relied on this PAPA information. All of the County's notices of public hearings for the comprehensive plan update also describe the proposal as repealing and replacing the former 2010 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan with a new Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. LUBA Rec. 2575, 2638, 2654, 4865. The County's final notice of decision also states as its subject "The Board of County Commissioners has approved Ordinance No. 2024-007, adopting the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This will repeal and replace the 2010 Comprehensive Plan." LUBA Rec. 13. Even in the County's webpage for the current reconsideration process, the County describes the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan update scope as including a full range of planning topics, including "housing" and "farm and forest lands": "The updated document intends to provide overarching policy guidance on land use and planning -related issues for the years 2020-2040. The document applies to areas under County planning jurisdiction, excluding cities and federally owned land. Topics covered include housing, recreation, jobs, natural hazards, community engagement, farm and forest lands, historic and cultural resources, and natural resources. The update does not include any changes to community plans, the transportation system plan, or the County's Goal 5 natural resource inventories." (Exhibit X (screenshot of County hearing website)) (emphasis original). i .'>.. ... , , C,E, _.T P o.R..E ,O N www.colw.org LANDWATCH Notably, this hearing page text specifies which topics are not included in the Plan update, and does not make any mention of the policies LandWatch challenges as noncompliant with Goal 14 or related issues. ORS 197.610(6) requires local governments to notify DLCD of alterations to proposed PAPAS when those alternations "no longer reasonably describe the proposed change." No such notification is in the record submitted to LUBA. There is further no evidence that the County identified any substantive differences from the proposed PAPA submitted under ORS 197.610 compared to the final submitted PAPA. ORS 197.615(2)(c). The County's assertion now that LandWatch's appeal of the new comprehensive plan is a collateral attack on the old comprehensive plan is an abrupt about-face from all prior representations made to the public and DLCD. It is further a disallowed departure from the scope of the PAPA that the County noticed to the public. ORS 197.610(3). The County's departure from what it repeatedly noticed to LandWatch and the public materially prejudices LandWatch's substantial procedural rights. Had LandWatch believed that the County intended a minor update to its comprehensive plan, and not a replacement of its former plan with a new plan as the County repeatedly said was its intent, then LandWatch would not have expended significant resources to comment on and appeal the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan. III. The comparison tables included in the staff report show that the scope of the Plan update included the challenged policies. As an attachment to the staff report for today's hearing, the County prepared comparison tables that show differences between the policies in the 2011 Comprehensive Plan and 2040 Comprehensive Plan that LandWatch challenges as failing to comply with Goal 14. These comparisons make clear that the County did consider and update the challenged policies as part of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan update process. To start, all the relevant Goals and Policies have been renumbered, reflecting that the County considered and revised the entirety of its former comprehensive plan, and not only specific sections. Policy 3.3.6.a, which LandWatch challenges as violating Goal 14 for its allowance of unlimited rezoning of rural farm and forestlands for residential, industrial, and commercial uses, .�l i.. E "T n .E G 0 www.colw.org LANDWATCH has been restructured under a new main policy with, several sub -policies. It is obvious that the County reviewed and amended this entire section of its former comprehensive plan. It chose to adopt former Policy 2.2.3 as new Policy 3.3.6.a, but that was an intentional choice informed by vast amounts of county staff, consultant, and public input. Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15, which LandWatch challenges as also violating Goal 14, are even more obviously new when viewed in the County's comparison tables. Again, these policies are presented in an entirely new structure with new numbering compared to the former Plan. Most of these Goals, Policies, and Sub -policies themselves are either new or amendment. The County characterizes these amendments as either "simplified" or "clarified," but in the parlance of ORS 197.175(2)(a), the County are prepared, adopted, amended, and/or revised its comprehensive plan. No matter which verbiage the County chooses to describe these amendments, they all require compliance with the goals. ORS 197.175(2)(a). IV. The new 2040 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan fails to comply with Goal 14. As we argued in our Petition for Review to LUBA, Policies 3.3.6 and 9.2.1-9.3.15 violate Goal 14 in numerous ways. We will not repeat those arguments here, but note that County staff includes our Petition for Review in its application materials for these reconsideration proceedings, and we incorporate by reference into these comments our entire Petition for Review. Nothing the County has provided in these reconsideration proceedings alters any of the Goal 14 violations we argue in our Petition for Review. V. Conclusion In these reconsideration proceedings, the County has another chance to `get it right' and ensure its new comprehensive plan complies with Goal 14. Between 2022 and 2024, County residents voiced their support for a new comprehensive plan that protects agricultural and forest lands, wildlife populations, water resources, limits spot -zoning of rural lands, and addresses climate change, in compliance with the 19 statewide land use planning goals. We respectfully request the County take this opportunity to listen to its constituents and amend its 2040 Comprehensive Plan accordingly. �F v b www.colw.org LANDWATCH Regards, Rory Isbell Staff Attorney & Rural Lands Program Director Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive Ste 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 rory a,colw.org (541) 647-2930 Attachments Exhibit 1 DLCD PAPA Online notice of proposed PAPA Exhibit 2 DLCD PAPA Online notice of adopted PAPA Exhibit 3 Screenshot of County website for file no. 247-25-000145-PA Reconsideration 4/18/25, 1:24 PM Department of Land Conservation and Development : Proposed Plan Amendment, : Comprehensive Plan Updates: State of Oregon M An official website of the State of Oregon » (htt ://www.c regon.gov) Ww� Comprehensive Plan Updates Department of Land Conservation and Development (/Icd/CPU) (/Icd * (/Icd/Pages/index.aspx) > Comprehensive Plan Updates (/Icd/CPU/Pages/Comprehensive- Plan -Updates.aspx) > Proposed Plan Amendments Proposed Plan Amendments Site Navigation Post -acknowledgement plan amendments (PAPAs) are submitted by cities and counties to DLCD as required by law (OAR 660-018 (https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3068)). After a city or county submits its PAPA notice to DLCD, state law requires DLCD to provide public notice of all proposals and adoptions received on a weekly basis (OAR 660-018-0025 .(https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displ a ay Division Rules.action?selectedDivision=3068)). The on -demand reporting service provided below allows users to request proposal summaries at any time. You no longer have to wait for DLCD to post reports to the web site and you no longer need to sift through old documents to find information that may have been posted in a previous weekly report. Use the tool below to find PAPA proposals submitted to DLCD. If you're looking for PAPA Adoptions submitted to DLCD, click here (/Icd/CPU/Pages/Adopted -Plan - Amendments. aspx). Questions about a specific PAPA should be referred to the local government contact before contacting a DLCD regional representative (/Icd/CPU/Pages/Regional-Re presentatives.aspx). For technical problems with the reporting service below, email plan.amendments@dlcd.oregon.gov (mailto:pIan. amend ments@dlcd.oregon.gov), for assistance. https://www.oregon.gov/Icd/CPU/Pages/Proposed-Plan-Atnendinents.aspx 1/5 4/18/25, 1:24 PM Department of Land Conservation aid Development : Proposed Plan Amendments : Comprehensive Plan Updates : State of Oregon r- (h ; I �n�[waol t 121 fia L /1/2023 Jur•isdicfiion: 1 Deschutes County °�; Go -tt'Pi`i1e�ti e lag in processing of proposals received, the most recent date you can select is Nvo days prior to i s date.) Q 1 of 1 D 0 100% v ® v Proposed Post -Acknowledgement Plan Amendments April 18, 2025 The following proposed plan amendments were received by the Department of Land Conservation and Development between 08/29/2023 and 09/01/2023. Information on the proposals are available for review the DLCD office in Salem. Concerns or questions should be referred to the local government contact before contacting the DLCD Regional Representitive. The first evidentiary hearing and final hearing dates indicated in this notice are subject to revision by local government as outlined in OAR 660, Division 18. Participants are advised to confirm the hearing date witl the local government in advance of the scheduled hearing. Proposed Amendments (08/29/2023 - 09/01/2023) Deschutes County_ Local File M 247-23-000644-PA DLCD File M 010-23 Proposal Summary: Repeal and Replace 2010 Comprehensive Plan with Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. No comprehensive plan map changes are proposed. No changes to Goal 5 inventory are proposed. Changes to TSP proposed separately. Proposal Received: August 30, 2023 First Hearing Date: October 26, 2023 Final Hearing Date: Local Contact: Nicole Mardell Regional Representative: Angie Brewer Phone: 541-317-3157 Phone: 541-306-8530 https://w w w.oregon .ea,%Icd/CP[1/Pages/Proposed-Plan-Amendments.aspx 2/5 4/18/25, 1:24 PM Department of Land Conservation and Development : Propcscd Man Amerdments : Comprehensive Plan Updaies : State of Oregon U An official website of the State of Oregon » (htt ://www.oregon.gov) N https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/CPU/Pages/Proposed-Plan-Amendments.aspx 3/5 4/18/25, 1:24 PM Department of Land Conservation and Development : Proposed Plan Amendments : Comprehensive Plan Updates : State of Oregon An official website of the State of Oregon » (http://www.oregon.gov) Help us improve! Was this page helpful? Yes No Contact Us Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301 Phone: 503-373-0050 Email Us(mailto:dicd.info@dlcd.oregon.gov). Staff Directory_{/LCD/About/Pages/Staff- Directory. aspx). Links Calendar (/LCD/NN/Pages/Public-Meetings.aspx), Newsroom (/LCD/NN/Pages/Newsroom.aspx), Job Openings (https://oregon.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/SOR External Career Site?q=dlcd), Explore Association of Oregon Counties (http.//oregoncounties.org-�. League of Oregon Cities (http://www.orcities.orci/Home/tabid/6700/language/en-US/Default.aspx) Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) (http://w ww.oregon.g2v/LUBA) Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS)_(https://olis.oregonlegislature.gon6, M https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/CPtJ/Pages/Proposed-Plan-Amendinents.aspx 4/5 4/18/25, 1:24 PM Department of Land Conservation and Development : Proposed Plan Amend, cents : Comprehensive Plan Updates : State of Oregon KW'OAA0 #iIQ Re of the State of Oregon » (ht ://www.ore�on.�Qv) /www.oregon.gow). State Employee Search(https://employeesearch.dasapp.oregon.gov), Agencies Listing_(https://www.oregon.gon//pages/a to z listing.aspx). Accessibility_(https://www.oregon.gov/pages/accessibility.aspx), Privacy Policy_(https://www.oregon.gov/pages/terms-and-conditions.aspx), Supported Browsers (https://www.oregon.gov/pages/supported-browsers.aspLr), T Back to Top Select Language v� Powered by Go =.gle Translate (https://translate.google.com) https://www.oregon.gov/Icd/CPU/Pages/Proposed-Plan-Amendinents.aspx 5/5 4/18/25, 1:25 PM Department of Land Conservation and Development : Adopted Plan Amendments : Comprehensive Plan Updates : State of Oregon An official website of the State of Oregon » (htt ://www.oregon.gov) Q Comprehensive Plan Updates Department of Land Conservation and Development (/Icd/CPU) (/Icdn n (/Icd/Pages/index.aspx) > Comprehensive Plan Updates (/Icd/CPU/Pages/Comprehensive- Plan- Updates.aspx) > Adopted Plan Amendments Adopted Plan Amendments Site Navigation Post -acknowledgement plan amendments (PAPAs) are submitted by cities and counties to DLCD as required by law (OAR 660-018 (https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displ ay Division Rules. action? selected Division=3068)). After a city or county submits its PAPA notice to DLCD, state law requires DLCD to provide public notice of all proposals and adoptions received on a weekly basis (OAR 660-018-0025 (https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/view.action?ruleNumber=660-018-0025)). The on -demand reporting service provided below allows users to request adoption summaries at any time. You no longer have to wait for DLCD to post reports to the web site and you no longer need to sift through old documents to find information that may have been posted in a previous weekly report. Use the tool below to find PAPA adoptions submitted to DLCD. If you're looking for PAPA Proposals submitted to DLCD, click here (/Icd/CPU/Pages/Proposed-Plan- Amendments.aspx). For questions about a specific PAPA, please contact the regional representative (/Icd/CPU/Pages/Regional- Representatives.aspx) assigned to the local jurisdiction. For questions or problems with the reporting service below, email plan. amend ments@dlcd.oregon.gon (maiIto: plan.amend ments@dlcd.oregon.gov), for assistance. https://www.ot-egon.gov/Icd/CPU/Pages/Adopted-Plan-Amendments.aspx 1/5 4/18/25, 1:25 PM Department of Land Conservation and Dcvelopment : Adopted PlanAmeudmenrs : Comprehensive Plan Updates : State of Oregon :Atrwacwemr®gtm. jl/2024 to i I/1/2024 Jurisdiction: rDeschutrs County v} 'Go ilhelime lag in processing of proposals received, the most recent date you can select is two days prior tot ' date.) 14 < 1 of 1 > O1 O 100% Adopted Post -Acknowledgement Plan Amendments April 18, 2025 The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received notice of the following adopted amendments to comprehensive plans or land use regulations. A copy of the adopted amendment is availabl for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government office. Appeal Procedures Eligibility to appeal this amendment is governed by ORS 197.612, ORS 197.620, and ORS 197.830. Under ORS 197.830(9), a notice of intent to appeal a land use decision to LUBA must be filed no later than 21 day after the date the decision sought to be reviewed became final. If you have questions about the date the decision became final, please contact the jurisdiction that adopted the amendment. A notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and file in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR chapter 661, division 10). If the amendment is not appealed, it will be deemed acknowledged as set forth in ORS 197.625(1)(a). Plea: call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. If you have questions about this notice, please contact DLCD's Plan Amendment Specialist at 503-934-000, or plan.amendments@dlcd.oregon.gov. Adopted Amendments (10/01/2024 - 11/01/2024) Jurisdiction: Deschutes County Date Received: October 24, 2024 Local File #: 247-23-000644-PA DLCD File #: 010-23 Proposal Summary: Local Contact: Name: Nicole Mardell Phone: 541-317-3157 E-Mail: nicole.mardell@deschutes.org Repeal and Replace 2010 Comprehensive Plan with Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. No comprehensive plan map changes are proposed. No changes to Goal 5 inventory are proposed. Changes to TSP proposed separately. Adoption Summary: Uploading adoption documents. https://www.oi-egon.gov/led/CPU/Pages/Adopted-Plan-Amendmeiits.aspx 2/5 4/18/25, 1:25 PM Department of Land Cboservation and Developrw W : Adopted Plan Amendments : Comprehensive Plan Updates : State of Oregon n An official website of the State of Oregon (htt ://www.oregon.gov) Ak Q https://www.oregoti.gov/lcd/CPU/Pages/Adopted-Plan-Amendments.aspx 3/5 4/18/25, 125 Pith Department of Land Comcrvat nu tail Development :Adopted Plan Amendments . Comprehensive Plan Updates: State of Oregon n An official website of the State of Qregoan » (http ://inrww.oregon.gov) Help us improve! Was this page helpful? Contact Us Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301 Phone: 503-373-0050 Email Us(mailto:dlcd.info@dlcd.oregon.gov), Staff Directory_(/LCD/About/Pages/Staff-Directory.aspx). Links Calendar (/LCD/NN/Pages/Public-Meetings.aspx), Newsroom (/LCD/NN/Pages/Newsroom.aspx). Job Openings (https://oregon.wd5.myworkdayiobs.com/SOR External Career Site?g=dlcd), Explore Association of Oregon Counties (http://oregoncounties.org�. League of Oregon Cities (http://www.orcities.org/Home/tabid/6700/language/en-US/Default-aspx) Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)_(http://www.oregon.gov/L BBA). Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS)(https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov�, About Oregon Oregon.gov (https://www.oregon.gov), https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/CPU/Pages/Adopted-Plan-Amendments.aspx 4/5 4/18/25, 1:25 PM Department of Land Conservation and Development : Adopted Plan Amendments Comprehensive Plan Updates : State of Oregon A+�-aaialy�e�sits at tlne,�taQf Qcs Rat _ sear(:h.dasapp.oregpE,g2v), /www.oregon.gov) NotaLialiagjhttps://www.orego,ggy/pages/a to z listing.aspx). Accessibility_(https://www.oregon.gon/pages/accessibility.aspx), Privacy Policy_(https://www.oregon.gov/pages/terms-and-conditions.aspx). Supported Browsers (https://www.oregon.gon/pages/supported-browsers.aspx) t Back to Top Select Language_ Powered by Go=gle Translate (https://translate.google.com) https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/CPU/Pages/Adopted-Plan-Amendments.aspx 5/5 4/22/25, 1:13 PM 247-25-000145-PA Reconside-at,on. Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Update (Hearing Pagel I Deschutes County Oregon ;lect Language ♦ Alerts I Jobs I Contact Us 9 t' Search 247-25-000145-PA Reconsideration: Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (Hearing Page) https://www.deschtites.org/cd/page/247-25-000145-pa-reconsideration-deschutes-county-2040-comprehensive-plan-update-hearing 1/5 4/22/25, 1:13 PM 247-25-000145-PA Reconsideration: Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (Hearing Page) I Deschutes County Oregon Note: The information below pertains to the 2025 Reconsideration Hearing for the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. The entire record from the previous hearing process (247-24-000644-PA) is included in the Application Materials Section titled "Complete Amended LUBA Record". Proposal Summary The Board of County Commissioners will hold a reconsideration hearing to gather additional testimony on issues raised through the Land Use Board of Appeals process. Following the adoption of the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan in October 2024, the decision was appealed by Central Oregon Landwatch. In the Petitioner's Brief (see application materials below), Central Oregon Landwatch raised concerns regarding policies related to the rezoning of land to rural industrial and rural commercial designations, and the rezoning of farmland to rural residential uses. The reconsideration hearing will be limited de novo meaning testimony is limited to only the issues raised in the petitioner's brief. Background The Board of County Commissioners voted on October 2, 2024, to adopt the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The updated document intends to provide overarching policy guidance on land use and planning -related issues for the years 2020-2040. The document applies to areas under County planning jurisdiction, excluding cities and federally owned land. Topics covered include housing, recreation, jobs, natural hazards, community engagement, farm and forest lands, historic and cultural resources, and natural resources. The update does not include any changes to community plans, the transportation system plan, or the County's Goal 5 natural resource inventories. The decision to approve the Deschutes County 2040 Plan was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Local governments have the option to hold a reconsideration hearing in order to address new issues raised at LUBA that were not fully discussed at the local level. This process pauses the appeal and allows for a revised decision to be issued by the Board to address the issues. Hearing Information The public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners will take place on Wednesday, April 23, 2025, during the regularly scheduled meeting. The regular meeting begins at 9 am, the hearing is anticipated to begin at 10:40 am but may occur earlier or later depending on other board items. The hearing will be limited de novo meaning that only testimony related to the Petitioner's Brief submitted by Central Oregon Landwatch to the Oregon Land Use Board Appeals will https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-25-000145-pa-reconsideration-deschutes-county-2040-comprehensive-plan-update-hearing 2/5 4/22/25, 1: C3 FM 241-25-;300I4`.-PA Reconsidc ration: Desci;!ms County 2040 Ccmpichensive Plan Update (Hearing Page) I Deschutes County Oregon be allov,,ed. The Petitioner's Brief is found beiow under "Application Materials". Deschutes (county Piarining Division has set the following time iirnits for testimony at the hearing: • Public Agencies: 10 minutes • General Public: 3 minutes Please note, the above time limits can be modified or eliminated by the Board at their discretion. Please contact the staff planner by 4 pm on April 22, 2025, if you would like to testify. Testimony can be provided: • Virtually via Zoom utilizing this link: bit.ly/3h3ogdD • Via telephone by dialing 253-215-8782, enter Webinar ID: 899-4635-9970 and Password: 013510. • In person in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes Service Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend. You can share this page with others via the link: https:Hbit.ly/Deschutes204OReconsideration Staff Contact Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner Email: nicole.mardell@deschutes.org Phone: 541-317-3157 https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-25-000145-pa-reconsideration-deschutes-county-2040-comprehensive-plan-update-hearing 3/5 4/22/25, 1:13 PM 247-25-000145-PA Reconsideration: Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (Hearing Page) I Deschutes County Oregon Application Materials (6) Comments & Submittals - Public (40) Decisions, Memos, Orders & Staff Reports (2) Notices - Application, DLCD, Public Hearing, Decisions (2) File Number Document 247-25-000145-PA 2025-04-03 Notice of Public Hearing 25-145-PA 247-25-000145-PA 2025-04-04 Bulletin Affidavit 25-145-PA E Contact Information Will Groves Position: Planning Manager (541) 388-6518 Phone William. Groves@deschutes.org https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-25-000145-pa-reconsideration-deschutes-county-2040-comprehensive-plan-update-hearing 4/5 4/22/25, 1:13 PM 247-25-000145-PA Reconsideration: Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (;Tearing Page) I Deschutes County Oregon f x O it Home Siternap Staff Login Employee Resources Accessibility Disclaimers Privacy Contact Us (2025 Deschutes COUnty. All rights reserved. https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-25-000145-pa-reconsideration-lleschutes-county-2040-comprehensive-plan-update-hearing 5/5 w��-cEs co`2 { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony LV LOVSubject: Jy_g _e-rtSA�%Date: Name %Qx",04, �- Address 77 k) W I _- -K- 770 Phone #s q qQ G- -7,�_ (�7- - < 1 S q E-mail address Y'G r a In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed NoSubmitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS U�J-tes co L BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject:' �� Date: Name � We/ Address (r, �u72 �t G�� v �' 7 Z Phone #s E-mail address t PAW In Favor F1 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submittingwritten documents as art of testimony? Yes No p If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS yt: April 22, 2025 League of Women Voters of Deschutes County PO Box 1783, Bend, Or. 97703 541-931-9096 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wa I I St. Bend, Oregon, 97703 Re: Updated County Comprehensive Plan 2040 reconsideration. Dear Commissioners DeBone, Adair, and Chang, The League of Women Voters of Deschutes County (LWVDC) believes that the state should have the prime responsibility for establishing statewide planning goals and for supervising and coordinating comprehensive plans with participation by citizens. One principle of good governance is consideration of the interdependence of land use, transportation and environmental quality in all comprehensive plans. In 2023 we testified in support of the Draft 2040 Deschutes County Comprehensive plan with suggestions for amendments. See attached letter dated November 9, 2023. The revised 2040 County Comprehensive Plan, which we did not support, has been remanded to the County for violations of land use law and goals, in particular Goal 14. The plan allows unlimited rezoning of agricultural and forest lands for residential, commercial and industrial uses without reference to community concerns or clear limitations protecting the impacts of said development on wildlife habitat, transportation or water resources. We urge the Commission to consider the potential for ill-considered development inherent in this plan. Please readdress policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 to meet Goal 14 requirements in development of Forest and Agricultural lands. Well defined expectations and limitations available to all will strengthen the plan, protect investors and landowners, and address the interests of the community. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely yours, Deschutes County League of Women Voters Leadership Team Cory Dickman Joyce Durban Carol Loesche Kathie Sharp Glenna Sirmans Jan Swander info@lwvdeschutes.org Prepared by Mary Powell, water committee 20607 Coventry Cir Bend, Oregon, 97702, 541-389-5693 I, W, Empowering Voters. Defending Democracy. November 9, 2023 Deschutes County Planning Commission c/o: Nicole Mardell, Senior Planner 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97703 Dear Chair Kieras and Planning Commissioners, Karen Zacharias, President PO Box 1783, Bend, OR 97703 `..u. (541) 931-9096 'o The League of Women Voters of Deschutes County (LWVDC) commends the Planning Staff and Commission for the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 2040. The Comprehensive Plan as it is currently written achieves almost all of the objectives submitted by the public during the comment period in the spring of 2023. Our comments and policy suggestions are offered to improve the plan even further. The League of Women Voters (LWV) advocates from positions on issues achieved by consensus of its membership. "LWVDC supports the Land Conservation and Development statewide land use goals and local general plans that preserve natural resources and the rural and scenic nature of our communities. LWVDC supports the enactment of policies that preserve open spaces and prime forest and farmland, water resources, wetlands, and wildlife habitats." Based on these positions and others stated throughout this document, we submit this testimony for the LWVDC. Additionally, we support the recommendations in the letter submitted to you by Central Oregon Land Watch (COLW) and eleven other environmental groups on April 17, 2023. This support also includes the testimony given by COLW on October 26, 2023. LWVDC thanks you for extending the public comment period that will allow for greater community feedback. Because of our desert conditions and lack of collaborative planning between land use and water availability, LWVDC offers this suggestion at the beginning of our comments. The rest of the comments will fall into Chapter order. Our comments below are in italics, policy requests in italics and underlined. Chapter 5 Natural Resources Water Resources, Statewide Planning Goals, page 5-5 last paragraph states, "Oregon land use and water management are not integrated; there are no overarching administrative rules that consider statewide water management in conjunction with land use planning." This statement is the crux of our planning dilemma in dry parts of Oregon. In consensus with the League of Women Voters of Oregon (LWVOR), LWVDC believes that the interdependence of land use planning and water planning must be recognized. Local comprehensive plans, watershed plans, basin plans, state and regional plans should be coordinated and complementary. Based on this position, LWVDC offers the policies below on water policy to enable you to interact with the Governor, DLCED-thePopulatio Research Center, water agencies and other agencies and NGO.'s to fix the lock of legal recognition of the necessity to tie land use planning with water availability. Add New Policy- 5.1.1. a. Work with Governor and all agencies and entities entwined L public policy on urban growth �boundaryexpansion rural lands development, Population 12roiections and water scar city to enactoollcv to regulate growth dependent upon writer scarcity issues and climate chance factors. Another overarching policy about land and water coordination is necessary a// throughout this document. Almost every Chapter discusses the effects of drought and climate change and ties land use to water. Chapter 7, Natural Hazards, asks to limit development in hazard -prone areas. Possible additional new policy in at least Chapters 2,3,5,7,10. Land use and water policv are use must be supported �nrifhf-Afo- *11,0 , e—ence that the effect on surface and ground water resource availability and water quality will not be adversely affected. New Possible Added Statement or Policy: Tie re -zoning of rural lands to availability of around and e sur agwater now and on predictions of water availability in future due to climatLfhone, surface q _ Chapter 2. Land Use and Regional Coordination Section 2: Page 42-3. CP Designation Purpose statement chart —locks overlay zone purposes described on page 2-6 and other designations listed on the map 2-1. Map 2-1 does not show the overlay purpose zones or list a riparian area designation. Is a riparian zone necessary? Please coordinate the purpose zones and overlays with the map so that planners and public can see the areas to be preserved. Policy 2.2.7 Change to: Collaborate with tribal governments on regional issues, particularly those that impact the environment, sacred places, ceded lands, or shared natural resources, Page 2-9: Key Community Considerations —Locks the overwhelming concern and evidence from recent studies regarding declining ground water and drought from natural cycles and climate change. * Glaciers are melting and it is not certain that rain will replace their water flows. Please add a statement to that effect. *Community Development Planning Commission Water Panel Series Report, Feb. 2019 \/V Policy 2.2.6. Change wording to: Collaborate with federal agencies on land management issues includinq BUT NOT LIMITED TO homelessness, sustainable recreation expansion, and energy projects. Policy 2.2.11 RURA — Insert a statement regarding development being dependent upon sufficient water for the foreseeable future. The some with septic field adequacy. The statement could be from Chapter 5, above. Chapter 3 LWVDC believes our resource lands of farm and forest should remain just that —preserved resources for food and lumber far the future —with limited support buildings. We would also like to see a decrease in rural living zoning on non forest and non farm lands. Doing so would also save water for areas with declining well water. New Policy --Save mature or si nificant trees under county control for carbon sequestration. An inventory may have to be done to locate the trees. Page 3-7, Second bullet under Key community Considerations: A typo- There is strong support for conducting educational outreach to encourage water conservation and on -farm efficiency measures. Policy 3.3.6. "Explore the evaluation and potential redesignation of lands, etc.," including the subparts a. and b. have to be ruled on under ORS 215.788. Part b. contains a potential "new zoning classification" which may be illegal under current state land use zoning designations. There was relatively strong community opposition to this as noted on pages 3-7 and 10-5 in Key Community Considerations. Policy 3.4.5: "Ensure that criteria for and designation of Forest Lands are consistent with state administrative rules and statutes." To be consistent, adopt the same policy for agricultural lands. Page 3-10, Policy 3.4.8 "Support economic development opportunities that promote forest health, create opportunities for local production of related forest products, and reduce the prevalence of invasive plant species that adversely affect forest health and soil quality." This is a very unclear policy with seemingly contradictory goals. Maybe this one should be deleted. Can you give examples of the types of business that would be approved by this policy? Chapter 5, Natural Resources Table of Contents: Natural Resources —Consider breaking out the natural resources with their own sub -headings to emphasize their importance and make their information easier to find. @ Interest in a re-evaluation of water rights for urban, agricultural, and "hobby farm" uses." We cannot find a goal or any policy that covers the above Key Community Consideration. Please create one if it is not addressed. Comment about background information in Chapter 5: LWVDC is studying the water situation in the Deschutes Basin and is very concerned about county and basin water issues. The effect of vanishing glaciers was not mentioned in the Draft"s Hydrology section, and is mentioned only obliquely in Chapter 7, Natural Hazards under Drought, It should be emphasized within the background information that it is not certain that rain will suffice to replenish groundwater. Having access to this knowledge will help members of Deschutes County provide more informed feedback on future deci-cloric. Tko i Wtqnr;n iine w;+A I W11110D PCs 14.;-- t - u 0 — 11 thot, beheves that natural resources sho U be managed as interrelated parts of life supporting ecosystems. To this point we suggest the &111C1iAJik1,-1 Policy 5-1.3: LWVDC is concerned that policy 5.1.3 allows siting of destination resorts when it only "considers" water quality and availability of surrounding areas. The site itself should be able to have ample water resources for its lifetime without impacting other water users. State law prohibits siting within 100 miles of a major population center, so this policy may be moot, New Policy: 5.1.3: ents must include a comprehensive analysis of potentiql im acts on water unlit and availabilit in relation to the citing, planning and potential approval process Policy 5. 1.4: Also, in the discussion of the Confederated -Fribes of Worm Springs, it should be noted nflfc that they have first water rinhtq not equallysharedor co -managed water rights N'.. language suggestion for 5.1.4: Acknowledge treaty protected first water rights held by The Confederated x better U-nderstandina 0, how wateruise in Deschutes County may adversely affect or violate standing treaties. New Sub Policy. 5.2.1.1. Encourage metering. _.monitoring and conservation of watertige. particularly for exem�f wells and commercial and industrial uses. Policy 5.5.2 has a typo: add e to wid Environmental Quality Goals and Policies, page 5-14 I flt-zoe yuula Uflu pullcles sire excelient, our biomass is not considered in Section 5. Below is a possible policy for biomass rafter reading Pnfiq/ R, 4. f3 in Form inn qprfin n New Policy: Review for air quality impact the DEQ air gu, ality regulations for Biomass Fuel plants sited in Deschutes County. Chapter 9 Economic Development Policy 9.4.2 has a typo: add "t" to "he remaining 20 acres..." Chapter 10 Housing Coal 10.1: Add New Policy before 10.1.1: The availability and effect on water resources and the potential for degradation on the quality of surface and ground water by any new land use shall be a limiting factor for approval. Additional Policy 10.4.7: Partner with local, state, and federal agencies to address increased numbers of individuals experiencing homelessness (particularly but not limited to youth, veterans, and seniors) through support of regional initiatives to increase support services, outreach, and housing first strategies. This policy is in -line with LWVOR positions on youth homelessness and housing. Special consideration of inventories and maps: All throughout the Draft Comprehensive Plan are references to current and future inventories and maps. if they are not already, please make these inventories and maps easily accessible to the public. These should be transparent and a good reference for the public as well as researchers. Thank you for your review of our recommendations. Particularly, the League of Women Voters of Deschutes County thanks the Commission for your strong, multi -faceted efforts to engage the public in the 2040 planning process and your receptivity to the views of constituent stakeholders. Sincerely, Karen Spears Zacharias Elizabeth Kirby and LWVDC President LWVDC Action Committee Marilyn Koenitzer o� ?{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: 2_ 00+0 C�e* d'epfq.A�Date: J2_3/2_-,5 Name Address 2a,3 Phone #s� E-mail address vylan i,, e-d LAJC_,l f L! C In Favor Neutral/Undecided � Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? IQ Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS 0 ono 2{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: / l Date: `7 Name Address 77 0 ) Phone #s 5V / 6 75 W K3 2 E-mail address Ce"'In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes No If so, please give a'copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY'' BEFORE MEETING BEGINS J-rEs o ?{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony nes C n Subject; t° -( a `� b C.� I Date: 23 Por E0 2f Nameh Address (J (20 n i n S Phone #s Z1 :7 l cz E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting writtendocuments as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY` BEFORE MEETING BEGINS MEETING DATE: April 23, 2025 SUBJECT: Annual Update: Economic Development of Central Oregon (EDCO) RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A, information only. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: For Fiscal Year 2025, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners allocated $324,517 in Video Lottery funds to EDCO to support operations, local program capacity and their Venture Catalyst Program. At the April 23rd meeting, EDCO staff will provide the Board with current status and updates on those programs, as well as provide information looking toward FY26 programs. BUDGET IMPACTS: At their meeting on April 2 2025, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners allocated $309,951 in Video Lottery funds to EDCO for FY26. ATTENDANCE: Jon Stark, CEO, Economic Development of Central Oregon Laura Skundrick, Management Analyst H r LJ a = a� v Er E _ m w o v O Q. O N g p w O = O w v L = O Ri ++ CU � O Q > = ea a d v _ a, _ E a m Z. Btma t— _ as rn = m Q 'a� c'°a E m ® o ® o i w U. m Am w 0 r N M d' LO w 1` 0 N N � O cu U cn En cn N O O N L Cn CL E O N a)C 2 O cu � O N i cn N -C (U O f4 U w W( C O E C O N C CL-0 N C N cn O E -P cn j O -O N Q N N cn N C RS N = U O_ cn i O E T U C C _ U O N N E 0),+, .., X N O O U >- O O Q.cn N � 0) U a)+r cp C U O M cn U N can C N Q- N E NO.0 p'a O a)U m (Q " N Q o O N .0 cn O 44- = 0 'O C O .0 Y O O O ' � cn N N - a) L) E a) U ® -0 0 U O O Q-r- a) Uta)n0.0 A ui F— 3 >Wo 0 cc (A (D 0).c c: 4>- Cl) U) Ui C: 0 cl) =3 C: o > C: A -a ca :3 C/) CU 4-0 >, (D >1 4- LU E —0 CU C/) >, (u cn — _0 < 0 0 " E D- o = = C.) n (u a) (U C -CU cn b .0),2 -0 0 0 -0 a) C: > T- T- < U) .2 cu 4,-- 0 m 0 m m ♦ U, c ♦ 2 IA 'toIf % LU > p T.UA ce 0 g I , Z Ix 0 t5 9 10 4A IL 0 a as ON Leo U IC 4A vi LU >�o 0 :2 U �. E CQ IN to v E � U� E m N E O U X w 0 W o; o. U :N i" T C O L] (a' d. o LU a- 3 >Wo cl 1 C cu v) � N N a)� cy) �> i O N > (06 4>+ C O N O -4-- — Q O a)O1 � L D a)cm — C N _0 O U 0 U N cn (6 E a O Q W U i n (6 n A p LO N d) (D LI) 0 LO 0 LO 0 Lo 0 LO 0 tx) LU � 3 >wo 0.4 oc cu LO 0 "o ,r,- Or) (1) _r_ (D _r_ 4- -0 :E (D 0 0 CL cu C: (D 0 Cl) C/) m a) O cn 0 (1) 0) CO 0--a aCU CU (D U) -C b CU C) 0 E LLI C) a) LAJ . • • , 4.6 , R •... • • �. .... •6.• l... • • •. • � • '. •0 i.. • - M CD • 1 s ' 4 •. - • • �' • •' • • i • LO • LL VZ • CO C' co • (A • • • _ 04 , •. co • .... • 0•04, ' • • • • •. • m . !. • .. �. �. s • • • ,r t.o .... r 0 N O N o 0 (00�L OZOZ) xepul uoi;erndod LUFm$ > IX a— m N e Ca o W LO '� M ®N ® >� to °4) �+ ® N > 4) +00 00 .Ow L. FL N N w ( 4) Q) ® 0) Q) �21 °N �+ M = @ o v ® iJ �. ® ® CC 4 r w 'a ® ® O 0 O O O O O (OOL = daJ MZ) XOPUI dG9 N N ,. • CL UJ 0 • •51 • C .k V 0 m a s (n 6 }x N � N E ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ aq ¢ ¢ ¢ v� vl vi (n In vi In In >, L2 �t �F 7 S O Li- a Cc ct cc O O O O Q O 0 Oa > �s u E a C v a O "ao rG COO -� ,j_ r 0 f, c U > U a z5 C s M uj 0 o_ g of C7 itf • • c N 1 o p • V • 1 1 • fa � 1 O V Ln • Q • 1 • • 1 O • • o� J Z o OTj lJ LU Q� _ 1 / ZZ ® • • CL Q J i J ti� t i l s ry A a� Q. E U O 0 O a > Q I' " O CD O O co O N O r 0 o N r ^+ DC 's O CO M U CD m a=+ O N O 0 .o >- CL LLN .= o ui U a) p 'E O E w Q O E o O o a o r 0) U O N c N � Ln >, M It N o O O co O LO N O N N 0 0 g r O Co r U Q U 0 - (n (n .0 0 (D 0 > cu 4- o 0 Fn q O 0 CU cu cu 0- 0 (n 0 cu a) -C () C)_ 0 to C) C/) to Q C/) cn E E cn c/) b (0) -0 (-) n c U) 0 LD C;) C: UJ 0) Q (j) U) 5,0 L_ E . T (D E o -E o 1- 0 C: 0 4- -iE 0 0 21 �r Ira $ k } \ co .\ Co \ « {CL 0a . \ :CL2 f t _ \< \ �d cc > ? 0 \�\\� E e�\©� ( 2 (A u o z \\\ CL A© 00 & LU 0 $ . � 00 . 2 . G � m I �E � / m . 0 / Q f a) - C @ B o c § : $ V o E M f m c o O § 2 « a a)m f '� c Q CL 0 } CA CL-0 m @ f CL o f� k t 7 / G 2 § / § 7 % § t m 2d E f / / 7 �f / § in s 5 0 E 2 '> � \ § CL >1 CL e c � m J C k = E� � a) t R 7E k N m% Cl) O ) -\ƒ 2 @ N c. $ U) ® m o ° U)§ 7± E -0 E / 7 0 £ m £ f C § m / « £ D \ ) t @ U-0 a)k E m k k W j c/ @ o o P c :30 Q ® § •� / ƒ '� ° % $ E m k k% 5 f ƒ/ @ Q E = m 7£• 2 I f O E\ / / � ƒ E B $ e $ E # 2 > P @ § E g .� in § E CL E . , / / k = m / S . . . , . . O . ui > Cd o I I I 0 u ri to o S P4 0 U tol 0 o t)jj ,D 0 1 0 44 0 o 0 P-1 zj u IQ, ;11.1 llu� rl bo 1142 4 74' S- 97 34 0 M4 14, 14 10110 I Z O co p_ w LL LL w Z LL z w ww UJ �"� 0 Im J H ® ® R Q Z ® Q Jcn1° �LL �® u� 1- I. uj ® U p= of-- ®0® ®w Q lu L W� a Z a Ne. � � U9 » § �S\ \ % t E 2 \5 ; E \ ) \ƒE§ / a)� a) « R � § Kly - §=t _ » - \S& @42 ~ mFo a m c � = \ k $ § 0m »3®*\ 0 E m o y CL �H p H � Lj N W Z U = y{� m Z W o a00 N i AP Ito JiC w OF y y. K D r E s ooG�-A I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2025 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org AGENDA MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session. Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link: http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To attend the meeting virtually via Zoom, see below. Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda. Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means. Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer. • To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD. ® To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the passcode 013510. If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and *6 to unmute yourself when you are called on. When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist. You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to. Deschutes county encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. •� If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org. Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT The Board of Commissioners provides time during its public meetings for citizen input. This is an opportunity for citizens to communicate to the Commissioners on matters that are not otherwise on the agenda. Time is limited to 3 minutes. The Citizen Input platform is not available for and may not be utilized to communicate obscene or defamatory material. Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Resolution No. 2025-011 accepting the annual Oregon Department of Revenue CAFFA assessment and taxation grant 2. Approval of a revised amendment to the Behavioral Health Provider Services Agreement with PacificSource Community Solutions 3. Approval of Order No. 2025-015, setting a temporary speed limit of 45 MPH on NW 19th Street between NW Odem and NW Sedgewick Avenues 4. Approval of Document No. 2025-362, a contract with Helion Software for Assessment and Taxation software 5. Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking Thomas Spear Jr., for service on the Public Safety Coordinating Council 6. Approval of the BOCC March 19 and April 2, 2025 meeting minutes 7. Approval of the minutes of the April 11, 2025 BOCC Legislative Update meeting ACTION ITEMS 8. 9:10 AM Annual Update from Visit Central Oregon 9. 9:55 AM Public Hearing: Temporary Hardship Dwelling Text Amendment April 23, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 10. 10:40 AM Public Hearing: Reconsideration of the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update LUNCH RECESS Continued ACTION ITEMS 11. 1:00 PM Annual Update: Economic Development of Central Oregon (EDCO) OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN April 23, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3