Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-28-11 backup docs-AC Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up cards provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing. 2. A PUBLIC HEARING and Decision on File #DR -10-3, a Declaratory Ruling on the Permanent Residential Status of a Structure on the Northwest Quadrant of the Deschutes Junction Interchange — Peter Russell, Community Development Suggested Motion: As decided. 3. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2011-005, Amending Code to Create Transportation and Land Use Policies for Deschutes Junction — Peter Russell Suggested Motions: Hold public hearing; conduct first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2011-005. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 1 of 5 Pages PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, March 28 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 29 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing on the Proposed County Comprehensive Plan — Board Hearing Rooms Wednesday, March 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Homeless Leadership Coalition — release of homeless count results — at the County 2:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) — note later time Thursday, March 31 9:00 a.m. Department Update — Road Department 10:00 a.m. Department Update — Solid Waste Department 11:00 a.m. Department Update — Health Services Department 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing on the Proposed County Comprehensive Plan — La Pine Senior Center Monday, April 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting — includes a Public Hearing on the Proposed County Comprehensive Plan 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. LPSCC Meeting (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Pages Tuesday, April 5 12:00 noon Family Access Network Meeting, St. Charles Medical Center 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing on the Proposed County Comprehensive Plan — City of Sisters Council Chambers Wednesday, April 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, April 7 8:00 a.m. Regular Joint Meeting with Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall Tuesday, April 12 3:30 — 7 p.m. Open House, 9-1-1 Offices, Pole Sholes Road Wednesday, April 13 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update (conference call) 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, April 18 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 20 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Mond.y, April 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Pages Wednesday, April 27 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update (conference call) 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, April 28 10:00 a.m. Department Update — Children & Families' Commission Monday, May 2 3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, May 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May 11 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update (conference call) 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, May 12 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, Redmond City Hall Monday, May 16 — Thursday, May 19 9:00 a.m. Budget Committee Meetings — Departmental Presentations Friday, May 20 7:30 a.m. Chamber of Commerce Town Hall Breakfast — State of the City — Bend Country Club 8:00 a.m. (Tentative) Budget Committee Meeting Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Pages Monday, May 23 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May 25 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update (conference call) 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, May 30 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day Wednesday, June 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 8 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update (conference call) 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 15 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Friday, June 17 7:30 a.m. Chamber of Commerce Town Hall Breakfast — State of the County Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Pages PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I. INTRODUCTION A. This is a quasi-judicial hearing on an appeal of the administrative decision regarding the permanent residential status of a structure at 21280 Tumalo Place, Bend, 16-12-26B, Tax Lot 500. The County File Number is DR -10-3. B. In those applications, the applicant requested a declaratory ruling on the fact -specific controversy on whether the structure was a permanent residential dwelling unit. C. The Board takes notice of the record below and includes that record as part of the record before us. II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the proposal sought. B. The standards applicable to the application before us are Deschutes County Code Title 22.40 (Procedures Ordinance, Declaratory Ruling) and Oregon Administrative Rule 660- 022, Unincorporated Communities. C. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria, as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision. D. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. 1 III. HEARINGS PROCEDURE A. Evidence to be reviewed by the Board. The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record before the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. IV. ORDER OF PRESENTATION A. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. 1. The staff will give a report. 2. The applicant will then have an opportunity to offer testimony and evidence. 3. Proponents of the proposal then the opponents will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. 4. The applicants will then be allowed to present rebuttal testimony but may not present new evidence. 5. At the Board's discretion, if the applicants presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. 6. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. 7. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. B. If anyone wishes to ask a question of a witness, the person may direct the question to the Chair during that person's testimony, or, if the person has already testified, after all other witnesses have testified but before the Applicant's rebuttal. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. C. Continuances 1. The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. 2. If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a date certain. 3. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open to a date certain for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response to the evidence received while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony. 2 4. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed a period to a date certain after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the application. V. PRE -HEARING CONTACTS, BIASES, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS A. Do any of the Commissioners have any ex -parte contacts, prior hearing observations; biases; or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state their nature and extent. B. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex -parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) (Staff Report) 3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS This is a public hearing on Ordinance 2011-005. The County File Number is TA -10-6. This is an application to create transportation and land use policies for the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan at 23.40.65 for the area known as Deschutes Junction. The standards applicable to the applications before us are on pages 5 through 8 of Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-005. The Board will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Board with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross- examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any Board for personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth any information that may be perceived as personal interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). (STAFF REPORT) SES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK I — Date 0 2 , \I Name,tiS // °aY Address (O ? w(e�ipc��c�f,C'r.he- <' Agenda Item of Interest Phone #s E-mail address In Favor evl.eC y e cc) PP()� Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Tes Opposed Yes No o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK DrR--/v-r3 Agenda Item of Interest: b / . 2c (( 4.-)0 Name - 1 kV` c3 3 R Date: 32 /// Address 3eG„� vN 171u\ Phone #s 3 C 1 - 1 sem' E-mail address Q y In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? U Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Name Address e '/(3 -3 a3; Date 332 6/// Phone#s .���// ;'//r (pec. - E-mail address XI In Favor %q/ Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? -(ES Yes BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest: REQUEST TO SPEAK aott- 005 (J�2-t Name OAs L O Ew EY Date: Opposed No 0233 Address 1534 ivw vrc03 yt5ig A%f& n2 koro Phone #s 1 453 E-mail address In Favor 13d6W6y G Na6itd C.n4:16,c0ls% Neutral/Undecided [" Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: o R Zc'/ f —a 05 Date: z iia chi 6I Name IJAC.. /C& C (Jc 3 Address 2-40q-2,0 Oteme- coe.-p tic A,•) D tZ cl ?)D( Phone #s E-mail address nIn Favor n Neutral/Undecided X Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? )( Yes n No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. PR.Luc.4cy cccsami�t�� viQ t -Z brC'wnG --- -a- es — TEs o �,•�, �,,, . BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK T7N4 Agenda Item of Interest:1-4(' % - 7 MSE Date: 13 I$ Name OW 1` 7 G - i3 Address 01..1 itrt— rMrgiLg, rir- 1i��l Phone #s (5L( L) b(o -61 ( 7 E-mail address In Favor r\ da 1 toco cgs n Neutral/Undecided 51 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes n No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. qE o �,, A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 3 REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: 3 Date: 3/ /1( Name l IVIG lp Address 215 t b Phone #s 1))/(A,), De- Trio) E-mail address In Favor 31- oil lc b � 1GV1,d 3. a baielJ - I n Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. oi',+ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK i_- r� Agenda Item of Interest: PSS -IA JCL C I l ' Date: 3 Name Address 3t -i No 1) 3 (g7j0 5 _S Phone#s (/l- "74 G E-mail address S 4 O 4-1-0 •6414 In Favor n Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? U Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No TES { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: 79 /U - 6 Name /wo Wko hy4- L C_ Address BddikiF_C Za/V:0 Date: Phone #s E-mail address /2i )0711e 1) 4- 2- f e d k_ nIn Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? / Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK live L"f- Agenda Item of Interest: Name .6.e r)- Faf'r" Date: J `Q Address (305-1 6oao a 24,1 9 77 ti Phone #s S�fl 3F - 'S' 92 7 E-mail addressr'r� Lk/4 r tel' � b4- � f� GJ •eat jR In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Date: Name Address Phone #s sw-au - zte67 E-mail address ..` e j J geinzeC" % L i4 - nIn Favor f.X/ Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No January 20, 2010 Kristin Maze and Nick Lelack Deschutes County Planning Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Zoning Changes to the Deschutes Junction Plan Dear Kristin and Nick I found this "Matrix" form you have developed for area residents to comment on to be extremely confusing. This matrix uses jargon and legal requirements that would intimate most residents by i.e. — page 2, "Land Use Policy 6 ... requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22". I would hope that this is not your intention, but how many people are familiar with Oregon Administrative Rules? In some ways this matrix is also. deceiving -- asking people if they want a "transportation network that can accommodate local traffic" (page 2, Transportation Policy 1). Of course people want a transportation network to accommodate local traffic = but NOT at the expense of creating a road we neither want nor need (19th. Street). Most of the questions on this Matrix are confusing as well — the 'Goals' are not understandable for the general public to comprehend. I firmly believe that the County has been put in the awkward position of bailing out the City of Bend on their Juniper Ridge project. Does Deschutes County want to get pulled into this financial debacle by building a road (19th Street) that will benefit the City, when Juniper Ridge is still just a "pie -in -the -sky" project that residents of both the City and County are fed up with? Our present Government has a horrible reputation for holding these so called "public hearings" and "community workshops", to get input from the public, and then doing whatever the hell they were going to do anyway and ignoring the public's wishes. In the State of Ore • on's recent resort re • arding Bend's UGB, they state that 1Ben s alia , ,olr : e, = :f-i=T-EE, --Tir t ii Is Deschutes County working towards this Goal? Sincerely yours, Jeffery & Wendy Lovaas 21690 Dale Rd. Bend, OR 97701 January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, David and Debbie Renton 64765 Kelly Court, Bend, Oregon 97701 January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate PlannerDeschutes County Community Development Department117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the n.iral quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution.There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, t- p„„i„, 2°5'4, Z 50D'. /slice �ei-td, Qg gtric/ Rachel Feldman 64570 McGrath Rd. Bend, OR 97701 January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. .Sincerely, l) , January 20, 2010 Kristin Maze and Nick Lelack Deschutes County Planning Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Zoning Changes to the Deschutes Junction Plan Dear Kristin and Nick Because I am married to a former City Planning Director, I understand the formalities you must go through on the Deschutes Junction Plan. However, what I find completely confusing is this "Matrix" form you have developed for area residents to comment on. This matrix uses jargon and legal requirements most residents will feel intimated by i.e. — page 2, "Land Use Policy 6 ... requirements of OAR Chapter 660; Division 22". I would hope that this is not your intention, but how many people are familiar with Oregon Administrative Rules? In someways this matrix is also deceiving asking people if they want a "transportation network that can accommodate local traffic" (page 2, Transportation Policy 1). Of course people want a transportation network to accommodate local traffic — but NOT at the expense of creating a road we neither want nor need (19th Street). Most of the questions on this Matrix are confusing as well — the 'Goals' are just not understandable to the general public. I firmly believe that the County has been put in the awkward position of bailing out the City of Bend on their Juniper Ridge project. Does Deschutes County want to get pulled into this financial debacle by building a road (19th Street) that will benefit the City, when Juniper Ridge is still just a "pie -in -the -sky" project that residents of both the City and County are fed up with? Government has a horrible reputation of holding these so called "public hearings" and "community workshops", getting public input and then doing whatever the hell they were going to do anyway and ignoring the public's wishes. In the State of Oregon's recent report regarding Bend's UGB, they state that 'Bend needs to become more dense and less sprawling.' Is the county working towards this Goal? Respectfully, Ttacy Boyor 21827 Boonesboro"ugh Drive Bend, OR 97701 January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate PlannerDeschutes County Community Development Department117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town.for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution.There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, r)1/4 Og) 40 WO) CV(akkai- o&i- ('6S 32),Adkm�-�w�, January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincer=iy, Your Name and Address l(J January 25, 2010 Nick Lelack, Planning Director Kristen Maze, Associate Planner Deschutes County Planning Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update Comments Dear Nick and Kristen, I am submitting comments as a resident of the Deschutes Junction area and, as a former Planning Director with a Masters Degree in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Oregon. Being a former planner, I am aware of the pressures on staff to meet deadlines under tight budgets, the difficulty of interacting with the public and, following legal parameters often with contrary political influence. Matrix Comments The draft matrix, which was handed out as a means to receive comments from area residents, is insufficient in many ways. I am unclear whether this draft is really a draft and will be made into a final, or if this draft is really the final product. No section on the matrix asks for a name and address, or how many forms an individual can turn in. Therefore, you could very well receive multiple comments by individuals — and from those who are not residents of the area. Do you allow someone at your "green dot" workshop who lives out of the area to have 100 dots while area residents get 1? This is a major flaw in the process. The matrix is too long, confusing, full of jargon, and is not designed to be user- friendly. Answers to many of these questions could be interpreted in completely opposite ways. The key questions which should be asked are: 1) Do you want your general plan changed which would allow farmland to be converted to more intensive uses such as commercial and industrial? Yes or No. 2) Do you want a new road (19th Street) connected into Deschutes Market Road connecting Bend and Redmond? Yes or No. Based on the answers of these two questions by area residents, you would then have enough input to keep the General Plan the same, or draft new policies. Do you really expect people to know the requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22? Because of the deficiencies in this matrix, many people substituted a form letter with comments, which give clear direction to the county. The matrix seems to have been formulated from a pro -development standpoint. Otherwise, why does the matrix have many references to Rural Service Centers (contrary to the results of the green dot exercise), and to 19th street? Last Meeting at Church I attended this meeting where the "green dot" exercise results were presented and this matrix was introduced. Legitimate questions were asked about the matrix. Staff said anyone could do the matrix even if they were not area residents! Isn't the entire purpose of the process to get comments from residents who live in or own property in Deschutes Junction? These rules dumbfounded people. It seemed a few very vocal people were unhappy with the results of the dot exercise and proceeded to dominate this meeting. In total, there were approximately 25-30 people in attendance, many who supported the previous green dot exercise results. However, no one asked for a show of hands supporting the results of the green dot exercise. The opponents of the results accomplished their goal — Staff said "maybe we got it wrong". It appears that the comments from a vocal minority, many with financial conflicts of interest, are given more weight in this process than the comments from other area residents. 19th Street There seems no logical reason to have a separate comment process for adding 19th Street to the Transportation System Plan (TSP). It appears this process outside the General Plan Update is being done to expedite the chance of getting federal funding for this project. Shouldn't the General Plan Update process justify the need for this new road first? Mixed messages were given to the public on how to comment on this issue. The public was told the General Plan Update and TSP process are separate issues, yet in the matrix previously mentioned, there are questions which directly and indirectly refer to 19th Street. The county has used public funds to realign the Deschutes/Tumalo Road overpass to connect into the preferred alignment to 19th street, prior to any public meetings on this issue, or inclusion into the TSP. It is clear the County wants this new road regardless of what the public thinks. Comments by staff at community meetings have been " not if 191 Street will happen but when it will happen." The county has yet to 'adequately justify the need for 19th street connecting into Deschutes Market Road. Public Participation You are paid as staff to obtain community input on planning issues. Citizens are not paid to attend meetings, write letters, or fill out matrices. The public is taking time out of their busy lives to provide you input. Communication with the public should be clear and concise, and made as easy as possible for residents to provide input into your public participation process. My Vote or Green Dot My preference is to not change zoning or add 19t street to Deschutes Market Road. Enforce existing zoning better, and phase out non -conforming uses over a reasonable period of time Citizens are tired of their tax dollars being used to promote sprawling development which is not wanted, cannot be properly serviced, and does not conform to Oregon land use laws. My neighbors and I are committed to protecting our property values and quality of life. Sincerely, Jeff Boyer 21827 Boones Borough Drive Bend, Oregon 97701 March 13, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone, Alan Unger 1300 NW Wall St. #200 Bend, Or 97701 Re: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update (TA -10-6) Dear County Commissioners, The recommendation of the Planning Commission to "encourage the County to establish an unincorporated community" is completely contrary to the views of the residents in the area and goes against the recommendation of the planning staff. Numerous public meetings and workshops showed an overwhelming consensus by area residents to maintain the existing general plan policies and not change the rural land use of the area. It appears there are only 1 or 2 landowners who want to upzone their farmland for commercial uses. Apparently they have more sway with the Planning Commission than do 142 area residents who opposed this change during nearly two years of public participation. These unilateral decisions by public officials are one reason people do not trust government. The public does not want sprawl and State law makes it extremely difficult to convert farmland to commercial uses. Because one landowner wants to make a profit by upzoning his land is not a justifiable reason for an "unincorporated community". The county should not be encouraging sprawl, nor spending tax dollars defending this position. Over 1000 residents live in the Boones Borough and Starwood areas, most of whom live in this area for its rural character. If we wanted city services we would have chosen to live in the city limits. We are tired of being ignored and having public officials decide what is best for our community. Our neighbors are organized and have been politically active in preserving our rural nature in the past, and we will continue to do whatever is necessary in this regard in the future. We ask that you listen to the residents and your planning staff who spent their valuable time participating in this public process. We ask that you omit the ill- advised recommendation of the Planning Commission. Thank You, Jeff Boyer 21827 Boones Borough Drive copy: Paul Dewey March 28, 2011 To the Deschutes County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone, Alan Unger Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update (TA -10-6) The recommendation of the Planning Commission to "encourage the County to establish an unincorporated community" is completely contrary to the views of the majority of residents in the area. This recommendation also goes against the recommendation of the planning staff. The public does not want sprawl. I know the Commissioners do not want sprawl. Because one landowner wants to make a profit by upzoning his land is not a justifiable reason for an "unincorporated community". The county should not be encouraging sprawl, nor should it be spending tax dollars to defend this position. Please think very carefully about the miles of clear space we all want between Bend and Redmond before you even think about voting "Yes" to add a "community" in this area. There is no such thing as "just a little development," as you are all aware. Marian K Woodall a Boones Borough resident 541.388.2725 January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: ■ Increased vehicular and truck traffic ■ Increased Crime • Safety Issues ■ Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life- . Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, /./1/41.e/f ,ao< Jeffery & Wendy Lovaas 21690 Dale Rd. Bend, OR 97701 January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, Your Name and Address 6 to -tip q 77 v / January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life- • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, •?LQ iyGf Your Name and Address January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate PlannerDeschutes County Community Development Department117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution.There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, I®� Mr. John Cecll 64836 Starwood Dr Bend, OR 97701 ,y0 January 4, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Phan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out -of -fawn for the rural Ilfestyle and quality of fife this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community.. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facrTitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respell to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Since Jim & email Knotek 21643 Boones Borough Drive Bend, OR 97701 541-317-1557 -r‘c3A4 c_ January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate PlannerDeschutes County Community Development Department117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life ■ Increased Noise and Pollution ■ Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution.There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, awy/ie 5��7�'�� l� Date: /_ /.Z -/6 Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, Your name and address: 11111 Mr Carl W King 64741 Sylvan Loop Bend, OR 97701.8018 Date: 1— / 2 - /D Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, Your name and address: Ms. Barbara A. King �111‘ 64741 Sylvan Loop Bend, 012 97701 Date: /_- / a'" / Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, Your name and address: Date: 1114201o' Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you fpr the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, NT Your nam and address: \,v." LAS k 8-20 t<' k- t o orz Sup �l JOHN F LYSAUGHT 21870 KATIE DR BEND OR 97701 January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our home will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: ■ Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Increased possibility of urban blight, arising from vacant commercial buildings ■ Diminished Irrigated Farm Land ■ Diminished Property Values and Quality'of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution ■ Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural Iifestylekand quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhood and the surrounding community. There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Plan in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sipcerely, Abbott and Margaret Schindler 21623 Boones Borough Dr. Beni, OR 97701 January 1, 2010 Kristen Maze Associate PlannerDeschutes County Community Development Department117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update We OPPOSE ANY changes to the Deschutes County General Plan that would increase the Commercial and/or Industrial Zones in this area. We feel strongly that any commercial development this close to our homes will have the following negative effects on our neighborhoods: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Increased Crime • Safety Issues • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically moved out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area offers. Any zoning changes to this area allowing increased commercial, industrial or other retail types of businesses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community. There have been numerous workshops showing the residents of Deschutes County DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together and any increases to the commercial activity in this area will certainly facilitate sprawl, increase traffic, crime as well as noise and pollution.There should be NO ZONING CHANGES to the General Pian in respect to Deschutes Junction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. ii4Zbe.. 1- .0-4e4e..e--- 2 6 ei6 2,p7fce4- ,Niaf 4r�-�vD 0A=. 7-70J To: Deschutes County Commissioners From: Starwood Land Use Committee Re: Deschutes Junction Rezoning Date: March 24, 2010 The proposed rezoning of the land adjacent to Deschutes Junction brings up a series of anomalies, which require explanation, and which have not yet been revealed to the general public. .We all agree that zoning is, indeed, a legitimate function of local governments as attested by the landmark 1926 Supreme Court case stated in the preamble to the Draft of the Revised Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. It is also important to note that in that case, the goal of zoning was to promote the general welfare. We question whether the proposed change from exclusive farm use to Rural Commercial at the Junction achieves that goal. The plan draft states as a goal: "To ensure the updated plan addresses community interests and values:' Residents of the communities of Starwood and of Boonesboro have repeatedly rendered their opinion in work sessions , in prior meetings , and in written testimony, that their interests and values lie in having the Junction remain as it is. They wish to maintain a peaceful, clean, and less stressful environment than the urban settings many left behind. They are convinced that the result of the proposed change will be noise, traffic congestion, pollution, and threats to public safety—yet their values have been ignored in the revised plan. This violates the basic principle stated in your planning document (13): "Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts and economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies. Further, it belies that statement made by your staff that the residents are adamantly against changing the zoning. So, where are the facts, and the objectivity? Statewide Planning Goal 2 (OAR660.05-00002) requires a fact -based land use planning process that identifies issues and complies with State requirements. We have yet to see documented evidence to support the proposed change, or an analysis which would estimate the consequences of the action. Fact: Further development at the Junction will negatively affect property values of adjacent communities; therefore they may seek compensation in accordance with Oregon law. Since there appears no public need for this change, it can only be assumed that the purpose is to satisfy a more private want. The Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 215 lists goal 3 —To preserve and maintain agricultural land, and Goal 5 — To protect open spaces. You may achieve both the above goals by leaving the Junction as it is. Furthermore, Statewide Goal 9, Economic Development, Section 4, suggests that plans "limit uses in or near sites zoned for specific industrial or commercial development uses to those which are compatible with proposed usesh. And the attached guidelines require that the plan take into account the social, environmental, energy and economic impacts on the resident population. There has been no data submitted to the public to justify the proposed change. Given that there is "homework" to be done in order to satisfy state requirements, the zoning at Deschutes Junction should remain as it is until appropriate studies and valid measures of the social, environmental, energy, and economic impacts on the resident population are completed and published. It's the law! OUT LINE DR -10-3 March History Facts Demonstrate The Error & SOLUTION! Photos, and materials from Co. RECORDS! Block Building built in 1934 Legally Established Residence: 1978-1995? OAR 660-22 Unincorporated Rule Oct 28 '94 Residential Permits Finalized in 1978 Grandfathered use as a Residence pre 1979 Assessor 1995... as a GP building ?... Semi -Vacant & the1920's House(20'X30') still existed! 2nd Erroras to status of Homes in RSC HWY2O House, Vacant 15 yrs. status: Home SOLUTION !! See the Errors by Assessor in 1995 and FIX IT... With the Unincorporated Community Rule &Master Pian Deschutes Junction for its History, Present use and Future Planning A October 20, 2006 Tony Aceti Hay Depot 21235 Tumalo Road Bend, OR 97701 PORTLAND OFFICE elerenth fluor 121 sr morrison street poriland. uregun 97204-3141 TEL 503 228 3939 FAx 503 226 0259 Re: Deschutes Junction Unincorporated Community Dear Tony: OTHER OFFICES beijing. china new york. neer lurk senttle, IVashington , ashington, d,e. GSBLAW.coM Please reply to WILLIAM K. KABEISEMAN billkab®gsblaw.com TEL EXT 3231 You asked me to set out the justification for pursuing the designation of an unincorporated community for Deschutes Junction. This letter will explain how such a designation is possible. I would note that, simply because it is feasible, does not mean it will be easy. Any unincorporated community will require that certain matters, discussed below, must be justified. Moreover, it is within the County's discretion to determine whether to recognize the unincorporated community and, if so, what property should be included within the boundaries of the community. Pursuing such a designation appears to be feasible under the current law and administrative rules, but is by no means a given. With those caveats in mind, what follows is an explanation of one way such a designation could occur. Unincorporated communities are lands outside any city's urban growth boundary, but which includes a concentration of lands subject to an exception to Goals 3 or 4, and meet certain additional requirements. The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted OAR Division 660-022, also known as the "Unincorporated Communities Rule," to govern how counties may deal with such communities. (A copy of the rule is attached.) The purpose of that administrative rule is to "Establish a statewide policy for the planning and zoning of unincorporated communities that recognizes the importance of communities in rural Oregon. It is intended to expedite the planning process for counties by reducing their need to take exceptions to statewide planning goals when planning and zoning unincorporated communities." OAR 660-022- 0000. The rule requires counties to "designate and identify unincorporated communities in accordance with the definitions" in the rule. OAR 660-022-0010. Significantly, the rules note that "counties may amend these designations as circumstances change over time." SA GAR VE Y SCHUBERT B A R E R Tony Aceti October 20, 2006 Page 2 It appears that the 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan identified Deschutes Junction as one of several "rural service centers" in the County. The area does contain many exception areas, including residential, industrial and other uses. The County updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2002; and, at that time, implemented the Unincorporated Communities Rule and identified several areas that it would treat as unincorporated communities. The list of such communities did not include Deschutes Junction; instead, the County stated that the area "did not meet the criteria of any of the four types of unincorporated communities." Therefore, the County did not change the zoning for Deschutes Junction. However, there is nothing in the state administrative rule or the local comprehensive plan that prevents the County from re-examining that conclusion. In fact, LUBA has clearly indicated that cities and counties can re-examine the exact same issues in multiple cases. See Lawrence v. Clackamas County, 180 Or App 495, 43 P3d 1192 (2002) (A copy of that decision is attached). In fact, as noted above, the Unincorporated Communities Rule explicitly contemplates that counties will amend their designated communities from time to time. If Deschutes County wishes to re-examine the designation of Deschutes Junction, a case can be made that Deschutes Junction qualifies as a rural service center. OAR 660-022-0010 defines an Unincorporated Community as follows: (10) "Unincorporated Community" means a settlement with all of the following characteristics: (a) It is made up primarily of lands subject to an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Goal 4 or both; (b) It was either identified in a county's acknowledged comprehensive plan as a "rural community", "service center", "rural center", "resort community", or similar term before this division was adopted (October 28, 1994), or it is listed in the Department of Land Conservation and Development's January 30, 1997 "Survey of Oregon's Unincorporated Communities"; (c) It lies outside the urban growth boundary of any city; (d) It is not incorporated as a city; and (e) It met the definition of one of the four types of unincorporated communities in sections (6) through (9) of this rule, and included the uses described in those definitions, prior to the adoption of this division (October 28, 1994). G R GARVEY SCHUBERT B A R E R Tony Aceti October 20, 2006 Page 3 As discussed above, the area has a concentration of lands subject to Goal exceptions. There are several industrial sites in the area and, in addition, there are several large rural residential areas in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, it meets subsectin (a) above. In addition, as noted above, Deschutes Junction was identified as a "service center" in the 11979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, so subsection (b) is satisfied. Deschutes Junction is clearly outside any urban growth boundary and is not incorporated as a city; therefore, subsections (c) and (d are met. Finally, given the uses in the area, Deschutes Junction likely meets the definition of either a `rural service center" in subsection (8) or a "rural community" in subsection (7). In fact, given the 1arg number of rural residential developments in the area, Deschutes Junction could also qualify as an "urban unincorporated community" under subsection (9). In short, although Deschutes County has already implemented the Unincorporated Communities Rule when it went through periodic rrview in 2002, nothing prevents, and in fact the rules encourage, counties from re -assessing the status Of unincorporated communities. I hope this adequately answer0 your preliminary questions about Deschutes Junction and the Unincorporated Communities Rule. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER By William K. Kabeiseman Attachments cc: Greg Winterowd PDX_DOCS:381271.1 [36378-00100] 10/20/06 3:45 PM Page l of l Ton Aceti From: "Eric Sexton" <Eric_Sexton@co.deschutes.or.us> To: <tony@MingleGame.com> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 7:45 AM Subject: Structure on 21280 Tumalo PI Situs: 21280 Tumalo PI Map & Tax Lot: 161226-B0-00500 Account#: 132963 To Whom It May Concern, Per Deschutes County Assessor's records, the 22' x 49' structure that is on the mentioned property was built in 1934. Prior to 1995, the Deschutes County Assessors Office had on record and valued the structure as a house with 770 sq. ft. of living on the main floor, 1,078 sq. ft. of living on the second floor, and a 308 sq. ft garage on the main floor. The oldest appraisal from the Assessors Office on record shows no room count, no bathrooms, and no heat source. In 1995, an appraiser from the Deschutes County Assessors Office inspected the property and revalued the structure as a General Purpose Building. The appraiser who made this decision no longer works in the Deschutes County Assessors Office and it can only be assumed that upon the inspection, it was their opinion that the physical attributes of the structure did not meet the characteristics of a house and would be better deemed a General Purpose Building. The Deschutes County Assessors Office does not have any past or current information that documents the use of this structure. Eric Sexton Property Appraiser Deschutes County Assessors Office Phone: (541) 388-6692 Fax: (541) 382-1692 e-mail: t ?/14/?(Il n MAF, No. PHOTO No RESIDENTIAL AVVIICA1AL `.,10 Coot. No. T. L. Nn , VALUE EUNIMARY CHNELLit„.-_,--0CFREs/ATL, 1.,, L., ,..,•.:7,-7... 7,!..,'; $ kir •-- 1 IS 2.--? I' ... GARAGE FI4.D REPLA.c9.9.9.9:1' csr.- 4 OTHER 191PROVEMENTS D.R.C, % i / (;c.) TOTAL DEPRECIATED REPLACEPW.NT COST 5 OVER/UNDER IMPROVEMENT .7. 7 7 5-, ,._ DISTRICT .2ePRECIHTIO4 TOTAY rcoo.4 lc .L-_,....r1I'MCNT - , , RECORD OF LA1 APPRAISilL OF J)8.34 APR: • ,44,k_AL 4-1,ATE AppaArrir:, vLjE APPR,COnt&OLKOATE I° - PplIAI.9ED VALUE 6 /1 • 9.P199.: DATE A prriA(5co VALUE $---- eutit - la LOST 4 HO rtN -AL 4 A ." -au • T if REmboELEC 19 COST IL-- TE9!.!5. V; ..1 CJ 7T 1 °,....r. I MSFECT EX): i Es PIO oWI.ER rNT' , r...".- ieik 1 + I + — Ci..A.ES CURVE 1 1 -...:99. -11E, -.I I s•A,E FACTOR 5 1 . i RI ....., .12 1.1 C.- 0 I I I.. , Z. FOUNDATION -.s....".„--. ,Lp PprcE STORE FR ANE EXTERIOR =,..4- ,:..., 7.0.^.. 5,111.1(r.,G, BEVEL Fr -1,71C ' ,....,r 11,aP SHAKt: WO ASS CONIP.3 sTk)at CON pT PA, t/ '.74 ,TJC.7,-, . RooF STELA' ...1 • :. 2.:,..5,.. V,f 3 CGliaer ..1-1.1M :I 1 151 FLOOR RmL.: u: J Jir. ,"4 IXIT I..7.- • ,..._ 1_ ,T,1 ,-, .. i 1 PARTITIONS - - RLALTEllZr,,i'VY/AL.L. CCW,, CLC3,51,4 ra.XI PLYWC,OD TRIM: rig •. ..... OTHSIR INTErn ore _ CONST. LLA .,,.LT -IN:,. r11% H V., p...x1',,.. .2....5 17,7,7-,, ..., -7 • APPLiANCLE , I LIGHTING CLASS: , . 1. PLUMBING BATH I, WATE„.:._,:-.....: 1: HEATING CLASS: EU -H.\ La: FA =.. , FL ',..; CIL GAS HARD .1-44r-1._ '7.,.11E1'_•E -_, . w- a , ;END. CCINVEC RAO; FL Ci...7, T.-..,.- -. ....,Tie.. LH FA IT i, SO. Fr x p 5 r .1 , FIREP -OE . , __ --. Li_ -,,,,:, ! 1.1,....a-tiCISC-' BASEMENT a :...„-:,:„ -...LL -I... ', ., • x • .,„.rit„ .9 'LLS: c3NC PLIC FL: &)NC 'Cfl G'.=-,• -.:1.':4...",:= T- 9,9 c:-. L. F'.-4 ". .7,1...,,-r_ coMr-g, LVW WALL_ ...'.VR, 7jp-r, ; ., .. _ , hit .• , •, .i. -- -, - • . 7 ' „. ArT1C OR UPPER sToRiES CLASS- r: 1 „. rpar.E - ,. RMS HEAT: /4.6.'7.: : il SPECIAL 1 rOili.::.1.. .. -7'. RATIN,3: ,, -y5 CO:.,Z) 1-, :, ,„ : =-_,... -.• -, _ ? F P. C. Afir. .,,'F.,', , ... ,' .,. ,:, 1 ,OTALS "-,-=' SUMMARY OF DWELLING CONIPUTATION , OVrEl So FT X R, ,..., , = Sa. FT. X 5 _INC, 4f ----=•-• -..-./r, TOTAL RAZE COST — IJ-- COxr iNr-LX .3 X .2,..ALITY *CH 7.", = __,...____',E• t.77•DI,IER X f3AE COST =-: 5 — = . ..-..SL:.. ......„,. i n . ,._. . DE',/T.E.- 7PLACE1,...E,T COST .TP: -1 7, _ ' ' . Atlit ak647c#'Cil iP/00/5..t9 O-" /fi' OW 714e 'IPI4 e4t, r/#4 4/1 ztve,,,e -4-1,',1,(1):aci 4.4 11-01,1 ReCoi-ds- �F 10.12-5.6ieetas co IS55oe geyori , .21 1,-11 • 4,-r4-7* • BUILDING DIAGRAM ACCOUNT NO • .4 T m CD 'O V m N . - 0 0 cts N 67 0 0 r 4 • 1 41 !iStik.•:►`V -ate��' irew 1 - v Y ' - $ '• a Z u 4g. Lorli a a _ E E 14 �3a D 43 .6 z - i v Wa. Q -m-m;;) 3 .-t_l e ..92 ,. w r4, 0 s; 3 ft r �. 0 0 iii% Q _= 3 _ Z a'a f0a. r s. <a `3 70 U' 4. . a ,.,„4:1- a 0 ti 4 mss- an u _as 4301 *me gnk :111; ‘.1 144t 'F7 ftmt ro.4 *g4, 42) `D 014 _Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner Deschutes County Page 1 of 5 hot news! be informed first! I help 1 site snap 1 location 1 contact us 1 En esp&lol LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES HOT NEWS! Be Informed Firstl Living in Deschutes County: Comprehensive information for residents of Deschutes County. 1 You are here: Governments Departments s Assessor's Office s DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nlgntly. Account: 113076 Map/TL: R 1-003 171208 DO 02300 MF t%OVLBY 1 LLI: 855 PONDEROSA DR JACKSON WY 83001 Site Address: 63649 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description Lot: B10Ck: Prop C1s:401 MA:3 VA:38 NH 000 Vol -Page: 2007-3754 Asmt Zone:MUA CDD Zone:UAR10 (URBAN AREA RESERVE) tt• Land Values Asmt type RURAL LOT SU LA *Total t.. Improvement FB 138 300 300 300 300 300 *Totai •t• Values u Acres 8.77 BLT %GD 1925 Room Grid for 138 Total SqFt: 1820 XUUMS LR K DR FAM BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 910 1st F1 1 1 1 1 1 910 Attic 4 312 Carport Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year httn•//ww2 deschutes.nrv/index.cfm?ohiectid=65F111 OA-BDBD-57C1-91D726DBA942A... 3/22/2011 11A-25‘ 3/26/2009 To Whom It May Concern: From 1980 to 1997 my partner and I Iived in the two story residence located at 65005 N. Hwy. 97 ( the Northwest comer of Hwy 97 and Tumalo Road )_ From 1977 to 1980 we Iived in the small house ( since razed ) which was located just north of the two story residence_ There has been a home located on the properety since at least 1947_ Eugene S. Carsey 64990 Deschutes Market Road Bend, OR 97701 (541) 389-6391 Bruce Barrett 65216 85th St., Bend, OR 97701 Hm 541-382-4139 Cell 541-410-3484 March 28, 2010 Deschutes County Planning Commission 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 Re: Deschutes Junction Community Plan, I am unable to attend the public hearing on March 28 due to my work schedule. However, I submit this letter for your consideration. My family and I have lived in the Deschutes Junction area since the early 1950's. I have seen it grow to a current population of around 4000 people within a two mile radius. Historically, the Junction property that is adjacent to Highway 97 and Deschutes Market/Tumalo Road has been a hub service area for the surrounding residents. Over the years, it has been an area of mixed land uses. The ones I remember include cattle, horse and hay farming, a motorcycle race track, a gas station/store/cafe, industrial pipe supplier, cement products manufacturing, and second-hand resale stores. When the current Fagan property was known as Buffett Flats in the 1980's, the current "pink" build was also used by the owners as their personal residence. They lived upstairs in that building because another house on the property had become unsuitable for occupation and was later razed by Fagan. With the updated road system that is now in place at Deschutes Junction, and projections for the future that includes extending secondary roads to Redmond, I believe the Junction will continue to increase in importance as a local service area. Upgrading zoning of lands adjacent to the Junction will allow landowners to start developing the infrastructure that will be useful to enhancing the rural lifestyle of area residents, allow landowners to find the "the highest and best use" of their property and provide additional tax revenue to the county. I support efforts to reestablish Deschutes Junction as an unincorporated community so that the county can move forward with more appropriate master planning of the area. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bruce Barrett Tony Aceti Page 1 of 1 From: "bbarrett" <bbarrett@bendbroadband.com> To: "'Tony Aceti"' <tony@minglegame.com> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 3:44 PM Attach: Deschutes Junction #2.docx Subject: RE: Meeting 3/28 @ 10am 1300 Wall (LETTER) Tony, I have been waiting to respond to your e-mail and phone call till the last minute because I have some upcoming changes to my work schedule and wasn't sure if it would conflict with the March 28 meeting time. As it looks now, I have to attend a meeting at 10am Monday related to a new project I am working on and will be unable to attend the Deschutes County meeting that is being held at the same time. I have attached a revised letter that you may submit to the county on my behalf. I believe it supports the issues you will be addressing. Let me know if you need any changes before the meeting. Sorry I could not be there in person. Regards, Bruce From: Tony Aceti [mailto:tony@minglegame.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:01 PM To: bbarrett@bendbroadband.com Subject: Meeting 3/28 @ 10am 1300 Wall (LETTER) Hi Bruce, Hope things are well. I see that the Staff Report and DR Ruling made reference to your letter (attached)...that you did not indicate that you remember anyone living in the "Pink House" at Deschutes Jct. (that was not the issue at the time, now it is, to establish the Unincorporated Community and Master Planning the area). So, do you remember Gene and Partner living on the premiums, when it was the "Buffet Flats"? And can you say so, at the meeting or include it in a letter, for the record! The importance, is that, the County made an error by not recognizing a "home" on the commercial land on the corner from 1937 to 1995, and to present, or at least to 2002. You are a big help! Are you coming to the Hearing? I have a... "Dog and Tony show" to present! Thanks, Tony Aceti Mingle Word -Roulette Game www. ,gleGame_com 541-419-0858 3/27/2011 Early Days of Dcschutcs Junciion (ace upon ataw _ A anemia no■d L,Dearbaetes (J�iaw)fie" i eeoeyR90osistbee esdylfillionelemadabsiel,ratund office,depot. inigatins district blares Amp, teb3is.e office, t-. adhonis, — office, giNt dab, about 71 fern i noes, ,milds pow and. wealthy, flamboyant, a lealf ant, adieus, iiweas. Swum midoai-_ bsinesaes—i new, stall dimer anaad Ddaiies J.setien„ beet they bane Tattle aaunedios is doe lsenisns. A ample of bores, the mode, a sae maypole is a filar admit jwri, teem a diet road Heat saint bete been a *tied node- - --- A noses five i• the Man& 5. Ill Bei Deie4 aid 'doe beet cLegier m the history of Co ntsa% patter day none few bhrochm enm about midway bet.e.eabddand l eirndand east oldie bigbnuy)is beim unitise ids elm& in asetiosoflegad miaow ---- The only ind inns---BeeDstiies Biel and itis rid Csind Oegooa bsiip�tioa lisieiatoilier (ped lb* bond)- - - sbeing _Bsedfiraaief r "Deaciies Dee MN in Crosti Comely) was bid not s 1.911 by the Denotes itt.aaiie t:ommey - CIL,u- FYed S. S'al'sa was peedist, Seise Simms aeeael:y Clanual yaws IiYkK.o.r'Glrs ban Oma }Emmy No. 36 By Martha Shahan Ire D—ends — erg asemegmessallIllellsileiMeamblieilordWasaliesitislaiscisIg. imam pionee ms Lad ia__ tbatmom is a soy absetfived coommilyjmst amih elfin in est di) llama and Camel Armen were Belied to wand itis Oregon Trunk Eamon back Jim, Shasta, Klaaatt. Wenatchee, Celasi-a and Atti mesa sight mega streets: Irrigation and the railroad wore the impetus fir tie ahatab a _ Slow at Desoto-- viear oldie t;a■rade: IisinrionsEa.�noel DanaClodr, Be hnnA, aid oil secants isiieaie the Pilot Butte Development C+selsmy as fsvel Odin 31. Ileo by AY Dues ss is ilii _ orcimmils„ sondem and saying mem oftiseeasbegiwi.6iaatleoe and nem the Desi des Risers tie regio ofmins Bili Dsatie untied lumbar thence (;ateyAdwhoseintent man isagemormiumlandioarigation and adlieraffon. la ISM the Donohoe h io tG_. and Power Compwa© absied itis PBD(aLsGC. 11'-'- i■nisOmni ladeia19111,titles and Iwamoto i. tie Central Orogen Issigaims Camposer, sea is Amami rim doe COW immolh edmeted cif Rte coat ss__ is tie Centrad Oaegna brims Riotoet shid<Lad became a 'scat conpoeatiaa is Neemeber, ISM Betas of Some tismatiiiwis4, of moods" aeaeie eiion, wnsdrips and assangene tofmaioralsca6s and mere, .f Tubi ramifications and im imfirmsiis.bee.ildieand dioltiset offices. Ellissakey was owe of itie'Lo.ess.' BoonaClippeloarallklrumornaia llc4, he (ani lois family) Lad Little Known Tales from Oregon History - Page 27 extensive interests in timber, ranging, and banking in various central and eastern Oregon areas. In 1907 he traveled by auto caravan from Shaniko to Klamath Falls to meet railroad builder Edwin Henry Harriman. Four axemen cleared the road for the four-day trip. Stanley moved to Deschutes in 1917 and died there suddenly July 13, 192& The late J.L. Van Huffal, former Bend garage owner, was bis c auffe r and friend until his death_ Another Deschutes pioneer was Roscoe Howard who became Stanley's associate in irrigation development He was the COIC general manager but in 1917 took leave to enter the Navy, whereupon Stanley, who was pint, moved to Deschutes "to devote his entire time to management. which seemednecessary to old district records. War years apparently were tough for selling water rights, and bonds for system improvement Employees were asked towork " free"foraperiod_ Among them were George Holton„ Ole Hansen and W.P. Gift. However, they devised a water measuring rule that the district adopted. Setters were "hostile," Stanley told his board m 1918. There was talk of trying to sell the system. In 1921 the COIC moved its headquarters to Redmond. (Employees lived in the Deschutes Hotel In 1931 it was razed, along with the COIC office.) By 1924 district business was `picking up," and irrigation and cropping began to sourish. In 1912 Howard built a magnificent three-story home north of the business area, that now is owned and lived in, and the land fanned, by Jack and Carol Nelsen and thea family. Old plans also show Howard as builder in 1912 of the Deschutes Hotel, with three floors, which Stanley later owned and operated. Former Deschutes residents, many living in nearby rifles, have special memories of that handsome hotel, as well as other events and customs in and around the town that never grew up to its streets. There were banquets, "fancy parties" and dances in the honk's "beautiful ballroom," many given by Bend and Redmond hosts; Above Left Joan Siam and daughter. Eva Lennox_ raw. aeari.. wr.c Above Fight 1912 home bei by Roscoe Howard, now owned by .lack and Card Nelson_ Central Oregon trigalion Co_ Baking_ ma. an ew r ere leased ewesa ar ay orsurivi reawa Page 28 - Little Known Tales from Oregon History town ballgames on the school yards; three -act plays, musicals and socials in the school The W.K McCormacks built the forst school, "under the hill?' It burned one night in 1924, and classes were held in the store until parents built a replacement on another location two years -later. Early teachers included :Ella Conway Smith, Nell Mahoney, Anna Moore Westerson and Genevieve Gedney. Families donated garden produce, children peeled vegetables and terms cooked noon lunches on a potbelly stove. For some youngsters, it was the best meal of the day. Willie and Hans Hennes; their sister, the late Elizabeth (Dancer) Miler; Harold Povey, Redmond; his brothers Victor, Portland, and Robert (deceased); Eva Susac (Lennox), Bend, were among the students. There were families of Mallory, Parks, McKnight, Simpkens, O'Donnell, Stadter, Mikkellien and others. Most settlers built their homes, some devised water systeers.. The hotel had its own, but there was a community reservoir about a mile to the south that fed water by gravity flow. Home generators made electricity. Meat was hung in trees to keep cool_ There were some "tragic fires" Eva Lennox recalled—barns, sheds, houses. Once a man shot his family and set the house afire. The Ayer store (and post office) burned in 1914, with mail ander saved but groceries and personal effects destroyed. A sequence of abstracts on the Howard property shows itwasdeeded by the United States to the State of Oregon, January 8,1908. In 1911 the state granted it to Howard. Subsequent owners were W.H. McCormack, 1919; KO. Stadter, 1924; W.L. O'Donnell, 1932; Harry VanArsdale, 1940; Lloyd Crenshaw, 1966; Harvey L. Gillworth, 1969; Roderick B. Groshong, 1970; James G. Miller, 1972; Arlene Ibey, 1976; Arline M. and Richard IL Ibey, 1979, and the Nelsons late in 1919. In 1910` 4a, New York entertainer and musician, Kay Swift, and her husband, Faye Hubbard, lived in the Howard house, ran fivestockaudheld redoes. (She was not of the Swift packing firm f>.) Lifestyks butted head-on. Women giggled about her going to "town," (Redmond) wearing a mink coat, jeans and boots ar high heels (ho, ham). She published a book titled "Who Could Ask For Anything Afore?" The "anything" was her cowboy husband whom she had corralled when -he "fell into" her box at Madison Square Garden. In thin fiction (DeLancey and Juniper Junction) for the river and mmuthIy, she cuttingly parodied incl caricatured their neighbors, ousing indignation and hurt eelings.. Z didn't like her,' several till recall. None deny, however, that he did bring lively music and music nstrudion to the schoolchildren. Swifty" might not have realized the rnelty of her cleverness. On the morning of July 13, 1928, ked Stanley came to Ted and Min 'ovey's home. He wanted to talk to 'ovey, a plumber, who was away on a ib. That night Stanley died at his tome. `Tye always wondered what it was e wanted to see Ted about," Mrs_ 'ovey said. The railroad was a daily ompanion andpublictransportation a Deschutes. Frances McCormack -hort Allen remembered riding e tween Redmond and Desch 'hen she went to high schooL And ohn Susac remembered "the day 'red Stanley's body went by on the ain from Bend to Portland. "He was a fine old gentleman_ The apple that he helped the most edzayed him. After he died, the hotel [med." Susac was bean in Austria, March 7, 189L He came to the United States nd "met a girl m Portland m 1910-" :e barbered In practically every ate in the union" and in 1919 opened is Metropolitan barber shop in end. He bought the Redfield home ad land at Deschutes in 1929 and coved his wife, Elizabeth, and 3ughtev, Eva (Lennox) therein 1930, hen she was in fourth grade. He commuted to his Bend 3rbershop and began to raise )tatoes on the newly irrigated land_ e "worked bard" and grew prize )ads, winning first in 1952 at :rllL His wife died m 1958 and he ayed five more years at Deschutes. 'd be there still if she were alive." e's 93, lives in Bend with his idowed daughter_ (The Redfield-Susac house not far oro the Howard place is the other of e two remaining and occupied_) "I remember the COI office lading, the hotel, barn, depot, the of shed and Fairbanks scale. People ere living in the hotel and the COI old" Susac said in a 1982 terview. "I remember Roscoe oward, Charlie Jones, Barney Donnell, E_O. Stadter, Tony Hal- "Yew know, they tore down the aidings. We wondered why ... only 00 taxes against them Povey, anon and I had an idea we'd buy e whole properly. I told them some :y the highway will go through between Redmond and Bend, straight as the crow can fly- And thecountry's going to go wet! I said if those things materialize we could make $20,000 to $30,000 apiece- But they were torn down____" The March 5, 1931 Bend Bulletin continued, "about three years ago a determined effort to sell the hotel and 40 acres of land to Deschutes County as a poor farm was started," but dropped_ Taxeshad lapsed m 1923 and again in 1924 and the county foreclosed. W.C. Moore, Redmond, was employed to strip the buildings of furnishings, plumbing fixtures, most of the doors and windows. He offered to bay the building shells and complete the wrecking, but did not want thelandor tax liabilities. The court voted to offer the lots and buildings for sale for $100 minimum plus sale costs_ Moore --ac someone—did raze the hotel and office. Some of the bricks were used in one or more Redmond buildings, and reputedly a house near the Bend drive-in theatre. In the 1950s Deschutes shy' ped toward ghost town but today there's new life and commerce around. The railroad was a - daily companion and public transportation for Deschutes. Frances M. S. Allen remembered riding between Redmond and Deschutes when she went to high school. HOST UNIQUE CROSSING Continued from Page 19 loosing stock to the Indian nightraid- ors. Only once did the raiders touch his stock, and the next morning he met a group of !ndiana he had be- friesded driving the animals back to his wagon No man on the Oregon Trail was more highly respected by the Indians than Dr. Heal They showered him with gifts and urged him to live with them_ In his letters Serf wrote: "My greatest joy on the plains was meet- ing the Indians-" On November 1st, 1855, five months and one week after leaving Bethel, his wagon train arrived at Willapa Bay in Washington.. They averaged 121/2 miles a day including all stops. Not one life was lost. Every wagon that left Bethel arrived in Washington_ The body of Willie Set was not bur- ied uried until the day after Christmas. His grave marks the spot where the first pioneer was buried and the conclu- sion of the most fantastic wagon crossing ever made in America- But most of all it stands as a monument to fidelity; where a father fulfilled a pro- mise to his son. 2010.001.0450 Print, Photographic 6754 *Deschutes County Historical Description Railroad engine #91 at Deschutes Junction. 0324/2011 12:35:49 Z :\P P41I MAGES \03R20100010450. J P G 1982.015.0420 Print, Photographic 698 *Deschutes County Historical Description Warehouse and bam at Deschutes. Copied by Don Ellis, Deschutes Junction. 03/24!2011 12:35:03 Z:\PP4\IMAGES\023\19820150420.JPG 2006.047.0307 Negative, film 32661 *Deschutes County Historical Description Central Oregon Irrigation Company office in Centralia, which later became Deschutes Junction. Stone building with "1911" cut into stone. Group of people standing in front of building. 03124/2011 12:35:23 Z:\PP4\IMAGES\029\20060470307.JPG 2003.001.0215 Negative, Film 333 *Deschutes County Historical Description Deschutes Junction; School Old flag pole or play pole at old school grounds at Deschutes Junction. Schools grounds at Deschutes Junction. shows old flag pole or play pole. Photo taken by Don Ellis, 1979 0324/2011 12:36:36 Z:\PP4i1MAGES\001\20030010215: P[F 2008.001.0830 Print, Photographic 15095 'Deschutes County Historical Description C.O.I. (COI) office; Deschutes Junction. On roof line above door reads: "Central Oregon Irrigation Co." 03124!2011 12:35:41 Z:\PP4\IMAGES\023\20080010830.JPG DAVID C. ALLEN ATTORNEY AT LAW THE HARRIMAN BUILDING 212 S.W. 4TH STREET, SUITE 304 P.O. Box 577 MADRAS, OREGON 97741 (541) 610-9171 dallen@dalawco.com March 28, 2011 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners RE: Declaratory Ruling DR -10-3 (permanent residential status of a structure on the northwest quadrant of Deschutes Junction) Dear County Commissioners: This office represents Harry and Beverly Fagen, owners of the property subject to this declaratory ruling proceeding. (16-12-26B, Tax Lot 500) The Fagens appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on the declaratory ruling application filed by Deschutes County planning staff. Please include a copy of this letter in the record for the above -referenced declaratory ruling case file. 1. Timing of the Declaratory Ruling Application The status and history of development on the Fagen's property was most recently raised during Planning Commission hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Update and Text Amendments (TA -10-06) and the four proposed policies for Deschutes Junction.' My clients do not take any official position on the proposed policies, however, they do question why the status of their property has become a policy level decision for the Board. (It is important to note, the Fagens do not have any pending land use applications on the subject property.) Apparently, during the Planning Commission hearings on the proposed policies, planning staff questioned the need for the policies due to staff's conclusion the "pink house" was not a "permanent residential dwelling" and therefore the area was not suitable for unincorporated community planning. Proponents of the policies disagreed with staff's conclusions. To resolve the dispute, the Board directed staff to initiate this declaratory ruling proceeding? Strangely, the resolution of this declaratory ruling may have significant impacts on the County's ability and/or willingness to enact policies for long range planning in Deschutes Junction. During the March 17, 2011 work session, it was apparent staff and The Deschutes Junction policies are scheduled for a public hearing immediately after the hearing on this matter. 2 The Board graciously agreed to waive the required filing fees for such a proceeding. The Fagens signed the declaratory ruling application as the property owners. Page 2 Deschutes County Commission March 28, 2011 the Board were struggling with the interplay between this quasi-judicial declaratory action and the broader legislative action of the proposed policies. The struggle is certainly understandable, but is also the result of the timing of this action. It is true, if the board decides the "pink house" is not a permanent dwelling, it may be tantamount to a determination that an unincorporated community can never be established at Deschutes Junction. This is certainly staff's view. The Fagens do not understand why the County would purposefully set in motion an action that may prevent them from achieving goals and policies in the area before those policies and goals can even be considered. Scheduling the declaratory ruling before the hearing on proposed policies in the area has put the cart before the horse. The policies for planning in Deschutes Junction should be weighed on their own merit without regard to the status of the pink house or the determination of the declaratory ruling. Without a specific application or proposed boundary for an unincorporated community, the status of the pink house may be irrelevant or it may be decisive. For instance, there may be other qualifying permanent residential dwellings depending on the size of the proposed boundary of a future unincorporated community in the area. To keep as many planning opportunities available as possible, the Board should either declare the pink house is a permanent residential dwelling or should direct staff to withdraw the application until such time as policies have been implemented and/or a site specific application is received for creation of an identified unincorporated community. 2. Proper Application of the Unincorporated Community Rule Oregon's unincorporated community rule is found at Oregon Administrative Rule, Chapter 660, Division 22.3 An "Unincorporated Community" has five necessary elements which are analyzed for the subject property as follows: 1. It is made up primarily of lands subject an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3. The subject 1.77 acre4 property is zoned Rural Commercial and is excepted from agricultural Goal 3 protection. 3 The full text of the relevant OAR provisions and definitions can be found on pages 12-14 of the proposed Findings and Decision issued by staff in preparation for this hearing. 4 Staff admits it cannot explain the current size of the rural commercial parcel. Page 3 Deschutes County Commission March 28, 2011 2. Was identified in a county's acknowledged comprehensive plan as a "rural community ", "service center ", "rural center" or "resort community" before October 28, 1994. Deschutes County's acknowledged comprehensive plan on October 28, 1994 identified the subject property as a Rural Service Center. 3. It lies outside an urban growth boundary. The subject property is outside the Bend and Redmond UGB's. 4. It is not incorporated as a city. The subject property is not incorporated as a city. 5. It met the rule 's definition of "resort community ", "rural community ", rural service center" or "urban unincorporated community" prior to October 28, 1994. The subject property meets the definition of "rural service center" at OAR 660-022-0010(8) because prior to 1994 it "consisted of primarily commercial or industrial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area, and also included some permanent residential dwellings."5 A. The Analysis Should Begin In 1934 and End In 1994 The rule and subsequent caselaw makes clear the relevant determination period is what structures and uses were in existence prior to October 28, 1994. Any alleged use or land use application after that date is irrelevant to the analysis. See Oregon Shores Conservation v. Tillamook County (Or. LUBA 01/18/2005)(in establishing a RSC, county erred in failing to determine what uses on the subject property predated October 28, 1994 ). While the staff report details various commercial and retail uses from 1977 through 1994, the report fails to mention the true history of this area. The road is called Deschutes Market Junction for a reason. In the early 1900's and beyond, this area was historically a gathering place for rural commodities, trading and supplies. This is exactly the type of development pattern the unincorporated community rule attempted to legitimize: areas that had been historically used for purposes contrary to the eventual land use designation and protections. Staff's citation to the definition of rural service center on page 9 of the proposed decision is incorrect. The quoted passage is actually the definition of "rural community" found at OAR 660-022-0010(7). Page 4 Deschutes County Commission March 28, 2011 It is unfortunate there was not more information provided about the true historical background of the area and the property. For instance, the "pink house" was constructed in 1934.6 The unincorporated community rule allows consideration of historical use but the earliest use analyzed by staff was 1977. There are forty years of use unaccounted for in staff's report. B. Evidence in the Record Is Inconsistent, Incorrect and Supports A Finding of Permanent Residential Dwelling PA -92-8 and ZC-92-3 The staff report indicates this 1992 decision "did not allow for RSC zoning on the property". In fact, the 1992 decision recognized the 0.83 acre site was already zoned RSC. Instead, the decision concluded the 4.15 acre parcel (a larger parcel than is the subject of this application) had not provided the necessary Goal 14 exception under the Curry County decision. There was no discussion of "permanent residential dwelling" because the unincorporated community rule and this definition had not yet been created. 1994 Unincorporated Rural Communities Land Use Inventory. The inventory listed the Fagen property as "exempt" (from Goal 3 protection) and was "vacant". However, it is clear the property was not vacant. The pink house may have been vacant at the time but the property was "developed" in that the pink house existed at the time. Vacant is not the same as undeveloped. DLCD's 1997 Survey of Unincorporated Communities. Staff indicates the Planning Director and DLCD representative had determined the pink building was not a permanent residence. Neither the 1994 Inventory nor anything in the 1997 Survey made any such statement. PA -99-2 and TA -99-2. The decision to remove RSC zoning from the property was not supported by a specific finding the vacant building was not a permanent residence. Staff recognizes the findings in this decision do not provide an explanation or analysis of residences in the area. (Staff report p. 10) DL4L Reports. Permit records from 1978, 1989, 2001, and 2004 list the Building Class as "Residential". SP -05-28. This site plan approval called the pink house a "dwelling" and required as a condition of approval that the applicant obtain an authorization notice for a "change of use from a residence to an office" and to "convert the existing residence into a commercial office". 6 PA -92-8 and ZC-92-3, page 2. Page 5 Deschutes County Commission March 28, 2011 3. Proper Determination of Vague Terms Staff implies the definition of "permanent residential dwelling" at OAR 660-022-0010(5) is somehow vague and therefore resorts to Deschutes County code provisions definitions of "residential" and "dwelling" and dictionary definitions of the term "permanent". To begin, the OAR 660-022-0010(5) definition of "permanent residential dwelling" is not vague. The definition makes clear what types of structures qualify and those that do not. Manufactured homes qualify. Dwellings incidental to a commercial, industrial or camping use do not qualify. The definition also supports and advances the policy underlying the unincorporated community rule requirement for some residential dwellings. The definition prevents accessory dwellings from being placed solely to qualify for UIC treatment, however, manufactured homes placed near commercial uses would qualify an area for UIC treatment. The "permanent" requirement was to avoid manufactured homes from being moved onto a property temporarily solely for the purpose of establishing an UIC. Assuming, arguendo, the definition of "permanent residential dwelling" is vague, in determining the meaning of these words, the Board must first look to the text and context of the regulation to surmise the agency's intent in adopting this language. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993). If a term is not defined, the Board may look to their plain, natural and ordinary meanings, including definitions in acknowledged local ordinances. However, a local government may not supplant its local definitions when a term is defined is state law. Even if the local definitions of "residential" and "dwelling" are used, they do not support staff's conclusion the "pink house" does not qualify. The "pink house" was built and designed for human occupancy when it was originally constructed and was used for such a purpose from 1980 — 1997. (Letter from Eugene Carsey) The "pink house" is not a temporary structure. It has been in its current location for 77 years. It clearly is a permanent structure. Regardless of which dictionary definition is used, staff appears to confuse the "permanent" requirement of the UIC rule. The rule does not require the use to be permanent. Rather the rule (and Deschutes County's definition of "dwelling unit") focus on the duration of the structure. Again, the permanent requirement is to avoid temporary placement of manufactured homes or other structures to qualify for UIC treatment. Staff makes repeated mention of periods of vacancy to support its conclusion the structure has somehow lost its dwelling status. If this is true, there are many Page 6 Deschutes County Commission March 28, 2011 foreclosed and vacant homes in Deschutes County that will no longer be allowed to be occupied as a dwelling. Vacancy does not define the structure. It defines the period and intensity of use. Nothing in the UIC rule requires permanent and uninterrupted occupancy of the structure. Conclusion The Board should direct staff to withdraw this application until such time as the policies surrounding Deschutes Junction are considered and adopted or until a site specific application for an unincorporated community is filed. Alternatively, the Board should find the "pink house" was originally constructed, designed for and historically used as a permanent residential dwelling as that term is defined in OAR 660-022- 0010(5). Thank you for your consideration of these comments. David C. Allen Attorney at Law DCA/dca March 20, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone, Alan Unger 1300 NW Wall St. #200 Bend, Or 97701 Re: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update (TA -10-6) Dear County Commissioners, The recommendation of the Planning Commission to "encourage the County to establish an unincorporated community" is completely contrary to the views of the residents in the area and goes against the recommendation of the planning staff. This should be obvious to the Commission since other issues in the past have been disputed. Area residents do NOT want to change the character of this part of Bend/Redmond. Apparently 1 or 2 landowners' desires mean more to the Commission than that of over 140 residents. The public does not want sprawl and State law makes it extremely difficult to convert farmland to commercial uses. The county should not be encouraging sprawl, nor spending tax dollars defending this position. Over 1000 residents live in the Boones Borough and Starwood areas, most of whom live in this area for its rural character. If we wanted city services we would have chosen to live in the city limits. We are tired of being ignored and having public officials decide what is best for our community. Our neighbors are organized and have been politically active in preserving our rural nature in the past, and we will continue to do whatever is necessary in this regard in the future. We ask that you listen to the residents and your planning staff who spent their valuable time participating in this public process. We ask that you omit the ill- advised recommendation of the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Linda Stragand 64477 Joe Neil road copy: Paul Dewey L MAR 2 4 2011 L March 13, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone, Alan Unger 1300 NW Wall St. #200 Bend, Or 97701 Re: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update (TA -10-6) Dear County Commissioners, The recommendation of the Planning Commission to "encourage the County to establish an unincorporated community" is completely contrary to the views of the residents in the area and goes against the recommendation of the planning staff. Numerous public meetings and workshops showed an overwhelming consensus by area residents to maintain the existing general plan policies and not change the rural land use of the area. It appears there are only 1 or 2 landowners who want to upzone their farmland for commercial uses. Apparently they have more sway with the Planning Commission than do 142 area residents who opposed this change during nearly two years of public participation. These unilateral decisions by public officials are one reason people do not trust government. The public does not want sprawl and State law makes it extremely difficult to convert farmland to commercial uses. Because one landowner wants to make a profit by upzoning his land is not a justifiable reason for an "unincorporated community". The county should not be encouraging sprawl, nor spending tax dollars defending this position. Over 1000 residents live in the Boones Borough and Starwood areas, most of whom live in this area for its rural character. If we wanted city services we would have chosen to live in the city limits. We are tired of being ignored and having public officials decide what is best for our community. Our neighbors are organized and have been politically active in preserving our rural nature in the past, and we will continue to do whatever is necessary in this regard in the future. We ask that you listen to the residents and your planning staff who spent their valuable time participating in this public process. We ask that you omit the ill- advised recommendation of the Planning Commission. Thank You, Jeff Boyer 21827 BoonesBorough Drive MAR 2 3 2011 BOA -RD OF CC;," ISSI;]NERS ACA, NISTR.ATION ,g,zcu ( 2-01 X41( Ceu. CO ill 44 155(DN Rs ' II I C P -EsC k& ' -J v ) L -1—i ) Ze , Pito Sqa v I-� N 'C 6MI, O 1 1. Q A LL p2,/ rvo fC C` ��%Y3?►1? '=a- ,df iA ris t 'f c L~ (r5 eLeVia- mea fc (Lc NiNI te/4 3 icw-r-t-i--)644_4-44144. (2 f A.14-16, March 14, 2011 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Subject: Text Amendment TA -10-6 (Transportation and land use policies for Deschutes Junction), the documentation to be presented at the March 16, 2011 Work Session as a Staff Report. Please remove from the document all references to 19th Street that occur on page 1 of FINDINGS, Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-005, aerial photograph of Deschutes Junction interchange on US 97, and on the page 3 illustration, Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Designations. This is Morrill Road and not 19th Street. There is no narrative as to what 19th street is, how it was developed, or the subsequent L.U.B.A. ruling that dismissed the Deschutes County Board of Commissioner's attempt to create an unneeded street, then or now. If the Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) references a 19th Street designation, it needs to be removed from that document as well. Further, if the Commissioners are going to move forward with the 19th Street proposal, the public needs to know, and have this clearly stated and presented in the Deschutes Junction Update, TA -10-6. Upon formal completion of DR -10-3, "Declaratory Ruling on Structure at Highway 97/Tumalo Place (Fagen)", the Pink Building, those findings need to be included in Exhibit B 2011-005. Please also add a narrative that discusses the issues surrounding the 19th Street TSP issues and the subsequent L.U.B.A. decision in Exhibit B 2011-005. These two issues have bearing upon the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update, and should not get lost in the administrative paperwork shuffle. Additionally, the policy statements at 23.40.65 Deschutes Junction Policies, Exhibit A to Ordinance 2011-005 page 1 of 1, need to be encompassing policy objectives, not addressing specific things as C. does nor interjecting specific measures as D. does. This will better reflect the Public Comments that were provided during this process. The Deschutes Junction Policies need to read as follows: A. Maximize protection of the rural character of Deschutes Junction. While recognizing the properties currently designated for commercial, industrial and agricultural uses, prevent any further erosion of the rural character of Deschutes Junction. B. Review Deschutes Junction transportation in a manner consistent for safe and efficient travel at Deschutes Junction with Deschutes County traffic study requirements at 17.16.115, the Oregon Highway Plan, access management standards of OAR Chapter 734, Division 51, and OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). 1 C. Review Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan, as needed, as Oregon State regulations are changed. Sincerely, Hal Keesling 20836 Dione Way Bend OR 97701 2 March 23, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone 1300 NW Wall St. #200 Bend, OR 97701 Re. Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update (TA -10-6) Dear County Commissioners, We do not need additional commercial property around the Deschutes Junction rural area between Bend and Redmond. The current commercial property in the area has only provided us with the "Pink Monument". Designating this area as a Rural Commercial Service Center to provide us with a small gas station and convenience store may only provide more "Pink Monuments" in the future and destroy our existing rural character. Millican and Brothers located east of Bend are both Rural Service Centers. These areas don't give the appearance of being economically successful. When the pending traffic flow changes are completed around the intersection of Highway 97 and Cooley Rd. located 6 miles South of Deschutes Junction, there will be significant commercial development in this area to provide for our daily needs in Deschutes Junction and retain our rural character. Please do not provide for more commercial development in the Deschutes Junction area. Thank You, oci" /P27—V1-' Bob Cooper 64621 McGrath Rd. Boones Borough l MAR 25 2011 IL BOARD OF COMMLSS!QNERS ACM;Ells; RA11ON OREGON SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION, LENORA..., 48 Or LUBA 423 (2005) 48 Or LUBA 423 (Or Luba), 2005 WL 289479 (Or Luba) Land Use Board of Appeals State of Oregon OREGON SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION, LENORA LAWRENCE AND BERNIE WOLFF, Petitioners, vs. TILLAMOOK COUNTY, Respondent, and PORT OF TILLAMOOK BAY, Intervenor -Respondent. LUBA No. 2004-130 REVERSED January 18, 2005 Appeal from Tillamook County. **/ Daniel Kearns, Portland, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of petitioners. With him on the brief was Reeve Kearns, PC. William K. Sargent, Tillamook County Counsel, Tillamook, represented respondent. E. Andrew Jordan, Portland, filed the response brief and argued on behalf of intervenor -respondent. With him on the brief was Jordan Schrader PC. BASSHAM, Board Member; HOLSTUN, Board Chair; DAVIES, Board Member, participated in the decision. 1. 18.1 Goal 14 - Urbanization/Goal 14 Rule - Generally. That a comprehensive plan identifies only a portion rather than the entirety of the geographic extent of a proposed unincorporated community as a "rural community," "service center," "rural center," "resort community" or similar term is not fatal, for purposes of OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b). As long as the proposed community indeed qualifies as an "unincorporated community" under OAR 660-022-0010(10), the geographic extent of the proposed community is determined under OAR 660-022-0020, which allows certain areas outside the community to be included within the community. *424 2. 18.1 Goal 14 - Urbanization/ Goal 14 Rule - Generally. OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b) embodies a policy choice that the universe of "unincorporated communities" is limited to settlements or communities of some kind that the local government has explicitly recognized in its comprehensive plan prior to October 28, 1994, or that are listed in the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) survey. If not listed in the DLCD survey, the comprehensive plan must describe the proposed community either by one of the terms listed in the rule or a similar term that suggests the county views the area as a community of some kind. 3. 18.1 Goal 14 - Urbanization/ Goal 14 Rule - Generally. A description of an industrial park in a comprehensive plan as an "industrial park" is not a "similar term" to "service center," for purposes of establishing a new unincorporated community under OAR 660-022-0010, where nothing in the comprehensive plan suggests that the county viewed the industrial park as a community of some kind, and in adopting the comprehensive plan the county failed to list or discuss the industrial park in the plan element that addresses unincorporated communities. 4. 18.1 Goal 14 - Urbanization/ Goal 14 Rule - Generally. OAR 660-022-0010(8) defines a rural service center in part based on what uses on the property existed or predated October 28, 1994. Where the county fails to establish what current uses of the property existed on or predated WestlawNexr © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 OREGON SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION, LENORA..., 48 Or LUBA 423 (2005) October 28, 1994, it cannot determine whether the proposed community qualifies as a rural service center under the rule. **2 5. 18.1 Goal 14 - Urbanization/ Goal 14 Rule - Generally. The requirement in OAR 660-022-0010(8) that a rural service center consist "primarily of commercial or industrial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or persons traveling through the area" means that a majority of the subject property must consist of qualifying commercial and industrial uses, and not other uses. 6. 18.1 Goal 14 - Urbanization/ Goal 14 Rule - Generally. Rural industrial uses that manufacture products and ship them to urban areas for retail sale do not provide "goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area," for purposes of qualifying a community as a "rural service center" under OAR 660-022-0010(8). Opinion by Bassham. NATURE OF THE DECISION Petitioners appeal an ordinance amending the county comprehensive plan and land use regulations to establish plan *425 policies and zoning governing a new rural unincorporated community. FACTS Intervenor -respondent Port of Tillamook Bay (the Port) operates an industrial park on a former U.S. Navy blimp base approximately two miles south of the City of Tillamook's urban growth boundary, along Highway 101. The industrial park consists of approximately 1,965 acres, including the 975 -acre Tillamook County Airport, a 635 -acre industrial park, and 354 acres of land belonging to various public agencies. Uses on the industrial park currently consist of a mix of industrial, public and agricultural uses.1 The industrial park is zoned General Industrial (M-1). Most of the park is also subject to the Tillamook Airport Obstruction (TAO) overlay zone. The industrial park is served by its own sanitary sewer system, and its own water distribution system, which distributes water received from the City of Tillamook. In 2002, the county amended the M-1 zone to allow as conditional uses (1) convention facilities, including motels and restaurants, and (2) a golf course. The 2002 decision also adopted exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and 14 (Urbanization), to accommodate the new urban uses allowed in the amended M-1 zone. The Port subsequently applied for and received conditional use approval for a 10,000 -square foot convention center, a 130 -room hotel, a restaurant, *426 and golf course, although those facilities have not yet been constructed. On September 19, 2003, the Port applied to the county to establish a 1,718.8 -acre rural unincorporated community, pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division 022. The proposed community, known as South Prairie, consists of (1) two parcels owned by the Port within the industrial park, totaling 1,683 acres, and (2) two privately owned areas, totaling 35.8 acres, known as sub- areas 2 and 3. Both the Port -owned parcels and the two sub -areas are subject to exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands) and 4 (Forest Lands), taken in the 1980s. One of the two Port -owned parcels is 84 acres in size and located in the northeast corner of the proposed community area, separated from the larger Port -owned parcel and the two sub- areas by several parcels owned by other public agencies. This 84 -acre parcel is undeveloped. The private lands in sub -areas 2 and 3 are located at the southeast and southwest corners, respectively, of the larger Port -owned parcel. Sub -area 2 is zoned Rural Residential and consists of seven tax lots, totaling 15.06 acres, developed with dwellings. Sub -area 3 is zoned Rural Commercial and consists of 10 tax lots, totaling 20.75 acres, most of which are developed with public and commercial uses. **3 The Port's application proposes that most of the Port -owned lands would remain in an amended version of the preexisting M-1 zoning. However, the Port proposes that 83 acres near the approved hotel and golf course would be zoned SPR -3 (South Prairie High Density Urban Residential), which allows 5,000 -square foot lots. The county board of commissioners held a hearing on the Port's proposal January 28, 2004, and on July 14, 2004, adopted findings approving the requested comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments. This appeal followed. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Designation and planning for unincorporated communities is governed by OAR chapter 660, division 22. OAR 660-022- 0010(10) defines "unincorporated community" in relevant part to include a "settlement" that is (1) identified in a *427 WestLawNexr © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 OREGON SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION, LENORA..., 48 Or LUBA 423 (2005) county's acknowledged comprehensive plan as a "rural community", "service center", "rural center", "resort community," or similar term prior to October 28, 1994 (the date of adoption of OAR 660, division 22), or (2) listed in the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)'s January 30, 1997 "Survey of Oregon's Unincorporated Communities."2 In addition, prior to October 28, 1994, the settlement must have met the definition of one of the four types of unincorporated communities described at OAR 660-022-0010(6) through (9).3 *428 The proposed South Prairie community is not on the January 30, 1997 DLCD Survey of Oregon Unincorporated Communities.4 The Urbanization Element of the Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan (TCCP), adopted in 1984, includes an extensive discussion of unincorporated communities in the county, and identifies 15 rural areas as some type of unincorporated community.5 The TCCP Urbanization Element does not identify or discuss the South Prairie area or the industrial park. Nothing m the TCCP describes the South *429 Prairie area or the industrial park as a "rural community," "service center," "rural center" or "resort community." Apparently, there is no TCCP description of the South Prairie area as a distinct area. However, in various places the Population and Economy element of the TCCP refers to the Port of Tillamook Bay Industrial Park as an "industrial park." TCCP Population and Economy Section 3.53. The county found that the TCCP term "industrial park" is similar to the term "service center," one of the terms listed in OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b), and therefore that the proposed South Prairie community, which is composed predominantly of the industrial park, was "identified" in the TCCP for purposes of OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b). The county went on to conclude that the proposed community fell within the definition of "Rural Service Center" at OAR 660-022-0010(8), and therefore satisfied OAR 660-022-0010(10)(e). Petitioners challenge both conclusions. A. OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b): Similar Term **4 Petitioners argue that the county misconstrued the applicable law in concluding that the proposed South Prairie community was "identified in a county's acknowledged comprehensive plan as a `rural community,' `service center,' `rural center,' `resort community,' or similar term," for purposes of OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b). Petitioners emphasize that neither the Port property nor the South Prairie area as a whole is identified in the TCCP list of unincorporated communities. That omission is significant, petitioners argue, because it indicates that the county did not regard either the Port property or the South Prairie area to be unincorporated communities of any kind when it adopted the TCCP or at any time prior to 1994. Petitioners further dispute the county's conclusion that the TCCP reference to the Port property as an "industrial park" is "similar" to the terms "rural community", "service center," "rural center" or "resort community." To be similar, we understand petitioners to argue, the TCCP must use terms that suggest some kind of community. According to petitioners, the term "industrial park" does not denote or connote a community. *430 Petitioners also note that the TCCP refers only to the Port property, and does not refer collectively to the Port property and the privately owned sub -areas that make up the proposed community. At best, petitioners argue, the TCCP refers to part of the proposed community, the industrial park. Finally, petitioners contend that the county erred in relying on non-TCCP documents to support the conclusion that the TCCP reference to "industrial park" is intended to mean something similar to "service center."6 *431 The Port responds that the TCCP term "industrial park," read in context with other documents the county relied upon, is sufficiently similar to the term "service center" to qualify under OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b). According to the Port, when the county used the term "industrial park" in the TCCP to describe the Port property it meant more than that term might mean in other circumstances. Because the Port property has historically included a wide range of uses that provide at least some services to the surrounding area, the Port argues that the TCCP term "industrial park" as applied to the Port property meant something similar to "service center." Further, the Port argues that it is not necessary that the TCCP identify the entire proposed community as a community or center of some kind; it is sufficient that the TCCP identifies part of the proposed community --here, the industrial park --as one of the listed terms or a similar term. 1 We agree with the Port that OAR 660-022-0010(10) does not require that the comprehensive plan apply one of the listed terms or a similar term to the entirety of the proposed community. Assuming that the proposed community indeed qualifies as an "unincorporated community" under OAR 660-022-0010(10)(a) through (e), the geographic scope of the community is determined under OAR 660-022-0020. Thus, that a comprehensive plan identifies only a portion of the geographic extent of a proposed community using one of the listed terms or a similar term is not fatal. **5 2 However, we agree with petitioners that the county erred in concluding that the TCCP identifies the Port property with one of the listed terms or a similar term. The rule does not define "service center," although it defines what appears to be a related *432 term, Rural Service Center, as one type of unincorporated community. See n 3. Although the intent of OAR 660- 022-0010(10)(b) is not entirely clear to us, the rule appears to embody a policy choice that the universe of "unincorporated communities" is limited to settlements or communities of some kind that the local government has explicitly recognized as such in its comprehensive plan prior to October 28, 1994, or that are listed in the DLCD survey. Thus, in evaluating whether WestlawNext © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 OREGON SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION, LENORA..., 48 Or LUBA 423 (2005) a comprehensive plan term is "similar" to one of the listed terms, it is necessary to look not only at linguistic similarity, but also whether the purportedly similar term denotes a settlement or community of some kind. Turning to the TCCP language at issue, the county's decision does not explain why it believes the term "industrial park" is linguistically or semantically similar to any of the listed terms, and we do not see that it is. To begin with, the decision does not identify where in the TCCP the term "industrial park" appears. Presumably, the county found that term in section 3.53 of the TCCP Population and Economy element, which discusses the Port of Tillamook Bay Industrial Park. However, nothing in that section suggests any reason to view the Port property as anything more than a large and economically important industrial park. 3 We agree with petitioners that it is significant that the TCCP does not include or discuss the industrial park or the South Prairie area in the plan element that addresses unincorporated communities. It is reasonably clear that when the county adopted the TCCP in 1984 it did not regard the Port *433 property or the South Prairie area as an unincorporated community of any kind. That in turn strongly suggests that the TCCP reference to the Port property as an "industrial park" was not intended to recognize the Port property as some kind of settlement or community. It also seems significant that the county had at least two additional chances after 1984 to recognize the Port property or the South Prairie area as some kind of unincorporated community, but did not: in 1993 when DLCD conducted its survey, and again in 1997 when it revised the survey to include additional communities, at the request of certain counties.8 The county's conclusion under OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b) is based less on linguistic or semantic similarity between the TCCP term "industrial park" and the term "service center," than it is on consideration of various non-TCCP documents, specifically (1) the M-1 zone, (2) the description of the Port property in the Tillamook County Economic Development Fact Book, (3) the rural residential zoning of sub -area 2, and (4) prior county actions approving various activities and uses in the area, such as liquor licenses and dance events. We generally agree with petitioners that non-TCCP documents are of little assistance in determining whether the TCCP identifies the proposed South Prairie community as one of the listed terms or a "similar term." The inquiry under OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b) is whether the comprehensive plan identifies the proposed unincorporated community as one of the listed terms or a similar term.9 **6 *434 Even if the cited non-TCCP documents are considered as context, as the Port suggests, we do not see that those documents illuminate the meaning of "industrial park." The decision does not explain why consideration of either the M-1 zone or the fact book supports the conclusion that "industrial park" means something similar to "service center." As far as we can tell, the uses allowed in the M-1 zone prior to the 2002 amendments do not suggest that M-1 zoned property in general or the Port property in particular function as "service centers" or something similar. The description of the Port property in the fact book likewise does not suggest that the Port is anything more than an industrial park. Record 181-86.10 Similarly, the fact that sub -area 2 is zoned for rural residential use does not suggest that the county recognized sub -area 2, much less the adjoining industrial park, as a community of some kind. Finally, the county's actions in approving various non -industrial uses or activities in the area do nothing to establish that the TCCP identifies the area as one of the listed terms or a similar term. In sum, we agree with petitioners that the county erred in concluding that the TCCP identifies the Port property or the South Prairie area in terms similar to "service center," for purposes of OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b). This subassignment of error is sustained. 11 *435 B. OAR 660-022-0010(10)(e): Rural Service Center To qualify as an "unincorporated community" as defined at OAR 660-022-0010(10), the proposed community must satisfy the definition of one of the four types of unincorporated communities in OAR 660-022-0010(6) through (9), and include the uses described in those definitions, prior to October 28, 1994. See n 2. The county found that the proposed South Prairie community meets the definition of "Rural Service Center" at OAR 660-022-0010(8). OAR 660-022-0010(8) defines "Rural Service Center" as an unincorporated community consisting primarily of (1) commercial or industrial uses (2) that provide goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area, and (3) some permanent residential dwellings. See n 3. Petitioners argue that, while the record includes evidence regarding the current uses of the Port property, as well as uses approved but not yet constructed such as the convention center, hotel and golf course, the record does not establish what uses were present prior to October 28, 1994. In addition, petitioners argue that there is no evidence that the proposed community consists primarily of commercial and industrial uses "providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area," for purposes of *436 OAR 660-022-0010(8). According to petitioners, most of the current industrial uses on the property serve statewide, regional, national or international markets, rather than the surrounding rural area or persons traveling through the area. **7 The county's findings discuss the current uses of the property in some detail, including the approved but not yet constructed conference center, hotel and golf course.12 However, the decision does not distinguish between current uses and WesttawNext' © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 OREGON SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION, LENORA..., 48 Or LUBA 423 (2005) the uses that predated October 28, 1994, other than to conclude that *437 a "representative mix" of current uses existed before 1994. With respect to the requirement that the uses that predated October 28, 1994, must have consisted "primarily of commercial or industrial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area," the county appears to reason that most of the current and approved uses provide some goods and services to the surrounding rural area and to tourists, and therefore the uses predating October 28, 1994, also provided the requisite goods and services. The Port contends that the county's findings are adequate and supported by substantial evidence. The Port cites to a list of current and approved uses on the Port property at Record 574-75, and a statement at Record 568 that the uses on that list "almost in their entirety predate October 28, 1994," as substantial evidence supporting the county's finding that the requisite uses predated October 28, 1994. See n 1 (summary of current and approved uses on the Port property). The Port also argues that it is clear from the record that commercial uses that predate October 28, 1994, including the airport and air museum, serve the surrounding rural area and traveling public. With respect to industrial uses, the Port argues that even if goods are manufactured and shipped outside the surrounding rural area, for example to the Portland metropolitan area, that is still providing a service to the local rural area. 4 Read together, OAR 660-022-0010(10)(e) and 660-022-0010(8) require that the county determine (1) what uses on the subject property existed or predated October 28, 1994, and (2), considering only those uses, whether the subject property consisted "primarily of commercial or industrial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area." 13 Uses that were developed or approved after October 28, 1994, do not enter into the calculus. The application lists 17 uses or types of uses on the Port property as of 2003. Four of those 17 uses are the convention center, hotel, restaurant and golf course, which were approved in 2002. Record 574. The list does not indicate when any of the other uses were *438 established. Other than the conclusory statement in the application that uses on that list "almost in their entirety predate October 28, 1994," we are cited to no other evidence indicating when those uses were established. Although it seems probable that most of the uses on that list in fact predate October 28, 1994, we agree with petitioners that the county erred in failing to determine what uses on the subject property in fact existed on or predated that date. That determination is a prerequisite to determining whether those uses qualify the subject property as a "Rural Service Center" under OAR 660-022- 0010(8). **8 5 Turning to OAR 660-022-0010(8), the intended meaning of the requirement that the proposed community consist "primarily of commercial or industrial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area" is not entirely clear to us. First, it is not clear what it means to require that the community consist "primarily" of the requisite commercial or industrial uses. For lack of a better answer, we read it to mean that the majority of the subject property must consist of the qualifying commercial and industrial uses, and not other uses. 6 The more difficult ambiguity is what constitutes the qualifying commercial and industrial uses. OAR 660-022-0010(1) and (4) define "commercial use" and "industrial use," respectively. 14 OAR 660-022-0010(8) adds the additional qualification that the commercial and industrial uses must provide "goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area." We agree with the Port that *439 commercial uses on the subject property, including the airport, air museum, convenience store, etc., almost certainly qualify, assuming they predate October 28, 1994. The fact that some of those uses may also serve more than the surrounding rural area is not a disqualification, if those uses serve the surrounding rural area or persons traveling through the area. Industrial uses present a more difficult question. We do not agree with the Port that manufacture of a product and shipment of that product to an urban area for retail sale constitutes "providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area." In sum, the county erred in failing to determine what uses on the subject property existed or predated October 28, 1994. The county also erred in failing to determine which of those uses are qualifying commercial or industrial uses. With respect to industrial uses, the county erred in failing to determine whether products manufactured, processed or stored on the subject property are provided to the surrounding rural area. Finally, the county erred in failing to determine whether the subject property consists "primarily" of those qualifying uses, i.e., whether a majority of the subject property consists of the qualifying uses, as opposed to other uses.15 The first assignment of error is sustained. For the reasons explained above, we do not reach the second, third, fourth or fifth assignments of error, because in sustaining the first assignment of error we conclude that the county's decision "violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as a matter of law." OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c). **9 The county's decision is reversed. Westiawl•lext © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 OREGON SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION, LENORA..., 48 Or LUBA 423 (2005) 1 Current and approved uses in the industrial park include: the airport, air museum, 40 small industrial enterprises, 70 large industrial enterprises, an approved 10,000 square foot convention facility, approved 130 -room hotel, approved restaurant, approved I 8 -hole golf course, open space (wetlands and wooded hills), public facilities, public service institutions including an Oregon State Correctional Facility, the Oregon State Youth Accountability Facility, the Tillamook County Sheriff's Office, Oregon State Police, Tillamook School District facilities, Tillamook County ATV Training Center, Port facilities, power generator, railroad maintenance facility, aircraft hangers, a composting facility, and a number of non -industrial uses such as softball fields and a mini -storage facility. Record 574-75. Approximately 1000 acres of the Port property are undeveloped. Approximately 600 acres of the undeveloped acres are used for grazing. Id. 2 OAR 660-022-0010(10) provides: -'Unincorporated Community' means a settlement with all of the following characteristics: "(a) It is made up primarily of lands subject to an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Goal 4 or both; "(b) It was either identified in a county's acknowledged comprehensive plan as a 'rural community', `service center', `rural center', `resort community', or similar term before this division was adopted (October 28, 1994), or it is listed in the Department of Land Conservation and Development's January 30, 1997 `Survey of Oregon's Unincorporated Communities'; [; and] "(e) It met the definition of one of the four types of unincorporated communities in sections (6) through (9) of this rule, and included the uses described in those definitions, prior to the adoption of this division (October 28, 1994)." 3 OAR 660-022-0010(6) through (9) provide: "(6) `Resort Community' is an unincorporated community that was established primarily for and continues to be used primarily for recreation or resort purposes: and "(a) includes residential and commercial uses; and "(b) Provides for both temporary and permanent residential occupancy, including overnight lodging and accommodations. "(7) 'Rural Community' is an unincorporated community which consists primarily of permanent residential dwellings but also has at least two other land uses that provide commercial, industrial, or public uses (including but not limited to schools, churches, grange halls, post offices) to the community, the surrounding rural area, or to persons traveling through the area. `'(8) `Rural Service Center' is an unincorporated community consisting primarily of commercial or industrial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons traveling through the area, but which also includes some permanent residential dwellings. "(9) 'Urban Unincorporated Community' is an unincorporated community which has the following characteristics: "(a) Include at least 150 permanent residential dwellings units; "(b) Contains a mixture of land uses, including three or more public, commercial or industrial land uses; "(c) Includes areas served by a community sewer system; and "(d) Includes areas served by a community water system." 4 The Survey of Oregon Unincorporated Communities is a survey conducted by DLCD in 1993, revised in 1997, in which DLCD and the counties identified candidates for recognition as unincorporated communities. Record 170. For Tillamook County, the survey lists the following 16 communities: Barview, Beaver, Cape Meares, Cloverdale, Falcon Cove, Hebo, Idaville, Mohler, Neahkahnie, Neskowin, Oceanside, Netarts, Pacific City/Woods, Syskeyville, Tierra Del Mar, and Twin Rocks. Record 171. 5 The TCCP identifies the following unincorporated communities: four urban unincorporated communities (Neahkahnie, Twin Rocks, Watseco and Barview), five rural unincorporated communities (Oceanside, Netarts, Cloverdale, Pacific City and Neskowin), and six semi -urban unincorporated communities (Falcon Cove, Idaville, Cape Meares, Beaver, Hebo and Tierra Del Mar). Record I72-77. 6 The county's findings state, in relevant part: "The [South Prairie area] is a settlement with an early and broken history. Before 1940 it was a viable rural agrarian community in which a public school was established and a grange hall, local county store, tavern, and cemetery. This old community pattern was broken when the United States Government purchased extensive farmland for a Naval Air Station. Then first with the naval operation and later with the Port of Tillamook Bay the area became an amalgam of the older rural agrarian community and the newer military, rural industrial service center. The community services were intensified during the 1980s and 1990s as the Port matured in its role as the major service provider for industrial development and other land -extensive and safety institutions (i.e., corrections, sheriff and police). Like most of the communities Tillamook County designated as `unincorporated communities in 1998 after the State Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted OAR 660 Div. 022 in October 1994 (See Board Order OA 97-01) South Prairie (an area that included the Port of Tillamook Bay) was historically recognized in the 1984 [TCCP] by its dual distinctions: a rural residential community with the place name of South Prairie and a community with water and sewer WestlawNext © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 OREGON SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION, LENORA..., 48 Or LUBA 423 (2005) facilities recognized by its institutional name, the Port of Tillamook Bay. The dominant uses at the Port qualify the area as a 'service center' type of 'unincorporated community' that encompasses the industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses in the South Prairie Community. (See Board's comments from public hearing on January 28, 2004). "This long established 'settlement' is made up of lands with exceptions to Statewide Goals 3 or 4 (1984 County Comprehensive Land Use Plan); was designated in the [TCCP] as an industrial park, portraying it as a service center by the uses allowed in the M- 1 zoning ordinance and a September 1981 County document titled 'Tillamook County Economic Development Fact Book,' at pages 78-81, and it was recognized as a rural community by the South Prairie area rural residential zoning as contained in the 1984 [TCCP] and the evidence contained in the Board minutes circa 1950-1980s approving uses and activities in the community of South Prairie; is two miles outside the Tillamook city Urban Growth Boundary; is not incorporated as a city; and meets the definition of 'rural service center' contained in [OAR 660-022-0010(8)], with requisite uses in place prior to October 28, 1994. (Reference testimony by applicant during Board hearing of January 8, 2004) (See Part 'A' Findings, Section III and V). ''The substance of what the County Comprehensive Plan, M-1 zoning ordinance and 'Economic Development Fact Book' apply to the term 'industrial park' makes this term similar to 'service center,' one of the terms listed at [OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b)]." Record 96-97 (emphasis original). 7 Section 3.53 of the TCCP Population and Economy element states, in relevant part: "The Port of Tillamook Bay's Industrial Park is the only existing site in the county of significant size (1,550 acres) which can accommodate diversified industrial development without major impact on surrounding land uses. The combination of a first-class feeder airport facility with convenient highway and power supplies to the site are fully adequate and the sewage disposal system is being upgraded to accommodate future growth. In all respects the site needs to be planned, zoned and developed to meet its full potential to strengthen and diversify the economic base of Tillamook County." 8 The findings quoted at n 6 refer to a Board Order OA -97-01, an order adopted in 1998 that apparently amended the TCCP Unincorporated Communities element to implement OAR chapter 660, division 22. That order is not in the record and the copy of the TCCP on file with LUBA does not appear to include those amendments. From the description of the order in the quoted findings, the order does not identify the Port property or the South Prairie area as an unincorporated community of any kind. 9 The Port asserts, in a footnote, that the Tillamook County Economic Development Fact Book is part of the TCCP. The Port does not explain the basis for that assertion, and the county's findings do not appear to treat the fact book as part of the TCCP. 10 The fact book states, in relevant part: "Port of Tillamook Bay Industrial Park - Description. "The Port Industrial Park is located on property which was a U.S. Navy Blimp base during World War II. The total site is 1,965 acres. Of this acreage, 975 acres are the Tillamook County Airport. 354 acres belong to other public agencies. The Industrial Park consists of 635 acres. "Of the 635 acres, 220 are presently developed in industrial uses. Louisiana Pacific utilizes 167 acres. Public Utilities and the railroad use another 53 acres, leaving 362 acres available for future development. Almost any size of parcel can be arranged from 1/2 acre up to 50 acres or more (see map). "The Port Industrial Park is located 4 miles south of Tillamook City on U.S. Highway 101. The terrain is flat." Record 182. 11 Petitioners argue that if LUBA sustains this subassignment of error the county's decision must be reversed, because as a matter of law the proposed community cannot qualify as an unincorporated community under OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b). Based on the record before us, it appears highly unlikely that the county could reach a sustainable conclusion that the TCCP identified the Port property or South Prairie area as a listed term or similar term prior to October 28, 1994, for purposes of OAR 660-022- 0010(10)(b). Therefore, we agree with petitioners that reversal is warranted under OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c) (LUBA shall reverse when the decision violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as a matter of law). Normally, that conclusion would make it unnecessary to address petitioners' other assignments and subassignments of error. We choose, however, to go on to address the second subassignment of error under the first assignment of error, which challenges the county's findings under OAR 660-022-0010(10)(e). We do so because the question of whether the comprehensive plan has identified an unincorporated community as a "service center" or similar term under OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b) and the question of whether the proposed community qualifies as a "rural service center" under OAR 660-022-0010(8) are, it seems to us, closely related questions. Our resolution of the second question may aid judicial review of our resolution of the first question. 12 In addition to the findings quoted at n 6, the pertinent findings appear to include the following: "Tillamook County land use regulations govern the [South Prairie] area, including the major part (a single parcel) that remains held in public ownership by the Port of Tillamook Bay. These public lands are planned and zoned as an 'industrial park' [General Westl3wNext' © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 OREGON SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION, LENORA..., 48 Or LUBA 423 (2005) Industrial (M-1)], which includes [a] listing of specific uses allowed outright only on Port property (namely, power generating facilities; business, government or professional offices; convention facilities including hotel and restaurant; fire or ambulance stations); and a golf course permitted conditionally. Extensive development occurred prior to October 28, 1994. (See Port records indicating uses and dates established)." Record 91. "The Board concludes that a broad mix of uses serving the immediate area, the rural county and visitors to the county are long- established in the form of home -sites, industry; air, rail and road transportation, natural resources, government offices, community activities, commercial enterprises, tourist attractions, public sanitary and water systems, a cemetery, and public educational facilities. The acknowledged [TCCP] and Development Ordinances allow all of these uses and activities. This representative mix of the current uses and activities was established prior to 1994." Record 91-92. "The community recognized by this decision is unincorporated, consists primarily of industrial (752 acres) and commercial/office (765 acres including the airport and recreation) uses (see page 2 of application document), serves the surrounding rural county and the touring public and includes some permanent residential dwellings established prior to creation of the [Port] industrial park. Its primary function is to provide services, such as recreation, tourist attractions, transportation (air and rail) and land with adequate public facilities for industry (i.e., resource processing and manufacturing), commerce (i.e., conferencing and neighborhood retail including community convenience store and local commercial services) and public services (i.e., corrections, public safety, and school). (See Part 'A' Findings, Sections lI1-V)." Record 96 (emphasis original). 13 Petitioners do not dispute that the proposed community "also includes some permanent residential dwellings" for purposes of OAR 660-022-0010(8). I4 OAR 660-022-0010 provides, in relevant part: "(1) 'Commercial Use' means the use of land primarily for the retail sale of products or services, including offices. It does not include factories, warehouses, freight terminals, or wholesale distribution centers. "(4) `Industrial Use' means the use of land primarily for the manufacture, processing, storage, or wholesale distribution of products, goods, or materials. It does not include commercial uses." 15 We note, as petitioners do, that approximately 1,000 acres of the proposed 1,718.8 -acre community is undeveloped, apparently used only for open space or grazing. A significant portion of the remainder is used for a variety of non-commercial and non- industrial purposes. Even including parking lots, roads, runway impact zones and other facilities that serve developed industrial and commercial uses, it may well be that the county cannot reach a sustainable conclusion that the 1,718.80 -acre subject property consists "primarily" of qualifying commercial and industrial uses. End of Document © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WestL wNext © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8