Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2003-823-Ordinance No. 2003-016 Recorded 5/6/2003
REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL REVIEWED tie CODE REVIEVrCOMMITTEE COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUTES BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS ci 2003.82b" COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/06/1003 03;31;31 PM 1111111111111111111111111111111111 2003-000823 For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 21, the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, of the Deschutes County Code, to Amend the Official Zoning Map by Changing the Zone for Certain Property from Forest Use 1 (F 1) to Urban Area Reserve (UAR- 10), and Declaring an Emergency. * ORDINANCE NO. 2003-016 WHEREAS, Sisters Organization for Activities and Recreation (SOAR) and Sisters School District No. 6 applied for a quasi-judicial plan amendment to include certain property within the City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), change the County Comprehensive Plan Designation from Forest to Urban Residential Reserve, and change the zoning of the property from Forest Use 1 (F-1) to Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10). The request proposed the County adopt an exception to Goal 4 (Forest Lands); and WHEREAS, the justification for said Zone Change requires that the subject property be rezoned to Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10); and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 2, 2001, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, before the County Hearings Officer; and WHEREAS, the Hearings officer recommended approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, a de novo public hearing was held on December 17, 2001, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, before the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the change in zoning from F1 to UAR-10, and amended the City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary to include the property, through issuance of their decision dated January 23, 2002; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. The official zoning map for Title 21, the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, as amended, is further amended by zoning certain land, as 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. FINDINGS. In support of this ordinance, the Board adopts its decisions for file ZC-01-4, dated January 23, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. 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. 2003-016 (5/7/03) DATED this day of , 2003. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUT COUNTY, OREGON �. �- DE IS R. LUKE, Chair TOM DEWOLF, Commissioner MI EL Nf DAL 1, Co issioner Date of 1St Reading: day of , 2003. U Date of 2°a Reading: day of, 2003. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Dennis R. Luke Tom DeWolf Michael M. Daly Effective date: J — day of 92003. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2003-016 (5/7/03) EXHIBIT "A" That part of tax lot 1003 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map # 15-10-00-00 described as: That portion of the Southeast Quarter (SE'/) of Section Six (6), Township Fifteen (15) South, Range Ten (10), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, lying Northeasterly of the McKenzie Highway 242. PAGE 1 of 1 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2003-016 (5/07/03) Exhibit -_ Page of Ordinance ac03- 0' 6 REVIEWED LE AL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only FINDINGS AND DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPLICANT: Sisters School District No. 6 and Sisters Organization for Activities and Recreation (SOAR) 220 S. Pine Street, Suite 202 P.O. Box 5099 Sisters, Oregon 97759 (541) 549-8521 PROPERTY OWNER: Sisters School District No. 6 .220 S. Pine Street, Suite 202 P.O. Box 5099 Sisters, Oregon 97759 (541) 549-8521 REQUEST: The applicants propose to bring approximately 100 acres into the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") and to rezone and redesignate the subject property from F-1 (Forest) to UAR-10 (Urban Area Reserve) to accommodate a new high school, new elementary school, and new recreational facilities. FILE NUMBER: PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 STAFF REVIEWER: Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner HEARING DATE: December 17, 2001 APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: A. PL -16, City of Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. B. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions *Section 18.04.480, Definition — Forest Land C. Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code, the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance *Section 21.72.010, Amendments Page 1 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -0 I -4/ZC-0 1 -4 —01/23//02 m JADocuents and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit v Page l of 3= Ordinance 2003-6.16 *Section 21.72.020, Standards for Zone Change D. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance. Chapter 22.28, Land use Action Decisions *Section 22.28.030, Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes E. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 1. Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process *OAR 660-04-010, Application of the goal 2 Exception Process in Certain Goals *OAR 660-04-015, Inclusion as Part of Plan *OAR 660-04-018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas *OAR 660-04-020, Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements *OAR 660-04-022, Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception under Goal 2, Part II(c). 2. Division 6, Goal 4, Forest Lands *OAR 660-06-025, Uses Authorized in Forest Zones 3. Division 12, Transportation Planning rule *OAR 660-12-060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments 4. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines F. Oregon Revises Statutes 1. ORS 197.298, Priority of Land to be Included Within Urban Growth Boundary. II. SUMMARY In order to develop the forest -zoned subject property in conjunction with the existing Sisters High School site as a consolidated school campus and recreational facility, the property must be included in the Sisters UGB through the taking of an exception to Goal 4. The property must also be redesignated from Forest to Urban Area Reserve, and rezoned from F-1 to UAR-10. In addition, the property must be annexed to the City of Sisters and rezoned to PF. Page 2 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -0 I -4/ZC-0 1 -4 41/23/02 !:\Documents and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB Mdoc fthibit C Page = Of 3 �-' Ordinance 2O°" c 6 The Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated that the Sisters UGB should be amended to include the subject property and an exception to Goal 4 should be approved because no other property within or outside the UGB can accommodate the applicants' proposal, and the subject property no longer warrants preservation for forest uses. The Board also finds that the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed plan amendment and zone change satisfy all applicable requirements of the Sisters Urban. Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance with the imposition of the attached conditions of approval. III. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Location, Zoning and Plan Designation, Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses, Soils, Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The Board concurs with the Hearings Officer's findings regarding the site location, zoning and plan designation, site description and surrounding land uses, soils, and surrounding zoning and land uses and incorporates those findings herein by reference. B. Procedural History: The approximately 260 -acre Tax Lot 1003 was transferred to Deschutes County by the USFS through a land exchange. The County subsequently donated the parcel to the Sisters School District No. 6 ("School District") for use as a future school site. The record indicates that the draft Sisters 1999-2019 Comprehensive Plan contemplates that the subject property will be brought into the UGB and zoned PF. The record also indicates that on May 15, 2001, the voters approved a $20.5 million bond measure to finance construction of a new school campus on the subject property. The plan amendment and zone change applications were submitted on June 18, 2001. The applications included a burden of proof statement, conceptual site plan and traffic study. Because the applications include a request for a plan amendment, and because the proposed zone change cannot be approved without the plan amendment, the applications are not subject to the 150 -day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.428. On July 2, 2001, the County sent notice of the proposed plan amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). On August 13, 2001, the applicants submitted a revised burden of proof statement, conceptual site plan and traffic study. On August 15, 2001, the County mailed notice of a public hearing on the applications to 77 property owners. On August 23, 2001, the Sisters City Council passed a resolution setting the caption for a measure to be placed on the March 2002, ballot seeking voter approval to annex the subject property into the City. A public hearing on the applications was held before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer on October 2, 2001. The Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence, and left the written record open through October 23, 2001, for submission of evidence and the applicants' final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. The record closed on October 23, 2001. The Hearings Officer issued a recommendation of approval on December 7, 2001. Pursuant to Deschutes County Code Sections 22.28.020(C) and 22.32.030, the Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the December 17, 2001 hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to the applicants, their representatives, and all parties to the proceeding before the Hearings Officer. The notice was mailed on December 6, Page 3 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 —01/23/02 !:\Documents and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit Page _..1-- Ordinance 2a0��, -6 2001. At the December 17, 2001 hearing, the Board closed the hearing but held open the record for written testimony until 10:00 a.m. January 9, 2002. The Board convened at 10:00 a.m. on January 9, 2002, took no oral testimony but held the record open for seven (7) days, pursuant to ORS 197.763 (5)(e) for the applicants to respond to any new evidence submitted prior to or at the January 9, 2002 hearing. On January 17, 2002, the Board convened to deliberate on the proposal. The Board adjourned the deliberations after an oral decision of approval subject to review of this Findings and Decisions document. G. Proposal: As discussed above, the draft Sisters Comprehensive Plan contemplates that the subject property will be brought into the Sisters UGB, annexed to the City, and zoned PF to allow development of new educational and recreational facilities. However, Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code, the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (applicable to the Sisters UGB outside the city limits) does not contain a PF zone that corresponds to the PF zone within the City. Therefore, in addition to requesting UGB and plan amendments, the applicants have also requested that the subject property be rezoned from F-1 to UAR-10 as an interim zone before the property is annexed. The record indicates that the applicants have applied to the City to annex the subject property. The applicants are requesting a UGB and plan amendment and a zone change for the subject property to develop a consolidated school and recreational facility campus. The campus would include a new high school and elementary school, a new middle school, a new administrative building, a bus barn, and an environmental studies building and trails connected to the adjacent conservation easement. Also included would be recreational facilities to be managed by applicant Sisters Organization for Activities and Recreation ("SOAR") and used by the School District and the public. These facilities would include three new softball fields, two new baseball fields, a new track and field facility, six tennis courts, three new soccer fields, and a football field. All elements of the campus would be connected through an internal road system, and would be connected to the site on which the current high school is located. The campus would have access from the McKenzie Highway on the south and from McKinney Butte Road on the north. H. Public/Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed notice of the applicant's proposal to several public and private agencies and received responses from: the City of Sisters Planning Division; the Deschutes County Road Department, Senior Transportation Planner, Property Address Coordinator and Environmental Health Division; the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); and the Oregon Department of Water Resources, Watermaster-District 11. These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 6-9 of the Staff Report. The following agencies did not respond to the notice or had no comment: the Sisters fire Department; the Deschutes County Building and Safety Division, Assessor and Surveyor; and the Oregon Departments of Environmental Quality, Fish and Wildlife, and ODOT Aeronautics. I. Public Notice and Comment: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the public hearing before the Hearings Officer to the owners of record of all property located within 750 feet of the subject property. The record'indicates that this notice was Page 4 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 41/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit C Page _Y of 36 Ordinance ,2103- 10& mailed to 77 property owners. In addition, notice of the public hearing before the Hearings Officer was published in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper and the subject property was posed with a notice of proposed land use action sign. Prior to the.public hearing before the Hearings Officer, the County received only one letter from the public—a letter from William Boyer representing the Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County (ARLU DeCo). Mr. Boyer's letter did not comment on the applicants' proposal but rather on the City's annexation proceedings. No members of the public testified at the public hearing before the Hearings Officer. Prior to the public hearing, the Board received no written comments. The applicants' legal representative, Nancy Craven; Steven Swisher, School District Superintendent; Neil Thompson, Sisters Planning Director, as well as two members of the public, Mel Bryan and Jim Mackey testified at the December 17, 2001 public hearing before the Board. The Board closed the hearing but held the record open until January 9, 2002 for further written testimony. Prior to convening on January 9, 2002, the Board received written testimony from the applicants and from Mr. Jim Mackey and Mr. Mel Bryan. No written request was submitted for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. At the applicants' request, the Board provided, as required by ORS 197.763 (5)(e), an additional seven (7) days for the applicants to respond to any new evidence submitted prior to or January 9, 2002. The applicants submitted a letter responding to new evidence on January 14, 2002. On January 17, 2002, the Board voted to approve the application, subject to the review of the findings set forth herein. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: UGB EXPANSION/GOAL 4 EXCEPTION A. Statewide Planning Goal 14 The aim of Statewide Planning Goal 14 is "to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use." The goal requires that: 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: Goal 14, Factor 1: Demonstrated need to accommodate the long- range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; 2. Goal 14, Factor 2: Need for housing, employment opportunities and livability; FINDINGS: The "need factors" quoted above require the applicants to identify the amount of vacant, urbanizable land that must be added to the UGB to satisfy the growth requirements through a 20 -year planning cycle. Amendments to a UGB may be justified if population is increasing or the assumptions that justified the original population figures are no longer valid. Page 5 of 36 – FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE O. P 4/ZC-01-4 –01 /23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local Setnngs p ryISSDSs ac doC Exhibit Page —6 of Ordinance City of La Grande v. Union County, 25 Or LUBA 52 (1993). The written testimony submitted by Mr. Mackey and Mr. Bryan on January 8, 2002 challenges the Hearings Officer's conclusion that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with the above -quoted need factors. The Board fords that the applicants' January 14, 2002 letter, in conjunction the previously submitted application materials and testimony, adequately addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Mackey, as explained in detail below. Therefore, the Board concurs with the Hearings Officer's determination that the applicants have satisfied the need factors. The applicants' application materials include a detailed analysis of the need for additional school and recreational facilities. This analysis can be summarized as follows (and the supporting data can be found in the applicants' Exhibits 27 and 28, the Burden of Proof Statement at pages 5 through 9, and the supplemental memoranda submitted by the applicants on January 4, 2002, January 8, 2002, and January 9, 2002): The City of Sisters is one of three incorporated cities in Deschutes County, the fastest growing County in Oregon. Deschutes County's population increased by 53.9% from 1990 to 2000. Sisters School District No. 6 encompasses approximately 283 square miles within Deschutes County, and approximately 80% of the District's students come from rural areas and subdivisions outside the city limits. In addition, students from residential areas within the Black Butte School District also contribute to the high school and middle school enrollment. According to current data from the Office of Economic Analysis, the County will reach 181,448 by 2020.1 The current population of the City of Sisters is 975 and is expected to grow to 1250 by 2005, 1,400 by 2010, and 1,550 by 2015. The population within the school district boundaries is approximately 9,000 and is expected to reach 14,036 by 2020. The School District's Burden of Proof Statement (pages 5-9) indicates that the dwelling unittschool age child ratio in Sisters is 4:1, which means that the District must accommodate one additional school-age child for every four new dwelling units. The School District's enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year is 1,184 students. There were 4,035 new dwelling units in the Sisters area (urban and nonurban) in 2000. Based on recent land use approvals and building permit records, the School District expects at least 7,018 new dwelling units to be constructed within the Sisters area by 2020. Based on the expected increase in residential development in the City's population service area and on the generally high rate of growth in the County, the District anticipates that the school age population will continue to increase, bringing the population close to 2,000 students by 2020. This prediction is also supported by the growth pattern demonstrated by the 10 -year enrollment data submitted by the applicants in Exhibit 28. The Board concurs with the applicants' assertion in the January 14, 2002 letter that the 10 -year enrollment data provides a more accurate growth projection than the data from three school years presented. in the materials prepared by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Mackey. As explained in the applicants' January 14, 2002 letter, incorporated by reference herein, the enrollment data illustrates that the total School District enrollment has increased steadily over the past ten years, from 612 in the 1991/1992 school year to 1184 in the 2000/2001 school year. (Applicants' Exhibit 28). The total growth, calculated to account for the 1 This estimate is likely to increase when OEA releases its new population forecasts because the record indicates that the County has already exceeded OEA's forecast for 2000. (OEA estimated a population of 112,846 for 2000, and the census shows that the County actually reached 115,367 in 2000). Page 6 of 36 – FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 –01/23/02( ]:\Documents and Settings\bonnieb\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OI.K457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit Page — of Ordinance 2025' 61(p • disproportionate growth due to the addition of the high school program in 1992/1993, was approximately 333 new students over the 10 -year period. Assuming the growth rate remains steady or increases due to the high percentage of growth in Deschutes County and the addition of a sewer system to the City of Sisters, the Board finds that the School District can reasonably expect the 2000/2001 enrollment of 1184 to increase by 666 students over the 20 -year planning period, reaching at least 1850 by 2020. Thus, the Board finds that the applicants' estimate of growth is supported by the evidence in the record. The Sisters School District schools currently have the following design capacities, current, and projected enrollments: School Design Capacity 2000-2001 Enrollment 2020 Enrollment High School 550 461 700 Middle School 260 294 575 Elementary School 450 429 480 The District currently leases additional classroom space to accommodate "flex/alternative" school students and office and meeting space for its administrative offices. The leased administrative space costs approximately $38,000 per year and is insufficient to comfortably accommodate all of the District's administrative employees. The record supports the applicants' prediction that the projected enrollment will exceed the current school capacity by 495 students by 2020 (150 high school students, 315 middle school, and 30 elementary school). The record also shows that these projections are likely to prove conservative due to the addition of a sewer system to the City of Sisters, and the implementation of new zoning code provisions designed to increase minimum and maximum density requirements within the urban growth boundary to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 10. It is generally accepted that the addition of the new sewer system will render vacant land currently employed for septic drain field use available for redevelopment. The Board finds that the new I ewer system will encourage new residential, commercial, and industrial development, thereby creating new employment and housing opportunities with the city and school district boundaries. The Board concludes that this development, coupled with the rapidly growing population in Deschutes County in general, will continue to bring new students to the Sisters School District, thereby supporting the need for new educational facilities within the 20 -year planning period. The School District's current recreational facilities are also inadequate to accommodate the growing population of Deschutes County and the City of Sisters. A list of School District, SOAR, and public recreational activities that must be accommodated at the limited facilities is set forth in the applicants' application materials. The School District's outdoor recreational facilities are limited to: one softball field (at the elementary school), one competition football field, one competition soccer field, one varsity baseball field, and two practice fields shared by the School District, SOAR, and the public. The only other outdoor recreational facilities in the Sisters area include two fields owned by the Sisters Community Church. The record shows that the Church will be eliminating at least one of the two fields in the near future to expand the church facilities. Because of it rural location, the School District cannot share field space with other Central Oregon districts, and the City itself does not own any recreational field space. In Page 7 of 36 - FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 -01/23/02 Exhibit C - Page of Ordinance 1 "O1lo SALegal\B0CC Decisions\Sister School District UGB Mdoc 0 addition, SOAR does not have adequate indoor recreational space to store its equipment and provide for indoor recreation activities. (See Burden of Proof Statement, pp. 7-8, Exhibits 19- 24). The data submitted by the applicants on January 8, 2002 and January 14, 2002 detailing the average per capita park/recreation acreage for recreation districts shows that the average acre of park/recreational space per person is .0127 both within and outside of Oregon. Based upon the number of persons currently within the SOAR service boundary (9,000), the Board finds that the approximately 114.3 acres are needed to meet the current recreational needs of the community, and the anticipated population of 14,036 by 2020 would justify a need for 178.3 acres of park and recreational facilities. Because, however, the applicants have agreed to maximize efficiency of land use by sharing recreational facilities to the maximum extent practicable, the acreage of the subject property that will be dedicated to recreational facilities (100 acres minus the area consumed by educational facilities) is significantly below the acreage that could be justified for SOAR alone. Therefore, the Board finds that SOAR's current lack of facilities and the average per capita park/recreation data presented by the applicants on January 8, 2002 illustrates that this requested UGB expansion is below the acreage that could be justified for a combined recreational and educational campus. Based upon this evidence, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated a need to accommodate the educational and recreational needs associated with the long-range population growth within the School District boundaries. The remaining question under the Need Factors is whether the identified need can be accommodated within the existing Sisters UGB. The applicants have calculated that approximately 100 acres of land are necessary to develop the new high school/elementary school/middle school campus with SOAR facilities to meet the community's needs for the next twenty years. The Concept Master Plan illustrates that this acreage is necessary to accommodate the needed facilities. The record indicates that there are no parcels of this size within the existing city limits or UGB. There are three PF -zoned properties within the city limits. The PF parcels are either currently developed or too small to meet the applicants' demonstrated land need. One PF parcel is only 45.80 acres in size and contains the current high school. Another PF parcel is only 18.63 acres and is the site of the existing middle and elementary schools. The third PF parcel is only 36.41 acres in size and is owned by the federal government and managed by the United States Forest Service ("USFS"). The parcel is also developed with the Sisters Ranger District headquarters. Although the City zoned the USFS property PF, the Board finds that the local zoning is unenforceable until the property is transferred to a private party. Plass v. Klamath County, 11 Or LUBA 169, 171-172 (1984); Elliot v. Oregon International Mining Co., 60 Or.App. 474, 481, 654 P.2d 663 (1982). The remaining property within the city limits includes 41 acres of noncontiguous federal land near the ranger district compound that is zoned UAR-10. Although this property is vacant, the Page 8 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -0 I -4/ZC-0 1 -4 41/23/02 %� JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Loeal SettingsUcinporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZCI.doc Exhibit `� Page of .3(a Ordinance a • Board finds that it cannot accommodate the demonstrated land need because it is too small, it is in federal ownership and not subject to local zoning or planning jurisdiction, and it is not contiguous to the existing high school, thereby precluding the development of the consolidated recreational and education campus. The other undeveloped parcel identified by the applicants is Tax Lot 1100, located northeast of the existing high school. This parcel is only 43.66 acres in size, is zoned Urban High Density Residential (RH), and is partially developed with the septic drain field for the adjacent Pines manufactured home subdivision. The applicants' Burden of Proof Statement and the attached exhibits (Applicants' Exhibits 3, 25) indicate that even if the future sewer system eliminates the septic drain field on the property, the site has been identified and zoned by the City for the expansion of the Pines to meet the City's housing needs under Goal 10. The applicants' Burden of Proof Statement and Exhibit 3 also illustrate that the parcel could not provide adequate transportation facilities to serve a large educational and recreational campus because the parcel does not have direct highway access. Because the District serves a large percentage of the surrounding rural subdivisions, all existing schools within the City have direct access to a highway. In summary, the Board finds that no suitable land is available within the Sisters city limits and UGB to accommodate the applicants' identified need. Based on the evidence in the record, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed UGB amendment satisfies Goal 14, factors 1 and 2. 3. Goal 14, Factor 3: Orderly and Economic provision for public facilities and services FINDINGS: The Board finds that the applicants have also demonstrated that the proposed UGB amendment satisfies Goal 14, Factor 3, for the following reasons. The proposed campus will require public facilities and services including sewer, water, police and fire protection, and transportation facilities. The record indicates that the subject property is immediately adjacent to the UGB, the city limits, and the existing Sisters High School. All of the services that serve the existing high school will be easily extended to serve the proposed development. The subject property is currently served by the Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Department, and the Deschutes County Sheriff. If the subject property is annexed into the City, it will be served by the Sisters Fire and Police Departments, neither of which commented on the application. If the subject property is annexed, it will also be served by the municipal water system and the municipal sewer system currently being constructed. The record indicates that the sewer system was designed to accommodate the future school campus. The District contributed $44,900 to the upsize approximately 6,650 linear feet of sewer line to the pump station to ensure that it will be adequate to serve the proposed development. With respect to transportation facilities, the subject property will have two points of access to Highway 242 and one point of access to McKinney Butte Road. It is anticipated that McKinney Butte Road will eventually be extended east, through Highway 126, ultimately connecting with Barclay Drive. As detailed below in the findings regarding adequacy of transportation facilities, incorporated herein by reference, the affected facilities will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service through the 20 -year planning period with the conditions of approval imposed by the Board. Page 9 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 —01/23/02/� JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\I.ocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit v Page of 31a Ordinincre A003 -el • Therefore, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with Goal 14, Factor 3. 4. Goal 14, Factor 4: Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area; FINDINGS: According to the Land Use Board of appeals, the term "maximum efficiency of land uses" under Goal 14, factor 4 requires "the encouragement of development within urban areas before the conversion of urbanizable areas." 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of North Plains City of North Plains, 27 Or LUBA 372, 390, affd 130 Or App 406 (1994). LUBA has also explained that, in the urban reserve context, this factor "invokes a concern for avoiding leapfrog or sprawling development inconsistent with the density and connectivity associated with urban development." 27 Or LUBA at 390. The applicants propose to add the subject property to the Sisters UGB to develop a consolidated school/recreational campus in conjunction with the existing Sisters High School, which is located immediately adjacent to the subject property. The existing high school would be remodeled to. a middle school and incorporated into the campus. The Board concludes that this proposal will result the maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the urban area because the record shows that (1) parcels within the existing urban area cannot accommodate the demonstrated need, and (2) the subject property is ideally situated to accommodate the needed facilities in the most efficient manner. The subject parcel is immediately adjacent to the city limits and the UGB. The subject parcel is also adjacent to the existing high school. Therefore, "leapfrog" development will not occur. In addition, the parcel's location will encourage an integrated school campus with shared educational and recreational facilities. It will also consolidate the majority of school facilities within the District in one location, thereby creating maximum efficiency with respect to the extension of public services, including transportation. For these reasons, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed UGB amendment satisfies Goal 14, Factor 4. 5. Goal 14, Factor 5: Environmental, energy, economic, and social consequences; FINDNIGS: This factor requires the applicants to analyze the positive and negative environmental, energy, economic, and social ("ESEE") consequence of including the subject property within the Sisters UGB to determine whether the potential positive consequence outweigh the potential negative ESEE consequences. The anticipated consequences are discussed separately below. (a) Environmental Consequences FINDINGS: The applicants identify the potential positive environmental consequences of including the subject property in the UGB include as follows. The inclusion of the property will enhance the study and conservation of the Peck's Penstemon, a listed species present within the conservation easement area to the north of the subject property, because development of the new high school and elementary school and the associated environmental studies building will enable Page 10 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 —01/23/02 JADocurnents and Settings\bonniebUxcal Settings\Tempomry Internet Files\OI.K457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit V -- Page A— of ..��. Ordinance —L�Q— 0 • the District to further incorporate the study of the listed plant species into its environmental studies program. The applicants identify the potential negative environmental consequence of including the subject property in the UGB as the development of a forest -zoned parcel. However, the subject property has a very low capability for timber production due to its soil composition. Soil Unit 85A (Lundgren sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes) has an agricultural capability of Class VIs and a maximum annual wood fiber growth of 46 cubic feet per acre per year. The site index is 60 (the average height of the dominant and codominant trees at age 100 will be only 60 feet), and the productivity is low enough such that the stand will produce only 24,500 board feet/acre if left to grow for 190 years. In contrast, the NRCS woodland productivity analysis for the upper Deschutes Basin (attached as Exhibit 14 to the application materials) illustrates that a high productivity soil such as Unit 143B (Suilotem-Circle Complex, 0-8 percent slopes) has a maximum annual wood fiber growth of 141 cubic feet per acre per year, a site index of 120, and a productivity of 62,900 board feet per acre if left to grow for only 110 years. The applicants' Exhibit 14 further illustrates that, of the 90 soil units included in the NRCS woodland productivity analysis, only three have 100 -year site indexes and annual growth ratings lower than the ratings for the subject property. The record also indicates that the property has not been logged for over 40 years, mostly due to its generally low productivity and its proximity to the Sisters urban area. In addition, the site is physically separated from other forest lands within the Deschutes National Forest by surrounding properties and Highway 242. These factors led the USFS to remove the parcel from its forest inventory and transfer it to Deschutes County for eventual urban use. The deed records in the application materials indicate that Deschutes County transferred the property to the School District for "use of the said property for school, recreation, and related public purposes." Based upon this evidence, the Board finds that the potential positive environmental consequences outweigh the potential negative consequences of including the subject property within the UGB. (b) Energy Consequences FINDINGS: The applicants identify the potential positive energy consequences of including the subject property within the UGB as the consolidation of the elementary, middle, and high school facilities and SOAR's recreational facilities in one contiguous area. This consolidation will result in the shared use of school and recreational facilities, increased carpooling, increased pedestrian transit and decreased vehicular transit, and the efficient extension of the public facilities and services. Specifically, shared classroom and recreational space will encourage pedestrian rather than vehicular travel between the educational and recreational facilities and will eliminate the need to transport middle school students through the City center to access high school facilities. In addition, the proximity of the proposed campus to the conservation easement area will allow students and faculty of both the middle and high schools to access the field study area by bike or pedestrian travel. The proximity of the proposed campus to the Tollgate and Crossroads subdivisions and the city center will also encourage students to walk to school and will reduce vehicle trips. Furthermore, significant energy savings will be realized due to the ease of extension of services to the property. Page 11 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -0 I -4/ZC-0 1 -4 —01/23/0/- 2 BDocuments and Settings%onnieb%ocal SettingsWempomry Internet ReMOLK45nister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit Page of , OrdinanceaW3 r0/(� 0 0 The applicants also identify the potential negative energy consequences as the increase in traffic and activity at the site due to the expansion of recreational and educational opportunities that will result from the proposed development. However, as demonstrated by the Transportation Impact Analysis and discussed in the transportation findings below (incorporated herein by reference), the increased traffic from the school and SOAR activities will not overburden the affected transportation facilities with the imposition of conditions to mitigate any impacts. Therefore, the Board finds that the positive energy consequences outweigh the potential negative energy consequences of including the subject property in the Sisters UGB. (c) Economic Consequences FINDINGS: The applicants identify the potential positive economic consequences of including the subject property within the UGB as increased revenue to the City and SOAR from additional recreational tournaments that would be made possible by additional field space. Written testimony by the SOAR sports director and managing director submitted with the application indicates that SOAR has successfully hosted a number of basketball and baseball tournaments in the past. The record shows that the level of weekend tourist activity created by such tournaments enhances the tourist economy of Sisters because the visiting participants patronize local commercial establishments. The record shows that SOAR estimates that it could hold an additional 26 weekend events if the new recreational facilities are constructed on the proposed campus. The applicants also state that another positive economic consequence is the increased educational opportunities resulting from the academic experience of attending schools with sufficient classroom space to ensure reasonable class size and student -teacher contact. The improved educational facilities will allow the School District to continue to provide top-quality schooling for the school district population, and the graduating students may use their enhanced education to pursue careers that will contribute to the economy of Deschutes County. Finally, the applicants state that another positive economic consequence is the savings recognized by the District and SOAR from being able to utilize a donated piece of property to accommodate the educational and recreational needs of the School District population. Utilizing the donated property conserves scarce public resources and eliminates the necessity for an additional bond measure to fund the purchase of real estate to meet the District's and SOAR's needs. The applicants assert, and the Board concurs, that there are no readily apparent negative economic consequence from including the subject property within the UGB because leaving the property outside of the UGB will simply result in the School District's retention of the vacant forest parcel as undevelopable land with limited logging potential. Therefore the Board finds that the positive economic consequences outweigh the potential negative economic consequences of including the subject property in the Sisters UGB. Page 12 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -01 -4/ZC-01 -4 —01/23/02 JADocuments and Setdngs\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\0I.K457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit Page of 0rr;�ns, ice o 0 9 (d) Social Consequences FINDINGS: The applicants indicate that the potential positive social consequences of including the subject property within the UGB are the enhanced educational and recreational opportunities within the Sisters School District. The applicants identify the potential negative social consequences as possible negative impacts on neighboring residential uses. However, the applicants explain and the record demonstrates that the subject property is not currently adjacent to any residential subdivisions, and the proposed development is generally a low -impact use that produces few conflicts with surrounding uses. The Tollgate Subdivision to the north is sufficiently buffered by the 160 -acre conservation easement. In addition, the subject parcel is of sufficient size to accommodate any necessary setbacks to buffer the development from adjoining uses. Furthermore, the applicants note that activities that are potentially incompatible with nearby residential uses, such as evening sporting activities requiring night lighting and/or amplified sound systems, will be subject to future conditional use review by the City of Sisters. The City's criteria will mandate any necessary mitigation measures required to render the uses compatible adjacent development. Based on this evidence, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated that the potential positive social consequences outweigh the potential negative social consequences of including the subject property in the UGB. In summary, the Board finds that the positive ESEE consequences resulting from the UGB amendment outweigh the negative. Therefore, the application is consistent with Goal 14, Factor 5. 6. 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; FINDINGS: The subject property is designated and zoned as forestland. The subject property is not zoned for exclusive farm use and is not classified as agricultural land. Therefore, the Board finds that this factor does not apply. The Board concurs, however, with the applicants' contention that even if this factor applied, the subject property would be the lowest priority for retention because it has a Class VI soil capability rating. 7. Goal 14, Factor 7: Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. FINDINGS: The record indicates that there are EFU parcels located northwest and south of the subject property. The Patterson Ranch, which sits on Tax Lot 400 (Assessor's Map 15-10-08), is south of the adjacent existing high school property, across Highway 242, and southwest of the subject property. The ranch is currently used as a llama and elk farm. The northern property line and a portion of the eastern property line of the Patterson Ranch are bordered by urban uses within the UGB (the ranch abuts the UGB on the north and east property lines). Included among those urban uses are the existing Sisters High School and several new and established residential subdivisions. The proposed development is similar to the urban uses that currently sit directly north of the ranch, across Highway 242. The Patterson Ranch currently thrives despite its close Page 13 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 —01//02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\0LK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit Page 13 of Ice a03-1 IOYL that the addition of new school and recreational facilities in the vicinity of the ranch will be compatible with the existing agricultural activity. The four small EFU-zoned parcels located northwest of the subject property are not immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed campus, but are instead adjacent to the conservation easement area. Two of the parcels are not in active farm use and are developed with rural residences. The other two parcels are utilized for irrigated pasture. The conservation easement will serve to buffer the irrigated pasture use from the campus, and sufficient setbacks maybe imposed during future development review to add additional buffering if necessary. Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed campus will not be incompatible with uses on these parcels. Consequently, the applicants have demonstrated compliance with Goal 14, Factor 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated that the UGB amendment and Goal 4 exception satisfies the seven Goal 14 factors. Through satisfaction of the Goal 14 factors, the applicants have also satisfied the first element of the reasons exception criteria (OAR 660-004-0010(1)(c)(B)(i)), discussed below. B. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660, Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process. 1. OAR 660-004-0010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain Goals. OAR 660-004-0010(1) governs the application of the Goal 2 exception process to the various statewide planning goals. OAR 660-004-0010(1) states: (1) The exception 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 planning goals that prescribe or restrict certain uses of resource land. Theses statewide goals include, but are not limited to: (b) Goal 4, "Forest Lands;" FINDINGS: Schools are not permitted outright or conditionally in the Forest Zones under OAR Chapter 660, Division 6, Forest lands, or under Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code. Therefore, the applicants' proposal requires a plan amendment and zone change. Because the subject property is designed and zoned for forest use, an exception to Goal 4 is required to remove the property from its resource land designation and zoning and convert it to an urban use. (c) Goal 14, "Urbanization," except as provided for in paragraphs (1)(c)(A) and (B) of this rule, and OAR 660-014-0000 through 660-014-0040: Page 14 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 —01/23/2 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit—LIZ— -�— ©rdinancec240316AG (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 that has been acknowledged by the Commission under ORS 197.251. Revised findings 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: FINDING: The record indicates that the Sisters UGB has been acknowledged by LCDC. Therefore, the applicants' proposal to change the UGB to include the subject property must comply with the goal exception criteria in Goal 2 and the seven factors in Goal 14, discussed in detail in the findings above. (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 of Goal 14.); FINDINGS: The state policy embodied in Goal 4 is to conserve forest lands for forest use. The seven factors in Goal 14 are discussed in the findings above. Compliance with these factors demonstrates compliance with OAR 660-004-0010(1)(c)(B)(i). In addition, the applicants argue that there are additional reasons justifying why the state policy embodied in Goal 4 should no longer apply to the property. OAR 660-004-0022(1) provides examples of the types of reasons that may be used to justify a reasons exception. Although OAR 660-004-0020 and the accompanying 660-004-0022 are not directly applicable to UGB amendment exceptions,2 the rules provide a useful explanation as to the types of reasons that are appropriate to justify a UGB amendment. The first example of an appropriate reason for an exception in OAR 660-004-0022(1) is a "demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity" and the "proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitate its location at or near the proposed exception site." The applicants argue, and the Board concurs, that the City's need for additional acreage to meet the educational and recreational needs of the growing School District population is a reason why Goal 4 should no longer apply to the subject property. The Board's findings regarding the demonstrated need for an additional 100 acres of land to accommodate the proposed school/SOAR campus are set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. 2 OAR 660-004-0020 sets forth the exception standards for a general reasons exception, and OAR 660-004-0010 sets forth the standards for a UGB amendment exception. The four basic standards in each section are identical, but LUBA has emphasized that OAR 660-004-0010, not 660-004-0020 or 660-004-0022, governs UGB amendment exceptions. 1,000 Friends of Oregon v. City of North Plains, 130 Or. App. 406, 413 (1994). Page 15 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 —01/23/02 !:\Documents and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit G Page —15_ of The applicants also argue, and the Board concurs, that the subject property is better suited for public facilities use than for commercial forest uses. Goal 4 and the Deschutes County Code § 18.04.480 define forest lands as lands which are "suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources." As discussed in the Goal 14 findings above, incorporated herein by reference, the subject property is generally unsuitable for timber harvesting activities due to the unproductivity of the soil type, the proximity of urban uses, and the proximity of the conservation easement area. Furthermore, the F-1 designation on the subject property is not necessary to permit forest operations or practices on nearby forest lands. The property is not adjacent to any forest -zoned parcels that are currently being actively managed for forest operations or practices, other than Tax Lot 1000, to the west and south of the parcel. This tax lot is part of a large F-1 zoned tract owned and managed by the USFS as part of the Deschutes National Forest. The subject property is separated from the majority of this tract by Highway 242. Although the subject property was also under USFS management until 1997, the USFS transferred the property to Deschutes County to "enhance wildlife, landline, and natural resources management on Federal lands and improve efficiency through ownership consolidation." (Applicants' Exhibit 9). The evidence in the record suggests that conversion of the property to an urban use will not impact the USFS's ability to manage the National Forest lands for forest operations or practices. The USFS's decision to remove the parcel from its forest land inventory and convey it to Deschutes County for use as a public facilities site illustrates that the property is not integral to the continued forestry operations on the surrounding forestlands. Similarly, the Board finds that the conservation easement area to the north is not being managed for traditional timber harvesting activities, but is instead being managed for the maintenance of soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. In delineating the boundaries of the conservation easement area, the Deschutes Basin Land Trust determined that the 161 acres subject to the easement constituted the maximum acreage necessary to protect the sensitive plan species on the property (the Peck's Penstemon). (Applicants' Exhibit 10). The interim management plan for the conservation easement area acknowledges that the Penstemon is not present on the southern 100 acres and it isnot necessary to maintain the southern acreage in an undeveloped state to protect the natural resources on the northern portion of Tax Lot 1003. (Applicants' Exhibit 11). The management plan specifically contemplates development of the subject property for a school site so long as the northern 161 acres remain protected by the conservation easement. In summary, the Board finds that, in addition to demonstrating compliance with the Goal 14 factors, the applicants have also established that there are independent reasons why Goal 4 should no longer apply to the property. (ii) Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use; OAR 660-004-0020, which sets forth the exception requirements applicable to goal exceptions outside of the UGB amendment context, explains the alternatives analysis required by this factor as follows: Page 16 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 41/23/02 !:\Documents and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settingffemporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZCI.doc Exhibit Page of K ' -1irance t 11 6/ o , (A) The exception shall indicate on a map or 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 that do not require 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: (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 reasonable by another party during the local exceptions proceeding. FINDINGS: This criterion, as explained by OAR 660-004-0020, requires the applicants to conduct an analysis of alternative lands to determine whether areas that do not require a new exception (i.e. nonresoruce lands) could reasonably accommodate the proposed use. The applicants' analysis is reviewed in the findings below. t Page 17 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 —01/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZCI.doc Exhibit (a) Inside the UGB As detailed in the findings above concerning the proposal's compliance with the seven factors of Goal 14, the Board finds that there are no undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels located within the UGB that can accommodate the proposed use considering their size, location, current use and/or federal ownership. The findings above regarding the alternative lands within the UGB are incorporated by reference herein. (b) Outside the UGB Attached as Exhibit 2 to the applicants' revised burden of proof statement is an "Alternative Lands Map." This map shows the area surrounding the subject property both inside and outside of the Sisters UGB. The map shows the only nonresouree lands located outside the Sisters UGB are a number of smaller parcels zoned RR -10 and developed with rural residential subdivisions. There are larger parcels to the northwest of the City and along the southern border of the City limits, but these parcels are all zoned for resource use (EFU or F-1). None of the subject resource parcels appear to be irrevocably committed to nonresource uses. Rather, they are either primarily large, undeveloped forest land tracts owned by the federal government, or they are EFU parcels that are actively used for grazing and irrigated pasture, such as the Patterson Ranch (Tax Lot 400, Assessor's Map 15-10-08) and the Lazy Z Ranch (Tax Lots 401, 600, and 700, Assessor's Map 15-10-10; Tax Lots 100 and 1101,, Assessor's Map 15-10-11; Tax Lot 100, Assessor's Map 15-10-14; Tax Lot 1800, Assessor's Map 15-10-00). Therefore, because these parcels would require a goal exception, they are not available to accommodate the proposed use under this goal exception criterion. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with this goal exception criterion (OAR 660-004-0010(1)(B)(ii)). (iii) 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 areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site; and FINDINGS: This standard is slightly different from the Goal 14 ESEE consequence standard addressed in the findings above. This standard requires the applicants to analyze not only the positive and negative ESEE consequences of siting the proposed use on the subject site, but also whether the consequences of including the subject property in the UGB will be more adverse than the consequences of including another resource -zoned parcel in the UGB. OAR 660-004- 0020(c) explains that the applicants are not required to provide a detailed evaluation of each Page 18 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 —01/23/02 J.\Documents and Settings\bonniebU ocal SettinpUemporary Internet Files\OIX457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit C_' — Page - Id of & ordinance &;?M3 -DL. • specific alternative site, but rather only to perform a more general analysis, which the applicants have done. The potential ESEE consequences of including the subject site in the Sisters UGB and utilizing it for a consolidated educational and recreational campus are detailed above and incorporated herein by reference. As described below, the Board finds that the consequences of using the subject site are not more adverse than the consequences of including another resource site in the UGB. As a preliminary matter, the Board concurs with the Hearings Officer and the applicants that the economic consequence of converting any other resource parcel to the proposed use would be more adverse than the economic consequences of converting the proposed parcel to a school campus because the County donated the proposed parcel to the Sisters School District. (c) Forest parcels The record indicates that there are a number of F-1 zoned parcels bordering the UGB, ranging in size from 98.60 acres (Tax Lot 1000, Assessor's Map 15-10-09) to over 600 acres (Tax Lot 1000, Assessor's Map 15-10-00). (Applicants' Exhibit 2). The record also indicates that these parcels are owned by the federal government and managed by the USFS. (Applicants' Exhibit 26). There are also four smaller F-2 zoned parcels that are in private ownership. The NRCS information in the record shows that these parcels are composed of the same soils as the subject parcel (Unit 85A). The similarity of the soils indicates that conversion of the properties to urban use would be likely to have no more or less adverse impacts on the availability of productive forestland in the area than conversion of the subject property. For these reasons, the Board finds that converting the subject parcel to urban use will have no more adverse ESEE consequence than converting the alternative forest zoned parcels to urban use. To the contrary, the Board finds that it is more probable that converting the alternative F-1 parcels to urban use would produce more adverse consequences because the other F-1 parcels adjacent to the UGB are contiguous to large tracts of forest land actively managed by the USFS for timber production. With respect to energy consequences, as detailed above, the potential negative energy consequences of including the subject property in the UGB include increased traffic and activity at the site. The Board finds that converting the nearby F-1 properties to urban use would have more adverse energy consequences because the surrounding F-1 parcels do not share the locational advantages of the subject parcel because they are not immediately adjacent to the existing high school. Because the alternative parcels in the UGB would not facilitate the creation of a consolidated central campus, there would likely be additional vehicle trips on Highway 242 to and from the existing and proposed facilities, and there would be fewer options for carpooling and pedestrian traffic between facilities. Finally, as discussed above and incorporated herein by reference, the potential negative social consequences could include negative impacts on neighboring residential uses. The Board finds that the Alternative Lands Map demonstrates that most other forest zoned parcels are located roughly the same distance from the residential uses, and therefore their conversion to urban use potentially would create the same social consequences as conversion of the subject property. In addition, the record indicates one of the other parcels (Tax Lot 1000 and 1002, Assessor's Map Page 19 of 36 – FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 –01/23/02 J:\Documents and Settings\bonnieb\I.ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OI.K457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc E ah ie i � g 9 le- 01N,rdinance� 15-10-09) houses the City's new sewage treatment facility. Utilizing this property for the school campus would have more adverse impacts than converting the subject property to urban use because it would place school facilities immediately adjacent to a sewage treatment plant. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated the long-term ESEE consequences of converting the subject parcel to urban use would not be more adverse than those that would typically result from the conversion of other forest zoned parcels to the proposed urban use. (d) Exclusive Farm Use Parcels The Alternative Lands Map shows that there are a number of EFU parcel adjacent to the Sisters UGB. Tax Lot 400 (Assessor's Map 15-10-08), the Patterson Ranch, is discussed in the findings above, incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the record indicates that the improvements on the ranch have an assessed value of $1,039,365. (Applicants' Exhibit 26). Adjacent to the Patterson Ranch on the east is a 163 -acre parcel identified as Tax Lot 709 (Assessor's Map 15- 10-08), the Pine Meadow Ranch. This parcel is actively employed for farm use (irrigated alfalfa), and Squaw Creek runs along the southeastern edge of the property. The property also has major structural improvements valued at approximately $445,535. (Applicants' Exhibit 26). On the southeast edge of the Sisters UGB is the Lazy Z Ranch (Tax Lots 401, 600, and 700, Assessor's Map 15-10-10; Tax Lots 100 and 1101, Assessor's Map 15-10-11; Tax Lot 100, Assessor's Map 15-10-14; Tax Lot 1800, Assessor's Map 15-10-00). The Lazy Z Ranch is the largest working ranch in the vicinity of Sisters and is actively engaged in livestock grazing on irrigated pasture. Squaw Creek also meanders through the property, and the record indicates that the site has some of the oldest irrigation rights in the County. The property contains numerous farm dwellings and accessory farm structures and is employed primarily for irrigated pasture, and has structural improvements valued at approximately $731,470. (Applicants' Exhibit 26). None of the referenced EFU parcels are contiguous with the existing high school property, and therefore none could be used to create a consolidated school campus. Thus, converting any of these parcel to urban use would have the negative economic consequence of requiring a real estate investment by the school district and the negative energy consequence of discouraging the carpooling and pedestrian traffic a consolidated campus would facilitate. In addition, converting at least 100 acres of actively farmed EFU land to urban use would have the negative environmental, social, and economic consequences of removing farmland from production. The Board finds that these consequences would be more adverse than removing the unproductive subject property from the inventory of forest zoned land. Finally, some of the EFU zoned parcels are not located close to major transportation facilities like the subject property, and consequently their conversion to urban use would have more adverse energy and social consequences due to the need to construct new facilities. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated that the long- term ESEE consequences of converting the subject property to urban use would not be significantly more adverse than those that typically would result from converting EFU parcels in the area to urban use. Therefore, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with this goal exception criterion (OAR 660-004-0010(1)(B)(iii)). Page 20 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 41/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit V Page &.-- Ordinance "0 ' (iv) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings addressing the Goal 14 factors, incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the applicants' proposed campus will be compatible with nearby EFU and forest land, with agricultural practices, and with the Trout Creek Conservation Area to the north. The Board finds that the proposal will also be compatible with the adjacent high school and with nearby residential uses which are typically located near schools. The Board also notes that the individual elements of the campus development will be subject to further land use review by the City to assure compatibility with surrounding uses, and night lighting and noise generation can be controlled through these future review to ensure compatibility. Therefore, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with this goal exception criterion ((OAR 660-004-0010(1)(B)(iv)). For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with all of the goal exception criteria, and therefore an exception to Goal 4 is justified for the proposed UGB expansion. 2. 660-004-0018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas. (1) Purpose. This rule explains the requirements for adoption of plan and zone designations for exceptions. Exceptions to one goal or a portion of one goal do not relieve a jurisdiction from remaining goal requirements and do not authorize uses, densities, public facilities and services, or activities other than those recognized or justified by the applicable exception... Adoption of plan and zoning provisions that would allow changes in existing types of uses, densities, or services requires the application of the standards outlined in this rule. (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 that are justified in the exception; Page 21 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 —01/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\I.ocal SettingsUemporary Intemet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit G' Page - of . Ordinance • 0 FINDINGS: The board finds that the applicants' proposal satisfies all of the requirements for a "reasons" exception to Goal 4. The Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with Goal 14 and an exception to Goal 4 to allow the property to be converted to urban land and utilized to meet the City's of Sisters' need for additional educational and recreational facilities. The zone change accompanying the exception and UGB amendment is conditioned upon the execution of an intergovernmental agreement by the City and the County in which the City agrees to rezone the subject property from UAR-10 to PF to limit uses on the property to public facilities uses. This condition ensures compliance with this criterion. 3. 660-004-0030, Notice and Adoption of an Exception The notice and adoption provisions of OAR 660-004-0030 require the following: (1) Goal 2 requires that each notice of a public hearing on s 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 Board finds that the criterion in paragraph (1) was met by the mailed and published notice of the public hearings before the Hearings Officer and the Board, which specifically stated that a goal exception was proposed. In addition, the record indicates that notice of the proposed plan amendment was mailed to DLCD on July 2, 2001. C. ORS 197.298, Priority of Land to be Included in Urban Growth Boundary FINDINGS: ORS 197.298 establishes a priority system for the inclusion of land within urban growth boundaries. ORS 197.298 requires the county to consider the inclusion of other lands in the following order of priority: (1) designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule, or metropolitan service district action plan; (2) exception lands and nonresource lands; (3) "marginal land" under ORS 197.247; and (4) lands zoned for agricultural or forest use. If agricultural or forest lands are to be included, lands "of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class" must be added before lands of higher capability. ORS 197.298(2). ORS 197.298(3) further provides that lower priority land may be included in the UGB if higher priority land is found to be inadequate based on one of the following reasons: (a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; Page 22 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 41/23/02 JADocuments and SettingAbonniebU oval SettingsWemporary Intemet FileMOI.K457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit - Page— of Ordinanceo2Z -D//� (b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands 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. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that there are no designated urban reserve areas adjacent to the Sisters UGB. Deschutes County is not a marginal lands county under ORS 215. Therefore, there are no "first" or "second" priority lands to be included in the UGB to meet the identified need. Furthermore, as discussed above, incorporated herein by reference, there are no exception or nonresource parcels adjacent to the UGB that are large enough to accommodate the proposed urban uses. The remaining lands are other resource lands adjacent to the UGB zoned F-1, F-2, and EFU. The subject property has low soil capability ratings for both agricultural and forest uses. In addition, the Board has determined that nearby parcels zoned EFU and Forest cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed campus because they are in federal ownership, are actively engaged in agricultural or forest uses, or are too small. The Board has also found that providing urban services, particularly transportation facilities, to these outlying resource lands would not be economical. Finally, the Board has found that because of the subject property's location adjacent to the UGB and the Sisters high school, inclusion of the property in the UGB will result in maximum efficiency of land uses on the western edge of the UGB because it will facilitate the construction of a consolidated campus that can be easily served by the extension of nearby urban infrastructure. Therefore, pursuant to ORS 197.298(1)(c) and (3), the Board finds that the subject forest land may be included in the UGB to meet the City and School District populations' need for the proposed educational and recreational facilities. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed UGB amendment and Goal exception satisfy all applicable criteria. V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. The Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, PL -16 FINDINGS: Because the Board finds that the subject property should be included in the Sisters UGB, the Board finds that the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan is applicable to the proposed plan amendment. The plan specifies the following: Page 23 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -0 1 -4/ZC-0 1 -4 —01/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\I.ocal SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit C, - - — - Page a_ of . Ordinance �, "Any changes [to the comprehensive plan] 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." (Part VI, p. 108). The Board finds the above -underscored language makes it clear that it is advisory in nature and therefore does not establish mandatory plan amendment approval criteria. Nevertheless, both the applicants and the Staff Report address a number of plan policies in detail, including plan policies that are addressed to specific types of land uses. The Board finds that it is unnecessary to address these plan policies. However, the Board adopts the applicants' statements of compliance with the plan policies that the applicants identified as relevant and incorporates those findings by reference herein. The Board also notes that the Draft Sisters Comprehensive Plan contemplates that the subject property be brought into the Sisters UGB and city limits and redesignated and rezoned for a school campus use. B. OAR 660, Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule 1. OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments 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 performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility; (b) Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; (c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes; or (d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity and performance standards, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle congestion to promote mixed use, Page 24 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -01 -4/ZC-01 -4 —01/23/02 JADocuments and Settings%onnieMLocal Settingffempormy Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc el . Exhibit Page v?'/ of Ordinance gM�_-_Q/� . • pedestrian friendly development where multimodal travel choices are provided.' FINDINGS: Because this application requests a comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment, the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR") requires the applicants to demonstrate that (1) the amendments will not significantly affect a transportation facility, or (2) if the amendments do significantly affect a transportation facility, that future land uses will be consistent with the function, capacity, and performance standards for the facility. OAR 660-012-0060(2) explains that 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; (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 performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. With respect to 660-012-0060(2)(a) and (b), the Board finds that the applicants' proposal will not change either the functional classification or the standards implementing the functional classification of affected transportation facilities. The subject property abuts Highway 242 and will have access from Highway 20, both designated state highways. It will also take access from McKinney Butte road, classified as a local street by the City's TSP, and it utilizes Hood Avenue, a local street that connects Highways 242 and 126 approximately 800 feet west of the main intersection of the two highways, for bus traffic. The classification of these streets and the standards applicable to them will not change due to the applicants' proposal. With respect to 660-012-0060(2)(c), the Board finds that Highways 20 and 242 are state highways. They are designed to handle large amounts of traffic. For the reasons discussed in the findings below, the Board finds that the traffic generated by the applicants' proposed consolidated school/recreational campus will not be inconsistent with the classification of the affected streets as highways. The record also indicates that segments of McKinney Butte Road are currently unimproved or are improved with only a gravel surface. As discussed in the findings below, improvements to this street and its intersection with Highway 20 and connection to Barclay Road across Highway 20 are planned for 2005 and are at least partially funded. In order to assure that traffic generated by the applicants' proposal will not be inconsistent with the function of McKinney Butte Road as a local street, the applicants will be required as a condition of approval to contribute to the cost of improvements to the McKinney Butte Road improvements should planned funding not be adequate to construct the street and intersection by 2013. With this condition of approval, the Board finds that the applicants' proposal will not Page 25 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -0 I -4/ZC-0 1 -4 —01/23/02 J.- Documents and Settings\bonnieb%oval Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.dce C Exhibit Page of. Ordinance s zo--10 0- allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of affected transportation facilities. With respect to 660-012-0060(2)(d), the Board finds that this standard focuses on the impact of the applicants' proposal on the actual function of affected transportation facilities. The record indicates that the City of Sisters adopted a TSP in June, 2001. This TSP is applicable to streets under the City's jurisdiction. However, ODOT has authority over Highways 20 and 242 and has adopted its own TSP—the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan—governing state highways and their intersections. Therefore, the Board finds that the Oregon Highway Plan ("OHP") is the applicable TSP for these two facilities. The OHP establishes minimum acceptable operating conditions for the state highways, measured in volume -to -capacity ratio ("v/c ratio"). The maximum allowable v/c ratio for peak operating conditions on a Statewide Freight Route where the non -freeway speed limit is less than 45 mph is 0.75. The maximum allowable v/c ratio for peak operating conditions on a District/Local Interest road where the non -freeway speed limit is less than 45 mph is 0.85. The maximum allowable v/c ratio for peak operating conditions on a Statewide Expressway where the nonfreeway speed limit is less than 45 mph is 0.70. The speed limits at all affected intersections are below 45 mph. In support of their proposal, the applicants submitted several traffic analyses, including a traffic impact study dated June, 2001, and a revised traffic study dated August 10, 2001, intended to replace the June study. Both of these studies were prepared by David Knitowski, a traffic engineer for David Evans and Associates. In addition, Mr. Knitowski also submitted three letters dated September 27 and 28 and October 1, 2001, expanding on his original traffic studies. Comments on the traffic impact were submitted by Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner Steve Jorgensen and by Peter Russell of ODOT. The revised traffic study, supplemental letters, and comments are addressed in the findings below. 1. August Traffic Study: The August Transportation Impact Analysis ("August TIA") assumed the applicants would develop a consolidated school/recreation campus on the subject property and the adjacent high school site that would include a new high school and elementary school, a remodeled middle school, a school administration building, and a recreational building housing activities and SOAR staff. The August TIA noted that the schools generate the largest amount of traffic during three periods: 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. ("a.m. peak hour"), 2:15 to 3:15 p.m. ("midday peak hour"), and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. ("p.m. peak hour"). Based upon actual traffic counts take in April of 2001, and using a 2.6 percent annual growth rate, the August TIA predicted the traffic generated by the entire campus, including the high school, for the years 2003 (buildout) and 2020 as follows: AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2003 2020 2003 2020 2003 2020 602 911 43 696 603 931 Page 26 of 36 – FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-0 1 -4 –01/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit G --� Page AK of Ordinance 0 • The August TIA noted that subtracting high school generated traffic—which would occur at the site with or without the proposed development of the campus—the net traffic attributable to the applicants' proposed plan amendment would be significantly lower: AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2003 2020 2003 2020 2003 2020 294 434 229 334 386 598 The August TIA assumed all of this traffic would use Highway 242 and none would use McKinney Butte Road. The August TIA predicted that 95 percent of this traffic would travel west on Highway 242 to Highway 20/126. The traffic study also assumed that the critical period for evaluation of traffic impacts from the applicants' proposal is the p.m. peak hour because that is the period during which non school traffic reaches its peak. With these assumptions, the August TIA analyzed the function of the following study intersections include: (1) Highway 242 and Highway 126, (2) Highway 126 and Hood Avenue, (3) Sisters High School and Elementary School Entrance and Highway 242, (4) SOAR Entrance and Highway 242, (5) Sisters Middle School Staff Entrance and Highway 242, (6) Sisters Middle School Bus Entrance and Highway 242, and (7) Sisters Middle School Student Entrance. The August TIA predicted the v/c ratio and levels of service for the critical turn movemetns at thse intersections in 2001, 2003, and 2020. Table 6 at page 20 of the August TIA sets forth the results and illustrates that all study intersections will continue to meet ODOT's minimum acceptable operating conditions on opening day and through 2020 with the conditions imposed by the Board. (Applicants' Exhibit 30). The August TIA also analyzed whether the additional of campus generated traffic would necessitate right or left turn lanes on Highway 242 and concluded that all three school entrances would warrant dedicated right turn lanes, and the middle school entrance and the bus and staff entrances would warrant dedicated left -turn lanes. The August TIA recommends construction of these turn lanes. Z August 28 ODOT Comments: Peter Russell expressed concern that the August TIA did not consider seasonal variations in traffic in Sisters, did not consider traffic impacts on McKinney Butte Road and its intersection with Highway 20, and proposed driveway access points on Highway 242 exceeding ODOT's standards for highway approaches. Mr. Russell noted that during May and June, when school is in session, tourist activity increases total traffic volumes. He suggested that the applicants' traffic engineer calculated traffic predictions with a seasonal adjustment of 20 percent. He also noted that the Sisters TSP indicates improvements to McKinney Butte Road, its intersection with Highway 20 (installation of a traffic signal) and the connection to Barclay Road on the east side of Highway 20 are planned for 2005. Mr. Russell suggested that when these improvements are completed, McKinney Butte would become a main route to the school campus. 3 The record indicates that the Sisters High School and Middle School Entrance and the SOAR Entrance are the two new proposed access points for the subject property. The three remaining school entrances are the existing high school entrance points that will be converted to middle school entrance points after the new high school is constructed. Page 27 of 36 – FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-014/ZC-01-4 –01/223/02 ]:\Documents and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit l.i Page -e2�ZZ of Ordinance - 2. County Transportation Planner Comments: Mr. Jorgensen also expressed concerns that the August TIA did not analyze McKinney Butte road. He also quested whether the applicants' proposal provides sufficient pedestrian connections between the school campus and nearby subdivisions. Finally, he suggested that the applicants should be required to provide a fire access and emergency road at the north end of the subject property to connect to the Tollgate Subdivision. 4. September 27 Knitowski Letter. In response to ODOT's and the County's comments, Mr. Knitowski recalculated his traffic projections using a 20 percent seasonal adjustment required by Mr. Russell. With this adjustment, Mr. Knitowski concluded that the Highway 242/20 intersection would function at an acceptable level of service and v/c ratio in 2003 but would function at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.06 in 2020. However, he predicted the intersection would function with an acceptable v/c ratio of .85 or less through the year 2013. In addition, he predicted that upon completion of the improvements to McKinney Butte, approximately 45 percent of the school traffic would use McKinney Butte Road. S. September 28 Knitowski Letter. In this letter, Mr. Knitowski explains that he analyzed the function of the McKinney/Highway 20 intersection with the addition of the 45 percent of the school traffic and found that the intersection would function at LOS A and a v/c ratio of .44 in 2020. 6. October 1 Knitowski Letter: In this letter, Mr. Knitowski explains that he analyzed the function of the Hood Avenue/Highway 242 intersection and found that the intersection would function at LOS D and a v/c ratio of .43 in 2020 with the addition of the school campus. 7. October 2 Ball Janik Memorandum: This memorandum from the applicants' attorneys addresses the issues discussed in Mr. Knitowski's letters and responds to ODOT's and the County Transportation Planner's comments. The letter explains that the applicants will work with ODOT to develop an acceptable access driveway arrangement. The letter also states that he applicants will explore the possibility of creating a northern emergency fire access if it can be designed consistent with the conservation easement. The notes that the applicants plan to construct pedestrian trails connecting the subject property with the conservation easement and with a sidewalk on Highway 242 between Highway 20 and the existing high school entrance, the construction of which was required as a condition of approval for a previous land use approval for property located west of the subject property (CU -94-19). 8. October 15 ODOT Comments: In this letter, Mr. Russell states that the applicants have sufficiently addressed his comments and he concurs with their conclusions in the updated traffic analyses. 9. October 23 Ball Janik Memorandum: This memo from the applicants' attorneys addresses the McKinney Butte Road/Highway 20 intersection and states in pertinent part: "With the planned street improvements (road widening on US 20 and a traffic signal at the McKinney/US 20 intersection), the Page 28 of 36 – FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 –01/2/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK45TSister School District UGB ZC.doc �xh i bit CC�� Page AE— Ordinancec�'� 0 0 McKinney/US 20 intersection will operate at an excellent level of service during the weekday PM peak hour and will meet ODOT's mobility standard through the twenty-year study period. The road and signal construction for the McKinney/US 20 intersection will be funded in part by previous land use exactions and in part by grants to the City of Sisters from the Oregon Transportation Commission. If the anticipated grant funding does not materialize in time to ensure completion of the intersection improvements by 2013, the applicants will contribute to the improvements. This contribution will be based upon the percentage of total anticipated McKinney/US 20 traffic that can be attributed to the school campus." The memo then suggests language for a condition of approval reflecting this commitment. Based on Mr. Knitowski's analyses, the Board finds that the traffic generated by the applicants' proposal campus will not "significantly affect" the transportation facilities under OAR 660-012- 0060(2)(d) with two conditions of approval. First, the applicants must construct turn lanes on Highway 242 in the locations recommended at page 28 of the August TIA. Second, if the McKinney/US 20 intersection improvements (road widening on US 20, traffic signal at McKinney/US 20 intersection, and construction of any unfinished portions of the McKinney Butte Road) are not fully funded by 2013, the applicants will contribute to the total cost of the improvements. The applicants' contribution will be based upon the percentage of the critical left -turn movements that the applicants' development contributes the McKinney/US 20 intersection in 2013. The applicants will produce a transportation analysis to document the percentage of critical left -turn movements attributable to the applicants' development in 2013 and provide for its contribution for the intersection improvements in 2013 if the intersection improvements are not then fully funded. Because these improvements are identified in the Sisters. TSP as having a high priority and a portion of the funding has already been exacted from other developments, the Board finds that the improvements will likely be constructed long before the intersection is predicted to fail in 2013. Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed condition will ensure funding and construction of the improvements in time to preclude any significant impacts on the transportation facilities. Based on the foregoing findings, the Board finds that the applicants' proposed plan amendment is consistent with the TPR with the imposition of the conditions of approval discussed above. C. OAR 660, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1, Citizen Involvement FINDING: Goal 1 calls requires each city and county to have a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Goal 1 has been met because the County provides notice of the public hearing before the Hearings Officer to owners of record of all property within 750 feet of the subject property and notice of the hearing before the Board to all parties. The Hearings Officer and the Board of Page 29 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 41/23/02 J:\Documents and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZCI.doc Exhibit C_i_ Page -z21- Of Ordinance - Commissioners held public hearings to allow the submission of oral and written testimony prior to issuing a final decision on the application. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning FINDING: Goal 2 has been met though the goal exception analysis included in the findings above. 3. Goal 3, Agricultural lands FINDING: Goal 3 is not applicable because it seeks to preserve and maintain agricultural lands for farm use, and the property is not designated as agricultural land. 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands FINDING: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Board has found an exception to Goal 4 is justified for the subject property to allow it to be converted to urban use. 5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources FINDING: The record indicates that there are no inventoried Goal 5 resources on the subject property. Therefore, Goal 5 is not applicable to this application. However, as discussed above, the Board has found that the proposal will enhance protection of a sensitive plant species, the Peck's Penstemon, located on the 161 -acre portion of Tax Lot 1003 that is protected by the conservation easement. 6. Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality FINDING: Goal 6 protects the environmental quality of the state's air, water, and land. Goal 6 requires local governments to ensure that waste and process discharges from future development will comply with state and federal environmental quality regulations. The "waste and process discharges" referenced in the goal include "solid waste, thermal, noise, atmospheric or water pollutants, contaminants, or products therefrom." Goal 6 will be met because urban development on the subject property will be served by the City's sewer system. Alternatively, the site is of sufficient size to support drain fields necessary for a septic system. In addition, any development on the property will be subject to further land use review that will assure that all applicable noise and air quality standards are met. 7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters FINDING: The subject property is not located in an area recognized in the County or City Comprehensive Plans as a natural disaster or hazard area. Consequently, the Board finds that this goal is not applicable. Page 30 of 36 - FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -0 I -4/ZC-0 1 -4 -01/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonniebEocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit Page .66-•- at JUL, Ordinance AO 8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs FINDING: Goal 8 is met because, as discussed in the findings above incorporated herein by reference, the applicants' proposal will allow the development of new recreational facilities for students and the Sisters community. 9. Goal 9, Economic Development FINDING: Goal 9 is met because the applicants' proposal will contribute to the economic growth of the Sisters area by providing needed recreational and educational facilities and enabling SOAR to bring athletes and their families from all over the state to the Sisters area for tournaments. 10. Goal 10, Housing FINDING: Goal 10 requires jurisdictions to meet local housing needs. This goal is not applicable because the application does not involve the creation or elimination of residential land. 11. Goal 11, Public Facilities FINDING: Goal 11 requires local governments to plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services. As discussed above and incorporated herein by reference, the proposal will result in the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services to the proposed school campus, including transportation services. 12. Goal 12, Transportation FINDING: Goal 12 encourages jurisdictions to provide a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with the TPR, which implements Goal 12. 13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation FINDING: Goal 13 requires land uses to be developed and managed so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy. The Board finds that the proposal is consistent with Goal 13 because the applicants propose to conserve energy by sharing educational and recreational facilities. In addition, the property is situated so as to allow easy extension of existing public services from the adjacent high school property. The positive energy consequences of the proposal are detailed in the findings above, incorporated herein by reference. 14. Goals 15,16,17,18, and 19 Page 31 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -0 I -4/ZC-0 1 -4 —01/23/Cl- Page. 02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc Exhibit _ Page Ordinance FINDING: The Board finds that these goals are not applicable to this application because they govern the Willamette Greenway, estuarine resources, coastal shoreland, beaches and dunes, and ocean resources. VI. ZONE CHANGE A. Title 21, Deschutes County Code 1. Deschutes County Code Section 21.72.010, 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. The procedures for text or legislative map change shall be as set forth in Chapter 22.12 of this code. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. FINDINGS: The Board finds that Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code is applicable because the Board has found that the subject property should be included in the Sisters UGB, and because Title 21 applies to land within the Sisters UGB but outside the city limits. The applicants propose to rezone the property from F-1 to UAR-10 (Urban Area Reserve). When the property is annexed into the City of Sisters, the record indicates that the property will be rezoned from UAR-10 to PF. The UAR-10 zone must serve as an "interim" zoning and plan designation because the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (Deschutes County Code Chapter 21) does not have a PF zone that corresponds to the City's PF zone. 2. Section 21.72.020, Standards for Zone Change (a) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the policies of the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan do not constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi judicial plan amendments or zone changes. However, the Board concurs with the applicants' findings regarding compliance with the policies identified as relevant to the application and incorporates that portion of the applicants' Statement of Support by reference herein. The Board also finds that the proposal is consistent with the draft comprehensive plan, which contemplates that the subject property will be included in the UGB, annexed into the City, and developed with new school and recreational facilities. (b) Conformance with all applicable statutes. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Board has found that the applicants' proposal complies with the provisions of ORS 197.298 governing Page 32 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 41/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settingffemporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZCl.doc Exhibit Page— of Ordinance - the conversion of resource land to urban land. The Board finds that no other statutes are directly applicable to the application. (c) Conformance with statewide planning goals whenever they are determined to be applicable. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Board has found that the applicants' proposal complies with all applicable statewide planning goals, as well as with the administrative rules implementing those goals, including the provisions of OAR 660 Divisions 4, 6, and 15. (d) That there is a public heed for the change of the kind in question. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found that the applicants have demonstrated a need for additional school and recreational facilities, and a need to site those facilities within a consolidated campus on land outside the Sisters UGB. In addition, the Board has found that the applicants have demonstrated the subject property is uniquely suited for the proposed consolidated school/recreational campus. Based on these findings, the Board finds the applicants have demonstrated a public need for a zone change from F-1 to UAR-10 in order to meet the School District population's educational and recreational needs and to facilitate the proposed development. (e) That the need will best be served by changing the classification of the particular piece of property in question as compared with other available property. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Board has found the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed consolidated school/recreational campus requires approximately 100 acres of land. The Board also found that there are no other parcels of that size within or outside the Sisters UGB that could accommodate the applicants' demonstrated need. Finally, the Board has found that the subject property is uniquely suited for the applicants' proposal because of its approximately 100 -acre size, its proximity to Sisters High School, and the availability of public services. Based on these findings, the Board finds that the applicants have demonstrated the public need for additional school and recreational facilities will be best served by rezoning the subject property from F-1 to UAR-10. The Board also concurs with the applicants that the zone change to UAR-10 is appropriate in order to "hold" the property in an urban reserve status until the property is annexed into the city and can be rezoned to PF. (f) That there is proof of a change in circumstances or a mistake in the original zoning. FINDINGS: The applicants' Burden of Proof Statement states, and the Board agrees, that there was no mistake in the original F-1 zoning of the property. The property is located near other tracts of forest -zoned land managed by the USFS for timber production. As detailed in the findings above, incorporated herein by reference, there has been a significant change in circumstances since the original zoning, and reasons justify why Goal 4 should no longer apply to the subject property. Specifically, the changed circumstances include: (1) significant increases Page 33 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-0I-4/ZC-01-4 —01/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local SettinpUemporary Internet Files\01K457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc E -xi ibi � e Page e Ordinance — in population within the area served by the School District and SOAR, (2) data indicating that the population will continue to increase at high rates through 2020, (3) the buildout of vacant land within the UGB and city limits due in part to the addition of a sewer system to the City of Sisters, (4) the removal of the subject parcel from the national forest system by the USFS, (5) the transfer of the subject parcel from Deschutes County to the School District for use as a school site, (6) the discovery of the Peck's Penstemon and the placement of a conservation easement over the entire northern 161 acres of Tax Lot 1003, and (7) the growing inadequacy of the school and recreational facilities to meet the community's needs. The Board finds that these factors constitute changes of circumstances that justify the proposed zone change from F-1 to UAR-10 to facilitate development of the subject property with a consolidated recreational/educational campus to meet the populations' needs through the 20 -year planning period. (g) That annexation to the City of Sisters will accompany the zone change. FINDINGS: The record indicates that the applicants submitted an annexation request to the City of Sisters, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 31 to the applicants' revised burden of proof. In addition, comments in the record from the City's planning director, Neil Thompson, state that on August 23, 2001, the Sisters City Council passed Resolution 2001-18 placing the question of annexation of the subject property in the March, 2002, election. A copy of the resolution is included in the record. Because a favorable vote is required for any annexation to the City of Sisters, and because the vote will not occur until March 2002, the Board finds that it is necessary and appropriate to adopt a resolution of intent to rezone pursuant to Section 21.72.040, discussed in the findings below. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that, with compliance with the conditions set forth in the resolution of intent to rezone, the applicants' proposed zone change satisfies this criterion. 3. Section 21.72.040, Resolution of Intent to Rezone If, from the facts presented and findings and the report and recommendations of the Hearings Officer as required by DCC 21.72.040, 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 which the County Commission may feel necessary to prevent speculative holding of the property after rezoning. Such a resolution shall not be used to justify spot zoning to create unauthorized zoning categories by excluding uses otherwise permitted in the proposed zoning. Page 34 of 36 – FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -01 -4/ZC-0 1 -4 –01/23//02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieMocal SettingsWemporary Internet Files\01.1(457\Sister School District UGB ZCI.doc �--xhibit C. Gage —�L– of Ordinance 43 -� B. Resolution on Intent Binding. The fulfillment of all conditions, stipulations and limitations contained in the resolution of intent on the part of the applicant shall make the resolution binding on the County Commission. Upon compliance with the resolution by the applicant, the County Commission shall, by ordinance, effect such rezoning. C. Resolution of Intent Void Upon Failure to Comply. The failure of the applicant to meet any or all conditions, stipulations or limitations contained in a resolution of intent, including the time limit placed in the resolution, shall render said resolution null and void, unless an extension is granted by the County Commission upon recommendation of the Hearings Officer. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the zone change criteria in Title 21 require annexation to accompany the rezone. Thus, in order for the Board to rezone the subject property, the property must be annexed to the City of Sisters. Such annexation cannot take place until voters approve it through an election; presently scheduled for March 2002, and the City Council certifies the annexation election. Therefore, the Board finds that it is necessary to adopt a resolution of intent to rezone contingent on: (1) the City's annexation of the subject property following a favorable vote, and (2) the City's execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the County by which the City agrees to rezone the subject property from UAR-10 to PF for the purpose of allowing the applicants to develop the property with the proposed consolidated campus. Upon compliance with the terms of the resolution by the applicants, the Board will, by ordinance, effect the proposed rezoning from F-1 to UAR-10. VII. DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Based'on the findings set forth herein, the Board APPROVES the UGB amendment, Goal 4 exception, plan amendment from Forest to Urban Area Reserve, and zone change from F-1 to UAR-10, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The zone change from F-1 to UAR-10 shall be contingent upon the adoption of a resolution of intent to rezone by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, which will require fulfillment of the following conditions before the Board effectuates the zone change: a. Issuance of a final decision on annexation of the subject property by the City of Sisters following a favorable vote; and b. Execution of an intergovernmental agreement by the City and the County in which the City agrees to rezone the subject property from UAR-10 to PF for the purpose of allowing the applicants to develop the property with the proposed consolidated school/recreational campus. Page 35 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA -0 I -4/ZC-0 1 -4 —01/23/02 !:\Documents and Settings\bonnieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK457\Sister School District UGB ZCl.doc Exhibit Page Of �. non 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for any structure on the subject property, the applicants shall construct the turn lanes as recommended at page 28 of the August 10, 2001 revised traffic study prepared by David Knitowski of David Evans and Associates. 3. If the McKinney/US 20 intersection improvements (road widening on US 20, traffic signal at McKinney/US 20 intersection, and construction of any unfinished portions of the McKinney Butte Road) are not fully funded by 2013, the applicants will contribute to the total cost of the improvements. The applicants' contribution will be based upon the. percentage of the critical left -turn movements that the applicants' development contributes the McKinney/US 20 intersection in 2013. The applicants will produce a transportation analysis to document the percentage of critical left - turn movements attributable to the applicants' development in 2013 and provide for its contribution for the intersection improvements in 2013 if the intersection improvements are not then fully funded. 4. This approval expires in two (2) years from the date of signing unless this decision or the City of Sister's decision on annexation is appealed, then two (2) years from the completion of all appeals in the applicant's favor. Dated this of 2002 0 J BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TOM DEWO , CHAIR NNIS R. LUKE, COMMISSIONER ATTEST: K&Wkk�l MTCAAEL M.L , COMMISSIONER Recording Secretary Page 36 of 36 — FINDINGS AND DECISION, CDD FILE NO. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4 41/23/02 JADocuments and Settings\bonnieb\Local SettingsWemporary Intemet Files\OI.K457\Sister School District UGB ZC.doc ExhiG 'Paged of 0rdirance A250- �