Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for joining us today for this August 19th, 2026 meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. We'll now call the meeting to order and we'll start off our meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join us. Next, we will review, modify as needed, and approve the agenda for today.

Are there any requested changes, additions, subtractions?

Move approval.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Further discussion?

Acknowledge the added executive session item at the end from yesterday.

Yes. Okay, for that, I'm calling for the vote. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay, now on to the citizen input portion of our meeting. I don't see any blue forms here, but if there's anyone in the room who would like to provide comment, you're welcome to ask. Come up to the desk now and fill out a blue form later. Also, I'll check in with Eric on whether there are any hands raised online. Okay, seeing none, we can move on from citizen input to commissioner announcements. Are there any commissioner announcements? One thing I'll mention is that this afternoon, hopefully we can be finished by 11 a.m., there is an Energy Trust of Oregon Community Energy Resilience Program presentation. This flows from an analysis of facilities in our community that could serve as resilience hubs during emergencies and a county emergency manager has been tracking this pretty closely. But there's an analysis that's been completed that was being coordinated by COIC. Energy Trust is offering follow-on you know, financial and technical assistance for some of the facilities identified in that analysis, including the Fair and Expo Center. And there will be, Jeff Curtis let me know that there will be Fair and Expo staff attending this online webinar. I'm going to try to make it as well. It'll be interesting to hear what kind of support the Energy Trust might be able to offer. Originally, Deschutes County wasn't going to be invited to this webinar because they were working most closely with emergency managers and they figured emergency managers during fire season would be busy right now. But I told them that, you know, for the facilities that we're talking about, there might be other staff that could attend. And so we could get in on this one, and then emergency managers will get more information at a later date. Okay. Any other commissioner announcements?

I do want to make a note for people in our community. I just noticed the third older citizen of Deschutes County was just hit last Friday in Sisters. She's in the hospital now, but we had a fatality in Sisters earlier this summer, and I know someone that was walking in the subway parking lot was actually hit and killed walking in the Safeway parking lot, I believe. So everyone, when you're crossing, you've got to look like both ways four or five times. I mean, it really... It's just really, you're taking your life into your hands and please look always and really make sure that that car actually acknowledges and sees you. So I was just, I hadn't heard about it until just recently, but yeah, it's very unfortunate.

Yeah. Also a good reminder that there are really important programs and projects described in both the county's transportation safety plan and the state's transportation safety plan and various cities have, some of our cities have transportation safety plans in the works right now as well. Some of these unfortunate incidents are avoidable. We just need to be doing the right things to improve the safety of our roads and sidewalks and crossings and bike lanes and everything else.

So one other note, tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow evening, there's going to be a In the Landscape music event up at Eastlake. So Hunter Lurie is going to be playing and visit Central Oregon sponsors and participates in this performance. So Eastlake tomorrow night, my wife and I will be able to attend. So there may be seats available or participation available still. So Hunter Lurie performing live at Eastlake tomorrow night. Great. Fun events.

But isn't Toto tonight here in Bend? Toto, the romantics, and Christopher Cross. Somebody I know was cool. And I go like, maybe I could have my husband go. So I thought that was a pretty interesting lineup. No one in the room is going? Maybe. Stephanie Marshall. Yes. Okay.

Are there any further commissioner announcements? I will just ask real quickly. I believe there's a Redmond managed camp meeting tomorrow.

Do you have that covered, Commissioner Adair?

Is there one on my schedule?

On your schedule, but I do know what is scheduled.

Okay. I... I won't. Yeah, I didn't think I saw that on my schedule tomorrow. I did do the yesterday morning, the visioning meeting. Oh, it is way down there. No, I can't. I can't go to that one tomorrow.

I'll be on a plane with my kid heading to take him to college. Will we have staff coverage? Yes, we will have staff coverage, yes.

Great, thank you.

I do believe the project is getting to actually make something positive happen. Moving down to four people that we were talking to.

that are currently on the property to be transferred to DSL, the county-owned property, correct? And a lot of progress this month with the managed camp, yes.

I was on the phone with Christy yesterday when she was at the managed camp. They were moving some people in?

Yes. Okay.

Any further commissioner announcements? We can now move on to the consent agenda.

Move approval of the consent agenda.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Just one slight edit. The May 18th minutes, just the acronym for Orenco was mentioned, so I think it was just missing the E in the middle of it, but I sent that off.

And then there was just one city change on page 7 to 10, which Brent has already done. So thank you. Okay.

So... Is the motion still good or as modified?

As modified, sure.

So with that, we'll call for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. All right. On to action items. Item number five, consideration of first reading of ordinance number 2026-015, Deschutes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Limited Remand.

Good morning, Chair, Commissioners, your planning manager, Will Groves, here for a first reading of, consideration of first reading of ordinance number 2026-015. That's on the 2040 comprehensive plan remand. On August 5th, the board conducted a public hearing on the limited remand proposal and the board closed the hearing, deliberated and voted to approve the limited amendment remand package. The attached ordinance reflects the amendment package approved by the board and is presented for first reading by title only. And I'm available for any questions.

I move approval of first reading of ordinance number 2026-015 by title only.

I'll second the motion.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

We've been through many phases on this, and I do appreciate the limited revision, putting this package kind of in its best form that we can at this point in time.

I'll just say I still think that this is a deficient document that does not do enough to protect farm and forest lands, habitat, open space, water resources, and a lot of other things that our constituents care about. So I'll be voting no. Okay. Any further discussion? Calling for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And chair votes no. So we need to do a first reading now.

Is there?

There it is. Okay. Before the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, in ordinance amending ordinance number 2025-007 and title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to adopt limited revisions on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals and superseding inconsistent portions of ordinance number 2024-007 only to the extent necessary. I should have given the number to you, shouldn't I? Ordinance number 2026-015. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Will. Okay, item number six, last ranch remand deliberations involving an application to change the comprehensive plan designation of approximately 20.36 acres at 65100 North Highway 97. 64994 Deschutes Market Road and 64975 Deschutes Pleasant Road and rezone the properties from exclusive farm use to rural industrial.

Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Caroline House, and I'm a senior planner with the Deschutes County Planning Division. So I'm just here today to support the board's decision-making process on this remand application associated, again, with a zone change request from EFU to Rural Industrial. And I have prepared a matrix to hopefully support the board's deliberation process on the two issues that the applicant has requested the board to review. And I'm happy to run through this kind of item by item or if there's some other approach that you'd like me to take.

Caroline, did you happen to bring us copies of the deliberation document, the one in the… I did not.

I thought that… It printed out rather uniquely in our packet.

We got corners of it. I printed myself a copy right before I came down here, and then I left it on the printer upstairs.

I normally do, but I was like, oh, they have it already in their packet. We do. It just literally today made that active choice not to do it.

It printed from the left to the right, and then it stopped. Okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I could put my copy, actually, if there's... You said you have a copy, Commissioner Chang? I have one upstate.

I can go get it. The online version, I have the whole matrix, but that's just... But the printed version is what's not complete.

Yeah, we're all in that same spot. For discussion, it'd be good to have the large format at this time.

It was a really great idea, though. I mean, honestly...

Okay, I'm on my way.

Yeah. I'll bring some back to just present. Yeah.

I'm sorry, so are you getting it or he's getting it?

It's absolutely, the print is absolutely the right size in the board pack, which I appreciate.

And it's nice to have it below, but I don't know if there's also the option to share your screen and it just pops up right in front of them, but I don't know if that's possible or not.

I could. I'm not logged into Zoom right now, but I could definitely do that. I know Will's running across the street, but in the meantime, let me get switched over to Zoom.

I'm sorry? Okay, I'll go grab it.

And Caroline, I mean, I forget, for deliberations, do you have to review background with us? I mean, we could...

Yeah, I mean, I could definitely start with the background. So there, again, are two deliberation issues. I'm going to abandon the Zoom idea. I think we have time.

Copies are on the way.

Yeah. So the applicant has described two remand issues, which are at the top of the matrix, which you'll have in a moment. But I'll just read through those now. The first remand issue is the Board of County Commissioners must evaluate the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of allowing new uses that can conflict with this county's scenic resource, and if so, determine whether the existing landscape management combining zone protections are adequate to address conflicts arising from uses allowed within the rural industrial zone. thereby achieving Goal 5. So, for background, that's as the applicant described the remand issue, but specifically quoted from Luba's remand decision, Luba is asking the county to adopt findings addressing compliance with Goal 5, and issues Central Oregon Land Watch raised regarding the county's Goal 5 program. In doing so, the county may choose to clarify the status of the role of the applicant's EC analysis. So you may or may not recall the applicant did prepare an EC when this was first before the board, but that was not adopted. And so the applicant has prepared a new EC analysis as part of this remand request that the applicant is asking the board to consider. So for additional background, statewide planning goal five provides a variety of resource protections. And in this case, the resource that's being protected is the scenic corridor along Highway 97. And the goal five program requires the county to adopt measures to preserve and enhance that scenic resource. and for background in 1992 the county adopted its first ec analysis specific to scenic highway protections and the subject property again is located in the highway 97 scenic resource and um Before, again, the county didn't adopt the EC analysis the applicant prepared, and so Luba said in their remand order that the county could choose as part of this process to evaluate the EC to determine if it's going to conflict the new uses allowed in the rural industrial zone would conflict with the scenic resource. That's remand issue one. Remand issue two is specific to the applicant is saying that the board must determine whether the applicant's plan amendment and zone change request is inconsistent with that 1992 EC analysis. And they cite specifically to the ordinance that the county adopted to address the periodic review process required by the state of Oregon in 1992. So I'll hold off on going through that issue because we've already kind of picked up issue one, if that's okay. And I'm going to just stay on remand issue. So just going back to the top here, the board kind of has three decision options. If the board agrees with the applicant's response and arguments on this issue, the board would be voting to approve the plan amendment zone change request. If the board agrees with Central Oregon Land Watch's response and arguments on this issue, they'd be voting to deny the plan amendment zone change request. And of course, the board could always make their own interpretation that that would have its own outcome depending on what's decided so um again related to goal 5 compliance with the county county school 5 program the applicant did submit a modified ec analysis and the applicant has evaluated the consequences of allowing new uses that can conflict with the county scenic resource and concluded that the existing landscape management zoning regulations protect and are adequate to protect the goal five scenic corridor along highway 97. The applicant also notes that the EC has substantial evidence to base their decision on, and Central Oregon Land Watch has not challenged that EC analysis. And during the open record period following the board's hearing, there was a staff member random that identified some corrections to the EC, and the applicant did make some modifications, and in their opinion, it fully resolved all the issues. And again, the applicant's position is that the combination of the rural industrial zone requirements, the landscape management requirements, as well as the conditional use zoning standards will ensure protection of the scenic resource and compatibility of development that's rural industrial along the subject property. um moving on to central oregon land watch's position is the inventoried scenic resource includes a natural landscape and open space and juniper trees are natural and part of the native landscape and part of the protected inventory goal 5 scenic resource and that rural industrial zoning is a conflicting use with the scenic resource because it will excessively interfere with a scenic and or natural landscape as seen from the road, and it will alter the existing landscape by removing that natural landscape or vegetative cover. And they note that the protected resource is the existing native landscape, and it's not introduced attractive landscaping. And I do want to note that if the board decides to adopt the applicant's EC as part of this packet, there were further amendments made to their EC to address some factual corrections, remove kind of unidentified areas. Longview was a reference that the applicant is very familiar with, but commonly I think in Deschutes County, most people aren't familiar with that landmark. So updates like that were made, but it doesn't change any of the applicant's arguments or evidence that they're needing to support their analysis. And staff is recommending that the board adopt that EC if, again, they're voting to incorporate that into the board's decision and approve the request.

So in the, pardon me.

Oh, no, I was just going to read what you said was additional edits are necessary when you have staff comments. additional, staff believes additional edits are necessary.

Yeah. So that's just the edits that were included in this agenda packet. Those are the additional edits that are.

Okay. And they were necessary and they have been included.

Yes. In your packet. So it's beyond what the applicant did as part of their rebuttal submittal. So there's a, more current EC in the board's packet for today.

Thank you. And that's what I was going to make sure we're on the same page. So it's a 46-page document. Red lines are included in our packet. And they're just kind of non-substantive edits, clarifications, and the red lines are there. So this is a staff-updated EC from the applicant. Yep. So that's, yeah, making sure we're on the same page.

Thanks, Carlin.

Caroline, I mean, I think this gets into the next remand issue, but I mean, it's still very complex, you know, potentially confusing, you know, how the... the 1992 comp plan and EC for the entire scenic, you know, overlay and this interact. I mean, if I'm understanding correctly, one of the arguments is, you know, that for this scenic resource, there's already been an EC done. And so we don't you can't layer another site-specific one on top of it. Is that an accurate kind of explanation of that argument or...

I want to make sure I understand your question, which is, are you saying is it possible to have a site-specific EC on top of the existing EC that's for all scenic roadway corridors?

I mean, I guess what I want to understand is, is that one of the arguments being made that there was a 1992 policy that included an EC, and one of the arguments is that is the... That is the ECU that we should be working off of. That is the scenic resource protection that we should be adhering to.

I think this is more blending into reband issue two, but it may be very relevant to the analysis under one. So I just want to clarify. So the Oregon administrative rules for goal five protections require ECs for scenic resources. So again, in 1992, that was the first time the county went through a periodic review process with the state. And as part of that, the ECs were developed for all of the scenic resources, not just roadways. And there's a question that the parties are arguing, and this is more a remand issue too, is how do those policies plug into the board's analysis for this review? So for example, and this is covered in the next issue, what is considered a conflicting use, which is part of the EC analysis, is being argued differently between the two parties. So the applicant is arguing the conflicting use definition is pulled from the OAR definition for the EC process. And Central Oregon Land Watch is saying, no, the county's conflicting use definition from our 1992 ordinances are what should be applied in the DC analysis. So good question. And we can cover issue two if that would be helpful as well before voting on both of them. I don't know what the board's preference is, if it's going to help with the decision making on issue one.

I think it would be helpful.

Well, I think the previous decision was to use by reference the 1992 EC and not include it in the decision. So that's how it bounced back to us because of this at this time. Because there was an site-specific ECE discussed previous approval process, it was not included in the final decision. Now we have an updated one, which is a lot more kind of dialed in, I guess I'd say. But yeah, we need to work through that and figure out

And Commissioner Doan, to your point, I think you're correct. I think LUVA did qualify that they could apply for or submit a new EC analysis. That's not prohibited from what I understand in LUVA's order from them submitting, again, a site-specific EC just for their property. And other applicants have successfully done that. I don't know if that's been fully reviewed by LUVA or other appellate bodies, but this is certainly something that's been done previously in Schuetz County.

And then does this set a precedence for the expectation is for EC to be done on site-specific rezones like this?

Potentially. I definitely think that the board's determination on how the policies from the ordinances that Landwatch is referencing, how that needs to be incorporated into site-specific ECs, will certainly play a role in how future applicants would develop their own EC analysis.

And there'll be examples of them if and when this package is mature, approved or denied or whatever. There'll be examples.

And there's certainly more in the pipeline that will be before the board shortly.

Also based on scenic resource issues.

Specifically roadway. I have two hearings on September 2nd that will be before the board on similar issues.

Carolyn, when was it documented that the distance between Bend and Redmond went from 12 miles to 9 miles?

I don't have that.

I mean, I just wonder, I mean, because isn't it like shrinking?

It might be responsive to urban growth boundary expansions would be my assumption, but I don't know precisely. I did go back and find maps from the 1960s where that's been identified as a scenic roadway. And one of the big things that's happened in 92 is we just had, the county just had maps identifying where the scenic roadways were. And then in 92, they actually got listed in these ordinances that we're talking about today from 1992 as being inventoried. So that may be where some of the differences in the mileage came.

Okay, well, now they're saying it's only nine. So yeah, but 92 was definitely 12.

I would have to look that up and maybe ask one of my colleagues.

Well, it says in the document that it was 12 miles in 92. So just it's, you know, it is shrinking.

Would the board like me to move on to the explanation for remand issue two and then come back and vote on that? Sure. uh remand issue two presented by the applicant is the board must determine whether the applicant's plan plan amendment and zone change request is inconsistent with the 1992 ec and ordinance 92033 exhibit a policies 4 and 10. and just again to restate the ordinance that's being referenced was um required updates as part of the periodic review to the county's landscape management standards to make sure it complied with state law requirements including the ec component So Luba again found that the county should also address the 1992 legislation adopting the county's Goal 5 program with respect to scenic resources and determine whether and what relevance that legislation has to the challenged plan amendment zone change or post-acknowledgement plan amendment. And I think this is where the kind of meat of the issue is, is the county's current comprehensive plan has two sections that specifically states all existing Goal 5 inventories, ECs, and programs are retained and not repealed. And it goes on into an exception, but that doesn't apply to the subject Goal 5 resource. And then... going on to section um 5.11 of our current comp plan um it goes on to acknowledge that the county doesn't have a complete listing of all coal five inventories um and ec ordinances and they list you know there's very long list and within that list is the ordinance that um the applicant has identified as part of uh issue two but also it includes ordinance number 92052 which is the roadway ec um that is in effect unless the board adopts the site-specific ec presented by the applicant So I'm going to kind of just pause there and talk about the arguments related to kind of that history a little bit and then go on to policies 4 and 10. So the applicant argues that to the extent those 1992 ordinances contain standards and criteria that apply to this plan amendment zone change, they are satisfied or will be satisfied when the LM overlay compliant development occurs. And again, this is a key distinction between Central Oregon Land Watch's position, which is they cite the OER definition for how to determine if something is a conflicting use. And going back to the task here is the board has to determine in the easy analysis if any of the new uses allowed in the rural industrial zone that were not allowed in the exclusive farm use zone, if those are going to conflict. So the definition of what conflicts is a key part of that analysis. So the OAR says that any conflicting use in this case is a land use or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use regulations that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource. And then it has some exceptions, which include that sub citation OAR, but also agricultural practices. And the applicant also just argues that the policies aren't applicable anymore. And to the extent they were policies that serve as a program, that program was amended when the county's current comprehensive plan was acknowledged for compliance with Goal 5. Shifting to Land Watch's position is they believe that the landscape management combining zone allows for more intensive use than prescribed in the current comprehensive plan for protections to Goal 5 resources. Their definition for conflicting uses pulls from the ordinance from 1992, and that definition would be development within the one-quarter mile overlay zone, which would excessively interfere with the scenic or natural appearance of the landscape as seen from the road or alteration of existing landscape by removal of vegetative cover and they also acknowledge that the county's program to treat goal 5 is adopted in both the 2011 our current comp plan as well as the county code which includes the ordinances as well as another ordinance related to scenic protections which is 92034 So that's all very technical. Do I need to pause and re-explain anything related to the kind of two positions?

Are there any more further questions?

So I support the fact that the LM overlay compliant development, muted earth tones, existing vegetation is the mitigation and that comes up in the next step of a conditional use process also. I mean, so... Central Oregon Land Watch is saying don't touch anything. But, I mean, to touch something is going to try to be compliant. It's going to have to be compliant with the development. And that's a conclusion I've come to in the past.

At the high level, I just think that they're, you know, basically what we're seeing is that there's parts of Existing policy, comp plan, code that direct protection of existing scenic resources. And that's going to be my overarching take on this.

So I'm happy to also just cover policies 4 and 10 since that was identified by the applicant as part of the remand issue. So specifically from the ordinance related to updating the LM standard as part of the periodic review process policy for states, approval of any such development in the landscape management zone will be dependent on site screening by existing natural cover and or compatibility with the landscape as seen from the river stream or road. And then in this case, the applicant argues the county has adopted specific design and development zoning standards that, if applicable, satisfy the policy four requirements. In addition, there's already existing cover on the subject property along the southern portion of the property. Conversely, Landwatch is arguing policy four disallows development that is not either screened by existing natural cover or compatible with the landscape as seen from the rivers, stream, or road. And this request will excessively interfere with the scenic or natural appearance of the landscape as seen from the road by destroying the scenic or natural appearance of landscape as seen from the road and replacing it with industrial lands. And then Policy 10 is specific to, as part of subdivision or other development review of the county, the county, sorry, shall consider the impact of the proposal on the air, water, scenic, and natural resources of the county. Specific criteria for such a review should be developed. Compatibility of the development with those resources shall be required as deemed appropriate at the time given the importance of those resources to the county while considering the public need for the proposed development. And the applicant is saying that, you know, the existing rural industrial and landscape management standards address those requirements, and they've identified which uses are needed and have specific criteria that have been developed. They also note that this application, there isn't any specific development proposed, and the COMP plan that the board just went through first reading on a remand issue demonstrates that there is a need to convert the subject property to rural industrial, as well as approval of this application is unlikely to create a snowball effect authorizing rural industrial uses on other lands because of the uniqueness of this property. They cite the narrow shape, the topographic constraints, the proximity to infrastructure improvements are going to limit what type of actual development occurs on the site. And LandWatch's position is that when there's a conflict between our comp plan and our zoning ordinances, the plan controls. And LandWatch is also arguing that the cumulative impacts of spot zoning subject property to rural, industrial, and nearby properties is impacting the Goal 5 resource and should be addressed as part of a broader comprehensive plan policy review.

Yeah, on this on this question of snowball effect. I mean, I think that this this rezone application in and of itself is, you know, viewed in the chronology of of rezone activity to rural industrial in this general vicinity of Deschutes Market Road. It is an example of snowball effect. And if I'm tracking correctly, then we will have a couple of other rezone applications in the immediate area that basically help to illustrate and demonstrate that snowball effect is real. And we do need to think about cumulative effects. of uh you know the loss of efu's own bland you know particularly in this in this scenic overlay over time um what you you know what you will see if this you know if this and additional rezone applications right in the same area to rural industrial you know, are successful is that the, you know, the scenic resource, um, you know, the land, the view, um, in this chunk of Deschutes County will be very, very different, um, than it was in 1992 in, in a certain number of years. And that is, um, You know, according to our comprehensive plan, that is not acceptable. So, yeah, I find the argument that there is not a snowball effect. I do not, I don't think we can take that very seriously.

One of the things that comes to mind are the multi-story storage buildings kind of on the north part of town. There's one on Division, and also you can see one from the new north bypass road coming out of Bend. Multi-story, bright building with bright contrasted accents on the building. I mean, that is not what would happen in the rural industrial. You know, 30-foot maximum, I think, is what we're talking about here. Is that correct?

Yeah, any structure that's visible will have a 30-foot height limit as seen from the road as well. So it would be whatever the wall or walls...

And that is to say that muted earth tones and existing vegetation and the setbacks. So as I said, I envision that rural industrial as being just a different urban development that we're seeing where some buildings want to be seen bright and bold. And that's just not allowable in this rural industrial zone.

When did the solar farm go in on the east side of 97 on the way to Redmond? Was that approved in like 2006? Or when did that one come in? Do we remember? I know that was before your time, Carolyn.

I'm guessing 2012, 13-ish timeframe.

Okay. The one that never waters the trees that are supposed to break the view? No.

I think it was around that time frame. I might have been at the county. One of my former colleagues, I think Jacob Ripper, did that review and has required that property in a replant trees multiple times. Yes. Good reminder to maybe send that out.

Or if you're going to plant them, you need to water them too, maybe.

One of the distinctions about the solar panels is those don't require building permits. So they didn't go through any landscape management review, but they were supposed to plant that screening vegetation there. I think tied to the conditional use compatibility standards to help buffer the use from the scenic corridor.

I know. I think it's way longer than 2,200 feet, the length of this project. I know, unfortunately.

We don't have to go so far south or north of this site to imagine what conversion to rural industrial zoning could produce in terms of scenic effects. I mean, just looking at the other side of the highway, just north and just south of of this property gives you a sense of what rural industrial uses look like. And it is a lot different than what is, it's a lot different than what is currently there on this property. So I'm, you know, I'm sorry, but this will, this will have significant scenic impacts. And you know, particularly taken in the context of there being, you know, other rezone applications right in the same area doing the same thing, you know, converting to rural industrial. There will be not just significant impacts on this site, but there will be cumulative impacts around that entire area. I mean, ultimately, we could end up with several hundred acre or maybe thousands of acres industrial park potential area right there at the Deschutes Market Road intersection. And I don't think that that's what the people of Deschutes County want.

So I support the applicant's response for item number two, knowing that the muted earth tones and existing vegetation conditional use is going to be out there in the future, and also we're not going to be building those multi-story white buildings out there. It's just not going to be a fit. So putting direction to this, I support with remand item number two, the applicant's response. And that still puts us into the spot. Do we adopt an updated site-specific EC or not? It's kind of the whole package. I guess on the topic of the EC, I mean, it seems to be very mature now. The applicant and staff, and it's kind of gone back and forth, so it seems to be very specific for that parcel at this time.

So my vote on both of these topics will be to deny the plan amendment zone change request.

And I'll vote for it.

Move on.

Just one clarification from Commissioner Devone and Commissioner Dare, you support adopting the latest EC that was incorporated into the board's packet, correct?

If that is done, is that, I guess it's just, is it setting the precedence for anybody else saying, oh, well, we've got to do our EC now also, or is that still kind of an open item to be done case by case?

It's always site-specific. So, I mean, I'm assuming applicants will probably follow a similar approach, but any applicants free to take their own position on how to deal with this issue.

So my thought is if an EC line item says that, you know, something could happen in the rural, but we've determined that's not going to be a good fit for our property, they're locking themselves in by saying, Having a piece of paper that says they're never going to be able to do something on the parcel, is that logic reasonable?

So a part of the EC analysis is to decide if a use should be allowed, limited, or prohibited. To date, no EC that's been presented to the board and approved by the board has prohibited any use.

Okay, that helps. Thank you.

So this one, again, the applicant's not proposing to prohibit any uses. They're saying that the landscape management zone offers those protections to the resource to ensure that resource continues to be scenic.

Yeah, so if something comes up in the future, it'll be conditional use. It'll be a heck of a discussion, but at least it's not specifically prohibited before it ever even starts to happen. Understood. Great. Well, I support that EC also then.

Thank you for that clarification.

Okay. Do you have all the information you need?

If I could get a motion, that would be helpful just to finalize the board's decision. It's in the agenda packet under recommended motions. That's page 421.

Move approval of the last ranch PAZC remand request.

I'll second.

And moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

No.

I'll just say again, I found the arguments that this land doesn't have agricultural potential unpersuasive. I am very concerned about impacts to Goal 5 resources, the snowball effect and cumulative losses of Goal 5 protected resources through this series of rezone applications to rural industrial in this vicinity of Deschutes County. Ready for a vote? Commissioner Dubon? Yes. Commissioner Dare? Yes. And Chair votes no.

Last thing, just I have first and second reading scheduled and this will be really important. The day clock that we don't think applies we're still trying to process the application that timeline so first reading will be on September 2 and then second reading will be on September 23 so. And i've coordinated those dates with Brenda so I believe everyone's available for those dates great Thank you.

Okay.

Item number seven, work session in preparation for a public hearing on the Dickey Road LLC rezone of 51.86 acres from exclusive farm use to multiple use agricultural.

Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Dan DiMarzo, associate planner with the Deschutes County Community Development Department. The item before you today is a work session to prepare for next week's public hearing on August 26th for a plan amendment zone change. The applicant has requested to rezone the property from exclusive farm use to multiple use agricultural and a corresponding plan amendment from agriculture to rural residential exception area. The property to be rezoned contains two tax lots. It's approximately 51 acres in size and 0.65 miles east of the City of Bend's urban growth boundary and just south of Butler Market Road. Pursuant to Title 22, because this zone change does involve resource lands, it is required to go before the board in a de novo hearing. The applicant has not requested any exception to statewide planning goals. In support of Goal 3, they have provided a soil study prepared by a professional soil scientist. That study identified approximately 69% of the property class 7 and 8 soils. The initial public hearing before a hearings officer was held on May 7th, 2026. A recommendation of approval was issued on June 24th. And in addition to the applicants team, Central Oregon Land Watch was the sole participant in those proceedings. One thing of note is that this hearings officer recommendation was issued prior to a recent LUBA remand. We generally refer to it as the BCL remand, which was issued on June 26th. And so staff fully expects the applicant will address those issues on remand during the hearing, but this will be the first project before the board with those new remand item issues.

Could you clarify real quick just the BCL remand? Was that a Deschutes County case? Yeah. What is that referring to, I guess?

It's a zone change east of Bend as well.

Oh, and the solar fields. Got it. Yeah, okay. Sorry.

That one's coming down the pipeline. I don't know when it's scheduled before the board, but it's pretty soon. There are a number of relevant issues in that that we expect the applicant will address. And for what it's worth, the representative for this proposal is the same for the BCL. So if anybody's well-versed, it's he. Staff would like to confirm that the board would like to impose the typical three-minute time limit, and I'm available for any questions.

I did have a question or two after reading the staff report and hearings officer's record. There was a rundown of the types of soils present on the property, the 36A soils and the 58C soils. Throughout the, you know, throughout our board packet materials, there is some description of what kind of the spatial layout of where the soils were. But I don't think I read anywhere what the percentages of the site in... you know, in 36A and what percent there is in 58C. So do you either know that off the top of your head?

59% or something, wasn't it?

The total breakdown of 7 and 8 soils was approximately 69%. The breakdown of individual soils, I don't know.

Yeah, because 36A soils are, they are actually good soils. They're not 7 and 8 if irrigated. and this property does have irrigation rights. So I want to know what... Only 6.4 acres, so... Yeah, I want to know how much 36A soils there are within that breakdown, because that is, you know, it's significant to actually evaluating the agricultural potential of the property.

Yeah.

And there may have been some or there was a couple of times there was a mention that, you know, the current owner of the property acquired the land very fairly recently in the last few years. Do we have a specific date for that?

Actually, it's 69.6, so we could say 70% of the soils were 7 and 8.

Again, that's 7 and 8 without irrigation. But until we know how many 36A soil acres there are, we don't know which, you know, what portion of that 70% is potentially class 3 or 4 soil with irrigation. That's why it's important to understand that. So the question was about the year of acquisition of the property. 2025. 2025, okay. And yeah, 2025, then there was a notation that the property is over 50 acres purchased for $726,000. EFU zone prices. So I think that's an important thing to note as we're talking about this rezone application. Because I'm quite certain that after, you know, if this rezone goes through, that 2025 price for EFU-zoned land would increase dramatically with a change to multiple-use agriculture. Okay. Any other questions, comments?

uh water just uh domestic water supply so as avion available is one question there yeah they've provided a well-served report sure dear any questions um no i think we've discussed several things

There was a reference in the transportation analysis, but in a number of ways, the question of how much rural residential development would there be on this property came up in a variety of ways. At minimum, if I'm tracking correctly, MUA 10 property over 50 acres would allow five units and five ADUs. Is that correct?

You mean a 10-acre division?

So what was the date of the hearings officer's decision then? Could you remind me?

Yeah, so the hearings officer decision or the recommendation was issued on June 24th.

Okay. And then the other one came out the two days later. Oh, okay.

I could confirm the 36A soils right now if you'd like, Chair Chang.

Sure, that'd be great.

The soils report identified 7.7 acres of the 51.86 were 36A soils.

7.7 acres of 36A soils. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Or anything else for this work session in preparation for the hearing next week? Next week. Okay.

Seeing none. Thanks, Dan.

See you next week. Thank you.

uh next item on our agenda number eight a work session in preparation of uh the board of commissioners presentation for county college on august 25th grab mine in the photocopy room thanks

Good morning for the record. I'm Kim catcher, the public information officer. For the county this morning. We just wanted to connect with the board to discuss your presentation for county college this year, which starts next Tuesday. I don't know if you all had an opportunity to look at the email I sent you yesterday. I made some changes to the presentation this year because based on feedback that we got from participants and modeling what AOC does related to county commissioners, I thought it would be a good opportunity for you guys to talk more about your role than you have in the past. So that's why this presentation looks different. All of this year, we'll do the same as we did last year where the participants watch presentations on video before they meet in session. I'd like to take the AOC video that covers what a county government does and have them watch that before they attend next Tuesday. So it won't be in the middle of your presentation and then we won't have any issues with the video not working. But yeah, this is just my idea of what we can work from and I'm happy to take any feedback, make any changes. Again, modeling after what AOC does for their county college. And I thought it was pretty, I thought it was interesting to make sure that people understand your role as commissioners.

Well, the slides are real concise about, you know, launching point for each of us to be able to speak about what we do, how and why. You know, a lot of good facts here. So as I say, I think the three of us have done this many times, so we can get through any of this. And these are real interesting political times, too. This will be the last time a three-person board presents like this.

I like the last picture.

Yeah, that's a great picture. Yeah, that was a good one.

Great job. Oh, and I can be on Zoom for the managed count meeting tomorrow. Yeah, I'll be on Zoom. So hopefully we're going to be making serious progress in the next two weeks.

It's open.

And this year, also, we're going to do the bingo again, the kind of bingo just for an icebreaker. The thought is to bring people in, have them, we'll do quick introductions, then we'll break to do the icebreaker, and then we'll have the board do their presentation.

And this will be the very beginning of the session for everybody also.

Yes. Yes. And we have 26 people. Right. It was supposed to be 25, but someone backed out, and then they jumped back in. So I didn't say anything.

And there's always some attrition over the versus a week.

It starts at four and goes till 630.

So yeah, we extended it a half hour.

A little extra time. Any thoughts? Anything you think needs to be included that wasn't included? And my notes on here are just my bullet points to just offer you some guidance and things that you might want to include. But like you said, you guys have done this so many times that.

Well, I like the idea of giving people a little bit more insight into the role of the county commissioner. So thank you for trying to take us in that direction. The second to last slide, what commissioners need to know, I almost feel like you could use the word what commissioners need to learn instead of know, because I don't think anyone comes into this job knowing all this stuff. I need to know or learn, but that wouldn't fit.

There's a lot, and obviously that slide doesn't cover it all. That's why I like the idea of having the three of you provide input on that, because I'm sure each of you came into the role, and there was things that you had no idea that you were going to need to learn about.

Yeah. You know, or even on things that you, you know, like I knew a whole lot about wildfire mitigation before I started this role. But what the county's job is within the world of wildfire mitigation is, you know, a whole different thing. A whole different compartment.

My hope is that with that, that's going to bring in some some real good discussion with the group as well. So there's a lot more interaction that maybe you'll get some more thought-provoking questions.

Yeah, no, that seems like a really good final slide before we, you know, we see questions from people. They'll see those topics and they'll be interested in asking about them. At this time, do we want to divvy up slides? Kim, you had some suggestions on...

Um, yeah, and how to yell the person the slide introducing yourself. So three of you do that. And one thing I threw on there too, is that if there's one thing that you want to kind of county college participants to know about county government, I don't know if you want to do that. I just always think that that's interesting. Because you come at it all from different perspectives. Then the idea was to have one board member take the next three slides, each take one slide, and then change flow to learn.

And on the second to last slide and have all three commissioners test that.

The other idea is to have one commissioners take a slide, but also, you know, not each of you would have input on that, too, for some of them, you know, I had had on here for examples of things, you know, maybe that you all set county policy, what kind of county what what that means. And if you guys were throwing in input at the same time with that, just to broaden the conversation.

feelings on that flow. I mean, I kind of feel like three slides, only one commissioner doing three slides is kind of a lot to just focus on.

One commissioner each. Oh, got it. Sorry.

Okay.

There's three. So it would be. One commissioner do one, one do the next and one do the third one. Okay.

Sorry.

Like we wanted one commissioner to talk for three slides and then no, and then they would be. Yes.

Yes. So slide number eight, which is the, the. Yes. The, the structure of the county. Okay. And then nine was the board of the county policy, legislative role, the quasi-judicial role, that slide. And then slide number 10 is just, you know, meetings and other things that you do.

So... Those three slides, one each.

Okay. Yeah. But also... being open to just throw.

Which time are we allocated in this?

We'll start at four. Right. Um, I'd like to get all the, the, um, housekeeping things out of the way, and then do the, at least spend 15 minutes doing the icebreaker. So then you guys would have 530, I mean, 430.

430.

430 to 530, or even 545, and then we'll be followed by county administration. We're happy to give you guys as much time as you need, depending on how many questions you get. So the presentation itself won't be that long, but it certainly, I'm hoping, will drive a conversation that will take some time and allow you that time to answer questions.

So we're going to have the bingo icebreaker until 4.30, and then we will start and maybe until 5.45, at least an hour, an hour and 15. Okay. And then do they have a teeny break then before? Yes, they have a break.

Okay. So you'll watch the break. How late will they go that evening?

So I support you know one slide each and just yeah making a little bit of room case another commissioner wants to build something and just finish it up or whatever.

Make sense.

Is there anything that. You see that maybe I left out is there a slide that needs to be added.

We'll be able to fill the time.

OK. Or the class will fill the time.

Yep. Well, and just like Commissioner Chang always says, let's get them asking questions up front early. So maybe there's a moment before we even go into those slides. Maybe there's a whole new slide. So is there any thoughts? Because I was wondering, is somebody coming here for a hot topic or whatever?

Or we could just invite people to ask questions throughout. Oh, yeah. Absolutely.

Absolutely. And again, I'm going to hit send on an email today that will ask them to watch the AOC video before they attend next Tuesday, which is still very relevant. And I think it's a really good cover. Yeah.

Oh, you take away the, will it work? Will it not work?

Right. Right.

Eight years later, will it work, will it not work? Yes, it's been consistent. So, good idea. Hopefully it'll work for them.

Yeah. Well, it's a YouTube channel, so. Well. Yeah, it'll be fun.

Do commissioners want to pick amongst, like, three, four, and five?

Mm-hmm. Well, I'm happy to do three, the first one. How much time for each slide?

We can try that. Some slides are going to take a little bit more information and probably more input from the group as a whole, all three of you, if there's examples of things that you wanted to add. But I think, I don't know if every slide matters.

Just tell me, like, seven minutes, six and a half, five.

I mean, what do you think is fair? Seven minutes make sense?

I don't know. I was just trying to, you know, thinking about the whole thing, if we have an hour plus.

Seven minutes is a lot on one song.

But it is. There's a lot of people here, and it's a lot of moving parts. So, yeah. Okay. You could say three minutes, and then I could talk really fast. I'd say five. Yeah, five minutes. Okay. All right.

Yeah, I mean, work for five, and then, you know. I'll shoot for five. Okay. Okay.

And if I'm, you know, as chair, if I'm introducing us before we introduce ourselves, then Commissioner Dubon, do you want to do slide four and I'll do five?

Yep, there we go. Okay.

And then, sorry, can you just repeat again, Kim, how we do slides? what commissioners need to know, learn, slide. We're divvying that up.

Yeah, just the three of you, just to talk about it in general. Again, my idea was that you could come into it saying, when you started as a commissioner, these are the things you've had to learn, or these are the things you didn't realize you would need to learn, that there are so many services that the county provides that... I think that it's helpful for the participants to see... I mean, they're going to go through 10 weeks and learning all these things, but I don't think a lot of people come into county government knowing all that county government does.

Yeah. Okay, so we'll each... you know, provide an anecdote or two about one of these topics.

Yes.

Okay, great.

If that works for you. Or if there's anything you want, if there's a topic on that slide that's not there, you want me to...

I could talk about noxious weeds. I bought hay years ago from a farm that had the sign up that said they were certified. Their hay was the worst. I bought this whole entire whatever. And so yesterday, of course, I get another noxious weed call. And I'm going, well, we've made a lot of progress, haven't we? Not. So anyway, yeah. I don't think we have those signs anymore, do we? Nick, do you know?

I'm sorry.

There are like metal signs out that a farm will hang because they are certified noxious weed and they have certain color twine on the bales. And honestly, my experience was it meant nothing. I know. You don't want yucky weeds in your hay.

If there's an important story in there about county government's job, then that would be great.

Well, I sent an email today about it to somebody, so hopefully follow up.

Anything else for Kim before?

Please use this picture. I think it's great.

Yeah. Thank you for preparing that.

Thanks. Thank you.

Thanks, Kim. Okay. At this time, are there any other items? I'll just let everyone know I'll be out second half of tomorrow, Thursday and Friday. Back on Monday. I'll be here for the agenda conference in the morning. Anything else? Additional other items?

No, and I already mentioned that I will be on the managed camp. And it says it's at 1.30. Do we have that really confirmed? Because that time has flipped around, I can't tell you how many times. It's gone to like 2, et cetera. Do we know what time it is?

Eric is nodding.

1.30 for sure. 2.30. Yes, sir.

Okay, intel changed. All right.

be an exciting meeting hearing about people moving into the managed camp and operator being up and running and everything.

What's the executive meeting on?

Any other?

Maybe we don't have anything.

Any additional other items? Oh, we have an executive session.

No, I know, but we don't have any paperwork on it. Or I don't. I didn't get any.

I didn't either. Looking forward to hearing about it. And if there are no additional other items, we can transition to executive session now. Kim, do you want to read the notice?

The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will now convene an executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660. The specific authorization for this executive session is ORS 192.660, subsection 2H, which allows the board to meet in order to discuss pending litigation. Designated staff and the media are allowed to remain during the executive session. However, the media may only report that the board met in executive session and they identified basis for meeting in executive session. Recording devices are not permitted. No final decisions will be made. And at the conclusion, we will open the doors and invite the audience back to the meeting.

Okay. Yeah. Yes. And so we... Are we ready? We are returning from executive session, directing staff to proceed as discussed and adjourning this meeting. Thank you.