The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-2-Minutes for Meeting October 28,2015 Recorded 1/6/2016 DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS V t 20+6.2 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK V �JTs COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01/06/2016 09:41:23 AM �� I 1 I IIIIIIIIIIIII lu s t 1 - W4ury, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2015 The purpose of the hearing was to take testimony regarding Goal 11 Exception Process for Southern Deschutes County (Ordinance No. 2015-007, File 247-15- 000308-PA). The Public Hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. in the Pringle Room at the SHARC, Sunriver. Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Tammy Baney and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, and Peter Russell, Community Development; David Doyle, County Counsel; Whitney Malkin, Public Information Officer; and approximately 50 citizens, including representatives of the media. Chair DeBone opened the hearing at 6:06 p.m. Chair DeBone noted this is the time and place for the public hearing and that the hearing procedures will be outlined by the Community Development Staff. Peter Russell presented the hearing procedures and inquired if any Commissioners had any conflict of interest on this matter. Commissioner DeBone noted he is a resident of the area but has no conflict. Commissioners Baney and Unger noted they have been a part of the process for years but have no conflicts. No challenges were made. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding Goal 11 October 28, 2015 Page 1 of 6 Peter Russell, CDD, reviewed the general background and history of the Goal 11 Exception. John Jennings, Department of Land Conservation and Development, reviewed the state rules on Goal 11 and exceptions. Goal 11 arranged for a statewide policy with regard to sewer systems. Developing the opportunity to recognize there are circumstances that are unnecessary or unreasonable which brings us to an exceptions process. Circumstances and burden of proof says that this area is exceptional in that the ordinary laws shouldn't apply regarding sewer development. DLCD's role is to serve as technical advisors. Robert Baggett, Department of Environmental Quality presented the history and approaches of protecting our groundwater. Public health protection had noticed environmental concerns of this area even before DEQ was formed. A steering committee with local citizens was formed to find recommendations regarding the condition of the ground water. There is a documented health threat in South Deschutes County and the risk will increase over time and will become significant. DEQs role is to provide the greatest number of options to the residents. With the Goal 11 Exception low interest loans can be offered to sewer districts. DEQ assures they have met the burden of proof. Groundwater contamination has increased and will continue to increase and the longer we wait the more difficult it will be to abate. DEQ continues to support the recommendations of the steering committee. This process requires community efforts. Peter Russell, CDD, presented the Deschutes County Land Use Process and noted that before the Board is the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to amend the exceptions statement for goal 11, add to legislative history, Newberry Country plan, transportation planning rule, and remaining applicable statewide planning goals. The Planning Commission held public hearings in La Pine in July and in Bend in August. At the Board of County Commissioners work session on October 7th the Board directed the CDD staff to compose draft policies and they are presenting them tonight. The draft policies reference the 2013 DEQ report recommendations, are organized by topic and paraphrases DEQ's report's recommendations, and state the County will support various DEQ and/or citizen efforts. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding Goal 11 October 28, 2015 Page 2 of 6 The next steps are for the Board to receive public testimony tonight. The Board can then decide to continue the hearing to a certain date, close the oral record but leave written record open to a certain date, close the hearing tonight and set a date for deliberation, or close the hearing tonight and deliberate. Based on the draft policies presented this evening, the Community Development Department staff recommends keeping at least the written record open until November 18, 2015. Chair Debone noted there were DEQ steering committee members and planning commission members present tonight and thanked them for their work. At this time, those present that have made a request to speak will be called to the podium. Ann Gregersen: Ms. Gregersen stated she was here to ask the Commissioners to vote no and stop the roller coaster. She stated the CDD papers include a sanitary authority and she opposes this and questions the scientific proof. Ms. Gregersen warned the Commissioners that if the voter's pamphlet had this information printed; do you think you will be reelected. She expressed her opinion saying to vote no and save your job. Wendell Evers: Mr. Evers told the Commissioners they have not been given complete information and he finds this deceiving. He explained that he is concerned now that with the Goal 11 and the Planning Commission recommendations. He commented the steering committee worked hard for three years and there is information there that the Commissioners need to know. He stated: #1 omission of information and told the Commissioners to check the Planning Commission minutes, #2 he asked how bad are we polluting the ground water and the rivers of Deschutes County on a scale of 1 — 100? —Mr. Evers feels there is no imminent health problem. Mr. Evers told the Commissioners they are agents of this county and we voted you in. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding Goal 11 October 28, 2015 Page 3 of 6 John Blakinger: Mr. Blakinger noted he is the co-chair of the advisory committee and without this Goal 11 we would be lost. He stated the committee met for three years and in talking to experts they found a chart that showed that every ATT systems that discharges contaminates. From those conversations we came up with 9 recommendations. Mr. Blakinger stated without Goal 11 exception none of the other 9 recommendations would be effective. He expressed the need to monitor better. James Ed Criss: Mr. Criss stated he lives in Wild River and was involved in the very beginning and is on the Planning Commission. Mr. Criss commented that Goal 11 is a key to this whole thing. He pointed out the need for discussions when developing the master plan. He commented on the 1970 paper the DEQ was saying that people visiting the area were going to cause problems but now we have people living here and these things are going to change. He stated the area is going to continue to grow and we have to deal with it or have a moratorium. He commented the citizens need to be involved. Robert Ray: Mr. Ray noted he has been involved since the beginning and supports the recommendations and commented that without Goal 11 we can't move forward. Mr. Ray supports the recommendations and that the Goal 11 exception must be supported first before the other recommendations. This will save people money in the long run. John Huddle: Mr. Huddle commented the imminent health hazard statement should be removed from all documents. He suggested keeping the written testimony open and feels the testimony from Central Oregon Landwatch includes good comments. His suggestion is to look for a legislative fix and meet with subdivisions to work with what fits them. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding Goal 11 October 28, 2015 Page 4 of 6 Judy Forsythe: Ms. Forsythe submitted written testimony this evening as well and stated she has been a resident in South County for 16 years. She commented on the concern of the health hazard language. Ms. Forsythe also noted concerns she has with a Planning Commission session of September 10, 2015 and presented a CD recording of one of the meetings for the Commissioners to review. Ms. Forsythe stated these conclusions are damaging property values in South County. Her request is that the Commissioners accept there are other concerns and acknowledge they will be addressed at the appropriate time. Dan Varcoe: Mr. Varcoe stated there is perception and assumption that we have a risk of health problems and that hasn't occurred and things are moving slower for the population growth. He commented that to say that we already have health problems is hard to except because we have good drinking water in La Pine. Mr. Varcoe does support the Goal 11 exception. At this time there were no additional citizen requests to speak submitted. Discussion was held on the necessity of the health reasons language for the exception. If there is aggressive growth, we could have a quickly declining water quality concerns. John Jennings, DLCD, stated there has to be a justification for demonstrating the exception but it doesn't have to be an imminent health hazard. This hazard is a problem we can solve. Language needs to be in the record, and if the Commissioners feel there is another way to word it, the bottom line needs to be adequate justification to demonstrate the appropriateness. Discussion was held on the potential health risks and property development and protecting the future by being sensitive to the branding and livability of this community. Proposal made to coordinate with DEQ and review the language of the Goal 11 Exception. The Newberry Country Plan itself will not contain any of this language and will state there is a Goal 11 Exception and the goals and policies will be in the resource documents. The plan does not state there is a health hazard but that there is a Goal 11 Exception. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding Goal 11 October 28, 2015 Page 5 of 6 The DEQ Steering Committee recommendations were reviewed: Ground water monitoring, governance / sanitary authority, addressing livestock, point sources, ATT moratorium, financing for disadvantaged communities, community involvement, outreach and community education, and alternative green solutions. Chair DeBone noted that there has been a request to keep the record open. At this time the oral record is closed and the written record will be open through November 18, 2015. The Community Development Department will review and P language. public hearing present draft lan A ublic hearin will be held on November 23 to consider g . Ordinance No. 2015-007, amending the comprehensive plan to add an exception to statewide planning Goal 11, to allow for sewers in unincorporated lands in Southern Deschutes County. Information will be posted on the County website. Being no further testimony at the hearing, the record was closed to oral testimony and the hearing adjourned at 7:49 p.m. DATED this 2i Day of O 2015 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. �-jed iz�/i� r Anthony DeBone, Chair ac,„„_, Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTE/ : it], Tammy aney, Co missioner .1641111112114Z111. ecording ecretary Minutes of Public Hearing regarding Goal 11 October 28, 2015 Page 6 of 6 0. 10/28/2015• P1l an Goal 11 Exception Process for Southern Deschutes County (Ordinance 2015-007 File 24715-000308-PA) Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing SHARC, Sunriver, OR October 28, 2015 e: s Opening Statement for Legislative Public Hearing This is a public hearing on Ordinance No.2015-007,File Number 247-15-000308-PA. The proposal formally recognizes a proposal to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to add an exception to Goal 11(Public Facilities and Services)to allow for centralized collection system for wastewater in unincorporated lands in southern Deschutes County;amend language to Newberry Country Plan to prevent upzoning;and add a Goal 11 map indicating affected tax lots. The Board of County Commissioners will hear oral testimony,receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing, The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today,continue the public hearing to a date certain,or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Commission with a copy of written testimony. 1 • 10/28/2015 ............. Opening Statement for Legislative Public Hearing(can't) Questions to and from the Chair may be entertained at any time at the Chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However,if any person wishes to ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the Chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any Commissioner for conflict of interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Commissioner be challenged,the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time,do any members of the Commission need to set forth any information that may be perceived as a conflict of interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now.Hearing none,the public hearing is open. Y„ 1•360,0 '£ Ea Ryi t��b Presentation Order by Staff • General background - Deschutes County • State land use program & Goal 11 - DLCD • Protecting groundwater - DEQ • Land Use Process - Deschutes County 2 10/28/2015 General Background How Did We Get To A Goal ii Exception? s�J 40 Years in 10 Bullet Points • 1960S-1970s -15,000 lots of o.5 acre to 5 1 acre each platted in South County ' • Lots pre-date Oregon's statewide land use program • Result is a land use pattern of urban-scale residential density served � � by rural-scale on-site „., septic systems 3 Side 6 SB3 Added return to separate text from first line with date. Sher Buckner, 7/9/2015 St34 10 bullet points, r/th 12? 1 Sher Buckner, 7/9/2015 10/28/2015 40 Years in 10 Bullet Points (con t.) • Early 198os groundwater pollution ' from nitrates begins to he noticed • 1996-1999 DLCD and DEQ study 1z,000 lots for groundwater pollution . ' „' • 2008 Deschutes County passes local rule requiring septic systems ,w be converted to alternate treatment technology within 14 ' years lw'," t~g¢ 1E tpS'} „may ' F ^ 40 Years in 10 Bullet Points (con't.) • 2009 voters overturn local rule 7,M ' • aoio DEQ forms Steering Committee • „ to study issue,which in 2013 A unanimously recommends pursuing a " Goal 11 exception p14 ° a • April 2015 DLCD, DEQ,and Deschutes Rend Bulletin photo County hold open houses in Sunriver and i,a Pine on Goal n / „ • June 1 201 DLCD, DP and *r +w Deschutes County apply for Goal 11 Exception in File 247-15-000308-PAS DEQ Steering Committee Graphic 4 10/28/2015 Goal 1i Exeeption Area Lands: ` • Rural Residential (RR-to) 'I' :• RR-lo split zoned with Flood Plain(FP) 1 . • Public lands abutting RR io MI: ' • Lands in other zones with existing residential 4 i"'' NI- pattern of development �� ., , n - 3 ,., mA 5fly3ai r �f = DLCD Portion of Presentation State Rules on Goal 11 and Exceptions 5 r 10/28/2015 t� F$ z 9 �3 DLCD's Role and Responsibility • Expert in Goal n Exception Process • Wrote Burden of Proof Related to State Laws, Rules: • Statewide Planning Goal it Public Facilities • Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 66o,Division 11,Public Facilities Planning • OAR 66o-on-oo6o, Goal a Exception Process f T, DEQ Portion of Presentation History and Approaches to Protecting Groundwater 6 I 10/28/2015 DEQ and the Goal 11 Application p�« I Wednesday, October 28, 2015 Bob BOI)OrttO$ rIOPpartrei nt of F.'hvimnrnnlal Qr'ty DEQ and public health protection: How we got here •Long history of involvement in the area •Formation of a steering committee (Met for over 3 years. Had 50+ meetings.) •DEQ has long been concerned about regional, area-wide groundwater contamination DEQ �d WAY 10/28/2015 Current Situation • There is a documented health threat in South Deschutes County • A Goal 11 exception provides solutions and is not a mandate • The exception request meets state criteria and should be approved by the Board of Commissioners DEQ. Deporirrentat enAawnnww DEQ Steering Committee and the Goal 11 Recommendation • Goal 11 Exception (Unanimously Approved 1/9/13) • Intent of allowing but not requiring sewer extension and other community treatment options • Acknowledgement that centralized systems would allow better treatment of contaminants • Exception area to include at-risk areas in South Deschutes and North Klamath counties NArtrmOntat 8 10/28/2015 DEQ Role and Involvement • Supporting the recommendation and working with agencies to move it forward • Providing historical data on groundwater contamination to justify the application Dopixtmottl Of Wally Prior discussion and considerations • Imminence of health concern • Other solutions/alternatives • Adequate science • Region-wide nature of the exception area DEQ b.prvnry d EmhwmwrtM Q+ C 9 10/28/2015 DEQ Perspective • We should not wait for a health hazard to occur before acting • The DEQ Steering Committee unanimously supported a Goal 11 Exception • The exception offers the community other solutions to address the issue • The exception request meets the criteria set by OAR 660-011-0060 QEQ DOPPONOC4 Environmenki Deschutes County Portion of Presentation Compliance With Comprehensive Plan, Newberry Country Plan, Other Statewide Goals 10 i 10/28/2015 Deschutes County Land Use Process • Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan • Amend for Exceptions Statement • Amend to add Legislative I-Iistory • Newberry Country Plan • Amend Policy 9.1 to prevent upzoning due to Goal 11 • Transportation Planning Rule(OAR 66o, Division 12) • Traffic study of 1,823 red lots,based on hoo homes developing in 15 years • Remaining Applicable Statewide Planning Goals 3 Planning Commission recap • Planning Commission held public hearings in La Pine (July 23) and Bend (August 13) • Planning Commission deliberated Sept. to, recommended 7-0 to approve Goal n Exception as proposed,with one modification • Modification was to amend Comprehensive Plan to include recommendations from 2013 DEQ "South Deschutes County County/North Klamath County Groundwater Protection Report and Recommendations" 11 ti 10/28/2015 Response to Planning Commission • Staff relayed Planning Commission's recommendation to Board at October 7 work session • Board requested staff write draft policies and present them at Oct. 28 public hearing • Based on above, Newberry Country Plan would be amended at Goal 16, Natural Resources Draft Policies for Newberry Country • Policy 16.1 specifically references 2013 DEQ report recommendations • Policies i6.1(a through i) are organized by topic (Groundwater Testing, Sanitary Authority, ATT systems, etc.) and paraphrases DEQ report's recommendations • Policies 16.1(a through i) state County will support various DEQ and/or citizen efforts 12 10/28/2015 Next Steps • Board receives public testimony • Board can whether to: • Continue hearing to a date certain • Close oral record, but leave written record open until a date certain • Close hearing tonight and set a date certain for deliberation • Close hearing tonight and deliberate • Based on draft policies presented tonight, staff would recommend keeping at]east the written record open until Nov. i8 Questions of Staff? R• p 3 E„ Y 13 -\ Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division. a� �v r'"�in$� 1 " � w �� t" w� r ?c t i i alai i �, �, � � rl w �� r ; ,.. ��...,a s y. �I� �•w� � �aai �. �9°M k' tMn r"'dM ^�cu�xi.u.0 m:a: i r..gar: �.�M.Mr..l4�.hd�dun�"t�u°�?m ��M ra P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: October 28, 2015 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Tying 2013 Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Steering Committee Recommendations into Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Newberry Country Plan BACKGROUND At the Board of County Commissioner (Board) work session on October 7, 2015, staff summarized the public hearings at the Planning Commission (PC) for 247-15-000308-PA,which would authorize a Goal 11 Exception to allow centralized collections systems for wastewater in unincorporated sections of southern Deschutes County; amend Newberry Country Plan to prohibit upzoning based on a successful Goal 11 Exception; and add a map of tax lots affected by the Goal 11 Exception to the Comprehensive Plan. The PC approved the application as proposed 7-0 with one modification. The PC requested the 2013 DEQ Steering Committee report's recommendations be included. During the work session, the Board requested staff to draft Comprehensive Plan policy language related to addressing the 2013 DEQ recommendations as part of their upcoming October 28 public hearing on Ordinance 2015-007, which implements file 247-15-000308-PA. The DEQ as well as the Goal 11 exception policy recommendations are shown in underlined and deletions in strikeouts in the corresponding attachment (see pages 13 and 16). Quality Services Performed-with Pride w Newberry Cottvttry PLaw - Statevikewt, PLR IA, c,oaLs PoLLCLes Vision Statement The intent of this vision, developed in cooperation with South County residents and stakeholders, is to ensure that with vigilance and foresight, the unique rural character can be maintained and enjoyed by present and future generations. South Deschutes County will retain and enhance its high quality of life as a collection of diverse, rural neighborhoods tied together by outstanding natural and recreational amenities. Residents and land owners will enjoy excellent educational opportunities for all ages, a safe and efficient transportation system, healthy environment, thriving economy, access to quality health care, strong community organizations and partnerships, respect for private property rights, and active involvement in decisions that shape the area. Plan Goals and Policies Community Involvement and Partnerships Goal I Involve and engage the South County community in land use planning. Policy 1.1 Conduct an annual meeting in South County with the Board of Commissioners and Deschutes County Planning Commission. Policy 1.2 Reassess through a public process, the South County Plan as needed, but at least every three to five years, and analyze: a. Population growth; b. Effectiveness of plan implementation; and c. New issues or emerging opportunities. Policy 1.3 Maximize public participation on locally significant issues by establishing, where appropriate, technical or citizen advisory committees, and encouraging federal and state agencies to do the same. Policy 1.4 Share information and communicate with residents, community organizations and absentee landowners through: a. Hosting town hall meetings with all South County partners; b. Utilizing internet and social media; c. Distributing, through a variety of avenues, outreach and education materials that provide information on locally-led efforts promoting social, economic and environmental programs; and d. Encouraging government agencies, community organizers and leaders to write articles for local newspapers. 8 NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY • -t Goal 2 Support public, private and non-profit partnerships. Policy 2.1 Foster a sense of shared identity and pride in South County through community projects, such as a beautification program to enhance the area for tourists, businesses and residents. Policy 2.2 Partner with the community to retain and improve South County's high quality of life. Policy 2.3 Support the community on projects that promote self-reliance, such as community greenhouses or gardens that increase the local food supply. Policy 2.4 Work with homeowner associations, road districts, community groups, government agencies, and non-profits to collectively address land use and natural resource issues, such as code enforcement or responsible animal husbandry. Policy 2.5 Encourage organizations like La Pine and Sunriver Chambers of Commerce, and Central Oregon Visitors Association to maintain and enhance webpages highlighting South County's regional amenities and community resources. Policy 2.6 Partner with the real estate community and others to provide education materials for new residents and/or property owners about rural lifestyles, including: a. Non-urban levels of public services (e.g. unpaved roads); b. Fire prevention; c. Noxious weeds; d. River and groundwater management; e. Preservation of wildlife habitat; and f.Streamside stewardship information and requirements. Policy 2.7 Collaborate with Lake and Klamath counties on regional issues that affect South County, such as groundwater quality, economic development, adult education, social services, transportation, and recreation, including trails. Policy 2.8 Support and encourage a diverse array of community partners to collaborate on comprehensive substance abuse prevention best practices. Policy 2.9 Promote community and individual engagement in comprehensive substance abuse prevention best practices. Policy 2.10 Cultivate an understanding of the causes of poverty and its impact on citizens and community in order to provide opportunities for citizens to move out of it. Land Use Goal 3 Provide County assistance to address existing and emerging land use issues and opportunities. NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY 9 Policy 3.I Collaborate with the South County community and City of La Pine to address: a. Business expansion and recruitment, including adding another grocery store and a movie theater; b.A 24-hour health care facility; c. Coordination among health care providers and clinics; d.Community greenhouses; e.Affordable senior housing and/or aging in place programs; f.Trail development suitable for walking, biking and equestrian use; g. Farmer's markets; h. Public transportation; i. La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area (the area bounded by Burgess Road, US 97, I st Street and Huntington Road); j. Post-high school education, employment retraining, adult learning, and vocational programs; k. Meeting locations allowing for remote teleconferencing; I. Business practices which negatively impacts substance abuse; and m.Other projects as identified. Policy 3.2 Initiate amendments to County Code to address demographic trends or community concerns, such as the need for accessory housing units, within the parameters of state law. Policy 3.3 Where federal or state government lands are surrounded by subdivisions, work with the affected government agency to retain them in public ownership for public use. Policy 3.4 Develop a master plan to address the infrastructure challenges facing rural, undeveloped lots in southern Deschutes County. Goal 4 Manage County-owned lands to meet community objectives. Policy 4.I Evaluate and manage County-owned lands as follows: a. Properties meeting the County criteria for park lands as cited in Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.3.14, may be designated by the Board of County Commissioners as such to be retained for public ownership; b. Properties recognized in a park district master plan may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners for a park designation to be retained in public ownership; c. If a property does not meet the criteria for park lands, consider auctioning the property to place it in private ownership; d. If a property does not meet the criteria for park lands, but is within a wildlife overlay zone, consider maintaining the land as open space; and 10 NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY e. Use for other community needs, such as social services, centralized sewer, or low income housing as allowed by ORS 271.330. Policy 4.2 Coordinate with local park and recreation districts or other qualified organizations to transfer County designated park lands into their ownership for park and recreation purposes, as allowed by State Statue, ORS 275.330. Policy 4.3 Use all the proceeds derived from the sale of County-owned property in the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area to protect the groundwater in South Deschutes County, through methods such as funding septic system repairs and upgrades to qualifying low-income homeowners. Policy 4.4 In conjunction with the City of La Pine, evaluate and revise as needed, the Transfer of Development Credit and Pollution Reduction Credit programs by considering, at a minimum, the following: a. Reconvening the Transfer of Development Credit Advisory Committee; b.Analyzing the results of the program; c. Understanding existing market trends and land development constraints in the rural area and La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area; and d. Exploring, if necessary, different alternatives for developing the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area that maximize revenues from the sale of property to fund groundwater protection efforts. Goal 5 Address high groundwater lots and zoning and surveying issues. Policy 5.1 Develop a work plan with affected stakeholders to determine the future development and conservation potential of approximately 1,500 high groundwater lots. The work plan will need to incorporate the potential for an unknown number of lots to be served by centralized sewer or other methods of collection in the future, which would make them developable, where that possibility may not currently exist. The work plan shall, at a minimum, analyze: a.The impact of the newly permitted development on roads, riparian areas, wildlife habitat, and wetlands; and b.Acquisition options such as purchasing the lots, land transfers or other ideas. Policy 5.2 Develop a work plan, in coordination with property owners, to update the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations to reflect the land use and development patterns in Section 36, Haner Park and other applicable areas with long-standing issues, while protecting ecologically significant natural areas or resources. Policy 5.3 Support the development of economically viable strategies to address surveying errors including those in the Lechner Estates area. NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY I I Economic Development Goal 6 Foster a healthy economic and employment base in South County, while retaining the rural character. Policy 6.1 Promote La Pine as a regional commercial and employment center, through concepts such as: a. Maintaining and supporting La Pine's representation on Economic Development for Central Oregon's (EDCO) Board; b. Coordinating as needed with EDCO, La Pine and Sunriver Chambers of Commerce, Sunriver, the City of La Pine, and others to promote economic development opportunities; c. Collaborating with Klamath County, Gilchrist and Crescent; and d. Encourage business support and participation in substance abuse best practices which foster a successful youth and a strong employment base. Policy 6.2 Facilitate South County tourism by: a. Supporting organizations like Travel Oregon, Central Oregon Visitors Association, and La Pine and Sunriver Chambers of Commerce's efforts to promote the area as a tourist destination; b. Promoting the Upper Deschutes, Little Deschutes, and Fall rivers for low-impact activities such as fishing and canoeing; and c. Marketing the Cascade Lakes Highway as a defining South County asset and gateway. Goal 7 Diversify the rural economy. Policy 7.I Adopt zoning for small destination resorts, as defined in ORS 197.445. Policy 7.2 Encourage telecommunications companies to develop high-speed internet access to support local businesses. Policy 7.3 Assess the feasibility of rural development initiatives, including potential amendments to County Code, such as: a. Forest product businesses; b. Extractive industries; c. Energy facilities; and/or d. Neighborhood oriented commercial development. Public Facilities Goal 8 Sustain public facilities and services commensurate with South County's unique development pattern. Policy 8.1 Support local, state, and federal law enforcement and fire protection agencies. 12 NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY Policy 8.2 Support agencies and organizations like the Deschutes Public Library, Bend-La Pine School District, Little Deschutes Grange Hall and La Pine Park and Recreation District's missions that provide: a.Services and programs for the community; and b. Meeting spaces and educational resources. Goal 9 Partner with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to protect groundwater and public health. Policy 9.1 Explore opportunities for Goal I I exceptions and the full range of advance wastewater treatment opportunities, including but not limited to, the use of onsite alternative treatment technology, centralized sewer systems and cluster systems. a. The zoning of the properties identified in the Goal I I exception will retain the same zoning as prior to the Goal I I exception; the Goal I I exception cannot be used to upzone properties to more intensive uses. Policy 9.2 Conduct a joint Board of County Commissioner/Planning Commission hearing in Newberry Country to: a. Discuss the South County/Northern Klamath County steering committee recommendations; and b.Allow for public comments Transportation Goal I0 Expand transportation options. Policy 10.1 Support appropriate entities and community organizations in their efforts to: a. Expand regional public transit options for residents living in Sunriver, La Pine and outlying rural neighborhoods; b. Expand park and ride lots where there is an identified need; c. Explore commute options such as private ride share or shuttles; d. Expand mobility options for persons with disabilities and/or medical needs; e. Involve user groups such as students, elderly, rural residents and disabled residents in public transit discussions; and f. Provide information about existing transit opportunities. Policy 10.2 Explore the long-term potential for passenger rail. Policy 10.3 Create a regional trail plan in coordination with the City of La Pine, Sunriver, Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), La Pine Park and Recreation District, U.S. Forest Service, special road districts, and homeowner associations, considering at minimum: a.Adequate rights of way; b.Appropriate locations and designs to provide connectivity; c. Public safety; d.Access to schools, parks, employment and other popular destinations; and NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY 13 e. Funding sources, including bicycle licenses. Policy 10.4 Support the trails identified in the County Transportation System Plan and, when requested, evaluate proposed trails such as: a. U.S. Forest Service efforts to improve non-motorized connections that either use or parallel USFS # 41 Road from Spring River Road just west of Sunriver to Cascade Lakes Highway by the Inn of the 7th Mountain. b. U.S. Forest Service proposal for a paved path from Sunriver to Lava Lands Visitor Center. Policy 10.5 Evaluate emerging trail opportunities that include: a. Partnerships with other public trail planning processes and trail development groups with technical experience; b. River corridor or river trails such as those promoted by the Bend Paddle Trail Alliance; and c.A regional trail connecting Central Oregon communities such as La Pine, Sunriver and Bend. Policy 10.6 Request BPAC to amend their bylaws to require at least one at-large member be from South County. Policy 10.7 Support local initiatives to create a South County trail alliance organization. Policy 10.8 Work with affected jurisdictions to acquire, develop, connect, and maintain a series of trails along the Deschutes River and surrounding public spaces. Policy 10.9 Work cooperatively with City and parks and recreation districts to support grant applications to build or maintain trails in the rural County. Goal I I Maintain and improve the public road system. Policy I I.I Support the voluntary formation of special road districts. Policy I I.2 Partner with special road districts, the County Road Department and neighborhood associations to determine the best ways to maintain roads that provide primary thoroughfares or emergency egress. Policy 11.3 Identify potential funding options for road maintenance. Policy I I.4 Post a clear explanation of which roads are maintained and why on the Road Department website. Goal I2 Partner with Oregon Department of Transportation, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Sunriver and La Pine to address regional transportation issues. Policy 12.1 Coordinate solutions for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles to cross Highway 97. 14 NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY Policy 12.2 Evaluate a north-south alternative to Highway 97 on the western edge of South County, extending from Burgess Road to Spring River Road. Policy 12.3 Coordinate with Oregon Department of Transportation and the City of La Pine on the La Pine Transportation System Plan. Policy 12.4 Work with the U.S. Forest Service to address maintenance of Forest Service roads that provide access to rural subdivisions, such as USFS #44. Policy 12.5 Encourage the use of partnering agency resources for comprehensive substance abuse prevention strategies in order to reduce impaired walking, cycling and driving. Natural Hazards Goal 13 Minimize the threat of wildfire in the Wildland Urban Interface. Policy 13.1 Assist fire districts and community organizations in fire prevention activities, such as: a. FireFree spring and fall events; b. Debris clearing and/or drop off and pick up sites; c. Ladder fuel reductions; and d. Updating Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Policy 13.2 Encourage neighbors and residents to become Firewise, a national recognition for fire-adapted communities. Policy 13.3 Amend County Code to require landowners to maintain defensible space. Policy 13.4 Encourage the formation of an organization within the Greater La Pine Community Wildfire Protection Plan area with a fire fighting and river corridor protection focus similar to the Upper Deschutes River Coalition. Policy 13.5 Support the productive use of materials removed during fuel reduction efforts. Policy 13.6 Work with homeowners, the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Oregon Department of Forestry to ensure all subdivisions have adequate evacuation routes and signage. Goal 14 Prepare for other natural and man-made hazards. Policy 14.1 Maintain a Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan as described in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Section 3.5, Natural Hazards. Policy 14.2 Evaluate the potential for man-made hazards associated with the Burlington Northern Santa-Fe Railway and Highway 97. NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY 15 } Policy 14.3 Evaluate existing emergency shelters to ensure the alternates are available if primary shelters are not available. Policy 14.4 Provide information on noxious weed regulations and effective weed control. Goal 15 Promote individual self-sufficiency while recognizing community interdependence. Policy 15.1 Promote personal responsibility in preparing for natural disasters. Policy 15.2 Encourage families to become self-sufficient for the first three days after a major disaster by taking, at minimum, the following steps: a. Make a plan; b. Build a three-day emergency supplies kit; and, c. Get trained in CPR and first aid. Natural Resources Goal 16 Support environmental stewardship and natural resource protection. Policy 16.1 Support the implementation of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 2013 Southern Deschutes/Northern Klamath County Groundwater Protection Steering Committee recommendations listed on pages 3-5. a. Goal I I: Provide a Goal I I Exception for the at-risk areas in South Deschutes County. b. Groundwater Testing: Support efforts by DEQ to fund a groundwater testing program. c. Sanitary Authority: Provide technical and legal assistance to a citizen-initiated Sanitary Authority. d. Livestock Limits: Continue to educate livestock owners and complaining parties by distributing the matrix "Keeping Livestock in Rural Residential Setting: Enforcement and Education." e. Point Sources: Coordinate with DEQ to assess the feasibility of.establishing a permitting/groundwater monitoring program for all golf courses, nurseries, commercial RV parks, manufactured/mobile home parks, and other point sources. f. Alternative Treatment Technology (ATT) Moratorium: Coordinate with DEO and Environmental Quality Commission rule amendments__pertaining to ATT on-site system requirements as allowed by law. g Financing for Disadvantaged Communities: Support DEQ's research on how other states have established financial aid for sewage treatment and propose an approach to use in southern Deschutes County h.._Outreach Community Education: Continue to involve South County residents on groundwater issues 16 NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY i. Alternative "Green" Solutions: Support DEQ's efforts to assess green technology for wastewater disposal and setting of applicable performance standards Policy 16.42 Coordinate with non-profit organizations that have technical expertise and an active presence in South County such as Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District, Deschutes River Conservancy, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Upper Deschutes River Coalition, and Trout Unlimited. Policy 16.23 Facilitate or support public processes to enhance community understanding on issues that may impact the natural environment, such as pesticide/herbicide use or geothermal energy development. Policy 16.34 Support an accessible web-based directory or rural handbook describing local organizations specializing in environmental issues so citizens can easily identify points of contact. Policy 16A5 Track the air quality impacts from potential sources of pollution, such as unpaved dirt roads, controlled and uncontrolled burns and industrial projects. Policy 16.56 Encourage responsible alternative energy initiatives that recognize South County's energy potential. Policy 16.67 Maintain a South County representative on the Deschutes County Weed Control District Board. Policy 16.78 Support efforts to expand recycling opportunities and community composting, including woody debris and curbside recycling, if feasible. Policy 16.89 Assess the feasibility of forming a South County wetlands mitigation bank. Policy 16.910 Coordinate with homeowner efforts to address stagnant water in side channels draining to the Deschutes River. Policy 16.4011 Coordinate with state and federal agencies on significant natural resource issues, including new threatened or endangered species listings. Policy 16.1-112 Participate with all partners in the upper Deschutes Basin on a comprehensive water management plan that restores and manages flows in the upper Deschutes River while meeting the needs of users and property owners. Policy 16.4-213 Consider an ordinance to limit the number of livestock allowed on small acreages in order to limit nitrates from entering the groundwater and protecting public health. Policy 16.-1314 Provide information about: a. Maintaining native streamside vegetation in wetlands and floodplains to protect NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY 1 7 water quality; and b. Negative effects of fertilizers, lawns, and non-native grasses impacting wetlands, floodplains and streams. Recreation Goal 17 Encourage a variety of parks, trails and recreation options for South County residents. Policy 17.1 Support parks and recreation facilities and services by: a. Engaging the neighborhoods not served by a park district as of 2012 in a discussion of park district options; b.Supporting the expansion of outdoor amenities, such as public or private campgrounds; and c.Supporting agencies, schools and organizations, such as the La Pine Parks and Recreation District or Bend La Pine School District, that provide a variety of youth facilities and programs. Policy 17.2 Collaborate with the La Pine Park and Recreation District, community NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY t organizations, Sunriver and La Pine to provide safe and convenient river access points, including: a. Improving existing sites including those at or near Harper Bridge and Maxwell Veterans Memorial Bridge; and b.Assessing options for new or improved public locations. Policy 17.3 Work with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to maintain and improve access to recreation activities including hunting, fishing, hiking and off- road opportunities. Policy I 7.4 Ensure that the trails policies under the Transportation section of this Plan consider also multi-use and specialized recreational trails. NEWBERRY COUNTRY:A PLAN FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY 19 c)e, Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division LJ P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: October 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Public hearing on Ordinance 2015-007 (Planning File 247-15-000308-PA), which would amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to add an exception to Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) to allow for sewers in unincorporated lands in southern Deschutes County; amend language to Newberry Country Plan to prevent upzoning; and add a Goal 11 map indicating affected tax lots BACKGROUND The La Pine sub-basin of the Upper Deschutes River is underlain by a shallow aquifer that currently supplies the primary source of drinking water for approximately 18,000 people. The soils in the region are highly porous and permeable with no impervious layer to protect the aquifer from pollution sources. The water table ranges in depth from less than two feet to about thirty feet below land surface. Development in rural areas threatens groundwater quality in southern Deschutes County through on-site system discharges. About 15,000 lots of one-half to one-acre in size were platted prior to enactment of Oregon's land use planning laws in the 1960s and 1970s. These lots are located within a corridor near the scenic Deschutes River and the Little Deschutes River. Subdivision developers marketed these lots nationally with no promise of infrastructure improvements and without an understanding of the region's high water table or the aquifer's vulnerability. Currently, there are approximately 7,000 improved lots in the La Pine region study area that use conventional on-site systems and individually owned drinking water wells. Most of these wells draw from the most vulnerable upper 100 feet of the aquifer. South Deschutes County has been the focus of extensive local, state and federal attention beginning in the early 1980s with the identification of significant groundwater impacts from on- site wastewater treatment systems in the then La Pine Unincorporated Community. Provided below is a timeline of events related to water quality in the region. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in July 1996 began a program to study the more than 12,000 residential lots platted in the 1960s and '70s in an area of approximately 42 square miles, which are primarily served by on-site septic systems. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) assisted with the process as did the United States Geological Survey (USGS), which produced a model of groundwater movement and pollution. The result was this area of southern Deschutes County was at risk of having nitrate levels exceed federal and state standards for drinking water. A final report was issued to DLCD in 1999. Quality Services Performed with Pride Deschutes County had enacted a local rule in 2008 to address the problem, which would require residents to convert their existing septic systems to alternative treatment systems within 14 years. The local rule was subsequently overturned by voters in 2009. DEQ convened an advisory committee in 2010 to study the problem and that group recommended the problem be addressed with sewers rather than upgraded on-site septic systems. A sewer on rural lands requires an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11. Such an exception is specifically allowed to mitigate an imminent public health hazard. The DEQ advisory committee in 2013 recommended pursuing this course. DEQ, DLCD, and Deschutes County staff then held public meetings in April 2015 in La Pine and Sunriver to discuss the purpose of Goal 11, how an exception to Goal 11 would be processed by Deschutes County, and that a Goal 11 exception offers the option of sewers but did not mandate sewers. On June 17, 2015, DEQ, DLCD, and Deschutes County submitted land use application 247-15- 000308-PA to the County to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan to add an exception to Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) to allow for sewers in unincorporated lands in southern. Deschutes County; amend language to Newberry Country Plan to prevent upzoning; and add a Goal 11 map indicating the affected tax lots. Additionally, the County mailed a flyer to more than 10,000 property owners in the area which summarized the issues, the reason for the Goal 11 exception, the fact if successful the Goal 11 exception would only offer the option of sewers, but not require them, and announced the time, date, and place of public hearings before the Planning 'Commission (PC) on July 23 in La Pine and August 13 in Bend. The PC received public testimony and deliberated on September 10, 2015, recommending 7-0 the Board approve the Goal 11 Exception as proposed, albeit with one change. The PC recommended the Board include all recommendations from the 2013 DEQ Steering Committee in its "South Deschutes County/North Klamath County Groundwater Project: Report and Recommendations." Staff relayed this information to the Board at an October 7, 2015, work session. The Board expressed a desire for staff to review the 2013 DEQ report and draft possible related policies to introduce at the October 28, 2015, public hearing. Staff has prepared draft policy language to be amended into the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and/or the Newberry Country Plan, which is a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will present the draft policy language at the Board's October 28, 2015, public hearing. PROPOSAL The proposed amendments to the Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan are to allow rural sewers in unincorporated lands in southern Deschutes County. The exception would allow the option of sewers at varying scales, but would not require them. The following Goal 11 Exception Statement would be added to Section 5.10 of the Comprehensive Plan: 2 A reasons exception was taken to Goal 11 to allow for sewers in the unincorporated lands of southern Deschutes County due to issues with high groundwater and nitrates. Additionally, the proposed amendment would amend Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County to add Policy 9.1(a) which would read as follows: The zoning on the properties identified in the Goal 11 exception will retain the same zoning as prior to the Goal 11 exception; the Goal 11 exception cannot be used to upzone properties to more intense land uses. A section in the Newberry Country Plan which had referenced a then-impending Steering Committee would be updated to include the Steering Committee's recommendation. The language to be deleted is shown as strikethrough and the language to be added is underlined. eta' - e- - _ - e e e -- "- - -- - . On July 2013 DEQ released its "South Deschutes County/North Klamath Groundwater Protection: Report and Recommendations." The report recommended a Goal 11 exception based on the Steering Committee's unanimous approval on January 9, 2013. The Goal 11 exception was preferred for several reasons, including the size and density of residential lots that predated the establishment of the state's 10-acre minimum lot size; the ability of citizens to implement public sewage treatment, but not be mandated to choose sewers; and that centralized systems allow better treatment of nitrates and other contaminants. The Goal 11 exception was approved under land use application 247-15-000308- PA and implemented through Ordinance 2015-007, which are adopted into this plan by reference. Finally, a Goal 11 map would be added to the Comprehensive Plan which indicates the affected tax lots. NEXT STEPS The Board will open the public hearing and receive public testimony. At the conclusion of the testimony the Board has several options: • Continue the public hearing to a date certain • Close the hearing to oral testimony, but leave the record open to a date certain to receive written testimony • Close the hearing and set deliberations to a date certain • Close the hearing and immediately begin deliberations 3 REVIEWED LE AL CO SEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to add an Exception to * ORDINANCE NO. 2015-007 Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services)to Allow for Sewers in Unincorporated * Lands in Southern Deschutes County WHEREAS, the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD"), Department of Environmental Quality("DEQ"), and Deschutes County ("County") have studied public health impacts relating to high groundwater and nitrates in southern Deschutes County; and WHEREAS, DEQ, DLCD, and the Deschutes County Community Development Department ("CDD"), initiated an amendment (Planning Division File 247-15-000308-PA) to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections, and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Supplement, Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County, to identify and study data and impacts sufficient to support a Goal 11 Exception("reasons") for unincorporated lands in southern Deschutes County; and WHEREAS, the DEQ and DLCD in cooperation with Deschutes County have prepared a map defining the area for the Goal 11 Exception based on the combination of existing and planned land uses, depth to wastewater; and needs related to the distribution and disposal groundwater, and infrastructure n osal of p WHEREAS, the DEQ and DLCD have stated generally in their agency's respective scientific analysis that while a significant public health hazard is not presently imminent, a public health hazard is inevitable unless preemptive solutions, including sewers systems, are made available in southern Deschutes County; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes on July 230 August 13, and September 10, 2015, and forwarded to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board"), a unanimous recommendation of approval;and WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after a duly noticed public hearing on October 28, 2015, and concluded that the public will benefit from the proposed changes to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5, Supplemental Section; and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Supplement, Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County, now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: PAGE 1 OF 2-ORDINANCE NO.2015-007(10/28/15) Section 1. AMENDMENT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections, is amended as shown in Exhibit"A,"Map of Areas Subject to Goal 11 Exception. Section 2. AMENDMENT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in stii-kethrough. Section 3. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Supplement, Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County is amended to read as described in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein,with new language underlined and language to be deleted in striketheeugh. Section 4. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "D," attached and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this of , 2015 BOARD OF COUNTY.COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair ALAN UNGER,Vice Chair w TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Date of 1St Reading: day of , 2015. Date of 2"d Reading: day of , 2015. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Alan Unger Effective date: day of , 2015. PAGE 2 OF 2-ORDINANCE NO. 2015-007(1 0/28/15) ��-�, ' I / To.R 0 ,fir •..J'� 5 (y. T4{y 3 i R ° 2 4ri is %. ;irit ;... 1 / yo?✓ Sunriver.` L.� p 1 Sp�NG YRIVER RD 4LT?er8 ¢ NESYP`ii?? i Springs 0 Map ► -7:i..._.. g I2 ti RAIL DR r;' / - a aTAGESTOQ w: __:r ark! r K Map 3 ,G„ W SVR�DR A 4 // ._,17.,ihr .... .,,,..0. li iry,L: C r --Map— r/1� ,r Map to Map 8 ix .a (1.2 D '�°" w G DR t.....! §.S.' Op,� PARKWAY D' „^ m .r, r ,04.°'6" CORNELL OR r r f c,04.°'6'9 sp . • ' FR I. Map 9 - M. .;r DR'u1:,a a %Mal_i-- w 5P ��O #.1 » c-,2' 02Q ,= a 3... .6 p,J1'., • www0wrwilllr�-...- ..i ..._..,..u.. .. LIBERTY RD 9 ...... + ...� �....... J of I � � - L Pi ne e Mae 13 M-B 4,v f1 1.5 HALE RD 2 �. \ I VE "'1$Ty TryREED,RD W - • sa 1 ^,�p `� Qy „- • 6111 ET fj .FINLE.YEgV_� r I r ... ,..„ /7.--' ....._.... �p.CKPINE LOOP 77 r......._„„„...,...._..-t I....._I y MASIEN,RD f t.. 1 I I I {- Map 16 . < Map 1f� j/ Map 8 ' ' I j f - f n �' 1.11_L ._ f I _ '—I Legend Goal 11 Exception Area Railroad Exhibit A- Index Map • ▪ Unincorporated Community to Ordinance 2015-007 /rS1k< =Goal 11 Exception Map Index V V Goal 11 Exception Area Boundary �1 Vtl < 0 z River Miles October21,2015 /"/' F O _ z o i ii li If ii i f(: if 7,t yqN tzo 4 1 „,-' �q- O / 59c g N ''�f. —�NG RNkF Lpop R ° s6M y - \`,... DOWNEY RD r -4,-•-: e oanzzco ii IX2ERPOD 4- i ,r'' i 1 agMalEMICI: s,..\4 �f' NAPO RD hr Pg5A0ENq Rp. h/ '` `SY.N°L°OpW 9, fi RD �� PGPNO /f /�' O BLUE NER� ,V 5 a // ii i /�/ SHPRP° W000.00UK OA S ° �\ Legend Goal 11 Exception Area i + Railroad Exhibit A-Map 1 of 18 • f Unincorporated Community to Ordinance 2015-007 r.+C �” FI Goal 11 Exception Map Index nle inlennsuen en h.inap.7..0 VI.09.Goal 11 Exception Area .�eT :Z„ 0 4.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 .e........e.,ni...rn..aet...•Marco River 1 — — giivides October21,2015 . / �Y'1yUSR ;,Z--,:..._,,,, ► '/Mj•�� 3 VJg % 2 i(.if • RD'AIR'LN- • 1/ .i. /...._.....f i c::__ ,,t..., :SCAND.RD'In,,,,,-, .., ?8 • _-._........ Vii!/ it ci y¢. .a . s....� y .i. y I i1 i ��> i�' row �'\ /, % ` i ! r' !' �� po i ,�i,, r )4,r)---■:4- .\` RoNDER0 i'� i Ic.,aw F9 Sc un i /!i I, - /' t; QQ x/ I / I� - // / F�RWAV LN '� .�E / f r 4= J 0 � R % -�h r ar J`. - ■- . .-. . .araa•� Y!! �3 . r�.te �� y = JA` SPLg l q ' { � s I / / River ;;= • //,.„., 'S Rr k. ] r i DOWNEY RD 1-_-_,f: t. .. _... _s. _1 rearaggg) ' M. ) \ �// G O X7 ` ' o� Crosswater r._.-. I c ,Elf t 2 - IS aAe .7 •j CaIdera 1 limalsrat G 7 sa� .y- Springs: 1 /• 1'4'; '''R-Li‘ 1 ''Elgt-ib2-■:"' 1 / ' *201101,Z .,,,...,?,,,,v 0 : .:_-7 fly 1I / m. J N►1 !! % / {et �'''. f o -,L - Er EcE` Ii z tt , , o li TRIO-vo-LL &\_ 1, /c d".>"1 - 4 1II ,.. 2G32112Q) ''E} - 11 LL r, / o is y 'I r. '� k, ER O tit / f RASADE - �..._ I O �.. ,, Aq fi { Co o I H IL <FyW Goo 70 r, 1 /h, ,/ AY 0.'" -GP ) , ; �r \O II■ _VANOEVERT:RD� / /:eilitmo EILU ,.ti 1 a 1 F yRON °.n- p 17 DR ' Qs\ if� h, �`S` KODIAKILN , 1 / 6I•-. \� 1 / C /HARLEQUIN DRro �.•1 ■ °Go GKO '\ i I / 1. DU GO DEN YE 0- • I r, I r` .... • x1I II t1 it Legend Goal 11 Exception Area I 1 Railroad Exhibit A-Map 2 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 ,, �•'' ; Unincorporated Pte,ncorporated Community : Goal 11 Exception Map Index Cl/) Goal 11 Exception Area g, 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 rw.....,w.yaa.m.,.a...u..er..e ...e..y...,."''''=wa IIIII River Miles October21,2015 '�I pa �y. / / // /7 r 7 j// ll 11 It U Ill J i s' / ��.....�..........�...,.-..—_.............._g.0 E N7 u RY_O R_:__...�__.-...-.�_.__.-,.�.._}�.�__.�-Y.. r _ A t ,aU Ftw . 8 . __ __.. . ...___L ! :, {OOP ORE r� .__ W J/ MFR°OpOR� a I %) 3 o V „f Legend Goal 11 Exception Area Railroad Exhibit A- Map 3 of 18 • : Unincorporated Community to Ordinance 2015 007 t, ; _ Goal 11 Exception Map Index Ell Goal 11 Exception Area a,�•�.••m� ��n•�, 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 MI River .e.....„•.ra.•md ...,,.••nn..,..o •••"°"9^n„e,n.wnm River Mlles October 21,2015 ';�ptlARTZ-NIL4 "�� y , //!+ P P PS pRq N�pR " 131-it HERON �1 //7/- w ,/ i/ sHA�POR lap Op /// ,. OLpK PR �1 / W AGO a STAG ESTOPCi 7 F 00� SAM BIG'RIVSR OR J x.�TUp'1: HE! 4,, �.- ��. �� 7 � � Qty ' __._—T....._. 1 1331=4.1? i J $TgRO n _1 O III ._....,—.�.................... 5 R Tip 1 4 1 , rrO p w.„0, R. ��W v OUNTRY DR Tq¢ IMINRCEMIVI 1; Legend Goal 11 Exception Area Railroad Exhibit A- Map 4 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 ` , l; s Unincorporated Community � � ` Goal 11 Exception Map Index Goal 11 Exception Area a°°1: o°1a m"` °„='-T,M,'4'° ^�_°�'' 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 o 7 o-:u �a.mei aan.,,r.�pwMe�orpme.e«wmnrw^^v, IIIIII River I — — i im,les .., .�. October 21,2015 `I 11,1 /(j- - II 1 iEe 1 /`.. i -r--'1' 1`, i�_..I i y�N' EV RPRO�.." .- ," . -....� i• `T - ___ D id a. VPN I `�/ J f l ,i KODIA LN i yy (--‘,4/ V " l r \ ,l� BEAR�PAW LN / r`; /' K'000 O� MOCKINGBIRD LN / OU6K GOLDEN •E•DR 1 fi IY 0 �'. _........ a ,.�, Y .. —_ . I I 1 1. o m OLD WOOD RD 1 I r it Y I' s AZEZECP:: j r W¢ n // ,/ : .? ii .7_' / / ppy�� / /�. r// / / / iy V I;t Ilr !: 1 /' ' / / } / i; I 17/,I/ :d. m i /7 1 / Q ' / WHIPS--I' ,/ / / /. I I Tp / '/ ; 1 hoq /r1 ligi i .CT / I 1' Legend Goal 11 Exception Area i— Railroad Exhibit A- Map 5 of 18 ; Unincorporated Community to Ordinance 2015 007 /t ,; %c1A� II Goal 11 Exception Map Index apim Goal 11 Exception Area 0 0.125 0.25 05 0.15 River ini miles October 21,2015 '7e:1......1.„2 .. R LOOP OR 0. ... - l' E i J: z , i o i rr`' .,-7" // /% // 4 J 1 f l KECREAT/oN; '� II�� gyp.'- \ 7 I �1 0 i - �` '1 ,,...t peschute5�1Ve1 ` I'll 0 rc . . CAMINOUE ORO AVE m PINE''DROP L Legend Goal 11 Exception Area --+--- Railroad Exhibit A-Map 6 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 � Unincorporated Community Goal 11 Exception Map Index Goal 11 Exception Area _ ,,p.„a,„�, 0 0.125 0,75 0.5 0.75 �.::: ,,.M..„ .r∎:?::o,.a.i.e Miles River Oelober 21,2015 I p Rj er my r A a° `"'star g 7d WHITE'OP W COUNTRY DR • T LF � OX0gq ,4- p 9•Y a o RD'`—.. ... t Ze C' ONO MSS= tinagEr \\ OM= y ill 430 '9 PIPIP P SA 6`esR r — --LAPINE STATE RECREATION . ___.. – -- 4f r1 I"///// .......i amp -,,,,,____ Cy 1(.,__ 5c." . -1 j F 1 o S"� 3� if 1-- •w v f .._...._ 1/ 4 ji f t3 f I '/pRq,R,Fn ° D.M 2 M 1 •PA S�'O RAGU0.0. 5,, � J C.•�. .. �.. , RIVERVIEW:OR P.p t, ri".7 JGi er J , o JJ ,1, ' n3GD i 11 F J (=FA= 4 T.o F�.�' J / /i 1J • r Il /4,‘ i Cam w i .0P . —1--7-1 n,;a _ - .. �,.OP.A1 II. I 1 r 1t . f J Legend Goal 11 Exception Area I , Railroad Exhibit A- Map 7 of 18 % to Ordinance 2015-007 ,,i, • Unincorporated Community • • r Goal 11 Exception Map Index IIIII Goal 11 Exception Area � m°= o x.125 0.25 9.5 0.75 ,,,,.,,,,.•„e,,,a,,,,,,,��, ,,,,,. IN River Miles r ar October 21,2015 r: / w _ I .• ,, s r IZEZM j 1; I y ' -IELBROCK,DR \' `/ WHITOP / i 1 AAY.FIELD-DR 1 / / l 4- / / •r �1. 'I If1 m f WILLOW CT rI r cam 11 / / 1 j / I t1 . r i / 1 i I �r/ i ,r C I _ 1 ___I _..__1 1 - NPINE STATE kECREATION 14b••-- j fL ff / r �t ft l� 1 if,IL i, rp 2 y 11' 11 r , .r �_, / F W Ii //; x % // m o I / •,.5 t, I....._ 11 1 / ' i •tl. l, li Legend Goal 11 Exception Area I I Railroad Exhibit A- Map 8 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 �; , Z : Unincorporated Community IJ Goal 11 Exception Map Index lall Goal 11 Exception Area ''""'""n'''' 0 0 125 0.25 0.5 075 „a..nr,anm ,,,,1. 2s•„ee,wr,�,,,,e Miles River October 21,20Th •rte 40 p4 FR� eL SR O a a 0 e, immtuotur �Py Legend Goal 11 Exception Area �-� Railroad Exhibit A- Map 9 of 18 Unincorporated Community to Ordinance 2015-007 ;•: Ilti Goal 11 Exception Map Index Goal 11 Exception Area •apro m no 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0]s River October21,2015 SNOWBERR R V Ln ¢ a PARKWAY OR O HA WKSLAIR�R� � J �JFOREST RD BURLWOODLN - d HOL\Q AY g'S BIIENVI5TA DR , kc eO�- a TALLWOOO( " MaRMIZIAV WOODCHIP ." CO MCAD.W D`'. RAIN R0 �h ALPINE 0R °� W .5' i \ DEE*ON RI. GIIIMMOW $P 4 yP 1, aaND QO A r ii NORTHWOOD OR `j \ w o - �/ �� ,,,e-`,-'7,'&Q el FOR %P e ,01-1IT PINE WAY pRONTA pV ELDERRERRYLN ;y Legend Goal 11 Exception Area I I Railroad Exhibit A- Map 10 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 Unincorporated Community ��'� ' ' Goal 11 Exception Map Index • Goal 11 Exception Area ^.°�° a '° „ 4'°dM. 0 0.175 0.25 05 0.75 .o-e1nm 4.,.=w ...iaev,„,,,.e '"""P °' 11111111 River Mlles October21,2015 ..... .,.. AMINO DE ORO ire z Al o p ,- cE� / apannaz L /% 1 izo=r0 1 \ o ii 1 �� „ ... ON1O, p P _ .,...,-. 1:::j''; ', .i ... ! `/ 6�a0w•,•••n, SERPEI // 1'q li MOVE l i Ji% , tar= 1._.........__ .. _. ...- / n,. I I I/ ° 177 ii d CS,Cr ' ... i; 1 ,-UNRISE.BLVD 1/, / 4 1 C7i7 P–_ z I// " t x' Ogg BIGMEPOaw.DR I ii 1 A J7 I 1 PCZEM II i • X11 a .--...... ORF T.RD (�f '1 RO 1 1 TIMBE5 L/ ii DEEDON .-.,. 41.1- 7 a a ° ��J W..'.0 CS= €020/122 °a I ....J�.._I j -rte'- ! ......`�'" a i—CAGL RO l� z L�' 1......, n . Tr a r i I. � I PIN -,.T P .�� ....'1--_ 7_`�I• i—q H n '' �............�- ��_ .tea I 2 ..._. a�-- z - • 1 0- WO- OR SIT,TER,BRU H RD ¢ "7•,_ I SUNSET LN ..c8-1 r o City ofT,;i_. —,f w -4..... -11 _, __y ; Zeittgla �... a La Pine_ -_I l\\ D.- ! L),_;(/' I r `h ACOBSEN RDQ o i �I I -' C--•. ¢ 7` 71f �. / �� 1—O -...... ..1 i.:`tiJ,'ti ,:FRONTAGE:RD ,.. BURGESS RO � Ilil' x i /,. i� �'Lo T�iELENA LNG /1 / y`R O StANO.} C a r 7 11,...... i / !/ I r�r h wILLO - t i . 1 w' ■ ; i, / / _� ; , - X ., ERGREEN LN 1 Legend Goal 11 Exception Area I I Railroad Exhibit A- Map 11 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 ; Unincorporated Community M,,,* QGoal 11 Exception Map Index V V IIIN Goal 11 Exception Area • 0.125 025 0 5 0 75 we,.....n...a, ...y n......nw.....e ,•r. n..An,n IIII River t i Mu ss October 21,2015 e , r' `;, 1 t Ni / 1,\ il • ''I ' 1t I ., ` r / \'ti�, w 1 _ a 1. MIS .N.\\'''3 A j D w m C- �/ ,_ ,i ..... 9 r. �� . ~''':',\ ,1 11,1 ii i` 1't P I ea'' n f v OLGA�' OR.H.MOa ,`�. r 051153t° Vs :/.. i �= ` N`\ -_ j ryATOMA CT ', 110M5f r / �/ ze } 3 w s w a O Legend Goal 11 Exception Area Railroad Exhibit A-Map 12 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 sy' Unincorporated Community E ` I• ;Y,s,;,;;„,;,,: Goal 11 Exception Map Index Goal 11 Exception Area 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 w...�.r...�, ......w,.a.i.e �•"mm n s o»..� River Miles October 21.2015 ., 3 a 0 0. F ` N`K6p H,,t, RP iG 1 cAMa,„, N06;9,0 LOp Lf....__, SAk.vwO e p , 1 I. �a 1 e-` ye \C'''''' s rJ ° Legend Goal 11 Exception Area I I Railroad Exhibit A- Map 13 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 =,„ .„,, Unincorporated Community 2,•oc • QGoal 11 Exception Map Index ”' Goal 11 Exception Area =.:...v. M^f•�rz 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.%5 •'- ra somu.a River Miles ,.waw...�a.�.�e,W.e,w.�.�... October 21,2015 R I , ,�\ h z 0 4 F% P 40IJOISE DR y • 7 f/ OR O ,.,.,...V.IN\7E PINE WAY RDY . \ KIX= 131=1(72 f � SnSUDp0.PINE 441'.4 Ckel WAQDELL RD ..�{f OODLAND ��N C. i PONDER t7WNED.� ,it POND 0.5,4 L,0,..._p NSOPM SPRrNOWc - 'RONBAO i,� 1141M13455 1 O T O. k L \ r et e' / ��.n 0. Fd i 1 1 I i 1 - ,. .. 1 I i 1 I K: i , I Legend Goal 11 Exception Area Railroad Exhibit A-Map 14 of 18 Oh to Ordinance 2015-007 Unincorporated Community zr. ' : i Goal 11 Exception Map Index Goal 11 Exception Area 0 0.125 0.25 0 5 0.]5 , ry .en .•K.a.n�.� eo.m.c - River Miles ......m«e....wm. October 21.2015 �.. t ..:94021400, , : ,, „:„::::, „.:: ::,, " :: . 1` FRONTAGE R- � i 1/ : 4i ' '—H:ii.:_,11---1:::::,11.7.: i i y i i.Citof '.---r--11 La La-Pine-e 4„TR'A MI V c_RO, o — r1 w ; .w .d k _ % �% ° i ;r , �lL - _ BURGESS Rq !,3,'I r t a r l 747'.._.: l I a.- ^ Y � IN, O t{ELEI AL , //+ -4')% ° �L.3----1r-C.11 I I ' Y ,'i. -9N D_ R r _ / . .. ! 1 W ILOW+ I it I,,- / 1 G �N ,, WAOOELL RD a e EV ERREE .L / ; / / ! /I__._ / i g ! / i z / /tij / / 1 i// ,.. .�-- , J i ,-,,: :: : . �� /i , , ,: y . / ,„ �0� ....... T / /................ 3v........— � ___—„.„..: 1 w r. I I i , -- - �� /��;��/ City of /' i//, , _. �� / La Pine /f ' , MEMORIAL•LN-,f// /Li (j7 ( / 0 / '' II iir .....,,... _.._S.:__.—NALE:RO: __ �'�VICT RY_WAY- /f TI�...l � Q �. 11 1----;m , ; it ._...., �..,_,if. � 1 � _ 1 II E� M. Il r 'r : r 7 r Iffm-rT`Tf T,—= -- T_/ —,.— .FIii �Wii1 '••:EE er2b,... . - PO*V� a,... '(.flu S �r 7 `I �AssEMBLV•WAV• ;.J 0 • ,)��,, dig_ _.77 ..1. . .....[Wolff. I ' !--i w�...N . I ' 'ice;; ,_ ��+ 095P'I . W I ',PILLOMWA 1 / �'ma.6 _�--i (�ry� r p „ ,_WM F �] L ! ,....5TH• Ja� I %1 I.I...i ” / 1V.onumgo l �? !.,i_1[1, . ! i ��. ,� l a^.i ..} ..Y wT7 -. FINLEY_BUTTE•RO t-• I–,._ j ' mT a. ✓/ 7z w = a lK t +i// P..... Vin. -i I ."y4�:� A OR< a ine 0. I / �W�{' ASSIOY OR i I -rY �RILEV'O�R ; a, I//' I'¢y BETT$YDA I 1 I I/ i'� Eff / I �BASSETTIp I .i I I! (( I / / li �;. / / j; r ti it i / JACKPINE LOOP / /. ,, f I Legend Goal 11 Exception Area I , Railroad Exhibit A- Map 15 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 Unincorporated Community e 1 Q Goal 11 Exception Map Index V V ;Mj Goal 11 Exception Area V V 0 '125 0.25 0.5 0.Y6 IIIII River L , l M Miles October 21,2015 1 I ec �e5 �J �i� Oe I II 1i if bi K Y wo Ya o a i a t 1.----" /?.., --"-- (1 LI -� // UOP LN/ ca 11 ` ' I / *J 0 r_ Legend Goal 11 Exception Area -4- I Railroad Exhibit A-Map 16 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 r ti�An 1 •▪ Unincorporated Community I I Goal 11 Exception Map Index Goal 11 Exception Area .,„' . � o,.o „ a 0125 0.25 0.5 0 25 "rrr.'mronw. Y,y 11:.:I"1: IIIIIII River Mlles October 21,2015 e, X0 I a. • I iG i F a i /r r � ;' 1 sa 1 i � :, o WM t T %% 0 � ( /// Ii „// , iii / / ii I eP A, .P 1 I. // i Legend Goal 11 Exception Area Railroad Exhibit A- Map 17 of 18 to Ordinance 2015-007 ` Unincorporated Community TAO t"'��" ED Goal 11 Exception Map Index MI Goal 11 Exception Area .•/mi 7n. ,o.��, pron. 0 0.125 005 0.5 075 r.wmerc..ma r ,,...e..eonru.xo. River Miles October 21.2015 1 3 I „ , „ , :t,4 t; _.1, 1.I City of� I a. d La Pine �-,!! ,, rFao �__ i i' I ��z t �J riEiiA.5:,5D /{ N ` / •��' -CASSIov DR ' k -i._a_I' ,gtlia'r VitR W 1 i , ` BASSETT OR:,;,! ' '11.-"°'54 r w` y , Ti /` F:......._............... .._.............._,.,� it ,. it - a / i it It JACKPINE LOOP I /I II l i? I 0 P]r , ( , ' Vi n^ /.. , ` a 0. Wild ° i w / I� Hunt i W I ! x I , ° 1 MASTEN:RD: . _ A i //' I . , J 1 /,/ a .I ( I■ I i ,r 4 1 . ! ! z f ; ! i. X II ''1 r r 7,!� - —\; ;1 1/i ,„�, !� i` i - — \ I I , , \ I 1 , \,, Legend Goal 11 Exception Area Railroad Exhibit A-Map 18 of 18 ; Unincorporated Community to Ordinance 2015 D07 is CI*`. IJ Goal 11 Exception Map Index M. Goal 11 Exception Area ',; ° 0 o.125 0.25 0 5 0 75 =r1 wa= m . e2"0°°:°"°".°°7°.7.'°7'... IIIIII River Miles OCtO0er21,2015 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Sections 5.10 and 5.12 Language to be added shown as underlined Section 5.10, Goal Exception Statements Southern Deschutes County— Ordinance 2015-007 A reasons exception was taken to Goal 11 to allow for sewers in the unincorporated lands of southern Deschutes County due to issues with high groundwater and nitrates. Section 5.12, Legislative History Ordinance Date Adopted/Effective Chapter/Section Amendment 2015-007 (To Be Decided) 3.11 Map Goal 11 Exception Area in southern Deschutes County; amend Newberry Country Plan Policy 9.1 Exhibit B, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Supplement, Newberry Country:A Plan for Southern Deschutes County, Amendments Language to be added shown as underlined; language to be deleted shown as strikethrou h. Goal 9 (page 13): Goal 9 Partner with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to protect groundwater and public health Policy 9.1 Explore opportunities for Goal 11 exceptions and the full range of advance wastewater treatment opportunities, including but not limited to, the use of onsite alternative treatment technology, centralized sewer systems and cluster systems. a The zoning of the properties identified in the Goal 11 exception will retain the same zoning as prior to the Goal 11 exception; the Goal 11 exception cannot be used to upzone properties to more intense uses Groundwater Quality (page 36): On July 2013 DEQ released its "South Deschutes County/North Klamath Groundwater Protection: Report and Recommendations." The report recommended a Goal 11 exception based on the Steering Committee's unanimous approval on January 9, 2013. The Goal 11 exception was preferred for several reasons, including the size and density of residential lots that predated the establishment of the state's 10-acre minimum lot size; the ability of citizens to implement public sewage treatment, but not be mandated to choose sewers; and that centralized systems allow better treatment of nitrates and other contaminants. The Goal 11 exception was approved under land use application 247-15-000308-PA and implemented through Ordinance 2015-007, which are adopted into this plan by reference. Exhibit C, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 �- Community Development Department 0,1 fPlanning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division ,' •.",; h ..::..'m'�'ik;.„ c�"i?�"S��'VT'*„v;M';y�.J d,.�k��"��d��ha?� .k;�r�Y� an"�vwkFH..„ ;.:.:a. a. :. ;,:.' Avenue e B 97708-6005 P.C. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette A nu Bend, Oregon 9770 (541)388-6575 FAX (541.)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ PROPOSED FINDINGS FILE NUMBER: 247-15-000308-PA APPLICANTS: Nick Lelack, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005, 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97708-6005 Jon Jinings, Community Services Specialist Department of Land Conservation and Development 650 SW Columbia St., Millpoint Building #7100 Bend, OR 97702 Eric Nigg, Eastern Regional Water Quality Manager Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 475 NE Bellevue, Suite 110 Bend, OR 97701 REQUEST: Amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to add an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) to allow for sewers in unincorporated lands in southern Deschutes County; amend applicable Newberry Country Plan goals and policies regarding public facilities and groundwater; add Goal 11 map indicating affected tax lots STAFF CONTACT: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner 1. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Newberry County: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County (addendum to Comprehensive Plan) Oregon Revised Statute 197.732, Goal Exceptions Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exceptions Process Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 11, Public Facilities Planning Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12, Transportation Planning Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services Other Statewide Planning Goals Quality Services Performed with Pride PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT The proposed amendments to Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan are to allow rural sewers in unincorporated lands in southern Deschutes County. The exception would allow the option of sewers at varying scales, but would not require them. The affected lands are either exception lands already; lands in other categories that are adjacent to exception lands and have existing residential settlement patterns and/or are surrounded by public lands; lands in other categories that have an existing residential settlement pattern and are surrounded by public lands. Plan and/or policy language to be deleted is indicated by strikcthrough while new language is underlined. BACKGROUND The La Pine sub-basin of the Upper Deschutes River is underlain by a shallow aquifer that currently supplies the primary source of drinking water for approximately 18,000 people. The soils in the region are highly porous and permeable with no impervious layer to protects the aquifer from pollution sources. In addition, the region's soils are young, pumice-based (volcanic), and relatively low in organic matter. Recharge from natural (precipitation) or human (residential onsite system discharges or irrigation) sources moves rapidly down through surface soils to the aquifer. The water table ranges in depth from less than two feet to about thirty feet below land surface. Recharge (precipitation that reaches groundwater) from infiltration of precipitation averages 2.0 inches per year; the balance of water from precipitation evaporates, transpires, or discharges via surface runoff to rivers. Groundwater discharges in the basin include baseflow contributions to the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers, evapotranspiration by vegetation, and water pumped from wells. Regional groundwater characteristics include temperatures that are among the lowest in the state, generally 42.5 of (6 °C) to 48.2 °F (9 oC) and high dissolved oxygen content (3 mg/L to 6 mg/L). Groundwater velocities are low and, at the water table, groundwater is generally oxic (oxygen rich conditions); however, at depths ranging from near zero to more than fifty feet below the water table it becomes suboxic (depleted oxygen conditions) and natural nitrate reduction (denitrification) can occur. Denitrification thus keeps deeper portions of the La Pine aquifer essentially nitrate-free, but the oxic portions remain vulnerable to nitrate contamination from onsite systems, the primary anthropogenic source. Nitrate contamination of the oxic groundwater is a concern in this region because the shallow oxic aquifer is the desired drinking water supply for individual domestic wells and because of the potential for nitrogen-enriched groundwater to discharge to the nitrogen-limited rivers in the region. Development in rural areas threatens groundwater quality in southern Deschutes County through onsite system discharges. About 15,000 lots of one-half to one-acre in size were platted prior to enactment of Oregon's land use planning laws in the 1960s and 1970s. These lots are located within a corridor near the scenic Deschutes River and the Little Deschutes River. Subdivision developers marketed these lots nationally with no promise of infrastructure improvements and without an understanding of the region's high water table or the aquifer's vulnerability. Currently, there are approximately 7,000 improved lots in the La Pine region study area use conventional onsite systems and individually owned drinking water wells. Most of these wells draw from the most vulnerable upper 100 feet of the aquifer. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 2 OF 36 South Deschutes County has been the focus of extensive local, state and federal attention beginning in the early 1980s with the identification of significant groundwater impacts from onsite wastewater treatment systems in the then La Pine Unincorporated Community. Provided below is a timeline of events related to water quality in the region. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in July 1996 began a program to study the more than 12,000 residential lots platted in the 1960s and '70s in an area of approximately 42 square miles, which are primarily served by on-site septic systems. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) assisted with the process as did the United States Geological Survey (USGS), which produced a model of groundwater movement and pollution. The result was this area of southern Deschutes County was at risk of having nitrate levels exceed federal and state standards for drinking water. A final report was issued to DLCD in 1999. Deschutes County had enacted a local rule in 2008 to address the problem, which would require residents to convert their existing septic systems to alternative treatment systems within 14 years. The local rule was subsequently overturned by voters in 2009. DEQ convened an advisory committee in 2010 to study the problem and that group recommended the problem be addressed with sewers rather than upgraded on-site septic systems. A sewer on rural lands requires an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities Planning. Such an exception is specifically allowed to mitigate an imminent public health hazard. The DEQ advisory committee in 2013 recommended pursuing this course. DEQ, DLCD, and Deschutes County staff then held public meetings in April 2015 in La Pine and Sunriver to discuss the purpose of Goal 11, how an exception to Goal 11 would be processed by Deschutes County, and that a Goal 11 exception offers the option of sewers but did not mandate sewers. AFFECTED AREA The areas affected by the proposal are unsewered areas between Sunriver and the Klamath County border; this area is formally defined as those unincorporated portions of Deschutes 21 S and 22S and Ranges 9E 10E and 11 E except County contained in Townships 19S, 20S, a d p those areas authorized for sewer. REVIEW CRITERIA Ordinance 2015-007 adopts these findings for a Goal 11 exception to allow sewer service to rural lands in southern Deschutes County. Deschutes County lacks specific approval criteria in Deschutes County Code (DCC) Titles 18, 22, or 23 for a legislative plan and text amendment. The County is a co-applicant with DEQ, which has partnered with DLCD; these findings demonstrate compliance with the applicable Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Statewide Planning Goals, and the County's Comprehensive Plan. DEQ and DLCD were the subject matter experts for the ORS, OAR, and Statewide Planning Goals and prepared the findings for those areas; County staff prepared the findings that pertained to the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The findings are organized as follows: • Section (1) —Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures • Section (2) —Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan • Section (3) — Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 3 OF 36 • Section (4) - ORS 197, Comprehensive Land Use Planning • Section (5) —OAR Chapter 660, Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exceptions Process • Section (6) - OAR Chapter 660, Division 11, Public Facilities Planning • Section (7) —OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, Transportation Planning • Section (8) - Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services • Section (9) - Other Statewide Planning Goals Section (1) —Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures A. CHAPTER 22.12, LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES 1. Section 22.12.010. Hearing Required FINDING: The Planning Commission held public hearings on July 23, August 13, and September 10, 2015, and unanimously recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve the application as modified during the PC hearings. The Board held a public hearing on October 28, 2015. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 2. Section 22.12.020, Notice Notice A. Published Notice 1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing. 2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration. FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as notice was published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on June 28, 2015, and described the proposal. B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045. FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as notice was posted in the bulletin board in the lobby of the Deschutes County Community Development Department, 117 NW Lafayette, Bend as well as being posted on-line on the Planning Division website. C. Individual notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC 22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as required by ORS 215.503. FINDING: A flyer explaining the proposal was mailed to all property owners in the proposed Goal 11 exception area. The Board finds this criterion has been met. D. Media notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in Deschutes County. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 4 OF 36 FINDING: Notice was provided to the County public information official for wider media distribution. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 3. Section 22.12.030 Initiation of Legislative Changes. A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees as well as by the Board of County Commissioners. FINDING: The application was jointly initiated by the Deschutes County Planning Division at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The Board finds this criterion has been met. 4. Section 22.12.040. Hearings Body A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this order: 1. The Planning Commission. 2. The Board of County Commissioners. FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as the order of public hearings was met by the Planning Commission holding initial public hearings on July 23 and August 13, 2015 followed by deliberations on September 10, 2015. The Board held its public hearing on Oct. 28, 2015. B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of Commissioners. FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as the Planning Commission public hearing preceded the Board public hearing. 5. Section 22.12.050 Final Decision All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance FINDING: Land use application 247-15-000308-PA is implemented by Ordinance 2015-007; the Board finds this criterion has been met. Section (2) —Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Section Goal 5 Protect and improve water quality in the Deschutes River Basin. Policy 2.5.19 Coordinate with stakeholders to address water-related public health issues. a. Support amendments to State regulations to permit centralized sewer systems in areas with high levels of existing or potential development or identified water quality concerns. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 5 OF 36 b. If a public health hazard is declared in rural Deschutes County, expedite actions such as legislative amendments allowing sewers or similar infrastructure. FINDING: This Goal 11 exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Section 2.5, Water Resource Goals and Policies, specifically Policy 2.5.19(b). The Goal 11 exception will allow sewers on rural lands in southern Deschutes County that are facing an imminent threat to public health_ The Board finds this criterion has been met. Chapter 5, Supplemental Section, Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County FINDING: The Newberry Country Plan is addressed in Section 3 below. Section 5.10, Exception Statements FINDING: This section of the Comprehensive Plan lists all previous exception statements; there are no P oals, policies, or ordinances. The exception statement is for a reasons exception 9 from Goal 11 to allow rural sewers in southern Deschutes County to protect groundwater from nitrate incursion as adopted by Ordinance 2015-007 and will be added to the list. The following language will be added to Section 5.10: A reasons exception was taken to Goal 11 to allow for sewers in the unincorporated lands of southern Deschutes County due to issues with high groundwater and nitrates. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Section 5.12, Legislative History FINDING: This section of the Comprehensive Plan lists all ordina nces; there are no goals, , policies, or objectives. The Goal 11 reasons exception and its implementing ordinance 2015- 007 and the description of its purposed will be added to the legislative history list. The Board find this criterion has been met. Section (3) — Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County, 2012-2032 Goal 5 Address high groundwater lots and zoning and surveying issues. Policy 5.1 Develop a work plan with affected stakeholders to determine the future development and conservation potential of approximately 1,500 high groundwater lots. The work plan will need to incorporate the potential for an unknown number of lots to be served by centralized sewer or other methods of collection in the future, which would make them developable, where that possibility may not currently exist. The work plan shall, at a minimum, analyze: a. The impact of the newly permitted development on roads, riparian areas, wildlife habitat, and wetlands; and b. Acquisition options such as purchasing the lots, land transfers or other ideas. FINDING: This Goal 11 exception will allow the potential establishment of sewers on rural lands in southern Deschutes County. The provided maps and written description of the affected area with high groundwater, i_e. depth to groundwater is 24 inches or less. A GIS analysis that Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 6 OF 36 included any lot with any amount of high groundwater identified approximately 3,353 high groundwater lots of which 2,153 are currently vacant. Of those vacant lots, 1,823 are zoned either Rural Residential, 10-acre minimum (RR-10) or are split-zoned RR-10 and Flood Plain (FP). The section of this document dealing with Statewide Planning Goals 5, 6, 7, 12 addresses Policy 5.1(a). As no property is being purchased at this time, Policy 5.1(b) does not apply. The Goal 11 exception is consistent with Goal 5 and its policies from the Newberry Country Plan. Additionally, the Newberry Country Plan on Page 36 references a yet-unfinished DEQ process to address groundwater in southern Deschutes County. Specifically, the Newberry Country Plan states "[A]s of the date of this Plan's adoption, the DEQ Steering Committee is in the final stages of developing recommendations to protect the groundwater." The Plan was adopted in May 2013. In July 2013, the DEQ released the "South Deschutes/North Klamath Groundwater Protection: Report and Recommendations." On page 5, the report states the Steering Committee unanimously approved on Jan. 9, 2013, to "[P]rovide a Goal 11 exception for the at-risk areas in South Deschutes and North Klamath counties for the following reasons..." and lists among other variables the size of lots platted prior to the 10-acre minimum begin established under the state planning system; the better treatment of nitrate reduction and other contaminants; the ability to allow sewers into the region, but that they would not be mandated; and that citizens could then to implement public sewage treatment systems. The now-dated language on Page 36 will be amended as follows: • - - •- e- - - • - * - - -- -- - •- • ! - -a - -e ... -- • - -• - -- - - .- . - - - ommendations to protect the groundwater. On July 2013 DEQ released its "South Deschutes County/North Klamath Groundwater Protection: Report and Recommendations." The report recommended a Goal 11 exception based on the Steering Committee's unanimous approval on January 9, 2013. The Goal 11 exception was preferred for several reasons, including the size and density of residential lots that predated the establishment of the state's 10-acre minimum lot size; the ability of citizens to implement public sewage treatment, but not be mandated to choose sewers; and that centralized systems allow better treatment of nitrates and other contaminants. The Goal 11 exception was approved under land use application 247-15-000308- PA and implemented through Ordinance 2015-007, which are adopted into this plan by reference. The Goal 11 exception is consistent with the goals and policies of the Newberry Country Plan; therefore the Board finds these criteria have been met. Goal 9 Partner with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to protect groundwater and public health. Policy 9.1 Explore opportunities for Goal 11 exceptions and the full range of advance wastewater treatment opportunities, including but not limited to, the use of onsite alternative treatment technology, centralized sewer systems and cluster systems. The plan amendment would add the following language to Policy 9.1: Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 7 OF 36 a. The zoning on the properties identified in the Goal 11 exception will retain the same zoning as prior to the Goal 11 exception; the Goal 11 exception cannot be used to upzone properties to more intense land uses Policy 9.2 Conduct a joint Board of County Commissioner/Planning Commission hearing in Newberry Country to: a. Discuss the South County/Northern Klamath County steering committee Recommendations; and b. Allow for public comments FINDING: The proposed Goal 11 exception is expressly specified in Policy 9.1. The Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission held a joint meeting in La Pine on July 25, 2013, to hear the recommendations from the South County/Northern Klamath County steering committee and received public comments. The proposed policy language will ensure the land use patterns are not substantially changed in southern Deschutes County. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Section (4), ORS 197.732, Goal Exceptions ORS 197.732 Goal exceptions; criteria; rules; review (1) As used in this section: (a) "Compatible"is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. (b) "Exception" means a comprehensive plan provision, including an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan, that: (A) Is applicable to specific properties or situations and does not establish a planning or zoning policy of general applicability; (B) Does not comply with some or all goal requirements applicable to the subject properties or situations; and (C) Complies with standards under subsection (2) of this section. FINDING: The provisions of ORS 197.732 are further refined and interpreted by Statewide Planning Goal 2 and OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 4 and 11. The legal tests established in state statute are satisfied by adequately responding to the applicable provisions of Oregon administrative rules. Additional findings to OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 4 and 11 are provided in Sections (2) & (3) below. The Board finds these criteria have been met. ORS 197.732(2) A local government may adopt an exception to a goal if: (a) The land subject to the exception is physically developed to the extent that it is no longer available for uses allowed by the applicable goal; Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 8 OF 36 (b) The land subject to the exception is irrevocably committed as described by Land Conservation and Development Commission rule to uses not allowed by the applicable goal because existing adjacent uses and other relevant factors make uses allowed by the applicable goal impracticable; or (c) The following standards are met: (A) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply; (B) Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use; (C) The long term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site; and (D) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. FINDING: The provisions of ORS 197.732 are further refined and interpreted by Statewide Planning Goal 2 and OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 4 and 11. The legal tests established in state statute are satisfied by adequately responding to the applicable provisions of Oregon administrative rules. Please see additional findings to OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 4 and 11 in Sections (2) & (3) provided below. The Board finds these criteria have been met. ORS 197.732(3) The commission shall adopt rules establishing: (a) That an exception may be adopted to allow a use authorized by a statewide planning goal that cannot comply with the approval standards for that type of use; (b) Under what circumstances particular reasons may or may not be used to justify an exception under subsection (2)(c)(A) of this section;and (c) Which uses allowed by the applicable goal must be found impracticable under subsection (2) of this section. FINDING: The provisions of ORS 197.732 are further refined and interpreted by Statewide Planning Goal 2 and OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 4 and 11. The legal tests established in state statute are satisfied by adequately responding to the applicable provisions of Oregon administrative rules. Please see additional findings to OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 4 and 11 in Sections (2) & (3) provided below. The Board finds these criteria have been met. ORS 197.732(4) A local government approving or denying a proposed exception shall set forth findings of fact and a statement of reasons that demonstrate that the standards of subsection (2) of this section have or have not been met. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 9 OF 36 FINDING: The findings in the rest of this document provide the factual basis for the Goal 11 exception based on the standards of the applicable administrative rules and County Comprehensive Plan policies. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. ORS 197.732(5) Each notice of a public hearing on a proposed exception shall specifically note that a goal exception is proposed and shall summarize the issues in an understandable manner. FINDING: The public hearing on this proposed Goal 11 exception was properly noticed. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. Section (5) —OAR 660-004, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exceptions Process 660-004-0000 Purpose OAR 660-004-0000(1) The purpose of this division is to interpret the requirements of Goal 2 and ORS 197.732 regarding exceptions. This division explains the three types of exceptions set forth in Goal 2 "Land Use Planning, Part II, Exceptions." Rules in other divisions of OAR 660 provide substantive standards for some specific types of goal exceptions. Where this is the case, the specific substantive standards in the other divisions control over the more general standards of this division, However, the definitions, notice, and planning and zoning requirements of this division apply to all types of exceptions. The types of exceptions that are subject to specific standards in other divisions are: (a) Standards for a demonstration of reasons for sanitary sewer service to rural lands are provided in OAR 660-011-0060(9); (b) Standards for a demonstration of reasons for urban transportation improvements on rural land are provided in OAR 660-012-0070; (c) Standards to determine irrevocably committed exceptions pertaining to urban development on rural land are provided in OAR 660-014-0030, and standards for demonstration of reasons for urban development on rural land are provided in OAR 660-014-0040. FINDING: The purpose of this Goal 11 exception proposal is to allow a sewer on rural lands in southern Deschutes County. Section 4 of this document addresses the standards specified in OAR 660-004-0000(1)(a), which directs the application to the applicable exception language at OAR 660-011-0060(9). The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. OAR 660-004-0000(2) An exception is a decision to exclude certain land from the requirements of one or more applicable statewide goals in accordance with the process specified in Goal 2, Part II, Exceptions. The documentation for an exception must be set forth in a local government's comprehensive plan. Such documentation must support a conclusion that the standards for an exception have been met. The conclusion shall be based on findings of fact supported by substantial evidence in the record of the local proceeding and by a statement of reasons that explains why the proposed use not allowed by the applicable goal, or a use authorized by a statewide planning goal that cannot comply with the approval standards for that type of use, should be provided for. The exceptions process is not to be used to indicate that a jurisdiction disagrees with a goal. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 10 OF 36 FINDING: This Goal 11 exception proposal is supported by facts and evidence and a statement of reasons why the proposal should be approved. These items are offered in detail in the response to the provisions of OAR 660-004-0020 & 0022 and OAR 660-011-0060(9) below. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. OAR-660-004-0000(3) The intent of the exceptions process is to permit necessary flexibility in the application of the Statewide Planning Goals. The procedural and substantive objectives of the exceptions process are to: (a) Assure that citizens and governmental units have an opportunity to participate in resolving plan conflicts while the exception is being developed and reviewed; and (b) Assure that findings of fact and a statement of reasons supported by substantial evidence justify an exception to a statewide goal. FINDING: This Goal 11 exception proposal was reviewed by local decision makers over the course of multiple local hearings that were open to the public. Any interested party had the opportunity to participate and present testimony. The findings of fact and statement of reasons supported by substantial evidence to justify an exception to Goal 11 were included as part of the public record. The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. OAR 660-004-0000(4) When taking an exception, a local government may rely on information and documentation prepared by other groups or agencies for the purpose of the exception or for other purposes, as substantial evidence to support its findings of fact. Such information must be either included or properly incorporated by reference into the record of the local exceptions proceeding. Information included by reference must be made available to interested persons for their review prior to the last evidentiary hearing on the exception. FINDING: Deschutes County has relied upon information and documentation prepared and provided by co-applicant DEQ. It is included as an appendix. These materials were reviewed by DLCD staff and are part of the public record of the land use application 247-15-000308-PA and this implementing ordinance. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. OAR 660-004-0005 Definitions For the purpose of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015 and the Statewide Planning Goals shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: (1) An "Exception" is a comprehensive plan provision, including an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan, that: (a) Is applicable to specific properties or situations and does not establish a planning or zoning policy of general applicability; (b) Does not comply with some or all goal requirements applicable to the subject properties or situations; and (c) Complies with ORS 197.732(2), the provisions of this division and, if applicable, the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060, 660-012-0070, 660- 014-0030 or 660-014-0040. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 11 OF 36 (2) "Resource Land" is land subject to one or more of the statewide goals listed in OAR 660-004-0010(1)(a) through (g) except subsections (c) and(d). (3) "Non-resource Land" is land not subject to any of the statewide goals listed in OAR 660-004-0010(1)(a) through (g) except subsections (c) and(d). Nothing in these definitions is meant to imply that other goals, particularly Goal 5, do not apply to non-resource land. FINDING: This exception proposal does not attempt to use definitions that are different than those identified at OAR 660-004-0005 above. Therefore, the exception proposal is consistent with the ordinary definitions used to implement OAR Chapter 660, Division 4. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. 660-004-0010 Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain Goals OAR 660-004-0010(1) The exceptions process is not applicable to Statewide Goal 1 "Citizen Involvement" and Goal 2 "Land Use Planning." The exceptions process is generally applicable to all or part of those statewide goals that prescribe or restrict certain uses of resource land, restrict urban uses on rural land, or limit the provision of certain public facilities and services. These statewide goals include but are not limited to: (a) Goal 3 "Agricultural Lands"; however, an exception to Goal 3 "Agricultural Lands" is not required for any of the farm or nonfarm uses allowed in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone under ORS chapter 215 and OAR chapter 660, division 33, "Agricultural Lands", except as provided under OAR 660- 1 004-0022 regarding a use authorized by a statewide planning goal that cannot comply with the approval standards for that type of use; (b) Goal 4 "Forest Lands"; however, an exception to Goal 4 "Forest Lands" is not required for any of the forest or nonforest uses allowed in a forest or mixed farm/forest zone under OAR chapter 660, division 6, "Forest Lands"; (c) Goal 11 "Public Facilities and Services" as provided in OAR 660-011- 0060(9); (d) Goal 14 "Urbanization" as provided for in the applicable paragraph (l)(c)(A), (B), (C) or(D) of this rule: FINDING: The purpose of this Goal 11 exception proposal is to allow a sewer on rural lands in southern Deschutes County. Section 4 of this document addresses the standards specified in OAR 660-011-0060(9), which is the applicable exception language. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. OAR 660-004-0010(3) An exception to one goal or goal requirement does not ensure compliance with any other applicable goals or goal requirements for the proposed uses at the exception site. Therefore, an exception to exclude certain lands from the requirements of one or more statewide goals or goal requirements does not exempt a local government from the requirements of any other goal(s) for which an exception was not taken. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 12 OF 36 FINDING: The purpose of this Goal 11 exception proposal is to allow a sewer on rural lands in southern Deschutes County. This Goal 11 exception does not authorize relief from any other applicable Statewide Planning Goal. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. 660-004-0015 Inclusion as Part of the Plan (1) A local government approving a proposed exception shall adopt, as part of its comprehensive plan, findings of fact and a statement of reasons that demonstrate that the standards for an exception have been met. The reasons and facts shall be supported by substantial evidence that the standard has been met. (2) A local government denying a proposed exception shall adopt findings of fact and a statement of reasons that demonstrate that the standards for an exception have not been met. However, the findings need not be incorporated into the local comprehensive plan. FINDING: 660-004-0018 Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas OAR 660-004-0018 (1) Purpose. This rule explains the requirements for adoption of plan and zone designations for exceptions. Exceptions to one goal or a portion of one goal do not relieve a jurisdiction from remaining goal requirements and do not authorize uses, densities, public facilities and services, or activities other than those recognized or justified by the applicable exception. Physically developed or irrevocably committed exceptions under OAR 660- 004-0025 and 660-004-0028 and 660-014-0030 are intended to recognize and allow continuation of existing types of development in the exception area. Adoption of plan and zoning provisions that would allow changes in existing types of uses, densities, or services requires the application of the standards outlined in this rule. FINDING: The Goal 11 exception will not change the existing zoning, uses, or densities for the affected properties. As part of the exception process, the County is amending the Newberry Country Plan policies to specifically forbid the upzoning of lands receiving the Goal 11 exception. The Board finds this criterion has been met. OAR 660-004-0018 (2) For "physically developed" and "irrevocably committed" exceptions to goals, residential plan and zone designations shall authorize a single numeric minimum lot size and all plan and zone designations shall limit uses, density, and public facilities and services to those: (a) That are the same as the existing land uses on the exception site; (b) That meet the following requirements: (A) The rural uses, density, and public facilities and services will maintain the land as "Rural Land" as defined by the goals, and are consistent with all other applicable goal requirements; Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 13 OF 36 (B) The rural uses, density, and public facilities and services will not commit adjacent or nearby resource land to uses not allowed by the applicable goal as described in OAR 660-004-0028; and (C) The rural uses, density, and public facilities and services are compatible with adjacent or nearby resource uses; (c) For uses in unincorporated communities, the uses are consistent with OAR 660-022-0030, "Planning and Zoning of Unincorporated Communities", if the county chooses to designate the community under the applicable provisions of OAR chapter 660, division 22; and (d) For industrial development uses and accessory uses subordinate to the industrial development, the industrial uses may occur in buildings of any size and type provided the exception area was planned and zoned for industrial use on January 1, 2004, subject to the territorial limits and other requirements of ORS 197.713 and 197.714. FINDING: This Goal 11 exception proposal is not utilizing either the "physically developed" or "irrevocably committed" exception opportunities. Instead, this Goal 11 exception proposal is pursuing a "reasons" exception pursuant to OAR 660-004-0020 & 0022. The Board finds this criterion is not applicable. OAR 660-004-0018(3) Uses, density, and public facilities and services not meeting section (2) of this rule may be approved on rural land only under provisions for a reasons exception as outlined in section (4) of this rule and applicable requirements of OAR 660- 004-0020 through 660-004-0022, 660-011-0060 with regard to sewer service on rural lands, OAR 660-012-0070 with regard to transportation improvements on rural land, or OAR 660- 014-0030 or 660-014-0040 with regard to urban development on rural land. FINDING: This Goal 11 exception proposal is not utilizing either the "physically developed" or "irrevocably committed" exception opportunities. Instead, this Goal 11 exception proposal is pursuing a "reasons" exception pursuant to OAR 660-004-0020 & 0022. Therefore, the Board finds this criterion is not applicable. OAR 660-004-0018 (4) "Reasons" Exceptions: (a) When a local government takes an exception under the "Reasons" section of ORS 197.732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004-0022, plan and zone designations must limit the uses, density, public facilities and services, and activities to only those that are justified in the exception. (b) When a local government changes the types or intensities of uses or public facilities and services within an area approved as a "Reasons" exception, a new "Reasons" exception is required. (c) When a local government includes land within an unincorporated community for which an exception under the "Reasons" section of ORS 197.732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004-0022 was previously adopted, plan and zone designations must limit the uses, density, public facilities and services, and activities to only those that were justified in the exception or OAR 660-022-0030, whichever is more stringent. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 14 OF 36 FINDING: The purpose of this Goal 11 exception proposal is to allow a sewer on rural lands in southern Deschutes County. This Goal 11 exception does not authorize any other uses that would not be permissible under the existing comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements OAR 660-004-0020 (1) If a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR 660-004- 0022 to use resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal or to allow public facilities or services not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan as an exception. As provided in OAR 660-004-0000(1), rules in other divisions may also apply. FINDING: The purpose of this Goal 11 exception is to allow sewer service to rural lands. The exception is being taken under the criteria set forth in OAR 660-011-0060(9) as required by OAR 660-004-0022. The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. (2) The four standards in Goal 2 Part 11(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception to a goal are described in subsections (a) through (d) of this section, including general requirements applicable to each of the factors: (a) "Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply." The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific properties or situations, including the amount of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land; FINDING: In this case, the applicable state policy resides in Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services). The DEQ/DLCD/County seek relief from the provisions of Goal 11 that ordinarily prohibit sewer service from being provided to rural lands outside of urban growth boundaries or unincorporated communities designated pursuant to OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. This criterion essentially requires a three-part response: 1) What "reasons" justify an exception to the state policy embodied in the applicable goals; 2) A description of the use being planned; and 3) Why the use requires a location on resource land. To try and simplify the response and clarify the request these items have been addressed below in reverse order. Location on Resource Land This Goal 11 exception does not request a location on resource land. Instead, sewer service would be available to residential development on lands planned and zoned for residential activities. Most of this development is existing. Some potential for future development on existing platted lots does exist. The Use Being Planned Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 15 OF 36 In most land use proposals the "use being planned" would add to the built environment by enabling development activity (residential, industrial, commercial, etc...) not otherwise allowed by the existing zoning framework. Goal 11 exceptions require a different perspective. For example, the Land Use Board of Appeals has held that "In the context of a Goal 11 exception to extend public facilities to serve proposed development of lands outside the urban growth boundary, the `proposed use' can only be the proposed development to be served by the facility extension and not the extended public facility." Todd v. City of Florence, 52 )r LUBA 445 (2006) This situation resembles Todd because it would authorize the establishment of sewer service in order to support existing residential development and some future residential development. This situation is unique because the facility being authorized is necessary to support the proposed use by improving the basin's groundwater quality over time. The subject lands are planned and zoned to receive residential development. Failing to authorize sewer service will eventually create unacceptable levels of contamination in the groundwater and place citizens at risk of health concerns. Based on this explanation the "use being planned" is existing homes and some new households on lands planned and zoned for residential development. The proposed facilities would be sewer service that is not otherwise available under Goal 11. The ultimate outcome will be cleaner groundwater that will remain available as a source of drinking water for area residents and not pose a threat to contaminate nearby surface water. Reasons The following discussion provides facts and evidence demonstrating why the State policy ordinarily discouraging sewer service on rural lands should not apply. Residents of south Deschutes and north Klamath counties face challenging wastewater disposal conditions. The area has porous, sandy, pumice soil derived from volcanic events and a shallow, vulnerable aquifer, both of which allow for the potential contamination of drinking water. These local conditions are unusual, as other parts of the state have finer silt and clay-like subsurface soil that can form a protective layer above the groundwater. Historical groundwater contamination in the downtown core of La Pine offers a good illustration of the challenges facing much of the region. Studies of groundwater contamination, hydrology s of nitrates were conducted in southern Deschutes County beginning and the effects y g g in the late 1970s. Well monitoring and analysis in the City of La Pine was performed in response to very high nitrate concentrations in drinking water.3 Nitrate concentrations in drinking water wells commonly exceeded the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen and were elevated as high as 42 mg/L and were linked to wastewater disposal from individual septic systems. Elevated (above natural background) levels of nitrate-nitrogen entering groundwater are likely to also be associated with other wastewater contaminants entering the groundwater. Contamination in La Pine became so severe in the early 1980s that the city constructed a sewer system providing better treatment and land disposal of wastewater in order to reduce nitrogen concentrations in drinking water supplies. The operation of this sewer system resulted in markedly improved groundwater quality in town. Monitoring wells for the wastewater treatment plant have demonstrated steadily improving groundwater conditions following improved treatment and disposal. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 16 OF 36 This historical contamination is both evidence of the vulnerability of the groundwater aquifer and a cause for concern throughout the region, as the soil and groundwater conditions in La Pine are similar to those throughout much of southern Deschutes and northern Klamath counties. Other surveys and studies over the years all point to increasing groundwater contamination throughout the region. A survey of groundwater data in 1993 and mathematical modeling in 1995 by DEQ indicated elevated nitrate concentrations and concern for future aquifer-wide increases. Recent sampling of monitoring wells in the area demonstrated a small but statistically significant increase in nitrate concentration between 1995 and 2011. The U.S. Geological Survey completed a La Pine National Demonstration Project and mathematical modeling effort in 2007. The demonstration project was designed to test innovative treatment technologies that would reduce nitrogen loading to groundwater from onsite systems. USGS also produced a three-dimensional mathematical model to estimate the effects of nitrates in the shallow aquifer of a large area in southern Deschutes and northern Klamath counties.6 These studies have generally reached the conclusion that the groundwater aquifer is vulnerable to increasing concentrations of nitrates and other contaminants associated with domestic sewage. The USGS study predicted nitrate concentrations increasing above the federally adopted drinking water standard throughout the area over time. Concentrations would increase for about 140 years after full build-out, at which time more than 9,000 acres would have groundwater concentrations exceeding 10 mg/L. DEQ and Deschutes County have been working cooperatively for more than a decade to find an appropriate solution to this growing concern. In 2008, the County adopted ordinances effectively requiring advanced treatment technology systems that would reduce nitrate concentrations in wastewater. One of the ordinances was repealed as the result of a successful citizens' referendum vote in 2009 to overturn the ordinances and the other was repealed by the Board of County Commissioners in 2011. In October 2009, Deschutes County Commissioners requested that DEQ take over the effort to find appropriate solutions to the increasing groundwater contamination caused by wide use of onsite wastewater treatment and disposal. Since that time, DEQ has engaged a steering committee comprised of Deschutes and Klamath County citizens to consider local circumstances and make recommendations for a long-term solution. DEQ received the recommendations from the committee in summer 2013.6 One of those recommendations was to pursue an area wide Goal 11 exception to allow a broader range of options for domestic wastewater treatment and disposal. Deschutes County attempted to address the area-wide groundwater problem through various ordinances and requirements. After those ordinances were repealed and rescinded, the County asked DEQ to take the lead in groundwater protection. DEQ then began conducting site-by-site groundwater risk assessments to determine which sites were required to install Advanced Treatment Technologies (ATTs) with nitrogen-reducing capabilities. While the nitrogen-reducing ATT's provide the best treatment options currently available under existing state land-use planning laws, they do not truly address the long-term problem or offer the best level of groundwater protection for the area as a whole. As steering committee members acknowledged in their recommendations, the area would be best served by allowing more options to deal with the larger concerns of area-wide contamination. The steering committee also acknowledged the limitations of the ATT requirement and recommended a Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 17 OF 36 moratorium on such systems until a more comprehensive solution could be made available to land owners. The steering committee realized that such options would require an area-wide exception to state planning laws, and they recommended DEQ and Deschutes County pursue a Goal 11 exception. DEQ agrees with this recommendation because an exception to Goal 11 provides residents with a tool to pursue meaningful and long-term groundwater protection in a way that is not currently available to them. An area-wide Goal 11 exception would allow for an acceptable level of wastewater control and is necessary to protect public health in the area over the long term. The Oregon Health Authority wrote a statement about the risk to people in the region due to drinking contaminated groundwater. The statement addresses not only nitrates but also contamination from fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. The full statement from the Oregon Health Authority can be found in the appendix. The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. (b) "Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use". The exception must meet the following requirements: FINDING: Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use because, as described above, the use in this case is single family dwellings on lands planned and zoned for residential development. This Goal 11 exception proposal will create the legal ability to support existing homes and some future households with sewer service, which is necessary to preserve the integrity of the area's groundwater. The existing homes and lands planned and zoned for development will continue to occupy their current locations and will continue to utilize local aquifers as a domestic water source. Utilizing a different area is not possible. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. (A) The exception shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the location of possible alternative areas considered for the use that do not require a new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified; FINDING: To best protect public health, the proposed exception area includes unincorporated portions of Deschutes County contained in Townships 19, 20, 21, 22 and Ranges 9, 10, 11, except those areas already authorized for sewers (see Map at Exhibit A). This is the general area in Deschutes County studied by the USGS. Deschutes County determined that this area is necessary for groundwater protection and where groundwater was determined to be vulnerable to contamination from individual onsite wastewater systems. The exception area includes all existing platted lots and other lands necessary for community water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure. No upzoning or increases of development densities other than allowed by current zoning shall occur within the Goal 11 exception area. The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 18 OF 36 (B) To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessary to discuss why other areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors may be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under this test the following questions shall be addressed: (i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on non- resource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on non-resource land? If not, why not? FINDING: The proposed use cannot be reasonably accommodated on non-resource and that would not require and exceptions because, as described above, the use in this case is single family dwellings on lands planned and zoned for residential development. This Goal 11 exception proposal will create the legal ability to support existing homes and some future households with sewer service, which is necessary to preserve the integrity of the area's groundwater. The existing homes and lands planned and zoned for development will continue to occupy their current locations and will continue to utilize local aquifers as a domestic water source. Utilizing a different area is not possible. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. (ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to non-resource uses not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing unincorporated communities, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands?If not, why not? FINDING: The proposed use cannot be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to non-resource uses not allowed by the applicable goal because, as described above, the use in this case is single-family dwellings on lands planned and zoned for residential development. This Goal 11 exception proposal will create the legal ability to support existing homes and some future households with sewer service, which is necessary to preserve the integrity of the area's groundwater. The existing homes and lands planned and zoned for development will continue to occupy their current locations and will continue to utilize local aquifers as a domestic water source. Utilizing a different area is not possible. The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. (iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary?If not, why not? FINDING: The proposed use cannot be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary because, as described above, the use in this case is single-family dwellings on lands planned and zoned for residential development. This Goal 11 exception proposal will create the legal ability to support existing homes and some future households with sewer service, which is necessary to preserve the integrity of the area's groundwater. The existing homes and lands planned and zoned for development will continue to occupy their current locations and will continue to utilize local aquifers as a domestic water source. Utilizing a different area is not possible. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 19 OF 36 The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. (iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated without the provision of a proposed public facility or service?If not, why not? FINDING: In this Goal 11 exception proposal the "use being planned" is existing homes and some new households on lands planned and zoned for residential development. The proposed facilities would be sewer service that is not otherwise available under Goal 11. Existing and possible residential development in these areas cannot be reasonably accommodated without the opportunity to receive sewer service because, as described in this document, sewer service is necessary to guard against unacceptable levels of pollution in the area's groundwater that would expose citizens to health risks. The ultimate outcome will be cleaner groundwater that will remain available as a source of drinking water for area residents and not pose a threat to contaminate nearby surface water. The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. (C) The "alternative areas" standard in paragraph B may be met by a broad review of similar types of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception unless another party to the local proceeding describes specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described, with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable, by another party during the local exceptions proceeding. (c) "The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site." The exception shall describe: the characteristics of each alternative area considered by the jurisdiction in which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to a description of: the facts used to determine which Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 20 OF 36 resource land is least productive, the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use, and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other possible impacts to be addressed include the effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts; FINDING: The "use being planned" is existing homes and some new households on lands planned and zoned for residential development. The proposed facilities would be sewer service that is not otherwise available under Goal 11. The ultimate outcome will be cleaner groundwater that will remain available as a source of drinking water for area residents and not pose a threat to contaminate nearby surface water. The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. (d) "The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts." The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices. "Compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. FINDING: The "use being planned" is existing homes and some new households on lands planned and zoned for residential development. The proposed facilities would be sewer service that is not otherwise available under Goal 11. The ultimate outcome will be cleaner groundwater that will remain available as a source of drinking water for area residents and not pose a threat to contaminate nearby surface water. The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. (3) If the exception involves more than one area for which the reasons and circumstances are the same, the areas may be considered as a group. Each of the areas shall be identified on a map, or their location otherwise described, and keyed to the appropriate findings. FINDING: To best protect public health, the proposed exception area includes unincorporated portions of Deschutes County contained in Townships 19, 20, 21, 22 and Ranges 9, 10, 11, except those areas already authorized for sewers (see Map at Exhibit A). This is the general area in Deschutes County studied by the USGS. Deschutes County determined that this area is necessary for groundwater protection and where groundwater was determined to be vulnerable to contamination from individual onsite wastewater systems. The exception area includes all existing platted lots and other lands necessary for community water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure. No up-zoning or increases of development densities other than allowed by current zoning shall occur within the Goal 11 exception area. The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 21 OF 36 (4) For the expansion of an unincorporated community described under OAR 660-022-0010 , including an urban unincorporated community pursuant to OAR 660-022-0040 (2), the reasons exception requirements necessary to address standards 2 through 4 of Goal 2, Part I1(c), as described in of subsections (2)(b), (c) and (d) of this rule, are modified to also include the following: FINDING: The exception does not involve an expansion of an unincorporated community described under OAR 660-022-0010. Therefore, the Board finds the provisions of OAR 660- 004-0020(4) are not applicable and are not required to be addressed further. Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part 11(c) OAR 660-004-0022 An exception under Goal 2, Part 11(c) may be taken for any use not allowed by the applicable goal(s) or for a use authorized by a statewide planning goal that cannot comply with the approval standards for that type of use. The types of reasons that may or may not be used to justify certain types of uses not allowed on resource lands are set forth in the following sections of this rule. Reasons that may allow an exception to Goal 11 to provide sewer service to rural lands are described in OAR 660- 011-0060. Reasons that may allow transportation facilities and improvements that do not meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0065 are provided in OAR 660-012-0070. Reasons that rural lands are irrevocably committed to urban levels of development are provided in OAR 660-014-0030. Reasons that may justify the establishment of new urban development on undeveloped rural land are provided in OAR 660-014-0040. FINDING: The exception is being taken under the criteria set forth in OAR 660-011-0060(9). The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. 660-004-0030 Notice and Adoption of an Exception (1) Goal 2 requires that each notice of a public hearing on a proposed exception shall specifically note that a goal exception is proposed and shall summarize the issues in an understandable manner. (2) A planning exception takes effect when the comprehensive plan or plan amendment is adopted by the city or county governing body. Adopted exceptions will be reviewed by the Commission when the comprehensive plan is reviewed for compliance with the goals through the acknowledgment or periodic review processes under OAR chapter 660, divisions 3 or 25, and by the Board when a plan amendment is reviewed as a post-acknowledgment plan amendment pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division 18. FINDING: The public notice for all public hearings identified the proposed land use action was for an exception to Goal 11 and summarized the issue in an understandable manner. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Section (6) — OAR 660-011, Public Facilities Planning OAR 660-011-0045 Adoption and Amendment Procedures for Public Facility Plans Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 22 OF 36 (1) The governing body of the city or county responsible for development of the public facility plan shall adopt the plan as a supporting document to the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the comprehensive plan: (a) The list of public facility project titles, excluding (if the jurisdiction so chooses) the descriptions or specifications of those projects; (b) A map or written description of the public facility projects'locations or service areas as specified in sections (2) and(3) of this rule; and (c) The policy(ies) or urban growth management agreement designating the provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider with the authority to provide the system within the area covered by the public facility plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated. FINDING: No public facility plan is necessary as part of the Goal 11 exception proposal. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. OAR 660-011-0060, Sewer Service to Rural Lands (1) As used in this rule, unless the context requires otherwise: (a) "Establishment of a sewer system" means the creation of a new sewage system, including systems provided by public or private entities; (b) "Extension of a Sewer System" means the extension of a pipe, conduit, pipeline, main, or other physical component from or to an existing sewer system in order to provide service to a use, regardless of whether the use is inside the service boundaries of the public or private service provider. The sewer service authorized in Section (8) of this rule is not an extension of a sewer; (c) "No practicable alternative to a sewer system" means a determination by the Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) or the Oregon Health Division, pursuant to criteria in OAR chapter 340, division 71, and other applicable rules and laws, that an existing public health hazard cannot be adequately abated by the repair or maintenance of existing sewer systems or on-site systems or by the installation of new on-site systems as defined in OAR 340-071-0100; (d) "Public health hazard"means a condition whereby it is probable that the public is exposed to disease-caused physical suffering or illness due to the presence of inadequately treated sewage; (e) "Sewage" means the water-carried human, animal, vegetable, or industrial waste from residences, buildings, industrial establishments or other places, together with such ground water infiltration and surface water as may be present; (f) "Sewer system" means a system that serves more than one lot or parcel, or more than one condominium unit or more than one unit within a planned unit development, and includes pipelines or Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 23 OF 36 conduits, pump stations, force mains, and all other structures, devices, appurtenances and facilities used for treating or disposing of sewage or for collecting or conducting sewage to an ultimate point for treatment and disposal. The following are not considered a "sewer system"for purposes of this rule: I (A) A system provided solely for the collection, transfer and/or disposal of storm water runoff; (B) A system provided solely for the collection, transfer and/or disposal of animal waste from a farm use as defined in ORS 215.303. FINDING: The exception is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060(1) because it does not propose or rely on different definitions than contained therein. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. OAR 660-011-0060(2) Except as provided in sections (3), (4), (8), and (9) of this rule, and consistent with Goal 11, a local government shall not allow: (a) The establishment of new sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries; (b) The extension of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries in order to serve uses on land outside those boundaries; (c) The extension of sewer systems that currently serve land outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries in order to serve uses that are outside such boundaries and are not served by the system on July 28, 1998. FINDING: The exception is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060(2) because it does not propose to allow sewer service to rural lands without taking an exception as specified under OAR 660-011-0060(9). The Board finds this criterion has been met. OAR 660-011-0060(3) Components of a sewer system that serve lands inside an urban g rowth boundary (UGB) may be placed on lands outside the boundary provided that the conditions in subsections (a) and(b) of this section are met, as follows: (a) Such placement is necessary to: (A) Serve lands inside the UGB more efficiently by traversing lands outside the boundary; (B) Serve lands inside a nearby UGB or unincorporated community; (C) Connect to components of the sewer system lawfully located on rural lands, such as outfall or treatment facilities; or (D) Transport leachate from a landfill on rural land to a sewer system inside a UGB; Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 24 OF 36 (b) The local government: (A) Adopts land use regulations to ensure the sewer system shall not serve land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries, except as authorized under section (4) of this rule; and (B) Determines that the system satisfies ORS 215.296(1) or(2) to protect farm and forest practices, except for systems located in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right-of- way. FINDING: The exception is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060(3) because it does not propose to allow sewer service to rural lands without taking an exception as specified under OAR 660-011-0060(9). The Board finds this criterion is satisfied. OAR 660-011-0060(4) A local government may allow the establishment of a new sewer system, or the extension of an existing sewer system, to serve land outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries in order to mitigate a public health hazard, provided that the conditions in subsections (a) and(b) of this section are met, as follows: (a) The DEQ or the Oregon Health Division initially: (A) Determines that a public health hazard exists in the area; (B) Determines that the health hazard is caused by sewage from development that existed in the area on July 28, 1998; (C) Describes the physical location of the identified sources of the sewage contributing to the health hazard; and (D) Determines that there is no practicable alternative to a sewer system in order to abate the public health hazard;and (b) The local government, in response to the determination in subsection (a) of this section, and based on recommendations by DEQ and the Oregon Health Division where appropriate: (A) Determines the type of sewer system and service to be provided, pursuant to Section (5) of this rule; (B) Determines the boundaries of the sewer system service area, pursuant to section (6) of this rule; (C) Adopts land use regulations that ensure the sewer system is designed and constructed so that its capacity does not exceed the minimum necessary to serve the area within the boundaries described under paragraph (B) of this subsection, except for urban reserve areas as provided under OAR 660-021-0040(6); Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 25 OF 36 (D) Adopts land use regulations to prohibit the sewer system from serving any uses other than those existing or allowed in the identified service area on the date the sewer system is approved; (E) Adopts plan and zone amendments to ensure that only rural land uses are allowed on rural lands in the area to be served by the sewer system, consistent with Goal 14 and OAR 660-004-0018, unless a Goal 14 exception has been acknowledged; (F) Ensures that land use regulations do not authorize a higher density of residential development than would be authorized without the presence of the sewer system; and (G) Determines that the system satisfies ORS 215.296(1) or(2) to protect farm and forest practices, except for systems located in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right-of- way. FINDING: The exception is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060(4) because it does not propose to allow sewer service to rural lands without taking an exception as specified under OAR 660-011-0060(9). The Board finds this criterion has been met. OAR 660-011-0060(5) Where the DEQ determines that there is no practicable alternative to a sewer system, the local government, based on recommendations from DEQ, shall determine the most practicable sewer system to abate the health hazard considering the following: (a) The system must be sufficient to abate the public health hazard pursuant to DEQ requirements applicable to such systems; and (b) New or expanded sewer systems serving only the health hazard area shall be generally preferred over the extension of a sewer system from an urban growth boundary. However, if the health hazard area is within the service area of a sanitary authority or district, the sewer system operated by the authority or district, if available and sufficient, shall be preferred over other sewer system options. FINDING: The exception is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060(5) because it does not propose to allow sewer service to rural lands without taking an exception as specified under OAR 660-011-0060(9). The Board finds this criterion has been met. OAR 660-011-0060(6) The local government, based on recommendations from DEQ and, where appropriate, the Oregon Health Division, shall determine the area to be served by a sewer system necessary to abate a health hazard. The area shall include only the following: (a) Lots and parcels that contain the identified sources of the sewage contributing to the health hazard; (b) Lots and parcels that are surrounded by or abut the parcels described in subsection (a) of this section, provided the local government demonstrates that, due to soils, insufficient lot size, or other conditions, there is a Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 26 OF 36 reasonably clear probability that onsite systems installed to serve uses on such lots or parcels will fail and further contribute to the health hazard. FINDING: The exception is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060(6) because it does not propose to allow sewer service to rural lands without taking an exception as specified under OAR 660-011-0060(9). The Board finds this criterion has been met. OAR 660-011-0060(7) The local government or agency responsible for the determinations pursuant to sections (4) through (6) of this rule shall provide notice to all affected local governments and special districts regarding opportunities to participate in such determinations. FINDING: The exception is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060(7) because it does not propose to allow sewer service to rural lands without taking an exception as specified under OAR 660-011-0060(9). The Board finds this criterion has been met. OAR 660-011-0060(8) A local government may allow a residential use to connect to an existing sewer line provided the conditions in subsections (a) through (h) of this section are met: (a) The sewer service is to a residential use located on a parcel as defined by ORS 215.010(1), or a lot created by subdivision of land as defined in ORS 92.010; (b) The parcel or lot is within a special district or sanitary authority sewer service boundary that existed on January 1, 2005, or the parcel is partially within such boundary and the sewer service provider is willing or obligated to provide service to the portion of the parcel or lot located outside that service boundary; (c) The sewer service is to connect to a residential use located within a rural residential area, as described in OAR 660-004-0040, which existed on January 1, 2005; (d) The nearest connection point from the residential parcel or lot to be served is within 300 feet of a sewer line that existed at that location on January 1, 2005; v (e) It is determined by the local government to be to connect the practical sewer service to the residential use considering geographic features or other natural or man-made constraints; (t) The sewer service authorized by this section shall be available to only those parcels and lots specified in this section, unless service to other parcels or lots is authorized under sections (4) or(9) of this rule; (g) The existing sewer line, from where the nearest connection point is determined under subsection (8)(d) of this rule, is not located within an urban growth boundary or unincorporated community boundary; and (h) The connection of the sewer service shall not be relied upon to authorize a higher density of residential development than would be authorized without Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 27 OF 36 the presence of the sewer service, and shall not be used as a basis for an exception to Goal 14 as required by OAR 660-004-0040(6). FINDING: The exception is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060(3) because it does not propose to allow sewer service to rural lands without taking an exception as specified under OAR 660-011-0060(9). The Board finds this criterion has been met. OAR 660-011-0060(9) A local government may allow the establishment of new sewer systems or the extension of sewer lines not otherwise provided for in section (4) of this rule, or allow a use to connect to an existing sewer line not otherwise provided for in section (8) of this rule, provided the standards for an exception to Goal 11 have been met, and provided the local government adopts land use regulations that prohibit the sewer system from serving any uses or areas other than those justified in the exception. Appropriate reasons and facts for an exception to Goal 11 include but are not limited to the following: (a) The new system, or extension of an existing system, is necessary to avoid an imminent and significant public health hazard that would otherwise result if the sewer service is not provided; and, there is no practicable alternative to the sewer system in order to avoid the imminent public health hazard, or (b) The extension of an existing sewer system will serve land that, by operation of federal law, is not subject to statewide planning Goal 11 and, if necessary, Goal 14. FINDING: Paragraphs (9)(a) and (9)(b) above represent two possible ways for an exception to Goal 11 to be justified. However, DEQ and DLCD find that this language is not exclusive. In other words, it may be possible to justify an exception to Goal 11 under circumstances that are neither (9)(a) or (9)(b). After decades of studies and monitoring, DEQ has determined that there is a growing health threat of groundwater contamination caused by onsite septic systems in the area of south Deschutes and north Klamath counties. We are convinced public health can best be protected through a range of treatment and disposal options not allowed under State Planning Goal 11. Steering committee members came to this same general understanding after studying the issue for more than three years, and DEQ agrees with their recommendations. Many studies over the years show groundwater contamination in the La Pine study area. Most recently, the USGS studies and reports indicated a slow-moving but expanding plume of human effluent-tainted groundwater. Over time, that plume will spread to deep areas of the aquifer and will become so widespread that the drinking water becomes unusable. There is a real threat from nitrates, pharmaceuticals, personal hygiene byproducts and organic wastewater compounds entering groundwater. The current trend must be reversed to protect human health in the long term. This contamination is occurring at a rate that allows for some planning; the threat to public health is not imminent, but it is inevitable. The decision to submit a Goal 11 exception is not one DEQ took lightly. However, this exception could provide solutions residents can use to address area-wide and long-term groundwater contamination. It also is a solution that applies only to existing and platted lots, so it does not create additional sprawl or promote greater growth. It simply could provide community sewer options for existing residents, including those on lots which pre-dated statewide planning laws. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 28 OF 36 An area-wide Goal 11 exception would allow for the highest and best level of wastewater control and is necessary to protect public health in the area. The area requires a regional solution to what is truly an area-wide problem, one with increasing risks the longer a set of comprehensive solutions is not in place_ Up to this point, public agencies including DEQ have looked at individual property risk on a site by site basis. This strategy will fail because it prohibits greater regional planning and infrastructure to address a significant and regional public health risk. The area's shallow, unprotected groundwater and pumice sandy soils mean that water soluble substances put on or in the ground will likely end up in the groundwater. While use of fertilizer, pesticides and livestock manure can contribute contaminants to the groundwater, most groundwater contamination in this area comes from onsite septic systems. All onsite systems in the region — standard septic, sand filter and ATT systems -- discharge contaminants into the ground. Over time, many of these contaminants drain through the sandy, porous soil and reach the groundwater that can be within 2 feet of the ground surface in some areas. This risk is compounded by the relatively high density of development in the area, as more than 75 percent of the approximately 14,000 properties in the area are two acres or less. Add in the fact that there is little precipitation in the area to dilute contaminants and the problem became clear: too many septic systems were discharging into porous soil and over time there would be increasing contamination of the shallow, vulnerable aquifer that many people were using as their drinking water supply. Finally, DEQ does not believe the area can achieve adequate environmental and human health protection without the ability to implement community sewer options for the south Deschutes and north Klamath area. For all of these reasons, DEQ supports the application for an area-wide Goal 11 exception. The Board finds this criterion has been met. References 'Oregon Health Authority Fact Sheet on Nitrates, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/ HealthyEnvironments/DrinkingWater/Monitoring/HealthEffects/Pages/nitrate.aspx. 2The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Drinking Water Standards are available at http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm. 3Century West Engineering, 1982, La Pine aquifer management plan: Bend, Oregon, Century West Engineering, 597 p. 4Williams, J.S., D.S. Morgan and S.R. Hinkle. 2007_ Questions and answers about the effects of septic systems on water quality in the La Pine area, Oregon. USGS Factsheet 2007-3103. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3103/ 5Moggan, D.S., S.R. Hinkle, R.J. Weick_ 2007. Evaluation of approaches for managing nitrate loading from on-site wastewater systems near La Pine, Oregon USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5237 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5237/ 6ODEQ. 2013. South Deschutes/North Klamath Groundwater Protection: Report and Recommendations. Nigg, E. and R. Baggett. 32 pp. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/ docs/SDNKreportrec.pdf Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 29 OF 36 Section (7)--OAR 660, Division 12, Transportation Planning OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: The Goal 11 exception will not change the functional classification of any County roads or State highways; nor will it change performance standards of any County roads or State highways. The operational aspects are discussed in more detail below. Any vacant lot that GIS research indicated had high groundwater was considered a red lot, regardless if the high groundwater area consisted of 1% or 100% of the lot. This identified 1,823 vacant lots as red lots, which the County's traffic consultant, Kittelson & Associates, then analyzed. The County's adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP) has a horizon year of 2030. To be consistent with the TSP, the traffic study also assumed a horizon year of 2030_ GIS research indicates in the proposed Goal 11 exception area 1,610 dwellings developed between 1975-2015. Given it took 40 years to construct 1,610 dwellings in the study area, it is highly doubtful all 1,823 vacant high groundwater lots will develop in 15 years. Therefore the study Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 30 OF 36 used the historic annual average of residential development of 40 units (1,610 units/40 years). Finally, while there are still vacant lots that are not red lots, for analysis purposes the traffic study assumed all lots that developed at the historic rate for the next 15 years would be limited only to the red lots. By 2030 that results in 600 new dwellings (40 units per year X 15 years) on the red lots. In Board Ordinance 2013-059, the County arrived at a local p.m. peak hour trip generation rate for single-family residences of 0.81 trips per dwelling. This was based on 2010 Census data regarding primary and secondary residences; the local rate was used in the development of the County's transportation system development charge (SDC). The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9t" edition, indicates a single-family home (Land Use Category 210) generates at a rate of 1.0 p.m. peak hour trips per dwelling. The ITE also has a fitted formula of 0.88 p.m. peak hour trips per dwelling. Based on local trip generation rate from the SDC, observed volumes on County roads in the area indicating many residences are not occupied full-time, and the ITE range for single-family dwellings spans 0.42 trips to 2.98 trips per dwelling, staff and its consultant agreed on a trip generation rate of 0.88 p.m. peak hour trips per dwelling. The 600 new dwellings will produce 528 new p.m. peak hour trips (600 units X 0.88 trips per unit). The 528 p.m. peak hour trips were distributed in the same geographic patterns as field observations demonstrated current vehicles follow. The traffic analysis also assumed 1.7% annual growth in background traffic, which is consistent with the transportation/land use model used in the County's TSP. Based on the trip generation rate and background volumes, only two intersections fail to meet mobility standards in 2030. The two intersections were: • Spring River Road/South Century Drive • Sixth Street/US 97 in La Pine The Deschutes County TSP at Table 5.3.T1 "County and Highway Projects" has a roundabout planned for the intersection of Spring River/South Century Drive. This project is a medium priority, meaning construction is planned between 6 and 10 years from the TSP's 2012 adoption. Specific design details will be done prior to construction, but this planned improvement is sufficient mitigation for the traffic from the red lots. The adopted City of La Pine TSP acknowledges the Sixth Street/US 97 intersection fails. The TSP has policy language regarding filling in a City grid system to the west of the intersection to offload Sixth Street/US 97 and redirect traffic to First Street/US 97, where a traffic signal is currently under construction. While the Goal 11 exception will result in traffic that is a significant effect under OAR 660-012- 0060(2)(c)(A through C) these planned improvements mitigate the transportation impacts. Based on the traffic analysis and the planned improvements listed in the County TSP and the City of La Pine TSP the Goal 11 exception will not have any of the significant results. Finally, the Goal 11 exception amendment includes amended policy language in the Newberry Country Plan under Policy 9.1 that the option of having a sewer serving a rural property cannot be used to upzone the property to a more intensive use. Therefore traffic levels will not increase beyond the current RR-10 zoning allows and which planned improvements will adequately serve. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 31 OF 36 (2) If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the remedies listed in (a) through (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion. (a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility. (b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility. (d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including, but not limited to, transportation system management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall, as part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided. (e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or improvements at other locations, if the provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that the system-wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in consistency for all performance standards. (3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility where: (a) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the identified function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP; Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 32 OF 36 (b) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or measures; (c) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph (4)(d)(C); and (d) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (c) of this section. FINDING: As detailed above, the County and City of La Pine TSPs already have planned mitigations for the two intersections, Spring River Road/South Century Drive and Sixth Street/US 97, adversely affected by the traffic from the vacant red lots if those lots became developable. The State highway system already has mitigations identified and prioritized between Bend and La Pine in the County's adopted TSP. The combination of existing grade- separated interchanges at US 97/Cottonwood and US 97/South Century Drive, a programmed traffic signal with intersection improvements at US 97/1St-Reed in La Pine in 2016, and the planned widening of US 97 to four lanes the entire length between Bend and La Pine provides the highway with enough capacity to easily accommodate any trips from the currently vacant high groundwater lots. Additionally, the County collects an SDC of $3,044 per dwelling unit, which will increase to $3,120 on July 1, 2015. The projected red lot development of 604 new dwellings will contribute nearly $1.9 million dollars in SDCs (604 X $3,120). The TSP estimates the Spring River Road/South Century Drive roundabout will cost $900,000. The combination of SDCs coupled with the State gas tax revenues the County receives based on numbers of registered vehicles ensures there is adequate funding for future improvements to mitigate the traffic from the red lots. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Section (8) — Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services OAR 660-015-0000(11) "Local Governments shall not allow the establishment or extension of sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries, or allow extensions of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries to serve land outside those boundaries, except where the new or extended system is the only practicable alternative to mitigate a public health hazard and will not adversely affect farm or forest land. FINDING: Goal 11 is implemented by OAR Chapter 660, Division 11, which is fully addressed in Section 3 of this document. Therefore, Goal 11 has been adequately considered. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 33 OF 36 Section (9) -Other Statewide Planning Goals The parameters for evaluating these specific amendments are based on an adequate factual base and supportive evidence demonstrating consistency with Statewide Planning Goals. The following findings demonstrate the proposed Goal 11 exception complies with applicable statewide planning goals. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement FINDING: The topic of nitrates, high groundwater, and South County residential lots, both vacant and developed, has been the subject of numerous public meetings and public hearings since 1996. In the latest instance, DEQ formed an advisory committee in 2010 to study the problem and that group after more than 50 public meetings recommended the high groundwater issue be addressed by sewers on rural lands, which requires a Goal 11 exception. DEQ, DLCD, and Deschutes held open houses in Sunriver and La Pine in April 2015 to summarize the Goal 11 exception process and alerting attendees of a mid-July public hearing. The County also sent flyers to approximately 10,500 properties in southern Deschutes County. The flyers briefly summarized the Goal 11 process, provided a website for further information, listed staff contacts at DEQ and Deschutes County, and gave the time, date, and place for the initial July 23 Planning Commission public hearing. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Goal 2, Land Use Planning FINDING: The Goal 11 exception is being processed consistent with Deschutes County's development code for legislative plan amendments, applicable state statutes, and administrative rules. The public could testify at either the July 23 or August 13, 2015, public hearings before the Planning Commission or at the October 28, 2015, public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands FINDING: The plurality of lands are zoned RR-10. There a few Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) lands south of the City of La Pine in the area proposed for a Goal 11 exception. The land is south of Masten Road and east of OR 31. They were included due to them being high ground water lots. Given the large size of the EFU properties especially when compared to the RR-10 properties, the EFU properties will continue to use septic systems. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Goal 4, Forest Land FINDING: The plurality of lands are zoned RR-10. There are few Forest (F1 or F2) lands included in the Goal Exception. They were included either because they were high groundwater lots, were adjacent to exception lands, or were adjacent to an existing residential settlement pattern. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces FINDING: The Goal 11 exception only allows the potential to later develop sewer systems of varying scales on rural lands. The exception itself will not affect any Goal 5 resource. The Goal 5 resources would only be affected by later construction of actual sewers or cluster systems at which time actual Goal 5 resources in specific locations would need to be addressed to ensure Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 34 OF 36 their continual protection. Additionally, the Goal 11 exception is needed to protect groundwater and rivers from the subsurface movement of nitrates. The Board finds this criterion has been met_ Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality FINDING: The Goal 11 exception is needed to protect the quality of water from pollution from nitrates. The subsurface basin is the source of drinking water for approximately 18,000 people. A Goal 11 exception would offer the option of rural sewers of varying scales to prevent the further degradation of the water of the La Pine sub-basin. See the attached state and federal reports. The Board finds this criterion has been satisfied. Goal 7, Natural Hazards FINDING: Nitrates are not one of the listed natural hazards under Goal 7; additionally, the nitrates are primarily related to failing on-site septic systems and thus have a human source; the Board finds this criterion is not applicable. Goal 8, Recreational Needs FINDING: Sewers are functional, not recreational. Additionally, the Goal 11 exception only offers the potential for rural sewers at varying scales and sewer would most likely be used on properties with RR-10 zoning. Recreational uses would not be adversely affected. Goal 8 destination resorts are exempt from Goal 11. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Goal 9, Economic Development FINDING: The Goal 11 exception would indirectly assist to economic development in two ways. First, if rural sewers of varying scales are allowed, then high groundwater lots that are now unbuildable could become buildable. Constructing homes would be a form of economic development. Second, if vacant high-groundwater lots become viable, they could then offer housing opportunities for employees who work in La Pine, Sunriver, or Bend. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Goal 10, Housing FINDING: While primarily an urban goal, a Goal 11 exception could let 1,823 vacant high groundwater lots that are now vacant to become potentially buildable. Given the current lack of affordable housing in Deschutes County, increasing the supply of housing would be beneficial to help meet the region's housing needs. The Board finds this criterion is met. Goal 11, Public Facilities FINDING: Addressed in Section 5 of this document. Goal 12, Transportation FINDING: Addressed in Section 4 of this document. Goal 13, Energy Conservation Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-007 PAGE 35 OF 36 FINDING: A Goal 11 exception would allow for residential infill at a rural scale. The Board finds this criterion has been met Goal 14, Urbanization FINDING: The Goal 11 exception by definition affects rural lands that are exception areas. The Goal 11 exception would allow the potential of sewers at varying scales to serve lands zoned RR-10. These previously platted lands are often in the half-acre to one-acre size, so they are more toward the urban side of the rural-urban continuum. Any resulting sewers would only serve lands in their current zoning. The Board finds this criterion has been met. Goals 15 through 19 FINDING: The Board finds this is not applicable to any amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan because the County has none of those types of lands. n 5-007 PAGE 36 OF 36 Exhibit D, BOCC Ordina ce 201 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 1! ^. Date /0 rZ Name . 6/'`P e rse Address Phone #s E-mail address pi in Favor I Neutral/Undecided _Opposed Sidmitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No ,*f,, _ 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOVEST TO SPEAK" Agenda Item of Interest Date /0 r/';S g /� Name /D ,Ad.ef< toem Address phone#s E-mail address U In Favor n Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes [ No fl a/A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING R.fOUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of interest Go�.\ I Date Name Lp " u_L Address 65 S 11 {–ge—r9- `-7 ? 70 7 Phone #s 5 `! ! - Lit 0 - 11 5-e E-mail address In Favor n Neutral/Undecided I .Opposed $nbmitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes KNo 8'10/e . , � BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest C ocA A I l Date ` S Name cg-ct v►,.r5 �� Address 3 1/6 ge-00 Evô WL,e� L �Ih�Q Q Phone#s [- X33--c10 2-2 E-mail address 1M sk-aeLIct0 6 Q . ca vv, . In Favor Neutral/Undecided n Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? rtKes IT No 1`a 4c Sewl^ 'y e'^ c` v e_c0 ST! // BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING rwit REOUEST TO SPEAK"' Agenda Item of Interest Date C‘' Name 1Z o ►3 . r ? 4 ` Address / 7 s' 3 s' '644 led • Phone#s 3 Ce S C C° E-mail address A P " '2 € PtAC n • Cry '" g J In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? U Yes U No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest, / 1/ . c.V Date Li/20.0 Name J MAT ,g4e.�s+�y Address "AO' / // 1 6 Phone#s 3 4'/- 72 32 D E-mail address Yes,'01,4442-Ay,' s_c nIn Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? e i Yea i No .►,4 , 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda item of Interest sZietet // Date l0 446 Name / )"S . 17LA--.. Address / /t-L.1 Phone #s E-mail address 0 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? /a Yes n No 1. .,wG _ 8 9, BOARD OF COMMSSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ©, e .-) ! Date /d r,&-" Name ) I 1 t . Address J 9' 19/ CP. . s24 ?7729 729 , Phone #s 6v7 "2 /.,p,-,..77 E-mail address ca✓ ' ge C ,e.€ 1�P In Favor n Neutral/Undecided ri Opposed a Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes 'No t Bocc Deschutes County, Oregon Dear Commissioners I am here to askyou to vote no on the goal 11 exception I attended your work session on Oct 7th, and I ead at home the report handed out by CDD I was shocked tolearn the rport includedwater monitoring by a sanitaryauthority I am totally against another taxing government over us I was alsoshockedto read the so calledwater monitoring was to bea " nitrates cheap test, nitrate testing ionly-no scientific new test wells You are actually employees of the people as electedcommisioners For your re relectuion chances,vote noon th goal 11 Look ariound, do you see Mike Daly or Dennis Lukes? They did not stand up for the people, and they are no longer in officeDo you want in the voter'spamphlet that you voted for a sanitary authority and Cheap nitrates testing Stop this process right now before it goes torecall or referendum Yours truly /Anne Gregersen, home owner in South County, Oregon, October 28th, 2015 .1116/A October 28, 2015 Public Testimony re: Goal 11 Exception given before the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Good evening Commissioners. My name is Judy Forsythe and I have been a resident of South Deschutes County for 16 years. As you are aware, many resident taxpayers have followed the septic issues in South Deschutes County for years and are very concerned about the implications of the 'health hazard' language in the Goal 11 Exception before you tonight. In reviewing the Planning Commission's Sept. 10th work session again, I want to commend the Planning Commissioners for their diligence. Tonight, I want to share with you some of the 'other' concerns and questions raised by that Committee, in more detail. Although a motion did pass from the Planning Commissioners to send this Goal 11 Exception to the Board of County Commissioners, there were some profound discussions heard from that recording which I feel merit your consideration. Have you listened to that Sept. 10th recording? The language is so bad: Commissioner Criss articulated that one problem with the Goal 11 language is that the justifications are based on may be's, could be's and might be's and these conclusions are damaging property values in South Deschutes County. The statements make it sound like our water is trashed and that is the furthest thing from the truth; it's just not true. It is so far from the truth it is unbelievable. Commissioner Criss asks the question: Does the language have to be this 'brutal'? The predictions regarding groundwater contamination have been wrong; we have not exceeded the EPA standards as was predicted by 2010, for example. Y Commissioner Criss then asked: Can this language move from the 'burden of proof' to the appendix?lwith a reference to it in the Comprehensive Plan that 'there is the work that has been done'). Personally, I don't feel 1 a i this 'health hazard dance' language belongs in the body of our Comprehensive Plan, either. ➢ Chair Palcic said he did not believe the burden of proof had been met and that the language is very loosely written, possibly setting it up for a 'challenge'. He went on to state that on page 28 of the report, DEQ and DLCD 's own language actually admits the failing of the test stating it is not an imminent threat, but inevitable. I believe he is referring to the 'imminent health hazard' test as defined in OAR 660. Chair Palcic g oes on to state that the foundation behind the assertions and beliefs are missing, that DEQ and DLCD's own facts are against them. It cannot be shown that a public health issue is 'imminent' — about to happen - at any moment as the word would imply. Chair Palcic asked an important question: If DEQ is not going to do modeling again and/or have routine testing, how will we ever measure success; what does success look like? His comments also included reference to the fact that all of the Steering Committee's recommendations should be included in this Committee's endorsement to the Board of County Commissioners so they are not lost along the way. It is believed the Steering Committee's recommendations were meant to be a 'package'. Y Commissioner Tunno asked: How do we articulate our response to the Board of Commissioners to share that 'what we see as helpful and beneficial in Goal 11 for the region is one thing. But in supporting that, we do not want the implication to be that we think this report is great; we don't. We take exception to the scientific data to support the basic contention as being inadequate; we do not see that DEQ's report fulfills all the mandates, requirements and tests. Commissioner Tunno went on to share her concerns about changing the narrative that has surrounded this issue, saying that we need to 'exit' the scenario that get in the press every time about this issue. She shared she would like to 'free' this area from the 'blight' that surrounds our community and asked: What can we do to help change the public perception back to 'based in reality' instead of being 'based upon pseudo- science and inadequate reporting? 2 w And, Commissioner Powell asked a very important question in my estimation: How do we as a Committee package this recommendation to send a total message to the Board of Commissioners so they understand there are other issues? (Other issues discussed included well testing, monitoring, development and some citizen's concerns of possible misuse of a sanitary district to force an issue in an area, to name a few.) Commissioner Powell emphasized that this Committee can underscore these facts. Staff noted that this Committee can ask the Board of Commissioners to take these 'other' issues into consideration, while also sharing that not all of these 'other issues' may be within the County's purview/authority. I have attempted to highlight 'other' significant issues raised by the Planning Commissioners in their deliberations and indirectly by those who have testified along the way. My request tonight would be that the Board of County Commissioners accept that these 'other' concerns/issues do exist and acknowledge that they will be addressed in the appropriate fashion and at the appropriate time. Thank you, Judy Forsythe 3 C E N T R OREGON www.centralore gon;andwotc.h.org October 27, 2015 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County c/o Peter Russell Community Development Dept. PO Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97708-6005 Re: File No. 247-15-000308-PA; Goal 11 Exception Dear Commissioners: I just yesterday received a copy of DLCD/DEQ's letter of September 3, so have not had a chance to fully review it. I also won't be able to attend this evening's hearing for family reasons but would like to provide these additional comments to our letter of August 13 to the Planning Commission. A central premise of DLCD/DEQ's support for this Goal 11 exception is their broad interpretation of OAR 660-011-0060(9) as not requiring"an imminent and significant public health hazard." Relying on the language, "include but not are limited to,"DLCD/DEQ reason that something less than an imminent and significant public health hazard is allowable and even contend that the standard of"no practical alternative to a sewer system" isn't relevant to a Goal 11 exception. As we have said before, where LCDC has set a particular standard it does not make sense to interpret the language of "include but not limited to" in a way that makes (9)(a)meaningless. Also, DLCD/DEQ's broad application of this reasons exception to 7,000-10,000 lots over such a wide area(counting upcoming Klamath County work) is excessive without some localized analysis of the proposed lots. A reasons exception process requires a more thorough analysis and a more precise delineation of what is to be excepted. There is also no basis for the assertion that the threat will worsen if no action is taken in the coming years. To the contrary, as septic systems need to be replaced, new ATT systems can improve the situation. In addition to inadequate information on the conditions on individual lots or areas of lots,there is also inadequate information on exactly what sewer systems are being considered. It is not adequate as DLCD/DEQ have done to say any kind of sewer may be applied. The "reasons" exception 2 process requires a more critical analysis, identifying where sewers are to be extended or newly built, and what that build-out will encompass. See, for example, the attached Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report and Memorandum of Agreement for Jackson County's Goal 11 exception. That process was not only based on an imminent health hazard but required careful delineation of areas to fall within the exception. The process also should require assessments of lots less than the 10-acre maximum apparently used here. Reasons exceptions should be narrowly drawn, yet there is no analysis of an exception that would only apply to two-acre lots, for example, where there can apparently be more of a problem because of inadequate room for septic fields. The DLCD/DEQ letter is also inadequate where it doesn't identify evidence in the Record for such issues as whether people with existing septic systems will switch to sewer systems, whether drilling deeper wells will be necessary, etc. Finally,the assertion in the DLCD/DEQ letter that this Goal exception is not to allow additional development is not well-taken. A central moving force behind this Goal exception from the beginning has been to facilitate development on lands currently not considered to be developable. While we do not believe that this proposed Goal 11 reasons exception is warranted, it may be that a more limited exception targeting smaller areas with smaller lots where there may truly be a health hazard could be appropriate. Thank you for this opportunity to comment and please notify us in writing of any further ability to comment on this matter and when any final decision is made. Very truly yours, Paul Dewey, Executive Director www.controloreg.on andwatchorg RECEIVED 'APR 2 9 2009 JACKSON COUNTY MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT PILANNINO The parties to this Agreement are the State of Oregon through the Department of Land Conservation and Development("DLCD") and Jackson County, Oregon("the County"). WHEREAS,the Bear Creek Valley contains large areas with soils that are severely limiting for the use of individual sewage treatment systems; and WHEREAS, due to these limitations on the use of individual sewage treatment systems, the Bear Creek Valley Sanitation District("the District") (subsequently renamed the Rogue Valley Sanitation Service) was formed in 1966; and WHEREAS, the District constructed a valley-wide sewer system serving and designed to serve the cities of Talent, Phoenix,Medford, Central Point,Eagle Point, and Jacksonville and areas outside these cities; and WHEREAS,the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted Statewide Planning Goal 11,"Public Facilities and Services,"in 1974,which among other things regulates the planning of sewer systems; and WHEREAS, Goal 11 was amended in 1994 to prohibit the extension of sewer lines outside of urban growth boundaries; and WHEREAS, Oregon Administrative Rule(OAR) 660, division 11 was amended in 1998 to clarify the definition of sewer line extensions and to provide for extensions of sewer service if the extension is the only practicable alternative to mitigate a public health hazard; and WHEREAS, OAR 660, division 11,was amended in 1998 to clarify that exceptions to Goal 11 may be taken in order to allow extensions of sewer service provided there is no practicable alternative to the sewer system, and provided the local government adopts land use regulations that prohibit the sewer system from serving any uses or areas other than those justified in the exception; and WHEREAS, OAR 660, division 11,was amended in 2005 to specify that one appropriate reason for an exception includes a finding that an extension of sewer service is necessary to avoid an imminent and significant public health hazard that would otherwise result if the sewer service is not provided; and WHEREAS,there continues to be a need for sewer service within the District to areas outside urban growth boundaries that are severely limited for the use of on-site sewage treatment systems,and such sewer service in many cases can only be authorized by the adoption of an exception to Goal 11; and WHEREAS, after receipt of the work products in DLCD paragraph 2,below,the County would initiate a quasi-judicial proceeding via a land use application or initiate a legislative post-acknowledgment plan amendment or amendments under ORS 197.610, including findings sufficient to justify exceptions to Goal 11 as necessary in order to provide sewer service to identified lands, and including a public hearing for adoption of such plan amendment. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: DLCD: • 1) DLCD will provide technical support from its Community Services Specialist and its Southern Oregon Regional Representative not to exceed 80 hours in accordance with paragraph 2. 2) The technical support to be provided pursuant to the preceding paragraph number 1 will be: a) An evaluation of data and maps so that DLCD can delineate areas for which a Goal 11 exception can be reasonably justified. DLCD will collaborate with County and District staff to finalize delineated areas selected through this process. A final map, showing all areas agreed upon by DLCD,the County and the District,will be provided to the County no later than May 1, 2009; and b) Preliminary findings will be prepared and submitted to the County to support a Goal 11 exception for the areas delineated on the final map by no later than July 1,2009. 3) DLCD will not select areas for which an exception to Goal 11 cannot reasonably be justified, and DLCD agrees not to file a formal objection or appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals for areas identified by DLCD and included in an exception adopted by the County. DLCD's agreement to not appeal does not apply to any areas not identified by DLCD that the County chooses to include as additional areas subject to Goal 11 exceptions. Jackson County: 1. A Senior Planner of the County with GIS expertise and knowledge of the sewer service issues will provide DLCD with necessary data and maps at a scale that • is appropriate for mapping areas for an exception or exceptions to Goal 11 no later than April 27, 2009. • 2. The Senior Planner's time on the project shall not exceed 40 hours. 3. The County's staff time contribution for the project outlined within this MOA will not exceed$5,000 and the term of this MOA will not exceed one year. Applicable Law This Agreement is necessary to demonstrate commitment by both parties to complete needed comprehensive plan amendments and to address imminent public health hazards.To the extent the applicable law is modified or clarified through subsequent DLCD-Jackson County MOA Page 2 rulemaking, legislative enactment, or judicial decision,the County shall make decisions under Goal 11 and related administrative rule according to the newly adopted statutes,rules or decisions. Termination Either party can terminate this agreement by providing the other party with written 15 days notice. Executed on , 2009 Richard Whitman, Director Danny Jordan,for Jackson County Department of Land Conservation and Development � r A� t` DLCD-Jackson County MOA Page 3 JACKSON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT JACKSON Y STAFF REPORT COUNTY Applicant: Jackson County Staff: Craig Anderson Meeting Date: December 10, 2009 File No: LRP2008-00003 Proposal: Consider a proposal to amend the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan by taking a "reasons" goal exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, to allow the connection of specific rural properties within the boundary of the Rogue Valley Sewer Services District to the sewer services provided by that agency; and an amendment of the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance, Area of Special Concern (ASC) 2003-1 Goal 11 Exception Areas, Section 7.2.3(B), consistent with the above proposal. File No. LRP2008-00003. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Many of the properties in the rural portion of the Rogue Valley are located on severely limited soils for septic treatment and have already been developed to suburban densities. Most of these properties treat sewage through the use of an on-site septic system. The reliance on these septic systems has resulted in water quality issues that have been a concern since the early 1970's. This concern contributed to the development of a centralized sewage collection and treatment system (Rogue Valley Sewer Services), which already serves much of this area. Statewide Planning Goal 11 calls for the efficient planning of public services such as sewer, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. The goal's central concept is that public services should be planned in accordance with a community's needs and capacities rather than be forced to respond to development as it occurs. Goal 11 generally prohibits the extension of sewer services outside of urban growth boundaries as well as extensions of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries to serve lands outside those boundaries, except where the new or extended system is the only practicable alternative to mitigate a public health hazard. The primary reason for this goal exception is to avoid an imminent and significant public health hazard that would otherwise result if the sewer service is not provided. If approved, this proposal will, by Ordinance, establish an area that will be excepted from Statewide Planning Goal 11's restrictions to extending sewer lines outside of urban growth and urban containment boundaries. The proposal described in this document would thereby allow for the potential connection of 1,603 taxlots within the Rogue Valley Sewer Service District. Nearly all (91.5%) of these properties are currently developed. Much of this development pre-dates statewide planning laws and may have lacked an adequate consideration of whether or not soils could properly treat effluent through use of on-site septic systems. This exception does not require sewer hook-up or in any way preclude the use of individual sewage treatment systems to serve properties within the exception areas. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 1 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File. LRP2008-00003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 4 II. BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT 4 A. Septic Treatment Process 4 B. Septic Treatment Issues in the Rogue Valley 5 C. Septic-Related Water Quality Issues in the Rogue Valley 7 D. Summary of Efforts to Resolve Septic-Related Water Quality Issues 8 III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT 9 A. Summary of Proposal 9 B. Selection of Tax Lots Included in Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception 10 C. Description of Exception Area and Sub-Areas 12 Central Point Sub-Area 14 East White City Sub-Area 15 Jacksonville Sub-Area 16 North Ashland Sub-Area 17 North Medford Sub-Area 19 Phoenix Sub-Area 20 South Medford Sub-Area 21 Talent Sub-Area 22 Tolo Sub-Area 24 West Medford Sub-Area 25 IV. FINDINGS DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CRITERIA 27 A. Statewide Planning Goals 27 B. Oregon Revised Statutes 29 C. Oregon Administrative Rules 29 D. Jackson County Comprehensive Plan E. Jackson County Land Development Ordinance V. RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL 26 Table of Tables 1. Exception Area Tax Lot Summary 11 2. Exception Area Soils Summary 13 3. Central Point Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 14 4. Central Point Sub-Area Soils Summary 15 5. East White City Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 16 6. East White City Sub-Area Soils Summary 16 7. Jacksonville Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 17 8. Jacksonville Sub-Area Soils Summary 17 9. North Ashland Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 18 10. North Ashland Sub-Area Soils Summary 18 11. North Medford Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 19 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 Table of Tables (continued) Page 12. North Medford Sub-Area Soils Summary 19 13. Phoenix Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 20 14. Phoenix Sub-Area Soils Summary 21 15. South Medford Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 22 16. South Medford Sub-Area Soils Summary 22 17. Talent Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 23 18. Talent Sub-Area Soils Summary 23 19. Tolo Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 24 20. Tolo Sub-Area Soils Summary 25 21. West Medford Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary 26 22. West Medford Sub-Area Soils Summary 26 Exhibits A. Figure 1: Soils With "Severe" Septic Limitations Figure 2: Soils With High Water Table Figure 3: Soils Rated "Severe" Shrink-Swell Figure 4: Tax Lots Under 10 Acres Figure 5: Fecal Coliform Contaminated Streams Figure 6: E. Coli Contaminated Streams Figure 7: Sewer Extensions Outside UGB/UCBs. Figure 8. Taxlots in Rural Bear Creek Valley Figure 9: Sewer Served or Sewer Eligible Taxlots Figure 10: Exception Taxlots—Comp Plan Figure 11: Exception Taxlots—Flood Plain Figure 12: Exception Sub-Areas Figure 13: Exception Taxlots— Health Hazard Areas Figure 14: Exception Taxlots—Major Septic Repairs Figure 15: Central Point Sub-Area Figure 16: East White City Sub-Area Figure 17: Jacksonville Sub-Area Figure 18: North Ashland Sub-Area Figure 19: North Medford Sub-Area Figure 20: Phoenix Sub-Area Figure 21: South Medford Sub-Area Figure 22: Talent Sub-Area Figure 23: Tolo Sub-Area Figure 24: West Medford Sub-Area B. Board Order 253-09— Bear Creek TMDL Implementation Plan C. Methodology to Select Tax Lots in Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception D. Exception Area Tax Lots—Analysis Data E. Appendix D, Greater Bear Creek Basin Waste Treatment Master Plan F. NRCS Summary of Septic-Related Soil Properties for Soils in Exception Area G. Fern Valley Road Environmental Quality Data Supporting Sewer Service H. Staff Report File 2002-2-SWR I. Excerpt from Appendix I, 208 Waste Treatment Master Plan Expansion J. Sewer-Eligible Per ASC 2003-1 and Sewer-Served Rural Tax Lots (RVS) K. Sewer-Eligible Rural Tax Lots Per OAR 660-011-0060(8) L. Letters of Support From DEQ and Bear Creek Watershed Council Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 I. INTRODUCTION This document begins by providing background information on the proposed amendment to the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan for an area-wide Goal 11 exception. The document then explains the proposed amendment, detailing how and why properties were selected for the exception area. The applicable State and County approval criteria are then presented with findings that demonstrate how this proposal complies. Finally, staffs recommendation is presented with suggested conditions of approval. If approved, this proposal will, by Ordinance, establish an area that will be excepted from Statewide Planning Goal 11's restrictions to extending sewer lines outside of urban growth and urban containment boundaries. The proposal described in this document would thereby allow for the potential connection of 1,603 taxlots within the Rogue Valley Sewer Service District. II. BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT A. Septic Treatment Process A septic tank system consists of three major components: the septic tank, a distribution device and an absorption field. A septic tank is a large, watertight, corrosion-resistant, buried container that receives raw sewage from the plumbing drains of a home or other structure. In it, solids are separated out of the raw sewage and are partially digested by anaerobic(oxygen-lacking) bacteria. The septic tank must be large enough to allow retention of the raw sewage and some decomposition for at least 48 hours. Solids that are not digested either float to the top to form a scum layer or settle to the bottom of the tank as sludge. Depending on tank size and sewage volume, the sludge and scum must be pumped out at least every 2 to 5 years to allow bacterial digestion to continue in the tank. Otherwise, raw sewage may flow directly through the tank and into the absorption field, causing its failure. After primary treatment in the septic tank, the liquid effluent flows through the distribution device, which ensures that equal quantities of effluent go to each pipe in the absorption field. The absorption field is a subsurface leaching area within the soil that receives the liquid effluent from the distribution device and distributes it over a specified area where it is allowed to seep into the soil. The filtering action of the soil, combined with further bacterial action, removes disease organisms and treats the harmful material in the effluent, completing the treatment process so that the water is recycled to the surface or groundwater source. The absorption field provides final treatment of the wastewater, so it is critical to have uncompacted, unsaturated soil surrounding the soil treatment system. The effluent leaving the septic tank contains viable pathogenic organisms. The soil's purpose is to destroy these pathogens, treat and degrade organic materials, and act as a physical, chemical and biological filter to purify the effluent and make it acceptable quality for groundwater. Soils must be capable of absorbing the volume of wastewater from the septic tank at all times of the year. The five soil-related properties which bear directly on the functionality of the septic treatment process are: Planning Commission Staff Report Page 4 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 WATER TABLE: A high seasonal water table limits the capacity of the soil to absorb and filter the additional liquid being discharged by the drain field or any other soil absorption installation. The probable result is usually contamination of groundwater supplies or the surfacing of the untreated effluent- in some instances both. IMPERVIOUS AND POROUS ROCK MATERIAL: Soils which are shallow and overlie bedrock or other impervious layers do not have adequate volume to absorb and filter sewage effluent. In addition, dense bedrock acts as an impervious layer which can conduct untreated effluent laterally for long distances, thereby endangering underground water sources. Conversely, coarse grained material (gravel, cobbles, and boulders mixed with some fine material) permits sewage to percolate too rapidly to be filtered. Again, groundwater contamination is a potential result. SLOPE: The natural slope of the landscape affects both the manner of sewage effluent distribution and the level of free water in the soil. Soil absorption systems installed on sloping sites must also make allowances for groundwater entering the area from higher elevations, either as surface runoff or as water moving down slope within the soil. Either condition raises the free water level in and around the disposal system causing absorption and filtration to become more difficult. Slope and depth to restrictive or impervious layers are intricately related. The steeper the slope, the deeper the requirement to either of the two layers. This is due to the increased possibility of effluent surfacing below the drainfield as slope increases. FLOOD PLAIN: Subsurface sewage disposal systems installed in flood plains subject to stream overflow create a serious environmental health hazard. Inundation of these systems causes contamination which greatly increases the risk of contacting communicable diseases. PERMEABILITY: Very slow movement of water through a soil will not provide adequate absorption of sewage effluent or exchange of air, whereas extremely rapid movement of waste material constitutes a potential pollution hazard to groundwater supplies. High shrink-swell clay soils, for example are too dense to allow adequate movement of air and water, and they tend to become "clogged" when effluent movement is restricted; hence, the problem is compounded. In general, medium textured soils containing equivalent amounts of sand, silt, and clay size particles serve as the best filter material. Soil permeability is also a function of structure (natural soil aggregation) and pore space (void space, shapes and sizes of pores). Soils that are deficient with respect to the five factors described above can quickly become saturated with untreated effluent which eventually surfaces and/or contaminates groundwater and other water sources. B. Septic Treatment Issues in the Rogue Valley Approximately 40% of the population of Jackson County has its domestic wastewater disposal needs provided by on-site septic systems. And, based on data from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Jackson County, many of these septic systems are located in areas that are unsuitable for effective treatment and disposal of wastewater. The NRCS data indicates that the vast majority of properties in the Rogue Valley are in areas with a "severe" limitation for septic suitability (see Figure Planning Commission Staff Report Page 5 of 39 Area Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 1, Exhibit A). Many of these properties are also in areas with either high water tables, "severe" shrink-swell soils, or both (see Figures 2 and 3, Exhibit A). Though there are several examples of problematic soils found in the Rogue Valley, two of the worst in terms of septic suitability are briefly described below: Agate-Winlo Soils— White City Area The Agate-Winlo soils are the typical 'patterned ground' recognized by the mounds and intermounds seen throughout the area. The small mounded areas are the Agate soils with very shallow depths of reasonably good soil over a 'cemented hardpan'. It is not porous and therefore unacceptable for septic system use. The Winlo soils are the intermound areas, the low spots that fill with water to form small interconnected ponds — or vernal pools - for approximately six months of the year. The gravelly clay surface soil in the intermounds is very shallow in depth to the impermeable hardpan thus resulting in the collection of the runoff water. The very limited area of the mounds combined with the shallow soil depth and required system setback requirements to protect the intermound ponds makes these sites unacceptable for septic system consideration. Vertisol Clay Soils—Eastern Valley Area The Vertisol clay soils are popularly known as the 'black sticky' soils. These are dense clay soils, such as Carney, Cove, Coker and Padigan, that formed from a type of clay that is extremely poor for septic system consideration. The water table is near the surface during the winter months and may also be high during the summer irrigation season. These clays are also known as churning soils referred to as 'shrink and swell' soils. Due to the nature of the soils' clay particles they shrink and dry up in the summer to form the wide, deep cracks that are seen throughout the area. These cracks usually extend to the depth of the underlying rock. During the winter, these soils absorb the first rains and then swell up, closing the cracks and becoming virtually sealed. The soil remains saturated throughout the winter months. Rainfall runs off to nearby ditches and streams. The process of shrinking and swelling destroys the natural structure and pores of the soil making them extremely poorly drained. This movement of the soils disrupts structure foundations, displaces fence posts and moves and breaks pipes within the soil including septic system pipes. Water movement through the soil is very, very slow. Septic system trenches installed in these soils will typically fill with sewage in a short period of time since the soil cannot absorb additional moisture and then result in failure of the system with sewage surfacing and running into runoff collector ditches, roadside ditches and nearby streams. In addition to poor soil suitability, there are other factors that conspire to limit the effectiveness of on-site septic systems in the Rogue Valley. Perhaps foremost among these factors is the existing density of development. Figure 4 in Exhibit A depicts areas within the Rogue Valley of relatively high density rural development (parcel sizes under 10 acres). Many subdivisions in the rural areas of the Rogue Valley were done prior to the enactment of zoning regulations and without adequate consideration given to the suitability of soils for septic treatment. And, even if some of these areas have soils that are adequate for the treatment of sewage, parcel sizes under two acres can often be too Planning Commission Staff Report Page 6 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File:LRP2008-00003 small to meet modern spacing requirements for septic repair areas and/or other required setbacks. If a septic system failure occurs, property owners typically have the option to repair or replace their existing system. However, even with the most technically advanced treatment systems available, in some of these areas with severe soil limitations, such efforts are often not enough to prevent discharge of the sewage effluent into ground or surface waters. In many situations, an existing system that is failing may not be "repairable" at all. The only other option is to remove the source of the health hazard by requiring the property to be vacated. C. Septic-Related Water Quality Issues in Rogue Valley The Bear Creek sub-basin of the Rogue River, which includes nearly all of Jackson County's industries and the vast majority of its population, has the poorest quality of any of the waters in the Rogue Basin. Monitoring by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Bear Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Project shows that most of the streams in the Rogue Valley are water quality impaired. These streams are included on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list and violate the State lnstream Water Quality Standards. The majority of violations are for fecal coliforms and E.coli, indicating water contamination from fecal sources. Several streams, including Bear, Jackson, Griffin, Crooked, Larson, Wagner, Coleman, and Neil Creeks consistently violated water quality standards and were posted as health hazards by the Jackson County Health Department. While a portion of the bacterial levels recorded may be coming from animal sources, a major portion is suspected to be of human origin. This fact is substantiated by the progressive increase in fecal bacteria levels recorded downstream from areas with known septic tank failures. Figures 5 and 6 in Exhibit A depict the streams in the Bear Creek sub-basin that violate the water quality standards for fecal coliform and E. Coll. Obviously, human contact with sewage contaminated water is a serious public health concern. To address these and other water quality issues, Jackson County, has adopted strategies designed to restore the water quality in these streams. Such strategies include identifying and eliminating failing on-site septic systems, which are identified as a source of bacterial pollution in the Bear Creek TMDL Implementation Plan. (see Exhibit B, Board Order 253-09). Until December 2008, efforts toward addressing water quality-related septic issues in the Rogue Valley were being administered by Jackson County staff. Four positions in the Environmental Quality section of the County's Development Services Department administered DEQ's On-site Wastewater Treatment System Rules (OAR Chapter 340, Divisions 071 and 073) and thereby assisted in the identification, repair and/or replacement of failing septic systems in the Rogue Valley and elsewhere in the County. Unfortunately, due to budgetary limitations, the Environmental Quality section was eliminated and the County's on-site septic efforts were discontinued. DEQ now administers this program with only one staff position split between both Josephine and Jackson Counties. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 7 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception Fife:LRP2008-00003 D. Summary of Efforts to Resolve Septic-Related Water Quality Issues There is a long history behind Jackson County's efforts to address the water quality issues previously described. And, because the problems are of a severity that they cannot easily be remedied by technological or other improvements to existing septic systems, the County's efforts have largely focused on the development of a regional sewage collection infrastructure. Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVS - formerly Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority or BCVSA) was formed and its service district boundaries established in August, 1966. RVS' boundary comprises an area of approximately 207 square miles, which covers the urbanized portion of Jackson County from the Rogue River to the northern limits of the City of Ashland. The Bear Creek Interceptor (BCI) is the regional collector of the Bear Creek Valley Waste Management System and is maintained by RVS. The BCI transports sewage from the cities of Medford, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent and Jacksonville, as well as sewage from residences, commercial businesses and industrial facilities within the RVS boundaries in unincorporated areas of the County to the Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for treatment and disposal. The BCI was designed to serve a projected population of 274,000 in the service area, plus an equivalent population of 100,000 for commercial and industrial flow capacity, bringing the total capacity to about 374,000 people (equivalent). The current equivalent population being served by RVS is approximately 150,000, meaning that there is abundant spare capacity in the existing sewer infrastructure. As mentioned above, RVS currently serves several properties that are located outside of urban growth or urban containment boundaries (UGBs and UCBs). Figure 7, Exhibit A, depicts the RVS District Boundary and shows the current sewer line infrastructure as well as the properties either served or approved for service by RVS. There are 2,184 properties that are currently served and 350 properties that are currently approved (but not served) for an RVS sewer connection outside of UGBs and UCBs. At the time that most of these areas were approved for sewer, a relatively simple process was required. However, in order to serve multiple properties like this today, it is generally necessary to approve an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11. Statewide Planning Goal 11 calls for the efficient planning of public services such as sewer, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. The goal's central concept is that public services should be planned in accordance with a community's needs and capacities rather than be forced to respond to development as it occurs. Goal 11 generally prohibits the extension of sewer services outside of urban growth boundaries as well as extensions of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries to serve lands outside those boundaries, except where the new or extended system is the only practicable alternative to mitigate a public health hazard. In Jackson County, Goal 11's provisions relating to sewer extensions have served to limit the options for many property owners with inadequate on-site septic treatment systems. This is primarily because the property-by-property Goal 11 health hazard (or Goal exception) provisions force individual property owners to pay the full cost of sewer installation to their properties -- a very expensive proposition in most cases. Consequently, many "repaired" systems continue to discharge inadequately treated Planning Commission Staff Report Page 8 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 sewage into streams and groundwater. This situation has led Jackson County and its partners at the Department of Land Conservation and Development and Rogue Valley Sewer to develop this proposal for an area-wide Goal 11 exception. The remainder of this document explains this proposal and the requirements for its approval. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT A. Summa ry Proposal Pro osal The background information presented above provides the general rationale for developing this proposed area-wide exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11. To summarize, many of the properties in the rural portion of the Rogue Valley are located on severely limited soils for septic treatment and have already been developed to suburban densities. Many of these properties treat sewage through the use of an on-site septic system. The reliance on these septic systems has resulted in water quality issues that have been a concern since the early 1970's. This concern contributed to the development a centralized sewage collection and treatment system (RVS), which already serves much of this area. The extent of this sewer service is limited by Goal 11's restrictions on extending sewer lines outside of urban growth and urban containment boundaries (UGB/UCBs). Goal 11's objectives with respect to limiting urban sprawl by restricting the extension of sewer lines may be well-intentioned. However, when it comes to sewer extensions in the Rogue Valley, these objectives are not particularly applicable. This is because, unlike most sewer providers in Oregon that are operated by municipalities, the sewer services in Jackson County are provided by a regional service provider (RVS) with no interest in the expansion of urban land uses on rural lands. Also, there is no evidence to show that the extension of sewer lines in the Rogue Valley has resulted in levels of urbanization that would otherwise not be present today or that zone changes or other planning actions have been directly influenced by the sewer's presence. And, given the restrictions inherent in State and County planning regulations and zoning ordinances, it is unclear how urban development patterns could be directly affected by sewer extensions. Nevertheless, the perception that urban development naturally follows the extension of sewer lines persists. This proposal addresses this issue by restricting potential sewer connections to properties that are either already developed or are committed (through zoning) to relatively dense rural and suburban land uses. Additionally, a condition of approval will restrict uses on properties included in this proposal to those allowable in the existing underlying zoning district and prohibit the "up-zoning" of properties on the basis of a sewer connection. The Goal 11 administrative rule (OAR 660-011-0060(9)) provides local governments an option for extending sewer lines to multiple specified properties outside of UGB/UCBs by taking a "reasons" goal exception. The primary reason for this goal exception is to avoid an imminent and significant public health hazard that would otherwise result if the sewer service is not provided. No practicable alternative to the sewer extensions exists in order to avoid this public health hazard. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 9 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 The proposal described below is to allow for the potential connection of 1,603 taxlots outside of UGB/UCBs to the RVS regional sewer system. Nearly all (91.5%) of these properties are currently developed. So, the intent of this proposal is not to provide the infrastructure to allow additional urban development but rather to provide for the adequate sewage disposal needs for development that exists today. As mentioned previously, much of this development pre-dates statewide planning laws and may have lacked an adequate consideration of whether or not soils could properly treat effluent through use of on-site septic systems. And, as also previously noted, approximately 60% of RVS's effluent capacity is unused today, meaning that the sewage treatment needs for the proposed exception only requires the extension of sewer lines and no additional treatment infrastructure. B. Selection of Tax Lots Included in Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception Figures 1 through 7 in Exhibit A presented in the background section of this document demonstrate: 1) How most of the soils in the Rogue Valley (Bear Creek Sub-Basin Area) are severely limited with respect to septic treatment and have other soil limitations such as severe shrink-swell characteristics and high water tables; 2) How dense rural and urban land uses, reliant on septic systems for sewage treatment, currently exist in many of these areas; 3) How this situation contributes to water quality problems including fecal contamination as indicated by the presence of E. Coll and fecal coliform in Rogue Valley streams; and 4) The extent of the current RVS sewer system including properties that are outside of UGB/UCBs. An analysis of the above information, as well as a consideration of other planning-related factors, led to the development of a methodology to select the properties that are included in this area-wide Goal 11 exception proposal. This methodology is summarized below and is described in further detail in Exhibit C. Summary of Methodology Used to Determine Exception Area Figure 7 in Exhibit A shows the RVS District boundary as well as the current g ry extent of RVS sewer lines and the properties that are either served or approved for sewer service. Since all properties included in this proposal will be served by RVS, this information was a logical starting point for determining which properties to include in the exception area. After examining factors such as topography, soils, as well as the nature of development in the rural areas of the Valley, a distance of one mile from existing RVS sewer lines was selected as a study area. This area captures the majority of properties within the lower elevations of the Valley where densities are generally higher and the extension of sewer lines is more economical. The Goal 11 Study Area Boundary (a one mile distance from existing RVS sewer lines) as well as tax lots (taxable units of land in Jackson County), which graphically depict the pattern of land division in rural Bear Creek Valley, are shown in Figure 8 in Exhibit A. After establishing the study area, the next step was to analyze the tax lots outside of UGB/UCBs. Tax lots that are already served or eligible for service by RVS, as well as residential tax lots within 300' of sewer lines that existed as of January 1, 2005 (eligible for sewer connection per OAR 660-011-0060(8)), were Planning Commission Staff Report Page 10 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 eliminated from further analysis. (Figure 9 in Exhibit A depicts these tax lots which are also listed in Exhibits J and K) Next, developed and vacant tax lots within a "non-resource" comprehensive plan designation (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, aggregate and limited use lands) were selected for inclusion in the exception area. Eighty one percent (81%) of tax lots included in the exception area fall into this category. The remaining nineteen percent (19%) of tax lots included in the exception area are developed with a "resource" comprehensive plan designation (i.e., Exclusive Farm Use or Open Space Reserve/VVoodland Resource)that are either: 1) Under 20 acres and within close proximity (300') to an existing sewer line; or 2) Under 2 acres; or 3) Under 10 acres and within 100' of the above-identified tax lots. After selecting exception area tax lots in the manner above, a culling was done in order to minimize the extension of sewer lines while maximizing the ratio of tax lots served/mile of sewer extended. To do this, tax lots were eliminated from the exception area that were: 1) More than 100' from an existing sewer line; and 2) Not part of a "continuous" (less than 100' gap) grouping of tax lots extending from areas that are already eligible for sewer service. The only properties included in the exception area that do not comply with this methodology are 35 lots on Fern Valley Road (east of Phoenix). This was done for the reasons explained in the text under the Phoenix Sub-Area description beginning on page 20. Figure 10 in Exhibit A shows the Comprehensive Plan (or "Comp Plan") Designation for the tax lots selected through this methodology. Exhibit D lists exception area tax lots along with the data used in the methodology. Table 1, below, provides a summary of the attributes of the 1 603 tax lots that were p rY , selected through the methodology described above. As shown in the table, the overwhelming majority (72%) of tax lots selected for the exception area are zoned rural residential, with an average lot size of about 3 acres. About 19% of exception area tax lots are within a resource zoning district. These lots have an average size below 6 acres. TABLE 1 —Exception Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Designation Acres — Taxlot Limited Vacant Total Acres (Septic) Aggregate 387.13 0 17 22.77 17 Commercial 0.5 0 1 .5 0 Industrial 227.40 11 26 8.75 13 Limited Use 170.85 2 2 85.43 2 Rural Residential 3517.75 110 1149 3.06 1087 Urban Residential 81.93 14 109 .75 109 Ag Land (EFU) 1561.61 0 265 5.89 255 WR/OSR 173.52 0 34 5.10 34 TOTALS 6120.69 137 1603 3.82 1517 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 11 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 As shown in Table 1, approximately 95% of tax lots included in the exception proposal have a majority of their area within soils that are severely limited for septic treatment. However, it should be noted that there are several tax lots within this group that likely have soils that are adequate for septic disposal. Such a determination can only be made through a site-specific soil survey. C. Description of Exception Area and Sub-Areas As mentioned above, the methodology used to select the exception area tax lots resulted in the selection of mostly rural residential properties with an average lot size of about 3 acres. Most of the remainder of the tax lots included in the exception area are zoned for urban residential and small-lot (hobby) farms. Together, the properties included in the exception area represent a clustered pattern of fairly dense rural development adjacent to areas that are already served by sewer. The extension of sewer lines to these areas therefore makes sense, not only because of the poor soil conditions that exist in the area, but also because enough properties are concentrated within a close proximity for sewer line extensions to be economically viable. Ten divisions (or sub-areas) of the overall exception area have been created to more easily depict mapping information and to facilitate the description of the unique land use, soil, septic repair, stream contamination and documented health hazard characteristics that apply to each sub-area. Figure 12 in Exhibit A shows the location of the ten sub- areas. Figures 15 through 22 are maps of the individual sub-areas with the "resource" Comprehensive Plan designations (Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), Woodland Resource (WR) and Open Space Reserve (OSR) are represented) shown in green and "non- resource" designations (Residential, Industrial, Commercial or Limited Use) shown in purple. Grey is used for Aggregate Removal properties, which is also a "non-resource" designation. Three other maps included in Exhibit A are referenced in the sub-area discussion below. The first of these maps is Figure 11, which shows exception tax lots that are within the FEMA 100-Year Floodplain. The second, Figure 13, shows fecal coliform and E. Coll contaminated streams as well as "Potential Health Hazard Areas" as identified in Appendix D of the "Greater Bear Creek Basin Waste Treatment Master Plan," (RVCOG, 1977 - attached as Exhibit E). And the third map is Figure 14, which identifies tax lots in the study area that have a history of major septic repairs. It is worth noting that, although septic repair history was not included in the methodology to select exception area tax lots, there is nevertheless a high correlation between the two. An analysis of the County's major septic repair data in the Goal 11 study area shows that 89% of these repairs occurred on taxlots included in the exception area (whereas, only 50% of potentially eligible taxlots in the study area were included in the exception area). This correlation provides a "real world" check on the appropriateness of the methodology used to select exception area tax lots. Table 2 on the following page lists all the soil types found in the exception sub-areas. The limitations from the NRCS Soil Survey are listed as well as the septic disposal rating and the area covered by each of the soil types within the exception area. The total acreage discrepancy between Tables 1 and 2 is due to mapping-related errors that do not affect the analysis. Exhibit F provides more detailed NRCS survey information concerning those soils listed in Table 2. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 12 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 TABLE 2-Exce tion Area Soils Summary Limitations* Septic Limit Percent of Soil Type Soil Symbol Acres (per NRCS) (per NRCS Table 10) Ex-Area Abin silty clay loam f,p,w Severe 2A 20.27 0.3% Agate-Winlo complex hp,w Severe 6B 59.48 1.0% Barron coarse sandy loam no limitation Slight 10B 160.53 2.6% Brader-Debenger loans b,s Severe 17C, 17E 122.77 2.0% Camas sandy loam f,fc Severe 21A 0.33 0.0% Camas-Newberg-Evans f,fc Severe 23A 507.81 8.3% Caris-offenbacher gravelly loans n/a Severe 25G 1.53 0.0% Carney clay b,p Severe 27B,27D 186.14 3.0% Carney cobbly clay b, p,s Severe 28E 2.74 0.0% Central Point sandy loam w Moderate 31A 157.20 2.6% Coker clay p,w Severe 33A 338.23 5.5% Coleman loam p,wt Severe 34B 574.58 9.4% Cove clay f,p,w Severe 35A 158.89 2.6% Darow silty clay loam b,Is,p,5,ss Severe 43B,43D,43E 304.71 5.0% Debenger-Brader loans b,s Severe 44C,44E 173.85 2.8% I Evans loam f Severe 55A 103.16 1.7% Foehlin gravelly loam p. Severe _ 61A 27.83 0.5% Gregory silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w Severe 76A 162.61 2.7% Kerby loam p Severe 97A 24.67 0.4% Kubli loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 100A,100B 157.39 2.6% Langellain-Brader loans b,p,ss,w Severe 102B 49.31 0.8% Manita loam p,s,ss Severe 108B, 108D,108E 125.80 2.1% Manita-Vannoy complex b,p,s,ss Severe 109E 124.42 2.0% Medford clay loam,gravelly Severe 128B 5.44 0.1% substratum Is,p,ss,w,wt Medford silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 127A 517.34 8.5% Newberg fine sandy loam f,fc Severe 133A 19.59 0.3% Padigan clay Is,p,ss,w Severe 139A 54.50 0.9% Phoenix clay b, Is,p,ss,w Severe 141A 5.10 0.1% Pits,gravel n/a n/a 146 7.75 0.1% Provig very gravelly loam p,s,ss Severe 150E 4.87 0.1% Provig-Agate complex hp,p,ss Severe 151C 170.33 2.8% Riverwash n/a n/a 154 5.03 0.1% Ruch gravelly silt loam p Severe 158B,158D 494.51 8.1% Ruch silt loam p Severe 1576 312.53 5.1% Selmac loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 162B,162D 17.44 0.3% Shefflein loam p,s,ss Severe 164D 333.81 5.5% Tallowbox gravelly sandy loam n/a Severe 188G,189G 136.51 2.2% Vannoy silt loam b, Is,p,s Severe 195E,196E 305.76 5.0% Vannoy-Voorhies n/a Severe 197F 114.19 1.9% Water n/a n/a W 41.75 0.7% Winlo very gravelly clay loam hp,w Severe 198A 13.85 0.2% 6104.58 100.0% Planning Commission Staff Report Page 13 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 *Key to Limitations:b=depth to bedrock;f=flood hazard;fc=poor filtering capacity;hp=depth to hardpan;Is=low strength;n/a =not suitable for septic disposal;p=slow permeability;s=slope;ss=high shrink-swell;w=wetness;wt=high water table Central Point Sub-Area Sewer lines extend west of the Central Point UGB toward a large cluster of residentially- zoned properties that lie along the east facing slopes west of Old Stage Road. Much of this development is on Shefflein loam soils which are rated severely septic-limited due to slopes, slow permeability and high shrink-swell characteristics. The other portion of this sub-area is characterized by soils with limitations including high water tables, severe shrink-swell, wetness and slow permeability. Some of the larger EFU-zoned properties may have inclusions of soils appropriate to effectively treat sewage. Fourteen tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Jackson Creek, contaminated with fecal coliform and E. Coli, runs through this sub-area. Several of the tax lots within this sub-area are either within or near "Potential Health Hazard Areas" 5A, 5B, 9 and 10 (see Figure 13), from the Greater Bear Creek Basin Waste Treatment Master Plan (see Exhibit E). Sixty two tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of at least one major repair (see Figure 14), indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 3 and 4 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub-area. TABLE 3—Central Point Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Designation Acres Taxlot Acres Limited Vacant Total (Septic) Aggregate 33.38 5 5 Commercial Industrial Limited Use Rural Residential 781.76 25 240 3.26 214 Urban Residential Ag Land(EFU) 236.92 34 6.97 29 WR/OSR 9.67 1 9.67 1 TOTALS 1061.73 25 280 3.79 249 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 14 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 TABLE 4--Central Point Sub-Area Soils Summary Soil Type Limitations Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres Percent of (per NRCS) (per NRCS Table 10). Sub-Area - Agate-Winlo complex hp,w Severe 6B 6.98 0.66% Barron coarse sandy loam no limitation Slight 10B 39.98 3.79% Brader-Oebenger foams b,s Severe 17C,17E 5.71 0.54% Camas-Newberg-Evans f,fc Severe 23A 0.49 0.05% Central Point sandy loam p Moderate 31A 45.69 4.33% Coker clay p,w Severe 33A 9.46 0.90% Coleman loam p,wt Severe 34B 4.43 0.42% Cove clay f,p,w Severe 35A 6.41 0.61% Evans loam f Severe 55A 4.69 0.44% Gregory silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w Severe 76A 11.66 1.11% Kerby loam p Severe 97A 12.96 1.23% Kubli loam Is, p,ss,w,wt Severe -- 100A,100B 103.59 9.82% Langellain-Brader barns b,p,ss,w Severe _ 102B 15.24 1.44% Manita loam p,s,ss Severe 108B,108D,108E 49.91 4.73% _ Medford silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe _ 127A _ 42.01 3.98% Newberg fine sandy loam f,fc Severe 133A 0.33 0.03% Padigan clay Is,p,ss,w Severe 139A 0.94 0.09% Ruch gravelly silt loam p Severe 158B, 158D 3.96 0.37% Shefflein loam p,s,ss Severe 1640 540.01 51.19% Tallowbox gravelly sandy loam n/a W Severe 188G,189G 106.26 10.07% Va n noy silt loam b,Is,p,s Severe 195E, 196E 42.45 4.02% Winlo very gravelly clay loam hp,w Severe 198A 1.87 0.18% TOTALS 1055.01 100.00% East White City Sub Area Sewer lines extend east of White City to within close proximity of most of the tax lots included in this sub-area. Development in this sub-area is on some of the worst soils in the Valley, including Agate-Winlo complex soils that, due to the shallow depth to hardpan, are virtually impossible to use for adequate septic treatment. A large portion of this sub-area is characterized by soils with severe shrink-swell, wetness and slow permeability. Five tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Whetstone Creek, contaminated with E. Coli, runs through this sub-area. Many of the tax lots within this sub-area were included within "Potential Health Hazard Areas" 3A and 3B (see Figure 13), from the Greater Bear Creek Basin Waste Treatment Master Plan (see Exhibit E). Ten tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of at least one major repair(see Figure 14), indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 5 and 6 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub- area. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 15 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 TABLE 5-East White City Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Acres Limited Designation Vacant Total Taxlot Acres (Septic) Aggregate Commercial Industrial Limited Use Rural Residential 78.44 2 18 4.36 18 Urban Residential Ag Land(EFU) 131.90 18 7.33 18 WR/OSR 16.72 3 5.57 3 TOTALS 227.06 2 39 5.82 39 TABLE 6—E as t White Ci ty Su b-Area Soils Summary Limitations Soil Type from map unit Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres Percent of (per NRCS Table 10) Sub-Area descriptions Abin silty clay loam f,p,w Severe 2A 28.61 12.62% Agate-Winlo complex hp,w Severe 6B 54.19 23.91% Camas-Newberg-Evans f,fc Severe 23A 14.52 6.41% Carney clay b, p Severe 27B,27D 0.07 0.03% Coker clay p,w Severe 33A 44.47 19.62% Cove clay f,p,w Severe 35A 8.10 3.57% Medford silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 127A 3.74 1.65% Padigan clay Is,p,ss,w Severe 139A 1.14 0.50% Phoenix clay b,Is,p,ss,w Severe 141A 1.26 0.56% Provig very gravelly loam p,s,ss Severe 150E 3.84 1.69% Provig-Agate complex hp,p,ss Severe 151C 66.72 29.44% TOTALS 226.66 100.00% Jacksonville Sub Area Sewer lines are mostly contained within the Jacksonville UGB is this sub-area. However, numerous small-acreage residential properties on shallow soils and slopes surround the western edges of Jacksonville. Six tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Jackson Creek, contaminated with fecal coliform and E. Coli, runs through this sub-area. A few of the tax lots within this sub-area were included within "Potential Health Hazard Area" 12 (see Figure 13), from the Greater Bear Creek Basin Waste Treatment Master Plan (see Exhibit E). Seventy six tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of at least one major repair (see Figure 14), indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 7 and 8 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub-area. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 16 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 TABLE 7—Jacksonville Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Limited Designation Acres Taxlot Acres Vacant Total (Septic) Aggregate Commercial Industrial Limited Use Rural Residential 1016.97 36 271 3.75 243 Urban Residential Ag Land(EFU) 14.86 5 2.97 4 ` WR/OSR 18.20 4 4.55 4 TOTALS 1050.03 36 280 3.75 251 TABLE 8—Jacksonville Sub-Area Soils Summary Limitations Soil Type from map unit Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres Percent of (per NRCS Table 10) Sub-Area descriptions Barron coarse sandy loam no limitation Slight 10B 103.72 9.99% Brader-Debenger loarns b,s Severe 17C, 17E _ 167.79 16.17% Camas-Newberg-Evans f,fc Severe 23A 12.14 1.17% Coleman loam p,wt Severe 34B _ 4.74 0.46% _ o Manita loam p,s,ss Severe 1088,108D,108E 13.99 1.35/0 Medford silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 127A 5.16 0.50% Newberg fine sandy loam f,fc Severe 133A 0.73 0.07% Ruch gravelly silt loam p Severe 1586,158D 63.79 6.15% - Shefflein loam p,s,ss Severe 164D _ 130.43 12.57% Tallowbox gravelly sandy loam n/a Severe 188G,189G 13.64 1.31% Vannoy silt loam b,Is,p,s Severe 195E,196E 461.19 44.44% Vannoy-Voorhies n/a Severe 197F 60.40 5.82% . TOTALS 1037.72 100.00% North Ashland Sub Area This sub-area is notorious for its vertisol clay soils described on page 6. Sewer lines have been extended to a few properties in this sub-area through both the goal exceptions process and determinations of public health hazards. Development in this sub-area consists mostly of rural residential and small (hobby)farm properties. Ten tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Butler Creek, contaminated with fecal coliform and E. Coll, and Meyer Creek, contaminated with fecal coliform, run through this sub-area. Many of the tax lots within this sub-area were included within "Potential Health Hazard Area" 30 (see Figure 13), Planning Commission Staff Report Page 17 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 from the Greater Bear Creek Basin Waste Treatment Master Plan (see Exhibit E). Thirty three tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of at least one major repair (see Figure 14), indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 9 and 10 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub-area. TABLE 9-- North Ashland Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean $everely Acres Limited Designation Vacant Total Taxlot Acres (Septic) Aggregate Commercial Industrial Limited Use Rural Residential 167.25 7 : 75 2.23 75 Urban Residential Ag Land(EFU) 265.10 45 5.89 45 WR/OSR TOTALS 432.35 7 120 3.60 120 TABLE 10—North Ashland Sub-Area Soils Summary Limitations Soil Type from map unit Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres Percent of (per NRCS Table 10) Sub-Area descriptions Abin silty clay loam f,p,w Severe 2A 11.85 2.73% Brader-Debenger loarns b,s Severe 17C,17E 91.55 21.13% Camas-Newberg-Evans f,fc Severe 23A 3.47 _ 0.80% W Carney clay b,p Severe 27B,27D 38.19 8.81% Central Point sandy loam w Moderate 31A 0.53 0.12% Coker clay p,w Severe 33A 77.18 17.81% Cove clay f,p,w Severe 35A 38.86 8.97% V Darow silty clay loam b,Is,p,s,ss Severe 43B,43D,43E 15.30 3.53% Debenger-Brader loarns b,s Severe 44C,44E 102.49 23.65% Manita loam p,s,ss Severe 108B,1080,108E 16.47 3.80% Padigan clay Is,p,ss,w Severe 139A 37.49 8.65% TOTALS 433.37 100.00% Planning Commission Staff Report Page 18 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 North Medford Sub Area This is a relatively small sub-area with only 11 tax lots. All the properties included in this sub-area are adjacent to areas that have ben previously approved for sewer connection. The Coker and Carney clay soils in thi area are very poorly suited for septic disposal. Shallow depth to bedrock and slow permeability characterize most of the soils in this sub-area. Nearly 20% of the area contains Agate-Winlo complex soils which are generally regarded as among the worst in the Valley for septic treatment systems. The history of major repairs (see Figure 14) shows that four of the tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of requiring at least one major repair, indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 11 and 12 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub-area. TABLE 11 —North Medford Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Acres . Limited Designation Vacant Total Taxlot Acres (Septic) 1 Aggregate 1 _ Commercial _ Industrial Limited Use Rural Residential 19.45 7 2.78 7 Urban Residential Ag Land(EFU) 14.14 4 3.54 4 W R/OS R TOTALS 33.59 0 11 3.05 11 TABLE 12—North Medford Sub-Area Soils Summary Limitations Percent of Soil Type from map unit Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres descriptions (per NRCS Table 10) Sub-Area Agate-Winlo complex hp,w Severe 6B 6.36 18.89% Carney clay b,p Severe 27B,27D 10.31 30.64% _ Carney cobbly clay b, p,s Severe 28E 7.27 21.61% Coker clay p,w Severe 33A 5.59 16.63% Debenger-Brader loams b,s Severe 44C,44E 2.31 6.88% Phoenix clay b, Is,p,ss,w Severe 141A 1.80 5.35% TOTALS 33.64 100.00% Planning Commission Staff Report Page 19 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 Phoenix Sub Area Sewer lines extend west of the Phoenix UGB toward clusters of residentially-zoned properties on the west edge of the Bear Creek Valley adjacent to Coleman Creek. Much of the soil in this sub-area has slow permeability, severe shrink-swell properties or is in high water table areas. Nine tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Anderson, Coleman and Payne Creeks, all contaminated with fecal coliform, run through this sub-area. Many tax lots within this sub-area are within or adjacent to "Potential Health Hazard Areas" 26, 27 and 28 (see Figure 13), from the Greater Bear Creek Basin Waste Treatment Master Plan (see Exhibit E). Thirty five tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of at least one major repair (see Figure 14), indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 13 and 14 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub-area. Fern Valley Road(Phoenix Sub-Area) Tax lots selected for inclusion in Fern Valley Road portion of this the exception sub-area do not fit the methodology applied to the other sub-areas because they are not adjacent to areas that have already been approved for sewer service. A sewer line would need to be extended approximately 1/3 mile from the Phoenix UGB to reach these tax lots. However, there is substantial evidence to show that this area has a history of septic failures as shown in Exhibit G (Fern Valley Road Environmental Quality Data Supporting Sewer Service). This area requires special consideration and warrants a minor deviation in the methodology used for the remainder of the study area. Tax lots along Fern Valley Road in the Phoenix Y 9 Y sub-area are generally within the "black-sticky" vertisol clay soils, described on page 6. These, along with the Agate-Winlo complex soils, are the worst in the Valley for septic treatment purposes. TABLE 13—Phoenix Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Acres Limited Designation Vacant Total Taxlot Acres (Septic) Aggregate Commercial Industrial Limited Use — Rural Residential 357.71 12 144 2.48 144 Urban Residential Ag Land(EFU) 269.49 48 5.61 48 WR/OSR 2.50 1 2.50 1 TOTALS 629.70 12 193 3.26 193 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 20 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 TABLE 14—Phoenix Sub-Area Soils Summary Limitations Soil Type from map unit Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres Percent of (per NRCS Table 10) Sub-Area descriptions _ Agate-Winlo complex hp,w Severe 6B 7.83 1.25% Brader-Debenger loams b,s Severe 17C, 17E 9.95 1.58% Caris-ofenbacher gravelly n/a Severe 25G 6.28 1.00% loams Carney clay b, p Severe 27B,27D 3.59 0.57% Coker clay p,w Severe 33A 2.38 0.38% Coleman loam p,wt Severe 34B 112.83 17.94% Cove clay f,p,w Severe 35A 7.11 1.13% Darow silty clay loam b, Is,p,s,ss Severe 43B,43D,43E 35.99 5.72% Debenger-Brader barns b,s Severe 44C,44E 5.31 0.84% Evans loam f Severe 55A 18.25 2.90% Foehlin gravelly loam p Severe 61A 12.07 1.92% Gregory silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w Severe 76A 16.46 2.62% Manita loam p,s,ss Severe 108B, 108D,108E 64.49 10.25% Manita-Vannoy complex b, p,s,ss Severe 109E 75.24 11.96% Medford silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 127A 48.08 7.65% Padigan clay Is,p,ss,w Severe 139A 11.99 1.91% Ruch gravelly silt loam p Severe 158B,158D 47.10 7.49% Ruch silt loam p Severe 157E 78.18 12.43% - Selmac loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 162B,162D 34.75 5.52% Vannoy silt loam b, Is,p,s _ Severe 195E,196E 31.03 4.93% TOTALS 628.92 100.00% South Medford Sub Area Much of this area was previously included in a Goal 11 exception area due to the poor soils, high water table, dense development and other reasons identified in Exhibit H, Staff Report File 2002-2-SWR. Although that goal exception effort did not succeed, the need for sewer service to the properties in this sub-area has been well-established over time. Several tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Many of the tax lots within this sub-area are within or adjacent to "Potential Health Hazard Areas" 19, 23, 24 and 25 (see Figure 13) identified in the Greater Bear Creek Basin Waste Treatment Master Plan (see Exhibit E). Fifty seven tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Griffin Creek, contaminated with fecal coliform and E. Coli, and Crooked Creek, contaminated with fecal coliform, run through this sub-area (see Figure 13). Seventy four tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of at least one major repair (see Figure 14), indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 15 and 16 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub-area. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 21 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 TABLE 15—South Medford Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Designation Acres Taxlot Acres Limited Vacant Total (Septic) Aggregate Commercial Industrial Limited Use Rural Residential 498.55 21 187 2.67 187 Urban Residential 51.22 13 73 0.70 73 Ag Land(EFU) 78.81 _ 22 3.58 22 WR/OSR 56.87 10 5.69 10 TOTALS 685.45 34 292 2.35 292 TABLE 16—South Medford Sub-Area Soils Summary Limitations Soil Type from map unit Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres Percent of (per NRCS Table 10) Sub-Area descriptions Brader-Debenger loarns b,s Severe 17C, 17E 61.39 8.95% Carney clay b,p Severe 27B,27D 9.38 1.37% Coleman loam p,wt Severe 34B 21.84 3.19% Darow silty clay loam b,Is,p,s,ss Severe 43B,43D,43E 185.59 27.07% Debenger-Brader loarns b,s Severe 44C,44E 171.20 24.97% Evans loam f Severe 55A 39.58 5.77% Foehlin gravelly loam p Severe 61A 13.62 1.99% Gregory silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w Severe 76A 3.77 0.55% Manita-Vannoy complex b, p,s,ss _ Severe _ 109E 72.94 10.64% Medford silty clay loam Is, p,ss,w,wt Severe 127A 19.56 2.85% Padigan clay Is,p,ss,w _ Severe 139A 0.97 0.14% _ Ruch gravelly silt loam p Severe 158B,158D 67.62 9.86% Ruch silt loam p Severe 157B 16.08 2.35% Vannoy silt loam b,Is,p,s Severe 195E,196E _ 2.00 W 0.29% TOTALS 685.54 100.00% Talent Sub Area Sewer lines are well-contained west of Talent's UGB. However, some of the area to the west and south of Talent has been fairly densely developed with residential properties. Much of the soils in this area are characterized by slow permeability, shallow depth to bedrock, severe shrink-swell and high water table. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 22 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 Four tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Wagner Creek, contaminated with fecal coliform, runs through this sub-area. Twenty one tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of at least one major repair (see Figure 14), indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 17 and 18 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub-area. TABLE --Talent Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Acres Limited Designation Vacant Total Taxlot Acres (Septic) _ Aggregate Commercial Industrial Limited Use Rural Residential 229.83 3 72 3.19 72 Urban Residential 25.77 1 22 1.17 22 Ag Land(EFU) 159.78 29 5.51 29 WR/OSR 1.20 1 1.20 1 TOTALS 416.58 4 124 3.36 124 TABLE 18—Talent Sub-Area Soils Summary Limitations Percent of Soil Type from map unit Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres (per NRCS Table 10) Sub-Area descriptions Brader-Debenger loans b,s Severe 17C, 17E 3.04 0.73% Camas-Newberg-Evans f,fc Severe 23A 9.49 2.29% Caris-offenbacher gravelly loans n/a Severe 25G 11.05 2.67% Carney clay b, p Severe 278,27D 1.94 0.47% Central Point sandy loam w Moderate _ 31A 0.10 0.02% Coker clay p,w Severe 33A 2.85 0.69% Coleman loam p,wt Severe _ 34B 82.34 19.86%_ Darow silty clay loam b, Is,p,s,ss Severe 438,43D,43E 118.25 28.52% Evans loam f Severe 55A 2.35 0.57% Gregory silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w Severe 76A 5.58 1.35% Manita loam p,s,ss Severe 108B,108D, 108E 3.54 0.85% Manita-Vannoy complex b, p,s,ss Severe 109E 68.91 16.62% Medford silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 127A 17.65 4.26% Ruch silt loam p Severe 1576 58.71 14.16% Vannoy silt loam b,Is,p,s Severe 195E,196E 10.35 2.50% Vannoy-Voorhies n/a Severe 197F 18.51 4.46% TOTALS 414.66 100.00% Planning Commission Staff Report Page 23 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 Tolo Sub Area Sewer lines extend through the center of this sub-area, mostly serving aggregate and industrial operations. Development in this sub-area includes a diverse mix of uses, including small-lot farm properties, aggregate, industrial and rural residential. Some of the more prevalent soils in this sub-area, such as Agate-Winlo complex and Provig- Agate complex, are among the worst in the Valley for septic treatment purposes. This sub-area is characterized by soils with limitations including high water tables, shallow depth to hardpan, severe shrink-swell, wetness and slow permeability. Nineteen tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Many of the tax lots within this sub-area are within or adjacent to Area 1-7 ("Areas of Suspected Septic Tank Failures") from Appendix I of the 1978 report from the Rogue Valley Council of Government titled 208 Waste Treatment Master Plan Expansion (excerpt included as Exhibit I). Area 1-7 includes "all subdivided property along both sides of Blackwell Road from Upper River Road to Tolo Road including property along Villa Lane, Merita Terrace and Tolo Road, with exception of scrub oak and pasture land." Bear Creek, contaminated with fecal coliform and E. Coli, and Whetstone Creek, contaminated with E. Coli, run through this sub-area. Twenty two tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of at least one major repair(see Figure 14), indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 19 and 20 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub-area. TABLE 19—Tolo Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Acres Limited Designation Vacant Total Taxlot Acres (Septic) Aggregate 353.75 12 29.48 12 Commercial Industrial 227.40 11 26 8.75 11 Limited Use 170.85 _ 2 2 85.43 2 Rural Residential 198.72 2 74 2.69 68 Urban Residential Ag Land(EFU) 100.39_ 18 5.58 17 WR/OSR 6.91 2 3.46 2 TOTALS 1058.02 15 134 7.90 112 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 24 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 TABLE 20—Tolo Sub-Area Soils Summary Limitations Percent of Soil Type from map unit Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres per NRCS Table 10) Sub-Area descriptions Abin silty clay loam f,p,w Severe 2A 14.04 1.34% Agate-Winlo complex hp,w Severe 6B 275.03 26.23% Barron coarse sandy loam no limitation Slight 10B 61.04 5.82% Camas sandy loam f,fc Severe 21A 2.59 0.25% Camas-Newberg-Evans f,fc Severe 23A 38.89 3.71% Central Point sandy loam w Moderate 31A 46.97 4.48% Cove clay f,p,w Severe 35A 24.34 2.32% Evans loam f Severe 55A 22.16 2.11% Gregory silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w Severe 76A 5.96 0.57% Kubli loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 100A, 100B 53.39 5.09% Langellain-Brader learns b,p,ss,w Severe 102B 41.76 3.98% Medford clay loam,gravelly substratum Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 128B 30.60 2.92% Medford silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 127A 30.09 2.87% Newberg fine sandy loam f,fc Severe 133A 6.89 0.66% Pits,gravel n/a n/a 146 6.27 0.60% Provig very gravelly loam p,s,ss Severe 150E 9.52 0.91% 1 Provig-Agate complex ss Severe 151C 190.53 18.17% ig Agate co p hp,p,5 90 53 Riverwash n/a n/a 154 4.00 0.38% Ruch silt loam p Severe 157B 26.93 2.57% Vannoy silt loam b,Is,p,s Severe 195E,196E 111.34 10.62% Water n/a n/a W 23.37 2.23% TOTALS 1048.39 100.00% West Medford Sub Area Sewer lines extend through most of this sub-area serving clusters of dense residential as well as EFU properties. Particularly problematic in this sub-area are areas with high water tables and severe shrink-swell soils. Eleven tax lots within this sub-area are within the FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain, shown in Figure 11. Griffin and Jackson Creeks, both contaminated with fecal coliform and E. Coll, run through this sub-area. Sixteen tax lots included in this exception sub-area have a history of at least one major repair(see Figure 14), indicating that a septic system failure has occurred. Tables 21 and 22 provide a summary of the tax lot and soils data in this sub-area. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 25 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 TABLE 21 —West Medford Sub-Area Tax Lot Summary Comp Plan Taxlots Mean Severely Acres Limited Designation Vacant Total Taxlot Acres (Septic) Aggregate Commercial 0.50 1 0.50 Industrial Limited Use Rural Residential 169.07 2 61 2.77 59 Urban Residential 4.94 14 0.35 14 Ag Land(EFU) 290.22 42 6.91 39 WR/OSR 61.45 12 5.12 12 TOTALS 526.18 2 130 4.05 124 TABLE 22—West Medford Sub-Area Soils Summary Limitations Soil Type from map unit Septic Limit Soil Symbol Acres Percent of descriptions (per NRCS Table 10) Sub-Area Brader-Debenger loans b,s Severe 17C, 17E 12.58 2.37% Carney clay b, p Severe 2713,27D 1.54 0.29% Central Point sandy loam w Moderate 31A 39.64 7.45% Coleman loam p,wt Severe 34B 50.51 9.50% Debenger-Brader loans b,s Severe 44C,44E 20.68 3.89% Evans loam f Severe 55A 19.22 3.61% Foehlin gravelly loam p Severe 61A 13.40 2.52% Gregory silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w Severe 76A 36.75 6.91% 1 Kubli loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 100A,10013 2.03 0.38% Manita-Vannoy complex b,p,s,ss Severe 109E 28.56 5.37% Medford silty clay loam Is,p,ss,w,wt Severe 127A 83.77 15.76% Newberg fine sandy loam f,fc Severe 133A 3.00 0.56% Ruch gravelly silt loam p Severe 1586,1580 50.24 9.45% Ruch silt loam p Severe 157B 100.35 18.87% Vannoy silt loam b,Is,p,s Severe 195E,196E 55.60 10.46% Vannoy-Voorhies n/a Severe 197F 13.85 2.61% TOTALS 531.72 100.00% — Planning Commission Staff Report Page 26 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 IV. FINDINGS DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CRITERIA A "reasons" goal exception to Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) requires an amendment to the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and a demonstration of compliance with the following criteria: • Statewide Planning Goal 2, Part II (Exceptions) • Other applicable statewide planning goals • ORS 197.732 (Goal Exceptions) • OAR 660-004-0018 (Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas) • OAR 660-004-0020 (Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements) • OAR 660-004-0022 (Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part 11(c)) • Applicable provisions of the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan • Applicable provisions of the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance Because this goal exception is a reasons exception, it applies only to specific properties, as depicted in Exhibits A and D. and does not establish a planning or zoning policy of general applicability in Jackson County pursuant to ORS 197.732(8). Staffs findings of compliance with the applicable criteria begin with the Statewide Planning Goals. A. Statewide Planning Goals 1. Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) OAR 660-015-0000(1): To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. FINDING: Opportunities for citizen involvement will be provided as required by state and local law. All property owners potentially affected by this proposal have been provided with advanced notice and were invited to submit testimony for the record. 2. Goal 2(Land Use Planning) OAR 660-015-0000(2) (PART I-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. OAR 660-015-0000(2) (PART II-EXCEPTIONS):A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when... FINDING: By addressing the criteria of OAR 660-004 (see below), the implementing rule for both Goal 2 and ORS 197.732 that both Goal 2 and ORS 197.732 have been satisfied. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 27 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 3. Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) OAR 660-015-0000(3): To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. FINDING: This proposal will not affect the amount of agricultural land in Jackson County nor will it result in the establishment of uses on agricultural land that are in conflict with the provisions of Goal 3. This is evidenced, in part, in that all resource-designated properties included in this proposal are currently developed according to Jackson County assessment records. Also, a condition of approval (see Section V) will require property owners to sign a restrictive covenant(s) that specifies that the public sewer connection is available only for uses allowable in the existing underlying rural zoning district, and cannot be used to justify further land division or up-zoning while the subject property is located outside an urban growth or urban containment boundary. The maintenance of agricultural lands will be accomplished by the removal of sources of water contamination on Goal 3-protected properties. In the rare case that the extension of a sewer line must run through a Goal 3 (Exclusive Farm Use) parcel, the disruption to farming practices will be in a narrow linear pattern and be of temporary duration. 4. Goal 4(Forest Lands) OAR 660-015-0000(4): To conserve forest lands for forest uses. FINDING: This proposal will not affect the amount of forest land in Jackson County nor will it result in the establishment of uses on forest land that are in conflict with the provisions of Goal 4. This is evidenced, in part, in that all resource-designated properties included in this proposal are currently developed according to Jackson County assessment records. Also, a condition of approval (see Section V) will require property owners to sign a restrictive covenant(s) that specifies that the public sewer connection is available only for uses allowable in the existing underlying rural zoning district, and cannot be used to justify further land division or up-zoning while the subject property is located outside an urban growth or urban containment boundary. Finally, where Goal 4 land is included in this exception area, it is zoned Open Space Reserve or Woodland Resource and is devoid of commercial timber. The maintenance of forest lands will be accomplished by the removal of sources of water contamination on Goal 4-protected properties. In the rare case that the extension of a sewer line must run through a Goal 4 parcel, any disruption will be in a narrow linear pattern and be of temporary duration. 5. Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas) OAR 660-015-0000(5): To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. FINDING: The Goal 5 resources potentially impacted by this proposal include riparian corridors and wetlands due to the installation of sewer lines. This impact is permitted at OAR 660-023-0090(8)(a)(B) for utilities in riparian corridors. Any sewer line extension, including those in wetland areas, must comply with applicable regulations that will be addressed through a separate application process. Potential impacts to aggregate operations would be short-term and related to the installation of sewer lines. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 28 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 6. Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) OAR 660-015-0000(6): To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. FINDING: Substantial evidence has been presented as to why this area-wide Goal 11 exception proposal will result the improvement in water quality in Jackson County ground and surface waters. Connection of properties in the exception area to a sewer system will eliminate sources of water pollution and will thereby improve the quality of water resources in the state. Related findings are also presented under Section IV (D) (Environmental Quality Element) of this document. 7. Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) OAR 660-015-0000(11): 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. FINDING: This proposal seeks an exception to Goal 11. The requirements for this exception are addressed in the criteria of OAR 660-004 (see below). 8. Goal 14(Urbanization) OAR 660-015-0000(14): To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. FINDING: The areas proposed for a Goal 11 exception are predominately zoned rural residential and developed to suburban densities. While it may take a Goal 14 exception to establish these zones today, none was required at the time zoning was put in place. Any lands included in this proposal that would be deemed "urban" under the terms of Goal 14 are currently committed to those uses and a committed exception has been approved for such lands. The "up-zoning" of lands included in the proposed exception area will not be justified on the basis of a sewer connection approved through this proposal per the condition of approval described in Section V of this document. B. Oregon Revised Statutes 1. ORS 197.732 Goal Exceptions FINDING: By addressing the criteria of OAR 660-004 (see below), the implementing rule for both Goal 2 and ORS 197.732 that both Goal 2 and ORS 197.732 have been satisfied. C. Oregon Administrative Rules 1. OAR 660-004-0018(4) "Reasons" Exceptions: (a) When a local government takes an exception under the "Reasons" section of ORS 197.732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004- Planning Commission Staff Report Page 29 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 0022, plan and zone designations must limit the uses, density, public facilities and services, and activities to only those that are justified in the exception; (b) When a local government changes the types or intensities of uses or public facilities and services within an area approved as a "Reasons" exception, a new "Reasons"exception is required; FINDING: Restrictions already imposed by existing zoning, the Rural Residential Rule, and the Map Designations Element will limit the uses, density, public facilities and services and activities to only those that justified by the "reasons" exception, in accordance with OAR 660-004-0018(4)(a) and (b). Each of the 1,603 parcels subject to this review are part of the "reasons"justified Goal 11 Exception Area. This exception authorizes, but does not require, specific properties to connect to public sewer. This exception does not propose any changes of use to properties included within the exception area and restricts uses to those allowable in the existing underlying zoning district, per the condition of approval described in Section V of this document. Any change in use inconsistent with this goal exception proposal would require a new exception. 2. OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part 11(c), Exception Requirements (1) If a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR 660-004-0022 to use resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal or to allow public facilities or services not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan as an exception. (2) The four factors in Goal 2 Part 11(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception to a Goal are: (a) "Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply": The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific properties or situations including the amount of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land; (b) "Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use": (A) The exception shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the location of possible alternative areas considered for the use, which do not require a new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified; (8) To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessary to discuss why other areas which do not require Planning Commission Staff Report Page 30 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors can be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under the alternative factor the following questions shall be addressed: (i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on nonresource land? If not, why not? (ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to nonresource uses, not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing rural centers, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands? If not, why not? (iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not? (iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated without the provision of a proposed public facility or service?If not, why not? (C) This alternative areas standard can be met by a broad review of similar types of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception, unless another party to the local proceeding can describe why there are specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable by another party during the local exceptions proceeding. (c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal exception. The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative areas considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites Planning Commission Staff Report Page 31 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 is not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to, the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive; the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other possible impacts include the effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts; (d) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices. Compatible is not intended as an abso lute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. FINDING: The findings and reasons addressing compliance with OAR 660-004-0022 (see below) also address and satisfy compliance with 660-004-0020(1) and OAR 660- 004-0020(2)(a). Regarding OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b), each of the questions outlined in the rule are based on an assumption that new non-resource land uses are proposed for existing resource lands. The proposed "use," in this case, are existing and permitted developments (primarily residential) that pose an imminent and significant public health hazard without connection to a sewer system. No vacant resource lands are included in the exception area. Sewer extensions are meant to primarily serve development on non-resource land, and would not be available to increase densities or add uses beyond that already existing or permitted by zoning. Although sewer extensions are permitted within urban growth boundaries, unincorporated communities and certain rural residential zoned property that are within 300 feet of an existing sewer line, it is not reasonable to require established neighborhoods to relocate to other areas where service is currently provided, either within or outside an urban growth boundary or community boundary. Notwithstanding that, any other lands also located outside an urban growth or unincorporated community boundary are also restricted from additional sewer connections, so increasing density allowances for those other non-resource areas is similarly impractical. Since the requirements for a "reasons" exception calls for an analysis of whether "alternative areas...can reasonably accommodate the use,"this exception acknowledges Planning Commission Staff Report Page 32 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 that a site-by-site analysis must be used to determine whether allowed uses (based on zoning) can be reasonably served by use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this proposal. In general, and based on the information presented in Section III of this document, the soil limitations, existing water contamination issues, and existing development, make the use of on-site systems unreasonable to accommodate the allowed uses. However, there may be instances where an on-site system may be appropriate. Regarding OAR 660-004-0020(2)(c), This proposal to allow sewer extensions is intended to serve areas under existing acknowledged zoning. The uses to be served by the proposed sewer extension either currently exist or are permitted under current zoning. Sewer connections to other areas would not resolve the situational assumptions set forth in the findings addressing OAR 660-004-0022, below. The resulting sewer connections would likely reduce the adverse environmental impacts already existing from septic discharges, and would require far less excavation, and thereby erosion, of ground near the riparian corridor than septic system repair activities. The economic benefits would be realized by targeting dollars to a beneficial public system rather than expending them for on-site systems that are prone to failure. Another economic benefit is the assurance that existing dwellings may be replaced, a requirement for most financing programs. Similarly, the social benefits are realized by maintaining a stable housing stock in the area, and by reducing concerns about groundwater pollution affecting local families. Since septic systems often require substantial energy inputs for pumps and other ancillary equipment, and they typically require more maintenance and eventual replacement, the long term energy use will likely be less for a sewer-served area as compared to areas with septic systems. This exception to Goal 11 is intended to encompass the majority of the area zoned for rural development for which the soil and groundwater conditions result in an imminent and significant public health hazard. Since sewer service can be made available to these areas, there are no reasonable alternatives to septic systems to consider. Finally, with regard to OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d), sewer lines would generally be provided along existing public road rights-of-way. While in some cases a sewer line may have to cross resource land, the installation of the sewer line would be a temporary disruption of the resource use limited to a linear area on the resource land. Further land division would be limited by the existing zoning and a restrictive covenant(s) will be required as described in Section V of this document. Sewer services will further efforts to achieve compatibility by assuring that a health hazard will not occur through failure of septic systems from overuse or failure caused by soils susceptible to failure. 3. OAR 660-004-0022 Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part 11(c) An exception under Goal 2, Part ll(c) can be taken for any use not allowed by the applicable goal(s). The types of reasons that may or may not be used to justify certain types of uses not allowed on resource lands are set forth in the following sections of this rule: (1) For uses not specifically provided for in subsequent sections of this rule or in OAR 660-012-0070 or chapter 660, division 14, the reasons Planning Commission Staff Report Page 33 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 shall justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply. Such reasons include but are not limited to the following: (a) There is a demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the requirements of Goals 3 to 19; and either (b) A resource upon which the proposed use or activity is dependent can be reasonably obtained only at the proposed exception site and the use or activity requires a location near the resource. An exception based on this subsection must include an analysis of the market area to be served by the proposed use or activity. That analysis must demonstrate that the proposed exception site is the only one within that market area at which the resource depended upon can reasonably be obtained; or (c) The proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitate its location on or near the proposed exception site. FINDING: The following summary of facts establishes why the policy in Goal 11 prohibiting connection of sewer service to exception area properties should not apply. These facts are supported by substantial evidence included in Sections II and Ill of this document. First, 95% of the properties located in the proposed exception area are situated on soils that are rated as "severe" in terms of septic limitations. The exception area includes soils having very slow permeability, periodic wetness, poor filtering capacity, minimal depth to hardpan, high water tables, and severe shrink-swell characteristics. Several properties are located in floodplains, in proximity to streams and/or on lots under 2 acres. These factors severely limit the adequacy of on-site septic treatment facilities to treat sewage. Second, much of the exception area is situated along or near riparian corridors identified as DEQ 303d listed limited water quality streams for fecal coliform and/or E. Coli, Although it has not been demonstrated that failing septic systems in the exception area are entirely responsible for these water quality issues, there is substantial evidence that provides this linkage. Historical documentation dating to the mid-1970's has focused on septic contamination issues resulting from the severe soil conditions present in much of the Rogue Valley area. To the degree that septic systems are responsible for the degradation of water quality, this represents a significant public health hazard that can only be adequately remedied through extension of sewer service. Third, 91% of the properties included in the exception area are developed, with many approaching urban densities. Where existing housing is served by private wells and on- site septic disposal systems, these wells are prone to potential health hazard because failing systems would likely pollute the only potable water source. The existing underlying zoning districts in the exception area establish minimum lot sizes. Approval of this exception shall not be used as a basis for changes in zoning densities and uses. This exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 is limited to providing the opportunity for extension of sewer lines to the properties within the exception areas. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 34 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 Fourth, many of the developments included in the exception area were constructed prior to current sanitary siting standards and other health and safety-related planning regulations. Any substantial remodeling or replacement of existing housing units requires that septic systems be brought up to current siting and construction standards. Due to many existing small parcels and setback restrictions (from wells, buildings, streams, and property lines), many residences will not be able to be remodeled or replaced if sewer is not available. Fifth, a regional sewer system (RVS) is available (located one mile or less from exception area properties) and has the capacity to provide the service to the exception properties. In many cases, adjacent properties outside of UGB/UCBs are already being served by RVS with no resulting urban/rural conflicts and without facilitating "urban sprawl", consistent with the provisions of Goal 11. Finally, there is a long-standing recognition that the properties included in the proposed exception area are best served by a regional sewer system. Records of failed septic systems, studies produced by local agencies, and the many years of experience by Jackson County Environmental Quality staff, verify the need for sewer service to the proposed exception area. FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF LAW: For all of the reasons set forth in Section IV(C) above, this proposal is consistent with and satisfies the requirements for taking a "reasons" goal exception to Goal 11 as set out in OAR 660, Division 4. 4. OAR 660-011-0060 Sewer Service to Rural Lands (9)A local government may allow the establishment of new sewer systems or the extension of sewer lines not otherwise provided for in section (4) of this rule, or allow a use to connect to an existing sewer line not otherwise provided for in section (8) of this rule, provided the standards for an exception to Goal 11 have been met, and provided the local government adopts land use regulations that prohibit the sewer system from sewing any uses or areas other than those justified in the exception. Appropriate reasons and facts for an exception to Goal 11 include but are not limited to the following: (a) The new system, or extension of an existing system, is necessary to avoid an imminent and significant public health hazard that would otherwise result if the sewer service is not provided; and, there is no practicable alternative to the sewer system in order to avoid the imminent public health hazard, or (b) The extension of an existing sewer system will serve land that, by operation of federal law, is not subject to statewide planning Goal 11 and, if necessary, Goal 14. FINDING: This proposal seeks an exception to Goal 11 consistent with OAR 660-011- 0060(9)(a) above. Based on the evidence presented in this document, staff finds that the extension of an existing sewer system is necessary to avoid an imminent and significant public health hazard that would otherwise result if the sewer service is not provided; and, there is no practicable alternative to the sewer system in order to avoid the imminent public health hazard. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 35 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 D. Jackson County Comprehensive Plan 1. Environmental Quality Element POLICY 3: Conserve the water resource of Jackson County and protect, manage and improve the quality of surface and groundwaters, for the propagation of wildlife and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other beneficial uses. POLICY 4: The County shall, to the extent of its legal authority, provide for the protection of municipal watersheds from uses which could impact the quality of the water and increase erosion. FINDING: This proposal is aimed at reducing an imminent and substantial health hazard that has been brought about by the continued reliance on septic systems to treat sewage. The Environmental Quality Element identifies on-site septic disposal systems as affecting both surface and groundwater quality. Factors such as high water tables, floodplains, proximity to streams, shrink-swell soils, very slow permeability, periodic soil wetness, poor filtering capacity, depth to hardpan, slope and small lot sizes characteristic of the exception area are all septic treatment limiting factors that contribute to water pollution and environmental quality degradation. If approved, public sewer will be made available to replace existing on-site septic systems in many areas that are already developed to suburban densities. Much of this area has already been identified in the acknowledged Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and other studies to be in a potential health hazard area. It is found that any measure that removes a significant source of potential ground and surface water contaminants would be consistent with the policies cited above. Public sewer installations result in far less ground disturbance than would otherwise be caused through the installation of septic systems. Certain lateral sewer extensions may be accomplished through boring methods instead of trench and fill. These methods are consistent with the erosion and sedimentation policy stated above because it saves the riparian area of the creek from invasive and detrimental excavation within the actual stream channel. Detailed analysis of any sewer extensions will be reviewed by the County through a subsequent development application to ensure that impacts are consistent with the Land Development Ordinance and other applicable standards or approval criteria. Jackson County has committed to improving the quality of ODEQ 303d listed limited quality streams, and recognizes that septic systems near such streams are a significant source of ground and surface water contamination. Reducing potential septic discharge to the Bear Creek sub-basin will promote state and county goals to improve recreational opportunities, tourism. 2. Public Facilities and Services Element POLICY 1: Recognizing the need for various types and levels of sanitation service, Jackson County shall strive to provide for sanitation service at levels appropriate for the needs of urban, urbanizable, suburban, rural, and open space lands. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 36 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 POLICY 2: Recognizing the urban growth/containment boundary as the dividing line between urban and rural development, the County shall not allow new extensions of sewer projects beyond these boundaries except as allowed in Policy 1 after review by the planning commission and approval by the board of commissioners or as provided for by state law, as discussed in Policy 5 below POLICY 5: Connections to sewer or water lines in areas located outside acknowledged urban growth boundaries, unincorporated community boundaries or destination resorts may be permitted only pursuant to state law and the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance. POLICY 6: New sewerage lines shall not pass through lands designated for agricultural use except for land that is the subject of an approved destination resort development plan, or when deemed the most reasonable route after the county has made every effort to minimize development pressure and protect agricultural operations. POLICY 8: The absence or presence of public facilities should be weighed and evaluated against other development concerns so it does not receive disproportionate emphasis. FINDING: The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan includes substantial findings and policies recognizing the need to provide for sewer connections outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries due to pre-existing patterns of development, pre-existence of a rural sewer service provider, and the severe site limitations imposed by local topography, soil conditions, natural hazard areas, and limited lot size. Findings 1, 2, and 5 of the Public Facilities and Services Element allow the establishment or extension of a sewer system outside of an urban growth boundary and unincorporated community boundary pursuant to state law and the JCLDO. The exception criteria is addressed above in Section IV (C) and the requirements of the JCLDO area addressed below in Section IV(E). This exception proposal considered the development impacts on resource lands. In most cases, the extension of service will follow existing rights of way easements. Where new lines must pass through agricultural lands, the lines will be undergrounded so as not to disrupt resource uses or the character of the same. Further, the existence of the line itself will not determine the allowable land use(s), rather zoning will continue to prevail in determining allowable use(s). It is found that the proposed exception to the Statewide Planning Goal 11 does not conflict with the policies outlined in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan. E. Jackson County Land Development Ordinance 1. LDO Section 3.6.3 Sewer Systems and Extensions on Rural Lands - Approval Criteria The basis for approval of a development permit for a sewer service to rural lands will be OAR 660-011-0060 to mitigate existing public health hazard situations, unless a goal exception is justified for another purpose. Approval of an application for a Statewide Planning Goal 11 Exception Area must ensure that Planning Commission Staff Report Page 37 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 I _ only rural land uses will be served, unless an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 is also justified for urban uses. If a Goal 11 exception is justified, the exception area will be depicted as within ASC 2003-1 on the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps, and uses within the area will be restricted to those justified in the exceptions document. FINDING: "Rural Lands" are defined as: "Those areas outside Urban Growth Boundaries or Urban Unincorporated Communities that are not suitable, necessary or intended for urban use and that are: agricultural, forest or open space lands; or, other lands suitable for sparse settlement, small farms or acreage home sites with no or hardly any public services." Staff finds that properties included in this proposal that do not fit the definition of"rural lands" are not subject to review under LDO 3.6.3. Upon approval, the exception area proposed here will be depicted as within ASC 2003-1 (Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map overlay) and uses will be restricted to those allowable in the existing underlying zoning district, per the condition of approval described in Section V of this document. 2. LDO Section 3.7.3(D) Major Comprehensive Plan Map or Zoning Map Amendments (Legislative) Major map amendments may be made if one or more of the following apply: 1) Changes in economic or social conditions, or settlement patterns, require an adjustment in the configuration of land uses allowed in a region or subregion of the County; 2) Development occurs at rates other than that contemplated by the Plan, making a major map amendment necessary; or 3) An error needs to be corrected or the Official Plan and Zoning Map needs to be brought into compliance, or more into compliance, with Statewide Planning Goals and related Oregon Administrative Rules or other relevant law. In designated Areas of Special Concern, such amendments will also comply with the relevant provisions of Chapter 7. Such amendments may have widespread and significant impacts. Map amendments outside urban growth boundaries and urban unincorporated communities that will result in a minimum residential lot size smaller than 10 acres require an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14. FINDING: Section 3.7.3(D)(3) is found to apply to this proposal because an amendment of the Official Plan and Zoning Map (ASC 2003-1)will be brought into compliance with relevant law consistent with the "reasons" exception approved through this proposal. 3. LDO Section 7.2.3(B)Areas of Special Concern ASC 2003-1, Goal 11 Exception Areas This Area of Special Concern includes lands justified as "Reasons" Exception Areas to Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Planning Commission Staff Report Page 38 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003 Services, where creation or extension of a public sewer facility has been approved to serve a specified use in the Goal Exception Area. This ASC may also be applied to "Physically Developed"and/or`Irrevocably Committed"Exception Areas where additional use restrictions are found to be merited beyond the base zoning district provisions. Development of properties within this ASC is subject to the restrictions outlined in the adopting ordinance for the Goal 11 Exception Area.(File 2002-3-OA1 FINDING: Approval of this proposal will result in the addition of 1,603 tax lots to the overlay map ASC 2003-1, Goal 11 Exception Areas, consistent with the LDO Section 7.2.3(B). V. RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL Staff recommends that the Jackson County Planning Commission approve this "reasons" goal exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, to allow the connection of specific rural properties within the boundary of the Rogue Valley Sewer Services District to the sewer services provided by that agency; and an amendment of the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance, Area of Special Concern (ASC) 2003-1 Goal 11 Exception Areas, Section 7.2.3(B), consistent with the above proposal. Staff further recommends that, as a condition of approval and prior to connection to sewer services allowed through this proposal, the following restrictive covenant(s) be signed by owners of the properties included within this exception area: An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, has been approved for the subject property to allow extension of sewer service outside of an urban growth or unincorporated community boundary. Public sewer connection is available only for uses allowable in the existing underlying zoning district and cannot be used to justify further land division or up-zoning while the subject property is located outside the urban growth or unincorporated community boundary. Prepared by: Craig Anderson, Planner Ill Date: Attachments: Exhibits A-L Planning Commission Staff Report Page 39 of 39 Area-Wide Goal 11 Exception File: LRP2008-00003