The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-975-Ordinance No. 2000-025 Recorded 10/19/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 975 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02000-975 * Vol -Page Printed: 10/20/2000 14:01:35 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Oct. 1% 2000; 4:52 p.m. Ordinance (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 45 V.." 0'. -,6-1 � MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK K JUNHED 0 T 2 0 2000 CJ��UU- REVIEWED (?I- I V.EeAII`UNS—EL I 00 DCi 19 p1i 4.5Z BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESQtW' Egt AEGON CDU ` An Ordinance Amending the Map of Title 21, the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and Declaring an Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 2000-025 WHEREAS, the City of Sisters and the Department of Agriculture applied for a quasi-judicial plan amendment to include the subject site within the City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and change the County Comprehensive Plan Designation from Forest to Urban Residential Reserve and to change the zoning of the property from Forest Use (F1) to Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10). The request includes an exception to Goal 4 (Forest); and WHEREAS, the justification for said Zone Change requires that the subject property be rezoned to Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10); and WHEREAS, the County Hearings Officer has held an initial hearing on this application; and WHEREAS, the Hearings Officer found the applicants have satisfied all applicable criteria for approval of the plan amendment and zone change and the Exception; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. That Title 21, the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, as amended, is further amended by zoning certain land, described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B", as Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10), attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 2. FINAL DECISION. The adoption of this ordinance shall have the effect of finalizing file ZC-00-2. The Board adopts its decision file ZC-00-2, attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Section 3. FINDINGS. In support of this ordinance, the Board adopts its decision, attached as Exhibit "C", and by this reference is incorporated herein. Section 4. EMERGENCY. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this ordinance takes effect on its passage. PAGE 1 of 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-025 DATED thisd_/ day of O Pr 2000. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Recording Secretary TOM DEWOLF, Commission PAGE 2 of 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-025 Sep e5 UU 12:31p HGE INC. (503►269-1833 p.2 DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF SISTERS USA — VOLUME 92, PAGE 1" TM 15 10 09 TL 1000 May 30, 2000 AAMEXATIO/i DUCRIPTIO/Y BEING A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF SECTION 09, TOWNSHIP 15 SOUTH, RANGE 10 EAST, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 15 SOUTH, RANGE 10 EAST, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON. SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF LOCUST STREET; THENCE, ALONG THE EASTIWEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 09 AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOCUST STREET; NORTH 89°43'49" WEST A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID LINE, SOUTH 00"16'11" WEST A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 44'43'49" EAST A DISTANCE OF 86.51 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHISOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE, ALONG SAID LINE, SOUTH 00030'37" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1244.36 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 89040'40" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1259.42 FEET; TI IE- SOUTH 00°25'50" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1315.12 FEET TO A POINT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 09; THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89940'40" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1385.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 09; THENCE, ALONG THE EATERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 09; NORTH 00'25'49" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1375.12 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 89040'40" WEST A DISTANCE OF 2584.61 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 00030'37" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1270.55 FEET TO A POINT LOCATED ON THE EAST(WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 09; THENCE, ALONG SAID EAST(WEST LINE, NORTH 89042'06" WEST A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 47.28 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. • ri 10 EX H k e 1-l' 8 171 raw is few mWroroum I ' I 1V '# I I ' R"l LANG suMc- -r(D QLAN A ITn,C-tQOM AND---- ` \ R CRA06Crx V . s a I I • — �B i t s s A a `i s i i� I REVIEWED ,G pyd 41"Ic-e, N0 -(9 7L C UNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREb6N In the Matter of PA-00-5 and ZC-00-2 ) PA-00-5 applications for a Plan Amendment and ) ZC-00-2 Zone Change to include approximately 40 ) acres within the UGB of the City of Sisters, ) change the comprehensive plan designation ) to Urban Residential Reserve and rezone the ) property to Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10). ) FINDINGS AND DECISION I. Introduction The Hearings Officer issued a decision on approving the proposal subject to the Board's adoption of a resolution of intent to rezone the site from F-1 to UAR-10. The resolution would be contingent on the city's providing to the county documentation of the conveyance of the subject property from the USFS, a favorable vote on annexation of the subject property and the city's execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the county whereby the city agrees to rezone the site to PF and to limit uses permitted on the site to the wastewater treatment facility and ground application of treated effluent. II. Procedural Background The Hearings Officer held a public hearing on the application on July 11, 2000. The Hearings Officer subsequently approved the applicant's request through a written decision dated August 23, 2000. The Board of County Commissioners held a denovo public hearing on September 20, 2000 at which time City Staff entered into the record documentation of favorable vote for annexation of the site and evidence of the City's acquisition of the property. The Board issued an oral decision approving the request at the hearing. III. Basic Findings Applicants The Board finds that, based on the evidence submitted at the public hearing on September 20, 2000, the applicants for the plan amendment and zone change proposal, PA -00-5 and ZC-00-2, includes the City of Sisters and the Department of Agriculture. Subject Property The Board finds that the subject property for the plan amendment and zone change proposal, PA - 00 -5 and ZC-00-2, includes approximately 40 acres zoned Forest Use (FI) and identified on Assessor's map 15-10-09 as lot 1000. PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 Pagel of 2 IV. Conclusionary Findings The Board adopts as its own conclusionary findings, the Hearings Officer's conclusionary findings dated August 23, 2000 for PA -00-5 and ZC-00-2, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, II. Decision The Board adopts as its own findings and decision the Hearings Officer's findings and conditions of approval dated August 23, 2000 on PA -00-5 and ZC-00-2, attached as Exhibit "A" hereto and incorporated by reference herein, as modified herein, and approves the plan amendment and zone change subject to the following conditions: I . The city's execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the county whereby the city agrees to rezone the site to PF and to limit uses permitted on the site to the wastewater treatment facility and ground application of treated effluent. That the annexation parcel be as described in Exhibit `B" hereto and depicted on the map setforth in Exhibit "C" hereto. 3. That the conveyance from the United States to the City of Sisters be recorded with the DeschAuttessCCounty Clerk. DATED this✓' / day of OA rr2060. ATTEST: &W� &Le6z — Recording Secretary PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 Page 2 of 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUN,T)l OREGON L. SWEARINOM Chair DENNIS R. LUKE Codimissi TOM DEWOLF, Com ' si ner E(f A 161- A ��Ct S (ate DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 APPLICANTS: City of Sisters 150 N. Fir Street Sisters, Oregon 97759 ., United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Sisters Ranger District P.O. Box 249 Sisters, Oregon 97759 PROPERTY OWNER: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Sisters Ranger District P.O. Box 249 Sisters, Oregon 97759 REQUEST: The applicants are requesting approval to change the plan designation of the subject property from Forest to Urban Reserve and to change the zoning of the property from F-1 to UAR 10. The applicants also are requesting approval of an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 4 to include the subject property within the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary. The purpose of these requests is to establish a municipal wastewater treatment facility on the subject property. STAFF REVIEWER: Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner HEARING DATE/ RECORD CLOSED: July 11, 2000 L APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions • Section 18.04.11659 Definition — Solid Waste * Section 18.04.1315, Definition — Utility Facility 2324 2. Chapter 18.36, Forest Use — F-1 Zone �'L1� 4 pU6 � City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 �, aplilfK ��<<Ot68L * Section 18.36.020, Uses Permitted Outright * Section 18.36.030, Conditional Uses Permitted 3. Chapter 18.136, Amendments * Section 18.136.030, Resolution of Intent to Rezone B. Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code, the City of Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 21.72, Amendments * Section 21.72.010, Amendments * Section 21.72.020, Standards for Zone Change C. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions * Section 22.28.030, Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes D. PL -16, the City of Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan E. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.298, Priority of Land To Be Included Within Urban Growth Boundary F. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660 1. Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process * OAR 660-04-010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain Goals * OAR 660-04-015, Inclusion as Part of the Plan * OAR 660-04-018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas * OAR 660-04-020, Goal 2, Part H(c), Exception Requirements * OAR 660-04-022, Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception under Goal 2, Part H(c) * OAR 660-04-030, Notice and Adoption of An Exception 2. Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule * OAR 660-12-060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments City of Sisters/USFS PA 00-5/ZC-00-2 2 I V 1 I 3. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Location: The subject property does not have an assigned address. It is located on the southern boundary of the Sisters city limits and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) at the southern terminus of Locust Street and is further identified as a portion of Tax Lot 1000 on Deschutes County Assessor's -Map 15-10-09. B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is designated Forest on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Forest Use (F-1). C. Site Description: Tax Lot 1000 on Map 15-10-09 (hereafter "Section 9") is approximately 240 acres in size. However, this application involves only 40 -acre portion of the subject property (hereafter "site") consisting of a square at the southeastern comer of the property and a 40 -foot -wide strip of land extending west and north of the rectangle connecting to Locust Street to the north. The site is relatively level and has a vegetative cover of ponderosa and lodgepole pine trees and native brush and grasses. The site previously was employed in forest and recreation uses. The site is vacant. D. Soils: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, the subject property is composed of two soil types: 1. Lundgren Sandy Loam, Mapping Unit 85A, 0-3 percent slopes. The NRCS rates this soil as having a woodland suitability productivity classification of 3 and is capable of producing 46 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber. This soil is well drained with the composition being 90% inclusions and 10% contrasting inclusions. Permeability is moderately rapid with available water capacity of about 5 inches. The mayor management limitations are identified as climate, low fertility, susceptibility to compaction, surface texture and permeability. According to the Soil Interpretations Record contained in the NRCS soils inventory, trees common to Unit 85A are ponderosa pine and western juniper. The Staff Report states that according to the county's Geographic Information System (GIS), based on NRCS soils maps, approximately 50 percent of the 40 -acre site is composed of this soil. 2. Ermabell Loamy Fine Sand, Mapping Unit 47A, 0-3 percent slopes. The NRCS rates this soil as having a woodland suitability productivity classification of 4 and is capable of producing 69 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber. This soil is well drained with the composition being 90% inclusions and 10% contrasting inclusions. Permeability is rapid with available water capacity of about 5 inches. The major management limitations are identified as climate and permeability. According to the Soil Interpretations Record contained in the NRCS soils inventory, trees common to Unit 47A are ponderosa pines. The Staff report states that according to the county's GIS, based on NRCS soils maps, approximately 50 percent of the 40 -acre site is composed of this soil. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 3 t , , E. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Section 9 abuts the southern boundary of the Sisters city limits and UGB. To the north is land zoned RS, Standard Density Residential, and developed with the Buck Run Subdivision with single-family dwellings. To the west is the Pine Meadow ,Ranch located outside the Sisters UGB and zoned Exclusive Farm Use-Sisters/Cloverdale Subzone (EFU-SC). To the east and southeast is property outside the Sisters UGB zoned EFU-SC. To the south is Forest Service (USFS) land outside the Sisters UGB zoned F-1. The site itself is abuts land zoned F-1 on the north, south and west (the remainder of Section -9) and land zoned EFU-SC on the east. Squaw Creek is 600 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the subject property. The Staff Report states the 40 -acre site is located within both the 100 -year and 500 -year Squaw Creek flood plains that extend to the west beyond Three Creeks Road. However, based upon a FEMA map in the record it appears the site lies entirely outside the Squaw Creek flood plains. F. Procedural History: The City of Sisters does not have a municipal sewer system. All development within the city limits and UGB is served by individual on-site sewage disposal systems. The record indicates many such systems are substandard and failing and may pose a threat to public health through contamination of drinking water and human contact with untreated sewage on the ground surface. The city obtained grant funds from the USFS to develop a comprehensive wastewater system facilities plan that was issued in September of 1997. In February of 1998, the city also obtained a study of potential soil and water reuse for treated effluent. Based upon these documents, in May of 1998 the Sisters city council submitted to voters a bond measure to fund a portion of the cost of constructing of a municipal sewer system and wastewater treatment facility. The bond measure passed. The record indicates that in July, 1999, the USFS made the decision to convey some or all of Section 9 to the city for the wastewater treatment facility and for land application of the treated effluent. Since that date the city has worked with members of Congress to facilitate this conveyance pursuant to the Townsite Act. In February of 1999, U.S. Senator Gordon Smith introduced legislation that would convey Section 9 to the city. As of the date of the public hearing legislation authorizing the conveyance was pending in Congress. However, the Hearings Officer is aware that following the public hearing the USFS conveyed 160 acres of Section 9 to the city, including the 40 -acre site for the proposed wastewater treatment facility. The applicants submitted the subject goal exception, plan amendment and zone change applications on May 5, 2000, and the county accepted the applications as complete on June 4, 2000. Because the applications include a request for a plan amendment and goal exception and the proposed zone change cannot be approved without the plan amendment, the Hearings Officer finds the applications are not subject to the 150 -day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.428. A public hearing on the applications was held on July 11, 2000. At the hearing, the Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence and closed the evidentiary record. The applicants waived their right to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 4 Therefore, the record closed on July 11, 2000. G. Proposal: Applicant City of Sisters proposes to construct a municipal wastewater treatment facility on the subject property. The 40 -acre site would include three ponds totaling 29.45 acres -- one 3.25 -acre aeration pond and two holding ponds each 13.1 acres in size — surrounded by raised earthen berms. A portion of the remainder of the 40 -acre site would be used to discharge treated effluent by irrigating nitrate -loving flora to be planted on the site. Treated effluent also would be applied to the ground on the remainder of the 160 -acre property conveyed to the city with the exception of buffer areas. Existing lodgepole and ponderosa pine trees would be retained except for those trees required to be removed from the treatment facility site. The retained trees would absorb nitrates generated from the treated effluent dispersal and would provide a visual buffer on all sides of the site. The burden of proof states a minimum 100 -foot buffer of natural vegetation will be retained on the north, east and south sides of the site and a minimum 500 -foot buffer of natural vegetation will be retained on the west site of the site. The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment from Forest to Urban reserve and a zone change from F-1 to UAR-10 in order to establish the wastewater treatment facility on the 40 -acre site. The applicant also requests approval of an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 4, Forest Lands, to include the 40 -acre site within the Sisters UGB.1 The record indicates that following approval of these applications the city intends to annex the site and to rezone it to Public Facility (PF). The PF Zone would allow the wastewater treatment facility as well open space and parks. It would not allow private residential, commercial or industrial uses. H. Public/Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed notice of the applicants' proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from the Deschutes County Road Department (road department) and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). These comments are set forth verbatim at page 3 of the Staff Report. The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notices: the Deschutes County Assessor, Environmental Health Division, Building Safety Division and Transportation Planner; the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); the City of Sisters Fire Department; and Oregon Department of Transportation and Aeronautics Division; and the Oregon Department of Water Resources, Watermaster-District 11. L Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applicants' proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property located within 750 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record closed the county had received one letter in response to these notices. No members of the public testified at 1 The burden of proof and addendum state the applicants are proposing to include the entire 240 - acre Section 9 within the Sisters UGB. However, at the public hearing the city's planning director, Neil Thompson, clarified the applications apply only to the 40 -acre site. City of Sisters/USFS PA 00-5/ZC-00-2 5 t t t the public hearing. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. SUMMARY: The City of Sisters has identified the need for a municipal sewer system and wastewater treatment facility. The city council obtained voter approval of a bond measure to fund construction of such a facility, adopted a new zone to accommodate the facility on the site and worked with the USFS and members of Congress to acquire the site for construction of the facility. The applicants' proposal would bring the site into the city's UGB and would change the plan designation and zoning to allow the proposed use. To gain approval of this proposal, the applicant must demonstrate it satisfies a number of complex approval standards, including the criteria for an exception to Goal 4, for a plan amendment and zone change, as well consistency with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals and their implementing administrative rules. The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal satisfies all approval criteria. B. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.36, Forest Use — F-1 Zone a. Section 18.36.020, Uses Permitted Outright The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright, subject to applicable siting criteria set forth in this chapter and any other applicable provisions of this title. . D. Uses to conserve soil, air and water quality and to provide for wildlife and fisheries resources. b. Section 18.36.030, Conditional Uses Permitted The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed in the Forest Zone, subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Section 18.36.040 of this title and other applicable provisions of this section. F. Disposal site for solid waste for which the Department of Environmental Quality has granted a permit under Oregon Revised Statutes 459.245, together with equipment, facilities or buildings necessary for its operation. FINDINGS: The subject property is zoned F-1. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the initial City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 6 question is whether the proposed wastewater treatment facility and land application of treated effluent are uses allowed in the zone without the need for a plan amendment, zone change and goal exception. The Hearings Officer finds the land application of treated effluent arguably falls within either or both of the uses described above and therefore may not require a plan amendment, zone change or goal exception. However, I find the proposed wastewater treatment facility is not a use permitted outright or conditionally in the F-1 Zone. Section 18.04.1165 defines "solid waste" as garbage. Therefore, I find the use listed in subsection (F) is a landfill or similar facility. Section 18.04.1315 defines "utility facility" to include "any major structures ... owned or operated by a public ... sewage or water company ... for the disposal of ... waste ... and including ... sewage lagoons ... and similar facilities." Based upon this definition, I find the proposed wastewater treatment facility is a "utility facility." The only "utility facility" permitted conditionally in the F-1 Zone is a utility facility "for the purpose of generating power." For these reasons, I find the wastewater treatment facility is not a permitted use in the F-1 Zone and the applicants must demonstrate the proposal qualifies for a plan amendment, zone change and goal exception. UGB EXPANSION/GOAL EXCEPTION C. OAR Chapter 660, Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process 1. OAR 660-004-010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain Goals. (1) The exceptions process is not applicable to Statewide Planning Goal 1 "Citizen Involvement" and Goal 2 "Land Use Planning." The exceptions process is generally applicable to all or part of those statewide goals which prescribe or restrict certain uses of resource land. These statewide goals include, but are not limited to: (b) Goal 4 "Forest Lands"; ... FINDINGS: Goal 4 is: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the proposed wastewater treatment facility is not a use allowed outright or conditionally in the F-1 Zone. Therefore, the applicant must demonstrate its proposal qualifies for an exception to Goal 4. (c) Goal 14, "Urbanization" except as provided for in paragraphs (1)(c)(A) and (B) of this rule, and OAR 660-14-000 through 660-14-040: City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 7 I f . 1 (B) When a local government changes an established urban growth boundary it shall follow the procedures and requirements set forth in Goal 2, "Land Use Planning," Part II, Exceptions. An established urban growth boundary is one which has been acknowledged by the [Land Conservation and Development) Commission under ORS 197.251. Revised findings and reasons in support of an amendment to an established urban growth boundary shall demonstrate compliance with the seven factors of Goal 14 and demonstrate that the following standards are met: FINDINGS: Goal 14 is: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use. The proposed wastewater treatment facility is an urban use proposed for property to be included in the Sisters UGB. The record indicates the Sisters UGB has been acknowledged by LCDC. Therefore, the applicants' proposed change to the existing UGB must comply with the exception criteria in Goal 2 and the seven factors in Goal 14, discussed in detail in the findings below. (i) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply. (This factor can be satisfied by compliance with the seven factors in of Goal 14); FINDINGS: The state policy embodied in Goal 4 is to conserve forest lands for forest use as well as to protect soil, air and water quality, fish and wildlife resources and recreational opportunities. Consequently, while the applicants' proposal would not conserve the 40 -acre site for forest use the proposed wastewater treatment facility certainly would protect soil and water quality consistent with the goal. And under the applicants' proposal the remainder of Section 9 would be available for forest and recreational use and for wildlife habitat. The applicant argues the state policy of conserving the site for forest use should not apply to the proposed site for the following reasons: 1) there is a documented need for a municipal sewer system to protect the health of Sisters residents and visitors; 2) a wastewater treatment facility will allow higher -density and more diverse types of development within the Sisters UGB; and 3) the site is a suitable and appropriate location for the wastewater treatment facility.2 Each of these reasons is discussed in the findings below. 1. Need for Municipal Sewer System. There is no dispute the City of Sisters needs a municipal sewer system including a wastewater 2 The applicants do not argue the 40 -acre site is not suitable for forest use. The record indicates Section 9 has been used for timber production and the soils on the property are capable of producing 46 to 69 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber. However, as discussed in detail in the findings below, the record indicates the soil on the site is marginal for timber production. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 8 treatment facility in order to remedy a serious public health hazard. The record includes a letters to the city from Roger Everett, Deschutes County Environmental Health Division Director, and Dick Nichols, DEQ Bend Water Quality Section Manager, describing the hazard. The letters state many existing septic systems in the city are failing, resulting in the periodic presence of untreated sewage on the ground and the potential for groundwater contamination. In addition, the record includes photographs of four failing septic systems with untreated sewage on the ground. The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicants that as both the population of and number of visitors to Sisters grow these conditions -simply cannot be allowed to continue and that sewage must be handled in a municipal treatment facility. 2. Potential for Higher -Density Development with Municipal Sewer System. The letters from Roger Everett and Dick Nichols cited above also state that because of the rapidly -draining nature of the soils in Sisters, current DEQ standards for siting on-site septic systems require minimum lot sizes of one-half to one acre. These minimum lot sizes effectively preclude further development within the Sisters city limits and UGB due to lack of available space for on-site septic systems. In addition, the record indicates a significant amount of vacant land within the city limits currently is devoted to septic systems for adjacent and nearby uses. Consequently, a municipal sewer system will allow urban -density residential, commercial and industrial development within the city limits. Land currently being used for septic systems also will be available for development. The establishment of a municipal sewer system will facilitate the creation of more affordable housing on smaller lots and additional employment opportunities in new commercial and industrial businesses. The Hearings Officer is aware the board has given verbal approval of applications for plan amendments, zone changes and goal exceptions to bring approximately 65 acres of land into the Sisters UGB for development as an industrial park. However, industrial uses on this property likely must be delayed until a municipal sewer system is in place and functioning. 3. Subject Property Is Suitable and Appropriate for Siting a Wastewater treatment facility. The applicants' burden of proof indicates the city evaluated 9 sites including the proposed site as candidates for the proposed wastewater treatment facility. The city's analysis used the following criteria: 1) the minimum size required for the proposed wastewater treatment facility and ground application of treated effluent; 2) proximity to the Sisters city limits and UGB; 3) proximity to undeveloped property for buffering; 3) proximity to roads for access; 4) sufficient distance from residential zoning and development to minimize potential adverse impacts from odor; and 5) availability for acquisition. The applicants' burden of proof states the proposed 40 -acre site was found to be the most suitable under this analysis for the following reasons. First, it is large enough to accommodate the facility and the remainder of Section 9 is large enough to accommodate ground application of treated effluent and is adjacent to the city limits and UGB. In addition, the record indicates the prevailing wind is from the west so odor from the facility generally will blow over F -1 -zoned property onto agricultural property to the east. The 40 -acre site is buffered from residential zoning and development by the rest of Section 9, which has access from both Three Creek Road on the west and Locust Street on the north. Finally, Section 9 is available for acquisition from the USFS under the Township Act. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 9 The applicants' alternative site analysis is discussed in detail in the findings below. Based upon those findings, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants have demonstrated reasons justify why the state policy embodied in Goal 4 should not apply to the 40 - acre site and should not require that it be retained for forest use. (ii) Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion requires an alternative site analysis to determine whether there is land not requiring a goal exception that reasonably could accommodate the development of a wastewater treatment facility without having to expand the Sisters UGB. I find such an analysis must include vacant and underdeveloped land within the UGB and nonresource land -- i.e., exception areas -- outside the UGB. I further find the phrase "cannot reasonably accommodate the use" requires a determination of whether the alternative sites are suitable for a wastewater treatment facility considering: 1) the typical operating characteristics and locational requirements for such a facility; and 3) the location of potential conflicting uses. The record indicates the typical operating characteristics and locational requirements for a wastewater treatment facility include at least 40 acres of land for the treatment facility and a total of 200 acres near the treatment facility for potential ground application of treated effluent. The applicants' alternative site analysis in the "Alternative Site Study" conducted by Eric J. Porter, Senior Planning Consultant at Fred J. Becker, Architect. The alternative sites also are depicted on a map in the record labeled "Potential Sewer Sites." 1. Vacant and Underdeveloped Land Within the UGB. The alternative sites map shows no vacant or underdeveloped parcels within the Sisters UGB that are at least 40 acres in size and are near another 200 acres of undeveloped land on which treated effluent could be applied. One of the alternative sites identified and evaluated in the applicants' alternative site analysis, Alternative Site 4, is located within the UGB and described in the analysis as follows: Alternative Site 4 - Sokol Site. The record indicates portions of this parcel currently are being developed with a planned unit development known as "Pine Meadow Ranch". The burden of proof states the property's owner is not willing to allow ground application of treated effluent on the remainder of this parcel. Even if such a use could be conducted on this parcel its location on the west side of Sisters would result in potential adverse impacts from odor on residential development because of the prevailing westerly winds. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds there are no vacant or underdeveloped parcels within the Sisters UGB that reasonably could accommodate the proposed wastewater treatment facility. 2. Nonresource Land Located Outside the UGB. The alternative site analysis does not identify City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 10 M any nonresource land outside the Sisters UGB that meets the minimum size requirements for the proposed wastewater treatment facility. 3. Resource Land Located Outside the UGB. The alternative site analysis identified 8 potential sites on resource lands outside the Sisters UGB. All of these sites also would require a goal exception. Therefore, the administrative rule does not require an analysis of these sites. However, the analysis of each site is set forth below. a. Alternative Site I — Sisters School District Rwerty. This property is zoned F-2, is located near the northwest corner of the Sisters UGB northwest of Sisters High School and abuts another parcel owned by the school district zoned F-2 and planned as a future school site. The record indicates this parcel is subject to a conservation easement protects an endangered plant ("Peck's Penstemon"). The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicants that this property cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use because disposal of treated effluent would not be compatible with the purpose of the conservation easement. In addition, the site is near the high school and adjacent to a proposed school site, creating unacceptable conflicts with the proposed wastewater treatment facility. b. Alternative Site 2 - Cold Springs Site This property is zoned F-2 and is located a considerable distance west of the Sisters city limits and UGB. This site is far from the Sisters urban area intended to be served by the system and consequently would place an urban use far into resource lands. In addition, the applicants' burden of proof states the owner of the property is not willing to convey it to the city. The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicants that this site cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use because it is too far from the Sisters urban area and the city would have to condemn the property to acquire it. a Alternative Site 3 - Barclay Meadows Site d Alternative Site S - Lunderen Mill Site These parcels are zoned EFU. However, they are the two parcels discussed above for which the board recently gave verbal approval to include in the Sisters UGB for development as an industrial park. For these reasons the Hearings Officer finds these parcels cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. e Alternative Site 6 - Lazy ZSite This property is zoned EFU and also is located a considerable distance outside the Sisters UGB. The site also abuts U.S. Highway 20. The burden of proof states the owner of this parcel also is not willing to convey it to the city. For these reasons, I find this parcel cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. f. Alternative Site 7 - Deggendorfer Site This property is zoned EFU and also is located a considerable distance east of the Sisters UGB. The burden of proof states this site is located near Squaw Creek so ground application of treated effluent on this parcel would be problematic. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this site cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 11 M g. Alternative Site 8 - Aspen Lakes Site This property is zoned EFU and also is located a considerable distance from the Sisters UGB. The record indicates this site is very close to existing residential development around a golf course. For these reasons the Hearings Officer finds this site cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated there are no alternative lands that do not require a new goal exception that reasonably can accommodate the proposed wastewater treatment facility. - . (c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal exception. FINDINGS: In a previous decision (Deschutes County Public Works, PA-97-4/CU-97-44) the Hearings Officer held this criterion means the applicant has to demonstrate the long-term consequences of its chosen alternative site are not "significantly more adverse" than the long- term consequences from other sites requiring a goal exception -- i.e., resource land. Therefore I find the applicant must demonstrate that including the subject property within the Sisters UGB will not create environmental, social, economic and energy ("ESEE') consequences significantly more adverse than those that would typically result from including other land zoned EFU or Forest in the Sisters UGB for the siting of a wastewater treatment facility. The record indicates there is other resource land abutting the Sisters UGB on the west, east and south.' To the west is the Patterson Llama Ranch, a large commercial farm zoned EFU-SC. The Hearings Officer finds that including this land within the Sisters UGB for the wastewater treatment facility would convert productive farm land to nonfarm use. To the east is another large commercial farm, a 371 -acre parcel also zoned EFU-SC and engaged livestock grazing and hay production. The record indicates three dwellings also are located on this parcel. I find including this land within the Sisters UGB also would convert productive farm land into nonfarm use. Finally, as discussed above, to the northwest and south are parcels zoned for forest use, including the remainder of Section 9 and the parcels near Sisters High School owned by the school district. The record indicates Section 9 has been employed in timber production. The record does not indicate whether the school district parcels have been so employed. Nevertheless, I find converting 40 acres of Section 9 for a wastewater treatment facility would not create significantly more adverse ESEE consequences than converting other forest -zoned land to such use. And as discussed above, I have found employing land located on the west side of Sisters or near schools would have significant adverse impacts on existing development. The Hearings Officer finds the ESEE consequences of using the proposed 40 -acre site for the 3 The rest of the UGB abuts land zoned RR -10. City of Sisters/USFS PA 00-5/ZC-00-2 12 proposed wastewater treatment facility will be less adverse than such a use on any of the other resource lands adjacent to the UGB. That is because Section 9 is 240 acres in size, assuring a large buffer around the proposed wastewater treatment facility site. In addition, the site is located a significant distance from residential development. The record indicates the site contains no endangered plants or animals. And because the proposed use would retain the majority of Section 9 in forest there would be little if any impact on existing recreational uses and wildlife habitat. Finally, siting the proposed facility adjacent to the UGB will minimize energy costs and extensive infrastructure when connecting to the planned municipal sewer system. (d) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion requires me to determine: 1) the nature of the uses adjacent to the subject property; 2) the nature of uses permitted in the UAR-10 and PF Zones; 3) whether uses permitted in the UAR-10 and PF Zones are compatible with existing uses on adjacent lands; and 4) whether uses permitted in the UAR-10 and PF Zones can be rendered compatible with adjacent uses "with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts." 1. Uses In Surrounding Area. As discussed above, the 40 -acre abuts forest land on three sides and agricultural land on the fourth. Further to the north and west are residential uses. To the north within the Sisters UGB are single-family dwellings in developed subdivisions. To the west within the UGB is the Pine Meadow Ranch PUD with a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The Hearings Officer finds the nearest residential uses are hundreds of feet from the proposed wastewater treatment facility site. As discussed above, the city may apply treated effluent on the ground on the rest of Section 9. The applicants' burden of proof states large buffers of untreated land will be retained on the outer boundaries of Section 9. 2. Uses Allowed in the UAR-10 and PF Zones. The applicant has requested approval of a zone change from F-1 to UAR-10 for the 40 -acre site. Sections 21.48.020 and 21.48.030 of the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance list the uses permitted outright and conditionally in the UAR-10 zone. They include farm use and single- family dwellings as outright permitted uses and a number of public and commercial uses as conditional uses, including "sewage treatment facilities." However, the applicants' burden of proof states the city has adopted a new PF Zone that would be applied to the subject site once the proposed plan amendment, zone change and goal exception applications are approved and the 40 -acre site is annexed by the city. The burden of proof states the PF Zone would allow public facilities as well as "city storage areas, park areas and other uses that will benefit the City at large," but will not allow "private residential, commercial, industrial, or other related private uses." 3. Compatibility of Uses Permitted on UAR-10- and PF -Zoned Land With Adiacent Uses. The Hearings Officer finds many of the uses permitted in the UAR-10 Zone could be compatible City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 13 with forest and agricultural uses on surrounding land. However, because the city has indicated its intent to rezone the subject site from UAR-10 to PF I find it is more appropriate to determine whether the uses permitted in the PF Zone will be compatible with the adjacent forest and agricultural uses. I find that because the PF Zone will limit permitted uses to public facilities, parks and the like, the permitted uses will be compatible with adjacent resource uses. 4. Effect of "Measures Designed to Reduce Adverse Impacts" The Hearings Officer finds the uses permitted in the PF Zone are such that they will have minimal if any adverse impacts on forest and agricultural uses on adjacent and surrounding land. However, I find the applicants' proposal to retain large buffer areas in forest use around the proposed wastewater treatment facility will have the effect of further reducing any adverse impacts such as odor and the noise from facility equipment. The burden of proof states there will be a minimum 100 -foot buffer around the effluent dispersal portion of the wastewater treatment facility and a minimum 500 -foot buffer along the western edge of the site which will remain as forest land. The burden of proof states the wastewater treatment facility holding ponds will be located at least one-quarter mile from the nearest dwellings.4 As discussed in the findings below, OAR 660-004-018(3)(a) provides that when a local government takes a "reasons" exception to a goal, the "plan and zone designations must limit the uses and activities to only those uses and activities which are justified in the exceptiQn." (Emphasis added.) The underscored language suggests the Hearings Officer could approve a goal exception limiting the uses permitted on the site to the wastewater treatment facility. However, I find rezoning the site to PF, combined with the very limited uses permitted in that zone, will assure potentially incompatible uses will not be permitted on the site. I find that in order to assure the limitations in the PF Zone are applied to the site, approval of the applicants' proposal will be conditioned on the board adopting a resolution of intent to rezone pursuant to Section 18.136.030, discussed in the findings below. Through this resolution the county's rezoning of the site would be contingent on the city's providing documentation of the conveyance of the subject property from the USFS, a favorable vote on annexation of the subject property and the city's execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the county whereby the city agrees to rezone the site to PF and to limit uses permitted on the site to the wastewater treatment facility and ground application of treated effluent. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed use is or will be compatible with adjacent uses with imposition of a condition of approval requiring a resolution of intent to rezone. 3. if the exception involves more than one area for which reasons and circumstances are the same, the areas may be considered as a group. Each of the areas shall be identified on a map, or their location otherwise 4 The Hearings Officer is aware that in Sunriver the community wastewater treatment facility is located considerably closer to the nearest dwellings. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 14 described, and keyed to the appropriate findings. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion does not apply because the proposed goal exception does not involve more than one area. 2. OAR 660-04-015, Inclusion as Part of the Plan. (1) A local government approving a proposed exception shall adopt as part of its comprehensive plan findings of fact and a statement of reasons which demonstrate that the standards for an exception have been met. The applicable standards are those in Goal 2, Part H(c), OAR -660-004-0020(2) and 660-004-0022. The reasons and facts shall be supported by substantial evidence that the standard has been met. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this decision supporting approval of the proposed plan amendment, zone change and goal exception provide the basis for the "findings of fact and statement of reasons" required by this rule. 3. OAR 660-004-018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas. (1) Purpose. This rule explains the requirements for adoption of plan and zone designations for exception areas. Exceptions to one goal or a portion of one goal do not relieve a jurisdiction from remaining goal requirements and do not authorize uses or activities other than those recognized or justified by the applicable exception. FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the uses permitted on the site if the goal exception is approved will be limited through a condition of approval requiring a resolution of intent to rezone. The resolution would be contingent on the city's providing documentation of the conveyance of the subject property from the USFS, a favorable vote on annexation of the subject property and the city's execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the county whereby the city agrees to rezone the site to PF and to limit uses permitted on the site to the wastewater treatment facility and ground application of treated effluent. The proposal's compliance with the remaining goal requirements is discussed elsewhere in this decision. (3) Uses, density, and public facilities and services not meeting section (2) of this rule ["physically developed" and "irrevocably committed" exceptions] may be approved only under the provisions for a reasons exception as outlined in section (4) of the rule and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004-0022. 4) "Reasons" Exceptions: (a) When a local government takes an exception under the "Reasons" section of ORS 197.732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004- 0020 through 660-004-0022, plan and zone designations must limit the uses, density, public facilities and services, and activities to only those uses and activities which are justified in City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 15 um the exception; FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the uses permitted on the site pursuant to the goal exception approved in this decision will be limited through a condition of approval requiring a resolution of intent to rezone contingent upon the city's rezoning of the site to PF. The proposal's compliance with the remaining goal requirements is discussed elsewhere in this decision. 4. OAR 660-004-0020, Goal 2, Part Hc, Exception Requirements. (1) If a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR 660-04-022 to use resource land for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan as an exception. FINDINGS: As discussed, the Hearings Officer has found the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this decision provide the basis for justification for the approved goal exception to be included in the comprehensive plan. (2) The four factors in Goal 2 Part H(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception to a Goal are: (a) "Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply": The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific properties or situations including the amount of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land; FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has addressed this factor in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 16 (b) "Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use": (A) The exception shall indicate on a mapor otherwise describe the location of possible alternative areas considered for the use, which do not require a new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified; (B) To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessary to discuss why other areas which do not required a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors can be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under the alternative factor the following questions shall be addressed: am (i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on nonresource land? If not, why not? (ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to nonresource uses, not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing rural centers, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands? If not, why not? (iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not? (C) This alternative areas standard can be met by a broad review of similar types of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception, unless another party to the local proceeding can describe why there are specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonably by another party during the local exceptions proceeding. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has addressed this factor in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein. City of Sisters/USFS PA 00-5/ZC-00-2 17 (c) The long-term environmental, economic, social, and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal Exception. The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative area considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include, but are not limited to, the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive; the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other possible impacts include the effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts; FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has addressed this factor in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein. However, I make the following additional findings addressing specific aspects of this criterion. The findings above address all of the alternative sites within and outside the Sisters UGB that were considered by the applicants. Those include findings that only 40 acres of Section 9 will be remove from the forest use base and that the remainder of Section 9 will be retained in forest and recreation uses and wildlife habitat. I find there is no evidence the proposed wastewater treatment facility will interfere with the ability to sustain forest and agricultural uses on the adjacent parcels zoned F-1 and EFU-SC. The proposed wastewater treatment facility will treat sewage produced within the Sisters cit limits and UGB. The record indicates the facility itself will use little water in addition to the effluent flowing into the facility. Therefore, I find there is no evidence in the record that the applicants' proposal will have any impacts on the water table. With respect to water quality, I find that if the city elects to apply treated effluent to the ground on the remainder of Section 9 it will be required to obtain all necessary permits from DEQ for such ground application, through which protection of water quality will be assured. The record indicates there are no special service districts that would be affected by the applicants' proposal. As discussed in the findings above, Section 9 has access from both Three Creeks Road and Locust Street. (d) "The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent land uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts": The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices. "Compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has addressed this factor in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein. I have found the proposed exception will allow a wastewater treatment City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 is facility on the site that will be compatible with adjacent farm and forest uses and with more distant residential uses within the Sisters UGB. (3) If the exception involves more than one area for which the reasons and circumstances are the same, the areas may be considered as a group. Each of the areas shall be identified on a map, or their location otherwise described, and keyed to the appropriate findings. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has addressed this factor in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein. 5. OAR 660-004-0022, Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part H (c) An exception under Goal 2, Part H (c) can be taken for any use not allowed by the applicable goal(s). The types of reasons that may or may not be used to justify certain types of uses not allowed on resource lands are set forth in the following sections of this rule: (1) For uses not specifically provided for in subsequent sections of this rule or OAR 660, Division 14, the reasons shall justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply. Such reasons include but are not limited to the following: (a) There is a demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the requirements of Statewide Goals 3 to 19; and either ... FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has addressed this factor in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein. However, I make the following additional findings addressing specific aspects of this criterion. As discussed above, the proposed wastewater treatment facility would replace existing on-site septic systems located throughout the Sisters UGB that are failing, cannot reasonably be replaced and are creating health hazards by surfacing untreated sewage and potential groundwater contamination. In addition, I have found construction of a municipal sewer system including the proposed wastewater treatment facility will allow urban -density development within the Sisters UGB, including needed affordable housing and additional employment opportunities. For these reasons, I find the need for the proposed facility is based on Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, Goal 10, Housing, and Goal 9, Economic Development. (b) A resource upon which the proposed use or activity is dependent can be reasonably obtained only at the proposed exception site and the use or activity requires a location near the resource. An exception based upon this subsection must include an analysis of the market area to be served by the proposed use or activity. That analysis must demonstrate that the proposed exception site is the only one within that market area at which the resource depended upon can reasonably be obtained; or City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 19 FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion does not apply because the proposed wastewater treatment facility is not a resource -dependent use. (c) The proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitate its location on or near the proposed exception site. FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the proposed wastewater treatment facility must be located in'.close proximity to the Sisters urban area in order to minimize the cost of connecting the facility to a municipal sewer system within the UGB. Therefore, I find the applicant has demonstrated the proposed use has "special features" that necessitate its location on or near the proposed site. 6. OAR 660-004-0030, Notice and Adoption of an Exception. (1) Goal 2 requires that each notice of a public hearing on a proposed exception shall specifically note that a goal exception is proposed and shall summarize the issues in an understandable manner. (2) A planning exception takes effect when the comprehensive plan or plan amendment is adopted by the city or county governing body. Adopted exceptions will be reviewed by the Commission when the comprehensive plan is reviewed for compliance with the goals, when a plan amendment is reviewed pursuant to OAR Chapter 660, Division 18, or when a periodic review is conducted pursuant to ORS 197.640. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the criteria in paragraph (1) were met by the mailed and published notice of the July 11: 2000, public hearing which specifically stated that a goal exception was proposed. In addition, the record indicates the criteria in paragraph (2) were met when notice of the proposed plan amendment was mailed to DLCD. D. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 197, Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination a. ORS 197.298, Priority of Land To Be Included Within Urban Growth Boundary (1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary except under the following priorities; (a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action plan. FINDINGS: Based upon the alternative sites analysis discussed above, the Hearings Officer finds there are no designated urban area reserve lands that are of adequate size and in an City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 20 appropriate location to accommodate the proposed wastewater treatment facility. (b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive pian as an exception area or non - resource land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710. FINDINGS: The map of "potential sewer sites" included in the record indicates there is land adjacent to the Sisters UGB on the north that consists of exception area — i.e., designated Rural Residential and zoned RR -10. However, the burden of proof states this land is developed with rural residences on lots at least 5 acres in size. The map does not show any resource land in the vicinity of Sisters that is completely surrounded by exception areas. (c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition). FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds Deschutes County is not designated a marginal land county. (d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry or both. FINDINGS: The 40 -acre proposed site is designated Forest and zoned F-1. (2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use. FINDING: The subject property consists of two soil types, Lundgren Sandy Loam, Unit 85A and Ermabell Loamy Fine Sand, Unit 47A. The NRCS data in the record indicate Unit 85A soil has a woodland suitability productivity classification of 3 and is capable of producing 46 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber. According to the Soil Interpretations Record contained in the NRCS soils inventory, trees common to Unit 85A are ponderosa pine and western juniper. According to the county's GIS data based on NRCS soils maps, approximately 50% of the 40 - acre site is composed of this soil unit. Unit 47A has a woodland suitability productivity classification of 4 and is capable of producing 69 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber. City of Sisters/USFS PA 00-5/ZC-00-2 21 nm According to the Soil Interpretations Record contained in the NRCS soils inventory, trees common to Unit 47A are ponderosa pines. According to the county's GIS data based on NRCS soils maps, approximately 50% of the 40 -acre site is composed of this soil. The record includes a soils analysis performed by Steve Wert, a soil scientist. Mr. Wert's analysis indicates approximately 2/3 of the 40 -acre site is composed of Unit 85A soil and the remaining 1/3 is composed of Unit 47A soil. Mr. Wert's report states both soil units are considered in a marginal cubic foot site class for wood fiber production by established soil categorization standards. The record indicates Section 9 and the 40 -acre site historically have been used for timber production. Nevertheless, the Staff Report states, and the Hearings Officer concurs, that the marginal quality of the soils for timber production makes the 40 -acre site suitable for the proposed wastewater treatment facility. (3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons; (a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; (b) Future urban services could not be provided to the higher priority due to topographical or other physical constraints; or, (c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicants' alternative site study demonstrates the proposed wastewater treatment facility cannot reasonably be accommodated on other sites because of their inadequate size, inappropriate location and/or distance from the Sisters urban area. The Hearings Officer also finds inclusion of the 40 -acre site in the Sisters UGB will result in the maximum efficiency of land uses within the UGB. That is because it will allow the siting of a wastewater treatment facility that will permit higher -density urban development within the Sisters city limits and UGB. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants have demonstrated compliance with the standards in this statute. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 22 M PLAN AMENDMENT E. PL -16, the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (5] 1. Part VI. Implementation Programs and Policies Comnrehensive Plan Review Adoption. Amendments ... Any changes should be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and statements of intent of the plan or these guidelines should first be changed or amended to reflect the new policies. This should be true of both changes resulting from periodic Planning Commission review and from individual petitions. Hearings on plan amendments shall follow the amendment procedures set forth in the ordinance adopting the Plan. (Plan, page 108.) FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to change the plan designation of the 40 -acre site from Forest to Urban Reserve. The applicant has identified a number of plan policies as applicable to the proposed plan amendment. However, the Hearings Officer finds it is necessary first to determine to what extent these plan policies constitute mandatory approval criteria for this quasi- judicial plan amendment application. Whether a plan policy constitutes such a criterion depends not only on the language of the policy but also on the function the plan assigns to the policy. Von Lubken v. Hood River County, 104 Or App 683, 689, 803 P2d 750 (1990), adhered IQ 106 Or App 226, fty den 311 Or 349 (1991). Schellenburg v. Polk County, 21 Or LUBA 425 (1991). The Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan includes the following language describing its purpose: The comprehensive plan provides the foundation for the planning process by establishing long-range goals and objectives and by providing, through its various elements, an integrated view of future public and private development patterns in the community. It is not the last word, nor is it the first... The comprehensive plan is not the zoning plan... The plan recommends appropriate uses for various areas and attempts to provide a maximum range of choice in the urban area within the limits of community living. (Plan, page 2; emphasis added.) The plan must be implemented if it is to be of value to the community. It requires... the administration of appropriate codes and ordinances which influence development ... The Comprehensive Plan provides basic guidelines with which the community can chart a course for change .... (Plan, page 3; emphasis added.) The Comprehensive Plan policies are based on the established general goals and 5 The Hearings Officer finds the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan is not applicable because the applicant proposes to include the subject property within the Sisters UGB, thus removing it from the county's jurisdiction. City of Sisters/USFS PA 00-5/ZC-00-2 23 3M objectives described in Part III and are supported by adequate findings ... The Plan maps and text are intended as a statement of public ,poiigy encompassing development objectives of and for the urbanizing area of Sisters.... (Plan, Page 56; emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer finds the above -underscored language suggests the plan and its policies were intended only to be recommendations and statements of broad public policy rather than to establish mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use applications. Nevertheless, some plan policies are written in mandatory terms, suggesting they were intended to be more than mere recommendations or statements of policy. In the absence of a clear statement in the plan that its policies are not intended to apply to quasi-judicial plan amendment applications, I find I must examine each identified plan policy to determine its applicability. Environmental Element Goals 4. To encourage the development of adequate sewerage treatment systems. (Plan, page 10) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the language of this goal is aspirational only and does not establish an approval criterion. Residential Areas Element Findines 1. Residential development in Sisters is held at relatively low density because of the lack of public sewers ...." (Plan, page 57) 7. There is a shortage of apartment units in Sisters which is partly due to the lack of public sewers .... (Plan, page 58) Policies 7. New lots without community sewer service should have a minimum of 14,000 square feet and shall provide for further segregation to the density designated on the Comprehensive Plan. (Plan, page 58) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer concludes these findings simply identify current conditions and needs. I find the policy is aspirational only and does not establish approval criteria. Commercial Element 'ndin s City of Sisters/USFS PA 00-5/ZC-00-2 24 3. The lack of a public sewer system makes it impossible to develop certain commercial uses in the downtown area. (Plan, page 62) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer concludes this finding simply identifies a current problem in the city resulting from the lack of a municipal sewer system. Air. Water and Land Resource Ouality Element Findings 1. At present, there are no known air and water quality problems in the Sisters area. There is no community sewer system however and policies have been developed in the Plan to promote the development of a community sewer system. (Plan, page 64) FINDINGS: Again, the Hearings Officer concludes this finding merely identifies current conditions and does not establish approval criteria. City Facilities and Services Element Findings 2. There is no sewer system in the City. Lack of public sewers restricts development to large parcels with individual sewer systems. It is expected that this trend will continue for some time due to voter defeat of {previous) bond elections. The City's comprehensive sewer plan will need to be updated to reflect the location of the Urban Growth Boundary. The lack of public sewers will have an adverse effect on the economic extension of other public facilities and services because densities will be spread out over a larger area. (Plan, page 65) Policies 2. The City should continue to work toward development of a public sewer system. (Plan, page 66) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer concludes the language of this finding and policy does not establish approval criteria. Economic Element Findines S. The lack of public sewers... within the central business district is a deterrent to economic development of Sisters creating necessary developments outside City of Sisters(USFS PA 00-5/ZC-00-2 25 the CBD. (Plan, page 76) Policies S. The community should support the development of a public sewer system. (Plan, page 77) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer concludes this finding and policy state facts or are aspirational and therefore do not establish approval criteria. Urbanization Element Findines 3. Orderly and Economic Provision of Public Facilities and Services The City has no sewer system which has created a relatively low density development pattern. The Department of Environmental Quality has not considered Sisters as a health hazard area and sufficient funds have not been available. Attempts have been made by the City to obtain public acceptance. A sewer plan was prepared and hearings were held but funding was overwhelmingly defeated by the voters. The critical area of need is within the commercial core area where certain needed commercial services are limited due to the lack of land area for drainf;elds. A sewer system is being planned for the downtown area, which will have to be funded by the commercial property owners. The significant and unique problem in Sisters is that most all of the commercial property owners do not live in the City and therefore cannot participate in elections. (Plan, page 91) FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the circumstances concerning the need and funding for a municipal sewer system in Sisters have changed dramatically. In any case, the Hearings Officer concludes the language in these findings identifies conditions existing when the findings were adopted and does not create approval criteria. Urbanization Policirj 1. The urban growth boundary shall be used as the official area for which to plan all public facilities, annexations, and future land use for the year 2000. 2. The urban growth boundary shall not be considered for amendment unless it is determined that the carrying capacity of the current UGB has reached its City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 26 maximum with adequate findings of fact. (Plan, page 93) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds Policy 1, although written in mandatory terms, addresses the area within which to "plan," suggesting it is directed at the city and is not an approval criterion for quasi-judicial plan and UGB amendment applications. Policy 2, on the other hand, expressly addresses UGB amendments and is written in mandatory terms. Therefore, I find it does constitute an approval criterion for the proposed plan amendment and UGB expansion. In two previous decisions -- Barclay Meadows (PA-99-4/ZC-99-1 and Sisters School District (PA-99-5/ZC-99-3) -- the Hearings Officer found that in order to give effect to Policy 2 it must be interpreted to authorize UGB amendments by the year 2000 if the applicant demonstrates with adequate findings of fact that the UGB's "carrying capacity" has "reached its maximum" --in this case, that further development in the UGB cannot take place until a municipal sewer system is in place and functioning. As discussed in detail in the findings above, I have found the applicant has demonstrated the need for a municipal sewer system including the wastewater treatment facility in order to address a serious health hazard and to facilitate urban -density development within the Sisters UGB. Therefore, I find the applicants' proposal is consistent with this plan policy. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal satisfies the applicable criteria in the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan for a plan amendment. , ZONE CHANGE F. Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code, the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 21.72, Amendments This title may be amended by changing the boundaries of districts, or by changing any other provisions thereof as set forth in this chapter. . a. Section 21.72.020, Standards for Zone Change The burden of proof is upon the applicant. The applicant shall in all cases establish: 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to change the zoning of the subject property from F-1 to UAR-10. The burden of proof states that once the site is annexed by the city it will be rezoned to PF. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicants' proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies. Therefore, I find the applicants' proposed zone change satisfies this approval criterion. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 27 2. Conformance with all applicable statutes. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the applicants' proposal is consistent with the provisions of ORS 197.298 governing the priorities for inclusion of land within a UGB. No other applicable statutes have been identified. Based on the previous findings, incorporated by reference herein, I find the applicants' proposal satisfies this zone change approval criterion. 3. Conformance. with Statewide Planning Goals wherever they are determined to be applicable. FINDINGS: The proposal's conformance with Statewide Planning Goals 2 and 4 is discussed in the findings above. The proposal's conformance with the remaining applicable goals is discussed in the findings below. The Hearings Officer has found the applicants' proposal is consistent with all applicable goals. Therefore, I find the applicants' proposal satisfies this approval criterion. 4. That there is a public need for a change of the kind in question. FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant has demonstrated a need for a municipal sewer system including the proposed wastewater treatment facility proposed for the 40 -acre site. Based upon these findings, I find the applicant has demonstrated a public need for the proposed zone change satisfying this approval criterion. 5. That the need will be best served by changing the classification of the particular piece of property in question as compared with other available property. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that for purposes of this approval criterion "other available property" means the alternative sites analyzed by the applicant and discussed in the findings above. I have found the applicants' alternative sites analysis indicates there are no vacant or underdeveloped lands within the Sisters UGB or nonresource or lower -priority resource land outside the UGB that reasonably can accommodate the proposed wastewater treatment facility. For the reasons set forth in those findings, incorporated by reference herein, I find the applicant has demonstrated the need for the wastewater treatment facility will best be served by including the 40 -acre site in the Sisters UGB rather than other available land within and outside the UGB. 6. That there is proof of a change of circumstances or a mistake in the original zoning. FINDINGS: 1. Mistake, The Hearings Officer finds there was no mistake in the original F-1 zoning of the subject property. As discussed above, it is located outside the Sisters UGB, is composed of soils capable of producing wood fiber and no exception to the statewide planning goals previously City of Sister&VSFS PA 00-5/ZC-00-2 28 was taken for the property to change its resource designation. 2. Change of Circumstances. The applicants argue the proposed zone change from F-1 to UAR- 10 is justified by a change of circumstances. These consist of the increasing failure of on-site septic systems within the Sisters UGB, the inability to replace failing systems due to changes in DEQ standards for on-site septic systems and the resulting inability to develop land within the Sisters UGB at urban density without a municipal sewer system including a wastewater treatment facility. The Hearings Officer agrees with the applicants that these factors constitute a change of circumstances justifying the construction of a wastewater treatment facility on the site and the proposed zone change from F-1 to UAR-10 to bring the site into the UGB for future annexation and rezoning to PF. Therefore, I find the applicants' proposal satisfies this criterion. 7. That annexation to the City of Sisters will accompany the zone change. FINDINGS: The record indicates the city intends to annex the 40 -acre site as soon as the site is approved for inclusion in the Sisters UGB. In the two previous Sisters UGB decisions cited above (Barclay Meadows and Sisters School District) the Hearings Officer found the language of this section was not entirely clear with respect to the sequence of zone change approval and annexation. I noted that this provision could be read to require that annexation precede the approval of a UGB expansion, plan amendment and zone change. I found the language also could be read to require that the city take simultaneous action to grant the zone change and annex the property. In the records of those cases, Sisters' Planning Director Neil Thompson testified the latter reading is the one the city has adopted. Based on that interpretation the city has concluded that the requirement of this section is met by the applicant executing a consent to annexation agreement as a condition of approval for a plan amendment and zone change. Inasmuch as the City of Sisters is one of the applicants, I find the city can assure consent to annexation of the 40 - acre site, thus satisfying this criterion. The Hearings Officer is aware that Sisters residents must vote on all proposed annexations. The next opportunity to vote is in the general election in November of 2000. However, inasmuch as city voters approved a bond measure to fund construction of this facility, I find their approval for the site's annexation is likely. However, because an annexation vote is required, and because the city has indicated its intent to rezone the 40 -acre site to PF following its annexation, I find approval of the proposed plan amendment, zone change and goal exception will be conditioned on the board's adoption of a resolution of intent to rezone pursuant to Section 18.136.030 contingent on these prerequisite actions occurring. For the foregoing reasons, and with the condition of approval requiring a resolution of intent to rezone, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal satisfies this criterion. G. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.136, Amendments City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 29 a. Section 18.136.030, Resolution of Intent to Rezone A. If from the facts presented and findings and the report and recommendations of the Hearings Officer, as required by this section, the County Commission determines that the public health, safety, welfare and convenience will be best served by a proposed change of zone, the County Commission may indicate its general approval in principal of the proposed rezoning by the adoption of a "resolution of intent to rezone." This resolution shall include any conditions, stipulations or limitations which the County Commission may feel necessary to require in the public interest as a prerequisite to final action, including those provisions that the County Commission may feel necessary to prevent speculative holding of property after rezoning. Such a resolution shall not be used to justify "spot zoning" or to create unauthorized zoning categories by excluding uses otherwise permitted in the proposed zoning. B. The fulfillment of all conditions, stipulations and limitations contained in the resolution on the part of the applicant shall make such a resolution a binding commitment on the Board of County Commissioners. Upon completion of compliance action by the applicant, the board shall, by ordinance, effect such rezoning. The failure of the applicant to substantially meet any or all conditions, stipulations or limitations contained in a resolution of intent, including any time limit placed in the resolution, shall render the resolution null and void automatically and without notice, unless an extension is granted by the board. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, because in order to construct the proposed wastewater treatment facility two events first must take place -- acquisition and annexation of the site by the City of Sisters — and because the city has indicated its intent to rezone the site to PF following acquisition and annexation, the Hearings Officer finds this is an appropriate case in which to recommend that the board approve the proposed zone change by a resolution of intent to rezone. The resolution would be contingent on the city's providing documentation of the conveyance of the subject property from the USFS, a favorable vote on annexation of the subject property and the city's execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the county whereby the city agrees to rezone the site to PF and to limit uses permitted on the site to the wastewater treatment facility and ground application of treated effluent. For these reasons, I find my approval of the applicants' proposal will be conditioned on the board adopting such a resolution of intent to rezone. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 30 ADMINISTRATIVE RULE AND GOAL COMPLIANCE H. OAR 660-012, Transportation Planning Rule 1. OAR 660-12-060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this administrative rule is applicable because the applicant proposes a plan amendment -from Forest to Urban Reserve and a zone change from F-1 to UAR-10. The Staff Report states staff believes the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) does not apply to the applicants' proposal because the proposed wastewater treatment facility is not a use that will generate traffic beyond occasional trips by city vehicles for operation and maintenance of the facility. However, I can find no exception to the TPR for uses that are low traffic generators. Therefore, I find the TPR applies to the applicants' proposal. (1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; (b) Amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; or (c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. 2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it: (a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned Transportation facility; (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan amendment and zone change, in and of themselves, will not affect transportation facilities. However, if approved they would allow the development of a wastewater treatment facility on the subject property that will generate minimal traffic on Locust Street from the few employee vehicles that will travel to the facility on City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 31 a daily basis. Nevertheless, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal will not change either the functional classification or standards implementing the functional classification of these two streets. (c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or (d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these two standards focus on the impact of the proposed plan amendment and zone change on the function of Locust Street. The record indicates the City of Sisters has not adopted a TSP. Therefore, I find subsection (d) of this section does not apply. I find the minimal traffic that will be generated by the proposed wastewater treatment facility will not result in levels of travel inconsistent with the functional classification of these two streets. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal conforms with the TPR. (3) Determinations under section (1) and (2) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. FINDINGS: The road department commented on the applicants' proposal but noted that Locust Street is a city street over which the county does not have jurisdiction. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this portion of the TPR has been satisfied to the extent it is applicable. L OAR 660-015, Statewide Planning Goals FINDINGS: The applicants propose an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants must demonstrate the proposal is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals. I make the following findings concerning compliance with the goals. 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is consistent with this goal because both the city and county have provided opportunities for public comment and involvement in the proposed municipal sewer system. As discussed above, Sisters voters approved a bond measure to fund a portion of the cost of the proposed wastewater treatment facility. In addition, a public hearing before the Hearings Officer was held on the subject applications and a public hearing before the board will be held. Owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the subject property received individual written notice of the proposal and the public hearing, and the public hearing also was noticed through publication in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper and by posting the subject property. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 32 FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is consistent with this goal because it has been reviewed under the Sisters Urban Area comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance and a public hearing has been conducted in accordance with the county's procedures ordinance. 3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable because the subject property and proposed wastewater treatment facility site are designated and zoned forest. 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands FINDINGS: The applicants have requested approval of an exception to Goal 4 to include the F- 1 -zoned site within the Sisters UGB. For the reasons set forth in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has satisfied the criteria for a goal exception and therefore the proposal is consistent with this goal. 5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Area and Natural Resources FINDINGS: This goal requires the county to inventory and protect significant scenic, historic and natural resources. The record indicates the subject property does not include any inventoried Goal 5 resources. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this goal. 6. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality FINDINGS: Goal 6 requires the county and city to protect air and water quality. The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is consistent with this goal because it will permit the construction of a municipal sewer system including the wastewater treatment facility proposed for the site. These facilities will address a health hazard and potential source of groundwater contamination. 7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards FINDINGS: The record indicates there are no identified natural disasters or hazards on the site. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable. 8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs FINDINGS: The applicants do not propose to use the subject property for a destination resort. However, the applicants propose to retain the remainder of Section 9 in forest use which will allow continued use of the property for recreation. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is consistent with this goal. 9. Goal 9, Economic Development FINDINGS: This goal requires the county and city to provide adequate opportunities for a City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 33 variety of economic activities. As discussed in the findings above, the record indicates the lack of a municipal sewer system and wastewater treatment facility has limited diversification of the local economy. As also discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicants' proposal will facilitate urban -density development of the Sisters UGB including a variety of commercial and industrial uses not now feasible because of the lack of municipal sewer service. Therefore, I find the applicants' proposal is consistent with this goal. 10. Goal 10, Housing FINDINGS: This goal requires the county and city to provide adequate housing to meet identified needs. As discussed in the findings above, the lack of a municipal sewer system has caused inefficient development of urban uses in the Sisters UGB because of the need for large lots to accommodate on-site septic systems. The burden of proof states this situation has created a homogeneous housing pattern that does not address the need for affordable housing. For these reasons, I find the applicants' proposal is consistent with this goal. 11. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services FINDINGS: This goal requires the city and county to plan and develop an orderly arrangement of public facilities and services for urban and rural development. Inclusion of the 40 -acre site within the Sisters UGB will facilitate the construction of a municipal sewer system that has not been available to the city and the lack of which has prevented the city and UGB from developing at full urban density with adequate public facilities and services, Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is consistent with this goal. 12. Goal 12, Transportation FINDINGS: This goal is implemented through the TPR, discussed in detail in the findings above. For the reasons set forth in those findings, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is consistent with the rule and therefore I find it satisfies Goal 12. 13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation FINDINGS: This goal requires the city and county to give priority in land use planning to the efficient utilization of energy. The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is consistent with this goal because it would allow the site to be developed with a wastewater treatment facility in close proximity to the Sisters UGB and city limits, facilitating energy conservation in the connection of the facility to the planned municipal sewer system planned for the UGB. 14. Goal 14, Urbanization FINDINGS: This goal requires the city and county to assure their land use planning will provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses. This goal is applicable City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 34 because the applicants' proposal would result in bringing rural land into the Sisters UGB for urban development. The goal provides in pertinent part: Urban growth boundaries shall be established to identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and change of the boundaries shall be based upon consideration of the following factors: 1. Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; 2. Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability; FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant has demonstrated a need for a municipal sewer system including the wastewater treatment facility proposed for the site in order to develop the Sisters UGB and city limits at urban density as contemplated in the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. In particular, development of a municipal sewer system will allow additional housing and employment opportunities from commercial and industrial businesses that can be served by sewer. The applicants have demonstrated the site is suitable and appropriate for conversion from marginally - productive forest land to a wastewater treatment facility. For the reasons set forth in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, I find the applicants' proposal satisfies these two Goal 14 factors. 3. Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services; FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Sisters city council intends to annex the site following approval of the subject applications and a vote of Sisters voters approving the annexation. The site will have access to Locust Street. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the wastewater treatment facility on the site will not generate traffic inconsistent with the functional classification of Locust Street. For these reasons, I find the applicants' proposal satisfies this Goal 14 factor. 4. Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban areas; FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is consistent with this Goal 14 factor because it will allow the site to be developed with a sewage treatment plant as part of a municipal sewer system that will allow maximum efficiency in the development of land within the Sisters UGB and city limits. Therefore, I find expanding the Sisters UGB to include the site will satisfy this Goal 14 factor. 5. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings above concerning the proposal's compliance with the requirements for a goal exception under Goal 2, incorporated by reference herein, the City of SistervUSFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 35 Hearings Officer has found the applicants' proposal will have no greater adverse ESEE consequences than would development of a wastewater treatment facility on any other resource land in the vicinity of Sisters. I also have found approval of the applicants' proposal will allow development of a municipal sewer system that will have beneficial ESEE consequences for Sisters residents and visitors. Therefore, I find the applicants' proposal satisfies this Goal 14 factor. 6. Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and, FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this Goal 14 factor is not applicable because the site is not designated or zoned for agriculture. 7. Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. FINDINGS: The site abuts agricultural land and uses on the east. However, as discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the proposed use of the site for construction of a wastewater treatment facility will have minimal if any impact on adjacent agricultural activities because of the size of the site and the proposed buffer between the site and the adjacent farm use. And as discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, I have found the applicants' proposal is consistent with the priorities for land to be included in an urban growth boundary under ORS 197.298. For these reasons, I find the applicants' proposal will have no effect on nearby agricultural activities and therefore is consistent with this Goal 14 factor. In addition to the seven factors listed above, Goal 14 requires that any changes to an urban growth boundary satisfy the requirements of Goal 2, Part II, for goal exceptions. As discussed in the findings above concerning the proposal's compliance with those Goal 2 requirements, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicants' proposal satisfies all Goal 2 exception requirements. Goals 15 through 19 FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these goals are not applicable to this proposal because they address river, ocean, and marine resources not located near the subject property. IV. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the applicants' proposal to expand the Sisters UGB to include the site, to change its plan designation from Forest to Urban Reserve and to change its zone from F-1 to UAR-10, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL SET FORTH BELOW. Under Section 22.28.030(C) of the county's land use procedures ordinance, because this decision involves a proposed plan amendment and zone change requiring a goal exception for land designated for forest use, this application must be heard de novo by the Board of County Commissioners. City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 36 This approval is conditioned on adoption by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners of a resolution of intent to rezone the site from F-1 to UAR 10. The resolution would be contingent on the city's providing to the county documentation of the conveyance of the subject property from the USFS, a favorable vote on annexation of the subject property and the city's execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the county whereby the city agrees to rezone the site to PF and to limit uses permitted on the site to the wastewater treatment facility and ground application of treated effluent. Dated this 2 -92st day of August, 2000. Mailed this �Srd day of August, 2000. ,Z/� Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer City of Sisters/USFS PA-00-5/ZC-00-2 37 r Sep eb UU 12: 31p HGE INC. (503126'9-1833 p. 2 OF 7HE- 80A1e OS VE" S )6/0 DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF SISTERS USA - VOLUME 92, PAGE 177 TM 15 10 09 TL 1000 May 30, 2000 A/Y/1tXATI0N OUCRIPTIO/Y BEING A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF SECTION 09, TOWNSHIP 15 SOUTH, RANGE 10 EAST, W,M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 15 SOUTH, RANGE 10 EAST, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON. SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF LOCUST STREET; THENCE, ALONG THE EASTIWEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 09 AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOCUST STREET; NORTH 89°43'49" WEST A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID LME, SOUTH 00016' 11"' WEST A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 44'43'49" EAST A DISTANCE OF 86.51 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH/SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE, ALONG SAID LINE, SOUTH 00°30'37" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1244.36 FEET, THENCE, SOUTH 89040'40" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1259.42 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 00°25'50" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1315.12 FEET TO A POINT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 09; THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 8940'40" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1385.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 09; THENCE, ALONG THE EATERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 09; NORTH 00°25'49" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1375.12 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 89040'40" WEST A DISTANCE OF 2584.61 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 00"30'37" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1270.55 FEET TO A POINT LOCATED ON THE EAST(WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 09; THENCE, ALONG SAID EAST(WEST.LINE, NORTH 8942'06" WEST A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGE4MG. CONTAINING 47.28 ACPM, MORE OR LESS. LA1N0 5uMc- -ro P&AN A 01, /QOM AND 2aNC CRA P6C eA-D'^5 Zc-oO-2 EXHkC2) 1-1r- INaE x 1 .awoi.a .awnu.w I I • uv i I b s s I I s �o xcwnoa # . r �0 r