ORDINANCE 81-10

AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO EXTENSION OF THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SODAVILLE AND RELATING TO THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SODAVILLE, OREGON, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

On December 11, 1981 at 8:00 am in the Council Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Sodaville, Oregon, the City Council held a public hearing concerning the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary and the annexation of the Property described in this ordinance. The City Council has determined that both the proposed extension of the Urban Growth Boundary and the proposed annexation are in the best interest of the City of Sodaville and its inhabitants and has reviewed and adopted the Findings of Facts contained in this ordinance . The City Council has also determined that the requirements of ORS 222 . 750 have been fulfilled . Accordingly:

THE CITY OF SODAVILLE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS :

Section 1.

The Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein are adopted.

Section 2.

The Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Sodaville is extended to include the following described property contiguous to the city limits of the City of Sodaville, Linn County, Oregon:

A. Beginning at a 3/4” iron pipe said pipe being the S.E. corner of Blk. 16 of summer's Addition to Sodaville, Linn County, Oregon, said pipe also being on the east boundary of the present city limits of Sodaville and on the south R/W line of Linn Co. road #732 and running thence N.01°26'E. 35.5 ft.; thence S.89°37'E. 345.9 ft. to a 3/4” pipe; thence South 62.0 ft. more or less to the center line of said Co. Rd. #732; thence S.75°41'50"E. along said center line 445.0 ft. more or less to it's [sic] intersection with Bonneville Power Administration westerly R/W line; thence in a Southwesterly direction along said R/W line 682.0 more or less to a point Southeasterly 469.79 ft. from the north line of J. Burge D.L.C. #58; thence West 825.0 ft. more or less to the present east line of said city limits at a point South of the east line of Summer's Addition to Sodaville; thence North 818.0 ft. more or less to the point of beginning and containing 15 acres more or less.

Section 3.

The following described property contiguous to the city limits of the City of Sodaville, Linn County, Oregon is annexed to the City of Sodaville:

Save as Section 2 . A

Section 4.

The Comprehensive Plan Designation for this Parcel is R and the area will be rezoned upon annexation .

Section 5.

The general welfare of the public will be promoted if this ordinance takes effect immediately; therefore, an emergency is declared and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by the Council and its approval by the Mayor.

Exhibit A

Findings of Fact

1. CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Citizen Involvement

Goal # 1, requires the governing body to publicize a means by which the general public may be involved in the land use planning process and have access to make comment on proposed land uses.

Finding:

Notices of public hearings before the Sodaville City Council were provided in the manner prescribed under the Sodaville Comprehensive Plan by publication of hearing notices for two successive and consecutive weeks for a total of three publications prior to the hearing date in either the Albany Democrat Herald or the Lebanon Express and by the mailing of the public hearing notice prior to the hearing date to property owners of record located within 500 feet of Tax Lot 1002.

Finding:

Agency notifications were mailed to affected state and local agencies prior to the public hearings .

AGENCY CONTACTS

• Sodaville Elementary School District

• Lebanon Union High School Di strict

• Lebanon Rural Fire Protect ion District

• Linn County Environmental Health Department

• Linn County Planning and Building Department

• City of Lebanon

• Consumers Power

• Northwest Natural Gas Company

• Northwestern Telephone Sys tens , Inc .

• Linn County Sheriff's Office

Finding:

Comment s were received from :

- Lebanon Pub1ic Schools - no objection

Linn County Sheriff's Office - no objection

- Lebanon Rural Fire Dept . - no objection

All others made no comment including Linn County Planning Dept.

Finding:

Public hearings were held on the following dates affording the public multiple opportunities to comment before the City Council.

1. August 11, 1980, initial presentation of the planning report. No objection heard .

2. September 12, 1980, Council made a resolution of intent setting forth the conditions the petitioner must agree to meet before the City would pursue actual annexation procedures. No objection heard.

5. October 11, 1980, public hearing opened for comments by citizens. No objection heard .

4 . November 28, 1980, public hearing opened for comment s by citizens . No objection heard .

5. January 23, 1961, public hearing opened for comments. No objection heard.

6. June 26, 1981, public hearing opened for comments by citizens proposed extension of the Sodaville Growth Boundary. No objection heard.

7. December 11, 1981, final public hearing opened for comments. No object- ions heard.

Conclusion:

The Council concludes that provision has been made during the public hearing process to insure that citizens and affected state and local agencies have been afforded an opportunity to review and submit oral and written comments on the proposed annexation request during all phases of the review process.

2 . CRITERIA: The Land Conservation and Development Commission Land Use Planning

Goal #2 requires local governments to establish a land use planning process in order to establish an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Before an Urban Growth Boundary is jointly adopted by a city and county and is acknowledged by LCDC as being in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals, any annexation of agricultural land by a city can be considered to convert rural agricultural land to urbanizable land, as Goal 14 presumes that land within the boundaries of an incorporated city is urbanizable land. The five factors listed by Goal 5 to be considered in the conversion of rural agricultural land to urbanizable land closely parallel the four findings required by Goal 2 for an exception (i.e., need, alternatives, consequences, compatibility). Compliance of the annexation with the conversion requirements is therefore demonstrated by the findings and conclusions of the except ion from Goal s 3 and 4 .

a. Physical Development and Commitment to Non-Farm and Non-Forest Uses.

Finding: LCDC has stated that an exception from Goals 3 and 4 is justified if the land has been found to be physically developed or built upon, or otherwise irrevocably committed to non-farm and non-forest use. Land use characteristics that should be considered in determining that land cannot be used for farm or forest use because of physical development or commitment are; adjacent uses, public services (water and sewer lines, etc.), parcel size and ownership patterns, neighborhood and reg1onal characteristics, and natural boundaries.

Finding: The Class III soils on the parcel are split by the access road to the Sodaville water system reservoir and to a small proposed planned development abutting the parcel's southern boundary. Distribution lines for the city water utility, power company and telephone company run along the southern boundary of the property. The western boundary of the property is served by City water. The northern boundary of the property fronts County Road #732 and faces property already within the City. The eastern boundary follows the BPA transmission line easements and is separated from timber and potential agricultural lands by this easement and the City's well field.

Conclusion: As the annexation area is essentially surrounded by the Sodaville City limits on three sides; is served by water, telephone and electrical service on three sides; is split by an access road to a sub-division and the municipal water utility; and is isolated from potential agricultural farm and forest land by the BPA easement and by the City well field just east of the BPA easement, the Council concludes that the annexation area has been effectively excluded from farm or forest uses by the existing transportation routes, access road and development on its boundaries.

b . Need

Finding: Goal 2 requires that an exception be supported by an explanation of ”why these other uses should be provided for.” The findings set forth, in Goals 10 and 14, factors (1) and (2) are applicable here as well.

Conclusion: Based on these findings, the Council concludes that a need to use the annexed area for urban residential use has been demonstrated.

c. Alternatives

Finding: Goal 2 requires that an exception be supported by an explanation of "what alternative locations within the area could be used for the proposed uses."

Finding: This area was designated in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan as the Priority 1 area for Urban Growth Boundary expansion because: the owners of developable land to the south of the City (Tax Lot 1112 Not 11 Ramac Acres) have notified the City that they do not want to be included in the Urban Growth Boundary nor annexed; the remaining land to the south of the City is either prime timber land or agricultural land; the land east of the City and north of County Road #732 is zoned as t1mber resource land; the lands to the north of the City limits are operating farm land; lands to the west are marginal farm land with no septic suitability. Lands west of Middle Ridge Drive are already committed 5 acre parcels, and development would mean an increase in density in much of an area which is within the Oak Creek flood plain.

Conclusions: Based upon the above findings, the Council concludes that the only alternatives for the proposed use are conversions of commercial timberlands north or south of the area or commercial agricultural lands north of the City, or to extend west of Middle Ridge where density level will have to be increased from 5 acre parcels to 1/2 acre parcels and more over much of this area lies within a flood plain.

d . Consequences

Finding: Goal 2 requires that an exception be supported by an explanation of the long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences to the locality, the region or the state from not applying the goal or permitting the alternative use.

Finding: the findings in Goal 14, factor (5) and the exception-Development and Commitment, are applicable here as well. Only S acres of the area proposed for annexation is Class III soils.

Conclusion: Based upon the above findings, the Council concludes that the city, county and state will suffer no significant adverse consequences from not applying Goals 5 and 4 to the area proposed for annexation, as only minor acreage would actually be suitable for agricultural or timber production, and the area is already effectively committed to non-farm and non-forest use.

e. Compatibility:

Findings: Lands to the west of area being considered for annexation are at this time undeveloped residential land.

Findings: To the south is a potential small sub-division that has yet to receive approval of the preliminary plat.

Findings : Lands to the north across County Road # 752 are low density residential or forest resource uses .

Findings: Land to the east of the area under consideration is an open space buffer, provided by the BPA easement and the City well field. In this buffer zone, limited grazing may take place. As a backdrop to the open space there is a large timber tract.

Findings: There will not be any noise or odors arising from intensive farm or forest uses in the vicinity of the area under consideration .

Findings: The timber to the east is young ,recently thinned and no harvesting is expected for the next 15 years.

Findings: There will be no road to disturb this area for access to timber lands or agricultural lands.

Conclusion: Based on the above findings the Council concludes that use of the annexed area for residential use will be compatible with adjacent open space and medium distant forest lands.

3 . CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Agricultural Lands

Goal #3 requires that agricultural lands be preserved and maintained for farm use , consistent with existing and future needs for agricultura1 products, forest use and open space. Conversion of rural agricultural land to urbanizab1e land must be based on a consideration of:

"(1) Environmental, energy, social and economic consequences; (2) demonstrated need consistent with LCDC goals: (6) unavailability of an alternative suitable location for the requested use; (4) compatibility of the proposed use with related agricultural land; and (5) the retention of Class I, II, III and IV soils in farm use”

and must follow procedures for goal except ions .

Finding:

The 15 acre parcel contains approximately 5 acres of Class III soil. The remaining 8 acres are Class IV or poorer soils. Historically this area has been used for grazing only. The uses surrounding this area have been limited to low intensity agricultural and timber practices. None of these adjoining practices requires spraying, burning or the creation of noticeable odors . The BPA easement and City well field on the eastern edge of the property limit development to the east and serve as a buffer to separate urban uses from surrounding rural uses.

Conclusion:

The use of agricultural land for urban residential use does not comply with Goal 3. At least 5 acres of the annexed area must be considered agricultural land because they are composed of Class III soil. However, an exception from Goal 3 for the annexed area is shown to be justified by the findings and conclusions of the exception from Goals 3 and 4.

4. CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Forest Lands

Goal #4 requires that forest land shall be retained for the production of wood fiber and other forest uses.

Finding:

75% of the annexation area is not in timber suitable for harvesting although the Department of Revenue has placed 80% of the area in the FD class. The forested portions do not constitute a watershed as these are on the western slope, and the City's well fields are on the eastern slope.

Conclusion:

The use of forest land for urban residential use does not comply with Goal 4. At least 5 acres of the annexation area may be considered to be in forest. However, an exception from Goal 4 for the annexed area is shown to be justified by the findings and conclusion of the exception from Goals 3 and 4 .

5. CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Forest Lands, Open Space, Scenic and Historical Areas, and Natural Resources

Goal #5 require the City to provide open space, protect scenic and historic areas and natural resources and promote healthy visually attractive environments in harmony with the natural landscape and to:

1 . Develop an open space buffer on the East side of the City from farm and forest land uses.

2. Utilize community drainfields for open space within a development.

Finding:

The existing BPA easement and City well sites limit development east of the City limits, when the deeded reserve for a future reservoir site and land unsuitable for septic drainfields are combined with the easement and well sites the effective result is a 300 yard deep grassland buffer between residential development and forest land with the western slopes of the Cascades as a backdrop.

Finding:

Petitioner is considering installing community drainfields to dispose of septic tank effluent. Such large drainfields would be deeded over to the City for wastewater management and for open space and recreation.

Finding:

The buffer and the BPA easement north and south are a potential trail site which would meet the objections of the C.0.G.-4 Master Recreation Plan for the South Hills.

Finding:

The proposed annexation would have no impact on the quarry just south of the corporate limits.

Finding:

Petitioner will deed an acre next to the existing reservoir site for future public works facilities. This site has high potential for accommodating a future reservoir and a deep well with a wind driven pump.

Finding:

There are no other Goal 5 resources included in the area under consideration.

Conclusion:

The Council concludes that land needed for desirable for open space or other natural resource or cultural use has been inventoried and provided for.

6. CRITERIA: Land Conservation and DevelOpment Commission Air, Water and Land Resource Quality

Goal #6 requires local governing bodies to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the State.

Finding:

Sodaville requires developers to hook -up new housing units to City water.

Finding:

Petitioner has offered to deed an existing 6-inch well including 300 feet adequate quantity and quality of potable water.

Finding:

Residential development of the parce1 will not adversely affect ground water supplies for the City wells as both wells lie 600 feet from any possible planned development.

Finding:

The City maintains an open swale system to divert runnoff [sic] water west to Oak Creek along the County Road system. Thus, drainage from the parcel under consideration will be directed west away from the well fields.

Finding:

According to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 0ak Creek is not a problematic water body. Therefore, the City does not have stringent standards to meet regarding diversion of drainage into that water-way.

Finding:

Treatment of solid waste will be either by individual septic systems or by community drainfield. A community drainfield will comply with a City policy to encourage the development of such systems. Refer to Goal #7 findings for further information concerning soils quality in the annexation area.

Finding:

The City is not in a DEQ air quality maintenance area .

Finding:

The City does not at this time consider the dust from gravel roads built to City standards to be a pollution problem.

Conclusion:

The Council concludes that the proposed residential uses for the parcel under consideration conform with State Land Use Planning Goal 6.

7 . CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Natural Disasters and hazards

Goal #7 requires governing bodies to consider land usages and plan for the protection of life and property from natural disasters and hazards.

Finding:

The Oak Creek flood plain lies one mile west and 250 feet lower than the property under consideration .

Finding:

Slopes of 12-18% occur on only 2 acres of Rittner soil which has some stability problems at that pitch. However, the depth to bedrock is shallow and should not present any problems in actual foundation construction.

Finding:

.9 of the remaining acres are Witzel and Rittner soils with slopes ranging from level to 12%. This area is good to excellent for foundations .

Finding:

The 2 acres of Dixonville require that footing trenches be dug to bedrock which is within 3 feet of the surface .

Finding:

The steeper slope is well drained and supports extensive brush and grass cover which minimize soil erosion.

Conclusion:

The Council concludes that the land under consideration is not in an area subject to natural disaster. The Council further concludes that the soils and slopes in the area do not present a hazard and that soil erosion is minimal .

8. CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Recreational Needs

Goal #8 requires the governing body to provide for the recreational needs of citizens and visitors .

Findings: Any development of the parcel will include the City required bike-paths and greenways for public enjoyment.

Finding: Easement dedicated for public utilities will be evaluated as potential resources for footpaths or riding or jogging paths.

Finding: Refer to Goal 5 findings regarding the use of the open space buffer as a potential regional trail.

Finding: Refer to Goal 5 findings regarding use of community drainfields as a recreational resource.

Conclusion: The Council concludes that the parcel under consideration will as part of its development provide for and enhance the recreational opportunities for visitors and for citizens of Sodaville.

9. CRITERIA: The Land Conservation and Development Commission Economy

Goal #9 and the Sodaville Comprehensive Plan Local Economy Element, require the City to have plans and policies that contribute to the diversification and the improvement of the State and to:

1. Encourage the development of an independent service economy.

2. Provide low-density housing in order to provide space for home business occupations.

Finding:

Development of the parcel will increase the availability of 1/ 2 acre parcels for those who would like to establish home based trades and services.

Finding:

The additional homesites will encourage the development of convenience retailing, independent services and home based occupations.

Conclusion:

The Council concludes that annexation of the petitioners land will contribute to the diversification and improvement of the economy of the City and the State.

10 . CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Housing

Goal #10 and the Sodaville Comprehensive Plan Housing Element require the City of Sodaville to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state and to:

1. Encourage a mix of housing in the City designed to provide a variety in price, type, rental/owner and density.

2. Encourage a moderate rate of growth and a mixed population of varying age groups , incomes and lifestyles.

3. Relieve development pressures on rural lands by providing in Sodaville a rural-like setting with basic urban services .

4. Minimize property taxes and service charges by thorough planning auld growth management.

5. Provide low density housing sites for individuals who wish to pursue home occupation businesses.

Finding:

The community design criteria were established in 1978 based upon community values and upon the projections of the City's planning consultant derived by extrapolating the historical figures for population, household size and housing. The annual population growth of 2% from 1965 was extrapolated to the year 2000 based upon several assumptions: 1) a projected 5% average annual growth in jobs and population over the planning period in the nearby City of Lebanon, 2) construction of a municipal water system in 1980 to prevent further outbreaks of water borne illness, to provide adequate fire flows and to provide ample supplies of water with low mineral content, and 3) a community wide desire to improve the livability of the City. The 1980 Sodaville Comprehensive Plan forecast the year 2000 population at 500.

ADJUSTED INVENTORY OF CURRENT HABITABLE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS

Finding:

As of December 51, 1979 the existing ”dwelling-like” units within the City limits including the fully annexed UGB area was 18 mobile homes/ trailers and 60 single family structures for a total of 78 residential units. However, of the total of 78 units, 6 structures and 2 trailers were used as bedrooms for other dwellings on the same or adjoining tax lots. Because these structures and trailers lacked bathrooms and/or kitchens or had tiny or nonexistent drainfields and because in all cases one extended family occupied both the main dwelling and its satellite structure or trailer, the City planning consultant counted only the 70 main residential units and did not count the separate sleeping units occupied by relatives as separate dwelling units. However, the 1980 Census, counted each and every ”dwelling-like” structure; for the present the City has adjusted its count to conform to the Census house count of 1978 in spite of the fact that none of the 6 additional structures counted by the Census are capable of being self sufficient dwelling units with potable water , kitchens , bathrooms and adequate subsurface sewage disposal. The 2 trailers are sited on potential buildable lots however,

Finding:

Since 1979 one residence has been converted into a church office, another residence (not a satellite), which lacks indoor plumbing, has been abandoned (the 6600 sq. ft. lot lacks an area suitable for a dTainf1eld), and a vacant commercial building which had been counted as a dwelling unit has been irrevocably altered to commercial use. At the time the Sodaville Comprehensive Plan was submitted in 1980 the housing inventory was effectively 75, down by 3. During 1980-81 three mobile homes were sited in Sodaville as a result of the completion of the municipal water system, raising the total dwelling units back to 78. But, two mobile home sites are slated to be eliminated within the next four years: one on the Sodaville school grounds and one in the commercial zone to provide for parking. Additionally, one residential dwelling in the commercial zone is currently being converted to commercial use. Finally, the living quarters within the Sodaville store must eventually be removed. These intended conversions will reduce the existing inventory of residential units to 74.

Conclusion:

After 1990, the City projects that the aforementioned 6 satellite structures will be removed. In any case, the structures cannot be used to safely house self contained families. Therefore, for future projections these 6 structures should be removed from the housing inventory, leaving an adjusted, realistic inventory of 68 family dwelling units.

INVENTORY OF BUILDABLE LAND

Finding:

The City's current data indicates a shortfall in the amount of developable land within the City limits to meet the housing needs of the year 2000. The 1979 projected buildable lots within the pre 1980 City limits was 15. Three of these lots have been consumed by the 3 additional mobile homes sited between 1980 and 1981. Two of these lots have trailers on them that were counted in the 1980 Census as housing unit s but counted by the City planning consultant as developable lots because the trailers were occupied by family members based in another household. Since the City now counts these two trailers as dwelling units, the lots they are sited on are developed rather than developable. Additionally, a soil s survey by CES of Albany indicates that a lot which was presumed to carry two dwellings is not developable due to poor soils and very high groundwater. These conditions reduce the potential number of developable lots inside the pre 1980 City 1init s from 15 to 8.

Finding:

CES examined all parcels in the area that was originally designed UGB Area I where there were 15 potential buildable lots. Poor soils reduced the number of developable lots by three. CES further determined, after conferring with Linn County Environmental Health that approximately 8 acres were needed for a complete community drainfield to eliminate the septage hazards from approximately 25 failing drainfields most of which are in the lower part of the City. The best site for such a drainfield lies across two large parcels in Area 1. Such a community drainfield would remove approximately 8 potential building sites. Therefore the old UGB Area I has only 4 buildable lots.

Conclusion:

The total potential buildable lots within the City limits of Sodaville follows:

Within the pie 1980 City limits: 8 instead of 15

Within old UGB Area 1: 4 instead of 15

Within old UGB Area 2: 4 same

Within old UGB Area 3: 6 same

Within old UGB Area 4: 11 same

Total potential Buildable Lots: 33

ANALYSIS OF POPULATION, HOUSING NEED AND THE NEED FOR DEVE LOPABLE LOTS

Finding:

POPULATION: TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

1965: 150

1970: 178

1975: 196

1979*: 202

1980: 205

1981**: 202

1985: 230

1990: 260

1995: 290

2000: 300

* As of December 31, 1979 after annexation of 15 residences

** As of December 15, 1981 per Center for Population Research

The average household size in Sodaville has declined at an average annual rate of 1.5% since its high of 3.56 persons per household in 1970.

Sodaville, historically had a household size greater than the state average in part due to the lower costs of large older homes which had attracted large young families. However, as many large families have matured within the last five years , leaving only the parents , the household size has dropped rapidly.

Finding:

PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD : TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

1965: 3.40

1970: 3.56

1975: 3.37

1979: 2.59

1980: 2.73

1981: 2.59

1985: 2.55

1990: 2.50

1995: 2.45

2000: 2.40

Projecting the current population at a 2% growth rate unti1 the year 2000 and projecting a continuation of a current statewide 1.4% annua1 decrease in household size yields a projected need of 125 residential units to accommodate the year 2000 forecasted population of 500 persons.

Finding:

RESIDENTIAL UNITS : TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

1965: 44

1970: 50

1975: 52

1979: 78

1980: 75

1981: 78

1985: 90

1990: 104

1995: 118

2000: 125

Conclusion:

DEVELOPABLE LOTS NEEDED

TOTAL SINGLE FACILY UNITS NEEDED BY YEAR : 125

1981 ADJUSTED CURRENT UNITS: 68

TOTAL NEEDED LOTS: 57

TOTAL AVAILABLE DEVELOPABLE LOTS: 53

SHORTFALL IN DEVELOPABLE LOTS: 24

CONCURRENT ANNEXATIONS 12/81: 4

UNMET NEED: 20 lots

Finding:

East Linn Enterprises requests annexation of approximately 13 acres, which, after deducting 50% for right of ways and open space, yield

9 acres that will be zoned Residential-Planned Development. At the PUD density standard of 1 dwelling unit per .45 acre, the annexation area will yield 20 buildable lots.

Finding:

East Linn Enterprises will deed 1 acre of the annexed land to the City as a future reservoir and recreational facility site , thus reducing the amount of buildable lots to 18 .

Finding:

As indicated in the exception, the City Council has concluded that the land owned by petitioner is the only available land outside the City which could accommodate the additional needed housing while meeting all LCDC criteria.

Conclusions:

Based upon the above findings, the Council concludes that this annexation complies with Goal 10 in that the population forecast of 500 people remains reliable; 125 homes will be needed to accommodate this population in the year 2000, and after concurrent annexations the City will still need an additional 20 buildable lots, and this annexation area will provide 18 of the needed 20 buildable lots.

11. CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Public Facilities And Services

Goal #11. [sic] and the City of Sodaville Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities Element require the City to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities to serve as a framework for urban development and to:

1. Provide, where fiscally possible, public facilities to improve the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Sodaville.

2 . Supply water only to those areas within the corporate limits of the City.

5 . Evaluate the establishment of a City-administered septic management program.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Finding: The Sodaville School is operating at a 60a capacity of 60 students. Total population of the School District is 450 with Sodaville accounting for 200 persons and 40% of the students. The projected increase in Sodaville's population of 100 persons would not, at current ratios, tax the schools facilities by providing 12 to 15 additional students.

Finding: Lebanon Union High Schoo1, Lebanon Rural Fire District and the Linn County Sheriff have all indicated that the development of this parcel (see attached letters) would have no noticeable impact on their ability to provide services .

Finding: The City already provides water, storm drainage, street lighting, street maintenance as well as planning and zoning. As City facilities and a county road are already provided to the annexation area and as all on- site improvements will be made by the developer, the City's capital budget will not be impacted; and the increase in taxes, user fees and per capita state shared revenues generated by new property owners will cover operating expenses for City services.

ENERGY AND COMMUNICATION UTILITIES

Finding: Consumers Power has a small 440v 8 phase 75kw substation at the adjoining water reservoir site. The phone company has brought a 50-party underground distribution line to the reservoir site. A Northwest Natural Gas main terminates 500 feet west of the annexation area on Maple Street.

SOLID WASTE

Finding: Lebanon Sanitation currently provides pick up service to one half of the residences in Sodaville and has ample capacity to service more customers in the area.

STORM DRAINAGE

Finding: The annexation area is served by two storm drainage collectors which combine at Spring and Main Streets and continue along Sodaville Cutoff Drive to empty into Oak Creek.

1. The northern collector system begins at the crest of CR 732 under the BPA easement and continues west along the county road and Maple and Main Streets. The City has been enlarging the capacity of this system over the last two years and it can now carry a 1/5 larger flow which should accommodate the projected additional runoff from the northwestern portion of the proposed annexation area.

2. The southern collector system begins in a ravine running parallel to the south boundary of the annexation area and continues through the exhausted gravel quarry to a ditch system running along the north side of Sodaville School to Sodaville Road. The capacity of this collection system can be increased by diverting runoff waters south, from the Sodaville School along Sodaville Road to empty into 0ak Creek approximately 1 mile south from the present storm drainage outflow.

SEWER

Finding: A spoils study by Mid-Valley Environmental Consulting indicates that the soils in the proposed annexation area are very suitable for septic drainfields.

Finding: There is no risk that the septic effluent would contaminate the municipal well because the few potential building sites on the easterly slope above the we11 fie 1d are in excess o1 600 ' from the two we 11s .

Finding: As the Sodaville Comprehensive plan directs the City to evaluate a septic maintenance program, petitioner is considering the installation of community drainfields where practical.

Finding: Electrical service and power conduits are already available in the reservoir site and the water department control building to operate two dosing type community drainfields with sand fields.

Finding: The community drain fields can be used for open space or , after one year, recreation purposes.

Finding: The development of the proposed annexation area will not impact the City's efforts to mitigate the long standing winter problem of drainfield failures in the Village. Consulting Environmental Sanitation, after explaining soils in the south western part of Sodaville, have identified a suitable site in terms of slope and soil for a community drainfield. The 8 acre area, cited in Goal #10 could accommodate the effluent from approximately 2S houses.

WATER

Finding: The following attached Sodaville Municipal Water Master Plan constitutes the finding for the water utility.

12 . CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Collision Transportation

Goal # 12 and the City of Sodaville Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element require the City to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system and to,

1. Reroute traffic around Sodaville rather than through it.

2. Work with property owners to realign County Road #752.

Finding:

Petitioner has demonstrated willingness to work with both the City and the County to reroute County Road # 752 .

Finding:

The major collectors in the Sodaville transportation system are constructed upon adequate right of ways to more than handle expected growth.

Finding:

Development of the annexation area will create proportionally small increases in the traffic on County Road #732.

Finding:

The slight increase in traffic on local streets and lanes will have only a minor impact .

Finding:

Refer to Goal 6 for provision for foot or bike traffic access to the parcel.

Conclusion:

The Council concludes that by annexing this parcel the local transportation system will be enhanced not hindered and thereby this annexation conforms with Goal 12.

13. CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Energy Conservation

Goal #13 requires local governments to plan for the conservation of energy.

Finding:

Annexation of this property will have limited energy consequences as school, limited convenience shopping and park and Recreation facilities are all within wlaking [sic] distance.

Finding:

Limited natural resources will be consumed through compliance with Sodaville's road standards, which provide for gravel as opposed to paved streets.

Finding:

The Sodaville Comprehensive Plan calls for energy conserving pedestrian and bicycle path networks. (Please refer to the findings in Goal #8.)

Finding:

The public works site to be deeded by the petitioner is the most probable potential wind powersite for a wind driven pump for an additional City well which would be drilled next to the existing reservoir site.

Conclusion:

The Council concludes that annexation of this parcel will enhance the conservation of energy in Sodaville and therefore complies with the provisions of Goal #13.

14. CRITERIA: Land Conservation and Development Commission Urbanization

Goal #14 and the City of Sodaville Comprehensive Plan Urbanization Element require the City to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use and to :

1. Insure that adequate land for City uses is contained within the Urban Growth Boundary .

2. Avoid including high quality resource lands within the Urban Growth Boundary.

3. Avoid including land requiring costly servicing within the Urban Growth Boundary .

4. Avoid overburdening any public facilities or services.

5. Encourage Planned Unit Developments to minimize the length of roads, water mains, drainage installations or other service extensions which would otherwise cause undue burdens on City taxpayers.

Urban growth boundaries shall be jointly established by a city and county to identify and separate urbanizable from rural land. In this case, the City is adopting a proposed Urban Growth Boundary, but that Urban Growth Boundary has not been jointly adopted by the county. Goal 14 requires that before the joint establishment of an Urban Growth Boundary, all land within city limits be considered urban, and that inclusion of land inside the city limits from within an Urban Growth Boundary be considered justified. Thus, before joint adoption of an Urban Growth Boundary by a city and county and its acknowledgment by LCDC, annexation by a city itself has the effect of converting rural land to urban/urbanizable land. The seven factors upon which Goal 14 requires establishment of an Urban Growth Boundary to be based must therefore also be the basis for such an annexation. Findings and conclusions on these seven factors with regard to this annexation are presented below.

In addition, Goal 14 requires that conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses be based upon a consideration of four conversion factors. How- ever, as the findings given in the exception demonstrate that the annexed area has been effectively excluded from farm or forest uses by existing development, these conversion factors do not apply to this annexation.

(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals;

(2) Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability.

Finding:

The findings set forth for Goal 10 are applicable here as well.

Finding:

There has been a strong demand for low acreage homesites in rural-like settings, particularly in the Lebanon area.

Finding:

This annexation can relieve the pressure for 5-acre haphazard development of resource lands by offering buildable lots in a rural environment with basic urban services like water

Finding:

This annexation area will be zoned to allow the operation of home based trades and cottage industries.

Conclusion:

Based upon the findings set forth above, the Council concludes that the annexation complies with Goal 14 factors (1) and (2) in that the City has demonstrated a need for the vacant acreage of the annexed area to accommodate urban population growth requirements in general, and housing requirements in particular, during the planning period until the year 2000 .

(3) Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services.

Finding:

The findings set forth for Goal 11, are applicable here as well.

Conclusion:

Based upon those findings, the Council concludes that the annexation complies with Goal 14, factor (5) in that urban public facilities and services are already available to the annexation area.

(4) Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area.

Finding:

Over the past 6 months the Council has contacted all property owners who have buildable lots to determine their intentions. All but four property owners indicated that they planned to enjoy their large acreages for the next 5-8 years before they would consider developing or before they could raise the money to develop; the developable areas are regarded by most owners as an investment to pay for their retirement.

Finding:

The annexation area and the potential small subdivision south of it together have the following concurrent advantages; immediate access to City water and underground utilities, the best soils in Sodaville for subsurface disposal and are the most cost effective lands to presently develop.

Conclusion:

Based upon those findings , the Council concludes that the annexation coup1ies with Goal 14 , factor (4). Annexation will promote maximum efficiency in the land use of the annexed area.

(5) Environmental , energy, economic and social consequences.

Finding:

Area is not subject to side hazards or flooding . Finding: Development will not impact the City's watershed.

Finding:

Development will have minimal impact on air due to any dust from construction or gravel roads.

Finding:

Sodaville Planned Development standards require preservation of vegetation and encourage minimal uses of impervious surfaces to minimize runoff.

Finding:

Refer to Goal 9 findings and conclusion.

Finding:

Refer to Goal 13 findings and conclusion.

Conclusion:

The Council concludes that this annexation together with the newly completed municipal water system will bring the limited population growth that is necessary for the City of Sodaville and the Sodaville School District to remain financially sound and independent. Managed growth will provide the additional people, money and citizen energy Sodaville needs to preserve local control over its own destiny.

Conclusion:

Based upon the findings stated above, the Council concludes that the annexation complies with Goal 14, factor (5), in that the annexation will have beneficial environmental, economic and energy consequences.

(6) Retention of agricultural land.

Finding:

The findings set forth for the exception are applicable here as well.

Conclusions:

On the basis of those findings, the Council concludes that the annexation area is committed to non-farm use and, therefore, Goal 14, factor (6) is inapplicable.

(7) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities.

Finding:

The findings set forth for the except ion are applicable here as well.

Conclusion:

On the basis of the above findings, the Council concludes that the annexation complies with Goal 14, factor (7), in that the area surrounding the annexation area is composed of grazing and timber practices. None of these activities require spraying or burning or cause noticeable odors.

Passed by the Council this 19 day of December, 1981.