2025-239-Minutes for Meeting June 16,2025 Recorded 7/31/2025�01ES CO
o� G2{ BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541 ) 388-6570
1:00 PM
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2025-239
Steve Dennison; County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 07/31 /2025 10:51:40 AM
��°�� II I I I I� 11 ill II I I li I� i II { I II ICI
2025-239
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY June 16, 2025
Allen Room
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were
Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale; 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: www.deschutes.org/meet DZS.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair De Bone called the meeting to order at 1:00 pm.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT:
• Ginny McKee encouraged approval of the proposed lease of land on the County's
Public Safety Campus to Mountain View Community Development for a safe parking
site, saying that more needs to be done to address the growing number of people
who are experiencing homelessness. She shared that the church she attends offers
safe parking, and no problems have been experienced.
In response to Commissioner Adair, McKee said the church initially offered two
spaces for safe parking and now offers three spaces.
BOCC MEETING JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 1 OF 5
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Consideration of an agreement with the Greater Redmond Area Enterprise
Zone sponsors to extend the property tax exemption for capital investment
by i3D Manufacturing to five total consecutive years
Steve Curley, REDI Executive Director, presented a request for a two-year
extension of the i3D Enterprise Zone (EZone) Extended Abatement Agreement.
He explained that this agreement, initially approved for a three-year term,
provides a property tax exemption for capital investment by i3D Manufacturing
in Redmond. BD manufactures a wide range of 3-D metal printed products for
companies in the aviation/aerospace sector.
In response to Commissioner DeBone, Curley said the proposed extension has
been approved by the City Councils of Redmond and Sisters.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, Curley said the exemption amounts to
$48,000 per year for the City of Redmond. In the interest of transparency, Curley
offered to provide the annual impact of the exemption on the County. He added
that the capital investment by the company totals $26 million.
In response to Commissioner Adair, Curley said as new hires are paid higher
salaries, the salaries paid to current employees will also rise.
CHANG: Move approval of Document No. 2025-620, an agreement with the
Greater Redmond Area Enterprise Zone sponsors to extend the
property tax exemption for capital investment by BD Manufacturing
to five total consecutive years
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0
Curley offered to set up a tour of the manufacturing facility for any
Commissioner who would like to see it.
2. Annual Update from Jericho Road
Don Senecal presented the annual update on Jericho Road's programs and
services, saying that work is being done to establish a service center adjacent to
Oasis Village on the east side of Redmond to more effectively serve homeless
BOCC MEETING JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 5
persons. He reported on the number of volunteer hours donated to Jericho Road
and said its funding sources include the annual benefit golf tournament.
Discussion ensued regarding the planned managed camp near Oasis Village and
the lease of County -owned property to Mountain View Community Development
to establish permanent supportive housing in east Redmond.
In response to Commissioner Adair, Senecal said Jericho Road is currently
negotiating with the County to lease property for a service center near Oasis
Village. Commissioner Adair noted that Mosaic Medical also has a facility in this
area.
3. Work Session for a Road Name Change - File No. 247-25-000149-RN
Haleigh King, Senior Planner, described a 60-foot unimproved right-of-way
currently named Cardwell Road and said an application was submitted to
rename this "Conquest Road." Adding that the road will provide access to a
recently approved eight -lot residential subdivision, she said no objections have
been received to the renaming proposal, and no address changes would be
needed.
In response to Commissioner Adair, King said the road is not yet paved, but will
be as the subdivision is developed.
King said this application will come back to the Board on Wednesday for
consideration of approval.
4. Work Session: Cascades Academy Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Nicole Mardell, Senior Planner, said a public hearing will be held before the
Board this Wednesday on a proposal from Cascade Academy of Central Oregon
to rezone seven tax lots totaling 22.5 acres from Surface Mine and EFU to
MUA10. Mardell explained that Cascade Academy's existing campus is located to
the south and the school has indicated that it plans to use the additional
property for future expansion of its campus.
Continuing, Mardell said the Hearings Officer recommended a conditional denial
of the rezone, saying the application failed to demonstrate compatibility with
Goal 5.
In response to Commissioner DeBone, Mardell confirmed that the Landscape
Management Combining Zone protects views towards the property from both
Highway 20 and the Deschutes River. She added that the applicant submitted an
BOCC MEETING JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 5
ESEE (Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy analysis) which addresses
these protections. Additionally, the Hearings Officer agreed with the applicant
that because the property is not agricultural land, no Goal 14 analysis is required
in association with the proposed rezone.
Commissioner Adair asked why all of the soils were analyzed if only part of the
property is zoned EFU. Mardell said in addition to providing information on the
category of soils present on the EFU-zoned parcels, the soil analysis also
returned information that there are no aggregate resources on the property
which could be mined.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Mardell confirmed that schools are an
allowed use in the EFU zoned. Will Groves, Planning Manager, suggested that at
the hearing, the Board may want the applicant to address the question of why it
has applied for a rezone if the current zoning already allows a school.
Commissioner Chang sought information on whether the large area on the
southern portion of the property which appears to lack naturally -occurring
vegetation had been farmed in the past.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, Mardell said the provisions of the
Landscape Management Combining Zone (LMCZ) are triggered by a building
permit with the aim of protecting one or more scenic resources against visual
disturbances. Properties subject to the LMCZ may need to comply with height
limitations, setbacks from a waterway, and restrictions on exterior lighting and
exterior paint colors.
S. Reconsideration of Letter of Support for BLM Funding Request for Acquiring
Paulina Meadows
Commissioner Adair shared that after she met last Thursday with
representatives from the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the
City of La Pine, Lisa Clark from BLM submitted an email detailing its plans for the
Paulina Meadows property and how that would be managed by BLM. Asking that
this email be placed in the record, Commissioner Adair referred to the City of La
Pine's frustration with BLM, stated her appreciation for Clark's follow-through,
and commented on illegal camping happening on federal land outside of Sisters
and the fact that more than 49 homes have burned so far in the fire near The
Dalles. She supported moving forward with the letter requested by the Western
Land Conservancy supporting BLM's request for federal funds to acquire the
Paulina Meadows property.
BOCC MEETING JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 5
OTHER ITEMS:
• Commissioner DeBone reported that no executive session will be held today.
• Commissioner Chang attended the Made in Redmond Tour last Friday which
involved visits to four manufacturing businesses.
• Commissioner Chang toured the Courthouse expansion project this morning,
which Commissioner DeBone did as well.
• Commissioner Adair said the rodeo in Sisters was last week and the one in Crook
County is next week.
• Commissioner Adair reported on last week's Audit Committee meeting.
• Commissioner Adair reported on last Thursday's Central Oregon Health Council
meeting at which the significant harmful impacts of diabetes were discussed.
• Commissioner DeBone said the CORE3 project published an economic impact
study which will be used to lobby for financial investment from the State.
• Commissioner DeBone said the 2025 Legislative Update meeting this Friday has
been cancelled.
• Commissioner DeBone attended the Sisters Rodeo on Thursday night.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: None
l elm"
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:07 pm.
DATED this day of 2025 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
v r �
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
ATTEST:
PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
RECORDING SECRETARY
BOCC MEETING JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 5
BOARD OF
Q-,6,
I COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Annual Update from Jericho Road
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
N/A
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Jericho Road will present an update to the Board on its programs and services.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
NA
ATTENDANCE:
Don Senecal, consultant to the Jericho Road Board of Directors
ANNUAL REPORT 2024
r�� HOPE
O Z
m
a77 co)
�
� o
z
Jericho Road
SUPPORT
OUR MISSION STATEMENT:
"To provide consistent, nurturing and tangible support to the homeless and those in
need within the Redmond, Oregon area".
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
Casey Sadahiro
As the incoming Chair of the Jericho Road Board of Directors, I realize that I will be
expected to fill the extremely "large" and competent shoes of my predecessor, Dr. Mark
Keener. I will depend a great deal on the support and mentoring of Mark and the rest of the
JR Board. The challenges we face in 2025 will be unique, but we have faced and overcome
the COVID pandemic together so we are well prepared to be flexible and creative. My hope
is that you, the readers of this report, along with our incredible volunteers and funders, will
continue to support and share the news about Jericho Road's programs and our efforts to
provide the best, possible care and attention to those in our community who daily face the
challenges of poverty. With your assistance nothing is impossible!
On the following pages you will learn about each of our programs and the ways in which we
ALL work together to ensure the highest, possible level of service. The people on these pages
deserve the highest accolades possible. Their strength of character has always supported
Jericho Road and those we serve. We look to continue our relationships with each of you as
we offer dignity and a better future for the people we serve. I thank everyone for the honor
of being a part of such a strong and effective community organization such as Jericho Road!
JERICHO TABLE
Jericho Table provides free, hot meals 260 nights a year. Our volunteers
help serve the meals while engaging our guests with conversation and
genuine and caring support. This contact is a critical part of the service
we provide. setting people know we care and want to help. Under the
steady hands of Ken Cardwell. the program coordinators and their crews
of volunteers, the Table provides encouragement and nutrition in the best
possible ways!
Jericho Table, at their location at the Church of God Seventh Day's Fellowship Hall, 205W 4th Street in Redmond,
is the gathering place for additional activities such as well: Portable Showers, Mosaic Medical Van, Housing
Assistance, and many more. Doors open at 4:30!
School `__.a. Program
�
Jericho Road's Weekend Food for Students Program provides bags of kid friendly
food to students in the Redmond School District. FART advocates identity students
who might need extra food for the weekend. Food items are purchased by our
volunteer team and taken to Redmond High School. There the food is packed by
the FAN Advocate and student volunteers. Weekend Food Program volunteers
rl-enn ck ,-, rhop ],-,11-,,,.,. 7 1 7:,, rl ¢ D-A i L i- c,r_,.7_.. _
w! ��.�a r,i -- ur, _--_ ��_n.e,u ua6o a!!u LSC!!YC! ,.!!C LV 1 tul-!!SJ!tL..' J.,.I:J JIJ. onaCKS .. e
provided to the BRYT room and school nurses.
Summer Program
Uac11 summer 4 A I,--- ,..-,.....,..,: 4-1 r,. L :i: IAT . _._.�L �7 rt 7--_ _._ a c _7_ _ _7 ram. _ >_
i.,a�,!! ou!!ui!�.! !vvu va60 al%. r!Uv!ucu Lv !a!!!!!!CJ. VM l-00lU.!!!ate ith he i\edi-fi 1n School Di slrlc;ls slliiinier
lunch program, distributing our Jericho Road bags at a district site and time. 2,100 food bags were provided to
students in 2024.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
The goal of Jericho Road's Housing Assistance Program is to prevent
hoieiessr!ess by heipl"r, !vlks to stay ii! t!ieir IIVIIICS. PrlscIlia Bigler and
the Housing Assistance team interview families and individuals seeking
help. We provide a friendly and comforting place to meet to discuss ways
provide give support. Messages of gratitude and successful outcomes
and the things that fuel the passions of our volunteers to keep families
a:+:
backgrounds.
JERICHO'S OUTREACH PROGRAM
The Outreach Program takes supplies, goodwill and assistance to homeless
campers in the Redmond area. Linda Sorum helps coordinate one of the
most comprehensive and effective on -site programs in Central Oregon.
Bringing caring and positive support to areas of extreme need.
Along with our local partners and providers, the coordinated efforts
become extremely important in maintaining a sense of purpose and
nurturing support. Included among these are Deschutes County Harm
Reduction, Mosaic Medical mobile clinic, J Bar J, Deschutes County Public
Library, and Project Share, and Oasis Village.. Services ranging from mental and physical health to reading
material and opportunities to enter the Continuum of Care towards secure shelter and permanent housing are
there along with hot food and veterinarian assistance for pets. Reaching out to the people who live in camps is a
positive and positive and appreciated action that helps create trust while building hope and a sense of security.
Sometimes a cup of coffee and a hot sandwich makes all the difference. In
2024, the Outreach team included 500 volunteers serving in rotating shifts.
They provided support to 2,700 men, women and children with a sense of
dignity and humanity. Fall of 2024 saw Craig Bramley and John Firestone
initiate a new method of exchanging, recording, and dispensing 4.5gal
propane tanks to those in need. In cooperation with Oasis Village residents
and CO -Energy, we now average 30 plus tanks a week from the Jericho Road
supply truck. For those encamped, propane is the only form of heating and
cooking power available.
EMERGENCY SERVICES AND SUPPLIES
Under the careful and steady leadership of Dr. Mark Keener, the emphasis
on immediate needs took on a higher priority during 2024. Items such as
sleeping bags, propane space heaters, propane canisters, tents, tarps, pet
food, firewood, bus passes and other items are given those at Jericho Table
meals and through the Outreach Program.
THE RUBBER DUCKY ROLLS!
Our three unit shower trailer continues to provide critical
showers, fresh underwear, socks, and personal hygiene items.
More than 1,000 people in 2024 received what is, for many, the
only opportunity they have to remain clean under the harshest
of conditions.
Top Row: Casey Sadhiro (incoming President), Dr. Mark Keener, Past President, Linda Sorum,
John Seitter, Treasurer, Ken Cardwell. Craig Bramley, Colton Cross, Bottom Row: Eleanor
Bessonette,Bob Bohac, Margaret King, Alison McKinney, John Firestone, Natalie Lantz, Iry
Nygren (Founder and Emeritus Member).
IPT TXTTAlUD C A XT" CD"I®TCfAD C
�& e! A ! .-! L4S®�-P d 1i ® g! %1-Y A V S. ! L! V 1®t?
Jericho Road recognizes the foundations, organizations, businesses and corporations that
have given generously to help support our programs:
St. Charles Foundation, Herbert Templeton Foundation, Munger Prevention Foundation,
vlrego n C^vmmu 'i1iT Fou ndatioii, Neighborimpact, Deschutes �,vuilty, iVtld Oregoll,
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Agency, Cow Creek Foundation, KTVZ, Fred Meyer,
Autzen Foundation, Les Schwab, Maybelle Clark Foundation, COSTCO, Pacific Power,
Pacific Source, OnPoint, Shapira Fund.
FAITH AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS
Jericho Road is the largest ecumenical social service effort east of the Oregon Cascades. Twelve local
congregations and local organizations not only provide regular financial support but also many of
the volunteer workers who make Jericho Road a success. We could not serve without their support.
These Redmond area congregations support Jericho Road through their prayers. generosity and sense of
community:
St. Albans, All Peoples UCC, Seventh Day Adventists, Community Presbyterian, Assembly of God,
Mountain View Fellowship, Community of Christ, and Zion Lutheran, Connect Church, Kiwanis, Oasis
Village, One Street Down Cafe.
Jericho Road also acknowledges that there are others who have been an integral part of our efforts and
have been critical in our success. These additional names deserve the most grateful thanks as well. We
urge our friends and neighbors to show their appreciation whenever possible.
The City of Redmond, Redmond School District, Redmond High School's Leadership Class. Family
Access Network advocates. Neighborlmpact, Alliance Professionals, Central Oregon Council on Aging,
Homeless Leadership Coalition, Deschutes Brewery, Earth2.0, Eagle Crest Resort, Redmond Kiwanis,
Central Oregon Old Car Club, Bobbi Haas' Annual Socktober Drive, Central Oregon Retired Educators,
Crooked River Ranch Lions, High Desert Museum, Erickson Museum of Flight, Redmond Police
Department, Deschutes County Sheriff's Department, Expon360, Ryan's Produce, Jordan's Produce,
MacDonald's, Bend Pet Express, Papa Murphy's, Starbucks, Mosaic Medical, Best Care, Starbucks of
Redmond, Shelley Irwin, Deschutes County Homeless Outreach, Thrive, Myrna and Ryan Anderson
Food Delivery, Round Table Pizza, Big Foot Beverages, McDonalds of Redmond, Oregon Food Bank,
Order of the Eastern Star Chapter 105, Perception Alpha Omega, Presbytery of the Cascades, Redmond
Faith Network, Boneyard Brewery, Redmond Parks and Recreation District, Redmond Library,
Redmond Service League, Redmond VFW, St. Vincent De Paul, Sun & Snow Extension Group, Thursday
Book Group, Trinity Bike Shop. Vital Provisions, Ten Barrel Brewery. Bright Side Animal Center.
Windermere Realty's Clothing Drive, Trader Joe's, Walmart, Ryan's Produce, Jordan's Produce, Franz
Bakery. Expion Lithium Batteries, Bi-Mart, Redmond Safeway, Redmond Fred Meyer, Grocery Outlet,
Dollar Tree, Valero Service Station, Eberhard's Dairy, Big 5 Sporting Goods, and Local Paws Pet Supply!
® • •of 3 �
thrive mosAic�
COMMUnITV HEALTH r
central oregon � , ��.,a �Jej hbOrl C
t1gAX�♦ � C� \ �
K w a n s
O PRESS
@THE •
CLUB OF REDMOND,OR
sOREGON
Mft.d 1937 FOOD BANK
�PNST
PEAGLE CREST*
:.
y 0
Annual Budget ® 2024: $242,500 (10% increase from 2023)
Jericho Table
Total number of meals served=8,944 to 8697 individuals (8,463 adults and 234 children). 216
nights served.
Total Volunteer hours: 1,372.
Total Program Cost: $31,033.46.
"Weekend Food Program
Total number of food containers distributed = 2,104.
Total Volunteer Hours: 500.
Total program costs - $16,832.00.
Hcousin.Assis3:a race Progrwyi.
Total number of requests approved = 198 (included 281 adults and 312 children). Those assisted
also included 21 seniors, 47 disabled, 5 veterans, and 26 Domestic Violence Survivors.
Total Volunteer Hours: 612.
Total program costs - $59,284.10.
Total number of individuals receiving support = 100
Distribution included 64 heaters, 29 tents, 43 tarps, 308 sleeping bags, 368 green gas canisters, 32
headlamps, various hand warmers, vests, fresh water, food & firewood.
Total Volunteer Hours: 325.
TnfnI Prnarnm rnctc =.4.0 S i 7 S%
aaa�nis:�:sr4.,ea"snra�a','sz.cls
Total number of individuals served = 2,700.
19,853 pounds of perishable and non-perishable foods were served including meals of soup,
sandwiches and burritos.
486 4.5 tanks of Propane.
1,500 (approx.) pounds of pet food.
Total Volunteer Hours: 2100.
Total Program Costs = $25,539.64
1Rubber Ducky Shower railer
9 A9'�H� /9.lY YC A-"]AYY0A — AR
a ac coca acca., v cav�aan� vca xv
Total number of showers provided = 1,025
Total Volunteer Hours: 315.
Participants received towels, soap, shampoo, toothpaste and brushes.
500 sets of clean underwear, socks and hygiene supplies were also provided.
Grand Total Expenditures for all programs = $157,269.69
OUR VOLUNTEERS
JERICHO ROAD VOLUNTEERS ARE FANTASTIC FOLKS WHO GIVE FREELY
SO THAT OTHERS MAY HEAL
Jericho Road would like to thank each and every one of these incredible individuals who so graciously
and lovingly give of their time and their resources to help those who, like the traveler along the Road to
Jericho so many centuries ago, needed help.
Included here is a partial list of Jericho Road Volunteers. We sincerely apologize if not all the names
of these incredibly wonderful people are not included. Jericho Road, the Citizens of Redmond and
Deschutes County applaud their talents, contributions and dedication:
Jericho Table: Coordinator, Ken Cardwell: Diane Cardwell, Linda Sorum, Colton Cross,
Mark Keener, Cathie Hamilton, Melanie Feilzer, Chris Slabaugh, Jim and Susan Moody,
Mike Olsen, Maria Corbin, Cheryl McNamara, Pat Cook, Dan Tippy, Mandy Savage,
Melissa Williams, Jim Holm, Jim Montoya, Eleanor Bessonette, Judy Luffman, Ann Hendrick.
Weekend Food for Students: Coordinator, Eleanor Bessonette: Gail White, Linda Sorum,
Ann Hendrick, Suzanne Moody, Chris Slabaugh, Kathy Gordon, Kathy Harms.
Housing Assistance: Coordinator, Eleanor Bessonette; Sherri Jordon, Priscilla Bigler, Anne Bohac, Ruth
Butera, Jennifer Jackson.
Rubber Ducky Shower Trailer: Coordinator, Mark Keener: Jeff and Heather, Colton Cross, Dan
Edwards, Dan Broadly, Kathy Maixner, Ann Hendrick, Tom Zimmerman.
Homeless Camps Outreach: Coordinator, Linda Sorum: Linda and Dan Witt, John and Lois Seitter,
Margaret King, Alison McKinney, Cricket Randolph, Colton Cross, Jamie Hamill-Kanski, Priscilla and
Bill Bigler, Anne and Bob Bohac, Linda and Bob Fowler, Peggy Jeffries, Bob Ure, John Firestone, Ken
Cardwell, Kirk Atrip, Solimar Fiske, Casey Sadahiro, Mark Keener and Ann Hendricks, Don Carlson,
Don Senecal.
Volunteerism Pays!!!!
Grand total of volunteer hours = 5,224
Pro -rated volunteer hours at minimum wage = $76,792.80!
NEVER LET ANYONE TELL YOU VOLUNTEERISM
DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
a 0
I
►--,Ia-v-
UO
r:
The Jericho Road Benefit Golf Tournament is a major event that attracted 150
golfers and generated more than $50,000 to help support our programs! We
are looking forward to the 2024 Annual Benefit Tournament that will take
place on Saturday, August 9th at the Eagle Crest Resort. Sponsors, Teams and
Volunteers are encouraged to "sign up early"'' Please watch our Face Book
Page and Website for information.
HIM "I'l IMIALIFIA-11 0
541-350-6654
:E v -0 � 0
(D CLO
m C C
(D-S
—
-0 77
N <
O p O
0 (D
O
EA rD
p
r�
(D (D
v v pr
O
(rD
fD
cn n N
C
(D lD
C 7 'O O
iiQcr
�. N O
N
�
O
CrtC (D.
C.
N
-•h Ln
O (D —
CA
N
3 m ED
O Q-
(D
((DD < (�D rN+
(D
(D Q
v
Q (gyp O
(D (D rD Q
7
S
(D aq (D r+
m<-0 D-3
:E
3 0' " ID. (D
(D mLn 7 N
(D
(D
(D 0q
(DO
n
-0 N
O 0-O
N O
�
I Q (D
=3.
-0 r+
(D fD r+ (D
(D aj
<
(nD 0 (/) Q '+
(D (D
- 0 Q (D
�• O
Q
O O
Di � O n
<
:<
UQ
f
°, 3
Q Ln
3 0
C =
LA. O 3
_0
O -o
O O
�
DZZ O O
�.
O• <
n v
°+
r+ n �O N
3
C N
O O
N
CLr+=ro
_0
v
0 ^ �- —•
C -�
Q (D (D
to (D
Q O 0- D
C
�,
r+ (D �O
04 O
O
0
O
(D 3 �.
fD
lD
3 O lD
(D
N N r+ N
O0-0
v
fDLn
ID
flu
N S Q
o
-* D O
O
0 C
(n rat
N
N
O
t d <
(D
n nu < (D
`^
n
(D n Q
7 (D flu
�n N <
Ln O
rt (D
Cr =JC) (D
(D Q ILD (D
Q (D
cn N
N
O n
('^�
C flu Lp (D
O
(D 7 r+ cn O-
Q Q O (D -<
n flu —I v rN+
O 7 (D
C Q N (D n Q
Q `' �, rDOO (D
3 o a-
( cr m o 0 CL e-+
D :3
�_
(D -i, M
N CL" n• 00 rnr fOD
rDWrt O 3 n
_0 O d 00
d
O- S 0 O(D N
nu Ln
�
(D n CLm � CL L.
r+ (D -0 Q r+-n
w O n O flu :3
v < w 3. (D
O < CLO C -
O �
C (D �
Qv
O Ln "
< �S =r Q h
O dq (D �, n
O Ln < O (n (OD
Q- (D z
0 CL(D
r+ < 3 a 3 g roD-
= �. + O O
alu
go ��cr
Sq N— -- 0
s
UQ= w 3 V° (D
lD (J7
0—LA
r+ O O 0 (�D
< L, O n �
(D O 5 Ln S
rJ Q -ri N (D
O < 2. Ui (D `* Q
0 (D
O(D -< 3 O W ^,
au v O C r-r O O
O- -h < Ui
o' (D w m (D z
v n au m 3
O L
-* a)O a) A
rD
D O O
h 00 O (D rNr
0) CL
Q D.
N N
�' -< po
oQa3 (D r+(D
(D S Q N � Q
o < (D "0 3
m �
(D v (D CL O Q
� n
v Ln, :r
rD
�o
CL
�.
� m
= O
O
cn I
< N
rD
3
O O
r* cn
O
a0i 3
vi
O
O
N COL)
Ln O
Q
O_
j O
<CL r+
� I
O �
_
7 ID
Q
V
C
aq
N
v
rD
m <
3.
3
0
3 v
rD
(FD
a O_
O cr.
O
Ort
V
3
0
O
V)
3 m
0 3
m �.
n (D
v O
rD=r
<rt
� cn <
(D c
n
o- Ln
v
(�
v'
Q- n
N S
O
0
(D
(D
c
N
n
—.
m v
C
Q 0
0
3'
O DU
C
n
3
r+ flu
< UU
e-+ au
n cn
rt Q
3
0
CL
rD
0
Ln
O
n
�
N
0
r.f
O
(D
3 rD
C 0
7
ry--F
c
N
C au
O
3
3
d
0
((DD "
r+ O
n0 rD 3n
3 `�`'
� rD
O
O �
3 (D
x
v
M N
(D
0 (D
(D
O p
V
rt
N
rD
M �.
n• �
(p
.O-r
au O
Q
to (D
Q- :E :E -0 (D
-Ci (D r+ O �•
(D S Dq n
O�q N N 0
r+ m 3
? CLN Z7
O I rr S O
C C
3
(3p r+O O chi
=r 0- <
3 m fA Q N
O n O rD v
� cr
O O rNr
< "0 (QD (D
r+ O
=r r
r+ fD
(D
_ C UQ
C UU N Q
n C -n
((DD = (D O
0 (D Q Q
T
m
O
rt
A9
N
C®NNECTI®NSI�
JJ
to
as
0
0
Z
O
E
c
0
-Ea
®
al
O
®�
LL
z
l0
Ln
�'
O
O
0
—
E
uj
0
O
.0
.E
w
Ln
M �
N �
to cz
rl
X
0
Z; O
E
a�
InL r-----------------------------------------------------+
p = p a1 1 i
®• 7 V Q) N 1 � 4-
1
m ° Q i m O U O
® f6 E O Y O ' �. QJ a 1
C UA s- L H O S °
U V)
-Q L •C Q a) N , C 1
O L tJ E U
'a 0 _0OLL
1 n n N w � CC � n
z O a o o E ao o � N '
c �= z
LLJ
Ln
p 1 ,v o N 1
a7
Q. aJ '.p to -O in i "� a... m 60
v -0 L fII 42N a I— i z `F C
� ..� V UJ U Q O tv O V 0 I I I
-= - _
O c t cLo O ca v�i s® N
c
O , z E � Q '
L po 0) --1
,
.r ° c p ono c o v
s p —i�aUoi UCCcepo O N c v
O � .)
p U N 1 L ra >• oN ,.'.
;
U u a) m u E o v o a n v
ro U
of L L
® o •� a1 O m � co C
+� in -O �- +� vl (6 _
�_ a. n_i = mc a1 c n _ 0) _®
a '
(A CL � E vi LLJ� O m+� : c N
Ln
u LLJ 0-
O iNil C p w
— res i
E v a 3 U f6 O v
_tie Vi
J Zvi i . _ �.._
LIJ W Q L a! Y 'Q a) a
zp�
— -0-0 ` - w Q - or -0 p _ .e --co O_ cu a a) v-- L
= 2 c ._ L o v
-" � C 'n C rp C: U O N Q
O N _� " U N N
bn o Alt a)
C
ai
Q)
LU
a 3 0) a){) ,: , ,. (, o U _E as Q L cw fu
a) o v v
a) L 3 i L tl
w in C n L S Q vi 0 L O 0 0 0 O C N ++
E 5
o
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Work Session for a Road Name Change - File No. 247-25-000149-RN
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Work Session in preparation for signature of Board Order No. 2025-022. This item is
scheduled on the Consent Agenda for June 18, 2025.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Staff will provide background to the Board regarding an application for a Road Name
Change (247-25-000149-RN). DCC 16.16.030(l) requires the Board to sign an order
approving the name within 10 days of the staff decision becoming final.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Haleigh King, Senior Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Haleigh King, Senior Planner
DATE: June 11, 2025
SUBJECT: June 16t" Work Session for the Road Name Assignment of Conquest Road
(CDD File No. 247-25-000149-RN)
Background
Cardwell Road is an existing, unimproved 60-foot-wide right-of-way. The right-of-way is owned by
Deschutes County and is classified as a rural local roadway. The southern terminus connects to
Butler Market Road, a County owned and maintained, rural arterial. The northern terminus ends at
the southeast corner of the property currently addressed as 63350 Abbey Road (Deschutes County
Map and Tax Lot 17-13-18C-000100). This road segment and the segment subject to the rename
request is approximately 1,288 feet in length.
This application request is to change the name of an existing unimproved right-of-way, Cardwell
Road, to Conquest Road. The property outlined in red below has received tentative subdivision
approval to establish eight (8) rural residential lots (County File No. 247-24-000401-TP). The
subdivision has not received final plat approval at this time. The tentative subdivision layout shows
the improvement of and continuation of the existing Cardwell Road to serve these future lots. The
developer and property owner for the subdivision has requested the road name Conquest Road for
the public right-of-way to serve these proposed lots.
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q, (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org/cd
There are six (6) properties with abutting property lines along the road to be renamed. No abutting
property takes direct access or are addressed from the existing Cardwell Road.
Staff Decision
The Community Development Department (CDD) reviewed the requested road name assignment
under file no. 247-25-000149-RN. In consultation with the Deschutes County Property Address
Coordinator, Staff found the name Conquest Road complied with DCC 16.16.030(E)(1) and (2).
Under DCC 16.16.030(B), public comments on the proposed road name are limited to those parties
owning property abutting the affected road or having an address on the affected road. Staff mailed
notice of the application to these parties on March 14, 2025, and a notice of the staff decision was
mailed on June 2, 2025. Staff received no public comments.
The staff decision will become final, absent an appeal, at the end of the 10-day appeal period on
June 12, 2025, at 4pm.
Next Steps
DCC 16.16.030(I) requires the Board to sign an order approving the name within 10 days of the staff
decision becoming final. If the Board approves the proposed road name, the Board must sign the
corresponding order, Board Order 2025-022, no later than June 23, 2025. Approving this order at
the meeting scheduled on June 18, 2025 will ensure this timeline is met.
Page 2 of 3
If staff receive any appeals prior to the June 18t" meeting, staff will bring the materials to the Board's
attention and enter them into the record.
Attachments:
File No. 247-25-000149-RN Findings and Decision
Board Order 2025-022
Road Location Map
Page 3 of 3
FINDINGS AND DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 247-25-000149-RN
APPLICANT: Jason Bethers
REQUEST: The applicant requests to establish the name Conquest Road for an
existing, public, unimproved local road which is currently named
Cardwell Road.
The subject local road extends north from Butler Market Road, and is
approximately 1/4 mile long. The subject local access road is located on
Tax Map 17-13-18C.
STAFF CONTACT: Haleigh King, Senior Planner
Phone: 541-383-6710
Email: Haleigh.king@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
www.buildingpermits.oregon.,gov
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 16, Addresses and Road Names
Chapter 16.16, Road Naming
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
11. BASIC FINDINGS:
ROAD DESCRIPTION: Cardwell Road is an existing, unimproved 60-foot-wide right-of-way. The right-
of-way is owned by Deschutes County and is classified as a rural local roadway. The southern
terminus connects to Butler Market Road, a County owned and maintained, rural arterial. The
northern terminus ends at the southeast corner of the property currently addressed as 63350
Abbey Road (Deschutes County Map and Tax Lot 17-13-18C-000100). This road segment and the
segment subject to the rename request is approximately 1,288 feet in length.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q, (541) 388-6575 cdcWdeschutes.org www.des(@utes.org/cd
Figure 1- Vicinity Map and Subject Road to be Renamed
600
;.;a; rc
Approved Tentative Subdivision
(File No. 247-24-000401-TP)
rrr 1 rrr7 7- /777 rrr/
NrY cz:a nz;�
5 700 B00 3 900
q 86 AO 3d5 Fri 8of
4
v4 CnROR
I I
AFFECTED PROPERTIES: There are six (6) properties with abutting property lines along the road to
be renamed. No abutting property takes direct access or are addressed from the existing Cardwell
Road. The following properties have property lines abutting this road:
22190 Butler Market Road
171318C000900
22220 Parker Lane
171318DC00400
22229 Parker Lane
171318DC00500
63215 Peterman Lane
171318DC01000
63205 Peterman Lane
171318DC01100
63325 Peterman Lane
171318DB0O300
As noted above, all properties abutting the subject roadway are addressed from another roadway;
therefore, no property addresses will need to be changed as a result of this road name change
request.
247-25-000149-RN Page 2 of 11
REVIEW PERIOD: The subject application was submitted on March 3, 2025, and the application was
deemed complete on April 2, 2025. This application will be reviewed in accordance with DCC 16.16
and requires final approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) per DCC 16.16.030(I).
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on March 14, 2025 to several
public agencies and received the following comments:
Deschutes County Address Coordinator, Tracy Griffin
Good afternoon Jason. The most appropriate road particular for this right-of-way will be
"Road" so your right-of-way name will be Conquest Road.
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Tarik Rawlings
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-25-000149-RN to rename Cardwell Road
to "Conquest Drive" for an existing, public, unimproved roadway extending north from
Butler Market Road. The subject road is found on County Assessor's Tax Map 17-13-18C
and extends approximately .25 miles north from Butler Market Road.
Staff notes that there are no duplicate names for "Conquest" within the Road Name
database. Based on the particular road standards outline in DCC 16.16.030(E)(2)(a-j), staff
believes that, due to the non -curving North/South orientation of the subject roadway, the
term "Road" or "Street" is likely more appropriate than "Drive". Staff recommends that the
applicant coordinate with the County Property Address Coordinator to determine if this
proposed renaming may cause confusion to 9-1-1 or other first responders. The applicant
may also need to coordinate directly with the County Road Department to determine if any
road sign requirements are associated with the proposal.
The proposed road name change does not consume road capacity as that term is
commonly understood and, therefore, no System Development Charges (SDCs) are
associated with the proposal.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment and please let me know if you have any questions.
Central Orion Irrigation District, Daniel S Dow"
in
has no comments concerning: The applicant requests to establish the name Conquest
Drive (or Street) for an existing, public, unimproved local road which is currently named
Cardwell Road.
The following agencies did not respond to the notice: 911, Bend Fire & Rescue, Deputy State Fire
Marshal, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Road Department, Deschutes County
Sheriff's Office, Cascade Natural Gas Co., Pacific Power and Light, Bend Cable Communications,
CenturyLink.
247-25-000149-RN Page 3 of 11
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Notice was sent to the six (6) affected properties per DCC 16.16.030(B). The
applicant also complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Title 22. The
applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit indicating the applicant posted notice of the
land use action on March 12, 2025. No public comments were received.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:
CHAPTER 16.16, ROAD NAMING
Section 16.16.010, Road Naming Authority.
A. Deschutes County, through the Community Development Department, shall have
the authority to and shall assign road names to roads requiring names as provided
in DCC 16.16.
FINDING: The subject road naming application is being reviewed by the Deschutes County
Community Development Department. This criterion is met.
Section 16.16.020, Unnamed Roads.
All unnamed public and private roads and other roadways which provide access to three or
more tax lots, or which are more than 1,320 feet in length, shall be assigned a name in
accordance with the procedures in DCC 16.16.030.
FINDING: The subject road is currently named Cardwell Road, therefore, it is currently named. This
application does not seek to name an unnamed road, but instead change an existing road name. This
criterion does not apply.
Section 16.16.030, Procedures for Naming New Roads.
A. Application.
1. The naming of a road may be initiated by the Community Development
Department, Planning Commission, the Board, or by application of adjacent
property owners, developers, or public agencies which may be affected by
road names.
FINDING: This application was initiated by Eastbourne LLC' on March 3, 2025. This criterion is met.
2. An application to name a road shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department and shall include, at a minimum, the following.
a. Name of applicant,
b. Location of road by description and or map,
C. Legal status of road, if known,
1 Eastbourne LLC owns the abutting property, Map 17-13-18C, Tax Lot 100.
247-25-000149-RN Page 4 of 11
d. Proposed road name, with two alternate proposed names,
e. Reason for name request,
f. Petition(s) attached, if any, and
g. Fee, if any, as established by the Board.
FINDING: The applicants submitted the required information and fee identified above. These
criteria are met.
B. Notice of a proposed name assignment shall be sent to all persons owning property
abutting the affected road or having an address on the affected road. Such notices
shall be sent within 10 days of the receipt of an application, if any, or other action
initiating the proposed road name assignment.
FINDING: On March 14, 2025, staff mailed notice of this pending application to the six (6) property
owners abutting the subject road to be renamed. This criterion is met.
C. Persons receiving notice under DCC 16.16.030(B) shall promptly notify any tenants
or other occupants of the affected property of the proposed road name assignment.
D. Any person receiving notice under DCC 16.16.030(B) above may comment in writing
on the proposed name within 10 days from the date of notice.
FINDING: The mailed notice included a statement requiring the recipient to notify any tenants or
other occupants of the affected property of the proposed road name assignment. No public
comments were received. These criteria are met.
E. Standards
1. General. The proposed road name shall:
a. Be limited to a maximum of two words.
b. Not duplicate existing road names, except for continuations of
existing roads.
C. Not sound so similar to other roads as to be confusing.
d. Not use compass directions such as North, East, South, etc., as part of
the road name.
e. Not use designations such as Loop, Way, Place, etc., as part of the road
name.
f. Improve or clarify the identification of the area.
g. Use historical names, when possible.
h. Reflect a consensus of sentiment of affected property owners and
occupants, when possible, subject to the other standards contained in
DCC 16.16.030.
FINDING: The applicant has not proposed any alternate road names other than Conquest Road.
2. Particular Roads. The proposed road name shall also conform to the
following standards:
247-25-000149-RN Page 5 of 11
a. North/South roads shall be called "roads" or "streets.-
b. Fast/West roads shall be called "avenues."
C. Roads dead -ending in a turnaround 1,000 feet or less from their
beginning points shall be called "courts."
d. Roads of reduced right-of-way or curving roads of less than 1,000 feet
shall be called "lanes" or "terraces."
e. Curving roads longer than 1,000 feet shall be called "drives" or "trails."
f. Roads that deviate slightly from the main course of a road with the
same name, are less than 1,000 feet in length, shall be called "places."
g. Roads that are four lanes or more shall be called "boulevards."
h. Historical roads shall be called "market roads."
i. Roads running at oblique angles to the four points of the compass,
less than 1,000 feet in length, shall be called "ways." (See Appendix
"D," attached hereto.)
j. Roads that begin at and circle back onto the same road, or that are
circular or semicircular, shall be called "circles" or "loops."
FINDING: The road segment to be renamed is approximately 1,288 feet in length and has a north -
south orientation. Given these circumstances, staff finds "Road" is the appropriate suffix. These
criteria are met.
F. Staff Review and Road Name Assignment. The Community Development Department
shall review road name applications and shall assign road names under the
following procedure:
1. Verify legal status of road with the County Clerk's office and Road
Department.
FINDING: Cardwell Road was created and publically dedicated as part of the Butler Subdivision
recorded' on June 8, 1983. The Deschutes County Clerk's Office and Road Department have records
of this approved subdivision and the creation of this public road. This criterion is met.
2. Check proposed road name(s) to avoid duplication or confusing similarity
with other existing road names, with those on approved preliminary land
divisions and with those approved for future use.
FINDING: The Deschutes County Address Coordinator confirmed the proposed road name is
unique and there are no other similarly named roads in Deschutes County. This criterion is met.
3. Perform afield check, when necessary.
4. Assist the applicant or other affected person(s) to find alternate names when
required.
FINDING: For the purposes of this review, staff relied on existing County records and aerial images
z Reference County Surveyor No. 83-9281.
247-25-000149-RN Page 6 of 11
to verify the applicable requirements. As detailed in this decision, the proposed name Conquest
Road satisfies the applicable requirements. Therefore, no alternate names were necessary or
submitted. These criteria are met.
S. Notify appropriate persons, departments and agencies of the road name
application, and request comments.
6. Review and consider all comments submitted.
7. Assign a road name in accordance with the standards set forth in DCC
16.16.030(E) above.
FINDING: As detailed in the Basic Findings above, the appropriate persons, departments and
agencies received notice of this pending application. All of the submitted comments were reviewed
in coordination with the Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator and the assigned name,
Conquest Road, meets the standards of DCC 16.16.030(E). These criteria are met.
G. Notice of Staff Decision. Following assignment of a road name by the Community
Development Department, notice of the road name assignment shall be sent to all
persons entitled to notice under DCC 16.16.030(B).
H. Appeal. Affected property owners and occupants shall have the right to appeal the
assignment of a road name by the Community Development Department. Such
appeals shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Deschutes
County Development Procedures Ordinance, except where the provisions of DCC
16.16.030 conflict with the procedures ordinance, in which case the provisions of
DCC 16.16.030 shall apply. Affected property owners and occupants shall have 10
days from the date of the staff decision in which to file an appeal. Issues on appeal
shall be limited to whether the Community Development Department correctly
applied the criteria set forth herein.
FINDING: A Notice of Staff Decision will be mailed in accordance with the requirements of DCC
16.16.030(B). This notice will include information on the right to appeal as detailed above. These
criteria will be met.
1. A road name assignment becomes final when no further right of appeal established
herein is possible. Within 10 days of the road name assignment becoming final, the
Board shall sign an order establishing the road name as assigned by the Community
Development Department.
FINDING: Within ten (10) days of this decision becoming final and absent an appeal, the proposed
road name assignment of Conquest Road will become final under Board Order 2025-022. This
criterion will be met.
�. The affected property owners and occupants shall have 180 days from the date of
the Board order of road name assignment to begin using the road name.
FINDING: To ensure compliance a condition of approval has been added. This criterion will be met.
247-25-000149-RN Page 7 of 11
K. Notice of Decision. Following the order of the Board naming a road, the Community
Development Department shall:
1. Notify the applicant requesting the road name of the action
2. Send copies of the order naming the road to the following:
a. Road Department
b. Assessor's Office and Tax Office
C. Postmaster
d. Planning Department
e. County Clerk's office
f. Affected telephone and other utilities
g. Affected fire department(s)
h. Local school district(s)
i. Emergency services, i.e., police, fire, 911, etc.
3. File the original order naming a new road with County Clerk
4. On a monthly basis, the Community Development Department shall publish
a list of changed road names in a newspaper of general circulation
designated for the purpose of the Board.
FINDING: Following review of the Board Order, staff will provide notice of the Board Order to the
required entities identified above and the Board Order will be recorded in the Deschutes County
Clerk's records. The proposed road name will be published in a newspaper with the list of changed
road names. These criteria will be met.
Section 16.16.040 Procedures And Standards For Changing Existing Road Names
The following procedures and standards shall apply to the changing of existing road names:
A. An existing road name may be changed by the Community Development Department
if the existing name:
1. Duplicates a pre-existing road name within the same postal zip code
or geographic area,
2. Sounds like or is spelled so similarly to a pre-existing road name in the
same postal zip code or geographic area as to cause confusion
between the two roads,
3. Is known by more than one name,
4. is different than the name of the road of which it is a continuation; or
5. Is not consistent with County road naming standards set forth in DCC
16.16.
FINDING: This application request is to change the name of an existing unimproved right-of-way,
Cardwell Road, to Conquest Road. The property outlined in red below has received tentative
subdivision approval to establish eight (8) rural residential lots (County File No. 247-24-000401-TP).
The subdivision has not received final plat approval at this time. The tentative subdivision layout
shows the improvement of and continuation of the existing Cardwell Road to serve these future
247-25-000149-RN Page 8 of 11
lots. The developer and property owner for the subdivision has requested the road name Conquest
Road for the public right-of-way to serve these proposed lots.
Thus, to be consistent with the planned internal subdivision road name, the existing Cardwell Road
right-of-way which will serve this future road and connect the subdivision access to Butler Market
Road will need to be renamed so that there is one consistent road name throughout.
B. in choosing which road name to change as between two or more roads with the
same or similar names (affected roads), the department shall consider the following
factors:
1. The number of properties, developed and undeveloped, abutting
each affected road,
2. The length of time a name has been in use to designate each
affected road and whether the name used to designate each road
has any historic significance;
3. Whether one affected road as named is relatively better known by
the general public than the other affected road or roads as named;
4. Any showing that a proposed road name change would be
relatively more burdensome to abutting property owners than if
another affected road name were changed.
FINDING: The applicant has chosen to rename the 1,288-foot-long segment of Cardwell Road to
Conquest Road. Six (6) properties currently abut Cardwell Road and no addresses will be affected.
There is nothing in the record indicating any historical significance of the name Cardwell Road and
there were no objections from the six property owners who received notice of the requested name
change. Staff also finds it is appropriate to rename Cardwell Road prior to final platting and dwelling
construction within the planned subdivision in order to ensure consistency in street naming and
eliminate possible confusion.
C. Proposed name changes shall proceed under the process specified under DCC
16.16.030.
FINDING: The requested road name change will follow the process specified under DCC
16.16.030, above.
IV. CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing findings, staff concludes that the proposed road name can comply with the
applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County Road Naming Ordinance if conditions of
approval are met.
Other permits may be required. The applicants are responsible for obtaining any necessary permits
from the Deschutes Road Department as well as any required state and federal permits.
The Deschutes County Road Department will coordinate the posting of a new road sign with the
247-25-000149-RN Page 9 of 11
Property Address Coordinator. Please coordinate with the Deschutes County Road Department
regarding fees related to the creation and installation of the new road sign.
V. DECISION:
APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval.
VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A. The affected property owners and occupants shall have 180 days from the date of the
Board Order of road name assignment to begin using the road name. Note: This
requirement will only impact property owners and occupants that currently take access
from.
B. Prior to final plat approval for File No. 247-24-000401-TP, Applicant shall cause for the
installation of new road name signage in accordance with applicable Deschutes County
Road Department standards. Applicant may either engage a contractor to furnish and
install new road name signage, which will be subject to the applicant or their contractor
obtaining a right of way activity permit from the Road Department, or pay the applicable
fee to have the Road Department furnish and install new road name signage.
VI1. DURATION OF APPROVAL:
This decision becomes final tern (10) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of
interest. Issues on appeal shall be limited to whether the Community Development Department
correctly applied the criteria set forth herein. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal,
the appeal fee of $250.00 and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient
specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each
issue.
Within ten (10) days of this decision becoming final and absent an appeal, the Board of County
Commissioners shall approve the subject road name assignment pursuant to Board Order 2025-
022.
Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents
per page.
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT
IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
247-25-000149-RN Page 10 of 11
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
Written by: Haleigh King, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Jacob Ripper, AICP, Principal Planner
Attachment: Road Location Map
247-25-000149-RN Page 11 of 11
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Assigning the Name of Conquest Road
to a 1,288-foot portion of a 60-foot-wide public * ORDER NO. 2025-022
road right-of-way currently named Cardwell
Road.
WHEREAS, Jason Bethers on behalf of Eastbourne LLC has applied to change an existing road name
pursuant to Deschutes County Code, Title 16, Addresses and Road Names, to assign the name of Conquest Road
to a 1,288-foot portion of a 60-foot-wide public road right-of-way located in Township 17 South, Range 13 East,
Section 18C, W.M.,
WHEREAS, all public notices required to be given under 16.16.030(B) regarding the proposed naive have
been given; and
WHEREAS, the appeal period for appealing the Community Development Department's approval
expired; and
WHEREAS, DCC 16.16.030(I) requires road names be assigned by order of the Board of County
Commissioners; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That the name of Conquest Road be assigned to a 1,288-foot portion of a 60-foot-wide
public road right-of-way located in Township 17 South, Range 13 East, Section 18C, W.M., as set forth in Exhibit
"A", attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Dated this of 120 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 1 OF 2- ORDER No. 2025-022
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Work Session: Cascades Academy Plan Amendment and Zone Change
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Work Session in preparation for the Public Hearing on June 181n
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of County Commissioners ('Board") will convene a work session on June 16,
2025, to prepare for a Public Hearing scheduled on June 18, 2025. Cascades Academy of
Central Oregon is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (File
nos. 247-24-000392-PA, 393-ZC).
The purpose of this work session is to facilitate Board review of the application materials
and to identify key topics for discussion at the upcoming public hearing.
Additional background information is included in the Staff Memorandum. Record materials
are available on the project website: https://bit.ly/CascadesAcademy
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner
Will Groves, Planning Manager
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: June 11, 2025
SUBJECT: Work Session: Cascades Academy Plan Amendment and Zone Change
The Board of County Commissioners ('Board") will convene a work session on June 16, 2025, to
prepare for a Public Hearing scheduled on June 18, 2025. Cascades Academy of Central Oregon is
requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (File nos. 247-24-000392-PA, 393-
ZC). The purpose of this work session and memo is to facilitate Board review of the application
materials and to identify key topics for discussion at the upcoming public hearing.
The record is available for inspection at the following link: https://bit.ly/CascadesAcademy
1. BACKGROUND
The subject property is comprised of seven (7) tax lots with a total area of 22.5 acres, including 4.03
acres zoned Surface Mine and 18.47 acres zoned EFU-Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone. Four (4)
taxlots are partially within the Landscape Management Combining Zone associated with State
Highway 20 and the Deschutes River. The EFU properties are also within the Surface Mining Impact
Area Combining Zone associated with Mining Site No. 370. The property is irregular in shape and is
located immediately south of the Tumalo Rural Community and west of State Highway 20. Refer to
Attachment A for location and zoning maps.
Cascades Academy, the applicant and property owners, request a change to the Comprehensive
Plan designation of the subject property from Agricultural (AG) and Surface Mining (SM) to Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA) and a corresponding Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use -
Tumalo/ Redmond/ Bend subzone (EFU-TRB) & Surface Mining (SM) to Multiple Use Agricultural
(MUA-10). The applicant intends to rezone the property to allow for expansion of the existing school
on an adjacent parcel, although they are not requesting approval for the school or other specific
development as part of this application.
The applicant argues the subject property does not qualify as "agricultural land" under Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS) or Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) definitions, and there are no active
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
`1 (541) 388-6575 @cdd9deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd
mining operations at the former surface mine site. Further, the Applicant argues that no exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land, is required because the subject property is not
agricultural land.
A soil study, conducted by a certified soil scientist, determined the subject property contains
approximately 68.6% or 16.59 acres of Land Capability Class 7 and 8 nonirrigated soils. According
to the soil study, the subject property is comprised of soils that do not qualify as Agricultural Land'.
The soil study was verified as completed and meeting the requirements of OAR 660-033-0045(6)(a)
by the Department of Land Conservation and Development on May 27, 2025 for four parcels and
June 5, 2025, for the remaining three parcels.
Pertaining to the Surface Mine zoning, tax lots 4200, 4300, and 4400 are inventoried as part of Site
No. 370 in the County's inventory of mineral and aggregate sites only for "storage" uses. The tax lots
were never intended to be mined and do not contain significant mineral or aggregate resources.
1111. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Central Oregon Landwatch provided oral and written comments in opposition to the proposal,
which are addressed in the attached Hearings Officer recommendation. No additional comments
have been received following the issuance of the Hearings Officer Recommendation.
All comments and materials are included in the electronic record.
III. HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer held a public hearing on November 14, 2024. On February
26, 2025, the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation of denial for the proposed Plan
Amendment and Zone Change, citing a lack of evidence demonstrating compliance with Statewide
Planning Goal 5 pertaining to wetland, scenic road, and scenic water resources associated with the
subject property.
On April 4, 2025, the applicant provided additional application materials, including an
Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy (ESEE) analysis to address concerns in the Hearings
Officer's recommendation. On June 9, 2025, DLCD staff provided comments to staff regarding the
ESEE analysis which have been uploaded to the record under "Comments & Submittals - Agencies".
IV. BOARD CONSIDERATION
As the property includes lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C)
requires the application to be heard de novo before the Board, regardless of the determination of
the Hearings Officer.
V. NEXT STEPS
1 The phrase 'agricultural soils' is defined in OAR 660-033-0020.
Page 2 of 3
Based on the feedback received from the Board at the Work Session, staff will prepare for the
upcoming public hearing.
Attachment A: Subject Property Maps
Attachment B: Hearing Officer Recommendation
Page 3 of 3
Attachment A Subject Property Maps
247-24-000392-PA / 247-24-000393-ZC
1" _ 500' Location Map
ANN
O
Knife River
Material Yard
E
LU
w
Y!
t .,� ^� ,� .,
It
�
10,
s
17-12-06-00' 0030f
17 12 06=W66 '
17-12-06-00-0036:
-17-12-06-BO-0010
16-12 31-DO-0420
16-12 -31-DO-0430
16-12-31-DO-0440
44
mk
It
R
Cascades
'Academy
-Campus
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
Attachment B Hearings Officer Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING DATE:
HEARING LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
247-24-000392-PA,393-ZC
November 14, 2025, 1:00 p.m.
Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
Cascades Academy of Central Oregon
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 0 64325 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 17-12-06, tax lot 301
• 64345 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 17-12-06, tax lot 300
• 64375 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 17-12-06, tax lot 302
• 64385 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 17-12-06B, tax lot 100
• No address; Assessor map 16-12-31D, tax lot 4200
• No address; Assessor map 16-12-31D, tax lot 4300
• 64411 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 16-12-31D, tax lot 4400
REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to change the designation of the Subject Property. If approved, Tax
Lots 4200, 4300, and 4400 would change from the Surface Mine
(SM) designation to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA), and
Tax Lots 100, 300, 301, and 302 would change from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). Applicant also
requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone all Tax Lots on the
Subject Property from either Surface Mining (SM) or Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the record is not sufficient to
support the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change, specifically with respect to the
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5. The Hearings Officer therefore recommends the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners DENY the Application unless the Applicant demonstrates the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5.
Page I 1
I. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10)
Chapter 18.52, Surface Mining (SM)
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Appendix C, Transportation System Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660
Division 12, Transportation Planning
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 23, Procedures and Requirements for Complying with Goal 5
Division 33, Agricultural Land
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Chapter 215.010, Definitions
Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
A. Nature of Proceeding
The Subject Property consists of seven Tax Lots. Tax Lots 4200, 4300, and 4400 currently carry the
Surface Mine (SM) Comprehensive Plan designation and are zoned Surface Mining (SM). Tax Lots 100,
300, 301, and 302 currently carry the Agriculture (AG) Comprehensive Plan designation and are zoned
Exclusive Farm Use-Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone (EFU). This matter comes before the Hearings
Officer as a request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ("Plan Amendment") to
change the designation of the Subject Property from Surface Mining (SM) and Agriculture (AG) to Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA). The Applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning
Map Amendment ("Zone Change") to change the zoning of the Subject Property to Multiple Use
Agricultural (MUA-10).
The primary bases of the request in the Application are the Applicants' assertions that: (1) the Subject
Property does not contain a significant Goal 5 resource; (2) the Subject Property is not part of the
Page 12
remaining surface mining operation; and (3) the Subject Property does not qualify as "agricultural land"
under the applicable provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes or Oregon Administrative Rules governing
agricultural land. Based on those assertions, the Applicant is not seeking an exception to Statewide
Planning Goal ("Goal") 3 for the Plan Amendment or Zone Change. Although the Applicant intends to
use the Subject Property for the expansion of an existing school on an adjacent parcel, the Applicant is
not requesting the approval of the school or of any other specific development as part of the Application.
B. Notices and Hearing
The Application is dated June 24, 2024. On July 16, 2024, the County issued a Notice of Application to
several public agencies and to property owners in the vicinity of the Subject Property (together,
"Application Notice"). The Application Notice invited comments on the Application. The County also
provided notice of the Plan Amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development
("DLCD") on September 27, 2024.
The County mailed a Notice of Public Hearing on September 30, 2024 ("Hearing Notice") announcing an
evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") for the requests in the Application. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I
presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on November 14, 2024, opening the Hearing at 1:00
p.m. The Hearing was held via videoconference, with Staff, representatives of the Applicant, and other
participants in the hearing room. The Hearings Officer appeared remotely. The Hearing concluded at 2:06
p.m.
At the beginning of the Hearing, I provided an overview of the quasi-judicial process and instructed
participants to direct comments to the approval criteria and standards, and to raise any issues a participant
wanted to preserve for appeal if necessary. I stated I had no ex parte contacts to disclose or bias to declare.
I asked for but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction over the matter or to my participation
as the Hearings Officer.
Prior to the conclusion of the Hearing, the Applicant requested and agreed to leaving the written record
open to take additional evidence. At the conclusion of the Hearing, I announced that the written record
would remain open: (1) until December 5, 2024, for any participant to provide additional evidence ("Open
Record Period"); (2) until December 19, 2024, for any participant to provide rebuttal evidence to evidence
submitted during the Open Record Period; and (3) until January 2, 2025, for the Applicant only to provide
a final legal argument, without additional evidence.
C. Review Period
Because the Application includes the request for the Plan Amendment, the 150-day review period set forth
in ORS 215.427(1) is not applicable.' The Staff Report also notes that the 150-day review period is not
applicable by virtue of Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") 22.20.040(D). No participant in the
proceeding disputed that conclusion.
' ORS 215.427(7).
Page 13
III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Staff Report
Prior to the Hearing, on November 4, 2024, the Deschutes County Planning Division ("Staff") issued a
report setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting the evidence in the record at that time ("Staff
Report").
The Staff Report concludes that the Applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the Plan
Amendment and Zone Change, and it makes several findings with respect to the approval standards.
Because some of the information, analysis, and findings provided in the Staff Report are not refuted,
portions of the findings below refer to the Staff Report and, in some cases, adopt sections of the Staff
Report as my findings. In the event of a conflict between the findings in this Decision and the Staff Report,
the findings in this Decision control.
B. Code Plan, and Statewide Planning Goal Findings
The legal criteria applicable to the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change were set forth in the
Application Notice and appear in the Staff Report. This Recommendation addresses each of those criteria,
as set forth below, in addition to other issues raised by the participants.
1. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative
map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-
judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the
Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
The Applicant is the owner of the Subject Property and submitted the Application and the necessary
Application form. The Applicant has requested a quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and filed the Application
for that purpose, together with the request for the Zone Change. It is therefore appropriate to review the
Application using the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards
The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served
by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are:
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with
the plan's introductory statement and goals.
According to the Applicant and the Staff Report, the County's application of this Code provision does not
necessarily involve the direct application of the Plan's introductory statements and goals as approval
Page 14
criteria. Rather, consistency with the Plan can be determined by assessing whether the proposal is
consistent with specific Plan goals and policies that may be applicable to the proposal.
The Applicant identified multiple Plan goals and policies it believes are relevant to the Application.2
Among those goals and policies are those set forth in: (1) Section 2.2 of Chapter 2, relating to Agricultural
Land Policies; (2) Section 2.4 of Chapter 2, relating to Goal 5; (3) Section 2.10 of Chapter 2, relating to
surface mining; (4) Section 2.7 of Chapter 2, relating to Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites; (5) Section
3.2 of Chapter 3, relating to Rual Development; (6) Section 3.3 of Chapter 3, relating to rural housing;
and (7) Section 3.7 of Chapter 3, relating to transportation. The Application explains how the Plan
Amendment and Zone Change is consistent with these goals and policies.
No participant asserts that the Application does not comply with DCC 18.136.020(A), disputes the
Applicant's characterization of the Plan's goals and policies presented in the Application, or identifies
other Plan goals and policies requiring consideration. Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") does raise
issues related to some of these policies — e.g., whether the Subject Property constitutes agricultural land
and the Applicant's compliance with transportation rules - but does so in the context of whether the
Application satisfies various state administrative rules, and COLW does not go as far to say that the
Application is inconsistent with these Comprehensive Plan policies. COLW's specific arguments are
addressed below in separate findings responding to the specific issues COLW raises.
Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the proposed zone classification.
The purpose of the MUA-10 zoning district is stated in DCC 18.32.010 as follows:
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the
rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development
consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources
of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-
time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to
conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect
natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the
air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and
procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense
development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly
and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
The Applicant's Burden of Proof asserts that "[a]pproval of the application is consistent with the purpose
of the MUA-10 zoning district," and quotes the purpose set forth above. The Applicant supports that
assertion by stating that the Subject Property is not suited to full-time commercial fanning, and that the
2 See page 8-16 of the Applicant's Burden of Proof Statement submitted with the Application
("Application Narrative").
Page 15
zone change will allow the expansion of a school, which the Applicant asserts is a low -density
development that conserves open spaces and protects natural and scenic resources. The Staff Report
repeats the Applicant's assertions and agrees that the requested Zone Change is consistent with the purpose
of the proposed zoning.
COLW disputes the Applicant's assertion that the Subject Property is not suitable for farming, but it does
not dispute the Applicant's other assertions that the requested zone change is consistent with the purpose
of the zone. Nor does COLW assert that this Code provision is not satisfied. Although COLW argues that
the zone change is not "necessary" to allow the contemplated school expansion (because some schools are
allowed on EFU land), that argument does not describe why the requested zone change would be
inconsistent with the purpose of the MUA-10 designation. Nor does this Code provision require a showing
that the Zone Change is "necessary." COLW's arguments relating to the suitability of the Subject Property
for farming are addressed in other findings below.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of persuasive countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the requested zone change is consistent with the purpose of the MUA-10 zone and this Code provision is
satisfied.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare
considering the following factors:
The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities.
As noted in the Staff Report, this criterion specifically asks if the Zone Change will presently serve public
health, safety, and welfare. The Applicant provided the following as support for why this criterion is met:
• Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the Subject Property, including
electric power and water
• Transportation access to the Subject Property is available, and the impact of increased traffic on
the transportation system is non-existent and, to the contrary, the planned rezone results in a
reduction in potential trips generated from the Subject Property
• The Subject Property receives police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and fire service
from Rural Fire Protection District # 2
• There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public
health, safety, or welfare
The Staff Report confirms that, prior to development of the Subject Property, the Applicant would be
required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Code, at which time additional assurances of
adequate public services and facilities will also be verified.
No participant in this proceeding disputed the Applicant's or Staff's characterization of this Code
provision or the Applicant's evidence presented to show compliance with this Code provision.
Page 16
Based on the foregoing, I find that services are currently available and sufficient for the Subject Property,
and that they can remain available and sufficient if the Subject Property is developed under the MUA-10
zone. I therefore find this Code provision is satisfied.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and
policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant asserts the following:
The MUA-10 zoning is consistent with the specific goals and policies in the
comprehensive plan discussed above. The MUA-10 zoning allows rural
uses consistent with the uses of many other properties in the area of the
subject property.
The zone change will not impose new impacts on the EFU-zoned land
adjacent to or nearby the subject property because many of those properties
are residential properties, hobby farms, already developed with dwellings,
not engaged in commercial farm use, are idle, or are otherwise not suited
for farm use due to soil conditions, topography, or ability to make a profit
farming.
As discussed below, the subject property is not agricultural land, is
comprised of predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils, and as described by the soil
scientist, Mr. Kitzrow, the nonproductive soils on the subject property make
it not suitable for commercial farming or livestock grazing. The subject
property is not land that historically has been or could be used in
conjunction with the adjacent irrigated property for any viable agricultural
use and any future development of the subject property would be subject to
building setbacks.
The Staff Report agrees that the Applicant has demonstrated the impacts on surrounding land use will be
consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Plan. COLW disputes the Applicant's
assertion that the Subject Property is not suitable for agriculture, or that it is predominantly composed of
Class 7 and Class 8 soils, but COLW does not assert that any potential impacts are inconsistent with Plan
goals and policies. Nor does COLW dispute the Applicant's characterization of the applicable goals and
policies. COLW's arguments relating to farming suitability and soil classifications are addressed below.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of persuasive countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
this Code provision is satisfied.
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake
was made in the zoning of the property in question.
The Applicant's Burden of Proof addresses this Code provision, in part, with an explanation that purports
to describe a mistake in the zoning of the property. However, that explanation simply describes the history
Page 17
of EFU zoning in the state and the fact that resource zoning was originally applied "using a broad brush."
But this portion of the Burden of Proof also acknowledges that "[t]he EFU zoning designation was likely
based on the best soils data that was available to the County at the time it was originally zoned." I find
that the Applicant has not established that an actual mistake was made when the property was zoned EFU.
According to the Applicant, a change in circumstances exists since the Subject Property was originally
zoned for agriculture in the 1970's, including: (1) the collection of new soils data showing the property
does not have agricultural soils; (2) the transfer of the property from the owner of mining Site No. 370;
(3) market changes reducing the viability of commercial farming both on the Subject Property and in the
area in general; and (4) encroaching development. The Staff Report agrees with the Applicant's findings
regarding the existence of a change in circumstances.
COLW submitted comments asserting that the Application does not satisfy CDC DCC 18.136.020(D), but
those comments simply state that the property was rezoned to EFU in 2001 and "there has neither been a
change in circumstances since that decision, nor was any mistake made in that decision." COLW repeated
that conclusion in oral comments during the Hearing. COLW does not attempt to explain the portion of
its comments relating to an absence of changed circumstance, nor does it attempt to refute the evidence
provided by the Applicant that circumstances have indeed changed. COLW's argument in this regard is
therefore not developed enough for me to respond to, and lacks supporting evidence that allows me to
infer the basis on which is makes its claim.
Based on the Applicant's evidence, and in the absence of evidence or a developed argument challenging
the Applicant's evidence, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
Section 18.52 Surface Mining one
Section 18 52 200 Termination of the Surface Mining Zoning and Surrounding Surface Mining
Impact Area Combining Zone
A. When a surface mining site has been fully or partially mined, and the operator demonstrates
that a significant resource no longer exists on the site, and that the site has been reclaimed in
accordance with the reclamation plan approved by DOGAMI or the reclamation provisions
of DCC 18, the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone identified in the surface
mining element of the Comprehensive Plan.
This Code provision contemplates that a property with the SM zoning designation may be rezoned under
certain circumstances. Specifically, property can be rezoned once the "surface mining site" has been fully
or partially mined, no longer has a significant resource, and has been reclaimed in accordance with
applicable reclamation plans and Code provisions. The Code also contemplates that a post -ruining
"subsequent use zone" will be identified and that, through the rezoning process, that subsequent use zone
will apply to the property.
The Applicant asserts that this criterion is not applicable. Currently, only tax lots 4200, 4300, and 4400 of
the Subject Property retain the SM zoning designation. The Applicant notes that those parcels, which are
part of Site No. 370, were included in the County's inventory of mineral and aggregate sites only for
"storage" uses. According to the Applicant, it was never intended that these tax lots would be mined, no
Page 18
minerals were ever extracted from these tax lots, no Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
("DOGAMI") or County reclamation plan applies to these tax lots, and the soils reports confirms that
there is no significant resource on these tax lots. The Staff Report agrees with the Applicant's analysis.
COLW asserts that the Application does not satisfy DCC 18.52.200, but only as it relates to tax lots 300,
301, and 302, which is discussed in more detail below. COLW does not dispute the Applicant's assertion
that DCC 18.52.200 is not applicable to tax lots 4200, 4300, and 4400.
I agree with the Applicant that DCC 18.52.200 is not applicable in this context. Looking at the language
in that Code provision, it applies to a "surface mining site" that was identified as having a significant
resource and that is capable of being mined (wholly or partially) and later reclaimed. The inventory of
mineral and aggregate sites included in the record shows that Site No. 370 is not such a site, as evidenced
by the fact that it is listed as a "storage" site rather than as a mining type (e.g. sand and gravel or pumice)
and the fact that no quantity of mineral is listed for that site. The absence of any intended mining is further
evidenced by the fact that no reclamation plan applies to these tax lots.
As just noted, COLW asserts that the Application nevertheless violates DCC 18.52.200 with respect to
tax lots 300, 301, and 302. Those tax lots previously carried the SM zoning designation, but have been
zoned EFU since 2001 when the County adopted Ordinance No. 2001-027 (the "2001 Rezoning
Decision"). The 2001 Rezoning Designation applied DCC 18.52.200 to these three tax lots, which were
part of mining Site No. 304. According to COLW, DCC 18.52.200 states that when the County removes
the SM zone from a surface mining site, "the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone
identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan." As a result of that language,
according to COLW, once that subsequent use zone is in place, it cannot be changed again. Specifically,
COLW states that "[a]pproving the current application would violate DCC 18.52.200 by rezoning the
subject property to a different zone than the zone identified in the County's comprehensive plan."
I disagree with COLW's argument for multiple Yeasons. First, DCC 18.52.200 applies to properties that
are zoned SM. Tax lots 300, 301, and 302, however, are zoned EFU. Nothing in the language of this Code
provision states or implies that it can or should be applied to properties in zones other than the SM zone.
This Code provision therefore does not apply to these three tax lots. Second, this Code provision is silent
with respect to subsequent applications for rezoning property. The language simply states that, once a site
no longer has a significant resource it can be rezoned and, if it is rezoned, the County must apply the
identified subsequent use zone. The 2001 Rezoning Decision did just that — by rezoning these three tax
lots to the EFU zone. If the Code were intended to prohibit a future property owner from rezoning the
property again, one would expect to find such a limitation in the Code language, but no such limitation
exists. Third, the 2001 Rezoning Decision itself is silent on this matter. It contains no conditions of
approval or other limiting language preventing the property owner from seeking to rezone the property in
the future. Finally, this Code provision must be read in context with other language in the Code. DCC
18.136.020 establishes the criteria for rezoning property. Those criteria contain no exceptions for
properties that were already rezoned pursuant to DCC 18.52.200.
Based on the foregoing, I find that a Plan Amendment and Zone Change is available to the Applicant as
long as all other criteria are satisfied, and that DCC 18.52.200 is not applicable to any of the tax lots
comprising the Subject Property under these circumstances.
Page 19
B. Concurrent with such rezoning, any surface mining impact area combining zone which
surrounds the rezoned surface mining site shall be removed. Rezoning shall be subject to
DCC 18.136 and all other applicable sections of DCC 18, the Comprehensive Plan and DCC
Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance.
As proposed by the Applicant, the Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone associated with
the Subject Property and the remaining properties within Site No. 370 would remain in place. No
participant objects to that portion of the Applicant's proposal. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code
provision will be implemented if the Application is approved as part of the final action by the County's
Board of Commissioners ("Board").
2. DCC 22.20.015(A)(2)
COLW asserts that the Application cannot be approved because the Applicant is in violation of a condition
of approval applicable to portions of the Subject Property. DCC 22.20.015(A)(2) provides that the County
cannot make a land use decision for a property if the "property is in violation of applicable land use
regulations, and/or the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or building permits
previously issued by the County."
According to COLW, prior County decision SP-93-59 approved a site plan for surface mining and
reclamation on tax lots 300, 301, and 302. As part of that decision, the County imposed certain reclamation
requirements, including the reclamation plan associated with a DOGAMI permit, and incorporated those
into the conditions of approval for that decision. COLW asserts that the conditions of the Subject Property
as described in the Applicant's Soil Report demonstrates that these reclamation requirements are unmet
and, therefore, in violation of the conditions of approval in the County's prior decision. COLW further
asserts that, until the site reclamation is complete, the County cannot make any land use decisions
concerning the Subject Property.
The Applicant responds that the County has previously determined that the reclamation requirements from
the SP-92-59 decision have been completed. According to the Applicant, the 2001 Rezoning Decision
discussed above conclusively establishes that the conditions of SP-92-59, the DOGAMI reclamation plan,
and a related development agreement containing the same requirements were met, which is what justified
the rezoning of tax lots 300, 301, and 302 back to the EFU zone. The Applicant asserts that COLW's
arguments constitute an impermissible "collateral attack" on the 2001 Rezoning Decision.
I find that this issue can be resolved without the need to determine whether COLW's arguments amount
to a collateral attack of the County's prior decision for three distinct and independent reasons. First, the
restriction set forth in DCC 22.20.015(A) applies only where there has been a "violation" of a condition
of approval. DCC 22.20.015(C) defines a "violation" as existing when "the property has been determined
to not be in compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other tribunal, or through the
review process of the current application, or through an acknowledgement by the alleged violator in a
signed voluntary compliance agreement." Here, not only has a violation not been determined to exist, the
only prior adjudication of the issue came to the opposite conclusion and determined no violation existed.
Page 110
Second, the evidence in the record is that the County and DOGAMI each determined that the reclamation
activities that occurred were satisfactory. Those determinations were made in 2001 and were closer in
time to when the reclamation activities occurred. The result of the reclamation as it exists today may not
be what COLW would expect them to be, but the entities reviewing the results at the time provide better
evidence of whether and how the reclamation activities were implemented.
Finally, I disagree with COLW that the reclamation conditions it points to are ongoing obligations of the
property owner. Those conditions were imposed as part of the review of a site plan allowing surface
mining activities. With the approval of the 2001 Rezoning Decision, the property was rezoned and the
surface mining use was no longer allowed on the property. The conditions of approval relating to surface
mining therefore no longer had any purpose. Absent any condition of approval in the 2001 Rezoning
Decision that kept those conditions alive, there is simply no basis to apply a condition of approval where
there is no longer an approved use to be conditioned.
Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC 22.20.015(A)(2) does not prevent the Applicant from seeking the
Plan Amendment or Zone Change, and that the County is not precluded from approving the Application
on that basis.
3. Deschutes County omprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
As previously noted, the Applicant and Staff Report both identify several Plan goals and policies
potentially relevant to this Application. Staff s discussion of those goals and policies appears on pages 14
through 23 of the Staff Report. No participant in this proceeding identified other applicable goals and
policies, or otherwise asserted that the proposal is inconsistent with the plans and policies the Applicant
and Staff identified. I therefore adopt the findings in the Staff Report as my findings relating to the Plan
goals and policies. The issues raised by COLW that are related to the County's Plan goals and policies,
but which specifically address various state administrative roles, are addressed in later findings.
4. Orejzon Administrative Rules
The participants to this proceeding have identified several state administrative rules that may be directly
applicable to the Applicant's proposal. The findings in this section address each of those rules.
a. OAR 660-023-0180
The Applicant and the Staff Report identify multiple provisions in OAR 660-023-0180 as being applicable
to the Application. In summary, those provisions provide a process by which a County should amend an
acknowledged inventory or plan with regard to mineral and aggregate resources, including a process for
determining the significance of a resource, whether for the purpose of listing a new resource or de -listing
an existing resource. Only the Applicant and the Staff Report address this administrative rule, and no other
participant asserts that the Application does not satisfy the provisions in OAR 660-023-0180. I therefore
adopt the findings on pages 23-26 of the Staff Report addressing this administrative rule as my findings.
Page 111
b. OAR 660-006-0005
The Applicant addresses OAR 660-006-0005 to demonstrate that the Subject Property does not qualify as
"forest lands" and, therefore, that Goal 4 is not applicable to the request in the Application. The Staff
Report indicates that it agrees with the Applicant's analysis, and no other participant objects to the
Applicant's conclusion that the Subject Property does not qualify as "forest lands". For the reasons stated
in the Application and the Staff Report, I agree that the Subject Property does not qualify as "forest lands"
and, therefore, that Goal 4 does not apply.
c. Goal 3 Administrative Rules
A major issue in this proceeding is whether the Subject Property qualifies as "agricultural land" under
Goal 3 and its implementing rules. The Applicant seeks to establish that the Subject Property is not
agricultural land. In support of its position, the Applicant submitted to the record an Order 1 Soil Survey
("Soil Study") prepared by a certified professional soil scientist, Gary A. Kitzrow of Growing Soils
Environmental Associates (GSEA). The Staff Report agrees with the Applicant's position and the findings
in the Soil Study, concluding that the Subject Property consists predominantly of Class VII and VIII soils
and, therefore, does not constitute agricultural lands. COLW, on the other hand, asserts that the Subject
Property is not only agricultural land, but that it is high value farmland that must be zoned EFU, and that
the EFU designation cannot be changed without first taking an exception to Goal 3.
As a starting point, COLW argues that the Applicant cannot rely on ORS 215.211 and the Soil Study to
change the zoning designation of the Subject Property because the property qualifies as high value
farmland using U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") classifications. COLW's
argument is rooted in OAR 660-033-0030(8), which COLW believes requires that the NRCS must be used
for the approval of certain land use applications on high -value farmland and that additional soil
information cannot be used. According to COLW, OAR 660-033-0090 and OAR 660-033-0120, which
are referenced in OAR 660-033-0030(8), mean, together, that "[w]hen the NRCS soil classes and rating
show that a property is high -value farmland, the only uses allowed on that land are those specified in OAR
660-033-0120, and counties must apply EFU zoning to such lands."
COLW's argument in this regard does not reflect the actual language of the rules. First, OAR 660-033-
0090 states that the EFU zone must apply to "agricultural lands", which may be high -value farmland or
not high -value farmland. Once it is determined that land is agricultural land, and that it is high -value
farmland, that rule states that only those uses authorized on high -value farmland under OAR 660-033-
0120 are allowed. But the current application is not concerned with allowing a particular use, so the
provisions of OAR 660-033-0090 and OAR 660-033-0120 are not at issue. Those provisions would be
triggered only if the Subject Property were first deemed to be agricultural land and then a specific use
were proposed. Here, the task is to determine if the Subject Property is agricultural land at all. If it is, then
the rule provisions COLW relies on may be applicable. If it is not, then the Subject Property will not be
agricultural land at all, whether high -value farmland or something else, and those provisions would not
apply.
Page 112
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A)
COLW alternatively argues that the Subject Property qualifies as agricultural land under the definitions
set forth in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a), the first of which, in subsection (A), relies on the NRCS
classifications. Under that definition, "agricultural lands" includes "Lands classified by the U.S. Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -VI
soils in Eastern Oregon." The Subject Property could qualify as "agricultural lands" under that definition
because the applicable NRCS soil classifications include large amounts of Class III soils (when irrigated).
However, the Applicant relies on ORS 215.211, which it asserts grants a property owner the right to rely
on more detailed information in lieu of the NRCS classifications. The Applicant uses the Soil Study for
that purpose, and the Soil Study concludes that the soils on the Subject Property are predominantly Class
VII and VIII soils.
As the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") has explained, "ORS 215.211 allows a site -specific analysis
of soils where a person believes that such information would, compared to the information provided by
the NRCS, assist a county in determining whether land is agricultural land."3 In that case, the applicant
sought to change a property's Plan designation from AG to Rural Industrial (RI). The applicant in that
case also relied on a site -specific Order 1 soil survey prepared by a qualified soil scientist. LUBA upheld
the County's reliance on that soil survey as part of its determination that the property at issue in that case
consisted predominantly of Class VII and Class VIII soils unsuitable for farming.
Based on the language in ORS 215.211 and LUBA's acknowledgment of that statute, I find that the County
is not precluded from considering the Order 1 soil survey when applying OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A), as
long as doing so is consistent with OAR 660-033-0030(5), which implements ORS 215.211. COLW does
not dispute that the survey complies with OAR 660-033-0030(5). The Staff Report, however, notes that
the Applicant has not provided confirmation of the Soil Study from DLCD, a requirement of OAR 660-
033-0030(5)(b) by virtue of its cross reference to OAR 660-033-0045. The Applicant and Staff suggest a
condition of approval requiring a response from DLCD prior to the Plan Amendment and Zone Change
becoming final. No other participant objected to that approach. Because this Decision does not recommend
approval of the Plan Amendment and Zone Change, it does not include any suggested conditions.
However, if the Board subsequently approves the Application, and if the Applicant still has not provide
documentation from DLCD, such a condition seems warranted and necessary.
Based on the foregoing, and considering the more detailed evidence provided by the Applicant's soil
scientist against the NRCS designation of the Subject Property, I find that that the Subject Property does
not qualify as agricultural land under Goal 3 as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A), but that the
Applicant has not complied with all procedural aspects of OAR 660-033-0030(5) and must do so before
the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are approved. That does not end the inquiry, however, as COLW
also argues that the Subject Property qualifies as agricultural land under the other sections of OAR 660-
033-0020(1)(a).
3 Central Oregon Land Watch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2023-008, April 24,
2023) ("LUBA No. 2023-008").
Page 113
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B)
COLW next argues that the Subject Property is "agricultural land" as defined in OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(B). That rules states that land qualifies as agricultural land if it is "suitable for farm use as
defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic
conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns;
technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices."
COLW addresses each of the subsection (B) factors, concluding that the Subject Property is suitable for
farm use based on any one of those factors. The Applicant similarly addresses each of those factors,
concluding that the Subject Property is not suitable for farm use. Having reviewed the evidence and
arguments presented by these participants, a primary difference in their positions comes down to the
definition of "farm use", which ORS 215.203(2)(a) defines as:
The current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in
money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding,
management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing animals
or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural
or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof.
According to COLW, the Subject Property could be employed for multiple fann uses because: (1) the soil
fertility is high -value farmland, (2) it can be used for livestock, on its own or in conjunction with other
lands; (3) the climate is the same as the climate of surrounding agricultural lands; (4) irrigation water is
available; (5) it is part of a larger block of productive agricultural land; (6) any technological and energy
inputs needed to farm the property are not unique; and (7) it is an accepted farm practice to improving the
property for farming, such as removing rocks, tilling and fertilizing soil, and improving irrigation
infrastructure. COLW also notes that the Subject Property has historically had an irrigated pasture,
The Applicant does not dispute that some "farming" may be possible on the Subject Property. Rather, the
Applicant asserts that, based on these same factors, farming activities would not be "profitable" and,
therefore, do not arise to the level of a "farm use" as defined by ORS 215.203(2)(a). The Applicant
supports its assertions with evidence from the Soil Study and farmers with experience engaging in farm
uses. The Applicant's explanation includes addressing its inability to engage in farm uses on the Subject
Property even if the Subject Property is considered in conjunction with other parcels.
As just one example, the Applicant provided evidence that the Subject Property could not support enough
forage for even one cow to graze and that any revenue gained from raising one cow would be more than
offset by all the costs necessary to engage in that activity. Similarly, the Applicant provided evidence that
the costs of adding additional irrigation infrastructure are unreasonable and prohibitive. The Applicant
also notes that the historical use on the site as an irrigated pasture does not necessarily inform whether
such a use constitutes a "farm use" under current conditions as COLW suggests — for example, because
the economics of farm activities have changed over time.
As it relates to this administrative rule, the competing evidence submitted by the parties makes this a close
call. Having reviewed and weighed that evidence, however, I find that the quantitative and more -detailed
Page 114
evidence provided by the Applicant is more persuasive, and I conclude that it is more likely than not that
the Subject Property is not suitable for farm uses as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a).
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C)
As a final argument on this issue, COLW asserts that the Subject Property is "agricultural land" as defined
in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C). That rule states that land qualifies as "agricultural land" if it "is necessary
to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands." COLW specifically
asserts that the extra traffic, noise, and human presence resulting from a zone change "threatens the
viability of current and potential farm practices in the area." The Applicant responds, in part, by noting
how LUBA has interpreted this rule to require "some connection between the subject property and
adjacent or nearby farm practices, such that the property must remain as `agricultural land' in order to
permit such practices on other lands to be undertaken."4 In that case, LUBA agreed that it is not only that
the land itself must be necessary to permit farm practices on other lands, but the land's resource
designation and zoning must be "necessary" to permit farm practices on other lands.
LUBA acknowledges that this "necessary" standard is a high one, and some conflicts may be allowed.
But where specific conflicts are identified, they must be assessed. COLW, however, does not identify
specific conflicts that will happen as a result of the change in zoning, only potential conflicts that may
arise. Indeed, specific conflicts would be difficult to identify because the Application does not propose a
specific development. The Applicant does contemplate using the Subject Property for the expansion of an
existing school, but COLW acknowledges that such a use is authorized under current zoning. Thus, the
change in zoning would not be the cause of the conflicts COLW urges must be avoided in order for other
properties to continue farming.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the evidence in the record does not allow me to conclude that the
Subject Property is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural
lands and, therefore, the Subject Property does not qualify as agricultural land under this part of the rule.
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b)
The state's administrative rules provide one more definition of "agricultural lands" in OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(b) — "Land in capability classes other than I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands
in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though
this land may not be cropped or grazed;..." The Applicant states that the Subject Property does not fall
into this category and "is not, and has not, been a part of a farm unit". The Staff Report agrees with the
Applicant's assessment, and no other participant challenges that assessment or argues that the Subject
Property falls within this definition. Based on the foregoing, I find that the Subject Property is not
"agricultural land" under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b).
4 Central Oregon LandWatch et al. v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2023-006/009)
(July 28, 2023).
Page 115
d. Goal 5 Administrative Rules
COLW argues that the Application is not in compliance with OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b), which is part of
Goal 5. Goal 5 and its implementing rules protect natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open
spaces. Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(3), the County does not have to apply Goal 5 as part of a post -
acknowledgment plan amendment ("PAPA") "unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource." One scenario
in which a PAPA may affect a Goal 5 resource is when the "PAPA allows new uses that could be
conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list."5
COLW argues that the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change requires the Applicant to apply Goal
5 provisions because the Application "proposes to amend the plan designation and zoning for the subject
property that would allow new uses — those permitted in the MUA-10 zone — on the subject property" and
that those new uses may conflict with the County's Goal 5-protected resources. The specific resources
COLW identifies are Landscape Management Rivers, State Scenic Waterways, and wetlands.
The County regulates conflicting uses with Landscape Management Rivers and State Scenic Waterways
through the application of the Landscape Management Combining zone ("LM Zone"), and the Subject
Property currently carries the LM Zone designation.
The Applicant asserts that there is no need to apply Goal 5 in light of the County's acknowledged Plan,
which contains the LM Zone as a tool for protecting some Goal 5 resources. According to the Applicant,
the Subject Property is already subject to the LM Zone and, to the extent there are any conflicts with a
Goal 5 resource, that can be resolved at the time when specific development occurs and the County
requires site plan approval for any development within the LM Zone. The Applicant specifically states
that "[t]here is no requirement to apply Goal 5 directly to the application where, as here, the proposal does
[not] introduce `new uses' which would be conflicting with the Goal."
The Applicant's response is not consistent with a relatively recent LUBA decision — the LUBA_ No. 2023-
008 case cited above in footnote 3. That decision rejects the very approach to Goal 5 the Applicant seeks
here. In that case, LUBA explained that its prior decisions require a local jurisdiction "to apply Goal 5 if
the PAPA allows a new use that could conflict with Goal 5 resources." LUBA then addressed a situation
similar to the situation presented in this case and analyzed whether the new zoning (in that case, the RI
zone on property that would retain the LM overlay) allowed uses on the subject property that were not
allowed under the previous EFU zoning and whether those uses could conflict with protected Goal 5
resources.
LUBA's decision acknowledged that the County previously conducted the appropriate Goal 5 analysis for
other RI -zoned properties and applied the LM Zone to protect the Highway 97 scenic resource from
conflicting uses on those properties. However, LUBA determined that, in the absence of evidence showing
5 OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b).
6 The Applicant's Final Legal Argument actually states: "[t]here is no requirement to apply Goal 5
directly to the application where, as here, the proposal does introduce `new uses' which would be
conflicting with the Goal." That appears to be a typo and I assume the Applicant intended to say
"...does not introduce...". That sentence would not otherwise snake sense in the context in which it
appears.
Page 116
the prior Goal 5 analysis considered impacts from RI -type development on all properties, that analysis did
not consider whether RI uses on farm -zoned property affected a Goal 5 resource. Indeed, LUBA concluded
that "the county could not have, in its [prior Goal 5 analysis], evaluated whether development of those
new uses on the subject property would excessively interfere with the protected scenic resource because
those uses were not allowed on the property" at that time. Because the County's decision in that case
allowed "new uses that could conflict with inventoried Goal 5 resources," LUBA concluded the County
was required to address Goal 5 and, specifically, to comply with OAR 660-023-0250(3).
Based on that LUBA decision, I find that the Applicant's argument that Goal 5 is not applicable is
incorrect. The Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow new uses on the Subject Property that
were not previously allowed and that could conflict with a protected Goal 5 resource. Although the
Applicant notes that its intended use is to expand an existing school, and that the current school was
approved in the MUA-10 zone subject to the LM Zone, the Application is not limited to that use, and other
uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone would be authorized after the zone change. The Applicant has not
addressed those uses, much less considered their potential conflicts with listed Goal 5 resources. The
Applicant's response also does not address COLW's assertion that wetlands will be impacted. It may be
possible for the Applicant to show that the County's prior Goal 5 analysis considered MUA-10
development on the Subject Property, or, if not, the Applicant may be able to demonstrate that the new
uses allowed on the Subject Property do not significantly affect a Goal 5 resource. However, I find that
the current record does not allow me to address either option. I therefore find that I cannot recommend
approval of the Application on this basis and the Applicant must address this issue further before the
Application is approved.
e. Goal 14 Administrative Rules
COLW argues that the Application is not in compliance with Goal 14. Goal 14 and its implementing rules
"provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." SOe OAR 660-015-0000(14).
COLW's specific argument is that the designation of the Subject Property to the MUA-10 zone would
constitute urbanization of the Subject Property. According to COLW, the County must analyze several
urbanization factors ("Curry factors") as set forth in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation and
Development Commission, 301 Or 447, 474 (1986), which are also summarized by LUBA in Oregon
Shores Conservation Coalition v. Coos County, 55 Or LUBA 545, 550 (2008). COLW bases its argument
on its own assessment of the Curry factors.
One way to address this issue is to consider whether the MUA-10 zone actually authorizes urban uses. As
the Applicant notes, this question has been asked and answered by the County, as described in the recent
LUBA case Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, OR LUBA (LUBA No. 2023-049,
Feb. 15, 2024). In that case, LUBA considered nearly identical facts where the County approved a plan
amendment and zone change from AG/EFU-TRB to RREA/MUA-10. Before turning to COLW's
arguments in that case, LUBA noted that the County's Board of Commissioner's had made the following
finding:
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 of the Deschutes
County Code have been acknowledged by [the Land Conservation and
Page 117
Development Commission (LCDC)] as being in compliance with every
statewide planning goal, including Goal 14. The County specifically
amended its comprehensive plan in 2016 to provide that the Rural
Residential Exception Area Plan and its related MUA-10 and RR-10 zones
should be applied to non resource lands. Ordinance 2016-005. This
amendment is acknowledged, which means that the RREA plan designation
and its related zoning districts, when applied to non -resource lands such as
the subject property, do not result in a violation of Goal 14. (Emphasis
added).
In other words, the County's Board has already interpreted its Plan and Code to mean that all uses allowed
in the MUA-10 zone are rural in nature. This is similar to the Board's interpretation of other zones, like
the Rural Industrial (RI) zone, which LUBA also considered in a similar case.7 Based on the Board's
interpretation, I find that it is not necessary to apply the Curry factors as urged by COLW, and that the
change in zone to MUA-10 does not result in urbanization of the Subject Property.
f. Goal 12 Administrative Rules
Goal 12 relates to transportation. COLW argues that the Application fails to comply with Goal 12 and its
implementing rules.
A primary regulation implementing Goal 12 is OAR 660-012-0060. That rule states:
If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a
land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing
or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place
measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed
under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an
adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system;
or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of
this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of
the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to
be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if
the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that
'See Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2022-075, Dec. 6, 2002); aff'd 324 Or
App 655 (2023) (upholding County's finding that all uses in the RI zone are rural in nature, negating the need to undertake
additional Goal 15 analyses).
Page 118
would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not
limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may
diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the
amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with
the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility such that it would not meet the
performance standards identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet
the perfonnance standards identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan.
I find that this administrative rule is applicable to the Plan Amendment and the Zone Change because they
involve an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. COLW asserts that the Application does
not comply with this rule because the Applicant has not accurately estimated the vehicle trip generation
of the proposed zoning, and specifically because the Applicant has not estimated the trip generation
associated with the anticipated use of the Subject Property as a school.
The Applicant counters that its proposal will not result in a significant effect to the transportation system.
In support of that assertion, the Applicant submitted a traffic study prepared by traffic engineer Joe
Bessman, PE. The Applicant also notes that, because the Application seeks a zone change that allows
multiple uses, not just the intended use, it was not required to analyze the school use specifically and,
instead, was required to model a worst -case scenario based on all uses allowed.
The County's Transportation Planner agreed with the conclusions of the Applicant's engineer, including
the methodology used. As a result, the Staff Report finds that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change will
comply with the Transportation Planning Rule.
Based on the foregoing, I agree with the Applicant that it has sufficiently addressed transportation impacts
and find that the Application satisfies this Goal 12 administrative rule.
5. Other Statewide Planning
Division 15 of OAR chapter 660 sets forth the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, with which all
comprehensive plan amendments must demonstrate compliance. The Applicant asserts the Application is
consistent with all applicable Goals and Guidelines. No participant in this proceeding identified a
Statewide Planning Goal with which the proposal does not comply, except those discussed above relating
to Goal 3, Goal 5, Goal 12, and Goal 14. Having reviewed the evidence presented, and in the absence of
any arguments relating to the other Goals, I adopt the Applicants' position and find that the Plan
Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with the following applicable Goals:
Page 1 19
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to the
public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the applicant to post a
"proposed land use action sign" on the subject property. Notice of the public hearings held
regarding this application will be placed in the Bend Bulletin. A minimum of two public hearings
will be held to consider the application.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies, and processes related to zone change applications
are included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes
County Code. The outcome of the application will be based on findings of fact and conclusions of
law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2.
Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the subject property does not include any
lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses. Forest land is defined by OAR 660-005-0010
as lands suitable for commercial forest use protection under Goal 4, which are identified using
NCRS soil survey maps to determine average annual wood fiber production figures. The NCRS
maps for the subject property map it with soil mapping units 98A and B, 26A and 101 E. The NCRS
Soils Survey for the upper Deschutes River lists all soils mapped by its survey that are suitable for
wood crop production in Table 8 (Exhibit 15). None of the soils mapped on the subject property
are listed in Table 8 as suitable for wood crop production.
Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality. The approval of this application will not
impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County. Any future development of
the property would be subject to local, state, and federal regulations that protect these resources.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. According to the Deschutes County
DIAL property information and Interactive Map the entire Deschutes County, including the subject
property, is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The subject property is also located in Rural Fire
Protection District #2. Rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard
Area designation. Any future development of the property would need to demonstrate compliance
with any fire protection regulations and requirements of Deschutes County.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs. This goal is not applicable because no development is proposed and
the property is not planned to meet the recreational needs of Deschutes County. Therefore, the
proposed rezone will not impact the recreational needs of Deschutes County.
Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal does not apply to this application because the subject
property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, the approval of this
application will not adversely affect economic activities of the state or area. The proposed zone
change will promote economic opportunities by rezoning underutilized property for a subsequent
use.
Goal 10, Housing. The County's comprehensive plan Goal 10 analysis anticipates that farm
properties with poor soils, like the subject property, will be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or
RR-10 zoning and that these lands will help meet the need for rural housing. Cascades Academy
supports rural housing by providing school services for the rural properties. Approval of this
Page 120
application, therefore, is consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes
County comprehensive plan.
Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The approval of this application will have no adverse
impact on the provision of public facilities and services to the subject site. Central Electric
Cooperative serves the subject property with power, water and septic are provided on -site and the
proposal will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas.
Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The approval of this application does not impede energy
conservation. In fact, Planning Guideline 3 of Goal 13 states "land use planning should, to the
maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and re -use vacant land..." Cascades Academy provides
school services to the rural community in close proximity to residential uses, thereby reducing
vehicle miles traveled and conserving energy.
Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicant has NOT met the burden of proof with respect to the
standards for approving the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change. I therefore recommend to the
County Board of Commissioners that the Application be DENIED unless the Applicant can meet that
burden.
Dated this 21 st day of February 2025
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Page121
ES CO
C, G
BOARD OF
-�„�- COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Letter of Support for BLM Funding Request for Acquiring
Paulina Meadows
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
N/A
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
During the June 11, 2025, BOCC meeting, the Commissioners discussed a request for a
letter of support on behalf of the Western Rivers Conservancy. The draft letter supported
the Bureau of Land Management's request for $5,000,000 from the Fiscal Year 2026 Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire the 674-acre Paulina Meadows property
along Paulina Creek and the Little Deschutes River.
Commissioners Adair and Chang approved the motion to sign the letter of support and
Commissioner DeBone abstained from voting. Commissioner Adair is asking to reconsider
the motion passed during the June 11, 2025, BOCC meeting.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager
gNTOfiTy United States Department of the Interior
a z° BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Prineville District Office
AHcH 3 1g�a 3050 NE Yd Street
Prineville, Oregon 97754
In Reply Refer To:
9210/9214 (ORP060)
Patti Adair
Deschutes County Commissioner
1300 NW Wall St.
Bend, OR 97703
Dear Commissioner Adair:
V
Thank you so much for your consideration of a letter from the Deschutes County Commissioners
supporting the acquisition of the Paulina Meadows property near La Pine. I know you had some
concerns that you need addressed. From working with our partners in southern Deschutes
County, we know the residents of La Pine are primarily concerned with wildfire and the potential
for houseless camps to form on the new lands. We are currently completing an environmental
assessment (EA) that will address a variety of land management actions in the La Pine basin, and
we are including planning for the acquisition "as if' we're going to be successful, so we don't
have a delay if we actually are. With that idea, here's what we're talking about implementing:
We recognize the need to be pro -active with fuels planning in the La Pine area, and have a
demonstrated record of completing fuels treatments since the completion of the La Pine
Hazardous Fuels Reduction EA in 2007, as well as subsequent EAs like the Outback EA. We
have documented the benefits of our fuels treatments in modifying wildfire behavior and
contributing to safer and more effective fire suppression during wildfires like the Stagecoach
Fire, Darlene 3 and this year's Jackpine Fire.
Under the EA we are currently working on, fuels staff will identify areas that need a first entry
fuels reduction (generally thinning and mowing) as well as areas that might need maintenance
treatments (just mowing). This will put the Paulina Meadows lands, as well as all BLM-managed
acres in La Pine, on a cycle that will allow continued maintenance as needed and as vegetation
grows up for the next several decades. We will map control features, such as roads or more open
areas, that could help control a fire should one start. We will be able to add to the fuels reduction
work that Western Rivers plans to complete prior to conveying the lands into public ownership.
Wildfire risk reduction is a priority for not only the Prineville District, but also the BLM and this
administration. We are eager to provide decades of project work for our fuels program.
We are also very excited that this location comes fenced as this is a major deterrent in reducing
people illegally occupying an area. Western Rivers is retaining what we call a "base property,"
which gives them grazing preference to the Paulina Meadows parcel and they do plan to graze
(generally through subleasing to a local resident). What this means is that BLM and Western
Rivers will work to not only develop an appropriate grazing schedule, but we will also ensure
that fences are maintained. All of this snakes an area look "occupied," and less desirable as an
area to illegally reside.
We are also excited about the relationship we're building, with the support of the Newberry
Regional Partnership team, with the Deschutes County Sheriff Department and Oregon State
Police. BLM has an agreement and contributes funding to Deschutes County to pay for patrols
and enforcement on public lands and as our relationship grows, we can seek to add additional
funding if needed to help cover more patrols in La Pine overall. We are also working to
understand better and work with each other's enforcement rules to have the greatest effect on
camping overstays as possible. We appreciate the County's support of the coordination between
federal and county law enforcement.
One of the ideas that could help as we get the Paulina parcel into public ownership is to make the
area day -use only. The EA the BLM is currently working on will be released for public comment
in the next few weeks. We are adding an alternative to include malting the new site day -use if we
acquire it, at least initially, to ensure that we get fences repaired and other control features, such
as gates, in place. This would provide another enforcement tool to address anyone that moved
into the area. I would hope that we would get county and community support for this alternative
through our public comment process.
In general, areas that are used by "good" users get less illegal camping. Most people don't want
to be harassed and try to find pockets to hide in. In addition to peeping the fencing, the BLM is
also including alternatives in the EA to close unnecessary roads or entrances to the parcel, and to
create appropriate parking areas or trailheads for the public to eventually use for hiking, hunting,
or access to the water for fishing or paddling. While we still want to reach out to community
members to understand what their goals for the parcel would be, we think that retaining more of
a primitive or less developed experience would be appreciated. We do want to provide enough
infrastructure that the public knows where to go and doesn't create routes or party spots.
I've also had a conversation with Western Rivers about doing historic interpretation of the land.
In talking with the Newberry Partnership, we understand there is a long local history for the site,
and we want to help the La Pine community learn about and retain that connection. Western
Rivers is fully on board and excited to start that process. I think we can create an area that has
valuable connections to the local community, provide opportunities for semi -developed
recreation and grazing, while reducing fuels and protecting the area from the spread of wildfire.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by Lisa
Clark
Lisa C I a r Date: 2025.06.16
11:34:33-07'00'
Lisa Clark
Field Manager, Deschutes Field Office
�vTES CO
C� G
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
1:00 PM, MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2025
Allen Room - 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.l /y 3mminzv. 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.l /3y h3ogdD.
• 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
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.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. 1:00 PM Consideration of agreement with the Greater Redmond Area Enterprise Zone
sponsors to extend the property tax exemption for capital investment by i3D
Manufacturing to five total consecutive years
2. 1:15 PM Annual Update from Jericho Road
3. 1:30 PM Work Session for a Road Name Change - File No. 247-25-000149-RN
4. 1:40 PM Work Session: Cascades Academy Plan Amendment and Zone Change
5. 1:55 PM Reconsideration of Letter of Support for BLM Funding Request for Acquiring
Paulina Meadows
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.
June 16, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
6. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations
up m "
June 16, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3