HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-76-Ordinance No. 2026-005 Recorded 3/17/2026REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Conirdssioners' Journal
2026-76
CJ2020-76
03/17/2026 2:12:25 PM
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County *
Code Title 23, the Deschutes County * ORDINANCE NO. 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan, to Change the *
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for *
Certain Property From Agriculture and Surface
Mining to Rural Residential Exception Area,
and Amending Deschutes County Code Title *
18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to *
Change the Zone Designation for Certain *
Property From Exclusive Farm Use and Surface *
Mine to Multiple Use Agricultural.
WHEREAS, Cascades Academy, LLC ("Applicant"), applied for changes to both the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan Map (247-24-000392-PA) and the Deschutes County Zoning Map (247-
24-000393-ZC), to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property from
Agricultural (AG) and Surface Mining (SM) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA), and a
corresponding Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Surface Mine (SM) to Multiple Use
Agricultural (MUA-10); and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was
held on November 14, 2024, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on February 26,
2025, the Hearings Officer recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Zone Change;
WHEREAS, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), on June 18, 2025, the Board of County
Commissioners ('Board") heard de novo the applications to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation of the subject property from Agricultural (AG) and Surface Mining (SM) to Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA), and a corresponding Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) and Surface Mine (SM) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10); now, therefore,
PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2026-005
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as
follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is
amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit 'Wand depicted
on the map set forth as Exhibit "B" from AG and SM to RREA, with both exhibits attached and
incorporated by reference herein.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCCTitle 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation
from EFU and SM to MUA-10 for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set
forth as Exhibit "C", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative
History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference
herein, with new language underlined.
Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance the
Decision of the Board of County Commissioners as set forth in Exhibit "F" and incorporated by
reference herein. The Board also incorporates in its findings in support of this decision, the
Recommendation of the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit "G".
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 901" day after the date of
adoption.
Dated this of, 2026
ATTEST:
(-4 oriv
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
f
PHIL CHANG, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair
PATrI ADAIR, Commissioner
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2026-005
qA-
Date of 1 St Reading: � day of W14_, 20
Date of 2" Reading: L, day of , 20 U.
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Patti Adair X
Anthony DeBone Y
Phil Chang y
Effective date: 0/day of J U✓`Q, , 20
ATTEST
-,& V&k\OQ
Recording Secretary
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2026-005
EXHIBIT A to Ordinance 2026-005
Legal Description
Parcel 1
The North 500 feet of that portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 6,
Township 17 South, Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon lying
West of Old Hwy #20. Except that portion deeded in dedication deed recorded November 08,
2001, in Volume 2001, Page 55232.
Parcel 2
All of Blocks 67 and 68 of LAIDLAW, Deschutes County, Oregon, Together with those portions
of vacated Fifteenth Street, Bruce Avenue and alleyways inuring thereto.
Parcel 3
All of Block 69 of LAIDLAW, Deschutes County, Oregon, Together with those portions of
vacated Fifteenth Street, Bruce Avenue and alleyways inuring thereto.
Excepting therefrom that portion dedicated to the public by instrument recorded November 8,
2001 in Volume 2001, Page 55232.
Also excepting therefrom a parcel of land located in the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of Section 31, Township 16 South, Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes
County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Block 69 of Townsite of Laidlaw being on the West right-
of-way of Cook Avenue; thence North along said West right-of-way 30 feet to the centerline of
vacated Fifteenth Street; thence West along said centerline to the Easterly right -of way of Cook
Avenue realignment as re -aligned by Deschutes County Road Department; thence along said
Easterly right-of-way, Southeasterly to the East line of said Block 69; thence North along the
East line of said Block 69 to the point of beginning.
Parcel 4
A Tract of land located in the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of
Section 6, Township 17 South, Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County,
Oregon, described as follows:
All that certain tract of land described in Volume 1999, Page 23794, Deschutes County Deed
Records, more particularly described as follows:
One acre of land, 208 feet square, in the Northeast corner of the East one-half of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (E1/2 NE1/4 NW1/4) of Section Six (6), Township Seventeen
(17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon.
1-
119369\ 177688\NKL\4981073 8.1
Exhibit A to Draft Ordinance 2026-005
Parcel 5
The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW 1/4 NE1/4) of Section 6, Township 17
South, Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, lying west of the
Old Highway #20, EXCEPT the North 500 feet thereof.
2-
119369\ 177688\NKL\49810738.1
Exhibit A to Draft Ordinance 2026-005
PROPOSED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Zone Change Boundary COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Tumalo Unincorporated Community (UUC) Phil G ang, Ch 'r
Exhibit "B" �
Zoning to Ordinance 2026-005 Xnthony DeBone, vice Chair
AG -Agriculture Pa Adair, Commisskoner
RREA- Rural Residential Exception Area
o ns 350 goo ATTEST: Recording Secretary
SM - Surface Mining IFeet J j
- -- Dated this _day of e' ° lOW'2026
January 28, 2026 Effective Date: j V" c,) " 2026
It
¢�
Tumalo
UUC
SM
3
}
Tumalo
UUC
Q?
,
offLj
U
--
17-12-31-
17-12-31-
DO-04200
DO-04300 17-1231-
DO-04400
17-12-06-
BO-00100
Proposed Zone Change
i
'
from Exclusive Farm Use (EFUTRB)
and Surface Mining (SM)
to
Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10)
N
17-12-06-00-00302
EFUTRB
17.12-06-
00.00300
FP
17-12-06-00-00301
MUA10
t
C
',
9
l
RD
GCiA
MUA10
Zone Change Boundary
Tumalo Unincorporated Community (UUC)
PROPOSED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ZONING OF — O P P TE®COUNTY, OREGON
6�
Exhibit "C"
to Ordinance 2026-005
� V
0 175 350 700
Feet
January 28, 2026
Phil ang, C r.011
V4,,---
ony De ne, Vice Chair
Pahl Adair, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this � day of �) INI�'2026
Effective Date: i i , 2026
1
Exhibit "D" to Ordinance 2026-004
TITLE 23 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 and
found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated
by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. [Repealed by Ordinance 2013-001, §1]
D. [Repealed by Ordinance 2023-017]
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
0. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2026-005
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
T. [Repealed by Ordinance 2016-027 §11
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein.
V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
AC. [repealed by Ord. 2019-010 §1, 2019]
AD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2026-005
Al. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
AJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein.
AL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
AM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AO. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
AR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
AT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
AU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
AW. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AX. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AY. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2026-005
AZ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
BA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2022-011, are incorporated by reference herein. (superseded by Ord. 2023-015)
BC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2022-013, are incorporated by reference herein. (supplemented and controlled
by Ord. 2024-010)
BD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
BF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-010 are incorporated by reference herein.
BG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
BH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-015, are incorporated by reference herein.
BI. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-025, are incorporated by reference herein.
B.I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
BL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2024-007
and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is
incorporated by reference herein (superseded by Ord. 2025-007).
BM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
BN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-017, are incorporated by reference herein.
BO. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2026-005
BP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
BR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2025-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
BT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
BU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
BV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-014, are incorporated by reference herein.
BW. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2026-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
BX The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2026-005 are incorporated by reference herein.
Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan(http://www.deschutes.org/compplan)
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2026-005
Seotwvv 57.12 L&e L'SLQt�V
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table 5.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Chapter/Section
Amendment
Effective
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
201 1-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
Community Plans,
Comprehensive Plan update
Deschutes Junction,
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments
20 I I -027
10-3 I - I I / I I -9- I I
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
to ensure a smooth
23.40A, 23.40B,
transition to the updated
23.40.065, 23.01.010
Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix
System Plan
C (added)
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4. I, 4.2
La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary
Housekeeping amendments
2012-016
12-3-12/3-4-13
3.9
to Destination Resort
Chapter
Central Oregon Regional
2013-002
1-7-13/ 1-7-13
4.2
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2013-009
2-6-13/5-8-13
1.3
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
certain property within City
of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary
Newberry Country: A Plan
2013-007
5-29-13/8-27-13
3.10, 3.1 1
for Southern Deschutes
Count
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including
2013-016
10-21-13/ 10-21-
23.01.010
certain property within City
13
of Sisters Urban Growth
Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01.010
certain property within City
of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary
2014-012
4-2-14/7-1-14
3.10, 3.1 1
Housekeeping amendments
to Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Sunriver
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
Urban Unincorporated
Community Forest to
Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Sunriver
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
Urban Unincorporated
Community Forest to
Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010, 5.10
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-021
1 1-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-029
1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-
23.01.010
designation of certain
15
property from Tumalo
Residential 5-Acre Minimum
to Tumalo Industrial
2015-018
12-9-15/3-27-16
23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3
Housekeeping Amendments
to Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Text
2015-010
12-2-15/ 12-2-15
2.6
and Map Amendment
recognizing Greater Sage -
Grouse Habitat Inventories
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-001
12-21-15/04-5-16
23.01.010; 5.10
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture
to Rural Industrial (exception
area
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to add an
exception to Statewide
2016-007
2-10-16/5-10-16
23.01.010; 5.10
Planning Goal I I to allow
sewers in unincorporated
lands in Southern Deschutes
Count
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non-
2016-005
1 1-28-16/2-16-17
23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
Comprehensive plan
Amendment, including
2016-022
9-28-16/ 1 1-14-16
23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2
certain property within City
of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture
to Rural Industrial
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/ 10-30-
23.01.010
designation of certain
17
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
2018-002
1-3-18/ 1-25-18
23.01, 2.6
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining
2018-006
8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; modifying Goal 5
Inventory of Cultural and
Historic Resources
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2018-01 1
9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Plain Comprehensive Plan
2018-005
9-19-18/ 10-10-18
Community Plan,
Designation; Comprehensive
Newberry Country Plan
Plan Amendment adding
Flood Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
2018-008
9-26-18/ 10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
potential of new properties
to be designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
to Rural Residential
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
Exception Area; Modifying
Goal 5 Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory;
Modifying Non -Significant
Mining Mineral and Aggregate
Inventor
Comprehensive Plan and
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Text Amendment to add a
new zone to Title 19:
Westside Transect Zone.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
02-12-19/03-12-
designation of certain
2019-003
19
23.01.010, 4.2
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
2019-004
02-12-19/03-12-
23.01.010, 4.2
Redmond Urban Growth
19
Area for the expansion of
the Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate
the refinement of the Skyline
Ranch Road alignment and
2019-01 1
05-01-19/05-16/ 19
23.01.010, 4.2
the refinement of the West
Area Master Plan Area I
boundary. The ordinance
also amends the
Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2019-006
03-13-19/06-1 1-
23.01.010,
designation of certain
19
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments
1 1-25-19/02-24-
incorporating language from
2019-016
20
23.01.01, 2.5
DLCD's 2014 Model Flood
Ordinance and Establishing a
purpose statement for the
Flood Plain Zone.
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2019-019
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
19
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2020-001
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
19
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Redmond Urban Growth
Boundary through an equal
exchange of land to/from the
Redmond UGB. The
exchange property is being
offered to better achieve
2020-002
2-26-20/5-26-20
23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2
land needs that were detailed
in the 2012 SB 1544 by
providing more development
ready land within the
Redmond UGB. The
ordinance also amends the
Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment with exception
to Statewide Planning Goal
2020-003
02-26-20/05-26-
23.01.01, 5.10
11 (Public Facilities and
20
Services) to allow sewer on
rural lands to serve the City
of Bend Outback Water
Facility.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
06-24-20/09-22-
roundabouts at US 20/Cook-
2020-008
20
23.01.010, Appendix C
O.B. Riley and US 20/01d
Bend -Redmond Hwy
intersections; amend Tables
5.33 1 and 5.332 and amend
TSP text.
07-29-20/ 10-27-
Housekeeping Amendments
2020-007
20
23.01.010, 2.6
correcting references to two
Sage Grouse ordinances.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments to update
08-12-20/ 1 1-10-
the County's Resource List
2020-006
20
23.01.01, 2.1 I, 5.9
and Historic Preservation
Ordinance to comply with
the State Historic
Preservation Rule.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
2020-009
08-19-20/ 1 1-17-
23.01.010, Appendix C
reference to J turns on US
20
97 raised median between
Bend and Redmond; delete
language about disconnecting
Vandevert Road from US 97.
Comprehensive Plan Text
And Map Designation for
Certain Properties from
Surface Mine (SM) and
Agriculture (AG) To Rural
2020-013
08-26-20/ 1 1 /24/20
23.01.01, 5.8
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) and Remove Surface
Mining Site 461 from the
County's Goal 5 Inventory of
Significant Mineral and
Aggregate Resource Sites.
Comprehensive Plan Map
2021-002
01-27-21 /04-27-
23.01.01
Designation for Certain
21
Property from Agriculture
AG To Rural Industrial RI
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
06-16-21 /06-16-
Certain Property from
2021-005
21
23.01.01, 4.2
Agriculture (AG) To
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and text
amendment
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
06-30-21/09-28-
Certain Property Adding
2021-008
21
23.01.01
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and Fixing
Scrivener's Error in Ord.
2020-022
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-001
04-13-22/07-12-
23.01.010
designation of certain
22
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-003
04-20-22/07-19-
23.01.010
designation of certain
22
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area RREA
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
06-22-22/08-19-
designation of certain
2022-006
22
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
07-27-22/ 10-25-
Comprehensive Plan Map
2022-01 1
22
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
(superseded by
Property from Agriculture
Ord. 2023-015)
(AG To Rural Industrial RI
12-14-22/03-14-
Comprehensive Plan Map
23
Designation for Certain
2022-013
(supplemented
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
and controlled by
(AG) to Rural Residential
Ord. 2024-010)
Exception Area RREA
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting the location for
2023-001
03-01-23/05-30-
23.01.010, 5.9
the Lynch and Roberts Store
23
Advertisement, a designated
Cultural and Historic
Resource
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-007
04-26-23/6-25-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
10 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-010
06-21-23/9-17-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
08-30-23/ 1 1-28-
Designation for Certain
2023-018
23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
2023-015
9-13-23/ 12-12-23
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2023-025
1 1-29-23/2-27-24
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment for Certain
2024-001
1-31-24/4-30-24
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
23.01(BM) (added), 4.7
Updated Tumalo Community
2023-016
5-8-24/8-6-24
(amended), Appendix B
Plan
(replaced)
23.01(D) (repealed),
2023-017
3-20-24/6-20-24
23.01(BJ) (added), 3.7
Updated Transportation
(amended), Appendix C
System Plan
(replaced)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2024-003
2-21-24/5-21-24
23.01.010, 5.8
property from Surface Mining
(SM) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA);
Modifying Goal 5 Mineral and
A re ate Inventor
10-02-24/ 12-31-
Repeal and Replacement of
2024-007
24
23.01 (A) (repealed)
2030 Comprehensive Plan
(superseded by
23.01(13K) (added)
with 2040 Comprehensive
Ord. 2025-007)
Plan
Comprehensive Plan Map
10-16-24/01-14-
Designation for Certain
2024-010
25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
1 1-18-24/02-17-
Designation for Certain
2024-01 1
25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Redmond Urban
Growth Area (RUGA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2024-012
1-8-25/4-8-25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map Amendment
2025-001
2-5-25/2-5-25
23.01.010
updating the Greater Sage -
Grouse Area Combining
Zone boundary.
Comprehensive Plan
2025-003
4-2-25/7-1-25
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
12 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2025-010
6-25-25/9-23-25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Amendments to
Comprehensive Plan
2025-007
08-27-25/ 1 1-25-
23.01(BU)
resulting from Deschutes
25
County 2040 Update
process.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
Property from Forest (F) to
2025-014
10-6-25/ 10-6-25
23.01.010
Rural Residential Exception
Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2026-004
01-28-26/04-28-
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
26
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
2026-005
TBD
23.01.010
(AG) and Surface Mine (SM)
to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
13 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2026-005
Exhibit " F" to Ordinance 2026-005
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY,
OREGON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FILE NUMBERS: 247-24-000392-PA / 247-24-000393-ZC
APPLICANT/
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
OWNER: Cascades Academy of Central Oregon
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Surface Mine and
Agricultural to Rural Residential Exemption Area and Zone
Change from Surface Mine ("SM") and Exclusive Farm Use
("EFU") to Multiuse Agricultural ("MUA-1
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
In this decision, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") considers
whether to approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Zone Change. Hearings Officer Brooks found the Applicant met all
applicable approval criteria except those implementing Statewide Planning
Goal 5 related to the Goal 5 scenic resources. Hearings Officer Brooks
therefore recommended denial in his February 21, 2025, recommendation
("Recommendation"), after a Public Hearing held on November 14, 2024.
In the Board's de novo consideration of the applications, the Applicant
introduced evidence addressing the requirements of Statewide Planning
Goal 5. The Board considered the applications de novo, incorporating the
Record below, and a public hearing before the Board was held on June 18,
2025.
On August 27, 2025, following deliberation, the Board voted 2-1 finding the
applicant had met their burden of proof, and approved the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications on the subject property.
File Nos. 247-24-000392-PA / 247-24-000393-ZC
119369\177688\TML\49824018.1
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2026-005
The Hearings Officer Recommendation is hereby incorporated as part of
this Decision, including any and all Hearings Officer interpretations of the
County Code, and modified as follows. In the event of conflict, the findings
in this Decision control.
II. BASIC FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the code interpretations,
findings of fact, and conclusions of law in the Recommendation as set forth
in Section I, Applicable Criteria, and Section 11, Basic Findings. The
Recommendation is attached as Exhibit F to Ordinance 2026-005. The
Board adds the following to the basic findings in the Recommendation.
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: A public hearing was held before a
Hearings Officer on November 14, 2024, and the Recommendation
was issued on February 21, 2025. Following the Hearings Officer
Recommendation of denial based on a determination the applicant
had not demonstrated consistency with Goal 5, the Applicant
submitted an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy ("ESEE")
Analysis prepared by DOWL Engineering and Planning to address the
Goal 5 issues and related administrative rules and criteria related to
scenic resources along Highway 20 and the Deschutes River. The
Board conducted a de novo hearing on June 18, 2025, and left the
written record open post -hearing to allow submission of additional
evidence and argument.
The Board rendered its oral decision after deliberation on August 27,
2025, approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zone Change and modifying the Recommendation findings as
described herein. This written Decision memorializes that oral
decision.
B. PROCEDURAL OBJECTION: The Board closed the oral portion of
the public hearing on June 18, 2025, and established an open record
period of fourteen (14) days for new evidence, seven (7) days for
rebuttal and seven (7) days for the Applicant's final legal argument.
2
File Nos. 247-24-000392-PA / 247-24-000393-ZC
11 9369\177688\TML\49824018.1
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2026-005
In its final legal argument, the Applicant objected to the Rebuttal
submission by Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") on the basis it
contained new evidence, not rebuttal, in violation of the Board's
order regarding the post -hearing record. At its August 27, 2025,
deliberations, the Board agreed not to consider the rebuttal
testimony submitted by Central Oregon Landwatch, as it constituted
new evidence, and proceeded with deliberations.
III. FINDINGS
This Board adopts the Hearings Officer Recommendation except as
supplemented and/or modified by this Decision as set forth below.
A. Can the Zoning be changed for the subject properties under DCC
18.52.200(A)?
FINDING: Central Oregon LandWatch reasserts the position it argued before
the Hearings Officer that the rezoning request for Tax Lots 300, 301, and 302
violates DCC 18.52.200(A) because they were previously zoned SM and were
changed to EFU in 2001. According to COLW, the rezoning would be a
collateral attack on the prior decision. A majority of the Board disagrees. The
present request is a separate, subsequent land use application filed almost 25
years after the prior rezone and is fully supported by the evidence in the
present record. There is nothing in the SM zone criteria or elsewhere that the
Board can find to prevent a rezone request based on COLW arguments. The
cited criteria apply to lands zoned SM, not lands formerly zoned SM.
B. Is the property in violation of previous land use approval and
subject to DCC 22.20.015(A)(2)?
FINDING: COLW asserts conditions of approval in SP-93-59 associated with
a previous reclamation on the subject property are unmet and therefore the
County cannot make any further land use decisions concerning the subject
property until those conditions are met. The Hearings Officer disagreed,
finding the subject property was rezoned in 2001 and past conditions related
to the surface mining activity are no longer applicable. A majority of the Board
agrees with the Hearings Officer that the property is not in violation of a
3
File Nos. 247-24-000392-PA / 247-24-000393-ZC
11 9369\177688\TML\49824018.1
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2026-005
previous land use approval, DCC 22.20.015(A)(2) is not applicable, and the
2001 rezoning Decision concerning the surface mining is valid and binding.
C. Subject Property as "Agricultural Land" with respect to Soils
Statewide Planning Goal 3, OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A)
FINDING: A majority of the Board adopts the Hearings Officer
Recommendation, finding that the Subject Property is predominantly
NRCS Class VII and VIII soils, and consequently is not Agricultural Land.
D. Subject Property as "Suitable" for Farm Use with respect to Factors
Statewide Planning Goal 3, OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B)
FINDING: A majority of the Board adopts the Hearings Officer
Recommendation, finding that the Subject Property is not suitable for farm
Use and is not Agricultural Land when considering factors established by the
Goal, the Administrative Rules, Oregon Revised Statutes, and relevant
common law.
A review of the substantial evidence submitted by the Applicant addressing
the seven suitability factors of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) shows that the
property alone or in conjunction with adjacent or nearby lands is not
suitable for farm use nor for construction and maintenance uses that serve
farm uses occurring elsewhere based on the seven suitability factors
including soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, water
availability, existing land pattern and technological and energy impacts.
E. Subject Property necessary to permit Farm Practices on
Adjacent or Nearby Agricultural Lands
Statewide Planning Goal 3, OAR 660-033-0020(1),(a�(C)
FINDING: COLW arguesthe application has not demonstrated compliance with
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C) with respect to Tax Lot 300 because there is
4
File Nos. 247-24-000392-PA / 247-24-000393-ZC
119369\ 177688\TML\49824018.1
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2026-005
existing farm use which will be impacted. The Applicant submitted evidence
from the owners of adjacent and nearby properties, including historic owners
of Tax Lot 300 refuting the alleged farm use and supporting the applicant's
request. A majority of theBoard agrees with the Hearings Officer and the
Applicant that the subject property is not necessary to permit farm practices
adjacent or nearby Agricultural lands.
F. Goal 14 — Will the zone change results in urbanization such that
an exception to Goal 14 is required.
FINDING: The Applicant addressed the Curry factors by providing a site -
specific analysis to demonstrate the use is rural in nature, with rural lot sizes,
a rural density and the proposed MUA-10 zone places size and operational
limits on what could be considered "magnet" uses that would draw UGB
residents to rural properties. The Applicant submitted evidence showing the
property will be served by on -site sewer and wells and not by urban services.
A majority of the Board finds the substantial evidence in the record
demonstrates the proposal is rural in nature and does not require an exception
to Goal 14.
G. Goal 5 and Conflicting Uses
Statewide Planning Goal 5, OAR 660-23-0250(3)
FINDING: As noted previously, Hearings Officer Brooks found that the
applicant did not adequately address Goal 5 and recommended denial on that
basis. Hearings Officer Brooks noted that the Applicant may be able to show
that the County's prior Goal 5 analysis considered the proposed development
allowed by the MUA-10 zone on the subject property or demonstrate that the
new uses allowed on the subject property do not significantly affect a Goal 5
resource.
In response to the Hearings Officer Recommendation of denial, the applicant
submitted the 1992 ESEE analysis associated with the Highway 20 and
Deschutes River scenic corridors, was well as a current, site -specific ESEE
prepared by DOWL Engineering and Planning to demonstrate the uses
allowed under the MUM 0 zone will not introduce new uses which conflict with
the Highway 20 and Deschutes River scenic corridors. Based on the ESEE
5
File Nos. 247-24-000392-PA / 247-24-000393-ZC
11 9369\177688\TML\49824018.1
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2026-005
prepared by DOWL, the Board agrees with the conclusions within that report
that the uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone will not conflict with the Highway 20
and Deschutes River scenic corridors.
The evidence shows there is significant development in and around the subject
property which is visually more prominent in both the highway and river
corridors than any uses which could occur on the subject property, including
the aggregate storage and processing site and the nearby mini -storage
development. The subject property is well screened from the highway and
river corridors by distance, intervening vegetation and topography. The
provisions of the LM zone will continue to apply to future development of the
subject property. For these reasons, a majority of the Board finds Goal 5 is
satisfied and any new uses allowed under the MUA-10 zone will not conflict
with the Goal 5 scenic resources.
IV. DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board
of County Commissioners hereby APPROVES the Applicant's application for a
Deschutes Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the
Subject Property.
6
File Nos. 247-24-000392-PA / 247-24-000393-ZC
119369\177688\TML\49824018.1
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2026-005
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING DATE:
HEARING LOCATION: ,
APPLICANT:
247-24-000392-PA, 393-ZC
November 14, 2025, 1:00 p.m.
Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
Cascades Academy of Central Oregon
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 64325 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 17-12-06, tax lot 301
• 64345 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 17-12-06, tax lot 300
• 64375 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 17-12-06, tax lot 302
• 64385 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 17-12-06B, tax lot 100
• No address; Assessor map 16-12-31D, tax lot 4200
• No address; Assessor map 16-12-31D, tax lot 4300
• 64411 O.B. Riley Rd; Assessor map 16-12-31D, tax lot 4400
REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to change the designation of the Subject Property. If approved, Tax
Lots 4200, 4300, and 4400 would change from the Surface Mine
(SM) designation to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA), and
Tax Lots 100, 300, 301, and 302 would change from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). Applicant also
requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone all Tax Lots on the
Subject Property from either Surface Mining (SM) or Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the record is not sufficient to
support the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change, specifically with respect to the
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5. The Hearings Officer therefore recommends the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners DENY the Application unless the Applicant demonstrates the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5.
Page I 1
I. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10)
Chapter 18.52, Surface Mining (SM)
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Appendix C, Transportation System Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660
Division 12, Transportation Planning
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 23, Procedures and Requirements for Complying with Goal 5
Division 33, Agricultural Land
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Chapter 215.010, Definitions
Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
A. Nature of Proceeding
The Subject Property consists of seven Tax Lots. Tax Lots 4200, 4300, and 4400 currently carry the
Surface Mine (SM) Comprehensive Plan designation and are zoned Surface Mining (SM). Tax Lots 100,
300, 301, and 302 currently carry the Agriculture (AG) Comprehensive Plan designation and are zoned
Exclusive Farm Use-Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone (EFU). This matter comes before the Hearings
Officer as a request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ("Plan Amendment") to
change the designation of the Subject Property from Surface Mining (SM) and Agriculture (AG) to Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA). The Applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning
Map Amendment ("Zone Change") to change the zoning of the Subject Property to Multiple Use
Agricultural (MUA-10).
The primary bases of the request in the Application are the Applicants' assertions that: (1) the Subject
Property does not contain a significant Goal 5 resource; (2) the Subject Property is not part of the
Page 12
remaining surface mining operation; and (3) the Subject Property does not qualify as "agricultural land"
under the applicable provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes or Oregon Administrative Rules governing
agricultural land. Based on those assertions, the Applicant is not seeking an exception to Statewide
Planning Goal ("Goal") 3 for the Plan Amendment or Zone Change. Although the Applicant intends to
use the Subject Property for the expansion of an existing school on an adjacent parcel, the Applicant is
not requesting the approval of the school or of any other specific development as part of the Application.
B. Notices and Hearing
The Application is dated June 24, 2024. On July 16, 2024, the County issued a Notice of Application to
several public agencies and to property owners in the vicinity of the Subject Property (together,
"Application Notice"). The Application Notice invited comments on the Application. The County also
provided notice of the Plan Amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development
("DLCD") on September 27, 2024.
The County mailed a Notice of Public Hearing on September 30, 2024 ("Hearing Notice") announcing an
evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") for the requests in the Application. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I
presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on November 14, 2024, opening the Hearing at 1:00
p.m. The Hearing was held via videoconference, with Staff, representatives of the Applicant, and other
participants in the hearing room. The Hearings Officer appeared remotely. The Hearing concluded at 2:06
p.m.
At the beginning of the Hearing, I provided an overview of the quasi-judicial process and instructed
participants to direct comments to the approval criteria and standards, and to raise any issues a participant
wanted to preserve for appeal if necessary. I stated I had no ex parte contacts to disclose or bias to declare.
I asked for but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction over the matter or to my participation
as the Hearings Officer.
Prior to the conclusion of the Hearing, the Applicant requested and agreed to leaving the written record
open to take additional evidence. At the conclusion of the Hearing, I announced that the written record
would remain open: (1) until December 5, 2024, for any participant to provide additional evidence ("Open
Record Period"); (2) until December 19, 2024, for any participant to provide rebuttal evidence to evidence
submitted during the Open Record Period; and (3) until January 2, 2025, for the Applicant only to provide
a final legal argument, without additional evidence.
C. Review Period
Because the Application includes the request for the Plan Amendment, the 150-day review period set forth
in ORS 215.427(1) is not applicable.' The Staff Report also notes that the 150-day review period is not
applicable by virtue of Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") 22.20.040(D). No participant in the
proceeding disputed that conclusion.
' ORS 215.427(7).
Page 13
III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Staff Report
Prior to the Hearing, on November 4, 2024, the Deschutes County Planning Division ("Staff") issued a
report setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting the evidence in the record at that time ("Staff
Report").
The Staff Report concludes that the Applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the Plan
Amendment and Zone Change, and it makes several findings with respect to the approval standards.
Because some of the information, analysis, and findings provided in the Staff Report are not refuted,
portions of the findings below refer to the Staff Report and, in some cases, adopt sections of the Staff
Report as my findings. In the event of a conflict between the findings in this Decision and the Staff Report,
the findings in this Decision control.
B. Code Plan and Statewide Planniniz Goal Findings
The legal criteria applicable to the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change were set forth in the
Application Notice and appear in the Staff Report. This Recommendation addresses each of those criteria,
as set forth below, in addition to other issues raised by the participants.
1. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative
map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner, for a quasi-
judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the
Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
The Applicant is the owner of the Subject Property and submitted the Application and the necessary
Application form. The Applicant has requested a quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and filed the Application
for that purpose, together with the request for the Zone Change. It is therefore appropriate to review the
Application using the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards
The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served
by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are:
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with
the plan's introductory statement and goals.
According to the Applicant and the Staff Report, the County's application of this Code provision does not
necessarily involve the direct application of the Plan's introductory statements and goals as approval
Page 14
criteria. Rather, consistency with the Plan can be determined by assessing whether the proposal is
consistent with specific Plan goals and policies that may be applicable to the proposal.
The Applicant identified multiple Plan goals and policies it believes are relevant to the Application.'
Among those goals and policies are those set forth in: (1) Section 2.2 of Chapter 2, relating to Agricultural
Land Policies; (2) Section 2.4 of Chapter 2, relating to Goal 5; (3) Section 2.10 of Chapter 2, relating to
surface mining; (4) Section 2.7 of Chapter 2, relating to Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites; (5) Section
3.2 of Chapter 3, relating to Rual Development; (6) Section 3.3 of Chapter 3, relating to rural housing;
and (7) Section 3.7 of Chapter 3, relating to transportation. The Application explains how the Plan
Amendment and Zone Change is consistent with these goals and policies.
No participant asserts that the Application does not comply with DCC 18.136.020(A), disputes the
Applicant's characterization of the Plan's goals and policies presented in the Application, or identifies
other Plan goals and policies requiring consideration. Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") does raise
issues related to some of these policies — e.g., whether the Subject Property constitutes agricultural land
and the Applicant's compliance with transportation rules — but does so in the context of whether the
Application satisfies various state administrative rules, and COLW does not go as far to say that the
Application is inconsistent with these Comprehensive Plan policies. COLW's specific arguments are
addressed below in separate findings responding to the specific issues COLW raises.
Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the proposed zone classification.
The purpose of the MUA-10 zoning district is stated in DCC 18.32.010 as follows:
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the
rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development
consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources
of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-
time commercial farming for diversified or part -tune agricultural uses; to
conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect
natural and scenic resources, to maintain and improve the quality of the
air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and
procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense
development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly
and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
The Applicant's Burden of Proof asserts that "[a]pproval of the application is consistent with the purpose
of the MUA-10 zoning district," and quotes the purpose set forth above. The Applicant supports that
assertion by stating that the Subject Property is not suited to full-time commercial fanning, and that the
2 See page 8-16 of the Applicant's Burden of Proof Statement submitted with the Application
("Application Narrative").
Page 15
zone change will allow the expansion of a school, which the Applicant asserts is a low -density
development that conserves open spaces and protects natural and scenic resources. The Staff Report
repeats the Applicant's assertions and agrees that the requested Zone Change is consistent with the purpose
of the proposed zoning.
COLW disputes the Applicant's assertion that the Subject Property is not suitable for farming, but it does
not dispute the Applicant's other assertions that the requested zone change is consistent with the purpose
of the zone. Nor does COLW assert that this Code provision is not satisfied. Although COLW argues that
the zone change is not "necessary" to allow the contemplated school expansion (because some schools are
allowed on EFU land), that argument does not describe why the requested zone change would be
inconsistent with the purpose of the MUA-10 designation. Nor does this Code provision require a showing
that the Zone Change is "necessary." COLW's arguments relating to the suitability of the Subject Property
for farming are addressed in other findings below.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of persuasive countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the requested zone change is consistent with the purpose of the MUA-10 zone and this Code provision is
satisfied.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare
considering the following factors:
The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities.
As noted in the Staff Report, this criterion specifically asks if the Zone Change will presently serve public
health, safety, and welfare. The Applicant provided the following as support for why this criterion is met:
• Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the Subject Property, including
electric power and water
• Transportation access to the Subject Property is available, and the impact of increased traffic on
the transportation system is non-existent and, to the contrary, the planned rezone results in a
reduction in potential trips generated from the Subject Property
• The Subject Property receives police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and fire service
from Rural Fire Protection District # 2
• There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public
health, safety, or welfare
The Staff Report confirms that, prior to development of the Subject Property, the Applicant would be
required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Code, at which time additional assurances of
adequate public services and facilities will also be verified.
No participant in this proceeding disputed the Applicant's or Staff s characterization of this Code
provision or the Applicant's evidence presented to show compliance with this Code provision.
Page 16
Based on the foregoing, I find that services are currently available and sufficient for the Subject Property,
and that they can remain available and sufficient if the Subject Property is developed under the MUA-10
zone. I therefore find this Code provision is satisfied.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and
policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant asserts the following:
The MUA-10 zoning is consistent with the specific goals and policies in the
comprehensive plan discussed above. The MUA-10 zoning allows rural
uses consistent with the uses of many other properties in the area of the
subject property.
The zone change will not impose new impacts on the EFU-zoned land
adjacent to or nearby the subject property because many of those properties
are residential properties, hobby farms, already developed with dwellings,
not engaged in commercial farm use, are idle, or are otherwise not suited
for fann use due to soil conditions, topography, or ability to make a profit
fanning.
As discussed below, the subject property is not agricultural land, is
comprised of predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils, and as described by the soil
scientist, Mr. Kitzrow, the nonproductive soils on the subject property make
it not suitable for commercial farming or livestock grazing. The subject
property is not land that historically has been or could be used in
conjunction with the adjacent irrigated property for any viable agricultural
use and any future development of the subject property would be subject to
building setbacks.
The Staff Report agrees that the Applicant has demonstrated the impacts on surrounding land use will be
consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Plan. COLW disputes the Applicant's
assertion that the Subject Property is not suitable for agriculture, or that it is predominantly composed of
Class 7 and Class 8 soils, but COLW does not assert that any potential impacts are inconsistent with Plan
goals and policies. Nor does COLW dispute the Applicant's characterization of the applicable goals and
policies. COLW's arguments relating to farming suitability and soil classifications are addressed below.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of persuasive countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
this Code provision is satisfied.
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake
was made in the zoning of the property in question.
The Applicant's Burden of Proof addresses this Code provision, in part, with an explanation that purports
to describe a mistake in the zoning of the property. However, that explanation simply describes the history
Page 17
of EFU zoning in the state and the fact that resource zoning was originally applied "using a broad brush."
But this portion of the Burden of Proof also acknowledges that "[t]he EFU zoning designation was likely
based on the best soils data that was available to the County at the time it was originally zoned." I find
that the Applicant has not established that an actual mistake was made when the property was zoned EFU.
According to the Applicant, a change in circumstances exists since the Subject Property was originally
zoned for agriculture in the 1970's, including: (1) the collection of new soils data showing the property
does not have agricultural soils; (2) the transfer of the property from the owner of mining Site No. 370;
(3) market changes reducing the viability of commercial farming both on the Subject Property and in the
area in general; and (4) encroaching development. The Staff Report agrees with the Applicant's findings
regarding the existence of a change in circumstances.
COLW submitted comments asserting that the Application does not satisfy CDC DCC 18.136.020(D), but
those comments simply state that the property was rezoned to EFU in 2001 and "there has neither been a
change in circumstances since that decision, nor was any mistake made in that decision." COLW repeated
that conclusion in oral comments during the Hearing. COLW does not attempt to explain the portion of
its comments relating to an absence of changed circumstance, nor does it attempt to refute the evidence
provided by the Applicant that circumstances have indeed changed. COLW's argument in this regard is
therefore not developed enough for me to respond to, and lacks supporting evidence that allows me to
infer the basis on which is makes its claim.
Based on the Applicant's evidence, and in the absence of evidence or a developed argument challenging
the Applicant's evidence, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
Section 18.52, Surface Mining Zone
Section 18.52.200, Termination of the Surface Mining Zoning and Surrounding Surface Mining
Impact Area Combining Zone
A. When a surface mining site has been fully or partially mined, and the operator demonstrates
that a significant resource no longer exists on the site, and that the site has been reclaimed in
accordance with the reclamation plan approved by DOGAMI or the reclamation provisions
of DCC 18, the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone identified in the surface
mining element of the Comprehensive Plan.
This Code provision contemplates that a property with the SM zoning designation may be rezoned under
certain circumstances. Specifically, property can be rezoned once the "surface mining site" has been fully
or partially mined, no longer has a significant resource, and has been reclaimed in accordance with
applicable reclamation plans and Code provisions. The Code also contemplates that a post -mining
"subsequent use zone" will be identified and that, through the rezoning process, that subsequent use zone
will apply to the property.
The Applicant asserts that this criterion is not applicable. Currently, only tax lots 4200, 4300, and 4400 of
the Subject Property retain the SM zoning designation. The Applicant notes that those parcels, which are
part of Site No. 370, were included in the County's inventory of mineral and aggregate sites only for
"storage" uses. According to the Applicant, it was never intended that these tax lots would be mined, no
Page 18
minerals were ever extracted from these tax lots, no Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
("DOGAMI") or County reclamation plan applies to these tax lots, and the soils reports confirms that
there is no significant resource on these tax lots. The Staff Report agrees with the Applicant's analysis.
COLW asserts that the Application does not satisfy DCC 18.52.200, but only as it relates to tax lots 300,
301, and 302, which is discussed in more detail below. COLW does not dispute the Applicant's assertion
that DCC 18.52.200 is not applicable to tax lots 4200, 4300, and 4400.
I agree with the Applicant that DCC 18.52.200 is not applicable in this context. Looking at the language
in that Code provision, it applies to a "surface mining site" that was identified as having a significant
resource and that is capable of being mined (wholly or partially) and later reclaimed. The inventory of
mineral and aggregate sites included in the record shows that Site No. 370 is not such a site, as evidenced
by the fact that it is listed as a "storage" site rather than as a mining type (e.g. sand and gravel or pumice)
and the fact that no quantity of mineral is listed for that site. The absence of any intended mining is further
evidenced by the fact that no reclamation plan applies to these tax lots.
As just noted, COLW asserts that the Application nevertheless violates DCC 18.52.200 with respect to
tax lots 300, 301, and 302. Those tax lots previously carried the SM zoning designation, but have been
zoned EFU since 2001 when the County adopted Ordinance No. 2001-027 (the "2001 Rezoning
Decision"). The 2001 Rezoning Designation applied DCC 18.52.200 to these three tax lots, which were
part of mining Site No. 304. According to COLW, DCC 18.52.200 states that when the County removes
the SM zone from a surface mining site, "the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone
identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan." As a result of that language,
according to COLW, once that subsequent use zone is in place, it cannot be changed again. Specifically,
COLW states that "[a]pproving the current application would violate DCC 18.52.200 by rezoning the
subject property to a different zone than the zone identified in the County's comprehensive plan."
I disagree with COLW's argument for multiple reasons. First, DCC 18.52.200 applies to properties that
are zoned SM. Tax lots 300, 301, and 302, however, are zoned EFU. Nothing in the language of this Code
provision states or implies that it can or should be applied to properties in zones other than the SM zone.
This Code provision therefore does not apply to these three tax lots. Second, this Code provision is silent
with respect to subsequent applications for rezoning property. The language simply states that, once a site
no longer has a significant resource it can be rezoned and, if it is rezoned, the County must apply the
identified subsequent use zone. The 2001 Rezoning Decision did just that — by rezoning these three tax
lots to the EFU zone. If the Code were intended to prohibit a future property owner from rezoning the
property again, one would expect to find such a limitation in the Code language, but no such limitation
exists. Third, the 2001 Rezoning Decision itself is silent on this matter. It contains no conditions of
approval or other limiting language preventing the property owner from seeking to rezone the property in
the future. Finally, this Code provision inust be read in context with other language in the Code. DCC
18.136.020 establishes the criteria for rezoning property. Those criteria contain no exceptions for
properties that were already rezoned pursuant to DCC 18.52.200.
Based on the foregoing, I find that a Plan Amendment and Zone Change is available to the Applicant as
long as all other criteria are satisfied, and that DCC 18.52.200 is not applicable to any of the tax lots
comprising the Subject Property under these circumstances.
Page 19
B. Concurrent with such rezoning, any surface mining impact area combining zone which
surrounds the rezoned surface mining site shall be removed. Rezoning shall be subject to
DCC 18.136 and all other applicable sections of DCC 18, the Comprehensive Plan and DCC
Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance.
As proposed by the Applicant, the Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone associated with
the Subject Property and the remaining properties within Site No. 370 would remain in place. No
participant objects to that portion of the Applicant's proposal. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code
provision will be implemented if the Application is approved as part of the final action by the County's
Board of Commissioners ("Board").
2. DCC 22.20.015(A)(2)
COLW asserts that the Application cannot be approved because the Applicant is in violation of a condition
of approval applicable to portions of the Subject Property. DCC 22.20.015(A)(2) provides that the County
cannot make a land use decision for a property if the "property is in violation of applicable land use
regulations, and/or the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or building permits
previously issued by the County."
According to COLW, prior County decision SP-93-59 approved a site plan for surface mining and
reclamation on tax lots 300, 301, and 302. As part of that decision, the County imposed certain reclamation
requirements, including the reclamation plan associated with a DOGAMI permit, and incorporated those
into the conditions of approval for that decision. COLW asserts that the conditions of the Subject Property
as described in the Applicant's Soil Report demonstrates that these reclamation requirements are unmet
and, therefore, in violation of the conditions of approval in the County's prior decision. COLW further
asserts that, until the site reclamation. is complete, the County cannot make any land use decisions
concerning the Subject Property.
The Applicant responds that the County has previously determined that the reclamation requirements from
the SP-92-59 decision have been completed. According to the Applicant, the 2001 Rezoning Decision
discussed above conclusively establishes that the conditions of SP-92-59, the DOGAMI reclamation plan,
and a related development agreement containing the same requirements were met, which is what justified
the rezoning of tax lots 300, 301, and 302 back to the EFU zone. The Applicant asserts that COLW's
arguments constitute an impermissible "collateral attack" on the 2001 Rezoning Decision.
I find that this issue can be resolved without the need to determine whether COLW's arguments amount
to a collateral attack of the County's prior decision for three distinct and independent reasons. First, the
restriction set forth in DCC 22.20.015(A) applies only where there has been a "violation" of a condition
of approval. DCC 22.20.015(C) defines a "violation" as existing when "the property has been determined
to not be in compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other tribunal, or through the
review process of the current application, or through an acknowledgement by the alleged violator in a
signed voluntary compliance agreement." Here, not only has a violation not been determined to exist, the
only prior adjudication of the issue came to the opposite conclusion and determined no violation existed.
Page 110
Second, the evidence in the record is that the County and DOGAMI each determined that the reclamation
activities that occurred were satisfactory. Those determinations were made in 2001 and were closer in
time to when the reclamation activities occurred. The result of the reclamation as it exists today may not
be what COLW would expect them to be, but the entities reviewing the results at the time provide better
evidence of whether and how the reclamation activities were implemented.
Finally, I disagree with COLW that the reclamation conditions it points to are ongoing obligations of the
property owner. Those conditions were imposed as part of the review of a site plan allowing surface
mining activities. With the approval of the 2001 Rezoning Decision, the property was rezoned and the
surface mining use was no longer allowed on the property. The conditions of approval relating to surface
mining therefore no longer had any purpose. Absent any condition of approval in the 2001 Rezoning
Decision that kept those conditions alive, there is simply no basis to apply a condition of approval where
there is no longer an approved use to be conditioned.
Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC 22.20.015(A)(2) does not prevent the Applicant from seeking the
Plan Amendment or Zone Change, and that the County is not precluded from approving the Application
on that basis.
3. Deschutes County CoMprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
As previously noted, the Applicant and Staff Report both identify several Plan goals and policies
potentially relevant to this Application. Staff s discussion of those goals and policies appears on pages 14
through 23 of the Staff Report. No participant in this proceeding identified other applicable goals and
policies, or otherwise asserted that the proposal is inconsistent with the plans and policies the Applicant
and Staff identified. I therefore adopt the findings in the Staff Report as my findings relating to the Plan
goals and policies. The issues raised by COLW that are related to the County's Plan goals and policies,
but which specifically address various state administrative rules, are addressed in later findings.
4. Oregon Administrative Rules
The participants to this proceeding have identified several state administrative rules that may be directly
applicable to the Applicant's proposal. The findings in this section address each of those rules.
a. OAR 660-023-0180
The Applicant and the Staff Report identify multiple provisions in OAR 660-023-0180 as being applicable
to the Application. In summary, those provisions provide a process by which a County should amend an
acknowledged inventory or plan with regard to mineral and aggregate resources, including a process for
determining the significance of a resource, whether for the purpose of listing a new resource or de -listing
an existing resource. Only the Applicant and the Staff Report address this administrative rule, and no other
participant asserts that the Application does not satisfy the provisions in OAR 660-023-0180. I therefore
adopt the findings on pages 23-26 of the Staff Report addressing this administrative rule as my findings.
Page 111
b. OAR 660-006-0005
The Applicant addresses OAR 660-006-0005 to demonstrate that the Subject Property does not qualify as
"forest lands" and, therefore, that Goal 4 is not applicable to the request in the Application. The Staff
Report indicates that it agrees with the Applicant's analysis, and no other participant objects to the
Applicant's conclusion that the Subject Property does not qualify as "forest lands". For the reasons stated
in the Application and the Staff Report, I agree that the Subject Property does not qualify as "forest lands"
and, therefore, that Goal 4 does not apply.
c. Goal 3 Administrative Rules
A major issue in this proceeding is whether the Subject Property qualifies as "agricultural land" under
Goal 3 and its implementing rules. The Applicant seeks to establish that the Subject Property is not
agricultural land. In support of its position, the Applicant submitted to the record an Order 1 Soil Survey
("Soil Study") prepared by a certified professional soil scientist, Gary A. Kitzrow of Growing Soils
Environmental Associates (GSEA). The Staff Report agrees with the Applicant's position and the findings
in the Soil Study, concluding that the Subject Property consists predominantly of Class VII and VIII soils
and, therefore, does not constitute agricultural lands. COLW, on the other hand, asserts that the Subject
Property is not only agricultural land, but that it is high value farmland that must be zoned EFU, and that
the EFU designation cannot be changed without first taking an exception to Goal 3.
As a starting point, COLW argues that the Applicant cannot rely on ORS 215.211 and the Soil Study to
change the zoning designation of the Subject Property because the property qualifies as high value
farmland using U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") classifications. COLW's
argument is rooted in OAR 660-033-0030(8), which COLW believes requires that the NRCS must be used
for the approval of certain land use applications on high -value farmland and that additional soil
information cannot be used. According to COLW, OAR 660-033-0090 and OAR 660-033-0120, which
are referenced in OAR 660-033-0030(8), mean, together, that "[w]hen the NRCS soil classes and rating
show that a property is high -value farmland, the only uses allowed on that land are those specified in OAR
660-033-0120, and counties must apply EFU zoning to such lands."
COLW's argument in this regard does not reflect the actual language of the rules. First, OAR 660-033-
0090 states that the EFU zone must apply to "agricultural lands", which may be high -value farmland or
not high -value farmland. Once it is determined that land is agricultural land, and that it is high -value
farmland, that rule states that only those uses authorized on high -value farmland under OAR 660-033-
0120 are allowed. But the current application is not concerned with allowing a particular use, so the
provisions of OAR 660-033-0090 and OAR 660-033-0120 are not at issue. Those provisions would be
triggered only if the Subject Property were first deemed to be agricultural land and then a specific use
were proposed. Here, the task is to determine if the Subject Property is agricultural land at all. If it is, then
the rule provisions COLW relies on may be applicable. If it is not, then the Subject Property will not be
agricultural land at all, whether high -value farmland or something else, and those provisions would not
apply.
Page 112
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(aa)(A)
COLW alternatively argues that the Subject Property qualifies as agricultural land under the definitions
set forth in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a), the first of which, in subsection (A), relies on the NRCS
classifications. Under that definition, "agricultural lands" includes "Lands classified by the U.S. Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -VI
soils in Eastern Oregon." The Subject Property could qualify as "agricultural lands" under that definition
because the applicable NRCS soil classifications include large amounts of Class III soils (when irrigated).
However, the Applicant relies on ORS 215.211, which it asserts grants a property owner the right to rely
on more detailed information in lieu of the NRCS classifications. The Applicant uses the Soil Study for
that purpose, and the Soil Study concludes that the soils on the Subject Property are predominantly Class
VII and VIII soils.
As the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") has explained, "ORS 215.211 allows a site -specific analysis
of soils where a person believes that such information would, compared to the information provided by
the NRCS, assist a county in determining whether land is agricultural land."3 In that case, the applicant
sought to change a property's Plan designation from AG to Rural Industrial (RI). The applicant in that
case also relied on a site -specific Order 1 soil survey prepared by a qualified soil scientist. LUBA upheld
the County's reliance on that soil survey as part of its determination that the property at issue in that case
consisted predominantly of Class VII and Class VIII soils unsuitable for farming.
Based on the language in ORS 215.211 and LUBA's acknowledgment of that statute, I find that the County
is not precluded from considering the Order 1 soil survey when applying OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A), as
long as doing so is consistent with OAR 660-033-0030(5), which implements ORS 215.211. COLW does
not dispute that the survey complies with OAR 660-033-0030(5). The Staff Report, however, notes that
the Applicant has not provided confirmation of the Soil Study from DLCD, a requirement of OAR 660-
033-0030(5)(b) by virtue of its cross reference to OAR 660-033-0045. The Applicant and Staff suggest a
condition of approval requiring a response from DLCD prior to the Plan Amendment and Zone Change
becoming final. No other participant objected to that approach. Because this Decision does not recommend
approval of the Plan Amendment and Zone Change, it does not include any suggested conditions.
However, if the Board subsequently approves the Application, and if the Applicant still has not provide
documentation from DLCD, such a condition seems warranted and necessary.
Based on the foregoing, and considering the more detailed evidence provided by the Applicant's soil
scientist against the NRCS designation of the Subject Property, I find that that the Subject Property does
not qualify as agricultural land under Goal 3 as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A), but that the
Applicant has not complied with all procedural aspects of OAR 660-033-0030(5) and must do so before
the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are approved. That does not end the inquiry, however, as COLW
also argues that the Subject Property qualifies as agricultural land under the other sections of OAR 660-
033-0020(1)(a).
3 Central Oregon Land Watch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2023-008, April 24,
2023) ("LUBA No. 2023-008").
Page 113
OAR 660-033-0020(I)(a)(B)
COLW next argues that the Subject Property is "agricultural land" as defined in OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(B). That rules states that land qualifies as agricultural land if it is "suitable for farm use as
defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic
conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns;
technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices."
COLW addresses each of the subsection (B) factors, concluding that the Subject Property is suitable for
farm use based on any one of those factors. The Applicant similarly addresses each of those factors,
concluding that the Subject Property is not suitable for farm use. Having reviewed the evidence and
arguments presented by these participants, a primary difference in their positions comes down to the
definition of "farm use", which ORS 215.203(2)(a) defines as:
The current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in
money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding,
management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing animals
or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural
or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof.
According to COLW, the Subject Property could be employed for multiple fann uses because: (1) the soil
fertility is high -value farmland; (2) it can be used for livestock, on its own or in conjunction with other
lands; (3) the climate is the same as the climate of surrounding agricultural lands; (4) irrigation water is
available; (5) it is part of a larger block of productive agricultural land; (6) any technological and energy
inputs needed to farm the property are not unique; and (7) it is an accepted farm practice to improving the
property for farming, such as removing rocks, tilling and fertilizing soil, and improving irrigation
infrastructure. COLW also notes that the Subject Property has historically had an irrigated pasture.
The Applicant does not dispute that some "farming" may be possible on the Subject Property. Rather, the
Applicant asserts that, based on these same factors, farming activities would not be "profitable" and,
therefore, do not arise to the level of a "farm use" as defined by ORS 215.203(2)(a). The Applicant
supports its assertions with evidence from the Soil Study and farmers with experience engaging in farm
uses. The Applicant's explanation includes addressing its inability to engage in farm uses on the Subject
Property even if the Subject Property is considered in conjunction with other parcels.
As just one example, the Applicant provided evidence that the Subject Property could not support enough
forage for even one cow to graze and that any revenue gained from raising one cow would be more than
offset by all the costs necessary to engage in that activity. Similarly, the Applicant provided evidence that
the costs of adding additional irrigation infrastructure are unreasonable and prohibitive. The Applicant
also notes that the historical use on the site as an irrigated pasture does not necessarily inform whether
such a use constitutes a "farm use" under current conditions as COLW suggests — for example, because
the economics of farm activities have changed over time.
As it relates to this administrative rule, the competing evidence submitted by the parties makes this a close
call. Having reviewed and weighed that evidence, however, I find that the quantitative and more -detailed
Page 114
evidence provided by the Applicant is more persuasive, and I conclude that it is more likely than not that
the Subject Property is not suitable for farm uses as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a).
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C)
As a final argument on this issue, COLW asserts that the Subject Property is "agricultural land" as defined
in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C). That rule states that land qualifies as "agricultural land" if it "is necessary
to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands." COLW specifically
asserts that the extra traffic, noise, and human presence resulting from a zone change "threatens the
viability of current and potential farm practices in the area." The Applicant responds, in part, by noting
how LUBA has interpreted this rule to require "some connection between the subject property and
adjacent or nearby farm practices, such that the property must remain as `agricultural land' in order to
permit such practices on other lands to be undertaken."4 In that case, LUBA agreed that it is not only that
the land itself must be necessary to permit farm practices on other lands, but the land's resource
designation and zoning must be "necessary" to permit farm practices on other lands.
LUBA acknowledges that this "necessary" standard is a high one, and some conflicts may be allowed.
But where specific conflicts are identified, they must be assessed. COLW, however, does not identify
specific conflicts that will happen as a result of the change in zoning, only potential conflicts that may
arise. Indeed, specific conflicts would be difficult to identify because the Application does not propose a
specific development. The Applicant does contemplate using the Subject Property for the expansion of an
existing school, but COLW acknowledges that such a use is authorized under current zoning. Thus, the
change in zoning would not be the cause of the conflicts COLW urges must be avoided in order for other
properties to continue farming.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the evidence in the record does not allow me to conclude that the
Subject Property is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural
lands and, therefore, the Subject Property does not qualify as agricultural land under this part of the rule.
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b)
The state's administrative rules provide one more definition of "agricultural lands" in OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(b) — "Land in capability classes other than I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands
in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though
this land may not be cropped or grazed;..." The Applicant states that the Subject Property does not fall
into this category and "is not, and has not, been a part of a farm unit". The Staff Report agrees with the
Applicant's assessment, and no other participant challenges that assessment or argues that the Subject
Property falls within this definition. Based on the foregoing, I find that the Subject Property is not
"agricultural land" under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b).
4 Central Oregon LandWatch et al. v. Deschutes County, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2023-006/009)
(July 28, 2023).
Page 115
d. Goal 5 Administrative Rules
COLW argues that the Application is not in compliance with OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b), which is part of
Goal 5. Goal 5 and its implementing rules protect natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open
spaces. Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(3), the County does not have to apply Goal 5 as part of a post -
acknowledgment plan amendment ("PAPA") "unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource." One scenario
in which a PAPA may affect a Goal 5 resource is when the "PAPA allows new uses that could be
conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list."'
COLW argues that the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change requires the Applicant to apply Goal
5 provisions because the Application "proposes to amend the plan designation and zoning for the subject
property that would allow new uses — those permitted in the MUA-10 zone — on the subject property" and
that those new uses may conflict with the County's Goal 5-protected resources. The specific resources
COLW identifies are Landscape Management Rivers, State Scenic Waterways, and wetlands.
The County regulates conflicting uses with Landscape Management Rivers and State Scenic Waterways
through the application of the Landscape Management Combining zone ("LM Zone"), and the Subject
Property currently carries the LM Zone designation.
The Applicant asserts that there is no need to apply Goal 5 in light of the County's acknowledged Plan,
which contains the LM Zone as a tool for protecting some Goal 5 resources. According to the Applicant,
the Subject Property is already subject to the LM Zone and, to the extent there are any conflicts with a
Goal 5 resource, that can be resolved at the time when specific development occurs and the County
requires site plan approval for any development within the LM Zone. The Applicant specifically states
that "[t]here is no requirement to apply Goal 5 directly to the application where, as here, the proposal does
[not] introduce `new uses' which would be conflicting with the Goal."'
The Applicant's response is not consistent with a relatively recent LUBA decision — the LUBA No. 2023-
008 case cited above in footnote 3. That decision rejects the very approach to Goal 5 the Applicant seeks
here. In that case, LUBA explained that its prior decisions require a local jurisdiction "to apply Goal 5 if
the PAPA allows a new use that could conflict with Goal 5 resources." LUBA then addressed a situation
similar to the situation presented in this case and analyzed whether the new zoning (in that case, the RI
zone on property that would retain the LM overlay) allowed uses on the subject property that were not
allowed under the previous EFU zoning and whether those uses could conflict with protected Goal 5
resources.
LUBA's decision acknowledged that the County previously conducted the appropriate Goal 5 analysis for
other RI -zoned properties and applied the LM Zone to protect the Highway 97 scenic resource from
conflicting uses on those properties. However, LUBA determined that, in the absence of evidence showing
s OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b).
6 The Applicant's Final Legal Argument actually states: "[t]here is no requirement to apply Goal 5
directly to the application where, as here, the proposal does introduce `new uses' which would be
conflicting with the Goal." That appears to be a typo and I assume the Applicant intended to say
"...does not introduce...". That sentence would not otherwise make sense in the context in which it
appears.
Page 116
the prior Goal 5 analysis considered impacts from RI -type development on all properties, that analysis did
not consider whether RI uses on farm -zoned property affected a Goal 5 resource. Indeed, LUBA concluded
that "the county could not have, in its [prior Goal 5 analysis], evaluated whether development of those
new uses on the subject property would excessively interfere with the protected scenic resource because
those uses were not allowed on the property" at that time. Because the County's decision in that case
allowed "new uses that could conflict with inventoried Goal 5 resources," LUBA concluded the County
was required to address Goal 5 and, specifically, to comply with OAR 660-023-0250(3).
Based on that LUBA decision, I find that the Applicant's argument that Goal 5 is not applicable is
incorrect. The Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow new uses on the Subject Property that
were not previously allowed and that could conflict with a protected Goal 5 resource. Although the
Applicant notes that its intended use is to expand an existing school, and that the current school was
approved in the MUA-10 zone subject to the LM Zone, the Application is not limited to that use, and other
uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone would be authorized after the zone change. The Applicant has not
addressed those uses, much less considered their potential conflicts with listed Goal 5 resources. The
Applicant's response also does not address COLW's assertion that wetlands will be impacted. It may be
possible for the Applicant to show that the County's prior Goal 5 analysis considered MUA-10
development on the Subject Property, or, if not, the Applicant may be able to demonstrate that the new
uses allowed on the Subject Property do not significantly affect a Goal 5 resource. However, I find that
the current record does not allow me to address either option. I therefore find that I cannot recommend
approval of the Application on this basis and the Applicant must address this issue further before the
Application is approved.
e. Goal 14 Administrative Rules
COLW argues that the Application is not in compliance with Goal 14. Goal 14 and its implementing rules
"provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." See OAR 660-015-0000(14).
COLW's specific argument is that the designation of the Subject Property to the MUA-10 zone would
constitute urbanization of the Subject Property. According to COLW, the County must analyze several
urbanization factors ("Curry factors") as set forth in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation and
Development Commission, 301 Or 447, 474 (1986), which are also summarized by LUBA in Oregon
Shores Conservation Coalition v. Coos County, 55 Or LUBA 545, 550 (2008). COLW bases its argument
on its own assessment of the Curry factors.
One way to address this issue is to consider whether the MUA-10 zone actually authorizes urban uses. As
the Applicant notes, this question has been asked and answered by the County, as described in the recent
LUBA case Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, _ OR LUBA (LUBA No. 2023-049,
Feb. 15, 2024). In that case, LUBA considered nearly identical facts where the County approved a plan
amendment and zone change from AG/EFU-TRB to RREA/MUA-10. Before turning to COLW's
arguments in that case, LUBA noted that the County's Board of Commissioner's had made the following
finding:
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 of the Deschutes
County Code have been acknowledged by [the Land Conservation and
Page 117
Development Commission (LCDC)] as being in compliance with every
statewide planning goal, including Goal 14. The County specifically
amended its comprehensive plan in 2016 to provide that the Rural
Residential Exception Area Plan and its related MUA-10 and RR-10 zones
should be applied to non resource lands. Ordinance 2016-005. This
amendment is acknowledged, which means that the RREA plan designation
and its related zoning districts when applied to non -resource lands such as
the subject property, do not result in a violation of Goal 14. (Emphasis
added).
In other words, the County's Board has already interpreted its Plan and Code to mean that all uses allowed
in the MUA-10 zone are rural in nature. This is similar to the Board's interpretation of other zones, like
the Rural Industrial (RI) zone, which LUBA also considered in a similar case.' Based on the Board's
interpretation, I find that it is not necessary to apply the Curry factors as urged by COLW, and that the
change in zone to MUA-10 does not result in urbanization of the Subject Property.
f. Goal 12 Administrative Rules
Goal 12 relates to transportation. COLW argues that the Application fails to comply with Goal 12 and its
implementing rules.
A primary regulation implementing Goal 12 is OAR 660-012-0060. That rule states:
If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a
land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing
or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place
measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed
under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility (exclusive of correction of reap errors in an
adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system;
or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of
this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of
the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to
be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if
the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that
' See Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2022-075, Dec. 6, 2002); aff'd 324 Or
App 655 (2023) (upholding County's finding that all uses in the RI zone are rural in nature, negating the need to undertake
additional Goal 15 analyses).
Page 118
would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not
limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may
diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the
amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with
the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility such that it would not meet the
performance standards identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet
the performance standards identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan.
I find that this administrative rule is applicable to the Plan Amendment and the Zone Change because they
involve an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. COLW asserts that the Application does
not comply with this rule because the Applicant has not accurately estimated the vehicle trip generation
of the proposed zoning, and specifically because the Applicant has not estimated the trip generation
associated with the anticipated use of the Subject Property as a school.
The Applicant counters that its proposal will not result in a significant effect to the transportation system.
In support of that assertion, the Applicant submitted a traffic study prepared by traffic engineer Joe
Bessman, PE. The Applicant also notes that, because the Application seeks a zone change that allows
multiple uses, not just the intended use, it was not required to analyze the school use specifically and,
instead, was required to model a worst -case scenario based on all uses allowed.
The County's Transportation Planner agreed with the conclusions of the Applicant's engineer, including
the methodology used. As a result, the Staff Report finds that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change will
comply with the Transportation Planning Rule.
Based on the foregoing, I agree with the Applicant that it has sufficiently addressed transportation impacts
and find that the Application satisfies this Goal 12 administrative rule.
5. Other Statewide Planning
Division 15 of OAR chapter 660 sets forth the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, with which all
comprehensive plan amendments must demonstrate compliance. The Applicant asserts the Application is
consistent with all applicable Goals and Guidelines. No participant in this proceeding identified a
Statewide Planning Goal with which the proposal does not comply, except those discussed above relating
to Goal 3, Goal 5, Goal 12, and Goal 14. Having reviewed the evidence presented, and in the absence of
any arguments relating to the other Goals, I adopt the Applicants' position and find that the Plan
Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with the following applicable Goals:
Page 119
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to the
public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the applicant to post a
"proposed land use action sign" on the subject property. Notice of the public hearings held
regarding this application will be placed in the Bend Bulletin. A minimum of two public hearings
will be held to consider the application.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies, and processes related to zone change applications
are included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes
County Code. The outcome of the application will be based on findings of fact and conclusions of
law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2.
Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the subject property does not include any
lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses. Forest land is defined by OAR 660-005-0010
as lands suitable for commercial forest use protection under Goal 4, which are identified using
NCRS soil survey maps to determine average annual wood fiber production figures. The NCRS
maps for the subject property map it with soil mapping units 98A and B, 26A and 101 E. The NCRS
Soils Survey for the upper Deschutes River lists all soils mapped by its survey that are suitable for
wood crop production in Table 8 (Exhibit 15). None of the soils mapped on the subject property
are listed in Table 8 as suitable for wood crop production.
Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality. The approval of this application will not
impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County. Any future development of
the property would be subject to local, state, and federal regulations that protect these resources.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. According to the Deschutes County
DIAL property information and Interactive Map the entire Deschutes County, including the subject
property, is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The subject property is also located in Rural Fire
Protection District #2. Rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard
Area designation. Any future development of the property would need to demonstrate compliance
with any fire protection regulations and requirements of Deschutes County.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs. This goal is not applicable because no development is proposed and
the property is not planned to meet the recreational needs of Deschutes County. Therefore, the
proposed rezone will not impact the recreational needs of Deschutes County.
Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal does not apply to this application because the subject
property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, the approval of this
application will not adversely affect economic activities of the state or area. The proposed zone
change will promote economic opportunities by rezoning underutilized property for a subsequent
use.
Goal 10, Housing. The County's comprehensive plan Goal 10 analysis anticipates that farm
properties with poor soils, like the subject property, will be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or
RR-10 zoning and that these lands will help meet the need for rural housing. Cascades Academy
supports rural housing by providing school services for the rural properties. Approval of this
Page 120
application, therefore, is consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes
County comprehensive plan.
Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The approval of this application will have no adverse
impact on the provision of public facilities and services to the subject site. Central Electric
Cooperative serves the subject property with power, water and septic are provided on -site and the
proposal will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas.
Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The approval of this application does not impede energy
conservation. In fact, Planning Guideline 3 of Goal 13 states "land use planning should, to the
maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and re -use vacant land..." Cascades Academy provides
school services to the rural community in close proximity to residential uses, thereby reducing
vehicle miles traveled and conserving energy.
Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicant has NOT met the burden of proof with respect to the
standards for approving the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change. I therefore recommend to the
County Board of Commissioners that the Application be DENIED unless the Applicant can meet that
burden.
Dated this 21 st day of February 2025
Z��_ -
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Page 121
Q-'J�71
-i E S C
� BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of second reading of Ordinance 2026-005 - Cascades Academy
Plan Amendment and Zone Change
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
1. Move approval of second reading of Ordinance 2026-005, by title only.
2. Move adoption of Ordinance 2026-005.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant, Cascades Academy, requests approval to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation (land use file no. 247-24-000392-PA) of the subject property from Agriculture
and Surface Mining to Rural Residential Exception Area, and approval to change the zone
(land use file no. 247-24-000393-ZC) of the subject properties from Exclusive Farm Use and
Surface Mine to Multiple Use Agricultural.
The subject property is approximately 22.5 acres in size and is located immediately south
of the Tumalo Rural Community and west of State Highway 20. The Board held a public
hearing on June 18, 2025, and deliberated on this application on August 27, 2025, voting 2-1
to approve the application. The first reading of the ordinance was conducted on February
25, 2026.
The entirety of the record can be viewed from the project website at:
https•//bit.ly/CascadesAcadem_
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Nicole Mardell, Principal Planner
Will Groves, Planning Manager
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Nicole Mardell, AICP, Principal Planner
DATE: March 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance 2026-005 - Cascades Academy Plan
Amendment and Zone Change
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider a second reading of Ordinance 2026-005
on March 11, 2026, for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (File nos. 247-24-000392-PA, 393-ZC).
The record is available for inspection at the following link: https://bit.ly/CascadesAcademy
I. BACKGROUND
The subject property is comprised of seven (7) tax lots with a total area of 22.5 acres, including 4.03
acres zoned Surface Mine and 18.47 acres zoned EFU-Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone. Four (4) tax
lots are partially within the Landscape Management Combining Zone associated with State Highway
20 and the Deschutes River. The EFU properties are also within the Surface Mining Impact Area
Combining Zone associated with Mining Site No. 370. The property is irregular in shape and is located
immediately south of the Tumalo Rural Community and west of State Highway 20.
Cascades Academy, the applicant and property owners, request a change to the Comprehensive Plan
designation of the subject property from Agricultural (AG) and Surface Mining (SM) to Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA) and a corresponding Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use -
Tumalo/ Redmond/ Bend subzone (EFU-TRB) & Surface Mining (SM) to Multiple Use Agricultural
(MUA-10). The applicant intends to rezone the property to allow for expansion of the existing school
on an adjacent parcel, although they are not requesting approval for the school or other specific
development as part of this application.
A public hearing was conducted by a Hearings Officer on November 14, 2024. On February 26, 2025,
the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation of denial for the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone
Change, citing a lack of evidence demonstrating compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5
pertaining to wetland, scenic road, and scenic water resources associated with the subject property.
Following the recommendation, the applicant provided additional materials into the record, including
an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis.
On June 18, 2025, the Board held a public hearing to hear additional testimony on the applications,
and the open record period closed on July 16, 2025. On August 27, 2025, the Board deliberated and
voted 2-1 to approve the applications.
The Board conducted the first reading of Ordinance 2026-005 by title only on February 25, 2026.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance 2026-005 and Exhibits
Exhibit A: Legal Descriptions
Exhibit B: Proposed Plan Amendment Map
Exhibit C: Proposed Zone Change Map
Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan Section 23.01.010, Introduction
Exhibit E: Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History
Exhibit F: Board Decision
Exhibit G: Hearings Officer Recommendation
Page 2 of 2