2025-321-Minutes for Meeting September 03,2025 Recorded 9/30/2025�vIES C-0
C� G
2{ BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ202 a-321
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' .Journal 09/30/2025 11:40:39 AM
2025-321
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
10:00 AM WEDNESDAY September 3, 2025
Barnes Sawyer Rooms
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Anthony De Bone, 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/meetings.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 10:00 am.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT:
• Ron Boozell advocated for responsible speech and asked that the Commissioners take
care to use speech which benefits the public.
• Carl Shoemaker referred to Will Rogers and President Hoover and said the work of
many benefits the rich in a system of trickle -up economics.
• Michael Paulson reported that the Flat Fire nearly burned down his home. Speaking to
the importance of reducing fuels on private properties, he recommended allowing free
yard waste disposal outside of the currently permitted window, perhaps by instituting a
program whereby property owners could pay a $100 annual fee to allow them to
dispose of yard waste throughout the year.
Discussion ensued of funding available to coordinated neighborhood efforts to reduce fuels.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 PAGE 1 OF 6
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Saying that if landfill disposal fees are too high, people will dump materials elsewhere,
Commissioner Adair asked if the minimum disposal fee can be reduced from $18.
Commissioner DeBone introduced a formal recognition of the annual Cascades Futurity
Event at the Fair & Expo. Jodi Gray, the event organizer, explained what cutting horses
do and how the competition has grown into a large sporting event since it started in
2018, with more than 600 horses scheduled to compete this year. Commissioner
DeBone then read a certificate acknowledging the event's cultural and economic
impacts, which the Board signed and presented to Gray.
Commissioner Chang referred to possible public health concerns with regard to areas
where fire retardant has been applied and said DCSO's Emergency Management
division is developing a resource page to respond to such concerns. Commissioner
Chang also said that although it has been five years since the 2020 Labor Day fire, some
affected property owners have still not been able to rebuild.
Commissioner Chang said the Commissioners were each contacted by representatives
of the North Unit Irrigation District who had questions about the planned managed
camp in East Redmond, saying the District is concerned that the managed camp may
result in more unsanctioned encampments near the canal. He relayed the substance of
his conversation which included a commitment to notify the District when the clearing
of the County -owned 137 acres is scheduled to happen.
Commissioner Adair said she will attend tomorrow's managed camp joint meeting in
Redmond.
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda.
1. Approval of a contract renewal with Iris Telehealth for the provision of tele-
psychiatric treatment services
2. Approval to accept PacificSource funding for the Immunization Quality
Improvement for Providers program and designate signing authority to Heather
Kaisner, Public Health Director
3. Approval of the minutes of the BOCC August 6, 11, 13 and 18, 2025 meetings
ADAIR: Move Board approval of the Consent Agenda as presented
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 6
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0
Referring to the contract with Iris Telehealth for tele-psychiatric treatment services,
Commissioner Adair said in -person therapy is much more effective and beneficial than
tele-therapy.
Commissioner Chang said Health Services is in the process of transitioning from this
vendor contract to provide in -person therapy services using Behavioral Health staff.
ACTION ITEMS:
4. Proclamation: Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
Caroline Suiter, Mental Health Promotions Strategist and Bethany Kuschel, Suicide
Prevention Coordinator, shared suicide data and information on resources to help
prevent suicide and described upcoming events to recognize Suicide Prevention
Awareness Month.
The Commissioners read the proclamation into the record.
ADAIR: Move approval of the proclamation declaring September, 2025 as Suicide
Prevention Awareness Month in Deschutes County
CHANG. Second
VOTE: ADAI R: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0
5. Consideration of whether to initiate review of a text amendment to
Deschutes County Code to allow recreational vehicle (RV) parks as a
conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial District
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner, sought Board direction on a pending application
for a text amendment to establish an RV park as a conditional use in the Tumalo
Commercial District. Saying this is a quasi-judicial matter with elements of a
legislative amendment, Stuart said staff recommends that the Board initiate review
of this application and hold a hearing to allow more opportunity for public input.
Commissioner DeBone referred to a request from Adam Smith to speak to this
matter as a representative of the applicant.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 6
Commissioner Chang noted that Board approval of this change could prompt
property owners in other areas to apply for the same text amendment to allow RV
parks where they are not currently permitted.
Will Groves, Planning Manager, explained that Goal 14 limits RV parks to the density
of one RV per ten acres unless a Goal 14 exception is approved. He allowed that the
same text amendment could be proposed for limited areas such as Terrebonne and
Sunriver.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Groves said RV parks, mobile home parks and
campgrounds are all defined separately. Groves added that there is no limit on how
many short-term rentals are allowed in Tumalo or the Tumalo Commercial District.
Commissioner Chang questioned whether the County is favoring one kind of guest
lodging over another.
Adam Smith, representing the applicant, said that the Hearings Officer could have
made a decision on this application, but declined to do so. Smith urged the Board to
accept review of the recommendation issued by the Hearings Officer.
Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Stephanie Marshall agreed it would be best to avoid
an appeal based on procedural objections. Accordingly, she advised that Board
accept review of this matter.
ADAIR: Move approval oval of Order No. 2025-040 accepting �g review of tI ie Hearif lgs
Officer's recommendation in File No. 247-25-000106-TA
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAI R: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3 - 0
6. Clarification on Guidelines for the District Mapping Advisory Committee
Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, reported that when the District Mapping
Advisory Committee (DMAC) met for its orientation meeting on August 271h, a
question was raised regarding whether the guidelines approved by the Board of
Commissioners are directive or suggestive. More particularly, some members of the
committee asked if DMAC must create a map having five districts, or if it can create
a map that has four districts and one at -large position if a majority favors this
alternative.
BOCC MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
PAGE 4OF6
Commissioner Adair said having five districts makes the most sense especially for
those who live outside of incorporated areas and have no local government other
than the County Commission.
Commissioner Chang relayed that some DMAC members want to ensure that at
least one Commissioner is responsive to all residents of the County instead of only
to residents who live in a certain area.
Commissioner DeBone supported directing the DMAC to create a map having five
equally proportional districts.
Commissioner Chang said Missoula County in Montana has three districts, yet all of
its Commissioners are elected at -large in the same way that Board members for the
Bend -La Pine School District are elected. Commissioner DeBone was not opposed to
discussing this option further at a late date.
Patterson shared that DMAC will hold its first working meeting on September 1 ot"
OTHER ITEMS:
County Administrator Nick Lelack said the County is working with the City of Bend
and COIC on issuing a Request for Proposals for Hearings Officers, adding that the
RFP may be based on Lane County's model.
County Counsel Dave Doyle relayed a request from Marion County that Deschutes
County sign I� of � to a letter L be sent to Or egol � Attorney fey General al Dan � Rayf ield and
United States Attorney General Pam Bondi seeking clarity on how Oregon's
Sanctuary Promise Act and Public Records Act interact with federal law. Doyle
explained that the letter seeks clarity on how to reconcile apparent conflicts
regarding subpoena requests, and asks for a detailed opinion from the court to
ensure that laws are properly followed.
Saying that so far, 34 Sheriffs across Oregon have signed this letter, Doyle stressed
that the request for clarity is non -ideological.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Doyle read the specific language from the
letter into the record.
Commissioners DeBone and Adair stated their support for signing on to the letter as
written.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, Doyle said the letter presumes that federally -
directed actions are lawful and recognizes that federal law may conflict with State
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 6
law. Doyle referred to potential damages and/or sanctions if the County is found to
be in violation of State law or federal law.
Commissioner Chang declined to support or oppose the letter as written.
• Commissioner DeBone said the COIC Board meeting this Thursday will include an
informational presentation on PacifiCorp's Blueprint South Transmission Line
Project.
Commissioner DeBone reported that he has signed the demobilization directive for
the Flat Fire. Noting that 37 agencies mobilized to help to fight this fire, he said the
State Fire Marshal's office has issued an after -incident report which includes specific
damage assessments.
Commissioner Adair announced she will be out of the office next Tuesday through
Friday for the annual Pendleton Round -Up.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At 11:38 am, the Board entered Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property
Negotiations.
The Board exited Executive Session at 12:00 noon and instructed staff to proceed as
directed.
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.
`-
DATED this_ Day of 2025 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
RECORDING SECRETARY
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
oj�..
P TTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
Z-
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 PAGE 6 OF 6
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
p {
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subj ect:
Date: Cyr3
Name '
Address V'_.)�
Phone #s
E-mail address
0 In Favor
n Neutral/Undecided Opposed
n n__
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
11 �Uplca�c 6i v u a vmF.Y tl� V..- - a --- - -
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
\)A E S C0
ca s ..
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
• Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is .NOT on the agenda
• Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only
r,:� c
Testimony: L1 l Ld I Jam'. �,e
� .� ��
Topic of Input •r c y
�J
Is this topic an item on today's agenda?
❑Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) ✓No
Name 1111/c 44 ; U�5� ,/� Date: %
L
Phone #s 0 1
E-mail address ,%/�`r../,�,D�
THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY
BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes E No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
� I
t1t
4-1
®J
�A
b� v
r
®
U
.®
u
0
u
®
®J
�
�
�
V
®
V
®
u
i
u
®
®
i
0
4-Z
>N
4--J
®
®
u
ommmc:
�7i
'
u
�
�'
®
M
v
m
1
�,
®
LL
®
®
IA
J
C:
w
a)
E
C
QO
QO
�(
4u
V
L-
Jj ES CpG2a
o
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2025
SUBJECT: Approval to accept PacificSource funding for the Immunization Quality
Improvement for Providers program and designate signing authority to Heather
Kaisner, Public Health Director
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
1. Move approval of Document No. 2025-898 accepting PacificSource Community
Solutions funding for the Immunization Quality Improvement for Providers
program.
2. Move to authorize Heather Kaisner, Public Health Director, to sign the Letter of
Agreement.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Immunization Quality Improvement for Providers (IQIP) began as a formal, national
Vaccines for Children (VFC) provider -level immunization quality improvement program.
IQIP serves to assist and support healthcare providers by identifying opportunities to
improve vaccine uptake and to help providers be:
o Motivated to try new vaccination service delivery strategies and incorporate
changes into their current practices
o Supported in sustaining changes and improvement to their vaccination
service delivery
o Aware of and knowledgeable about vaccination coverage and missed
opportunities to vaccinate
o Able to use available data from the IIS to improve services and coverage
Deschutes County Health Services (DCHS) was awarded a three-year grant (Sept. 2022 -
Aug. 2025) from Central Oregon Health Council for a Central Oregon Regional
Immunization Rate Improvement Project to implement the IQIP program. The goal of the
program was to increase the immunization rate of two -year -olds in Central Oregon by
implementing the IQIP program in Coordinated Care Organizations at participating clinics
that serve the majority of children within Central Oregon.
Over the three-year grant funded IQIP project, DCHS worked with VFC clinics within
Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook counties. Most clinics participating chose goals to raise the
overall up-to-date rates (UTD) for children and adolescents by 5%. Many clinics met or beat
those goals. On average, over half of the clinics participating in each 12-month cycle saw
one or both UTD rate improve, the average gain being approximately 8.5% over the rate at
the start of the cycle. Some clinics saw their rates hold steady, others did experience some
decrease in UTD rates, however, we believe that this program has proven to be a benefit to
all three counties overall.
DCHS seeks approval to accept $200,000 of funding from PacificSource to continue the IQIP
program for an additional year. Funding will be used as follows:
• $113.913 toward existing personnel expenses,
• $45,000 for monetary incentives for participating clinics,
• $14,500 for a community outreach campaign and workshops
• $500 for new clinic on -boarding and "Community Connection" meetings for
participating clinics
• $26,087 for indirect costs (15% of direct costs)
BUDGET IMPACTS:
$200,000 revenue for the period of September 2025 - August 2026. A budget resolution will
be forthcoming for non -personnel expense.
ATTENDANCE:
Rita Bacho, Public Health Program Manager
6
aci f icurce
Community Solutions
8/26/2025
Deschutes County Public Health
2577 NE Courtney Dr.
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Heather,
PacificSource Community Solutions
PO Box 5729, Bend, OR 97708-5729
800-431-4135, TTY: 711. We accept all relay calls.
PacificSource.com/Medicaid
This letter serves as an agreement between PacificSource Community Solutions (PCS)
and Deschutes County Oregon, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by
and through Deschutes County Public Health (DCPH) for Quality Pool dollars to support
its Immunization Quality Improvement for Providers (IQIP) Coordination for one year.
DCPH will receive Quality Pool dollars in the amount of $200,000.
DCPH agrees to complete the evaluation tool provided by PCS no later than April 30,
2026. Please complete and return the evaluation to kristen.tobias(a�pacificsource.com.
This information will be shared with the Central Oregon Health Council's Provider
Engagement Panel.
Please sign on the lines below to signify that you agree to the terms of this letter.
Sincerely,
John Espinola, MD
President and Chief Executive Officer
PacificSource
Heather Kaisner, MS
Public Health Director
Deschutes County Public Health
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2025
SUBJECT: Consideration of whether to initiate review of a text amendment to Deschutes
County Code to allow recreational vehicle (RV) parks as a conditional use in the
Tumalo Commercial District
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of Board Order 2025-040, initiating review of file no. 247-25-000106-TA
or
Move approval of Board Order 2025-040, declining review of file no. 247-25-000106-TA
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of Commissioners will consider whether to initiate review of a pending text
ir.i_ 2n 2c n 4nr T \ The -, r,li a t roniinctc n taYt amPnriminntto AI low
amenamerjt (i Ile i o. ��+7-��-HOC � ��- � A,. � � �� apN��cUn� , ��u"�,
RV parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial District Zone, and also proposes
siting standards for new RV parks in this zone.
A public hearing was held before a Hearings Officer on June 16, 2025. Pursuant to
Deschutes County Code 22.28.030, the Board may either adopt the Hearings Officer's
recommendation or initiate review and hold a new public hearing.
The full record is available at the following link: https•//www deschutes.or /g cd/pa e/g 247-
25-000106-ta-tumalo-rv-park-text-amendment
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
STAFF REPORT
TUMALO RV PARK TEXT AMENDMENT
FILE NUMBER(S): 247-25-000106-TA
SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Tumalo Commercial Zone encompasses multiple properties.
APPLICANT: Joel Gisler
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Adam Smith, of Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt
REQUEST: Amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 18.67, Tumalo
Rural Community Zoning Districts. The proposed amendments will
modify the Deschutes County Code (DCC) to add recreational vehicle
(RV) parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial (TUC) Zone.
The proposed amendments include siting standards for new RV parks
in the TUC Zone, including that the development area must be two -to -
five acres in size, contiguous to Highway 20, and located within a sewer
district. in addition, the proposed amendments will modify the
standards for road access and wastewater facilities for RV parks in the
TUC Zone.
STAFF CONTACT: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
Phone: 541-388-6679
Email: Audrey.Stuart@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www deschutes org/cd/page/247-25-000106-ta-tumalo-rv-
park-text-amendment
APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.67, Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts
Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(#Q� (541) 388-6575 Co)cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
11. BASIC FINDINGS
LOT OF RECORD: DCC 22.04.040(B) does not require lot of record verification for Text Amendment
applications. The proposed amendments will apply to all properties within the TUC Zone. Any future
development of an RV park would require property -specific land use review, and lot of record
findings would be made at that time.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The TUC Zone is located within the unincorporated community of Tumalo,
which is located along Highway 20 to the northwest of the City of Bend. The TUC Zone is
predominantly located to the north of Highway 20, but also includes approximately 8.7 acres located
to the south of Highway 20. The development pattern within the TUC Zone includes a variety of
small -to -medium size commercial uses such as food cart pods, a gas station, eating and drinking
establishments, and two small strip malls. The TUC Zone also includes a number of undeveloped
lots as well as existing residential development.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend section 18.67.040, regarding the Tumalo Commercial
(TUC) Zone. The proposed language of the Text Amendment is included as Exhibit 1 and summarized
as follows:
• The Applicant proposes to modify the Purpose statement of the TUC Zone to include the travel
needs of people passing through the area.
• The Applicant proposes to add an RV park as a new conditional use within the zoning district.
• The Applicant proposes siting standards for new RV parks in the TUC Zone and also proposes
certain exceptions to the standards of nrr 1 R 1 2R 17n for RV parks In the TUC Zone.
Specifically, new RV parks in the TUC Zone would not require road access from a collector or
arterial, and would not be required to provide laundry facilities and sewage disposal until
sewer service is available to the property.
The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following background on the proposed Text
Amendment:
This application is submitted in anticipation of two upcoming companion conditional use
applications. The subject text amendment to DCC Title 18, Chapter 18.67.040, TuC District is
intended to only allow RV Parks on a limited number of parcels in the TuC District owned by
the Applicant, with the two upcoming conditional use applications then seeking approval for
related uses on the Applicant's parcels.
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on April 3, 2025, to several public
agencies and received the following comments:
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Tarik Rawlings
247-25-000106-TA Page 2 of 27
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 241-25-000106-TA for a text amendment
request to DCC Chapter 18.67 (Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts) to add recreational
vehicle (RV) parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial District (TUC).
I have reviewed the application materials for potential Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
OAR 660-012 effects, including the applicant's transportation memorandum produced by
Transight Consulting, LLC, (dated January 8, 2025) and I agree with its assumptions,
methodology, and conclusions. The memorandum adequately addresses reasonable worst
case scenario analysis through a comparison of the existing outright allowed uses (utilizing
ITE category 822 for Strip Retail Plaza as an aggregate category encompassing
eating/drinking establishments, small retail, and offices each totaling less than 10,000
square -feet) to the proposed Campground/RV Park (ITE 416) use and ultimately concludes
that no significant impacts will be anticipated with the proposed text amendment. Staff notes
that, should the proposed text amendment receive approval, further traffic analysis may be
required at the time of future development depending on the future development's vehicle
trip generation potential. While the current text amendment does not absorb County road
capacity, any future proposal for the development of a Campground/RV Park under the
proposed use category must demonstrate compliance with the transportation analysis
requirements of DCC 18.116.310, including p.m. peak hour vehicle trips related to System
Development Charges (SDCs), mitigations, and adequacy of access.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide comment and please let me know if you have any
questions.
Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Manager, Todd Cleveland
This proposal would allow an RV park without full connections for sewer, water and not
require a central comfort station. This would not require connection to a community
wastewater system. However, once a wastewater treatment system becomes available in the
Tumalo , it would be beneficial to provide full connections and services at RV locations. The
lack of sewer connections would limit the length of stay because RV users would need to take
their RV to an approved dump station.
Onsite prefers to have facilities that will promote proper wastewater treatment and disposal
conveniently available. Hopefully, this facility will be able to be connected as soon as possible
when a community wastewater treatment facility becomes available.
Onsite wastewater permits would be unlikely to be approved for the proposed site.
Being in the Tumalo Sanitary District, when sewer becomes both legally and physically
available to this location the only option would be to connect to the sanitary system. An
onsite system could not be permitted once sewer is available (OAR 340-071-0160(4)).
Deschutes County Building Division Krista Appleby, tune 4, 2025 Comments
247-25-000106-TA Page 3 of 27
OAR 650 is applicable to Recreation Parks & Organizational Camps. Per OAR 918-650-
0005(12) definition of 'recreational vehicle park' falls under the Recreation Park
requirements. Referenced Table attached as PDF.
Among other [requirements in] OAR 650, toilets are required - see clip below.
Referenced Table 3-RV is attached as PDF.
s
Division
► iI Ilk t U V P
918.6500050
Toilets
Toilet facilitles must be ixMided,in every r--,:re4V0nWXor €argar,zat>of*l caMP. " hcY must be convenient feat x-4
accessible ar4 must be locatedwithin 500feet of as y roc€e t:onal vela;cle st a e or campi, site n,
m rx°.rsi€€3 with an
iodiv iidual toilet fad ity ar sewer CO?tnK60n.
EXCvE PTION: The requirement for toitets in pica° parks, campgfour&, arA orga€tixatirnal camps m3Y be waived by the
reguiating authofi ty for areas not accessible by road.
f2,tar Sanitary f acilitie s crust be as required in Table 3,KIV;
(b) Toilet fords. Toilet borwisfof pub€+C use must to elongat+ d b`w.ls wth clpen-front seats. Any room with flush toilet-,
must be provided meth a flcmor deain as rer.,u re€f in the Oregon Plumbsng Specialty C Ode;
(c) guns. TG-€erts must either t' tr rked f<ur the & s ignat€d Sex or be Proviflev4 ve .th a pt iv a3 y fork, if not anparent, zh
oc.<at€€`, a of to lets must be.n clicated b7° aw'00;ate; dir"cction Sighs:
di F:ush €oRets arvJ Sho.+e€"S. Flush tolr'ts a€ d ssho-i rs arKi the txiiIdirigs cont a!ning the.si .act becot, structecl %Si
acc rdance I h IhP St At f, kuziNjitlgCole:
(e) Umisex Toitet-s. Toilct facititie s desipe d to se,°vP an OCCuPat2t load of 1,-' €s4 Sos of tens ttaay Senie both sexes, Such
toifetfacilities trust e�equ'Wed-witha urinal,
3 tsfosteiater Carried Toilets. Nonvlater carric to, ts, including beat not I'srt ited t€;, chernical or va.att tciiets of Pit
Privies, must b'e constructed and located in xcordan,<:e with the roll€.. re-Mft Ms of thc- Department of Enfivon°rentai
Quality.
Deschutes County Building Division Randy Scheid April 3, 2025 Comments
The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress,
Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed
during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and
occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
918-650-0010
Scope and Purpose
247-25-000106-TA Page 4 of 27
(1) OAR chapter 918, division 650 establishes minimum safety standards for the design and
construction of recreation parks and organizational camps as authorized in ORS 455.680.
(2) These rules establish design and construction requirements for recreation parks and
organizational camps for the purpose of protecting the life, health, safety and welfare of
persons using these facilities.
EXCEPTIONS:
1-These rules do not apply to parking areas offering access to beaches, marinas, boat ramps,
piers, ski areas, rivers, trails and similar facilities, where no recreational vehicle utility
connections are provided.
2- The area development permit does not include permits or related fees for buildings,
mobile home setups, mechanical, plumbing or electrical systems, boiler, or elevators, or
permits required by other agencies.
Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 455.020, 455.110 & 455.680
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 455.680
History:
BCD 26-2011, f. 9-30-11, cert. ef. 10-1-11
BCA 10-1987, f. & ef. 9-18-87, Renumbered from 814-029-0050
918-650-0020
Permit Required
No person may establish or enlarge the facilities of any recreation park or organizational
camp or do any construction within the recreation park or organizational camp or cause the
same to be done without first obtaining all required permits from the building official and
paying the prescribed permit fees. Multiple permits may be required when the proposed
work involves two or more code areas (i.e., structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical).
EXCEPTION: Applications for permits, submission of plans and payment of fees are not
required for additions, alterations, relocation and maintenance of picnic tables, play
equipment, fire pits and similar facilities in existing parks.
Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 455.020, 455.110 & 455.680
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 455.680
History:
BCD 26-2011, f. 9-30-11, cert. ef. 10-1-11
BCA 10-1987, f. & ef. 9-18-87, Renumbered from 814-029-0065
The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Bend Fire Department, Deschutes County
Assessor, Deschutes County Road Department, Laidlaw Water District, Oregon Department of
Transportation, and Tumalo Irrigation District.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners
within the TUC Zone and within a 250-foot buffer around the TUC Zone on April 3, 2025. As of the
date of this staff report, 62 comments have been submitted by members of the public in opposition
to the proposal. Concerns raised in the public comments included:
• Impacts to neighborhood livability and the transient nature of RV park residents.
• The density of an RV park being incompatible with the rural nature of Tumalo.
247-25-000106-TA Page 5 of 27
• Increased traffic and whether the local roads are sufficient to accommodate RV's.
• Lack of existing sewage facilities to treat the wastewater from an RV park.
• Whether the Text Amendment conflicts with the Tumalo Community Plan, which was
updated in 2024.
• Impacts to natural resources such as the nearby section of the Deschutes River.
• Whether the proposal is necessary given the nearby facilities at Tumalo State Park.
NOTICE REQUIREMENT: On May 15, 2025, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing
to all property owners within the TUC Zone and within 250 feet of the TUC Zone, as well as to public
agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, May 18, 2025.
Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development on May 12, 2025.
REVIEW PERIOD: According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed
quasi-judicial Text Amendment application is not subject to the 150-day review period.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
Amendments
The Applicant proposes to amend section 18.67.040 of Deschutes County Code to allow RV parks as
a new conditional use within the TUC Zone. The amendments also set forth standards for new RV
parks within the zone, including specific wastewater standards. Currently, wastewater disposal
within RV parks is regulated by DCC 18.128.170, which are cond{t{onal use standards that apply to
all zones governed by Title 18. DCC 18.128.170(D) requires each RV space to be provided with piped
potable water and sewage disposal service. The relevant text of the proposed amendments is
copied below, and it would allow the developer of an RV park to only provide sewage disposal
service once a sewer district is able and willing to serve the property. The full text of the proposed
amendments is included as Exhibit 1.
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
A. For sewage disposal service and laundry facilities only, Recreational Vehicle
Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall not be required to comply with
DCC 18.12& 170(D) and Q) until a sewer district is willing and able to provide
service to the proposed project. The County may include conditions of
approval requiring Recreational Vehicle Parks to provide sewer connection
to each recreational vehicle space and to provide laundry facilities as
outlined in DCC 18.12&170Q) once sewer service is available from a sewer
district.
Staff notes that agency comments from the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division and
247-25-000106-TA Page 6 of 27
Deschutes County Building Division raise questions about the facilities that would be required under
the proposed amendments. Though it is not an applicable land use approval criterion, comments
from Building Division staff cite concerns regarding compliance with State Building Code if toilet
facilities are not provided within an RV park. Staff notes these concerns would be addressed at the
time a specific development proposal is submitted. However, staff asks the Hearings Officer to
address these comments as they see fit and as they pertain to applicable approval criteria.
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Section 18.136,010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or
legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner
for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on
forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures
of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Applicant, as the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial Text Amendment
and filed the corresponding application. The Applicant has filed the required land use application
forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures
contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
rni-r- -» n� n"rO ;-cludes the following definition:
L;%-%. LL.V .VZ_ III
"Quasi-judicial" zone change or plan amendment generally refers to a plan amendment or
zone change affecting a single or limited group of property owners and that involves the
application of existing policy to a specific factual setting. (The distinction between legislative
and quasi-judicial changes must ultimately be made on a case -by -case basis with reference
to case law on the subject.)
The subject application is not a request to change the zoning or Comprehensive Plan designation
of the subject property. However, as described below, the quasi-judicial process of a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is the most applicable guidance regarding Text Amendments that are not squarely
legislative. Therefore, staff includes the definition of a quasi-judicial process above for reference
and also addresses the provisions of DCC 22.28.030, regarding final action on Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The application materials include the following analysis of the process for the subject
Text Amendment:
The subject text amendment application is not an application for a quasi-judicial map
amendment, as this text amendment will not alter the County's zoning map if it is approved.
Existing case law and the DCC allow for flexibility where text amendments may be processed
247-25-000106-TA Page 7 of 27
as quasi-judicial or legislative. See Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Benton County, 287 Or 591
(1979).
Strawberry Hill Wheelers sets forth certain factors determining when applications are quasi-
judicial or legislative: (1) the process is bound to result in a decision; (2) the decision is bound
to apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts; and (3) the action is directed at a closely
circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons. Id. The more
definitely the questions are answered in the negative, the more likely the decision under
consideration is a legislative land use decision. Id. Each of the factors must be weighed, and
no single factor is determinative. Id.
Here, the subject text amendment application satisfies the first prong as the process is
bound to result in a decision. Either the Text Amendment will be approved or denied. The
second factor is also answered in the positive because the proposed text amendment applies
preexisting criteria from the applicable provisions of the DCC and the Statewide Land Use
Planning Goals to concrete facts i.e., whether the proposed amendments meet those criteria.
Last, and most strongly, the third factor is answered in the positive. The proposed text
amendment applies to a closely circumscribed factual situation and a small number of
persons. The TuC District itself only applies to a small geographic area of the unincorporated
community of Tumalo. Narrowing the scope even more, the text amendment will then only
apply to parcels in the TuC District that are adjacent to Hwy 20, under common ownership,
and collectively between 2 and 5 acres in size. The land use consequences are
disproportionately concentrated on a relatively small pool of persons (if not only the
Applicant), as opposed to a larger region or the general population, therefore a quasi-judicial
procedure is the correct option according to the existing case law. Id.; Van Dyke v. Yamhill
Counity, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No 2018-61, Dec 20, 2018) (slip op at 4).
Indeed, this is also consistent with the DCC itself. "Legislative changes" are defined as those
that "generally involve broad public policy decisions that apply to other than an individual
property owner. These include, without limitation, amendments to the text of the
comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, or the subdivision or partition ordinance and
changes in zoning maps not directed at a small number of property owners." See DCC
22.04.020. The DCC also defines "legislative" as "a planning or zoning action resulting in a
general rule or policy which is applicable to an open class of individuals or situations." See
DCC 18.04.030. By design, the subject text amendment application only applies to a narrow
scope of properties in a zoning district that is unique to Tumalo and not applicable elsewhere
in the entire county. Based on the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers factors, this is a quasi-judicial
application and not a legislative application.
Recently, the Planning Commission used this exact reasoning as part of its basis to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny a proposed text amendment to
allow mini -storage use in the MUA-10 zone along Highway 20. The Planning Commission
recommended denial after specifically determining that the proposed text amendment only
affected a small number of parcels and therefore, in the Planning Commission's opinion,
should have been proposed as a quasi-judicial text amendment. Subsequently, the Board of
247-25-000106-TA Page 8 of 27
County Commissioners apparently agreed with the Planning Commission and denied this
application. See County Planning File No. 247-24-000044-TA.
Although clearly a quasi-judicial application, DCC Chapter 22.24 does not include specific
provisions governing the proposed quasi-judicial text amendment. The closest comparison
is a quasi-judicial zone change or plan amendment, and the Applicant accordingly
recommends that the County utilizes the procedures governing such applications in this
matter. Notably, those procedures require a public hearing in front of the Hearings Officer
with a decision issued thereafter. See DCC. 22.24.020. DCC 22.24.030 sets forth the basic
notice requirements for the hearing. Notably, DCC 22.28.030(A) and (B) clarify that the Board
of County Commissioners then adopts the Hearings Officer's decision without further
argument or testimony unless a separate appeal of that decision is filed.
Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis of Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers and notes the subject
application will result in a decision, utilizes preexisting criteria, and will impact a limited number of
properties.
Deschutes County staff conducted a preliminary analysis to identify the properties in the TUC Zone
that may be potentially eligible for an RV park under the proposed amendments. This analysis
identified properties in the TUC Zone that consist of parcels under common ownership which are
two -to -five acres in size and contiguous to Highway 20. The results of this analysis are shown in the
figure below and identify two properties that may potentially be eligible for an RV park under the
proposed Code language. Staff notes this analysis is only intended to identify the number of
properties impacted by the proposed amendments, and does not guarantee the eligibility or
development potential of the identified properties.
247-25-000106-TA Page 9 of 27
Figure 1: TUC -Zoned Properties under Common Ownership and Contiguous to Highway 20
BMD Investments
2.2 Acres
t €
"H ST
Q#
_, .
STH ST w
€�u.M
:J
Based on the findings above, the subject request will impact the development potential of
approximately two properties. Therefore, staff finds the subject request complies with the third
component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test and may be categorized as quasi-judicial based
on the small number of persons who will be affected.
When the factors above are considered in combination, staff finds they indicate the subject Text
Amendment is appropriately subjected to a quasi-judicial process. For these reasons, staff finds the
request meets the three-part test outlined in Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers as well as the intent of a
quasi-judicial process.
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures
Section 22 12 010 Hearing Required
No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a
public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the
Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless
247-25-000106-TA Page 10 of 27
otherwise required by state law.
FINDING: As described above, staff finds the subject request is a quasi-judicial Text Amendment.
However, the procedural steps will be similar to those of previous quasi-judicial Text Amendments,
where Hearings Officers have determined that they also carry the qualities of a legislative act. The
subject amendments will be adopted through an ordinance, consistent with the process for a
legislative amendment. The Planning Director has exercised their discretion not to set a hearing
before the Planning Commission.
Section 22.12.020, Notice
A. Published Notice.
1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing.
2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a
statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under
consideration.
B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and
where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045.
C. Individual Notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC
22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as
required by ORS 215.503.
D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other
newspapers published in Deschutes County.
FINDING: Notice of the proposed Text Amendment was published in the Bend Bulletin. Staff mailed
a Notice of Application and a subsequent Notice of Public Hearing to property owners within the
TUC Zone and within 250 feet of the TUC Zone. At the discretion of the Planning Director, posted
notice was not required since the subject request is not property -specific. Staff notes a future
application to develop an RV park on a specific property would require posted notice pursuant to
DCC 22.24.030(B).
Section 22 12 030 Initiation Of Legislative Changes
A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of
required fees as well as by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Commission.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted the required fees and requested a Text Amendment. Staff
finds the applicant is granted permission under this criterion to initiate a legislative change and has
submitted the necessary fee and materials.
Section 22 12 040 Hearings Body
A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this
order.
247-25-000106-TA Page 11 of 27
1. The Planning Commission.
2. The Board of County Commissioners.
FINDING: As described above, the subject application meets the definition of a quasi-judicial
application. For this reason, this application was referred to a Hearings Officer rather than the
Planning Commission for a recommendation. The adoption of the proposed text amendments will
follow a legislative process because it must be approved by the Board. For the purpose of this
criterion, staff notes the application has properties of both a quasi-judicial and legislative
amendment.
B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of
Commissioners.
FINDING: The subject application was not initiated by the Board. Staff finds this criterion does not
apply.
Section 22 12.050, Final Decision
All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance.
FINDING: Staff finds this criterion requires action by the Board to effect any legislative changes to
Deschutes County Code. If the proposed Text Amendment is approved, it will become effective
through the Board adoption of an ordinance.
Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
Section 22 28 030 Decision On Plan Amendments And Zone Changes
A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission when
acting as the Hearings Body shall have authority to make decisions on all quasi-
judicial zone changes and plan amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi-
judicial plan amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
B. In considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial plan
amendments on which the Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision, the
Board of County Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review
initiated by the Board, adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further
testimony will be taken by the Board.
FINDING: As detailed above, staff finds the proposal should be viewed as a quasi-judicial plan
amendment. For this reason, staff finds these criteria apply. This application is being referred to a
Hearings Officer for a decision. If an appeal is not filed and the Board does not initiate review, the
Board shall adopt the Hearings Officer's decision as the decision of the county.
247-25-000106-TA Page 12 of 27
C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or
concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo
before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal,
regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission.
Such hearing before the Board shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as
an appeal to the Board under DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The subject Text Amendment does not require a goal exception and does not concern
lands designated for forest or agricultural use. For this reason, a de novo hearing before the Board
is not required.
D. Notwithstanding DCC 22.28.030(C), when a plan amendment subject to a DCC
22.28.030(C) hearing before the Board of County Commissioners has been
consolidated for hearing before the hearings Officer with a zone change or other
permit application not requiring a hearing before the board under DCC 22.28.030(C),
any party wishing to obtain review of the Hearings Officer's decision on any of those
other applications shall file an appeal. The plan amendment shall be heard by the
Board consolidated with the appeal of those other applications.
FINDING: No other application is being consolidated with the subject Text Amendment. Staff finds
this criterion does not apply.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
FINDING: The Applicant identified the following Comprehensive Plan policies as relevant to the
subject proposal. The identified sections of the Comprehensive Plan and the Applicant's responses
are included below:
Chapter 3: Rural Growth
Section 3.4: Rural Economy. Policies
Goal 1: Maintain a stable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy
environment.
Policy 3.4.1: Promote rural economic initiatives, including home -based businesses,
that maintain the integrity of the rural character and natural environment. a.
Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic
development opportunities.
a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural
economic development opportunities.
247-25-000106-TA Page 13 of 27
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is consistent with the County's mandate to review
land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate economic development opportunities.
This amendment provides a new rural economic development opportunity within specific
areas of the TuC District while maintaining the integrity of the rural character and natural
environment by requiring conditional use approval and expressly limiting where in the TuC
District RV Parks can be located.
Policy 3.4.2: Work with stakeholders to promote new recreational and tourist
initiatives that maintain the integrity of the natural environment.
RESPONSE: Allowing RV Park development in certain areas of the TuC District will support
new and existing recreational and tourist initiatives in the area. Such RV Park development
is consistent with maintaining the integrity of the natural environment as it provides for less
permanent building and changes to the existing landscape than several other uses permitted
within the TuC District.
Policy 3.4.7. Within the parameters of State land use regulations, permit limited
local -serving commercial uses in higher -density rural communities.
RESPONSE: Approval of the subject application will allow for a new local -servicing
commercial use in higher -density rural communities located in close proximity to adjacent
state highways. Visitors of the any potential RV Parks in the TuC District bring additional
customers and revenue to other businesses in the TuC District.
Section 3.5: Natural Hazard Policies
Goal 1: Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from
natural hazards.
RESPONSE: This goal is met. Any RV Parks created via a conditional use permit within the
TuC District will provide for a development that protects people, property, infrastructure, the
economy from natural hazards.
The County itself recently commissioned a feasibility study that specifically found "A scarcity
of camping opportunities in Central Oregon, including for recreational vehicles (RV), not only
reduces total visitation but also contributes to increased dispersed camping in undeveloped
forestland and along roads. While visitation and population have both rapidly grown over
recent decades, there has been no corresponding increase in camping capacity. This, in turn,
results in added forest maintenance and damage to natural habitats, such as sanitation
issues, problems with trash management, and increased fire risk." Exhibit 1 at page 1. That
statement from the County's own study speaks directly to this Goal.
Stated simply, there is a serious demand for additional RV Parks within Deschutes County
and the current lack thereof presents significant issues that can most directly be addressed
by providing more RV Parks and campgrounds. In fact, per local news coverage of recent
247-25-000106-TA Page 14 of 27
County Commissioner meetings where the above -mentioned feasibility study was the focus
of deliberations, the Commissioners noted there is an "incredible demand" for more RV
Parks, and that very few, if any, have been built in the past 40 years in Deschutes County.
See Exhibit 2 (news article).
Further, County Planning staff previously included in its 2022-2023 annual work plan an
update regarding RV park opportunities, but appeared to stop short of exploring whether
existing County zoning may be the main obstacle to developing more RV Parks. See Exhibit
3 at page 34. Examining existing zoning closely, this appears to be true. In Tumalo, potential
for development of any RV Parks has effectively been prohibited due to the historical
limitation that no RV Parks are allowed if they were not in existence before 1979. The
Applicant's own research suggests that this limitation was originally put in place because of
the lack of central sewer services in the area, a concern that is likely to be address in Tumalo
in the near future. However, even if that now -dated historical limitation were removed, other
applicable conditional use standards in DCC chapter 18.128 make it very difficult for any new
RV Parks to be feasible in Tumalo or elsewhere in the County. This proposed Text
Amendment seeks to resolve these issues, at least for several properties within the TuC
District. (The Applicant has no objection to the County addressing these concerns with a
broader text amendment, but specifically limits the subject applicant to only the TuC District
as the subject application is applicant -initiated and intended to be quasi-judicial.)
On a more local level in Tumalo itself, the County's feasibility study cites data from the
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department showing the nearby Tumalo State Park frequently
reaches close to its 100% capacity which further exacerbate the issues outlined above.
Exhibit 1 at page 10. The area proposed to be affected by the Text Amendment will
specifically provide opportunities to help mitigate these issues and ease some of the high
volume of visitors at Tumalo State Park that may cause capacity issues.
Chapter 4: Urban Growth Management
Section 4.9: Rural Service Center Policies.
Policy 4.9.11: Recreational vehicle or trailer parks and other uses catering to
travelers shall be permitted.
RESPONSE: While Tumalo itself is no longer characterized as a "Rural Service Center" by the
County, its TuC District shares many similarities. The Comprehensive Plan defines Rural
Service Centers as "an unincorporated community consisting primarily of commercial or
industrial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or persons
traveling through the area, but which also includes some permanent residential dwellings."
While Tumalo is more broadly defined as a "Rural Community," its TuC District is in essence
a concentrated Rural Service Center with its purpose (as proposed to be amended) being to
provide commercial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or
persons traveling through the area. The Comprehensive Plan explicitly mandates that RV
Parks cateringto travelers shall be permitted in Rural Service Centers and naturally they shall
247-25-000106-TA Page 15 of 27
also be in the TuC District due to the aligned purposes of the two rural districts.
This is why the proposed Text Amendment seeks to amend the TuC District's purpose
statement. The County Commissioners past actions and comments align with allowing uses
in the TuC District that further this policy goal as set forth in state rules. OAR 660.022.0010(7)
(defining Rural Community as "an unincorporated community which consists primarily of
permanent residential dwellings but also has at least two other land uses that provide
commercial, industrial, or public uses (including but not limited to schools, churches, grange
halls, post offices) to the community, the surrounding rural area, or to persons traveling
through the area.")
In reality, there are hundreds of thousands of people that travel through Tumalo each year
and the numbers will likely keep increasing. Hwy 20 is the major highway travelers use when
travelling to Tumalo State Park, between Sisters and Bend, and to other attractions in this
portion of Deschutes County. Being adjacent to Hwy 20, the TuC is the zoning district within
Tumalo that most practically should include the purpose of serving the travel needs of
people passing through the area.
Arguably more than any other use, an RV Park clearly "serves the travel needs of people
passing through the area" by providing lodging and access to other recreational and
commercial opportunities in the Tumalo area. The proposed Text Amendment finally brings
the TuC District into consistency with this policy.
FINDING: Staff requests the Hearings Officer amend these findings as they see fit, and determine
whether the Applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan
provisions.
Appendix B- Tumalo Community Plan
RV Parks in the Tumalo Community Plan
FINDING: As detailed in the record, there are several public comments which point out that the
Tumalo Community Plan does not appear to contemplate an RV park. Consequently, members of
the public argue the proposed text amendment does not conform to the Tumalo Community Plan.
Staff asks the Hearings Officer to determine whether these objections are relevant.
Economic Development Goal
Retain the economic vibrancy of Tumalo's historic core and industrial areas while providing
economic development opportunities that are compatible with the small town rural
character of the community.
Economic Development Policies
Policy 4: Support economic development initiatives and tourism in the Tumalo area.
247-25-000106-TA Page 16 of 27
FINDING: Staff finds the proposed use is consistent with this policy of the Tumalo Community Plan.
As detailed in the application materials, allowing an RV park as a conditional use in the TUC Zone
would provide economic opportunities within the unincorporated community and would support
tourism by expanding lodging options.
Policy 5: Allow for existing and future uses without producing adverse effects upon
water resources or wastewater disposal. Coordinate with relevant agencies to
ensure industrial uses meet requirements for water availability and wastewater
disposal.
FINDING: As described herein, the proposed amendments would create new wastewater standards
that only apply to RV parks within the TUC Zone. Specifically, the amendments would not require a
property owner to provide laundry facilities or a sewer connection to each RV space until a sewer
district is willing and able to provide service. In the interim, it appears to staff that the proposed
amendments would allow an RV park to commence operations before sewer connections are
established. Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make findings regarding the proposed amendments
regarding wastewater disposal within RV parks in the TUC Zone, and whether this future use would
have an adverse impact upon water resources or wastewater disposal.
Staff notes that an RV park is not an industrial use, and the proposed amendments are therefore
not subject to the second part of this policy.
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Division 22, Unincorporated Communities
OAR 660 022 0030 Planning and Zoning of Unincorporated Communities
(4) County plans and land use regulations may authorize only the following new
commercial uses in unincorporated communities:
(c) Uses intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area or the
travel needs of people passing through the area.
FINDING: The proposed amendments would create a new use within the unincorporated
community of Tumalo, and is therefore subject to these provisions. The application materials state
that an RV park would serve the travel needs of people passing through the area. Staff finds the
proposed commercial use may be authorized within an unincorporated community.
(8) Zoning applied to lands within unincorporated communities shall ensure that the
cumulative development:
(A) Will not result in public health hazards or adverse environmental impacts
that violate state or federal water quality regulations; and
247-25-000106-TA Page 17 of 27
(B) Will not exceed the carrying capacity of the soil or of existing water supply
resources and sewer services.
FINDING: Any future development of an RV park within the TUC Zone would be subject to review
by the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division and/or the Department of Environmental
Quality to ensure that wastewater disposal complies with applicable state standards. As described
above, comments from the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division indicate concerns
regarding the ability of the Applicant's property to obtain an onsite wastewater (septic) permit. The
proposed amendments would allow a property owner to establish an RV park and wait to install
sewage disposal until a sewer district is able to serve the property. Staff notes the capacity of the
sewer district would be addressed at the time a development proposal is submitted for a specific
property. However, staff finds it may also be relevant in addressing these criteria and determining
whether the proposed use would have a cumulative impact that exceeds the capacity of the sewer
system or the carrying capacity of the soil. Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings
for this section.
Division 12, Transportation Planning
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments
(1) if an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a
land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing
or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place
measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed
under section 0), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility if it would.
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan),
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this
subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected
conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area
of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an
enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic
generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the
significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility,
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility such that it would not meet the performance standards
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
247-25-000106-TA Page 18 of 27
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance
standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
FINDING: This above language is applicable to the proposal because it involves an amendment to
a land use regulation, specifically the permitted uses within the TUC Zone. The proposed
amendment would allow an RV park as a conditional use on properties that are two -to -fives acres
in size and contiguous to Highway 20. While the Applicant is not proposing any land use
development of a specific property at this time, the application materials indicate the intent is follow
the Text Amendment with a subsequent Conditional Use Permit application to establish an RV park.
The submitted application materials include a traffic memorandum dated January 8, 2025, prepared
by Joe Bessman of Transight Consulting LLC. The traffic memo analyzes a vacant parcel owned by
the Applicant, which consists of 19 adjacent tax lots in the TUC Zone, and would potentially be
eligible for development of an RV park under the amendments. The memo compares the uses that
are currently permitted in the TUC Zone to an RV park to determine whether there would be a
significant increase in trip generation with the new use category. As the memo notes, the TUC Zone
currently allows for a range of commercial uses such as eating and drinking establishments, retail,
and small office buildings.
Based on comparison of current allowable uses within the TuC zoning, the addition of RV
park reflects a lower -intensity use. Accordingly, the proposed text amendment does not have
the potential to create a significant impact on the transportation system...
Key findings of this Transportation Planning Rule analysis that would allow RV parks as a
conditional use within the T! �malo Commercial (TuC) zoning includes the following:
• The proposed text amendment would conditionally allow an RV Park on 19
contiguous lots currently zoned TuC within the unincorporated Tumalo community.
• With a reduction in trips compared to allowable uses, a comparative analysis would
show that all surrounding intersections and corridors will operate better with the text
amendment, and a significant impact does not occur.
• While the siting of the RV Park complies with the comparative analysis required to
satisfy the Transportation Planning Rule, future entitlements will need to assess the
net system impacts as required by DCC 18.116.310. This analysis will need to
demonstrate that adequate system capacity is available to serve these uses.
The traffic memo was reviewed by the County Senior Transportation Planner, who agreed with the
report's conclusions. Staff finds that the proposed Text Amendment will be consistent with the
identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in
the area. The proposed amendments will not change the functional classification of any existing or
planned transportation facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification
system. The County Transportation Planner provided the following comments in an email dated
April 14, 2025:
247-25-000106-TA Page 19 of 27
I have reviewed the application materials for potential Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
OAR 660-012 effects, including the applicant's transportation memorandum produced by
Transight Consulting, LLC, (dated January 8, 2025) and I agree with its assumptions,
methodology, and conclusions. The memorandum adequately addresses reasonable worst
case scenario analysis through a comparison of the existing outright allowed uses (utilizing
ITE category 822 for Strip Retail Plaza as an aggregate category encompassing
eating/drinking establishments, small retail, and offices each totaling less than 10,000
square -feet) to the proposed Campground/RV Park (ITE 416) use and ultimately concludes
that no significant impacts will be anticipated with the proposed text amendment. Staff notes
that, should the proposed text amendment receive approval, further traffic analysis may be
required at the time of future development depending on the future development's vehicle
trip generation potential. While the current text amendment does not absorb County road
capacity, any future proposal for the development of a Campground/RV Park under the
proposed use category must demonstrate compliance with the transportation analysis
requirements of DCC 18.116.310, including p.m. peak hour vehicle trips related to System
Development Charges (SDCs), mitigations, and adequacy of access.
Based on the County Senior Transportation Planner's comments and the traffic memo prepared by
Transight Consulting LLC, staff finds compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule has been
effectively demonstrated.
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OAR 660-015 Division 15 Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals and the Applicant's findings are quoted below:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to
be involved in all phases of the planning process.
RESPONSE: The amendments do not propose to change the structure of the County's citizen
involvement program. Notice of the proposed amendments will be provided in accordance
with the requirements of the DCC. The public hearing on this application will provide the
opportunity for any resident to participate in the land use process. Goal 1 is met.
Goal 2• Land Use Planning
Part I - Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate
factual base for such decisions and actions.
247-25-000106-TA Page 20 of 27
RESPONSE: Goals policies, and processes related to this application are included in the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Title 23, and Deschutes County Code, Title 18 and
Title 22. Compliance with these processes, policies, and regulations are documented within
the subject application. Goal 2 is met.
Goal 3• Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
RESPONSE: No lands will be rezoned as part of this application, furthering the purpose of
Goal 3. The purpose of TuC District, as proposed to be amended, is to "allow a range of
limited commercial and industrial uses to serve the community and surrounding area or the
travel needs of people passing through the area." Tumalo does not contain any lands with
the Comprehensive Plan designation of Agriculture nor the zoning designation of Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU). Goal 3 is met.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's
forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure
the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on
forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife
resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
RESPONSE: The amendments do not propose to rezone or alter forest lands. Further, there
are no lands designated Forest, either by Comprehensive Plan or DCC 18.67, within or
abutting Tumalo. Goal 4 is met.
Goal 5: Open Spaces Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
RESPONSE: The properties potentially affected by the proposed Text Amendment are not
located in the Landscape Management Overlay Zone for the Hwy 20 corridor as that zone
specifically does not overlay the TuC District. Several properties in the TuC District, however,
are within 660 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of the Deschutes River such that those
properties are then within that Landscape Management Overlay Zone. Nevertheless, the
subject Text Amendment does not introduce a new conflicting use to the Landscape
Management Overlay Zone thereby requiring an economic, social, environmental, and
energy ("ESEE") analysis. As noted above, historic RV Parks have always been allowed within
the TuC District. Importantly, the proposed Text Amendment does not alter or change that
any proposed RV Park on properties within the Landscape Management Overlay Zone will
still be required to fully comply with DCC Chapter 18.84. Goal 5 is met.
Goal 6• Air Water and Land Resources Quality
247-25-000106-TA Page 21 of 27
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
RESPONSE: The proposed text amendment will not impact the quality of the air, water, or
land resources. Goal 6 is met.
Goal 7• Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
RESPONSE: To the extent that lands in the TuC District are in areas subject to natural
disasters and hazards, the subject application will serve to mitigate the risk of harm from
such disasters on the property of Deschutes County citizens via the conditional use permit
process and applicable codes and standards. Goal 7 is met.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where
appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
RESPONSE: While Goal 8 itself is most often discussed in relation to destination resorts, it
more broadly directs local jurisdictions to inventory their existing recreation areas, facilities,
and opportunities to determine the existing and future recreational needs of citizens and
visitors, and to plan for recreational opportunities in proportion to the demand for them.
Development of °V Parks helps satisfy *hic goal.
1\ Il. satisfy LI II.J
As aforementioned herein and as evidenced by the County's own feasibility study, there is a
lack of existing RV Parks in Tumalo and its surrounding areas where the existing zoning limits
the opportunities for their development despite the well documented and growing demand
for such uses. The County itself documented that its existing zoning directly limits where RV
Parks may be developed, and the County's existing conditional use requirements in Chapter
18.128 further make such developments not economically feasible. Requiring applicants to
provide full amenities such as showers, sewer, and laundry makes RV Parks practically and
economically infeasible in most locations throughout the County, and then requires all RV
Parks to cater to limited clientele actually seeking such high -end services. Several publicly
owned RV Parks, including Tumalo State Park, La Pine State Park, and the County -owned
Jefferson County RV Park do not include the full list of amenities that are required for new
privately -owned RV Parks in Deschutes County. It is telling that so few RV Parks have recently
been developed in Deschutes County, resulting in the County commissioning its own
feasibility study as discussed above. The proposed Text Amendment will loosen these
requirements to provide new opportunities for RV Parks on at least certain properties in the
TuC District. This better satisfies the recreational needs of Deschutes County citizens and
visitors by providing for siting of RV vehicles and promoting access to nearby recreational
247-25-000106-TA Page 22 of 27
sites including Tumalo State Park, which is estimated to be more than 200,000 visitors a year
according to the Tumalo Community Plan and is increasing annually. Goal 8 is met.
Goal 9: Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
RESPONSE: Although the applicability of Goal 9 is debatable in this context, the County's
current code provisions governing the TuC District nevertheless clearly do not provide the
same economic opportunity as would otherwise be allowed by state rules. Specifically, state
rules allow uses in the TuC District that are intended to serve the travel public. DCC
18.67.040's purpose statement notably omits similar language, instead only allowing uses
that serve the community and surrounding area. Considering the TuC District's location
adjacent to Hwy 20 within the Tumalo community and between Bend and Sisters, omitting
uses that also serve the traveling public undeniably then restricts economic development
within the district. One clear example of a uses that would otherwise be allowed by state
rules and that would otherwise further economic development within the TuC District is an
RV park.
Accordingly, the proposed text amendment complies with Goal 9 because it will permit a new
and varied economic activity i.e., RV Parks, within the TuC District that will allow property
owners within the TuC District an additional opportunity for prosperity. Economic
Development Policy 4 of the Tumalo Community Plan is specifically to "Support economic
development initiatives and tourism in the Tumalo area" which is exactly what this Text
Amendment will do. Goal 9 is met.
Goal 10: Housiniz
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
RESPONSE: The subject application does not propose to change to housing. Goal 10 is met,
to the extent it is applicable. Further, because Tumalo is classified as a Rural Unincorporated
Community under OAR-660-022-0010(7) it is not obligated to fulfill certain housing
requirements.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
RESPONSE: The proposed text amendment will have no adverse effect on the provision of
public facilities and services. In fact, to the extent the Tumalo Basin Sewer District creation
moves forward, it can proceed in lockstep with the new opportunities presented by this Text
Amendment application. Unless and until a sewer district is installed and functioning,
247-25-000106-TA Page 23 of 27
applicants for RV Parks still should be allowed the opportunity as a business decision to
develop and maintain on -site septic systems that are capable of handling the demands of an
RV Park with on -site bathrooms and showers. Increased flexibility for RV Park proposals is
essential if more are ever to be developed in Deschutes County. Goal 11 is met.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment will not impact transportation facilities within the
County. The Applicant engaged a traffic engineer, Joe Bessman of Transight Consulting, LLC,
who prepared a TPR Analysis (attached as Exhibit 4) and will provide a further Traffic Impact
Analysis when future Conditional Use Permit applications for an RV Park are submitted by
the Applicant. Among the findings of the TPR is that an "RV park is a much less intense use
than what is currently permitted within [the TuC District] and therefore does not create a
significant transportation impact. The listing of this use as Conditional will require additional
analysis to ensure that the use is consistent with County and State requirements."
Further, allowing properties in the TuC District to be utilized for RV Parks even if accessed off
something other than an arterial or collector street clearly provides more development
opportunities for RV Parks. Applicants who are capable of meeting all applicable road
standards except for being off an arterial or collector road ought to be provided the same
development opportunity and RV Parks should not be arbitrarily prohibited in such
circumstances. Stated simply, in its current form DCC 18.128.170(0) is blatantly over
regulatory because it prohibits RV Parks on properties that could otherwise meet all
applicable road standards. Rather than instead requiring compliance with those applicable
road standards, DCC 18.128.170(0) elevates access off of an arterial or collector street as a
proxy for those road standards. A property not having access off an arterial or collector is an
arbitrary requirement that has directly contributed to the lack RV Parks being developed
throughout the County.
The County's current policy stance was clarified in a written response received by the
Applicant from County staff after requesting a meeting to discuss DCC 18.128.170(0). The
email communication is included as Exhibit 6. Rather than meeting to discuss the issue,
County staff more directly defended in that written response that DCC 18.128.170(0) in its
current form "aligns with transportation planning principles by balancing accessibility, safety,
and minimal disruption to surrounding communities." However, County staff also noted that
"RV park access and traffic circulation on local roads is not desirable in many situations"
(emphasis added). But something not being desirable in many situations is not the same
thing as not being desirable in all situations, confirming then that DCC 18.128.170(0) it its
current form is over regulatory. Further, County staff assumed that the only other option
would be RV Park access off of local access roads, and failed to address that DCC
18.128.170(0) mandates access off of only arterial or collector streets therefore also
prohibiting access off a state highway, for example. More importantly, County staffs written
response suggested that although they would be "opposed to eliminating [DCC
247-25-000106-TA Page 24 of 27
18.128.170(0)] outright," County staff suggested that they would not then be opposed to
modifying that provision so long as the following listed factors were instead addressed: (1)
traffic capacity and flow; (2) geometric design; (3) pavement design; (4) livability impacts on
local residents; and (5) accessibility and convenience to amenities and state highways.
Although the Applicant questions if the last two aforementioned factors are best addressed
as part of traffic and road issues, to honor County staffs recommendation the Applicant, as
part of the subject Text Amendment, proposes replacing the currently over regulatory DCC
18.128.170(0)—at least within the TuC District —with the same listed factors recommend by
County staff. The intended outcome would be that RV Parks within the TuC District could be
approved off of something other than arterial and collector streets after consideration of
these factors. The proposed text amendment does not eliminate the purposes of DCC
18.128.170(0) outright as County staff cautioned, rather it provides more flexibility and
opportunity for development of RV Parks when the County itself has determined that such
uses are severely lacking throughout our community. Stated simply, when the County
Commissioners themselves have expressed they want to foster RV Park development
throughout the County, any blatantly over regulatory code provision that unnecessarily
prohibits RV Parks on otherwise qualifying properties should be re-examined.
As a final comment, the impact of DCC 18.128.170(0) on RV Park development should not be
lost on the County. The County's very own feasibility study discussed above identified three
properties where the County itself may consider developing an RV Park. Two out of three
sites identified by that feasibility study would not meet DCC 18.128.170(0), yet those two
sites were not then immediately excluded from further consideration. Specifically, the
Crooked River Ranch Site's only means of access is via NW 8th Court, a "Rural Local" road.
The Fort Thompson Site's only means of access is off Oregon State Highway 97 which also is
not an "arterial or collector street." If pursued further, both aforementioned sites would likely
require zone changes and/or text amendments before RV Parks would be viable options.
Assuming the County would then pursue legislative amendments allowing RV Parks as
conditional uses on those two aforementioned properties, then the County would be in the
very same position as the Applicant when it comes to the addressing DCC 18.128.170(0). If
the County's intention is to staunchly defend that RV Parks should only be developed on
properties with direct access from arterial or collector streets, then presumably the County's
own feasibility study would not have wasted resources analyzing two properties that do not
meet that overly stringent standard.
Goal 12 is met.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment will have a de minimis effect on the provision of
public facilities and services. To the extent Goal 13 is applicable, new RV Parks developed in
the TuC District will be designed and constructed with best practices for the modern-day
construction industry, including energy efficient design standards, as well as the ability to
247-25-000106-TA Page 25 of 27
accommodate vehicles that are of the "van -life" variety and less consumptive than larger
traditional RVs of both the motorized and trailer variety.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
RESPONSE: Goal 14 concerns the provision of urban and rural land uses to ensure efficient
use of land and livable communities. The proposed amendment does not amend an urban
growth boundary, and RV Parks are permitted as a conditional use in several other rural
zones throughout the County. Like the TuC District, these other zones serve rural
communities. RV Parks are not exclusively an "urban use" and RV Parks significantly
contribute to rural recreational opportunities. The subject application proposes to limit RV
Parks to lands in the TuC District that are located in close proximity to the adjacent State Hwy
20, thereby promoting an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use to the
extent applicable. Goal 14 is met.
Goals 15-19
RESPONSE: Goals 15 through 19 do not apply (Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; Goal 16
Estuarine Resources; Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes; and Goal 19
Ocean Resources).
Staff generally accepts the Applicant's responses and finds compliance with the applicable
Statewide Planning Goals has been effectively demonstrated.
IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Hearings Officer determine if the Applicant has met the burden of proof
necessary to justify the proposed Text Amendment through effectively demonstrating
compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 18 (the Deschutes County Zoning
Ordinance), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable sections of OAR and
ORS.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
a I
q1_J �
Written by: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
247-25-000106-TA Page 26 of 27
AVkI6 1 -1 ,,e-
z It
Reviewed by: Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner
Attachments: 1) Proposed Text Amendments
247-25-000106-TA Page 27 of 27
Attachment A: Proposed Text Amendments
18.67.040 Commercial (TuQ District
The Tumalo Commercial District is intended to allow a range of limited commercial and industrial uses to
serve the community and surrounding area or the travel needs of people passing through the area.
A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not
require site plan review under DCC 18.124.
1. A single -unit dwelling or duplex.
2. A manufactured dwelling subject to DCC 18.116.070.
3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition,
subdivision, or subject to the standards of DCC 18.67.060 and 18.116.230.
5. Class III road or street project.
6. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an
Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
7. Residential home.
B. Uses Permitted, Subject to Site Plan Review. The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.67, 18.116, and 18.124:
1. A building or buildings, none of which exceeds 4,000 square feet of floor area to be used
by any combination of the following uses:
a. Retail or service business.
b. Eating and/or drinking establishment.
c. Offices.
d. A dwelling unit permitted outright or conditionally, in the same building as a use
permitted in DCC 18.67.040.
e. Marijuana wholesaling, office only. There shall be no storage of marijuana items
or products at the same location.
2. Any of the uses listed under DCC 18.67.040 proposing to occupy more than 4,000 square
feet of floor area in a building subject to the provisions of DCC 18.67.040(E).
3. Child care facility and/or preschool.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the
applicable provisions of DCC 18.116, 18.124, and 18.128:
1. Religious institutions or assemblies.
2. Bed and breakfast inn.
3. Type 2 or Type 3 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Park.
5. Public or semi-public building.
6. Utility facility.
7. Water supply or treatment facility.
8. Manufactured dwelling on a lot or parcel in use as a manufactured dwelling park
Featkwi A•ehk4e park prior to the adoption of PL-15 in 1979 and being operated as
of June 12, 1996, as a manufactured dwelling park , including
any expansion of such uses on the same lot or parcel as configured on June 12, 1996.
9. The following uses and their accessory uses may be conducted in a building or buildings
not to exceed 4,000 square feet of floor area.
a. Farm equipment, sales, service, or repair.
b. Trailer sales, service, or repair.
c. Vehicle service or repair.
d. Veterinary clinic.
10. The following uses may be conducted in a building or buildings not to exceed 10,000
square feet of floor area:
a. Manufacturing or production.
b. Wholesale sales.
c. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
11. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements
of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B).
12. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and
maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the
excavation and mining for facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off -site use, storage, and
sale of excavated material.
13. Psilocybin service centers, subject to the provisions of DCC'18.116.380.
14. Recreational Vehicle Parks.
D. Use Limitations. The following use limitations shall apply to the uses listed in DCC
18.67.040(C)(10).
1. Compatibility.
a. Any use expected to generate more than 50 truck -trailer and/or heavy equipment
trips per day to and from the subject property shall not be permitted to locate on
a lot or parcel abutting or across a local or collector street from a lot or parcel in
a residential district.
2. Traffic and Parking.
a. A use that generates more than 20 auto or truck trips during the peak hour of the
day to and from the premises shall document with facts that the affected
transportation facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use, considering the
functional classification, capacity, and level of service of the affected
transportation facility.
b. All parking demand generated by uses permitted by DCC 18.67 shall be
accommodated entirely on the premises.
E. Requirements for Large Scale Uses.
1. All uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(B) may have a total floor area exceeding 4,000 square
feet but not greater than 10,000 square feet if the Planning Director or Hearings Body
finds:
a. The use is intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area, or the
traveling needs of people passing through the area;
b. The use will primarily employ a work force from the community and surrounding
rural area; and
c. It is not practical to contain the proposed use within 4,000 square feet of the floor
area.
2. This provision does not apply to uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10).
3. For the purposes of DCC 18.67.040, the surrounding rural area is described as the
following: extending north to the Township boundary between Townships 15 and 16;
extending west to the boundary of the public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service in
T16S-R11E; extending south to the south section lines of T17S-R12E sections 4,5,6 and
T17S-R11E sections 1,2,3; and extending east to Highway 97.
F. Design Standards. Ground Floor Windows. The following criteria for ground floor windows apply
to new buildings in the TuC district except those uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10) and any
residential use. The provisions of DCC 18.124 also apply.
1. The windows must be at least 50 percent of the length of the ground level wall area and
25 percent of height of the ground level wall area. Ground level wall area includes all
exterior wall area up to nine feet above the finished grade. The window requirement
applies to the ground level of exterior building walls which abut sidewalks or streets.
2. Required window areas shall be either windows that allow views into working areas,
lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display windows.
G. Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet. In addition, lot area
requirements for this district shall be determined by spatial requirements for sewage disposal,
required landscaped areas, and off-street parking.
H. Lot Coverage Standards.
1. Lot Coverage: No lot coverage requirements, provided spatial requirements for parking,
sewage disposal, and landscaping are satisfied.
2. No use listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10) that is abutting or across a local or collector from a
lot or parcel in a residential district shall exceed 70 percent lot coverage, including outside
storage, and off-street parking and loading areas.
I. Setback Standards.
1. Front Setback. The front setback shall be a maximum of 15 feet, except as otherwise
allowed by DCC 18.124.070 (D)(3). The front setback for structures may be reduced, but
not increased, to the average setback distance of existing structures on abutting lots or
parcels.
2. Side Setback. No requirement, subject to DCC 18.67.040(I)(4).
3. Rear Setback. No specific requirement, subject to DCC 18.67.040 (1)(4).
4. Exceptions to Setback Standards.
a. Lot line(s) abutting a residential zone. For all new structures or substantial
alterations of a structure requiring a building permit, on a lot or parcel abutting a
residential district, the setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. The required
setback will be increased by one foot for each foot by which the structure height
exceeds 20 feet.
b. Lot line(s) abutting an EFU zone. Any structure requiring a building permit, on a
lot or parcel abutting EFU-zoned land receiving special assessment for farm use,
shall have a minimum setback of 100 feet from any shared lot line.
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks shall only be allowed on a single parcel or contiguous parcels
under common ownership that meet the following requirements:
a. The area of the parcels) proposed for development shall exceed 2 acres but no
more than 5 acres;
b. The parcels) shall all be located in a sewer district; and
c. The single parcel or at least one of the contiguous parcels under common
ownership shall be adjacent to State I�i�hway 20.
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
a. For sewage disposal service and laundry facilities only, Recreational Vehicle
Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall not be required to comply with
DCC 18.128.170(0) and (J) until a sewer district is willing and able to provide
service to the proposed project. The County may include conditions of approval
reguirin�Recreational Vehicle Parks to provide sewer connection to each
recreational vehicle space and to provide laundry facilities as outlined in DCC
18.128.170(J) once sewer service is available from a sewer district
b. To ensure compliance with DCC 18.128.170(G), Recreational Vehicle Parks in the
Tumalo Commercial District shall only provide temporary lodging with no
recreational vehicles utilized as permanent "residential dwellings" as that term
is used in ORS 197.493.
c. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(0) requiring that access to a Recreational
Vehicle Park shall be from an arterial or collector street shall not be applicable
in the Tumalo Commercial District so long as an applicant instead demonstrates
that the street providing direct access to the proposed Recreational Vehicle
Park shall not be unreasonably impacted. To demonstrate compliance with this
standard, an applicant shall address traffic capacity and flow, geometric design,
pavement design, livability impacts on local residents, and accessibility and
convenience to amenities and state highways.
ES CO
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
o, <
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
14,
Subject:
� � Date: �� � �
Name
tMi
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address Ln e°
0 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
Schwabe
September 2, 2025
VIA E-MAIL
Deschutes County Commissioners
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97703
board@deschutes.org
RE: Deschutes County File No. 247-25-000106-TA
Our File No.: 112220-285883
Commissioners,
D. Adam Smith
Admitted in Oregon and Colorado
D: 541-749-1759
asmith@schwabe.com
Our firm represents Joel Gisler, the applicant seeking a text amendment primarily
concerning RV Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District (File No 247-25-000106-TA). We
recently discovered Item 5 on your September 3, 2025 agenda relating to that same project.
Unfortunately, several inaccurate statements in your agenda packet perpetuate a procedural error
that now requires the filing of this formal objection, explained more fully below. Also discussed
below are several inaccurate statements included in the staff report also included in your
September 3 agenda packet.
Procedural Obiection:
Our procedural objection initially stems from statements made by the County hearings
officer during the June 16, 2025 hearing. Specifically, the County hearings officer stated that he
was only making a "recommendation" on my client's project, and that the County
Commissioners would ultimately be tasked with making the final decision. Instead, Deschutes
County Code ("DCC") 22.28.030(B) makes clear that because the subject application does not
concern resource lands or an exception to a Statewide Planning Goal, the County hearings
officer's decision is final "in the absence of an appeal or review initiated by the Board[.]" Stated
simply, the hearings officer's decision regarding my client's application will be final and only
later memorialized in an ordinance adopted by the County Commissioners unless the County
Commissioners "call-up" the matter or unless an appeal is filed. And if an appeal is filed, then
the County Commissioners must then hear that appeal.
Unfortunately, County staff s draft orders included as part of your September 3, 2025
agenda perpetuates the hearings officer's initial error by again erroneously stating that "pursuant
to Section 22.28.030 of the [DCC], the hearings officer shall issue a recommendation on the
quasi-judicial Text Amendment" (emphasis added). The draft orders also perpetuate a second
procedural error suggesting that the County Commissioners have discretion to not even hear an
appeal. Specifically, the second version of the draft order declining to call-up the case
360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 1 Bend, OR 97702 1 M 541-749-4044 1 F 541-330-1153 1 schwabe.com
112220\285883\48611066.1
Deschutes County Commissioners
September 2, 2025
erroneously states that "the Board shall adopt the hearings officer's recommendation as the
County decision." As stated above, DCC 22.28.030 makes clear that the hearings officer's
decision is final unless called -up by the County Commissioners or unless an appeal is filed.
And, if an appeal is filed, then the County Commissioners must hear the case.
These procedural errors must be corrected because they may directly influence whether
or not a party files an appeal of the County hearings officer's decision. Most concerning, a
project opponent who attended the June 16 hearing may elect to not file an appeal based on the
hearing office (and now staff) indicating that the hearings officer's decision is only a
"recommendation," that will then be considered by the County Commissioner during second
public hearing.
Additionally, these procedural errors also indirectly invoke other concerns regarding the
appropriate appeal fee to be charged to an appellant. It has always been our position that the
high -cost of my client's initial appeal fee already accounted for two public hearings, the first
before the hearings officer and the second before the County Commissioners. Accordingly, our
position remains that the County cannot and should not charge any appellate any appeal fee to
then appeal the hearings officer's decision.
Both aforementioned procedural issues were previously raised with County staff,
prompting County staff to then commit to urging the County Commissioner to preemptively Gall-
up my client's project. County staffs proposed resolution make senses because the County
Commissioner's calling -up the project both avoids the appeal fee issue while likewise ensuring
that a second public hearing will be held. We therefore suspect (and hope) that County staff still
supports that outcome and that the above -mentioned errors in the September 3 agenda were not
intentional.
For those reasons, my client likewise urges the County Commissioners to call up File No
247-25-000106-TA. Both my client and the County should be self -interested in avoiding
obvious procedural errors that could lead to a LUBA appeal which in turn would tie up this
project for months -and -months.
Inaccuracies in the Staff Report:
My client is also concerned that the staff report initially prepared for the hearings officer
proceedings was again included as part of your September 3, 2025 agenda packer, presumably to
provide background on my client's project. As explain during the hearings officer's public
hearing and again during the subsequent written record period, that staff report includes
numerous inaccurate statements. Most troubling, the staff report includes a map on page 10
(PDF packet page 61) which suggests that two properties within the Tumalo Commercial District
would presently qualify for an RV Park development if that proposed text amendment is
approved. Many opponents during the hearings officer proceeding directly testified that they
360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 1 Bend, OR 97702 1 M 541-749-4044 ( F 541-330-1153 1 schwabe.com Page 2
Deschutes County Commissioners
September 2, 2025
opposed the project specifically because of the erroneous inclusion of the 2.2 acre property on
the west side of Highway 20. That opposition not only was distracting, but it also then prompted
my client to propose further amendments to during the hearings officer proceedings to then
appease those opponents. Nevertheless, those further amendments do not appear to have been
provided to the County Commissioners or otherwise included as part of the September 3, 2025
agenda.
To ensure a more balanced understanding of my client's project, we urge the County
Commissioners to also review our June 30, 2025 open record submittal provided to the hearings
officer. The submittal includes our additional text amendments, and further addresses other
inaccurate statements in the original staff report. For your convenience, that submittal is
attached to this letter but with the attachments omitted as they are otherwise included in the
record.
Thank you for reviewing this letter and including this letter in the record for File No 247-
25-000106-TA. Again, we urge the County Commissioners to call-up File No 247-25-000106-
TA to cure the procedural errors outlined in this letter.
Sincerely,
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
D. Adam Smith
DASM
360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 1 Bend, OR 97702 1 M 541-749-4044 1 F 541-330-1153 1 schwabe.com Page 3
Attachment A
June 30, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Deschutes County Hearings Officer Tommy Brooks
c/o Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
117 NW Lafayette Ave
Bend, OR 97703
Audrey. Stuart(a� deschutes. org
RE: Deschutes County File No. 247-25-000106-TA;
Tumalo RV Park Text Amendment;
Suggested Changes to Originally Proposed Text
Amendment Language
Our File No.: 142627-285019
Dear Mr. Brooks:
D. Adam Smith
Admitted in Oregon and Colorado
D:541-749-1759
dasmith@schwabe.com
This letter constitutes the Applicant's open record submittal. Additional legal arguments based
upon the evidence attached hereto will be included as part of the Applicant's final legal argument, to be
filed on or before July 28, 2025.
I. Refinements to Proposed DCC 18.67.040(J) Amendments
As noted during the June 16, 2025 public hearing, the Applicant is proposing further refinements
to the originally -proposed Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 18.67.040(J) which differ from the version
of that subsection (J) included in the Applicant's narrative.' As further noted during the hearing, these
refinements are intended to address concerns expressed by Tumalo community members prior to and
during the public hearing.
As subsection (J) will be an entirely new section added to DCC 18.67.040, these further
refinements are highlighted below in RED to then illustrate those changes when compared to version of
subsection (J) included as part of the initial application. The proposed changes to the preamble of DCC
18.67.040 and subsection (C)(8) plus the addition of new subsection (c)(14) are still proposed and
unchanged from the original Text Amendment.
The Applicant asserts that these proposed refinements to what will be DCC 18.67.040(J) do not constitute a "modification
of application" as governed by DCC 22.20.055. As noted specifically by DCC 22.20.055(B), the term "modification of
application" is further defined by DCC 22.04.020 with regard only to the "submittal of new information * * * that would
modify a development proposal* * *." In this case, the subject application is a quasi-judicial text amendment which may
then lead to a "development proposal" to be submitted at a later date. However, because the pending application itself is not
a "development proposal," any party —including the Applicant —should be entitled to propose further legislative refinements
that do not then constitute a modification of the original application.
112220\285883\48437345.2
DCC 18.67.040 Commercial (TuC) District
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks shall only be allowed on a single parcel or contiguous
parcels under common ownership that meet the following requirements:
a. The area of the parcel(s) proposed for development shall exceed 2 2.3 acres
but no more than 5 acres;
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in a sewer district or confirmation shall be
provided that a sewerage system that can serve the proposed sewage flow
from the Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and physically available;
and
c. The single parcel or at least one of the contiguous parcels under common
ownership shall be adjacent to State Highway 20.
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
r _
1NIMMr
r
13-.a. To ensure compliance with DCC 18.128.170(G) which prohibits any
recreational vehicle remaining in a park for more than 30 days in a 60 day
period, Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
only provide temporary lodging with no recreational vehicles utilized as
permanent "residential dwellings" as that term is used in ORS 197.493.
F:b. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(0) requiring that access to a
Recreational Vehicle Park shall be from an arterial or collector street shall
not be applicable in the Tumalo Commercial District so long as an applicant
instead demonstrates that the street providing direct access to the proposed
Recreational Vehicle Park shall not be unreasonably impacted. To
demonstrate compliance with this standard, an applicant shall address traffic
capacity and flow, geometric design, pavement design, livability impacts on
local residents, and accessibility and convenience to amenities and state
highways.
c. Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
impose quiet hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am daily.
112220\285883\48437345.2
II. Explanation of Proposed Refinements
a. Minimum Acreage Requirement
As estimated by the Applicant, at least 1/3 of the public comments submitted prior to or during the
June 16 public hearing specifically oppose an RV Park being developed on two properties owned by
BMD Investments west of Highway 20 and accessed by Wood Avenue (the "Wood Avenue Properties").
The specific concern regarding the Wood Avenue Properties stems from Figure 1 in the Staff Report
purporting to show two adjoining groups of properties that would potentially qualify for an RV Park
development if the subject text amendment is approved. However, Figure 1 only illustrates properties
that are under common ownership in the Tumalo Commercial District ("TuC District") with at least one
such property adjacent to Highway 20.
In response to the public comments opposed to an RV Park being developed on the Wood Avenue
Properties, the Applicant re -visited Figure 1 and determined that the figure is unintentionally misleading.
Specifically, Figure 1 neglects the proposed DCC 18.67.040(J)(1)(b) also requiring a qualifying property
to be "located in a sewer district." As shown by Exhibits 12, 13, and 14 attached hereto, the Wood
Avenue Properties are not currently included in the newly -formed Tumalo Basin Sewer District and
therefore should likely not have been included in Figure 1 as a qualifying property. The Applicant
assumes that had Figure 1 correctly identified only those properties that meet all three proposed DCC
18.67.040(J)(1) subparts—i.e. 2-5 acres, adjacent to Highway 20 and included in a sewer district —then a
number of Tumalo community members would not have provide written or oral comments opposing the
pending text amendment.
As discussed in the following section, the Applicant is proposing to further amend DCC
18.67.040(J)(1)(b) to allow a qualifying property to be in a sewer district or to receive central sewer
service from another non -district provider. To still ensure that the Wood Avenue Properties will not then
qualify for a future RV Park development if securing central sewer from another non -district provider, the
Applicant is also then proposing to increase the minimum acreage requirement purse>ant to DCC
18.67.040(J)(1)(a) from 2 acres to 2.3 acres.
b. Central Sewer Services
Several opponents testified that it may take several years for the newly -formed Tumalo Basin
Sewer District to provide sewer services to the Applicant's property. Further, based on other public
comments, the Applicant presumes that the majority of the Tumalo community prefer that any RV Park
located in the TuC District rely entirely on central sewer rather utilize a on -site septic system.
While the Applicant does not necessarily share the same concerns regarding on -site septic
systems, the Applicant nonetheless proposes to further amend DCC 18.67.040(J)(1)(b) to require a
property to be located within a sewer district or to otherwise be served by a central sewer system. The
language proposed to be added to DCC 18.67.040(J)(1)(b) includes language taken directly from OAR
340-071-0160(4) as cited in the project comments submitted by the County's Onsite Wastewater
Manager, Todd Cleveland. Although currently providing central sewer services only on the west side of
Highway 20, there is one such central sewer system that is already looking to expand to the east of
Highway 20. See Exhibit 9.
To further address the public comments regarding on -site septic systems, the Applicant also
proposes to delete the originally -proposed DCC 18.67.040(J)(2)(a) which would have waived the
requirement to provide laundry facilities and sewer connections for each RV space until central sewer was
available. Removing DCC 18.67.040(J)(2)(a) is a significant concession and should not be overlooked.
11 2220\2858 83\4843 7345.2
The Applicant's intention behind proposing DCC 18.67.0400)(2)(a) was to provide a mechanism for an
RV Park to be developed in the TuC District in the near term utilizing an on -site septic system with that
RV Park then being upgraded at a later date when central sewer services were more widely available. By
eliminating that provision, the Applicant is now likely conceding to wait to pursue an RV Park
development until such time that central sewer services are available, thereby specifically appeasing
testimony from a number of Tumalo community members concerned about septic systems generally
along with specific concern regarding environmental impacts to neighboring wells, impacts to the
Deschutes River, etc.
C. Occupancy Limits
From the Applicant's perspective, likely the biggest issue addressed by opponents were concerns
that any proposed RV Park in the TuC District would turn into transient lodging akin to a camp for
houseless individuals. During the June 16 public hearing, the Applicant already discussed that the
economics of developing an RV Park that complies with DCC 18.128.170 forces higher daily fees, which
thereby ensures that any new RV Park in Deschutes County will likely cater to higher -end RVs, Sprinter
Vans, etc., and thereby precluding transient lodging. The Applicant also noted during the hearing that the
originally proposed DCC 18.67.040(J)(2)(b) would only allow any RV Park in the TuC District to
provide such "temporary lodging" while likewise prohibiting any RV from being used as "residential
dwelling."
As a further concession to opponents, the Applicant proposes to further modify what is now
proposed as DCC 18.67.040(J)(2)(a) to directly prohibit any RV from remaining in an RV Park in the
TuC District for more than 30 out of 60 days. The language added to DCC 18.67.040(J)(2)(a) is taken
directly from DCC 18.128.170(G) which already imposes the same 30-day limit. Accordingly, the
proposed addition to DCC 18.67.040(J)(2)(a) then reiterates that 30-day limit within the TuC District
code provisions.
d Quiet Hours
As a final matter, several Tumalo community members testified generally that an RV Park in the
TuC District would be incompatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Applicant notes
first that any specific concerns with regard to a specifically -proposed RV Park will be addressed as part of
a forthcoming conditional use permit application. When it comes more broadly to the assertion that RV
Parks are incompatible with surrounding uses and other uses within the TuC District, the Applicant
specifically disagrees with that assertion. In response, the Applicant notes that historic RV Parks were
always allowed in the TuC District, suggesting that they are —in fact ---compatible. If the County's intent
was to prohibit RV Parks from being established in the TuC District because of compatibility concerns,
then the County would have not included historic RV Parks as a conditional use in the TuC District
pursuant to the current DCC 18.67.040(C)(8), and instead would have addressed any pre-existing RV
Parks as non -conforming uses.
Additionally, the Applicant presumes that many Tumalo community residents are unaware of the
numerous requirements already imposed on RV Parks by DCC 18.128.170. For example, several
opponents testified about concerns regarding the visual impacts caused by RV Parks, thereby disregarding
DCC 18.128.170(L) which already requires at least a 6-foot-tall sight obscuring fence screening any RV
Park on all sides. Similarly, other opponents testified that they were concerned about noise caused by RV
generators. Again, that testimony disregards DCC 18.128.170(E) requiring each RV space to be provided
with electrical services, thereby negating the use of RV generators in most circumstances.
As an additional concession, however, the Applicant proposes to add DCC 18.67.040(J)(2)(c)
112220\285883\48437345.2
requiring quiet hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am each night to thereby further address concerns regarding
noise impacts. Noise impacts appear to be the only substantive compatibility issue not otherwise already
addressed by the County in DCC 18.128.170, and the Applicant thereby proposes to plug the gap, at least
for new RV Parks established in the TuC District.
III. Continued Outreach to Neighbors
As noted during the June 16 hearing, the Applicant's intent is to continue coordinating with
Tumalo community members to address reasonable concerns. As demonstrated by Exhibit 18, the
Applicant sent emails to a number of Tumalo community members inviting further conversations
regarding the subject text amendment. Additionally, the Applicant is intending to hosting a neighborhood
meeting at 2:00 pm on July 5, 2025, at 19861 8th St in Tumalo. The Applicant encourages any and all
community members to attend that neighbor meeting, learn more about the project, and continue the
conversation on how best to incorporate new RV Parks in the TuC District.
Sincerely,
n P-
D. Adam Smith
DASM/bwt
Enclosures
112220\285883\48437345.2
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
DECISION, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING DATE:
HEARING LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
SUBJECT PROPERTIES:
247-25-000106-TA
June 16, 2025, 1:00 p.m.
Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
Joel Gisler
The Tumalo Commercial Zone encompasses multiple properties
REQUEST: Applicant requests text amendments to Deschutes County Code
Chapter 18.67, Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts. The proposed text amendments would modify
the Cody to add recreational vehicle parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial (TUC) zone.
The proposed amendments also include specific siting standards and modifications to road access
standards.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant's request satisfies all
procedural and substantive criteria necessary to approve the Applicant's request for amendments to the
text of the Deschutes County Code as modified during this proceeding and by this Recommendation. The
Hearings Officer recommends the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners adopt by ordinance
the langauge set forth in this Recommendation as Exhibit B.
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code and Comprehensive Plan
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.67, Tumalo Rural Community Zoning District
Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE
A. Background
The Applicant requests amendment of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") to add a
conditionally allowable use of recreational vehicle ("RV") parks in the Tumalo Commercial (TUC) zone.
The TUC zone is one of six zones in the County's Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts governed
by CDC Chapter 18.67.1 Under current Code provisions, RV parks are already allowed as a conditional
use in the TUC zone, but only "on a lot or parcel in use as a manufactured dwelling park or recreational
vehicle park prior to the adoption of PL-15 in 1979 and being operated as of June 12, 1996, as a
manufactured dwelling park or recreational vehicle park, including any expansion of such uses on the
same lot or parcel as configured on June 12, 1996."2 The Applicant requests a text amendment for the
purpose of eventually seeking an entitlement to develop an RV park on one specific property in the TUC
zone.
The Applicant's proposal initially requested the following text amendments to DCC 18.67.040:
(1) a revised purpose statement; (2) revisions to DCC 18.67.040(C)(8) and a proposed additional section
— DCC 18.67.040(C)(14) — intended to allow RV parks as conditional uses without the current temporal
requirements; and (3) a proposed new section — DCC 18.67.040(J) — establishing various siting standards
for RV parks. The Applicant included its requested text amendments in the Application. After the Hearing,
and in response to some of the comments made at the Hearing, the Applicant submitted revisions to the
specific text amendments it seeks. This Recommendation will refer to the Applicant's final version of the
proposed text amendments, attached as Exhibit A, as the "Text Amendments."
Prior to the Hearing, Staff from the County's Community Development Department ("Staff')
issued a Staff Report describing the Application and the applicable criteria ("Staff Report"). The Staff
Report does not make a recommendation, but the Staff Report does address the applicable criteria and
makes certain findings.
B. Notice and Hearing
On April 3, 2025, the County issued a Notice of Application seeking comments on the Application.
On May 15, 2025, the County issued a Notice of Public Hearing ("Hearing Notice") for this matter. The
County mailed the Hearing Notice to all owners of property within 250 feet of the TUC Zone, to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development, and to other public agencies. The County also
published the Hearing Notice in the Bend Bulletin on May 18, 2025.
Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on June 16,
2025, beginning at approximately at 1:14 p.m. The Hearing took place in a hybrid format, with the
Applicant, Staff, and other participants present in the Hearing Room, while the Hearings Officer and other
participants participated remotely.
1 DCC 18.67.010.
2 DCC 18.67.040(C)(8). 2
At the beginning of the Hearing, I noted for the record that this phase of review of the requested
Text Amendments would be quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, I directed participants to direct
comments to the approval criteria and standards, and to raise any issues a participant wanted to preserve
for appeal if necessary. At the conclusion of the evidentiary Hearing, and at the request of the Applicant,
I announced that the record would remain open for written materials as follows: (1) any participant could
submit additional materials until June 30, 2025; (2) any participant could submit rebuttal materials until
July 14, 2025; and (3) the Applicant could submit a final legal argument without new evidence by July
28, 2025. Participants were further instructed that all submittals must be received by the County by 4:00
p.m. on the applicable due date. The Hearing concluded at approximately 3:43 p.m.
At the beginning the Hearing, participant Nunziata Gould stated a preliminary objection to the
time the Hearing was held and to any time limits placed on participants. The Hearing was held as set forth
in the Hearing Notice, and participant Gould did not assert that the Hearing Notice or the time of the
Hearing are in violation of the Code or any other legal requirements. Further, the Hearing followed the
procedures set forth in DCC Chapter 22. While I indicated that public comments would be limited to three
minutes each during the Hearing, some individuals, including participant Gould, were given additional
time. No participant asserted that the actual time allotted to each was insufficient or in any way impaired
a substantial right. Based on the foregoing, I find no action was required to further address participant
Gould's preliminary objection.
C. Nature of Decision
The Text Amendments propose revisions only to the language of the Code, and not a map
amendment. The adoption of Code language is generally legislative in nature. Because the Code allows
individuals to request text amendments to the Code and establishes a procedure for processing an
application, the adoption of Code language could also be viewed as quasi-judicial in nature when requested
by an individual. As explained below, this is a unique situation in which the Text Amendments are both
legislative and quasi-judicial in nature. DCC 18.136.010 governs amendments to the Code:
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures
for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A
request by a property owner for a quasi judicial map amendment shall be
accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning
Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
By its express terms, this provision states that the process for a text amendment is as set forth in DCC
22.12. But DCC 22.12 broadly governs "legislative" procedures. DCC 22.04.020 defines legislative
changes as follows:
Legislative changes generally involve broad public policy decisions that
apply to other than an individual property owner. These include, without
limitation, amendments to the text of the comprehensive plans, zoning
ordinances, or the subdivision or partition ordinance and changes in zoning
maps not directed at a small number of property owners.
9
As Staff points out in the Staff Report (attached to this decision as Exhibit C), the Text
Amendments do not fit squarely within this definition. Further, the Code does not expressly define "text
amendment" in the context of legislative changes or in the context of a quasi-judicial land use application,
even though DCC 22.12.030 allows an individual to seek legislative changes through an application
process. The Staff Report suggests that the Text Amendments should be processed in the same manner as
a quasi-judicial plan amendment, which is governed by DCC 22.28.030.
In support of its conclusion, Staff provides a detailed analysis under Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers
v. Benton Co. Bd. of Comm., 287 Or 591, 601 P2d 769 (1979) ("Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers"). In that
case, the Oregon Supreme Court set out a multi -factor test to determine what process applies to a land use
application:
Generally, to characterize a process as adjudication presupposes that the
process is bound to result in a decision and that the decision is bound to
apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts. The latter test alone [applying
preexisting criteria to concrete facts] proves too much; there are many laws
that authorize the pursuit of one or more objectives stated in general terms
without turning the choice of action into an adjudication. Thus a further
consideration has been whether the action, even when the governing criteria
leave much room for policy discretion, is directed at a closely circumscribed
factual situation or a relatively small number of persons. The coincidence
both of this factor and of preexisting criteria of judgment has led the court
to conclude that some land use laws and similar laws imply quasijudicial
procedures for certain local government decisions. Strawberry Hill 4
Wheelers at 602-03.
As Staff correctly notes, the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers decision sets out three factors which must be
considered:
1. Is the inquiry bound to result in a decision?
2. Are there preexisting criteria that are applied to concrete facts?
3. Is the inquiry directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small
number of persons?
I agree with Staff that the three factors listed above, in this case, warrant following a quasi-judicial
process for the Application, at least initially. First, even if the Text Amendments are legislative changes,
the Code provides an opportunity for an individual to make an application to initiate amendments. Whether
the County approves or denies that application, a decision will result, so the inquiry is bound to result in
a decision. Second, the Code contains preexisting criteria applicable to the Applicant's request. Although
those Code provisions are largely procedural, the quasi-judicial process can determine if those
requirements are met. Third, this matter is directed at a relatively small number of persons because the
Text Amendments, as initially proposed, contain siting criteria that effectively limit the impact of the
changes to only two properties.
C!
At the same time, the Text Amendments carry the qualities of a legislative act. The language in
DCC 22.04.020 provides that legislative changes "generally involve broad public policy decisions that
apply to other than an individual property owner" (emphasis added), and that definition does not state that
decisions applicable to only one individual property owner cannot be legislative. Indeed, that Code
provision goes on to list examples of legislative decisions, including amendments to the text of zoning
ordinances.
An important component of DCC 22.12 is DCC 22.12.050, addressing final decisions. That Code
provision states that "[a]ll legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance." That language does not
distinguish between purely legislative changes and those legislative changes that may be processed using
a quasi-judicial process. This makes sense because the DCC is adopted by ordinance, and any changes to
the text of the Code requires an amendment to that adopted ordinance. It also makes sense because ORS
215.503(2) requires that lalll legislative acts relating to comprehensive plans, land use planning or zoning
adopted by the governing body of a county shall be by ordinance" (emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing, I find that, in this case, the adoption of text amendments proposed by an
applicant is a two-step process. In the first step of the process, the Applicant has a right under the Code to
submit and to have considered an application to amend the Code's text. This phase of the process is quasi-
judicial in nature, and it is appropriate to have a hearing and to build a record following the principles of
a quasi-judicial process. As part of that process, the Hearings Officer addresses the application only of the
County's exiting laws. The second step of the process is for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners ("County Board') to adopt an ordinance to incorporate any text amendments to the Code.
Amendments to the text of a zoning ordinance are a change in the County's law, and only the County
Board can make such a change. In other words, the Hearings Officer is without authority to issue a decision
that amends the County's Code. The Hearings Officer, however, can make a recommendation to the
County Board based on what develops in the quasi-judicial phase of the process. The County Board is free
to accept, modify, or reject the Hearings Officer's recommendation.
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Adoption and Incorporation of Findings in Staff Report
The Staff Report contains a comprehensive discussion and conclusion of the criteria applicable
to the Application. Many of the conclusions in the Staff Report are not challenged in this proceeding. In
some areas of the Staff Report, Staff requests that the Hearings Officer either modify Staff's findings or
make the findings directly. I find that the Staff Report correctly lists the applicable criteria, and I hereby
adopt the discussion and conclusions in the Staff Report as my findings. The remainder of the findings in
this Recommendation are intended to supplement the Staff Report and to address specific issues raised
during this proceeding. To the extent any of the findings in this Recommendation conflict with the
discussion and conclusions in the Staff Report, the findings set forth in this Recommendation control
anything to the contrary in the Staff Report.
B. Issues Raised in Opposition to the Application and in the Staff Report
Several participants submitted comments to the record in opposition to the Application. The vast
majority of those comments did not address specific Code provisions. Instead, those comments introduced
general concerns about RV parks. In the findings below, I examine the specific criteria that were addressed
by participants, and I attempt to identify and address criteria that may be invoked by the participants who
testified in opposition to the Application. These findings also address the issues raised in the Staff Report.
1. Sewage Disposal Services
Multiple participants expressed concern over how a new RV park in the TUC zone would handle
wastewater disposal. DCC 18.128.170 regulates wastewater disposal in RV parks and is applicable in all
zones. Under that Code provision, each RV space in an RV park is to be provided with piped potable water
and sewage disposal service, and the RV park must provide a laundry facility.
The Applicant initially proposed language that would require any parcel proposed as an RV park
to be "located in a sewer district," but also proposed creating an exception to certain provisions of DCC
18.128.170, such that an RV park in the TUC zone would not have to comply with the sewage disposal
and laundry requirements "until a sewer district is willing and able to provide service." As acknowledged
by the Applicant, an RV park that developed under that proposal could rely on septic systems until a sewer
system became available.
The concerns raised by some participants generally asserted that septic systems in the TUC zone
are not sufficient and that reliance on that technology would pose environmental and health risks. While
these comments did not identify any particular criterion to which they are relevant, and did not provide
supporting evidence addressing the adequacy of septic systems, the Applicant nevertheless modified the
proposed Code changes to address these concerns. Specifically, the final version of the Text Amendments
remove the originally -proposed exceptions to DCC 18.128.170, while also clarifying that an RV Park
must be located in a sewer district or otherwise provide confirmation that "a sewerage system that can
serve the proposed sewage flow from the Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and physically
available." According to the Applicant, this proposed revision will ensure that each space in an RV park
will be connected to a central sewer system, thereby negating the need to address the sufficiency of septic
systems.
I agree with the Applicant that the removal of the originally -proposed exception to DCC
18.128.170 will address any sewage disposal concerns. Before a conditional use permit for an RV park
may be approved, an applicant must demonstrate that a central sewer system is legally and physically
available. Under DCC 18.128.170, the owner of the RV park would then have to ensure that each space
in an RV park is actually connected to an available sewer system. That being said, I recommend that the
County Board slightly modify the proposed language if it approves the Text Amendments. As proposed,
the language refers to a "sewer district." The actual district that exists in the area is the Tumalo Sanitary
District, and "sanitary district" is the term used in ORS Chapter 450 that allows such districts. I also note
that ORS Chapter 450 allows the creation of a "sanitary authority." I recommend that the Board adhere to
that more precise description by modifying the Applicant's language to read as follows for DCC
18.67.040(J)(1)(b):
R
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in the boundaries of a sewer sanita
district or sanitary authority, or confirmation shall be provided that a
sew sewage collection and disposal system that can serve the proposed
sewage flow from the Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and
physically available; and
2. Comprehensive Plan Policies
The Applicant identified several provisions in the County's Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") as
potentially relevant to the Application. Staff recites those Plan provisions on pages 13 through 16 of the
Staff Report and asks the Hearings Officer to determine if the Applicant has demonstrated compliance
with those provisions.
Participant Kris Cranston submitted comments asserting that the Text Amendments are not
compatible with the County's Plan, which comments were repeated verbatim by other participants. Those
comments, however, simply state that the Plan emphasizes the protection of the rural residential character
and the promotion of orderly, compatible development. Participant Cranston (and others) does not identify
any specific Plan policies on which those comments are based, and, to the contrary, simply state that the
proposed Text Amendments would "violate" Deschutes County Code Title 18 — County Zoning. Other
comments in the record similarly invoke the Plan in broad terms, without reference to specific Plan
provisions. I find that participant Cranston's arguments (and similar or identical arguments of other
participants) are not developed enough for me to address in this Recommendation with respect to
consistency with the Plan. I therefore find that the Applicant's assertions with respect to the Plan
provisions identified on pages 13 through 16 of the Staff report are sufficient to demonstrate compliance
with the Plan.
The Applicant and multiple participants also address the Tumalo Community Plan ("Community
Plan"), which is a component of the Plan. The Applicant points to the economic development goal of the
Community Plan, which is to "[r]etain the economic vibrancy of Tumalo's historic core and industrial
areas while providing economic development opportunities that are compatible with the small town rural
character of the community." Policy 4 under that Goal is to support economic development initiatives and
tourism in the Tumalo area. The Staff Report finds that the proposed Text Amendments are consistent
with that policy. Participants in opposition to the Application do not address the economic development
portion of these goals and policies and, instead, assert that an RV park does not preserve the rural or "small
town" character of the community.
Having reviewed and considered all comments submitted by participants, I find that the Text
Amendments are not inconsistent with the Community Plan. Evidence in the record supports a finding
that RV parks exist in rural areas. Indeed, RV parks are already allowed (albeit in limited circumstances)
in the TUC zone. Further, the Community Plan expressly contemplates that commercial activities should
be encouraged. The Community Plan, as with most Plan provisions, requires a balance between competing
considerations. Based on the record before me, I find that the development of RV parks in the TUC zone
can achieve that balance, and there is nothing inherent about such a development that would require the
prohibition of RV parks in the TUC zone. I also note that the County will still have to review specific
7
development proposals through a conditional use process, during which impacts to surrounding areas will
be considered and a decision will be made based on a fact -specific proposal. At this stage, where the
County is simply determining if some new RV parks may be conditionally allowable in the TUC zone, I
find that the Applicant has demonstrated that they can be, and there is a sufficient basis for the Board to
approve the Text Amendments for that purpose.3
3. Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules
Multiple participants mentioned Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals"), but did not specifically
address those goals. For example, participant Brady submitted comments stating that "the project may be
inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goals 2 (Land Use Planning) and 14 (Urbanization), which prioritize
the containment of high -intensity uses within Urban Growth Boundaries." That assertion was repeated
verbatim by other participants. Because these comments are couched in terms of generalized allegations
that the proposal "may be" inconsistent with the Goals, but do not offer evidence or any specific argument
to support such allegations, I find that these arguments are not sufficiently developed for a response in
this Recommendation.
One Goal that some participants seemed to invoke is Statewide Planning Goal 12 ("Goal 12"),
which relates to transportation. In the context of a text amendment to a land use regulation, the applicable
part of Goal 12 is set forth in OAR 660-012-0060, the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR"). Under the
TPR, the County must consider whether a proposed text amendment will significantly affect a
transportation facility. The Applicant submitted an engineering analysis that concludes the proposal will
not significantly affect a transportation facility. The County's Senior Transportation Planner reviewed and
agreed with the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions in the Applicant's report.
The majority of comments in the record relating to transportation assert that an RV park will cause
unwanted traffic impacts, both in terms of volume and safety. None of those comments credibly assert
that traffic resulting from the Text Amendments will significantly affect a transportation facility as that
term is defined in OAR 660-012-0060, nor do they provide any analysis that disputes the findings in the
Applicant's report. At best, those comments questioned some of the assumptions in the report. Having
reviewed the entire record, I find that the Applicant's has met its burden of proving that the Text
Amendments satisfy the TPR and are consistent with Goal 12.
The Staff Report notes that OAR 660-022-0030 imposes certain requirements the County must
follow when planning unincorporated communities. Among those requirements, OAR 660-022-0030(8)
requires that zoning of rural communities must ensure that cumulative development will not result in
public health hazards or adverse environmental impacts that violate state or federal water quality
regulations and will not exceed the carrying capacity of the soil or of existing water supply resources and
3 The Applicant and the Staff Report also highlight Policy 5 of the Community Plan's economic
development goal, which guards against adverse effects on water resources and wastewater disposal. As
discussed above, I find that the Applicant has adequately addressed waste water disposal. I also find that
the evidence in the record supports a finding that amending the TUC zone to conditionally allow RV
parks will not adversely affect water resources. The Applicant has documented the availability of
municipal water to the properties where RV parks could be developed.
8
sewer services. The Staff Report asks the Hearings Officer to determine if the 'Text Amendments satisfy
the rule language. While other participants addressed broad concerns relating to public health,
environment, water resources, and wastewater disposal, no participant asserted that the Text Amendments
will violate OAR 660-022-0030 generally, or subsection (8) of that rule specifically.
Based on the information provided by the Applicant, I find that OAR 660-022-0030(8) is satisfied.
As concluded above, the Applicant has adequately addressed water resources and wastewater disposal.
Further, no participant asserts that the Text Amendments will cause development that, cumulatively, will
violate state or federal water quality regulations, or that will exceed the carrying capacity of the soil.
4. Policy -Related and Development -Specific Issues
The majority of comments submitted in opposition to the Text Amendments expressed a desire
that the County not allow new RV parks in the Tumalo area. Those comments center around statements
regarding what the County "should" or "should not" do as a matter of policy. Similar comments addressed
site -specific concerns based on assumptions of how a specific RV park would be developed, even though
no development proposal has been submitted
I find that these comments are not relevant at this time. In the context of a proposed text
amendment, the County Board must eventually make a policy decision as to what uses may be allowed
outright and conditionally in the TUC zone. If the Board does approve the Text Amendments, review of
a future conditional use permit application will be the appropriate venue for addressing site -specific or
development -specific concerns.
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings above, which augment the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report, I
find that the Applicant's proposed amendments to DCC Chapter 18.67 comply with the County's
provisions for amending the Code. However, I find that one portion of the Text Amendments could be
revised by the Board of Commissioners in its adoption of an Ordinance approving the application and
amending the Code to better reflect statutory language related to sanitary districts. I therefore recommend
that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners adopt the proposed text amendments presented in
Exhibit A, as modified in Exhibit B by ordinance, unless the Board of Commissioners determines there is
a legislative/policy reason not to adopt the amendments.
Dated this 2nd day of September 2025
ZA� -
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Attachment:
Exhibit A — Text Amendments (Applicant's Version)
Exhibit B — Modified Text Amendments (Hearings Officer's Version)
Exhibit C — Staff Report
EXHIBIT A
APPLICANT'S TEXT AMENDMENTS
DCC 18.67.040 Commercial (TuC) District
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks shall only be allowed on a single parcel or contiguous
parcels under common ownership that meet the following requirements:
a. The area of the parcel(s) proposed for development shall exceed 2.3 acres
but no more than 5 acres;
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in a sewer district or confirmation shall be provided
that a sewerage system that can serve the proposed sewage flow
from the Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and physically available;
and
c. The single parcel or at least one of the contiguous parcels under common
ownership shall be adjacent to State Highway 20.
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
a. To ensure compliance with DCC 18.128.170(G) which prohibits any
recreational vehicle remaining in a park for more than 30 days in a 60 day
period, Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
only provide temporary lodging with no recreational vehicles utilized as
permanent "residential dwellings" as that term is used in ORS 197.493.
b. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(0) requiring that access to a
Recreational Vehicle Park shall be from an arterial or collector street shall
not be applicable in the Tumalo Commercial District so long as an applicant
instead demonstrates that the street providing direct access to the proposed
Recreational Vehicle Park shall not be unreasonably impacted. To
demonstrate compliance with this standard, an applicant shall address traffic
capacity and flow, geometric design, pavement design, livability impacts on
local residents, and accessibility and convenience to amenities and state
highways.
c. Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
impose quiet hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am daily.
10
EXHIBIT B
MODIFIED TEXT AMENDMENTS
DCC 18.67.040 Commercial (TuC) District
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks shall only be allowed on a single parcel or contiguous
parcels under common ownership that meet the following requirements:
a. The area of the parcel(s) proposed for development shall exceed 2.3 acres
but no more than 5 acres;
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in the boundaries of a steer sanitary district or
sanitary authori , or confirmation shall be provided that a sewerage sewage collection
and disposal system that can serve the proposed sewage flow
from the Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and physically available;
and
c. The single parcel or at least one of the contiguous parcels under common
ownership shall be adjacent to State Highway 20.
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
a. To ensure compliance with DCC 18.128.170(G) which prohibits any
recreational vehicle remaining in a park for more than 30 days in a 60 day
period, Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
only provide temporary lodging with no recreational vehicles utilized as
permanent "residential dwellings" as that term is used in ORS 197.493.
b. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(0) requiring that access to a
Recreational Vehicle Park shall be from an arterial or collector street shall
not be applicable in the Tumalo Commercial District so long as an applicant
instead demonstrates that the street providing direct access to the proposed
Recreational Vehicle Park shall not be unreasonably impacted. To
demonstrate compliance with this standard, an applicant shall address traffic
capacity and flow, geometric design, pavement design, livability impacts on
local residents, and accessibility and convenience to amenities and state
highways.
c. Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
impose quiet hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am daily.
11
EXHIBIT C
STAFF REPORT
12
N "J vE S
4
® .®
cb
2�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TUMALO RV PARK TEXT AMENDMENT
FILE NUMBER(S): 247-25-000106-TA
SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Tumalo Commercial Zone encompasses multiple properties
APPLICANT: Joel Gisler
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Adam Smith, of Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt
REQUEST: Amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 18.67, Tumalo
Rural Community Zoning Districts. The proposed amendments will
modify the Deschutes County Code (DCC) to add recreational vehicle
(RV) parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial (TUC) Zone.
The proposed amendments include siting standards for new RV parks
in the TUC Zone, including that the development area must be two -to -
five acres in size, contiguous to Highway 20, and located within a sewer
district. In addition, the proposed amendments will modify the
standards for road access and wastewater facilities for RV parks in the
TUC Zone.
STAFF CONTACT: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
Phone: 541-388-6679
Email: Audrey.Stuart@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www deschutes org/cd/page/247-25-000106-ta-tumalo-rv-
park-text-amendment
APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.67, Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts
Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
II. BASIC FINDINGS
LOT OF RECORD: DCC 22.04.040(B) does not require lot of record verification for Text Amendment
applications. The proposed amendments will apply to all properties within the TUC Zone. Any future
development of an RV park would require property -specific land use review, and lot of record
findings would be made at that time.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The TUC Zone is located within the unincorporated community of Tumalo,
which is located along Highway 20 to the northwest of the City of Bend. The TUC Zone is
predominantly located to the north of Highway 20, but also includes approximately 8.7 acres located
to the south of Highway 20. The development pattern within the TUC Zone includes a variety of
small -to -medium size commercial uses such as food cart pods, a gas station, eating and drinking
establishments, and two small strip malls. The TUC Zone also includes a number of undeveloped
lots as well as existing residential development.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend section 18.67,040, regarding the Tumalo Commercial
(TUC) Zone. The proposed language of the Text Amendment is included as Exhibit 1 and summarized
as follows:
• The Applicant proposes to modify the Purpose statement of the TUC Zone to include the travel
needs of people passing through the area.
• The Applicant proposes to add an RV park as a new conditional use within the zoning district.
• The Applicant proposes siting standards for new RV parks in the TUC Zone and also proposes
certain exceptions to the standards of DCC 18.128.170 for RV parks in the TUC Zone.
Specifically, new RV parks in the TUC Zone would not require road access from a collector or
arterial, and would not be required to provide laundry facilities and sewage disposal until
sewer service is available to the property.
The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following background on the proposed Text
Amendment:
This application is submitted in anticipation of two upcoming companion conditional use
applications. The subject text amendment to DCC Title 18, Chapter 18.67.040, TuC District is
intended to only allow RV Parks on a limited number of parcels in the TuC District owned by
the Applicant, with the two upcoming conditional use applications then seeking approval for
related uses on the Applicant's parcels.
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on April 3, 2025, to several public
agencies and received the following comments:
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Tarik Rawlings
247-25-000106-TA Page 2 of 27
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-25-000106-1-A for a text amendment
request to DCC Chapter 18.67 (Turnalo Rural Community Zoning Districts) to add recreational
vehicle (RV) parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial District (TUC).
I have reviewed the application materials for potential Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
OAR 660-012 effects, including the applicant's transportation memorandum produced by
Transight Consulting, LLC, (dated January 8, 2025) and I agree with its assumptions,
methodology, and conclusions. The memorandum adequately addresses reasonable worst
case scenario analysis through a comparison of the existing outright allowed uses (utilizing
ITE category 822 for Strip Retail Plaza as an aggregate category encompassing
eating/drinking establishments, small retail, and offices each totaling less than 10,000
square -feet) to the proposed Campground/RV Park (ITE 416) use and ultimately concludes
that no significant impacts will be anticipated with the proposed text amendment. Staff notes
that, should the proposed text amendment receive approval, further traffic analysis may be
required at the time of future development depending on the future development's vehicle
trip generation potential. While the current text amendment does not absorb County road
capacity, any future proposal for the development of a Campground/RV Park under the
proposed use category must demonstrate compliance with the transportation analysis
requirements of DCC 18.116.310, including p.m. peak hour vehicle trips related to System
Development Charges (SDCs), mitigations, and adequacy of access.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide comment and please let me know if you have any
questions.
Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Manager Todd Cleveland
This proposal would allow an RV park without full connections for sewer, water and not
require a central comfort station. This would not require connection to a community
wastewater system. However, once a wastewater treatment system becomes available in the
Tumalo , it would be beneficial to provide full connections and services at RV locations. The
lack of sewer connections would limit the length of stay because RV users would need to take
their RV to an approved dump station.
Onsite prefers to have facilities that will promote proper wastewater treatment and disposal
conveniently available. Hopefully, this facility will be able to be connected as soon as possible
when a community wastewater treatment facility becomes available.
Onsite wastewater permits would be unlikely to be approved for the proposed site.
Being in the Tumalo Sanitary District, when sewer becomes both legally and physically
available to this location the only option would be to connect to the sanitary system. An
onsite system could not be permitted once sewer is available (OAR 340-071-0160(4)).
Deschutes County Building Division Krista Appleby June 4 2025 Comments
247-25-000106-TA Page 3 of 27
OAR 650 is applicable to Recreation Parks & Organizational Camps. Per OAR 918-650-
0005(12) definition of 'recreational vehicle park' falls under the Recreation Park
requirements. Referenced Table attached as PDF.
Among other [requirements in] OAR 650, toilets are required - see clip below.
Referenced Table 3-RV is attached as PDF.
Division tl'
# "
918•650-0050
Toilets
(I) T t f ilele routbe, i r of organtzaticmal catrip. They must be convenient and
accessible arxf rust be located within S06 feet of any recreational vehicle so -ace or camping site not pro. idea: with an
ind€vidoat toilet facility or sever connection,
EXCEPTION: The requirement for toilets it, pscnic quarks, campgrounds and of ganizatioAat camps may be waived by the
regulating autf`,ority for areas not accessible by road.
(2)(a) Sanitary facilities crust be as required in Table 3-RV;
b Toilet 8c.ris Toflet f aar.4s for public use roust kxe elongated boos a ith open -front seats. Any f oom with flush toilets
roust be provided v'rit h a floor drain as required in the Oregon Plumbing 5PeciFalty Cade:
=mci Signs. ToRets rc: Ast e thy:_ to Masked fcr the des ign.aled sex or be pfovidc-d with a privacy lock, If not apparent, €he
°oc,aticn of toilets gust be indicated by appt W ate direc boil Signs;
I i Fa :>h Tdilets and Skw �cr r'S. F6 sla toi ets a d sl r..; 's �aa €f tl l r <di. gs contalc ;r„xg t§zsrrt r E ;>t tag co 5tr' a<te; i€s
o ,j rA.
.t;..,.w � _ �:�._��.
t lniSe C ToiaetS. Toilet facigit€C deSigoed to Se rVe an WUNInt Iliad Of 15 VRn'l or IeSS may Serve both sexc-S. Such
toilet facilities must be equipped with a urinal.
; t No r.vater-Carried Toitets. Nontrates-carried toi[ets, including, but not aPrn ted to, claemicai or vault toilets or pit
ptiv€cs. roust be ronstrurt d and located in accordance with the requ:rem nts of the Departr—ncnt of irrnm- taf
Quality.
Deschutes County Building Division Randy Scheid April 3 2025 Comments
The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress,
Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed
during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and
occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
918-650-0010
Scope and Purpose
247-25-000106-TA Page 4 of 27
(1) OAR chapter 918, division 650 establishes minimum safety standards for the design and
construction of recreation parks and organizational camps as authorized in ORS 455.680.
(2) These rules establish design and construction requirements for recreation parks and
organizational camps for the purpose of protecting the life, health, safety and welfare of
persons using these facilities.
EXCEPTIONS:
1- These rules do not apply to parking areas offering access to beaches, marinas, boat ramps,
piers, ski areas, rivers, trails and similar facilities, where no recreational vehicle utility
connections are provided.
2- The area development permit does not include permits or related fees for buildings,
mobile home setups, mechanical, plumbing or electrical systems, boiler, or elevators, or
permits required by other agencies.
Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 455.020, 455.110 & 455.680
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 455.680
History:
BCD 26-2011, f. 9-30-11, cert. ef. 10-1-11
BCA 10-1987, f. & ef. 9-18-87, Renumbered from 814-029-0050
918-650-0020
Permit Required
No person may establish or enlarge the facilities of any recreation park or organizational
camp or do any construction within the recreation park or organizational camp or cause the
same to be done without first obtaining all required permits from the building official and
paying the prescribed permit fees. Multiple permits may be required when the proposed
work involves two or more code areas (i.e., structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical).
EXCEPTION: Applications for permits, submission of plans and payment of fees are not
required for additions, alterations, relocation and maintenance of picnic tables, play
equipment, fire pits and similar facilities in existing parks.
Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 455.020, 455.110 & 455.680
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 455.680
History:
BCD 26-2011, f. 9-30-11, cert. ef. 10-1-11
BCA 10-1987, f. & ef. 9-18-87, Renumbered from 814-029-0065
The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Bend Fire Department, Deschutes County
Assessor, Deschutes County Road Department, Laidlaw Water District, Oregon Department of
Transportation, and Tumalo Irrigation District.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners
within the TUC Zone and within a 250-foot buffer around the TUC Zone on April 3, 2025. As of the
date of this staff report, 62 comments have been submitted by members of the public in opposition
to the proposal. Concerns raised in the public comments included:
• Impacts to neighborhood livability and the transient nature of RV park residents.
• The density of an RV park being incompatible with the rural nature of Tumalo.
247-25-000106-TA Page S of 27
• Increased traffic and whether the local roads are sufficient to accommodate RV's.
• Lack of existing sewage facilities to treat the wastewater from an RV park.
• Whether the Text Amendment conflicts with the Tumalo Community Plan, which was
updated in 2024.
• Impacts to natural resources such as the nearby section of the Deschutes River.
• Whether the proposal is necessary given the nearby facilities at Tumalo State Park.
NOTICE REQUIREMENT: On May 15, 2025, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing
to all property owners within the TUC Zone and within 250 feet of the TUC Zone, as well as to public
agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, May 18, 2025.
Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development on May 12, 2025.
REVIEW PERIOD: According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed
quasi-judicial Text Amendment application is not subject to the 150-day review period.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
Amendments
The Applicant proposes to amend section 18.67.040 of Deschutes County Code to allow RV parks as
a new conditional use within the TUC Zone. The amendments also set forth standards for new RV
parks within the zone, including specific wastewater standards. Currently, wastewater disposal
within RV parks is regulated by DCC 18.128.170, which are conditional use standards that apply to
all zones governed by Title 18. DCC 18.128.170(D) requires each RV space to be provided with piped
potable water and sewage disposal service. The relevant text of the proposed amendments is
copied below, and it would allow the developer of an RV park to only provide sewage disposal
service once a sewer district is able and willing to serve the property. The full text of the proposed
amendments is included as Exhibit 1.
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
A. For sewage disposal service and laundry facilities only, Recreational Vehicle
Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall not be required to comply with
DCC 18.128.170(D) and Q) until a sewer district is willing and able to provide
service to the proposed project. The County may include conditions of
approval requiring Recreational Vehicle Parks to provide sewer connection
to each recreational vehicle space and to provide laundry facilities as
outlined in DCC 18.128.170Q) once sewer service is available from a sewer
district.
Staff notes that agency comments from the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division and
247-25-000106-TA Page 6 of 27
Deschutes County Building Division raise questions about the facilities that would be required under
the proposed amendments. Though it is riot an applicable land use approval criterion, comments
from Building Division staff cite concerns regarding compliance with State Building Code if toilet
facilities are not provided within an RV park. Staff notes these concerns would be addressed at the
time a specific development proposal is submitted. However, staff asks the Hearings Officer to
address these comments as they see fit and as they pertain to applicable approval criteria.
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Section 18.136.010 Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or
legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner
for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on
forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures
of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Applicant, as the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial Text Amendment
and filed the corresponding application. The Applicant has filed the required land use application
forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures
contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
DCC 22.04.020 includes the following definition:
"Quasi-judicial" zone change or plan amendment generally refers to a plan amendment or
zone change affecting a single or limited group of property owners and that involves the
application of existing policy to a specific factual setting. (The distinction between legislative
and quasi-judicial changes must ultimately be made on a case -by -case basis with reference
to case law on the subject.)
The subject application is not a request to change the zoning or Comprehensive Plan designation
of the subject property. However, as described below, the quasi-judicial process of a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is the most applicable guidance regarding Text Amendments that are not squarely
legislative. Therefore, staff includes the definition of a quasi-judicial process above for reference
and also addresses the provisions of DCC 22.28.030, regarding final action on Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The application materials include the following analysis of the process for the subject
Text Amendment:
The subject text amendment application is not an application for a quasi-judicial map
amendment, as this text amendment will not alter the County's zoning map if it is approved.
Existing case law and the DCC allow for flexibility where text amendments may be processed
247-25-000106-TA Page 7 of 27
as quasi-judicial or legislative. See Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Benton County, 287 Or 591
(1979).
StrawberryHi114 Wheelers sets forth certain factors determining when applications are quasi-
judicial or legislative: (1) the process is bound to result in a decision; (2) the decision is bound
to apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts; and (3) the action is directed at a closely
circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons. Id. The more
definitely the questions are answered in the negative, the more likely the decision under
consideration is a legislative land use decision. Id. Each of the factors must be weighed, and
no single factor is determinative. Id.
Here, the subject text amendment application satisfies the first prong as the process is
bound to result in a decision. Either the Text Amendment will be approved or denied. The
second factor is also answered in the positive because the proposed text amendment applies
preexisting criteria from the applicable provisions of the DCC and the Statewide Land Use
Planning Goals to concrete facts i.e., whether the proposed amendments meet those criteria.
Last, and most strongly, the third factor is answered in the positive. The proposed text
amendment applies to a closely circumscribed factual situation and a small number of
persons. The TuC District itself only applies to a small geographic area of the unincorporated
community of Tumalo. Narrowing the scope even more, the text amendment will then only
apply to parcels in the TuC District that are adjacent to Hwy 20, under common ownership,
and collectively between 2 and 5 acres in size. The land use consequences are
disproportionately concentrated on a relatively small pool of persons (if not only the
Applicant), as opposed to a larger region or the general population, therefore a quasi-judicial
procedure is the correct option according to the existing case law. Id.; Van Dyke v. Yamhill
County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No 2018-61, Dec 20, 2018) (slip op at 4).
Indeed, this is also consistent with the DCC itself. "Legislative changes" are defined as those
that "generally involve broad public policy decisions that apply to other than an individual
property owner. These include, without limitation, amendments to the text of the
comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, or the subdivision or partition ordinance and
changes in zoning maps not directed at a small number of property owners. See DCC
22.04.020. The DCC also defines "legislative" as "a planning or zoning action resulting in a
general rule or policy which is applicable to an open class of individuals or situations." See
DCC 18.04.030, By design, the subject text amendment application only applies to a narrow
scope of properties in a zoning district that is unique to Tumalo and not applicable elsewhere
in the entire county. Based on the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers factors, this is a quasi-judicial
application and not a legislative application.
Recently, the Planning Commission used this exact reasoning as part of its basis to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny a proposed text amendment to
allow mini -storage use in the MUA-10 zone along Highway 20. The Planning Commission
recommended denial after specifically determining that the proposed text amendment only
affected a small number of parcels and therefore, in the Planning Commission's opinion,
should have been proposed as a quasi-judicial text amendment. Subsequently, the Board of
247-25-000106-TA Page 8 of 27
County Commissioners apparently agreed with the Planning Commission and denied this
application. See County Planning File No. 247-24-000044-TA.
Although clearly a quasi-judicial application, DCC Chapter 22.24 does not include specific
provisions governing the proposed quasi-judicial text amendment. The closest comparison
is a quasi-judicial zone change or plan amendment, and the Applicant accordingly
recommends that the County utilizes the procedures governing such applications in this
matter. Notably, those procedures require a public hearing in front of the Hearings Officer
with a decision issued thereafter. See DCC. 22.24.020. DCC 22.24.030 sets forth the basic
notice requirements for the hearing. Notably, DCC 22.28.030(A) and (B) clarify that the Board
of County Commissioners then adopts the Hearings Officer's decision without further
argument or testimony unless a separate appeal of that decision is filed.
Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis of Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers and notes the subject
application will result in a decision, utilizes preexisting criteria, and will impact a limited number of
properties.
Deschutes County staff conducted a preliminary analysis to identify the properties in the TUC Zone
that may be potentially eligible for an RV park under the proposed amendments. This analysis
identified properties in the TUC Zone that consist of parcels under common ownership which are
two -to -five acres in size and contiguous to Highway 20. The results of this analysis are shown in the
figure below and identify two properties that may potentially be eligible for an RV park under the
proposed Code language. Staff notes this analysis is only intended to identify the number of
properties impacted by the proposed amendments, and does not guarantee the eligibility or
development potential of the identified properties.
247-25-000106-TA Page 9 of 27
Figure 1: TUC -Zoned Properties under Common Ownership and Contiguous to Highway 20
BMD Investments
2.2 Acres
7TH ST
E
STH ST
F
O
}
LtJ
J
M,
Based on the findings above, the subject request will impact the development potential of
approximately two properties. Therefore, staff finds the subject request complies with the third
component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test and may be categorized as quasi-judicial based
on the small number of persons who will be affected.
When the factors above are considered in combination, staff finds they indicate the subject Text
Amendment is appropriately subjected to a quasi-judicial process. For these reasons, staff finds the
request meets the three-part test outlined in Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers as well as the intent of a
quasi-judicial process.
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Development Procedures ordinance
Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures
Section 22 12 010 Hearing Required
No ►egislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a
public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the
Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless
247-25-000106-TA Page 10 of 27
otherwise required by state law.
FINDING: As described above, staff finds the subject request is a quasi-judicial Text Amendment.
However, the procedural steps will be similar to those of previous quasi-judicial Text Amendments,
where Hearings Officers have determined that they also carry the qualities of a legislative act. The
subject amendments will be adopted through an ordinance, consistent with the process for a
legislative amendment. The Planning Director has exercised their discretion not to set a hearing
before the Planning Commission.
Section 22.12.020, Notice
A. Published Notice.
1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing.
2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a
statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under
consideration.
B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and
where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045.
C. Individual Notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC
22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as
required by ORS 215.503.
D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other
newspapers published in Deschutes County.
FINDING: Notice of the proposed Text Amendment was published in the Bend Bulletin. Staff mailed
a Notice of Application and a subsequent Notice of Public Hearing to property owners within the
TUC Zone and within 250 feet of the TUC Zone. At the discretion of the Planning Director, posted
notice was not required since the subject request is not property -specific. Staff notes a future
application to develop an RV park on a specific property would require posted notice pursuant to
DCC 22.24.030(B).
Section 22 12 030 Initiation Of Legislative Changes
A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of
required fees as well as by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Commission.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted the required fees and requested a Text Amendment. Staff
finds the applicant is granted permission under this criterion to initiate a legislative change and has
submitted the necessary fee and materials.
Section 22 12 040 Hearings Body
A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this
order.
247-25-000106-TA Page 11 of 27
1. The Planning Commission.
2. The Board of County Commissioners.
FINDING: As described above, the subject application meets the definition of a quasi-judicial
application. For this reason, this application was referred to a Hearings Officer rather than the
Planning Commission for a recommendation. The adoption of the proposed text amendments will
follow a legislative process because it must be approved by the Board. For the purpose of this
criterion, staff notes the application has properties of both a quasi-judicial and legislative
amendment.
B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of
Commissioners.
FINDING: The subject application was not initiated by the Board. Staff finds this criterion does not
apply.
Section 22.12.050, Final Decision
All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance.
FINDING: Staff finds this criterion requires action by the Board to effect any legislative changes to
Deschutes County Code. If the proposed Text Amendment is approved, it will become effective
through the Board adoption of an ordinance.
Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
Section 22 28 030 Decision On Plan Amendments And Zone Changes
A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission when
acting as the Hearings Body shall have authority to make decisions on all quasi-
judicial zone changes and plan amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi-
judicial plan amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
B. in considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial plan
amendments on which the Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision, the
Board of County Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review
initiated by the Board, adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further
testimony will be taken by the Board.
FINDING: As detailed above, staff finds the proposal should be viewed as a quasi-judicial plan
amendment. For this reason, staff finds these criteria apply. This application is being referred to a
Hearings Officer for a decision. If an appeal is not filed and the Board does not initiate review, the
Board shall adopt the Hearings Officer's decision as the decision of the county.
247-25-000106-TA Page 12 of 27
C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or
concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo
before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal,
regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission.
Such hearing before the Board shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as
an appeal to the Board under DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The subject Text Amendment does not require a goal exception and does not concern
lands designated for forest or agricultural use. For this reason, a de novo hearing before the Board
is not required.
D. Notwithstanding DCC 22.28.030(C), when a plan amendment subject to a DCC
22.28.030(C) hearing before the Board of County Commissioners has been
consolidated for hearing before the hearings Officer with a zone change or other
permit application not requiring a hearing before the board under DCC 22.28.030(C),
any party wishing to obtain review of the Hearings Officer's decision on any of those
other applications shall file an appeal. The plan amendment shall be heard by the
Board consolidated with the appeal of those other applications.
FINDING: No other application is being consolidated with the subject Text Amendment. Staff finds
this criterion does not apply.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
FINDING: The Applicant identified the following Comprehensive Plan policies as relevant to the
subject proposal. The identified sections of the Comprehensive Plan and the Applicant's responses
are included below:
Chapter 3: Rural Growth
Section 3.4: Rural Economy Policies
Goal 1: Maintain a stable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy
environment.
Policy 3.4.1: Promote rural economic initiatives, including home -based businesses,
that maintain the integrity of the rural character and natural environment. a.
Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic
development opportunities.
a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural
economic development opportunities.
247-25-000106-TA Page 13 of 27
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is consistent with the County's mandate to review
land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate economic development opportunities.
This amendment provides a new rural economic development opportunity within specific
areas of the TuC District while maintaining the integrity of the rural character and natural
environment by requiring conditional use approval and expressly limiting where in the TuC
District RV Parks can be located.
Policy 3.4.2: Work with stakeholders to promote new recreational and tourist
initiatives that maintain the integrity of the natural environment.
RESPONSE: Allowing RV Park development in certain areas of the TuC District will support
new and existing recreational and tourist initiatives in the area. Such RV Park development
is consistent with maintaining the integrity of the natural environment as it provides for less
permanent building and changes to the existing landscape than several other uses permitted
within the TuC District.
Policy 3.4.7. Within the parameters of State land use regulations, permit limited
local -serving commercial uses in higher -density rural communities.
RESPONSE: Approval of the subject application will allow for a new local -servicing
commercial use in higher -density rural communities located in close proximity to adjacent
state highways. Visitors of the any potential RV Parks in the TuC District bring additional
customers and revenue to other businesses in the TuC District.
Section 3.5: Natural Hazard Policies
Goal 1: Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from
natural hazards.
RESPONSE: This goal is met. Any RV Parks created via a conditional use permit within the
TuC District will provide for a development that protects people, property, infrastructure, the
economy from natural hazards.
The County itself recently commissioned a feasibility study that specifically found "A scarcity
of camping opportunities in Central Oregon, including for recreational vehicles (RV), not only
reduces total visitation but also contributes to increased dispersed camping in undeveloped
forestland and along roads. While visitation and population have both rapidly grown over
recent decades, there has been no corresponding increase in camping capacity. This, in turn,
results in added forest maintenance and damage to natural habitats, such as sanitation
issues, problems with trash management, and increased fire risk." Exhibit 1 at page 1. That
statement from the County's own study speaks directly to this Goal.
Stated simply, there is a serious demand for additional RV Parks within Deschutes County
and the current lack thereof presents significant issues that can most directly be addressed
by providing more RV Parks and campgrounds. In fact, per local news coverage of recent
247-25-000106-TA Page 14 of 27
County Commissioner meetings where the above -mentioned feasibility study was the focus
of deliberations, the Commissioners noted there is an "incredible demand" for more RV
Parks, and that very few, if any, have been built in the past 40 years in Deschutes County.
See Exhibit 2 (news article).
Further, County Planning staff previously included in its 2022-2023 annual work plan an
update regarding RV park opportunities, but appeared to stop short of exploring whether
existing County zoning may be the main obstacle to developing more RV Parks. See Exhibit
3 at page 34. Examining existing zoning closely, this appears to be true. In Tumalo, potential
for development of any RV Parks has effectively been prohibited due to the historical
limitation that no RV Parks are allowed if they were not in existence before 1979. The
Applicant's own research suggests that this limitation was originally put in place because of
the lack of central sewer services in the area, a concern that is likely to be address in Tumalo
in the near future. However, even if that now -dated historical limitation were removed, other
applicable conditional use standards in DCC chapter 18.128 make it very difficult for any new
RV Parks to be feasible in Tumalo or elsewhere in the County. This proposed Text
Amendment seeks to resolve these issues, at least for several properties within the TuC
District. (The Applicant has no objection to the County addressing these concerns with a
broader text amendment, but specifically limits the subject applicant to only the TuC District
as the subject application is applicant -initiated and intended to be quasi-judicial.)
On a more local level in Tumalo itself, the County's feasibility study cites data from the
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department showing the nearby Tumalo State Park frequently
reaches close to its 100% capacity which further exacerbate the issues outlined above.
Exhibit 1 at page 10. The area proposed to be affected by the Text Amendment will
specifically provide opportunities to help mitigate these issues and ease some of the high
volume of visitors at Tumalo State Park that may cause capacity issues.
Chapter 4: Urban Growth Management
Section 4.9: Rural Service Center Policies.
Policy 4.9.11: Recreational vehicle or trailer parks and other uses catering to
travelers shall be permitted.
RESPONSE: While Tumalo itself is no longer characterized as a "Rural Service Center" by the
County, its TuC District shares many similarities. The Comprehensive Plan defines Rural
Service Centers as "an unincorporated community consisting primarily of commercial or
industrial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or persons
traveling through the area, but which also includes some permanent residential dwellings."
While Tumalo is more broadly defined as a "Rural Community," its TuC District is in essence
a concentrated Rural Service Center with its purpose (as proposed to be amended) being to
provide commercial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or
persons traveling through the area. The Comprehensive Plan explicitly mandates that RV
Parks catering to travelers shall be permitted in Rural Service Centers and naturally they shall
247-25-000106-TA Page 15 of 27
also be in the TuC District due to the aligned purposes of the two rural districts.
This is why the proposed Text Amendment seeks to amend the TuC District's purpose
statement. The County Commissioners past actions and comments align with allowing uses
in the TuC District that further this policy goal as set forth in state rules. OAR 660.022.0010(7)
(defining Rural Community as an unincorporated community which consists primarily of
permanent residential dwellings but also has at least two other land uses that provide
commercial, industrial, or public uses (including but not limited to schools, churches, grange
halls, post offices) to the community, the surrounding rural area, or to persons traveling
through the area.")
In reality, there are hundreds of thousands of people that travel through Tumalo each year
and the numbers will likely keep increasing. Hwy 20 is the major highway travelers use when
travelling to Tumalo State Park, between Sisters and Bend, and to other attractions in this
portion of Deschutes County. Being adjacent to Hwy 20, the TuC is the zoning district within
Tumalo that most practically should include the purpose of serving the travel needs of
people passing through the area.
Arguably more than any other use, an RV Park clearly "serves the travel needs of people
passing through the area by providing lodging and access to other recreational and
commercial opportunities in the Tumalo area. The proposed Text Amendment finally brings
the TuC District into consistency with this policy.
FINDING: Staff requests the Hearings Officer amend these findings as they see fit, and determine
whether the Applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan
provisions.
Appendix B- Tumalo Community Plan
RV Parks in the Tumalo Community Plan
FINDING: As detailed in the record, there are several public comments which point out that the
Tumalo Community Plan does not appear to contemplate an RV park. Consequently, members of
the public argue the proposed text amendment does not conform to the Tumalo Community Plan.
Staff asks the Hearings Officer to determine whether these objections are relevant.
Economic Development Goal
Retain the economic vibrancy of Tumalo's historic core and industrial areas while providing
economic development opportunities that are compatible with the small town rural
character of the community.
Economic Development Policies
Policy 4: Support economic development initiatives and tourism in the Tumalo area.
247-25-000106-TA Page 16 of 27
FINDING: Staff finds the proposed use is consistent with this policy of the Tumalo Community Plan.
As detailed in the application materials, allowing an RV park as a conditional use in the TUC Zone
would provide economic opportunities within the unincorporated community and would support
tourism by expanding lodging options.
Policy 5: Allow for existing and future uses without producing adverse effects upon
water resources or wastewater disposal. Coordinate with relevant agencies to
ensure industrial uses meet requirements for water availability and wastewater
disposal.
FINDING: As described herein, the proposed amendments would create new wastewater standards
that only apply to RV parks within the TUC Zone. Specifically, the amendments would not require a
property owner to provide laundry facilities or a sewer connection to each RV space until a sewer
district is willing and able to provide service. In the interim, it appears to staff that the proposed
amendments would allow an RV park to commence operations before sewer connections are
established. Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make findings regarding the proposed amendments
regarding wastewater disposal within RV parks in the TUC Zone, and whether this future use would
have an adverse impact upon water resources or wastewater disposal.
Staff notes that an RV park is not an industrial use, and the proposed amendments are therefore
not subject to the second part of this policy.
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Division 22, Unincorporated Communities
OAR 660-022-0030 Planning and Zoning of Unincorporated Communities
(4) County plans and land use regulations may authorize only the following new
commercial uses in unincorporated communities:
(c) Uses intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area or the
travel needs of people passing through the area.
FINDING: The proposed amendments would create a new use within the unincorporated
community of Tumalo, and is therefore subject to these provisions. The application materials state
that an RV park would serve the travel needs of people passing through the area. Staff finds the
proposed commercial use may be authorized within an unincorporated community.
(8) Zoning applied to lands within unincorporated communities shall ensure that the
cumulative development.
(A) Will not result in public health hazards or adverse environmental impacts
that violate state or federal water quality regulations, and
247-25-000106-TA Page 17 of 27
(8) Will not exceed the carrying capacity of the soil or of existing water supply
resources and sewer services.
FINDING: Any future development of an RV park within the TUC Zone would be subject to review
by the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division and/or the Department of Environmental
Quality to ensure that wastewater disposal complies with applicable state standards. As described
above, comments from the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division indicate concerns
regarding the ability of the Applicant's property to obtain an onsite wastewater (septic) permit. The
proposed amendments would allow a property owner to establish an RV park and wait to install
sewage disposal until a sewer district is able to serve the property. Staff notes the capacity of the
sewer district would be addressed at the time a development proposal is submitted for a specific
property. However, staff finds it may also be relevant in addressing these criteria and determining
whether the proposed use would have a cumulative impact that exceeds the capacity of the sewer
system or the carrying capacity of the soil. Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings
for this section.
Division 12, Transportation Planning
OAR 660 012 0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments
(1) if an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a
land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing
or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place
measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed
under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility if it would.
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan),
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system, or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this
subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected
conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area
of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an
enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic
generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the
significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility,
(e) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility such that it would not meet the performance standards
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
247-25-000106-TA Page 18 of 27
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance
standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
FINDING: This above language is applicable to the proposal because it involves an amendment to
a land use regulation, specifically the permitted uses within the TUC Zone. The proposed
amendment would allow an RV park as a conditional use on properties that are two -to -fives acres
in size and contiguous to Highway 20. While the Applicant is not proposing any land use
development of a specific property at this time, the application materials indicate the intent is follow
the Text Amendment with a subsequent Conditional Use Permit application to establish an RV park.
The submitted application materials include a traffic memorandum dated January 8, 2025, prepared
by Joe Bessman of Transight Consulting LLC. The traffic memo analyzes a vacant parcel owned by
the Applicant, which consists of 19 adjacent tax lots in the TUC Zone, and would potentially be
eligible for development of an RV park under the amendments. The memo compares the uses that
are currently permitted in the TUC Zone to an RV park to determine whether there would be a
significant increase in trip generation with the new use category. As the memo notes, the TUC Zone
currently allows for a range of commercial uses such as eating and drinking establishments, retail,
and small office buildings.
Based on comparison of current allowable uses within the TuC zoning, the addition of RV
park reflects a lower -intensity use. Accordingly, the proposed text amendment does not have
the potential to create a significant impact on the transportation system...
Key findings of this Transportation Planning Rule analysis that would allow RV parks as a
conditional use within the Tumalo Commercial (TuC) zoning includes the following:
• The proposed text amendment would conditionally allow an RV Park on 19
contiguous lots currently zoned TuC within the unincorporated Tumalo community.
• With a reduction in trips compared to allowable uses, a comparative analysis would
show that all surrounding intersections and corridors will operate better with the text
amendment, and a significant impact does not occur.
• While the siting of the RV Park complies with the comparative analysis required to
satisfy the Transportation Planning Rule, future entitlements will need to assess the
net system impacts as required by DCC 18.116.310. This analysis will need to
demonstrate that adequate system capacity is available to serve these uses.
The traffic memo was reviewed by the County Senior Transportation Planner, who agreed with the
report's conclusions. Staff finds that the proposed Text Amendment will be consistent with the
identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in
the area. The proposed amendments will not change the functional classification of any existing or
planned transportation facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification
system. The County Transportation Planner provided the following comments in an email dated
April 14, 2025:
247-25-000106-TA Page 19 of 27
I have reviewed the application materials for potential Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
OAR 660-012 effects, including the applicant's transportation memorandum produced by
Transight Consulting, LLC, (dated January 8, 2025) and I agree with its assumptions,
methodology, and conclusions. The memorandum adequately addresses reasonable worst
case scenario analysis through a comparison of the existing outright allowed uses (utilizing
ITE category 822 for Strip Retail Plaza as an aggregate category encompassing
eating/drinking establishments, small retail, and offices each totaling less than 10,000
square -feet) to the proposed Campground/RV Park (ITE 416) use and ultimately concludes
that no significant impacts will be anticipated with the proposed text amendment. Staff notes
that, should the proposed text amendment receive approval, further traffic analysis may be
required at the time of future development depending on the future development's vehicle
trip generation potential. While the current text amendment does not absorb County road
capacity, any future proposal for the development of a Campground/RV Park under the
proposed use category must demonstrate compliance with the transportation analysis
requirements of DCC 18.116.310, including p.m. peak hour vehicle trips related to System
Development Charges (SDCs), mitigations, and adequacy of access.
Based on the County Senior Transportation Planner's comments and the traffic memo prepared by
Transight Consulting LLC, staff finds compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule has been
effectively demonstrated.
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OAR 660-015 Division 15 Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals and the Applicant's findings are quoted below:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to
be involved in all phases of the planning process.
RESPONSE: The amendments do not propose to change the structure of the County's citizen
involvement program. Notice of the proposed amendments will be provided in accordance
with the requirements of the DCC. The public hearing on this application will provide the
opportunity for any resident to participate in the land use process. Goal 1 is met.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Part I - Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate
factual base for such decisions and actions.
247-25-000106-TA Page 20 of 27
RESPONSE: Goals policies, and processes related to this application are included in the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Title 23, and Deschutes County Code, Title 18 and
Title 22. Compliance with these processes, policies, and regulations are documented within
the subject application. Goal 2 is met.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
RESPONSE: No lands will be rezoned as part of this application, furthering the purpose of
Goal 3. The purpose of TuC District, as proposed to be amended, is to "allow a range of
limited commercial and industrial uses to serve the community and surrounding area or the
travel needs of people passing through the area." Tumalo does not contain any lands with
the Comprehensive Plan designation of Agriculture nor the zoning designation of Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU). Goal 3 is met.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's
forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure
the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on
forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife
resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
RESPONSE: The amendments do not propose to rezone or alter forest lands. Further, there
are no lands designated Forest, either by Comprehensive Plan or DCC 18.67, within or
abutting Tumalo. Goal 4 is met.
Goal 5. Open Spaces Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
RESPONSE: The properties potentially affected by the proposed Text Amendment are not
located in the Landscape Management Overlay Zone for the Hwy 20 corridor as that zone
specifically does not overlay the TuC District. Several properties in the TuC District, however,
are within 660 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of the Deschutes River such that those
properties are then within that Landscape Management Overlay Zone. Nevertheless, the
subject Text Amendment does not introduce a new conflicting use to the Landscape
Management Overlay Zone thereby requiring an economic, social, environmental, and
energy ("ESEE") analysis. As noted above, historic RV Parks have always been allowed within
the TuC District. Importantly, the proposed Text Amendment does not alter or change that
any proposed RV Park on properties within the Landscape Management Overlay Zone will
still be required to fully comply with DCC Chapter 18.84. Goal 5 is met.
Goal 6• Air Water and Land Resources Quality
247-25-000106-TA Page 21 of 27
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
RESPONSE: The proposed text amendment will not impact the quality of the air, water, or
land resources. Goal 6 is met.
Goal 7• Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
RESPONSE: To the extent that lands in the TuC District are in areas subject to natural
disasters and hazards, the subject application will serve to mitigate the risk of harm from
such disasters on the property of Deschutes County citizens via the conditional use permit
process and applicable codes and standards. Goal 7 is met.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where
appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
RESPONSE: While Goal 8 itself is most often discussed in relation to destination resorts, it
more broadly directs local jurisdictions to inventory their existing recreation areas, facilities,
and opportunities to determine the existing and future recreational needs of citizens and
visitors, and to plan for recreational opportunities in proportion to the demand for them.
Development of RV Parks helps satisfy this goal.
As aforementioned herein and as evidenced by the County's own feasibility study, there is a
lack of existing RV Parks in Tumalo and its surrounding areas where the existing zoning limits
the opportunities for their development despite the well documented and growing demand
for such uses. The County itself documented that its existing zoning directly limits where RV
Parks may be developed, and the County's existing conditional use requirements in Chapter
18.128 further make such developments not economically feasible. Requiring applicants to
provide full amenities such as showers, sewer, and laundry makes RV Parks practically and
economically infeasible in most locations throughout the County, and then requires all RV
Parks to cater to limited clientele actually seeking such high -end services. Several publicly
owned RV Parks, including Tumalo State Park, La Pine State Park, and the County -owned
Jefferson County RV Park do not include the full list of amenities that are required for new
privately -owned RV Parks in Deschutes County. It is telling that so few RV Parks have recently
been developed in Deschutes County, resulting in the County commissioning its own
feasibility study as discussed above. The proposed Text Amendment will loosen these
requirements to provide new opportunities for RV Parks on at least certain properties in the
TuC District. This better satisfies the recreational needs of Deschutes County citizens and
visitors by providing for siting of RV vehicles and promoting access to nearby recreational
247-25-000106-TA Page 22 of 27
sites including Tumalo State Park, which is estimated to be more than 200,000 visitors a year
according to the Tumalo Community Plan and is increasing annually. Goal 8 is met.
Goal 9• Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
RESPONSE: Although the applicability of Goal 9 is debatable in this context, the County's
current code provisions governing the TuC District nevertheless clearly do not provide the
same economic opportunity as would otherwise be allowed by state rules. Specifically, state
rules allow uses in the TuC District that are intended to serve the travel public. DCC
18.67.040's purpose statement notably omits similar language, instead only allowing uses
that serve the community and surrounding area. Considering the TuC District's location
adjacent to Hwy 20 within the Tumalo community and between Bend and Sisters, omitting
uses that also serve the traveling public undeniably then restricts economic development
within the district. One clear example of a uses that would otherwise be allowed by state
rules and that would otherwise further economic development within the TuC District is an
RV park.
Accordingly, the proposed text amendment complies with Goal 9 because it will permit a new
and varied economic activity i.e., RV Parks, within the TuC District that will allow property
owners within the TuC District an additional opportunity for prosperity. Economic
Development Policy 4 of the Tumalo Community Plan is specifically to "Support economic
development initiatives and tourism in the Tumalo area" which is exactly what this Text
Amendment will do. Goal 9 is met.
Goal 10: Housine
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
RESPONSE: The subject application does not propose to change to housing. Goal 10 is met,
to the extent it is applicable. Further, because Tumalo is classified as a Rural Unincorporated
Community under OAR-660-022-0010(7) it is not obligated to fulfill certain housing
requirements.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
RESPONSE: The proposed text amendment will have no adverse effect on the provision of
public facilities and services. In fact, to the extent the Tumalo Basin Sewer District creation
moves forward, it can proceed in lockstep with the new opportunities presented by this Text
Amendment application. Unless and until a sewer district is installed and functioning,
247-25-000106-TA Page 23 of 27
applicants for RV Parks still should be allowed the opportunity as a business decision to
develop and maintain on -site septic systems that are capable of handling the demands of an
RV Park with on -site bathrooms and showers. Increased flexibility for RV Park proposals is
essential if more are ever to be developed in Deschutes County. Goal 11 is met.
Goal 12• Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment will not impact transportation facilities within the
County. The Applicant engaged a traffic engineer, Joe Bessman of Transight Consulting, LLC,
who prepared a TPR Analysis (attached as Exhibit 4) and will provide a further Traffic Impact
Analysis when future Conditional Use Permit applications for an RV Park are submitted by
the Applicant. Among the findings of the TPR is that an "RV park is a much less intense use
than what is currently permitted within [the TUC District] and therefore does not create a
significant transportation impact. The listing of this use as Conditional will require additional
analysis to ensure that the use is consistent with County and State requirements."
Further, allowing properties in the TUC District to be utilized for RV Parks even if accessed off
something other than an arterial or collector street clearly provides more development
opportunities for RV Parks. Applicants who are capable of meeting all applicable road
standards except for being off an arterial or collector road ought to be provided the same
development opportunity and RV Parks should not be arbitrarily prohibited in such
circumstances. Stated simply, in its current form DCC 18.128.170(0) is blatantly over
regulatory because it prohibits RV Parks on properties that could otherwise meet all
applicable road standards. Rather than instead requiring compliance with those applicable
road standards, DCC 18.128.170(0) elevates access off of an arterial or collector street as a
proxy for those road standards. A property not having access off an arterial or collector is an
arbitrary requirement that has directly contributed to the lack RV Parks being developed
throughout the County.
The County's current policy stance was clarified in a written response received by the
Applicant from County staff after requesting a meeting to discuss DCC 18.128.170(0). The
email communication is included as Exhibit 6. Rather than meeting to discuss the issue,
County staff more directly defended in that written response that DCC 18.128.170(0) in its
current form "aligns with transportation planning principles by balancing accessibility, safety,
and minimal disruption to surrounding communities." However, County staff also noted that
"RV park access and traffic circulation on local roads is not desirable in many situations"
(emphasis added). But something not being desirable in many situations is not the same
thing as not being desirable in all situations, confirming then that DCC 18.128.170(0) it its
current form is over regulatory. Further, County staff assumed that the only other option
would be RV Park access off of local access roads, and failed to address that DCC
18.128.170(0) mandates access off of only arterial or collector streets therefore also
prohibiting access off a state highway, for example. More importantly, County staffs written
response suggested that although they would be "opposed to eliminating [DCC
247-25-000106-TA Page 24 of 27
18.128.170(0)1 outright," County staff suggested that they would not then be opposed to
modifying that provision so long as the following listed factors were instead addressed: (1)
traffic capacity and flow; (2) geometric design; (3) pavement design; (4) livability impacts on
local residents; and (5) accessibility and convenience to amenities and state highways.
Although the Applicant questions if the last two aforementioned factors are best addressed
as part of traffic and road issues, to honor County staffs recommendation the Applicant, as
part of the subject Text Amendment, proposes replacing the currently over regulatory DCC
18.128.170(0)—at least within the TuC District —with the same listed factors recommend by
County staff. The intended outcome would be that RV Parks within the TuC District could be
approved off of something other than arterial and collector streets after consideration of
these factors. The proposed text amendment does not eliminate the purposes of DCC
18.128.170(0) outright as County staff cautioned, rather it provides more flexibility and
opportunity for development of RV Parks when the County itself has determined that such
uses are severely lacking throughout our community. Stated simply, when the County
Commissioners themselves have expressed they want to foster RV Park development
throughout the County, any blatantly over regulatory code provision that unnecessarily
prohibits RV Parks on otherwise qualifying properties should be re-examined.
As a final comment, the impact of DCC 18.128.170(0) on RV Park development should not be
lost on the County. The County's very own feasibility study discussed above identified three
properties where the County itself may consider developing an RV Park. Two out of three
sites identified by that feasibility study would not meet DCC 18.128.170(0), yet those two
sites were not then immediately excluded from further consideration. Specifically, the
Crooked River Ranch Site's only means of access is via NW 8th Court, a "Rural Local" road.
The Fort Thompson Site's only means of access is off Oregon State Highway 97 which also is
not an "arterial or collector street." If pursued further, both aforementioned sites would likely
require zone changes and/or text amendments before RV Parks would be viable options.
Assuming the County would then pursue legislative amendments allowing RV Parks as
conditional uses on those two aforementioned properties, then the County would be in the
very same position as the Applicant when it comes to the addressing DCC 18.128.170(0). If
the County's intention is to staunchly defend that RV Parks should only be developed on
properties with direct access from arterial or collector streets, then presumably the County's
own feasibility study would not have wasted resources analyzing two properties that do not
meet that overly stringent standard.
Goal 12 is met.
Goal 13• Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment will have a de minimis effect on the provision of
public facilities and services. To the extent Goal 13 is applicable, new RV Parks developed in
the TuC District will be designed and constructed with best practices for the modern-day
construction industry, including energy efficient design standards, as well as the ability to
247-25-000106-TA Page 25 of 27
accommodate vehicles that are of the "van -life" variety and less consumptive than larger
traditional RVs of both the motorized and trailer variety.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
RESPONSE: Goal 14 concerns the provision of urban and rural land uses to ensure efficient
use of land and livable communities. The proposed amendment does not amend an urban
growth boundary, and RV Parks are permitted as a conditional use in several other rural
zones throughout the County. Like the TuC District, these other zones serve rural
communities. RV Parks are not exclusively an "urban use" and RV Parks significantly
contribute to rural recreational opportunities. The subject application proposes to limit RV
Parks to lands in the TuC District that are located in close proximity to the adjacent State Hwy
20, thereby promoting an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use to the
extent applicable. Goal 14 is met.
Goals 15-19
RESPONSE: Goals 15 through 19 do not apply (Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; Goal 16
Estuarine Resources; Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes; and Goal 19
Ocean Resources).
Staff generally accepts the Applicant's responses and finds compliance with the applicable
Statewide Planning Goals has been effectively demonstrated.
IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Hearings Officer determine if the Applicant has met the burden of proof
necessary to justify the proposed Text Amendment through effectively demonstrating
compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 18 (the Deschutes County Zoning
Ordinance), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable sections of OAR and
ORS.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
Written by: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
247-25-000106-TA Page 26 of 27
Reviewed by: Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner
Attachments: 1) Proposed Text Amendments
247-25-000106-TA Page 27 of 27
Attachment A: Proposed Text Amendments
18.67.040 Commercial (TuQ District
The Tumalo Commercial District is intended to allow a range of limited commercial and industrial uses to
serve the community and surrounding area or the travel needs of people passing through the area.
A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not
require site plan review under DCC 18.124.
1. A single -unit dwelling or duplex.
2. A manufactured dwelling subject to DCC 18.116.070.
3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition,
subdivision, or subject to the standards of DCC 18.67.060 and 18.116.230.
5. Class III road or street project.
6. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an
Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
7. Residential home.
B. Uses Permitted, Subject to Site Plan Review. The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.67, 18.116, and 18.124:
1. A building or buildings, none of which exceeds 4,000 square feet of floor area to be used
by any combination of the following uses:
a. Retail or service business.
b. Eating and/or drinking establishment.
Offices.
A dwelling unit permitted outright or conditionally, in the same building as a use
permitted in DCC 18.67.040.
Marijuana wholesaling, office only. There shall be no storage of marijuana items
or products at the same location.
2. Any of the uses listed under DCC 18.67.040 proposing to occupy more than 4,000 square
feet of floor area in a building subject to the provisions of DCC 18.67.040(E).
3. Child care facility and/or preschool.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the
applicable provisions of DCC 18.116, 18.124, and 18.128:
1. Religious institutions or assemblies.
2. Bed and breakfast inn.
3. Type 2 or Type 3 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Park.
5. Public or semi-public building.
6. Utility facility.
7. Water supply or treatment facility.
8. Manufactured dwellings on a lot or parcel in use as a manufactured dwelling park
park prior to the adoption of PL-15 in 1979 and being operated as
of June 12, 1996, as a manufactured dwelling park , including
any expansion of such uses on the same lot or parcel as configured on June 12, 1996.
9. The following uses and their accessory uses may be conducted in a building or buildings
not to exceed 4,000 square feet of floor area.
a. Farm equipment, sales, service, or repair.
b. Trailer sales, service, or repair.
c. Vehicle service or repair.
d. Veterinary clinic.
10. The following uses may be conducted in a building or buildings not to exceed 10,000
square feet of floor area:
a. Manufacturing or production.
b. Wholesale sales.
c. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
11. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements
of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B).
12. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and
maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the
excavation and mining for facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off -site use, storage, and
sale of excavated material.
13. Psilocybin service centers, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.380.
14. Recreational Vehicle Parks.
D. Use Limitations. The following use limitations shall apply to the uses listed in DCC
18.67.040(C)(10).
1. Compatibility.
a. Any use expected to generate more than 50 truck -trailer and/or heavy equipment
trips per day to and from the subject property shall not be permitted to locate on
a lot or parcel abutting or across a local or collector street from a lot or parcel in
a residential district.
2. Traffic and Parking.
a. A use that generates more than 20 auto or truck trips during the peak hour of the
day to and from the premises shall document with facts that the affected
transportation facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use, considering the
functional classification, capacity, and level of service of the affected
transportation facility.
b. All parking demand generated by uses permitted by DCC 18.67 shall be
accommodated entirely on the premises.
E. Requirements for Large Scale Uses.
1. All uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(B) may have a total floor area exceeding 4,000 square
feet but not greater than 10,000 square feet if the Planning Director or Hearings Body
finds:
a. The use is intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area, or the
traveling needs of people passing through the area;
b. The use will primarily employ a work force from the community and surrounding
rural area; and
c. It is not practical to contain the proposed use within 4,000 square feet of the floor
area.
2. This provision does not apply to uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10).
3. For the purposes of DCC 18.67.040, the surrounding rural area is described as the
following: extending north to the Township boundary between Townships 15 and 16;
extending west to the boundary of the public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service in
T16S-R11E; extending south to the south section lines of T17S-R12E sections 4,5,6 and
T17S-R11E sections 1,2,3; and extending east to Highway 97.
e
I:
Design Standards. Ground Floor Windows. The following criteria for ground floor windows apply
to new buildings in the TuC district except those uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10) and any
residential use. The provisions of DCC 18.124 also apply.
1. The windows must be at least 50 percent of the length of the ground level wall area and
25 percent of height of the ground level wall area. Ground level wall area includes all
exterior wall area up to nine feet above the finished grade. The window requirement
applies to the ground level of exterior building walls which abut sidewalks or streets.
2. Required window areas shall be either windows that allow views into working areas,
lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display windows.
Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet. in addition, lot area
requirements for this district shall be determined by spatial requirements for sewage disposal,
required landscaped areas, and off-street parking.
Lot Coverage Standards.
1. Lot Coverage: No lot coverage requirements, provided spatial requirements for parking,
sewage disposal, and landscaping are satisfied.
2. No use listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10) that is abutting or across a local or collector from a
lot or parcel in a residential district shall exceed 70 percent lot coverage, including outside
storage, and off-street parking and loading areas.
Setback Standards.
1. Front Setback. The front setback shall be a maximum of 15 feet, except as otherwise
allowed by DCC 18.124.070 (D)(3). The front setback for structures may be reduced, but
not increased, to the average setback distance of existing structures on abutting lots or
parcels.
2. Side Setback. No requirement, subject to DCC 18.67.040(I)(4).
3. Rear Setback. No specific requirement, subject to DCC 18.67.040 (1)(4).
4. Exceptions to Setback Standards.
a. Lot line(s) abutting a residential zone. For all new structures or substantial
alterations of a structure requiring a building permit, on a lot or parcel abutting a
residential district, the setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. The required
setback will be increased by one foot for each foot by which the structure height
exceeds 20 feet.
b. Lot line(s) abutting an EFU zone. Any structure requiring a building permit, on a
lot or parcel abutting EFU-zoned land receiving special assessment for farm use,
shall have a minimum setback of 100 feet from any shared lot line.
Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks shall only be allowed on a single parcel or contiguous parcels
under common ownership that meet the followinp, requirements:
a. The area of the parcel(s) proposed for development shall exceed 2 acres but no
more than 5 acres;
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in a sewer district; and
c. The single parcel or at least one of the contiguous parcels under common
ownership shall be adjacent to State Highway 20.
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128._170.
a. For sewage disposal service and laundry facilities only, Recreational Vehicle
Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall not be required to comply with
DCC 18.128.170(0) and (J) until a sewer district is willing and able to provide
service to the proposed project. The County m._ — include conditions of approval
requiring Recreational Vehicle Parks to provide sewer connection to each
recreational vehicle space and to provide laundry facilities as outlined in DCC
18.128.1700) once sewer service is available from a sewer district
b. To ensure compliance with DCC 18.128.170(G), Recreational Vehicle Parks in the
Tumalo Commercial District shall only provide temporary lodging with no
recreational vehicles utilized as permanent "residential dwellings" as that term
is used in ORS 197.493.
c. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(0) requiring that access to a Recreational
Vehicle Park shall be from an arterial or collector street shall not be applicable
in the Tumalo Commercial District so long as an applicant instead demonstrates
that the street providing direct access to the proposed Recreational Vehicle
Park shall not be unreasonably impacted. To demonstrate compliance with this
standard, an applicant shall address traffic capacity and flow, geometric design,
pavement design, livability impacts on local residents, _and _accessibility and
convenience to amenities and state highways.,
vT E S COG2a
BOARD OF
-•�„f COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2025
SUBJECT: Clarification on Guidelines for the District Mapping Advisory Committee
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The District Mapping Advisory Committee (DMAC) held an orientation meeting on August
27`h During the orientation meeting, the DMAC Guidelines as approved by the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) were reviewed.
Several DMAC members seek clarification on language in the mapping criteria section of
the guidelines --specifically, if the draft map for BOCC consideration must have five districts
or if DMAC has the option of presenting a draft map with different considerations (e.g., a
map consisting of four districts and one at -large seat) if a majority of the DMAC approves.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
N/A
ATTENDANCE:
Nick Lelack, County Administrator
Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager
8/28/25, 4:37 PM Commissioner District Boundary Changes I Polling Place Changes I Missoula County Voice
o County Commissioner Proposed 2023 Proposed Commissioner
�. County Commissioner - Current
Boundary Redistrict 2023 ��,
The Missoula County commissioners are elected at -large, not by their districts.
State law requires that a candidate for county commissioner be a registered
voter and resident of the district for two years to file to run for office.
The County is introducing these commissioner district boundary changes
alongside the process of establishing precincts and polling locations to ensure
they will all be effect for the candidate filing period for the 2024 election cycle.
The commissioners opened the hearing on commissioner district boundary
changes at their public meeting on Sept. 7, and make their final decision at the
public meeting at 2 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 9. This meeting will be held in the
Sophie Moiese Room of the Missoula County Courthouse annex. You can also
join virtually via Microsoft Teams. Find the meeting agenda and link to join at
http://missoula.co/bccmeetings. The agenda will be published the Friday before
the meeting.
https://missoulacountyvoice.com/polling-place-changes/news_feed/commissioner-district-boundary-changes 5/6
8/28/25, 4:37 PM Commissioner District Boundary Changes i Polling Place Changes I Missoula County Voice
Home / Polling Place Changes / Commissioner District Boundary Changes
04 Dec 2023
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
Let us know your thoughts by Thursday, Nov. 9, on the commissioner
listrict boundary updates.
Per state law, countv commissioner districts must hp ttndnted PvPry in vParc
after each census. When creating commissioner districts, state law requires that
they be as even in population and area as possible.
Missoula County has received requests in the past to reshape the commissioner
districts to reflect a bullseye pattern to have commissioners represent urban,
semi -urban and rural districts. This would not meet the legal requirement though,
since each district must be as equal in population and geographic size as
possible.
To ensure accuracy when drawing the new boundaries, Missoula County used a
mGNN'n`J tvvi that nas popuiatiU1 i uata from the 10 census to dl aVV 111e l.ol I II I Ilsslol ICl
cligtrirt hminrinry IinRe
J --_
Based off this tool, the County proposes these changes to the commissioner
districts:
https://missoulacountyvoice.com/polling-place-changes/news_feed/commissioner-district-boundary-changes 4/6
Dear Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and United States Attorney General Pam Bondi,
Legal uncertainty harms everyone and benefits no one. It is currently unclear how
Oregon's Sanctuary Promise Act, Oregon's Public Records Act, and federal laws interact and
apply due to apparent conflicts, including in situations where a local government is served with
an administrative subpoena pursuant to 8 USC § 1225.
The undersigned Oregon counties encourage the parties in Marion County v Kotek et al
(Case 6:25-cv-01464-MC) to ask the federal court to issue a detailed opinion that provides the
type of clarity that will help all local governments ensure they are properly following federal,
state, and local laws.
Regards,
Marion County County
County County
County County
County County
County County
County County
County County
County County
County County
County County
County County
vT E S COG2
A BOARD OF
� COMMISSIONERS -�„�,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 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/3mminzy. To attend the meeting virtually via Zoom, see below.
Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda.
Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing
citizen input@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
• To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.l /3y h3ogdD.
• To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and
*6 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
• When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist.
You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a
panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in
sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times.
CALL TO ORDER
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.
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of a contract renewal with Iris Telehealth for the provision of tele-psychiatric
treatment services
2. Approval to accept PacificSource funding for the Immunization Quality Improvement for
Providers program and designate signing authority to Heather Kaisner, Public Health
Director
3. Approval of the minutes of the BOCC August 6, 11, 13 and 18, 2025 meetings
ACTION ITEMS
4. 10:10 AM Proclamation: Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
5. 10:25 AM Consideration of whether to initiate review of a text amendment to
Deschutes County Code to allow recreational vehicle (RV) parks as a
conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial District
6. 10:45 AM Clarification on Guidelines for the District Mapping Advisory Committee
September 3, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
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.
7. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations
ADJOURN
September 3, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3