HomeMy WebLinkAboutSunriver Utility District OrdinancesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of August 13,2014
DATE: August 4,2014
FROM: Cynthia Smidt Community Development Department 317-3150
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
A de novo public hearing on and consideration of First Reading by Title Only of: Ordinance No. 2014
021, Amending Deschutes County Code, Title 23, and Amending Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan, Sections 5.10 and 5.12, to Adopt an Exception to Goal 4 and To Change the Plan Designation for
Certain Property From Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community.
Also, Ordinance No. 2014-022, Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes County
Zoning Map, and Adding DCC 18.108.175 to Change the Zone Designation for Certain Property From
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest District to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community Utility District, and Adding a Limited Use Combining Zone.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Sunriver Service District proposed to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to change
the plan designation of approximately 4.28 acres from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility. The amendment includes a "reasons"
exception to Goal 4, Forest Lands. The proposal includes a zone map change, to rezone the 4.28
acres from Sunriver Forest District (SUF) to Sunriver Utility District (SUU) and to add the Limited
Use (LU) Combining Zone to allow a fire training facility. The amendment would allow for a fire
training facility for the Sunriver Fire Department to be permitted outright, subject to site plan
reVIew.
The Hearings Officer held a public hearing on April 22, 2014 and found the application met, or could
meet, all relevant criteria and approved the applicant's proposal, in a decision dated June 13,2014.
Under DCC 22.28.030(C), a plan amendment and zone change requiring a goal exception shall be heard
de novo before the Board without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of
the Hearings Officer. Should the Board approve the ordinances, staff recommends that the Board
approve the first reading by title only of each ordinance. Second reading will be no earlier than 13 days
later with the effective date 90 days after that.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends that the Board open the public hearing, receive testimony, discuss, and approve the
plan amendment and zone change. If ordinances approved,
MOTION 1: Move first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2014-021.
MOTION 2: Move first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2014-022.
ATTENDANCE: Cynthia Smidt
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
No distribution until after the second reading.
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Solis Division
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
TO: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
DATE: August 4,2014
RE: PA-14-1 and ZC-14-1, Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community Forest District to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community Utility District, and an exception to Goal 4, Forest Lands, for Sunriver
Service District
SUMMARY
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold a public hearing on August
13,2014 at the Deschutes Services Center, starting at 10:00 a,m, A work session was held on
August 6, 2014 to present the proposed plan amendment and zone change and answer the
Board's questions, The Board will consider plan amendment (PA)-14-1 and zone change (ZC)
14-1, proposed by Sunriver Service District. The purpose of this de novo public hearing is to
receive public testimony. consider the proposed amendment and zone change, and ultimately
make a decision,
Sunriver Service District proposed to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to
change the plan designation of approximately 4,28 acres from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility, The applicant is not
proposing to expand the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community (UUC) boundaries, The
amendment includes a "reasons" exception to Goal 4, Forest Lands, It also includes a zone
map change, to rezone the 4,28 acres from Sunriver Forest District (SUF) to Sunriver Utility
District (SUU), If approved, the plan amendment and zone change will allow a fire training
facility for the Sunriver Fire Department.
The proposal was reviewed by the Deschutes County Hearings Officer at a public hearing on
April 22, 2014, The Hearings Officer found the application met, or could meet, all relevant
criteria and approved the applicant's proposal, in a decision dated June 13, 2014. Under DCC
22,28,030(C), a plan amendment and zone change requiring a goal exception shall be heard de
novo before the Board without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination
of the Hearings Officer,
Because the zone change is dependent upon approval of the plan amendment, the proposal is
not subject to the 150-day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS
215.427.
Quality Services Performed 'with Pride
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the Hearings Officer found the application met, or could meet, all relevant
criteria and approved the applicant's proposal.
Lying east of the main Sunriver Resort area and the BNSF railroad tracks, the subject property
is approximately 332 acres and primarily developed with a sewage effluent storage pond and
irrigation facility for Sunriver Resort. The applicant proposes to change the plan designation and
zoning of about 4.28 acres in the southeastern region of this larger parcel. Through Ordinance
97-076, a 1997 comprehensive plan update expanded the Sunriver UUC boundaries to include
the 332-acre property for the purpose of storage and disposal of sewage effluent for Sunriver
Resort. Originally zoned Forest Use (F-1), the County did not adopt an exception to Goal 4 for
the larger subject property because the uses proposed for the property were uses permitted in
the SUF zone. Because no goal exception was adopted previously, the applicant requested a
"reasons" exception to Goal 4 for the proposed plan amendment of the 4.28-acre site. Through
OAR 660-004-018(4), an approved "reasons" exception shall be limited to those uses justified
by the exception. The Hearings Officer found the applicant's proposal satisfied the
requirements for a "reasons" exception under OAR 660-04-0022. Furthennore, the Hearings
Officer justified the exception through adoption of a Limited Use (LU) Combining Zone. The
Hearings Officer recommended the following finding justifying the exception to be included in
the comprehensive plan.
To ensure that the uses in the Sunriver Utility District Zone on the approximate 4.28 acre
site of Tax Lot 102 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 19-11-00 are limited in nature and
scope to those justifying the exception to Goal 4 for the site, the Sunriver Forest (SUF)
zoning on the subject site shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining Zone, which will limit
the uses on the subject site to a fire training facility and access road for the Sunriver Service
District and Sunriver Fire Department.
ORDINANCE Nos. 2014-021 AND 2014-022
The proposal is embodied into two draft ordinances, Ordinance Nos. 2014-021 and 2014-022.
Ordinance 2014-021 contains amendments to DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction,
Comprehensive Plan Sections 5.10, Goal Exception Statements, and 5.12, Legislative History.
Furthermore, the proposal requires a text and zone change to DCC ntle 18 and the county
zoning map to reflect the rezone of the subject site from SUF to SUU and to add the LU
Combining Zone to allow a fire training facility for the Sunriver Service District and Sunriver Fire
Department. This text and zone change is contained in Ordinance 2014-022. Staff
recommends the text amendment to DCC 18.108.175, Utility - U District I Limited Use
Combining District, to include the following statement.
A fire training facility is permitted subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18. 116 and
18.124.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION I SUGGESTED MOTION:
Staff recommends the Board open the public hearing, receive testimony, discuss, and approve
the plan amendment and zone change.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. PA-14-1 and ZC-14-1 Hearings Officer Recommendation
File No.: PA-14-1 and ZC-14-1 Page 2 of2
DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS: PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
APPLICANT: Sunriver Service District
P.O. Box 3609
Sunriver, Oregon 97707
PROPERTY OWNER: Sunriver Environmental, LLC
Post Office Box 3609
Sunriver, Oregon 97707
APPLICANT'S
ATTORNEY: Tia Lewis
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt
360 S.W. Bond Street, Suite 400
Bend, Oregon 97702
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment and zone
change from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest
District (SUF) to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility
District (SUU), and an exception to Goal 4, Forest Lands, for a
4.28-acre site on the subject property. The proposal would
facilitate development of the site with a fire training facility.
STAFF REVIEWER: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
HEARING DATE: April 22, 2014
RECORD CLOSED: May 13, 2014
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
A. Title 18 ofthe Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 18.108, Urban Unincorporated Community Zone -Sunriver
2. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone
3. Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone
4. Chapter 18.112, Limited Use Combining Zone
.. Section 18.112.010, Purpose
5. Chapter 18.136, Amendments
.. Section 18.136.010, Amendments
.. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 1
I
l
B. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
1. Chapter 22.28. Land Use Action Decisions
C. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
1. Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management
.. Section 4.4, Sunriver
D. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660
1. Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process
.. OAR 660-004-0018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas
.. OAR 660-004-0020, Goal 2, Part lI{c), Exception Requirements
.. OAR 660-004-0022, Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under
Goal 2, Part lI{c)
2. Division 12, Transportation Planning
.. OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
3. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and GUidelines
.. OAR 660-015-0000, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 1-14
.. OAR 660-015-0005, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 15
.. OAR 660-015-0010, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 16-19
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Location: The subject property has an assigned address of 18305 Cottonwood Road,
Sunriver, and is further identified as Tax Lot 102 on Deschutes County Assessor's map
19-11-00. The property is located on the east side of the Sunriver resort community.
B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community Forest District (SUF). A small area in the northwest comer of
the property is zoned Forest Use (F-1). The property also is located within the Wildlife
Area (WA) and Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zones. The subject property is designated
Urban Unincorporated Community-Forest on the Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan map.
C. Site Description: The entire subject property is 332 acres in size and has relatively
level topography. Vegetation consists of scattered lodgepole pine trees and native brush
and grasses as well as irrigated fields on which sewage effluent has been applied. The
property is developed with a sewage effluent storage pond and irrigation facility, wood
and debris composting facility, accessory structures, access roads, parking areas, and a
wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 150-foot-talilattice tower and ground
eqUipment. Primary access to the subject property is from Cottonwood Road on the
north. A gravel U.S. Forest Service (USFS) road known as Crawford Road provides
access to the wireless telecommunications facility from South Century Drive.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 2
The proposed 4.28-acre site for the fire training facility is located near the southeast
comer of the subject property and will take access from the USFS road. The site is
located adjacent to the southern property boundary and includes a 1.87 -acre road
easement and a 2.41-acre square area on which the fire training facility would be
located. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Deschutes County and
the National Wetlands Inventory, respectively, the subject property is not located within
the 1 OO-year flood plain and contains no mapped wetlands.
D. Soils: According to Soil Resource Inventory for the Deschutes National Forest, there are
two soil units mapped on the subject property.
Mapping Unit 64. This soil type includes 70 percent or more of Landtype (or Unit) 64
soils and may have inclusions of Landtypes 14, 63, 64, 76, 6G, 6A, and 6B. Vegetation
is composed ponderosa pine trees and native shrubs and grasses. According to the soils
characteristics data for this mapping unit, the productivity is Site Class 5, which
estimates a range of 56 to 65 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber.
Mapping Unit 6J. This soil type includes 70 percent or more of Landtype 6J soils and may
have inclusions of Landtypes 15, 63, 64, and 41. Vegetation is composed primarily of
ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine trees and native shrubs and grasses. According to the
soils characteristics data for this mapping unit, the productivity is Site Class 5, which
estimates a range of 56 to 65 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber.
E. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The area surrounding the subject property
consists of large forest-zoned parcels in private and public ownership as well as the
Sunriver resort zoned Urban Unincorporated Community (UUC). Adjacent to the subject
property on the west is a long narrow parcel owned by Sunriver Environmental, LLC,
which abuts the Great Northern Railroad (Burlington Northern-Santa Fe or BNSF) right
of-way. Farther west are residential properties within the Sunriver community.
Cottonwood Road abuts the northern property boundary. Farther to the north as well as
to the south and east are public forest lands managed by the USFS. Approximately 600
feet south of the subject property is land owned by Sunriver Water, LLC zoned Sunriver
Utility District (SUU) and developed with three water reservoirs, small accessory
structures, and a manufactured home.
F. Land Use History: During the 1997 comprehensive plan update the county included the
subject property within the boundaries of the Sunriver UUC for the storage and disposal
of sewage effluent through ground application. The property subsequently received
several land use approvals. On April 11, 2001, the county approved an accessory
structure (AD-01-3). On December 9, 2002, the county approved a commercial
composting facility (CU-02-98, SP-02-48). In February 2008, the county approved a
wireless telecommunications facility (CU-OB-101). However, the staff report states this
approved facility was never established. In May of 2009, the county approved another
wireless telecommunications facility that was constructed (CU-09-15).
G. Procedural History: In July 2011 the applicant requested conditional use approval to
establish a fire training facility on a lot zoned Rural Residential (RR-10) and located in
the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Subdivision (CU-11-24). The record
indicates the applicant withdrew that application in December of 2011. The subject plan
amendment, zone change and goal exception applications were submitted on February
20, 2014 and were accepted as complete on March 20, 2014. A public hearing on the
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 3
I
I
i
applications was held on April 22, 2014. At the hearing, the Hearings OffICer received
testimony and evidence, left the written evidentiary record open through May 13, 2014,
and allowed the applicant through May 20. 2014 to submit final argument pursuant to
ORS 197.763. The applicant submitted its final evidence and argument on May 6,2014.
The record closed on May 13, 2014. Because this request includes a plan amendment,
the 15()"day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.427 is
not applicable.
H. Proposal: The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment and zone change from
SUF to SUU, and an exception to Goal 4, Forest Lands, for a 4.28-acre site on the
subject property (hereafter "site'). The applicant intends to develop the site with a fire
training facility for the Sunriver Fire Department. The applicant did submit a concurrent
request for approval of the fire training facility. However, the applicant's burden of proof
and supplemental materials describe the proposed use and facility as follows. The
physical facility would consist of a prefabricated structure called a fire simulator
comprised of a 21' by 14'6~ one-story component and a 21' by 25'4" two-story
component with features including windows, doors, a "live bum" room, a temperature
monitoring system, interior stairs and an exterior ladder with a roof hatch. The facility
would include a vehicle parking and maneuvering area around the structure and a larger
surrounding area cleared of vegetation.
The facility would be used for routine weekly training drills and quarterly live fire training
exercises, and structural search and rescue and vertical ventilation training. The routine
training would occur between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and would last for no more than 3
hours. There would be 3-4 routine evening or night training drills per quarter concluding
no later than 10:00 p.m. No more than two emergency and two utility vehicles would be
located on the site at anyone time. The training facility would not house staff offices.
The training would allow fire department personnel to maintain required certifications.
I. Public/Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division sent notice of the applicant's
proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner; and the Sunriver Owners Association.
These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 3-4 of the staff report and are included
in the record. The following agencies did not respond or had no comments: the
Deschutes County Assessor and Road Department; the Oregon Departments of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW) and Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); and the
Sunriver Fire Department, Sunriver Resort. and Sunriver Utilities.
J. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of
the applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property
located within 750 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearing
was published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper, and the subject property was posted with
a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record in this matter closed
the county had received two letters from the public and one letter from the Sunriver
Owners Association in response to these notices. No members of the public testified at
the public hearing. Public comments are addressed in the findings below.
K. Lot of Record: The staff report states the county recognizes the subject property as a
legal lot of record based on previously issued land use approvals and building permits. ,
I
1
I
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 4
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
GOAL EXCEPTION
A. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
1. Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process
a. OAR 660-004-0018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas
(1) Purpose. This rule explains the requirements for adoption of
plan and zone designations for exceptions. Exceptions to one
goal or a portion of one goal do not relieve a jurisdiction from
remaining goal requirements and do not authorize uses,
densities, public facilities and services, or activities other
than those recognized or justified by the applicable
exception •..
,. ,. ,.
(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.
FINDINGS: The applicant requests approval of a "reasons" exception to Goal 4 to allow a
change in the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of the 4.28-acre subject site from
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest (SUF) to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community Utility District (SUU). This rule limits any approved "reasons" exception to the uses,
density, public facilities and services, and activities that are justified in the exception. As
discussed in the findings below, such limitations are established through the adoption of a
Limited Use (LU) Combining Zone.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 5
The existing SUF Zone includes a tract of land approximately 366 acres in size located east of
the BNSF railroad tracks and the Sunriver resort. This property originally was planned for forest
uses and zoned F-1. However, in 1997 the Sunriver UUC boundary was expanded to include
this land in order to provide a site for sewage effluent storage and disposal for the Sunriver
resort (Ordinance 97-076). The county did not adopt an exception to Goal 4 for this amendment
because the only uses proposed for the UUC expansion area were uses permitted in the SUF
Zone. For this reason, the Hearings Officer finds Subsections (4)(b) and (c) of this rule do not
apply as the original UUC amendment was not approved through a "reasons" exception.
b. OAR 660-004-0020, Goal 2, Part "(c), Exception Requirements
(1) If a jurisdiction detennines 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.
FINDINGS: As addressed in the findings below, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings
Officer has found the applicant's proposal satisfies the requirements for a "reasons" exception
under OAR 660-04-0022. I also have found the justification for the exception will be included in
the comprehensive plan.
(2) The four standards in Goal 2 Part II(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 detennining that a state policy embodied in a
goal should not apply to specific properties or
situations, including the amount of land for the use
being planned and why the use requires a location on
resource land;
FINDINGS:
I Basis for Determining State Policy Embodied in the Goals Should Not Apply. The state
policy embodied in Goal 4 is to conserve forest lands for forest use as well as to protect soil, air
and water quality, fish and wildlife resources and recreational opportunities. The subject
property was included in the Sunriver UUC boundary for the purpose of siting sewage effluent
storage and disposal facilities for the Sunriver community. No exception to Goal 4 was taken,
and no exception analysis was done, since these uses were permitted in the SUF Zone.
The applicant proposes to utilize the 4.28-acre subject site for a fire training facility, a use not
permitted in the SUF Zone. Therefore, the applicant requests approval to re-designate and re
zone the site to SUU where the proposed fire training facility would be an allowed use. The
applicant also proposes establishment of an LU Zone to limit uses on the subject site to a fire
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 6
1
l
i ~ l
!
§
training facility and an access road. The rest of the subject property would remain in its current
SUF zoning and uses that are primarily utility uses -i.e., sewage effluent and disposal, wood
and debris recycling, and a wireless telecommunications facility.
The proposed use for the subject site would be a fire training facility for the Sunriver Fire
Department (hereafter "departmenf or "fire departmentD). The record indicates the department
employs 11 career staff and up to 20 reserve firefighters. The department's service area
encompasses 322 square miles including the Sunriver UUC and surrounding areas through
mutual aid agreements with the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District. The service area includes
large forested areas as well as hundreds of rural residences. The applicant argues the proposed
facility is necessary to provide a location for emergency personnel to practice firefighting
techniques in a setting that is both close to the department's office and primary service area and
is far enough from residences to assure no risk of fire thereto. At the public hearing, the
department's chief Art Hatch testified the proposed training facility would be used for both
structural and wildland firefighting training. Chief Hatch stated the proposed facility site is in an
area already cleared of trees, is not utilized or planned for tree harvesting, and will be
surrounded by land planned and used for sewage effluent storage and disposal.
The staff report states staff believes the applicant's proposal is consistent with the policy
embodied by Goal 4. However, the Hearings Officer finds that since the proposal would change
the plan designation and zoning of the subject site to a non-resource designation and zone, it is
not consistent with Goal 4. Nevertheless, I find the applicant has demonstrated the policy
embodied in Goal 4 should not apply to the proposed site for several reasons. First, the site
represents a very small portion of the subject property (approximately 1.2 percent). Second, the
site is in an area that already has been cleared of trees and is not planned for timber harvesting.
The record includes three aerial photographs of the subject property showing the amount of
land cleared for sewage effluent storage and land application increased Significantly from 2000
to 2012.1 Finally, the subject property has been planned for, and largely converted to, non
resource uses.
The Amount of Land Required for the Use Being Planned. The 4.28-acre subject site consists
of a 1.87 -acre road easement that provides access road to the wireless telecommunications facility
and a 2.41-acre square area on which the fire training facility would be located. The applicant's
burden of proof states the 2.41-acre area is the size needed to accommodate the fire training
facility, associated vehicle parking and maneuvering areas, and an adequate buffer area around
the structure that is cleared of vegetation.
Why the Use Requires a Location on Resource Land. The staff report states staff could not
find that the applicant had adequately addressed this exception factor because the applicant
had not submitted an alternative sites analysis. The applicant submitted such an analysis at and
following the public hearing. As discussed in detail in the findings below, incorporated by
reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found from the alternative sites analysis that the
applicant has demonstrated the proposed use requires a location on resource land.
(b) "Areas that do not require a new exception cannot
reasonably accommodate the use". The exception
must meet the following requirements:
1 These photos are attached as exhibits to planning staffs May 6, 2014 memorandum to the Hearings
Officer.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 7
(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;
FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof stated the fire department searched for several
years for a suitable fire training facility site and considered several alternative sites. The
applicant submitted an alternative sites analyses at and following the public hearing in
memoranda dated April 22. 2014 (UApri122 memo") and May 6,2014 ("May 6 memo·). Exhibit A
to the April 22 memo includes a map generally showing the location of possible altemative sites
that do not require a new exception within three miles of the subject site.
(8) 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 nonresource land that
would not require an exception,
Including increasing the density of uses
on non resource land? If not, why not?
FINDINGS: In its May 6 memo, the applicant stated its parameters for identifying potential
alternative sites for the proposed fire training facility as follows:
• a location within three miles of the fire department's fire station;
• a minimum size of 2 to 2.75 acres;
• a minimum distance of 300 feet from the nearest adjacent uses, preferably with dense
intervening vegetation for buffering and screening;
• good all-weather road access with at least a 22-foot-wide improved surface;
• sufficient area for fire engines and emergency vehicles to turn around;
• land zoned for industrial uses or public facilities and not residential areas;
• low improvement costs; and
• minimal to no public opposition.
The Hearings Officer finds that with the exception of the last factor, these parameters are
reasonable and appropriate considering the nature of the proposed use for the subject site. In
particular, I find the three-mile radius for the search area properly reflects the applicant's need
to train staff within reasonably close proximity to the department's fire station and service area
so that staff can promptly respond to emergencies that may occur during training exercises.
However, I find the presence or lack of public opposition, while of concern to the applicant. is
not a relevant factor in determining the appropriate search area for the alternative sites analysiS.
Nevertheless, as discussed in the findings below concerning the ESEE (environmental. social,
economic and energy) consequences analysis, I have found it is relevant when considering the
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1. ZC-14-1
Page 8
social consequences of selecting the subject property over other potential sites.
The applicant's April 22 and May 6 memos state land within the three-mile search radius that
does not require a goal exception includes land within the Sunriver UCC (except the subject
property), land zoned RR-10 located outside the Sunriver UUC to the south and southwest
within a rural subdivision and within the Caldera and Crosswater destination resorts.
With respect to land within the Sunriver UUC, the memos state the proposed fire station use is
permitted conditionally in several zoning districts within the Sunriver UCC and is permitted
outright subject to site plan review in the SUA district. However, the memos state all lands within
these zoning districts not requiring a goal exception are "committed and developed" with
existing Suniver resort-related uses. In addition, the memos note land within the Sunriver UUC
is developed at urban and/or suburban densities that would make difficult mitigation of potential
negative impacts from the fire training facility such as smoke from live-fire training exercises.
With respect to land outside the Sunriver UUC zoned RR-10, the applicant's memos state these
lands are privately owned and are developed with residential and/or other uses with which the
proposed fire training facility likely would be incompatible due to impacts from smoke and noise.
The memos note one of these RR-10 zoned sites is the parcel for which the applicant sought
conditional use approval for a fire training facility in 2011 (CU-11-24), and which ultimately was
rejected by the applicant because of significant neighborhood opposition due to concerns about
smoke and uncontrolled fires moving off the training facility site.
Finally, with respect to land outside the Sunriver UUC and within the Caldera and Crosswater
destination resorts, the applicant's May 6 memo states the proposed fire training facility could
not be sited in those resorts for the following reasons:
"All uses approved within a destination resort must be integral to the operation of
the resort, a part of, and intended to serve persons at the resort. The proposed
fire training facility serves the Sunriver Fire Department, the response area for
which encompasses 322 square miles from north of Lava Butte and south to
Vande vert Road, east to the high lakes and west to USFS Road 45. It would not
be allowed within the destination resorts of Crosswater or Caldera. Furthermore,
any areas within these resorts not approved for resort related facilities and
structures are committed and devoted to open space uses. Open space
designations within the resort speCifically prohibit permanent, non-recreational
related structures. II
The Hearings Officer understands these comments reflect the applicant's belief that the
Crosswater and Caldera destination resorts, although located within the fire department's
service area, do not have land that is suitable to accommodate the proposed fire training facility.
Copies of the county's decisions approving the Crosswater and Caldera destination resorts are
included in this record as Exhibit -S" to planning staff's May 6, 2014 memorandum to the
Hearings Officer (Crosswater) and Exhibits PH-1 and PH-2 attached to the applicant's May 6,
2014 memorandum. Those decisions indicate no fire station or similar facility was included in
either approval and that the resorts would be served by the Sunriver fire department.
understand that land within these two destination resorts already has been committed to and/or
developed with uses that are not compatible with the proposed fire training facility.
In its May 6 memo, the applicant stated the lands not requiring a goal exception within the three
mile-radius search area also were not of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed fire
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 9
I
training facility and did not have significant intervening vegetation between the training site and
adjacent uses. Finally, the memo stated the subject site would be less costly to develop
because it already has road access and is fenced, and noted the proposed site "received little
public opposition» consisting of letters from two Sunriver lot owners whose property is located
approximately 3,000 feet from the subject site.
Based on the applicant's April 22 and May 6 memos and the information and argument
contained therein, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated the proposed use
cannot reasonably be accommodated on nonresource land within the three-mile-radius search
area that would not require an exception, including increaSing the density of uses on
non resource land.
(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?
FINDINGS: The subject property is located within the Sunriver UUC on land zoned SUF -i.e.,
resource land included within the UUC boundaries. The subject property was brought into the
UUC for the purpose of providing a site for the effluent storage and land application. Therefore,
the subject property is resource land in an existing unincorporated community. The record
indicates there is no other resource land in the Sunriver UUC, and none that is irrevocably
committed to nonresource uses not allowed by Goal 4. The applicant is proposing the subject
site be zoned SUU which would not increase the density of uses allowed. For these reasons,
the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed fire training facility
cannot reasonably be accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to
nonresource uses not allowed by Goal 4, including resource land in existing unincorporated
communities, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands.
(iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably
accommodated inside an urban growth
boundary? If not, why not?
FINDINGS: The record indicates the nearest urban growth boundary (UGB) is the Bend UGB
located apprOXimately 10 miles north of the subject property. The applicant's burden of proof
states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the proposed fire training facility must be near the
department's offices and its service area to allow the department's staff to promptly respond to
emergencies that should arise during training exercises. Moreover, due to the nature of the
proposed training facility, which would include live fire exercises, the facility needs to be located
an adequate distance from residential properties to mitigate potential impacts. Location within a
UGB likely would increase the likelihood of negative impacts. Therefore, I find the proposed fire
training facility cannot reasonably be accommodated on land inside an urban growth boundary.
(iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably
accommodated without the provision of a
proposed public facility or service? If
not, why not?
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1. ZC-14-1
Page 10
FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states the proposed facility will not require public
facilities and services. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this factor is not applicable.
(e) 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. •
FINDINGS: As discussed above, the applicant submitted an alternative sites map and analyses
in its April 22 and May 6 memos. The applicant's analysis contains a broad review of land within
three miles of the fire department's fire station. The only site-specific comparison included in the
analyses involves the RR-10 zoned parcel 'proposed in 2011 for the fire training facility and
ultimately rejected by the applicant due to neighborhood opposition. No other party to this
application clearly identified an alternative site or sites that could more reasonably
accommodate the proposed use. Opponents Jean and John Rudnicki made a general reference
to a facility "within a short distance in the City of Bend" but did not identify its specific location or
characteristics or how they compare with the subject site. Opponent Diana Eagen stated her
belief that "there is so much property out there" that could be used for the proposed facility
without affecting her property but did not identify any specific alternative sites. The Hearings
Officer finds these comments are not sufficient to identify "specific alternative sitesn the
applicant and the county must analyze. Therefore, I find the requirement for an alternative site
analysis has been met by a broad review of similar types of areas and a determination of
whether those areas reasonably could accommodate the proposed 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." 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
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1. ZC-14-1
Page 11
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
detennine which resource land is least productive, the
ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed
use, and the long-tenn 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 (underscored
emphasis added);
FINDINGS: This standard requires the Hearings Officer to identify and analyze the long-term
environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the proposed fire
training facility on the subject site to determine whether or not they are Significantly more
adverse than would typically result from the proposal use occurring in other areas requiring a
goal exception. The applicant's burden of proof states:
'These criteria do not apply, as they relate to alternative sites requiring an
exception to Goal 4. As described under [OAR] 660-004-0020(1) above, the
alternative considered for the Fire Training Facility was zoned RR-10. Since the
site in this matter is within the Urban Unincorporated Community of Sunriver an
ESEE analysis is not required ...
As discussed in the findings above, the applicant's burden of proof did not include an alternative
sites analysis but rather identified only the RR-10 zoned parcel the applicant previously
considered for siting the fire training facility. The above-quoted statement is consistent with the
applicant's very limited initial approach to the Goal 4 exception process. However, the
applicant's April 22 and May 6,2014 memoranda address the ESEE goal exception criteria in a
more comprehensive manner. The April 22 memo states in relevant part:
"Environmental.
The long-term environmental consequences of locating the proposed use on the
subject property could conceivably include impacts to water quality, wildlife
habitat and degradation of the resource. There are no bodies or water courses
on the subject property which could be impacted by the use. The applicant
proposes to bring all water to the site and contain all surface water with catch
basis or drainage swales in conformance with DEQ requirements. These
protective mitigation measures can be designed, required, monitored and
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 12
regulated through site plan review to ensure no adverse impacts to water quality.
There could be some minimal disturbance to wildlife habitat; however the
properly is not within a designated wildlife protection area or known migration
corridor. Environmental impacts to the site will be minimal as only a small portion
of the site, 2.41 acres of the 4.28 acres subject to the amendment, will be
occupied by the fire training facility. The property is not being managed for
resource use but instead is already developed with utility uses to serve the resorl
community.
Economic.
The economic impacts of the proposed use on the site are minimal as there is no
need for extensions of public infrastructure or the expenditure of public money or
services to support the use. The access is via an existing road used to serve the
cel [sic] tower and the subject property is already supporling public utility uses
including the cel [sic] tower and sewage treatment facility. The cost savings to
the community from having fire personnel train in-service exceeds $40,000
annually. Locating the use on an alternative site requiring a goal exception would
mean converling resource properly to a non-resource use. This would have a
much greater potential impact on the resource itself and surrounding properly
values, parlicularly upon resource management and recreational uses. The
remote location ensures little to no economic impacts to surrounding properly
values.
The social consequences of locating the proposed use on the site are minimal in
that the remote location ensures the resorl owners and visitors will experience
little to no impact to recreation, aesthetics or other social interests from the nOise,
odor and smoke that could be association with the use.
Energy.
The energy consequences of locating the proposed use on the site are positive in
that it allows for efficient use of limited public funds, location In close proximity to
the department facilitates in-service training thereby preserving limited public
funds and utility services. The transportation infrastructure to serve the use is
already in place and no new roads or services are necessary.
These above-described consequences of locating the use on the proposed site
are not significantly more adverse, and in fact are substantially less adverse than
locating the use on a site where a goal exception would be required. As
discussed, the only sites also requiring a goal exception which could meet the
Fire Deparlment locational needs for this use are surrounding federal lands
zoned Forest and managed by the USFS. Since these lands are in public
ownership, mostly vacant, undeveloped and in management for resource and/or
recreation, open space use, and impacts to them from the proposed use will be
more detrimental, more adverse to the resource than locating the use on the
subject property which, despite its zoning, is within the Sunriver uue boundary,
in private ownership, and is not being managed for a resource use but instead is
already being used for utility purposes to serve the resorl community.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 13
The applicant's May 6, 2014 memo addresses the ESEE consequences analysis specifically
with respect to the Caldera and Crosswater destination resorts, stating in relevant part:
"At the hearing, it was pOinted out by Staff that Crosswater and Caldera
destination resorts are located within the 3-mile radius and zoned F-2 with a DR
[destination resort] overlay, thus falling under the ESEE analysis ..
* * *
Locating this use within the destination resort areas, even if allowed, would
require some expenditure of public monies to acquire a site and improve it to
accommodate the use . ... Any location within the destination resort areas would
be Significantly closer to adjacent uses causing more adverse social
consequences . ... Any less remote location [than the subject site] would require
expenditures to minimize impacts such as introduced landscaping, screening and
possible site clearing and improvements. n
The Hearings Officer notes that contrary to the applicant's statement above, the subject
property is located within "a deSignated wildlife protection area or known migration corridor"
because it is zoned WA due to its location within inventoried Significant elk habitat.
Nevertheless, I agree with the applicant's ESEE analysis and conclusion that the consequences
of locating the proposed fire training facility at the subject site are not Significantly more adverse
than would typically result from the same proposal being located in other areas requiring a goal
exception. In particular, I find that because the subject property already is developed with utility
uses and is not in resource management, the siting of the proposed facility on other forest
zoned lands in the surrounding area would have significantly more consequences -whether
that land is federal forest land or located within a destination resort.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this
administrative rule.
(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.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this rule requires me to find that the proposed fire
training facility is compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures
designed to reduce adverse impacts, and the facility also is situated in such a manner that it will be
compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices.
As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the area surrounding the subject property consists
of large forest-zoned parcels in public and private ownership and the Sunriver, Crosswater and
Caldera resort communities. To the west is the BNSF railroad right-of-way and beyond the
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 14
railroad tracks are Sunriver residential properties.
With respect to compatibility with surrounding natural resources, the staff report states, and
based on this record the Hearings Officer agrees, that there is no evidence forest lands on the
subject property have been or are actively being managed for timber production or harvest. A
large portion of the subject property is developed with sewage effluent storage and disposal and
a wood and debris composting facility. In addition, the property is developed with a wireless
telecommunications tower facility. With respect to surrounding federal forest lands, I find there
also is no evidence in this record that these lands are actively engaged in timber production,
although they likely are being managed for the timber resource. Therefore, the proposed
training facility will be located near potentially combustible timber. Nevertheless, although the
USFS was sent notice of the applicant's proposal, it did not submit comments, strongly
suggesting it has no concerns about the proposed facility. The applicant's burden of proof states
the fire department will implement safety precautions to ensure the surrounding lands will not be
negatively impacted by the activities of the proposed use. And as discussed throughout this
decision. the applicant cannot establish the training facility without first obtaining county site
plan review and approval through which the facilities design and operating characteristics will be
reviewed. and conditions of approval imposed, to assure the proposed use is compatible with
adjacent resource uses.
With respect to adjacent public service and utility uses, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed
fire training facility will be compatible with the sewage effluent storage and land application use
on the subject property as well as the wood and debris recycling facility and the wireless
telecommunications facility. I find the proposed training facility will be similar to these utility uses
on the subject property. as well as to the utility uses on land to the south owned by the Sunriver
Water District.
With respect to adjacent residential uses, the Hearings Officer has found the closest residences
are located within the Sunriver resort and approximately 3,000 feet to the west. As discussed in
the findings above, I have found this distance. coupled with intervening topography and
vegetation and the BNSF railroad track berm, will serve as a significant buffer between the
subject site and the nearest residential uses. As also discussed above. the record indicates the
prevailing winds are from the northwest, west and southwest, resulting in any smoke created by
live fire exercises at the proposed fire training facility being blown away from residential
development.
For the foregoing reasons. the Hearings Officer finds the proposed fire training facility is
compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce
adverse impacts. the proposed facility is situated in such a manner that it will be compatible with
surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices.
(3) If the exception involves more than one area for which the
reasons and circumstances are the same, the areas may be
considered as a group. Each of the areas shall be identified
on a map, or their location otherwise described, and keyed to
the appropriate findings.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable as the proposed goal
exception involves only one area.
(4) For the expansion of an unincorporated community
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 15
!
I
I 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 I
standards 2 through 4 of Goal 2, Part lI(c), as described in of
subsections (2)(b), (c) and (d) of this rule, are modified to also
include the following:
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable to the applicant's proposal
because it does not include an expansion of the Sunriver UUC boundaries.
c. OAR 660-004-0022, Reasons Necessary to Justify and Exception
Under Goal 2, Part lI(c)
An exception under Goal 2, Part lI(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 mayor 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.
(1) For uses not specifically provided for in this division, or in
OAR 660-011·0060, 660-012-0070, 660-014-0030 or 660-014
0040, the reasons shall justify why the state policy embodied
in the applicable goals should not apply. Such reasons
Include but are not limited to the following:
(a) There is a demonstrated need for the proposed use or
activity, based on one or more of the requirements of
Goals 3 to 19; and either
(A) 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
paragraph 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
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this rule is not applicable because the proposed fire
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 16
training facility is not dependent upon a resource.
(B) The proposed use Qr activity has special
features or qualities that necessitate its location
on or near the proposed exception site.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the applicant proposes to site the fire training
facility on the subjed site because it would be close to the Sunriver Fire Department's fire
station and would be within the department's service area. As a result, fire department
personnel involved in training exercises would be able promptly to respond to emergencies that
may occur within the service district during training. For this reason, the Hearings Officer finds
the proposed fire training facility has special features or qualities that necessitate its location on
the proposed 4.28-acre exception site.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies all
applicable administrative rule reqUirements for taking an exception to Goal 4.
PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE
2. Division 12, Transportation Planning (OAR 660"'()12)
a. 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) ofthis
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
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 17
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;
(8) Oegrade 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) Oegrade 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.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) applies to the
applicant's proposal because it involves an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive
plan. The applicant did not provide a traffic study with its application. In his March 24, 2014
comments on the applicant's proposal, the county's Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell
stated in relevant part:
#The applicant has quoted my comments for a similar facility under a previous
land use application (CU-11-24) where I stated the site would generate less than
new 50 new weekday trips and thus under Deschutes County Code (DCC)
17.16.115(C)(4) no traffic analysis was required. There are two distinct
differences, however, between these two land use applications. First, in CU-11
24 the site was zoned for the proposed use whereas the site for PA-14-1/ZC-14
1 requires both a plan amendment and a zone change. Also, the affected roads
under CU-11-24 were different than those that will provide access to PA-14
1IZC-14-1. The applicant indicates the site will be accessed via Cottonwood
Road, although it appears South Century Drive is closer to the site. Second, the
time horizon required for a traffic study for a conditionally allowed or outright
permitted use is much shorter than that for a plan amendment/zone change.
DCC 17. 16. 115(E)(3) for outright and permitted uses bases the analysiS horizon
year on bui/dout. DCC 17.16. 115(E)(4) requires a 20-year study horizon for zone
changes.
Regardless of how the site is accessed, the applicant will need to provide
numeric analysis that no facility will be adversely affected. Staff believes that will
be the case, but the applicant needs to provide sufficient findings to demonstrate
that conclusion and comply with 660-012-0060. "
In response to Mr. Russell's comments, the applicant submitted a memorandum dated April 15,
2014 prepared by Casey Bergh, PE, of Kittelson & Associates, Inc., addressing the proposal's
compliance with the TPR. The memorandum predicts vehicle trips generated by the proposed
fire training facility would use South Century Drive and its interchange with U.S. Highway 97.
The memorandum predicts that because of the intermittent nature of the proposed training
facility use, and the relatively small number of people who would use the facility at any given
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 18
time, the proposed facility would generate only eight average daily vehicle trips (ADTs), of which
a maximum of four trips would occur during the weekday p.m. peak hour (4:30 to 6:30 p.m.) The
memorandum states the addition of this very small number of vehicle trips will have a negligible
effect on the function of affected transportation facilities. By an electronic mail message dated
April 15, 2014, Mr. Russell stated he agreed with the Kittelson traffic report's methodologies and
conclusions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated its
proposed plan amendment and zone change will not significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility, thereby complying with the TPR.
(4) Determinations under sections (1)-{3) of this rule shall be
coordinated with affected transportation facility and service
providers and other affected local governments.
FINDINGS: The record indicates notice of the applicant's proposal was sent to the Deschutes
County Road Department and county's Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell, as well as
the Sunriver Fire Department and Utilities District and the Sunriver Owners Association.
Comments from these agencies, if any. are included in this record. As discussed in the findings
above, the applicant submitted a traffic analysis in response to comments submitted by Peter
Russell, and Mr. Russell found the traffic analysis to be appropriate and correct. For these
reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion.
Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal satisfies the TPR.
STATEWIDE LAND USE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
3. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals (OAR 660-015)
a. OAR 660-015-0000, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 1-14
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be
involved in all phases of the planning process.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, notice of the applicant's proposal and
the public hearing was provided to interested public and private agencies and to the owners of
record of all property located within 750 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the
public hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin and the subject property was posted with a
notice of proposed land use action sign. A public hearing was held before the Hearings Officer,
and before the proposed plan amendment, zone change and goal exception can be approved
the applicant's proposal will be considered at a public meeting of the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners (hereafter "board"). For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the process
for consideration of the applicant's proposal meets Goal 1.
Goal 2: land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision
and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such
decisions and actions.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 19
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted applications for the proposed plan amendment, zone
change and goal exception. The applications have been reviewed by Planning Division staff and
the Hearings Officer pursuant to the county's code, and the applications also will be reviewed by
the board prior to final approval. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies Goal 2.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds Goal 3 is not applicable because the subject property is
not designated or zoned for agriculture.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's
forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure
the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on
forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife
resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
FINDINGS: The subject property is designated and zoned Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community Forest on the comprehensive plan map and therefore Goal 4 is applicable. The
applicant has requested an exception to Goal 4 to remove the forest designation and zoning for
approximately 4.28 acres of the subject property. As discussed in the findings above,
incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant has
demonstrated it has met the criteria for a "reasons· exception to Goal 4.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
FINDINGS: The comprehenSive plan inventory of Goal 5 resources identifies elk habitat as a
significant Goal 5 resource on the subject property. The property is zoned WA to protect this
resource. The applicant's proposal would redesignate and rezone 4.28 acres of the subject
property for a public use -i.e., a fire training facility and access road. The WA Zone does not
prohibit or restrict public uses or buildings in significant elk habitat. ODFW was notified of the
applicant's proposal and did not submit comments, indicating the agency does not have
concerns about the effect of the applicant's proposal on the elk habitat.
The record indicates the subject property has no identified mineral and aggregate resources,
energy sources, ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas, outstanding scenic
views, water areas, wetlands, watersheds, or groundwater resources, wilderness areas, historic
areas, sites, structures or objects, or cultural areas.2
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies Goal 5.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
2 The record indicates the closest inventoried historically Significant site, Camp Abbot Hall, is located
within the Sunriver resort but approximately 1.5 miles west-southwest of the subject property.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 20
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
FINDINGS: The applicant has requested approval of the proposed plan amendment, zone
change and goal exception in order to develop the subject site with a fire training facility for the
fire department. The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that such a facility has
the potential to generate smoke, and therefore to affect air quality, during live fire training
exercises. However, as discussed in the findings above, the live fire training would occur only
once per quarter. In addition, the record indicates the closest residence to the subject site is
approximately 3,000 feet to the west, and the prevailing wind typically is from the northwest.
north-northwest, and southwest, therefore likely to blow any smoke away from residences within
the Sunriver resort. In addition, the staff report notes that before the applicant can construct the
fire training facility it must obtain county site plan review and approval which will consider the
impacts of smoke and can assure protection of air quality through conditions for site plan
approval. For these reasons, I find the applicant's proposed plan amendment, zone change and
goal exception are consistent with Goal 6.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the only natural hazard identified with the subject site is
the potential for wildfire which presently is the same as that for all other properties in the
surrounding area. Future development of the subject site with a fire training facility has the
potential to increase the hazard from fire during live fire training exercise. but also may
decrease the risk of wildfire in the community through increased and more realistic firefighter
training. In any event, as discussed in the findings above, before the fire training facility can be
constructed the applicant must obtain county site plan review and approval, and through that
process requirements can be imposed to minimize fire risk, such as minimum clearance from
vegetation and minimum amounts of water available on site. For these reasons, I find the
applicant's proposal is consistent with Goal 7.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, here
appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds Goal 8 is not applicable because the applicant's proposal
does not propose or eliminate any opportunities for recreational facilities either on the subject
property or in the area.
Goal 9: Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
FINDINGS: The applicant argues its proposal will provide indirect economic benefits by
facilitating the development of a training facility that will help the fire department save money
and protect property over time. In addition. the applicant argues development and construction
of the training facility will provide direct economic benefits through the temporary employment of
construction contractors. The Hearings Officer finds that to the extent Goal 9 applies to the
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 21
applicant's proposal, it is satisfied.
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds Goal 10 is not applicable to the applicant's proposal
because it will not affect opportunities for housing on the subject property or surrounding area.
Goal 11 : Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilltles and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development
FINDINGS: The record indicates the applicant's proposal will not require or result in the
extension of urban services to the subject site. The proposed fire training facility will not require
sewer or water service. As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the
proposed fire training facility would not Significantly affect a transportation facility. For these
reasons, r find the applicant's proposal satisfies Goal 11.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings
Officer has found the applicant's proposal is consistent with the TPR. Because the TPR
implements Goal 12, I find the applicant's proposal also satisfies Goal 12.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
FINDINGS: The applicant argues, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that its proposal is
consistent with Goal 13 because the plan amendment, zone change and goal exception will
allow the subject site to be developed with a fire training facility in close proximity to the fire
department's fire station and response area, thus conserving energy through reduction in the
number and length of vehicle trips to and from the site.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use, to accommodate
urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure
efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds Goal 14 is not applicable to the applicant's proposal
because the subject property is located within an urban area -Le., the Sunriver UUC --and the
proposal would not change the types or intensity of uses allowed in the UUC or its boundaries.
b. OAR 660~015'()005, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 15
Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 22
· c. OAR 660-015-0010, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 16-19
Goal16: Estuarine Resources
Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands
Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes
Goal 19: Ocean Resources
FINDINGS: The Hearing Officer finds Goals 15 through 19 are not applicable to the applicant's
proposal because the subject site is not within the Willamette Greenway and does not have any
estuarine areas, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes, or ocean resources.
Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies all
applicable statewide land use planning goals.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
B. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
FINDINGS: In Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004), LUBA held a
comprehensive plan is a potential source of approval standards for quasi-judicial land use
permit applications. However, LUBA stated local code provisions requiring that land use
decisions be "consistent" with the comprehensive plan "do not mean that all parts of the
comprehensive plan necessarily are approval standards." LUBA described the proper analysis
of the effect of plan provisions as follows:
"Local governments and this Board have frequently considered the text and
context of cited parts of comprehensive plans and concluded that the alleged
comprehensive plan standard was not an applicable approval standard. Stewart
v. City of Brookings, 31 Or LUBA 325, 328 (1996); Friends of Indian Ford v.
Deschutes County, 31 Or LUBA 248258 (1996); Wissusik v. Yamhill County, 20
Or LUBA 246, 254-55 (1990). Even if the comprehensive plan includes
proVisions that can operate as approval standards, those standards are not
necessarily relevant to all quasi-judicial land use permit applications. Bennett v.
City of Dal/as, 17 Or LUBA at 456. Moreover, even if a plan provision is a
relevant standard that must be considered, the plan provision might not
constitute a separate mandatory approval criterion, in the sense that it must be
separately satisfied, along with any other mandatory approval criteria, before the
application can be approved. Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a
relevant standard, may represent a required consideration that must be balanced
with other relevant considerations. See Waker Associates, Inc. v. Clackamas
County, 111 Or App 189, 194, 826 P2d 20 (1992) ('a balancing process that
takes account of relative impacts of particular uses on particular [comprehensive
plan] goals and of the logical relevancy of particular goals to particular uses is a
decisional necessityJ.
Before conSidering whether particular plan provisions must be applied as
approval standards when conSidering individual land use permit applications, it is
appropriate, as the hearings officer did in this case, to consider first whether the
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 23
comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns a particular role to some or all of the
plan's goals and policies. Downtown Comm. Assoc. v. City of Portland, 80 Or
App 336, 339, 722 P2d 1258 (1986); Eskadarian v. City of Portland, 26 Or LUBA
98, 103 (1993); Schellenberg v. Polk County, 21 Or LUBA 425, 429 (1991); Miller
v. City of Ashland, 17 Or LUBA 147, 167-69 (1988). We review the hearings
officer interpretation of the BAGP [Bend Area General Plan] to determine if her
interpretation is correct. McCoy v. Linn County, 90 Or App 271, 275-76, 752 P2d
323 (1988). D
The staff report and the applicant's burden of proof identify and address a number of plan
provisions. Based on LUBA's analysiS in Save Our Skyline, the Hearings Officer finds I must
examine the text and context of these provisions to determine if any of them applies to the
applicant's quasi-judicial applications for a plan amendment and zone change.
1. Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management
a. Section 4.1 Introduction
Purpose
The Urban Growth Management chapter, in concert with the other
chapters of this Plan, specifies how Deschutes County will work
with cities and unincorporated communities to accommodate
growth while preserving rural character and resource lands.
b. Section 4.4 Sunriver
Community Boundary
2010 County GIS data showed Sunriver had approximately 3,745
acres of land inside the community boundary. Within this area, there
were 4,447 total tax lots, including common areas. -rhe community
boundary is generally formed by the Deschutes River on the west,
Spring River Road/South Century Drive on the south and the
Deschutes National Forest on the north and east.
During the 1997 update, the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community boundary was amended to add 375-acres along the
eastern boundary of the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community
to be used for sewage effluent storage and disposal.
This area, once part of the Deschutes National Forest, was changed
from a comprehensive plan designation of Forest to a
comprehensive plan designation of Urban Unincorporated
Community Forest. It was added per Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality requirements. The effluent and storage
capabilities of the existing sewage system were at or near capacity
seasonally at that time. Thus, this expansion of the community
boundary was necessary to provide adequate sewage disposal
services to the existing communities being served at their build
outs.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1. ZC-14-1
Page 24
I
Comprehensive Plan Designations
* * *
9. Forest District. The previous boundary for Sunriver was
expanded in 1997 by approximately 366-acres to Include land
along the eastern boundary that has historically been zoned
for forest uses and within the Deschutes National Forest. A
recent decision by the U.S. Forest Service to permit an
effluent storage pond and effluent irrigation site on
approximately 50 acres and a potential land transfer to the
Sunriver Utilities Company (now Sunriver Water
LLC/Environmental LLC) prompted inclusion of this area
within the community boundary. By Including this area, future
expansion of the sewage disposal system would permit the
application of biosollds with the effluent irrigation site and
storage pond. This will enable Sunriver to meet Oregon
Deparbnent of Environmental Quality regulations for treated
wastewater storage and disposal stemming from build-out
within the community. An exception to Goal 4 was not taken
because the only uses allowed in the expansion area are
permitted in the Forest zone.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these provisions are merely introductory and do not
establish any approval criteria for the applicant's proposal.
c. Section 4.4, Sunriver Policies
Goals and Policies
No goals have been defined for the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community.
Policy 4.4.1. Land use regulations shall conform to the requirements
of OAR 660 Division 22 or any successor.
Policy 4.4.2. County comprehensive plan policies and land use
regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within the
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community do not adversely affect
forest uses in the surrounding Forest Use Zones.
Policy 4.4.3. To protect scenic views and riparian habitat within the
community, appropriate setbacks shall be required for all structures
built on properties with frontage along the Deschutes River.
Policy 4.4.5. Public access to the Deschutes River shall be
preserved.
FINDINGS: Although these policies are written in mandatory terms -i.e., using the word "shall"
-the Hearings Officer finds they are directed at action by the county and not by an applicant for
a quasi-judicial land use permit or approval.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 25
Policy 4.4.4. Open space and common area, unless otherwise zoned
for development, shall remain undeveloped except for community
amenities such as bike and pedestrian paths, and parks and picnic
areas.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this policy also is written in mandatory terms but is not
expressly directed at the county. It could be read to apply to any quasi-judicial land use
application involving open space and/or common areas. However, I find this policy is not
applicable to the applicant's proposal because no such areas are included on the subject site.
Policy 4.4.6. The County supports the design review standards
administered by the Sunriver Owners Association.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this policy is merely a statement of county practice and
does not establish any approval criteria for the applicant's proposal.
Utility District Policies
Policy 4.4.24. Lands designated utility shall allow for development of
administrative offices, substations, storage/repair yards, distribution
lines and similar amenities for services such as water, sewer,
telephone, cable television and wireless telecommunications.
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to change the plan designation and zoning of the subject
site from SUF to SUU, thus placing the property within a "utility" designation. This policy is
written in mandatory terms but is not expressly directed at the county. Therefore, the Hearings
Officer finds it is reasonable to conclude this policy was intended to apply to quasi-judicial land
use applications involving lands in the Sunriver UCC deSignated ·utility." The applicant's
proposal, if approved, would facilitate development of the subject site with a fire training facility
for the fire department. Although the proposed fire training facility is not one of the uses
speCifically listed in this policy, the staff report states, and I agree, that it is similar to a
·substation" or is an "accessory use" for the fire department. Therefore, I find the applicant's
proposal satisfies this policy.
Forest District Policies
Policy 4.4.25. Uses and development on property deSignated forest
that are within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community
boundary shall be consistent with uses and development of other
lands outside of the community boundary which are also designated
forest on the Deschutes County comprehensive plan map.
Policy 4.4.26. Forest district property shall be used primarily for
effluent storage ponds, spray irrigation of effluent, blosolids
application and ancillary facilities necessary to meet Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality sewage disposal regulations.
Policy 4.4.27. The development of resort, residential or non-forest
commercial activities on Forest district lands shall be prohibited
unless an exception to Goal 14 is taken.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 26
FINDINGS: These policies are written in mandatory terms and are not expressly directed at the
county. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds it is reasonable to conclude these policies were
intended to apply to quasi-judicial land use applications affecting property within the SUF
including the subject site. The applicant proposes to remove the 4.28-acre subject site from the
SUF Zone in order to develop it with a fire training facility, a use not permitted in the SUF Zone.
The rest of the large subject property would remain in the SUF. Because the remaining SUF
zoned property would continue to be used primarily for effluent storage and disposal, and
because the applicant does not propose to develop the subject site with resort, residential or
non-forest commercial activities, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies these policies.
General Public Facility Policies
Policy 4.4.28. Residential minimum lot sizes and densities shall be
determined by the capacity of the water and sewer facilities to
accommodate existing and future development and growth.
FINDINGS: This policy is written in mandatory terms. Nevertheless, the Hearings Officer finds it
is not applicable because the applicant's proposal does not involve residential development.
Policy 4.4.29. New uses or expansion of existing uses within the
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community which require land use
approval shall be approved only upon confirmation from the
Sunriver Utility Company that water and sewer service for such uses
can be provided.
FINDINGS: This policy also is written in mandatory terms and is applicable to any new uses
within the Sunriver UCC requiring land use approval. As discussed in the findings above, the
Planning Division sent notice of the applicant's proposal to Sunriver Utilities but did not receive
any comments from it. That is likely because the proposed fire training facility would not require
any water or sewer service. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal satisfies
this plan policy.
Policy 4.4.30. Expansion of the Sunriver Water
LLC/EnvironmentallLLC Water and Sewer District outside of the
historic Sunriver boundaries shall adequately address the impacts I
to services provided to existing property owners.
FINDINGS: This policy is written in mandatory terms. However, the Hearings Officer finds it is
not applicable to the applicant's proposal because the applicant is not requesting approval to
expand the water and sewer district, and the applicant's proposal will not have any impact on
services to existing property owners.
Water Facility Policies
Policy 4.4.31. Water service shall continue to be provided by the
Sunriver Utilities Company.
Sewer Facility Policies
Policy 4.4.32. Sewer service shall continue to be provided by the
Sunriver Utilities Company.
FINDINGS: These policies are written in mandatory terms. However, the Hearings Officer finds
Sunriver Service District I
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 27 I
they are not applicable to the applicant's proposed fire training facility because it does not
involve or require water or sewer service.
Transportation System Maintenance Policies
Policy 4.4.33. Prlvately-maintained roads within the Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community boundary shall continue to be
maintained by the Sunriver Owners Association.
Policy 4.4.34. The bicycle/pedestrian path system in Sunriver shall
continue to be maintained by the Sunriver Owners Association or as
otherwise provided by a maintenance agreement.
Policy 4.4.35. The County will encourage the future expansion of
bicycle/pedestrian paths within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community boundary in an effort to provide an alternative to
vehicular travel.
Policy 4.4.36. All public roads maintained by the County shall
continue to be maintained by the County. Improvements to County
maintained public roads shall occur as described the County
Transportation System Plan.
FINDINGS: These policies are written in mandatory terms. However, the Hearings Officer finds
they are not applicable because the applicant's proposal does not affect the privately
maintained roads or the bicycle/pedestrian path system within the Sunriver UUC boundaries. As
discussed in the findings above, access to the subject site will be primarily from South Century
Drive via a USFS road. And in any event, the record indicates South Century Drive is a county
maintained public road that will continue to be maintained by the county.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan amendment, zone
change and goal exception are consistent with comprehensive plan policies to the extent they
are applicable.
ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONE CHANGES
C. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 18.136, Amendments
a. Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The
procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth
in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map
amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms
provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to
applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
FINDINGS: The applicant has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change to
change the plan deSignation and zoning of the subject site from SUF to SUU. The applicant
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 28
submitted applications on forms provided by the county. The applications are being reviewed
under the procedures of Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
b. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards
The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the
public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be
demonstrated by the applicant are:
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and
the change is consistent with the plan's introductory
statement and goals.
FINDINGS: The applicant's proposal to rezone the subject site from SUF to SUU is not
consistent with the site's comprehensive plan forest designation. For that reason the applicant
has requested an amendment to the comprehensive plan map to change the plan deSignation of
the subject site from SUF to SUU. The staff report correctly notes comprehensive plan no longer
contains an -introductory statement and goals," provisions which were present in the prior
comprehensive plan, and therefore the Hearings Officer finds that ordinance language no longer
is applicable.
B. That the change In classificatlo'n for the subject property is
consistent with the purpose and Intent of the proposed zone
classification.
FINDINGS: Chapter 18.108 establishes the Sunriver UUC Zone. Section 18.108.010 states the
purpose of the Sunriver UUC Zone as follows:
The purpose of the Urban Unincorporated Community (UUC) Zone -Sunriver is to
provide standards and review procedures for the future development of the urban
unincorporated community of Sunriver. The UUC Zone -Sunriver is composed of
17 separate zoning districts and one combining zone district. each with its own
set of allowed uses and distinct regulations, as further set forth in DCC 18.108.
Section 18.108.170 governs the SU U but does not include a purpose statement for that district.
Rather. it describes the uses permitted outright and conditionally, height regulations and lot
requirements. Nevertheless, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed zone change is
consistent with the overall purpose of the Sunriver UUC Zone because it would facilitate
development of a use permitted in the SUU and which, as discussed in findings throughout this
decision, is an integral part of the delivery of fire services within the Sunriver UUC, Therefore, I
find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public
health, safety and welfare conSidering the following factors:
1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary
public services and facilities.
FINDINGS: The applicant's proposed plan amendment, zone change and goal exception, in and
of themselves, will not require water or sewer service or have impacts on public facilities and
services. In addition, the record indicates the proposed fire training facility will not require water
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 29
or sewer service and will have access to South Century Drive, a county-maintained road, from
an existing USFS road. The Hearings Officer has found the additional vehicle traffic that would
be generated by use of the fire training facility will have minimal if any impact on affected
transportation facilities. The applicant argues, and I agree, that the fire training facility will serve
the public health, safety and welfare by providing a location for necessary firefighting training for
fire department staff. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be
consistent with the specific goals and policies
contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's
proposal is consistent with the plan's goals and policies to the extent they are applicable. I find
there will be no "impacts on surrounding land use" from the proposed plan amendment, zone
change and goal exception themselves. The applicant proposes to develop the subject site with
a fire training facility. I have found traffic impacts from such a facility would have minimal if any
impact on affected transportation facilities. However, the applicant has stated use of the
proposed facility would include quarterly live fire training exercises that will produce smoke. The
applicant's burden of proof and May 6, 2014 memorandum state the effects from this smoke on
nearby residential properties within the Sunriver community will be minimal because of
prevailing winds blowing smoke from west to east and away from the residences, because of
intervening topography, and because of the 3,ooo-foot distance and significant vegetative buffer
between the subject site and the nearest residences.
As discussed in the findings above, the Planning Division received letters from the owners of
two dwellings on Sequoia Lane in Sunriver. located approximately 3,000 feet west of the subject
site and across the BNSF railroad tracks. These owners expressed concern about potential
negative impacts from the fire training facility. In particular, they stated their belief that the facility
would devalue their properties because of past and future removal of trees from the subject
property, visibility of the training facility structure from their residences, and disruption caused by
fire training activities. The record indicates that in the past the subject property was cleared of
trees to facilitate storage and land application of sewage effluent. However, at the public hearing
Sunriver Fire Chief Art Hatch testified that no trees would be cut on the subject site in order to
establish the training facility.
With respect to visual impacts from the fire training structure, the Hearings Officer finds it is
highly unlikely the structure will be visible from dwellings on Sequoia Lane. That is because of
the relatively low height of the structure (approximately 26 feet), the 3,OOO-foot distance
between the subject site and the nearest residence, the presence of the seven-to eight-foot-tall
BNSF railroad track berm between the subject site and the nearest dwellings, and significant
tree cover on the intervening land as evidenced by aerial photos of the subject property included
in this record. I am aware that additional vegetation could be removed from the portion of the
subject property between the subject site and the nearest residences in order to increase the
available land for ground application of sewage effluent. Nevertheless, I find the remaining
features -i.e .• distance, topography and BNSF railroad berm -would continue to provide a
significant buffer between the proposed fire station and the nearest residences. Finally, with
respect to operational impacts, I find the significant distance between the subject site and the
nearest residence will mitigate any noise from training activities, and the distance and prevailing
winds, coupled with the quarterly timing of the live fire training exercises, will minimize any
impacts from smoke on dwellings within the Sunriver community.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 30
In his comments on the applicant's proposal, Hugh. Paldc, General Manager of the Sunriver
Owners' Association, requested that the Hearings Officer consider including in my decision
provisions requiring that a "substantial area surrounding the subject site, . , receive treatment
for ladder fuels reduction," and that provisions be made for a secondary access for the
proposed fire training facility. The Hearings Officer finds these are reasonable requests but that
the appropriate time to consider them is during site plan review for the proposed fire training
facility,
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal satisfies this criterion.
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the
property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning
of the property in question.
FINDINGS:
Mistake in Zoning. As discussed in the findings above, the Sunriver UUC boundary was
expanded in 1997 to include the subject property for the purpose of providing a location for
sewage effluent storage and disposal for the Sunriver community. The property previously was
zoned F-1. The Hearings Officer finds there was no mistake in that redesignation and rezoning.
Change in Circumstances Since Property Was Last Zoned. The applicant's burden of proof
states there has been a change in circumstances justifying the proposed redesignation and
rezoning of the subject property as follows;
'The primary change is that the utilitv needs of the community have expanded
beyond the available acreage to site utility uses. Specifically, the Sunriver Fire
Department (SFD) has no method to regularly and predictably train personnel
and there is no other suitable property within or surrounding Sunriver to
accommodate the facility. The facility must be sited as close as possible to
Sunriver, but distant enough to alleviate potential impacts to surrounding
properties. The subject site places the facility in reasonably close proximity to
Sunriver which is important because personnel being trained may need to
respond in the event of a fire and must comply with SFD's Standards of Cover
(deployment plan) which stipulates that total response times for structure fires
within the district be as follows:
The SFD's Standards of Cover document calls for tolal response times for
structure fires within the district to be as follows:
For 80 percent of a/l fire incidents within the district, the first unit will arrive on
scene with a response time (turnout time + travel time) of 8 minutes and 30
seconds. On-scene staffing shall be sufficient to initiate a basic single-line interior
attack.
Similarly, for emergency medical service responses it requires:
For 90 percent of all medical incidents within the fire district, SFD will arrive on
scene with a response time (turnout time + travel time) of 8 minutes and 20
seconds.
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 31
These performance measures were developed using the following factors:
• Historical performance
• Current capabilities/critical tasking
• Risk analysis/risk exposure
• System demand
• Community expectations
The subject site is In an Ideal location to accommodate these needs. The site is
a/so large enough to accommodate the facility. Another change in circumstances
pertains to economics. Facing the reality of a limited budget. the SFD must take
measures to keep costs down. It is estimated that sending SFD personnel to
existing training facilities outside of the Sunriver Service District (SSD) with the
frequency required to maintain current service levels would cost the SSD
approximately $40,000 the first year (including overtime, travel, lodging, meals,
etc.) and increasing each year afterward. This is an unsustainable cost. This
means that personnel must be able to engage in these training activities while 'in
service' and able to discontinue training activities and respond to actual calls for
service. The subject site fulfills these requirements." (Underscored emphasiS
added.)
The Hearings Officer finds the fire department's needs to train its staff and operate within its
budget are not changed circumstances that have occurred since the subject property was
redesignated and rezoned in 1997. Neither can it be said there has been a change in
circumstance based on the fire department's need to locate a fire training facility in proximity to
the fire department's service area and a safe distance from residential and other uses. These
are factors that have influenced the fire department's operations on a regular basis since 1997.
The staff report concludes "the change in use of the propertt is a change in circumstances. The
Hearings Officer assume staffs statement refers to the change in use of the overall subject
property from forest uses to utility uses -i.e., sewage effluent storage and disposal, wood and
debris recycling, and a wireless telecommunications facility. Expansion of the Sunriver UUC to
include the subject property was for the specific purpose of providing a site for the storage and
disposal of effluent from the Sunriver community. However, I agree with staff that the addition of
wood/debris recycling and telecommunications facilities on the subject property reflects a
greater change in the character of the subject property.
Although the recycling and telecommunications facilities are uses permitted in the SUF Zone,
they represent a broadening of utility uses on the subject property, and a greater transition to
general utility uses, than what appears to have been contemplated when the Sunriver UUC
boundary was expanded in 1997. Attached as Exhibit 8 to planning staffs May 6, 2014
memorandum to the Hearings Officer are copies of the staff report and board findings and
decision approving the 1997 Sunriver UUC expansion. These documents make clear the
approved expansion was approved in order to permit the Sunriver community to meet the
sewage treatment requirements of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and not to
create a location for a broad array of utility uses. Although I find this is a close question, I agree
with staff that the broader change in use of the overall subject property is a change of
circumstance since the subject property was designated Sunriver UUC and zoned SUF.
The remaining question is whether this change in circumstance justifies the applicant's proposal
-i.e., whether the proposed plan amendment and zone change will "presently serve the public
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 32
health, safety and welfare considering" the change in circumstance. The Hearings Officer finds
the applicant has demonstrated the need to locate a new fire training facility in proximity to the
fire department's service area and a safe distance from residential and other uses. As
discussed in the findings above, I have found the subject site will assure there will be minimal if
any negative impacts on the rest of the Sunriver community from the fire training facility. Finally,
as discussed in the goal exception findings above, I also have found the subject property is the
most suitable location for the proposed facility. For these reasons, I find the change in
circumstances identified by staff justifies the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone
change from SUF to SUU.
LIMITED USE COMBINING ZONE
2. Chapter 18.112, Limited Use Combining Zone";' LU
a. Section 18.112.010, Purpose
A. The purpose of the LU Zone is to limit the list of permitted
uses and general activities allowed in the underlying zone,
when a plan amendment and zone change rezones a parcel to
that underlying zone through the taking of an exception to a
statewide land use planning goal under ORS 197.732.
B. The LU Zone is an overlay zone which may be applied, where
appropriate, to plan amendments/zone changes effected by
either a "physically developed" exception under ORS
197.732(1)(a), an "irrevocably committed" exception under
ORS 197.732(1)(b), or a "reasons" exception under ORS
197.732(1){c).
C. The LU Zone, when adopted, shall carry out the requirement
of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-04-018 that where a goal
exception is taken, permitted uses shall be limited to those
uses justified by the exception statement
FINDINGS: The applicant has requested approval of a plan amendment and zone change from
SUF to SUU, and a "reasons" exception to Goal 4, to facilitate the development of a fire training
facility on the subject site. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds an LU Zone is an appropriate
means to limit uses on the subject site to those found to justify the "reasons" exception.
b. Section 18.112.020, Combining Zone Requirements
When the LU Zone Is applied, the uses permitted in the underlying
zone shall be limited to those uses and general activities specifically
set forth in the ordinance adopting the underlying zone and the LU
Zone. Any change in those uses and general activities must be
made through the planlland use regulation amendment process.
FINDINGS: The applicant requests approval of a "reasons" exception to Goal 4 to redesignate
and rezone the 4.28-acre subject site from SUF to SUU. The applicant has proposed
establishment of an LU Zone to limit uses permitted on the subject site. Specifically, the
applicant has proposed that the following language be included in the comprehensive plan as
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 33
justification for the requested exception.
'To ensure that the uses in the Sunriver Utility District Zone on an approximate
4.28 acre portion of Tax Lot 102 on Deschutes County Tax Map 19-11-00 are
limited in nature and scope, the Sunriver Forest (SUFJ zoning on the subject
parcel shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining Zone, which will limit the uses
to a fire training facility for the Sunriver Service District, in particular the Sunriver
Fire Department. "
The Hearings Officer finds that with the addition of language including the access road in the fire
training facility, the proposed language is appropriate for inclusion in the comprehensive plan.
IV. DECISION:
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. the Hearings Officer hereby
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the applicant's proposed plan amendment to change the
designation of the subject site from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utilities, the applicant's proposed zone change to
change the zoning of the subject site from SUF to SUU, and "reasons" exception to Goal 4.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. This approval is based on the applicant's application, burden of proof statement,
supplemental materials, and written and oral testimony. Any substantial change to the
approved use will require a new land use application and approval.
2. The applicanUowner shall submit to the Planning Division a written metes-and-bounds
description of all property subject to the approved plan amendment, zone change and
goal exception.
3. The comprehensive plan shall be amended to include the following findings justifying the
exception to Goal 4:
To ensure that the uses in the Sunriver Utility District Zone on the
approximately 4.28 acre site on Tax Lot 102 on Deschutes County
Assessor's Map 19-11-00 are limited in nature and scope to those
justifying the exception to Goal 4 for the site. the Sunriver Forest
(SUF) zoning on the subject site shall be subject to a Limited Use
Combining Zone which will limit the uses on the subject site to a fire
training facility and access road for the Sunriver Service District and
Sunriver Fire Department.
Dated this;:;tL day of June, 2014
Mailed this ~y of June, 2014
I
Sunriver Service District
PA-14-1, ZC-14-1
Page 34