2025-286-Minutes for Meeting July 29,2025 Recorded 9/2/2025�VSES CO
BOARD OF
! COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
9:00 AM
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2025-286
Steve Dennison, County Clerk 09/02/2025 3:05:58 ISM
Commissioners' Journal
co
2025-286
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY July 29, 2025
Barnes Sawyer Rooms
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang.
Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack; Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley;
and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org_/meet!DZS.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 am.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: None
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda.
1. Approval of Policy Updates: HR-15, GA-3, GA-21
2. Approval of a contract with Youth Villages, Inc. for pediatric mental health
services
3. Approval of an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Department of
Human Services for the funding of Developmental Disabilities Services
4. Appoint Liz Foott to the Audit Committee to represent the public for a term
ending on June 30, 2027
BOCC MEETING JULY 29, 2025 PAGE 1 OF 6
5. Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking John Ralston for service on
the Sunriver Service District Managing Board
6. Approval of the BOCC meeting minutes for June 18 and 23, 2025
CHANG: Move Board approval of the Consent Agenda as presented
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0
Commissioner Adair said she reported to Health Services that the spreadsheet
submitted with the IDD funding agreement contains missed decimal points.
ACTION ITEMS:
7. Appointment of Sheriff
Commissioner Chang expressed appreciation to the five candidates who sought this
appointment, saying each has a compelling vision for the department in addition to
valuable attributes that would serve the County well.
Commissioner Adair said in these turbulent times, the work of the Sheriffs Office is
very important. She was pleased with the caliber of the candidates who stepped up
to be appointed as Sheriff for the next 18 months.
Commissioner DeBone extended special thanks to everyone who works for the
Sheriffs Office, saying that DCSO has a great team which serves the public very well.
Commissioner Chang advocated for appointing a candidate whom DCSO staff can
believe in and trust. Noting that an election will be held in less than ten months, he
wanted the appointed Sheriff to help promote a healthy and fair election.
Commissioner DeBone supported appointing Captain Ty Rupert as Sheriff. Referring
to many challenges and saying that the County needs steady leadership,
Commissioner Adair also supported appointing Captain Rupert as Sheriff.
Saying that Captain Rupert has a solid reputation, Commissioner Chang said although
he was not opposed to appointing Rupert as Sheriff, the Sheriff's Employees
Association (union) had ranked candidate James McLaughlin a bit higher and he
wanted to give consideration to that ranking although it is not the sole factor.
BOCC MEETING JULY 29, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 6
Noting that each Commissioner had numerous conversations with many people
about this appointment, Commissioner DeBone said focus must be maintained on
the department's budget. Adding that the DCSO is one part of the operations of
Deschutes County, he encouraged being open and honest to facilitate a good
working relationship.
Commissioner Adair reported that persons interested to run for the office of Sheriff
can file in September, and the primary will be in May. She agreed that a
collaborative working relationship is needed and stated her hope that the next
leader of DCSO will support the jail in offering medication -assisted treatment to
address substance use disorders.
ADAIR: Move approval of Board Order No. 2025-031 appointing Ty Rupert to the
Office of Deschutes County Sheriff
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: (abstain)
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - (1) - 0
Commissioner DeBone announced that Rupert's oath of office is scheduled for 8:30
this Thursday, July 31 st at the Courthouse.
A break was taken at 9:20 am. The meeting resumed at 9:35 am.
8. Resolution No. 2025-036, adopting recreational immunity as provided by
ORS Chapter 105, SB 1576 (2024), and SB 179 (2025)
Dave Doyle, County Counsel, explained that the 2025 State legislature passed
SB 179 which updates recreational immunity regulations to expand immunity to
public easements and/or improved rights -of -way. The proposed resolution would
update the County's regulations accordingly.
Commissioner DeBone noted that this legislation was a priority of all 36 Oregon
counties.
ADAIR: Move approval of Resolution No. 2025-036 adopting immunity from liability
as provided in ORS 105.668, et seq., and as amended by SB 179 (2025)
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR:
CHANG:
DEBONE:
Yes
Yes
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0
BOCC MEETING JULY 29, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 6
9. Proposed Road Name Change - File No. 247-25-000069-RN (Wisteria Drive)
Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner, presented a proposal to assign the
name of Wisteria Drive to an existing unnamed gravel driveway which stems west
from Old Bend Redmond Highway. Rawlings said no oppositional comments were
received in response to the administrative decision which recommends Board
approval of this proposal.
In response to questions, Rawlings said if the road name change is approved, the
adjoining property owners will need to change their address from Old Bend -
Redmond highway to Wisteria Drive. A total of seven lots front on the access road.
The County will pay for the signage.
CHANG: Move approval of Board Order No. 2025-029 assigning the name of Wisteria
Drive to an existing unnamed gravel driveway stemming west from Old Bend
Redmond Highway
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: ADAI R: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0
10. Work Session in preparation for a Public Hearing: McKenzie Meadow Village
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Haleigh King, Senior Planner, described a request to rezone approximately 50 acres
adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of the City of Sisters from Forest Use
to MUA10. King added that the applicant also seeks an exception to the Statewide
land use Goal 4 which relates to forest lands.
Saying that the application will be heard de novo by the Board at a public hearing on
August 61h and that the Hearings Officer recommended approval, King referred to
comments submitted by the State Department of Land Conservation and
Development which were subsequently addressed by the applicant. The Sisters UGB
Steering Committee did not take a position on the application.
In response to Commissioner Chang, King said the Hearings Officer was clear that
this application must stand on its own merits beyond its possible inclusion in the
UGB. Commissioner Chang noted that the applicant had stated its goal that the
property be included in the expansion of the UGB. King reviewed the priority criteria
for including land in a UGB.
Speaking to Goal 4, Commissioner Chang said the property in question constitutes
marginal forest lands in terms of timber production as it is situated on the edge of
BOCC MEETING JULY 29, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 6
the ecotone where Ponderosa pine can grow. Noting possible effects of climate
change which may shift historical forest areas to a higher elevation, he questioned if
forest land is valued only when it is capable of producing timber, or for other
reasons as well. He further asked if it would be appropriate to place more value on
this property because it is vulnerable and susceptible to loss, and in fact that
susceptibility is increasing.
Saying she will provide an overview of Goal 4 exceptions at the hearing, King added
that the applicant is required to justify why this Goal, which ties directly to the
definition of forest in State statute, should not apply. She noted that a unique
circumstance is needed to override Goal 4 at the local level.
In response to Commissioner Chang, King said the requirements of the Landscape
Management Combining Zone apply to all designated properties regardless of how
those properties are zoned. Planning Manager Will Groves added that the purpose
of the Landscape Management Combining Zone is not to render structures invisible.
If a structure is visible from a protected viewpoint, the County would require
screening vegetation or possibly that the structure be painted one of the allowed
earth -tone colors to reduce its visibility.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, King reviewed the current ownership of all
properties adjacent to the land proposed to be rezoned.
Commissioner Chang asked for a map showing where properties zoned MUA10
exist outside of Sisters as well as properties zoned rural. He also wanted a map
showing the ownership of properties surrounding Sisters.
In response to Commissioner Chang, King said the minimum lot size in the Forest
zone is 80 acres. She added there is one dwelling on the southeast corner of the
property which had been approved in the 1990s as a conditional use.
Discussion ensued of whether housing could be clustered on the property if it is
rezoned to MUA10.
Commissioner Chang asked if the County could condition a rezone with regard to
future development. Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel, spoke to
the risk of taking away rights for a certain zone by adding conditions to a rezone,
noting this could be viewed as creating a new zone outside of the legislative
process. On the other hand, the property owner could volunteer concessions in
order to secure the desired rezone.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, King said just under 200 comments were
received on the application. She offered to provide a tally showing how many of
BOCC MEETING JULY 29, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 6
those comments were supportive of the proposed rezone, and how many opposed
it.
Commissioner Adair said the Hearings Officers should hold hearings such as this in
person, not remotely as this one was. Groves agreed that is the County's preference
but said it is difficult to recruit Hearings Officers locally due to potential conflicts of
interest.
OTHER ITEMS:
Commissioner DeBone referred to a letter from the Department of State Lands
(DSL) announcing the transfer of 80 acres near Burgess Road in La Pine's UGB from
the Bureau of Land Management to DSL.
Commissioner Chang referred to a special session of the legislature which has been
scheduled for August 291" regarding transportation funding. County Administrator
Nick Lelack said the County's lobbyist Doug Riggs will present an update on the 2025
Legislative session next Monday, and the special session can also be discussed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At 10:44 am, the Board entered Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property
Negotiations.
The Executive Session concluded at 11:14 am, and the public was invited to return to the
room.
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:14 am.
DATED this cIL0 Day of 2025 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
RECORDING SECRETARY
ANTHONYDiBONE, CHAIR
PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING JULY 29, 2025 PAGE 6 OF 6
MEETING DATE: July 29, 2025
SUBJECT: Appointment of Sheriff
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve Board Order No. 2025-031 appointing a selected candidate to the Office
of Deschutes County Sheriff.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Deschutes County Sheriff Kent van der Kamp announced his resignation effective July 31,
2025. The Board of County Commissioners is tasked with appointing a successor until the
position is filled by election during the 2026 election cycle.
Subsequent to van der Kamp's resignation announcement, the Board invited persons
interested to be appointed to the position of Sheriff to submit a statement of interest and a
resume. All candidates attested to their eligibility to serve as Sheriff.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
County Commissioners
T E S COG��
o
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: July 29, 2025
SUBJECT: Work Session in preparation for a Public Hearing: McKenzie Meadow Village
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
N/A —information only.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of Commissioners will hold a work session in preparation for an August 6, 2025,
public hearing to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request
submitted by McKenzie Meadow Village, LLC (File Nos. 247-24-0000839-PA, 840-ZC).
Additional background is included in the staff memorandum. The full record is located on
the project webpage: https://www.deschutes.orLy/mckenziemeadowvill
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Haleigh King, Senior Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Haleigh King, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: July 24, 2025
SUBJECT: McKenzie Meadow Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change - Work
Session
The Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will conduct a Work Session on July 29, 2025, in
preparation for a public hearing on August 6, 2025, to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zone Change (file nos. 247-24-0000839-PA, 840-ZC) affecting a total of 58 acres adjacent to the
City of Sisters.
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant and property owner, McKenzie Meadow Village LLC, is requesting a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to re -designate the subject properties from Forest to Rural Residential Exception
Area and a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties from Forest Use 2 (F-2) to Multiple Use
Agricultural - 10 Acre Minimum (MUA-10). The application request includes a Goal 4 (Forest Lands)
exception request.
The applicant states that the purpose of this request is to ultimately be brought into the City of Sisters
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) so the applicant can develop a needed housing residential
development that includes 30% NET developed units that qualify as affordable housing to meet the
City's future housing needs. However, this application request does not include a request to expand
the City of Sisters UGB, nor does it include or review a specific development plan under the proposed
County zoning designation or any future City zoning designation.
The applicant asserts that the properties qualify for a Goal 4 exception and do not meet the definition
of "forest lands" pursuant to State Statute. The applicant provided a supplementary soil study that
identifies Class 7 soils on a majority of the property and none of the trees inventoried are considered
members of Forest Productivity Class 1 to 4, which are trees considered to be commercial or
merchantable in their growth habit. There is nothing in the record indicating the subject property has
a known history of commercial timber operations.
I1. PUBLIC COMMENTS
As of the date of this memo, Staff received six public comments opposing the proposal in the time
period after the Hearing's Officer Recommendation was issued. Comments received after the date of
this memo will be included in their entirety in the application record.
Staff received over 150 public comments from neighbors, stakeholders, local interest groups and
public agencies related to the April 7, 2025, Hearing's Officer hearing and proceedings. Staff received
comments both in favor of the application and those in opposition.
Comments received in support reference the City of Sisters' ongoing UGB expansion process and the
subject property's logical inclusion due to proximity to urban services, "moderate" wildfire hazard
risk, and potential to provide affordable housing opportunities. Comments received in opposition
note concerns with potential traffic impacts, availability of groundwater, wildfire risk, compatibility
with and preservation of open space and forested land, and impacts to local wildlife and plant
species.
On the day of the initial hearing, Staff received an agency comment from the Oregon Department of
Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD") raising several issues but primarily focused on the
criteria for a Goal 4 exception request and insufficient evidence in the record to support such a
request. DLCD also states the soil survey was not reviewed by DLCD pursuant to Oregon
Administrative Rules. Lastly, DLCD emphasizes the application cannot rely on a separate UGB
expansion effort as a basis for redesignation.
Approximately 15 people, not including the applicant's team, provided verbal testimony during the
hearing with additional written testimony received during the open record periods.
III. HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer held a public hearing on April 7, 2025. The written record was
left open for a total of 28 days to allow for new evidence and testimony and rebuttal evidence with
an additional seven (7) days for the applicant's final legal argument. DLCD did not provide any
additional comments during the written open record period.
On June 25, 2025, the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation for approval of the proposed Plan
Amendment and Zone Change evaluating compliance with all applicable review criteria.
IV. BOARD CONSIDERATION
As the property includes land designated for forest use and a request for a Goal 4 exception to the
Statewide Planning Goals, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C) requires the application to be heard
de novo before the Board, regardless of the recommendation of the Hearings Officer. Per DCC Section
22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change is not
subject to the 150-day review period typically associated with land use decisions. The record is
Page 2 of 3
available for inspection at the Planning Division and at the following website:
https://www.deschutes.org/mckenziemeadowvillage.
V. NEXT STEPS
The Board will conduct a public hearing on this matter on August 6, 2025.
ATTACH M E NT(S):
1. Area Map
2. Hearings Officer Recommendation
Page 3 of 3
File Number: 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Subdivision
Subiect Pro
High School
N
0 625 1,250 2,500
ft
1 inch= 1,505 feet
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS: 247-24-000839-PA / 247-24-000840-ZC
HEARING DATE: April 7, 2025 1:00 p.m.
HEARING LOCATION: Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
APPLICANT/OWNER: McKenzie Meadow Village LLC
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: Map and Tax Lots:
1510050001200
1510050001202
1510050001203
1510050001205
Situs Addresses:
69095 McKinney Ranch Rd., Sisters, OR 97759
69055 McKinney Ranch Rd., Sisters, OR 97759
69050 McKinney Ranch Rd., Sisters, OR 97759
No Situs Address
REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Properties
from Forest to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and a
corresponding Zone Change to rezone the Subject Properties from
Forest Use 2 (F-2) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The
Applicant also requests a "reasons exception" to Statewide
Planning Goal 4.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the record is sufficient to
support the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Goal 4 Exception.
Page I 1
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10)
Chapter 18.40, Forest Use Zone (F2)
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM)
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) - Chapter 660
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Statewide Planning Goals
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
A. Nature of Proceeding
This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as a request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment ("Plan Amendment") to change the designation of the Subject Properties from Forest 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 Properties from Forest Use 2 (F-
2) to Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10). As presented by the Applicant, the request also seeks an
exception to Statewide Planning Goal 4 ("Goal 4 Exception").
The Application requests a Plan Amendment, which is ultimately a decision for the County's Board of
Commissioners ("County Board"). Several applicable criteria require a weighing of policy choices, and
the record before the County Board may be different than the current record. This Recommendation
therefore determines if the Applicant has met its burden of proof in a manner that would support the
County Board's approval of the Application based on the current record.
B. Notices Hearing, Record Materials
The Applicant initially filed the Application on December 24, 2024, and provided supplemental materials
throughout this proceeding.
Page 12
On January 3, 2025, staff in the County's Community Development Department ("Staff') mailed a Notice
of Application identifying the standards and criteria governing the review of the Application and seeking
public comment on the Application. On March 13, 2025, Staff mailed a Notice of Public Hearing
("Hearing Notice") to agencies, interested persons, and all property owners within 750 feet of the Subject
Properties, announcing a public hearing to be held on April 7, 2025. The Hearing Notice was also
published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, March 16, 2025. Notice of the Hearing was also submitted to
the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD").
Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on April 7, 2025,
opening the Hearing at 1:00 p.m. The Hearing was held in person and via videoconference, with the
Hearings Officer appearing remotely. At the beginning of the Hearing, I provided an overview of the
quasi-judicial process and instructed participants to direct comments to the approval criteria and standards,
and to raise any issues a participant wanted to preserve for appeal if necessary. I stated I had no ex parte
contacts to disclose or bias to declare. I invited but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction
over the matter or to my participation as the Hearings Officer.
The Hearing concluded at approximately 3:04 p.m. Prior to the conclusion of the Hearing, I announced
that the written record would remain open as follows: (1) any participant could submit additional materials
until April 21, 2025 ("Open Record Period"); (2) any participant could submit rebuttal materials (evidence
or argument) until May 5, 2025 ("Rebuttal Period"); and (3) the Applicant could submit a final legal
argument, but no additional evidence, until May 12, 2025. Staff provided further instruction to
participants, noting that all post -Hearing submittals needed to be received by the County by 4:00 p.m. on
the applicable due date. No participant objected to the post -hearing procedures.
Various participants submitted post -Hearing materials within the time limits described above, and no
objections were made to any of those submittals. The record therefore includes all materials submitted to
the County as reflected on the County's website for this matter.
C. Review Period
Because the Application includes a request for the Plan Amendment, the 150-day review period set forth
in ORS 215.427(1) is not applicable.' The Staff Report also concludes that the 150-day review period is
not applicable by virtue of Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") 22.20.040(D). No participant to
the proceeding disputes that conclusion.
III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Staff Report
On March 28, 2025, Staff issued a report setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting evidence in
the record at that time ("Staff Report").
' ORS 215.427(7).
Page 13
The Staff Report, although it expresses agreement with the Applicant in some places, does not make a
final recommendation. Instead, the Staff Report asks the Hearings Officer to determine if the Applicant
has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Goal 4 Exception.
B. Preliminary Discussion
In order to identify and better address the applicable criteria, it is necessary both to discuss the Applicant's
stated purpose of the Application and to describe what the Applicant is not requesting.
The Applicant candidly presented its long-term goal for the use of the Subject Properties, which is to make
those properties more available for eventual consideration by the City of Sisters ("City") to be included
in its urban growth boundary ("UGB"). As explained by the Applicant and acknowledged by other
participants, the City is in the process of expanding its UGB. Under state law, the City is to give certain
properties (e.g. exception areas) higher priority than other properties (e.g. resource lands) when deciding
which areas to bring into its UGB.
The Applicant's stated long-term goal understandably prompted a wide variety of comments relating to
whether and how the Subject Properties should be brought into the City's UGB or otherwise be developed
with urban uses. I agree with the Applicant, however, that these comments are largely not relevant to the
Application. The decision to include the Subject Properties in the City's UGB is not part of the request in
the Application. That decision belongs to the City and will be governed by other standards and criteria.
Further, the requested Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Goal 4 Exception, if approved, may give the
City more options for including the Subject Properties within its UGB, but as DLCD noted in its
comments, they are not necessary, and there is a process in state administrative rules that could allow the
City to consider the Subject Properties for inclusion in its UGB even with their current designations under
the County's Comprehensive Plan ("Plan").
The Applicant is not requesting, through this Application, that the Subject Properties actually be included
in the City's UGB, nor is the Applicant requesting approval of any specific type of development if the
Zone Change is approved. The findings below therefore address only the specific requests in the
Application as a stand-alone application made to the County, regardless of what impact the outcome may
or may not have on the City's UGB process. Those specific requests are: (1) the Goal 4 Exception, based
on the "reasons exception" component of ORS 197.732; (2) the Plan Amendment; and (3) the Zone
Change.
C. Findings for Specific Requests in the Application
1. Goal 4 Exception
Pursuant to ORS 197.175(2), if the County amends its Plan, it must do so in compliance with Statewide
Planning Goals (each a "Goal" and, together, the "Goals"). Because the Plan has been acknowledged, the
requested Plan Amendment must adhere to the procedures for a post -acknowledged plan amendment
("PAPA") set forth in state statutes and rules. The Applicant does not assert that the requested Plan
Amendment is in compliance with Goal 4-Forest Lands. Rather, the Applicant requests an "exception" to
Page 14
that Goal. ORS 197.732 and its implementing rules govern the process and standards for obtaining such a
"Goal Exception".
Although state statutes allow different types of Goal Exceptions, the Applicant has "confirmed that the
application seeks a plan amendment and zone change using a Goal 4 reasons exception under ORS
197.732." The "Reasons Exception" is a reference to ORS 197.732(2)(c), which allows a Goal Exception
if the following standards are met, each of which are addressed below:
(A) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable
goals should not apply;
(B) Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably
accommodate the use;
(C) The long term environmental, economic, social and energy
consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with
measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly
more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal
being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the
proposed site; and
(D) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will
be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse
impacts.
ORS 197.732(2)(c)(A)
With respect to the reasons that the state policy embodied in Goal 4 should not apply, the Applicant's
argument is best summarized in its Final Legal Argument. In that submittal, the Applicant identifies the
policy embodied in Goal 4 in part as "to preserve forest land for forest related use and timber production,"
along with conserving soil, air, water quality and providing for fish and wildlife resources, recreational
and agricultural opportunities appropriate in a forest environment. According to the Applicant, these
policies "in most or all respects are advanced better under the proposed [MUA-10] zoning." The Applicant
has also asserted that there is a specific need for MUA-10 zoning near the City of Sisters to provide a
better transitional zone between urban and rural development. I infer from the Applicant's arguments that
a reason for the Goal Exception is to establish this transitional zone on the Subject Properties, which the
Applicant asserts is more beneficial than keeping Goal 4 protections in place on a property that is not
suitable for Goal 4 uses.
In support of its argument, the Applicant relies on evidence such as a soils report that confirms the Subject
Properties are not suitable for commercial forestry and, therefore, that preserving the property for forestry
uses is not appropriate. The Applicant also cites to certain natural area protections imposed through the
MUA-10 zone, such as a stream setback requirement, that it asserts will be more protective of Trout Creek
(an identified Goal 5 resource) than the regulations of the F-2 zone.
A major issue raised in this proceeding is whether the Applicant has sufficiently established the "reasons"
Goal 4 should not apply to the Subject Properties. The arguments in opposition to the Application center
around OAR 660-004-0020 and OAR 660-004-0022, which implement ORS 197.732, and which
Page 15
participants in this proceeding say must be satisfied. The Applicant asserts that OAR 660-004-0022 is not
applicable at all because it "applies only to requests for an exception to allow specifically identified uses."
The Applicant argues that it is proposing a broad range of uses (anything allowed in the MUA-10 zone),
which do not fit neatly into any of the specific uses in the rule. The Applicant's primary argument is that
only OAR 660-004-0020 is applicable.
Contrary to the Applicant's argument, OAR 660-004-0022 appears to apply to all reasons exceptions,
regardless of the specific use proposed. As described by the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"): "OAR
660-004-0022 sets out the types of `reasons' that can justify exceptions to various specific goals. For uses
not specifically addressed in OAR 660-004-0022, OAR 660-004-0022(1) sets out a `catch-all' provision
that lists a non-exclusive set of reasons sufficient to justify an exception. ,2
OAR 660-004-0022 confirms that all Reasons Exceptions must comply with OAR 660-004-0022. The
lead-in language of that rule states "[i]f a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR
660-004-0022 to use resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal or to allow public facilities
or services not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive
plan as an exception." In other words, before applying OAR 660-004-0020, the Applicant must first
establish the reasons that justify a Goal Exception by meeting the criteria set forth in OAR 660-004-0022.
If those reasons can be established, the Applicant must then show compliance with the other provisions
of OAR 660-004-0020. For some uses, OAR 660-004-0022 sets forth the types of reasons that may be
relied on, beginning with subsection (2) of that rule. For all other uses, the Applicant can rely on the catch-
all provision of OAR 660-004-0022(1).
Participant Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") raises a more specific issue in this regard, asserting
that the Applicant must show compliance with OAR 660-004-0022(2), which sets forth the reasons on
which a Goal Exception can be based when approving "Rural Residential Development.":
(2) Rural Residential Development: For rural residential development the
reasons cannot be based on market demand for housing except as provided
for in this section of this rule, assumed continuation of past urban and rural
population distributions, or housing types and cost characteristics. A county
must show why, based on the economic analysis in the plan, there are
reasons for the type and density of housing planned that require this
particular location on resource lands. A jurisdiction could justify an
exception to allow residential development on resource land outside an
urban growth boundary by determining that the rural location of the
proposed residential development is necessary to satisfy the market demand
for housing generated by existing or planned rural industrial, commercial,
or other economic activity in the area.
2 VinCEP v. Yamhill County, 53 Or LUBA 514 (2007).
Page 16
COLW's argument is that OAR 660-004-0022(2) is triggered because the MUA-10 zone is a rural
residential zone, which the Applicant disputes.3
It should be noted that the different reasons justifying a Goal Exception set forth in OAR 660-004-0022
are not mutually exclusive. That is, an applicant can seek to justify a Goal Exception for a specific use
listed in the rule and, alternatively, seek to justify the Goal Exception based on the catch-all provision of
OAR 660-004-0022(1).4 In the 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County case, a county approved a Goal
Exception under OAR 660-004-0022(3) and OAR 660-004-0022(1) for a use that could be described as a
rural industrial use. Although LUBA reversed the county's approval, it analyzed the Goal Exception under
both rules, stating "we see nothing in the rule that would preclude the county from attempting to justify a
reasons exception for an indisputable rural industrial use using the standards set out in the `catch-all'
provision at OAR 660-004-0022(1), in lieu of the non-exclusive set of reasons listed in OAR 660-004-
0022(3).
Based on the 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County case, I find that the Applicant can attempt to
show compliance with either OAR 660-004-0022(1) or any other provision of OAR 660-004-0022 as the
basis for the Reasons Exception. While the Applicant responds to COLW's argument by presenting
alternative arguments for why OAR 660-004-0022(2) is satisfied, the Applicant notes that its proposal is
to rezone the Subject Properties to the MUA-10 zone without regard to specific uses. This means that, if
approved, while some rural residential development would be allowed, other non-residential uses would
also be allowed. I agree with the Applicant that it makes little sense to proceed under a rule that applies
only to residential uses. Even if there are reasons for the Goal Exception to justify the rural residential
portion of the proposal, there must still be a basis to justify the non -rural residential components. I
therefore find that the Goal 4 Exception can be approved only if the Applicant shows compliance with
OAR 660-004-0022(1), the catch-all provision of the rule that would apply to all uses allowed in the
MUA-10 zone.
One of the difficulties in applying OAR 660-004-0022(1) to this Application is that the Applicant has not
directly addressed that criterion. As noted above, the Applicant asserts that this rule does not apply at all.
That is not detrimental to the Application, however, as the plain text of OAR 660-004-0022(1) states that
"the reasons shall justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply," which
is simply a restatement of ORS 197.732(2)(c)(A), a criterion the Applicant does address.
Another difficulty in applying OAR 660-004-0022(1) to this Application is that it is not immediately clear
if the specific provisions of that subsection of the rule require the Applicant to address all of the language
in that subsection. That is, under this part of the rule, an applicant can justify a Goal Exception by showing
3 COLW also asserts that OAR 660-004-0022 requires the Applicant to comply with OAR 660-004-0040
to the extent the Applicant seeks to justify the establishment of new urban development on undeveloped
rural land. I find that this assertion is not relevant because the Applicant does not propose urban
development in this Application even though that is the Applicant's long-term desire for use of the
Subject Properties. As explained in other findings, the MUA-10 zone is a rural zone allowing rural uses.
4 See, e.g., 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2071-066, Oct. 27,
2017).
Page 17
"a demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the requirements of Goals
3 to 19" (a "Need" component), together with a demonstration that either: (a) that the proposed use or
activity requires a location near a resource available only at the proposed exception site; or (b) the
proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitate its location on or near the proposed
exception site (a "Location" component). The Applicant has not directly addressed that additional rule
language. But the rule language also says "[s]uch reasons include but are not limited to" a demonstrated
Need and Location. The question then, is if the Applicant can rely on other reasons to justify the Goal
Exception even if it does not base its reasons on the Need and Locational components of the rule.
No participant to this proceeding has offered any argument to help explain the meaning of the "include
but are not limited to" language. Nor does the case law appear to clarify that language, as most of the
cases addressing this rule analyze different issues. In the absence of such arguments and authority, I am
left with the plain language of the rule. Based on that language, I find that the Applicant can rely on other
reasons to justify the Goal Exception, as long as those reasons demonstrate why the state policy embodied
in Goal 4 should not apply. The use of "but are not limited to" in the rule implies that other reasons may
exist, and the specific reason set forth in the rule (based on Need and Location) is more of a safe harbor
that, if met, satisfies the rule. If other reasons could not be relied on, the "but are not limited to" language
would not be necessary.
Having reviewed the information provided by the Applicant and other participants, I find that the
Applicant has met its burden to show there are reasons why the state policy embodied in Goal 4 should
not apply to the Subject Properties. Most of the opposing comments in the record do not address Goal 4
Exception criteria. Those that do simply express the opinion that the Applicant's stated reasons for the
Goal Exception are "not sufficient." They do not, however, dispute with any particularity the Applicant's
assessment of the capability of the Subject Properties to support forest uses, or the Applicant's assertion
that other Goal 4 policies, like natural resource protections, can actually be enhanced by the MUA-10
zoning.
ORS 197.732(2)(c)(B)
This part of the statute requires a decision approving a Goal Exception to demonstrate that areas that do
not require a new Goal Exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use.
The Applicant acknowledges that this criterion is difficult to apply because no one specific use is being
proposed. By seeking to rezone the Subject Properties without specifying any limitation on which uses
are or are not allowed, the Applicant is proposing that all uses in the MUA-10 zone be allowed. More
specifically, however, the Applicant is proposing to allow those uses through the establishment of a
transitional zone adjacent to the City that allows a variety of rural uses, including housing. Looking at the
"proposed use" through that lens, ORS 197.732(2)(c)(B) requires a determination of whether other areas
not requiring a Goal Exception could also be used to establish a transitional zone adjacent to the City of
Sisters to allow a variety of rural uses. According to the Applicant, they cannot.
As the Applicant notes, OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b) implements ORS 197.732(2)(c)(B). Under that rule, the
consideration of alternative sites for the proposed use can be done through a broad review of similar types
of areas. The rule specifically states "[s]ite specific comparisons are not required of a local government
Page 18
taking an exception unless another party to the local proceeding describes specific sites that can more
reasonably accommodate the proposed use." The Applicant's submittals include information showing that
the Applicant has assessed the ability of other areas to accommodate the rural uses allowed in the MUA-
10 zone. That information includes evidence that existing exception areas, like the RR-10 zone, do not
allow the same suite of uses as the MUA-10 zone, and that other areas are encumbered by restrictions
preventing certain types of development.
The Applicant's analysis is largely unchallenged by other participants. With the exception of COLW's
comments, opposing comments in the record do not specifically address ORS 197.732(2)(c)(B) or OAR
660-004-0020(2)(b). COLW's comments, however, state that this criterion is not met because "ample
areas that do not require a new exception can reasonably accommodate the proposed use of future urban
development in the City of Sisters." As explained above, the Applicant is not proposing urban
development with this Application, and COLW's comments do not address the rural uses proposed
generally, or the MUA-10 zone as a transitional zone near the City specifically.
Based on the foregoing and the materials currently in the record, I find that the Applicant has met its
burden to demonstrate that the proposed use (transitional zoning for the City of Sisters to allow a variety
of rural uses) cannot reasonably be accommodated in areas that do not require a new Goal Exception.
ORS 197.732(2)(c)(C)
This subsection of the statute requires an analysis of the long term environmental, economic, social and
energy ("ESEE") consequences resulting from the use compared to the ESEE consequences if the same
proposal were located in other areas that would also require a Goal Exception. By the plain language of
the statute, the ESEE consequences on the Subject Properties do not have to be lower than the ESEE
consequences on alternative sites, and they can even be greater; but they cannot be "significantly more
adverse". Similar to the prior portion of the statute, this statute's implementing rule — OAR 660-004-
0020(2)(c) — expressly states that "[a] detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not required unless
such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly
fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding."
The Applicant presents an analysis of the ESEE consequences and asserts that those consequences are no
greater than, and in some cases less than, the ESEE consequences if the proposal were on other lands also
requiring a Goal Exception. For example, with respect to environmental consequences, the Applicant
argues that converting other forest land, which is capable of sustaining forest uses, would have higher
consequences because it would have greater impacts to tree canopy, wildlife habitat, and water and air
resources. With respect to social and economic consequences, the Applicant highlights items such as
impacts to jobs associated with the loss of farm or forest land if those lands were converted to MUA-10
zoning. With respect to energy, the Applicant relies on the proximity of the Subject Properties to other
development and asserts that the ability to serve those properties (e.g. providing electricity or
transportation) is less energy intensive.
The record contains a multitude of comments asserting negative ESEE consequences will result from the
proposal on the Subject Properties. However, those comments do not address this criterion because they
do not compare those alleged consequences to the ESEE consequences that would result from the same
Page 19
proposal on other properties that also require a Goal Exception. Although COLW's comments specifically
identify this criterion as not being satisfied, it does so based on an assertion that other areas "that do not
require a new goal exception" could accommodate the proposed use and that those areas are already
impacted. As explained above, however, that assertion is not responsive to this portion of the statute or its
implementing rule, which require a comparison to other properties that do require a new Goal Exception.
The assessment and comparison of ESEE consequences is ultimately a discretionary exercise to be
undertaken by the County Board. However, based on the current record, and having reviewed the
information provided by the Applicant and other participants, I find that the Applicant has met its burden
to show that the ESEE consequences resulting from the proposal on the Subject Properties are not
significantly more adverse than the ESEE consequences that would result if the proposal were sited on
other properties also requiring a Goal Exception.
ORS 197.732(2)(c)(D)
The final part of ORS 197.732(2)(c) requires a demonstration of compatibility with other adjacent uses.
The statute's implementing rule — OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d) — imposes the following additional
requirements:
The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered
compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that
the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with
surrounding natural resources and resource management or production
practices. "Compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no
interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses.
The Applicant responds to this criterion by reviewing the various uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone and
describing the likely impacts from those uses. For some conditional uses, like dude ranches, golf courses,
and destination resorts, the Applicant asserts that the Subject Properties are too small to accommodate
those uses and, therefore, no impacts are likely to exist.5 For other allowed uses, like agricultural
operations, horse stables, and home occupations, the Applicant asserts those uses are low -intensity and
will not generate significant impacts.
Opposing comments in the record express concern over a wide variety of potential impacts, but those
comments are largely grounded on the assumption that the Subject Properties will be used for urban
development, which is not a proposed use in the Application. COLW, however, does expressly address
this criterion, asserting that some of the adjacent properties are forest zoned lands and that the proposal
would introduce conflicts to forest practices on those lands. The Applicant responds by arguing that any
5 I note that the County Board, if it approves the Goal 4 Exception, has the ability to limit uses allowed
on the Subject Properties and, indeed, may be required to do so under OAR 660-004-0018(4), which
states that planning and zoning for an area subject to a Reasons Exception must limit uses to those that
are justified in the exception. Because the Applicant states that dude ranches, golf course, and
destination resorts are not feasible, the County Board may limit its approval to exclude those uses.
Page 110
potential conflicts can be addressed at a later approval stage if and when portions of the Subject Properties
are proposed for development under the new MUA-10 zone.
While this particular issue is a close call, I find that the Application has met its burden with respect to this
criterion. In a different context, more details from an applicant may be required. In this context, however,
where the proposal is to establish the MUA-10 zone, I find there is a sufficient basis to determine that all
of the uses allowed in the MUA10 zone are compatible with adjacent uses and with surrounding natural
resources. With respect to non -resource uses, like the adjacent urban area to the south, the MUA-10 zone
is a transition zone that actually serves as a buffer between urban and rural areas. With respect to resources
on adjacent properties and surrounding areas, I note the purpose of the MUA10 zone:
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. DCC 18.32.010 (emphasis
added).
Through that stated purpose, the County has already determined that all of the MUA-10 zone uses are
consistent with the character and capacity of natural resources in the area and serve to protect, rather than
to harm, agricultural and forest lands.
2. Plan Amendment
DCC 18.136.010 contemplates that an applicant may seek a quasi-judicial amendment to the County's
Comprehensive Plan Map ("Plan Map"). Other than a reference to the procedural provisions of DCC Title
22, the Code does not appear to contain any standards or criteria specific to an amendment to the Plan
Map. As noted in findings above, however, such an amendment constitutes a PAPA under state law and,
therefore, the amendment must be consistent with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Division 15 of OAR chapter 660 sets forth the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, with which all
comprehensive plan amendments must demonstrate compliance. The Applicant asserts the Application is
consistent with all applicable Goals and Guidelines. Except for Goal 4, Goal 5, and Goal 14, which are
addressed in more detail in findings below, and in the absence of any counter evidence or argument, I
adopt the Applicants' position on the remining Goals as recited on pages 50 to 52 of the Staff Report, and
I find that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with the applicable Goals and Guidelines
as set forth there.
Page 111
The remainder of the findings in this section address specific Goals that are either in dispute or that require
additional explanation.
Goal 4 — Forest Lands
The Applicant acknowledges that the Subject Properties are currently zoned for forest use and subject to
Goal 4. The Applicant, however, has requested a Goal 4 Exception. As set forth in separate findings above,
this Recommendation concludes that the Applicant has met its burden to demonstrate the justification for
a Goal 4 Exception. As a result, the Plan Amendment can proceed without showing compliance with Goal
4. If the County Board determines that the Goal 4 Exception is not warranted, the Applicant will need to
show compliance with Goal 4.
Goal 5 — Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
Goal 5 and its implementing rules protect natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces.
Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(3), the County does not have to apply Goal 5 as part of a PAPA "unless
the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource." One scenario in which a PAPA may affect a Goal 5 resource is when
the "PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource
site on an acknowledged resource list."6 According to information in the record, the Subject Properties
contain or are near to two significant Goal 5 resources: (1) Trout Creek and (2) scenic resources along
Highway 20.
The Applicant first asserts that the County is not required to apply Goal 5 to this Application because the
uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone will not conflict with the identified Goal 5 resources. The Applicant
bases this assertion on its arguments that the uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone are rural, low -intensity
uses, that Trout Creek will be protected by the County's existing development standards in the MUA-10
zone, and that development on the Subject Properties will not be visible from Highway 20 due to land use
patterns between the Subject Properties and the highway.
I disagree with the Applicant that the County is not required to apply Goal 5 in this context. The
administrative rule requires Goal 5 to be addressed if a PAPA allows new uses that "could" conflict with
a Goal 5 resource. Because the MUA-10 zone allows uses not currently allowed in the F-2 zone, and
because the Applicant is not proposing a specific development, any of the new uses allowed could conflict
with the identified Goal 5 resources. The Applicant's arguments are more relevant to the remainder of the
Goal 5 analysis and whether additional protections are needed.
As an alternative argument, the Applicant does provide an ESEE analysis as required by OAR 660-023-
0040(1). In accordance with that administrative rule, the Applicant's analysis identifies conflicting uses,
determines an impact area, analyzes the ESEE consequences, and proposes a "program" to achieve Goal
5 protections. The specific program proposed by the Applicant is to allow the conflicting uses in a limited
way that protects the Goal 5 resources, as authorized by OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b). For Trout Creek, the
proposed limit is the development standards in DCC Chapter 18.32 that the Applicant asserts are already
OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b).
Page 112
designed to protect environmental resources on the site, including streams. For the scenic resource, the
proposed limit is the application of the County's Landscape Management (LM) combining zone, which
already applies to a portion of the Subject Properties, and which the County employs to protect scenic
resources along Highway 20.
COLW submitted comments arguing that the Applicant's ESEE is deficient. COLW first asserts that the
Applicant's analysis "impermissibly groups several allowed uses in the MUA zone, when they would have
varying impacts on inventoried Goal 5 resources." COLW cites to OAR 660-023-0040(2) as support for
that argument. The language of the rule COLW cites does not support its argument, which is also counter
to other rule language. OAR 660-023-0040(2) simply states that the local government "shall examine land
uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones applied to the resource site and in its impact area."
That rule imposes no requirement mandating or prohibiting the grouping of several uses as part of the
analysis. In contrast, OAR 660-023-0040(4) provides that, in analyzing ESEE consequences, "[t]he
analysis may address each of the identified conflicting uses, or it may address a group of similar conflicting
uses." (Emphasis added).'
COLW next argues that the Applicant's ESEE analysis "conflates ESEE consequences on Riparian Area
resources and Scenic Views resources, when separate analyses are required." I disagree with COLW's
characterization of the Applicant's analysis. Each of the steps in that analysis has separate references to
Trout Creek and to scenic resources.
Finally, COLW argues that the Applicant's ESEE analysis "fails to consider consequences to the entire
Scenic Views resource." Again, COLW's characterization of the Applicant's analysis is not accurate. The
information provided by the Applicant states that the Subject Properties are not visible from any portion
of Highway 20 and, therefore, that there is no impact to the identified scenic resource.
Other than the comments by COLW, which relate only to the methodology of the ESEE analysis and not
the outcome, including the proposed "program" to achieve Goal 5, no other participant directly addresses
the Goal 5 requirements.
Based on the foregoing and the materials in this record, I find that the Applicant has met its burden of
demonstrating compliance with Goal 5.
Goal 14 — Urbanization
Goal 14 and its implementing rules "provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use." See OAR 660-015-0000(14).
7 COLW also cites to OAR 660-023-0040(2) to support an argument that the ESEE analysis is deficient
because it "only considers the consequences of a decision to allow development, not a decision to limit
or prohibit development." I find that this argument is not developed enough to respond to. The rule
COLW cites does not contain language relating to decisions that either allow, limit, or prohibit
development, and I am unable to determine what criterion COLW believes is not satisfied.
Page 113
COLW asserts that the Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with Goal 14. COLW's assertion is
largely based on its characterization of the Application as proposing urban development. As noted in
earlier findings, however, the Applicant is not proposing any urban uses and is instead proposing that the
Subject Properties be zoned MUA-10. Goal 14 would therefore apply only if such a rezoning constitutes
urbanization. I find that it does not.
As the Applicant notes, this question has been asked and answered by the County, as described in the
LUBA case Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2023-049,
Feb. 15, 2024). In that case, LUBA considered very similar facts where the County approved a plan
amendment and zone change from a resource zone to the MUA-10 zone. Before turning to COLW's
arguments in that case, LUBA noted that the County Board 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
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).
As described by LUBA, the County Board has already interpreted its Plan and Code to mean that all uses
allowed in the MUA-10 zone are rural in nature. Based on the Board's prior interpretation, I find that the
change in the Plan designation to RREA and zoning designation to MUA-10 does not result in urbanization
of the Subject Property.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Applicant has demonstrated the Application does not propose urban
uses and Goal 14 is satisfied without the need to take an exception to that Goal.
3. Zone Change
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
The Application requests a Zone Change from F-2 to MUA-10. The criteria for rezoning a parcel are set
forth in DCC Chapter 18.136. These findings address the applicable zone change criteria in the context of
the Applicant's request. That is, the Applicant has also requested the Plan Amendment to change the Plan
Map designation applicable to the Subject Properties — from the Forest designation to the RREA
designation. As discussed in the findings above, I have found that the Applicant has initially met its burden
of demonstrating compliance with the Plan Amendment criteria. The findings in this section are therefore
based on the assumption that the Plan designation for the Subject Properties is RREA. If the County Board
does not approve the Plan Amendment, these findings will need to be altered to address the request for a
Zone Change based on whatever Plan designation the County Board approves.
Page 114
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.
This Code provision requires a consideration of the public interest based on whether: (1) the Zone Change
conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and (2) the change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's
introductory statement and goals.
The Applicant, Staff, and other participants address this Code criterion by discussing specific Plan goals
and policies. Before addressing those specific arguments, I note that, if the Plan Amendment is approved,
it seems necessary to rezone the Subject Properties in some way. That is, the Forest designation of the
Plan is implemented through the F-1 and F-2 zone designations. The RREA Plan designation, in contrast,
is implemented only through the RR-10 and MUA-10 zones. There seems to be no basis under the Plan to
allow the Plan Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Properties to RREA but to keep the
F-2 zoning. Viewed through that lens, it seems that either the RR-10 or the MUA-10 zones inherently
conform to the Plan in this context, and that the Applicant must show only that the Zone Change, as
applied to the Subject Properties, is consistent with the Plan's introductory statement and goals.
The Staff Report notes that the County generally does not consider the Plan's goals and policies to be
mandatory criteria. As described by Staff, the Plan's goals and policies are implemented through the Code,
and that consistency with the Code demonstrates consistency with the Plan. No participant to this
proceeding appears to dispute Staff's position that the goals and polices are not mandatory criteria or that
the Plan is implemented through the Code. Nevertheless, because the Code itself requires a consideration
of the Plan's statements and goals, and because some participants have questioned whether the Zone
Change is consistent with those Plan provisions, I address those specific issues here.
The Application identifies potentially relevant Plan provisions by pointing to several goals and policies in
the Plan set forth in Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning, Chapter 2, Resource Management, and Chapter
3, Rural Growth Management. The Applicant states that the Application is consistent with those policies
and goals. The Staff Report generally agrees with the Applicant's assessment of those policies and goals,
but in some areas takes no position. With some exceptions, other participants to this proceeding assert
various impacts from the Zone Change that are related to areas covered by Plan policies (e.g. water
quality), but do so in a manner that does not directly relate to whether the Zone Change is consistent with
the Plan. The remainder of the findings in this section address those Plan goals and policies that were
specifically identified by those other participants.
Participants objecting to the Application assert that it is not consistent with Plan policy 2.3.1. That policy
is to "Retain forest lands through Forest I and Forest 2 zoning." The basis for that argument appears to
be that the Subject Properties are currently zoned F-2 and, therefore, any change to the zoning would be
counter to this policy. As noted above, I have concluded that the review of the Plan policies should be
done in the context of the approval of the Plan Amendment. Because, for purposes of this analysis, the
Page 115
Applicant is relying on a Goal 4 Exception and the Subject Properties carry the RREA designation, I do
not agree that the Subject Properties remain "forest land". The Zone Change is therefore not inconsistent
with Plan policy 2.3.1.
Participants objecting to the Application also assert that it is not consistent with Plan policy 2.3.1. That
policy is part of the same set of policies related to Goal 1 under Section 2.3 of the Plan. It identifies the
specific characteristics of lands that should be zoned F-2, as opposed to that that should be zoned F-1.
However, that policy rests on the assumption that the land is forest land and that the County should
determine whether that land should be zoned either as F-1 or F-2. As just noted, for purposes of this
analysis, the Applicant is relying on a Goal 4 Exception and the Subject Properties carry the RREA
designation. The Subject Properties therefore do not remain "forest land" and the Zone Change is not
inconsistent with Plan policy 2.3.3.
Based on the foregoing, and in the context of the approval of the requested Plan Amendment, I find that
the Zone Change conforms with the Plan and is consistent with the introductory statements and policies
of the Plan.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the proposed zone classification.
DCC 18.32.010 contains the following purpose of the MUA10 zone:
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 states that the Zone Change will allow low -intensity residential uses, while also allowing
uses recognized in DCC 18.32.020 and 18.32.030 as being appropriate in the MUA-10 zone. The
Applicant also states that the uses allowed are lower intensity, and development can preserve open space
and natural resources. The Staff Report agrees with the Applicant's assessment, and no other participant
appears to argue that this Code provision is not satisfied.
Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
Page 116
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare
considering the following factors:
The availability and efficiency ofproviding necessary public services and.facilities.
Only the Applicant and Staff directly address this Code provision. The Applicant notes that development
in the MUA-10 zone generally does not rely on public services and facilities. For example, developments
in rural areas generally must provide their own water and septic systems. For other facilities, like the
transportation system, the Applicant relies on its transportation analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of
those facilities. Comments in the record express concerns over groundwater, but those comments do not
appear to assert that the availability of groundwater is either a necessary public service, or that it will be
impacted by the uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone. The Applicant is not proposing any new development,
and no participant has asserted that public services and facilities are insufficient to presently serve the
Subject Properties. Any impact to public services and facilities can be assessed at the time of development
review if and when a new development is proposed.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of more specific countervailing evidence or argument, I find
that this Code provision is satisfied as set forth in the Application.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and
policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant states that the Applicant's proposal will not affect surrounding land uses due to the low -
intensity uses that are allowed in the MUA-10 zone. I agree with the Applicant that the comments made
in opposition to the Application are primarily grounded on the assumption that the Subject Properties
will be developed with urban uses, which the Applicant is not proposing. Further, as I have concluded
above, the only Plan policies identified by other participants are generally not relevant, and no
participants assert that the Zone Change will make surrounding land uses inconsistent with a Plan goal
or policy.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of more specific countervailing evidence or argument, I find
that this Code provision is satisfied as set forth in the Application.
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.
Although the Applicant and other participants address this criterion, they do so in the context of a
potential change in circumstances on the physical ground of the Subject Properties. The Applicant, for
example, notes the changes in the commercial viability of timber and a better understanding of the soil
qualities on site.
I find that it is not necessary to address the difference in opinion of the Applicant and participants. As
noted above, the Zone Change analysis relies on the assumption that the Plan designation for the Subject
Properties is RREA. When the Subject Properties were last zoned, their Plan designation was Forestry. I
Page 117
find that the change in Plan designation is, by itself, sufficient to show there has been a change in
circumstances and, therefore, this Code provision is satisfied.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicant has met its burden of proof with respect to the
standards for approving the requested Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Goal 4 Exception. I can
therefore recommend to the County Board of Commissioners that it can APPROVE the request in the
Application based on the current record.
Dated this 25th day of June 2025
Z4�--
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Page 118
IES CO
C. G
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2025
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
(541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org
AGENDA
MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and
can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session.
Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link:
http.//bit.ly/3mminzy. To attend the meeting virtually via Zoom, see below.
Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda.
Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing
citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD.
• To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and
*6 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist.
You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a
panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in
sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT
The Board of Commissioners provides time during its public meetings for citizen input. This is an
opportunity for citizens to communicate to the Commissioners on matters that are not otherwise
on the agenda. Time is limited to 3 minutes.
The Citizen Input platform is not available for and may not be utilized to communicate obscene or
defamatory material.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments
may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Policy Updates: HR-15, GA-3, GA-21
2. Approval of a contract with Youth Villages, Inc. for pediatric mental health services
3. Approval of an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Department of Human
Services for the funding of Developmental Disabilities Services
4. Appoint Liz Foott to the Audit Committee to represent the public for a term ending on
June 30, 2027
5. Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking John Ralston, for service on the
Sunriver Service District Managing Board
6. Approval of the BOCC meeting minutes for June 18 and 23, 2025
ACTION ITEMS
7. 9:00 AM Appointment of Sheriff
8. 9:30 AM Resolution No. 2025-036, adopting recreational immunity as provided by
ORS Chapter 105, SB 1576 (2024), and SB 179 (2025)
9. 9:35 AM Proposed Road Name Change - File No. 247-25-000069-RN (Wisteria Drive)
July 29, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
10. 9:45 AM Work Session in preparation for a Public Hearing: McKenzie Meadow Village
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
11. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations
ADJOURN
July 29, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3