2014-128-Ordinance No. 2014-005 Recorded 3/11/2014 REVIEWED NANCYUBLANKCOUNTY
ENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKS 4J 2014'128
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 03/11/2014 09:16:34 AM
LEGAL COUNSEL 1112
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code Title 23,the Deschutes County Comprehensive * ORDINANCE NO. 2014-005
Plan,to amend the Urban Growth Boundary for the
City of Bend and Declaring an Emergency.
WHEREAS, the Bend-La Pine School District applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend
the Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Bend; and
WHEREAS, after a duly notice hearing, on December 19, 2013. the Deschutes County Hearings Officer
approved the comprehensive plan map amendment; and
WHEREAS, because no appeal was filed, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") did not
initiate review of the application and the decision does not require an exception to the goals or concern lands
designated for forest or agricultural use, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(B), the Board must approve the
comprehensive plan designation change to include the subject property inside the Urban Growth Boundary for
the City of Bend; now,therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to change
the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit
"B",with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 23.01.010, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is amended to
read as described in Exhibit "C", attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined
and deleted language setforth in str-iliethFeugh.
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, the Decision of
the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit"D"and incorporated by reference herein.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2-ORDINANCE NO.2014-005
Section 4. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the public peace, health and safety,
an emergency is declared to exist and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
Dated this v _of 7, M" 2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
(AL 7�
TAMM ANEY, Chair 0
ANTHON'DeBONE,Vice Chair
ATTEST:
(6711VJAAL
Recording Secretary / ALAN UNGER, Commissioner
Date of 1st Reading: 7,4 day of , 2014.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of 2-0))„ 2014.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Alan Unger ____
Tammy Baney
Anthony DeBone L44..f-i4t-t—
Effective date: day of 2014.
PAGE 2 OF 2-ORDINANCE NO.2014-005
1
EXHIBIT A
A TRACT OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 1, PARTITION PLAT NO. 2007-83,
RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 2007 IN CABINET 3, PAGE 545, DESCHUTES COUNTY
PARTITION RECORDS,
LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 17
SOUTH,
RANGE 11 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing from a found 2 inch iron pipe marking the northeast corner of said SE1/4; thence
along the east line of said SE1/4, South 0°13'54" West, 89.09 feet to a point of intersection of
the northwesterly right-of-way of Northwest Crossing Drive and the westerly right-of-way of
Skyline Ranch Road, being the True Point of Beginning; thence leaving said northwesterly
right-of-way of Northwest Crossing Drive, continuing along said east line of the SE1/4 and
westerly right-of-way of Skyline Ranch Road, South 0°13'54"West, 2033.55 feet to a point of
intersection with the northerly right-of-way of Skyliners Road; thence leaving said east line of the
SE1/4 and the westerly right-of-way of Skyline Ranch Road, along said northerly right-of-way of
Skyliners Road, South 86°58'33"West, 650.89 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 2 of said
Partition Plat No. 2007-83; thence leaving said northerly right-of-way of Skyliners Road, along
the easterly and northerly boundary of said Parcel 2 of said Partition Plat No. 2007-83 the
following five (5) courses and three (3) curves:
North 0°0025" East, 115.50 feet to a point of non-curvature;
thence along the arc of a 59.53 foot radius curve to the right, an arc distance of 83.50 feet,
through a central angle of 80°21'52" (the chord of which bears North 04°35'19"West, 76.82
feet) to a point of reverse curvature;
thence along the arc of a 11.00 foot radius curve to the left, an arc distance of 6.83 feet, through
a central angle of 35°34'16" (the chord of which bears North 17°47'52" East, 6.72 feet) to a point
of tangency;
thence North 0°00'25" East, 195.13 feet;
thence South 89°59'35" East, 60.00 feet;
thence North 0°00'25" East, 337.80 feet;
thence North 89°59'35" West, 156.68 feet to a point of tangent curvature;
thence along the arc of a 860.00 foot radius curve to the right, an arc distance of 607.39 feet,
through a central angle of 40°27'57" (the chord of which bears North 69°45'38" West, 594.84
feet) to a point of non-tangency;
Page 1 of 2
thence leaving said boundaries of Parcel 2, North 49°21'40" West, 5.00 feet to a point of non-
tangent curvature; thence along the arc of a 1650.00 foot radius curve to the right, an arc
distance of 322.18
feet, through a central angle of 11°11'15" (the chord of which bears North 44°04'02" East,
321.67 feet) to a point of tangency curvature; thence North 49°39'40" East, 1207.09 feet to a
point of tangent curvature; thence along the arc of a 836.00 foot radius curve to the right, an arc
distance of 211.85 feet, through a central angle of 14°31'09" (the chord of which bears North
56°55'14" East, 211.28 feet) to the True Point of Beginning.
This description contains 33.82 acres, more or less.
Herein bearings are based upon the Central Oregon Coordinate System.
Page 2 of
\ ' 1AIT�I���? �---�
—Y(I
1
N�I �N � J HH
F�INW.LL^IIPIS( R [,
an
w a
NW SACAGAWEA LN
_a N 'CC
.1 r`
'z
'D z z
Q—NW MICH LAKE S L-C.)(.ifPL
;111■11■ T I I ILI 11)_ L
M11®i_n_ii 1111 [
41VWORDINAV AVE T .
I �' _
[111 .
11111
Urban Growth Boundary c-?E'JII Expansign Area � � "'� r1 �X1111 [�I� CC i C
''''''Rwl'FR p z w��L 1 Y r
� .=0-10 •
X1111 ��
i� m
0
❑ � o
NW ELWOOD LN N , , ��\`��� 7
lis „,, , ,
p 5
¢ U'f ,NW,LOLO DR,,,,_,�. 11-
- POP-'/,...,..iF. . .
cl.m: z L—� �JSC �L
j3 ❑ 'V,� -11, 41 J PLOP
f X SKVLINERS RD''. R;o.,11/11,\. ,,,,,e-.„ ,
r� ®®�� ®�®�`�� per
., 6' IRONWOODCIR
P ¢.
Pi wellIgli lip ,
ppp1 NA GREEN.LAKES I.DOP '`
litQ'
OA f-
ik '-O Nv., T 1 OOq sp,'DR�
'4®11111 1 &�
,. , , fANCr ,�. ,••
r 0000009, _
„ram Milliklibl#1&4111111111
Loill 111 ill' Illik . ,..,:,.- r v.- la
AS,.. riiroilliZattlit4P1611 000‘
444,44 AiliOTIP:40
* AbY4...tr■A gili%. 117111111■111311P
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP OFDESCHU°SCOUNTY,ORECOMMISSIONERS
Legend
File No. PA-13-04 C /,,1 .. _� ”----
Proposed UGB Expansion Area Tam b'aney,CFleir /)
01 'f
City of Bend Urban Growth Bounda ry Exhibit"B” " ab-k�
to Ordinance No. 2014-005 Anthony DeBon ,Vice Chair
./.tighr C�� Alan Unger,Commis er
"" ATTEST:�� ing Secretary
dol•or tlu a, Xe.�'r°d:M .a. �"o�;"n 0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet Dated this 7/1-re day of February,2014
Effective Date: February,'.p,2014
January 27.214
EXHIBIT C
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
23.01.010.Introduction.
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan,adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003
and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is
incorporated by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
(Ord. 2014-005 §2; Ord. 2013-012 §2,2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013;Ord. 2013-007 §1, 2013; Ord.
2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 §1, 2012; Ord.
2012-005 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 §1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 §3,
2011)
Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan)
Page 1 of 1 —EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBER: PA-13-4
APPLICANT: Bend-La Pine Schools
do Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis, PC
591 S.W. Mill View Way
Bend, Oregon 97701
PROPERTY OWNER: Miller Tree Farm, LLC
110 N.E. Greenwood Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97701
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Sharon R Smith
Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis, PC
591 S.W. Mill View Way
Bend, Oregon 97701
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment to expand
the Bend UGB to include a 33-acre parcel on the northwest side of
Bend for a future middle school.
STAFF REVIEWER: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner
HEARING DATE: December 19, 2013
RECORD CLOSED: December 20, 2013
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & CRITERIA:
A. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
1. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
* Section 22.28.030, Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
B. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County 2011
Comprehensive Plan
1. Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management
* Section 4.2, Urbanization Policies
C. Bend Area General Plan
D. Oregon Revised Statutes
1. Chapter 195, Local Government Planning Coordination
* ORS 195.110, School Facilities Plan for Large School Districts
2. Chapter 197, Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination
* ORS 197.296, Factors to Establish Sufficiency of Buildable Lands Within
Urban Growth Boundary
* ORS 197.298, Priority of Lands
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 1 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
E. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Department of Land
Conservation and Development
1. Division 15, Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
* OAR 660-015-0000, Goals and Guidelines 1 Through 19
2. Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries
* OAR 660-024-0000, Purpose and Applicability
* OAR 660-024-0020, Adoption or Amendment of a UGB
* OAR 660-024-0030, Population Forecasts
* OAR 660-024-0040, Land Need
* OAR 660-024-0050, Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency
* OAR 660-024-0060, Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Location: The subject property has an assigned address of 19100 Skyliners Road and
is located on the north side of Skyliners Road west of Northwest Crossing Drive on the
western edge of the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The property is further
identified as Tax Lot 400 on Deschutes County Assessor's map 17-11-35D.
B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned and designated Urban
Area Reserve (UAR10) on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and zoning map.
C. Site Description: The subject property consists of approximately 33 acres in the
southeast quadrant of a larger parcel owned by Miller Tree Farm LLC. The county
approved a property line adjustment (LL-13-50) to remove the subject property from the
larger parcel and to add it to the adjacent parcel owned and operated by Bend-La Pine
Schools ("district" or "applicant") and on which Miller Elementary School is located. The
subject property is vacant, slopes moderately down to the northwest, and has a
vegetative cover of ponderosa pine and juniper trees and native ground cover. The
subject property is bounded on the east by Northwest Crossing Drive, a designated
collector street along the current UGB boundary. Skyliners Road, also a designated
collector street, abuts the property to the south. The applicant proposes to extend the
east/west alignment of Northwest Crossing Drive along the northwest boundary of the
subject property with right-of-way to be included in the UGB expansion area.
D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The parcel to the west and north is designated
and zoned UAR, located outside the UGB, and currently engaged in forest use. Parcels
to the east and south are owned by the district and are developed with Miller Elementary
School and Summit High School. These parcels are located inside the Bend UGB and
are zoned Public Facilities (PF). Parcels farther to the east are located in Northwest
Crossing and are developed with mixture of residential and commercial uses. Parcels to
the south across Skyliners Road are located in The Highlands at Broken Top and
Tetherow Destination Resort and are developed primarily with residential uses. The
property to the southwest was recently included in the UGB and is currently being
developed with a new Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Church.
E. Procedural History: In 2005 this Hearings Officer approved a plan amendment from
Industrial Reserve to UAR and a zone change from Surface Mining (SM)to UAR-10 for a
133-acre parcel that was part of the Miller Tree Farm and included the subject property
(PA-04-9, ZC-04-7). That approval was based on a finding that the mineral and
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 2 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
aggregate resources on the property had been depleted. In 2007 this Hearings Officer
approved a plan amendment to expand the Bend UGB to include a 15-acre portion of
the Miller Tree Farm parcel rezoned in 2005 for a future elementary school, now known
as Miller Elementary (PA-07-7). That approval was based in large part on the district's
2005 School Facility Plan which showed the need for a new elementary school to serve
the population in northwest Bend. The plan amendment was approved by the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners (board) by Ordinance No. 2007-024, and the property
was subsequently annexed to the city.
In 2010 the district completed a new School Facility Plan. The Overview and
Recommendations section of the plan is included in the record as Exhibit 1 to the
district's burden of proof. The purpose of the 2010 plan was to identify and plan for
future facility needs. In 2012 the district completed an update to the 2010 plan to reflect
changing needs based on more current data. The 2012 update, included in the record as
Exhibit 2 to the district's burden of proof, identifies the need for a new middle school in
the northwest part of Bend by the 2017-2018 school year.
In May of 2013 district voters approved a bond measure for the construction of a new
middle school and a new elementary school as well as for other construction projects
throughout the district's facilities. The district conducted a search for sites within the
UGB that would be adequate for the new elementary and middle schools. The district
found a suitable site within the UGB for the elementary school but did not locate any
suitable sites within the UGB for the middle school. Thereafter the district searched for a
suitable middle school site outside the UGB. Through that search the district identified
the subject property.
The city is in the process of expanding its UGB through a legislative process and
included the subject property in its proposed UGB expansion area. The proposed
expansion was approved by the Bend City Council (council) in 2008 but that approval
was remanded by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for
further work. The record indicates the city does not expect to complete the remand
process until 2016. As a result the district elected to pursue a quasi-judicial site-specific
plan amendment to include the subject property.
The applicant held a public meeting on its proposed UGB amendment on November 4,
2013. The record indicates notice of this meeting was mailed to the owners of fourteen
properties. On November 5, 2013 the applicant submitted this application and a
companion application to the city. The county accepted this application as complete on
December 5, 2013. A joint city-county public hearing on the application was held on
December 19, 2013. At the hearing, the Hearings Officer received testimony and
evidence and left the written record open through December 26, 2013 to allow the
applicant to submit additional evidence. The applicant waived the submission of final
argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. The applicant submitted an additional document on
December 20, 2013 and the record closed on that date. Because the application
requests a plan amendment it is not subject to the 150-day period for issuance of a final
local land use decision under ORS 215.478.
F. Proposal: The applicant requests approval of an amendment to the county's and city's
comprehensive plans to expand the Bend UGB to include the subject property for a new
middle school to serve the population in northwest Bend. The applicant also requests
approval of an amendment to the city's Transportation System Plan (TSP) to realign the
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 3 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
segment of Skyline Ranch Road that would run through the subject property and to
extend Northwest Crossing Drive along the north and west boundaries of the subject
property to connect with the new Skyline Ranch Road alignment. However, Because
these alignments are not part of the county's TSP they are not addressed in this
decision.
G. Public/Private Agency Notice: The Planning Division sent notice of the applicant's
proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the
Deschutes County Environmental Health Division and Senior Transportation Planner;
and the Bend Fire Department. Those responses are set forth verbatim at pages 3-4 of
the staff report and are included in the record. The following agencies did not respond or
submitted a "no comment" response: the Deschutes County Building Safety Division,
Property Address Coordinator and Road Department; the Bend Engineering and
Planning Divisions and Department of Public Works; Bend Metro Park and Recreation
District; and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).
H. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of
the applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property
located within 250 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearing
was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted
with a notice of land use action sign. As of the date the record in this matter closed, the
county had received no comments from the public. No members of the public testified at
the public hearing.
I. Lot of Record: The subject property is a legal lot of record having been created as
Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 2007-83.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
COUNTY CODE
A. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
1. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
a. Section 22.28.030, Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone
Changes
B. In considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those
quasi-judicial plan amendments on which the Hearings
Officer has authority to make a decision, the Board of County
Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review
initiated by the Board, adopt the Hearings Officer's decision.
No argument or further testimony will be taken by the Board.
FINDINGS: Land use actions adjacent to the Bend UGB and within the UAR Zone are governed
by a 1998 joint management agreement adopted by the city and county. The agreement
provides that the city and county will cooperate in planning for the UAR Zone and in processing
UGB expansions. Under the agreement, quasi-judicial applications are reviewed by a hearings
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 4 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
officer at both the city and county and the review can be conducted jointly. Pursuant to Section
22.28.030, if a proposed UGB expansion is approved by the hearings officer and the decision is
not appealed, the board adopts the decision and implementing ordinances to enact the UGB
expansion. The city's code requires that approval of a quasi-judicial UGB amendment be
effected by an ordinance approved by the council at a public meeting. In addition, a UGB
amendment must be acknowledged by LCDC.
In order to approve the requested UGB amendment the Hearings Officer must find that the
proposal complies with the applicable approval criteria in state statutes and administrative rules
including the statewide land use planning goals and guidelines, the county's and city's
comprehensive plans, and the county's land use procedures ordinance. Compliance with the
applicable approval criteria is discussed in the findings below.
STATUTES
B. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
1. Chapter 197, Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination
a. ORS 197.298, Priority of Land to Be Included Within Urban Growth
Boundary
(1) In addition to any requirements established by rule
addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an
urban growth boundary except under the following priorities:
(a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve
land under ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan service
district action plan.
(b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is
inadequate to accommodate the amount of land
needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban
growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged
comprehensive plan as an exception area or
nonresource land. Second priority may include
resource land that is completely surrounded by
exception areas unless such resource land is high-
value farmland as described in ORS 215.710.
FINDINGS: As noted in findings below concerning compliance with the administrative rules,
Goal 14 requires the proposed UGB expansion to be consistent with ORS 197.298. The subject
property is designated UAR on the county's comprehensive plan map. However, this
designation was not established via ORS 195.145 and therefore is not "first priority" land. The
record indicates the city also does not have any "first priority" land available for the proposed
need-specific UGB expansion. Therefore, the subject property is considered "second priority"
land which is the highest priority land available. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds
the applicant's proposal satisfies the requirements of this statute.
b. ORS 197.296, Factors to Establish Sufficiency of Buildable Lands
Within Urban Growth Boundary
PA-13-4- Bend-La Pine Schools Page 5 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
(1) (a) The provisions of this section apply to metropolitan
service district regional framework plans and local
government comprehensive plans for lands within the urban
growth boundary of a city that is located outside of a
metropolitan service district and has a population of 25,000
or more.
(b) The Land Conservation and Development Commission
may establish a set of factors under which additional
cities are subject to the provisions of this section. In
establishing the set of factors required under this
paragraph, the commission shall consider the size of
the city, the rate of population growth of the city or the
proximity of the city to another city with a population
of 25,000 or more or to a metropolitan service district.
(2) At periodic review pursuant to ORS 197.628 to 197.651 or at
any other legislative review of the comprehensive plan or
regional plan that concerns the urban growth boundary and
requires the application of a statewide planning goal relating
to buildable lands for residential use, a local government
shall demonstrate that its comprehensive plan or regional
plan provides sufficient buildable lands within the urban
growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning
goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years.
The 20-year period shall commence on the date initially
scheduled for completion of the periodic or legislative review.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds analysis of the applicant's proposal does not require
application of Goal 10 relating to buildable lands for residential use because no residential
development is contemplated or proposed by this application and the analysis is not for the
purpose of periodic review. The provisions of OAR 660-024-0040(3), discussed in the findings
below, expressly allow a UGB amendment in consideration of one category of land need (public
facilities) without simultaneous review and amendment in consideration of other categories of
land need (e.g., housing/residential use).
2. Chapter 195, Local Government Planning Coordination
a. ORS 195.110, School Facilities Plan for Large School Districts
(1) As used in this section, "large school district" means a
school district that has an enrollment of over 2,500 students
based on certified enrollment numbers submitted to the
Department of Education during the first quarter of each new
school year.
(2) A city or county containing a large school district shall:
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 6 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
(a) Include as an element of its comprehensive plan a
school facility plan prepared by the district in
consultation with the affected city or county.
(b) Initiate planning activities with a school district to
accomplish planning as required under ORS 195.020.
(3) The provisions of subsection (2)(a) of this section do not
apply to a city or a county that contains less than 10 percent
of the total population of the large school district.
(4) The large school district shall select a representative to meet
and confer with a representative of the city or county, as
described in subsection (2)(b) of this section, to accomplish
the planning required by ORS 195.020 and shall notify the city
or county of the selected representative. The city or county
shall provide the facilities and set the time for the planning
activities. The representatives shall meet at least twice each
year, unless all representatives agree in writing to another
schedule, and make a written summary of issues discussed
and proposed actions.
(5) (a) The school facility plan must cover a period of at least 10
years and must include, but need not be limited to, the
following elements:
(A) Population projections by school age group.
(B) Identification by the city or county and by the
large school district of desirable school sites.
(C) Descriptions of physical improvements needed
in existing schools to meet the minimum
standards of the large school district.
(D) Financial plans to meet school facility needs,
including an analysis of available tools to
ensure facility needs are met.
(E) An analysis of:
(i) The alternatives to new school
construction and major renovation; and
(ii) Measures to increase the efficient use of
school sites including, but not limited to,
multiple-story buildings and
multipurpose use of sites.
(F) Ten-year capital improvement plans.
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 7 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
(G) Site acquisition schedules and programs.
(b) Based on the elements described in paragraph (a) of
this subsection and applicable laws and rules, the
school facility plan must also include an analysis of
the land required for the 10-year period covered by the
plan that is suitable, as a permitted or conditional use,
for school facilities inside the urban growth boundary.
(6) If a large school district determines that there is an
inadequate supply of suitable land for school facilities for the
10-year period covered by the school facility plan, the city or
county, or both, and the large school district shall cooperate
in identifying land for school facilities and take necessary
actions, including, but not limited to, adopting appropriate
zoning, aggregating existing lots or parcels in separate
ownership, adding one or more sites designated for school
facilities to an urban growth boundary, or petitioning a
metropolitan service district to add one or more sites
designated for school facilities to an urban growth boundary
pursuant to applicable law.
(7) The school facility plan shall provide for the integration of
existing city or county land dedication requirements with the
needs of the large school district.
(8) The large school district shall:
(a) Identify in the school facility plan school facility needs
based on population growth projections and land use
designations contained in the city or county
comprehensive plan; and
(b) Update the school facility plan during periodic review
or more frequently by mutual agreement between the
large school district and the affected city or county.
(9) (a) In the school facility plan, the district school board of a
large school district may adopt objective criteria to be used
by an affected city or county to determine whether adequate
capacity exists to accommodate projected development.
Before the adoption of the criteria, the large school district
shall confer with the affected cities and counties and agree,
to the extent possible, on the appropriate criteria. After a
large school district formally adopts criteria for the capacity
of school facilities, an affected city or county shall accept
those criteria as its own for purposes of evaluating
applications for a comprehensive plan amendment or for a
residential land use regulation amendment.
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 8 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
(b) A city or county shall provide notice to an affected
large school district when considering a plan or land
use regulation amendment that significantly impacts
school capacity. If the large school district requests,
the city or county shall implement a coordinated
process with the district to identify potential school
sites and facilities to address the projected impacts.
(10) A school district that is not a large school district may adopt
a school facility plan as described in this section in
consultation with an affected city or county.
(11) The capacity of a school facility is not the basis for a
development moratorium under ORS 197.505 to 197.540.
(12) This section does not confer any power to a school district to
declare a building moratorium.
(13) A city or county may deny an application for residential
development based on a lack of school capacity if:
(a) The issue is raised by the school district;
(b) The lack of school capacity is based on a school
facility plan formally adopted under this section; and
(c) The city or county has considered options to address
school capacity.
FINDINGS: The record indicates the applicant has an enrollment of well over 2,500 students
and therefore the applicant is a large school district under ORS 195.110(1). As discussed in the
Findings of Fact above, the applicant completed the requisite School Facility Plan in 2010 and
completed an update to the plan in 2012. The record indicates the analysis in the plan and
update determined there is an inadequate supply of suitable land for school facilities for the 10-
year period covered by the plan, even when considering re-development of existing properties
to add additional floors. Therefore, the county can bring a site designated for school use into the
UGB pursuant to ORS 195.110(6).
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
C. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Land Conservation and
Development Commission
1. Division 15, State-Wide Planning Goals and Guidelines
a. OAR 660-015-0000, State-Wide Planning Goals and Guidelines #1
Through #19
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 9 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be
involved in all phases of the planning process.
FINDINGS: As part of the UGB expansion application process, the county has provided notice
of the applicant's proposal to affected public and private agencies and to surrounding property
owners. In addition, the county and city held a joint public hearing before the Hearings Officer,
and the board and council will consider the proposed UGB expansion at public
hearings/meetings. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds Goal 1 is satisfied.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision
and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such
decisions and actions.
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted county and city applications for a plan amendment/UGB
expansion accompanied by original and supplement burden of proof statements and supporting
documents. In addition, the applicant submitted oral and written testimony at the public hearing.
The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's materials and testimony provide a sufficient factual
base to enable both jurisdictions to make an informed decision regarding the proposed
expansion. Therefore, I find Goal 2 is satisfied.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use consistent with
existing and future needs for agriculture products, forest and open space and with the
state's agriculture land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's
forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure
the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on
forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water and fish and wildlife
resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these two goals are not applicable to the applicant's
proposal because the subject property is not identified as either agricultural or forest land on the
county comprehensive plan map.
Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
FINDINGS: Goal 5 resources are identified and inventoried in the county's acknowledged
comprehensive plan. The plan shows there are no known Goal 5 resources on the subject
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 10 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
property. As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the Miller Tree Farm including the subject
property previously was identified as having Goal 5 resources consisting of mineral and
aggregate resources. However, the property was rezoned from Surface Mining (SM) to UAR-10
following the depletion of those resources. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds Goal 5 is
satisfied.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state.
FINDINGS: The proposed UGB amendment would allow the subject property to be developed
with a middle school. The record indicates that upon approval of the proposed UGB expansion
and annexation of the subject property into the Bend city limits the property will be served by
city water and sewer service. The record also indicates the city believes it has the capacity to
provide water and sewer service to the property. The staff report states, and the Hearings
Officer concurs, that the community's air, water and land resources will be assured through
enforcement of state and local environmental regulations with development of the property. For
these reasons, I find Goal 6 is satisfied.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.
FINDINGS: There are no areas identified on the subject property that are subject to flooding or
landslide activity. The wildfire hazard for the site is the same as that for other properties in this
geographic area. The Hearings Officer finds that by providing adequate water through the city's
municipal water system to meet the fire flow requirements for a middle school the district will be
able to reduce the potential wildfire hazard in this area. Therefore, I find Goal 7 is satisfied.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where
appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable because the district does not
propose a destination resort or other recreational facility. Nevertheless, the staff report states,
and I agree, that development of the subject property with a middle school will provide public
recreational areas and facilities on school property.
Goal 9: Economy
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of Oregon's citizens
FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states the proposed middle school is necessary
because of the economic development occurring within the city in general, and in the northwest
part of the city in particular, that has brought new families with school-age children into this
area. In addition, the Hearings Officer finds the new school will provide employment
opportunities for educators and other employees. Therefore, I find Goal 9 is satisfied.
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 11 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs for the citizens of the state.
FINDINGS: The proposed UGB expansion is for the purpose of providing land needed for the
construction of a new middle school and not to accommodate needed housing. Therefore, the
Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable to the applicant's proposal.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
FINDINGS: The record indicates that following approval of the proposed UGB expansion and
annexation of the subject property into the Bend city limits, the property will be served by
extension of existing city water lines along Skyliners Road and existing city sewer facilities
located at the intersection of Skyline Ranch Road and Lolo Road. The city believes it has the
capacity to provide water and sewer service to a middle school on the subject property. The
subject property is located near the intersection of Skyliners Road and Skyline Ranch Road,
both designated collector streets. The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that
these extensions will allow for the efficient and cost effective extension of needed facilities and
services. Therefore, I find Goal 11 is satisfied.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
FINDINGS: Goal 12 is implemented by the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) set forth in OAR
660-012-0060. However, as discussed in the findings below, OAR 660-024-0020(d) exempts
properties such as the subject property from application of the TPR because the property is
zoned as urbanizable land. Because the subject property will remain within the UAR-10 Zone
after its inclusion in the Bend UGB, and public schools are a use permitted conditionally in that
zone, development of the property within the UGB will not allow more vehicle trips than
development allowed under the current UAR-10 zoning outside the UGB. For these reasons, the
Hearings Officer finds Goal 12 is satisfied.'
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize
the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds locating a middle school on the subject property will
maximize energy conservation because the school would be near the population to be served in
the northwest part of Bend, and would be adjacent to Miller Elementary School and Summit
In his comments on the applicant's proposal, Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell stated that
under Section 17.16.115(C)(4)(a) of the county code, no traffic analysis is required for any use that will
generate less than 50 new weekday trips, and inasmuch as the amendment to the UGB will not on its
own generate any additional traffic, no traffic study is required.
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 12 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
High School which will facilitate the reduction of vehicle trips through the creation of a three-
school campus close to the population to be served. Therefore, I find Goal 13 is satisfied.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use, to accommodate
urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure
efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
FINDINGS: The Goal 14 guidelines have several components, each of which is addressed in
the findings below.
Urban Growth Boundaries
Urban growth boundaries shall be established and maintained by cities, counties
and regional governments to provide land for urban development needs and to
identify and separate urban and urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment
and change of urban growth boundaries shall be a cooperative process among
cities, counties and, where applicable, regional governments. An urban growth
boundary and amendments to the boundary shall be adopted by all cities within
the boundary and by the county or counties within which the boundary is located,
consistent with intergovernmental agreements, except for the Metro regional
urban growth boundary established pursuant to ORS chapter 268, which shall be
adopted or amended by the Metropolitan Service District.
Land Need
Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the
following:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population,
consistent with a 20-year population forecast coordinated with affected
local governments; and
(2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or
uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open
space, or any combination of the need categories in this subsection (2).
In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel
size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an identified
need. Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall
demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already
inside the urban growth boundary.
Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall
demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already
inside the urban growth boundary. (Underscored emphasis added.)
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 13 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
FINDINGS:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population,
consistent with a 20-year population forecast coordinated with affected
local governments.
As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the city currently is engaged in a legislative UGB
expansion process as required by Goal 14. The record indicates the 20-year population forecast
submitted with the city's most recent UGB expansion proposal estimated the city's population
would increase by 38,512 persons from a population of 76,551 in 2007 to a population of
115,063 in 2028. Based on its buildable lands analysis which was part of its most recent UGB
expansion proposal, the city identified a need for 192 additional acres for school facilities to
accommodate this growth.
(2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or
uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open
space, or any combination of the need categories in this subsection (2).
(Underscored emphasis added.)
As also discussed above, the applicant's 2012 update to the 2010 School Facility Plan identified
a need for a new middle school. The update indicates this need was identified based on a
forecast of 11.62% growth in middle school enrollment between the 2011-2012 and 2015-2016
school years. The applicant's burden of proof states it analyzed where the expected growth
might occur by reviewing zoning, available vacant lands and lands being considered for UGB
expansion. Based on this information, the applicant determined the highest growth area would
be the northwest quadrant of the city as this area showed the greatest potential for future
residential growth and has experienced continued residential development.
The record indicates the district's current population is served by four middle schools: Cascade,
High Desert, Pilot Butte, and Sky View. A boundary map for these schools is included in the
record as Exhibit 6 to the applicant's burden of proof. Cascade Middle School is the only middle
school in the western part of Bend and is located a considerable distance south of the
concentrations of residential development in northwest Bend. In addition, the record indicates
Cascade Middle School was designed to hold 800 students but currently serves 892 students.
The district's 2012 update to its 2010 School Facility Plan indicates that by the 2017-2018
school year Bend area middle schools will be over capacity by approximately 400 students, and
the district's policy is to open a new middle school when, in the aggregate, the present middle
schools are overcapacity by 400 students. The applicant's burden of proof states current middle
school enrollment numbers exceed the 2012 projections and therefore the district determined it
needs to open a new middle school by the fall of 2015. The proposed middle school would
alleviate overcrowding at Cascade Middle School and accommodate anticipated future growth
in northwest Bend.
In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel
size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an identified
need. Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall
demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already
inside the urban growth boundary.
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 14 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
This provision states the local government may specify the characteristics necessary for land to
be suitable for a particular need. The district identified a number of specific characteristics
required for the siting of a middle school that are set forth in the in its 2010 School Facility Plan.
The Hearings Officer finds these characteristics are appropriate for the county to utilize in the
analysis required for the proposed UGB expansion because they consist of objective factors
directly related to meeting the school siting need. The applicant's burden of proof contains the
following analysis demonstrating how and why the district believes the subject property meets
those characteristics.
Few busy roads surround the school. The applicant proposes to construct an extension of
N.W. Crosby Drive to Northwest Crossing Drive to the west of the school site. Initially there will
be little to no traffic other than school traffic on the road. The extension of Skyline Ranch Road
to the east and north will be designed and constructed by the district to collector street
standards. Skyliners Road is not a high volume road at this location. In addition, at least initially
there will be little to no traffic on this road because it will terminate at the northern boundary of
the subject property.
Few physical barriers such as canals, railroads, or arterial streets. There are no physical
barriers to the development of the middle school on or near the subject property. The applicant's
burden of proof states the topography necessitating a realignment of Skyline Ranch Road is not
such that it would impede construction of school facilities on the site. And the nearest
designated arterial street is Mt. Washington Drive which is approximately 2,200 feet east of the
subject property.
Located in residential zones. The subject property is not located in a residential zone but is
located near large areas of residential zoning and development to the east and south.
Adjacent to park or future park where possible. The subject property is not located adjacent
to a park. However, the record indicates there are parks in the nearby Northwest Crossing.
High student densities. The rapid development of surrounding residential properties has
created high student densities on the west side of Bend and near the school, as evidenced by
the current overcrowding at Cascade Middle School. Students would attend the school from
areas both within and outside of the existing and expanded UGB.
Good walking access. The subject property is close to a large area of residential development
to the east and south. These residential developments have provided sidewalks and bike paths
up to Skyline Ranch Road east of the subject property. The applicant's burden of proof states
the applicant will work with other property owners in the area to extend these facilities to the
school site in order to provide good walking and bicycle access to the school.
Relatively flat topography. The record indicates the property has some sloping topography.
However, the applicant's burden of proof states architectural plans can incorporate these natural
features to minimize grading.
Appropriate size approximately 25 acres. The subject property is approximately 33 acres in
size as reconfigured through the lot line adjustment approved by the county.
Low cost for water, sewer, and sidewalk extensions. City water facilities to which the subject
property can be connected are located in both Skyliners Road and on the subject property. City
sewer facilities already exist in Lolo Drive near the subject property and can be extended
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 15 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
thereto. The sewer and water lines can be placed in the streets prior to paving in order to lower
costs because the applicant will be developing the streets around the school.
At least two vehicular access points. The subject property is accessible from the east from
Northwest Crossing Drive and from the south from N.W. Elwood Drive. The applicant's burden
of proof states additional access points may be added as the applicant develops the adjacent
streets around the school.
Lower site acquisition cost. The applicant's burden of proof states the site is being acquired
from Miller Tree Farm LLC at a favorable price compared to the cost of other available parcels
within and outside the UGB.
Partnership potential with Bend Metro Park and Recreation District. The applicant's burden
of proof states the proposed school site does not have partnership potential with the Bend Metro
Park and Recreation District.
Zoning allows schools. Under both the county's and city's zoning ordinances, public schools
are allowed as a conditional use in the UAR-10 Zone.
Shape of site promotes efficient use of site. The applicant's burden of proof states the shape
of the site will allow efficient use for a middle school because there is room on the site to
construct school facilities and streets consistent with topographical constraints. In addition, the
property's configuration eliminates any islands between Summit High School and Miller
Elementary School, thus facilitating the creation of a contiguous three-school campus allowing
for efficient coordination between activities and facilities.
Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall
demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already
inside the urban growth boundary.
The applicant's burden of proof states it currently owns vacant or excess land within the UGB
consisting of Troy field, a small park adjacent to the district's administrative building in
downtown Bend, and 6.9 unused acres at Cascade Middle School. Neither of these parcels is
large enough to meet the size requirements for a middle school. In addition, the applicant's
burden of proof states it looked at two other vacant properties within the UGB: (1) a parcel
owned by the West Bend Property Co.; and (2) a parcel owned by 4-R Equipment. The
applicant determined that neither of these parcels reasonably could accommodate the new
middle school for several reasons. The West Bend Property Co. parcel is slated for residential
development and as a result acquisition costs would be prohibitive. The 4-R Equipment parcel
would require significant and expensive site grading and is near Cascades Middle School so
would not be in the right location to serve the target population in northwest Bend. In addition,
neither of these parcels would allow for a three-school campus setting.
Upon finding no suitable middle school sites within the UGB, the applicant searched for parcels
outside but near the UGB on the west side of Bend. The district owns a 33.73-acre parcel near
Shevlin Park (the "Shevlin Park parcel"). This parcel is the only district-owned property of
sufficient size in the northwest quadrant of the city, and therefore the 2012 School Facility Plan
update identified the Shevlin Park parcel as the best location for the new middle school.
The applicant's burden of proof states that at the time of the 2012 update to the School Facility
Plan, the applicant was not aware that the subject property was available and that after learning
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 16 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
of its availability the applicant investigated the costs and benefits of pursuing the subject
property as compared to the Shevlin Park parcel. The applicant's analysis determined that both
properties would require a UGB amendment, but that the Shevlin Park parcel was significantly
less suitable for development of a middle school. That is because of its location much farther
from the concentrations of residential development in northwest Bend, thus necessitating
increased vehicle miles driven, causing decreased opportunities for alternative forms of
transportation, and potentially increasing costs for extending utilities. In addition, the district
found significant benefit from the subject property's location next to Miller Elementary School
and Summit High School, allowing for development of a contiguous three-school campus where
activities and facilities could be coordinated and shared among these institutions.
The applicant's burden of proof also states the district found the subject property to be more
suitable for the new middle school than the Shevlin Park parcel because the subject property
was included in the city's previous UGB expansion proposal and is anticipated to be included in
any future legislative UGB expansion. Therefore, the applicant reasons, if the subject property
were brought into the UGB through a legislative process, it is likely to be developed with
residential uses, thereby increasing the need for a middle school at this location. The district
also looked at other sites outside the UGB to compare with the subject property. That alternative
sites analysis is discussed in detail in the findings below under OAR 660-024-0060.
Boundary Location
The location of the urban growth boundary and changes to the boundary shall be
determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with ORS
197.298 and with consideration of the following factors:
(1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;
FINDINGS: The applicant's 2012 Update to the 2010 School Facility Plan identified greatly
increased school enrollment in the northwest quadrant of Bend and the need for an additional
middle school in that area. The applicant attributes this enrollment increase to the buildout of a
number of residential subdivisions in the northwest part of Bend. The subject property meets the
applicant's need for a new school site both in terms of size and location. A middle school on the
subject property adjacent to Miller Elementary School and Summit High School would allow
students and families in the nearby neighborhoods to walk or bike to the school.
As discussed in the findings above concerning compliance with ORS 197.298, the UAR-10
zoning of the subject property places it in the "second priority" classification for UGB expansion
lands. However, the record indicates this is in fact the highest priority property available for
siting the needed new school. The subject property abuts the existing UGB to the east and
south. The new school would serve both students living within and outside the UGB within the
district's boundaries. The Hearings Officer finds these circumstances demonstrate the subject
property would allow the efficient accommodation of the identified need for a new middle school,
thus satisfying this requirement.
(2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;
FINDINGS:
Sewer. The record indicates there is an existing city gravity sewer main in N.W. Lobo Drive and
Skyline Ranch Road east of the subject property within Northwest Crossing. The applicant
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 17 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
extended this sewer main to Miller Elementary School and constructed a gravity sewer service
connection for the school. The record indicates there is adequate capacity in these facilities to
serve the proposed middle school on the subject property.
Water. The record indicates existing 16- and 36-inch city water mains are located in Skyliners
Road and a 24-inch water main is located within Skyline Ranch Road east of the subject
property. The applicant proposes to coordinate with the city's Water Division for water
connections for water service and fire protection.
Police and Fire Protection. Police protection currently is provided to the subject property by
the Deschutes County Sheriff but would be provided by the Bend Police Department following
inclusion of the subject property within the Bend UGB and annexation to the city. The police
department did not comment on the applicant's proposal, indicating the department has no
concerns about providing police protection to a new school on the subject property. After
inclusion in the UGB and city limits, fire protection for the middle school would be provided by
the Bend Fire Department. In its comments on the applicant's proposal, the Bend Fire
Department stated it supports the applicants' proposal and that all fire code requirements will be
addressed in the review of applications for land use approval and/or building construction.
Transportation/Access. The applicant proposes to improve surrounding streets, including the
extension of Northwest Crossing Drive to N.W. Crosby Drive as a half street improvement and
the construction of an extension of Skyline Ranch Road through the subject property to collector
standards as specified in the city's street specifications. As discussed in the findings above, as
part of the proposed UGB amendment the applicant proposes to realign the extension of Skyline
Ranch Road from the alignment shown on the city's TSP which currently shows the road
following the section line and the boundary between the subject property and Summit High
School. The applicant's burden of proof states that because of topography north of the subject
property that likely will inhibit future extensions of Skyline Ranch Road on its present alignment,
the proposed TSP amendment would realign the road to curve west through the subject
property to facilitate a more suitable crossing of the topography. As noted in the findings above,
the county's TSP will not be affected by this proposed amendment. Any specific road
improvements required for development of the middle school will be determined and required
during the city's conditional use and site plan review process.
Other Facilities. The record indicates telephone, broadband, electricity and natural gas service
are available in the area to serve the proposed middle school, and for that reason the Hearings
Officer finds these facilities also will be available to a middle school on the subject property.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed UGB expansion
for the future middle school will result in the orderly and economic provision of public facilities
and services.
(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences;
FINDINGS:
Environmental: The subject property's topography consists of a moderate slope down to the
northwest. The property has a vegetative cover of pine and juniper trees and native brush and
grasses. No known rare or endangered species occupy the property, and the property does not
possess any natural features such as wetlands, waterways, or rimrock. Inclusion of the subject
property within the UGB will allow the new middle school to utilize the city's sewer system rather
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 18 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
than relying on an on-site sewage disposal system, which should reduce the risk of adverse
environmental consequences associated with sewage disposal.
As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, in 2005 the county rezoned the subject property
and part of the surrounding Miller Tree Farm from SM to UAR-10 based on a finding that the
mineral and aggregate resources on the property had been depleted. Deschutes County
Assessor's Records indicate the Miller Tree Farm property contains timber and is receiving
forest tax deferral. However, the subject property has limited tree cover and is located in close
proximity to existing residential and school development.
Miller Tree Farm LLC, the owner of the subject property, did not submit written or oral
comments on the applicant's proposal. However, the applicant's burden of proof as well as its
oral testimony at the public hearing stated the property owner does not believe the siting of the
proposed middle school on the subject property will have negative impacts on forest use on the
adjacent property engaged in forest use. That is because the Miller Tree Farm property
currently is being managed for thinning for forest health and not for industrial-scale timber
production. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed UGB
expansion will not have adverse impacts on the environment.
Energy: The proposed UGB expansion area is not known to contain energy resources such as
known deposits of oil and natural gas or geothermal resources. The availability of other potential
energy sources, such as wind and solar, is equal to any other property in the surrounding area.
As discussed in findings elsewhere in this decision, the Hearings Officer has found the
proposed UGB expansion will result in energy conservation by reducing the overall number of
vehicle trips since the property is in a location where students will be able to walk and bike to
three schools. The staff report states, and I agree, that as the residential areas around the site
continue to develop this reduction in trip generation will increase.
Economic: The applicant's burden of proof states the applicant acquired the subject property
from Miller Tree Farm LLC at a favorable price compared to other available parcels within and
outside the UGB, and therefore the applicant and the Bend community would enjoy positive
economic consequences from using the subject property for the proposed middle school. In
addition, the middle school would provide employment opportunities.
Social: The applicant's burden of proof states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, the proposed
UGB expansion for the middle school will have positive social consequences by addressing
existing and predicted overcrowding at area schools, and by facilitating a three-school campus,
thereby improving the quality of education for students and reducing the family and community
stress from school overcrowding and multiple vehicle trips to transport different age students.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed UGB expansion
is consistent with consideration of these factors.
(4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and
forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this factor is not applicable to the applicant's proposal
because the subject property is not located near agricultural or forest activities on farm and
forest land outside the Bend UGB. The subject property is surrounded by land zoned UAR-10
and PF. The record indicates forest uses are occurring on the adjacent land within the Miller
Tree Farm but that property is zoned UAR-10.
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 19 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with
consideration of these factors.
Urbanizable Land
Land within urban growth boundaries shall be considered available for urban
development consistent with plans for the provision of urban facilities and
services. Comprehensive plans and implementing measures shall manage the use
and division of urbanizable land to maintain its potential for planned urban
development until appropriate public facilities and services are available or
planned.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the subject
property can be efficiently served by public facilities and services. Therefore, I find this
requirement is satisfied by the applicant's proposal.
Unincorporated Communities
Single-Family Dwellings in Exception Areas
Rural Industrial Development
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these provisions of Goal 14 are not applicable to the
applicant's proposal because the subject property is not located within an unincorporated
community and does not include either single-family dwellings or rural industrial development.
Guidelines
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this Goal 14 provision is not applicable to the applicant's
proposal because it outlines factors to be considered during a legislative process to create or
expand a UGB. In addition, as discussed in the findings below, OAR 660-024-0040(3) expressly
allows a UGB expansion to address a specific need as is proposed here.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Goal 14 is satisfied by the applicant's
proposed UGB amendment.
Goals 15 through 19: The Hearings Officer finds these goals, which address river, ocean, and
estuarine resources, are not applicable to the applicant's proposal because the subject property
is not located in or adjacent to any such areas or resources.
2. Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries
a. OAR 660-024-0000, Purpose and Applicability
1. The rules in this division clarify procedures and requirements
of Goal 14 regarding local government adoption or
amendment of an urban growth boundary (UGB).
* * *
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 20 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
3. The rules in this division are effective April 5, 2007, except as
follows:
(a) A local government may choose to apply this division
prior to April 5, 2007;
(b) A local government may choose to not apply this
division to a plan amendment concerning the
evaluation or amendment of a UGB, regardless of the
date of that amendment, if the local government
initiated the evaluation or amendment of the UGB prior
to April 5, 2007; * * *.
FINDINGS: These rules became effective April 5, 2007. The applicant submitted its applications
for a plan amendment to expand the Bend UGB on November 5, 2013, and therefore these
rules apply.
b. OAR 660-024-0020, Adoption or Amendment of a UGB
(1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are
applicable when establishing or amending a UGB, except as
follows:
(a) The exceptions process in Goal 2 and OAR 660,
division 4, is not applicable unless a local government
chooses to take an exception to a particular goal
requirement, for example, as provided in OAR 660-004-
0010(1);
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this rule is not applicable because the applicant is not
seeking a goal exception.
(b) Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable;
FINDINGS: Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable.
(c) Goal 5 and related rules under OAR 660, division 23,
apply only in areas added to the UGB, except as
required under OAR 660-023-0070 and 660-023-0250;
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found that Goal 5 is
not applicable to the applicant's proposal because there are no inventoried Goal 5 resources on
the subject property or on surrounding property.
(d) The transportation planning rule requirements under
OAR 660-012-0060 need not be applied to a UGB
amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as
urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that
was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by
assigning interim zoning that does not allow
development that would generate more vehicle trips
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 21 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
than development allowed by the zoning assigned
prior to inclusion in the boundary;
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the TPR does not apply to the applicant's proposed UGB
expansion because the subject property is zoned UAR-10 and would retain this zoning after
inclusion in the UGB.
(e) Goal 15 is not applicable to land added to the UGB
unless the land is within the Willamette River
Greenway Boundary;
FINDINGS: Goal 15 is not applicable to the applicant's proposed UGB expansion because the
subject property is not within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary.
(f) Goals 16 to 18 are not applicable to land added to the
UGB unless the land is within a coastal shorelands
boundary;
FINDINGS: Goals 16 through 18 are not applicable to the applicant's proposed UGB expansion
because the subject property is not within a coastal shorelands boundary.
(g) Goal 19 is not applicable to a UGB amendment.
FINDINGS: Goal 19 is not applicable to the applicant's proposal.
(2) The UGB and amendments to the UGB must be shown on the
city and county plan and zone maps at a scale sufficient to
determine which particular lots or parcels are included in the
UGB. Where a UGB does not follow lot or parcel lines, the
map must provide sufficient information to determine the
precise UGB location.
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted a UGB expansion map included in the record as Exhibit 3
to its original burden of proof that shows the property to be added to the UGB. The Hearings
Officer finds this map provides sufficient information from which to determine the UGB location.
In addition, as discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the applicant received county approval
of a property line adjustment to combine the subject property with the existing Miller Elementary
School property. Finally, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed UGB expansion will
be subject to a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit to the county a metes and
bounds description of the property to be included in the Bend UGB.
c. Section 660-024-0030, Population Forecasts
(1) Counties must adopt and maintain a coordinated 20-year
population forecast for the county and for each urban area
within the county consistent with statutory requirements for
such forecasts under ORS 195.025 and 195.036. Cities must
adopt a 20-year population forecast for the urban area
consistent with the coordinated county forecast, except that a
metropolitan service district must adopt and maintain a 20-
year population forecast for the area within its jurisdiction. In
adopting the coordinated forecast, local governments must
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 22 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
follow applicable procedures and requirements in ORS
197.610 to 197.650 and must provide notice to all other local
governments in the county. The adopted forecast must be
included in the comprehensive plan or in a document
referenced by the plan.
FINDINGS: The record indicates the county adopted a coordinated population forecast through
2025 on September 8, 2004 through Ordinance No. 2004-12. The record indicates the city
adopted the same forecast.
d. Section 660-024-0040, Land Need
(1) The UGB must be based on the adopted 20-year population
forecast for the urban area described in OAR 660-024-0030,
and must provide for needed housing, employment and other
urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads,
schools, parks and open space over the 20-year planning
period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14
and this rule. The 20-year need determinations are estimates
which, although based on the best available information and
methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high
level of precision.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this rule contemplates legislative UGB amendments. And
as discussed in the findings below, Subsection (3) of this section expressly allows for need-
specific quasi-judicial UGB expansions such as the one requested by the applicant.
(2) If the UGB analysis or amendment is conducted as part of a
periodic review work program, the 20-year planning period
must commence on the date initially scheduled for
completion of the appropriate work task. If the UGB analysis
or amendment is conducted as a post-acknowledgement plan
amendment under ORS 197.610 to 197.625, the 20-year
planning period must commence either:
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicant's
proposed UGB expansion is not being requested as part of a periodic review work program.
(3) A local government may review and amend the UGB in
consideration of one category of land need (for example,
housing need) without a simultaneous review and
amendment in consideration of other categories of land need
(for example, employment need).
FINDINGS: The applicant seeks to amend the UGB to accommodate the need for additional
public school facilities. Other categories of land need are being evaluated in the city's ongoing
legislative process to expand the UGB. The applicant chose to pursue a quasi-judicial plan
amendment because the need for a new middle school is immediate and the applicant could not
wait for the city to complete its legislative UGB expansion analysis of other land needs.
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 23 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
(4) The determination of 20-year residential land needs for an
urban area must be consistent with the adopted 20-year
coordinated population forecast for the urban area, and with
the requirements for determining housing needs in Goal 10,
OAR 660, division 7 or 8, and applicable provisions of ORS
197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this subsection is not applicable because the applicant's
proposed UGB expansion is not for the purpose of meeting residential land needs.
(5) Except for a metropolitan service district described in ORS
197.015(14), the determination of 20-year employment land
need for an urban area must comply with applicable
requirements of Goal 9 and OAR 660, division 9, and must
include a determination of the need for a short-term supply of
land for employment uses consistent with OAR 660-009-0025.
Employment land need may be based on an estimate of job
growth over the planning period; local government must
provide a reasonable justification for the job growth estimate
but Goal 14 does not require that job growth estimates
necessarily be proportional to population growth.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this subsection is not applicable to the applicant's
proposal because the requested UGB expansion is based on, and designed to address, a
specific need for a new middle school and not for employment land.
(6) The determination of 20-year land needs for transportation
and public facilities for an urban area must comply with
applicable requirements of Goals 11 and 12, rules in OAR
660, divisions 11 and 12, and public facilities requirements in
ORS 197.712 and 197.768. The determination of school facility
needs must also comply with ORS 195.110 and 197.296 for
local governments specified in those statutes.
FINDINGS: The proposal's compliance with Goals 11 and 12 and the provisions or ORS
Chapter 197 is addressed in the findings above.
e. OAR 660-024-0050, Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency
(1) When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government
must inventory land inside the UGB to determine whether
there is adequate development capacity to accommodate 20-
year needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040. For residential
land, the buildable land inventory must include vacant and
redevelopable land, and be conducted in accordance with
OAR 660-007-0045 or 660-008-0010, whichever is applicable,
and ORS 197.296 for local governments subject to that
statute. For employment land, the inventory must include
suitable vacant and developed land designated for industrial
or other employment use, and must be conducted in
accordance with OAR 660-009-0015(3).
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 24 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted this application to address a specific need for land to
accommodate a future middle school. The applicant elected to pursue a quasi-judicial plan
amendment rather than waiting for completion of the city's ongoing legislative process to amend
the Bend UGB. The latter process is designed to ensure a 20-year land supply.
(6) When land is added to the UGB, the local government must
assign appropriate urban plan designations to the added
land, consistent with the need determination. The local
government must also apply appropriate zoning to the added
land consistent with the plan designation, or may maintain
the land as urbanizable land either by retaining the zoning
that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by
applying other interim zoning that maintains the land's
potential for planned urban development until the land is
rezoned for the planned urban uses. The requirements of
ORS 197.296 regarding planning and zoning also apply when
local governments specified in that statute add land to the
UGB.
FINDINGS: The subject property has a plan designation and zoning of Urban Area Reserve and
that designation and zoning will not change after the property is included in the Bend UGB.
f. OAR 660-024-0060, Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis
(1) When considering a UGB amendment, a local government
must determine which land to add by evaluating alternative
boundary locations. This determination must be consistent
with the priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the
boundary location factors of Goal 14, as follows:
(a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, a
local government must determine which land in that
priority is suitable to accommodate the need
deficiency determined under 660-024-0050.
(b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority
category exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the
need deficiency, a local government must apply the
location factors of Goal 14 to choose which land in
that priority to include in the UGB.
FINDINGS: The subject property is designated and zoned UAR. As discussed in the findings
above, there is no "first priority" land available for siting the new middle school, and therefore
the subject property is classified as "second priority" land under ORS 197.298. However, the
subject property is the highest priority land available for the siting of the new middle school.
Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies these requirements.
(2) Notwithstanding OAR 660-024-0050(4) and subsection (1)(c)
of this rule, except during periodic review or other legislative
review of the UGB, a local government may approve an
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 25 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
application under ORS 197.610 to 197.625 for a UGB
amendment proposing to add an amount of land less than
necessary to satisfy the land need deficiency determined
under OAR 660-024-0050(4), provided the amendment
complies with all other applicable requirements.
FINDINGS: This subsection expressly authorizes the county and city expand and the Bend UGB
P
to address a specific need with a specific piece of property. The proposed UGB expansion
would not satisfy a 20-year need, but the city's ongoing legislative UGB expansion process will
do so by evaluating what is necessary to satisfy the 20-year land need for all land uses.
(3) The boundary location factors of Goal 14 are not independent
criteria. When the factors are applied to compare alternative
boundary locations and to determine the UGB location, a
local government must show that all the factors were
considered and balanced.
FINDINGS: The proposal's compliance with the boundary location factors of Goal 14 is
addressed in the findings above. As discussed in those findings, incorporated by reference
herein, the Hearings Officer as found the applicant demonstrated the proposed UGB expansion
satisfies all applicable requirements of Goal 14.
(4) In determining alternative land for evaluation under ORS
197.298, "land adjacent to the UGB" is not limited to those
lots or parcels that abut the UGB, but also includes land in
the vicinity of the UGB that has a reasonable potential to
satisfy the identified need deficiency.
FINDINGS: The subject property abuts the Bend UGB. As discussed in the findings above, the
applicant evaluated several alternative sites the applicant considered to have a reasonable
potential to satisfy the need for a new middle school. Those parcels included the subject
property and the Shevlin Park parcel which the district owns and that also abuts the Bend UGB.
As discussed in findings elsewhere in this decision, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant
demonstrated that among the alternative sites evaluated the subject property is the most
suitable property for the middle school.
(5) If a local government has specified characteristics such as
parcel size, topography, or proximity that are necessary for
land to be suitable for an identified need, the local
government may limit its consideration to land that has the
specified characteristics when it conducts the boundary
location alternatives analysis and applies ORS 197.298.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found it is reasonable
for the county to consider and apply the characteristics identified by the applicant in its 2010
School Facility Plan for the siting of a new middle school. The applicant's burden of proof
contains an analysis demonstrating how and why the district believes the subject property
satisfies those characteristics, and does so better than any of the alternative sites considered.
That analysis and my evaluation of it are set forth in the findings immediately below and are
incorporated by reference herein.
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 26 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
(6) The adopted findings for UGB adoption or amendment must
describe or map all of the alternative areas evaluated in the
boundary location alternatives analysis. If the analysis
involves more than one parcel or area within a particular
priority category in ORS 197.298 for which circumstances are
the same, these parcels or areas may be considered and
evaluated as a single group.
FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof and supplemental materials indicate the applicant
analyzed a number of properties located both inside and outside of the UGB in the northwest
part of Bend based on the site characteristics set forth in the 2010 School Facility Plan and
discussed in the findings above. The burden of proof states that because of the expense to
extend water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure to a potential middle school site, all
properties that are not within a reasonable distance of existing infrastructure were ruled out. In
addition all properties less than 25 acres in size were eliminated. Finally, properties not zoned
UAR were eliminated because of the requirement that the applicant focus on the highest priority
property available. The remaining properties evaluated by the applicant are identified as follows:
• 3225 N.W. Shevlin Park Road, a 40-acre parcel (Rio Lobo);
• 62600 McClain Drive, a 334-acre parcel (Rio Lobo);
• 62200 Forest Service Road 4606, a 160-acre parcel (Miller Tree Farm);
• Coats Property, a 40-acre parcel (located on Shevlin Park Road adjacent to the
applicant's parcel);
• Shevlin Park parcel (owned by the applicant and on Shevlin Park Road);
• West Bend Property Co. (within the UGB);
• 4-R Equipment (within the UGB); and
• the subject property.
A map of these parcels is included in the record as Exhibit 15 to the applicant's Burden of Proof.
Following the public hearing the applicant submitted a supplemental burden of proof including a
matrix showing how each of these eight parcels was evaluated against the identified site
characteristics for the new middle school.
The applicant's evaluation can be summarized as follows:
• The Rio Lobo properties are larger than the ideal size and are slated for residential
development. As a result, acquisition costs would be higher. These parcels have limited
access and no existing interior roads. These parcels would not allow for a three-school
campus setting.
• The portion of the 160-acre Miller Tree Farm parcel closest to existing infrastructure --
the southeast portion -- has significant barriers to the siting of a school as the
topography is steep and undulating. The more level areas of the parcel are on its
western portion and therefore the costs of extending infrastructure would increase
dramatically. This parcel also would not allow for a three-school campus setting.
• The Coats and Shevlin Park parcels are distant from concentrations of residential
development and the population to be served, and consequently would increase vehicle
trips and discourage alternative transportation. These parcels have dense vegetation
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 27 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
II
and removal of the trees would make development more difficult and costly. These
parcels also would not allow for a three-school campus setting.
• The West Bend Property Co. parcel is slated for residential development and as a result
its acquisition costs would be prohibitive. In addition, this parcel would not allow for a
three-school campus setting.
• The 4-R Equipment parcel would require significant and expensive site grading and is
near Cascades Middle School so it would not be in the right location to serve the target
population in northwest Bend. This parcel also would not allow for a three-school
campus setting.
• The subject property is of adequate but not excessive size, has good access, is close to
the population to be served, is close to existing infrastructure, has topography that will
not inhibit development of a middle school, can be acquired for a price within the
district's budget, and will facilitate the creation of a three-school campus setting.
Based upon the applicant's original and supplemental burdens of proof and its written and oral
testimony, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant adequately analyzed alternate sites and
justified the selection of the subject property for inclusion in the Bend UGB.
(7) For purposes of Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2, "public
facilities and services" means water, sanitary sewer, storm
water management, and transportation facilities.
FINDINGS: The proposal's compliance with the provisions of Goal 14 requiring adequate public
facilities and services is discussed in the Goal 14 findings above. Based on those findings,
incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer finds adequate public facilities and
services will be available to the proposed middle school on the subject property.
(8) The Goal 14 boundary location determination requires
evaluation and comparison of the relative costs, advantages
and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with
respect to the provision of public facilities and services
needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. This
evaluation and comparison must be conducted in
coordination with service providers, including the Oregon
Department of Transportation with regard to impacts on the
state transportation system. "Coordination" includes timely
notice to service providers and the consideration of
evaluation methodologies recommended by service
providers. The evaluation and comparison must include:
(a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm
water and transportation facilities that serve nearby
areas already inside the UGB;
FINDINGS: As discussed in the Goal 14 findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the
Hearings Officer finds that water, sewer, and transportation services and facilities are available
and will be adequate to serve a new middle school on the subject property with connections and
improvements the applicant and/or others will install. With respect to storm water, I am aware
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 28 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
that the applicant will be required at the time of school development to comply with the city's
storm water master plan.
(b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services
to serve areas already inside the UGB as well as areas
proposed for addition to the UGB; and
FINDINGS: As discussed in the Goal 14 findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the
Hearings Officer finds the city's sewer and water facilities and systems as well as police and fire
departments have the capacity to serve a middle school on the subject property.
(c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as
highways and other roadways, interchanges, arterials
and collectors, additional travel lanes, other major •
improvements on existing roadways and, for urban
areas of 25,000 or more, the provision of public transit
service.
FINDINGS: The county's and city's road departments did not comment on the applicant's
proposal. As discussed in the findings above, the county's Senior Transportation Planner stated
the applicant is not required to submit a traffic study because the proposed UGB amendment
would not change the subject property's zoning and the number of vehicle trips that could be
generated by uses permitted in the UAR-10 Zone. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds
no new major transportation facilities will be required to serve the proposed new middle school.
However, the staff report states, and I agree, that construction of new infrastructure and
extension of existing infrastructure will be required in conjunction with development of the
subject property with a middle school. The staff report also notes that as the city's public transit
service expands the subject property may be suitable for the addition of a transit route.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal complies with all
applicable requirements in the administrative rules for expansion of the Bend UGB.
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
D. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County 2011
Comprehensive Plan
1. Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management
a. Section 4.2, Urbanization Policies
1. Goal 1. Coordinate with cities, special districts and
stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban
reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition
between urban and rural lands.
2. Policy 4.2.1. Participate in the process initiated by cities in
Deschutes County to create and/or amend their urban growth
boundaries.
FINDINGS: The county has coordinated with the city in reviewing this UGB expansion
application. Affected agencies and departments have been notified of the application and notice
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 29 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
has been given to the public. Findings to address the orderly and efficient transition between
urban and rural lands are found throughout this decision. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds
the applicant's proposal satisfies these comprehensive plan requirements.
BEND AREA GENERAL PLAN
E. Bend Area General Plan
FINDINGS: Section 4.6.300 of the city's development code, governing quasi-judicial plan
amendments, provides in relevant part:
B. Criteria for Quasi-Judicial Amendments. The applicant shall submit a
written narrative which explains how the approval criteria will be met. A
recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to
deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of
the following criteria:
* * *
Criterion 2: Approval of the request is consistent with the relevant policies
of the Comprehensive Plan that are designated by the Planning Director or
designee; . . .
The preface to the city's comprehensive plan states in relevant part:
At the end of each chapter are policies that address issues discussed in the
chapter. The policies in the General Plan are statements of public policy, and are
used to evaluate any proposed changes to the General Plan. Often these
statements are expressed in mandatory fashion using the word "shall." These
statements of policy shall be interpreted to recognize that the actual
implementation of the policies will be accomplished by land use regulations such
as the city's zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and the like . . . .
In several previous decisions, this Hearings Officer has held the preface to the city's
comprehensive plan makes clear the plan's goals and policies generally do not constitute
mandatory approval criteria for plan amendments because they are aspirational — i.e., phrased
in terms of "may" rather than "shall" -- and/or directed toward actions to be undertaken by the
city or by the applicant at the time of development. The applicant's burden of proof addresses a
number of city plan goals and policies identified by city staff. However, with few exceptions,
most of these goals and policies are examples of aspirational statements and/or policies
requiring action by the city or action required by the applicant at the time of development.
Therefore, I adhere to my previous decisions and find that with the exceptions addressed below,
consistency with the city's comprehensive plan policies is not a mandatory approval criterion for
this quasi-judicial plan amendment to expand the UGB.
Policy 4 related to development within the UGB states:
2 E.g., Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Central Oregon (PA-12-6).
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 30 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005
New developments shall pay to extend planned sewer, water, and transportation
facilities to and through the property if the development occurs prior to the
scheduled construction of those facilities shown in the capital improvement plan.
The applicant did not submit an application for development approval with the UGB amendment
application, and therefore the Hearings Officer finds the requirement that new development pay
for infrastructure extensions is not yet applicable.
Policy 3 related to public facilities and services states:
All development within the Urban Growth Boundary shall be sewered or provide
for sewers through a binding sewer service agreement with the city.
The record indicates city sewer and water service is available to, and has the capacity to serve,
the subject property. The county's and city's staff reports state extension of existing sewer and
water mains and services to the subject property will be a requirement for annexation of the
subject property into the city limits.
Policy 40 related to public buildings and facilities states:
Public buildings and facilities shall be located so as to provide convenient public
use and to provide maximum service for the greatest economy. Governmental
offices shall locate downtown when practicable. Other governmental facilities,
reservoirs, landfills and correctional facilities shall be located in areas with good
public access to principal streets.
As discussed in detail in the findings above concerning compliance with statutes and
administrative rules, the applicant chose the subject property for the new middle school in large
part because of its proximity to the population to be served in northwest Bend and because the
proposed location would allow the middle school to be part of a three-school campus including
Miller Elementary School and Summit High School. This proximity will allow more efficient use
of the district's resources while also necessitating fewer vehicle trips and allowing more
students to walk or bike to school.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with
applicable goals and policies in the city's general plan.
IV. DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby
APPROVES the applicant's proposed plan amendment to expand the Bend UGB to include the
subject property, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division a written metes and bounds
description of the property to be included in the Bend Urban Growth Boundary prior to final
approval of the plan amendment by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
Dated this 9th day of January, 2014. Mailed this 9th day of January, 2014.
/ .1i0084,,,„,...biel 444,
Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer
PA-13-4-Bend-La Pine Schools Page 31 of 31
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2014-005