HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 012 - Establish La Pine UGBDeschutes 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 20, 2012
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: July 5, 2012.
FROM: Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department 541-385-1709
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
A Public Hearing on and Consideration of First and Second Readings, and Adoption by Emergency, of
Ordinance Nos. 2012-011 and 2012-012, to Repeal Ordinance 2010-008 and Amend Title 23 of the
Deschutes County Code to Establish the City of La Pine Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In October of 2009, the City of La Pine initiated the land use process to establish a La Pine Urban
Growth Boundary. The Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 2010-008 to add the
adopted UGB into the County's comprehensive plan on April 5,2010. The Oregon Land Conservation
and Development Commission ultimately remanded the ordinances for additional findings. Ordinance
No. 2012-011 repeals Ordinance 2010-008. Ordinance No. 2012-012 amends the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan and re-designates, based on updated findings, a UGB for the City of La Pine. The
UGB matches the one proposed in 2010. It is conterminous with La Pine's city limits.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Hold the public hearing.
Motion 1) First and second reading by Title only of Ordinance No. 2012-011 and declaring an
emergency
Motion 2) Adopt Ordinance 2012-011
Motion 3) First and second reading by Title only of Ordinance No. 2012-0l2 and declaring an
emergency
Motion 4) Adopt Ordinance 20l2-0l2
ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky and Legal Counsel
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Peter Gutowsky, CDD.
REVIEWED
LEGA~~L
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 23 of the *
Deschutes County Code To Establish the City of * ORDINANCE NO. 2012-012
La Pine Urban Growth Boundary, and Declaring *
an Emergency. *
WHEREAS, in October of 2009, the City of La Pine ("La Pine') initiated the land use process to
establish a La Pine Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") and, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board")
adopted Ordinance 2010-008 to add the adopted UGB into the County's comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission remanded the ordinances
for additional findings and such remand requires the repeal of Ordinance 2010-008 in order to adopt a new
ordinance with the new findings; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission Planning Commission reviewed this
ordinance on August 9,2012 and, on that same date, forwarded to the Board a recommendation of approval the
Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2012,
and on that same date, concluded that the public will benefit from the adoption of this ordinance; now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management, is amended to
read as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language
underlined and language to be deleted in strikethroHgh.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, the Comprehensive Plan map is amended, designating
La Pine UGB boundaries as shown in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "C," attached and incorporated
by reference herein.
Section 4. The legal description for the new La Pine Urban Growth Boundary shall be as described
in Exhibit "D", attached and incorporated by reference herein.
PAGE 1 OF 2 -ORDINANCE NO. 2012-012
/11
H U N T I N G T O N R D
BURGESS RD
6TH ST
D A Y R D
REED RD
FINLEY BUTTE RD
1ST S T
R
I
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
D
R
R O S L A N D R D
DISCLAIMER:The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Deschutes County's G.I.S.Care was taken in the creation of this map, but it is provided "as is". Deschutes County cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data or the underlying records. There are no warranties, express or implied, including the warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
N:\..\CDD\Planning\PeterG\LaPineUGB\ProjectFiles\CompPlan_Ord_2012-012.mxd July 03, 2012
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
Legend
La Pine City Limit
Proposed La Pine Urban Growth Boundary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSOF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
_____________________________Anthony DeBone, Chair
_____________________________Alan Unger, Vice-Chair
_____________________________Tammy Baney, Commissioner
_____________________________ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this _____ day of August, 2012Effective Date: August _____, 2012
Exhibit "B" to Ordinance 2012-012
1
CITY OF LA PINE
STAFF REPORT/ISSUE SUMMARY
DATE SUBMITTED: July 2, 2012
TO: Deschutes County
FROM: City of La Pine - Deborah McMahon
SUBJECT: Remand item update for Comprehensive Plan
AGENDA DATE: July 2012
TYPE OF ACTION REQUESTED (Check one):
[ ] Resolution [X] Ordinance
[ ] No Action – Report Only [X] Public Hearing
[X] Formal Motion [ ] Other/Direction:
Background:
The County is asked to consider the City of La Pine’s Goal 14 exception request, which
is a requirement to support and justify the location of the proposed La Pine Urban
Growth Boundary.
This Goal 14 exception is necessary given the recent Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) Compliance Schedule and Continuation Order 11- Cont-
Comply-001804 for La Pine’s remanded acknowledgement tasks. La Pine previously
received approval and acknowledgement of Goals 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13. Additional
work was required for Goals 2, 5, 7, 10, 12 and 14. Goal 14 requires Deschutes County
review and approval because the La Pine UGB location could affect the County’s
Comprehensive Plan. Thus, additional work was completed to further justify the location
of the UGB, which is proposed to be the same line as the current City Limits.
The Goal 14 exception explains and justifies why the provisions of Statewide Planning
Goal 14 that requires residential lands needs for urban growth planning to be based on a
20-year population projection need not apply to the City of La Pine.
The City of La Pine has identified land needs for the full range of planning and zoning
categories required by its citizens (Housing, Employment, Public Facilities, and
Recreation). The City must also determine what areas to include in the urban growth
boundary to satisfy the land needs identified in the Comprehensive Plan. In conducting
this analysis, only lands within the City’s corporate City limits have been considered.
2
The City has carefully selected lands to meet the identified land needs. Most all of the
lands proposed for inclusion in the City’s original urban growth boundary have been
designated exception areas under the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan. Other areas are not subject to Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. No high-value
farmland is proposed to be included and only the minimum amount of forestland
necessary to accommodate the need has been proposed.
The City has compared its approach and proposed land area choices with the applicable
provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 14, as well as, the statutory hierarchy presented at
ORS 197.298. The City finds that the lands proposed for inclusion in its original urban
growth boundary are consistent with the priority scheme expressed in state law.
Therefore, the City’s legal responsibilities with regard to urban growth boundary location
are satisfied.
DLCD staff representatives were instrumental in helping La Pine prepare the exception
request and will be at the upcoming Deschutes County meetings to help answer any
questions the Commissioners may have.
Request:
La Pine respectfully recommends the County hold public meetings and a hearing before
the Commission to discuss the Goal 14 exception and proceed to adopt the Goal 14
exception request.
1
Analysis of Urban Growth Boundary Locational Requirements
I. Introduction .
The city of La Pine has identified land needs for the full range of planning and zoning categories
required by its citizens (Housing, Employment, Public Facilities and Recreation). The city must
also determine what areas to include in the urban growth boundary to satisfy the land needs
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. In conducting this analysis only lands within the city’s
corporate city limits have been considered.
The city has carefully selected lands to need the identified land needs. Most all of the lands
proposed for inclusion in the city’s original urban growth boundary have been designated
exception areas under the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Other areas
are not subject to Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. No high-value farmland is proposed to be
included and only the minimum amount of forestland necessary to accommodate the need has
been proposed.
The city has compared its approach and proposed land area choices with the applicable
provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 14, as well as, the statutory hierarchy presented at ORS
197.298. The city finds that the lands proposed for inclusion in its original urban growth
boundary are consistent with the priority scheme expressed in state law. Therefore, the city’s
legal responsibilities with regard to urban growth boundary location are satisfied.
The city’s response to Statewide Planning Goal 14 and ORS 197.298 is as follows:
II. Criteria and Responses.
A. Statewide Planning Goal 14 - Urbanization
Land Need
Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the following:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a 20-
year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments; and
Response:
The city has a 20 year population forecast that has been coordinated with Deschutes County and
acknowledged by the State of Oregon. The city’s population forecast predicts that La Pine will
grow from 1,697 in 2009 to 2,566 in 2029, which would be an increase of 869 citizens. Based on
an assumed 1.98 persons per home across all housing types it will take 439 housing units to
accommodate the forecasted population growth. Some of the needed housing will be
accommodated through occupancy of units that are currently vacant while the majority will need
to be constructed. If an expected 15% residential vacancy rate is applied the total number of new
housing units needed is increased to 548.
2
The city’s Buildable Lands Inventory and the Goal 10 element of its comprehensive plan show
that the existing city limits and proposed urban growth boundary contain about 1,284 acres of
vacant or re-developable land to respond to a calculation of about 182 acres of need.
After a 30% dedication factor is applied to account for public infrastructure and other services
that would need to be provided a net amount of about 922 acres, including about 23 acres
included in a Commercial Mixed Use designation, remains to respond to about 127 net acres of
need.
The figures above indicate that the city’s existing supply of residentially designated land results
in surplus of about 1,135 gross acres once the Commercial Mixed Use lands have been deducted
from the needs category .
The city has approved an exception to this provision of Goal 14. Therefore, the differences
between residential land need and residential land supply have been reconciled.
(2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as
public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space , or any combination of the
need categories in this subsection (2).
Response:
Goal 14 calls for urban populations and urban employment to be accommodated inside of urban
growth boundaries. Accordingly, the city’s comprehensive plan identifies a need for all
categories of land uses. The proposed urban growth boundary offers a suitable amount of land
for housing, employment, public facilities and recreation.
In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel size,
topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need.
Response:
The city has identified and considered several important characteristics in determining what
lands are suitable for a particular need. Only lands within the existing city limits were analyzed,
including but not limited to, the boundaries of the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community
identified in the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. After thorough review
the city was able to conclude that lands proposed for inclusion in the urban growth boundary are
sufficient to meet the needs of La Pine’s citizens.
Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall demonstrate that
needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the urban growth
boundary.
3
Response:
This is the city’s first attempt to establish an urban growth boundary. Because no urban growth
boundary currently exists there is no land already inside the urban growth boundary that could
possibly accommodate any identified use or land need.
Boundary Location
The location of the urban growth boundary and changes to the boundary shall be determined by
evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with ORS 197.298 and with consideration of
the following factors:
(1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;
Response:
The city has efficiently accommodated the identified land needs in three ways. First, the city has
utilized the boundary of the La Pine Unincorporated Community Boundary. This territory has
been largely developed to a variety of land uses and was acknowledged as eligible for full levels
of urban development and urban services. Other lands the city has targeted include already
developed areas committed to urban levels of residential development and include a high
percentage of the city’s population base. Finally, additional lands need for public facilities have
been designated near the existing sewer treatment plant and serve to compliment land originally
designated by Deschutes County for this purpose.
(2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;
Response:
The proposed urban growth boundary is based on the acknowledged La Pine Urban
Unincorporated Community Boundary. The city’s public facilities strategy builds on plans
already in place and continues to promote an efficient arrangement of facilities and services.
(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and
Response:
The city has considered only areas within the existing city limits for inclusion within its first
urban growth boundary. The environmental, energy, economic and social consequences of the
selected lands are not greater than possible comparative locations. The city believes the selected
lands offer advantages in each of the four categories identified by this provision. In fact, several
core features of the urban growth boundary location benefit multiple values.
The selected lands have environmental benefits over alternative sites because they include a
minimum amount of wetlands and riparian corridors. Furthermore, the lands selected for
inclusion in the urban growth boundary are not designated for big game wildlife habitat or winter
4
range. Selecting alternative locations would have affected more environmentally sensitive areas
and made more undeveloped landscape available for urban development. By focusing on
existing impacted areas and lands planned and zoned for development the city has avoided
producing negative impacts on the environment to the maximum extent possible.
The selected lands have energy benefits over alternative sites because focusing on existing
impacted areas and lands planned and zoned for development will help reduce the need for
additional vehicle trips. Alternative areas could increase vehicle trips causing an increase in the
use of fossil fuels. The selected lands also take advantage of existing public facilities and
services, which will reduce the need for new for building new infrastructure. Building new
infrastructure requires significant investment of materials and consumption of energy resources.
Lands identified for public uses on the east side of Hwy 97, as well as, lands located in the La
Pine Industrial Park also hold potential for renewable energy development. Encouraging
renewable sources of energy will assist the community and the region to reduce their dependency
on fossil fuels.
The selected lands have economic benefits over alternative sites because job creating activities
will be directed into areas currently planned, zoned and marketed for employment uses.
The selected lands also take advantage of existing public facilities and services, which will
reduce the need for new for building new infrastructure. Building new infrastructure requires
significant investment of financial capital from public and private sources. Siting job creating
industry and commercial opportunities on lands already devoted to such uses will also help build
prosperity in the community by providing a greater variety of employment options and reducing
commuting costs.,
The selected lands have social benefits over alternative sites because focusing on existing
impacted areas and lands planned and zoned for development supports the existing community.
Selecting sites outside of the existing city limits for future urban development would
unnecessarily expand the city footprint and detract from the tight knit community values enjoyed
by La Pine’s citizens. Failing to include lands in the existing city boundary would be poor public
policy because it would be confusing for citizens and challenging for city administrators. Failing
to include the proposed lands in the city’s original urban growth boundary would have the
undesirable effect of excluding more than 30% of the city’s population. Excluding a substantial
portion of the city’s citizens from the urban growth boundary could have negative social
consequences by creating confusion and a sense of isolation for those lands that are inside the
corporate city limits but not located inside the city’s urban growth boundary.
(4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities
occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.
Response:
Rural residential settlement and public forests are the predominate land uses occurring outside of
the proposed urban growth boundary. Very little commercial farm or forestry activities are
conducted near La Pine. The area’s high elevation and short growing season makes raising crops
5
difficult. The dry high desert climate and timber stands dominated by Lodgepole Pine challenge
the production of merchantable timber.
Some Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoning is present to the west and southwest of the city limits.
EFU lands in this area are generally meadow pasture used for seasonal livestock grazing. The
Little Deschutes River separates the city from a majority of agricultural land to the west. EFU
lands to the southwest are arranged to following the location of Long Prairie, a narrow meadow
corridor running north-south.
Although the dry forests east of the Cascade Mountains are not ideal for timber production, the
forest products industry has played a key role in the development of all Central Oregon
communities. Large tracts of privately held industrial forestland are present well to the south of
the city. Many of these lands were originally owned and managed by the Gilchrist Lumber
Company. More recently the areas have been managed by Crown Pacific and a block of over
20,000 acres has been designated as Oregon’s newest State Forest. However, Forest zoning
closest to the city is almost entirely located on federal land managed by the USDA Bureau of
Land Management or the United States Forest Service. The multiple use missions of the two
managing federal agencies does not place commercial forest practices above other resource
opportunities offered by the Deschutes National Forest and other public lands.
Based on the above, the proposed urban uses will be compatible agriculture and forest activities
occurring outside the urban growth boundary for several reasons. First of all, because such uses,
to the extent they exist, are low intensity seasonal livestock grazing and irregular forest activities
on federal land there are limited possibilities for conflict. These uses have co-existed with the La
Pine community for decades and are part of the community’s identity. Lands zoned for EFU
located west of the city are separated from urban uses by the Little Deschutes River. The river
corridor serves as a buffer between the city and agricultural lands. Commercial forest practices
are not regular activities on adjacent federal timber lands. Private forest lands are located a
sufficient distance from the city limits to put them beyond the potential for conflict with urban
uses.
B. ORS 197.298 Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary.
(1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may
not be included within an urban growth boundary except under the following priorities:
(a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule or
metropolitan service district action plan.
Response:
The city of La Pine and Deschutes County have not designated urban reserve land under ORS
195.145, OAR Chapter 660, Division 21 or a metropolitan service district plan. Therefore, no
urban reserve land is available and it is not possible for the city to accommodate any of the
identified land need on lands designated the highest priority for inclusion within an urban growth
6
boundary.
(b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the
amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary
that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or
nonresource land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely
surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high-value farmland as
described in ORS 215.710.
Response:
Land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land
needed because no urban reserve land is available. Due to the lack of urban reserve land the city
must consider the second highest priority land type.
This exercise involves establishing the city’s first urban growth boundary. It is apparent to the
city that the language in (b) of this subsection contemplates the expansion of an urban growth
boundary because it speaks to “land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an
acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land.”
In this case, there is no existing urban growth boundary. Therefore, there is no land of any type
adjacent to an urban growth boundary and it is not possible for the city to accommodate any of
the identified land need on lands designated the second highest priority for inclusion within an
urban growth boundary.
(c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate
the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant
to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition).
Response:
Land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount
of land needed because no urban reserve land is available and there is no land adjacent to an
urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an
exception area or nonresource land. Due to the lack of lands under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
subsection, the city must consider the third highest priority land type.
Deschutes County is not one of only two counties in the state of Oregon to have designated
marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition). Therefore, no marginal land is available
and it is not possible for the city to accommodate any of the identified land need on lands
designated the third highest priority for inclusion within an urban growth boundary.
7
(d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the
amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged
comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both.
Response:
Land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount
of land needed because no urban reserve land is available, there is no land adjacent to an
urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an
exception area or nonresource land and no marginal land has been designated. Due to the lack of
lands under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection, the city must consider the fourth highest
priority land type
Although an absence of higher priority lands frees the city to exclusively consider areas
designated agriculture and forestry under statewide planning goals 3 and 4, the city has satisfied
nearly all of its land needs on with exception areas and lands not subject to the Oregon statewide
Planning Goals.
Residential Lands
The city has designated residential lands in its southeast quadrant and along its western
boundary. Residential areas have been selected from lands that are, or have been: a) Included in
the Urban Unincorporated Community of La Pine designated in the acknowledged Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan; b) Included in a rural residential exception area designated in the
acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan; or c) Included in the original La Pine
Townsite area with a residential settlement pattern resembling that found in the rural residential
exception areas. In addition, the city has approved a Goal 14 exception to justify why its
residential lands may be included in the urban growth boundary.
Employment Lands
The city’s employment lands are primarily made up of areas identified for industrial activities.
Other employment lands are all non-industrial employment activities including the widest range
of retail, wholesale, service, non-profit, business headquarters, administrative and governmental
employment activities that are accommodated in retail, office and flexible building types. Other
employment uses also include employment activities of an entity or organization that serves the
medical, educational, social service, recreation and security needs of the community typically in
large buildings or multi-building campuses.
The city has designated employment lands at different locations throughout the city. The city’s
primary industrial land base is located at its south east city limits. This area includes a site
“certified” by the state of Oregon as being project ready.
Nearly all of the city’s employment lands have been selected from areas that have been included
in the Urban Unincorporated Community of La Pine Designated in the acknowledged Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan. One small area of about 20-acres has been designated for “Mixed-
8
Use Commercial” along Burgess Road on lands protected for agriculture in the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan. The agricultural lands are blocked by a residential neighborhood
to the south and federal lands to the east. The city limits boundary is to the west.
Public Facilities & Recreation Lands
Land needs for Public Facilities and Recreation activities have been generally satisfied within the
foot print of the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community or lands in Federal ownership that
are not subject to the statewide planning goals.
As small portion of lands needed for Recreation activities have been designated for agricultural
use in the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. This area is a portion of a 40-
acre tax lot owned by the La Pine Park & Recreation District.
Lands in Federal Ownership needed for Public Facilities and Recreation activities are principally
located on the city’s east side, north of Reed Road.
(2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability
classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current
use .
Response:
Only small amounts of agricultural lands are required to meet the city’s identified land needs.
These areas are made up of about 20 acres needed for employment lands and a portion of a 40
acre tax lot needed for Recreational activities. In both instances the areas are comprised of
Shanahan Loamy Coarse Sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes and Sunriver Sandy Loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes. Both soil types have an agricultural capability class VI, which represents some of the
poorest possible agricultural lands. No lands of a lower agricultural capability class are available
to choose from. Therefore, the identified areas are the highest priority agricultural lands for
inclusion in the urban growth boundary.
Soil information for Federal lands needed for Public Facilities and Recreational activities is not
available from NRCS. These lands are lightly forested and include a quarry. The lands do not
differ significantly from other nearby areas designated for forest use.
(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban
growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the
amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following
reasons:
(a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher
priority lands;
Response:
9
The city of La Pine is not proposing to include land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this
section over land of higher priority under subsection (1). Therefore, this criteria is not
applicable.
(b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due
to topographical or other physical constraints; or
Response:
The city of La Pine is not proposing to include land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this
section over land of higher priority under subsection (1). Therefore, this criteria is not applicable.
(c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires
inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher
priority lands. [1995 c.547 §5; 1999 c.59 §56]
Response:
The city of La Pine is not proposing to include land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this
section over land of higher priority under subsection (1). Therefore, this criteria is not
applicable.
III. Final Conclusion.
The city has satisfied the factors of Goal 14 and legal requirements of ORS 197.298.
The factors of Goal 14 are satisfied because the city has demonstrated compliance with the
coordinated 20-year population forecast through taking an exception to Goal 14. The city has
demonstrated that the selected lands are capable of accommodating all of its land needs and that
such needs can not be net inside of the existing urban growth boundary because there is no
existing urban growth boundary. The lands selected build mostly on the acknowledged boundary
of the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community and existing developed lands. Focusing on
developed areas and existing community infrastructure affords the city efficiencies, financial and
otherwise, not available from areas outside of the city limits. The city has also shown the
selected lands to have environmental, economic, energy and social benefits over areas outside
the city limits and that the selected lands will be compatible with farm and forest activities.
ORS 197.298 is satisfied because no lands described in subsections ORS 197.298 (1)(a) to (c)
and subsection ORS 197.298(1)(d) allows consideration of other lands. Furthermore, most of the
city’s land needs have been satisfied with areas designated as Urban Unincorporated Community
and residential exception area by the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and
Federal lands that are not subject to Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. The limited amount of
agricultural land needed to meet the city’s land needs is the lowest possible agricultural
10
capability, which makes it the highest priority of agricultural land under ORS 197.298(2) for
inclusion in the urban growth boundary. The lightly timbered Federal land is no different than
nearby areas protected for forest uses and no forest land of a lower priority under ORS
197.298(2) is available for inclusion in the urban growth boundary.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14
Residential Lands – La Pine, Oregon
Community Document
5/23/2012
This document justifies why the provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 14 that requires residen-
tial lands needs for urban growth planning to be based on a 20-year population projection need
not apply to the city of La Pine.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
Oregon Statewide Planning Goals ............................................................................................... 4
Oregon Administrative Rules ....................................................................................................... 4
Review Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 5
Final Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 26
List of Attachments ..................................................................................................................... 27
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
2 | P a g e
I. Background.
a. Narrative
The city of La Pine (city) was incorporated in November of 2006. The city’s corporate territory
is predominantly comprised of lands designated as an Urban Unincorporated Community in the
acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. An Urban Unincorporated Community,
is a land use category defined and described in OAR Chapter 660, Division 22, often referred to
as the “Rule Community Rule.” Urban Unincorporated Communities, or UUCs, are those areas
that most closely resemble cities. UUCs have over 150 permanent residences, a mixture of land
uses and public facilities and services. Lands included in a UUC designation are eligible for a
full range of urban residential development and a full range of urban services such as community
sewer and water. UUCs appear and function much like cities. In most cases the only true differ-
ence is that a UUC is governed by a county and a city is an incorporated municipality and is self-
governing.
Since incorporation, the city has been diligently working to establish a system of local govern-
ance with staff to provide service to its citizens. Among other things, the city has been working
to create an acknowledged comprehensive land use plan (plan) and implementing ordinances as
required by state law. Once acknowledged, the plan will guide future development and will act
as the governing document for city land use decisions. A key role of the plan is to designate an
urban growth boundary separating urban and urbanizable lands from rural lands.
Urban growth boundaries are ordinarily designated based on a projection of land needs for a va-
riety of categories (residential, commercial, employment, public, etc.) over a 20-year planning
horizon. However, this ordinary principle of urban growth boundary designation need not apply
to the city’s residential lands inventory for at least three reasons. First, the city is establishing an
urban growth boundary for the very first time as opposed to expanding an existing urban growth
boundary. In this situation the city has an established city limits but no urban growth boundary.
The city believes it would be poor public policy to have an urban growth boundary within the
city limits because it would be confusing for the citizens, challenging for city administration and,
for based on the materials included in this document, ultimately unnecessary. Second, most all
of La Pine was planned and zoned for urban levels of residential development and urban facili-
ties and services when it was under county jurisdiction prior to incorporation. Third, the city has
a fairly small population and a fairly large land base relative to its size. Existing residential
neighborhoods are disbursed throughout the city boundary instead of focused at a central loca-
tion. Failure to include all of the city’s residential lands into the urban growth boundary would
result in a significant portion of the city’s population living on “rural” lands within the city’s
boundaries, frustrating the city’s ability to furnish public facilities and services to its citizens.
Statewide Planning Goal 14 and its implementing administrative rule direct cities to rely on a 20-
year population forecast to establish residential lands needs. Instead, for reasons to be explained
in greater detail below, La Pine may rely on its corporate city limits as the natural and reasonable
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
3 | P a g e
location for its urban growth boundary. In other words, La Pine proposes that its city limits and
urban growth boundary be co-terminus.
This document explains why strict adherence to the 20-year population forecast is not necessary
to establish an amount of residential lands within the city’s first urban growth boundary and jus-
tifies an exception to that provision of Goal 14.
b. Residential Lands Needs
The city has a 20 year population forecast that has been coordinated with Deschutes County and
acknowledged by the State of Oregon. The city’s population forecast predicts that La Pine will
grow from 1,697 in 2009 to 2,566 in 2029, which would be an increase of 869 citizens. Based on
an assumed 1.98 persons per home across all housing types it will take 439 housing units to ac-
commodate the forecasted population growth. Some of the needed housing will be accommodat-
ed through occupancy of units that are currently vacant while the majority will need to be con-
structed. If an expected 15% residential vacancy rate is applied the total number of new housing
units needed is increased to 548.
The city’s residential lands need is calculated by dividing the number of additional housing units
needed by the expected average units per acre. The residential lands needs are then further re-
fined by applying a dedication factor to project the portion of each acre that will be not available
for residential development due to the presence of infrastructure and other community services.
The resulting figure is known as “net” acres.
The city’s historic settlement pattern combined with more recent development activity, the pres-
ence of city services and an assumed increase in attached housing indicate that a reasonable ex-
pected development pattern is 3 units per gross acre or 4.3 units per net acre. This figure reflects
new construction and redevelopment on larger, pre-existing lots and parcels generally of 1-2.5
acres in size for an average density of one dwelling per acre, future subdivision activity 5- units
per net acre and the projection of 25% of the city’s housing stock being multifamily at an esti-
mated 12 units per acre. If 548 new housing units are needed, it will take a total of 182 gross
acres or 126 net acres. Since the mixed use commercial designation is expected to absorb about
23 net acres (about 32 gross acres) of housing opportunity the city’s total residential lands need
is approximately 149 gross acres (about 104 net acres) of undeveloped or re-developable land.
Table 1.
Development Type Estimated Percentage of
New Housing Stock
Estimated Residential Den-
sity
New Homes on & Re-
Development of Existing
Large Lots
10% 1 units/acre
Future Subdivision Activity 65% 5 units/acre
Future Multi-Family Develop-
ment
25% 12 units/acre
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
4 | P a g e
c. Residential Lands Supply
The city’s Buildable Lands Inventory and the Goal 10 element of its comprehensive plan show
that the existing city limits and proposed urban growth boundary contain about 1,284 acres of
vacant or re-developable land to respond to a calculation of about 182 acres of need.
After a 30% dedication factor is applied to account for public infrastructure and other services
that would need to be provided a net amount of about 922 acres, including about 23 acres includ-
ed in a Commercial Mixed Use designation, remains to respond to about 127 net acres of need.
The figures above indicate that the city’s existing supply of residentially designated land results
in surplus of about 1,135 gross acres once the Commercial Mixed Use lands have been deducted
from the needs category.
II. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.
a. Goal 14 ( Urbanization)
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate
urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use
of land, and to provide for livable communities.
III. Oregon Administrative Rules.
a. Chapter 660, Division 4
This administrative rule contains the generally applicable exception provisions. The rule inter-
prets and implements ORS 197.732 and portions of Statewide Planning Goal 2. OAR 660-004-
0010(1) identifies OAR 660-014-0030 or -0040 as the review criteria for a Goal 14 exception.
Section OAR 660-004-0040 provides guidance for appropriate residential densities in rural ex-
ception areas.
b. Chapter 660, Division 14
This administrative rule is titled “Application of the Statewide Planning Goals to Newly Incorpo-
rated Cities, Annexation, and Urban Development on Rural Lands.” Section OAR 660-014-0030
includes the review criteria for a proposal to demonstrate that rural lands are “irrevocably com-
mitted” to urban levels of development. Section OAR 660-014-0040 includes the review criteria
for a proposal to demonstrate that there are “reasons” why urban development may be appropri-
ate of rural lands.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
5 | P a g e
c. Chapter 660, Division 22
This administrative rule includes the State’s provisions for Unincorporated Community Plan-
ning. Section OAR 660-020-0040 speaks to Urban Unincorporated Communities, which are de-
fined as having features of a city such as permanent housing, a mix of land uses and public facili-
ties and services.
d. Chapter 660, Division 24
This administrative rule provides guidance on the adoption or amendment of an urban growth
boundary. Section OAR 660-024-0020(1) identifies that a local government may choose to take
an exception to a particular Goal requirement.
IV. Review Criteria & Responses.
The City of La Pine chooses to take an exception to a particular Goal requirement as allowed for
in OAR 660-024-0020(1). Specifically, the city seeks relief from the following provision of
Statewide Planning Goal 14:
Land Need
Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the following:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a
20-year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments;
The city strongly believes that either a “reasons” exception or an “irrevocably committed” would
be successful. Since only one exception opportunity must be satisfied the city has elected to
demonstrate that its residential lands are Irrevocably Committed to Urban Levels of Develop-
ment. Therefore, the provisions of OAR 660-014-0030 constitute the applicable review criteria.
OAR 660-014-0030
Rural Lands Irrevocably Committed to Urban Levels of Development
(1) A conclusion, supported by reasons and facts, that rural land is irrevocably committed
to urban levels of development can satisfy the Goal 2 exceptions standard (e.g., that it is not
appropriate to apply Goals 14's requirement prohibiting the establishment of urban uses
on rural lands). If a conclusion that land is irrevocably committed to urban levels of devel-
opment is supported, the four factors in Goal 2 and OAR 660-004-0020(2) need not be ad-
dressed.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
6 | P a g e
Response:
The provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 14 and OAR 660-024-0020(1) require that urban
growth boundaries be based on the adopted 20-year population forecast. However, this need not
be the case for the city of La Pine because the residentially designated lands inside the existing
city limits and proposed for inclusion in the city’s first urban growth boundary are irrevocable
committed to urban levels of development.
(2) A decision that land has been built upon at urban densities or irrevocably committed to
an urban level of development depends on the situation at the specific site. The exact nature
and extent of the areas found to be irrevocably committed to urban levels of development
shall be clearly set forth in the justification for the exception. The area proposed as land
that is built upon at urban densities or irrevocably committed to an urban level of devel-
opment must be shown on a map or otherwise described and keyed to the appropriate find-
ings of fact.
Response:
Lands included in the city’s residential inventory have either been developed at an urban density
or are otherwise irrevocably committed to an urban residential density. Please see Attachment B
for a map showing the area subject to this Goal 14 exception.
The exact nature and extent of the areas found to be irrevocably committed to urban levels of
development is set forth in the response to the provisions of paragraph (3) below.
(3) A decision that land is committed to urban levels of development shall be based on find-
ings of fact, supported by substantial evidence in the record of the local proceeding, that
address the following:
(a) Size and extent of commercial and industrial uses;
Response:
Commercial and industrial uses do not exist and are not anticipated on the city lands designated
for residential development.
(b) Location, number and density of residential dwellings;
Response:
Residential lands in the City of La Pine may be classified in three basic categories. The first cat-
egory is located near the city core at its southern edge on the east side of Hwy 97. A majority of
the city’s multi-family residential land supply is found here and the area has been the location of
urban subdivision projects in recent years. The second category is “New Neighborhood,” nearly
400 acres located along the city’s western edge established through Regional Problem Solving
(RPS) and acknowledged by the commission as eligible for urban services and urban levels of
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
7 | P a g e
development to serve as a receiving area for the South Deschutes County Transfer of Develop-
ment Credit (TDC) Program. The third category is two residential neighborhoods along the west
side of the city located both north and south of the “New Neighborhood.” These lands were not
included in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community Boundary.
1. Core Residential Area
This area is most commonly associated with La Pine “proper.” It includes a total of about 260
acres planned and zoned for residential uses. The Core Residential Area has been historically
viewed as a critical component of the La Pine Community as was included as part of the Urban
Unincorporated Community designated by the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan. Lot and parcel sizes range from a single 40-acre property, many suburban sized lots aver-
aging about 1.5 acres and recently developed subdivisions with lots from as large as 15,000
square feet down to 5,000 square feet in size.
The 40-acre property is adjacent to the Huntington Meadows Subdivision project and is currently
being marketed as a development property. It is located along the city’s southern boundary with
industrial zoning being present to the east. Aerial photos suggest that the property is visually
unremarkable with essentially level terrain and no distinguishable environmental issues. Ordi-
nary native vegetation is present and the property’s timber stand appears to have been thinned
consistent with similar work completed on other adjacent lands. Sewer and water service is a
short distance away and the property is served by public streets.
Suburban sized lots appear to be the original basis for the La Pine community as we know it
today. According to Deschutes County survey records, much of this area and other nearby lands
where originally acquired by the Baldwin-Herndon Oregon Trust under the Small Tracts Act
administered by the United States Bureau of Land Management. In 1953, the area was platted
into Government Lots by Federal Survey entitled “Supplemental Plat of Section 14” April 1953
and a subsequent Federal document entitled “Supplemental Plat” from April 1956. The two
Federal plats created well over a hundred “Government Lots”, most ranging in size from 1.0-2.5
acres. The Government Lots were monumented by CS 11788, performed by Raymond E. Oman
in 1993. Other surveying efforts, such as the Hinkle Tract, Phase I survey have also been com-
pleted. In several cases these lots appear to have been consolidated and subdivided into urban
densities as discussed below. Several partitioning exercises have occurred over the years. Gen-
erally the remaining lots are close to an acre in size with some as small as 0.25 acres and others
as large as 2.5 acres. The La Pine Park and Recreation District owns and operates a park and
ball field on 10 acres. Arial photos and Deschutes County Assessor records indicate that about
66 of the 95 lots are developed with dwelling units.
Between 2003 and 2008, the area received eight subdivision projects, resulting in a total of 327
lots. Huntington Meadows is by far the largest project with 208 lots installed over 10 phases.
The subdivision activity is most easily expressed in the following table:
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
8 | P a g e
Table 2.
Subdivision Name Number of Lots Lot Size
Black Bear Meadows 10 5000-11000 sq ft
Hinkle Park 11 6000-7700 sq ft
Huntington Meadows 208 5000-8000 sq ft
Jackpine Meadows 10 7700-8500 sq ft
Peaceful Pines 18 6000-1100 sq ft
R & W Estates 12 11000-12000 sq ft
Terry Park 13 5000-9000 sq ft
Wheeler Ranch 45 8300-15000 sq ft
These subdivisions are developed with full urban services, including but not limited to sewer wa-
ter and storm water facilities.
2. The New Neighborhood
These lands are located on the city’s western side and run between the original La Pine commu-
nity and an area known as Wickiup Junction, which is now also included in the city’s corporate
territory. The New Neighborhood area has been divided into quadrants and has been planned
and zoned to receive urban levels of residential development complete with urban levels of ser-
vices. The following language borrowed from the 2002 edition of the Deschutes County Com-
prehensive Plan provides a description of the evolution and purpose of the New Neighborhood:
23.44.010. Regional Problem Solving for South Deschutes County.
A. Overview.
In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, before statewide planning occurred in Oregon, over
15,000 lots were created in subdivisions platted south of Sunriver. Most of these parcels
are less than two acres in size and use on-site septic systems to dispose of sewage. Many
of them are located in areas where development is now restricted, such as floodplains,
wetlands and areas with a high groundwater table where septic approval is unlikely.
Since 1989, Deschutes County has been the fastest growing county in the state on a per-
centage basis. The rural character, attractive location on or near the Deschutes and Lit-
tle Deschutes Rivers, and relatively inexpensive land prices in South Deschutes County
have led to a burgeoning population. The current estimated population of up to 16,000
residents (over 10,000 permanent) would make this area the second largest city in Ore-
gon east of the Cascades were it incorporated, exceeded only by the city of Bend. Impacts
to groundwater, the source of drinking water in this area, air quality, wetlands and mule
deer migration and the risks to human life and property from wildfires have increased
significantly over time.
In 1996, Deschutes County and the Department of Land Conservation and Development
recognized that significant consequences could occur from the pattern of development
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
9 | P a g e
and began a collaborative project known as Regional Problem Solving Project for South
Deschutes County. The Regional Problem Solving (RPS) project area encompasses ap-
proximately 42 square miles between Sunriver to the north and La Pine to the south, and
includes thousands of small-subdivided lots, and some larger parcels, throughout south-
ern Deschutes County. The attached map identifies Study Areas 1, 2 and 3 within the pro-
ject area.
The RPS project area is a landscape with a geologic history that produced sediments of
volcanic origin that were deposited in a basin over past eons. These conditions are the
result of lava flows from the west (Cascades) and east (Newberry) that periodically
dammed and shifted the course of the Deschutes River, creating the La Pine Basin, where
the deposition of sediments has occurred, sometimes burying older forests. Volcanic
eruptions such as the one at Mt. Mazama (Crater Lake) approximately 6,800 years ago
have contributed significantly to the volume of sediment deposited in the basin. The Mt.
Mazama eruption is the source of volcanic material that has formed the predominant soil
in the area.
At an elevation of 4200 feet, the climate in the region is one of cool nighttime tempera-
tures with a short frost-free summer that averages less than 100 days annually and a win-
ter period of five or six months where snow can reside on the ground at any time. The
rivers receive significant input from cool spring fed waters. The groundwater is mostly
derived from snowmelt in the high Cascades to the west, and is also relatively cool.
The development of thousands of small lots in the RPS project area is therefore superim-
posed upon highly permeable, rapidly draining soils and a high groundwater table with
relatively cold-water temperatures. The overwhelming majority of the lots are served by
on-site sewage disposal systems (septic systems), including standard drain fields, cap and
fill systems, and more recently sand-filter systems. Nitrates, a by-product of septic sys-
tems and an indicator of human pathogens, are poorly retained in the fast draining soils
and do not easily break down due to the cool groundwater temperature.
As a result, loading of nitrates occurs in the shallow groundwater aquifer that underlies
this region. The presence of a high level of nitrates is of great concern because this same
aquifer is the source of drinking water for the residents in the area.
A recent US Geological Survey study of groundwater in Central Oregon concludes that
groundwater in the area is connected to nearby surface waters, including the Deschutes
and Little Deschutes Rivers. Through the sampling of numerous wells in the RPS project
area the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is predicting that nitrate
in the groundwater will approach unsafe levels, principally as a result of the cumulative
effect of sewage disposal with on-site septic systems, in the near future. Levels of nitrate
are elevated in several localized areas within the RPS project area. However the majority
of wells show very low nitrate levels at this time and surface water contamination has not
been documented.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
10 | P a g e
Due to the existing pattern and density of development DEQ is predicting that nitrate lev-
els will continue to increase over time, even if measures were taken now to alter the de-
velopment pattern in the RPS project area. If measures are delayed much longer, the
consequences could become more serious, possibly resulting in unsafe levels of nitrates
in groundwater and drinking water.
More definitive information is expected to be available in the next few years, regarding
the timing of nitrate movement in groundwater and the overall impact of nitrate from sep-
tic systems to groundwater and possible surface water pollution. The DEQ and
Deschutes County will complete additional groundwater investigations and testing of in-
novative sewage treatment and disposal systems to reduce the impact on groundwater
from nitrogen in household sewage, with grants from the US Environmental Protection
Agency. The results from these studies will not be known for several years. Studying dif-
ferent approaches to on-site sewage treatment and disposal may lead to affordable tech-
nological advances that can be applied to new and possibly existing systems. In the
meantime, the region will continue to grow and nitrate loading from on-site systems will
continue to increase.
Some measures may need to be implemented in the future to address groundwater pollu-
tion and other impacts that could result from the development of the thousands of small
size subdivided lots in South Deschutes County. The creation of a new neighborhood be-
tween La Pine and Wickiup Junction as an alternative to building fewer houses on the
remaining vacant small lots appears to hold much promise. A market-driven transferable
development credits program could assist in the redirection of growth from the existing
subdivisions into this new neighborhood.
A development standard or sewage disposal rule that requires an effective lot area of 1.5
acres for new dwellings served by an on-site septic system may need to be considered.
The acreage requirement would need to be based on the long-term balance between ni-
trate loading from septic systems and dilution from precipitation that infiltrates the land.
An effective lot area should include contiguous or non-contiguous vacant land within a
specified distance from the proposed building site.
For these reasons, Deschutes County has determined that it is appropriate to adopt com-
prehensive plan goals and policies to recognize the importance in protecting groundwa-
ter and other resources and the need to continue to work on the Regional Problem Solv-
ing project for South Deschutes County.
B. Nitrates - Health and groundwater impacts; septic system impacts and studies.
High levels of nitrates in drinking water are a cause of methemoglobinemia (blue baby
syndrome) in infants and have been linked to cancer and weakening of immune system in
the elderly. Recent epidemiologic studies indicate that chronic long-term exposure to low
levels (2.5 mg/L) of nitrates can increase the risks for certain types of cancers. Nitrate
levels are often used as an indicator for the transmission capabilities of other pathogenic
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
11 | P a g e
agents. Surface waters are very sensitive to eutrophication by the addition of nutrients;
nitrate is an indicator of nutrient loading.
A natural background level of nitrates would be less than 1 mg/L. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has set the safe water drinking standard (Maximum Contami-
nant Level or MCL) for nitrate at 10 mg/L. The DEQ is required to declare a region a
Groundwater Management Area if nitrate concentration reaches 7 mg/L. This would re-
quire a plan to protect and restore groundwater quality. Deschutes County Planning and
Environmental Health are only slightly ahead by starting and developing their plans pro-
actively.
On-site septic systems are the only significant source of nitrates in the La Pine sub-basin.
The La Pine sub-basin has many conditions that allow for little denitrification of
wastewater to occur: rapidly draining soil, shallow, well oxygenated groundwater, very
short growing season, cold temperature, not much hydraulic gradient. Most of the devel-
opment has taken place in the very bottom of the sub-basin over shallow groundwater
and on small lots served by wells from an unconfined aquifer.
In 1980-81 contamination of the aquifer from septic systems had already occurred in the
La Pine core area as of 1980-81 (La Pine Aquifer Management Plan, Century West,
1982). A community sewer system was required to remedy the situation. A 1995 well
monitoring study by DEQ showed that after 11 years of sewer, the nitrate levels in the La
Pine core area had receded but were still at “unsafe levels.” This is an indication that
the recovery time for the aquifer is lengthy.
The 1995 monitoring study also revealed the existence of five areas in the RPS project
area, not including the core area of La Pine, where nitrate levels are greater than usual
background levels. Nitrate levels are as high as 4.8 to 5.9 mg/L in three of these areas
and as high as 3 mg/L in the other two.
The 1995 monitoring study was part of a modeling effort by the DEQ to estimate the im-
pact of septic systems on the groundwater. The initial results of the model indicate that at
existing (1994) development the aquifer would reach nitrate levels of 7 mg/l by 2005.
Since the collection of samples in 1994 there are approximately 700 additional residenc-
es in the RPS project area using on-site septic systems. The model is limited because it is
two-dimensional and does not account for flow in or out of its boundaries.
A grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency will allow significant work to
begin in 1999 to help with a solution to the problem of high nitrate levels. The primary
purpose of the grant is to study new technologies in on-site septic systems. Part of the
grant will be used to continue increasing the groundwater monitoring network and com-
plete additional analysis of nitrate movement in the groundwater using a three dimen-
sional model.
The innovative septic system program was started in 1998 through the RPS project and
DEQ grant funding and is expected to increase significantly with the new federal grant.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
12 | P a g e
The purpose is try new technologies that appear to be capable of reducing nitrate levels.
Besides nitrate reduction there are many other aspects of new technology that need to be
examined before widespread applications for the general public can occur.
Over the past five years the US Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a groundwater
flow model of the entire Upper Deschutes Basin. The model will be used as the basis for
an analysis of the impacts of nitrates from on-site systems to help answer the following
three questions:
1. Where should additional monitoring wells be set up for continuous monitoring of ni-
trate plumes from residential development?
2. What density does development need to be set at to minimize impact on groundwater
quality?
3. What variations of impact due to location are there in the La Pine sub-basin?
The DEQ rules require a minimum of an acre for standard system and a half-acre for
pressure or sand filters in rapidly draining soils. This is a statewide rule and the authors
were probably looking at rainfall amount from a typical Willamette Valley year to pro-
vide dilution.
Mixing wastewater from a typical single-family residence with the recharge provided by
yearly precipitation in Southern Deschutes County, it requires 2.5 acres for a standard
system and 1.5 acres for a sand filter to maintain a recharge concentration at or below 7
mg/l. This estimate is on the conservative side because it does not account for inflow, out-
flow, or upflow from other areas.
Areas such as Fall River Estates, Wild River and Ponderosa Pines do not require as
much acreage to achieve an adequate amount of mixing and dilution of nitrates because
they are located in areas of higher precipitation at the western edge of the aquifer. Also,
the aquifer gradient is steeper resulting in more dilution due to higher groundwater flow
rates. La Pine and portions of Oregon Water Wonderland and Stage Stop Meadows sub-
divisions served by sewer systems are also not contributing to the overall nitrate-loading
problem in the region.
C. Legislation.
In October 1998, Congress passed legislation to assist Deschutes County in purchasing a
540-acre tract of land from the Bureau of Land Management. This tract is located be-
tween La Pine and Wickiup Junction, west of Highway 97 and east of Huntington Road.
A sewer line between the communities of La Pine and Wickiup Junction runs through the
property.
This property is intended to be the site of a new neighborhood that will be serviced by
sewer and water systems, and paved roads. Residential use will predominate, although
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
13 | P a g e
community needs such as a senior center, library, assisted living facility and limited
neighborhood commercial uses may be developed. A design process known as a “cha-
rette” occurred in November 1998. This design workshop occurred over a three-day pe-
riod with the participation of over 80 people from the community.
The initial design encompasses a neighborhood primarily residential in character with
sewer, water and a road network of paved streets and access roads without curbs. A set-
back of 300 feet from Highway 97 has been incorporated into the eastern boundary of the
design. A senior center and assisted living facilities are included in the southern part of
the property adjacent to the community of La Pine. This preliminary design will be eval-
uated to determine lot sizes and density, development costs, phasing of development and
the ability to use transferable development credits as a tool for the overall development
of the new neighborhood.
D. Transferable development credits.
A TDC (Transferable Development Credit) Program has been developed to redirect some
of the future development of residential dwellings from lots served by on-site sewage dis-
posal (septic) systems to the residentially zoned districts in the Neighborhood Planning
Area in the La Pine UUC that will be connected to water and sewer systems.
A TDC is a severable interest in real property that represents the right to construct a sin-
gle-family dwelling and an on-site sewage disposal system. The TDC program code has
been adopted in compliance with the provisions of ORS 94.531.
The essential elements of the TDC program are to be codified in DCC Title 11, County
Owned Land and Property, of the County Code. The TDC program is intended to redirect
some of the future residential growth from existing subdivisions in South Deschutes
County, also identified as the “sending area” where TDC's are allocated to eligible lots,
into the Neighborhood Planning Area, also referred to as the “receiving area” where
TDC's are required to be redeemed based on a net developable acreage formula. If suc-
cessful the TDC program will reduce the overall impact from development in flood
plains, wetlands, deer migration corridors and areas susceptible to groundwater pollu-
tion from nitrates. It will also help to maintain open space and preserve the rural charac-
ter of the area by reducing the overall density of development that would otherwise exist
in the future if a dwelling were built on every legal lot. In the sending area the TDC pro-
gram will operate in a voluntary, market-driven manner. Those property owners who
choose to sell their TDC's will retain ownership of the underlying land on which certain
uses, such as camping, wood cutting, vegetation management, agricultural use and con-
struction of a small storage structure will be allowed. A Conservation Easement will be
placed on the property that will prohibit the construction of a single-family dwelling and
on-site sewage disposal system on the property. Property owners who sell their TDC's
and enter into a Conservation Easement restricting future uses on their property may
elect to sell the deed for the underlying property to a willing buyer.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
14 | P a g e
E. Public participation.
The RPS project has involved all aspects of the community, including property owners,
interest groups, public agencies and government at the local, state and federal levels.
Over 20 stakeholder meetings and 5 public forums were held. Eight newsletters and other
mailings have been sent out to an extensive mailing list of property owners and other in-
terested individuals, community organizations and local governments. The local press
has covered this topic with a number of articles and news reports on several occasions.
According to written surveys the top three priorities for the residents of South Deschutes
County are: (1) to retain open space to maintain the rural character of the area; (2) to
not allow septic systems in areas of high groundwater; and, 3) to allow for experimenta-
tion with alternative methods of sewage disposal. Among the least favored options was
extending sewer throughout the region due to the high cost associated with this expan-
sion. However, several small sewer systems exist in the region and people commented
and testified at public meetings and hearings that the option of using sewer systems to
dispose of sewage should continue to be explored.
To ensure that public involvement was as great as possible regarding proposed amend-
ments in 1998 to the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, an additional newsletter
was mailed that contained a notice of public hearings before the Deschutes County Plan-
ning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The newsletter also described
various aspects of the RPS program, characterized design elements of the new neighbor-
hood as a result of the design charette and encouraged people to attend a community
workshop held in early December to learn more about the amendments. This newsletter
was mailed to over 5,000 property owners, including the owners of all lots in the RPS
project area which are zoned RR-10 and less than 2 acres in size, and the stakeholders,
interest groups, agencies, etc., who had previously participated or expressed an interest
in the RPS project.
More detailed information about the RPS project including information on nitrates, ex-
perimental on-site technology, alternative solutions, transferable development credits
and a bibliography of the studies and other sources of information used to analyze the
region’s problems and to formulate solutions was made available at the hearings.
F. LCDC Acknowledgement.
In September 2000 the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) conducted a hearing and approved the County’s request to expand the La Pine
UUC to include the area formerly recognized as the Wickiup Junction Rural Service Cen-
ter and the New Neighborhood area. The Neighborhood area includes a tract of land the
County purchased from the Bureau of Land Management and a privately owned parcel.
LCDC also approved the County’s comprehensive plan designation and rezoning of the
area added to the La Pine UUC from resource lands zoned exclusive farm use to various
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
15 | P a g e
planning districts that allow for the creation of a residential subdivision served by munic-
ipal water and sewer systems and paved roads.”
As of this writing, the Newberry Neighborhood has fulfilled a portion of its potential. Three
phases of the Crescent Creek Development have resulted in establishing 108 lots ranging in size
from 3,500 to about 9,000 square feet. The majority of the remaining property is retained in
county ownership.
3. Residential Neighborhoods
In addition to residential lands near the city’s core and the New Neighborhood, residential lands
exist at two other locations. These areas are primarily comprised of developed or partially de-
veloped low density subdivisions. Neither area was included in the La Pine Unincorporated
Community Boundary designated in the acknowledged Deschutes County plan. One area is lo-
cated at the city’s northernmost boundary, west of Hwy 97, and for purposes of this document
will be referred to as the “Northern Residential Area.” The city’s other residential lands are due
west of the core area along the city’s southwest boundary. For purposes of this document these
lands are referred to as the “Old Town Residential Area.”
a. Northern Residential Area
The Northern Residential Area includes the Cagle Subdivision, the Pine Place neighborhood,
Potters Estates and the Glenwood Acres neighborhood. The Cagle Subdivision was developed
over Eight Phases between 1958 and 1967. It is the city’s largest existing subdivision with 275
lots. All of the lots are about an acre in size and nearly all are developed with a residence. Aeri-
al photos indicate that the Cagle subdivision is almost entirely built out. Deschutes County As-
sessor’s records identify 23 lots that have not been assigned an address. The absence of an ad-
dress indicates a vacant lot. Some lots have been assigned addresses that include some level of
physical improvement rather than a home. Randomly checking the types of development on ad-
dressed properties allows the city to project that at least 90% of addressed lots in the Cagle Sub-
division are occupied by dwellings. In other words, the city finds that 227 of the 275 lots are oc-
cupied by dwellings
The Pine Place neighborhood and Potter Estates are both located immediately west of the Cagle
Subdivision, along the city’s northwestern boundary. Potter Estates is a small subdivision of just
four lots platted in 1994. Each lot is just under 10 acres in size and three of the four lots are de-
veloped with homes. The Pine Place neighborhood is a portion of the Lazy River South Subdivi-
sion, which was platted in 1968. It is located east of Huntington Road, generally south of Cagle
Road. The neighborhood currently contains nine lots and parcels with six homes.
The final piece of the Northern Residential area is the Glenwood Springs neighborhood. These
lands are not contiguous to the three other components of the Northern Residential Area. In-
stead, they lay about one quarter mile west of the Cagle Subdivision. They are bisected by Hun-
tington Road and due south of Burgess Road. The westernmost lots in this neighborhood have
frontage on the Little Deschutes River. The lands west of Huntington Road where platted as the
Glenwood Acres Subdivision in 1963 and the First Edition to Glenwood Acres in 1964 and are
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
16 | P a g e
nearly all lest than an acre in size. Those lands to the east of Huntington Road are not part of a
recorded subdivision plat and are generally from 1.25 to 2.5 acres in size. All together the
Glenwood Acres neighborhood adds up to 81 tax lots. Aerial photos and Deschutes County As-
sessor records indicate the presence of about 65 single family dwellings.
Table 3.
Neighborhood or
Subdivision
Number of Lots Number of
Homes
Size of lots Estimated Num-
ber of Citizens
Cagle Subdivision 275 227 1.0 AC 386
Pine Place 9 6 1.1-5.0 AC 10
Potter’s Estates 4 3 9.74 AC 5
Glenwood Acres 81 65 0.7.-2.5 AC 110
Totals 369 301 1.17 (av) 511
Table 3 demonstrates that: 1) the Northern Residential Area is over 80% developed; 2) several
hundred lots exist in the North Residential Area that are about an acre in size. Some lots are a
little larger and some are a little smaller but almost all of the 369 lots are about an acre in size.
The only significant departure is in Potter’s Estates where all four lots are just under 10 acres in
size. Potter’s Estate’s was platted in 1994, thirty or more years after the other subdivisions
where created. Unlike the earlier subdivisions, Potter’s Estates was subject to the provisions of
the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, which required a 10 acre
minimum lot size. To say it another way, almost all of the 369 existing lots are quite small and
old.
OAR 660-004-0040 guides planning and zoning decisions for rural residential areas. This rule
was promulgated in 2000 to respond to the Oregon Supreme Court’s holding in the notorious
Curry County case. Please see 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Curry County and LCDC, 1986. The
heart of OAR 660-004-0040 states that new rural residential areas must have a minimum lot size
of 10 acres. The rule also required that any existing rural residential lands with a minimum par-
cel size of less than 2-acres as of the effective date of the rule must be raised to at least 2-acres.
Comparing the average lot size in the North Residential Area and the minimum requirements ar-
ticulated in the administrative rule shows that the existing density is far, far greater that allowed
for rural residential development. Therefore, it is not reasonable to consider these lands “rural”
for purposes of Goal 14.
Finally, the current residential vacancy rate and the average household size for single-family at-
tached dwellings identified in the 2010 census and the La Pine Comprehensive Plan are 26% and
2.3, respectively. When these figures are applied to the North Residential Area an estimated
population of 511 citizens is the result. This number represents a significant portion of the city’s
population. Over 30% of the city’s 2009 population of 1697 is estimated to reside in the North
Residential Area.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
17 | P a g e
b. Old Town Residential Area
The Old Town Residential Area is comprised of platted subdivisions. The area is separated from
the developed area along Hwy 97 by a wet meadow that has long been identified with the com-
munity and is identified on the city’s plan map as “Flood Plain”. The city’s comprehensive plan
identifies flood plain and associated wetland areas as being environmentally sensitive and targets
them for protection from conflicting uses.
Research into the Old Town Residential Area illustrates the community’s frontier origins and
helps to explain its pioneer spirit. Available literature 1 identifies that settlers where attracted to
the La Pine area in the final third of the 19 th century due to Federal policy including the Home-
stead Law of 1862 and the Carey Land Act. Possibilities in railroad development and public in-
vestment in the Central Oregon Military Road both created economic opportunity and increased
interest for the area that became south Deschutes County.
Construction of the Central Oregon Military Road brought the Surveyor General of Oregon, By-
ron Johns Pengra, to the region. Mr. Pengra chose to remain and file a homestead claim. Near
the turn of the century a north-south wagon road was surveyed through the La Pine basin. The
road was named for Mr. Pengra and J.W. Perit Huntington who served as the Oregon Superin-
tendent of Indian Affairs. The Pengra Huntington Road, usually shortened to “Huntington”
Road remains an important route for travel in the region. Pengra Road is located on the city’s’
southwestern boundary, adjacent to the Old Town Residential Area.
The railroad speculation and homesteading efforts made the region a candidate for a large irriga-
tion project. The Morson Project facilitated by the Carey Land Act was anticipated to irrigate
28,000 acres by 1914. Township rights for the Morson Project where obtained by Portland, Ore-
gon business men Alfred Aya, James Gleason and W.R. Riley who joined to form the La Pine
Townsite Company.
In 1910, the Plat of La Pine was filed in Crook County 2 by the La Pine Townsite Company as
two documents. The original subdivision platting created 23 blocks divided into lots of three
sizes. There were 311 lots in the southeast portion of the subdivision, allt of which were 25 feet
by 100 feet or 2,500 square feet in size, with mid-block alleys. There were 162 lots in the center
area of the subdivision that were 50 feet by 100 feet or 5,000 square feet in size, with mid-block
alleys. In addition, 45 lots on the subdivision’s west side were 50 feet by 175 or 8,750 square
feet. The eastern portion of the subdivision is occupied by the wet meadow mentioned above
and has remained largely undeveloped.
The eastern most portion of the subdivision, consisting of about 303 lots, nearly all 2,500 square
feet in size, was included in the La Pine Unincorporated Community boundary and zoned for
commercial uses.
1 Historical information for this section has been largely gathered from “A Historical Look At La Pine Oregon” writ-
ten by Robert Metcalf.
2 Deschutes County was created from Crook County on December 13, 1916. Prior to that date the La Pine commu-
nity was included in Crook County.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
18 | P a g e
The La Pine Townsite Company filed the First Addition to La Pine in 1912. The company’s se-
cond subdivision was located west and northwest of the original Plat of La Pine. The First Addi-
tion to La Pine created 330 subdivision lots measuring 50 feet by 125 feet, or 6,250 square feet
with mid-block alleys. About 10 acres immediately south of 1 st Street and between Pengra Street
and Paulina Street were dedicated as the Union High School Park.
Construction on the Morson Project suffered financial difficulties and stalled, failing to deliver
irrigation water to the La Pine Community by 1914. Interest in the project was renewed in 1919
when Frank W. Tomes proposed to take it on. Mr. Tomes was reportedly willing to invest
$30,000 in capital improvements and predicted that 10,000 acres of land would be irrigated by
1920. In 1921, presumably in anticipation of the irrigation project’s completion, Mr. Tomes
filed “Tomes Edition” to the La Pine Townsite.
By 1921, the La Pine area was part of Deschutes County. The Tomes Addition subdivision pro-
ject was located in the city’s southwest corner and is bounded by Pengra Street on the west and
Sixth Street on the south. This project created 114 lots, nearly all measuring 50 feet by 125 feet,
or 6,250 square feet with mid-lot alleys. Blocks 13, 14, 16 and 18 on the projects eastern edge
where not divided into lots. It is not clear from the plat what the intended purpose on these four
blocks might have been.
Table 4.
Table 4 above shows that the subdivision activity in the Old Town Residential Area resulted in
the creation of 962 residential lots between 1910 and 1921. The promise of an irrigation project
never came to pass. The coming of the railroad, development and development of Hwy 97
seemed to shift development pressure slightly to the east. Over time, these lots have been bun-
dled together to create tax lots ranging in size from 0.23-acres to about 2.5-acres. The wet
meadow remains as valuable open space for the community and provides a variety of environ-
mental and ecological functions. Much of the other lands have taken on levels of residential de-
velopment that resemble densities found in the North Residential Area.
(c) Location of urban levels of facilities and services; including at least public water and
sewer facilities; and
Response:
Urban levels of facilities and services are available to citizens of the city of La Pine.
Subdivision Name Year Platted Number of Lots Size of lots
Plat of La Pine 1910 303 (518 total) 2,500-8,750 sq ft
La Pine First Addition 1911 330 6,250 square feet
Tomes Addition 1921 114 6250 square feet
Totals 747 Ave. 5,000 +/- sq ft
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
19 | P a g e
Community Governmental Services
La Pine operates through a City Manager-Council form of government. The City Council hires
the City Manager, creates policy and programs, and adopts a city budget supporting various mu-
nicipal functions. The City Manager is responsible for hiring staff, responds to Council require-
ments, and manages the day-to-day functions of the local government and services, and plans for
the future needs of the community. However, the City does contract with Deschutes County, and
outside consultants and service providers for some basic and required community functions –
such as planning/zoning, law enforcement, administration and legal counsel. This is due to the
newness of the City and the limited staffing/resources currently available.
Emergency Response Services
The City of La Pine contracts for law enforcement with the Deschutes County Sheriffs Depart-
ment. Fire protection is funded by a separate Fire District budget – the La Pine Fire District.
Services are provided to citizens throughout the urban area. The departments are consulted on
new land use applications (via Deschutes County Community Development Department), which
are examined in the context of services needed to support new development.
Health Services
The City of La Pine is served by a satellite office of the Deschutes County health Department,
primarily mental health and children’s and community services, as well as a private clinic. The
City and surrounding area do not have a hospital or emergency medical services – the nearest
such services are in Bend, approximately 30-miles to the north. Medical uses are permitted in
the local commercial zones.
Recreation Facilities and Services
The City of La Pine is served by the La Pine Park and Recreation District. The District provides
services to the City of La Pine and surrounding rural residential area. The District has an adopt-
ed Comprehensive Plan that anticipates community needs and anticipated growth of the area.
The District is funded by a newly voter approved tax base, as well as grants and other sources of
private funding.
Public Street Systems
The City of La Pine, Deschutes County and the State of Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) provide and maintain various streets throughout the City and outlying area (as such
streets interconnect). However, the City of La Pine currently has limited funds for street im-
provements and/or maintenance. Deschutes County maintains some streets via intergovernmen-
tal agreement with the City and ODOT maintains U.S. Highway 97 that bisects the City. La Pine
does not currently have a Transportation System Plans (TSP). The Deschutes County TSP,
which includes the area within City limits, currently serves as the City Transportation Plan and
will continue to do so until the City adopts a separate TSP in 2012.
Public Water Systems
The La Pine Water District provides water source, disinfection, distribution and maintenance of a
water delivery system to approximately 650 customers. The service area includes most, but not
all of the area within the City limits. The District does have plans for expansion of the system to
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
20 | P a g e
serve all of the urban area, dependent upon adequate funding sources. Their plan identifies exist-
ing community needs, how to accommodate anticipated growth, reduction in private well heads,
aquifer protection, land acquisition for new municipal well heads, reservoir siting and land need-
ed for treatment and storage. Additional resource information from the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality can be found in the appendix. This information shows the City source in
relationship to distance from other sources and the relationship of water compared to time travel
from the source and/or other influences.
Public Sewer Systems
The La Pine Sewer District provides collection and treatment to more than 650 customers. The
service area includes most, but not all of the area within the City limits. The District does have
plans for expansion of the system to serve all of the urban area, dependent upon adequate fund-
ing sources. Their plan identifies existing community needs, necessary capital improvements,
funding and implementation, accommodation of new growth, reduction in septic fields, new
connections and future land needs for the community treatment plant.
Public Schools – Bend-La Pine School District
The Bend-La Pine School District currently operates La Pine High School, La Pine Middle
School and La Pine Elementary. There are plans for a new elementary school to be built on the
south side of Burgess Road in the Newberry Neighborhood as the develops over time (this was
anticipated to be built for half enrollment (300 students) in 2010, with completion for a total en-
rollment of 600 students by 2015. Overall, the enrollment of the La Pine schools has grown,
mostly as a result of residential development and growth in the outlying rural area between La
Pine and Sunriver to the north. La Pine Elementary serves kindergarten through 4 th grade with
an enrollment of approximately 475 students. La Pine Middle School serves 5 th through 8 th
grades with an enrollment of approximately 520 students. La Pine High School serves 9 th
through 12 th grades with an enrollment of approximately 540 students. Discussions with the
school district superintendent John Rexford reveal that they have no plans within the next 20
years to develop additional schools within the City limits or UGB. The School Facility Plan is
incorporated into this document and can be found in the Appendix and restated as part of the
chapter discussing Goal 14.
Library
The La Pine Public Library is a relatively new structure, which opened in November, 2000. This
is a full service library with on-site book collections ranging from children’s through adult
sources. The library also has internet connection with on-site PC’s available to the public. The
library is part of the Deschutes Public Library System
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
La Pine’s citizens have access to waste disposal service via Wilderness Garbage Company or self
service at the Deschutes County Transfer Station, north of the city limits.
Storm Water Collection and Distribution
The City of La Pine does not have any municipally maintained storm water facilities. Storm
runoff, including significant snowmelt, is accommodated in roadside drainage ditches and al-
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
21 | P a g e
lowed to percolate into the soil. However, new development on private property is required to
meet all DEQ standards for storm water retention, treatment, and dispersal. Paved streets in new
subdivisions are required to include storm water retention facilities in the form of drywells that
also meet DEQ standards.
Electric Power
Electric power in La Pine is provided by Mid-State Electric Co-op. The City provides access to
right of way and franchise availability to these service providers. Mid-State utilizes a master
plan for determining new substation areas and other elements necessary to accommodate antici-
pated growth.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is provided to urban area residents by Cascade Natural Gas. The City provides ac-
cess to right of way and franchise availability for new extensions. Cascade Natural Gas utilizes a
master plan for determining new substation areas and other elements necessary to accommodate
anticipated growth. Propane is supplied by multiple private entities that serve Central Oregon.
Telecommunications, Phone and Internet Services
Qwest and a variety of private wireless phone and internet providers primarily serve the commu-
nity. Deregulation of the telephone service, satellite access and other advances in telecommuni-
cations allow La Pine residents a wide range of phone and Internet connection choices. Wireless
access will also be expanding to serve local citizens.
Television, Radio, Cable and Fiber Optic Services
Cable TV service provides access to premium and nationwide broadcasts. Radio stations include
a variety of local AM/FM stations that provide news and entertainment. Fiber optic access is
expanding throughout the community and of particular importance for public, commercial and
industrial users.
(d) Parcel sizes and ownership patterns.
As discussed in the response to paragraph (b) above, the city’s residential lands have hosted de-
velopment since near the end of the nineteenth century. Lot and parcel sizes range from less than
4,000 square feet in the New Neighborhood to a single 40-acre parcel in the Core Area. Most of
the city’s residential lands where included in the La Pine Unincorporated County in the acknowl-
edged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and have been planned and zoned to receive urban
levels of residential development with full urban services since before the city’s incorporation.
Residential lands not originally included in the La Pine Unincorporated Community are general-
ly developed at densities of near one dwelling per acre, or 200% of the development allowed
pursuant to OAR 660-004-0040.
While the city’s residential lands where originally controlled by a handful of different owners
more than a century of subdivision activity and land sales have dissolved all of the significant
ownerships. Tracts of lots and parcels in contiguous ownership rarely exceed three acres. The
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
22 | P a g e
city’s largest residential land owner is Deschutes County who continues to serve as custodian for
the majority of the New Neighborhood property.
(4) A conclusion that rural land is irrevocably committed to urban development shall be
based on all of the factors listed in section (3) of this rule. The conclusion shall be support-
ed by a statement of reasons explaining why the facts found support the conclusion that the
land in question is committed to urban uses and urban level development rather than a ru-
ral level of development.
Response:
The city concludes that the residential lands included in its corporate city limits are irrevocably
committed to urban development. The city reaches this conclusion based on all of the factors
listed in section (3) of this rule listed above. Therefore, an exception to Goal 14 is justified to
relieve the city from exclusively relying on its coordinated population forecast to justify the
amount of residential land to be included in the designation of its first urban growth boundary.
The Core Residential Area and the New Neighborhood described as items (3)(b) 1. and 2. above,
are irrevocably committed to urban levels of development because they where included in the La
Pine Unincorporated Community prior to incorporation. The La Pine Unincorporated Communi-
ty was an Urban Unincorporated Community designated pursuant to OAR Chapter 660, Division
22. Urban Incorporated Communities are eligible for full levels of urban residential develop-
ment and full levels of urban facilities and services. Failing to include these two areas inside the
city’s urban growth boundary would result in one of two inexplicable situations.
One situation would be that the lands are not included in the urban growth boundary and planned
and zoned for rural uses. This would be absolutely nonsensical and would serve to unnecessarily
down zone the areas from what had been available prior to incorporation. It would probably be
the only time in history that lands had been down zoned due to being made part of a city’s corpo-
rate territory. This situation would also threaten to unravel all the work done in the La Pine Re-
gional Problem Solving effort that led to Deschutes County’s purchase of lands that became des-
ignated for the New Neighborhood and make the city vulnerable to numerous Measure 49
claims.
The other situation is also nonsensical. This would essentially maintain the existing planning
and zoning opportunities to develop the lands at urban residential densities and full urban ser-
vices, including but not limited to both sewer and water. The result would be to have lands in-
side the city limits that are planned and zoned for urban residential development that reside out-
side the city’s urban growth boundary.
The Residential Neighborhoods described as item (3)(b) 3.above, are irrevocably committed to
urban levels of development because they are developed at densities that current state policy
finds unacceptably high for rural areas, they include a significant portion of the city’s population
base and they are cornerstones of the community’s origins.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
23 | P a g e
As identified above, the Northern Residential Area is includes an estimated 301 single-family
homes on 369 lots, which represents a build out of 81.5%. Lots in the area average about 1.17-
acres in size, nearly twice as small as allowed for in existing rural residential area and about one
tenth the size allowed for new rural residential exception areas. Furthermore, an estimated 511
citizens reside in the area making up more than 30% of the city’s population base.
The Old Town Residential Area includes the lands originally platted as the La Pine townsite.
Much of the community’s history is ingrained in the area. The town’s early leaders clearly
viewed these lands as a pivotal part of the community as they platted nearly 750 lots (over 900
lots if those included in the La Pine Unincorporated Community are counted) in three subdivi-
sions between 1910 and 1921. Had the efforts and investment of individuals like B.J. Pengra,
Frank Tomes and the members of the La Pine Townsite Company resulted in an east-west rail
line and a 20,000-acre irrigation project as anticipated by the Morson Project the Old Town Res-
idential Area would no doubt be fully developed. In fact, had these projects been completed the
city may have incorporated decades ago.
However, the transportation and irrigation projects promoted in the late 1800s and early 1900s
were not constructed. Rather than build out, the Old town Residential area received development
around its edges. This settlement pattern more than likely saved the wet meadow, which has be-
come part of the community’s identify and an important Goal 5 feature.
Failing to include the Residential Areas in the city’s urban growth boundary would create multi-
ple undesirable conditions. Arranging the urban growth boundary to preclude lands occupied by
more than 30% of the city’s population turns the notion of urban planning on its head and would
certainly challenge the city in providing services to its citizens. It would also create a situation
by which lands already developed at a suburban or nonrural density would be included inside a
city limits but outside an urban growth boundary. If these areas are not rural it only makes sense
that they are included as urban or urbanizable lands. Environmentally and ecologically sensitive
areas like the wet meadow can be best managed by through an active urbanization strategy that
considers the area as a whole and is capable of protective safeguards to maintain these important
community features.
(5) More detailed findings and reasons must be provided to demonstrate that land is com-
mitted to urban development than would be required if the land is currently built upon at
urban densities.
Response:
The city’s residential lands are committed to urban development. Most of the city’s residential
lands were planned and zoned for urban levels of residential development with urban services
prior to its incorporation. Other city residential lands are physically developed at levels well be-
yond what current land use policy would permit on rural lands and are viewed as important
community assets. This document provides a factual basis that clearly justifies why the proposed
Goal 14 exception should be approved.
An Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 2012
24 | P a g e
V. Final Conclusion.
Based on the facts and evidence included in this document and the findings and conclusions stat-
ed above an exception to Goal 14 is justified. The city of La Pine may include all of the lands
located inside the city limits and designated for residential development in its urban growth
boundary.
VI. List of Attachments.
A. Statewide Planning Goal 14.
B. Map of La Pine Residential Lands.
C. Old Town Residential Area Subdivision Plats.
1
Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 14: URBANIZATION
OAR 660-015-0000(14)
(Effective April 28, 2006)
To provide for an orderly and efficient
transition from rural to urban land use,
to accommodate urban population and
urban employment inside urban
growth boundaries, to ensure efficient
use of land, and to provide for livable
communities.
Urban Growth Boundaries
Urban growth boundaries shall be
established and maintained by cities,
counties and regional governments to
provide land for urban development
needs and to identify and separate urban
and urbanizable land from rural land.
Establishment and change of urban
growth boundaries shall be a cooperative
process among cities, counties and,
where applicable, regional governments.
An urban growth boundary and
amendments to the boundary shall be
adopted by all cities within the boundary
and by the county or counties within
which the boundary is located, consistent
with intergovernmental agreements,
except for the Metro regional urban
growth boundary established pursuant to
ORS chapter 268, which shall be adopted
or amended by the Metropolitan Service
District.
Land Need
Establishment and change of
urban growth boundaries shall be based
on the following:
(1) Demonstrated need to
accommodate long range urban
population, consistent with a 20-year
population forecast coordinated with
affected local governments; and
(2) Demonstrated need for
housing, employment opportunities,
livability or uses such as public facilities,
streets and roads, schools, parks or open
space, or any combination of the need
categories in this subsection (2).
In determining need, local
government may specify characteristics,
such as parcel size, topography or
proximity, necessary for land to be
suitable for an identified need.
Prior to expanding an urban
growth boundary, local governments shall
demonstrate that needs cannot
reasonably be accommodated on land
already inside the urban growth
boundary.
Boundary Location
The location of the urban growth
boundary and changes to the boundary
shall be determined by evaluating
alternative boundary locations consistent
with ORS 197.298 and with consideration
of the following factors:
(1) Efficient accommodation of
identified land needs;
(2) Orderly and economic provision
of public facilities and services;
(3) Comparative environmental,
energy, economic and social
consequences; and
(4) Compatibility of the proposed
urban uses with nearby agricultural and
forest activities occurring on farm and
forest land outside the UGB.
2
Urbanizable Land
Land within urban growth
boundaries shall be considered available
for urban development consistent with
plans for the provision of urban facilities
and services. Comprehensive plans and
implementing measures shall manage the
use and division of urbanizable land to
maintain its potential for planned urban
development until appropriate public
facilities and services are available or
planned.
Unincorporated Communities
In unincorporated communities
outside urban growth boundaries counties
may approve uses, public facilities and
services more intensive than allowed on
rural lands by Goal 11 and 14, either by
exception to those goals, or as provided
by commission rules which ensure such
uses do not adversely affect agricultural
and forest operations and interfere with
the efficient functioning of urban growth
boundaries.
Single-Family Dwellings in Exception
Areas
Notwithstanding the other
provisions of this goal, the commission
may by rule provide that this goal does
not prohibit the development and use of
one single-family dwelling on a lot or
parcel that:
(a) Was lawfully created;
(b) Lies outside any acknowledged
urban growth boundary or unincorporated
community boundary;
(c) Is within an area for which an
exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3
or 4 has been acknowledged; and
(d) Is planned and zoned primarily
for residential use.
Rural Industrial Development
Notwithstanding other provisions of
this goal restricting urban uses on rural
land, a county may authorize industrial
development, and accessory uses
subordinate to the industrial development,
in buildings of any size and type, on
certain lands outside urban growth
boundaries specified in ORS 197.713 and
197.714, consistent with the requirements
of those statutes and any applicable
administrative rules adopted by the
Commission.
GUIDELINES
A. PLANNING
1. Plans should designate
sufficient amounts of urbanizable land to
accommodate the need for further urban
expansion, taking into account (1) the
growth policy of the area; (2) the needs of
the forecast population; (3) the carrying
capacity of the planning area; and (4)
open space and recreational needs.
2. The size of the parcels of
urbanizable land that are converted to
urban land should be of adequate
dimension so as to maximize the utility of
the land resource and enable the logical
and efficient extension of services to such
parcels.
3. Plans providing for the transition
from rural to urban land use should take
into consideration as to a major
determinant the carrying capacity of the
air, land and water resources of the
planning area. The land conservation and
development actions provided for by such
plans should not exceed the carrying
capacity of such resources.
4. Comprehensive plans and
implementing measures for land inside
urban growth boundaries should
encourage the efficient use of land and
the development of livable communities.
B. IMPLEMENTATION
1. The type, location and phasing
of public facilities and services are factors
3
which should be utilized to direct urban
expansion.
2. The type, design, phasing and
location of major public transportation
facilities (i.e., all modes: air, marine, rail,
mass transit, highways, bicycle and
pedestrian) and improvements thereto
are factors which should be utilized to
support urban expansion into urbanizable
areas and restrict it from rural areas.
3. Financial incentives should be
provided to assist in maintaining the use
and character of lands adjacent to
urbanizable areas.
4. Local land use controls and
ordinances should be mutually
supporting, adopted and enforced to
integrate the type, timing and location of
public facilities and services in a manner
to accommodate increased public
demands as urbanizable lands become
more urbanized.
5. Additional methods and devices
for guiding urban land use should include
but not be limited to the following: (1) tax
incentives and disincentives; (2) multiple
use and joint development practices; (3)
fee and less-than-fee acquisition
techniques; and (4) capital improvement
programming.
6. Plans should provide for a
detailed management program to assign
respective implementation roles and
responsibilities to those governmental
bodies operating in the planning area and
having interests in carrying out the goal.
CMXR
H I G H W A Y 9 7
D A R L E N E W A Y
REED RD
BURGESS RD
FS RD 22
M E A D O W L N
6TH ST
H O W A R D L N
FOSS RD
B R I D G E D R
D O E L N
R O S L A N D R D
M I T T S W A Y
DYKE RD
P I N E D R
LEONA LN
H U N T I N G T O N R D
FINLEY BUTTE RD
CAGLE RD
3RD ST
A N T L E R L N
S K I D G E L R D
R U S S E L L R D
C E N T E R D R
1ST ST
D
R
A
F
T
E
R
R
D
HALE RD
ALPINE DR
R A I L R O A D S T
R I V E R V I E W D R
M O R S O N S T
P E N G R A S T
H I N K L E W A Y
P R E B L E W A Y
E V A N S W A Y
C O A C H R D
A R C T I C D R
R I V E R P I N E R D
O A K D R
BIG MEADOW DR
NORTH DR
A S H D R
E L M D R
PAULINA VIEW RD
SOUTH DR
BOX WAY
L
O
O
P
D
R
F O R E S T R D
M U R R Y D R
L O S T P O N D E R O S A R D
W A L L I N G L N
S I L V E R L A K E L N
WEST DR
DILLON WAY
4TH ST
ELENA LN
A L L E N D R
WILLOW LN
W A L K E R S T
B O N N I E W A Y
W A L K E R W A Y
2ND ST
FIN
DLEY D
R
CALDWELL DR
P O L A
R R D
M O O S E R D
W
E
N
D
Y
R
D
P A M L N
S H I E L D S D R
S A N T A B A R B A R A D R
S
N
O
W
F
L
A
K
E
L
N
CW REEVES LN
EVERGREEN LN
C A R I B O U R D
T E L E G R A P H R D
PINE PL
C
A
R
E
F
R
E
E
L
N
BITTER BRUSH RD
MEMORIAL LN
C A R T E R C T
VICTORY WAY
H O M E S T E A D
R D
FAWN CT
H U N T I N G T O N R D
i
i
NEIGHBORHOOD 1
NEIGHBORHOOD 2
FUTURE EMPLOYMENT LANDS
FIRE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE
i
i
NEIGHBORHOOD 2
NEIGHBORHOOD 3
O
D
O
T
R
I
G
H
T -
O
F
-
W
A
Y
620 0 620 1,240 1,860 2,480310
Feet
Z
La Pine Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
City Limit / Urban Growth Boundary
Neighborhood Break
Railroad
River
Floodplain_FEMA
Wickiup Junction Improvement Area
ODOT Right-of-Way - 37.8 AC
Transition Area - 211.8 AC
Master Plan Residential - 397.0 AC
Residential - Single-Family -851.1 AC
Residential - Multi-Family - 88.16 AC
Traditional Commercial- 201.9 AC
Mixed-Use Commercial - 220.2 AC
Neighborhood Commercial - 2.7 AC
Industrial - 508.5 AC
Public Facilities - 195.3 AC
Open Space & Parks - 307.1 AC
Forest - 1,271.8 AC
Sewage Treatment - 1,071.9 AC
BLM Transfer - Rodeo - 315.1 AC
Fire Protection Overlay Zone
Comm/Res Mixed Use - 49.7 AC
5 0 0 '
BL
M
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
T
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
(R
O
D
E
O
)
BLM TRANSFER TO COUNTY