Loading...
2025-298-Minutes for Meeting August 06,2025 Recorded 9/9/2025IES CO o` G2< BOARD OF -•* COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County OJ2025-298 Stevie Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 09/09/2025 8:56:34 AM max:. 2025-298 BOCC MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY August 6, 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/meeting_s. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: • Shawn Snyder shared that he is currently living at Cleveland Commons and said although several million dollars were spent to establish this shelter, it is being destroyed by residents who disrespect it. He questioned allowing persons who are under the influence of alcohol and drugs to be onsite and invited the Commissioners to come view the facility for themselves. Commissioner Chang encouraged Snyder to document specific incidents of rule violations and share that documentation with the facility's management as well as with the Board. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 6, 2025 PAGE 1 OF 9 Commissioner Adair acknowledged the community for supporting Steven Peebles, a 2015 Bareback Rider World Champion from Redmond, who recently suffered a life - threatening case of acute pancreatitis. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of Resolution No. 2025-038 approving Solid Waste Disposal Fee Waivers for Fiscal Year 2026 2. Approval of Board Order No. 2025-033 appointing Health Services Director's designees 3. Approval of a Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2025-806; Dedication Deed, Document No. 2025-807; and Temporary Construction Easement, Document Number 2025-808 from Robert F. Nottelmann for Right of Way for the South Century Drive/Huntington Road Intersection Improvement Project 4. Approval of an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportations for the US97: NW Galloway Ave -O'Neil Hwy Project 5. Approval of Document No. 2025-814 terminating and releasing a Public Utility Easement at 63330 N Highway 97 6. Approval of an amendment to a restrictive covenant encumbering a parcel consisting of +/- 39.31-acres commonly known as Northpoint Vista in Redmond 7. Consideration of Board Signature on letters reappointing Alysha DeLorto, Jared Jeffcott, Drew Norris, Dan Daugherty, Jerry Thackery and Dustin Miller for service on the Ambulance Service Area Committee 8. Approval of the BOCC June 25, 2025 meeting minutes ADAIR: Move Board approval of the Consent Agenda as amended to correct the June 25t" meeting minutes to state that Los Angeles County has a Board of Supervisors, not a Board of Commissioners CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0 BOCC MEETING AUGUST 6, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 9 ACTION ITEMS: 9. Request to add 1.0 FTE Assistant Planner position Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director, presented the request to add 1.0 FTE Assistant Planner and explained that if approved, this position would assist with increases in land use applications, in -person customers, and email and phone inquiries. It would also eventually assume addressing services as part of CDD's succession planning. Will Groves, Planning Manager, added that the department seeks to maximize the training overlap as the incumbent staff person who manages addressing has decades of experience. He said CDD's budget appears to support bringing back some former staffing capacity. Noting that the levels of land use and building applications fluctuate, Commissioner DeBone stated his support for the request. Commissioner Chang said CDD has shown that it tries to budget responsibly while still providing needed services. Commissioner Adair agreed that it would be beneficial to transfer the institutional knowledge of current staff to a new person over a 1 S-month period, if possible. CHANG: Move approval of the request to add 1.0 FTE Assistant Planner position to the Community Development Department ADAIR: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0 10. Public Hearing: McKenzie Meadow Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 58 acres adjacent to the City of Sisters Haleigh King, Senior Planner, reviewed the process for the hearing. Commissioner Chang disclosed that prior to the submission of the rezone application, he had some discussions with Bill Willitts about the UGB and how the land might be used if it were rezoned. He stated he was not biased about this matter and believed he could participate. Commissioner Adair disclosed that she lives in Sisters and has read articles about this proposal in The Nugget. She stated she was not biased about this matter and believed she could participate. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 6, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 9 Commissioner DeBone said he spoke with Bill Willitts on this matter and also drove the area. Noting that the expansion of Sisters' UGB is a separate process, he saw no conflict with proceeding and believed he could participate. King next described the requested rezone, saying that the Hearings Officer recommended the application be approved. She further explained the applicant's request for an exception to Goal 4 (Forest Lands) of the Statewide land use regulations and how the County can justify non -resource use of land designated for resource use, either by asserting that certain land is not "agricultural" or "forest" land, or by declaring that unique circumstances warrant a local override of the Goal. King said the Hearings Officer found that the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the "catch-all" provision of the Goal 4 exception criteria. In response to Commissioner DeBone, King confirmed that the recommendation of the Hearings Officer to approve the application is only a recommendation to the Board, with the Board serving as the final decision maker. Commissioner DeBone noted that the Hearings Officer, a professional land use expert, fully reviews the record and all received input. Responding to Commissioner Chang, King said Trout Creek essentially bisects the parcels from west to east. King added that Trout Creek is identified as a perennial stream and thus is not protected by the Landscape Management Combining Zone (LMCZ) overlay. Will Groves, Planning Manager, said the LMCZ is normally limited to navigable waterways or those utilized for recreation. Commissioner Chang asked if Trout Creek has riparian buffers and floodplain protections as Whychus Creek does. Groves responded that Trout Creek is not a mapped floodplain but is identified on the State wetlands inventory and is subject to 100-foot setbacks and other riparian protections. The public hearing was opened at 9:46 am. Representing the applicant, Chris Koback with Hathaway Larson said the owners of the property desire to annex into the City of Sisters and provide housing. Saying that the property is easily developable given its ready access to public utilities and few geographic limitations, he referred to its walking distance to downtown Sisters and narrated a map which depicted the property's location relative to Sisters, the high school, and Highway 20. He said the property is neither high -value farm land nor high -value forest land as past heavy thinning of its trees has resulted in the property being deemed unsuitable for commercial forestry operations. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 6, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 9 Stressing that the rezone application is separate from the City's possible expansion of its UGB, Koback explained the request for an exception to Goal 4 under the "reasons" criteria and said the development standards which apply to the MUA10 zone would serve to protect the natural resources on the property. Saying that property which is zoned MUA10 will be prioritized for inclusion in Sisters' UGB when that is expanded, Commissioner Chang asked if the property owner's long-term vision is to develop the parcels at an urban density if and when that is an option. Koback envisioned a cluster development on the property until it is annexed into Sisters, after which the area left open would be further developed. Commissioner Chang asked if the applicant would consider leaving the northernmost parcel more open to protect the scenic views from Highway 20 and also to maintain connectivity of wildlife habitat area. Koback said his clients are committed to ensuring buffers and protecting Trout Creek. • Tim Knopp supported the application, saying it's critical that the property be rezoned so Sisters can consider including it in its expanded UGB. He spoke to the need for more housing, which the envisioned development would provide. • Tina Mensing, speaking on behalf of the Sisters Opportunity for Unified Living, supported the application and echoed the need for more housing in Sisters. • Morgan Greenwood, a member of the UGB steering committee for Sisters, supported the application for the purpose of meeting current and future housing needs. • Peter Hoover, representing Sisters Habitat for Humanity, advocated for affordable and workforce housing in Sisters. He referred to factors which impede the establishment of needed housing and said the owners of McKenzie Meadows have committed that 30% of any housing built will be affordable. • Curt Scholl from the Sisters School District spoke to the need for affordable workforce housing and reported that some of the district's job applicants and new hires cannot afford to move to Sisters due to the high housing costs. • Bill Willitts commented on the fabric of community, said this proposal would serve families by providing needed housing, and encouraged the Board to expedite this application. • Curt Kallberg said he is the only person who's ever lived on McKenzie Meadows. Adding that he had majored in Forestry and believed in protecting trees, streams and old -growth habitat, he stated his agreement that workforce housing is needed in Sisters and expressed his support for the rezone. • Sharon Booth spoke in opposition to the rezone as a nearby resident in Tollgate which is a long-established, low -density community. She feared the rezone would destroy a large forest area and negatively impact Trout Creek, which is BOCC MEETING AUGUST 6, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 9 used for educating youth in natural resources. Saying it would also increase wildfire risks, she viewed it as an unnecessary and inappropriate use of forest land and said other properties adjacent to Sisters can be developed for housing. Rory Isbell spoke against the application, saying that the question of what specific land uses are sought by the property owner must be answered in order to determine if the Goal 4 exception can be granted. He said unless the applicant clarifies its proposed use, the hearing and process is unfair. Commissioner Chang said while these parcels have been thinned of trees relative to adjacent properties, it's possible that they can serve other purposes intended for land designated as forest land beyond timber production. Isbell said these parcels are properly designated as forest, and the purpose of Goal 4 is to protect trees as well as fish, wildlife, air and soil quality, and recreational uses. Mary Fleischmann, speaking on behalf of the Central Oregon chapter of the Great Old Broads for Wilderness, opposed the application due to increased wildfire risk and the need to protect natural resources, including habitat for wildlife. She doubted that the development would result in affordable housing and said this area is utilized by Sisters High School for student environmental science learning. Christina Meyer opposed the proposed rezone, saying it undermines the integrity of the current UGB expansion process because it is currently zoned as forest land and thus not prioritized for inclusion into the UGB. Saying that more than enough properties are under consideration for adding to the UGB, she was concerned that adding more housing would increase the area's already significant wildfire risk and did not believe that a Goal 4 exception is justified. Rima Givot urged the Board to deny the rezone application, saying that while she recognized that affordable housing is desperately needed in Sisters, even houses costing $550,000 are not affordable to persons such as herself. She viewed the property as critical for wildlife and shared information on a plant which is native to these parcels and hardly anywhere else. Lee Lucas said if the Board approves this rezone, it will violate longstanding County policy to protect forest lands as well as State land use laws. He disputed that the applicant has successfully established why an exception to Goal 4 is warranted and said 400 housing units are not need to satisfy the projected population growth in Sisters over the next 20 years. Speaking again on behalf of the applicant, Koback said the applicant does not need to provide a specific development proposal at this time. Adding that the Board has the discretion to condition a Goal 4 exception to limit what is developed, he explained that while the Sisters UGB steering committee approved proceeding with BOCC MEETING AUGUST 6, 2025 PAGE 6 OF 9 a recommendation to the Planning Commission which does not include McKenzie Meadow, that decision is not final and McKenzie Meadow can still be considered for inclusion in the UGB expansion. In response to Commissioner Adair, Koback said he was not aware of development on the property that blocks or may block Tollgate's fire access road and said that any development can be conditioned to maintain current emergency access. Commissioner Chang was interested to impose a requirement that if the rezone is approved, 30% of any housing built must be affordable. Koback was not sure if the County could require this as a condition of the rezone but said such a restriction could be included in an annexation agreement with the City. In response to Commissioner Adair, Koback said while it has not yet been determined how many housing units could be built on the property, it might be as many as 400. There being no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 11:32 am. Upon the closing of the public hearing, a person in attendance indicated her desire to speak. Commissioner DeBone noted that this matter could be appealed on the basis of procedural issues or errors. Groves reminded that the applicant has the right of a final rebuttal to all of the received testimony. The public hearing was re -opened at 11:35 am. Therese Kollerer, chair of the UGB steering committee for Sisters, clarified that the committee had discussed the potential future establishment of an urban growth reserve beyond the UGB in addition to the possibility that the proposed rezone of McKenzie Meadow may be appealed to LUBA. Saying that if the County approves this rezone, the City of Sisters has said that the committee will need to reconvene to address it, Kollerer explained that the committee had twice voted to exclude McKenzie Meadow from its consideration for the sake of moving the process forward. In rebuttal, Koback referred to a possible land swap and said a decision to enable the development of affordable housing should not be stymied based on the fear of an appeal. There being no one else who wished to speak, the public hearing was re -closed at 11:41 am. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 6, 2025 PAGE 7 OF 9 The Board was in consensus to close the oral and written portion of the records on this matter and immediately proceed to deliberations. Commissioner DeBone said the rezone request encompasses 58 acres of already - platted parcels. Saying that his concerns relate to the Goal 4 exception, the scenic corridor, the riparian corridor, and maintaining continuous forest on the northern section of the property for a wildlife corridor, Commissioner Chang suggested that the applicant could propose development restrictions to address these concerns. He said his former concern that the land be used efficiently was satisfied by the applicant's vision of developing 350 to 400 housing units on the 58 acres. He stated that it is neither rare nor inappropriate for a property owner to seek a rezone in order to gain prioritization in a UGB expansion effort. Commissioner Adair spoke to the number of acres zoned as forest in the county and said the development proposal appeared to be a natural addition to Sisters, where more affordable housing is needed. While she appreciated the work already done by Habitat for Humanity, more land is needed for them to continue that work. In response to Commissioner Adair, King said if the property was developed, a site - specific wetland delineation would be required for Trout Creek to determine the boundaries of the required buffer. Commissioner DeBone agreed that the proposed use seems like a good fit for the area. Commissioner Chang said he would support the application if it included enhanced protections for the scenic corridor, wildlife corridor and Trout Creek in order to preserve Goal 4 values. Commissioner DeBone noted that the floodplain is already a defined area, and the County's Code preserves scenic corridors. Commissioner Chang desired to see more protection than a 100-foot riparian setback from Trout Creek and advocated for the opportunity to utilize a portion of the northern section of the property to connect to forest lands on the other side. Groves explained that the applicant will draft a decision for the Board's review and consideration. The decision will acknowledge the recommendation of the Hearings Officer but offer modular options for the Board to consider. Groves noted that this will require additional deliberations on the part of the Board. ADAIR: Move approval of the application, subject to final deliberations, and direct the preparation of a draft decision for the Board's review and consideration CHANG: Second BOCC MEETING AUGUST 6, 2025 PAGE 8 OF 9 VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0 OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner DeBone reported on the North point Vista groundbreaking yesterday in Redmond. • Commissioner DeBone reported on the National Night Out in La Pine last night and said similar events were held in Bend, Sisters and Redmond. A break was announced at 12:08 pm. The meeting resumed at 12:13 pm. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At 12:13 pm, the Board entered Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Executive Session concluded at 12:21 pm, 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 12:21 pm. DATED this3 Day of 2025 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: RECORDING SECRETARY 4��t ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR i BOCC MEETING AUGUST 6, 2025 PAGE 9 OF 9 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed tin written documents as art of testimony? Yes No Submitting p If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS I E S C'0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 SUBJECT: Request to add 1.0 FTE Assistant Planner position RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval to add 1.0 FTE Assistant Planner position to the Community Development Department. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: CDD requests the addition of one FTE Assistant Planner to the Planning Division (Current Planning Section) to assist with increases in land use applications, counter customers, email and phone inquiries. This position will also eventually assume addressing services as part of CDD's succession planning. BUDGET IMPACTS: Planning fees and if necessary, Reserve Fund 300, can fully fund the added position. The total cost of the FTE is estimated at $129,000 to cover the fully loaded annual rate for salary and benefits ($126,000) and computer, equipment and training ($3,000). ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director Will Groves, Planning Manager Sherri Pinner, Senior Management Analyst TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Nick Lelack, County Administrator FROM: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Director Sherri Pinner, Senior Management Analyst DATE: August 6, 2025 SUBJECT: Planning Division / Staffing Request SUMMARY The Community Development Department (CDD) requests the addition of one (1) full-time equivalent (FTE) in the Planning Division (Current Planning Section) to assist with increases in land use applications, counter customers, email and phone inquiries. This position will also eventually assume addressing services as part of CDD's succession planning. Specifically, the Planning Division proposes to: • Add one (1) full-time regular assistant planner to manage entry level land use applications, telephone calls, emails, walk-in customer demands and addressing. IL PLANNING DIVISION CHALLENGES / PERMIT VOLUMES & CUSTOMER INQUIRIES During fall 2023, CDD reduced its workforce and eliminated two (2) Assistant Planners. This decision occurred during a period of reduced land use applications. During Fiscal Year 2025, land use application volume showed an approximate 10.5% increase over the prior period, leading to more counter customers, phone inquiries as well as pre -application meetings. This occurred at a time when the Planning Division experienced staffing shortages related to family medical leave. The Planning Division is currently operating at capacity. Graph 1 illustrates land use applications submitted for the past ten (10) fiscal years. Graph 1 Land Use Applications Received by FY 1,200 929 919 922 1,071 975 1,000 668 816 816 661 800 598 600 400 200 III. SUCCESSION PLANNING Looking ahead, the Planning Division is also preparing to assume addressing responsibilities from the Administrative Division. An administrative assistant is expected to retire in December 2026. CDD wants to onboard the assistant planner so there is ample time to assume addressing responsibilities prior to the planned retirement. IV. FINANCIAL IMPACT The total cost of the FTE is estimated at $129,000 to cover the fully loaded annual rate ($126,000) and computer, equipment and training ($3,000). Funding for the position will come from existing revenues. V. BOARD DIRECTION Approve or deny the addition of one (1) assistant planner. -2- �vT E S CO o� �-A BOARD OF -�®- r COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: McKenzie Meadow Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 58 acres adjacent to the City of Sisters RECOMMENDED MOTION: Following the hearing the Board may choose to: • Continue the hearing to a date certain; Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold a public hearing to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request submitted by McKenzie Meadow Village, LLC involving 58 acres located adjacent to the City of Sisters. Additional background is included in the staff memorandum. The full record is located on the project webpage: https://www.deschutes.org_/mckenziemeadowvillage. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Haleigh King, AICP, Senior Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Haleigh King, AICP, Senior Planner DATE: July 30, 2025 SUBJECT: McKenzie Meadow Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change - Public Hearing The Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will conduct a public hearing on August 6, 2025, to consider a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-24- 0000839-PA, 840-ZC) affecting a total of 58 acres adjacent to City of Sisters. This will be the second of two required public hearings. 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. II. 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. 111. 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 available for inspection at the Planning Division and at the following website: https://www.deschutes.or2/mckenziemeadowvilia-ge. Page 2 of 3 V. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; • Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or • Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined. ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Subject Property Map 2. Hearings Officer Recommendation 3. Surrounding Zoning Map 4. Surrounding Property Ownership Map Page 3 of 3 File Number: 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC w Sisters High N 0 625 1,250 2,500 ft 1 inch= 1,505feel Q 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. Pagel 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 (MUA1O) Chapter 18.40, Forest Use Zone (172) 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 -teen 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. z VinCEP v. Yafnhill 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.' 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 mayaddress agroup 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 1 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 followingfactors: The availability and efficiency of providing 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 25`h day of June 2025 Tommy A. Brooks Deschutes County Hearings Officer Page 118 li (1) E >1 4- CL 0 2 CL 0 a) U) 4- .T U) 4-- 0 < D cn :t :3 E 2 . U) < CU U) ID 0 CL Co cc ............. SZE [ I i�i W m O 4- a� 0. 0 a bo 0c c 0 0 0 i Q cu a n J�Es c0 w 2� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony 2 Date: �- Subj ect: C, Name Address ZV 4,7c Phone #s Q E-mail address ' In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS J-cEs ?, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: alo Name %Y Address �4" Phone #s Ja Xc2 Submitting written documents as part of testimony? E Yes No If so, please give acopy to the Recording Secretary for the record, SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS J-res co w Za BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a� REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Sub' ect: wa r ! X/4V ' ��EP/ Date: J Name (!�.��:,f X 2-,;t__11tl r��4is Address ,rP_ Phone #s f-2 ' 11 / �' - 2 5:- j, E-mail address In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS JTss 2� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject:&j&z;,e- w Dater Name " Address t S Phone #s \CA 3 E-mail address In Favor F1 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ` No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS r 2, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: Name Address lf7%Zo Phone #s E-mail address���'/l��l_ D �5,✓ cJ In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give acopy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING w o � REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: M..Wlz Date: Name Address} Phone #s '% �ho - 7 E-mail address ' P . In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS a _ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date4-;Lz- 5 Name G� Address L 0 1, °sfiA Phone #s E-mail address'��' In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No 1f so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS �J-re� co BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: yaks, Date: - Name Address Phone #s{ E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? &r Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Gw s LANDWATCH August 6, 2025 filed via hand delivery and email: haleigh.king deschutes.org Deschutes County Hearings Officer c/o Haleigh King, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, Oregon 97703 Re: Application File No. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC; McKenzie Meadow Village, LLC; Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change Dear Chair DeBone, Vice -Chair Adair, and Commissioner Chang: Thank you for hearing public comment on the above -referenced application, which seeks approval to redesignate from Forest to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA), and rezone from Forest Use 2 (F2) to Multiple -Use Agricultural (MUA), a 58-acre property adjacent to the west side of the City of Sisters urban growth boundary (UGB). For the reasons below, in addition to those we presented to the Hearings Officer which we incorporate by reference here; Central Oregon LandWatch opposes this application, and we request it be denied. The Hearings Officer recommendation includes several errors, which are the focus of these comments. h Threshold matter and procedural objection: the applicant must propose specific "land uses" for which it seeps an exception to (goal 4 This application seeks an exception to statewide land use planning Goal 4 (Forests) in order to redesignate and rezone the subject property away from Forest. The only way in which a County, and the public, may adequately review an application seeking a goal exception is by the applicant identifying the specific "land uses" for which a goal exception is sought. OAR 660- 004-0018(4)(a); OAR 660-004-0022(l.) (repeatedly requiring disclosure of "the proposed use"). Throughout its application materials and the hearings officer proceedings, the applicant bounced between explicit intentions to urbanize the subject property as part of the City of Sisters, and instead to develop the property with residential and other uses allowed in the MUA zone. 0 s`4.1 _f. P7 e' .. 0fQ G 0 M Vt/5n��lOo f3�Ef�.i7s' LANDWATCH The applicant's failure to identify specific land use(s) for which it seeks a goal exception is not academic. The entire structure of the many standards and criteria that must be met to justify a goal exception is centered around the character of the proposed use(s). The public cannot meaningfully engage in the hearings process when the proposed use of the subject property is either undisclosed or obfuscated. A proposed "reasons" exception for urban development versus a proposed `reasons" exception for rural development requires a very different analysis, and a County may not adopt a "reasons" exception before first malting this threshold determination. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development v. Umatilla County, 39 Or LUBA 71.5, 725-726 (2001). The County is not a bystander in this lack of clarity concerning the proposed use(s), as it has a duty to provide notice to the public that a goal exception is proposed and also must summarize the issues in an understandable manner. ORS 197.732(5), ORS 197.797(3)(a), OAR_ 660-004-0030(1). The notice for today's hearing does state that a goal exception is proposed, and surninarizes the issues as follows: "The applicant states that the purpose of this request is to ultimately be considered for inclusion in the City of Sisters urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The applicant intends to develop a needed housing residential development with 30% of dwellings being affordable housing. However, these applications do not include a concurrent request to expand the City of Sisters UGB." On its face, this notice describes the proposed use as "a needed housing residential development with 30% of dwellings being affordable housing." The application materials, and the hearings officer's recommendation, however, analyze the proposed goal exception as not seeking this proposed use of urban development. LandWateh's and the public's substantial procedural rights are frustrated by the applicant and County's failure to reasonably identify the proposed land uses for which a goal exception is sought. We formally object to today's hearing for failure to comply with ORS 197.732(5), ORS 197.797(3)(a), and OAR 660-004-0030(1). We request that a new hearing be noticed, but only after the applicant identifies the proposed land use(s) for which a goal exception is sought. Only then can LandWatch meaningfully comment on whether the application meets the applicable criteria for a goal. exception. 0 LANDWATCH Most of the remainder of these comments, rather than reiterate the comments and explanation we provided to the Hearings Officer, provide specific responses to errors in the Hearings Officer decision ("Hearings Officer decision" or "recommendation.") We refer the Board to our previously submitted comments for a full presentation of our opposition to this application. 11. The application fails to meet the criteria for a "reasons99 exception to Goal 4. The Hearings Officer decision makes several errs in its analysis and findings of compliance with the necessary criteria for a "reasons" exception to Goal 4. The Hearings Officer errs in apparently agreeing with the applicant that the purpose and policy embodied in Goal 4 -- to protect forests; conserve soil, air, and water quality; provide fish and wildlife resources, recreational, and agricultural opportunities - is "in most or all respects [] advanced better under the proposed [MUA--1.0] zoning." Hearings Officer decision at 5. This is a clear misconstrual and misapplication of applicable law. The MUA zone is a rural residential zone that, in addition to residential uses, allows a host of other non -forest -related uses. The F2 zone, on the other hand, exists to protect the County's Goal 4-protected forestlands for the uses allowed by Goal 4. The subject property is suitable for Goal 4 forest uses. As extensively noted in the record, it contains significant water, plant, and wildlife resources. These include Trout Creek, which is a significant Goal 5 riparian area and wetland; the rare Peck's penstemon flower which is endemic to the subject property and surrounding lands in Sisters Country; and, as noted by the testimony of dozens of concerned neighbors, a wide variety of wildlife utilize the subject property. As noted by DLCD to the Hearings Officer, the land is also suitable for the forest uses of maintaining soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources. OAR 660-006-0010(2)(c). The subject property is suitable for merchantable timber production. Aerial photos of the subject property in the record show that it has been logged for its timber, as current tree density, is less than surrounding forested properties. The applicant corroborates this aerial imagery themselves by noting that the subject property has been logged for its "significant timber." See Applicant Final Written Argument, May 12, 2025, at 5. 3 LANDWATCH Repeatedly throughout the application materials and Hearings Officer decision, the MUA zone is characterized as a "transitional zone." It is not. It is a zone created to facilitate "previously built" and "irrevocably committed" exceptions to Goals 3 and 4 that the County tool, when it adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1979. See Exhibit 9 (1979 Deschutes Comprehenisve Plan Exceptions Statement). 'TheytUA zone's allowed uses and other standards are tailored to accommodate those goal exceptions. Applying the MUA zone to a property where a "reasons" exception is sought runs afoul of OAR 660-004-0018, which requires planning and zoning regulations in exception areas that accommodate the uses for which a goal exception is sought. If the applicant proposes a specific use(s) as it must, discussed supra, then the County's Limited Use Combining 'Lone, DCC 18.112, is appropriate to ensure planning and zoning regulations acconvnodate the uses approved by a valid goal exception. The Hearings Officer errs in finding that the applicant may evade a showing of compliance with OAR 660-004-0022(1). Hearings Officer decision at 7-8. Subsections (a) and (b) are mandatory criteria, and require the applicant to demonstrate "(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." The subject property is not near a resource that the development allowed in the MUA zone requires. Again, the NIUA zone facilitates historical "previously built" and "irrevocably committed" goal exception areas, and is not locationally dependent. Similarly, the allowed uses in the MUA zone also do not have special features or qualities that necessitate the subject property. The MUA zone is a zone of general applicability; it applies to thousands of predominantly residentially developed properties across the County. The Hearings Officer errs in finding that the applicant's proposed use (which, in this case, lacks the required specificity to adequately analyze) cannot be reasonably accommodated in areas that do not require a new goal exception. Hearings Officer decision at 9. Ample lands designated Rural Residential Exception Area across the county could accommodate the applicant's proposed use(s). In recent years, the county has produced a "Rural Housing Profile" report. The 2024 version of that report shows that the County has 2,944 vacant rural residential lots, including 433 MUA-zoned rural residential lots. Exhibit 10 (Deschutes County 2024 Rural Housing Profile) at page 11, Table 9. These are in addition to 714 vacant residential lots in 11 R , 0 to G Q N www.coim.org LANDWATCH destination resort areas. Id. The County has ample MUA-zoned and other rural residential - zoned lands that do not require a new goal exception. These lands include hundreds of acres of land in the Sisters area already designated RREA, as shown below in Figure 1. LandWatch idential-zoned lands, identified by the County in its 2024 Rural Housing posits these vacant res Profile, as specific alternative areas to accommodate the proposes use(s) but without taking a goal exception. Figure 1. Plan designation of lands in Sisters area., showing large areas already designated RREA. Many of these RREA-designated lands in Figure 1 are zoned Rural Residential (RR). The allowed uses in the RR zone are substantially similar to the allowed uses in the MUA zone. Without the applicant proposing a specific land use its .seeks a goal exception to accommodate, all lands in the County's RREA plan designation and RR zone must be presumed to be suitable to accommodate the proposed use. The County also has ample lands zoned MUA 10 that could accommodate the proposed use(s) (the uses allowed in the MUA zone.) Figure 2, below, shows these lands in bright yellow: 141 c r e o www.colw.org LANDWATCH rtarocsrnaicxawNea, m �¢ n3es�s i3 Figure 2. Zoning of lands in northern Deschutes Bounty area, showing in yellow large areas already zoned NIUA. As the County's 2024 Rural Housing Profile, Exhibit 10, explains, many of these lands are vacant and could easily accommodate the proposed use without taking a goal exception. As one example of vacant lands zoned MUA that could accommodate the proposed use (which is MUA-zoned land), we offer the following: Several vacant, contiguous MUA-zoned properties on i on ed Horn ur, Kent Rd, and ivy Ln with the following man;taxlot numbers: 151119A001301, 151119A001301, 151119A001303, 151119A001304, 151119A001305, 15 11 19AOO 1300, 15 11 19AOO 1200, 151119A000100, 151119A000200. 'These properties are only four miles from the Sisters UGl3 and could accommodate the proposed use (all the uses allowed in the MUA zone) without the need for a goal exception. An overview map of these properties is below in Figure 3. '.a iLANDWATCH e , a m,�;s ..,,�ra�i(.�s:., o a to ,_+, }Ti•a.n .uro:,+�,�ruae_ Figure 3. Mine contiguous, vacant 1NIUA-zoned properties in ttic existing v orKCU tiorn Lyr subdivision. As an example of RREA-designated land adjacent to or very near the Sisters UGB, we point to the many documents we submitted to the hearings Officer from the City of Sisters UGB Steering Committee meetings. 'Those documents describe in detail the many RREA-designated properties within the City's UGB study area that could acconnnodate the proposed use without taking a goal exception, because they are already designated RR -EA. For a few examples of RRIA-designatcd, RR -zoned land very near the Sisters UGB that could accommodate the proposed use of (as best we can determine) more rural residential development, we offer the following vacant taxlots which are contiguous and adjacent to the UGB: 1510040001202, 1510040001303, 1.510040001302, 151004A000600, 151004A000601. The City of Sisters UGB Steering Committee documents in the record detail more alternative lands that do not require a goal exception. Another goal exception criteria, at ORS 1.97.732(2)(c)(C) and OAR 660-004- 0020(2)(c), requires a comparison of the ESEE consequences if the same proposal were sought in other areas that also require a goal exception. The Hearings Officer erred in finding that this criterion is met. The subject property contains several Goal 5 resources (scenic views, floodplain and wetland areas). Many Forest -zoned properties in the vicinity of Sisters that would also h require a goal exception to rezone to MUA do not contain Goal 5 resources, making the ESEE consequences of rezoning the subject property far greater and more negative than rezoning other properties. For example, the many F2-zoned properties near Remuda Rd just south of Sisters contain neither significant Goal 5 scenic views nor significant Goal 5 wetlands or riparian areas, as shown in in Figure 4 below. E a ':; 1�6 2 %) CE Figure 4. F2-zoned properties near Rernuda Road south of Sisters, lacking inventoried Goal 5 resources, outlined in red. The Hearings Officer recommendation also refuses to consider the many comments asserting the negative ESEE consequences of the application because they do not also identify alternative areas that also require a goal exception to accommodate the use. Hearings Officer decision at 9-10. The Hearings Officer errs on this account. There is no obligation for the public to cite specific statutes or rules, or use certain `'magic words," before a local government must consider their comments. Not everyone who comments on a land use application is versed in the legalistic details of land use l.aw. The hearings Officer errs in failing to consider these many public comments highlighting the negative ESEE consequences of approving this application. Similarly, the Hearings Officer refuses to consider many comments that argue against rezoning the subject property in order to accommodate urban uses. Hearings Officer decision at 10. This is a remarkable rejection of many public comments, where the applicant repeatedly E3 a LANDWATCH stated its intent to urbanize the subject property as its motivation and "reason" for seeking the proposed zone change and goal exception, and the County provided notice of that intent. The public took the applicant and County at their word and commented on the clear intention to urbanize the subject property, and the County should consider these many comments as responsive to the applicable criteria. The Hearings Officer also erred in finding that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed use(s) will be compatible with adjacent uses, as required by ORS 197.73421)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d). Here again the threshold problem with this application frustrates the required analysis: the applicant has not clarified what land use(s) it seeks a goal exception in order to acconni-riodate, making it impossible to determine whether this criterion is met. LandWatch and the public cannot reasonably comment on whether the proposed use(s) will be compatible with adjacent properties when the applicant refuses to clarify its proposed use(s). The Hearings Officer errs in finding that the purpose of the MUA zone is evidence that the application meets this criterion. Hearings Officer decision at 11. A local code section, which is not itself even mandatory criteria but is rather a narrative description of the zone's purpose, is not substantial evidence that a goal exception criteria is met. M. The application fails to comply with Goal 14. '-The Hearings Officer decision errs in finding that the subject property complies with Goal 1.4. The finding that "the change in the Plan designation to RREA and zoning designation to MUA-10 does not result in urbanization of the Subject Property," Hearings Officer decision at 14, is counter to LUBA's recent decision. in Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes C'ounty ("Destiny Court'), Or LU13A (LUBA No. 2025-015, June 26, 2025). There, LUBA held that every plan amendment application must demonstrate compliance with all applicable statewide planning goals, including Goal 14, which requires site -specific analysis. Id., slip op at 13, 15. The current application proposes a new plan amendment, it cannot rely on the acknowledged status of the existing comprehensive plan, and instead it must independently demonstrate compliance with Goal 14 or otherwise take an exception to Goal 14, IV. The application fails to comply with the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. a. DCCP Policy 3.3.1. 0 k ,P ,a LANDWATCH Just as was the case in Destiny Court, the current application also fails to comply with Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy III. See Destiny Court, slip op at 6-1.0. That policy requires that new minimum parcel size for new residential parcels shall be 10 acres. The sought zone (MUA), however, allows new residential parcel density of only five acres when, as is the case for the subject property, land is within one mile of a UGB. The MUA zone also requires only a 2-acre minimum parcel size for cluster developments, DCC 18.128.200(B)(2), and no minimum lot size for new residential parcels in planned developments. DCC 18.128.210(D)(3). The MUA zone, when applied to new lands without taking an exception to Goal 14, conflicts with DCCP Policy 3.3.1. b. DCCP Policy 2.3.1 The Hearings Officer errs in finding DCCP Policy 2.3.1 is met. Hearings Officer decision at 15-16. Policy 2.3.1 requires the County to "[r]etain forest lands through Forest 1 and Forest 2 zoning." The subject property is correctly designated Forest and zoned Forest 2; that issue is .not contested by the applicant or any other hearing participant. See Applicant Final Written Argument, May 12, 2025 at 6 ("There is no dispute that the subject property falls within the definition of forestland under OAR 660-006-0005 and was formally identified as such pursuant to OAR 660-006-0010.") The subject property is "forest lands" and Policy 2.3.1 requires the county, to retain the subject property as forest land through Forest 2 zoning. The Hearings Officer decision errs in its agreement with staffs apparent position that "the County generally does not consider the Plan's goals and policies to be mandatory criteria." Hearings Officer decision at 15. This finding is counter to ORS 197.175(2)(d) and ORS 197.835(8), as well as DCC 18.136.020(A), all of which require the County's land use decisions to comply with applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, which is in addition to the requirement that PAPAS comply with the 19 statewide planning goals. c. DCCP Policy 2.3.3 U Similar to Policy 2.3.1, DCCP Policy 2.3.3 requires that the County "retain Forest 2 zoning for those lands with" certain enumerated characteristics. The Hearings Officer decision errs in finding this criterion is met, based on the erroneous reasoning that the land is not forest land: "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." (Hearings Officer decision at 16) The subject property is forest land, and again, no one contests that issue. The subject property does not "carry the RR -EA designation" as stated by the Hearings Officer; it carries the Forest designation. Under the plain text of Policy 2.3.3, the subject property must "retain Forest 2 zoning." NT. Conclusion For all the above reasons, in addition to those we provided to the Hearings Officer, LandWatch respectfully requests this application be denied. Please alert us to any decisions or further opportunities to continent on this application. Regards, Ron, Isbell Staff Attorney & Rural Lands Program Director Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 Nye' Lolo Dr. Ste 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 647-2930 i.% LANDWATCH Attachments Exhibit 9 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Exceptions Statement Exhibit 10 Deschutes County 2024 Rural Housing Profile 12 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o' < REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Sub J ect: �a� c�� �G Date: Name c `. Address` A5 ca"'ujo 3 r , O Phone #s 7 P,, 7 r E-mail address � '` � i 1 l C In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submittingwritten documents as part of testimony? [N'Yes I I No _ If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS es co�2 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING p { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: 7 " ai 4 . o (9e) Date: Name c e- � C� Address e r Phone #s 0 E-mail address L111 I.av Vl " i lqvuLivai I 1:1 Submittingwritten documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: .. Date:. 'Name � � � ° � � � ,- Address B �£ Phone #s�� E-mail address s t �� f t '' r`. In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed 4 ❑Submitting written documents as .part of testimony?.. Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. k (bm I SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS v'(E S CO6- a � BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2025 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session. Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link: http://bit.ly/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 /3v 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT The Board of Commissioners provides time during its public meetings for citizen input. This is an opportunity for citizens to communicate to the Commissioners on matters that are not otherwise on the agenda. Time is limited to 3 minutes. The Citizen Input platform is not available for and may not be utilized to communicate obscene or defamatory material. Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Resolution No. 2025-038 approving Solid Waste Disposal Fee Waivers for Fiscal Year 2026 2. Approval of Board Order No. 2025-033 appointing Health Services Director's designees 3. Approval of a Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2025-806; Dedication Deed, Document No. 2025-807; and Temporary Construction Easement, Document Number 2025-808 from Robert F. Nottelmann for Right of Way for the South Century Drive/Huntington Road Intersection Improvement Project 4. Approval of an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportations for the US97: NW Galloway Ave -O'Neil Hwy Project 5. Approval of Document No. 2025-814 terminating and releasing a Public Utility Easement at 63330 N Highway 97 6. Approval of an amendment to a restrictive covenant encumbering a parcel consisting of +/- 39.31-acres commonly known as Northpoint Vista in Redmond 7. Consideration of Board Signature on letters reappointing Alysha DeLorto, Jared Jeffcott, Drew Norris, Dan Daugherty, Jerry Thackery and Dustin Miller for service on the Ambulance Service Area (ASA) Committee 8. Approval of the BOCC June 25, 2025 meeting minutes August 6, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 ACTION ITEMS 9. 9:10 AM Request to add 1.0 FTE Assistant Planner position 10. 9:20 AM Public Hearing: McKenzie Meadow Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 58 acres adjacent to the City of Sisters 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 August 6, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3