Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-486-Ordinance No. 2016-022 Recorded 9/30/2016REVIEWED DESCHUTES NANCY BLANKENSHIP,FRECORDS COUNTY CLERKCil 2016,486 ,�C�► VY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 09/30/2016 04:18:57 PM LEGAL COUNSEL IIIUIIiiIuUHIIIIflhII,m For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending the Deschutes County Comprehensive plan To Expand the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary, and Declaring an Emergency * * * ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 WHEREAS, on February 11, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") adopted Ordinance 2009-001 to amend Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code to expand the City of Bend ("Bend') Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB"); and WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission issued a final order on November 2, 2010, remanding the Bend UGB for revisions needed to conform with state requirements; and WHEREAS, in July of 2016, the City of Bend ("Bend') reinitiated the land use process to expand the Bend Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB"); and WHEREAS, the expansion of the Bend UGB requires amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan for Urbanization and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance at a work session on August 11, 2016 and, on that same date, forwarded to the Board a recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 2016-022; and WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after a duly noticed joint public hearing with the Bend City Council on August 25, 2016, and concluded that the public will benefit from the repeal of Ordinance No. 2009-001; and WHEREAS, the Board finds it in the public interest to adopt the following Comprehensive Plan amendments; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Code 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language set forth in strikethrough. Section 2. AMENDMENT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to change the plan designation for certain property depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "B" with the exhibit attached and incorporated by reference herein. /1/ PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Section 3. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strikethrough. Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strikethrough. Section 5. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5, Supplementary Sections, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in Gtrikethrough. Section 6. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "F," attached and incorporated by reference herein. Section 7. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance is final on adoption and shall take effect the date the County receives formal acknowledgement of this ordinance by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development in accordance with ORS 197.628 to 197.650. Dated this Zof Aa: -I4, , 2016 / Recording Secretary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ALAN GER, Chair TAMMY BANEY, Vickhair ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner Date of 1st Reading: /day of ,&71/t . , 2016. Date of 2nd Reading: ( day of /de . , 2016. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Alan Unger v Tammy Baney V Anthony DeBone Effective dater'` 'day oj , , 2 fre-- ATTEST: �Jl/1M Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23.01.010. Introduction. A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in found on the Deschutes County Community Development Depai linen reference herein. B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein. C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein. E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein. F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein. G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein. H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein. I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein. J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein. K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein. L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein. M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein. N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein. O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein. P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2016-020, are incorporated by reference herein Q The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted bv 2016-022, are incorporated bv reference herein Ordinance 2011-003 and t website, is incorporated by the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance (Ord. 2016-022 & 1, 2016: Ord. 2016-020 repealed Ord. 2009-001; Ord. 2016-005 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2014- 027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-012 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2013; Ord. 2014-005 §2; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 §1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011) To view the Comprehensive Plan, type http://www.deschutes.org/compplan into your web browser. [Laserfiche can't do Links.] Page 1 of 1- EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Legend Existing Urban Growth Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Carew. taken n =Ow+ d 'no tut it is povtlel "tta ka" ...WI. Co., Neu,.amcwrmcoovi.,n.m...mucem,am10-onw,er=weaim,e va.m Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Exhibit "B" to Ordinance 2016-022 V V 0.5 025 0 05 Miles July 19. 2016 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Baney, Vice -Chair Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dated this day of October, 2016 Effective Date: October , 2016 Sect'ow 4.2 tArb v 1 zatL.ow Background This section describes the coordination between the County and the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters on Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and Urban Reserve Areas (URAs). Statewide Planning Goal 2 recognizes the importance of coordinating land use plans. "City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268." Oregon Revised Statute 197.015(5) goes further to define comprehensive plan coordination. "A plan is "coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible." Population An important basis for coordinating with cities is adopted population projections. Having an estimate of anticipated population is the first step to planning for future growth and conservation. ORS 195.025(1) requires counties to coordinate local plans and population forecasts. The County oversees the preparation of a population forecast in close collaboration with cities. This is important because the population of the County has increased significantly in recent decades and a coordinated approach allows cities to ensure managed growth over time. Table 4.2.1 — Population Growth in Deschutes County 1980 to 2010 Sources 1980 1990 2000 2010 Population Research Center July I estimates 62,500 75,600 1 16,600 172,050 US Census Bureau April I counts 62,142 74,958 115,367 157,733 Source: As noted above In 1996 Bend, Redmond, Sisters and the County reviewed recent population forecasts from the Portland State University Center Population and Research Center (PRC) and U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Transportation, Woods and Poole, Bonneville Power Administration and Department of Administrative Services Office of Economic Analysis. After reviewing these projections, all local governments adopted a coordinated population forecast. It was adopted by Deschutes County in 1998 by Ordinance 98-084. The results of the 2000 decennial census and subsequent population estimates prepared by the PRC revealed that the respective populations of the County and its incorporated cities were growing faster than anticipated under the 1998 coordinated forecast. The cites and the County re-engaged in a coordination process between 2002 and 2004 that culminated with the County adopting a revised population forecast that projected population to the year 2025. It was adopted by Ordinance 2004-012 and upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals on March 28, 2005. The following table displays the 2004 coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County and the UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN —20I I CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION PAGE I OF 6 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Table 4.2.2 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025 Unincorporated County 2000 52,800 15,505 975 47,320 2005 69,004 19,249 1,768 53,032 2010 81,242 23,897 2,306 59,127 2015 91,158 29,667 2,694 65,924 2020 100,646 36,831 3,166 73,502 2025 109,389 45,724 3,747 81,951 Year Bend UGB Redmond UGB Sisters UGB Source: 200• Coordinated Population Forecast for Deschutes County Total County 116,600 143,053 166,572 189,443 214,145 240,811 The process through which the County and the cities coordinated to develop the 2000-2025 coordinated forecast is outlined in the report titled "Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000-2025: Findings in Support of Forecast." The fourth city in Deschutes County is the City of La Pine. Incorporated on November 7, 2006, the City of La Pine's 2006 population estimate of 1,590 was certified by PRC on December 15, 2007. As a result of La Pine's incorporation, Deschutes County updated its Coordinated Population Forecast with Ordinance 2009-006. The purpose of this modification was to adopt a conservative 20 year population forecast for the City of La Pine that could be used by city officials and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to estimate its future land need and a UGB. The following table displays the coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County, the UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, and La Pine from 2000 to 2025. By extending the growth rate to the year 2025, La Pine's population will be 2,352. The non -urban unincorporated population decreases by 2,352 from its original projection of 81,951, to 79,599. Table 4.2.3 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025, Including La Pine Year Bend Redmond Sisters La Pine UGB UGB UGB UGB 2000 52,800 15,505 975 2005 69,004 19,249 1,768 2010 81,242 23,897 2,306 1,697 2015 91,158 29,667 2,694 1,892 2020 100,646 36,831 3,166 2,110 2025 109,389 45,724 3,747 2,352 Source: 200, Coordinated Population Forecast for Deschutes County - updated 200 Unincorporated County 47,320 53,032 57,430 64,032 71,392 79,599 Total County 116,600 143,053 166,572 189,443 214,145 240,811 2030 Population Estimate This Comprehensive Plan is intended to manage growth and conservation in the unincorporated areas of the County until 2030. Because the official population forecast extends only to 2025, County staff used conservative average annual growth rates from the adopted population forecast to estimate population out to 2030. The following table estimates Deschutes County population by extending the adopted numbers out an additional five years. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION PAGE 2 OF 6 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Table 4.2.4 — Deschutes County 2030 Population Forecast Year 2030 Bend Redmond Sisters UGB UGB UGB 119,009 51,733 4,426 La Pine UGB 2,632 Unincorporated County 88,748 Total County 266,538 Source: County estimates )ased on the 200•- Coordinated Population Forecast as shown below Bend's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 1.70% Redmond's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.50% Sisters' based their population on forecasted rates of building growth, residential housing units, and persons per dwelling unit La Pine's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.20% Deschutes County's unincorporated area average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.20% As the pie chart below indicates, if population occurs as forecasted, 67% of the County's population will reside in urban areas by 2030. In 2030 Sisters 2% Unincorporated — Area 33% Bend 45% La Pie 1% Redmond 19% Figure 4.1 Deschutes County 2030 Estimated Population Such growth will undoubtedly require strategically managing the provision of public services and maintaining adequate amounts of residential, commercial and industrial lands. Growth pressures will also require programmatic approaches to maintain open spaces, natural resources, and functional ecosystems that help define the qualities of Deschutes County. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments Bend The City of Bend legislatively amended its UGB as part of a periodic review acknowledgment in December 2004. The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted concurrent ordinances that expanded the Bend UGB by 500 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for industrial land. In July 2007, the Bend -La Pine School District received approvals to expand the City of Bend UGB to include two properties for the location of two elementary schools, one at the Pine Nursery, the other on Skyliner Road. In 2014. the Bend -La Pine School district received approval to include a 33 -acre site within the UGB near Skvliners Road to facilitate the construction of a public middle school. The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners approved a legislative amendment to the Bend UGB in September 2016. The adopted amendment added 2 380 acres of land intended to satisfy a 20 -year land need for needed housing. employment. and public uses from 2008 to 2028. The adopted UGB amendment also satisfied the terms of a 2010 Remand, DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 201 I CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION PAGE 3 OF 6 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Order from the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (I O -REMAND - PARTIAL ACKNOW-0017951. Sisters The City of Sisters legislatively amended its UGB in September 2005 when its City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Sisters UGB expansion covered 53 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential, commercial, light induxtriu|, and public facility land. In March 2009. Sisters amended their UGB to facilitate the establishment of a 4 -acre fire training facility for the Sisters/Camp Sherman Fire District. Redmond The City of Redmond legislatively amended its UGB in August 2006 when its City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Redmond UGB expansion covered 2,299 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential and neighborhood commercial land. La Pine In 2012 La Pine adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. La Pine established a UGB that matches the city limits, because the City contains sufficient undeveloped land for future housing, commercial and industrial needs over a 20 -year period. The Plan map includes land use designations intended to provide an arrangement of uses to ensure adequate and efficient provision of public infrastructure for aU portions of the City and UGB. Urban Reserve Area Redmond In December 2005, Redmond City Council and the Board ofCounty Commissioners udooteda 5'68| acre UR�\for the C�ity.|tinthe first UR�`in��entra|C�regonbecause most cideofind planning farther into the future than the 20 -year UGB timeframe, challeing. Coordination As noted above, Statewide Goal 2 and ORS promote land use planning coordination. The purposes of the urbanization goals and policies in this section are to provide the link between urban and rural oreao, and to provide some basic parameters within which the urban areas of Deschutes County can develop, although the specific comprehensive plan for each community remains the prevailing document for guiding growth in its respective area. These policies permit the County to review each city's comprehensive plan to ensure effective coordination. The Redmond and Deschutes County Community Development Departments received the Oregon Chapter ofAmerican Planning Association's (OAPA) Professional Achievement in Planning Award in 2006 for the uRedmond Urban Reserve Area / Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Project". The following quote taken from the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association's 2006 Awards Progrcim shows why the Redmand Community Development Department was chosen for this award. "An outstanding effort to address Redmond's rapid population growthincluding the successfu! designationation of an Urban Reserve and the imminent deiot/nn of an Urban Growth Boundary, a "Framework Pion" with a requirement for master planning, and the establishment of "Great Neighborhood Principles." DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION Secti-ow 4.2 t,4rbawizati-oo, PoLicies Goals and Policies Goal 1 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. Policy 4.2.1 Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create and/or amend their urban growth boundaries. Policy 4.2.2 Promote and coordinate the use of urban reserve areas. Policy 4.2.3 Review the idea of using rural reserves. Goal 2 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries. Policy 4.2.4 Use urban growth area zoning to coordinate land use decisions inside urban growth boundaries but outside the incorporated cities. Policy 4.2.5 Negotiate intergovernmental agreements to coordinate with cities on land use inside urban growth boundaries and outside the incorporated cities. Policy 4.2.6 Develop urban growth area zoning with consideration of the type, timing and location of public facilities and services provision consistent with city plans. Policy 4.2.7 Adopt by reference the comprehensive plans of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, as the policy basis for implementing land use plans and ordinances in each city's urban growth boundary. Goal 3 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas. Policy 4.2.8 Designate the Redmond Urban Reserve Area on the County Comprehensive Plan Map and regulate it through a Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) Combining Zone in Deschutes County Code, Title 18. Policy 4.2.9 In cooperation with the City of Redmond adopt a RURA Agreement consistent with their respective comprehensive plans and the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-021-0050 or its successor. Policy 4.2.10 The following land use policies guide zoning in the RURA. a. Plan and zone RURA lands for rural uses, in a manner that ensures the orderly, economic and efficient provision of urban services as these lands are brought into the urban growth boundary. b. New parcels shall be a minimum of ten acres. c. Until lands in the RURA are brought into the urban growth boundary, zone changes or plan amendments shall not allow more intensive uses or uses that DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 I CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES PAGE 5 OF 6 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 generate more trafflc, than were altowed prior to the establishment of the RURA. d. For Exclusive Farm Use zones, partitions sha be alJowed based on state law and the County Zoning Ordinance. e. New arterial and collector rights-of-way in the RURA shall meet the right-of- way standards of igheof-vvoyx¢aodardoof Deschutes County or the City of Redmond, whichever is gnauter, but be physically constructed to Deschutes County standards. f. Protect from development existing and future arterial and collector rights-of- way, as 'hzs-of-vvay.00 designated on the County's Transportation System Plan. g. A singte family dwelling on a legal parcel is permitted ifthat use was permitted before the RURA designation. Policy 4.2.11 Collaborate with the City of Redmond to assure that the County -owned 1,800 acres in the RURA is master planned before it is incorporated into Redmond's urban growth boundary. Ds8o*uTEoCOUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN —2O11 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GRowm MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION Sect1Dw 1.3 Laim( t se PL o,K,%K,g Background This section establishes the overall framework for the development and implementation of plans and policies for land use within the County. Statewide planning guidelines require each county to establish a land use planning process based on current issues and factual information. The policies in this section assure that the County's land use policies are current, fact -based and responsive to change. The policies recognize the need for coordination between the cities and the County and provide full public access to Plan documents and the information upon which land use decisions are based. As noted throughout this Plan, there are two important things to remember. First, the Oregon land use system draws a bright line between rural and urban lands and promotes new growth and infrastructure in urban areas. Growth on rural lands is limited in order to protect farms, forests, open spaces and natural resources. Deschutes County is required to plan in compliance with the State planning system in order to promote orderly and efficient growth and protect the resources important to Oregonians. Second, land use is often controversial because ultimately it can intermix community values with private property rights and expectations. A property owner may choose to keep pigs, or start a day care center or build a windmill. For each of those uses there may be impacts on the neighbors in the form of odors, traffic or blocked views. Land use regulations attempt to achieve a balance between giving property owners the freedom to use their property however they choose while maintaining the livability of the neighborhood and wider community. This Plan recognizes those tensions that occur when creating land use policies. Land Use Statewide Planning Goal 2 Land Use Planning, requires a fact -based land use planning process and policy framework to guide land use decisions. It requires comprehensive planning that identifies issues and complies with Statewide Planning Goals. Goal 2 also addresses the process to allow exceptions to Statewide Goals (see also Section 5.10). In 1979 the County complied with the Statewide planning system by writing a Comprehensive Plan. From 1988-2003 the County underwent State mandated Periodic Review to ensure the Plan was still in compliance with changing State regulations. The 2008-2011 update was done outside of Periodic Review, which is no longer required for Oregon counties. Instead, the County recognized that to remain valid the Comprehensive Plan needed to be completely rewritten and updated. For historic reference, a copy of the Comprehensive Plan replaced by this Plan will remain available on the County website. This Plan is a policy document based on existing facts and community values. No specific land use designation changes are included in the 2008-201 1 Plan update. Instead, this Plan revisits each Statewide Goal, its existing Goals and Policies, community values and new issues requiring policy direction. It lays out a blueprint for the future and defines what matters to County residents and businesses through updated Goals and Policies. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE PAGE 1 OF 9 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 The Comprehensive Plan is implemented primarily through zoning and the zoning code must be regularly reviewed for compliance with the Plan. However, there are other tools for implementation, such as capital improvement plans, partnerships or incentive programs. To assure this Plan remains useful, an action plan identifying various ideas for implementing Comprehensive Plan policies will be created. The action plan will be annually updated and reviewed to identify and prioritize work plans for the coming year. Land Ownership and Jurisdiction When considering land use in Deschutes County two important factors are the amount of public ownership and which lands are under County jurisdiction. Table 1.3.1 shows nearly 80% of land in the County is publically owned. The implications of the large tracts of public land range from the loss of tax revenue to having vast open lands available for recreation for both tourists and residents. Table 1.3.1 — Public Land in Deschutes County 2010 Ownership Acres* Percent Total County Acres 1,913,482 100% Federal Government 1,466,067 76.6% State Government 53,051 2.8% County Government 10,434 0.6% Total Public Lands 1,529,552 79.9% * Acres of parcels — does not induce roads, right-of-ways, lakes, rivers or other publicly -owned parcels such as cities or park districts Source: County Geographical Information System Table 1.3.2 shows jurisdictional responsibilities. Note that the federal government, primarily through the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, owns over 76% of the land in the County. Federal lands are not required to conform to local regulations, such as zoning. They rely on their own resource plans. This means a majority of lands in the County are not under County jurisdiction. However, they remain in this Plan to encourage intergovernmental policy coordination. Table 1.3.2 — 2010 Land Jurisdiction in Deschutes County 2010 Jurisdiction Acres* Percent Total County Acres 1,913,482 100% Federal Government 1,466,067 76.6% Bend Urban Growth Boundary 17,534 0.9% La Pine Urban Growth Boundary 4,008 0.2% Redmond Urban Growth Boundary 10,733 0.6% Sisters Urban Growth Boundary 1,023 0.I% Total Cities 33,298 1.7% Total Other jurisdiction 1,499,365 78.4% * Acres of parcels — does not includes roads, right-of-ways, lakes and rivers Source: County Geographical Information System In addition to Federal lands, four cities have primary jurisdiction over less than 2% of lands in the County. This includes lands outside the incorporated city boundaries, but inside urban growth boundaries. The urban growth boundaries define a municipality's 20 -year land supply to accommodate future growth. These lands are managed by the cities through intergovernmental DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 CHAPTER 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE PAGE 2 OF 9 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 agreements between the cities and the County. The bottom line is that the County has land use jurisdiction over approximately 22% of the land base. Comprehensive Plan Map Designations The Comprehensive Plan Map (Map) illustrates the County's goals and policies. The Map describes land use categories that provide for various types of development and conservation for the rural area during the 20 -year planning period. Each Comprehensive Plan map designation provides the land use framework for establishing zoning districts. Zoning defines in detail what uses are allowed for each area. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps exist in official replica form as an electronic map layer within the County Geographic Information System. Other maps illustrating various Comprehensive Plan areas, such as rural commercial properties, are available to the public for informational purposes. The Comprehensive Plan map designations are defined below. Agriculture: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands for farm use. Airport Development: To allow development compatible with airport use while mitigating impacts on surrounding lands. Destination Resort Combining Zone: To show lands eligible for siting a destination resort. Forest: To conserve forest lands for multiple forest uses. Open Space and Conservation: To protect natural and scenic open spaces, including areas with fragile, unusual or unique qualities. Rural Residential Exception Areas: To provide opportunities for rural residential living outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated communities, consistent with efficient planning of public services. Surface Mining: To protect surface mining resources from development impacts while protecting development from mining impacts. Resort Community: To define rural areas with existing resort development that are not classified as a destination resort, based on Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Rural Community: To define rural areas with limited existing urban -style development, based on Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Rural Service Center: To define rural areas with minimal commercial development as well as some residential uses, based on Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Urban Unincorporated Community: To define rural areas with existing urban development, based on Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Rural Commercial: To define existing areas of isolated rural commercial development that do not fit under Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22. Rural Industrial: To define existing areas of isolated rural industrial development that do not fit under Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -201 1 CHAPTER 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE PAGE 3 OF 9 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Urban Growth Boundaries: To define land that provides for urban development needs and identifies and separates urban and urbanizable land from rural land Bend Urban Area Reserve: To define lands outside of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary that were under the iurisdiction of the-but-withinBend Area-its General Plan. -These areas were removed in September 2016 through the 2016 amendment to the Bend Urban Growth Boundary. These areas are now under the iurisdiction of the County's Comprehensive Planarea that are expected to be brought fats the Urban Redmond Urban Reserve Area: To define Redmond's additional 30-year growth boundary for lands expected to be brought into the Urban Growth Boundary. Comprehensive Plan Map Designations and Associated Zoning Table 1.3.3 lists existing Comprehensive Plan designations and related Zoning districts. Some Plan designations apply County-wide and some only apply to designated areas of existing development. The Destination Resort designation is a combining zone that supplements the underlying zoning. Most of the area-specific designations fall under the State rules for Unincorporated Communities and are detailed in Chapter 4 of this Plan. The Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial areas are detailed in Chapter 3 under Rural Economy. Table 1.3.3 - Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Designations Comprehensive Plan Designation I Associated Deschutes County Zoning Code County-wide designations Agriculture Title 18 - All EFU subzones Airport Development Title 18 - AD, AS Destination Resort Combining Zone Title 18 - DR Forest Title 18 - F-I, F-2 Open Space and Conservation Title 18 - OS&C Rural Residential Exception Area Title 18 - RR-10 and MUA- I 0 Surface Mining Title 18 - SM Area specific designations Resort Community Title 18 - All Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek subzones Rural Community Title 18 - All Tumalo and Terrebonne subzones Rural Service Center Title 18 - All RSC zones Urban Unincorporated Community Title 18 - All Sunriver subzones Rural Commercial Title 18 - Rural Commercial Rural Industrial Title 18 - Rural Industrial Bend Urban Growth Area Title 19 - UAR-10, SM, SR 2 %2, RS. IL. AFT FP Redmond Urban Growth Area Title 20 - UH-10 Sisters Urban Growth Area Title 21 - UAR-10, OA, FP Redmond Urban Reserve Area Title 18 - RURA Source: County Geographical Information System and Deschutes County Code Intergovernmental and Other Coordination Regional Coordination Deschutes County is responsible for coordinating all planning activities affecting land uses within the County. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 CHAPTER 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE PAGE 4 OF 9 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 • Coordinating population forecasts • Coordinating with special districts, including irrigation districts, park districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts • Establishing Cooperation Agreements with special districts that provide an urban service in a UGB • Coordinating with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management • Joint Management Agreements with municipalities for managing urban growth areas (areas outside city limits, but inside a UGB) • Establishing Urban Reserve Areas The County recognizes the importance of working closely and cooperatively with the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, as well as special districts and state and federal agencies, to ensure a coordinated approach to future growth and conservation. Cooperative Agreements Cities are required to enter into a cooperative agreement with each special district that provides an urban service within a UGB. The appropriate city may also enter into a cooperative agreement with any other special district operating within a UGB. Urban Service Agreements Deschutes County has the responsibility for negotiating urban service agreements with representatives of all cities and special districts that provide, or declare an interest in providing, urban services inside an Urban Growth Boundary. Urban service means: • Sanitary sewers; • Water; • Fire protection; • Parks; • Open space; • Recreation; and • Streets, roads and mass transit. • Special Districts Special Districts Special districts are defined in ORS 198.010 and are recognized as government bodies. Special districts include the following. Table 1.3.4 - Special Districts Utility district Water supply district Cemetery maintenance district Park and recreation district organized Mass transit district Metropolitan service district organized Special road district Road assessment district Highway lighting district Health district Rural fire protection district Irrigation district Drainage district Water improvement district Water control district Vector control district 9-1-1 communications district Geothermal heating district Transportation district Library district DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -201 I CHAPTER 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE PAGE 5 OF 9 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Sanitary district Sanitary authority, water authority or joint water and sanitary authority Soil & water conservation district Other Coordination Besides intergovernmental coordination, Deschutes County generally supports coordination and partnerships with non -profits and other organizations that are working with residents to improve the quality of life in the County. There are groups working to address issues from affordable housing to clean rivers, from economic development to fire -free neighborhoods. Two examples of community projects that were completed from 2006-2010 are the Bend 2030 Plan and the Deschutes County Greenprint, both created after extensive public outreach. Note that the nature and extent of the County's role will vary based on County priorities at any given time and that coordination on a project does not ensure County support of every action undertaken on that project. Still, partnering is an efficient and effective method of addressing important issues. County -Owned property When considering land use it is important to consider County -owned lands, which are managed through Deschutes County Code Title I I. As of 2009 there were nearly 700 individual parcels owned by the County, totaling almost 8,000 acres. Management of these properties consists of defining appropriate uses for different parcels, cleaning up illegal dumpsites, fire hazard reduction and public auction. Many of these properties were acquired through foreclosure for non-payment of property taxes. It is anticipated that the County will continue to acquire lands through foreclosure. Starting in 1994 the County began to designate certain sensitive properties along rivers, creeks or streams or with wildlife, wetlands or other values, as park lands. The intent was not to develop these lands for park use but rather to preserve lands with valuable resources. The park designation means that the lands would be retained in public ownership unless there was a public hearing and the Board of County Commissioners determined that selling was in the best interest of the public. ORS 275.330 governs the disposal of these lands, stating that if they are sold the proceeds must be dedicated to park or recreation purposes. As of 2009, there were approximately 70 properties designated as park lands under the following Orders. Order # 94-138 96-071 97-147 97-151 98-127 2004-001 2004-037 2006-019 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE PAGE 6 OF 9 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 SEct%ow 1.3 l_cwG{ I.tSC PI.GiwwLws Pol.%c%CS Goals and Policies Goal I Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts. Policy 1.3.1 Protect the limited amount of privately -owned land in Deschutes County through consideration of private property rights and economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. a. Evaluate tools such as transfer of development rights programs that can be used to protect private property. Policy 1.3.2 Consider sustainability and cumulative impacts when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. Policy 1.3.3 Involve the public when amending County Code. Policy 1.3.4 Maintain public records which support the Comprehensive Plan and other land use decisions. Policy 1.3.5 Review the Comprehensive Plan every five years and update as needed, in order to ensure it responds to current conditions, issues and opportunities, as well as amended State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and case law. Policy 1.3.6 Maintain and enhance web -based property -specific information. Policy 1.3.7 The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map will be retained in official replica form as an electronic map layer within the County Geographic Information System and is adopted as part of this Plan. Policy 1.3.8 Implement, as appropriate, recommendations in the Final Report from the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning dated January 2009. Policy 1.3.9 A list of actions to implement this Comprehensive Plan shall be created, maintained and reviewed yearly by the Community Development Department and the Board of County Commissioners. Goal 2 Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues. Policy 1.3.10 Regularly review intergovernmental and urban management agreements, and update as needed. Policy 1.3.1 I Participate in and, where appropriate, coordinate regional planning efforts. a. Provide affected agencies, including irrigation districts, an opportunity to comment and coordinate on land use policies or actions that would impact their jurisdictions. Policy 1.3.12 Support non-profit or public acquisition of lands determined through an extensive public process to have significant value to the community. Policy 1.3.13 Support implementation of the Bend 2030 Plan and incorporate, as appropriate, elements from the Bend 2030 Plan into this Plan. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20I I CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE PAGE 7 OF 9 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Goal 3 Manage County owned lands efficiently, effectively, flexibly and in a manner that balances the needs of County residents. Policy 1.3.14 Where feasible, maintain and manage County owned properties as follows: a. Manage designated park lands to preserve the values defined in the park designation; b. Permit public access to County owned lands designated as parks unless posted otherwise; c. Encourage properties located along rivers, streams or creeks or containing significant wildlife, scenic or open space values to be designated as park land. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE PAGE 8 OF 9 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Chapter 1 Pri,vwaru Re ferewces References' I. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. 2. Putting the People in Planning: A Primer on Public Participation in Planning, produced by Oregon's Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee — Third Edition — May 2008 3. Oregon. Department of Land Conservation and Development. Goal 2: Land Use Planning. Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. 4. Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning, Final Report to the 2009 Oregon Legislature, January 2009 5. Oregon Revised Statute 197, particularly: a. 197.173-197.200 Comprehensive Planning Responsibilities b. 197.201-197.283 Goals Compliance c. 197.610- 197-651 Post -Acknowledgement Procedures 6. Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, particularly: a. 660-003 Acknowledgement of Compliance b. 660-004 Goal 2 Exceptions Process c. 660-015 Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines d. 660-018 Post -Acknowledgement Amendments 7. Bend 2030 at http://bend2030.org 8. Oregon's Playground Prepares for the Future: A Greenprint for Deschutes County. The Trust for Public Land. 2010 1 The references listed are provided for the convenience of the public and are not legally adopted into this Plan. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 201 I CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING REFERENCES PAGE 9 OF 9 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 5ecti,oIA, 5.12 Le0is1st tive H-1,stoT Background This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History Date Adopted/ Effective Table S.11.1 Ordinance 2011-003 8-10-11/11-9-11 2011-027 10-31-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1 Chapter/Section Amendment All, except Transportation, Tumalo and Terrebonne Community Plans, Deschutes Junction, Destination Resorts and ordinances adopted in 2011 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5, 4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.11, 23.40A, 23.40B, 23.40.065, 23.01.010 23.60, 23.64 (repealed), 2012-005 8-20-12/11-19-12 3.7 (revised), Appendix C (added) 2012-012 8-20-12/8-20-12 4.1, 4.2 2012-016 12-3-12/3-4-13 3.9 2013-002 1-7-13/1-7-13 4.2 2013-009 2-6-13/5-8-13 1.3 2013-012 5-8-13/8-6-13 23.01.010 2013-007 5-29-13/8-27-13 3.10, 3.11 Page 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Comprehensive Plan update Housekeeping amendments to ensure a smooth transition to the updated Plan Updated Transportation System Plan La Pine Urban Growth Boundary Housekeeping amendments to Destination Resort Chapter Central Oregon Regional Large -lot Employment Land Need Analysis Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County 2013-016 10-21-13/10-21-13 23.01.010 2014-005 2-26-14/2-26-14 23.01.010 2014-012 4-2-14/7-1-14 3.10, 3.11 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 2016-005 TBD 2016-022 TBD 23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3 23.01.010. 1.3.4.2 Page 2 of 2 -EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Housekeeping amendments to Title 23. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing non - resource lands process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning Comprehensive plan Amendment. includinw certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary FINDINGS NOTE: This document serves as a placeholder. The final findings document will be added when completed. Page 1 of 1- EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 FINDINGS EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-022 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background & Description of 2016 UGB Proposal 1-1 1.1 Introduction ,1-1 1.2 Proposed UGB Amendment 1-1 1.3 Proposed Amendments to the Bend Comprehensive Plan 1-2 1.4 Proposed Amendments to the Bend Development Code 1-4 1.5 Background on the Transition from the City's 2009 UGB Proposal to the 2016_1-5 2. Procedural History 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Chronology of Work on the Bend UGB Remand - 2011 through 2016 2-1 3. Scope of Review 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Applicable Criteria 3-1 3.2.1 Applicability of Recent Amendments to Statute and Rule 3-1 3.2.2 Compliance with Applicable Rules and Statutes for Residential Land 3-3 3.2.3 Compliance with Applicable Rules for Economic Development 3-4 3.2.4 Compliance with Applicable Rules for Transportation Planning 3-4 3.2.5 Compliance with Applicable Rules and Statutes for UGBs 3-4 3.2.6 Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 3-5 3.2.7 Compliance with Applicable Policies of the Bend Comprehensive Plan_3-5 3.2.8 Compliance with the Bend Development Code 3-7 3.2.9 Compliance with t 2010 Remand Order of LCDC 3-7 3.3 Standard of Review 3-8 3.4 Review Authority 3-9 4. Needed Housing and Residential Lands 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Summary of Relevant Legal Standards 4-2 4.3 Substantial Evidence 4-3 4.4 Findings 4-4 4.4.1. Planning Horizon and Population Forecast 4-4 4.4.2. Total Housing Unit Projection 4-7 4.4.3. Needed Housing Types and Mix 4-10 4.4.4. Needed Housing Density 4-25 4.4.5. Buildable Lands Inventoni 4-27 4.4.6. Base Case Capacity Analysis 4-39 4.4.7. Efficiency Measures & Options to Address Land for Needed Housing 4-44 4.4.8. Zoning and Regulating Needed Housing 4-66 4.4.9. Residential Land Need 4-74 Findings Report July 2016 5. Economic Development Land Needs 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Summary of Relevant Legal Standards 5-1 5.3 Substantial Evidence 5-2 5.4 Findings 5-3 5.4.1 Planning Horizon and Employment Forecast 5-3 5.4.2 Employment Trends and Site Needs 5-8 5.4.3 Buildable Lands Inventory and Capacity Analysis 5-28 5.4.4 Options to Address Deficiency of Land Needed for Employment 5-38 5.4.5 Economic Development Policies 5-48 5.4.6 Employment Land Need 5-61 6. Other Land Needs 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 Summary of Relevant Legal Standards 6-1 6.3 Substantial Evidence 6-2 6.4 Findings 6-3 6.4.1 Public Schools (K-12) 6-3 6.4.2 Neighborhood and Community Parks 6-5 6.4.3 Public Right -of -Way (ROW) 6-8 6.4.4 Land Needs for Other Urban Uses 6-8 7. UGB Location 7-1 7.1. Introduction 7-1 7.2. Summary of Relevant Legal Standards 7-2 7.2.1. Applicability of Recent Amendments to Statute and Rule 7-2 7.2.2. Organization of Findings 7-4 7.3. Substantial Evidence 7-5 7.4. Findings 7-5 7.4.1. Establishment of Preliminary Study Area 7-5 7.4.2. Land Excluded from Preliminary Study Area 7-8 7.4.3. Priority Categories 7-13 7.4.4. Evaluation of Land for Inclusion in the UGB 7-14 7.4.5. Overall Conclusion Regarding UGB Location 7-62 8. Transportation Planning 8-1 8.1. Introduction $-1 8.2. Summary of Relevant Legal Standards 8-1 8.3. Substantial Evidence 8-2 8.4. Findings 8-2 8.4.1. Coordination Requirements in Metropolitan Areas 8-2 8.4.2. Reducing Reliance on the Automobile 8-3 8.4.3. Transportation Analysis for Amendments 8-19 Findings Report July 2016 11 9. Compliance with statewide planning goals 9-1 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Findings on OAR 660-015, Statewide Planning Goals 9-1 9.2.1 Goal 1, Citizen Involvement 9-1 9.2.2 Goal 2, Land Use Planning 9-5 9.2.3 Goals 3 and 4, Agriculture and Forestry 9-10 9.2.4 Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, & Open Spaces 9-10 9.2.5 Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality 9-14 9.2.6 Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards 9-14 9.2.7 Goal 8, Recreational Needs 9-16 9.2.8 Goal 9, Economic Development 9-17 9.2.9 Goal 10, Housing 9-17 9.2.10 Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services 9-19 9.2.11 Goal 12, Transportation 9-21 9.2.12 Goal 13, Energy Conservation 9-22 9.2.13 Goal 14, Urbanization 9-22 10. Compliance with Applicable policies of Bend Comprehensive Plan 10-1 10.1 Preface of Bend Area General Plan (1998) 10-1 10.2 Chapter 1— Plan Management and Citizen Involvement 10-2 10.3 Chapter 2 — Natural Features and Open Space 10-4 10.4 Chapter 3 — Community Connections 10-5 10.5 Chapter 4 — Population and Demographics 10-6 10.6 Chapter 5 — Housing .10-6 10.7 Chapter 6 —The Economy and Lands for Economic Growth 10-19 10.8 Chapter 7 — Transportation Systems 10-26 10.9 Chapter 8 — Public Facilities and Services 10-36 10.10 Chapter 9 — Community Appearance 10-38 10.11 Chapter 10 — Natural Forces 10-39 10.12 Chapter 11— Growth Management 10-40 11. Bend Development Code Compliance 11-1 11.1 Introduction ,11-1 11.2 Compliance with Procedural Requirements of BDC 4.1.505 and 4.1.1200 11-1 11.2.1 BDC 4.1.500, Type IV Applications 11-1 11.2.2 BDC 4.1.1200, Notice Requirements under ORS 227.186 11-3 11.2.3 BDC 4.1.1200, Proceedings on Remand 11-4 11.3 Comprehensive Plan Compliance with BDC 4.6.200 11-6 11.4 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments 11-9 11.4.1 Preface 11-9 11.4.2 Chapter 1, Plan Management and Citizen Involvement 11-9 11.4.3 Chapter 2, Natural Features and Open Space .11-10 11.4.4 Chapter 3, Community Connections .11-11 11.4.5 Chapter 4, Population and Demographics 11-13 Findings Report July 2016 iii 11.4.6 Chapter 5, Housing 11-13 11.4.7 Chapter 6, Economy 11-13 11.4.8 Chapter 7, Transportation 11-13 11.4.9 Chapter 8, Pubtic Facitities and Services 11-13 11.4.1UChapter B,Community Appearance 11-13 11.4.11 Chapter 10, Natural Forces 11-14 11.4.12 Chapter 11, Growth Management 11-15 11.5 BDC Text Amendment Compflance with Section 4.6.200 11'15 I1.5.1 Approach to Minimum Density 11'15 11.5.2 Ensuring Housing Mix 11-16 11.5.3 Master Plan Density arid Mix Requirements 11-16 11.5.4 Minimum Lot Size Requirements 11-17 11S.5 Regulating Buiiding Mass and Lot Coverage 11-18 11.5.6 New Mixed Use Zones 11-18 11.5.7 Revisions to Parking Standards 11-18 11.5.8 Simplified Zone Changes 11-19 12. Compliance with LCDC's 2010 Remand orde12-1 12.1 Introduction �12-1 12.2 Substantial 12-1 12.3 Findings by Remand Order Subsection 12'2 12.3.1 Residential Lands Needs 12-2 1I3.2 Capacity of the Existing UGB & Efficiency Measures 12-3 12.3.3 Other (Non-empioyment) Land Needs 12-4 12.3.4 Empioyment Land Needs 12-4 12.3.5 Natural Resourceand Hazards 12-6 12.3.6 Public Facilities Planning 12-7 12.3.7 Transportation Planning 12-9 12.3.8 Location ofthe UGB Expansion Area 12-11 12.3.9 Other Issues 12-12 Appendix A: ESEE Analysis for Big Game Winter Range A-1 Findings Report July 2016 iv ACRONYM LIST ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit AMI Average median income APG Angelo Planning Group ASI Area of Special Interest BCD Bend Central District BDC Bend Development Code BGWR Big Game Winter Range BLI Buildable Lands Inventory BNSF Burlington Northern — Santa Fe railroad BPRD Bend Park and Recreation District CB Central Business District CC Convenience Commercial CC&Rs Codes, Covenants and Restrictions CDD Community Development Department CG General Commercial CL Limited Commercial COID Central Oregon Irrigation District CSMP Collection System Master Plan CWP Central Westside Plan d/c demand to capacity ratio DLCD Department of Land Conservation and Development DSL Department of State Lands DWPA Drinking Water Protection Area EFU Exclusive Farm Use EOA Economic Opportunities Analysis ESEE Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy ET Envision Tomorrow EUAC Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost FAR Floor Area Ratio FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS Geographic information system GTAC Golden Triangle Area Consortium HNA Housing Needs Analysis IG General Industrial IL Light Industrial Findings Report July 2016 v ILUTP Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission LOS Level of Service LUBA Land Use Board of Appeals MDOZ Medical District Overlay Zone ME Mixed Employment MF Multifamily MFI Median Family Income MN Mixed Use Neighborhood MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MR Mixed Use Riverfront MSA Murry, Smith & Associates MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan MU Mixed Use Urban OAR Oregon Administrative Rule ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation ORS Oregon Revised Statute OSU Oregon State University PF Public Facilities zone PFP Public facilities plan PIP Public involvement plan Plan Bend Comprehensive Plan PO Professional Office PRC Population Research Center PSU Portland State University Rec Remand Record 2009 Rem Rec Remand Record 2016 RH Residential zone, High Density RL Residential zone, Low Density RM Residential zone, Medium Density RS Residential zone, Standard Density RTF Remand Task Force SAAM Supplemental Analysis Area Map SFA Single Family Attached SFD Single Family Detached SM Surface Mine Findings Report July 2016 vi Supp Rec Supplemental Remand Record 2009 TAC Technical Advisory Committee TDM Transportation demand management TPR Transportation Planning Rule TSP Transportation System Plan UAR Urban Area Reserve USC Urban Growth Boundary Steering Committee v/c volume to capacity ratio VMT Vehicle miles traveled WMP Water System Master Plan WOZ Waterway Overlay Zone Findings Report July 2016 vii 1. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF 2016 UGB PROPOSAL 1.1 introduction The City of Bend Council (Council) proposes a number of amendments to the text and maps of the Bend Comprehensive Plan and Bend Development Code. These amendments include an amendment to the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to add 2,380 acres of land for needed housing, employment opportunities, and other urban uses. The proposed UGB amendment is accompanied by and supported through amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Bend Development Code (BDC), which are described below. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the city's proposed plan arid land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) or the Oregon Administrative Rules (bARs). The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from -the Bend ComPrehensive Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been deVelopeci,to support the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Development -Code:. 1.2 Proposed UGB Amendment The Council proposes an amendment to the Bend UGB to add 2,380 acres for needed housing, employment opportunities, and other urban uses. The amendment is reflected on the enclosed map identified as Exhibit NI;-..-The,,arriendment adds this acreage in all four directions and in nine (9) subareas plus one additional property. subarea has specific requirements that are recognized in poligies-rin a new Chapter 11, Growth Management, of the Bend Comprehensive Plan. The size of each subarea, and the required mix of housing units is incorporated in policies in Chapter 11 (Remand Record 2016. Rem Rec 9233). In addition, the UGB amendment proposes to add four (4) park sites owned by the Bend Parks and Recreation District; one in the west, two in the northeast. and One in the southeast. The areas proposed to be added through this UGB amendment -will accommodate a residual housing need of 5,282 units and a residual employment need of 7,181 jobs that cannot reasonably be accommodated in the existing UGB. The proposed amendments to -the Bend Comprehensive Plan include an Urbanization Report that describes each expansion subarea and the process through which the City arrived at this proposed UGB amendment (Rem Rec 9679). 1.3 Proposed Amendments to the Bend Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendments to the Bend General Plan include a new title, the Bend Comprehensive Plan (Plan), and the following changes: • New Chapter 5, Housing and Residential Lands • New Chapter 6, Economy and Employment Lands Findings Report July 2016 Section 1-1 • New Chapter 11, Growth Management • Remaining chapters of the Plan: minor text changes and format changes to create a consistent format and eliminate inconsistencies between newly proposed updates to other chapters of the plan • Updates to the Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) related to the UGB expansion and new Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan (ILUTP) • The following new appendices have been adopted and incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan as supporting documents: o Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI, 2016) o Housing Needs Analysis (HNA, 2016) o Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA, 2016) o ILUTP (2016) o Urbanization Report (2016) o Urban Form Report (2016) The relationship between the BLI, HNA, EOA, and Urbanization Report is summarized in Figure 1-1, and the major components of each report are described in Table 1-1. Findings Report July 2016 Section 1-2 Figure 1-1. Relationship between Key Documents for Bend's Urban Growth Boundary Planning Four Key Documents for Bend's Urban Growth Boundary Planning Buildable Lands Inventory Identifies buildable residential & employment land Housing Needs Analysis Projects future housing needs by housing type Table 1-1s Four Key Documents for Bend's Urban Growth Boundary Planning Document Purpose • Buildable Land Inventory (BCI) Identify buildable residential & employment land by category ousing Needs nalysis (HNA) : -Address the requirements for planning for needed housing, including j analysis of national, state, and local demographic and economic trends, and recommendations for a mix and density of needed housing I 2ocurnent historical employment and demographic trends, the; projection,of employment growth, identification of target: industries, and° evaluation; of site characteristics needed to. accommodate target industries Urbanization Report (UR) Analysis of where and how Bend's future growth will be accommodated, both inside the existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and in expansion areas Findings Report July 2016 Section 1-3 Primary Legal Standards' Key Subject Matter ORS 197.296 OAR 660, Divisions 8 and 9 Development status categories and definitions Methodology for assigning categories and conducting inventory Inventory results: acres by plan designation and development status types -- Statewide Planning Goal 10: Housing ORS 197.296 and 197.303 OAR 660, Division 8 Projection of population and total housing growth Statewide: Planning ; - Goaf Economic :- Development :: • - OAR_660;Division Housing market and development trends Demographic characteristics and trends Analysis of affordability Estimate of needed housing (mix and density) Existing policy and vision National. state, Ioca -trends Employment projections Target industries Site needs and characteristics Special site needs Redevelopment analysis Comparison of -4Comparison of housing capacity to ; employment neem capacityAC! rneed.and` characteristics ,. Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization ORS 197.298 OAR 660, Division 24 Methodology for capacity estimates Pre -policy ("base case") capacity estimate for current UGB Efficiency measures (EMs) proposed Current UGB capacity with EMs UGB alternatives evaluation methodology and results Proposed UGB expansion and summary of Goal 14 evaluation results 1.4 `Proposed Amendments to the Bend Development Code The proposed amendments to the BDC include changes to the following chapters and sections to use land more efficiently for needed housing and economic opportunities: • Chapter 1.2, DEFINITIONS • Chapter2.1, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS o 2.1.100, Purpose, Applicability and Location o 2.1.200, Permitted Land Use. o 2.1.400, Building Mass and Scale o 2.1.500, Lot Area and Dimensions o 2.1.600, Residential Density o 2.1.700, Maximum Lot Coverage o 2.1.800, Building Height 1 OAR = Oregon Administrative Rules; ORS = Oregon Revised Statutes Findings Report July 2016 Section 1-4 o 2.1.900, Architectural Design Standards o 2.1.1000, Multifamily Residential Districts o 2.1.1100, Urban Holding Districts • Chapter 2.2, COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS o 2.2.400, Development Standards o 2.2.600, Commercial Design Review Standards • Chapter 2.3, MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS o 2.3.100, Purpose and Applicability o 2.3.200, Permitted and Conditional Uses o 2.3.300, Development Standards o 2.3.400, Site Layout and Building Orientation o 2.3.500, Architectural Standards • Chapter 2.7, SPECIAL PLANNED DISTRICTS o 2.7.3200, Bend Central District • Chapter 3.3, VEHICLE PARKING, LOADING, AND BICYCLE PARKING o 3.3.300, Vehicle Parking Standards for On-Site Requirements • Chapter 3.4, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS o 3.4.300, Public Use Areas • Chapter 3.6, SPECIAL STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN USES o 3.6.200, Residential Uses • Chapter 4.5, MASTER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT; ALTERNATIVES o 4.5.300, Master; -Planned Developments, o 4.5.400, Master Planned Neighborhoods Development o 4.5.500, Master Plan Development, within the Urban Holding Districts • Chapter 4.6, LAND DISTRICT MAP_A_ND TEXT AMENDMENTS o. 4,6:300, Quasi-judicial:Amendments :> 1.5 Background on the Transition from the City's 2009 UGB Proposal to the 2016 UGB Proposai- On April 16, 2D09, the City Council and Deschutes County Board of Commissioners submitted an adopted UGB amendment proposing a boundary expansion of 8,943 acres to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The Council and Commissioners provided the original Notice of the Proposed Amendment to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development on June 11, 2007 (2009 Supp Rec 1587). The two governmental bodies provided an amended Notice of Proposed Amendments on October 8, 2008, which proposed the UGB amendment ultimately, modified, approved, and submitted to the Department for acknowledgment in April 2009 (2009 Rec 4920). On January 8, 2010, the Department Director issued a report and order remanding the proposal back to the city and county. Several parties, including the City of Bend, filed appeals of this order to be heard by the Land Conservation and Development Commission by January 29, 2010. The Land Conservation and Development Commission held public hearings on these appeals and heard oral argument from the City, objectors, and appellants, on March 18 and 19, Findings Report July 2016 Section 1-5 April 23, and May 12, 2010. At the Commission's final hearing in Bend on May 12, 2010, the Commission approved a motion to remand the proposal back to the City. The Commission issued its final partial acknowledgement/remand order on November 2, 2010. The UGB amendment included in this proposal (2016 Proposal) will amend the UGB by 2,380 acres of land. The findings in the following Section 2 outline the procedural history of how the Council arrived at this proposed UGB amendment. Findings Report July 2016 Section 1-6 2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2.1 Introduction These procedural findings describe the process through which the Council responded to the Commission's 2010 remand order. On November 2, 2010, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) issued a partial acknowledgement -remand order (10 - REMAND -PARTIAL ACKNOW-001795)1. Through this order, LCDC identified those areas where the City either needed to prepare new findings and/or complete new work on certain tasks consistent with LCDC's Order. None of the parties appealed the LCDC's order. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. 2.2 Chronology of Work on the Bend UGB Remand - 2011 through 2016 On January 19, 2011, the Council received a report;on LCDC's order, and approved a motion creating a Remand Task -.Force of City Councilors JodieMBarram, Tom Greene, and Jim Clinton, and Planning Commissioners Cliff Walkey and Kevin Keillor -The Council also approved a work plan for staff to follow in .responding to the remand tasks. Between March 3, 2011 and May 19, 2014, the Remand Task'Force (RTF) met 17 tirrie s (See the City's Findings on Compliance with Goal 1 in Section 9 for the -list of meetings). On February 20, 2013, the City submitted a request for an extension of time for completing the tasks under Order 001795. LCDC considered and' approved this request at their March 21, 2013 meeting. DLCD issued the approved extension in an April 1, 2013 letter to the city manager. The extension gave the City to June 30, 2017 to submit a revised proposal consistent with the remand order. At the August 19, 2013 RTF meeting, Principal Planner Brian Rankin recommended a new approach and goals for completing the UGB Remand by September 2016. This approach was approved by the Council and led to additional budgeting and contract approvals to initiate the work plan. On February 11, 2014, the City issued a request for proposals for planning services to assist the City with completing the UGB Remand Project. This RFP was based upon the new approach and goals presented to the RTF at their August 19, 2013 meeting. The City received two proposals, one of which was from Angelo Planning Group (APG), with which the City entered 1 The entire Remand Order is in the UGB Remand Record, starting at Rem Rec. 5725. Findings Report July 2016 Section 2-1 into a contract for planning services on May 7, 2014. The purpose of this contract was to obtain professional assistance to allow for the City to complete the UGB remand sooner while remaining consistent with applicable procedural and substantive standards. On June 19, 2014, the RTF met as the UGB Steering Committee (USC). Starting with this meeting on June 19, 2014, the USC included all seven (7) members of the Council, City of Bend Planning Commissioners Bill Wagner and Rex Wolf, and Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney. County Commissioner Tony DeBone took over for Commissioner Tammy Baney in September 2014. Between June 19, 2014, and April 21, 2016, the USC met nine (9) bnnem, including a joint workshop with the Residential and the Employment Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) on December 15, 2014. On June 26, 2014, the City began a recruitment for members to serve on one of three TACs. These TACs included one devoted to housing issues and residential land (Residential TAC); a second focused on jobs and employment lands (Employment TAC), and: a third focused on developing the boundary methodology and growth scenarios (Boundary and Growth Scenarios TAC or "Boundary TAC"). The TAC membership recruitment ctosed onJuly 11, 2014. Members of the Council met in July to select and appoint members to each of the three TACs. On August 20, 2014, the City Council formally approved Resolution 2598 to formthe USC and three temporary TACs. A new TAC member orientationheld at the Community Room of the Bend Park and Recreation District on July 29, 2014. This peeting was noticed as a public meeting, and provided an orientation to the new TAC members on their roles and responsibilities. Starting in August 2014, the three TACs met regularly to review consultant team and staff work products prepared to satisfy the requirements of -the Remand Order. The Residential TAC met to review those products focused on housing and the need for housing land; the Employment TAC met to review those products focused on employment and the need for employment land. These two TACs typically met on the same day. The third TAC, the Boundary and Growth Scenarios TAC, typically met the day after the other two TACs met, and focused on those remand tasks associated with evaluating potential areas to include in a UGB expansion. These tasks included, but were not limited to, the identification of a study area, the identification of criteria to use in identifying suitable lands, and evaluation criteria with which the team could compare and contrast potential areas for expansion. There were 41 meetings with the three TACs between August 2014 and March 2016. Each TAC meeting included a staff introduction of the topics that would be addressed at that meeting, and whether consultant team products were new for consideration or amended in response to TAC direction and/or direction from public comments. Each meeting included time for public comments, and the City received both oral and written comments at each meeting. The City staff collated and uploaded the written comments to the City's website so that interested persons could access the comments. Alt of these comments were atso entered into the record. In addition, the City staff ensured that each TAC approved written minutes of their prior meeting for not only their benefit for tracking progress, but to create a public record of the decisions they Findings Report July 2016 Section 2-2 made at each meeting; these minutes were also posted to the City's website for public access and included in the Remand Record. On September 4, 2014, the USC met and held their first meeting to review and approve work products from the three TACs. One of its key decisions was to approve the housing mix recommendation of the Residential TAC. This September 2014 meeting was one of seven (7) meetings of the USC between September 2014 and April 2016. Each meeting of the USC was noticed as a public meeting, with notice going out to the local media contacts and electronic mail notices to the TAC members and all of the interested persons who had provided an email address for such notice. Similar to the TAC meetings, the meetings of the USC included sections for public comments, staff presentations of the work completed by the TACs and presented for the USC's approval, and USC approval of their written meeting minutes of their prior meeting. On December 15, 2014, the Residential and Employment TACs held a joint workshop with the USC. The purpose of this workshop was to recommend preliminary land use assumptions for potential opportunity areas inside the current UGB. Both TACs met again (separately) in January and February 2015 to discuss details related to land needs and to review and approve working recommendations for efficiency measures and opportunity areas inside the current UGB. On March 19, 2015, the UGB Steering Committee approved the Phase 1 work products of the three TACs. These products included a preliminary set of efficiency measures and land need estimates for housingand employment, and the results of the Boundary TAC's work to identify suitable lands within the study area and potential evaluation criteria for UGB expansion. On April 30, 2015, the USC and the three TACs met in a joint workshop to identify potential areas to consider -for. UGB expansion. The primary purpose of the workshop was for the participants to engage in a brainstorming exercise referred to as a "chip game" (Rem Rec 3846- 3847). The goal of the chip game was to generate maps showing generally where future growth should occur that was based on placements of chips of land uses in various locations and in structured amounts. This exercise was conducted by six groups, each of whom developed a UGB scenario with their chips, with each set of chips matching the land needs for needed housing, employment opportunities, and other uses such as schools and parks. The Boundary TAC met twice in June 2015, on the 9th and on the 22nd. During their first meeting on June 9, the Boundary TAC considered three (3) draft UGB expansion scenarios prepared by the consultant team based on the results of the joint workshop. The scenarios tested different combinations and arrangements of land uses within nine (9) subareas adjacent to the existing UGB. The Boundary TAC held a second meeting on June 22, 2015. At their second meeting, the Boundary TAC forwarded their recommendations for refinements to the three (3) UGB scenarios to the USC to use for evaluation. Based on public and landowner comments, they also forwarded a recommendation to conduct additional analysis of land identified as suitable but not included in the scenarios, identified as "supplemental analysis areas (SAAMs)." The USC met later that week on June 25, 2015 and approved for evaluation Findings Report July 2016 Section 2-3 the three (3) UGB scenarios with some of the refinements recommended by the Boundary TAC and the supplemental analysis areas. The Residential and Employment TACs met multiple times during the summer and fall of 2015. Their work at these meetings focused on policies for the General Plan, reviewing and refining development code concepts to implement the efficiency measures, and other remaining work to satisfy the remand order, including the City's obligations and planning opportunities related to reducing reliance on the automobile through integrated land use and transportation planning. Between July 2015 and September 2015, the consultant team and city staff evaluated the three UGB scenarios and three alternatives developed to test the supplemental analysis areas (called supplemental analysis area maps or SAAMs) against the performance measures approved by the USC in March 2015 (Rem Rec 3588-3607). The Boundary TAC met twice in October 2015 to review the results of the evaluation and make a recommendation regarding a preferred scenario. During their first meeting on October 8, 2015, the Boundary TAC received a presentation from the consultant team and city staff on the results of the UGB scenarios evaluation (Rem Rec 6619, 6737, and 6851). During their second meeting on October 22, 2015, the Boundary TAC considered Scenario 2.1, and variations of this scenario identified as Scenarios 2.2 and 2.3. The Boundary TAC voted to refer Scenario 2.3 with two amendments to the UGB Steering Committee as the preferred UGB scenario. On October 22, 2015, the UGB Steering Committee met and received a presentation on the scenario evaluation results and the Boundary TAC's recommendation of Scenario 2.3 with their recommended amendments. Following their discussion, the USC voted to use Scenario 2.1 with a few changes directed by the USC as the scenario for further refinement and infrastructure and transportation modeling. This -recommendation was identified as Scenario 2.1A. The USC next: met on December 14, 2015 to review Scenario 2.1B, which included refinements from the consultant team and direction to city staff to incorporate the latest efficiency measures, calibrate to Bend development code standards, and capture updated land assumptions for parks, schools, and rights of way. At this meeting, the USC directed the team (consultants and city staff) to hold another meeting with the Boundary TAC. One of the purposes of this meeting was to have the Boundary TAC consider possible refinements to Scenario 2.1B. The USC also directed the Boundary TAC to consider a scenario or those elements of a UGB scenario for which there was consensus among the Boundary TAC members. On January 20, 2016, the Boundary TAC met to consider, as a starting point, a Scenario 2.1C. This scenario, which was developed based on suggestions from the Boundary TAC chairs in advance of the meeting, included a proposal for a "transect" (an area of gradually declining densities to provide compatible transitions to adjacent natural resource areas) in the West subarea, some proposed expansion in the Shevlin subarea, and several changes to land uses in the North Triangle subarea. The Boundary TAC came to consensus decisions on recommendations to the USC for each subarea except for the West subarea. Regarding the West subarea, all but one of the Boundary TAC members in attendance supported the West subarea and the Shevlin subarea for expansion. Findings Report July 2016 Section 2-4 On February 10, 2016, the USC met to consider the recommendations from the Boundary TAC's January 20, 2016 meeting, which were incorporated in a Scenario 2.1D. The USC reviewed the recommendations from the Boundary TAC for each of the expansion subareas, and voted unanimously each time to accept the Boundary TAC's recommendation. The only variation from this was a unanimous vote for 12.8 acres of residential land from the Thumb to be moved to the Elbow and 12.8 acres of commercial land to be moved from the Elbow to the Thumb. This recommendation was identified as Scenario 2.1E. The three TACs each held their last meetings in March 2016. The Residential and the Employment TACs held a joint meeting on March 17, 2016 to review the final Phase 2 work products and proposed adoption products. Each TAC voted to forward on the package of adoption materials to the USC. The Boundary TAC met twice in March, first on March 16 and then later on March 30, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the Boundary TAC held its final meeting to review the final Phase 2 work products and proposed adoption products. At their March 30, 2016 meeting the Boundary TAC considered the final version of a draft Growth Management Chapter and comprehensive plan designations for expansion subareas before approving the final package of materials that would go forward to the USC. The recommendation to the USC from the Boundary TAC included a minor adjustment to the comprehensive plan designations for two expansion subareas, which was captured as Scenario 2.1 F. On April 21, 2016, the USC met to consider the TAC recommendations from the March 2016 meetings. The USC considered and approved the package of adoption materials recommended by the three TACs. The USC also received several proposals for- additional lands to include in the UGB, including several that proposed to provide affordable housing if their land was included. The consultant team identified a series of changes to Scenario 2.1 F that could accommodate the proposed additions that incorporated an affordable housing component (Scenario 2.1G). This set of changes and the addition of the lands that incorporated an affordable, housing commitment were approved by the USC as the recommendation to take forward for public hearings. Section 7 of this report includes the Council's findings demonstrating the proposed UGB amendment's compliance withapplicable statutes, administrative rules, and Goal 14. Findings Report July 2016 Section 2-5 3. SCOPE OF REVIEW 3.1 Introduction The 2010 Remand Order determines the scope of review for this UGB amendment (Rem Rec 05730 - 05732). DLCD and LCDC have jurisdiction to review UGB amendments of greater than 50 acres by a city with a population of 2,500 or more (ORS 197.626, OAR 660-025-0040(1)(a)). The City has an estimated population of 81,310 as of July 1, 2015 and proposes to amend the Bend UGB to include 2,380 acres of land, so this UGB amendment is reviewable by DLCD. The decision of the DLCD Director may be appealed to LCDC. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. 3.2 Applicable Criteria The following standards, as guided by the 2010 Remand; Order, are applicable to the review and action on the proposed UGB amendment and-relatedplan andland use regulation amendments. 3.2.1 Applicability of Recent Amendments to Statute and Rule OAR 660, Division 24 has been amended several times since the City first began the process of expanding the UGB, most recently 6'2,016. Statutes pertaining to amendment of UGBs (including ORS 197.298 and 197A) werealso amended in 2013 and 2016. This section addresses the;applicability of these amendments to the current UGB expansion proposal. The City initially provided notice of a UGB expansion proposal along with related amendments to DLCD on June 11, 2007, and then a revised proposal October 8, 2008 (Rem Rec 5726- 5728)1. The City adopted the: proposal on January 5, 2009, but the City's decision was remanded by LCDC. The current proposal is a response to the LCDC Remand. As stated in the LCDC Remand, "the City's decision is subject to the version of the commission's rules in effect at the time of its decision, unless the rules specifically provide otherwise" (Rem Rec 5740). 1 This reference to the Remand Record cites to the Procedural History of the 2009 Bend UGB proposal presented in LCDC's 2010 Order. Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-1 OAR 660-024-0000 provides that the applicable version depends on the date a City initiates its UGB amendment and other factors. Applicability of ORS 197A is addressed by House Bill 4126, Chapter 81 of Oregon Laws 2016, effective date March 29, 2016, which states: Notwithstanding ORS 197A.320, a City outside of Metro that submitted to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, pursuant to ORS 197.610, a proposed change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation that included an evaluation or an amendment of its urban growth boundary, or that received approval of a periodic review work program that included a work task to amend or evaluate its urban growth boundary pursuant to ORS 197.633, prior to January 1, 2016, but did not complete the evaluation or amendment of its urban growth boundary prior to January 1, 2016, may complete the evaluation or amendment pursuant to statutes and administrative rules in effect on June 30, 2013. This law allows jurisdictions like Bend that are midway through a UGB expansion to continue to use the June 30, 2013 versions of the statues and rules instead of the newly effective ORS 197A.320 (effective July 1, 2013), and OAR 660 Division 24 (effective January 1, 2016). The City submitted notice to DLCD regarding an amendment of its urban growth boundary pursuant to ORS 197.610 on June 11, 2007, and a revised notice on October 8, 2008 (Rem Rec 5726). This amendment led to the resulting LCDC Remand Order which has not yet been completed and is the subject of this re -submittal to DLCD. The City of Bend, being a city outside of Metro, may complete the amendment "pursuant to the statutes and administrative rules in effect on June 30, 2013" because June 11, 2007 is prior to January 1, 2016 and because the City's response to the DLCD Remand Order was not completed by January 1, 2016. Therefore, the City Council finds it may, and will "complete the evaluation or amendment pursuant to statutes and administrative rules in effect on June 30, 2013." The applicable ORS and OARs and their standards are the -June 30, 2013 -versions of ORS 197.298 and Division 24. The City's findings included in this and other sections of the findings address these versions. Other ORS and OARs are current versions as of 20162. In addition, the current version of OAR 660-024-0000 provides that the applicable version depends on the date a City initiates its UGB amendment and other factors: (3) The rules in this division adopted on October 5, 2006, are effective April 5, 2007. The rules in this division amended on March 20, 2008, are effective April 18, 2008. The rules in this division adopted March 13, 2009, and amendments to rules in this division adopted on that date, are effective April 16, 2009, except as follows: (a) A local government may choose to not apply this division to a plan amendment concerning the evaluation or amendment of a UGB, regardless of the date of that 2 The City relied on the June 30, 2013 versions of ORS 197.298, and OAR 660-024 for the analysis. For other relevant statutes and administrative rules, the City relied on those versions available online as of 2016. The City also relied on 2016 HB 4126 (See 2016 Oregon Laws, Chapter 81). Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-2 amendment, if the local government initiated the evaluation or amendment of the UGB prior to April 5, 2007; (b) For purposes of this rule, "initiated" means that the local government either: (A) Issued the public notice specified in OAR 660-018-0020 for the proposed plan amendment concerning the evaluation or amendment of the UGB; or (8) Received LCDC approval of a periodic review work program that includes a work task to evaluate the UGB land supply or amend the UGB; (c) A local government choice whether to apply this division must include the entire division and may not differ with respect to individual rules in the division. (4) The rules in this division adopted on December 4, 2015, are effective January 1, 2016, except that a local government may choose to not apply the amendments to rules in this division adopted December 4, 2015 to a plan amendment concerning the amendment of a UGB, regardless of the date of that amendment; if the local government initiated the amendment of the UGB prior to January 1, 2016. Subsection (4), above, provides additional direction that a local government may choose not to apply the 2016 amendments to OAR 660 Division 24 if it initiated its UGB amendment (based on the date of the notice to DLCD) prior to January 1, 2016, as the City of Bend did. This is consistent with Chapter 81 of Oregon Laws 2016 The administrative rules in effect on June 30, 2013 contain their own applicability provisions, none of which direct the Bend City Council to use prior versions of rules than the:rules in effect June 30,-2013. See the June 30, 2013 version of Division 24°(660-024-0000(3)(a)). 3.2.2 Compliance with ApplicableRules and 'Statutes for Residential Land, Needed Housing ORS 197:296, Factors toestablish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary; analysis and "determination of residential housing patterns ORS 197.303, "Needed housing'' defined ORS 197.307, Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas, approval standards for certain residential development; placement standards for approval of manufactured dwellings OAR 660 Division 8, Interpretation of Goal 10, Housing • 660-008-0010, Allocation of Buildable Land • 660-008-0015, Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required • 660-008-0020, Specific Plan Designations Required • 660-008-0025, The Rezoning Process • 660-008-0030, Regional Coordination Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-3 • 660-008-0040, Restrictions on Housing Tenure OAR 660 Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries • 660-024-0040, Land Need • 660-024-0050, Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency 3.2.3 Compliance with Applicable Rules for Economic Development Land Need No Oregon revised statutes provide standards or criteria related to economic development land need, but the following regulations are applicable: OAR 660 Division 9, Economic Development • 660-009-0010, Application • 660-009-0015, Economic Opportunities Analysis • 660-009-0020, Industrial and Other Employment Development Policies • 660-009-0025, Designation of Lands for Industrial and Other Employment Uses OAR 660 Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries • 660-024-0040, Land Need • 660-024-0050, Land Inventory and Responseto Deficiency 3.2.4 Compliance with Applicable Rules for Transportation Planning OAR 660 Divisionl2, Transportation Planning • 6607012-0016, Coordination with Metropolitan Areas;;, • 660-012-0035, Evaluation and:Selection of Transportation System Alternatives • 660-012-0055, Timing of Adoption and Update of Transportation System Plans; Exemptions • 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments Federally Required Regional Transportation Plans in 3.2.5 Compliance with Applicable Rules and Statutes for Urban Growth Boundaries ORS 197.298; Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary (2007)3 Statewide Planning Goal 14; Urbanization (2007) • Location Factor 1: Efficient Accommodation of identified land need • Location Factor 2: Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services 3 See Discussion of Subissue 9.1, 2010 Remand Order Page 123 (Rem Rec 5846). Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-4 • Location Factor 3: Comparative economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences • Location Factor 4: Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest lands outside the UGB. OAR 660-024, Urban Growth Boundaries (2007) • 660-024-0060, Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis 3.2.6 Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals The following statewide planning goals are applicable to review of this proposed UGB amendment and related plan and land use regulation amendments. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Goal 2, Land Use Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas,. and Open Spaces Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land ResourcesQuality Goal 7, Natural Hazards Goal 8, Recreational.^Needs` Goal 9, Economic Development Goal 10, Housing Goal 11 Public Facilities Goal 12, Transportation Goal 13, Energy., 3.2.7 Compliance with Applicable Policies of the Bend Comprehensive Plan The City is making coordinated amendments to several documents, including the Plan. Because these amendments are part of a single coordinated approach, the Plan, as amended by the current amendment, applies. The findings discuss both the existing and amended policies to clarify which existing policies are no longer applicable and to describe how the amendments comply with the amended Plan. The following existing Plan policies are discussed, as well as the amended policies that amend, replace or supplement the existing policies. Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-5 • Preface - A person or agency proposing a change has the burden to demonstrate a public need and benefit for the change. • Chapter 1 - Plan Management and Citizen Involvement o General Policy Guidance, 1-1, 1-2 o Urban Planning Coordination, 1-3, 1-4 o Development within the Urban Growth Boundary, 1-7 and 1-8 o Citizen Involvement, 1-15 and 1-16 • Chapter 2 - Natural Features and Open Space o Policies 2-12 and 2-13 • Chapter 3 - Community Connections o Policies 3-5 and 3-6 • Chapter 4 - Population and Demographics o Policies 4-1 and 4-2 • Chapter 5 - Housing o Population Forecasts, 5-1 through 5-3 o Housing Mix, Density, and Affordability, 5-4 through 5-8 o Housing Density and Affordability, existing policies 21 through 24 and 26 through 28, new policies 5-9 through 5-19 o Residential Compatibility, existing policies 1 through 3, 12, 16, 18, and 19; new policies 5-20 and 5-21, 5-22 through -5-25, 5-26 through 5-29, 5-30 through 5-35, o Transportation Connectivity, new policies 5-36 through 5-49, o Public Utilities and Services, existing policy 47; new policies 5-50 through 5-53, o Destination Resorts, existing policies 49 through 55, new policies 5-54 and 5-55, o Refinement Plan Areas, existing policies 57 and 58, new policy 5-56 • Chapter 6 - Economy o General Policies 6-1 through 6-11 o Short Term Supply 6-12 and 6-13 o Industrial Development existing policies 2, 7, 12, 13, new policies 6-14 and 6-15, 6-16 through 6-22, o Mixed Use Development, 6-23 through 6-25 o Commercial Development, existing Policy 30, new policies 6-26 through 6-38, 6- 39 through 6-41 • Chapter 7 - Transportation Systems o Transportation System Plan Objectives and Policies, 7-3 through 7-5, 7-8, 7-11, and existing policy 5. o Transportation Demand Management, policies 7-24 o Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems, policies 7-28, 7-29, 7-45, and existing policies 19, 20, and 21 o Public Transportation System, policy 7-47 and existing policy 1 o Street System, 7-52 o Residential Streets, 7-63 and 7-64 o Arterial Streets, 7-69, and existing policies 22 and 27 Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-6 o Parkway, existing policies 30, 31, and 32 o Bend Central District, 7-86 through 7-90 o Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan, 7-91 through 7-95 o TSP Map Updates, 7-96 o Transportation Funding and Prioritization Policies, 7-103 • Chapter 8 — Public Facilities and Services o Sewer Collection Facilities, 8-1 through 8-3 o Water Facilities and Systems, 8-13, 8-14, 8-17, 8-19 o Storm Drainage Facilities and Systems, 8-31 and 8-33 • Chapter 9 — Community Appearance o New Policies 9-2 and 9-3, and existing policies 6 and 11 • Chapter 10 — Natural Forces o Natural Hazards policy 10-12 o Wildfire policy 10-18 3.2.8 Compliance with the Bend Development Code The following BDC provisions are applicable to review of the proposal. • Section 4.6.200, Legislative Amendments 3.2.9 Compliance with. the. Directives of the November 2, 2010 Remand Order of the Land Conservation land Development Com -mission (10REMAND-PARTIAL ACKNOW- 001795) The following directives from the Comrn,ission's 2010 Remand Order are applicable to review of this proposal ':The City notes that -there area numb -0 -of subissues in the remand order that were settled and that these are not listed below_' Remand Order' :' ^ Subissues Remand Order Section Pages 2. Reside ntial Land Subissue 2.2 (Rem Rec 5741) Pages 18-47 Needs ;Subissue 2.3 (Rem Rec 5749) Subissue 2.4 (Rem Rec 5756) Subissue 2.5 (Rem Rec 5759) Subissue 2.6 (Rem Rec 5762) Subissue 2.7 (Rem Rec 5766) Subissue 2.8 (Rem Rec 5769) 3. Capacity of the Subissue 3.1 (Rem Rec 5771) Pages 48-56 Existing UGB & Subissue 3.2 (Rem Rec 5777) Efficiency Measures 4. Other (Non- Subissue 4.1 (Rem Rec 5780) Pages 57-63 Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-7 Remand Order Subissues Remand Order Section Pages Employment) Land Subissue 4.2 (Rem Rec 5782) Needs Subissue 4.3 (Rem Rec 5784) 5. Employment Land Subissue 5.1 (Rem Rec 5787) Needs Subissue 5.2 (Rem Rec 5790) Subissue 5.4 (Rem Rec 5795), Subissue 5.5 (Rem Rec 5800) Subissue 5.6 (Rem Rec 5801) Subissue 5.8 (Rem Rec 5805) Subissue 5.9 (Rem Rec 5807) 6. Natural Subissue 6.1 (Rem Rec 5809) Resources and Subissue 6.2 (Rem Rec 5815) Hazards Subissue 6.3 (Rem Rec 5817) 7. Public Facilities Subissue 7.1 (Rem Rec 5819) Planning Subissue 7.2 (Rem Rec 5824). Subissue 7.4 (Rem Rec 5827) Subissue 7.5 (Rem Rec 5828) Subissue 7.7 (Rem Rec 5832) Subissue`. 7.9 (Rem_: Rec 5835) 8. Transportation,Subissue 8.1 (Rem Rec5837) Planning Subissue 8.2(Rem Rec 5838) ,Subissue 8.3w( -Rem Rec 5839) ;- Subissue 8.5 (Rem .Rec 5841) Subissue 8.6 (Rem. Rec 5842) 9. Location of the,, Subissue 9.1 (Reif Rec 5846) UGB expansion =--Subissue-9 2 (Rem Rec 5853) Area Subissue 9.3 (Rem Rec 5855) Subissue 9.4 (Rem: Rec 5856) Subissue 9.5 (Rem Rec 5857) Subissue-9.8 (Rem Rec 5859) Subissue 99 (Rem Rec 5859) `,Subissue 10.1 (Rem Rec 5861) Subissue 10.2 (Rem Rec 5862) Subissue 10.3 (Rem Rec 5865) 10. Otherlssues 3.3 Standard of Review Pages 64-85 Pages 86-95 Pages 96-113 Pages 114-122 Pages 123-138 Pages 139-142 LCDC's November 2010 order provides guidance on the standard of review (Rem Rec 05731). DLCD and LCDC's review of the City's proposal will address compliance with the applicable statutes, goals, and administrative rules. For proposals such as this UGB amendment and amendments to the city's and county's comprehensive plans, "compliance with the goals" means the submittal, on the whole, conforms with the purposes of the goals and any failure to meet individual goal requirements is technical or minor in nature (See ORS 197.747). Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-8 The proposed amendment must satisfy Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning. To do so, the City must show that the proposal will be supported by an adequate factual base. The City's proposed amendments to its comprehensive plan and land use regulations (the Bend Development Code) are legislative decisions. A legislative decision satisfies Goal 2's requirement for an adequate factual base if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding (Rem Rec 05731). In addition, the proposed UGB amendment, along with related amendments to the respective comprehensive plans, involved making basic findings of fact and drawing inferences from those facts. This requires DLCD's review, and potentially LCDC's review, to address two related inquiries. First, whether the basic fact or facts are supported by substantial evidence. Second, the City must connect the facts or reasoned inferences from the facts to the decision (Rem Rec 05731-05732). The City must demonstrate that the substantial evidence in the record supports the adopted findings concerning compliance with the goals, rules, and statutes. 3.4 Review Authority The proposed amendments to the City's Plan and BDC, including the UGB boundary amendment, arise out of the Remand' Order- and decision, which was reviewed by DLCD and LCDC in the manner of periodic review and review of work tasks. These materials, including those corresponding amendments to Deschutes County's comprehensive plan, land use regulations, and plan, and zoning:,maps, are:being re submitted to the DLCD to determine whether the revised`decision(s) amending the urban growth boundary, and any matters arising out of that decision, comply with the applicable Statewide planning goals, their implementing rules, applicable state statues, and applicable local comprehensive plan and land use regulations (Rein Rec 5730-5731). Because; theseTegislative decisions involve a UGB expansion, DLCD's review of the. City's decision;on remand will also be in the manner of periodic review. To meet Goal 14, the Remand Order required the City to adopt efficiency measures, including measures to accommodate its projected housing needs within the existing UGB, new measures to increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at the housing types and density and at the mix adopted by -Council during the planning period. The efficiency measures including plan and development code text changes arise out of the remand directive and timeframe, promote infill anti redevelopment, and are essential components of the UGB expansion decision intended to meet the requirements of ORS 197.296(7) and (9). In situations such as these, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) does not have jurisdiction to review a local government's decision on a UGB amendment. ORS 197.825(2)(C)(a) excludes this decision from LUBA's jurisdiction: "197.825 Jurisdiction of board; /imitations; effect on circuit court jurisdiction. (1) Except as provided in ORS 197.320 and subsections (2) and (3) Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-9 of this section, the Land Use Board of Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review any land use decision or limited land use decision of a local government, special district or a state agency in the manner provided in ORS 197.830 to 197.845. (2) The jurisdiction of the board: (c) Does not include a local government decision that is: (A) Submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for acknowledgment under ORS 197.251, 197.626 or 197.628 to 197.651 or a matter arising out of a local government decision submitted to the department for acknowledgment, unless the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, in the director's sole discretion, transfers the matter to the board;" To summarize, the City is submitting its UGB expansion proposal and all related materials to the DLCD pursuant to ORS 197.626. The proposal is submitted in this manner because it includes a UGB amendment of greater than 50 acres, and the City has a population greater than 50,000 people. DLCD will review this proposal in the manner provided for review of a work task under ORS 197.633. OAR 660-025 includes these relevant procedures for review, and further requires that any appeals of a DLCD Director's decision are heard by LCDC. LUBA does not have jurisdiction to review the City's decision pursuant to ORS 197.825 (2)(c)(A). Findings Report July 2016 Section 3-10 4. NEEDED HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL LANDS 4.1 Introduction The findings in Sections 4 through 8 of this Report address the relevant legal standards in State statutes, goals and administrative rules that are applicable to Bend's 2016 UGB proposal. The format of the findings uses italics to present the pertinent text of the statutes, goals and rules followed by findings in normal text. Many of the provisions in the statutes, goals and rules are very similar, so the findings may cross-reference other findings to minimize duplication. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. The findings also reference documents and evidence in the 2009 Record and in the 2011-2016 Record on Remand. The full record is also available on the City's web site via the following link: www.bendoreaon.aov/benduab. Generally, findings summarize; more detailed, analysis found in referenced supporting documents in order to address the;relevant legal standards and help the reader understand the UGB proposal. The findings are more easily understood if the reader has access to the key documents supporting the :UGB proposal such as: tie record. The record and key documents supporting the-fndings are posted on the City's website. As shown in Figure 1-1 (see Section;1 of Findings Report), three key documents are central to the City's planning for needed _housing;=and related residential land needs:1 • BLI • HNA • Urbanization Report These three reports will be incorporated into the Plan as part of the UGB adoption package. The major components of each report are described in Table 1-1 (see Section 1 of Findings Report). In addition to these three reports, the City adopts Plan and BDC text and map amendments as part of the UGB adoption package. The consolidated UGB adoption package 1 As shown in Figure 1-1, the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) is the fourth key document for Bend's UGB planning. Findings to address land needs for employment are included in Section 5 of this Findings Report. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-1 will assure efficient use of land within the UGB and in expansion areas to accommodate all types of needed housing. 4.2 Summary of Relevant Legal Standards The findings in this section address the relevant legal standards in state law that are applicable to Bend's determination of needed,housing and related residential land needs. In an effort to address the relevant legal standards and to "tell the story" in a logical way, the findings are generally organized to follow the framework outlined in "Planning for Residential Growth," a guidebook prepared in 1997 by the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program.2 Table 4'1summarizes the organization ofthe findings and the relevant|ego|otandordu. The applicable ORS and OARe, their standards, and the City's findings included in this and other sections ofthe findings are the June 3O.2D13versions ofORS 197.298and Division 24. Other ORS and OARs are current versions as of 20l6. Table 4-1: Relevant Legal Standards Applicable Oregon Revised Statutes Section Heading in Findings (ORS) 4.4.1 Planning Horizon and 197.286(2) Population Forecast 4.4.2 Total Housing Unit Projection 4.4.3 Needed Housing Types and 107.206(3) Mix 197.298(5) 197.303 Applicable Statewide Planning Goal(s) 14 10 and 14 10 and 14 4.4.4 Needed Housing Derisity197.206(3) 10 4.4.5 BuUdable Lands Inventory 197.296(4), (5) 10 and 14 4.4.6 Capacity Analysis 197.296(3), (5) 14 4.4.7 Efficiency Measures 197.296(6), (7), (9) 14 Applicable Oregon Administrative Rule(s) (OAR) 660-024-0040 (4) 660-008-0005 (6) 660-008-0040 660-024-0040 (4) & (8) 860'008-0005(2). (4), (6) 660-008'0030 660-008-0040 600-024'0050 660-024-0040(8) 660-808'0010 660'008-0005(2) 660'008-0020 660'024'0050(1) 660'024-0050(4) 660-024-00504 2 The guidebook is available on-line at: hboz0xoww.oreoon.onv/LCD/douo/oub|icaUpnmb|annino for residential qnowdh.odf 3 The City relied on the June 30, 2013 versions of ORS 197.298, and OAR 660-024 for the analysis. For other relevant statutes and administrative rules, the City relied on those versions available online as of 2016. The City also relied on201OH8412O(See 201SOregon Laws, Chapter 81). Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-2 4.4.8 Zoning and Regulating Needed Housing 97.307(3) 10 and 14 4.4.9 Residential Land Need 197.296(3) 14 4.3 Substantial Evidence 660-008-0010 660-008-0015 660-008-0020 660-008-0025 660-024-0050(6) 660-024-0040(4) Table 4-2 summarizes the key evidence that supports the_findings in this section. Access to the record is available on the City's website for the UGB Remand Project. Table 4-2: Key Record References Description 2009 UGB Record Population Forecast (2008-2028) Safe Harbors for Housing Unit Forecast Forecast of Needed Housing Units (2008-2028) Second Home Forecast -(2008;208) 2011-2016 Record on Remand 2016 Buildable Lands Inventory 2016Housing Needs Analysis 2016 Urbanization Report - -"- Amendments' to Bend Comprehensive Pfeil chapter 5: Housing New Bend Comprehensive Plan Chapter 11: Growth Management Amendments to Text of Bend Development Code (BDC) Amendments to Bend Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments to Bend Zoning Map Date 11/19/07 11/19/07 11/19/07 1/7/08 7/18/16 7/19/16 7/19/16 7/2016 7/2016 7/2016 7/20/2016 7/20/2016 Page # Record (Rec ) 8801 8802 8802 8671 Remand Record (Rem Rec ) 10413 10572 10814 10310 10362 11149 11145 11147 Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-3 4.4 Findings 4.4.1. Planning Horizon and Population Forecast 4.4.1.1 Planning Horizon ORS 197.296 establishes the context for planning to provide sufficient buildable lands within the UGB to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. ORS 197.296(2) provides: (2) At periodic review pursuant to ORS 197.628 to 197.650 or at any other legislative review of the comprehensive plan or regional framework plan that concerns the urban growth boundary and requires the application of a statewide planning goal relating to buildable lands for residential use, a local government shall demonstrate that its comprehensive plan or regional framework plan provides sufficient buildable lands within the urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. The 20 -year period shall commence on the date initially scheduled for completion of the periodic or legislative review. The City began the process for demonstrating a need for UGB expansion in 2004. That process started with the development of a coordinated 20, year population forecast (2005-2025) with Deschutes County. The adopted and acknowledged population forecast for Bend for the year 2025 was 109,389. As the first step in its analysis of the capacity of the UGB, the' City extrapolated`the coordinated population forecast from 2025 to 2028 (in order to ,have a 20 -year planning period as required by ORS 197.296) This extension resulted. in a population forecast of 115,063 for Bend in 2028 (Rec at 1067, 1301):1 -The City initiated the'.process for formal analysis of its proposed UGB amendment on June 11;2007 by mailing notice of"its initial evidentiary hearing to DLCD (Rec at 1053). The Director's Report and Remand Order found that the City's extension of the coordinated population forecast.from 2025, to 2028 complied with relevant state law (Director's Report p. 25)4: -.;: 4.4.1.2 Population Forecast OAR 660-024-0040(4) addresses the 20 -year population forecast that underlies the determination of housing and `residential needs: 4 Official Notice - The Director's January 2010 Report and Order are available through the DLCD website using this URL: http://www.oreaon.aov/LCD/paaes/report on bend and deschutes uob amendment.aspx#director s re sponse to the appeals. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-4 (4) The determination of residential land needs for an urbaarea must be consistent with the coordinated population forecast for the urbaarea, and with the requirements for determining housing needs in Goals 10 and 14, OAR chapter 660, division 7 or 8, and applicablepnuvisonoofO/9SY97.285bo1S7.3/4end 197.4756x197498 The Oregon House and Senate alegislation in 2013 that shifted population forecasting responsibilities from the 36 counties to the Population Research Center (PRC) at Portland State UnkxemGitv(P8U).a As noted above. ORS 187.296(2) estab(ishes that the r planning period shall commence on the date initially scheduled for completion of the periodic orlegislative review. Bend's 20 - year planning period (2008 to 2028) was acknowledged in the Remand. The first coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County (and cities) prepared by bythePRC under the new population forecast rules in OAR 660, division 32 was issued in June 20156, population growth in 2025 that was comparablto the City's coordinateforecast from 2004. The 2025 Coordinated Population Forecast for E3end was 109.888; the 2025 PRC Population Forecast for Bend was 109.548. The City has continued to rely on the population forecast for the 2008-2028 planning period because it was acknowledged, . foundto be consistent with state law, and very close to that growth forecasted by PSU7. - aw, and very close to that growth forecasted by PSU'. The City Councfl recognizes that the UGB process in Berid has gone on far onger than anticipated. Resideritial construction slowed dramatically during the recession, and Bend's popufation did not grow as forecasted. The results of (he 2010 Census for Bend showed the more recent estimates of population from PSU were higher thari the actual count of population conducted by the Census Bureau. For example. the PRC estimates Bend's Juy 1, 2010 population at 83,125. while the ensus counted 76,740 in 2010, the yearthe initial UGB proposal was remanded to the City. Staffing in Bend's panning division was aso reduced substantiafly during this period. From 2011-2014. the City focused significanttime and budget on preparing and updating public facility plans for wastewater collection, waler and stormwater. In 2014, the City initiated an ambitious effort to complete the UGB process in two years (by 2016). These planning efforts built on components of UGB planning that had been approved by LCDC in the 2010 Remand 5See ORS 195.033 to ORS 195.036. PSU PRC, Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast: 2015 through 2065. httP://bdxsohokudibrarv.odx.eduicqVvievwcontnnLooi?artiue=1O34&oontoxt=000ulationnnoodo rThe PRC'upopulation forecast for Bend's UGBin2D25was 1O0.546. The City CounciJ notes that the use of the new 2015 forecast is not required because the City has decided to continue and complete the work in the Commission' Remand Order and not use the Simplified UGB Method adopted in 2015 and incorporated in OAR 660-038. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-5 Order, including but not limited to the population forecast for the 2008-2028 planning period. The City concluded that changing the planning period to 2015-2035 when PSU issued the new population forecast for the City of Bend and other jurisdictions in Deschutes County (in June 2015) would have.delayed the effort and progress to complete the UGB adoption by June of 2016 and be in violation of LCDC's Remand Order regarding the Bend UGB expansion. Sensitive to Bend's rebounding population growth and related concerns regarding affordable housing, the City has included the following new policy in Chapter 5 (Housing and Residential Lands) of the Plan (Rem Rec 10319): Policy 5-2 Using the new coordinated 50 -year forecast, the City will, within 5 years after acknowledgement of the current update becomes final and no longer subject to appeal, initiate a supplemental legislative review of the UGB and/or urban reserve area planning to demonstrate compliance with state needed housing laws for a new full 20 - year planning period. Conclusion: The 2008-2028 planning horizon and population forecast used for the current UGB proposal was acknowledged in the Remand Order. In order to comply with the Remand Order, the City Council finds it must continue to use this planning period. The City has relied on the 2028 population forecast to prepare and update water and sewer public facility plans in 2011- 2014. Other entities such as Bend -La Pine School District and BPRD also use the 2028 population estimates for their recent facility planning efforts. The City continues to use this planning period to address the requirements of the Remand Order by completing UGB planning (2014-2016) tasks in response to the Remand. The City Council concludes changing the planning period amounts to abandoning the work products and public investment preceding the Remand Order, including the many partial acknowledgments in the Remand Order itself. It has taken nearly ten years of work on the UGB expansion to get to this point, a tremendous amount of financial resources, staff, and community involvement that the Council finds should not be abandoned for the perceived benefit of a longer or different planning period which necessitates an entirely new proposal. Changing the planning period to 2015-2035 when the PSU PRC issued the new population forecast for Bend would have substantially delayed the efforts and progress to complete the UGB adoption by June of 2016, and terms of the LDCD Remand Order requiring a resubmittal on the matter of the Bend UGB expansion before July, 2017. Therefore, the City will continued to rely on the 2008-2028 planning horizon and the 2028 population forecast (115,063) for the UGB proposal, as allowed by the Remand and applicable legal standards. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-6 4.4.2. Total Housing Unit Projection 4.4.2.1 Needed Housing Units OAR 660-024-0040 provides the following guidance on the housing unit projection: (4) The determination of 20 -year residential land needs for an urban area must be consistent with the adopted 20 -year coordinated population forecast. *** (8) The following safe harbors may be applied by a local government to determine housing need under this division: (a) A local government may estimate persons per household for the 20 -year planning period using the persons per household for the urban area indicated in the most current data for the urban area published by the U.S. Census Bureau. *** (e) A local government outside of the Metro boundary may estimate its housing vacancy rate for the 20 -year planning period using the vacancy rate in the most current data published by the U.S. Census Bureau for that urban area that includes the local government. The Council finds that the first step in the HNA process is to forecast the number of housing units that will be needed to house the projected population growth over the planning period. In 2008, the City developed and relied on a 2028 population -forecast of 115,063, reflecting an increase of 38,512 people between,2008 and 2028. (See findings in Section 4.4.1.2.). The forecast of housing units is based on data from -`the 2000 Census results for Bend.8 The 2000 Census was the most recent; available data published by the U.S. Census Bureau as of 2008, when the housing--projectionssere-developed The -steps in the forecast are:9 • "`;Determine the amount of new population` growth by subtracting Bend's population in 2008:,(76,551 people) from the, 2028 population forecast (115,063 people). The result shows; that Bend's population will grow by 38,512 between 2008 and 2028. • Remove population in group quarters (2.3% or 886 people), based on the proportion of population in group quarters according to the 2000 Census, to determine the amount of new population in°households (37,626 people) over 2008 and 2028. • Identify the number of'new occupied housing units by dividing the population by average household size, per the 2000 Census (2.4 persons per household), which results in 8 See the 2000 Demographic profile for Bend at: http://censtats.census.gov/data/OR/1604105800.pdf. 9 These steps are consistent with the Residential Land Needs 2005-2030 Memorandum (April 25, 2007); Table 3, Page 5. Rec 1804 Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-7 growth of 15,678 new households and new occupied housing units in Bend between 2008 and 2028. • Account for vacant units, with a vacancy rate of 6.4% (the vacancy rate in 2000, per the 2000 Census), which results in 1,003 additional housing units. The Director's Report and Remand Order concluded that the forecast complied with state law (Rem Rec 10600-10601). Table 4-3 presents the 2008 to 2028 housing unit forecast for the City of Bend. Table 4-3. Variable Housing Unit Forecast, 2008 to 2028 Housing Need 2008-2028 Population forecast for 2028 115,063 (-) Less population for 7/1/08 76,551 (=) New population 2008 to 2028 38,512 (-) Less population in group quarters (2.3%) 886 (=) New population in households 37,626 (/) Divided by household size (2.4) (=) Equals new occupied housing units 15,678 (+) Plus vacancy factor (6.4%) 1,003 = New housing units 2008 to 2028 16,681 Housing development inBend.slowed dramatically during the recession relative to peak activity between 2003 and 2005.-1-o more accurately; account for housing units needed for the remainder of the planning period to 2028, the 2016 HNA considered building permits issued from July 2008 through`June Table 4-4 shows tfiatsingle tamily aetached housing comprised more than three-quarters (3/) of new dwelling' units, on`;average, from 1999 -July 2014` The percentage of single-family detached housing was even higher '(83%) during the July 2008 -June 2014 period. Table 4-4. Total Permits<Issued for New Dwelling Units by Housing Type and Year, `1999 through July 2014 1999 -June 2008 July 2008 -June Total Units Annual Average 2014 (1999 -July 2014) Numbe Percent Numbe Percent Numbe Percent Number Percent Housing Type r r r Single-family 10,875 77% 2,411 83% 13,286 78% 949 78% detached Single-family 463 3% 112 4% 575 3% 41 3% attached Multi -family 2,741 19% 389 13% 3,130 18% 224 18% Total 14,079 100% 2,912 100% 16,991 100% 1,214 100% 1 Source: 2016 Bend HNA, Table 3. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-8 The 2016 HNA also documents estimated needs for persons in group quarters and second homes that are factored into the total housing unit projection to 2028 as summarized below (HNA, p. 76-77; Rem Rec 10652-10653). 4.4.2.2 Group Quarters The forecast of new housing (see Table 4-3) assumed that the percentage of persons in group quarters in Bend would remain the same as reported in the 2000 Census (2.3%), resulting in 886 persons who would require group housing for the 2008-2028 period. People in group quarters will need housing, beyond the forecast for new housing. This housing will be located in group quarters, such as assisted living facilities, nursing homes, or jails and will require land. For the purposes of determining land needs, group quarters are assumed to be similar to multifamily housing with a similar amount of space per individual. In 2000, Bend had an average of 1.92 persons per household in multifamily dwellings.10 Based on this analysis, Bend will need the equivalent of 461 additional multifamily units to provide adequate capacity for group quarters to 2028. 4.4.2.3 Second Homes The 2008 UGB proposal identified a need for 5.00 acres of land for second homes (Rec 1058). The quantity of land was based on the city's estimate of the number of new housing units that the market would demand_for this use, which it found would be 18% of the total number of new units needed during the planning :period. The City also -determined the second homes do not provide needed housing (as that"term is used •in.theneeded housing statutes (Rec 1086. The Director's Decision found -that there -Was substantial evidence to support the city's determination regarding the number of second, home -units needed over the planning period (Dir. Report, page 48). The Commission;. concurred with the City and the Director that there is an adequate factual base for.the number of second home units that the City projects for the planning period (3,002 units) (Rem Rec 5762). In°summaryLCDC accepted the City's findings on this issue, and the factual base which supports thorn. Second homes can be any type of housing, such as single-family detached housing, townhouses, or condominiums in a multifamily structure. As part of UGB planning (2014-2016), the Residential TAC approved°.theapproach of assuming the mix of housing types for second homes would be similar to the mix of housing assumed for needed housing (see findings on housing mix in Section 4.4.3). This approach as an added benefit of providing more the same future housing units predicted by the needed housing mix as opposed to applying a different mix which would distort the housing mix used for planning purposes. Conclusion: The City developed the total housing unit projection to 2028 consistent with the legal standards in OAR 660-024-0040. The City relied on the coordinated population forecast 10 2000 Decennial Census Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-9 and safe harbor provisions in OAR 660 -024 -0040(8)(a) -(e) to derive the housing unit forecast, which was acknowledged in the Remand. The updated HNA accounted for 2,912 residential building permits issued from July 2008 -June 2014 to arrive at the remaining 13,769 housing units needed over the 2014 to 2028 period. Group quarters and second homes are also factored into housing unit forecast. Therefore, the UGB planning (2014-2028) is based on the need to accommodate a total of 17,234 new housing units to 2028 as shown in Table 4-5. Table 4-5. Summary of New Housing Units by Type and Category, Bend UGB, 2014-2018 2014-2028 Needed Group 2014-2028 2014-2028 Needed Quarters Second 2014-2028 Total New Housing Units Units Homes Housing Units % of Total Needed Housing Types Units Mix Units Units Units Units Single-family detached (including mobile homes) 7,574 55% 1,652 9,225 54% Single-family attached 1,377 .10% 300 1,677 10% Multifamily 4,819 35% . 461 1,051 6,331 37% Total 13,770 :100'6/: 461 3,003 17,234 100%, Source: 2016 Bend HNA, Table 21. 4.4.3. Needed Housing Types==and Mix 4.4.3.1 Definition of Needed Housing Types ORS 197.303=and-OAR 660-00.8-00050, include similar definitions of "needed housing". ORS 197.303,_defines "needed housing! as follows (1:As used in ORS 197.307`."needed housing" means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing -within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels,' -including at least the following housing types: (a) Attached>and detachedsingle- family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; (b) Government assisted housing; (c) Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to 197.490; (d) Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions; and (e) Housing for farmworkers. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-10 OAR 660-008-0005(6) echoes the definition of "needed housing" from ORS 197.303(1)(a) -(d) above. OAR 660-008-0040 addresses restrictions on housing tenure and provides that: Any local government that restricts the construction of either rental or owner occupied housing on or after its first periodic review shall include a determination of housing need according to tenure as part of the local housing needs projection. The "safe harbors" in OAR 660 -024 -0040(8)(b) -(d) offer options to simplify the determination of housing needs for certain housing types: (b) If a local government does not regulate government -assisted housing differently than other housing types, it is not required to estimate the need for government -assisted housing as a separate housing type. (c) If a local government allows manufactured homes on individual lots as a permitted use in all residential zones that allow 10 or fewer dwelling units per net buildable acre, it is not necessary to provide an estimate of the need for manufactured dwellings on individual lots. (d) If a local government allows manufactured dwelling parks required by ORS 197.475 to 197.490 in all areas planned and zoned for a residential density of six to 12 units per acre, a separate estimate of the need for manufactured dwelling parks is not required. The Council finds that the 2016 Bend HNA provides the basis for the determination of housing needs and residential land sufficiency for the 2008-2028 planning period. The HNA presents the most recent analysis of Bend's housing needs, addresses issues identified in the 2010 Remand Order, and incorporates input and direction from the Residential TAC and USC. The HNA (p. 11-12) (Rem Rec 10586-10587) satisfies ORS 197.303 because the City considered data -fa three types tif-ne-eded housing single family detached, single family attached and multifamily housing. Table 4-6 lists these three types of housing and how they are defined and classified under OAR 660, Division 8 (Interpretation of Goal 10, Housing) and the BDC. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-11 Table 4-6. Needed Housing Types under OAR 660-008 and Bend Development Code Bend Development Code Housing Types OAR 660-008-005, Definitions (see BDC Chapter 1.2) "Attached Single Family Housing" means common -wall dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot. OAR 660-008-0005(1). "Detached Single Family Housing" means a housing unit that is free standing and separate from other housing units. OAR 660-008- 0005(3). "Multiple Family Housing" means attached housing where each dwelling unit is not located on a separate lot. OAR 660-008-0005(5). Source: 2016 Bend HNA, Table 2. Dwelling, single family attached (townhome) Courtyard housing Dwelling, single family detached Accessory dwelling unit Manufactured home on individual lot Manufactured homes in parks Condominium Two and three family housing (duplex and triplex) Multi -family housing (4 or more units) ORS 197.303 requires cities to plan for government -assisted housing. Government subsidies can apply to all housing types (e.g., single family detached, duplexes, apartments, etc.). The BDC allows development of government -assisted housing in alt residential plan designations and zones, with the same development standards for market -rate -housing. Because government assisted housing is similar in character to other housing (with the exception of the subsidies), and the Citydoes notrestrict or regulate government -assisted housing differently from market rate housing,it is neither necessary nor required of the City to develop separate estimates of land needed for-_govern:ment-assisted housing. Therefore, the City is not required to consider government assisted housing-asa separate housing type. LCDC agreed with the City that the legal standards do not require such an analysis (Remand Order, p. 30-31, Rem Rec 57.54). ORS 197.303 also requires cities to plan for manufactured housing on individual lots and manufactured' lousing in parks: The BDC allows manufactured homes on individual lots as a permitted use in the following zones: Urban Area Reserve (UAR10), Suburban Low Density Residential (SR 21/2),_Low Density Residential (RL), Standard Density Residential (RS), Medium -10 Density Residential, (RM -10), and Medium Density Residential (RM)11. These zones allow for a range of densities, from 1 to 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre in SR 2 1/2 to 7.3 to 21.7 dwelling units per gross acre in RM. As a result, Bend is not required to estimate the need for manufactured dwellings on individual lots per OAR 660-024-0040(8)(c). ORS 197.480(2) requires local governments to project need for mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks based on: (1) population projections, (2) household income levels, (3) housing 11 See BDC Table 2.1.200 — Permitted Land Uses Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-12 market trends, and (4) an inventory of manufactured dwelling parks sited in areas planned and zoned or generaily used for commercial, industrial or highdenmitvrmekJentiai The HNA includes information on manufactured home parks located within the city or adjacent to it (HNA, page 78;Rem Ron1O854).1uHowever, OAR 80O-U24'OO4O(8)(d)provides the following safe harbor: 6H/felocal government allows manufactured dwelling parks required by ORS 197.475 to 197.490 in all areaand zoned for a residential density of six to 12 units per acre, a separate estimate ofthe need for manufactureddwel/Ingparks is not re ' d The BDC allows manufactured home parks as a permitteduse in the RM -10 and RM zones (BDC'Table 2.1.2UO)1». The density range in the RM -i 0. zone is 6-10 units per acre and the density range in the RM zone is 7.3-21.7 units per acre. Therefore, the City is not required to separatey estimate the need for manufactured homeparks since they are permitted in all areas zoned for oresidential density of8-12units per re. LCDC concludedthat the City was qualified touse this safe harbor provision (Remand C}njer'page 31.Rwmn-Reo5755). Finally, the BDC does not regulate farmworker housing separate from other housing types. Based on the evidence in the HNA (p. 12, 77-79; Rem Rec 10588; 10653-10655) and the housing types allowed under the BDC, the City has met the legal standards for the definition and projection of "needed housing" types -set forth in ORS 197.303 and OAR 660, division 8. 4.4.3.2 -Coordination- OAR 660-008-0030 eddresses regional coordination and provides that: (1) Each local government,shall considerthe needs of the relevant region in arriving at a fair allocation of houaing-types-ahd-clensitiea- ,(2):' The local .bOordinationt9cly shall be responsible for ensuring that the regional &Wing impacts Of -restrictive -or expansiv6 local government programs are considered. The: local coordination' body shaliensure that needed housing is provided for on a regional basis through coordinated comprehensive plans. The Council finds -that the 2016IHNA considered housing needs in a regional context. The HNA provides data on demographic trends, housing units, income and affordability for both the City of Bend and Deschutes Cbtinty. As the largest of four incorporated cities in Deschutes County, the City of Bend has a key role in the overall regional housing market. The regional perspective on housing needs was incorporated into Bend's UGB process with Deschutes County 12 Oregon Housing and Community Services, Oregon ManufactnedDvweUinQParkDireuhory. `u0fficia| Notice — BOC is available online through this URL: htto://vmxmv.codeoub|iohino.nom/]R/Bmnd/?BnndDCNT.htmi Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-13 representation on the Boundary TAC and the USC.14 A member of the Residential TAC provided unique insights on regional housing needs.15 In addition, (2) above is not applicable to this decision because the City has not proposed any new restrictive or expansive programs with respect to housing. The second sentence under (2) places an affirmative obligation on the County to coordinate plans with respect to housing. 4.4.3.3 Historical and Recent Development Trends ORS 197.296(3)(b) requires that the City: (3)(b) Conduct an analysis of housing need by type and density range, in accordance with ORS 197.303 and statewide planning goals and rules relating to housing, to determine the number of units and amount of land needed for each needed housing type for the next 20 years. *** The Council finds that the 2016 HNA is the primary source document for the determination of Bend's housing needs (Rem Rec 10572). The HNA includes data on trends in housing mix, trends in tenure, vacancy rates, and residential densities (HNA p. 13-23; Rem Rec 10589- 10599), with a focus on more recent trends, since 2008. The following summary of key findings about historical residential development in Bend=is a straight excerpt from the HNA (page 23; Rem Rec 10599). The findings in Section 4.4.3:4 through 4.43.6 provide data and tables to summarize trends in housing mix and densities since last periodic review (in 1998). The majority of housing in Bend is single -family -detached; housing. • The mix of housing stock in -Bend was relatively consistent over the past two decades, with -about -70% of Bend's housing;stock in --Single-family detached housing in 1990 and in 2013. Building activity has varied substantially over the 1999 to 2013 period. • Bend permitted an average of about 1,200 units per year between 1999 and 2014, the majority`of',which were single-family detached units. • Building permit activity peaked in 2005 with 2,600 units permitted. In 2009 to 2011, fewer than 300 units were permitted per year. The number of units permitted exceeded 900 in 2013, showing that development activity in Bend is returning to more recent historical levels. 14 Deschutes County Community Development Nick Lelack was an ex -officio member of the Boundary TAC and Deschutes County Commissioner Tony DeBone was a member of the UGB Steering Committee. 15 Tom Kemper was a member of the Residential TAC. Mr. Kemper serves as the direction of Housing Works, the local housing authority for Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-14 • More than three-quarters of units permitted between 1999 and 2013 were single-family detached units. • Permits issued for multi -family housing averaged about 225 units per year, peaking in number in 2003. Between 2009 and 2012, very few multi -family units were permitted. Between 2010 and 2012, the only multi -family attached units permitted in Bend were duplexes. Bend's housing tenure remained stable between 1990 and 2013. • About 55% of dwellings were owner -occupied in 1990and 2013. • Nearly all owner -occupied units were single-family detached housing, with a small number of owner -occupied single-family attached and multi -family units. • Renter -occupied units were generally divided among single-family detached and multi- family, with single-family attached units accounting for about 7% of renter -occupied units. Housing density generally increased for housing built between 1998 and 2008, compared to housing built before 1998. • The density of development (units/acre) of single-family detached housing increased in the RS, RM, and RH zones; densities in the RL zone remained flat. • The density of development of multi -family housing increased in the RS zone and decreased slightly in the RM and RH zones 4.4.3.4 Demographic Trends and Economic Trends to Inform Needed Housing Types and Mix ORS 197.296(5) requires analysisof demographtctrends and economic trends to inform needed housing -types and rnix:: (5)(a) *** the determination -of housing capacity and need *** must be based on data relating to land within`the urban growth boundary that has been collected since the last periodic review or five years, whichever is greater. The data shall include: *** (C) Demographic and population trends; (D) Economic trends and cycles; *** The Council finds that the 2016 HNA satisfies ORS 197.296(5) because it relies on a number of sources of data to identify relevant national, state, and local demographic and economic trends and factors that may affect the 20 -year projection of the types and mix of housing for Bend.16 The analysis of trends focuses on the period following the 1998 periodic review and 16 See September 2, 2011 memorandum to the UGB Remand Task Force, presented at their September 8, 2011 meeting. Rem Rec 203 Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-15 acknowledgement of the Bend Comprehensive Plan and includes additional building permit data through 2013 (HNA, p. 26-50; Rem Rec 10602-10626). National housing market trends, state economic trends and cycles, and demographic and social factors affecting housing choice are included in the analysis. The following summary of key findings about trends that inform the projection of needed housing types and mix (as defined by OAR 660-008-0005(4)) is a summary of key points from the HNA (p. 26-28; Rem Rec 10602-10604). Highlights of National Housing Market Trends" include: • Post -recession recovery slows down. Increases in mortgage interest rates and meager job growth contributed to the stall in the housing market. • Continued declines in homeownership. National homeownership rate declined each year from 2005 to 2013, and is currently at about 65%. • Housing affordability concerns. In 2012, more than one-third of American households spent more than 30% of income on housing. • Changes in housing characteristics. In addition to larger homes, a move towards smaller lot sizes is seen nationally. • Long-term growth and housing demand. Much of the demand for new homes between 2015 and 2025 will come from Baby Boomers, Millennials, and immigrants. • Changes in housing preference. Housing preference will be affected by changes in demographics, most notably the aging of the Baby Boomers, housing demand from the Millennials, and growth of foreign -born immigrants: Highlights of State Economic Trends and Cycles18 include:19 • Oregon's households have higher rates of cost burden, with increases due to higher unemployment and lower wages, when compared to the nation. • Oregon's foreclosure rates have been at a historical high since 2005, compared with the previous two decades. • Oregon, like other states, is continuing to lose federal housing subsidies, with losses of about 8% of federally subsidized Section 8 housing units between 2011 and 2015. • Oregon's communities are losing manufactured housing parks over time, with a 25% decrease in the number of manufactured home parks between 2003 and 2010. 17 See details in HNA, page. 26-28; Rem Rec 10602-10604. 18 See HNA, p. 27. Rem Rec 10603 19 State of Oregon Consolidated Plan 2011 to 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/ohcs/hd/hrs/consplan/2011 _2015_consolidated_plan.pdf Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-16 • Oregon's population is increasingly older, more diverse, and, has Tess affluent households. Summary of key findings about how demographic trends may affect housing choice in Bend:20 • Recession may have delayed some effects of demographic shifts. The impacts of major demographics shifts are being delayed due to the financial effects of the recession; however, substantial housing demand shifts are underway that will change land use patterns. Baby Boomers are working longer and may not be moving because of a loss of home equity. Millennials have taken on college debt, are having a hard time getting a foothold in the workforce, and are therefore delaying household formation. The extended effects of the recession will mean that more households are renting for a longer period of time before being able to make a home purchase, or will only be financially capable of purchasing a smaller, less-expensive home. In summary, this delay means more near-term demand for rental housing or smaller Tess -expensive ownership housing. • Continued but slower demand for Targe -lot single-family housing. In Bend, demand for large -lot single-family housing is likely to take the form of three or four bedroom houses on a lot of about 8,000 to 10,000 square feet. Generation X (the generation born after the Baby Boomers and before the Millennials), is currently in its prime family raising years, and is the demographic group most likely to need larger single family homes. As the Baby Boomers move out of their existing single-family homes, there will be fewer households to take them over in the short-term. In the future, growth of Millennials and shrinking of the Baby Boomer generation may slow demand for new large -lot single-family housing. The Echo Boomer's preferences are generally for more -walkable -communities and they are willing to accept smaller homes in closer proximity to amenities. In addition, Millennials have lower income and higher debt. However, much of Bend's growth results from in -migration of people from outside of Central Oregon, many of whom are attracted to Bend's access to outdoor amenities, open space, and quality of life. Interviews with Bend's development community noted that demand for single-family housing that offers ample parking and storage for outdoor equipment is strong. All of these factors contribute to continued demand for large -lot single-family detached housing but suggest that demand for this type of housing is likely to slow between the 2014 to 2028 period. Demand for this type of housing is likely to be driven by migration of people to Bend with wealth, as well as increase in income over time from people living in Bend, especially households with growing families. 20 See HNA, page 48-50. Rem Rec 10624-10626. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-17 * Demand will increase for a wider range of housing types. Most of the evidence suggests that the bulk of the change will be in the direction of smaller average house and !ot sizes for singte-fami!y housing. An aging population, an increase in single - person households, increasing housing costs, and other variables are factors that support the conc!usion that the future housing supp!y wi!! need to inc!ude smafler and iess expensive units and a broader array of housing choices. A substantia! portion of Bend's residents will live in attached housing, such as townhomes, duplexes, garden apartments, or urban apartments. Whi!e most households may prefer to own their home, a growing share of households will be renters, either from choice (e.g., Baby Boomers who prefer to rent smafler units) or by economicnmueaadv. Demand for these units will be particu!ar!y high inc|mmw+in areas near Bend's commercin| and recreational amenities. , . • Location of housing will be increasingly important. The location of housing is becoming increasingly important, with increased demand for housing in walkable neighborhoods near retail and other amenities. Where they can afford it, the Millennials generally prefer housing in walkable areas with retail and other amenities nearby, rather than housing in more suburban areas or in outlying cities. Some Baby Boomers who are downsizing are also choosing to live in similar walkable areas. Design of housing and neighborhoodils important. Well-designed multi -family and compact single-family housing located in a desirable neighborhood can provide opportunities for awidetTenge of hbUsing options.-Consurners are more likely to make the tradeoff ofe srnaller iof And home Size -when neighborhood parks, schools, and retail amenities are Within walking distance. Therefore, there will be steady demand for multi- family and small-lthspr attached:single family housing in close -in locations proximate to 4.4.3.5Ahalysis of 1-16'66ipg Mix :end Pensity since- Last Periodic Review ORS 197.p6(5) also requires'analysiS of housing mix and density since the last periodic review to inform needed housing typeS end mbc' (5)(a) *** the,determination-of housing capacity and need ' must be based on data relating to land -within th:p_:urban growth boundary that has been collected since the last periodic review orfive-Years, whichever is greater. The data shall include: (A) The number, density and average mix of housing types of urban residential development that have actually occurred; (8) Trends in density and average mix of housing types of urban residential development; ww Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-18 (E) The number, density and average mix of housing types that have occurred on the buildable lands described in subsection (4)(a) of this section. The CouncU finds that ORS 197.296 requires thatthe analysis of housing mix and density include data for the past five years or since the most recent periodic review, whichever time period is greater. Bend's last periodic review was completed in 1998. The period used in the analysis of housing mix is 1999 to July 2014, to account for building permits issued in that period and changes in housing mix since the last periodic review in 1998. The period used in the analysis of housing density was 1999 to 2008 (from the most recent periodic review to the start of the 20 -year ptanning period),The City's continued retian�ee on th1999-2008 data analysis i justified beoa"== the residential deve|mpm�"\ was largely limited °° building individual homes v//lots created u nnrnm downtum.o This means that the density for the developmentwas set priorto 2008 for nearly alt recent residential building activity. Table 4-4onpage 4-8shows the annual average of new dwelling units by 1999 through July 2014. The data shows that the majority (78%) of housing development in Bend during this period was single-family detached housing. Detached single family units comprised a larger percentage (83%) of new dwelling units in the July 2008 -June 2014 period. Table 4-7 shows historical trends in residential -densities for tdree periods: (1) units built before 1998 (prior to the last (2the`1998-2008 period (from the most recent periodic revieW tqthe start of the 20 -year planning period) and (3) aU units in Bend0 _ Table 47. Historical Average Net Density by Zone, Dwelling Units per Net Acre, Bend RL | | RS RM RH All Res_ Zones Pm- 1998' P~ 1998' Pm- 1998- == 1998- Pia- 1998- 1998 2008 e00v/ 1998 2008 2008 1998 2008 200 199 2008 2008 1998 2008 2008 Single -Family Detached uo 2.1 2.03.14.6an 4.7 8.6 5.6 6.613.4zo 2.9 4.7 3.6 Su '- 5.1 8.7 8.421.512.5 13.1 - ' 7.8 9.5 9.4 muu,Family*uacheu 8.8 - 8.8 9.7 14.2 11.316.6 16.1 16.620.91r�1 18.8 15.5 16.0 15.8wonx��umuMonmyinpm«o 2.72.73.4-3.46.5 6.5 - 4.1 4.1 Manufactured Homes onLots 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.2 6.6 3.6 5.8 7.0 6.2 - 3.1 5.1 3.4 Average Density- All Housing Types Source: 2016 Bend HNA, Table 5. 2.1 2.1 2.1 .2 4.9 3.9 8.5 13.4 9.9 14.4 16.9 15.5 3.7 5.7 4.4 by 2008. Average net densities increased over time in most zones. Bend adopted minimum densities for each residential zone for the first time in 2006. The data in Table 4-7 shows that oLondunapannitdataindioabeonoughlyadnzenresidenUo|oubdiviakonnondtwmmu8i-fami|y development projects approved (but not necessarily built) since 2008, all in 2013 and 2014, compared to between 600 and 700 singie family homes bulit since 2008 on piatted Iots. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-19 net densities for all residential zones increased for the three needed housing types (SFD, SFA, MF) since Bend's last periodic review (1998) to the start of the planning period (2008).22 • The average density for single-family detached units increased from 2.9 units/net acre prior to 1998 to 3.6 units/net acre by 2008. • The average density for single-family attached units increased from 7.8 units/net acre prior to 1998 to 9.4 units/net acre in 2008. • The average density for multi -family units increased from 15.5 units/net acre prior to1998 to 15.8 units/net acre as of 2008. 4.4.3.6 Types of Housing Likely to be Affordable Based on Household Income OAR 660-008-0005(4) defines the "Housing Needs Projection" required by Goal 10 and ORS 197.296 as: "* * * a local determination, justified in the plan, of the mix of housing types, amounts and densities that will be: (a) Commensurate with the financial capabilities of present and future area residents of all income levels during the planning period. The Council finds that the HNA summarizes regional and local income, and housing cost trends. The following findings summarize key points from the HNA (p. 5'1-68; Rem Rec 10627-10644). Income is a key determinant in housing choice and`` a' household's ability to afford housing. The analysis of affordability trends indicates growing need:for a broader'range of housing in Bend. Bend's housing, regardless of whether it was for>'sale or for rent, became less affordable over the last decade (HNA p. 51-68; Rem-Rec 10627-10644) • Between 1999 and 2013; growth in :homeownership costs outpaced growth in income. In Bend, median owner value Increased by 81 % between 1999 and 2013, while median household income grew by 1-8%: • Between 2000 and 2014;average sales price more than doubled, increasing from $137, 00O_to; S288,000. • Forty percent ofBend's;households were cost burdened in 2013, with renters cost burdened more frequently than owners (49% compared to 33%). In comparison, 40% of households in Deschutes County and 38% of State households were cost burdened in 2013. Table 4-8 shows the type of housing that is attainable at different household income categories (relative to the 2013 Deschutes County MFI), and the distribution of these households in Bend in 2013. 22 See HNA, pages 22-23. Rem Rec 10598-10599 Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-20 Table 4-8. Housing Attainability, Bend 2013 Market Segment Income by Income Range High (120% or more $71,640 or of MFI) more Upper Middle (80%- $71,640 to 120% of MFI) $47,760 Lower Middle (50%- $47,760 to 80% of MFI) $29,850 Lower (30%-50% of $29,850 to less of MFI) $17,910 Very Low (Less than 30% of MFI) Less than $17,910 Number of Percent of Financially Attainable Products households Households Owner -occupied Renter -occupied - 10,622 35% 4,618 15% All housing types; higher prices All housing types; lower values Manufactured on 4,817 16% lots; single-family attached; duplexes 5,068 17%= Manufactured in parks 5,288 17% None All housing types; higher prices All housing types; lower values Single-family attached; detatched; manufactured on lots; apartments Apartments; manufactured in parks; duplexes Apartments; new and used government assisted housino Source: 2016 Bend HNA, Table 15. Rem Rec 10642: Note: MFI was calculated. at $59,700 for a family of four. 4.4.3.7 Determine Additional Needed Units by Structure Type ORS 197.296(3)(b) requires that the City: (3)(b) Conduct an analysis of housing need bytype and density range, in accordance with ORS 197.303 and statewide planning goals and rules relating to housing, to determine the number of units and amount of land needed for each needed housing type for thenex_.t 20 years. A Primarily New Housing Primarily Existing Housing OAR 660-024-0040(8) includes the following safe harbors relevant to housing mix: (f) A local government' outside of the Metro boundary may determine housing needs for purposes Ota UGB amendment using the combined Housing Density and Housing Mix safe harbors described inthis subsection and in Table 1, or in combination with the Alternative Density. safe` harbor described under subsection (g) of this section and in Table 2. To meet the Housing Density safe harbor in this subsection, the local government may Assume For UGB Analysis that all buildable land in the urban area, including land added to the UGB, will develop at the applicable average overall density specified in column B of Table 1. Buildable land in the UGB, including land added to the UGB, must also be Zoned to Allow at least the average overall maximum density specified as Zone To Allow in column B of Table 1. Finally, the local government must adopt zoning that ensures buildable land in the urban area, including land added to the UGB, cannot develop at an average overall density less than the applicable Required Overall Minimum density specified in column B of Table 1. To meet the Housing Mix safe Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-21 harbor in this subsection, the local government must Zone to Allow the applicable percentages of low, medium and high density residential specified in column C of Table 1. (i) As an alternative to the Housing Mix safe harbor required in subsection (t) of this section and in Column C of Table 1, a local government outside the Metro boundary that uses the housing density safe harbor in either subsection (f), (g) or (h) of this section may estimate housing mix using the Incremental Housing Mix safe harbor described in paragraphs (A) to (C) of this subsection, as illustrated in Table 3: *** The Council finds that the City elected not to use the safe harbors identified in OAR 660-024- 0040(8)(f) and (i). As stated in the definition of "safe harbor" in OAR 660-024-0010(7): "A safe harbor is not the only way or necessarily the preferred way to comply with a requirement and it is not intended to interpret the requirement for any purpose other than applying a safe harbor within this division." Thus, there is no requirement that the City comply with the safe harbors provided in the rule. The findings in Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 document that the City of Bend has considered and analyzed all of the factors required by the legal standards for the HNA, including but not limited to: (1) consideration of needed housing types, (2) regional coordination, (3) consideration of national, state and localdemographicand economic ,trends, _(4) consideration of housing affordability based on, household income, and (5) consideration of changes in housing mix and densities since Bend's last periodic review. The data and analysis in the HNA provide the factual basis to support the community's discussion of what housing mix will be needed to 2028. • The HNA must consider a range of factors that do not lend themselves to an empirical formula. The data and analysis are intended to inform the community's discussion of what types of housing will be needed. The HNA presents the estimate of additional needed units by structure type and the rationale for the estimate (HNA p. 69-78; Rem Rec 10645-10654). This analysis was informed by numerous meetings and discussions with the Residential TAC and the USC.23. When the balance of factors required by ORS 197.296 are considered, the HNA concludes that the needed density and mix for the 20 -year planning period is different than the actual density and mix achieved between 1999.and 2014. This is in part because the analysis period includes the housing boom period between 2004 and 2007—a period when an extraordinary number of higher cost single-family detached dwellings were built. It also reflects the data that indicates the region has a significant affordability gap. This gap suggests that the region needs more 23 The key meeting dates for the Residential TAC on the HNA are: August 4, 2014; August 25, 2014; January 26, 2015; August 25, 2015, and; March 17, 2016 joint meeting with the Employment TAC. The key meeting dates for the USC on the HNA are: September 4, 2014; March 19, 2015, and; April 21, 2016. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-22 units of lower cost housing, which in turn may be addressed through hiher densities of certain types of housing and smaller housing types. Table 4-10 presents the assessment of Bends needed mix for housing for the 2008 to 2028 planning period based on the foHowing information and assumptions: • The m'ritvofnevvhouainQwiUomnbnuetobeeing|e-fannik/detachodhouainQ.Thetype of single-family detached dwellings may change, with more emphasis on smaller and more affordable new singte-family detached housing (e.g.cottage housing), and a decrease in demand for Iarge-Iot singe-famUy detached ° Bend's housing need will cha with an increase itidemand for single-family attached housing and multifamfly housing. The forecast concludes that the needed mix of new housing is different from the mix of existing bousing stock at,d. the mix of housing produced over the last decade. Table 4-9Needed Mix for Housing Built in1Bend.208Wto2D28 Units Percent of New Units Single-family detached 9,175 55% attached 1,668 10% ' ^ 5,838 35% Total 16,681 100% Source: *mA,Table 17. Table 4-11 shows thatbetween 2009 and thebedinning of July -2014, building permits were issued for 2,912 new h&j -Sing unitS.--To help aCbieve the needed housing mix, the City will adopt new efficiency meaSures*01(ndings in Section 4.4.7) as part of the UGB proposal. These meaSyres Were not in plaee between 2008 arid,2014. Because the City had not adopted any pojicjeS to help aChieVe the needed mix, the'mix of housing developed between 2009 and July 2044' -did not show subStantial dnenges in the development pattern from housing developed in Bend between 1999 and 2008. Therefore, Table14-10 applies the:needed mix (Table 4-10) to the housing units needed (13,769) for the remainder Ofrthe planninPeriod between 2014 and 2028.24 Adoption and implementation of neVvefficiency measures will make it "reasonably likely" that the needed mix will be achieved. mSeemeetingpoukets for the ResidentiaTAC dated August 25, 2014 and January 26, 2015 (Rem Rec Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-23 Table 4-10. Needed Housing by Needed Mix, Bend, 2014-2028 Single-family detached Single-family attached Multi -family Total Source: HNA, Table 18. Needed Units (2008- 2014) 9,175 1,668 5,838 16,681 Units permitted 2009 to beginning of July 2014 2,411 112 389 2,912 Remaining Need (Mix applied to remaining total) Units Percent of New Units 7,573 1,377 4,819 13,769 55% 10% 35% 100% Conclusion: The Council finds that the HNA satisfies ORS 197.303 because the City considered data for three types of needed housing and incorporated that data into the housing needs projection as defined in OAR 660-008-0005(4): single family detached, single family attached, and multifamily housing. Housing types allowed under the BDC are consistent with the housing type definitions in OAR 660-008-0005: The HNA also considered_the needs of Deschutes County and addressed regional coordination. Based on the evidence in the HNA, the City concludes that the legal standards relating to consideration of needed housing types and regional coordination have been met. The HNA provides evidence on local and regional demographic; economic, income, and housing trends that informkey conclusions regarding the Bend's housing needs for the remainder of the plannifig-period (2014-2028), The analysis meets the legal requirements for a housing need projection set forth inORS 197.296(3) and in OAR 660-008-005(4) and OAR 660- 008-0030. The primary_ conclusion of the HNA was that'Bend s:current housing policies and regulations result in`a`mix of housing -that is not consistent with Bend's needed mix for a larger percentage of single-family attached and; multifamily, housing types (relative to past trends) and a higher percentage of more affordable;; single-family detached housing types. The HNA assumes a movement awayfrom the observed trend of building approximately 75% single-family detached units (between 1998,and 2014)to'a mix of 55% single-family detached, 10% single-family attached and 35% multifamily units going forward from 2014 to 2028. The USC agreed with this but also expressed concerns about whether the housing market could or would deliver 10% single family attached and 35% multifamily units over the shortened planning horizon of 2014-2028. The USC discussed this issue with the Residential TAC leadership at the March 19, 2015 USC meeting (Rem Rec 3551, minutes at 8275). The discussion touched on the tensions between what the market will provide versus what's needed with respect to housing, DLCD's position on this issue, and whether one application of the housing mix (2008-2028 planning period) was more attainable than the other (2014-2028 planning period). Following the discussion, the USC approved the needed housing mix (55% Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-24 SFD, 10% SFA and 35% MF) as set forth in the HNA as the basis for determining residential land needs for the remainder of the planning period (2014-2028) (Minutes at Rem Rec 3553). The City's obligation is to plan for the needed housing mix and to demonstrate that it has enough land in appropriate plan designations to accommodate the needed mix. The USC endorsed a preliminary package of efficiency measures to maximize the capacity of buildable residential lands within the existing UGB and make it more feasible and likely that the market would achieve the needed housing mix and densities (Rem Rec 8275 for 3/19/15 USC Meeting Minutes). The preliminary package of amendments has largely been carried forward through the proposed amendments to the BDC associated with the UGB adoption package (Rem Rec 11145-11200). Based on the evidence in the HNA and the findings in Section 4.4.3 above, the Council finds that the City of Bend has complied with the relevant legal standards for needed housing types and a housing needs projection. As directed in the Remand, the updated HNA and the revised housing mix (55/10/35) for the remainder of the planning period (2014-2028) makes stronger linkages between forecast growth, the demographic characteristics of current and new residents, the capacity of those residents/households to pay for housing at specific price and rent levels, and housing types that will meet that need. 4.4.4. Needed Housing Density ORS 197.296(3)(b) requires that; the City: (3)(b) Conduct an analysis of housing needby type and density range, in accordance with ORS 197.303 -and statewide planning goals and rules relating to housing, to determine the number of units and amount`;of land needed for each needed housing type forth -6104'W years. OAR 660-024-0040(8) includes the following safe harbors relevant to needed housing density: (f) A local government outside of the Metro boundary may determine housing needs for purposes of a UGB amendment using the combined Housing Density and Housing Mix safe harbors described in -this subsection and in Table 1, or in combination with the Alternative Density safe harbor described under subsection (g) of this section and in Table 2. To meet the -Housing Density safe harbor in this subsection, the local government may Assume For UGB Analysis that all buildable land in the urban area, including land added to the UGB, will develop at the applicable average overall density specified in column B of Table 1. Buildable land in the UGB, including land added to the UGB, must also be Zoned to Allow at least the average overall maximum density specified as Zone To Allow in column B of Table 1. Finally, the local government must adopt zoning that ensures buildable land in the urban area, including land added to the UGB, cannot develop at an average overall density less than the applicable Required Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-25 Overall Minimum density specified in column B of Table 1. To meet the Housing Mix safe harbor in this subsection, the local government must Zone to Allow the applicable percentages of low, medium and high density residential specified in column C of Table 1. (g) When using the safe harbor in subsection (f), a local government may choose to also use the applicable Alternative Density safe harbors for Small Exception Parcels and High Value Farm Land specified in Table 2. If a local government chooses to use the Alternative Density safe harbors described in Table 2, it must (h) As an alternative to the density safe harbors in subsection (f) and, if applicable, subsection (g), of this section, a local government outside of the Metro boundary may assume that the average overall density of buildable residential land in the urban area for the 20 -year planning period will increase by 25 percent over the average overall density of developed residential land in the urban area at the time the local government initiated the evaluation or amendment of the UGB. If a local government uses this Incremental Housing Density safe harbor, it must also meet the applicable Zoned to Allow density and Required Overall Minimum density requirements in Column B of Table 1 and, if applicable, Table 2, and must use the Housing Mix safe harbor in Column C of Table 1. The Council finds that the. Cityelected not to use the safe harbors identified in OAR 660 -024- 0040(8)(f) -(h). As stated in the definition of "safe harbor" in OAR 660-024-0010(7): "A safe harbor is not the only way or necessarily the preferred way to comply with a requirement and it is not intended to interpret the requirement for any purpose other than applying a safe harbor within this division: Thus, there is no requirement that the City comply with the safe harbors provided in the rule. The starting point for discussion of needed future densities in Bend is the historical development densities for the 1998-2008 period (Table 4-7). These densities serve as the basis for the base case capacity analysis, presented in the Bend Urbanization Report (See p. 26-32; Rem Rec 10840-10846). The data in Table 4-7 on page 4-19 shows that net densities for all residential zones increased for the three needed housing types (SFD, SFA, MF) since Bend's last periodic review (1998) to the start of the planning period (2008).25 Bend's needed density for development over the 2014-2028 period was determined through additional analysis of future development patterns. The Bend Urbanization Report (in Chapter 4 of the Report) provides information and analysis of efficiency measures that will increase housing density in Bend over the 2014-2028 period. The HNA concluded that the needed density and mix for the 20 -year planning period is different than the actual density and mix achieved between 1999 and 2013. (HNA p.74; Rem Rec 10650). It identifies Bend's needed 25 See HNA, pages 21-22. Rem Rec 10597-10598 Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-26 density for the 2014-2028 period as 7.2 dwelling units per net acre, a 25% increase over Bend's historical densities over the 1998-2008 period of 5.7 dwelling units per acre (Table 4-7) (HNA, p.76: Rem Rec 10652). Bend's future housing densities will increase, in part, as a result of an increase in the percentage of single-family attached and multifamily housing developed over the 2014-2028 period. These are higher density residential housing types, which will increase overall average housing density. However, Bend will need to increase densities developed in the RL and RH zones. The historical densities in the RL zone (2.1 dwelling units per net acre) were low for residential development in an urban area. In addition, the historical density of development in the RH zone (16.9 dwelling units per net acre) was low for the densities that Bend currently allows in the RH zones (HNA, p.76; Rem Rec 10652). Section 4.4.7 describes the efficiency measures that the City is proposing that will increase development densities in the RL zone and in the RH zones. - Overall housing density for new housing throughout the proposed UGB averages roughly 8 units per net residential acre (including land developed with vertical mixed use buildings). The net density of residential uses in commercial and mixed use plan designations is much higher: close to 50 units per net residential acre (including land developed with vertical mixed use buildings). Looking only at residential plan designations, the net density is roughly 7 units per net residential acre. This is an increase in residential density relative to historic trends and relative to the Base Case, and represents efficient use of residential land. (Urbanization Report, p.34- 42; Rem Rec 10848-10856 Section 4.4.9 summarizes the residential land need (net acres and net densities) needed in the UGB expansion area. Conclusion: The Council finds thatthe City first adopted minimum densities for residential zones in 2006. Average net densities have -increased over time in most residential zones (see Table 7'): The needed= density and mix for the 20 -year planning period is different than the actual density and mix achieved between 1999 and 2013. The City is planning for a different housing mix -that includes a larger percentage of single-family attached and multifamily housing types relative to observed trends:; The City is adopting new efficiency measures (including code amendments and°plan/zoning map amendments) that will support the shift in housing mix to encourage development of needed housing types, will result in higher net residential densities, and promote more efficient use of residential land to 2028. 4.4.5. Buildable Lands Inventory 4.4.5.1 Definition of Buildable Lands The statutory requirement for a buildable lands inventory, along with direction concerning what lands are to be inventoried as "buildable," is contained in ORS 197.296(4) and in OAR 660-008- 005(2). ORS 197.296 provides in pertinent part: *** Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-27 (4)(a) For the purpose of the inventory described in subsection (3)(a) of this section, "buildable lands" includes: (A) Vacant lands planned or zoned for residential use; (8) Partially vacant lands planned or zoned for residential use; (C) Lands that may be used for a mix of residential and employment uses under the existing planning or zoning; and (D) Lands that may be used for residential infill or redevelopment. OAR 660-008-0005(2) further defines what residentially designated lands are "buildable" or "redevelopable" for purposes of the buildable lands inventory. (2) "Buildable Land" means residentially designated land within the urban growth boundary, including both vacant and developed land likely to be redeveloped, that is suitable, available and necessary for residential uses. Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential uses. Land is generally considered "suitable and available" unless it: (a) Is severely constrained by natural hazards as determined under Statewide Planning Goal 7; (b) Is subject to natural resource protection measures determined under statewide Planning Goals 5, 15, 16, 17, or 18; (c) Has slopes of 25 percent or greater; (d) Is within the 100 -year flood plain; or (e) Cannot -be provided -with -public -facilities.. *** (7) `Redevelopable Land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The Council finds that the 2016 BLI will be adopted as a supporting document of the Bend Comprehensive Plan (Rem Rec 10513-10571). In simplest terms, the BLI documents the urban land supply of Bend, and provides the basis to estimate the capacity for housing and jobs within the existing UGB. The BLI provides a key factual base for growth management policy in Bend. The findings in this section focus on the part of the BLI that supports the HNA. A similar inventory is required for employment land as part of the preparation of an EOA. The findings to address the BLI for employment land are included in Section 5 of the Findings Report. The Remand Order required the City to make a number of changes to the way residential land was classified for the purposes of the BLI. The findings in this section (4.4.5) are based on direct Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-28 excerpts from the BLI (pages 7-15, 20-23; Rem Rec 10531-10539 10544-10547). DLCO provided the following definitions to conduct a GIS parcel -based analysis of every acre of residentially planned or zoned land in the Bend UGB.26 Where definitions were not provided in rule or statute, the Department provided one consistent with the terms outlined in ORS 197.296(4)(a\. * Vacant — Land planned or zoned for residential use that shows no improvement value in the assessor's data. • Developed — Land planned or zoned for residential use that is currently developed with the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the zone, and the size of the lot does not allow for further division. • Lots Large Enough for an Additional Unit under Current Zoning ("Partially Vacant") — Land planned or zoned for residential use that contains fewer dwelling units than permitted in the zone, but the lot is not Iargege enough to divide under current zoning. • Lots Large Enough to Divide Under Current Zoning ('Developed with Infifl Potentia") — Land planned or zoned for residential use that is currently developed, but where the lot is large enough to further divide consistent with its current zoning. • Redevelopable Land - In addition to the four categories above, the City must consider whether developed land may be redevelopable within the planning horizon. Land may be considered redevelopable onlif there exists "the strong Iikelihood that existing development will be converted to more more intensive residentiF uses during the planning period." Note that the planning period inthis UC�BRennondprocess iebetween 2UO8 and 2028. When the UGB Remand Task Force began work on the Remand issues, the City initially decided to continue to rely on 2008 data wherever possible, including using 2008 data as the basis for the revised BLI. Howevet, given the amdi(rit of time that has elapsed since then, the City, through the advice of the Technical AdviSory Committees, decided to update the BLI to rely on 2014 data in order to more accurately reflect conditions on the ground. The City completed the initial steps of this update, identifying the following characteristics for all tax lots within the w current zoninand general plan deination, including specialolandistricto; � current property use information (based on a combination of property class and structure codes from the CouAssessor's Office data, City building permit data, aerial photography, and existing City tax lot inventory data); w size and value of existing improvements; * number of existing housing units; 26 E-mail from Gloria Gardiner, DLCD, to Damian Syrnyk, October 21, 2010 and e-mail response from Gloria Gardiner, DLCD, to Karen Swirsky, dated June 9, 2011. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-29 • area subject to physical constraints (25% or greater sbpes and 1 00 -year floodplain)27; • whether the lot size is more than double the minimum iot size for the zone; • maximum number of units allowed by current zoning based on lot size and maximum density for the appticable zone/pian designation; and • public agency ownership (City, County, S1ate, Fedana|, College District, Irrigation District, Park D|etrict, School District, and Other Special District). The BLI describes the methods used, and inventory results in the four steps used to prepare the BL|(p.7-15and 2O-23; Rem Rec1O531-1D538;18544-1O547).'For the Residential BL|.the relevant steps are 1, 2 and 4. Step 1—Calculate Physical Constraints Step 2—Define Residential Land Step 3 — Define Employment Land 5 of Findings Report) Step 4— Assign Vacant and Developable Acreage Step Y— Calculate Physical Constraints Land that is physically constrained is not assumed to bble".28 Landwas'�-� kdentifiadae constrained if it: * has 25% or greater sfopes; • kaxvithin Federal ^'�Emergency a ~ Agency (FEMA) - '-_ floodplain;_` • is within • is within the Waterway Overlay Zone (WOZ) and within 100 feet ofthe the Deschutes River, where building Setbacks n`nv'ppply38. 27 See OAR660-008-0005(2kcyand (2)(dy,": 28 OAR 660-008pop5(2) describea,jend genetally not considered "suitable and available' for development, inclUding areas with 8)dpes of 25% or greater and areas within the 100 -year floodplain. 29 Bend's ASI's are not acknowledged Goal 5 resources. However, the city's regulations largely preclude development within these ateaa„ ,Density transfers are allowed; however, there is no history of developers utilizing this optidh. 39 Bend's WOZ combines foudifferent sub -areas: the Deschutes River Corridor Design Review overlay; the Floodplain Combining Zone; Goal 5 Riparian Corridor protection; and River Corridor ASIs. Each sub- area has its own set of standards and setbacks for protection. Setbacks vary from 30 to 100 feet depending on the stretch of river and the sub -zone; some are measured from ordinary high water, while others are measured from the canyon rim. Because the setbacks are not mapped in detail, the generalized assumption was made that development restrictions are likely within 100 feet of the mapped edge of the river throughout its Iength. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-30 The total area affected by one or more of the constraints was calculated for each tax lot in Bend. There are roughly 1,420 acres of physically constrained land within the UGB, of which roughly 1,170 are within tax lots (Figure 4-1). Figure 4-1: Physical Constraints Streams/Rivers Urban Growth Boundary _— Roads/Highways FEMA 100 Year Floodplain ®25% or greater slope ASI - River ASI Upland Findings Report Service LayerCredds Deschutes County GIS (2014) July 2016 files k•_ ;: NORTH: Prepared 2/12/2016 Section 4-31 Step 2 — Define Residential Land Following is a detailed description of how different categories of residential land were defined for purposes of the inventory, as well as tables summarizing the total acres of land in each category. Lands with a Residential plan designation (RL, RS, RM, RH), and lands with a residential zone category (RL, RS, RM, RH, SR2.5), are categorized as Residential Land, except for the "Special Cases" listed below.31 • Land within School District or Park District Ownership was considered unavailable for residential development. • Land in the Medical District Overlay Zone (MDOZ) with a residential plan designation was identified as "Mixed Use" and treatedas. part of the Employment land supply, but with the ability to accommodate some housing.32 • Land with an employment plan designation but zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR), which is primarily a holding zone and does not indicate :availability for urban residential development, was identified as Employment land:33 • Land planned or zoned for su;'rface: mining (SM) was identified as Employment land, 34 with one exception where landowners have proposed a .residential use.35 There areover200 parcels with resi 31 :residential Zones and',non-residential plan designations; however, the vast majority are developed. Those that are vacant are..mostly identified as "special cases". 32 The MDOZ is a special planned district= applied to land around the St. Charles Medical Center intended to "allow fortle'continuation and -.flexible expansion of the hospital, medical clinics and associated uses in a planned and coordinated manner.";(BDC, Section 2.7.510.A.) The residential, public, and institutional uses permitted or conditionally allowed in the base residential zones are subject to the same regulations , but hospitals are allowed.in the RH.zone within the overlay, and other limited commercial uses, including offices, are allowed or conditionally allowed in all zones within the MDOZ. The EOA considered this land to meet an employment land need, an approach which was approved in originally by LCDC, and carried forward into the 2016 EOA. 33 There are roughly 51 acres on two tax lots designated ME but zoned UAR. 34 One taxlot has an SM plan designation and an RS zone, covering roughly 30 acres inside the UGB, and currently mined. 35 This taxlot is located along Shevlin Park road at Skyline Ranch Road, and is part of an existing mining operation that extends outside of the UGB. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-32 Other land in mixed-use and commercial designations (not zoned for residential use) that allow residential development were treated as part of the Employment land supply, but with the ability to accommodate some housing, based on past trends.36 Step 3— Define and Categorize Employment Land See Section 5 of the Findings Report for the BLI for employment land. Step 4 — Assign BLI Status Pursuant to the statues, administrative rules, and guidance from DLCD, each tax lot was assigned a BLI status corresponding to one of the following categories: • Vacant • Developed • Lots Large Enough for an Additional Unit under Current Zoning ("Partially Vacant") • Lots Large Enough to Divide Under Current Zoning ("Developed with Infill Potential") Details of the way the definitions provided by statute, rule, and DLCD were operationalized for the purposes of this analysis are provided below. Vacant: Land planned or zoned for residential use that has $0 in improvement value. Tax lots that are planned or zoned for residential use, but are dedicated for other uses such as parks, common areas, rights of way or utilities are excluded37 Publicly owned land is also excluded.38 Developed: Land planned or zoned for residential `use that currently developed with the maximum number of `dwelling units'allowed in the plan designation/zone39. Residentially zoned 36 Bend hasthree-mixed-use districts' the Mtxed-Employment District (ME), the Mixed Use Riverfront District (MR) andrthe Professional Office District (P0).:Each of these allows some housing, as well as various combinations of retail, commercial, public/institutional, and light industrial uses. In addition, all four of the City's commercial zones (CB, .CC, CL, and CG) allow new residential use outright as part of a mixed-use development. 37 Private Open Space, including common areas that are part of an approved subdivision and/or owned by a Homeowners Association, unbuildable fragments, canal right of way, cemeteries, private roads, RV parks, and developed golf courses were identified as developed. The only exception is the undeveloped portion of the Back Nine goif=course at Mountain High, which was considered vacant. 38 As stated in ORS 660-008-0005(2), publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential uses. Publicly owned land was identified and designated "Public Land" and not considered vacant for residential purposes, unless information was available indicating otherwise. 39 The zone that implements the current general plan designation for each parcel was used to identify maximum development potential, except for parcels with a non-residential plan designation and a residential zone. This is because the code does not allow development that is inconsistent with the plan designation, and each plan designation is implemented by a single zone. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-33 land that is currently developed with an employment or institutional use is also categorized as Developed. Properties with restrictive Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and containing a dwelling were categorized as fully developed, even where minimum lot sizes are Targe enough to allow land division under the current plan designation/zoning.4° Lots Large Enough for an Additional Unit under Current Zoning ("Partially Vacant"): Land planned or zoned for residential use that has an improvements value greater than $O, but contains fewer dwelling units than permitted in the plan designation. Based solely on lot size (not considering limiting factors such as setback and frontage requirements, lot coverage, or location of existing structures), additional units could be built on the site, but the lot is not large enough to further divide.'' Lots Large Enough to Divide under Current Zoning ("Developed with Infill Potential"): Land planned or zoned for residential use that is currently developed, but where the lot is large enough to further divide consistent with its current plan designation/zone, based on the minimum lot size of the applicable zone. As with Partially Vacant land, this category does not consider limiting factors such as setback and frontage requirements, lot coverage, or location of the existing unit on the lot.41 Note that redevelopable land is not identified as a BLI category. Theoretically, the developed portions of parcels that have additional zoned development potential (those that are identified as partially vacant or developed with infill potential) could allow for redevelopment; however, land may be considered redevelopable only if there exists "the strong likelihood that existing ao CC&Rs were reviewed to determine whether they limit or preclude infill and redevelopment. Only those parcels subject to CC&Rs that restrict addition of units to the lot and/or restrict land division were identified as having restrictive CC&Rs and categorized as fully developed. Note that vacant, platted Tots subject to CC&Rs were categorized as vacant, but were also assumed not to have the potential for more than one dwelling unit. See the Urbanization Report for additional detail. Rem Rec 10840-10841; 10843- 10844 " To identify partially vacant lands and land developed with infill potential, the maximum number of units that could be built on each residential tax lot was calculated, based on the maximum density allowed under the existing plan designation per the BDC (which is expressed as a gross density) and the tax lot size. The number of existing units was then subtracted from the maximum number of units allowed. If one or more new units would be allowed based on the maximum density allowed by the zoning, the lot size was compared to the minimum lot size for single family detached housing in the zone. If the lot was more than double the minimum lot size, it was categorized as developed with infill potential. If it was not (but the maximum density of the zone would allow one or more additional units), the tax lot was categorized as partially vacant. Considerations such as setback and frontage requirements, lot coverage, or location of the existing unit on the lot were not considered, although those will be limiting factors in many cases. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-34 development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period."4z Redevelopment potential is addressed in the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10840-10841). Special Cases • Public Land.43 Publicly owned land was identified and designated "Public Land" and not considered vacant for residential purposes, unless information was available indicating otherwise. • Private Open Space identified by the TAC as having development potential was considered vacant. All others identified as developed. • Residential land with existing employment or institutional uses was considered developed. • Properties with restrictive CC&R's were identified as developed. Vacant areas within these districts were assigned a "RS-CCR"development type calibrated to assign one housing unit on each vacant lot. • Land in the Medical District Overlay Zone (MDOZ) with a residential plan category was identified as "Mixed Use" and treated as part of the Employment land supply, but with the ability to accommodate some housing. • Other land in mixed-use zones andcommercial zones that allow residential development were treated as part of the Employment land "supply, but with the ability to accommodate some housingrbasedon, Past trends Figure 4-2 shows the'BLI status of residential lands (2014) and Table 4-11 presents that information in tabular form(with acres)., 42 OAR 660-008-0005(7). 43 As stated in ORS 660-008-005(2), publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential uses. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-35 Figure 4-2: BLI Status of Residential Lands Map (2014) Ro4deoareustatus. MPPv.elotiCO:" ir :lti,-=:*i.c.4:q10:k0*P_iv.kO),,!00*+;Yfi*t*pmtOomcipe#vo$,*mPOioaO: • 410004.**(4,04444-060:040004410 Va�nt Note: Only a portion of the land that is classified as partially vacant is assumed to experience infill during the planning horizon. These areas do not represent geographically -specific proposals or assumptions for future growth. Findings Report Residential Lands include land in residential comprehensive plan categories and land with a residential zone category. except for land in the Medical District Overlay Zone (MDOZ) and land with a Surface Mining (SM) plan or zone designation. July 2016 Prepared 2/9/2016 Section 4-36 Table 4-11. BLI Status of Residential Tax Lots BLI Status of Residential Tax Lots Number of Tax Lots Total Acres Developed 25,849 7,737 Lots Large Enough to Divide Under Current Zoning ("Developed with Infill Potential) 4,573 2,554 Lots Large Enough for Additional Units under Current Zoning ("Partially Vacant) 827 93 Publicly Owned (excludes schools and parks)44 179 544 Vacant 2,854 1,718 Total 34,282 12,646 Source: BLI, Table 1. 4.4.5.2 Requirements for Buildable Lands Inventory The Commission's division 24 rules clarify certain aspects of how the BLI must be carried out. OAR 660-024-0050 provides that: (1) When evaluating or amending a;'UGB, a local;governme'nt must inventory land inside the UGB to determine whether there rs adequate development capacity to accommodate 20 -year needs determined in,OAR 660.024-0040. For residential land, the buildable land inventory must include vacant and redevelopable land, and be conducted in accordance with OAR ,660-007004 or 660 008-0010. ,w.hichever is applicable, and ORS 197.296 for local governments subject to that statute.* * *' OAR 660-008-0010 requires that: "*` * *the local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation.": The Council finds that findings under Section 4.4.5.1 above are incorporated by this reference to show compliance with OAR 660-024-0050(1). The 2016 BLI was conducted in accordance with OAR 660-008-0010 and 197.296. Table 4-12 documents the amount of buildable land (by BLI status) in each residential plan designation. 44 Lands identified as being in public ownership, except for land owned by the Bend -La Pine School District and BPRD (whether or not currently developed with schools/parks). Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-37 Table 4-12. BLI Status for Residential Land by Comprehensive Plan Designation45 Comprehensive Plan Designation Number of Taxlots Total Acres RL Developed Developed with infill potential Partially Vacant Vacant Publicly Owned RS Developed Developed with infill potential Partially Vacant Vacant Publicly Owned RM Developed Developed with infill potential Partially Vacant Vacant Publicly Owned RH Developed Developed with infill potential Partially Vacant Vacant Publicly Owned UAR Commercial / Industrial Des ignation46 Developed Developed with infill potential Partially Vacant Vacant Publicly Owned PF Developed Developed with infill potential Partially Vacant Vacant47 Publicly Owned48 3,019 2,836 98 1 69 15 25,615 20,705 2,963 13 2,111 93 4,891 1,977 1,615 750 517 32 526 200 1.65 63 88 10 13 54 53 0 0 0 1 164 68 67 27 1,613.0 1367.1 184.9 0.5 53.7 6.9 9,181.4 5,912.8 1,723.2 1.6 1,439.3 104.5 1,225.7 336.8 198.6 85.1 182.5 22.5 136.9 45.6 46.5 6.0 19.5 19.3 5.3.4 8.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 427.5 47.2 0.6 0.0 22.6 357.1 45 Excludes land owned by the Bend -La Pine School District and BPRD; excludes MDOZ land. 46 These lands have a comprehensive plan designation of CC, CG, CL, or IL, but have a zoning designation of RS or RM and are considered part of the Residential inventory. 47 The vacant land that has a PF designation and is included in the residential BLI is zoned RS and includes land platted as part of residential subdivisions, and one Targe parcel (roughly 14 acres in southeast Bend) under common ownership with adjacent vacant RS -designated land. 45 This category includes Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) property that has a PF designation and residential zoning. However, the site is encumbered by a view easement and is not considered developable through the year 2035. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-38 Conclusion: The Council finds that the BLI documents the amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation consistent with the definitions and methodology set forth in OAR 660-024-0050(1) and related rules and statutes. Source data for the BLI was updated from 2008 to 2014 to provide the most accurate and current data to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to accommodate housing needs to 2028. The primary outcome of the BLI is a GIS dataset with values for vacant and developed acres for each parcel within the City of Bend UGB. These values provide a basis for estimating future development and redevelopment. The assumptions that have been applied to the BLI to estimate capacity are documented in the Urbanization Report. Findings relating to the capacity analysis are presented in Section 4.4.6 below. 4.4.6. Base Case Capacity Analysis ORS 197.296(3)(a) and (5) outline the steps to determine the housing capacity of buildable lands. *** (3) In performing the duties under subsection (2) of this section, a local government shall: (a) Inventory the supply of buildable lands within the urban growth boundary and determine the housing capacity of the buildable lands; and *** (5)(a) Except* providedin paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, the determination of housing capacity: and need pursuant to subsection (3) of this section must be based on datarelating to` landwitiin;the;urban growth boundary that has been collected since the last=periodic review or five years, whichever is greater. The data shall include: (A) The number, density and average mix of housing types of urban residential development that have, actually occurred; (B) Trends in density and,average mix of housing types of urban residential development; (C) Demographic and population trends; (D) Economic trends and cycles; and (E) The number, density and average mix of housing types that have occurred on the buildable lands described in subsection (4)(a) of this section. (b) A local government shall make the determination described in paragraph (a) of this subsection using a shorter time period than the time period described in paragraph (a) of this subsection if the local government finds that the shorter time period will provide more accurate and reliable data related to housing capacity and need. The shorter time period may not be less than three years. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-39 (c) A local government shall use data from a wider geographic area or use a time period for economic cycles and trends longer than the time period described in paragraph (a) of this subsection if the analysis of a wider geographic area or the use of a longer time period will provide more accurate, complete and reliable data relating to trends affecting housing need than an analysis performed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection. The local government must clearly describe the geographic area, time frame and source of data used in a determination performed under this paragraph. *** The Council finds that Section 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 address the number, density and average mix of housing types that have occurred on buildable lands since 1998 are incorporated by this cross- reference to meet the legal standard in ORS 197.296(5). The findings in this section focus on the linkage of the BLI to the Urbanization Report to determine the capacity of the buildable lands within the current UGB. The findings in this section are a direct excerpt from the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10840-10846). As described in the Urbanization Report (p. 21- 23: Rem Rec 10835-10837), a scenario planning tool called "Envision Tomorrow (ET)"49 was used to analyze capacity and options for future growth in Bend. ET applies development assumptions spatially and provides a sketch - level analysis of the possible impacts of policies, development decisions and growth trajectories. Development assumptions within the model include: a mix of specific building prototypes, which are based on information including parking'rquirerens ;`height limits, and lot coverage ratios; streets, open space, and other set -asides; net residential and job density; and rate of redevelopment. About the Ba,se_Case The `Base Case" is aspatial projection of housing and employment growth through 2028 within the current UGB based on- ::past trends and current policies, using the ET model. The Base Case represents the current UGB's remaining capacity prior to applying assumptions regarding new residentialefficiency measures and measures to encourage additional redevelopment of employment areas,, The reason to create a Base Case is two -fold: first, to understand the remaining UGB capacity as of 2014 if no policy changes were made, and, second, to compare the impacts of alternatives that:incorporate efficiency measures to understand how they change UGB capacity. For residential development types, the densities and mix of housing types were set to match the observed trends from 1998 to 2008 by plan designation, documented in Appendix C of the Urbanization Report.50 The City is required to base the capacity analysis on data since the last 49 Information and download available at http://www.envisiontomorrow.ora/ 50 There is one exception: the observed average density in the RH zone between 1998 and 2008 falls below the current minimum density for the zone (which was adopted in 2006). Based on guidance from Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-40 periodic review, in 1998.51 The City's continued reliance on the 1998-2008 data analysis is justified because the residential development in the City from 2008 to 2014 was largely limited to building individual homes on Tots created before 2008, due to the economic downturn.52 This means that the density for the development was set prior to 2008 for nearly all recent residential building activity. Residential land may be considered redevelopable only if there exists "the strong likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period."53 City staff, in 2011, performed a detailed analysis of residential development activity in the City from 1999 through 2008 by BLI status. The analysis found: • Land classified as "partially vacant" had very low levels of building permit activity — only 80 permits over 10 years. • Under 6% of lots (and 26% of acres) classified as "developed with infill potential" in 1999 received building permits for residential infill by 2008: 4% of the lots under one acre (4.5% of the acres in this category) and 36% of the lots over one acre (51 % of the acres in this category). • There was virtually no redevelopment activity — where an existing structure was demolished and additional units were built — on fully developed land during 1999- 2008.54 the Remand, the Base Case uses the minimum density for the RH zone rather than the observed average. 51 ORS 197.296(5)(e) requires determination of housing -capacity to be based on data relating to land within the City's UGB that has been collected since the last periodic review or five years, whichever is greater.. In Bend's situation, the last periodic review ended in 1998 with the adoption of the City of Bend Comprehensive Plan. 52 Land use permit data indicates roughly a dozen residential subdivisions and two multi -family development projects approved (but not necessarily built) since 2008, ail in 2013 and 2014, compared to between 600 and 700 single family homes built since 2008 on platted lots. 53 OAR 660-008-0005(7). 54 There were a total of 50 permits issued on lands classified as developed where there was an existing unit AND where the existing unit was demolished; however, only 2 of them resulted in more units than had existed prior to the demolition. In both of these cases, duplexes were built after a single family home was demolished. The rest of the 50 permits resulted in the same number of units (e.g., a single family home was demolished and replaced with another single family home). Therefore, the City assumes that only 2 permits were the result of redevelopment; the other 48 were merely replacements of existing units. This is not unexpected, given that for land to be classified as developed it had to be fully developed under the existing zoning regulations. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-41 The ET modewas caflbrated to be roughiy consistent with these observations. Because of the way developed and vacant lands were identified for lots classified oo^padia|lyvacant"and "developed with infill potential" (see Step 4 of the BLI; Rem Rec 10544), developed land for the purposes of this analysis is essentially only the portions of those properties where demolition of existing structures would be required in order to allow for redevelopment. There is very little evidence of redevelopment through demofltion in Bend to date. Thus, the redevelopment rate for the developed portion of the partially vacant and developed with infill properties (which also applies to land that is fuliy developed) is set at zero (Urbanization Report, p. 26-27; Rem Rec 10840-10841). Base Case Housing Capacity The Tabies 4-13 and 4-14 describe the residentiai capacity estimated in the Base Case scenario. Note that the nurnbarofnevvhousing uM�s is of any existing units that may be lost through redeveLopment in non-residentiall districts. Table 4-13 shows that the current UGB can accommodate roughly 10,039 housing units under the current plan designations and policies and historic trends in development density. The mix of units projected under the Base Case is roughly 65% single family detached, 30% multifamily, and 5% single family attached. Table 4=14 shows that most of the total housing capacity (nearly 60%) is in the RS plan designation. Just -under q% of the total housing capacity is in the RH zone, the city's only high-density residential plan dOsignation. The RH plan designation and the MDOZ collectively providecloSe to 38% of the total multifamily housing capacity in the City, and are geographically cortoefitrated:tit a few areas. Overall houping growth is concentrated in the southeast and east, where there istnore vacaht Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-42 Table 4-13. Base Case Housing Capacity Housing Type Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multi -Family Total Source: Urbanization Report, Table 6. Table 4-14. Plan Designation* RL RS RM* RH* MDOZ* MR PF** Total*** Net New Housing Units 6,496 498 3,045 10,039 Percent of New Housing Units 65% 5% _ 30% 100% Base Case Housing Capacity by Existing Plan Designation* Single Family Single Family Multi -Family Total New Detached Units Attached Units Units Housing Units 152 5,574 753 30 12 (25) 179 225 46 221 1,569 508 490 49 51 206 ,496498 3,045 Source: Urbanization Report, Table 7. __.. ..,...._„_ , * Development capacity,fiihe:'A-;IDOZ:is counted Olgre rather than by plan -designation. ** COCC on -campus student housing. , . . *** Note that overall totaii..099unt for small amountS.'Whousing lost through redevelopment in employment areas that are-iiChoro*(0?,..table. ..,,,. Cornpari**,tex-Haii,4100-Aleeci' 152 5,974 2,547 583 490 111 181 10,039 The housing unit projections to 26*pre documented and explained in the HNA (Rem Rec 10600-16601) and addressed in the findings in Section 4.4.2. This section compares those needs, in summary form, against the estimated capacity of the current UGB in the Base Case. As shown in Table -,445, the Base Case is estimated to accommodate roughly 60% of the total housing needs forecast for 2028. However, comparing at the housing type level, it is clear that the capacity is not evenly distributed across all needed types and categories. Much of the total single family housing need can be met inside the UGB in the Base Case, but less than a third of the single family attached and less than half of the multifamily housing needs can be accommodated with current policies and trends. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-43 Table 4-15. Base Case Housing Capacity Compared to Housing Needs by Housing Type Net New Total Housing Residual Percent Housing Housing Type Housing Units Need Housing Need Need Met Single Family Detached 6,496 9,225 2,728 70% Single Family Attached 498 1,677 1,179 30% Multi -Family 3,045 6,331 3'286 48% Total 10,039 17,233 7,193 58%Source: Urbanization Report, Table 10. Conclusion: The CouncH finds that the City has completed an lands within the existing UGB and determined the housing capacity of the buildable lands consistent with the legal standards in ORS 197.296(3) and (5). The Residential TAC and the USC provided detailed input and guidance on the update of the BLI for residential lands and the capacity analysis for the current UGB55. Based oh the evidence in the EA.!, the HNA and the Urbanization Report, the Council concludes that the current UGB (as of July 2014) can accommodate roughly 10,039 housing units under the current plan designations and policies and historic trends in development density. This represents roughly 60% of the total housing unit forecast for 2028. The estimated capacity is not evenly distributed across all needed housing types. . These results indicate a need for additional -efficiency measures to -increase the likelihood that needed housing types will.be built; and to make better use,of-residential land inside the current UGB. Findings to address efficiency measures are provided ih'Section 4.4.7 below. 4.4.7. Efficiency Measiires anclaptions to Address Deficiency of Land for Needed Housing 4.4.7.1 Options to Address=Deficiency OAR 66M2470050 addresses the land -inventory and response to deficiency. 660-024-0050(4) provides, in pertinent part, that: . (4) If the inventory demonStrates that the development capacity of land inside the UGB inadequate to-aecommodate the estimated 20 -year needs determined under OAR 660 024-0040, the /oda/ government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency, either by increasing the development capacity of land already inside the City or by expanding the UGB, or both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where 55 The Residential TAC reviewed and provided input and feedback on the BLI at their October13, 2014 meeting; November 17.2O14meeting; February 11.2O15meeting, August 26.2U15meeting, and March 17, 2016 joint meeting with the Employment TAC. The USC approved the Phase 1 work of the Residential TAC, including their work on the BLI, at their March 19, 2015 meeting. The USC approved the draft BLI for public hearing review at their April 21.301Gmeeting. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-44 Prior to expanding the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB. 't*'F ORS 197.296 (6) and (7) outline actions to accommodate the additional housing need. (6) If the housing need determined pursuant to subsection (3)(b) of this section is greater than the housing capacity determined pursuant to subsection (3)(1) of this section, the local government shall take one or more of the following actions to accommodate the additional housing need. (a) Amend its urban growth boundary to include sufficient buildable lands to accommodate housing needs for the next 20 years. As part of this process, the local government shall consider the effects of measures taken pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection. 't** (b) Amend its comprehensive plan, regional framework plan, functional plan or land use regulations to include new measures that demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at densities sufficient to accommodate housing needs for the next 20 years without expansion of the urban growth boundary. ** ; or (c) Adopt a combination of the actions described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection. (7) Using the analysis conducted under subsection (3)(b) of this section, the local government shall determine the overall average density and overall mix of housing types at which residential development of needed- housing types must occur in order to meet housing needs over the next 20 years. If that density is greater than the actual density of development determined under subsection (5)(a)(A) of this section, or if that mix is different -from the actual mix -of -housing types determined under subsection (5)(a)(A) of this section, the local government, as part of its periodic review, shall adopt measures that demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at the housing types and density and at the mix of housing types required to meet housing needs over the next 20 years. The Council finds that the Urbanization Report (page 33; Rem Rec 10847) states the Residential and Employment TACs considered and discussed a robust package of efficiency measures over a series of meetings. The efficiency measure concepts were approved by the USC in the Phase 1 package (USC 3/19/2015 Meeting Minutes, Rem Rec 8275). The Residential and Employment TACs focused on efficiency measures that are proposed to be implemented through code text amendments packaged with the adoption of the UGB. Additional measures have been or will be implemented through other processes, including code amendment work by CDD with the Planning Commission and a city-wide Parking Study, both of which are underway. The Residential and Employment TAC recommendations on new efficiency measures reflect the recognition that Bend's UGB expansion proposal and package of amendments are taking place Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-45 in a time of transition. Vertical mixed use is relativeiy uncommon in Bend. There are concerns in existing neighborhoods about infill and redevelopment, as well as the scale and uses in neighboring commercial areas. Topics like accessory dwelUng units (ADUs) are controversiak At the same time, there is a need for more affordable housing, housing supply in general, and a greater mix of housing types. These are hot topics, and elicit many different perspectives. Operating in this environment, the Residential and Employment TACs have taken clear steps to encourage a greater diversity and density of housing and mixed use development, described below, but care was taken to balance these efforts with the concerns of residents in existing naighbmrhnodmm. This balance is reflected in the efficiency measures that appiy city-wide. However, the Residential and Employment TAC recommendations also proposed larger scale changes by focusing more far-reaching changes in Opportunity Areas, which tend to be in the core of the City. These recommendations focus on good urban form with more intensive development in more central Iocations in the city.They recognize the opportunities provided by larger vacant sites to be master planned in the future, as well as the need to provide modest code changes to remove barriers to higher intensity and a greater mix of housing in existing residential areas. Together, these measures support and guide Bend's transition from a smail town to a city. The anticipated impacts of the efficiency measures inside the existing UGB were evaluated using the ET model by making adjustments to the mix and density of housing projected in certain plan designations to reflect the removal df barriers, creation of incentives, and adjustments to minimum standards in the BDCProposed changestop|mndemignationnfor opportunity areas, including application of new mbd use zones, were also evaluated using ET by applying a developm ntb/pethatreflects the pr�posed plan designation rather than thereflects existing one. The model does not provide a mechanism to quantify the magnitude of the impact to capacity for each individual rather a cumulative impact of aPI proposed efficiency measures relative to the base case is provided in this chapter. ` ' ^ See amendments to the BDC (Rem Rec 11149) which imthe efficiency measures, listed by su'area be|ovv:�.� • Chapter 2.1 Residential Districts (Rem Rec11151-11158\ • Chapter 2.2 Commercial Zoning Districts (Rem Rec 11159 — 11161) • Chapter 2.3 Zoning Districts (Rem Rmc11162-11171\ • Chapter 2.7 Special Planned Districts (Rem Rec 11172 — 11182) • Chapter 3.3 VehicleParking,LmadingondBicvclePmrNng(RennReo111O3-11188) • Chapter 3.4 Public Improvement Standards (Rem Rec 11187 — 11188) ,«SeamaaUngminuteoforUhoTAComaoUngonJuly21.2O15.August25.2015.Octobor7.2O15.and November 19, 2015. These TACs met on the same day and date. See meeting minutes at Rem Re. 5103, 5297, 7450, 8128, 8447, 8854, and 8860. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-46 • Chapter 3.6 Special Standards and Regulations for Certain Uses (Rem Rec 11189 — 11200) • Chapter 4.5 Master Planning and Development Alternatives (Rem Rec 11192-11199) • Chapter 4.6 Land Use District Map and Text Amendments (Rem Rec 11200) • See also related proposed amendments to the zoning map (Rem Rec 11147-11148) and comprehensive plan map (Rem Rec 11145-11146) and enabling policy from the Comprehensive Plan and supporting technical documentation (Rem Rec 10310-10994) 4.4.7.2 Actions and measures to consider ORS 197.296(9) provides that: "(9) In establishing that actions and measures adopted under subsections (6) and (7) of this section demonstrably increase the likelihood of higher density residential development, the local government shall at a minimum ensure that land zoned for needed housing is in locations appropriate for the housing types identified under subsection (3) of this section and is zoned at density ranges that are likely to be achieved by the housing market using the analysis in subsection (3) of this section. Actions or measures, or both, may include but are not limited to: (a) Increases in the permitted density on existing residential land; (b) Financial incentives for higher density hosing; (c) Provisionsperrhitting additional density beyond that generally allowed in the zoning district in exchange for amenities and features provided by the developer; (d) Removal or easing of approval standards or procedures; (e) Minimum ranges, !, :, r.:;,::, - - -„ (1)Redevelopment'and infaStrategies; 4:Authorization of housing typea,not previously allowed by the plan or regulations; (h) Adoption of an average residential density standard; and Rezonihg or redesignation of nonresidential land (to residential uses)." OAR 660-024-0050(7) provides a safe harbor related to efficiency measures: As a safe harbor regarding requirements concerning "efficiency," a local government that chooses to use the density and mix safe harbors in OAR 660-024-0040(8) is deemed to have met the Goal 14 efficiency requirements under: (a) Sections (1) and (4) of this rule regarding evaluation of the development capacity of residential land inside the UGB to accommodate the estimated 20 -year needs; and (b) Goal 14 regarding a demonstration that residential needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on residential land already inside the UGB, but not with respect to: Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-47 (A) A demonstration that residential needs cannobe reasonably accommodated by rezoning non-residential land, and (B) CompliancewithGma 14 Boundary Location factors. The Council finds that the City elected not to use the safe harbor identified in OAR 660-024- 0050(7). There is no requirement that the City comply with the safe harbors provided in the The findings on efficiency measures are direct excerpts from pages 33-44 (Rem Rec 10847- 10848) of the Urbanization Report. The City finds that the examples provided n (9)(a) through (9)(i) are illustrative as examples and that the statute does notdoesnot further require the City to exptain why the measures cited above were either used or not in the capacity analysis. The City's proposed package of efficiency measures includes nearl all the suggested measures briefly summarized as follows: (a) new increases in permitted densities in the RL and hiher minimums required in the RS zone and new higher densityand housing,--�'_-.Master Plans; (b) currently adopted incentives such as fee waivers and SDC waivers for affordable housing; (c) reduced landscaping and parking for mixed use developments; (d) making currently conditional hoUsing tYpes like duplexes and triplexes permitted outright in certain zones as well as smaller lots sizes, parking reductions, and other code amendments; . (e) slightly highetdensity ranges for RL and Minimum derisity for RS lands; (f) redevelopment and infill strategies related to proposed Opportunity Sites; (g) allowances for broader:tyPes:of housing zones; (h) continuinglhe current -practice of -requiring minimum and maximum densities by plan deSignation; and (i) new Comprehensiye-Plan and Zoning de''signations for sites in Opportunity Areas. These findings', .and findings b'elow, demonstrate how these and other measures have been adopted as requited by law. Approach to Minimurn Density _ The Residential TAC isting minimum densities in the residential zones and made the following recommendatione: • increase the maximum density in the RL zone from 2.2 to 4.0 units per gross acre; • increase the minimum density in the RS zone from 2.0 to 4.0 units per gross acre; and • retain the existing range of 7.3 to 21.7 units per gross acre in the RM zone. The Residential TAC did not support the idea of creating an additional zone, and was uncomfortable with having a density gap between the maximum density in the RS zone and the minimum density in the RM zone. instead of increasing the minimum density in the RM zone, Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-48 the Residential TAC recommended removing barriers to development of a broader range of housing types in the RS and RM zones (see below). These changes are intended to create a greater mix of housing types generally within the currently allowed density ranges. The overall set of changes focus on requiring more mixing of units rather than dramatic increases to density Given that the average net density of new housing built in the RS zone between 1998 and 2008 was 4.9 units per net acre, which is roughly 3.9 units per gross acre, the increase in the minimum density for the RS zone is expected to cause an increase in overall gross densities for new development in that zone. However, given the history of housing development tending towards the lower end of the allowed density range in Bend, housing densities in RS are not expected to increase significantly above the new minimum tugh the 2028 planning horizon. The code amendments also revise some aspects of how the density standards apply: * Replacement of existing housing in az�ne (provided the number of units does not change) andd | t on a vacant!Drafted lot consistent with an approved land division are exempt from density standardsThese /ona than in the existing code, which excludes "redevelopment within oresidential neighborhood with an existing| development oOm vacant platted lot consistent with the adjacent existing pattern of development". . . Sensitive lands (*etlands, significant trees, steep.slopes, fleodplains and other natural resource areas designated for protedion or'COnser'vation) as well as fire breaks (as defined in the cOde) and canal easements,are excluded from minimum, but not maximum, density paiculatiOn. This will mean that constrained sites will have greater flexibilitY-td:shift develOpM'ent-dreot; depending on the site and the market. Sites with heavier constraints are leSs likely to achieve the full density transfer from those -constrained lands. See Amendments to BDC (Rem Rec 11149). Specifically, • Chapter 2.1 -Residential DiStricts (Rem Rec 11151 — 11158) Ensuring Housing Mix In order to ensure that housing mix targets are met without increasing the minimum density in RM, additional code amendments are targeted at facilitating the needed housing mix in the RS zone and ensuring the needed housing mix in the RM zone. In the RS zone, the Residential TAC recommended and Council agreed to make additional housing types permitted rather than conditional, including: 1) single family attached townhomes; 2) courtyard housing (detached housing with modified side setbacks); and 3) duplexes and triplexes. These proposed amendments buitd on work that has already been done by the City Counci|, Community Development Department, and Planning Commission to allow a greater Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-49 housing mix in the RS Zone (including allowing ADUs, cottage homes, and duplexes on corner Tots outright subject to special standards).57 It is worth noting that a development site generally would need to be over 10,000 square feet58 in order to add a unit (other than an ADU) or partition due to the maximum density standard for the RS zone, regardless of the changes proposed. As a result, the Council believes townhomes and duplexes are Tess likely to be an attractive option for small infill projects, except in the case where the lot is Targe enough to add units, but the siting of the existing home makes it difficult to partition Tots large enough for a detached home. The option to retain the existing home on a larger lot and still add a few units may enable small infill projects in some circumstances where layout is a barrier (rather than land area), but making duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes permitted instead of conditional will have minimal impact on infill on small lots. The Council, however, recognizes that the new codes will make it easier for developers to incorporate townhomes or duplexes into mid-size subdivision projects where they can use lot size averaging to provide a variety of housing types. In the RM zone, the Residential TAC recommended and Council agreed to require at least half of the units in developments between 3 and 20 acres (large enough for a mix of housing, but smaller than the master plan threshold) to be townhomes, duplex/triplex, or multifamily. This is intended to help that zone achieve the needed mix of housing units without changing the minimum density. There are still reasonable exceptions for affordable housing projects that meet City standards, mobile homes parks, and cottage homes, all of which provide other ways to achieve affordable housing. - Between 1998 and 2008, SFD housing comprised, only about 24% of the new housing units in the RM zone overall, so this provision may not significantly shift the balance of housing types in that zone.- It does, however, provide an addition al -back -stop to housing mix to avoid relying solely on market forces to produce the mix and to ensure that nearly all housing development in the RM zone (other than small infill projects) provides a mix of housing types. In addition, efficiency measure code amendments prohibit new SFD housing in the RH zone, in order to preserve that zone for attached housing types. The Council finds the recommended BDC amendments represent a responsible approach to best meet the housing mix targets for Bend, and best balance the various interests of affordable housing, changing demographics and market forces, while preserving existing neighborhoods. 57 The code amendments related to ADUs, cottage homes, and duplexes on corner lots are all included as efficiency measures, despite the fact that they were adopted prior to the UGB adoption package, because they have been done since 2008, in response to the Remand. 58 There are over 8,000 properties with the RS plan designation and/or zone that are over 10,000 square feet (including public land, open space, etc.); however, this is less than a third of all properties in the RS plan designation / zone. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-50 See all amendments to the BDC (Rem Rec 11149) which implement the efficiency measures, or by subject area below: • Chapter 2.1Residential Districts (Rem Rmo11151-1115E) w Chapter 4.5 Master Planning and Development Alternatives (Rem Rec 11192-11199) Master PIan Density and Mix Requirements The current code requires a flat minimum percentage of the maximum density (60%) for master planned sites. The efficiency measure code amendments tailorthe requirements to each of the residential zones in order to ensure that the standard is realistic for for alt zones while still making efficient use of larid in the RS zone This is mportant not only for land inside the UGB but for r^� ` sites inUGBexpansion areas that are large enough to'ttiggerlhe nnoaturp|mnninQnyquinarnento (20 acres or greater). The Residential TAC recommended the following minimum density for mmsterp|annedoitaeineenhzonm/Saonnaeting`lnu%emfmrtheR` ntial TAC's November 11 2015 meeting, Rem Rec 8860): • RL: 50% of maximum (2.0) * RS: 70% of maximum /5.11\`, • RM:60%Cfnl@Xnlunl /1 ` ` ' w RH: base zone minimum i21.7\� In addition to a higher minimum density standard for_Master plan sites, the efficiency measure code amendments inclOde the follovving minimum percentages,of housing units that must be townhomes, duplex/ft-01ex, or multifamily: Observed,past development -trends indicate that without minimum mixing requirements, developmetitS:tend to be built atpear MiniMum densities with higher percentages of single- family detached:wellings than -the needed mix going forward. The newly proposed mix requirements have -been calibrate'd based on the assumptions built into the development types within the ET model SoAhat theY help ensure that the needed housing mix can be met. To support achieving the i-equired mix of housing types, townhomes, duplex/triplex, and multifamily housing are all permitted outright when part of a masterplan in the RL and RS zones. See Amendments to BDC (Rem Rec 11149), more specifically: * Chapter 2.1 Residential Districts (Rem Rec 11151 — 11158) • Chapter 4.5 Master Planning and Development Alternatives (Rem Rec 11192-11199) Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-51 Minimum Lot Size Requirements Reductions to minimum lot sizes for certain housing types in the hihaFdenaitvreak1antia| zones are proposed in order to allow more opportunities to build at the higher end of the allowed density range. Proposed changes to minimum lot area include: • SFD Housing in the RL zone: from 15,000 square feet (sf) to 10,000 sf • SFD F-Iousing in the RM zone: from 3,000 sf to 2,500 sf • DupexftripIex) in the RL zone: from 3O.00Oofto2U.00Umf • Duplex/triplex in the RM & RH zones: remove minimuni.:16t size, and allow gross density, minimum open space requirements, and other deyelOprrient standards hocontrol • Townhomeointhe RMzone: from 2.00Oofper unit t11,2OOmfper unit • Townhomes in the RM from 2,000 sf '- it to 1;600 sf per unit • MF housing in the RM & RH zones: remove minimum lot etia.and allow gross density and other development standards to contro!dlmaUovvadnumm' r of units Because the gross density standards control then ber of units allowed db,a given property, these changes primarily provide greater flexibility td-achipve the upper ranges of the gross density standard for the zone on constrained moreright-of-way and/or open space dedication. See Amendments toi:BDC (Rem Rec 11:149), more specifically: • Chapter 2.1 Residential Districts (Rem Rec 11151 — 11158) Density Bonuses In May 2015, the CitY'aqopted an affordable housing density bonus provision in the BDC that allows development at iffy tp.1.5 times Ole maxiMum gross density of the zone where some or all of the unitsare affordable4imcgrifOrmance with -City standards addressing target income levels and 'MaintainingraffordabilitY59) — the greater the percentage of affordable units, the greaterthe density bontis. The Cityalso has other affordable housing incentives, including a height bonus (10'), an allowance fot'mbre lot coverage, expedited review and permit processing, planning and building fee exemptions, and system development charge deferrals. These are considered efficiency measureS and are important tools to encourage production of affordable housin'g and reduce coats for developers of affordable housing, but will have limited impact on capacity overall since affordable housing represents a relatively small portion of housing growth. See Amendments to BDC (Rem Rec 11149), more specifically: • Chapter 2.1 Residential Districts (Rem Rec 11151 — 11158) • Chapter 2.7 Si l Planned Districts (Rem Rec 11172 — 11182) Chapter 3.3 Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking (Rem Rec 11183 — 11186) • BDC 3.6.200(C) Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-52 New Mixed Use Zones The proposed code amendments include two new mixed use plan designations and corresponding implementing zones: urban -scale ("Mixed Use — Urban" or MU) and neighborhood -scale ("Mixed Use — Neighborhood" or MN). The new zones are intended to accommodate a range of residential and commercial uses in pedestrian -oriented mixed use centers and corridors. The scale of uses in the MN zone (primarily building heights) is Tess intense than the MU zone. The Employment TAC recommended including the new mixed use zones in the BDC and designating specific opportunity sites with the new Mixed Use plan designations and, in some cases, zones (see "Changes to Plan Designations for Opportunity Sites" on page 40; Rem Rec 10854). The mixed use zones allow residential uses outright as well as when part of mixed use development. There are no maximum density standards for residential uses other than the height and setback standards. They are subject to the RM zone minimum density (7.3 units per acre) on the portion of the site used for ground -floor residential, though there is no minimum density for vertical mixed use. They also allow for an urban style of development with no minimum landscaping requirement (aside from parking lot and setback landscaping); reduced minimum parking standards for the MU zone (similar to the CBD rather than the standard for the rest of the city — see next section for details); no minimum front setback and a 10' maximum front setback. The impact of the new mixed use zones is discussed under "Changes to Plan Designations for Opportunity Sites" on page, 40; Rem 'Rec 10854).;` See Amendments to BDC (Rem .;Rec 11-149),: more -,-specifically: • --Chapter 2.1 Residential Districts (Rem Rep 11151 — 11158) • Chapter 2.2 Commercial Zoning Districts (Rem Rec 11159 — 11161) • Chapter 2.3 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts (Rem Rec 11162 —11171) • Chapter 27 Special Planned Districts (Rem Rec 11172 — 11182) • Chapter 3.3 -Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking (Rem Rec 11183 —11186) • Chapter 4.6 Land Use District Map and Text Amendments (Rem Rec 11200) Revisions to Parking Standards Targeted revisions to parking standards are proposed as part of the draft package of code amendments adopted with the UGB. • Reductions to parking requirements for residential and commercial uses in the MU zone, similar to those in place for the CBD (e.g. 1 space per housing unit, regardless of size and type; 1 space per 500 square feet of commercial for all commercial uses). Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-53 • Allow on -street parking along the property frontage to count for up to 100% of required parking in the MU and MN zones. • Allow on -street parking along the property frontage to count even if parking is only allowed on one side of the street. • Provide automatic 5% reduction to minimum parking requirements for mixed use development. • Provide automatic 10% reduction to minimum parking requirements for development adjacent to transit. • Apply existing parking reduction for affordable housing (1 space per housing unit) regardless of location, rather than limiting it to locations within 660 feet of transit. • Reductions to parking for 1 -bedroom duplexes and triplexes (from 2 to 1 space per unit) More comprehensive revisions to parking standards will be considered through the Parking Study, which is currently underway. See Amendments to BDC (Rem Rec 11149), specifically: • Chapter 2.1 Residential Districts (Rem Rec 11151 — 11158) • Chapter 2.2 Commercial Zoning Districts (Rem Rec 11159 — 11161) • Chapter 2.3 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts (Rem Rec 1.1162 —11171) • Chapter 2.7 Special Planned Districts (Rem Rec 11172 —11182) • Chapter 3.3 Vehicle Parking, Loading andBicycle Parking (Rem Rec 11183 — 11186) • Chapter 3.6 Special Standards and Regulations Certain -Uses (Rem Rec 11189 — 11200) Allowing More Intense Development in the Mixed Employment Zone The Mixed Employment (ME) zone aHows for a wide range of uses. Currently, it is subject to a 50% maximurrt_=1ot cov.,erage-limitation and a--10-foot-minimum front setback that make it difficult to buildmore intense development. The package of code amendments includes removing both of those; limitations. It also <includes a height bonus of 10 feet for vertical mixed use or affordable housing in the ME zone. Amendments to the ME zone also ensure that housing is built as part of a mixed use development: -'Housing that is part of horizontal mixed use must meet RM zone minimum densities where there is only a small non-residential component to the development or where the site is;adjacent to transit. Several auto -oriented commercial uses are also proposed to become conditional, rather than permitted uses, in order to encourage more walkable, pedestrian -friendly -,development. Combined with modest reductions to parking requirements, these adjustments will allow and encourage more intensive and efficient development, though parking requirements will still limit the ability to build urban -scale development in this zone. See Amendments to BDC (Rem Rec 11149), specifically: • Chapter 2.3 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts (Rem Rec 11162 — 11171) • Chapter 3.3 Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking (Rem Rec 11183 — 11186) • Chapter 3.6 Special Standards and Regulations for Certain Uses (Rem Rec 11189 — 11200) Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-54 Residential Density in Commercial and Mixed Use Zones Currently, there are no minimum or maximum density standards for residential uses developed in commercial or mixed use zones. In commercial zones, residential uses are only permitted as part of a mixed use development, but this can include "horizontal" mixed use where the uses are in separate buildings and the residential uses are on the ground floor. In mixed use zones, residential uses are allowed (outright or conditionally) as stand-alone uses as well as through mixed use developments. In order to ensure that land for housing in the commercial and mixed use zones is used efficiently, the package of code amendments includes minimum density standards for targeted areas. Minimum residential density standards apply to: • all horizontal mixed use development adjacent to transit in commercial and mixed use zones; • horizontal mixed use development in which residential uses are primary in the ME and PO zones; and • all residential development (except vertical mixed use) in the MU and MN zones. The minimum density for such sites is the same as in the RM zone (7.3 units per acre), measured only on the portion of the site dedicated to residential uses on the ground -floor. There continues to be no maximum density standard _(except through the height and lot coverage limitations) for residential in the commercial or mixed usezones, and no minimum or maximum for "vertical" mixed use; where the housing is above commercial. See Amendments to BDC (Rem Rec 11149), specifically: • Chapter 2.1 Residential Districts (Rem Rec11151 —11158) • Chapter 2 2 Commercial Zoning Districts (Rem Rec 11159 —11161) • Chapter 2.3 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts Rec 11162 —11171) • Chapter 2.7 Special Planned Districts (Rem Rec 11172 — 11182) • Chapter 3.6 Special "Standards -and Regulations for Certain Uses (Rem Rec 11189 — 11200) Changes to Plan Designations for Opportunity Areas The Residential and Employment TACs identified a number of opportunity sites within the existing UGB to consider site-specific efficiency measures. Some opportunity areas were identified as having redevelopment potential, while others are large vacant sites where a broader range of uses or housing types than is permitted under existing zoning is feasible. The full set of opportunity areas is identified on Figure 4-3. Those identified for comprehensive plan map amendments and/or zone changes are listed below. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-55 Figure 4-3. Opportunity Areas Juniper Ridge Bend Central District Inner Hwy 20! Greenwood Central West Side! Century Drive Legend OOpportuntty Proposed Urban p GrotMh Boundary ;- , ° a ;; , v F:,M Miles NORTH iv: ,.._,� �r� � ,.. -..-1 ��4 �: Service Layer Credits: Deschutes County GIS (2014) Findings Report July 2016 Streams/RNers Roads/Highways Section 4-56 Opportunity Area 1: Bend Central District The City of Bend was awarded a Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant to develop a plan for the Bend Central District (BCD). The plan was completed in July 2014 and it included recommended amendments to the Bend General Plan, TSP, and BDC to implement a new special plan district for the area. The project included significant public outreach that developed support for implementing the recommended plan and code amendments. The Residential and Employment TACs also supported moving forward with more intensive, mixed- use development in the BCD opportunity area. Recommendation: Apply the BCD Special Plan District and rezone areas currently zoned IL that have an ME plan designation to ME. No change to plan designations proposed or necessary. Opportunity Area 2: East Downtown There is minimal redevelopment potential in this area in the 2028 planning horizon, though it presents a longer-term opportunity to extend the downtown. Recommendation: Amend plan designation from General Commercial (CG) to Mixed Use Urban (MU) as part of the UGB adoption package. Applying the plan designation expresses the intent for this opportunity area and facilitates property. owner initiated rezones when they are ready to develop. Opportunity Area 3: Central West Side Bend's Central Westside is changing rapidly with new residential development, schools, parks, and an expanded OSU-Cascades campus on the horizon. To prepare for these investments, the City applied._for_and was_awarded aTransportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant to develop the Central Westside Plan (CWP). The CWP has been proceeding on a parallel track with the UGB project. The TACs for the UGB project identified the Central Westside as an opportunity area because of the potential to accommodate additional employment and housing development in the area relative to what would be allowed in the Base Case under existing plan designations and zoning. The Central Westside advisory committee took the lead on identifying areas suitable for Mixed - Use development. Based on the analysis done for the CWP, the Century Drive area (currently designated IL, CC, CG, and CL) is expected to have capacity for about 410 housing units by 2028 (about 275 on vacant land). Recommendation: Change IL, CC, CG, and CL plan designations to MU. Change the plan designation on the strip of Deschutes County -owned property north of Simpson from PF to RM. Rezoning can be initiated following UGB adoption and the conclusion of the CWP process. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-57 Opportunity Area 4: KorPine Industrial Area The Residential and Employment TACs identified this area, currently designated General Industrial (IG), as an opportunity to transition to higher density, mixed use development. Recommendation: Amend plan and zoning designations from General Industrial (IG) to MU as part of the UGB adoption process. The MU zone provides flexibility regarding continuation of existing uses, which will limit concerns about non -conforming uses. Opportunity Area 6: 15th Street Ward Property This opportunity area includes over 200 vacant acres in common ownership (excluding land recently acquired for a community park) and can accommodate substantially more housing units, including a greater mix of housing units, than allowed under current RS zoning. This represents a significant opportunity for increasing efficiency of land inside the existing UGB. Recommendation: Amend the plan and zoning map designations for this opportunity area to include roughly 8.3 acres of RM, 6.4 acres of RH, 10.2 acres of ME, 5 acres of Convenience Commercial (CC), and 11 acres of Limited Commercial (CL) in addition to RS as part of the UGB adoption package. The acreage for each zone was refined based on testimony from the property owner and direction from the USC (Rem Rec 4142, 5321, 6076, and oral testimony at 9215 and10151). Opportunity Area 7: COID Property This 130 -acre area is currently in public ownership by the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID), which submitted testimony requesting to make the land available for residential developmentHt_is encumbered by a view easement through 2035, but over the longer-term future may provide an opportunity for housing (Rem Rec 5487, 5475). Recommendation: Amend the plan map from PF to RS on the on the portion of the site that is outside the river canyon and not constrained by steep slopes or Areas of Special Interest as part of the UGB adoption process (RS zoning is already in place). The amendments described above are adopted and implemented through many different regulatory documents including the Comprehensive Plan and maps through the BDC and Zoning Map. Record references by subject are provided below as evidence. • Chapter 2.1 Residential Districts (Rem Rec 11151 — 11158) • Chapter 2.2 Commercial Zoning Districts (Rem Rec 11159 — 11161) • Chapter 2.3 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts (Rem Rec 11162 —11171) • Chapter 2.7 Special Planned Districts (Rem Rec 11172 —11182) • Chapter 3.3 Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking (Rem Rec 11183 — 11186) • Chapter 3.4 Public Improvement Standards (Rem Rec 11187 —11188) Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-58 • Chapter 3.6 Special Standards and Regulations for Certain Uses (Rem Rec 11189 — 11200) • Chapter 4.5 Master Planning and Development Alternatives (Rem Rec 11192-11199) • Chapter 4.6 Land Use District Map and Text Amendments (Rem Rec 11200) • See also related proposed amendments to the zoning map (Rem Rec 11147-11148) and comprehensive plan map (Rem Rec 11145-11146) and enabling policy from the Comprehensive PIan and supporting technical documentation(Rem Rec 10310-10994) Conclusion: The Council finds that Section 4.4.7 above documents that the City is adopting a robust package of efficiency measures (BDC text and PIan and Zoning Map Amendments) with the 2016 UGB that will demonstrably increase the likelihood of higher density residential development and a mix of housing types consistent with the need identified in the HNA. Proposed plan and zoning map amendments are tageted to specific opportunity areas with characteristics (such as Iocation on transit corridors and in proximity to amenities) to support higher residential densities and mixed use development. Table 4-16 summarizes actions and measures included in the packageof efficiency measures (relative to those listed in ORS 197.296(9). Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-59 Table 4-16. Efficiency Efficiency Measures in ORS 197.296 Increases in permitted density on existing residential land Financial incentives for higher density housing Provisions permitting additional density beyond that generally allowed in the zoning district Removal or easing of approval standards or procedures Measures to Accommodate Needed Housing Efficiency Measures Packaged with UGB Adoption or Adopted by City in Response to Remand (See Rem Rec 11149) Increased permitted density in RL zone from 2.2 to 4.0 units/acre. The BDC was amended in May 2015 to include incentives for affordable housing (BDC 3.6.200.C), including: a) Expedited review and permit processing, b) Planning/building fee exemptions up to $10,000 per project, c) System Development Charge deferrals, and d) Density and height bonuses when affordable housing units are provided. Density bonus for affordable housing in all residential zones adopted in May 2015 (BDC 2.1.600.D). Bonus is tied to the percentage of affordable units; up to a maximum bonus of 1.5 times the maximum density. Measures easing approval procedures include: • ADU changed from conditional to permitted use in RS, RL and SR 2 1/2 zones (already permitted in all other residential zones) in 2016. • Single family courtyard housing, attached single family townhomes, duplexes and triplexes changed from conditional to permitted use in RS zone. • Provide new option for streamlined review process (Type II) for master plans where clear and objective standards are met. Measures removing or easing approval standards include: • Reduced minimum lot sizes for SFD housing in RL and RM zones. • Reduced minimum lot area for townhomes in the RM and RH zones. • Eliminated minimum lot area for duplexes, triplexes, and MF housing in the RM and RH zones, allowing gross density to control the allowed number of units. • Reduced required parking standards for one -bedroom duplex/triplex units. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-60 Table 4-16. Efficiency Measures to Accommodate Needed Housing Efficiency Measures in ORS 197.296 Minimum density ranges Redevelopment and infill strategies Authorization of housing types not previously allowed Adoption of average residential density standard Rezoning or redesignation of nonresidential land Efficiency Measures Packaged with UGB Adoption or Adopted by City in Response to Remand (See Rem Rec 11149) See changes in BDC Table 2.1.500 (Rem Rec 11154), including: • increased minimum density for RS zone from 2,0 to 4,0 undo/grouaoore. • Increased minimum density requirement for RS master plan to 7096ofmaximum (5.11)rather than 8OY6ofmaximum (4.38). ° Established minimum densities for residential uses in Commercial and Mixed Use Zones in Iocations adjacent to transit and in mixed use zones where residential uses are primary. The changes to plan designations and zones for the central opportunity areas are intended to support mixed use redevelopment and infihl in those areas. Targeted reductions to parking standards and height and density bonuses for affordable housing also support infill and redevelopment. See summary of changes relating to removal or easing of approval standards or procedures. Discretionary conditional use approva had previously been required for ADUs, SF courtyard housing, attached SF towr,homes, duplexes and trip|exeointheRSznnn—theywiUaUbopormittednuthghL BDC specifies minimum/maximum residentiat densities for each zone. Because these are gross, rather than net, density standards, they altow for density averaging within a development site. Changes such as removing minimum lot size standards for multifamily support the abflity to provide a range of housing densities within a development, provided that the average density is within the perrnitted range. Targeted plan map amendments and zone changes for key opportunity sites (currently designated commercial and/or industrial) will be packaged with the UGB adoption. Redesignation of some nonresidential land to Mixed Use wifl provide capacity to accommodate higher density housing at appropriate locatioris within the current UGB (such as the Bend Central District, Century Drive area of Central Westside Plan, and KorPine). Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-61 Housing Capacity with Efficiency Measures ORS 197.296 (7)(b) requires that new measures "demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at densities sufficient to accommodate housing needs for the next 20 years". The Council relies on the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814). The Urbanization Report (p. 44-48) describes how the efficiency measures inside the existing UGB were evaluated using the ET model by making adjustments to the mix and density of housing projected in certain plan designations to reflect the removal of barriers, creation of incentives, and adjustments to minimum standards in the BDC. Proposed changes to plan designations for opportunity areas, including application of new mixed use zones, were also evaluated using ET by applying a development type that reflects the proposed plan designation rather than the existing one. The model does not provide a mechanism to quantify the magnitude of the impact to capacity for each individual efficiency measure; rather, a cumulative impact of all proposed efficiency measures relative to the base case is provided in the Urbanization Report (see pages 44-48), along with estimates of the impact of changes within certain zones (inside the UGB only) and within specific opportunity areas. Estimates of Impact by Zone For residential land, the efficiency measures were assumed to only affect vacant land and land with infill potential that does not have a current land use approval under the existing rules. The redevelopment rate for, residentialwland remains at zero, -except for a token (1 %) redevelopment rate for properties with some infill potential in the,RH zone where removing barriers may allow a small amount of redevelopment (less than one acre of redevelopment is assumed in the RH zone in total).,_ For the ME zone,._ the: efficiency measures were assumed to affect all vacant land and land,that Wee already identified as having redevelopment potential under the Base Case. The Urbanization Report provides the followingestimates of the additional housing capacity by zone that -is projected to result from the efficiency measures (Urbanization Report, p.44-45; Rem Rec 10858.1:0859): • RL: 10-20 additional units -inside UGB (mostly on larger properties that are developed with infill potential — spread across over 100 acres). • RS: 450-500 additional units inside UGB on RS land under 20 acres (vacant parcels and larger properties that are developed with infill potential — spread across close to 800 acres); plus 150-200 additional units inside UGB on vacant RS land over 20 acres. • RM: 50-100 additional units inside UGB on RM land under 20 acres (vacant parcels and larger properties that are developed with infill potential — spread across over 250 acres); plus 10-20 additional units inside UGB on vacant RM land over 20 acres. • RH: 30-40 additional units inside UGB (spread across over 50 vacant acres of RH land). • ME: 250-300 additional jobs inside UGB; 20-30 housing units inside UGB (spread across over 100 acres of vacant and redevelopable land). Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-62 Estimates of Impact in Opportunity Areas In opportunity areas, redevelopment potential was assessed more specifically due to significant changes in land use regulations in those areas. In addition, new development types were created to reflect the allowed mix of uses, building heights and development standards for the new mixed use zones. The Urbanization Report provides the following estimates of the additional housing capacity by opportunity area that is projected to result from the efficiency measures (Urbanization Report, p.40-42; Rem Rec 10854-10856): • Bend Central District: The BCD area is expected to generate capacity for roughly 240 housing units and greater employment density, primarily through redevelopment of the areas along 1st and 2nd streets. • East Downtown: There is minimal redevelopment potential in this area in the 2028 planning horizon, though it presents a longer-term opportunity to extend the downtown. • Central Westside: This area is expected to have capacity for roughly 490 dwelling units and greater employment density by 2028 through a mix of redevelopment and development on remaining vacant land. • KorPine: This area could have substantial redevelopment potential within the planning horizon, with capacity for roughly 150 dwelling units and greater employment density. • Juniper Ridge (eastern portion): This large, vacant, area can accommodate a wider variety of employment than the base Light Industrial plan designation would allow. It is also targeted to accommodate one of the two large lot industrial sites. • 15th Street Ward Property: Changing,::some:residentialland to employment designations reduces the potential for housing on that land, but helps create a complete community in this area and increases employment capacity inside the UGB. Housing mix is increased due -to the change in residential zones, and total housing capacity is increased onthe portions: rezoned to RM and`RH by a minimum of about 170 housing units relative to the RS zoning. Note that the changes to the master plan standards, `increasing minimum density for the RS portion and setting housing mix requirements, also increase minimum housing capacity and expected housing mix on this site. • COID Property: This 130 -acre area is currently in public ownership by the COID, which submitted testimony requesting to make the land available for residential development. It is encumbered by a view easement through 2035, but over the longer-term future may provide an opportunity for housing. • River Rim: The property has always been assumed to develop consistent with the RS plan designation; however, the changes to the RS master plan standards, increasing minimum density and setting housing mix requirements, will increase minimum housing capacity and expected housing mix on this site. City -Wide Capacity Estimate Table 4-17 summarizes the residential capacity estimated within the existing UGB with the efficiency measures described in Section 4.4.7 in place. Note that the number of new housing Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-63 units reported is net of any existing units that may be lost through redevelopment in non- residential districts. In total, the current UGB can accommodate roughly 11,950 housing units after accounting for the projected impact of efficiency measures. This is an increase of roughly 20% relative to the Base Case. Most of that increase comes from growth in single family attached and multifamily housing. (Urbanization Report, p. 44-45; Rem Rec 10858-10859). The mix of units projected with efficiency measures largely achieves the needed housing mix identified in the HNA (55/10/35). Table 4-17 shows the increase in housing capacity as a result of the efficiency measures. Even with this additional capacity, Bend has a residual housing need that cannot reasonably be met within the UGB. Table 4-17. Housing Capacity with Efficiency Measures Compared to.: Housing Needs by Housing Type, Bend, 2014-2028 Housing Type Base case Single Family 6,496 Detached Single Family Attached Multi -Family 3,045 Total 10,039 Source: 2016 Urbanization Repoit, Table 14. 498 Increase from Efficiency Measures With Efficiency Measures 103 541 6,599 1,039 1,267 4,313 1,911 11,950 Table 4-18 summarizes the °housing -capacity, with efficiency measures by proposed plan designation, The RS;district accommodates about 87% of the single family detached units. The RM district accommodates the Iargest_share (48%) of the single family attached units. The RM district also: accommodates the largest -share (37%) of the multi -family units, but the remaining multi -family units are accommodated across a broad range of residential and mixed-use districts. The increased capacity for multi -family units largely reflects the plan map amendments for opportunity areas,;, including but not limited to the Bend Central District, Century Drive, KorPine, and the 15th Street/Ward: properties. The plan map amendments and code amendments work together to facilitate higher -density mixed use development, including multifamily units, in appropriate locations along transit corridors. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-64 Table 4-18. Plan Designation RL RS RM* RH* MDOZ* ME MR MN MU BCD* Other Total Housing Capacity with Efficiency Measures by Proposed Plan Designation* Single Family Detached Units 177 5,726 698 (1) 9 12 (14)6,599(6) Source: Urbanization Report, Table 13. Single Family Multi -Family Attached Units Units 2 253 494 139 17 38 78 10 3 4 1,039 8 385 1,598 838 490 9 38 322 142 242 231 4,313 Total New Housing Units 187 6,364 2,790 978 490 26 85 422 152 239 221 11,950 * Development capacity in the MDOZ and the Bend Central Dis rict is counted under the relevant overlay zone rather than by plan designation. Comparison to Need With efficiency measures, roughly 70% of the total housing groWth to 2028 can be accommodated inside the,existing UGB, as shown_ imTable 4719. Compared to the Base Case, the biggest increaseSipcapacity are in multifamily housing. With efficiency measures in place, the housing mix within the-:LJGB is much more Closely aligned with the overall needed housing mix. Table 4-19. Housing Capacity with EfficienCy MeasUres Compared to Housing Needs by Housing Type Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multi -Family Total Source: Urbanization Repo Net New Housing Units ' Table 16. 6,599 1,039 4,313 11,950 Total Housi Need 9,225 1,677 6,331 17,233 Residual Housing Need Percent of Housing Need Met 2,626 72% 638 62% 2,018 68% 5,282 69% Conclusion: The Council finds that the City has committed to adoption of an integrated e of plan map and code amendments that wifl enhance the efficient use of land within the current UGB, make it more likely that the market will deliver the needed mix and density of housing, and minimize the size of the UGB expansion. As documented in the findings under Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-65 Section 4.4.7, the efficiency measures comply with ORS 197.296 and include e package of incentives (more housing types permitteoutright, reduced minimum ot sizes for certain housing types, etc.) and requirements (increased minimum density in RS zone, required minimum density and housing mix provisions for master plans, etc.) that are targeted to support and respond to the demographic trends and housing needs identified in the HNA, and will result in roughly a 20% increase in housing capacity inside the UGB relative to the Base Case. The overall 2016 UGB proposal will support the City's growth management strategy to focus more intensive development to a hierarchy of centers and corridors within the current UGB in tandem with thoughtful expansion of the UGB. Land within the current UGB is aiready within the city limits and urban infrastructure is either available or is programmed in adopted public facility plans. Removing barriers to and providing incentives for more efficient use of appropriate lands within the current UGB is critical because of the relatively limited number of years remaining in the planning horizon to 2028.Additional planning steps will be requird before UGB expansion areas will be available and ready for urban development, including but not timited to annexation, refinement t | i and/ormaster ponnngondinfrastructure improvements. Maximizing the use of vacant and buildable land within the current UGB provides the best near-term opportunity for the City and developers to respond to demographic and housing trends that underlie the need fpr a broader mixofhouoingtypes and densibaoinBend. (3wo|sand policies inthe ��nzwdhManagement Chapterofth Comprehensive Plan provide the urban form framework todirect new growth too appropriate (��eeneaw(�haoter11 —��rov�h K8onag�nlant.RamnRec 10362). 4.4.8. Zoning and Regulating Needed Housing 44.8.1 Assigning ApproPriate Plan pesignationsand Zoning ORS 197 307- eStablishes the link between needed housing and plan and zone districts with sufficient buildable land to satisfythat need. ORS 197.307(3) provides that: (3) When a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges, and rent levels, needed housing shall be permitted in one or more zoning districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans as overlay zones with sufficient buildable Ithnd to satisfy that need. OAR 660-008-0010 addresses"the allocation of buildable land and provides that: * * * Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the ho ' needs projection. ^°+ ORS 197.296(9) requires that land zoned for needed housing be located appropriately: (9) In ethat actions and measures adopted under subsections (6) and (7) of this section demonstrably increase the Iikelthood of higher density residential development, the local government shall at a minimum ensure that land zoned for Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-66 needed housing is in locations appropriate for the housing types identified under subsection (3) of this section and is zoned at density ranges that are likely to be achieved by the housing market using the analysis in subsection (3) of this section. OAR 660-008-0020 sets forth the requirement for specific plan designations as follows: (1) Plan designations that allow or require residential uses shall be assigned to all buildable land. Such designations may allow nonresidential uses as well as residential uses. Such designations may be considered to be "residential plan designations" for the purposes of this division. The plan designations assigned to buildable land shall be specific so as to accommodate the varying housing types and densities identified in the local housing needs projection. (2) A local government may defer the assignment of specific residential plan designations only when the following conditions have been met: (a) Uncertainties concerning the funding, local and timing of public facilities have been identified in the local comprehensive plan; (b) The decision not to assign specific residential plan designations is specifically related to identified public facilities constraints and is so justified in the plan; and (c) The plan includes a time -specific strategy for resolution of identified public facilities uncertainties and a policy commitment to assign specific residential plan designations when identified public facilities uncertainties are resolved. OAR 660-008-0025 outlines the requirements for the rezoning process: A local government may defer rezoning of land within an urban growth boundary to maximum: planned residential density provided that the process for future rezoning is reasonably justified. If such is the case, then: (1) The plan shall contain a justification for the rezoning process and policies which explain how this process will be used to provide for needed housing. (2) Standards and procedures governing the process for future rezoning shall be based on the rezoning justification and policy statement, and must be clear and objective and meet other requirements in OAR 660-008-0015. OAR 660-024-0050(6) reinforces the requirement to assign appropriate plan designations to land added to the UGB, consistent with the need determination. (6) When land is added to the UGB, the local government must assign appropriate urban plan designations to the added land, consistent with the need determination. The local government must also apply appropriate zoning to the added land consistent with the plan designation or may maintain the land as urbanizable land until the land is rezoned for the planned urban uses, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by applying other interim zoning that maintains the land's Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-67 potential for planned urban deThe requirements of ORS 197.296 regarding planning and zoning also apply when Iocal governments specifiedinthstobstuteedd land to the UGB. The Council finds that the HNA documents a need for 13,770 housing units within the UGB for the remainder ofthe planning period ho2O28(HNA.p.75; Rem Rec10851).»« As described in Section 4.4.3, the USC identified a "needed" housing mix of 55% single-family detached, 10% single-family attached, and 35% multifamily for the remainder of the planning period (2014- 2028) (See September 4, 2014 USC Meeting Minutes (Rem Rec 3553-3556)). As required by ORS 187.307 and OAR 660-008-0010, the BLI documents the amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation consi nt with the definitions and methodology set forth in OAR 660-024-0050 and related statutes and rules (see findings in Section 4.4.5). The findings in Section 4.4.6 describe the capacity analysis for the UGB based on the updated BLI and are incorporated by this reference to address ORS 197.303 and OAR 660-008-0010. Table 4-16 shows that buitdabte residential Jand within the current UGB can a nnoduba roughly 1[\ units under the current plan de'naUonaandpo|kciemondhimtohctranda in devefopment density. This represents roughly8O%ofthetmta|houaingneedfonaoamtfnr 2028. The results of the Base Case analysis indicate that the current UGB does not include sufficient buildable land to satisfy the housing need and the E3LI capacity (by plan designation) is not aligned with the needed housing mix endorsed by the USC. These results confirmed that additional efficiency measures were required to increase the likelihood that needed housing types will bebuilt inside the UGB.,_and_to_make befter use of residential land inside the current UGB; thereby satisfying both Goals 10 and 14. ' Table 4-17 summarizes the residential capacity estimated within the current UGB with the efficiency measures described in Section- 4.4.7. The package of efficiency measures that will be adopted with the UGB will increase the capacity to accommodate roughly an additional 1,910 housing units within the current UGB, and the mix of units projected with efficiency measures largely achieves the hoysing mix identified in the HNA (55/10/35). Table 4-1Osummarizes the housing uopaoitvvvithof5oiencynnooaunaabvpnooqamdolan designation. The plan map amendmentand code amendments work togethertofoci|itote higher -density mixed use development, including multifamily units, in appropriate locations along transit corridors. 60 The total housing need (17,233 units) includes second homes and equivalent dwelling units to meet group housing needs. However, the second homes are not considerd^noededhouoing^bythenityof under the Remand. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-68 Key efficiency measures that are influencing the increase in housing capacity and improved housing mix within the UGB are described in Section 4.4.7. 1. The BLI documents that more than 75% of the vacant residential land in the current UGB is in the RS district. Amendments to the BDC expand the range of housing types that will be permitted outright in the RS zone, where they previously required discretionary conditional use approval. Additional housing types that will be permitted with the Code Amendments include: single-family courtyard housing, townhomes, accessory dwelling units, and duplexes and triplexes (Rem Rec 11153). As a result, a larger number of single-family attached and multifamily units will be accommodated in the RS zone relative to the Base Case capacity for the zone without efficiency measures (see Tables 4-15 and 4-19). 2. For the RM district, amendments to the BDC will make it easier to achieve the higher end of the density range (7.3 to 21.7 units per gross acre). Changes include: a) reducing the minimum lot area for SFD from 3,000 sq. ft. to 2,500 sq. ft., b) eliminating the minimum lot area for duplexes and triplexes (min/max density will control), c) reducing the minimum lot area for townhomes from 2,000 sq. ft. to 1,600 sq. ft., d) reducing minimum lot width/depth standards for townhomes, and d) eliminating the minimum lot area for multifamily housing (min/max density will control). These amendments will make it easier to reach the upper end of the gross density range (21.7 units per gross acre) for the RM district. As a result, a larger number of single- family attached and multifamily units will be accommodated in the RM zone relative to the Base Case capacity for the zone without efficiency measures (see Tables 4-15 and 4-19).: 3. For the RH district, amendments to the BDC will also facilitate more efficient use of that land for multifamily housing. Changes include: a) eliminating single-family detached housing and manufactured home parks as permitted uses in the RH zone, b) eliminating the minimum lot area requirement for duplex and triplex units (min/max density will control), c) reducing the minimum lot area for townhomes from 2,000 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft., d) reducing minimum lot width/depth standards for townhomes, and d) eliminating the minimum lot area for multifamily housing (min/max density will control). These amendments will make it easier to reach the upper end for the gross density range (43.0 units per gross acre) for the RH district. As a result, a larger number of single-family attached and multifamily units will be accommodated in the RH zone relative to the Base Case capacity for the zone without efficiency measures (see Tables 4-15 and 4-19). Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-69 4. Amendments to the Master Plan Chapter of the BDC will also facilitate an increase in minimum densities (relative to base zone minimums) and a required mix of housing on larger sites (20 or more acres) that will be subject to master planning. As a result, the housing capacity and housing mix for larger vacant sites has increased relative to the Base Case capacity without the efficiency measures. 5. Targeted plan map amendments and zone changes within the UGB will also increase housing capacity and expand the housing mix for specific opportunity sites/areas. As summarized in Section 4.4.7.2 of these findings, plan and zoning map amendments for the BCD, Central Westside, KorPine and 15th Street/Ward property opportunity areas will expand the capacity for additional housing units by 2028. 6. Other code amendments, including but not limited to targeted reductions to minimum parking standards, will also contribute to more efficient use of buildable land within the UGB. In summary, plan designations and efficiency measures have been applied to buildable lands within the current UGB to accommodate roughly 11,950 units or 69% of the total housing unit growth (17,233) to the year 2028. The plan designations (with efficiency measures) will provide the opportunity to achieve the needed mix and density of housing consistent with the HNA findings and minimize the size of the UGB expansion. The estimated yield from the efficiency measures has also been carefully evaluated to ensure that the density assumed -is likely to be achieved by the current housing market, with potential to increase over time as the housing market shifts to respond to demographic trends. Efficiency measures combine changes to all residential zones and create opportunities for redevelopment by rezoning -or -amending the -plan. -designations forlands in the current UGB. This strategy provides a basis for needed housing to be met throughout the city, and in targeted locations. Redevelopment areas (opportunity areas) providing needed housing are in carefully selected locations which are high levels of amenities, access to transit, and well connected street systems. These areas have been shown in other findings (see Sections 7 and 8 of these findings) to decrease reliance on the automobile and shorter and fewer automobile trips, thus decreasing transportation costs compared to areas on the fringe. The estimated redevelopment rate from proposed new mixed use areas has also been carefully calibrated to ensure that the needed housing estimated in those areas is likely to be achieved by the housing market. Based on the evidence in the HNA, BLI and Urbanization Report, the City of Bend needs to include additional land in the UGB to accommodate the residual need for 5,282,additional housing units by 2028 (see Table 4-19). Plan designations have been applied to the UGB expansion areas to accommodate the residual housing units, consistent with the targeted housing mix established for the overall UGB (55/10/35). Specific plan designations have been applied to all buildable land within the current UGB and in UGB expansion areas as required by OAR 660-008-0020 (see Comprehensive Plan Map in Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-70 Section 1 of this Findings Report). The plan desinations have been calibrated to match the total housing units (by type) needed to the year 2028. The overall package package wifl support the City's growth management strategy to focus more intensive development to a hierarchy of centers and corridors within the current UGB in tandem with thoughtful expansion of the UGB that prioritizes development of complete communities. New policies included in the Growth Management Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (Rem Rec 10362) wiH ensure thatthe total number and mix of housing units assumed for each UGB expansion area will be achieved through annexation agreements and area plans/master plans. New polieles for the UGB expansion areas are intended to: • Ensure housing mix and numbers are met (consistent with the capacity assumptions). • Provide fiexibility to adjust the plan designations if needed. • Identify conceptual plans for key streets, trails, and other transportation fa{i|dioo. Identify how needed parks and schools wiH be providedandconceptuallyvhenethevvUwbe|ooatad. • Address how infrastructure funding will be accomplished. 4(48.2 Requirement for Clear and ObjeCtive Standards' ORS 197.307 requires that only clear and (4) Except as provided -in subsection (6) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply only -clear and -Objective standardsiconditions- and procedures regulating the development of needed hoOsing on buildable land described in subsection (3) of this section. The standards, conditions and prOcedures may not have the effect, either in uraging,needed housing through unreasonable cost delay. (5) The provisions -Of subsebtion (4) of thisSection do not apply to: (a) Ai) application or permit forresidential development in an area identified in a formally adopted central city plan, or a regional center as defined by Metro, in a city with a population pf 500,000 or more. (b) An application or permit for residential development in historic areas designated for protection under a,land use planning goal protecting historic areas. (6) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures as provided in subsection (4) of this section, a Iocal government may adopt and apply an altornative approval process for applications and permits for residential debased on approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, appoarance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if: (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of subsection (4) of this section; Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-71 (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules; and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in subsection (4) of this section. (7) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, this section does not infringe on a local government's prerogative to: (a) Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright; (b) Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal; or (c) Establish approval procedures. These requirements are echoed in OAR 660-008-0015: (1) Except as provided in section (2) of this rule, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing on buildable land. The standards, conditions and procedures may not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. (2) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures as provided in section (1) of this rule, a local government may adopt and apply an optional alternative approval process for applications and permits for residential development based on approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part; appearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if• (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of section (1); (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules; and (c)The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in section (1) of this rule. (3) Subject to section (1), this rule does not infringe on a local government's prerogative to: (a) Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright; (b) Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal; or (c) Establish approval procedures. The current BDC includes new clear and objective standards for regulating several types of needed housing, including single family detached dwellings, manufactured homes on individual Tots, duplexes and triplexes, townhomes (and other types of single-family attached housing) and Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-72 multifamily housing. Two procedures are provided for complying with desgn standards:Type — clear and oreview using menu of design options and Type 11— discretionary review for more fiexibility (See BDC, Section 2.1.900). Clear and objective standards for spech9c housing types are provided in the foliowing sections of the BDC: • Courtyard housing — Section 3.6.200.A • Accessory dwelling units — Section 3.6.200.B • Singte family attached townhomes — Section 3.6.200.D * Manufactured homes on individual /otn—Seotion 3.6.200.E * Manufactured home subUivimions—Sectinn 3.6.200.F w Manufactured home parks — Section 3.6.200.G w Duplexes and Triplexes — Section 3.8.200.H w Residentiaj Uses on Commercial Land — Section 3.6.200.1 The findings in Section 4.4.7 address the efficiency measures that will be adopted with the UGB. The code amendments will permit a much broader range of housing types outright in the RS zone rather than requiring conditional use approval, including townhomes, duplexes and triplexes, courtyard housing and accessory dwelling units. Because the mjority of the buildable land in the current UGB is in the RS zone, this code change will make it easier to achieve the needed housing mix under clear and objective standards. The efficiency measures also include targeted plan map amendments opportunity sites inside the currentUGB.including mixed use zones. Housing (on its own or as part of a mixed use building) 15 subject to clear and objective standards in the new mixed use zones (Rem —�=11182). The ap,criteria to make zone changes consistent with underlying Comprehensive criteria whiqh—afe--riot clear and objective, so that zOne changes to deliver needed housing in redevelOpment areas. See Chapter 4.6 Land Use District Map and Text Amendments of the Plan map designations will be applied to the UGB expansion areas, consistent with the identified land needs for housing (minimum number of units) and the needed housing mix (SFD, SFA and MF). Chapter 11 (GroWth Management) of the Plan (Rem Rec 10390) includes specific policies for each of the UGB expansion areas to convey the intended land use concept for each area, and to identify the mix of plan designations (acres) to guide implementation of urban zones following annexation and refinement planning and/or master planning. The spatial arrangement of plan designations in each of the UGB expansion areas can be moved around, but the overall number and mix of housing units assumed in the UGB capacity analysis must be achieved as specified in the Comprehensive Plan policies (See Housing Policies at Rem Rec 10319 in Housing Chapter, and Area Planning Policies at Rem Rec 10390). Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-73 The City has also created a clear and objective path to Mater Planning so this process complies with the clear and objective requirements. See Chapter 4.5 Master Planning and Development Alternatives of the BDC (Rem Rec 11192-11199). Conclusion: The Council finds that the HNA, BLI and Urbanization Report provide the evidence and linkages to demonstrate that the current UGB does not include sufficient buildable land in appropriate zoning districts to accommodate needed housing over the 2014-2028 planning period. Under the Base Case analysis, buildable land within the current UGB can accommodate 10,039 housing units, or 58% of the housing need to 2028. However, the capacity is not aligned with the needed housing mix. Packaging adoption of efficiency measures (code amendments and map amendments) with the UGB expansion will increase the housing capacity on buildable land within the current UGB to 11,950 units, meeting roughly 70% of the total housing need to 2028. Most importantly, the estimated housing mix with the efficiency measures largely achieves the needed housing mix (55/10/35) identified in the HNA and endorsed by the USC for UGB planning. The residual housing need for 5,282 housing units will be accommodated in UGB expansion areas. The amount of land needed for housing has been calibrated based on achieving the targeted mix (55/10/35) for the entire UGB With adoption of the efficiency measures, plan designations and zoning will be in place inside the current UGB to accommodate the needed housing units and mix. Specific plan designations will be applied to UGB expansion` areas as shown m Exhibit M -(Rem Rec 11145). These plan designations, in concert -with new policies the Comprehensive Plan for the UGB expansion area (Chapter 11, Growth Management; Rem Rec 10390), will set the framework for implementation of urban zoning consistentwith he housing -unit and:mix assumptions as part of annexation and maser planning, refinement planning, and/or'concept planning. Based on: the entire package of plan and code amendments adopted with the UGB expansion, the Council finds that the City has demonstrated compliance with the legal standards relating to assigning appropriate plan designations and zoning in ORS 197.307, OAR 660-008 and OAR 660-024. Additionally, the Council finds that the City has demonstrated compliance with the legal standards requiring clear and objective standards in OAR 660-008-0015. 4.4.9. Residential Land Need The proposed 2016 UGB expansion is for a total of 2,380 acres: • 1,142 gross acres of residential land (including land for future schools and future parks not yet in BPRD or school district ownership); • 815 gross acres of employment land; • 285 acres of land for public facilities currently in BPRD or school district ownership; and, • 138 acres of existing right-of-way within and fronting UGB expansion areas, needed to provide urban street improvements to support growth in the expansion areas. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-74 The total residential, employment and park and school land need in the UGB expansion includes within it small amounts of buildable land and developed land that is unlikely to redevelop within the planning horizon located on parcels that have other vacant, buildable land. It also includes land for things like future parks and open space, future schools, future right-of- way, and other future urban uses. A breakdown of the land need is provided in Table 4-20. Table 4-20: Components of Land Need Residential Employment Public Land Land Facilities Total expansion acres on parcels by plan designation 1,142 815 285 Unbuildable Land61 11 2 3 Developed Land Not Expected to Redevelop62 13 13 152 Vacant and Redevelopable Buildable Acres 1,119 800 130 Land for future right of way, future parks & open space, 473 254 130 future schools, and other urban uses Net Buildable Residential / Employment Acres 646 546 0 Table 4-21 summarizes how housing need is met within the existing UGB and in the proposed UGB expansion. Note that the number of new housing units reported is net of any existing units that may be lost through redevelopment in non-residential districts. Table 4-21: Full Proposed UGB Housing Capacityby Type Net New Housing Total Housing Units Inside Current New Housing Units in Total New Housing Type Need63 UGB UGB Expansion Areas Housing Units Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multi -Family Total 9,225 6,599 2,628 9,227 1,667 1,039 636 1,675 6,331 4,313 2,018 6,331 17,233 11,950 5,282 17,233 61 See page 46 for an explanation.: of lands identified as unbuildable. 62 A quarter acre of land on each property with an existing home(s) was assumed to be developed. Redevelopment assumptions are the same as those for developed land inside the UGB (based on the plan designation / development type). For existing schools and parks, the area developed with existing uses was estimated based on aerial photography. 63 The total housing need listed includes housing units needed to meet projected growth in households, second homes, and equivalent dwelling units to meet group housing needs. See HNA for details. Rec Rec 10655-10659. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-75 While there are very minor differences between the number of units by type needed and the number estimated to be provided through the proposed UGB expansion and efficiency measures inside the existing UGB, they are so slight as to be attributable to rounding errors and the precision of the ET model. In total, the Council finds that the UGB expansion proposal meets the City's identified housing needs as well as accommodating the projected number of second homes and group quarters. Findings Report July 2016 Section 4-76 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LAND NEEDS 5.1 Introduction As shown in Figure 1-1 (see Section 1 of Findings Report), three key documents are central in Bend's planning for jobs and economic development land needs.' • BLI • EOA • Urbanization Report These three reports will be incorporated into the Bend Comprehensive Plan as part of the UGB adoption package. The major components of each report are described in Table 1-1 (see Section 1 of Findings Report). In addition to these three reports, the City will adopt Plan and BDC and map amendments as part of the UGB. package. The consolidated UGB adoption package will assure efficient use of land within the UGB and in expansion areas to accommodate needed jobs and economic development. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC:, The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand thathas been developedto support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. 5.2 Summary of Relevant -Legal Standards The findings in this section address the relevant legal standards in state law that are applicable to Bend's; determination�-of land needs for economic development. In an effort to address all relevant legal standards and to "tell the story" in a logical way, the findings are generally organized to follow the framework outlined in the Goal 9 Guidebook.2 Table 5-1 summarizes the organization ofthe findings and the relevant legal standards. The applicable ORS and OARs, their standards, and the City's findings included in this and other sections of the findings are the June 30, 2013 versions of ORS 197.298 and Division 24. Other ORS and OARs are current versions as of 20163. 1 As shown in Figure 1-1, the HNA is the fourth key document for Bend's UGB planning. Findings to address land needs for housing are included in Section 4 of this Findings Report. 2 The guidebook is available on-line at: htto://www.oreoon.aov/LCD/docs/publications/g9quidebook/ooal9quidebook without cover.pdf 3 The City relied on the June 30, 2013 versions of ORS 197.298, and OAR 660-024 for the analysis. For other relevant statutes and administrative rules, the City relied on those versions available online as of 2016. The City also relied on 2016 HB 4126 (See 2016 Oregon Laws, Chapter 81). Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-1 Table 5-1. Relevant Legal Standards Section Heading in Findings 5.4.1 Planning Horizon and Employment Forecast 5.4.2 Employment Trends and Site Needs 5.4.3 Buildable Lands Inventory for Employment Lands 5.4.4 Options to Address Deficiency 5.4.5 Economic Development Policies and Designation of Lands for Employment 5.4.6 Employment Land Need 5.3 Substantial Evidence Applicable Statewide Planning Goal(s) 14 9 9 14 14 9 14 9 14 9 14 Applicable Oregon Administrative Rule(s) (OAR) 660-024-0040(1) and (5) 660-009-0025 660-009-0010 660-009-0015 660-024-0050 660-024-0050(1) 660-009-015(3) 660-024-0050(4) 660-009-0020 660-024-0050(6) through (8) 660-009-0025 660-024-0040(5) Table 5-2 summarizes the -key that:_supportsthe~findings°,in this section. Access to the 2009 UGB Record and the 2011=,2016 Record on; Remand is also available on the City's website for the UGB Repand Project httD://www:bend.or.us/index.asDx?Daae=1290. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-2 Table 5-2. Key Record Preferences Description Date Page # 2009 UGB Record Record (R.) Population Forecast (2008-2028) 11/19/07 8801 2008 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) 12/08 1500 Employment Forecast for 2028 12/08 1578 Special Site Needs 12/08 1628 2011-2016 Record on Remand Remand Record (Rem Rec.) 2016 Buildable Lands Inventory 7/18/16:"'"" 10513 2016 Economic Opportunities Analysis 7/19/16 10687 2016 Urbanization Report 7/18/16 10814 Amendments to Bend Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6: - 7/20/16 10326 Economy New Bend Comprehensive Plan Chapter 11: Growth 7/2016 10362 Management Amendments to Text of Bend Development Code 7/19/16 11149 (focused on employment districts) - Amendments to Bend Comprehensive Plan Map 7/20.16 11145 Amendments to Bend Zoning Map 7/20/16 11147 5.4 Findings 5.4.1 Planning Horizon and Employment Forecast 5.4.1.1 Planning Horizon,, The Goal" 14 Rale (OAR 660, Division 24) and :the Goal 9 Rule (OAR 660, Division 9) set the legal framework for determining land need for employment and designating lands for industrial and other employment uses:;; OAR 660-024-0040(1) provides:, (1) The UGB must be based on the appropriate 20 -year population forecast for the urban area as determined under Rules in OAR 660-024-0030 and must provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open space over the 20 -year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule. The 20 -year land need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. *** Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-3 ORS 197.296 and OAR 660, Division 24 require the use of a 20 -year planning horizon for UGB expansion. OAR 660-024-0040(1) clarifies that the 20 -year period must begin on the date initially scheduled for adoption of the amendment. Because Bend is completing work required under the Remand of the 2008 UGB expansion proposal, the 20 -year planning period begins in 2008 and runs through 2028. Despite the economic recession that affected most of the intervening years since the Remand Order was issued in 2010, economic development has occurred in Bend since 2008. To provide the most current data possible of how much of the projected 20 -year employment growth has already occurred and remaining capacity inside the current UGB, the buildable lands inventory was updated and employment growth through 2013 was deducted from forecast employment through 2028 (Rem Rec 10825). This report includes findings in Section 4 that show the Director of DLCD and LCDC found the extension of the 2025 population forecast complied with relevant state law (See Director's January 8, 2010 Report, page 25)4. LCDC further concluded and acknowledged that the City had established the 20 -year planning period (2008 to 2028) consistent with state law in the Remand (Rem Rec. 5790). The City notes that the Population_Research Center (PRC) was charged with developing population forecasts for cities through legislation passed 20135. The first coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County (and cities) prepared by the PRC under the new population forecast rules in OAR 660, division 32 was issued in June 20156, relatively late in Bend's planning process for the UGB. Therefore, the City has continued to rely on the 2008-2028 planningtihorizon for theUGB proposal as allowed, by the Remand. 5.4.1.2 Employment Forecast OAR 660-024-0040(5) provides: (5) ***the determination of;20 year employment land need for an urban area must comply with applicable requirements of Goal 9 and OAR chapter 660, division 9... Employment land need may be based on an estimate of job growth over the planning period;: local government must provide a reasonable justification for the job growth estimate but Goal 14 does not require that job growth estimates necessarily be proportional to population growth.*** 4 Official Notice — the January 8, 2010 Director's Report of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, which is available online through this URL: http://www.oreaon.aov/LCD/docs/aeneral/directors report 001775.pdf. 5 See HB 2253, passed by the 77th Oregon Legislative Assembly. The enrolled version is available online through - https://olis.lea.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB2253. 6 PSU Population Research Center, Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast: 2015 through 2065. http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/coi/viewcontent.cai?article=1034&context=populationreports, Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-4 The City of Bend adopted an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) to support the 2008 UGB proposal. The 2008 EOA is included in the record (Rec 1498). The 2008 EOA includes a discussion of: 1) demographic trends, 2) historic employment trends, 3) expected employment trends, 4) Bend's land supply, 5) new employment, and 6) Bend's employment land needs to 2028 (Rem Rec 1503-1506). The Department, and ultimately LCDC, found that the City had followed the "main steps" required by the Goal 9 rule for determining the amount of employment land needed for the 20 year planning period (Remand Order, p. 67; Rem Rec 5790). The Remand Order (page 66) addresses the employment forecast to 2028 as follows: "***The findings and the 2008 EOA contain both an analysis of trends and a projection of employment in 2028 by industry sectors. The city projects 22,891 employees in 2028 (R. at 1108, 1139 (findings), R. at 1588 (2008 EOA)). The department agrees that the city's projection of employment in 2028 complies with Goal 9 and OAR Chapter 660, division 9. The City has updated the EOA (2016 EOA) to support the.current UGB proposal. The update uses the 2008 EOA adopted by the City of Bend as a foundation because key findings of the 2008 EOA, including the employment forecast to 2028, were found to meet Goal 9 in the Remand. The 2016 EOA update: 1) addresses issues identified in the Remand, 2) addresses economic activity that occurred in Bend between 2008 and 2013, and 3) reflects input received from the Employment TAC -and the USC on key issue -S.7 - When the UGB RTF began work on the Remand issues in 2010, the City initially intended to rely on 2008 data whenever possible, including using 2008 data as the basis for the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) and the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). However, given the amount of time that has elapsed since the Remand Order was issued in 2010, the City, through the advice of the TACs, decided to update data on building permits and changes in employment from 2008 through 2013 to more accurately reflect current conditions on the ground.8 Table 5-3 shows the forecast of growth by major employment categories for Bend for 2008 to 2028 that was originally developed for the 2008 EOA and acknowledged in the Remand. Employment was forecast to grow by 22,891 employees (about 61 %) over the 2008-2028 planning period, at an average annual growth rate of 2.4%. 7 Agenda items for the Employment TAC and the USC during 2014 and 2015 included discussion of the market factor, review of special site needs, redevelopment rate analysis, efficiency measures for employment lands, short-term supply and updated Comprehensive Plan policies for employment lands. 8 The EOA update used 2013 employment data, rather than 2014 employment data, because it was the best available data for Bend in Phase 1 of the UGB Remand Project. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-5 Table 5-3. Employment Forecast by Employment Category, total non -shift employment, Bend 2008 to 2028 2028 Change 2008 to 2028 Employment 2008 Employment 2008 to 2028 Percent Average Annual Categories Employment Forecast Growth Change Growth Rate Industrial Industrial Heavy 3,807 5,180 1,373 36% 1.6% Industrial General ; 5,370 8,002 2,632 49% 2.0% Retail Large Retail , 3,474 5,849 2,375 68% 2.6% General Retail ' 3,244 5,293 2,049 63% ' 2.5% Office/Srv/Medical 13,979 22,593 9,614 69% 2.7% Leisure and Hospitality ' 3,306 5,532 2,226 , 67% 2.6% Other/Misc ' 1,051 1,547 496 47% ' 2.0% 1-- Government 3,485 5,611 2,126 61% 2.4% Total ; 37,716 60,607 22,891 ' 61% 2.4% Source: 2008 EOA, Table 26; 2016 EOA, Table 2 -(Rem Rec 10714) Since the forecast for the 2008 EOA was developed. Bend's economy has changed, in large part as a result of the Great Recession. -Table 5-4 shows change in employment in Bend between 2008 and 2013: pyerall, employment grew:13)&948 employees, at an average annual growth rate of 0.5%. Industrial employment decreased by about 2,500 employees and retail employment decreased by more than 550 employees.- Themajorityof employment growth from 2008 to 2013 was in the category of Office, Services. and Medical, which added more than 2,400 jobs (2016 EOA, p:-28; Rerrr Rec 10714). Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-6 Table 5-4. Employment Forecast by Employment Category, total non -shift employment, Bend 2008 to 2013 Change 2008 to 2013 Employment 2008 2013 2008 to 2013 Percent Average Annual Categories Employment Employment Growth Change Growth Rate Industrial Industrial Heavy 3,807 2,889 -918 -24%-5.4% Industrial General 5,370 3,771 -1,599 -30% ' -6.8% Retail Large Retail 3,474 3,057 -417 -12% -2.5% General Retail 3,244 3,096 -148 Office/Srv/Medical ' 13,979 16,435 2,456 -5%18% 3.3% -0.9% Leisure and Hospitality 3,306 4,017 71122% 4.0% Other/Misc ' 1,051 1,505 454 43% 7.4% Government 12% 1 3,485 3,894 409 2.2% Total , 37,716 38,664 948 3% 1 0.5% Source: 2008 Bend EOA, Table 26; 2016 EOA, Table 3_ (Rem Rec 10714). Table 5-5 shows the 2013 employment in the context of the acknowledged 2028 employment forecast, which yields an estimated increase of 21,943 employees between 2013 and 2028 (an average annual growth rate of 3.0%). In short, employni:eht,growth between 2008 and 2013 occurred at a much slower pace than the average growth rate forecast by the City in the 2008 EOA. „ • Employment Forecast by Employment Category, non -shift workers, Bend 2013 to Table 5-5. 2028 r• 2028 Change 2008 to 2028 Employment 2013 Employment 2013 to 2028 Percent Average Annual Categories Employment Forecast Growth Change Growth Rate Industrial Industrial Heavy 1-:2-,889 - 5,180 2,291 79% 4.0% Industrial General , 3,771 -_, 8,002 4,231 : 112% 1 5.1% Retail Large Retail 3,057 5,849 2,792 91% ' 4.4% General Retail 3,096 5,293 2,197 , 71% 3.6% Office/Srv/Medical 16,435 22,593 7,158 44% 2.4% Leisure and Hospitality 4,017 5,532 1,515 38% 2.2% Other/Misc 1,505 1,547 42 3% 0.2% Government 3,894 5,611 1,717 44% 2.5% Total 38,664 60,607 21,943 57% 3.0% Source: 2008 Bend EOA, Table 25; 2016 EOA, Table 4 (Rem Rec 10715). Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-7 Conclusion: The Council finds that the planning horizon, population forecast and employment forecast used for the 2008 UGB proposal were acknowledged in the Remand Order. The Council recognizes that the UGB process in Bend has drawn on far longer than anticipated. Residential construction slowed dramatically during the recession, and population and employment growth occurred at rates much slower than those forecasted. Overall, employment grew by 948 employees from 2008 to 2013, at an average annual growth rate of 0.5% instead of the 2.4% growth rate forecast in 2008. Staffing in Bend's planning division was also reduced substantially during the recession. From 2011-2014, the City focused significant time and budget on preparing and updating public facility master plans for wastewater, water and stormwater9. ' The acknowledged public facility plans provide an important tool for the City to leverage planned public facility investments to support the short-term supply of employment land. The findings in Section 5.4.5 address the provisions of the Goal 9 rule that relate to the short-term supply. In 2014, the City initiated an ambitious effort to complete the UGB process in two years (by 2016). The public facility and UGB planning efforts built on components of UGB planning that had been approved by LCDC in the 2010 Remand Order, including but not limited to the population, housing unit and employment forecasts for the 2008-2028 planning period. The City finds that it has outlined a reasonable argument asto why it can continue to rely on the 2008-2028 planning horizon and the employment- forecast for growth to 2028. The 2016 EOA considers data on building permits and employment „changes from -2008 to 2013 to more accurately reflect current conditions in the local economy'and to determine the residual jobs needed for the remainder of the planning period from 2013 to 2028 (2016 EOA, p. 22-25; Rem Rec 10713-10716). The City provided a reasonable justification for the job growth estimate to 2028 in the 2008 EOA arid -that estimate was acknowledged in the Remand Order. It is appropriate, --andlegally defensible for theCity to continue to rely on the acknowledged employment forecast to 2028. 5.4.2 Employment Trends and Site:Needs 5.4.2.1 Opportunity to Rely on Existing EOA OAR 660 -009 -0010 -addresses the applicability of the Goal 9 rule to the proposed UGB amendment and provides: (3) Cities and counties may rely on their existing plans to meet the requirements of this division if they conclude: 9 Official Notice - The City's 2013 transportation system plan, 2013 water public facilities plan, and 2014 sewer collection master plan/public facility plan are all available to view and download through the City's website — www.bendoreaon.aov. LCDC acknowledged the City's public facility plan for the water reclamation facilities plan in the 2010 Remand Order (Rem Rec 5871). Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-8 (a) There are not significant changes in economic development opportunities (e.g., a need for sites not presently provided for in the plan) based on a review of new information about national, state, regional, county and local trends; and (b) That existing inventories, policies, and implementing measures meet the requirements in OAR 660-009-0015 to 660-009-0030. *** (5) The effort necessary to comply with OAR 660-009-0015 through 660-009-0030 will vary depending upon the size of the jurisdiction, the detail of previous economic development planning efforts, and the extent of new information on national, state, regional, county, and local economic trends. A jurisdiction's planning effort is adequate if it uses the best available or readily collectable information to respond to the requirements of this division. The 2008 EOA is included in the record (Rec 1498). Section 3 of the 2008 EOA provides a detailed analysis of trends, including population and demographics, educational attainment, household income, wages and benefits, labor force and unemployment, changing economic markets, covered employment, the economic outlook, local economic trends, education's role in the economy, and a need for a large university campus. The City has continued to rely on the 2008 EOA as a foundation for the 2016 EGA update. Much of the analysis in the 2008 EOA was based on pre -2008 data. Clearly, changes have occurred since 2008, in part due to the Great Recession, which had significant negative impacts on Bend's economy. The 2016 EOA updates the analysis of national, state, regional, and local trends to reflect more recent data for the period ft* 2008 to 2013 (2016 EOA, pages 15-21; Rem Rec 10706 - 10712), 5.4.2.2 Review of National, State, Regional, County and Local Trends , • - OAR 660-009-0015 outlines the steps in the analysis to compare the demand for land for industrial arid other employment uses to the existing supply of such land. Step 1 includes: (1) Review of National,- State, RegiOnal, County and Local Trends. The economic opportunities analysis must identify the major categories on industrial or other employment uses that could reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area based on information about national, state, regional, county or local trends. ' The findings summarizing trends below are largely a straight excerpt from the 2016 EOA, with a focus on major changes since 2008 (2016 EOA, pages 15-21; Rem Rec 10706-10712) Bend's economy is recovering from the Great Recession. As the regional employment center of Central Oregon, growth in Bend drives regional employment and economic growth. Bend's growth is supported by availability of labor and resources available in Central Oregon, especially in Deschutes County. More than 60% of employment in Deschutes County is located in Bend.1° 10 Oregon Employment Department, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2013. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-9 About 48% of the popuiation in Deschutes County is located within Bend.11 Haif of employees at businesses located in Bend live outside of the city, in places like unincorporated Deschutes County, Redmond, unincorporated Crook County, or Prineville.'2 Continued population and employment growth in Bend will drive growth in Deschutes County and in Central Oregon. Economic development in Bend to 2028 will occur in the context of long -run national, state and local trends. The 2016 EOA (p. 16-21; Rem Rec 10707-10712) provides updated information on trends affecting future economic growth and is intended to support the analysis required by OAR 660-009-0015(1). The most important of these trends are summarized in Table 5-6. Table 5-6. Implications of National, State & Regional Economic& Demographic Trends on Economic Growth in Bend (Rem Rec 10707) — --'------- ------ � National, Stateand Regional for Growth in Bend ! Economic Trends Implications��mmqn�/o ' Moderate growth rates and recovery from' the national recession According to the National Bureaof Economic Research, "The Great Recession" ended in 2009, but sluggish growth continued to affect businesses and workers alike for severalyears after. 13 Unemployment at the national level has gradually declined since the height of the recession.14 Unemployment rates in OregTOft-end DeschuteS -- County are typically hin those of the !: nation aaawhole. 16The federal government's economic forecast projects a moderate pace Or ebonornia4owth, with gradual -_-.- _��'- GDP ,` . d ` Economic growth in Bend - in measures such as employment growth, unemployrnent rates, and wagegmwth-wNbemorkelyimpmved from previous years . . since 2007). The rate of employment growth in Ber,d will depend, part, --_--,_,-'"--_ OregonBend's primary | 1 '' competitive -advantages, location, access to -I regional -transportation infrastructure, quality of life,arid acqess to Ucated and skilled labor region Make Bend attractive to that want to grow, expand, or locate in 1 the Central Oregon. Economiebrowth in -r'��� 'lego� behind-1 nationaf-grpwth.16 , 11 Porttand State University, Population Research Center, 2013. 12 U.S. Census, OnTheMap, 2011. m"USBmsineooCyonExpanmiononndContraoUono.`ThallotiomdBurnouofEonnomioResearch. http://vmww.nberorg/cyoon.htmi `4Ne\eonO. Schwartz, "US Economy Adds 223.000Jobs; Unemployment at5396.^The New York Times, July 2.2815.http://vxwvw.n\dimoo.nom/2D15/8703/buoineso/eoonomy/jnbo'nepod'hihng-unemp|oyment- ]une.htm|?_r=O. 16 "Local Area Unemployment Statistics," State of Oregon Employment Department, httpa://wxww.que|ityinfn.oqg/ed-uesti/?at=18t1=OOO8OOOOOU.41O10OOOU0-unemprate-y-2OOU~2O15. 16 The Budget and Economic Outtook: 2015to2O25."January 2015.Congressional Budget Office, httpe:6www.cbo.gov/sibas/defau|t/fi|es/obo0eu/attaohmmntm4QUA2-Out|uok2O15.pdf. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-10 ._ ___ --__ | National, State, and Regional Economic Trends Growth of sectors Increased worker productivity and the international outsorcing of routine tasks Ied to ( declines in employment in the major goods - producing industries. Projections from the Bureau ufLabor Statistics indicate that U.S. ` employment growth will continue to be stronges in heafthcare and socia assistance, professional and business services, and other service industries. Construction employment will grow with the economy, but manufacturing employment will decline. These trends are also expected to affect the composition of Oregon's economy, though Oregon's manufacturing employment may grow in the short -run. 17 Lack of diversity in Oregon's economy Oregon's economy has diversified since the 1960's, but Oregon continues to rank Iow in economic diversity among states. . '. '. . These rankings s heavily dependent on elirnited number of industries. Relatively16W:economic diversity increases the risk of econarnic volatilityes measured by changes in outpiit ��-, .�+''�'� The changes in employment in Deschutes County have followed similar trends as changes in national and state employment. For example, since 2001, employment in Deschutes County Health Care and Social Assistance ncreased its share of total employment by4.496' while Manufacturing's share decreased by 3.8% as a result in decreases in wood produutsmanufac1uhng. The Oregon Employment Department forecasts that the sectors likely to have the most employmen growth inDeschutes County over the 2O12hn2O22 period are: Construction, Health Care, Local and State Government, Retail Trade, Professional and Business Services, and Accommodation and Food Services. These sectors represent employment opportunities for Bend. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that employment in Deschutes County in 2013 was cOncentrated in a few sectors: Health Care and Social Assistance (15%), Retail Trade (15%), - Accommodations and Food Services (13%), and Government (13%) Employment in the Government and Health Care se6tOrs tends to be stable and pays above Bend's average wage of $37,755. Employment in Accorhmodations and Food Services and Retail Trade pays below Bend's average wage and employment may be volatile. | lndustries that have grown recently in Bend include bioscience, aviation and aerospace, outdoor recreation, software, specialty manufacturing, data center storage, and brewing. Each of these indumbi�oanouoo�unib/forindushia| presentsopportunity = ' ! growth in Bend.18 n"Employment Projections -2012-2022.^Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 19, 2013, http://www.b1s.govinews.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf. and "Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast," Office of Economic Analysis, May 2015, http:Ilwww.oregon .gov/DAS/OEAIdocs/economic/forecasto5l 5.pdf. 1aBuneauofLaborStaUaUoo.OuartedyCenuusofEmp|oymentandVVagau.2O13. http://vvww.b1s.govicew/datatoc.htm (Hereafter BLS, QCEW) and Economic Development Central Oregon, Business and Economic Data, https://wvvw.edcoinfo.com/business-and-economic-data/. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-11 National, Stateand Regional Economic Trend Importance ofsmall businesses inOregon's economy / SmaU business, with 100 orfeweremployees, account for 66% of privato-sector employment in Oregon. Workers of small businesses typically have had lower wages than the state average.19 AvaiIabiIity of trained and skilled labor Businesses in Oregon are generaily able to fill | jobs,eitherhnmavaUobleworker living within the State or by attracting skilled workerfrom outsido of the State. Availability of labor depends, in part, on popu/at/ongnowthond in -migration. Oregon added more than 980,000 new residents and about 475,000 new jobs between 1990 and 2008. The population -employment rati Sbatewmoobout1.Sneoidantaperjobuvare� 18-ynarperiod.21 Availability of labor aiso dependson workers''' typically have o min � or: �� . . ono�er 22 Implications for Economic Growth in Bend In 2013 average size for a private business in Deschutes County is 8.5 employees per business, compared to the State average of 11.2 employees per private business, 20 Growth of small businesses presents opportunities for economic growth in Bend. __ Employment in Bend grew at about 1.6% annually , over the 2OUlb,2013period, while population grew at 3% annually from 2000 to 2013. 24 About 76%of worker's at businesses located in , Bend lived in Deschutes -County, and 50% lived i Within Bend city limits. FirMs in,Bend attracted i workers from as far away as Mu%nomahCuuoty.2« Bend's residents who were 25 years and over were more likely to have a Bachelor's degree or higher (41%) than the county (34%) and state average (3196). Availability of these workers helps support the types of target industries that require a skilled, educated workforce discussed in Chapter 4.26 ,' '— ,`'/': `.``^ ' '� Availability of skilled !� �. education attainment. Aboiat 30,% of OrOon's , ',:-'1Hworkers have a Bechelor s degree or higher. 23 ' ' ',- 19 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Employmenand Wages, 2U14C>1. http://vwxwvb|u.gov/cew/apps/duto_viawn/daba_viewo.htm#tab=Tab|ea/. 2»BunaauofLaborSUaUoUno.(JuortadyCenouacfEmp|oymentandVVageo. n[>nngonEmp|nymentOmpartmont.<]umrtedyConouonfEmp|oymontandVVugeo. 22 U8 Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey, 1 -Year Estimates, Table 808303. u»USCensus Bureau, 2U13American Community Survey, 1'YearEstimates, Table 815003. 2^BuneaunfLobor8taUnUcs.(]uartedyCmnouuofEmp|nymentandVVngeo. c»U8CanounBuneau.OntheMap.2O11.http://onthemnp.oeo.ceneun.gov. 26 US Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey, 1 -Year Estimates, Table B15003. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-12 National, State, and Regional Economic Trends Aging of the population The number of people age 65 and older will more than double between 2010 and 2050, while the number of people under age 65 will grow by only 30%. 27 The economic effects of this demographic change include a slowing of the growth of the labor force, an increase in the demand for healthcare services, and an increase in the percent of the federal budget dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. People are retiring later than previous generations and continuing to work past 65 years old. This trend is seen both at the national and State levels. 28 Even given this trend, the need for workers to replace retiring baby boomers will outpace job growth. Management occupations and teachers will have the greatest need for replacement workers because these occupations have older -than -average workforces. Increases in energy prices Although energy prices are currently low by historical standards, over the long-term, energy prices are forecast to return -to -relatively high --, levels, such as those seen in the 2006 to 2008 period, possibly increasing further over the planning period.31 Implications for Economic Growth in Bend The changes in the Bend's age structure are similar to those of the State, with the most growth observed in people 45 years and older. Bend's population is generally younger than the State's. The median age in Bend in 2013 was 36.6 years, compared to 42.3 in Deschutes County, and 39.1 in the state as a whole.29 The State projects that the share of the population over the age of 60 in Deschutes County will increase by 10% between 2015 and 2035. 30 Firms in Bend will need to replace workers as they retire. Demand for replacement workers is likely to outpace job growth in Bend, consistent with State trends. ri 2015, low energy prices have decreased the costs, of commuting. Over the long-term, if energy prices -increase, these higher prices will likely affect the mode of commuting before affecting workers' 5I willingness to commute. For example, commuters may choose to purchase a more energy-efficient ear, use the bus, or carpool. Very large increases in energy prices may affect r-j..workers' willingness to commute, especially workers living the furthest from Bend or workers with lower paying jobs. 27 "The Next Four Decades; The Older Population in the United States 2010 to 2050," US Census Bureau, May 2010, https://www:census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1138.pdf. 28 "Americans Settling on Older Retirement Age," Rebecca Rifkin, Gallup, April 29, 2015, http://www.gallup.com/poll/182939/americans-settling-older-retirement-age.aspx. 29 U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey, 1 -Year Estimates, Table B01002. 30 Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, Demographic Forecast, "Long-term Oregon State's County Population Forecast (2010-2050)," http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/oea/Pages/demographic.aspx#Long_Term_County_Forecast" 31 "Annual Energy Outlook 2015; With Projections to 2040," US Energy Information Administration, April 2015, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-13 National, State, and Regional Economic Trends Comparatively low wages The income of a region affects the workforce and the types of businesses attracted to the region. Average income affects workers and businesses in different ways. Workers may be attracted to a region with higher average wage or high wage jobs. Businesses, however, may prefer to locate in regions with lower wages, where the cost of doing business may be lower. Since the early 1980's, Oregon's per capita personal income has been consistently lower than the U.S. average. In 2013, Oregon's per capita wage was 89% of the national average.32 Education as a determinant of wages The majority of the fastest= -growing occupations will require an academic degree, and on`average they will yield higher incomes -than occupations that do not require an academic' degree. The fastest growing occupations requiring an academic degree will be: computer "software application engineers, elementary school; teachers, arid accountants and auditors.`-:', Occupations'tfat.do not require an academic:::.. degree (e.g., retail sales person, food preparation workers, = and home care aides) will grow, accounting for about half of all: jobs by 2018. These occupations typically have lower pay than occupations requiring an academic degree.34 Implications for Economic Growth in Bend Per capita personal income in Deschutes County ($40,245 in 2014 dollars) was lower than that of the Portland MSA ($44,603), Oregon ($40,645), and the Nation as a whole ($45,660) in 2014. 33 Income in Oregon has historically been below national averages. There are four basic reasons that income has been lower in Oregon and Deschutes County than in the U.S.: (1) wages for similar jobs are lower; (2) the occupational mix of employment is weighted towards lower paying occupations; (3) a higher proportion of the population has transfer payments (e.g. social security payments for retirees), which are typically lower than earnings; and (4) lower labor force participation among working age residents. To a certain degree, these factors are all true for both Oregon and Deschutes County; and result in lower income: The lower wages in Bend may be attractive to firms that typically pay lower wages, such as call centers Or' firms that outsource professional services such as accounting or technical support. :Bend's residents: who were 25 years and over were More likely to have a Bachelor's degree or higher (411,%0) than the county (34%) and state average (31%) in 2013. 35 wages in Bend are relatively low compared to 'Oregon as a whole, and this is largely a result of the composition of the regional economy, rather than the availability of workers with an academic degree. Increasing the relatively low wages in the region is dependent on changing the composition of the regional economy, through growing or attracting businesses with higher paying occupations. 32 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, GDP & Personal Income, Local Area Personal Income and Employment, Table CA1-3. 33 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, GDP & Personal Income, Local Area Personal Income and Employment, Table CA1-3. Adjusted for inflation using the BLS CPI Calculator at http://www.b1s.govidata/inflation_calculator.htm. 34 Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment Projections: 2008-2018 News Release," Thursday, December 10, 2009, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecopro_12102009.htm. 35 US Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey, 1 -Year Estimates, Table B15003. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-14 National, Stateand Regional Economic Trends Importance of hihquo|Uvnutuna|resuurcea The relationship between natural resources and Iocal economies has changed as the economy has shifted away from resource extraction. Increases in the population and in households' incomes, plus changes in tastes and preferences, have dramatically increased demands for outdoor recreation, scenic vistas, clean wo0mr, and other resource-relatecj amenities. Such amenities contribute to a region's quality of Iife and play an important role in attracting both households and firms. Source: 2016 EOA, Table 1. 5.4.2.3 Required Site Types Implications for Economic Growth in Bend The region's high quality naturaresources present economic growth opportunities for Bend, ranging i from food and beverage production to the tourism industry. OAR 660-009-0015(2) directs cities to identify "required site types" needed o accommodate the expected employment growth as foHows: (2) Identification of Required Site Types. The economic opportunities analysis must identify the number of sites by tYpe reasonably expected -to be needed to accommodate the expected employment growth based on the:0g charadteristics typical of expected The Council finds that the 2016 EOA update proOdes an estimate of site needs based on the employment fOrecast and---historicajTdevelopment-patterns to illustrate the rough number and type of sitee of various sizeS needed -to ,accommodate employment growth to 2028 (2016 EOA, p. 25-28; Rem- Rec10716-1071_9). Key highlibhts of the analysis are summarized below and are direct, excerpts from the 2016 EOA. The process of identifying site,rieeds based on historical development patterns builds from the employment forecast (EOA Table,4; Rem Rec 10715) to the forecast of needed sites by size of site. Table 5-7 shows the distribution of existing employment (in 2013) by the employment categories and site size. To maintain consistency with the ET model (which was used to determine capacity of employment land within the current UGB) and the Urbanization Report, the employment categories in Table 5-7 were simplified and combined as follows: • Retail & Leisure and Hospitality= Retail and Hospitality • Office/Service/Medical & Othmr/Miao=Office • Heavy and General Industrial = Industrial Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-15 Table 5-7. Distribution of existing employment by site size, Bend 2013 Smaller than 5 to 49.99 50.00+ Employment Categories 5 acres acres acres Retail and Hospitality 71% ! 29% 0% Office ' 75% 7% 18% Industrial 83% ' 17% 0% Public 73% 27% 0% Total 75% 17% 8% Source: 2016 EOA, Table 5. The next step in the process was to allocate employment growth by site size (Table 5-8). This allocation used the percentages in Table 5-7 to distribute employment growth by category to site sizes. Table 5-8. Forecast of employment growth by site size, Bend 2013-2028 Smaller than ! 5 to 49.99 50.00+ Employment Categories 5 acres acres acres Retail and Hospitality 4,619 1,885 Office 5,412 ; 481 1,307 Industrial 5,382 1,122 18 Public 1,253 464 - Total r16,666 .. 3,952 1 1,325 Source: 2016 EOA, Table 6,";::;.: Table 5-9 shows the average employees per site> -by size for tax lots with employment in 2013 using data from the QuarterlyCensus of Employment and Wages (QCEW) and tax lot data. The results show that sites>less than five acres:; averaged_ 23 employees and sites five to 50 acres averaged 1:34 employees. Average employment on sites of 50 acres or more cannot be disclosedfor confidentialiity;reasons: Table 5-9. Average employees per site;: Bend 2013 Smaller than 5 to 49.99 50.00+ 5 acres acres acres Employees per site 23 _'` ! 134 (D) Source: 2016 EOA, Table 7. The average employees per site in Table 5-9 are then used to estimate the number of needed sites by employment type and size to accommodate new employment between 2013 and 2028. Needed sites are estimated by dividing the employment by category and site size in Table 5-8 by the average employees per site in Table 5-9. Note that sites larger than 50 acres are not included in this analysis—the Remand approved the need for two large -lot industrial employment sites over fifty acres. Thus, analysis of special site needs over 50 acres is not necessary using this methodology. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-16 Table 5-10 shows the number of sites needed to accommodate employment growth between 2013 and 2028 by site size. The results show that Bend will need 726 sites Tess than five acres and 32 sites greater than five acres. Table 5-10. Site needed to accommodate employment growth by site size, Bend 2013-2028 Smaller than 5 to 49.99 Employment Categories 5 acres acres Retail and Hospitality 201 15 Office 236 4 Industrial 234 9 Public 55 4 Total 726 32 Source: 2016 EOA, Table 8. Table 5-11 allocates the needed sites in Table 5..=10`to broad categories of plan designations based on the approximate percentage of employment for each employment category. For example, 89% of retail and hospitality employment in Bend is located in Commercial and Mixed Use plan designations, with 179 sites smaller than 5 acres and 13 sites between 5 and 49.9 acres. The remaining 24 sites are allocated to Industrial and Mixed Employment, where about 11% of Bend's retail and hospitality employment is located.. • Table 5-11. Sites needed to accommodate employment growth, by comprehensive plan designation category and;site-size, Bend 241.3-2028 Commercial/Mixed Industrial/Mixed Use Employment % of 5-49.9 % of 5-49 sites < 5 ac ac sites < 5 ac ac Retail and Hospitality 89% 179 13 11% 22 2 Office 73% 173 3 26% 61 1 Industrial 17% 40 2 82% 192 7 Public 27% 15 1 16% 9 1 Total 407 19 284 11 Source: 2016 EOA, Table 9. : Public Facility Total % of 5-49.9 i % of sites < 5 ac ac sites Sites 0% - I 100% 216 1% 2 100% 240 1% 2 - 100% 243 57% 31 2 100% 59 35 2 758 Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-17 5.4.2.4 Site Characteristics for Required Sites The Goal 9 rule requires that the EOA identify the number of sites, by type, reasonably expected to be needed for the 20 -year planning period. Types of needed sites are based on the site characteristics typical of expected uses. Central to the determination of required site types, OAR 660-009-0015(2) provides: (2) ***Industrial or other employment uses with compatible site characteristics may be grouped together into common site categories. The 2016 EOA aggregates employment that has compatible site characteristics into common site categories (2016 EOA, p. 29-46; Rem Rec 10720-10738). The following findings are a direct excerpt from the 2016 EOA. The Goal 9 rule provides flexibility in how jurisdictions conduct and organize this analysis. The rule defines site characteristics as follows in OAR 660-009-0005(11): (11) "Site Characteristics" means the attributes of a site necessary for a particular industrial or other employment use to operate. Site characteristics include, but are not limited to, a minimum acreage or site configuration including shape and topography, visibility, specific types or levels of public facilities, services or energy infrastructure, or proximity to a particular transportation or freight facility such as rail, marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities, and major transportation routes. Table 5-12 presents the site -characteristics -needed for he, operation of major traded -sector industries, as well asfor clusters of commercial, and mixed use development. The table groups potential growth industries by site category (e.0 -:,..large industrial and flex). Any of the potential growth industries, howeveLmay maw at a variety_of sizes. For example, renewable energy companies could range from large solar: panel manufacturers to small manufacturers of specialtyrenewabie energy products and could::usesites from five acres to over 250 acres. The opportunity sites in each- potential` growth industry -will vary by size of the firms and the firm's activities =(2.016 EOA, p. 36-=37; Rem _Rec 10727-10728). The 2016 EOA includes additional evidence to support characteristics of sites needed for 1) large-scale manufacturing, 2) commercial/office and industrial flex, and 3) general retail and office uses (EOA, p. 38-45; Rem"Rec 10729-10736). This information provided a basis for the evaluation of potential 1)GB expansion areas for suitability to accommodate site characteristics for commercial, industrial and; -n=ixed employment uses. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-18 Table 5-12. Summary of Site Characteristics for Target Industries & Clusters of Commercial Development Site Category Large Industrial and Flex Medium Industrial and Flex Small Industrial Example Industries (Target Industries in bold) Renewable Energy Information Technology Specialty Manufacturing Aviation - Aerospace Secondary Wood Products Recreation Equipment Renewable Energy Information Technology Specialty Manufacturing Aviation - Aerospace Secondary Wood" Products .; Recreation Equipment Renewable Energy Information Technology Large Mixed use;. Commercial Regional and''%„ /Office ; community retail Big box retail j Higher Education Medium Information Commercial Technology /Office Large medical offices Mixed use Hospitality Higher Education Neighborhood retail Other services Small medical offices Retail and services Typical Site Size (acres) 50 to 250 Topography 0% to 5% slope 10 to 0%to5% 75 slope Parcel configuration Preference for single parcels or parcels with two owners Preference for single parcels or parcels with two owners Less:..':-.; ,Less than .-Preference `for: single parcels or parcels. _with two owners than 10`;=10% slope Small Commercial /Office :1 10 to Less`:than 5:0.,- 10%o slope Source: 2016 EOA, Table 15. 5 to 20 Less than 15% slope Less than 2 Less than 15% slope Preference for single parcels or parcels with two owners Preference for single parcels or parcels with three owners Preference for single parcels or parcels with three owners Land Use Buffers 1 Visibility Compatible with 1 No industrial or agricultural uses Compatible with 1No industrial or agricultural uses Compatible with No some commercial, industrial, or agricultural uses Compatible with Yes commercial and mixed uses 1 Compatible with Yes commercial and mixed uses Compatible with Yes commercial, mixed uses, and residential Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-19 The Goal 14 evaluation of the proposed UGB expansion ("Scenario 2.1G") included a comparison of the sites identified for employment plan designations against the site characteristics provided in Table 5-12, above. The results are documented in a technical memorandum from Angelo Planning Group and Fregonese Associates (Rem Rec 10223- 10262). The findings below draw on that memorandum. Site suitability for Large Lot Industrial Scenario 2.1G includes the same locations for Large Lot Industrial uses as Scenario 1.2 - Juniper Ridge (within the existing UGB) and in the southern portion of the DSL property. Both locations have large parcels of flat, vacant land in government ownership. These locations were identified as the best available locations for a large lot industrial site designation by the Employment TAC (Rem Rec. 5297). Site suitability for industrial and mixed employment Scenario 2.1G provides suitable sites for industrial and mixed employment uses, though some expansion areas have certain attributes that are not ideally suited for industrial/mixed employment uses. Refinements to arrangement of land uses as part of the refinement process and creation of urbanization of policies aim to address the compatibility issues of industrial land adjacent to existing and planned residential development. In Table 5-13, areas highlighted in orange have attributes that are not ideally -suited for industrial/mixed employment. None of the identified locations for industrial and mixed employment development is considered unsuitable for these uses as a result of these attributes; however, they may::Iimit the sites' desirability to a somewhat narrower range of potential businesses. Table 5-13. Performance Measure 3.C:2 — Site Suitability for industrial and mixed employment Evaluation; .. G;eo`. Subareas Lcenatie 000;Size:._ "` _` `10-40 ac ite`,S: ze One (1) 5 -ac site, One (1) 40 -ac site 'opography Slopesbelow 5% overall Residential within Expansion Area, rural residential uses to North, om patibility` existing employment to South. Designation changed to ME/IL and located to provide buffer to existing neighborhoods. Access to Cooley Rd to South, Highway 20 to West, Highway 97 to East North .;Triangle:: Trans.Porta tion Access`,:: - . DSL Property Parcel Size. Site Size Topography Compatibility Transportation Access The "Elbow" '. Parcel Size Findings Report One large parcel One (1) 29 -ac site, One (1) 46 -ac site Low slopes Adjacent to employment/open space/public uses. Also adjacent to planned residential to North: Access to 27th / Knott 5-50 acre parcels July 2016 Section 5-20 Evaluation Geography Site ;Size. Topography ompatibility Transportation Access Parcel Size Site Size Topography. Compatibility; Transportation' Access The "Thumb" West;Area Parcel Size :Site Size Topography.: Compatibility Transportation Access;; _ cenario 2,1,G One each - 10, 20, 30, 50+ acre sites. Low slopes Adjacent to existing andplanned residential areas. Areas adjacent to residentialare primarily ME with some IL. Access to 27th / Knott One large parcel Three (3) 30 -ac sites. 1 Low slopes 1 Adjacent to planned residential Access to Knott and Highway 97 Two (2) very large ownerships, one (1) 30 -ac ownership 15 acres Some topography Nearby planned residential and school.°ME designation improves compatibility. Limited access to mayor roads 04,13110-y1]„-: Gopher '. Gulch Area Size:' opogr",apn patibihty ation, 5 to 35 ac.parcels:_ One (1) 35 -acre site.,. -00011:1 ) 20-acre%site Some slopes Adjacent'to employment:uses rural residential. New residential intended `to-pro-vide.buffer to existing„neighborhoods Access to US 20 Overall 4out of 5 Score: Scenario 2.1G has intentionally provided better buffers between industrial areas and residential areas in the North Area Site suitability for commercial uses Scenario 2.1G is -performs very similarly to Scenario 2.1 in this evaluation. In Table 5-14, areas highlighted in orange have attributes that are not ideally -suited for commercial uses. None of the identified locations for commercial development is considered unsuitable for that use as a result of these attributes; however, they may limit the sites' desirability to a somewhat narrower range of potential businesses (e.g. specialty retail versus grocery stores). Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-21 Table 5-14. Performance Measure 3.C.2 — Site Suitability for Commercial Uses Evaluation Geography Scenario 2.1G North Triangle NE Edge DSL Property The "Elbow" The "Thumb" Southwest Area Parcel Size Site Size Topography Compatibility Visibility Transportation Access Parcel Size Site Size Topography Compatibility Visibility Transportation Access Parcel Size Site Size Topography Compatibility Visibility Transportation Access Parcel Size Site Size Topography Compatibility Visibility Transportation Access Parcel Size Site Size Topography Compatibility Visibility Transportation Access Parcel Size Site Size Topography Compatibility Visibility 10 ac - 40 ac One (1) 20 -ac site, One (1) 10 -ac site, One (1) 8 -ac site. Slopes below 5% overall Residential within Expansion Area, rural residential uses to North, existing employment to South Yes, > 10k ADT on Hwy 97 and Hwy 20, >5k ADT on Cooley Access to Cooley Rd to South, Highway 20 to West, Highway 97 to East 7-12 ac One (1) 25 -ac site Low slopes Adjacent to planned residential areas. High density surrounds commercial area. >5k ADT on Eagle, > 10 on Butler Market Road. Cole Rd, near Butler Market Rd One large parcel One (1) 26 -ac site, One (1) 15 -ac site Low slopes Adjacent to employment/open space/public uses. >10k ADT on both SE 27th and Reed Market at west of site. >5k ADT on Stevens Rd at North of site: Access to 27th / Knott 5-50 acre sites One (1) 10 -acre site, One (1) 35 -acre site, One (1) 20 -acre site Low slopes Adjacent to existing and planned residential areas >10k ADT on Knott and 27th Access to 27th / Knott One large parcel Three (3) 5-to-10ac sites, One (1) 60 -ac site Low slopes Adjacent to existing and planned residential >10k ADT on Hwy 97, Knott. >5k ADT on China Hat and new interior road. Access to Knott and Highway 97 One 40 -acre parcel 5 -acre mixed use/commercial node in NE Low slopes, some visible rock outcroppings. Adjacent to existing and planned residential areas. Adjacent to Highway 97. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-22 Evaluation Geography Transportation Access Parcel Size Site Size Topography West Area Compatibility Visibility Transportation Access Parcel Size Site Size Topography Shevlin Area Compatibility Visibility" Transportation Access Parcel Size Site Size Topography Compatibility Visibility Transportation Access .. " OA Riley / Gopher Gulch Area Overall Score: Scenario 2.1G Right -in -right -out access to Highway 97. Some access north via Ponderosa. Several large parcels One (1) 7 -ac site Some topography Adjacent to planned residential and near existing schools >5k ADT on new connection <500 ADT'on -otherroads Limited access to major roads One large parcel One (1) 8 -ac site Low slopes Adjacent to existing and planned residential Low ADT Access on Shevlin Park Rd 5-35 ac parcels One (1) 20 -ac site, One (1) 30 -ac site. Some slopes Adjacent toemployment uses, rural residential >10k ADT on Hwy 20. Some traffic on Cooley. Access to US 20 5out of5 Scenario 2.1G is very similar to Scenario 2.1. Commercial uses are generally supported by surrounding land uses and transportation network. West area and Shevlin Area lack a large amount of pass -by traffic, so commercial uses are scaled to be locally -serving rather than dependent .:on; pass -by trips:: 5.4.2.5 Special Site Needs The Goal 9 rule includes provisions for meeting special site needs for industries/uses that are an integral component of a city's economic development strategy. An Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) is a technical analysis that projects trends, but it is also an aspirational economic development tool that identifies land needs to achieve the type of employment that the community desires. OAR 660-009-0025(8) provides the following guidance for special site needs. ***Cities and counties that adopt objectives or policies providing for uses with special site needs must adopt policies and land use regulations providing for those special site needs. Special site needs include, but are not limited to large acreage sites, special site configurations, direct access to transportation facilities, prime industrial lands...*** The special sites must be identified and protected for the intended use and from incompatible uses. In order to justify the need for certain types of employment land within the UGB, there must be a factual basis in the EOA to satisfy OAR 660, division 9, a policy directive to provide the sites for economic development purposes, and measures to protect the sites for the intended uses. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-23 OAR 660-024-0045 also provides an option for local governments in Deschutes County to identify a need for large lot industrial land in the region: (1) Local governments in Crook, Deschutes or Jefferson Counties may determine a need for large lot industrial land in the region and provide sites to meet that need in accordance with this rule. *** The 2008 EOA identified the following special site needs: (1) a site for a new hospital (112 acres); (2) a site for a new university district (225 acres); and (3) two large lot industrial sites (56 acres/each). The Director's Report and Remand Order concurred that the record supported these components of the city's decision on employment lands.36 However, the Remand Order concluded that the City needs to identify whether there are sites that could accommodate these particular site needs within the prior UGB. The 2016 EOA updates the "special site needs for Bend based on changes that have occurred since 2008. The City is only proceeding with the large -lot industrial special site needs as part of the 2016 UGB proposal. The City's large lot industrial land need isnot based on the Regional Large Lot Industrial Land program laid out in OAR 660-024-0045, since LCDC approved the need for these sites prior to this program's existence, and is not subject to the: standards for that program. However, see findings in section 5.4.5.2 regarding the City s policy,to: use the standards regarding protection of large lot industrial sites'to guide development of regulations for Te City's identified large lot industrial sites. University Oregon State University purchased a 10acreparcelwithin the current UGB and obtained land use appr."ovals iin 2015to develop the first phase _of the OSU-Cascades campus. Construction is underway;on the acadernic,buildingi dining complex and residence hall for 300 students. The 10 -acre campus will accommodate 1;890 students. Ultimately, OSU-Cascades plans to serve 3,000 to 5,000 students in Central Oregon;: OSU recently purchased a 46 -acre undeveloped property, a former pumice mine, adjacent to the 10 -acre campus.37 OSU-Cascades and the City of Bend are committed to working together with the community on long term goals for and master planning of thelarger campus site. Additionally, the Central Westside Plan (CWP) project has been proceeding on a parallel track with 2014-2016 UGB planning and growth assumptions relating to the university site have been coordinated between the CWP and the UGB Remand. 36 The Remand Order states: "The Commission concludes that the City has made an adequate showing under ORS 197.2928(3)(a) that there is a specific identified land need for a future university campus, a site for a future medical center, and for two 50 -acre Targe lot industrial sites." Page131-132. 37 htto://osucascades.edu/4/fao-campus-expansion Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-24 The following new policy is proposed in Chapter 11, Growth Management, (Rem Rec 10384) of the Bend Comprehensive Plan to provide the policy framework for the University special site need: Policy 11-17. The City has identified a need for a special site for a university as part of the Urban Growth Boundary Process. At this time, Oregon State University is developing plans for a Bend campus. If OSU's plans are approved by the City, their campus will meet this identified need. The campus site currently being developed is between Century Drive, Mt. Washington Drive and Simpson Avenue (see Figure 11-3). Further expansions of the university within this area of the City are also being considered. Such a designation for this area does not preclude land uses other than institutional. Medical Center/Hospital Subsequent to the UGB remand in 2010, the St. Charles Health System decided to expand the existing hospital within the current UGB. Work on a $22 million renovation of the hospital began in late 2014 and is expected to last into early 2017.38 In light of this investment at the current hospital campus, the Employment TAC decided it did not have evidence to support expansion of the UGB to accommodate a special site need for a new hospital in Bend by 2028. Large Lot Industrial Sites The 2008 EOA identified a need for two 56 -acre industrial sites: one for targeted economic sector uses, and another for a heavy industrial site user. The Remand acknowledged this need, which is included as a�special site need for the 2016 EOA. This special site need is not included in the general estimate for employment land needs to 2028. Thesesites.are not included in'Bend's employment projections because the industries Bend seeks for these:sites are generally not present in Bend. The Sector Targeting work calls for attracting secondary wood products, renewable energy resources, aviation, recreation equipment_ and specialty manufacturing, and information technologies. While the estimated needed economic lands may suit some of these sectors, two sites with a dedicated size of 50+ -acres each to be reserved for these uses are needed for large site users such as secondary wood products, aviation, renewable energy resources, and information technology. 'Stakeholders concluded that they have been approached by industries seeking large sites for these uses, but since none are in the current supply, the firms looked to other communities (Rec 1514). These sites are needed in addition to predicted industrial land needs because the total amount of industrial acreage is relatively small, and placing 100 or more acres to be held in two large lots would consume nearly all of the needed 20 -year supply. These sites are also needed 38 htto://www.bendbulletin.com/home/2098362-151 /st-charles-plans-22-million-bend-renovation, Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-25 because they will create the land base to attract Bend's targeted sectors (2016 EOA, p. 45; Rem Rec 10736). The Employment TAC, the Boundary TAC, and the USC evaluated alternatives to meet the Targe lot industrial special site need (inside and outside of the current UGB). Based on an analysis of alternative sites and consideration of public testimony, the City proposes to meet the special site need through one Targe lot industrial site in the eastern portion of Juniper Ridge (within the current UGB) and one Targe lot industrial site on the DSL property (in the expanded UGB). The following new policies are proposed in Chapter 11, Growth Management, (Rem Rec 10384) of the Bend Comprehensive Plan to provide the policy framework for the large lot industrial special site need: Policy 11-19. The City has identified a need for two large lot (at least 50 -acre) industrial sites for targeted industries specified in the EOA. This need will be met through the opportunity for one large lot industrial site in the eastern portion of Juniper Ridge and one large lot industrial site on the DSL property (see Figure 11-3). Policy 11-20. Subsequent area planning for properties that are identified as meeting a special site need shall include regulations to protect the site for the identified use. The regulations will be consistent with the Regional Large Lot Industrial Land provisions for Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson Counties in Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 24. The regulations will be consistent with the model code prepared as part of the 2011 Regional Economic Opportunities Analysis. Chapter 11 also includes specific policies for UGB expansion areas, including the following policies for the DSL property (Rem-Rec 10394): -- Policy 11-66. The overall planning concept for the DSL property as identified in Figure 11-4 is for a new complete community that accommodates a diverse mix of housing and employment uses, including the potential for a large -lot industrial site. Policy 11-67. This area shall provide for a mix of residential and commercial uses, including 163 gross acres of residential plan designations, 60 gross acres of residential and/or public facility plan designations, 46 gross acres of commercial plan designations, and 93 gross acres of industrial plan designations, including one large -lot industrial site. (Gross acreages exclude existing right of way.) Policy 11-69. Subsequent planning for this area shall address preservation of at least 50 acres for a large lot industrial site in compliance with the policies in Chapter 6. Chapter 6 (Economy) of the Bend Comprehensive Plan (Rem Rec 10336) also includes a specific policy to support large -lot industrial sites: Policy 6-14. Large -lot industrial sites, those sites 50 or more acres in size, are important to the overall inventory of available economic land. Any sites included in the UGB to meet this special site need will be protected with specific plan and/or code provisions. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-26 Figure 5-1 is an excerpt from the Growth Management Chapter (Rem Rec 10385) of the Comprehensive Plan and identifies the location of the special sites. Figure 5-1. Bend UGB, Special Site Locations Legend Existing Urban Growth Boundary Proposed Urban -a Growth Boundary Expansion Subareas Bend Parks and Recreation District IN land included in UGB expansion Disclaimer: Site specific location of special sites is subject to refinement through area planning and land use review Data source: Deschutes County GIS (2014) Findings Report July 2016 Alo StreaOs/Rivers Roads/Highways Section 5-27 Conclusion: The City has relied on elements of the 2008 EOA that were acknowledged in the Remand, including the employment forecast to 2028 and the identification of special site needs for a 4 -year university and two large -lot industrial sites. The City has updated the EOA to reflect best available information on employment trends in Bend from 2008 to 2013 and to identify the residual jobs needed from 2013 to 2028. The 2016 EOA also updates the review of trends, with a focus on employment changes since 2008. The 2016 EOA includes information on required site types and site characteristics as required by OAR 660-009-0015(2). New policies are included in the Growth Management Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to protect the University and Large -Lot Industrial special sites for their intended uses. As shown in Figure 5-1, the special site needs for the University and one of the large -lot industrial sites are accommodated within the current UGB and the second large -lot industrial special site need is accommodated in the proposed UGB expansion (DSL site). Updates to the EOA and the BLI for employment lands provide the City with the factual base to determine the capacity of the current UGB to accommodate the residual jobs needed to 2028 consistent with the legal standards in OAR 660, Division 9. Findings to address the legal standards for the BLI and capacity analysis are included in Section 5.4.3 below and set the context for the consideration of efficiency measures in Section 5.4.4. 5.4.3 Buildable Lands Inventory and Capacity Analysis. 5.4.3.1 Requirements for -the Buildable Lands Inventory ..:. OAR 660-024-0050 outlines the steps cities Must follow when evaluating or amending a UGB. The following provisions=apply to a:UGB amendment that addresses needs for employment lands. (1);When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must inventory land inside the UGB to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to accommodate 20 -year needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040. *** For employment land, the inventory must include suitable vacant and developed land designated for industrial or other employment use, and must be conducted in accordance with OAR 660-009-0015. *** OAR 660-009-0015(3) outlines the requirements for the BLI for employment lands: (3) Inventory of Industrial and Other Employment Lands. Comprehensive Plans for all areas within urban growth boundaries must include an inventory of vacant and developed lands within the planning area designated for industrial or other employment use. (a) For sites inventoried under this section, plans must provide the following information: (A) The description, including site characteristics, of vacant or developed sites within each plan or zoning district; Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-28 (B) A description of any development constraints or infrastructure needs that affect the buildable area of sites in the inventory; and (C) For cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization, the inventory must also include the approximate total acreage and percentage of sites within each plan or zoning district that comprise the short-term supply of land.*** The 2016 BLI will be adopted as a supporting document of the Bend Comprehensive Plan (Rem Rec 10513). In simplest terms, the BLI documents the urban land supply of Bend, and provides the basis to estimate the growth capacity for housing and jobs within the existing UGB. The BLI provides a key factual base for growth management policy in Bend. The findings in this section (5.4.3) draw from the BLI (pages 15-19, 24-26; Rem Rec 10539-10543, 10548-10550). The findings in this section focus on the part of the BLI that supports the EOA and land needs for employment. A similar inventory is required for residential land as part of the HNA. The findings to address the BLI for residential land are included in Section 4 of the Findings Report. When the UGB Remand Task Force began work on the Remand issues, the City initially decided to continue to rely on 2008 data wherever possible, including using 2008 data as the basis for the revised BLI. However, given the amount of time that has elapsed since then, the City, through the advice of the TACs, decided to update the BLI to rely on more recent data in order to more accurately reflect conditions -on the ground. The City completed the initial steps of this update, identifying the following characteristics (relevant to the Employment BLI) for all tax lots within the existing UGB, based on July2014 tax lot data from Deschutes County: • current zoning and plan designation, including special plan districts; • current property use information (based on, a combination of property class and structure codes from the County Assessor's Office data, City building permit data, aerial photography, and existing City tax lot inventory data); • size and value of existing improvements; • area subject to physical constraints (25% or greater slopes and 100 -year floodplain)39; • public agency ownership (City, County, State, Federal, College District, Irrigation District, Parks District, School District, and Other Special District). The BLI describes the methods used, and inventory results in the four steps used to prepare the BLI. For the Employment BLI, the relevant steps are 1, 3 and 4 (2016 BLI, p. 7-8, 15-20 and 24- 26; Rem Rec 10531-10532, 10539-10544, and 10548-10550). Step 1 — Calculate Physical Constraints Step 2 — Define Residential Land (addressed in Section 4 of Findings Report) Step 3 — Define Employment Land Step 4 — Assign Vacant and Developable Acreage 39 See OAR 660-008-0005(2)(c) and (2)(d). Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-29 Step 1— Calculate Physical Constraints Land that is physically constrained is not assumed to be "buildable".40 Land was identified as constrained if it: • has 25% or greater slopes; • is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100 -year floodplain; • is within a river or upland Area of Special Interest (ASI);41 or • is within the Waterway Overlay Zone (WOZ) and within. 100 feet of the Deschutes River, where building setbacks may apply42. The total area affected by one or more of the constraints was calculated for each tax lot in Bend. There are roughly 1,420 acres of physically constrained land within the UGB, of which roughly 1,170 are within tax lots. See Figure 5-2. 40 OAR 660-002-0005 (2)descr"ibes land with development constraints that can generally not be considered suitable for employment uses:;; "Development Constraints" means factors that temporarily or permanently "limit or prevent the use of land for, economic development. Development constraints include, but are not limited to, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat, environmental contamination, slope; topography, cultural and archeological resources, infrastructure deficiencies, parcel fragmentation, or natural hazard areas. 41 Bend's ASI's are not acknowledged Goal 5 resources. However, the City's regulations largely preclude development within these areas. Density transfers are allowed; however, there is no history of developers utilizing this option. 42 Bend's WOZ combines four different sub -areas: the Deschutes River Corridor Design Review overlay; the Floodplain Combining Zone; Goal 5 Riparian Corridor protection; and River Corridor ASIs. Each sub- area has its own set of standards and setbacks for protection. Setbacks vary from 30 to 100 feet depending on the stretch of river and the sub -zone; some are measured from ordinary high water, while others are measured from the canyon rim. Because the setbacks are not mapped in detail, the generalized assumption was made that development restrictions are likely within 100 feet of the mapped edge of the river throughout its length. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-30 Figure 5-2. Physical Constraints Streams/RiV rs 11Urhan Growth=.Bounda !.` 0., RoadslHighways' FEN1A90U Year F oodpian ZS%or-greataTslope.-. _._. ASI -River. ASI - Upland Findings Report Service layer Credits: Deschutes CountyGIS (2014) July 2016 Prepared 2/12/2016 Section 5-31 Step 2 — Define Residential Land See Section 4 of the Findings Report for the BLI for residential land. Step 3 — Define and Categorize Employment Land Employment land is defined as land with a plan designation of CC, CG, CB, CL, MR, ME, PO, SM, IL, IG, or PF, with a few exceptions for special cases (2016 BLI, p. 15-18; Rem Rec 10539- 10542). The BLI status for all land planned or zoned for employment use (including mixed use designations & zones) was assigned using the statutory definitions for employment land, with the exception of school and park land.43 • Vacant - a lot or parcel equal to or larger than one half -acre not currently containing permanent buildings or improvements; or equal to or larger than five acres where less than one half -acre is occupied by permanent buildings or improvements. • Developed - All other employment land is identified in the BLI map as developed, although only a subset of this will meet the state definition of "developed" land that may be part of the inventory of available employment land ("Developed Land" means non - vacant land that is likely to be redeveloped during the planning period). Step 4 — Assign Vacant and Developable Acreage After assigning a BLI category to employment` land, the next step is to identify how much of the land that has some remaining development potential is available . To this end, this BLI uses three attributes related to -development capacity for each>parcel: "Vacant Acres," "Developed Acres," and "Constrained Acres"Vacant Acres" are available for development; "Developed Acres" are developed but may potentially undergo-redevelopment44; and "Constrained Acres," such as steep slopes orfloodplains:ere undevelopable. The assignment of acreages to these three categories was done based on the_ BLI categories described above. The Urbanization Report (Rem; Rec 10842-10843) describes -how this capacity, measured in acres, is translated into projected jobs. Constrained -acres are identified first, based on the physical constraints listed in Step 1 (see page 30). Land developed with -_certain types of uses, such as private right-of-way, canal right- of-way, utilities, developed schools and parks, open space in common ownership (e.g. homeowners associations), and cemeteries, is also assigned to the "constrained" category. This land was categorized, as "constrained" rather than "developed" because it does not have a 43 OAR 660-009-0005(1) and (14). OAR 660-009-0005(1) defines developed land as follows: "Developed Land" means non -vacant land that is likely to be redeveloped during the planning period. For consistency with the residential buildable lands inventory, this analysis uses the term "redevelopable" to reference land that meets the definition of OAR 660-009-0005(1). For this BLI "developed land" uses the more common definition of land that is developed and committed to existing uses. as See Chapter 2 of the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10834) for methodology used in forecasting redevelopment. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-32 strong likelihood of redevelopment within the planning horizon, even if adjacent land used for private development may have redevelopment potential. The remaining acreage of each parcel is classified as vacant or developed as described below. Based on the State's definitions, the extent of physical development for employment land was estimated based on aerial photography for parcels over five acres with some improvements. This information was used to classify land into a BLI category, but it was also used to identify vacant and developed portions of those parcels, so that a large parcel with some development but significant vacant acreage is identified as having both vacant and developed acres, to more accurately reflect its' (re)development potential. This is consistent with OAR 660-009-0005(1), because this area represents land that is "likely to be redeveloped during the planning period". Table 5-15 shows the number of tax lots and acres by BLI status (Developed and Vacant) and Error! Reference source not found. displays the same information by Comprehensive Plan designation. Figure 5-3 displays the geographic distribution of employrnent lands by BLI status. Table 5-15. Tax Lots and Acres by Employment BLI Status (Excludes School and Park Land) ji Employment BLI Status Number of Tax Lots j Total Acres , „ . .„. .......,„ Developed . 3,451 '''-.';; ': ...,.'-',.. 2.762 Vacant 247 1 056 Total -j3;698 - - - -- ., 3,818 Source: 2016 BU, Table 3 Table 5-16. Employment Land by COMprehensive'=ptan Designation (Excluding Park and School Land) Comprehensive PIan Designation Number of Taxlots Total Acres CB :_,rV . ::„,,, 322 40.2 .., .., Developed 322 40.2 VaCarit,. ,,,, 0 0.0 CC 180 77.8 Developed.:- 173 65.8 Vacant 7 12.0 CG 564 724.8 Developed 515 627.8 Vacant 49 97.0 CL 763 374.4 Developed 734 305.4 Vacant 29 69.0 IG 152 196.6 Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-33 Comprehensive Plan Designation Number of Taxlots Total Acres Developed 146 188.2 Vacant 6 8.4 IL Developed Vacant MDOZ* Developed Vacant ME Developed Vacant 669 1259.3 579 658.8 90 600.5 186 250.7 126 75.9 20 55.2 335 308.1 318 270.0 17 38.1 MR 453 221.1 Developed 435 180.8 Vacant 18 40.3 PF 45 543.8 Developed 38 457.8 Vacant 7 86.0 PO 2 6.1 Developed 0 0.0 Vacant 2 6.1 PO/RM/RS 25 5.8 Developed 25 5.8 Vacant 0 0.0 SM 2 43.1 Developed 0 0 Vacant 2 43.1 Source: 2016 BLI, Table 4. 45 The two parcels with a surface mining (SM) plan designation inside the UGB are now owned by OSU and are identified as vacant. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-34 Figure 5-3. Employment BLI Status Map (2014) DrOr* Oza.A41031*0*--001010pni,pt***0--*ployotOfLand liPire4TP*RiVers-•"PP.Y0P-.0; - • 140-ad4fijdhsk*, Vacant OAR 660-009-0005 defines employment lands= follows: "Vacant Land" is equal to or larger than 1/2 acre not currently containing permanent improvements, or, equal to or larger than 5 acres where less than 1/2 acre is occupied by permanent bilcfings or improvements. 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Prepared 7118/2016 Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-35 5.4.3.2 Definition of Buildable Lands and Safe Harbors OAR 660-009-0005 includes the following definitions that are relevant to the BLI for employment lands: (1) 'Developed Land" means non -vacant land that is likely to be redeveloped during the planning period. (2) "Development Constraints" means factors that temporarily or permanently limit or prevent the use of land for economic development. Development constraints include, but are not limited to, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat, environmental contamination, slope, topography, cultural and archeological resources, infrastructure deficiencies, parcel fragmentation, or natural hazard areas. (9) "Serviceable" means the city or county has .determined that public facilities and transportation facilities, as defined by OAR chapter 660, division 011 and division 012, currently have adequate capacity for development planned in the service area where the site is located or can be upgraded to haveadequate capacity within the 20 -year planning period. OAR 660-024-0050(3) provides the following safe harbors:for the BLI: (3) As safe harbors when inventorying land to accommodate industrial and other employment needs, a local government 1pay assume -that a lot or parcel is vacant if it is: (a) Equal to building; or (b) Equal to or;targer than five acres, if less than one-half acre of the lot or parcel is occupied by a permanent bwlding. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-36 In updating the BLI to support the 2016 UGB proposal, the City took a conservative approach to categorizing buildable lands for employment. In Step 1 of the BLI, land was identified as constrained if it: has 25% or greater slopes; is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100 -year floodplain; is within a river or upland Area of Special Interest (ASI);46 or is within the Waterway Overlay Zone (WOZ) and within 100 feet of the Deschutes River, where building setbacks may apply47. Figure 5-1 shows land that is physically constrained and not assumed to be "buildable." While allowed by OAR 660-009-0005, the City did not consider "Development Constraints" and "Serviceability" as filters to reduce the assumed capacity for development of employment lands within the current UGB. The findings under Section 5.4.3.1 are incorporated by this reference to demonstrate compliance with the definition of buildable lands and safe harbors for the Employment BLI. Conclusion: The Council finds that the BLI documents the amount of buildable land in each employment plan designation consistent with the definitions and methodology set forth in OAR 660-024-0050 and OAR 660, Division 9. Source data for the BLI was updated from 2008 to 2014 to provide the most accurate and current data to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to accommodate employment needs to 2028. The primary outcome of the BLI is a GIS dataset with values for vacant and developed lands for each parcel within the current UGB. These values provide a basis for estimating future development and redevelopment. The assumptions that have been applied to this inventory to estimate capacity are documented in the Urbanization Report, which estimates the potential for growth of jobs within the current UGB based on existing conditions (Base Case) (2016 Urbanization Report, p.28-29; Rem Rec 10842-10843), as well as alternate growth scenarios involving changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map and Development -Code (Efficiency Measures) (2016 Urbanization Report, p.33-44; Rem Rec 10847-10858). Findings relating to the capacity analysis are presented in Section 5.4.4 below. 46 Bend's ASI's are not acknowledged Goal 5 resources. However, the City's regulations largely preclude development within these areas. Density transfers are allowed; however, there is no history of developers utilizing this option. 47 Bend's WOZ combines four different sub -areas: the Deschutes River Corridor Design Review overlay; the Floodplain Combining Zone; Goal 5 Riparian Corridor protection; and River Corridor ASIs. Each sub- area has its own set of standards and setbacks for protection. Setbacks vary from 30 to 100 feet depending on the stretch of river and the sub -zone; some are measured from ordinary high water, while others are measured from the canyon rim. Because the setbacks are not mapped in detail, the generalized assumption was made that development restrictions are likely within 100 feet of the mapped edge of the river throughout its length. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-37 5.4.4 Options to Address Deficiency of Land Needed for Employment 5.4.4.1 Options to Address Deficiency OAR 660-024-0050 addresses the land inventory and response to deficiency. OAR 660-024- 0050(4) provides, in pertinent part, that: (4) If the inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the UGB is inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20 -year needs determined under OAR 660- 024-0040, the local government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency, either by increasing the development capacity of land already inside the city or by expanding the UGB, or both; and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable. Prior to expanding the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB. *** After the analysis comparing the demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land, OAR 660-009-0015 requires: (1) Identification of Needed Sites. The plan must identify the approximate number, acreage and site characteristics of sites needed to accommodate industrial and other employment uses to implement plan policies. Plans do not need to provide a different type of site for each industrial or other employment use.*** Cities and counties may also designate mixed-use zones to meet multiple needs in a given location. (2) Total Land Supply: Plans must -designate serviceable land suitable to meet the site needs identified in section, (1) of this rule. Except as provided for in section (5) of this rule, the total acreage of land designatedmust at least equal the total projected land needs for each industrial or other employment use category identified in the plan during the 20: year planning period:- , (3) Short -Term: Supply of Land. Plans for cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization or cities and counties that adopt policies relating to the short-term supply of land must designate suitable land to respond to economic development opportunities as they arise. Cities; and counties may maintain the short-term supply of land according to the strategies adopted pursuant to OAR 660-009-0020(2). (a) Except as provided for in subsections (b) and (c), cities and counties subject to this section must provide at least 25 percent of the total land supply within the urban growth boundary designated for industrial and other employment uses as short-term supply. *** (8) Uses with Special Siting Characteristics. Cities and counties that adopt objectives or policies providing for uses with special site needs must adopt policies and land use regulations providing for those special site needs. *** Policies and land use regulations for these uses must: (a) Identify sites suitable for the proposed use; Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-38 (b) Protect sites suitable for the proposed use by limiting land divisions and permissible uses and activities that interfere with development of the site for the intended use; and (c) Where necessary, protect a site for the intended use by including measures that either prevent or appropriately restrict incompatible uses on adjacent and nearby lands. The findings in this section are a direct excerpt from the 2016 Urbanization Report. As described in the Urbanization Report (p. 20-25; Rem Rec 10834-10839), a scenario planning tool called "Envision Tomorrow"48 was used to analyze capacity and options for future growth in Bend. Envision Tomorrow applies development assumptions spatially and provides a sketch - level analysis of the possible impacts of policies, development decisions and growth trajectories. The findings in this section focus on the linkage of the BLI to the Urbanization Report to determine the capacity of the buildable employment lands within the current UGB. About the Envision Tomorrow Model Envision Tomorrow applies a set of assumptions about future development spatially to land with development or redevelopment potential (2016 Urbanization Report, p. 21-22; Rem Rec 10835- 10836). These assumptions are organized into "development types" that reflect different types of residential and employment development. The model does not predict exactly how a given parcel will develop; rather, it applies a mix, of different types of development and land set -asides (using percentages of available acres)_ -across multiple parcels. Results are calculated at the parcel level, but, because they represent blended; averages for future development rather than site-specific assumptions, they are only appropriate to report at asummary level. The development types. generally represent Bend's Comprehensive Plan designations. Assumptions within the developmenf types were calibrated to Bend by the project team with the best available information and with -technical Advisory Committee (TAC) direction at various stages. Development type assumptions include: • A mix of specific building prototypes, which are based on information including parking requirements, height limits, and; lot coverage ratios from the current Development Code (and as modified through, specific Efficiency Measures);49 • Streets, neighborhood parks, and other set -asides; • Net residential density and net job density; and • Rate of redevelopment. About the Base Case The "Base Case" is a spatial projection of housing and employment growth through 2028 within the current UGB based on past trends and current policies, using the Envision Tomorrow model. The Base Case represents the current UGB's remaining capacity prior to applying assumptions 48 Information and download available at htto://www.envisiontomorrow.ora/ 49 Prototype buildings were reviewed by the Residential and Employment TACs in August, 2014 (Rem Rec 1450, 1546) Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-39 regarding new efficiency measures and measures to encourage addiflonalof employment areas. The reason to create a Base Case is two -fold: first, to understand the remaining UGB capacity as of 2014 if no polichanges were made, and, second, to compare the impacts of altern^ that incorporate efficiency measures to understand how they change UGB capacity. Employment development types were calibrated to the observed employment mix and density as of 2006, documented in the Urbanization Report.5° ECONorthwest prepared an evaluation of redevelopment potential on employment land that took into consideration the ratio of improvement to land value, total value per square foot, employment density, and residual land value (given assumptions about building type and rent). A residual land value analysis modeled the financial feasibility of developing prototypical buildings based on achievable rents and current land values. Areas with positive residual land values after redevelopment (i.e. areas where property values are below the amount that a given type ofdevelopment can afford k»pay based onprojected n*nbaamdooato)oreareoswhena redevelopment is most likely to be financially feasible under current conditions without public investment. The details of the redevelopment analysis can be found in the 2016 EOA (Rem Rec 10799). In short, the ECONorthwest analysisfpuhd potential for roughly 1,360 new employees, or 6.6% of total forecast employment, to be accommodated through redevelopment on already developed emptoyment land. under the base case. As apercent of developed acres, this redevelopment iaequivalent tzroughly 1.5Y6mfdeveloped acres overall, overafl, with higher percentages in the Central BusineSs District Central Business District (CB), IndustrialLimjted(IL), and Mixed Employment (K8E)plan designations. In addition, theeconornicrecession, the City Iost roughly 2,500 industrialjobs between 2008arid2Ol3. Vacanby rates for industrial at the end of 2013 were over 12% - much higherthan usuaL51 Thesefacts suggestthat existing industrial areas within the city have capacityto re -absorb at !easta portionof thejobsthatwere Iostduring the recession without tearing down existing buildings or buildingnew ones. Because there is no way to directy account for this sort of re -absorption in Envision Tomorrow, it was captured as additional "redevelopment" / refill.52 Redevelopment rates for the development types (as a percent of ° The densities and mix in theUrbanization Report (Appendix C; Rem Rec 10933) were calculated based on City of Bend GIS analysis using Oregon Employment Department (OED) 2006 geo-coded Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data for City of Bend. They have been adjusted to represent covered employment without shift -workers, employees in public schools, on institutional/recreational lands, and employees working in their own homes. These densities were approved as part of the 2008 EOA by LCDC in the Remand. Documented trends in the Remand record identify an average industrial vacancy rate botween 1993 and 2008 of roughly 6.5%. 52 Specifically, the redevelopment rate for industrial land was increased and additional land was identified ^redovolopuble"where the current (2013)job density is belowthe average projected for new Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-40 developed acres) were calibrated to the results of the redevelopment potential analysis and adjusted to account for the "refill" potential in industrial areas. Redevelopment rates for employment designations vary as follows: • 6-10% for Convenience Commercial (CC), Limited Commercial (CL), General Commercial (CG), ME, Mixed -Use Riverfront (MR) and MDOZ • 20% for Central Business District (CB) • 40% for the industrial designations (due to the expectation of refill into existing buildings, rather than true redevelopment) Only employment parcels with some likelihood of development or redevelopment were painted with a development type in Envision Tomorrow. Development types were generally not applied to developed land unless the existing employment density was less than one third of the average employment density of the development type in question (except in existing industrial areas where all parcels with employment densities below the employment density of the development type were "painted").53 Base Case Employment Capacity Table 5-17 shows the employment capacity estimated in the base case scenario. In total, the base case shows that the current UGB can ,accommodate -about 13,620 jobs under the current plan designations and policies and historic trends in development density. The mix of jobs that can be accommodated inside the UGB under the base case is weighted towards office and industrial jobs. Table 5-17. Base Case Employment Capacity by Category Employment Categories Net New Jobs Percent of New Jobs Industrial , 5,216 -- I 38% Retail & Hospitality 2,420 18% Office 4;350 I 32% Public 1,637;., 12% Total 13,622 100% Source: Urbanization Report; Table 8. Table 5-18 displays the Base Case capacity by plan designation and employment category. development. This simulates the effect of industrial jobs going back into already -developed industrial areas. 53 "Painting" only those parcels with relatively low existing employment densities ensures that the model does not project excessive job loss through redevelopment in locations with thriving businesses that are unlikely to redevelop. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-41 Table 5-18. Plan Designation Base Case Employment Capacity by Plan Designation and Category Net New Retail & Net New Net New Net New Total Net New Hospitality Jobs Office Jobs Industrial Jobs Public Jobs Jobs RS 7 - , 7 1 12i111-* 49 : 35 ; - 84 RH 4 3 r 7_: --- --------- --, . MDOZ* 15 : 744 , 90 1 ' 850 CC 109: 30 - : 145: roti * ---- - 609 ' 514 : 94 75 1,291 CG 1,122 224 24 ' 1 1,371 - , CB 92 . 201 19 312 IL** 82 ' _ 1,856 4,211 133 6,282 IG 9 130 408 ,. 548 MR 185 246 55 - - i 487 ME 115 360: 334 1 ' 809 PF*** 22 , - 1 - i 1,406 1,428 Total 2,420 ' 4,350 i 5,216 1 1,637 13,622 Source: Urbanization Report, Table 9. * Development capacity in the MDOZ is counted there rather than by plan designation. ** Juniper Ridge capacity counted with the IL plan designation. *" PF plan designation includes COCC._ Comparison to Employment Need The employment projectionsto2028 are documented and explained in the 2016 EOA (Rem Rec 10713-10716) and addressed - in the findings in Section5.4.1. As shown in Table 5-19, the Base Case is estimated to accommodate roughly 60% of the total net new jobs forecast for 2028. - For employment. nearly all of the public employment growth and about,80%-of the industrial erPlayMeht growth can be accommodated on land inside the UGB, byte> little over a third of the retail and hospitality needs can be met inside the UGB with current policies and trends (Urbanization Report, p. 32; Rem Rec 10846). -=- Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-42 Table 5-19. Category Base Case Employment Capacity Compared to Employment Needs by Employment Total Residual Percent of Employment Net New Employment Employment Employment 1 Category Jobs Need 54 Need Need Met _Industrial 5,216 6,522 1,306 ; 80% _ Retail & Hospitality 2,420 6.546 4,126 37% Office 4,350 7,158 2,808 61% Public55 1,637 1,717 80 95% Total 13,622 21,943 8,321 62% Source: Urbanization Report, Table 11 Conclusion: The Council finds that the City has completed an updated inventory of buildable lands within the current UGB and determined the employment capacity of the vacant and developed employment lands consistent with the legal standards in OAR 660-024-0050 and OAR 660-009-015. The Employment TAC provided detailed input and guidance on the update of the BLI for employment lands and the capacity analysis for the current UGB56. Based on the evidence in the BLI, the 2016 EOA and the Urbanization Report, the City concludes that the current UGB (as of July 2014) can accommodate roughly 13,622 net new jobs under current plan designations and policies and historic trends in development density. This represents 62% of the total employment need (21,943" jobs)forecast for 2028. The estimated employment capacity is not evenly distributed across major employment categories. These results led the City"to consider appropriate efficiency measures to accommodate additional jobs and make'better'use of employment jand inside the current UGB, with a specific focus on key opportunity; areas. Findings to address efficiency measures are provided in Section 5.4.4.2. 5.4.4.2 Consideration of Efficiency Measures for Employment Land OAR 660-024-0050(4) requires: ***Prior: to expanding'the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot reasonably accommodated on land already inside the UGB. *** To address this requirement, the City considered whether efficiency measures (including map and code amendments) could increase the likelihood of accommodating some portion of the residual employment need (8,280 jobs) inside the current UGB. 54 The employment need categories have been generalized for simplicity in comparing against capacity as measured in Envision Tomorrow. See EOA for details. 55 Public jobs do not include school-based employment in actual school facilities which tend to be located in residential areas. Schools are addressed as a separate land need. 56 See Employment TAC meeting minutes for August 4, 2014, August 25, 2014, October 13, 2014, and August 25, 2015; Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-43 Overview The Employment TAC considered and discussed a robust packageofef5cencymeamureawver a series of meetings. The efficiency measure concepts were aby the USC in the Phase 1 package. The Employment TAC focused on efficiency measures that are proposed to be implemented through code text amendments and map amendments for opportunity areas that will packaged with the adoption of the UGB. Additional measures have been or will be implemented through other processes, including code amendment work by the Community Development Department (CDD) with the Planning Commission and the Parking Study, both of which are underway57. The Emnt TAC recommendations on new efficiency measures reflect the recognition that Bend's UGB expansion proposa and packageofamendments are taking pace in a time of transition. Vertical mixed use is relatively uncommon n Bend. There are concerns in existing neighborhoods about infill and redevelopment, as well aethe scale and uses in neighboring commercial areas. Operating in this environment, the Employment TAC recommended targeted amendments to employment zones to encourage mixed use development, but care was taken hnbalance these efforts with the concerns ofresidents inexisting neighborhoods. The Empioyment TAC recommendations aiso focused on potential for moneintena�` development in opportunity areawhich ted to be ithe of the City. Together, recommended by the Employment TACand the Residential TAC (focused on residential lands) will encourage the transition of Bend frOm a town_to a growing city. Details on efficiency meaSUire are summailied in tho:Ufbanizatio4Report (p. 33-44; Rem Rec 10847-10858) and in the package.of Draft DevelopMent Oode,Amendments (Rem Rec 9344, 9357, 9361). HighlightS of the efficiency measkires that are mott relevant to employment lands are summarized below and -are excerpts frorn the Urbanization Report. ;��` New '�� ^s� ~ The propOSed code amendments include two new mixed use plan designations andcorrespondino implementing zones: urban -scale (Mixed Use — Urban or MU) and neighborhood - scale (Mixed -Use — Neighborhood or MN), The new zones are intended to accommodate arange of residential and commercial uses in pedestrian -oriented mixed use centers andcorridors. The scale of uses in the MN zone (primarily building heights) is less intense than theMU zone. The Employment TAC recommended including the new mixed use zones in theDevelopment Code and designating specific opportunity sites with the new Mixed Use plandesignations and, in some cases, zones. The mixed use zones allow residentiauses outright as weH as part of mixed use development. There are no maximum density standards for residential uses other than the height and setback standards. They are subject to the RM zone minimum density (7.3 units per acre) on the portion of the site used for ground -floor residential, though there is no minimum density for vertical Information on the Parking Study is accessible through this URL Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-44 mixed use. They also atlow for an urbanstyle of development with no minimum landscaping requirement (aside from parking lot and setback landscaping); reduced minimum parking standards for the MU zone (similar to the CBD rather than the standard for the rest of the city — see next section for details); no minimum front setback and a 10' maximum front setback. Revisions to Parking Standards Targeted revisions to parking standards focused on employment lands are proposed as part of the draft package of code amendments adopted with the UGB. • Reductions to parking requirements for residential and commercial uses in the MU zone, similar to those in place for the CB[] (e.g. 1 space per housing unit, regardless of size and type; 1 space per 500 square feet of comme| |fora/|oonnmmmrnim|unee\. * Provide automatic 5% reduction to minimum parking requirementsfornnixed use development. • Provide automatic 10% reduction to minimum parking requirements for development adjacent to transit. More comprehensive revisions to parking standards will be considered through the Parking Study, which is currently underway Allowing - ' More Intense Development in .the Mixed Employthent Zone The Mixed Employment (ME) zone allows for a wide range of uses, Currently, it is subject to a 50% maximum lot covera4e-limitation ancri10-foot Minitnum front 'Setback that make it difficult to build more intense deVelopMent. The draft.package of code amendments includes removing both of those limitatiOr* It also inqludes a height bonus of 10 feet for vertical mixed use or affordable housing in the --'M Combined with Modest reductiops to parking requirements, these adjustments will allow more intensive tleVelopment'fotsome Parcels, but the -impact is likely to be limited without more significant reductions to parking requirements. Changes to Plan DesignationS-for Opportunity Sites During the UGB Remand planning process (2014 to 2016), the City evaluated the efficient use of existing urban land through tne,,lens of "opportunity areas." Opportunity areas are locations within the City where it is, appkiptiate to focus new growth due to their location, zoning (existing or planned), and/or urban -services. Each opportunity will serve a unique role in the City's future — some are vacant land and will develop primarily through private sector initiative; others are redevelopment opportunities and will require a partnership of private sector investment and City support or inestment. Bend's employment focused opportunity areas are summarized below. More detailed s of the opportunity areas are provided in the Urbanization Report (p. 40-43; Rem Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-45 • Bend Central Multimodal Mixed Use Area — opportunity for the 3rd Street commercial strip to transition to a mixed use corridor • East Downtown — long term opportunity for an extension of the downtown Urban Mixed Use Center • Central Westside — a key part of the Central Westside Plan, the OSU-Cascades campus offers an opportunity to create a new mixed use center anchored and supported by the new university district • Korpine — opportunity to transform an industrial area into a vibrant urban mixed use district • Juniper Ridge — opportunity for a future industrial and professional office employment district Employment Capacity with Efficiency Measures Table 5-20 displays the employment capacity within, the current UGB`with efficiency measures (including plan and zoning map amendments, for opportunity areas). Table 5-20. Employment Capacity with Efficiency Measures Compared to Employment Needs by Employment Category Total Residual Employment Net New Employment Employment Category Jobs Need58 Need 4,506:6;522 2,016 3,223 i 6,546,, 3,323 ''5,324 7,158.> r'r__ 1,834. 1`,671 1,717 46 14;723 21,943 7,393 Source: Urbanization. Report, Table 1.1. Industrial Retail & Hospitality Office Public59 Total Percent of Employment Need Met 69% 50% 74% __._.. 97% 67% Table 5-21 shows the distribution' of employment capacity with efficiency measures by Plan Designation. Table 5-21. Employment Capacity by Plan Designation and Category with Efficiency Measures Plan Net New Retail & Net New Office Net New Net New Total Net Designation i Hospitality Jobs Jobs Industrial Jobs Public Jobs New Jobs RS _ 37 !; 23 - 60 RM* 48 j 35 - 83 - - 12 RH* 5 MDOZ* 15 744 90 1 850 CC 206 139 12 1 357 58 The employment need categories have been generalized for simplicity in comparing against capacity as measured in Envision Tomorrow. See EOA for details. 59 Public jobs do not include school-based employment in actual school facilities which tend to be located in residential areas. Schools are addressed as a separate land need. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-46 !Plan Net New Retail & Net New Office Net New Net New Total Net ! Designation Hospitality Jobs Jobs Industrial Jobs Public Jobs New Jobs CL* � 446 ' 383 69 56 955 CG 1,073 214 23 1 1,311 !CB _ - , -- 92 �201 - 19 312 iUL°° 4' 297 1,724 - 2025 IG 4 ' 88 ' 293 ' '- 385 MR -�---� r--''-- �-----------��` - --- ----- ------------ L_ -143 ' 18V� 43 1 377 ME ,-'_-__- 483 369 -__ 14 1,263 |^vm -__� �_ ��_�36/488�, (0)___82U *«m --- -_'— 158 _-- 55 14) 1200 BC'Mm*' 67 2OU (1O) 5 263 ' - - ���* 23 !Ju - - _�� � - 1,394 1,416 . n�erRkdge° 49 ' 1,865 .. 1.�9187 4.034 ' Total - _'-- _-_- �____ ' 1,67106 14,723 ' Source: Urbanization Roport, Table 15 , -----' * Development capacity in the MDOZ is counted there rather than by plan designation. ** Juniper Ridge capacity counted with the IL plan designation. PF plan designation includes COCC Comparison to Need The efficiency measures for employment -land provide the capacity to accommodate about 1,101 additional jobs within the current-UGB relative to the Base Case (roughly an 8% increase). With efficienctmeasures, roughly 70% of thetotal employment growth to 2028 can be accommodated inside the cUrrent UGB. Compared to:the Base Case, the biggest increases in employment capacityere in retail. and office employment. With efficiency measures, the employment mix is better aligned With the employment forecast. Conclusion; The council findathatlhp-City of Bend has completed an updated inventory of buildable landS Within the current UGB and.determined the employment capacity of buildable lands cOnsistent with thelegal standards in OAR 660-024-0050. The Employment TAC and the USC proVided detailed inpUt and guidance on the update of the BLI and the capacity analysis for employmenttands within the curreht"UGB (See discussions at Rem Rec 7450, 7614, 8275). The City concluded that the current UGB (as of July 2014) under the Base Case can accommodate 13,622 out of the 21,943 total jobs needed to 2028. The City has committed to adoption of an integrated package of plan map and code amendments that provide the opportunity to accommodate additional job growth within the current UGB and minimize the size of the UGB expansion. With efficiency measures in place, the current UGB (as of July 2014) can accommodate 14,723 out of the 21,943 total jobs needed to 2028. The overall 2016 UGB proposal will support the City's growth management strategy to focus more intensive development to a hierarchy of centers and corridors within the current UGB in tandem with thoughtful expansion of the UGB. Land within the current UGB is aiready within the City limits and urban infrastructure is either available or is programmed in adopted public facility plans. Removing barriers to and providing incentives for more efficient use of Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-47 appropriate employment lands within the current UGB is critical because of the relatively limited number of years remaining in the planning horizon to 2028. Goals and policies in the Growth Management Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provide the urban form framework to direct new growth to appropriate opportunity areas (Rem Rec 10362). The findings in Section 5.4.2.3 are incorporated by this reference to address the legal standard regarding identification of needed sites and site characteristics and the findings in Section 5.4.2.4 are incorporated by this reference to address the legal standards regarding special site needs. The findings in Section 5.4.5 below address the legal standards regarding the short- term supply of land, total land supply and policies and designation of lands for employment uses. 5.4.5 Economic Development Policies and Designation of Lands for Employment Uses 5.4.5.1 Economic Development Policies OAR 660-009-0020(1) and (2) require that Comprehensive Plans subject to Division 9 include policies stating the economic development objectives for the planning area. These policies must be based on the economic opportunities analysis and must provide the following: (1)(a) Community Economic Development Objectives. The plan must state the overall objectives for economic development_ lathe planning and identify categories of particular types of industrial and other employment uses desired by the community.*** (b) Commitment to -Provide a Competitive Short -Term Supply. Cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization- must adopt a policy stating that a competitive short-term supply of land as a community economic development objective for the industrial and other -employment uses selected through the economic opportunities analysis pursuant to OAR660-009-015. (c) Commitment to Provide Adequate Sates and Facilities. The plan must include policies committing the city or county to designate an adequate number of sites of suitable sizes, types and locations The plan nust also include policies, through public facilities planning and transportation system planning, to provide necessary public facilities and transportation facilities for the planning area. (2) Plans for cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization *** must adopt policies relating to: the short-term supply of land. ***These policies must OAR 660- 009-0020 requires cities to adopt economic development policies and measures to implement policies. Appropriate implementing measures include amendments to plan and zone map designations, land use regulations, public facility plans, and transportation system plans. Community Economic Development Objectives The Council finds that the 2016 EOA (p. 8-14; Rem Rec 10699-10705) summarizes Bend's economic development vision and key policies related to economic development from multiple documents, including Bend 2030, Chapter 6 (Employment) of the Bend Comprehensive Plan (Rem Rec 10326), Economic Sector Targeting process, Juniper Ridge Concept Plan, and Visit Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-48 Bend Business Plan. The following objectives were identified as most relevant to the EOA update: • Targeted Industries. Identify "target industries" that match community attributes and provide job opportunities over the long term. • Living Wage Jobs. Increase employment in its targeted industries, too many jobs may be in the retail services and other relatively low-paying sectors. • Available Industrial and Commercial Lands. Ensure that there is enough land to accommodate future jobs and businesses. • Diversified Economy. Continue to diversify from a wood products and tourism -oriented economy to a more resilient economy that provides professional service, high -skill manufacturing, high-tech, and other living wage jobs. • Sustainable Industries. Attract and retain businesses that maintain the high-quality natural environment. • Establish a university and research center. Such an institution could have a dramatic positive impact on the workforce by training the next generation of Central Oregonians and visiting students to participate in a diversified economy. As part of UGB planning (2014-2016), the City also updated goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6 — Economy) to support and reinforce economic development objectives for Bend's economic lands (commercial, industrial and mixed use). The 2016 EOA is included as an Appendix and adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts of the general policies from Chapter 6 are highlighted below: Policy 6-1. Bend's economic lands (commercial, industrial and mixed use) serve Bend residents and the needs of a larger region. Policy 6-2. Bend is a regional center for health care, art and culture, higher education, retail, tourism, and employment. The economic land policies recognize Bend's role in the region, and the need to support uses that bolster the local and regional economy: o The Medical District Overlay Zone provides economic lands for a variety of health care and related services to a population much larger than the City of Bend. o Commercial and Mixed Use -designated lands support retail, tourism, and arts and culture uses to serve a local and regional role. o Public Facility and Special Plan Districts support higher education to serve Bend residents and the needs of the region. o Industrial and Mixed Employment -designated land located at Juniper Ridge has a local and regional role. Policy 6-3. Investment in transportation, water, sewer, fiber, and other utility infrastructure should be prioritized to serve economic lands. Policy 6-4. Infrastructure will be planned, designed, and constructed to support continued economic growth and orderly development. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-49 Policy 6-6. Employment lands for Bend's target sectors will be provided and protected to promote expansion of existing businesses and attract new businesses. Policy 6-8. The City will recognize the statements of the City's overall economic development objectives and desirable types of employment contained in the 2016 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). Policy 6-9. The City will prioritize providing an adequate number of suitable industrial sites while also providing a variety of commercial sites. Policy 6-10. The City will seek opportunities to designate or allow additional sites for employment use and increase the use of existing employment land within the existing urban growth boundary prior to expanding the UGB. Policy 6-11. The City will periodically review existing development and use patterns on industrial and commercial lands. The City may consider modifying Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning to better respond, to opportunities for redevelopment and revitalization of employment lands in underutilized areas. Conclusion: The 2016 EOA will be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan to support the 2016 UGB. Updates to Chapter 6 (Economy) of the Bend Comprehensive Plan will also be adopted to support the 2016 UGB. The consolidated adoption package captures the community's overall objectives for economic developmentPoliciesin Chapter 6 of the Plan identify categories of particular types of industrial and other employment uses desired by the community. Therefore, thecity has met the legal standard set forth in OAR 660-009-0020(1)(a). Commitment to Provide'a Short -Term Supply Findings: Bend is within -aMetropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and is required to provide evidence that it complieswith the requirements to7rnaintain a short-term supply of employment lands as required by OAR 660 -909 -0015, -The 2016 EOA includes evidence to address this legal standard (p 53-65) The following findings include direct excerpts of the highlights of the analysis from the 2016 EOA. OAR 660-009-0005(10) defines short-term land supply as follows: "Short-term Supply of Land" means suitable land that is ready for construction within one year of an application for a building permit or request for service extension. Engineering feasibility is suffidient to qualify land for the short-term supply of land. Funding availability is not required. OAR 660-009-0025(3) provides: ***cities and counties subject to this section must provide at least 25 percent of the total land supply within the urban growth boundary designated for industrial or other employment uses as short-term supply. The evaluation of short-term land supply is directly related to infrastructure plans. Since the Remand was issued in 2010, the City has completed substantial of planning work for infrastructure. These plans include: Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-50 • Water System Master Plan - 2011 Update (Optimization Study) • Water Management and Conservation Plan — 2011 • Water Public Facility Plan - 2013 • Wastewater Collection System Master Plan — 2014 • Sewer Public Facility Plan - 2014 • Stormwater Master Plan — 2014 • Stormwater Public Facility Pian - 2014 • Bend Urban Area Transportation Plan — 2011 • NE Bend Transportation Study — 2009 • Transportation System Plan - 2013 Water: To better understand the extent to which water capacity and systems will support employment growth, the City commissioned Murray, Smith & Associates (MSA) to analyze whether the existing system would accommodate a 25% increase in employment given planned system enhancements. The analysis builds on the capacity analysis performed for the City of Bend's Water System Master Plan (WMP) completed in 2011. The updated hydraulic model developed for the WMP was used as a tool to identify capacity constraints and bottlenecks associated with a 25% increase in employment above existing conditions. In summary, the analysis answers the question of whether 25% of Bend's land could be provided water service making it available as short-term supply with the assumption that 25% of the forecast employment growth would consume 25%0 of the land. All areas will require system -improvements to meet fire flow requirements at 25% employment growth. Within the context of short-term supply, areas that do not have sufficient fire flows are assumed to meet the criteria of being ready for construction within one year of an application for a building permit or request -for service extension. -Based on the MSA analysis, the City concludes that water systems do not constrain employment growth and that all employment lands within the UGB meet t the definition of short term supply for water (2016 EOA, p. 56-58; Rem Rec 10747-10749). Wastewater: To better understand the extent to which wastewater capacity and systems will support employment growth, the. City commissioned Murray, Smith & Associates to analyze whether the existing system would accommodate a 25% increase in employment given planned system enhancements. The analysis builds on the capacity analysis performed for the City of Bend's Collection System Master Plan (CSMP) completed in 2014. The hydraulic model developed for the CSMP was used as a tool to identify capacity constraints and bottlenecks associated with a 25% increase in employment above existing conditions. In summary, the analysis answers the question of whether 25% of Bend's land could be provided wastewater service making it available as short-term supply with the assumption that 25% of the forecast employment growth would consume 25% of the land. To reflect system improvements in progress and the anticipated timeframe for the UGB project, the analysis assumed that programmed improvements for 2016 and 2017 were in place. This includes three key improvements identified in the CSMP Capital Improvement Program — the North Area improvements, Colorado Lift Station, and Southeast Interceptor Phase I. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-51 Table 5-22 shows the employment assumptions by zoning district used in the wastewater system modeling. The employment forecast figures are derived from the EOA. Table 5-22. 25% of Employment Forecast and Acres Serviced by Wastewater Collection Systems, by Zoning District, 2016-2036 25% of Forecast Employment Zoning Employees Acres i Central Business District 245 8 Convenience Commercial 71 17 General Commercial 282 84 General Industrial 36 18 1 Instructional 87 52 Light Industrial 790 162 Light Commercial 236 40 Medical District 235 33 Mixed Employment 695 117 Mixed Use 279_ 39 Mixed Use Riverfront 156 49 Public Facilities 421 81 Total 1 3,53$ ` 700 `, Source: Murray Smith & Associates; 2016 EOA, Table,20 The key conclusion of thew:analysis is that :the wastewaterr-.system;generally has capacity for 25% employment growth without the risk of overflow. Theanalysis identifies areas with critical capacity constraints which are shown in Map 3 of the EOA (Page 61; Rem Rec 10752). To summarize, the conclusion that -the wastewater=system can generally accommodate growth indicates that the additional 25% employment growth creates some system deficiencies based on City standards; however it does not cause system" overflows. The model results are dependent on distributed.°g rowth.'If all or most the -employment growth were concentrated in one location such as the north area, greater system deficiencies would occur. Moreover, it is important to note -that all three areas identified with capacity constraints will experience bottlenecks even without the 25% employment growth. The key findings from previous analyses relative to the Ybottlenecks are that growth may be limited prior to construction of the Southeast Interceptor. Phase 2 and the Northeast Interceptor (2016 EOA, p. 56-61). Stormwater: The City adopted a Stormwater Public Facilities Plan in 201460. The plan describes the City's existing stormwater facilities and plans for future facilities needed over a 20 year planning period. The City relies mainly on a dispersed drainage system. This type of system relies less on "grey" infrastructure (e.g., pipes and canals) and more on so-called "low - impact development" methods that allows stormwater to be contained on site at or near the source. 60 Official Notice — the Stormwater Public Facilities Plan of 2014 can be downloaded from the City's website — www.bendoreaon.aov. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-52 The Stormwater Plan does not identify any major system deficiencies and the low -impact development standards suggest that stormwater improvements will not be a limitation on future employment growth (2016 EOA, p. 62; Rem Rec 10753). Transportation: Bend has long maintained transportation system plans. The Bend Transportation System Plan (TSP) was updated in 201361. A special study of the Northeastern area of Bend (the NE Bend Transportation Study) was completed in 2009. The purpose of these plans and studies is to help guide the development of a transportation system that will meet the forecast needs of Bend. The TSP concludes that several roadways throughout the urban area will approach, or exceed, their capacities under the "no -build" conditions during the peak hour. Many of the collector and arterial streets in the Bend urban area will be modernized or widened during the twenty-year planning period. The TSP identifies about 300 miles of City maintained streets and identifies approximately 15 miles of streets will be near or over capacity by the end of the planning horizon. A key issue is addressing mobility standards. These standards are administered by the multiple jurisdictions that manage the transportation system. With respect to City -maintained facilities, the Bend city code has provisions that allow the City Manager some discretion in altering mobility standards. While relaxed mobility standards have implications for the functioning of the overall system, the flexible standards suggest that transportation on the City -maintained system will not prohibit development,,, In short, the conclusionis that City transportation capacity is not a limiting factor due to the ability to relax mobility standards for, City streets. Management of State facilities is more complex—��.particularly for the Northeast area. The NE Bend Transportation Study -was an -effort aimed at -better understanding system limitations and to develop strategies to reduce trip reliance on state highways. Key outcomes of the project are (1) a recommended list -of system' improvements,. (2) alternative mobility standards for state facilities, and (3) recommended transportation demand and system management strategies. Changes to mobility standards.: are subject to Oregon Transportation Commission review, a requirement that would preclude a classification of short term supply for affected lands. This affects the entire northern area of the City and one site on S 3rd Street. This directly affects lands in the North Triangle and Juniper Ridge. Growth at Juniper Ridge will have a significant impact on the Cooley/97 intersection – enough to require that the intersection be completely redesigned and reconstructed- a $40 million project.62 61 Official Notice — the City of Bend Transportation System Plan is available to download from the City's website — www.bendoreaon.aov. 62 More detail about Juniper Ridge can be found on the City website: redhttp://www.bendoregon.gov/index.aspx?page=615. Details pertaining to the UGB review can be found in a memorandum from Brian Rankin to the UGB Steering Committee: http://www.bendoregon.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=22403 Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-53 To address transportation issues at Juniper Ridge, the City and ODOT entered into Intergovernmental Agreement to link the need for transportation through the north end of Bend to the amount of trips that could result from development at Juniper Ridge over time. The agreement essentially places a cap on PM peak hour trips for the site based on specific improvements. To estimate the amount of land that could be developed under high and low traffic employment uses at Juniper Ridge, an analysis of trip generation using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual was completed. Depending on the use, and without TDM strategies, between 20 and 100 acres could develop at Juniper Ridge under the trip cap63. For the purpose of the transportation analysis, 50 acres at Juniper Ridge are assumed to meet the definition of short-term supply. In summary, Bend can accommodate 25% employment growth with the existing transportation system. Limitations exist in some areas such as Juniper Ridge that could preclude full build out, but other options exist for accommodating employment (2016 EOA, p: 62-64; Rem Rec 10753- 10755). Table 5- consolidates the EOA infrastructure analysis for employment lands and presents a summary of total land supply (vacant land) and short-term land supply by plan designation for the current Bend UGB. The results show that nearly 60% of employment land meets the definition of short-term supply. Juniper Ridge is the key employment area where service deficiencies limit development; Table 5-23. Total and: Short -Term: Land Supplyfor Employment,; Bend UGB, 2015 Plan Designation Total ; Percent of Land Short -Term Total Land Supply Land Supply Supply Commercial/Mixed Use 280:= 280 CB CC 12 CG ' »1404 CL 75: MR 40 PO 49 Industrial/Mixed Employment 690 IG 8 IL 601 ME 81 Public Facilities 86 PF 86 Total 1,089 Source: 2016 EOA, Table 22 100% 12 100% 104 100% 75 100% 40 100% _- 49 1 100% 267 39% 8 100% 178 30% 81 i 100% 86 : 100% 86 ' 100% 667 61% Conclusion: Based on this analysis of Short -Term Supply in the 2016 EOA, the City concludes that it meets the requirement of OAR 600-009-0025(3)(a) to provide at least 25% of the total ss TDM — transportation demand management Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-54 land supply within the urban growth boundary designated for industrial and other employment uses as short-term supply. Additionally, the City has included policies in Chapter 6 (Economy) of the Comprehensive Plan (Rem Rec 10335-10336) to monitor and maintain the acreage of employment lands that qualify as competitive short-term supply. The policy framework includes: • Regularly updating the BLI for economic lands and estimating the acreage of vacant economic lands that quality as competitive short-term supply; • Identifying obstacles that prevent lands from qualifying as competitive short-term supply; and • Targeting special efforts, plans, and potential funding mechanisms to prepare lands to qualify as competitive short-term supply. Commitment to Provide Adequate Sites and Facilities Findings: Updates to Chapter 6 (Economy) of the Bend Comprehensive Plan will be adopted as part of the UGB adoption package. Chapter 6 includes policies committing the city to designate an adequate number of sites of suitable sizes, types and locations and to provide necessary facilities to support industrial lands. Excerpts of key goals and policies are provided below: Goals Ensure an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land for industrial, commercial and mixed-use development opportunities. Strengthen Bend's position as a regional economic center. Policies Policy 6-1. :Bend's'e'conomiC lands. (comrife7cial, industrial and mixed use) serve Bend residents and the needs of a larger region. Policy 6-2. BeniftWaregionat center for 'health care, art and culture, higher education, retail, tourism, and employmentiThe economic land policies recognize Bend's role in the region, and the need-tq'SuppodoSes that bolster the local and regional economy. Policy 6-3. Investment iii-Etransportation, water, sewer, fiber, and other utility infrastruckite'Should be prioritized to serve economic lands. Policy 6-4. Infrastructure -will be planned, designed, and constructed to support continued economiCgrowth and orderly development. Policy 6-6. Employment lands for Bend's target sectors will be provided and protected to promote expansion of existing businesses and attract new businesses. Policy 6-8. The City will recognize the statements of the City's overall economic development objectives and desirable types of employment contained in the 2016 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). Policy 6-9. The City will prioritize providing an adequate number of suitable industrial sites while also providing a variety of commercial sites. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-55 New policies in Chapter 11 (Growth Management) of the Comprehensive Plan (Rem Rec. 10362) reinforce the City's overall growth strategy to "Wi.sely grow up andout." Higher densities and mixed use development is focused to the core area, opportunity areas and along transit corridors to maximize efficient use of land for housing and employment. Conclusion: The Council finds that the 2016 EOA provides the evidence to support the determination of the number of needed sites to accommodate the employment forecast to 2028. New policies in the Comprehensive Plan are linked with the analysis in the EOA and provide the policy framework to designate and maintain an adequate number of suitable sites, consistent with the City's growth management framework. Therefore, the City has complied with the legal standards in OAR 660-009-0020 regarding economic development policies. /i4.5.2Assigning Appropriate Plan Designations OAR requires that aplandesignationsbAassigned tukandoddedto the UGB, consistent with the need determination'Relative toemployment land, OAR 660-024- 0050 provides: (6) When land is added to the UGB, the local government must assign' plan designations to the added land, consistent with the need determination. The local government must also apply apPrbpriate zoning to the added land consistent with the plan designation or may maintain the land as urbanizable land until the land is rezoned for the planned urban uses, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the Polifidary or by applying other interim zoninglhat maintains the land's potential for planned urban development The proposed 2016 UGB expansion is for a total -of 2,380 acres, consistent with the overall land need determinations for licibting, 6-rt-iployment, anitt parks and schools: 1,142,-grosS acres of residential land (including land for future schools and future parks not yet in BPRD or school diStrict ownership); 815 gross acres of employment land; 285 acres of land for public facilitieS currently in BPRD or school district ownership; and, 138 acr:es of existing right-of-way within and fronting UGB expansion areas, needed to provide urban street improvements to support growth in the expansion areas. The need determinations are supported by evidence in the record and in the following key documents that will be adopted with the UGB expansion and incorporated as Appendices to the Bend Comprehensive Plan: • Buildable Lands Inventory (2016) • Housing Needs Analysis (2016) • Economic Opportunities Analysis (2016) • Urbanization Report /2010\ The City will apply specific urban plan designations to the UGB expansion areas consistent with the overall land need determinations. The findings in Section 4 (Residential Land Needs), Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-56 Section 5 (Economic Development Land and Section 6 (Other Land Needs) of this Findings Report are incorporated by this reference to document the linkage between the identified land needs to 2028 and the pian map designations. Consideration of suitable and appropriate plan map designatioris has been an integral part of the UGB process, Alternative UGB scenarios were created and evaluated using "development types" that represent specific plan designations. Scenario maps shared with the Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) and the public have shown generalized land uses applied in specific areas (calibrated to meet residual needs for housing units and jobs outside of the UGB). The review of scenario maps included TAC discussions and public testimony regarding proposed land uses on specific parcels, transportation facilities, and options for schools and parks. Planning concepts have been part of the dialogue, addressing issues such as use of the transect approach, compatibility with adjacent dev&opment,, and how new development in expansion areas can complement existing developrnent in the city. Figure 5-4 shows the proposed plan map designations for the UGB expansion oreaa, in the context of plan designations city-wide. A very brlef overview of the pan designations for employment lands (industrial, commercial and mixed use) is provided below. lndustrial Light (IL) and ndustriaI General (IG) o�designations UGBm�����n�:�LB��OB Riley and North Triangle. Portions of these subareas are suitable for industrial plan designations of 1) proximity and accessibitity to major transportation corridors such as Hwy 97, Hwy 20, Knott Road and 27th Avenue, 2) availability of larger undeveldped parcels, 3) availability -of relatively flat sites, and 4) adjacent compatible uses or opportunities for buffering. Three different Commercial_plan designations are_applied in the UGB expansion areas: Commercial Convenience (CC), Commercial Limited (CL) and Commercial General (CG). Areas designated CG are suitable for this plan designation because of 1) proximity, accessibility and visibility to major transportation corridors such as Hwy 97, Hwy 20, Cooley Road, Knott Road and 27th Avenue, 2) availability of larger undeveloped parcels, 3) availability of relatively flat sites, and 4) compatibility with adjacent commercial development, particularly in the north area. Smaller areas of CC and CL plan designations are applied in the DSL, Thumb, and West Areas u/leverage and supportdevelopmentcfmore complete communitiesboth inside the current UGB and in expansion areas. Mixed E(ME) plan designations are applied in the foliowing UGB expansion subareas: ElbowThumb, West, OB Riley and North Triangle. The ME designation provides the opportunity for a broad mix of employment uses and is generally applied in expansion areas to provide a transition between different employment and residential designations. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-57 Figure 5-4. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designations Bend UGB Proposed Citywide Comprehensive Plan Designations July 15, 2016 Comprehensive Plan Designations CB IG E MU cc IL 0 MN CG ME a PO CL MR PO/RM/RS RH RL RM RS f 43; 'cr - - Findings Report Disclaimer: Land uses are subject to refinement during master planning and City-initlated area planning. Service Layer Credits: Deschutes County GIS (2014) July 2016 O5 1r - 'NOW: Streams/RiversUrban Growth.Boundary Roads/Highways Proposed Current Section 5-58 Goals and policies in the new Growth Management Chapter provide the framework to guide future planning and development of the UGB expansion areas (Rem Rec 10362). Key "givens" for the policy framework include: • Identification of central planning concepts for each UGB expansion area (8 in total) • Specific plan designations assigned for each for each UGB expansion area • Required housing units (generally a minimum) and housing mix set in policy for each UGB expansion area • Total acreage by generalized plan designation (e.g., commercial, industrial, residential) set in policy for each UGB expansion area • Flexibility provided to refine the spatial arrangement of plan map designations within a subarea provided that identified land and housing needs are still met The specific policies for each UGB expansion area will be implemented through area plans. Policies require master planning for the four UGB expansion areas that include large parcels (>20 acres) that are largely under single ownership (DSL, Thumb, West, and Shevlin). The other UGB expansion areas include multiple parcels and owners (NE Edge, Elbow, OB Riley, and North Triangle). Policies require that the City initiate area plans for each of these UGB expansion areas. The intent is to focus on the basics of transportation, parks, schools, water/sewer infrastructure, and minor refinement of land uses/plan designations in these area plans. As allowed by OAR 660-024-0050(6), the City will retain existing Deschutes County zoning in the UGB expansion areas on an interim basis. Urban zoning will be applied to implement the specific plan designations as part of annexation, master planning, and area planning and/or development approval. OAR 660-009-0025 includes additional requirements for employment uses with special siting characteristics: (8) Uses with Special Siting Characteristics. Cities and counties that adopt objectives or policies. providing for uses with special site needs must adopt policies and land use regulations providing for those special site needs. Special site needs include, but are not limited to large acreage sites, special site configurations, direct access to transportation facilities, prime industrial lands, sensitivity to adjacent land uses***. Policies and land use regulations for these uses must: (a) Identify sites suitable for the proposed use; (b) Protect sites suitable for the proposed use by limiting land divisions and permissible uses and activities that interfere with development of the site for the intended use; and (c) Where necessary, protect a site for the intended use by including measures that either prevent or appropriately restrict incompatible uses on adjacent and nearby lands. The findings in Section 2.4.2.5 address special site needs and are incorporated by this reference. The City's 2008 UGB proposal included special site needs for a future university, a medical center, and two large -lot industrial uses. The Remand Order concluded that the City Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-59 had documented the special site needs, but remanded the decision for adoption of adequate findings explaining why the need could not be accommodated within the prior UGB. As explained in the Section 2.4.2.5 findings, the OSU-Cascades University will be accommodated within the current UGB, and an opportunity for one of the large -lot industrial sites will be accommodated at the Juniper Ridge, also within the current UGB. The easterly 200 -acres of Juniper Ridge are owned by the City and designated for Light Industrial use on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The second large -lot industrial site will be accommodated in the 2016 UGB expansion on the DSL site. As shown on Figure 5-4, a general industrial plan designation has been assigned to the southerly portion of the DSL site, abutting the large County -owned site and facilities to the south (public works shop, humane society, and Knott Landfill). Specific policies are included in Chapter 11 (Growth Management) of the Comprehensive Plan (Rem Rec 10384), and additional policies are included in Chapter 6 (Employment) to address the special site needs for the university and large -lot industrial uses (Rem Rec 10336). Current county zoning will be retained for the UGB expansion areas, including the DSL site. Policies 11-19, 11-20 and 11-67 (Rem Rec 10384) require that special zoning provisions be applied to the large -lot industrial site as part of subsequent area planning. DSL has proposed that the large -lot zone or overlay zone developed for the Regional large lot industrial land program in Crook, Deschutes or Jefferson Counties be used as a`model. The components of the regional large -lot industrial zone are included in OAR 660-024-0045(9) through (12). Key provisions: • Require development agreements and other provisions to prevent redesignation for other uses for at least 10 years • Prohibit land divisions less than the minimum size of the site need (50 acres) until the site is developed with a primary traded sector use requiring a large lot • Limit allowed uses on the site to the traded sector uses (with some exceptions for subordinate industrial uses that support the primary traded sector use, limited non- industrial uses that primarily serve the needs employees of industrial uses developed on the site) Conclusion: The City has applied specific plan designations to the UGB expansion areas based on the identified land needs. Plan designations for industrial, commercial and mixed employment have been assigned based on: • The employment forecast to 2028 (and residual need for jobs outside of the current UGB) • Site characteristics and suitability for employment uses • UGB Scenario Evaluation • Public testimony and TAC discussion and direction Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-60 Goals and policies in Chapter 11, Growth Management, (Rem Rec 10382-10404) of the Comprehensive PIan provide specific guidance for more detailed planning in UGB expansion areas and will assure that new development in expansion areas is coordinated, efficient, and consistent with the forecast growth and capacity assumptions for the UGB. New policies in Chapter 11 also address the Special Site Needs. The consolidated package of UGB adoption products, including but not limited to the EOA, the plan map designations for the expansion areas, and the goals and policies in Chapter 11 (Growth Management) and Chapter 6/Emp|oynneni\.complies with OAR 06O-U24'0O5O(0). Appropriate urban plan designations have been assigned to land added to the UGB, consistent with the need determination. 5.4.6 Employment Land Need The conclusions of the economic opportunities anasis fr the Base Case (without Efficiency Measures) are (2016 EOApage 65; Rem Rec 10756) • Bend does not have sufficient employment land to accommc:tdate forecast employment growth. The analysis shows that Bend does not have enoughhaveenough and in UGB to accommodate aU employment types with the otionofpublic employment. There land • Bend has a deficit of employment sites. The analysis shows that Bend has a deficit of 267 sites smaller than five acres -and 13 sites between 5 -and 50 acres. Table 5-24 shows the ct_inge in jobs capaoity as a rds-Olt'of the effibiency measures. Even with this additional capacity, Bend has -a residual e,rnployment ne'ed tat cannot be met within the UGB. Table 5-24. Compared to Emptoyment Needs by Employment Category, Bend, 201,4;2028 Employment Base case Increase(Decrease) from With Efficiency Measures Category Efficiency Measures Retail & Hospitality 5,216 (710) 4,506 Office 2,420803 3,223|nduo��| 435U , 9/55,324Public 1,637 � — 34 1,671 Total 13,622 1,102 14,723 Source: 2016 Urbanization ReportTable 17 Table 5-25 summarizes how projected employment growth is accommodated within the existing UGB and in the proposed UGB expansion. Note thatthe number of newjobs jobs reported is net of any existing jobs that may be lost through redevelopment in non-residential districts. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-61 Table 5-25. Full Proposed UGB Employment Capacity by Category Employment Category Industrial Retail & Hospitality Office Public Total Total Employment Need64 6,522 6,546 7,158 1,717 21,943 Net New Jobs Inside Current UGB 4,506 3,223 5,324 1,671 14,723 New Jobs in UGB Total New Expansion Areas Jobs 2,018 6,524 3,313 6,536 1,797 7,121 53 1,724 7,181 21,901 While there are very minor differences between the number of jobs by category projected and the number estimated to be provided through the proposed UGB expansion and efficiency measures inside the existing UGB, they are so slight as to be attributable to rounding errors and the precision of the Envision Tomorrow model. In total, the UGB expansion proposal provides adequate land for employment, consistent with the employment projections in the EOA. A breakdown of the land need is provided in Table 5-26. The total residential, employment and park and school land need in the UGB expansion includes within it small amounts of buildable land and developed land that is unlikely to redevelop within the planning horizon located on parcels that have other vacant, buildable_land. It also includes land for things like future parks and open space, future schools, future :right-of-way, and other future urban uses. Table 5-26. Components of Land Need Total expansion acres on parcels by plan designation Unbuildable Land Developed Land Not Expected to Redevelop65 Vacant and Redevelopable Buildable Acres Land for future right of way, future parks & open space, future schools, and other urban uses Net Buildable Residential / Employment Acres Source: 2016 Urbanization Report, Table 23..., Residential Land 1,142 11 13 1,119 473 Employment Land 815 2 13 800 254 646 546 Public Facilities 285 3 152 130 130 64 The employment need categories have been generalized for simplicity in comparing against capacity as measured in Envision Tomorrow. See EOA for details. 65 A quarter acre of land on each property with an existing home(s) was assumed to be developed. Redevelopment assumptions are the same as those for developed land inside the UGB (based on the plan designation / development type). For existing schools and parks, the area developed with existing uses was estimated based on aerial photography. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-62 The Council finds that this demonstrates that adequate land has been provided to meet projected future employment needs. Properties of a range of sizes are identified with employment plan designations in the UGB expansion areas. With the exception of the Targe lot industrial site, land for employment uses in the UGB expansion areas will be dividable following area planning and annexation. Property owners will be able to divide as needed to provide the number and size of sites needed within the total acreage provided. Findings Report July 2016 Section 5-63 6. OTHER LAND NEEDS 6.1 Introduction Goal 14 provides that the UGB must be baseon the population forecast for the urban area, and must provide for needed housing, empioyment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open spaceThe findings in this section address the itallcized "other urban uses." This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments -Satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws are cited,as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. 6.2 Summary of Relevant Legal Standards There are relatively few legal standards,that are applicable to Bend's determination of land needs for "other urban usee under Goal 14. Table„ -671 sumthatizes the organization of the findings and the relevant legal standards. The applicable ORS abd-OARs, their standards, and the eity's findings included in this:;and other secti011a,Pf lhg.firldings- are the June 30, 2013 versions of ORS 197.298 and DiViSion 24. Other OR'S and OARs are current versions as of 20161. Table 6-1: 'Relevant~- ,_-_--'='` Section Heading in Findings U.41Public Schools (N'12) 6.4.2 Neighborhood and Community Parks — — ' 6.4.3 Public Right -of -Way 6.4.4 Other Urban Uses Applicable Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.110 Applicable Statewide Planning Goal(s) 14 14 14 060-024'0040(1) 14 860'024-00401) Applicable Oregon AdminiotrabvoRule(s) (OAR) 660'024'00401) 660-024-0050(1) and 060'024-00401) 660-024-0050(1) and (4) ,ThnCityreUeduntnaJune30.2O13vemionuofORS1A7.208.undOARG8U'O24fovtheana|yuia. For other relevant statutes and administrative rules, the City relied on those versionsavoi|ob|enn|ineascf 2016. The City also relied nn2O1OHB412O(See %U18Oregon Laws, Chapter 81). Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-1 6.3 Substantial Evidence Table 6-2 summarizes the key evidence that supports the findings in this section based on the Remand Record (Rem Rec.). Table 6-2: Key Record References Description 2009 UGB Record Population Forecast (2008-2028) Forecast for needed housing units (2008-2028) Land needs for public schools Land needs for parks Land needs for public ROW "Other" land needs 2011-2016 Record on Remand2 2016 Buildable Lands Inventory 2016 Urbanization Report Memos regarding Coordination with School &:Park Districts Scenario Evaluation Report Comprehensive Plan Map -for UGB Expansion Otherublic testimony, memos and minutes from TAC/USC meetings, etc.) Date Page # Record (Rec) 1/5/2009 Rec. 1067; 8801 1/5/2009 Rec 1069; 8801 1/5/2009 Rec. 1088; 8670 1/5/2009 Rec. 1089; 8670 1/5/2009 Rec 1092, 2168 1/5/2009 Rec 1090-1091; 2180 Remand Record (Rem Rec.) 7/18/16 Rem Rec. 10413 7/19/16 Rem Rec. 10814 7/22/2011 Rem Rec. 108 7%22/2011 Rem Rec. 156 10/1/2016 Rem Rec. 6209 7/20/2016 Rem Rec. 11145 4/22/2011 Rem Rec. 25 4/22/2011 Rem Rec. 112 2 Official Notice: 1) Bend -La Pine Schools 2010 School Facility Plan — httns://www.bend.kl2.or.us/district/oraanization/construction 2) Bend -La Pine Schools 2016 School Facility Plan - httos://www. bend.k12.or.us/district/oraanization/sites-and-facilities 3) Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District "Parks, Recreation, and Green Spaces Comprehensive Plan (February 2012 Update) — htto://www.bendoarksandrec.oro/about us/planning development/comprehensive plan/ Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-2 6.4 Findings 6.4.1 Public Schools (K-12) 6.4.1.1 Methodology Used to Estimate Land Needs for Schools OAR 660-024-0040(1) and (7) apply to the determination of land needs for schools: (1) The UGB must be based on the appropriate 20 -year population forecast for the urban area as determined under Rules in OAR 660-024-0030; and must provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open space over the 20 -year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule. The 20 -year need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available information and methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. .. (7) *** The determination of school facility needs must also comply with ORS 195.110. ORS 195.110 requires school facility plans for large school districts. Relevant sections include: (1) ***a large school district means a school district that has an enrolment of over 2,500 students based on certified enrollment numbers submitted to the Department of Education during the first quarter of each neWYP8r- *** .,= (5) The school facility plan must cover a period of at least 10 years and must include, but need not be limited ta,-thpfolloWing elements: (A) Population projections by school group. gp-,ildentificationbylhe cityqr:county and by the large school district of desirable school (i) Alternatives to new school construction and major renovation; and (ii) Measures to increase the efficient use of school sites including, but not limited to, multiple-storybOdings-.end multipurpose use of sites. (6) If a large district determines that there is an inadequate supply of suitable land for school facilities for the 10 -year period covered by the school facility plan, the city or county, or both, and the large district shall cooperate in identifying land for school facilities and take necessary actions, including, but not limited to, adopting appropriate zoning, aggregating existing lots or parcels in separate ownership, adding or petitioning to add one or more sites designated for school facilities to an urban growth boundary. Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-3 in April, 2010, the Bend -La Pine School District (School District) adopted a School Facility Plan. This Facility Plan meets the requirements of ORS 195.110: • It extends through the 2030/2031 school district, covering a period of 20 years. This meets the requirement to cover a period of at least 10 years. • It includes and is based on population projections by school age group completed by the Population Research Center at Portland State University. • It considers alternatives to new school construction and major renovation, including extending the school year and offering night school classes for high school students. • It considers measures to increase the efficient use of school sites, including multi -story buildings and reuse of District -owned properties. The School Facility Plan identifies a need for three to four new elementary schools, one new middle school, and one new high school between 2014 and 2028 based on population and enrollment projections and capacity at existing schools. This plan was updated in 2016, and reflects the same school needs by level, but has not been fully adopted by the School District. The number of new schools needed based on the 2016 Sites and Facilities Plan is as follows: • Four 600 -student elementary schools, capacity is forecast to be exceeded in the following school years: 2020-2021, 2024-2025, 2028-2029, 2032-2033. • One 800 -student middle school, capacity is forecast to be exceeded in school year 2026-2027 en , Two 1,500 -student • t high_e`schools, capacity is>forecast iq"be exceeded in school years 2018-2019 and 2032-2033:- The total need.for new schools within the 2028 planning period are three 600 -student elementary schools, one 800 -student middle school. and one 1,500 -student high school. Therefore, in order to maintain the`preferred school sizes (in terms of enrollment per school), the Council finds that the total number schools needed is likely to remain approximately the same regardless of where the growth occurs. New elementary school sites are usually 10 to 15 acres; new middle:school sites:are 20 to 30 acres; new high school sites are 40 to 50 acres. The total land need for schools is:estimated to be between 90 and 140 acres, depending on the size of sites and the'number ofelementary schools. This is summarized in the 2016 Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10832), Table 5, which is reproduced below. Table 6-3: School Land Need Projections School Type Number Needed Acres Per School Acres Needed Elementary School 3 to 4 10 to 15 30 to 60 Middle School 1 20 to 30 20 to 30 High School 1 40 to 50 40 to 50 Total 5 to 6 90 to 140 Source: Angelo Planning Group summary based on Bend -La Pine School District, 2010 School Facility Plan. Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-4 6.4.1.2 Evaluation of Whether Estimated Needs Can Be Accommodated within Existing UGB Under OAR . when evaluating oramending aUGB, olocal government must first inventory inside the UGB to determine whether there is adequate capacity to accommodate 20 - year needs. The following findings address whether the estimated land needs for schools can reasonably be accommodated within the UGB. Two new schoot sites are identified inside the existing UGB — one middle school and one high school. Both are on land owned by the School Distric�eaeo�wrep��ntrough� 75 acres of land for future schools. |nadd�on.anewahementa school location ieidentified inside the UGB (along 15th Street), and two new elementary schools are identified in UGB expansion areas. Combined ith the isti School 0 land for a middle school and a high school inside the UGB, this meets the identified needs forthreetary schools, one middle school and one high school based on the Schoot District's aster plan. The total amount of and provided for new school sites in the proposed UGB isroughly125 acres. In addition, the existing school site atH| h DesertMiddle School is proposed. to be included in the UGB. This site is a total of 74 acres: however, it is assumed that a portion of the site will ba made available for other deveiopment. The amount of land assurned to be dedicated to school use on that site is rougNy 40 acres.Policies regarding the siting of new schools in eXpansion areas have been included in Chapter : . 11, of the Bend Comprehensive Plan (Rem,Rec 10384) Siting neW schools requires coordination between:the,City, `Bend -La Pine School,Distriot, and land owners in expansion areas expected to provide for needed schoole., SC -hoof siting arid placement are required to be specified in future AreaPlans or Master PlannedDevelopments, where applicable. Conclusioni—The:Council finde-that need -for land for -schools has been determined based on a School Facility Plan in compliance with ORS 195.110 through extensive coordination with the school diStrict. School &Strict staff were appointed to the Residential TAC to assist with coordination,throughout the.process. This need will be met through a mix of land inside the existing UGB and land in UGB expansion'areas. This meets the requirements of OAR 660-024- 0040 and ORS '195.110. 6.4.2 NeighborhOod and Cantnunity Parks ORS 660-024-0040(1) applies to the determination of and needs for parks and open (1) The UGB must be based on the forecast for the urban area as determineunder Rules in OAR 660, div 32, and must provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as publlc facilities, streets and roads schools, parks and open space over the period consistent with the 3 The City is relying on the 2004 Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast that was acknowledged in 2005. The above cited rule under OAR 660-024-0040(1) was amended in 2015 to implement 2O13H82253. Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-5 land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule. The 20 -year need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available information and methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. 6.4.2.1 Methodology Used to Estimate Land Needs for Neighborhood and Community Parks The methodology used to estimate park land needs is summarized in the 2016 Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10831-10832), pages 17-18. This methodology is provided below. BPRD adopted a District Comprehensive Plan in 2012 that identified needs for additional neighborhood and community parks from 2012 to 2020 in order to meet adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards. The additional park land need from 2020 to 2028 can be estimated by extending the park need projection out to 2028 using the population forecast that is the basis for the UGB expansion and BPRD's adopted LOS standards. After accounting for parks developed since the publication of the Master Plan in 2012, the total need for additional parks to be developed from 2014 to 2028 is estimated to be 65.6 acres of neighborhood parks and 161.8 acres of community parks, for a total of 227.4 acres of parks (see Table 6-4) Table 6-4: Park Land Need Projections Neighborhood Community Total Parks Parks 2012 to 2020 need for additional developed park 31.6 96 127.6 land from BPRD Master Plan Additional acres to be developed to 2028 @ 34.0 113.3 147.3 current LOS4 Total acres to be developed 2012 to 2028 65.6 209.3 274.9 Acres developed since 2012 0.0 47.5 47.5 Acres remaining to be developed to 2028 65.6 161.8 227.4 Source: Bend Parks and Recreation District Parks and Recreation Master°Plan, 2012; Angelo Planning Group analysis. 6.4.2.2 Evaluation of Whether Estimated Needs Can Be Accommodated within Existing UGB Under OAR 660-024-0050, when evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must first inventory inside the UGB to determine whether there is adequate capacity to accommodate 20 - year needs. The following findings address whether the estimated land needs for neighborhood and community parks can reasonably be accommodated within the UGB. These findings draw on 4 2020 population forecast for need projections in BPRD Master Plan = 92,408 2028 population projection = 115,063 Additional population growth 2020-2028 = 22,655 Adopted level of service for neighborhood parks = 1.5 acres / 1000 population Adopted level of service for community parks = 5.0 acres / 1000 population Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-6 information provided in the 2016 Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10845 and 10902-10903), pages 31 and 88-89. BPRD owns 29.1 acres of undeveloped land slated for neighborhood parks, plus an additional 43.8 acres of undeveloped land for future community parks inside the existing UGB. BPRD also owns 70 acres of undeveloped community park land (Rock Ridge Park and High Desert Park) and 14 acres of undeveloped neighborhood park land (Alpine Park) outside of but adjacent to the existing UGB. These undeveloped parks are proposed to be brought into the UGB to meet the need for developed parks. In addition, as of the 2012 Plan, the Pine Nursery Community Park had already been developed, and had been used to close the gap in identified needs for community parks based on growth inside the UGB since 2008. Since it is already serving urban residents, it should be managed as an urban park and brought into the UGB so that it can be more effectively and efficiently managed. Another benefit of including this park in the UGB, and ultimately city, is the opportunity to serve this park with urban services which are needed for the expansion of public facilities on the site. In addition to the land already owned by BPRD, up to 70 acres of open space set -asides will be required of large master plan developments and may be dedicated for public parks where appropriate (60 acres on land inside the current UGB and the remainder on large master plan expansion areas).5 With the land already in BPRD ownership inside and outside the current UGB, plus master plan open space dedications, tfe 227 acres of park land need is met by the proposed future UGB. This is summarized in Table 6-5 Table 6-5: How Park Land:,Needs are Met Available undeveloped BPRD land inside existing UGB Undeveloped BPRD land outside current UGB and proposed for inclusion in future UGB Additional acres provided through master plans or other dedication / acquisition Total Park Acreage to be developed 2014 to 2028 Neighborhood Parks 29.1 14.3 22.1 65.5 Community Total Parks 43.8 72.9 69.7 84.0 48.3 70.4 161.8 227.3 Conclusion: The Council finds that land need for parks has been estimated consistent with LOS standards in the adopted Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and the population projection for the UGB Remand's 20 -year planning horizon. Locations within the existing UGB and land already in BPRD ownership outside the UGB that can accommodate the majority of that need have been identified. The remaining need will be met through acquisition and 5 Since only about 70 acres of the 170 provided for by all open space set -asides in the future UGB are expected to be needed for public parks, the remainder (about 100 acres) is assumed to be private open space. Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-7 dedication of land required as part of neighborhood master plans, as has often been the case in Bend. These results manifested through extensive coordination between the BPRD and City, BPRD representation on the Residential TAC, and other forms of coordination. 6.4.3 Public Right -of -Way (ROW) ORS 660-024-0040(1) and (7) apply to the determination of land needs for right-of-way: (1) The UGB must be based on the appropriate 20 -year population forecast for the urban area as determined under Rules in OAR 660-024-0030, and must provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open space over the 20 -year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule. The 20 -year need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available information and methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. (7) The determination of 20 -year land needs for transportation and public facilities for an urban area must comply with applicable requirements of Goals 11 and 12, rules in OAR chapter 660, divisions 11 and 12, and public facilities requirements in ORS 197.712 and 197.768. *** 6.4.3.1 Methodology Used to Estimate Land Needs for Public Right -of -Way The City has previously obtained DLCD's approval of using a 21 % factor for rights of way during the prior proceedings 'on -the UGB (Rec 1092;21,68):' The City had prepared a technical memorandum that summarized a GIS -based analysis with which the City found that 21% of the land within the current UGB was in rights of way: The 2016 Urbanization Report -(Rem Req 10903-10904), pages 89-90, summarizes the right of way land need for the` proposed "UGB. The proposed future UGB provides 1,116 acres of land for right-of-way (19.6% of vacant and: redeveloped acres, but 21.1% of vacant and redeveloped land after excluding vacant platted lots). 'This meets the total need for new right of way. Compliance with Goals 11 and 12 is documented in Sections 8 and 9 of these findings. Conclusion: The Council finds that the amount of land for future rights-of-way was approved by DLCD, and corresponding amounts of land for right of way has been estimated based on evidence in the Record, and the amount of land set aside for right of way within the future UGB matches the estimated need. 6.4.4 Land Needs for Other Urban Uses ORS 660-024-0040(1) applies to the determination of land needs for other urban uses: (1) The UGB must be based on the appropriate 20 -year population forecast for the urban area as determined under Rules in OAR 660-024-0030, and must provide for needed Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-8 housing, employment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open space over the 20 -year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule. The 20 -year need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available information and methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. 6.4.4.1 Methodology Used to Estimate Land Needs for Other Urban Uses The City developed findings during the remand process to support the use of a 12.8% "other lands" factor to include in the city's land need estimate. The purpose for doing so was to account for land uses that did not fall within the categories of housing, employment, or rights of way, but used land in residential and employment zones. Under Remand Subissue 4.1 (Rem Rec 5780), LCDC did not share the City's conclusion that the UGB record supported a future trend -based factor of 15% (as opposed to the observed 12.8% percentage) to account for land uses that did not get accounted for in either the housing or employment land need estimates. The Commission did conclude that there was evidence in the record to support a 12.8% factor for "other (ands."6 The City developed findings and technical memoranda supporting the use of a 12.8% factor for other lands in 2011 (Rem Rec 25). The City's findings supporting the use of a 12.8% other lands factors are summarized here (Rem Rec 29), The remand did not require any new evidence to be added to the .record. State' law provides -for a local; government to consider what are referred to as "other urban uses, such as::public facilities; schools, parks, and open spaces." This is critical in one respect in that the forgoing :estimate ofnland for schools did not account for land consumed by private schools:;; Similarly, the land need estimate for parks did not account for private open spaces and areas within planned developments that are treated as common areas. The City`s analysis of-what-iandwasincluded-in this 12.8% factor included land owned by benevolent, fraternal, and church organizations;land owned by utilities, and; privately held open spaces such as canals, cemeteries, golf courses, and recreational vehicle parks, uses which are allowed uses in many zoning classifications as regulated by the BDC The 2016 Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10903-10904), pages 89-90, summarizes the land need for other urban uses in theproposed UGB. The proposed future UGB provides a total of 648 acres of land for other land needs (such as churches, benevolent/fraternal organizations, utilities, canals, cemeteries, golf'courses, properties owned by irrigation districts, and RV parks). This represents 11% of total acres of development / redevelopment, and 12% of acres developed after excluding vacant platted Tots. This meets the total need for new other land uses. 6 The record referred to here is the UGB Record developed and submitted to DLCD in 2009. Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-9 Conclusion: The Council finds that the percentage of land used for "other uses" was approved by DLCD, land for other urban uses has been estimated based on evidence in the Record, and the amount of land set aside for other urban uses within the future UGB is consistent with the estimated need. This will help ensure that the City has adequate supplies of land not only for needed housing and economic opportunities, but for other land uses. Findings Report July 2016 Section 6-10 7. UGB LOCATION 7.1. Introduction The findings in Section 7 address Bend's compliance with Goal 14 and related legal standards for the location of the proposed UGB. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws pre -cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. Tl*Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to SUppbi't tbe proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. These findings in Section 7 document the procets, steps, and rationafe that Bend City Council followed to: (1) establish a study area to evaluate land for inclusion in the UGB, and, (2) evaluate land in the study area for inclusion in the UGB based on statutory priorities and the boundary location factors of Goal 14. Section 7 builds on the land need finditfg'ib.:earlier sections of this report: • Findings for needecthousing anctresidentiliand need in Section 4 • Findings for emplbylii*'and economic deveibbitiOtland'ri-ded in Section 5 • Findings for Aber land'hOecis in Section 6 The process of determihingjand sfiffibiency, UGB expansion need, and location of the UGB is - - - summarizedjnFi Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-1 Figure 7-1: UGB Expansion Analysis Process Summary Estimation of base case capacity of existing UGB for housing and jobs Evaluation of options for efficiency measures inside the UGB Calculation of residual housing and employment need Refinement of efficiency measures Estimation of UGB capacity with preferred package of efficiency measures Preliminary evaluation of land suitability for expansion Creation of UGB expansion scenarios (and supplemental analysis areas) Evaluation of UGB expansion scenarios (and supplemental analysis areas) Creation & Evaluation of Preferred UGB Expansion Scenario Proposed UGB Expansion 7.2. Summary of Relevant Legal Standards The findings in thissection address the relevant_legalstandards that apply to the Bend City Councl's'determination of where to expand the UGB. 7.2.1. Applicability of Recent Amendments to Statute and Rule OAR 660, Division 24 has been amended several times since the City first began the process of expanding the UGB, most recently in 2016. Statutes pertaining to amendment of UGBs (including ORS 197.298 and 197A) were also amended in 2013 and 2016. This section addresses the applicability of these amendments to the current UGB expansion proposal. The City initially provided notice of a UGB expansion proposal along with related amendments to DLCD on June 11, 2007, and then a revised proposal October 8, 2008 (Rem Rec 5726- 5728)1. The City adopted the proposal on January 5, 2009, but the City's decision was remanded by LCDC. The current proposal is a response to the LCDC Remand. As stated in 1 This reference to the Remand Record cites to the Procedural History of the 2009 Bend UGB proposal presented in LCDC's 2010 Order. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-2 the LCDC Remand, "the City's decision is subject to the version of the LCDC's rules in effect at the time of its decision, unless the rules specificallyprovide otherwise" (Rem Reu574O). OAR 660-024-0000 provides that the applicable version depends on the date a City initiates its UGB amendment and other factors. Applicability of ORS 1 97A is addressed by HB 4126, Chapter 81 of Oregon Laws 2016, effective date March 29, 2016, which states: Notwithstanding ORS 197A.320, a City outside of Metro that submitted to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, pursuant to ORS 197.610, a proposed change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation that included an evaluation or an amendment of its urban growth boundary, or that received approval ofa periodic reviow work program that included a work task to amend or evaluate its urban growth boundary pursuant to ORS 197.633, prior to January 1, 2016, but did not completethaevaluati»nuranneDohY9ntmfdsu/bmngrnwthboun&9ry prior to January 1, 2016, may complete completo the ovaluati�n or amendmentpursuant to statutes and administrative rules in effect on June 30, 2013. This law allows jurisdictions like Bend, that are midway through a UGB expansion to continue to use the June 30, 2013 versions of the statues and rules instead of the newly effective ORS 1Q7A.320(effective July 1.2D13\.and OAR 68ODivision 24(effective January 1^2O16\. The City submitted notice to DLCD regardi| an arnendment of its urban growth boundary pursuant toORS 1S7.81OonJune 11.2OU7`and `orevised notice onOctober 8.2OO8(Rem Rec5728). This amendment ed to the resulting LCDCRemmnd{jrderwhinhhaenotvetbeencomphabad and is the subject of this re -submittal to OLCD. The City of Bend, being a City outside VfMetro, may complete the amendment "pursuant the statutes and administrative rules n effect on June 30, 2013" because June 11, 2007 is prior to January 1, 2016 and because the City's response to the DLCD Remand Orderwas not completed bvJanuary 1.2010. Therefore, the City CouncH finds it may, and will "complete the evaluation or amendment pursuant to statutes and administrative rules in effect on June 30 2013." The applicable ORS and OARs and their standardsare the June 30, 2013 of ORS 197.298 and Division 24. The City's findings included in this and other sections of the findings address these versions. Other ORS and OARs are current versions asof 20162. In addition,theournynt version not`OAR bUU-U24-U0DUprovides that the applicable version depends on the date a ity initiates its UGB amendment and other factors: (3) The rules in this divisionadoohedon(Jobnber5,200{\en*effbctiveAori/5, 2007. The rules in this division amended on March 20, 2008, are effective April 18, 2008. The rules in this division adopted March 13, 2009, and amendments to rules in this division adopted on that date, are effective April 16, 2009, except as foiows: (a) A local government may choose to not apply this division to a plan amendment concerning the evaluation or amendment of a UGB, regardlessmfthedeb*of1hat 2 The City relied on the June 30, 2013 versions of ORS 197.298, and OAR 660-024 for the analysis. For other relevant statutes and administrative rules, the City relied on those versions available online as of 2016. The City also relied on 2016 HB 4126 (See 2016 Oregon Laws, Chapter 81). Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-3 amendment, if the local government initiated the evaluation or amendment of the UGB prior to April 5, 2007; (b) For purposes of this rule, "initiated" means that the local government either: (A) Issued the public notice specified in OAR 660-018-0020 for the proposed plan amendment concerning the evaluation or amendment of the UGB; or (B) Received LCDC approval of a periodic review work program that includes a work task to evaluate the UGB land supply or amend the UGB; (c) A local government choice whether to apply this division must include the entire division and may not differ with respect to individual rules in the division. (4) The rules in this division adopted on December 4, 2015, are effective January 1, 2016, except that a local government may choose to not apply the amendments to rules in this division adopted December 4, 2015 to a plan amendment concerning the amendment of a UGB, regardless of the date of that amendment, if the local government initiated the amendment of the UGB prior to January 1, 2016. Subsection (4), above, provides additional direction -that a local government may choose not to apply the 2016 amendments to OAR 660 Division 24 if it initiated its UGB amendment (based on the date of the notice to DLCD) prior to January 1, 2016, as the City of Bend did. This is consistent with Chapter 81 of Oregon Laws 2016..The administrative rules in effect on June 30, 2013 contain their own applicability provisions, none --of which direct the Bend City Council to use prior versions of rules the rules in `effect June -30,-2013. See the June 30, 2013 version of Division 24 (660-024-0000(3)(a)). 7.2.2. Organization of Findings. In an effort to address all relevant.; legal standards and to explain how the City Council's proposal complies with state law and rule iin a logical way, the findings are organized to follow the steps,,priorities and requirements set out in ORS 197.298 (the version in effect on June 30, 2013) and OAR 660, Division 24 (the version of that was in effect on June 30, 2013). Table 7-1 summarizes theorganization of the findings and the relevant legal standards. Table 7-1: Relevant Legal Standards Applicable Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Section Heading in Findings 7.4.1 Establishment of Preliminary Study Area 7.4.2 Land Excluded from Preliminary Study Area 7.4.3 Priority Categories 197.298(3); 197.295 197.298 Applicable Statewide Planning Goal(s) Goal 14 Goal 14 Goal 14 Applicable Oregon Administrative Rule(s) (OAR) 660-024-0060(4) 660-024-0060(1); 660-024- 0050(5); 660-008-0005(2); 660-009-0005 660-024-0060(1) Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-4 Applicable Applicable Oregon Revised Statewide Applicable Oregon Section Heading in Findings Statutes (ORS) Planning Goal(s) Administrative Rule(s) (OAR) (.4.4 hvaivatlon of Lana in Goal 14 bbbU-U24-UUbU the Study Area for Inclusion in the UGB 7.4.5 Overall Conclusion Goal 14 Regarding UGB Location 7.3. Substantial Evidence Table 7-2 summarizes the key evidence that supports the findings in this section. Access to the record is available on the City's website for the UGB Remand Project http://www.bend.or.us/index.asox?paae=1290. Table 7-2: Description 2011-2016 Record on Remand 2016 Urbanization Report Key Record References Date Page # Record (Rem) 7/20/16 Rem Rec 10814 Rem Rec 4547, 6209, -'1;0/20/15 6637, 6737, 6851 Rem Rec10183, 10223, 7/20/16 11201, 11223 4/26/2016 Rem Rec 9929, 9957, 9961, 9973 (see also Findings in Response to testimony) Scenario Evaluation Report & Technical Appendices Scenario 2.1G Evaluation Technical Memos Evidence supporting Refinements Map of all alternatives evaluated in UGB location alternatives analysis 7.4. Findings 7.4.1. Establishment of Preliminary Study Area OAR 660-024-0060 provides the following guidance on the establishment of a preliminary study 7/18/16 10874, 10875, 10877 area: (4) In determining alternative land for evaluation under ORS 197.298, "land adjacent to the UGB" is not limited to those lots or parcels that abut the UGB, but also includes land in the vicinity of the UGB that has a reasonable potential to satisfy the identified need deficiency. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-5 The Council finds that the City, working with the Boundary TAC, established a 2 -mile study area from the existing UGB. This study area included over 18,000 acres of exception land (see Figure 7-2)3. It set a broad but reasonable threshold for "land in the vicinity of the UGB" and provided more than enough possible expansion areas for consideration of their potential to satisfy the identified need deficiencies. 3 Exception land refers to land designated either Urban Reserve on the Bend Area General Plan map or Rural Residential Exception Area on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-6 Figure 7-2: UGB Two -Mile Study Area by Priority Class Priority Category UGB Study Area by Priority Class Urban Growth Boundary Exception Land (Priority 2) n Proposed 2 mile study area Resource Land (Priority 4) Other Plan Designations - Public Facilities Resort /% USFS and BLM land Findings Report Prepared 72912014 July 2016 NORTH 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Section 7-7 7.4.2. Land Excluded from Preliminary Study Area OAR 660-024-0060(1) requires that local governments identify "suitable" land to meet need deficiencies, and provides the following guidance as to how to determine suitability: (a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, a local government must determine which land in that priority is suitable to accommodate the need deficiency determined under 660-024-0050. (b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, a local government must apply the location factors of Goal 14 to choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB. (c) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category is not adequate to satisfy the identified need deficiency, a local government must determine which land in the next priority is suitable to accommodate the remaining need, and proceed uwing the same method specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section until the land need is accommodated.... (e) For purposes of this rule, the determination of suitable land to accommodate land needs must include considerationof any suitability characteristics specified under section (5) of this rule, as well as other provisions of law applicable in determining whether land is buildable or suitable. The suitability characteristics`referenced in OAR 660-024-0050(5) include "characteristics such as parcel size, topography, or proximity that are necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need." ORS 197 295=includes the following definition of `Buildable lands": (1) "Buildable lands" means lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential uses. `Buildable lands" includes both vacant land and developed land likely to be redeveloped. Other provisions of -law applicable in determining whether land is buildable or suitable include the definition of buildable land specific to residential land in OAR 660-008-0005(2): (2) "Buildable Land" means residentially designated land within the urban growth boundary, including both vacant and developed land likely to be redeveloped, that is suitable, available and necessary for residential uses. Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential uses. Land is generally considered "suitable and available" unless it: (a) Is severely constrained by natural hazards as determined under Statewide Planning Goal 7; (b) Is subject to natural resource protection measures determined under Statewide Planning Goals 5, 6, 15, 16, 17 or 18; Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-8 (c) Has slopes of 25 percent or greater; (d) Is within the 100 -year flood plain; or (e) Cannot be provided with public facilities. OAR 660-009-0005 provides the following definitions relevant to identifying suitable land for employment uses: (12) "Suitable" means serviceable land designated for industrial or other employment use that provides, or can be expected to provide the appropriate site characteristics for the proposed use. (9) "Serviceable" means the City or county has determined that public facilities and transportation facilities, as defined by OAR chapter 660, division 011 and division 012, currently have adequate capacity for development planned in the service area where the site is located or can be upgraded to have adequate capacity within the 20 -year planning period. (11) "Site Characteristics" means the attributes of a site necessary for a particular industrial or other employment use to operate. Site characteristics include, but are not limited to, a minimum acreage or site configuration including shape and topography, visibility, specific types or levels of public facilities, services or energy infrastructure, or proximity to a particular_transportation or freight facility such as rail, marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities, and major transportation routes. In addition, ORS 197.298(3) provides several reasons why higher priority land may be found inadequate to meet identified needs:- (a) eeds:(a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; (b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; (c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to inluce or to provide services to higher priority lands. The Council finds that the Court of Appeals decision on the McMinnville UGB addressed the application of suitability screening criteria./000 Friends v. Land Conservation and Development Commission and City of McMinnville, 244 Or App 239 (2011). In addition to the reasons listed in 197.298(3), the Court reasoned that Goal 14 Factor 3 (Comparative environmental, social, economic and energy consequences, or ESEE) and Factor 4 (Compatibility with nearby farm and forest activities), but not other Goal 14 Factors, are applied to determine whether higher priority land "is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed" under ORS 197.298(1). Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-9 In sum, the following factors can be applied to exclude higher priority lands from further consideration as candidate areas to include in the UGB: • Lands that are not buildable (defined in OAR 660-008-0005(2)) • Lands that are not suitable for identified employment uses (defined in OAR 660-009- 0005) • Specific land needs (197.298(3)(a)) • Inability to reasonably provide urban services due to topographic or other physical constraints (197.298(3)(b)) • Maximum efficiency of lands within an existing UGB requiring lower priority lands (197.298(3)(c)) • Analysis of ESEE consequences (Goal 14, Factor 3) • Analysis of compatibility with agricultural & forest activities (Goal 14, Factor 4) Conclusion: The Council finds that the City's approach to screening land from further consideration prior to applying the Goal 14 evaluation is summarized in the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10863-10864). The findings below draw on that summary. 7.4.2.1. Exclude lands that are not buildable FINDING: The Council finds that the following, tands are identified as unbuildable: • 100 -year Flood Plain • Steep slopes (25W. and; greater) • Upper Deschtes River State & Federal,Scenic u_ River Overlays (100 feet from ordinary high water or QHW) • Middle Deschutes .tate Scenic Waterway_ 00 feet from OHW) • Deschutes River & Tumalo.Creek Riparian Corridors (100 feet from OHW) • Significant " .. aggregate sites in Deschutes` County Goal 5 inventory with Surface Mining plan designation' The 100 -year floodplain and slopes of 25 percent or greater are listed explicitly in the exclusions contained within`the definition of buildable land in OAR 660-008-0005(2). The scenic river overlays and riparian corridors as well as the significant aggregate sites in the Deschutes County inventory are subject to resource protection measures under Statewide Planning Goal 5, another listed exclusion from buildable land in OAR 660-008-0005(2). Unbuildable lands were not automatically precluded from being brought into the UGB (for example, when part of a larger buildable property); however, they are not considered suitable and available to meet identified land needs. The lands identified as unbuildable in the expansion areas are shown in red on Figure 7-3. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-10 Figure 7-3: Unbuildable land in UGB Expansion Study Area 7.4.2.2. Exclude lands that are Incompatible with urbanization FINDING: The Council finds that exception lands within the acknowledged Deschutes County Wildlife Combining Zone (deer winter range) were screened from further analysis based on consideration of ESEE consequences (Goal 14, Factor 3) as allowed under the McMinnville decision as well as because they are subject to resource protection measures under Statewide Planning Goal 5, a listed exclusion from buildable land in OAR 660-008-0005(2). These areas are considered significant habitat by ODFW. The Goal 5 "program" to protect the big game winter range is based in Targe part on restricting densities, requiring clustering and requiring protection of open space (50% of site). Potential urbanization of these lands would inherently conflict with protection of the big game winter range. In addition, the Shevlin Sand and Gravel (SSG) site located in the northwest quadrant of the City on Shevlin Park Road (orange-colered area on Figure 7-4) was screened from further Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-11 analysis because it is not available to meet identified land needs within the planning period. Based on testimony from the property owner representative stating that the aggregate resources at the Shevlin Sand & Gravel site are not expected to be exhausted and the site reclaimed during the planning period (2008-2028), the portion of the site under DOGAMI Permit 09-0018 was excluded from consideration for UGB expansion. This did not affect consideration of the remainder of the property. The lands excluded are shown in red (wildlife overlay) and orange (aggregate site) on Figure 7-4. Figure 7-4: Land screened from consideration for UGB expansion Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-12 7.4.2.3. Results and Conclusions The Council finds that, after excluding the lands listed above, the total acreage of exception land that was advanced for further consideration and evaluation using the Goal 14 factors was roughly 16,200 acres. No land was excluded on the basis of inability to reasonably provide urban services, specific land needs, or analysis of compatibility with agricultural and forest activities. Conclusion: The Council finds that the land excluded from the preliminary study area is minimal, and the justifications are consistent with the allowed suitability criteria under OAR 660- 024-0060; the definitions of buildable land under other state laws and administrative rules, including ORS 197.295; and the case law established in the McMinnville decision. 7.4.3. Priority Categories ORS 197.298 identifies the following priorities for inclusion of land within an urban growth boundary: (a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145 (Urban reserves), rule or metropolitan service district action plan. (b) If land under paragraph (a)-of.this subsection is'inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is. land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in: unacknowledged ;;comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land Second priority may include -resource land that is completely surrounded by: exception areas unlesi such resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710; (High-value farmland description for ORS 215.705). (c) If land under paragraphs(a) and (b) of this -subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of and needed, third priority island designated as marginal land pursuant to - ORS 197.247 1991 -_Edition - (d) If land under paragraphs (a) to. (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount pf land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. OAR 660-024-0060 echoes and further specifies this process: (1) When considering a UGB amendment, a local government must determine which land to add by evaluating alternative boundary locations. This determination must be consistent with the priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14, as follows: (a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, a local government must determine which land in that priority is suitable to accommodate the need deficiency determined under 660-024-0050. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-13 (b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, a local government must apply the location factors of Goal 14 to choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB. (c) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category is not adequate to satisfy the identified need deficiency, a local government must determine which land in the next priority is suitable to accommodate the remaining need, and proceed using the same method specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section until the land need is accommodated. (d) Notwithstanding subsection (a) through (c) of this section, a local government may consider land of lower priority as specified in ORS :197.298(3). ORS 197.298(3), in addition to providing reasons why higher priority land may be found inadequate (see section 7.4.2), provides that land of a lower priority may be included in an urban growth boundary if: (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. The Council finds that, within the initial -two -Mile study area; evaluation was based on a tiered approach, in which higher priority lands (ie. exception lands) were evaluated first for each identified land need, as required under OAR660 Div:.ision:24 and ORS 197.298. There are no Priority 1 or Priority 3 -lands in the -study area, only Priority,2..and 4 lands. Only Priority 2 lands were considered and -included in the expanded-0GB. No lowerbriority lands (Priority Mare included in the expanded UGB. f suitable exception The amount -of p-tionland (Priority, 2) exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency; therefore, the City;Council applied the Goal 14 location factors to determine which land to include in the UGB, as described in the following section. 7.4.4. Evaluation of Land for inclusion in the UGB Statewide Planning Goal 14 (as effective April 28, 2006) requires the following: 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. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-14 OAR 660-024-0060(1), (3), and (6) provide guidance on the evaluation of alternative boundary locations using the Goal 14 factors, including when they are applicable, how they relate to one another, and how parcels and areas may be grouped for evaluation: (1) When considering a UGB amendment, a local government must determine which land to add by evaluating alternative boundary locations. This determination must be consistent with the priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14, as follows:... (b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, a local government must apply the location factors of Goal 14 to choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB. (3) The boundary location factors of Goal 14 are not independent criteria. When the factors are applied to compare alternative boundary locations and to determine the UGB location, a local government must show that all the factors were considered and balanced. (6) The adopted findings for UGB adoption or amendment must describe or map all of the alternative areas evaluated in the boundary location alternatives analysis. If the analysis involves more than one parcel or area within a particular priority category in ORS 197.298 for which circumstances are the same, these parcels or areas may be considered and evaluated as a single group. OAR 660-024-0060(7) and (8) provide further guidance on the evaluation of public facilities and services in considering alternative boundary locations: (7) For purposes of Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2, "public facilities and services" means water, sanitary sewer, storm water management, and transportation facilities. (8) The Goal 14 boundary location determination requires evaluation and comparison of the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public facilities and services needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. This evaluation and comparison must be conducted in coordination with service providers, including the Oregon Department of Transportation with regard to impacts on the state transportation system. "Coordination" includes timely notice to service providers and the consideration of evaluation methodologies recommended by service providers. The evaluation and comparison must include: (a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water and transportation facilities that serve nearby areas already inside the UGB; (b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to the UGB; and Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-15 (c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways and other interchanges, arterials and coiectors, additional travel lanes, other major improvements on existing roadways and, for urban areas of 25,000 or morethe provision ofpub/ic transit service. The Council finds that the creation and evaluation of UGB expansion alternatives represent the "alternative boundary locations" required to be analyzed, and which are summarized in the Urbanization Report, Chapter 5 (Rem Rec 10863). The findings in Section 7.4.4 draw on and indude excerpts from that summary. It is important to note the ega! requirements are focused on "alternative boundary locations" and the allowance that "parcels may be considered and evaluated as a single group." These requirements do not suggest or require a parcel -by -parcel analysis. The City Counci! finds that a parcel -by -parcel (or sma!Ier) analysis woufd be practicafly impossible given the amount of suitab!e land in the riIysis area, and the neary infinite number of possible combinations of individual parcels to meet anticipated needs. An additional complexity that makes a parcel-by-pa|'ana|yaienoodyihipoaa|b|a.isiheaddiUono| variations introduced due to the wide variety of the types of land that uses ust be analyzed to meet documented land needs. The Counci! finds that the City's method�l�gy analyzed "alternative boundary !ocations" asrequired. The McMmvi||edecision verifies thippn000h. and even acknowledges the need to make revisions make revisions and refinements to the eventual proposed UGB expanston based on the resultsrof 'analysis during the -planning process. 7.4.4i1. Creating Alternative Boundaries This stage of the 10814-10949\. The findings in this SeCtion draiir On that portion of the Urbanization report. Preliminary Goal 14 — Indicators The Councillindethat, because the pool of:available exception lands within the study area was so large reletiVe fheland need,. additional -information was needed in order to identify better perforMing lands to consider for the UGB expansion alternatives analysis. It would not have been possible to develop alternativeS to encompass all of the exception lands for evaluation. In the Base MapPing stage, the Boundary TAC recommended using a key indicators of the Goal 14 factors to helP identify the beet land to include in boundary scenarios. These key indicators were then applied to_all the individual parcels in the study area, eventually allowing for the results to be summed up at an individual parcel level, which then led to characterizing areas where the traits of the parcels are similar from the perspective of considering and balancing the Goal 14 factors. This stage of analysis helped to narrow the scope of the study area to focus on the areas that ranked hiher and also informed the development of scenarios Using available GIS and other data, a series of maps were prepared to illustrate the relative ranking of parcels based on the key indicators associated with each of the four factors of Goal 14. The Boundary TAC reviewed and suggested refinements to the base maps over a series of meetings, and ultimately approved roughly 25 base maps. The indicators included in Stage 2 Base Mapping for each of the Goal 14 factors are listed below. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-16 Factor 1: Efficient accommodation of identified land needs • Parcel size • Improvement to land value ratio • Proximity to existing UGB — adjacency more efficient than edge of study area • Topography (25% slopes or greater) • Existing that CC&Rs prohibit or limit additional development Factor 2: Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services Transportation • Barriers: Consideration of physical barriers to connectivity (new river crossings, railroad crossings, steep slopes, etc.). • Reliance on Congested Corridors: Consideration of key congested highway corridors based on the recently completed Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Using the Bend 2040 travel demand model, identify which exception lands have a higher reliance on a congested corridor. • System Connectivity: Consideration of whether the existing major roadway network meets ideal grid -spacing (e.g., one -mile spacing for arterials and half -mile spacing for collectors). Rank exception areas with a more subjective approach based on ability to extend collectors into the study area. Also consider if subareas in the study area are adjacent or near well connected streets inside the current UGB. Water • Gravity system (City of Bend): Consideration of exception areas that could be served by gravity by City of Bend Sewer • Gravity system: Consideration of areas that can be served via gravity. This would be illustrated with a map showing areas in the study area that can be served with gravity sewer vs. areas requiring additional pumping. • Maximize existing/planned improvements: Consideration of areas with capacity or planned short-term improvements. This would be illustrated with a map showing any areas in the study area outside the current UGB that could be served with sewer without major new investments in, addition to planned facilities in the Collection System Public Facilities Plan (PFP).` Stormwater • Drinking water protection areas: Consider proximity to drinking water protection areas (DWPA) • Surface geology: Consider presence of surface geology (welded tuff) that limits on-site stormwater management. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-17 Factor 3: Comparative environmental, social, economic and energy consequences (ESEE) • Presence of significant Goal 5 resources or other resources (consider Greenprint mapping or other data sources) • Relative wildfire risk and presence of other natural hazards (floodplains) • Proximity to existing or planned parks, trails, elementary schools • Proximity to irrigation districts, irrigated lands and canals in study area • Presence of water quality limited streams (303d) in study area Factor 4: Compatibility of proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB • Proximity to designated forest land • Proximity to designated high-value agricultural land (irrigated) The project team prepared, and City Council considered, one composite map for each of the four Goal 14 factors and a composite map combining indicators for all four factors which constitutes a consideration, weighing, balancing, and mapping of the Goal 14 factors. The approach was to prepare "un -weighted" composite maps, so the information was displayed without value judgments about what factors are more important than others. However, the Stage 2 Base Mapping revealed certain exception lands that were highly problematic based on one or more of the Goal 14 factors, and that, on balance, were not as ideal as other exception lands after a weighing and balancing the factors, as summarized below: • Properties with recorded Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that preclude land divisions and additional dwellings (based on Factor 1 considerations and inability to accommodate identified land needs) • Heavily parcelized areas with smaller parcels (less than 2 acres) and numerous dwellings that severely limitcapacityfor new development (based on Factor 1 considerations and inability to efficiently accommodate identified land needs) • Rural residential subdivisions (generally less than 5 acre lots) with higher improvement to land value ratios that severely limit capacity for new development within the 2028 planning horizon (based on Factor 1 considerations and inability to efficiently accommodate identified land needs) • Lands that are separated from the existing UGB by resource lands (based on Factor 4 considerations and impact to resource lands) The combined results of the Stage 2 Base Mapping are shown on Figure 7-5. Further consideration of the Stage 2 Base Mapping results in Phase 2 of the project highlighted additional areas that were, on balance, less appropriate to bring forward for further evaluation. The brief summaries below are keyed to specific locations on the map on Figure 7-6: Further Narrowing of Exception Lands. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-18 1 Alarge rural residential exception area (just under 1,600 acres) Iocated north of Cooley Road generaily between Hwy 97 and Hwy 20. A relatively Iarge rural residential subdivision (about 220 acres) with restrictive CC&R's is Iocated at the southerly boundary of this area that represents a barrier to efficient expansion to the north. 2. Several small subdivisions in the northeast - the portion west of Hamby Road is subdivided into small lots (average lot size is a half -acre) with a relatively high improvement to and vaue ratio. The portion east of Hamby is separated from the UGB bye mix of land with restrictive CC&Rs and resource land. 3. An area located between Hwy 20 and Stevens Road surrounding Hamby Road that is relatively far from the UGB and would further surround zoned resource land. 4. Several Iarge rural residential exception areas that overall did not score well based on the balancing ofthe Goal 14 factors. 5. A small area associated with common open space tracts for Cascade Highlands and Tetherow destination resort that should not be considered buildable or suitabTe for urbanization. 6. The portion of the Miller Tree Farm rural cluster subdivision property that was not screened out based on the County's wildlife overlay zone. This left 5,400 remaining acres of exception Jand for further evaluation. See additional details regarding this aspect of the evaluation process, incorporated herein (Rem Rec 03743-03793). Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-19 Figure 7-5: Stage 2 Mapping Combined Results Bend UGB Land Suitability Composite (Annotated) 2 Miles from UGB_ Combined Factor Score Heavily Parcelized..(Deschutes River Woods) lowest Quattue Urtian Growth Bgtirilary t.and Separated Pram UGB by Resource Lands StreamslRivers Quartile R Restrictive_ CCR's Steep slopes (over 25%) `3rdQua rnIe.. Parks & Red / Scholl District Ownership Roads/Highways Highest'Watlfie. Findings Report Service Layer Credits: Deschutes County GIS (2014) Disclaimer: This map represents an equally -weighted sum of the four Bend UGB Goal 14 Factors. For informational purposes only. July 2016 Mites ry- Prepared 4/10/2015 Section 7-20 Figure 7-6: Further Narrowing of Exception Lands Bend UGB Phase 2 Narrowing of Exception Lands Phase 1 Narrowing Phase 2 Narrowing Combined Factor Score Lowest Quartile Peit-; 2nd Quad! e 3rd Quartile Highest Quartile Prepared 6/18/2015 r r Findings Report Service Layer Credits: Deschutes County GIS (201.4) July 2016 MiIS ORT StMaina/itiyers, Raida/t-iiitnita}4: Urban Growth Boundary Section 7-21 Generating Alternatives for Analysis OAR 1lstates "All statewide goals and related administrative rules are appticable when establishing or amending a UGB," and has no exception for Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Therefore, the City Council finds Goal 1 18 directly applicable to the UGB amendment process. Citizen involvement requires cities to get citizens involved in all phases of the planning process, assure two-way communication, give citizens influence and technical information, feedback from policy -makers, and to fund such invotvement. The process described in the evaluation of the properties within the two-mile study area, formation of alternative scnearios, and Supplemental Analysis An.andeUrafinenlantmho scenarios a direct result of the citizen involvmement program in the project. This program included multiple advisory committees, one focused purely on the UGB expansion, and a steering committee composed of decision makers. Thainterplay petween the citizens in the advisory committees taking recommendation to the steering comMittee, and steering committee directing additional refinements, all in a public satting open to public testimony meets the requirements of Goal 1, but also the admistrative rules in Division 24 that require compliance with Goal 1. Initially, three geographically specific UGB expansion scenarios to meet anticipated land needs were created based on input from all three TACs and the USC in a workshop (Rem Rec 3811, 3843). These scenarios were brought to the Boundary TAO and USC for review and refinement4. The Boundary TAC recommended and USC approVed three specific UGB Expansion Scenarios for eValuation, but also asked the !Project tearh-to evaluate all land that had been given the toP rating (La scored in the top quartile When all indicators were combined) during the base map evaluation of exception land -within the twb-mile study area and had not been excluded by subsequent refinetnents and narrowing. The areas that met those tests and were not inciudedin one of fhathree UGB._Expansion Scenarios were identified as Some of the models used fider scenario, evaluation (such as the transportation model) require "budgeted' land use assumptions in order to do a full evaluation and an "apples to apples" comparison against land includad in the three UGB Expansion Scenarios. In order to respond to the direction for equal evaluatiOn, the team created three Supplemental Analysis Area Maps ("SAAMs") that collectively incorporate all the land in the Supplemental Analysis Areas in packages with roughly the same total levels of employment and residential growth and the same assumptions about the amount and type of development that can be accommodated inside the UGB as the UGB Expansion Scenarios. The SAAMs were intended to test full utilization of certain geographic areas rather than distributed growth across a variety of potential expansion areas. The level of analysis for the SAAMs was identical to that done for the Scenarios. * See meeting minutes ofJune 24.2O15Boundary TAC (Rem Rao6621)and June 25.2O15USC meetings (Rem Rec 5665). Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-22 The Scenarios and SAAMs are organized around eiht general geographic areas that were identified as the most suitable to meet the identified land needs: • West Area • 8hevinArea • OB Riley/Gopher Gulch Area w North "Triangle" * Northeast Edge � Department of State Land (DSL) Property • "The Elbow" • "The Thumb" These subareas are shown on Fiure 7-7Figure 7-7 also identifies the portions that were included in scenarios and those that were part of the SAAMs. ' Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-23 Figure 7-7: Subareas, Scenario Areas, and Supplemental Analysis Areas Supplemental Analysis Area Map CArea Within a Scenario ;* North -Triangle" Supplemental Analysis Area IOB Riley/Gopher Gulch Area Shevlin Area Northeast Edge ER. iitih"I T RD West Area E(FF�R,, 20 NI DSL Property The Elbow" D RD "The Thumb" Reu: d19/15 2 Mites NORTH The UGB Expansion Scenarios and SAAMs are illustrated below. The categories shown on the generalized scenario maps are as follows: • Residential area with locally-servina employment: Predominately residential uses, with supportive uses such as parks, schools, and local commercial centers. • Residential area with significant employment: A full mix with residential uses, parks and/or schools, and commercial and employment areas. • Employment area: Employment -focused area providing for a mix of jobs (retail, office, and/or industrial) with little or no residential use. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-24 Figure 7-8: UGB Expansion Scenarios and SAAMs Residential Area with Locally -Serving Employment Residential Area with Significant Employment Employment Area ® Supplemental Area The alternative areas evaluated in the boundary location alternatives analysis are mapped above, and described in greater detail in the Urbanization Report (see Pages 61-63) (Rem Rec 10874) and in the Scenario Evaluation Report, dated October 20, 2015 (Pages 8-15) (Rem Rec 4557-4564. 7.4.4.2. Operationalizing Goal. 14: factors to Evaluate Alternatives Overview The Council finds that the approach to operationalizing the Goal 14 factors is summarized in the Urbanization Report) (Rem Rec 10877-10888) and detailed in the Scenario Evaluation Report, dated October 20, 2015 (Rem Rec 4578 to 4593). The findings in this section draw on the summary in the Urbanization Report. The City Council's comparison, evaluation and balancing of Bend's UGB expansion alternatives was based on the following hierarchy of considerations: • Goal 14 Factors — The legal requirements for what must be considered and balanced. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-25 • Community Outcomes — Eight intended outcomes related to the Goal 14 Factors that reflect the City's goals for the project, articulate what the Goal 14 factors mean for the Bend City Council, and provide a way to summarize results for performance measures. • Performance Measures — Detailed measures for each Goal 14 factor: the factual base for the evaluation. Some performance measures are quantitative and others are qualitative. The Community Outcomes (bold type) and a summary of the performance measures under each Goal 14 Factor are listed below. Factor 1: Efficient accommodation of identified land needs • Complete Communities and Great Neighborhoods: walkability to schools, parks, and businesses; jobs/housing balance, and opportunities for master planning • Efficient, Timely Growth: total expansion, density, land contiguous to existing UGB, and vacant vs. developed land included Factor 2: Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services • Balanced Transportation System: reliance, on, the automobile (vehicle miles traveled per capita or VMT, trip length, mode split, walk trips), congestion, safety and connectivity, proximity to transit, and intersection density • Cost Effective Infrastructure: total cost and cost peracre of transportation and sewer improvements, new, miles of local roads, water system improvements in City water service area, impervious surface area, and development in Welded tuff geology and Drinking Water_ Protection Areas Factor 3: Comparative environmeri. al, social, economic and energy consequences (ESEE) • Quality: Natural Environment (Environmental and Energy Consequences): development in wildlife areas, development adjacent to riparian areas, wildfire hazard, greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and water consumption • Housing Options andAffordability (Social Consequences): cost and mix of new housing • Strong Diverse Economy (Economic Consequences): site suitability for commercial and industrial uses and for the large lot special site need Factor 4: Compatibility of proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forestland outside the UGB • Compatibility with Farms and Forests: farm practices on high value farm land adjacent to expansion areas, impact to irrigation districts, and proximity to forest land Costs, Advantages and Disadvantages for Public Facilities and Services The evaluation of water, sanitary sewer, and transportation included evaluation of impacts to existing facilities that serve nearby areas already inside the UGB and capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to the UGB, consistent with OAR 660-024-0060(8), because they included a City-wide Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-26 analysis of needed improvements to existing facilities and need for new facilities in expansion areas. Transportation The transportation analysis was conducted in coordination with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Transportation Planning Analysis Unit with input from other ODOT and DLCD staff. It utilized the Bend MPO regional travel demand model, which includes land use inputs for the entire future UGB (inside and outside the current UGB) as well as adjacent rural areas. It was used to identify impacts (in terms of congestion, expressed as volume to capacity or v/c ratio) to existing facilities and the need for new transportation facilities, including additional travel lanes and other major improvements to existing roadways. The transportation analysis also used recommended arterial and collector street spacing standards to identify the need for new arterial and collector roads in growth areas. The need for additional public transit service was considered as part of developing Bend's ILUTP (Rem Rec 10994-11144); however, no additional service was identified as needed by 2028 beyond the recent "mid-term" service expansion completed by Cascades East Transit in 2016. These demonstrate that cost, benefits, advantages, and disadvantages have been considered and balanced. This demonstrates that the transportation evaluation of UGB expansion alternatives satisfies OAR 660-024-0060(8). Sanitary Sewer Evaluation of sanitary sewer facilities and, services needed to serve UGB expansion areas built on work completed in 2014onthe City's Collection System. Master Plan (CSMP). Using a long- term optimization approach, the sewer evaluation identified the least -cost improvements consistent with the long-term infrastructure plan. The evaluation focused on assessing additional improvement alternatives not considered in the CSMP that are required to serve growth outside of the existing UGB and re-evaluating alternatives that were considered in the CSMP that are likely to be affected by expanding the UGB. The UGB expansion scenarios were rated for relative cost, based on improvements consistent with the long-term infrastructure analysis in an October 1, 2015 memorandum titled "UGB Expansion — Sanitary Sewer Analysis" from Murray, Smith & Associates (Rem Rec 6783). The Initial Capital Cost and Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) methods were used for comparing various alternatives in the optimization analysis. The Initial Capital Cost method estimates capital investment, but excludes operation and maintenance costs. The EUAC calculates the cost per year of constructing, operating and maintaining an asset over its entire lifespan. As noted previously the goal of the optimization is to minimize the overall life cycle costs while identifying a solution that meets the identified hydraulic criteria. The EUAC approach allows for the comparison of different types of assets (e.g. lift stations, gravity mains, satellite treatment, etc) with varying design lives on an equivalent yearly basis. (Rem Rec 11201-11222) The Council finds that the foregoing analyses demonstrate that cost, benefits, advantages, and disadvantages have been considered and balanced, which demonstrates that the sanitary sewer evaluation of UGB expansion alternatives satisfies OAR 660-024-0060(8). Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-27 Drinking Water Evaluation of drinking water facilities needed to serve UGB expansion areas built on work completed in 2011 on the City's Water System Master Plan. The evaluation considered the lowest available fire flow serving new growth through intermediate pressure zone expansion improvements, supply needed to offset storage requirements to serve new growth, and low pressure results of serving new growth using intermediate pressure zone expansion improvements. These factors were combined to provide an overall assessment of the water system infrastructure improvements needed to serve new growth (Rem Rec 4547)5. In addition, development within DWPA was evaluated as a consideration of how alternative UGB expansion locations could impact existing groundwater facilities to serve nearby areas already inside the UGB. The Council finds that this analysis demonstrates that the water evaluation of UGB expansion alternatives satisfies OAR 660-024-0060(8). Stormwater Stormwater infrastructure impacts were evaluated through the lens of impervious surface area and geology. Impervious surface area.associated with new development was estimated and compared using the ET model. Geology- specifically, the presence of welded tuff formations — was also considered, because on-site retention andtreatment are required in such areas rather than a community stormwater system. The Council finds that this d enionstrates that the stormwaterevaluation of UGB expansion alternatives satisfies OAR 660-024-0060(8). Weighing and Balancing Not all performance measures identified equally important advantages or disadvantages. A handful, of performance measures identified truly significant differences between the alternatives — differences that would meaningfully -affect the community in 2028 and/or that are critical to meeting the -legal requirementsrfor this UGB expansion. These included residential land efficiency, total VMT per capita; transportation improvement costs, efficiency of sewer system improvements, and housing affordability. The project team evaluated overall results using both an equally -weighted and an unequally -weighted approach, including several variations of weighting. The different approaches to weighting were presented and considered by the Boundary TAC as well. Using or not using weighting and the degree of weighting had minimal impact on the overall results: the top performing scenarios were found to rank in the same order regardless of whether and how the performance measures were weighted (See Scenario Evaluation Report for details; Rem Rec 4547). 5 The October 1, 2015 Expansion Scenarios Evlauation Report outlines how the expansion scenarios analysis relied on the City's water system to evaluate potential expansion scenarios and expansion areas within scenarios. The report is at Remand Record page 4547. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-28 7.4.4.3. Results of Alternatives Evaluation The results of the alternatives evaluation are summarized in the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10889-10896) and in the Scenario Evaluation Report, dated October 20, 2015 (See Pages 29- 34; Rem Rec 4575 to 45890)6. An excerpt from these reports is provided below. Factor 1: Efficient accommodation of identified land needs Complete Communities and Great Neighborhoods Top Tier Scenario 2.1 performed the best overall on this Community Outcome, particularly on access to schools and commercial services, because it was created with the intention of providing for complete communities (neighborhoods with a mix of housing, jobs, commercial services, parks, and schools) in all quadrants of the City. Middle Tier Scenario 3.1 and, to a lesser extent, Scenario 1.2 and SAAM-2, also performed well. These alternatives all have some subareas that are fairly complete, and others that are less so. Scenario 3.1 performed well on walk access to both schools and commercial; nearly all new residential expansion areas in each include at least a small commercial center and many include a school. Scenario 3.1 did the best at; increasing the access of housing inside the existing UGB to commercial services. This appears to_be due -to the placement of commercial areas in a few key locations; --For example, --Within "The Thumb", placing commercial adjacent to China Hat Road provides walkable access to neighborhoods et the southern edge of the City that currently lack it In the Shevlin Area, placing commercial along Shevlin Park Road provides walk access to portions -of Awbrey:Butte. Bottom Tier` =i' SAAM-1=and SAAM3"had mixed results on this Community Outcome, with performance below that of the other alternatives::, In part this is because they include one or two large, primarily residential expansion areas and fragmented employment areas elsewhere. SAAM-1 was the only alternative that did not perform well on park/trail access, because the northernmost extent of the Northeast Edge would not have walkable park/trail access. SAAM-3 performed poorly on school and commercial_ access, because of the large amount of new housing in the outer portion of the west area, away from existing and future commercial uses and schools. Because of the nature of the areas included 'inSAAM-1 and SAAM-3, it would be difficult to improve their performance on these measures — there are few or no suitable locations for additional schools, parks, or commercial areas in either one. 6 See Rem Rec 4547 for the complete report dated October 1, 2015 (Revised October 20, 2015). Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-29 Efficient, Timely Growth TOP Tier Scenario 1.2 performed the best overall on this Community Outcome, with high ratings across the board, because it provides a mix of large, vacant properties and smaller parcels contiguous to the existing UGB. Scenarios 2.1 and SAAM-3 also performed well on this Community Outcome. Both do well on measures of density and efficiency because of their reliance on larger, vacant parcels, but both have a lower percentage of land under 20 acres and contiguous to the existing UGB. Middle Tier SAAM-2 and Scenario 3.1 performed moderately well, though not as well as the others mentioned above. This is in part because lower residential densities were assumed in parts of the West Area and the Shevlin Area due to topography and the possible need for cluster development in order to allow for natural resource/wildlife habitat protection. Both also include a number of developed parcels between OB Riley Road and Gopher Gulch, which are less efficient to develop than vacant parcels. Bottom Tier SAAM-1 performed the worst on this -Community Outcome, because the outer Northeast Edge and the Shevlin area both had lower risidentiai densities; the -outer Northeast edge includes quite a few developed properties, particularly in the subdivisionssouthof Juniper Ridge; and, while the parcels are smaller in the Northeast Edge. the outer portion is not contiguous to the current UGB. Factor 2: Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services Balanced Transportation System Top Tier Across the various performance measures included in this Community Outcome, Scenario 2.1 performed the„ best overall, with the lowest VMT per capita, the best overall walk/bike safety and connectivity, and the best system connectivity and progression of system hierarchy. Middle Tier Scenario 1.2, Scenario 3.1, SAAM-1 and SAAM-3 all performed moderately well — the relative ranking among these dePends oh which measures are given most importance, although differences are subtle. Scenario 1.2, SAAM-1 and SAAM-3 do fairly well on congestion, with relatively low overall congestion; they also do fairly well on walk/bike safety and connectivity, with no major barriers identified. It is worth nothing that SAAM-1 does poorly on VMT, but well on congestion (because there is relatively little existing congestion near the Shevlin area) and walk/bike safety and connectivity (because including the full extent of the Shevlin area provides for better connections to the existing road and trail system). Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-30 Bottom Tier SAAM-2 does the worst on this Community Outcome overall, with poor performance on VMT, mode split, average trip length, and a number of other factors. It also performs Tess well on walk/bike safety and connectivity because the river forms a barrier with connections to the west. Cost -Effective Infrastructure To Tier Scenario 2.1 performed the best overall on this Community Outcome, in particular because of the low cost of transportation improvements required (low cost for connecting growth areas and low cost for projects to increase capacity). It also performed fair to well on measures of sewer system cost-effectiveness as well as new linear miles of local streets, water system improvements within the Bend water service area, and total impervious area for new development. It had only one negative rating, on new development within a DWPA, because of the amount of development in The Thumb. Middle Tier SAAM-2 performed somewhat poorly on sewer, though it was not the worst performer; it takes advantage of major trunk infrastructure to the north but the DSL property and The Elbow are not cost-effective due to small area included and fixed costs to serve those areas. It had moderate transportation costs, with low costs for connecting growth areas but high costs for required capacity improvements (including the need to widen US 20 from Robal Rd to 3rd Street). Its only other drawback is having.a relatively high proportion of development in areas with potentially challenging geology (welded tuff). Bottom Tier Scenarios 1.2 and 3.1, SAAM-1 and SAAM-3 all -had at least one significant drawback on transportation and/or- sewer infrastructure, though most had mixed results overall. Scenario 3.1 performed acceptably across most performance measures in this group, but performed poorly on transportation costs due to high cost for connecting growth areas and the need to widen US 20 from Robal Rd to 3rd Street. Scenario 1.2 also performed poorly on transportation infrastructure, due to high cost for connecting expansion areas and high cost for capacity improvements, but performed the best on sewer infrastructure, because it focuses more growth on the Northeast edge, which is efficient for sewer service. SAAM-3 had high costs for sewer improvements because of the need for a new regional pump station to serve the northwest portion of the West Area, but low costs for transportation improvements due to low cost for connecting growth areas and moderate cost for congestion mitigations (including the need to widen US 20 from Robal Rd to 3rd Street). SAAM-3 also has the greatest amount of development in areas with welded tuff geology, which can add to the cost of excavation. SAAM- 1 had high costs for sewer because of the need for a new regional pump station to serve the Shevlin Area (though it does take advantage of cost-effective sewer in the Northeast edge), and also had relatively high transportation costs due to high costs for connecting expansion areas as well as high costs for intersection improvements. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-31 Factor 3: Comparative environmental, social, economic and energy consequences (ESEE) Quality Natural Environment (Environmental and Energy Consequences) Too Tier Scenario 1.2 and Scenario 2.1 are rated fair to very good across all performance measures under this Community Outcome. Neither has development adjacent to riparian areas, and both have limited total expansion in elk and deer range, with no expansion into ODFW areas of potential concern. Neither has features that prevent mitigation of wildfire hazard in any expansion areas. Both had reasonably good performance on energy consumption, greenhouse gas, and water consumption measures as well. Middle Tier Scenario 3.1, SAAM-2 and SAAM-3 had mixed results. SAAM-2 performed fair to well on all measures except greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. Scenario 3.1 rated poorly on development in wildlife areas and wildfire hazard due to the inclusion of the Shevlin area, which is both an ODFW area of potential concern and has topographic features that make it difficult to fully mitigate wildfire risk. SAAM-3 rated poorly ondevelopment in wildlife areas because so much growth was focused in the West area, but performed fairly or well on other performance measures. Bottom Tier SAAM-1 performed poorly on many of the performance measures, and did not perform well on any. It rated very low on development in wildlife areas and lower also on wildfire hazard because it includes thp-fUll Shevlin area (see reasons noted above). It also rated lower than other scenarios on development adjacent to riparian areas because of the inclusion of the upper portion of the Shevlin Housing OptionandAffordability (Social Consequences) Too Tier Scenario 24 and SAAM-1 performed the best on this Community Outcome, though there were only two performance measures.. Scenario 2.1 had good housing mix in nearly all subareas and good housing affordability with significant housing growth in the southeast. SAAM-1 had good housing mix in both primary residential expansion areas and had moderately affordable housing due to the heavy expansion in the Northeast Edge. Middle Tier Scenario 1.2 performed well on affordability, but less well on housing mix, with most subareas somewhat imbalanced (too much single family or too little). SAAM-2 performed well on housing mix, but less well on affordability, with growth focused on the northwestern side of the City. Bottom Tier Scenario 3.1 and SAAM-3 performed poorly on affordability due to the heavy focus on the west side of the City. SAAM-3 also did not perform well on housing mix because there were small residual areas of almost exclusively multifamily housing. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-32 Strong Diverse Economy (Economic Consequences) Top Tier Nearly all alternatives — Scenario 1.2, Scenario 3.1, SAAM-1, SAAM-2, and SAAM-3 -- performed well or very well across all performance measures in this Community Outcome. Middle Tier Scenario 2.1 rated somewhat lower, because it places employment and commercial uses in more of the expansion areas (e.g. the West Area) where they are somewhat less well suited. Factor 4: Compatibility of proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB Compatibility with Farms and Forests Top Tier Scenario 1.2 rated the highest on farm and forest compatibility because it affects the fewest irrigation district customers and has no forest land within a mile of any expansion area. Middle Tier Scenario 2.1, SAAM-3, and, to a lesser- extent, SAAM-1 also rated fair to good on this Community Outcome. SAAM-3 has less farm impacts but more forest adjacency than other alternatives. Scenario 2.1 and SAAM-1 both have.;moderate levels of farm impacts, moderate impacts to irrigation districts, and little to no forest land -adjacency:': Bottom Tier Scenario 3.1 and SRAM -2 rated the lowest on-farm and forest compatibility because they are proximate to the greatest nu mber of working farms and also affect the greatest number of irrigation district customers'Scenario 3.-1 also has some forest land between a mile and a quarter -mile awayfrom,.the expansion in the West Area. Subarea -Advantages and Disadvantages This section=provides a summary of findings from the evaluation on the key advantages and disadvantages of each subarea (those that are either inherent to the geography or that do not vary appreciably between the alternatives). North Triangle Key Advantages • Cost-effective sewer • Fairly close to existing transit • Well-suited to commercial uses • No commercial farms or forest lands nearby Key Disadvantages • Contributes to congestion on 97 & 20 • Canals create barriers • Industrial / rural residential compatibility concerns • Large format retail reduces attractiveness for housing • Impacts Swalley Irrigation District • New collector roads relatively costly Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-33 OB Riley / Gopher Gulch Key Advantages • Master planning opportunities (Gopher Gulch) • Proximity to planned parks on west • Eastern portion generally well-suited to industrial & commercial uses • Close to transit on SE corner Northeast Edge Key Advantages • Cost-effective sewer • Well-suited to commercial uses adjacent to major roads • Mid-size parcels, possibility for near-term development • Housing affordability DSL Property (& Darnell Estates) Key Advantages • Master -planning opportunity, (DSL) • No irrigation district impacts (DSL) • Housing affordability •_ Relatively close to transit • Well-suited for commercial & employment uses along major roads (DSL) Key Disadvantages • Many developed parcels in south • Connectivity limited in west • Requires extension of major sewer line • Wildfire hazard difficult to mitigate adjacent to river • Impacts Swalley Irrigation District Key Disadvantages • Limited connectivity • Canals create barriers • Not near transit • Some commercial farms nearby Key Disadvantages • Potential impacts to bat caves on DSL property Darnell Estates requires additional sewer extension — not cost-effective The "Elbow" Key Advantages • Existing school & possible future park site • Housing affordability • Fairly well-suited to commercial and employment along 27th / Knott Rd. Key Disadvantages • Connectivity limited unless connection built from Rickard to 15th near Murphy • New collector roads relatively costly • Requires interim pump station for sewer • Partially in Elk/Deer Range • Farm adjacency, including feed lot along Knott Rd. • Not near transit • Impacts Arnold Irrigation District Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-34 The "Thumb" (& southwest area) Key Advantages • Master planning opportunities • Housing affordability • Well-suited to a wide range of uses (Ward) • South end of US 97 relatively uncongested West Area Key Advantages • Master planning opportunities • Relatively close to transit on eastern edge • No irrigation district impacts Shevlin Area Key Advantages • Master planning opportunities • Includes_ planned school sit • Relativelyclose to transit at SE corner Key Disadvantages • Connectivity limited unless full collector system built from China Hat to Knott (highway & railroad barriers) • Canal creates barriers • Reliant on US 97 • Long average trip lengths • Fully in EIk/Deer Range • Impacts Arnold Irrigation District • Drinking Water Protection Areas — concern for certain industrial uses Key Disadvantages Largely welded tuff geology • Entirely within Deer & Elk Winter Range • Housing likely to be more expensive Limited suitability for industrial & commercial uses 'Key Disadvantages :• Long trip lengths Difficult to build connected local streets Entirely within Deer & Elk Winter Range, largely within ODFW Areas of Potential Concern • Housing likely to be more expensive • Limited suitability for industrial & commercial uses • NW edge adjacent to Tumalo Creek • Outer portions may be difficult to reduce fire hazard • Proximity to forest land in western corner • Minimal congestion • Proximity to existing/planned parks:& trails • No irrigation district impacts' Scenario Evaluation Conclusion and Balancing The Council finds that, based on the full alternatives evaluation, in considering and balancing the four Goal 14 Factors as required under Statewide Planning Goal 14 and OAR 660-024- 0060, Scenario 2.1 performed the best of the alternatives overall, regardless of whether and to what degree weighting is applied to distinguish between the more and less important Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-35 performance measures. It provided complete communities in all quadrants of the City; focused growth primarily on large, vacant parcels; provided enhanced transportation connections; was fairly cost-effective for sewer infrastructure; avoided riparian areas; limited expansion in wildlife areas; avoided areas where topographic features prevent mitigation of wildfire risk; had good housing mix in nearly all subareas; and offered opportunities for relatively affordable housing with significant housing growth in the southeast. The Council finds that no other alternative had as strong a performance as Scenario 2.1 on as many community outcomes, and each of the other alternatives has at least one important weakness identified through the evaluation, as documented in the Scenario Evaluation Report. As a result, the USC selected Scenario 2.1 as the preferred scenario for further evalutation and refinement. The USC chose Scenario 2.1, in brief, to balance growth on both the east and the west sides of the City, reduce the traffic impact on the west, include the area referred to as the "Perfect Rectangle", and reduce the risk of wildfire on the west. The USC discussion also noted community survey results where Scenario 2.1 rated well in an online survey. 7 7.4.4.4. Preferred Scenario Refinement Process Overview As stated above, the Council finds that Scenario 2.1 was selected as the starting point for creating a preferred scenario due to its: performance in the alternatives evaluation. The refinement process addressed arrangement of land uses and changes to boundary location in certain subareas. It also included adjustments to assumptions about yield from efficiency measures and capacity of land inside the current UGB in order to ensure that these assumptions were "reasonably likely" to be implemented. The refinements included: • removing small areas that poorly or would not be cost-effective to urbanize; • refining the land uses within some--Sub-areas in order to address compatibility concerns and ensure an appropriate,niix and intensity of uses in each area, given its context and the potential for additional future expansions that would build on the current expansion; • distributing growth across more of the land in the west and northwest rather than relying on a single property owner in this. area; • consolidating growth in the northeast to a single larger block of land where a new complete community is possible rather than multiple small expansion areas; • inclusion of park land as requested by the Park District in their testimony; and • including specific properties that offered commitments to provide affordable housing, in order to ensure that housing will be available to meet the needs of residents at all income levels. The Boundary TAC and USC provided input at multiple meetings, and directed refinements based on public testimony in the context of balancing the four Goal 14 factors. In considering whether to add land that was not included in Scenario 2.1, the USC, City staff, and consultant See Rem Rec 5665 for the minutes of the October 22, 2015 meeting of the USC for their discussion and decision selecting Scenario 2.1. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-36 team considered whether the scenario evaluation provided evidence that a certain area performed better with the land in question included, and any public testimony providing new evidence of a compelling advantage of including the land. The USC, City staff, and consultant team also ensured that components of Scenario 2.1 that were essential to its strong performance in the scenario evaluation (e.g. emphasis on complete communities, strong growth in the southeast area of the City, and moderate amounts of expansion in the south, west, and northwest) were retained throughout the refinement process. The consideration of refinements was a balancing process where the USC considered whether project's scenario evaluations and public testimony supported inclusion of the refinement because it, on balance, was consistent with the Goal 14 factors and Community Outcomes. Public Testimony and Response The Council finds that the record includes a significant amount of public testimony that argued for several properties being included in the UGB:To summarize this testimony briefly, a number of property owners and/or their representatives argued for their property's inclusion in the UGB, their merits, and any feedback as to whether the process of evaluation was conducted in their view according to state law. Several pieces of testimony offered specific incentives and benefits for certain property being included in the UGB,including certain properties that would be part of a transect, several that offered the development of affordable housing, and several that argued for being included because they were included in a large group. The following findings respond to the public testimony directed at the boundary and the location analysis by area and subject. The Cityrinotes that the UGB projectrteam provided responses to some of this testimony in Appendix E to the USC Meeting Packet for their June 25, 2015 meeting (Rem Rec 8335). North Overview of Refinements The following refinements were made;to Scenario2.1 in the north area: • land uses re -arranged and employment uses modified in the North Triangle subarea in order to -provide compatibility with rural residential to the north; • two properties initially removed from the North Triangle subarea in order to shift residential uses to other'"areas and balance land uses; one subsequently added back to the scenario based on a"commitment to provide affordable/workforce housing; • residential uses included in the OB Riley subarea in order to provide a more complete community and transition to adjacent rural residential uses; • land uses re -arranged and employment uses modified in the OB Riley subarea in order to take advantage of visibility along Highway 20 for commercial uses. Several property owners and interested parties submitted testimony regarding the North Triangle and/or OB Riley subareas. Carpenter Property • Bayard (Rem Rec 9954) Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-37 • Barker (Rem Rec 9955) The neighborhood association to the North provided written and oral testimony regarding appropriate land uses on this property, raising concerns about compatibility of industrial uses, especially heavy Industrial uses, in this location with homes to the north. Based on the testimony, the USC approved modifying the land uses on this property from General Industrial to a mix of residential, mixed employment, and light industrial for Scenario 2.1G. Bell Property • Colucci for the Golden Triangle Area Consortium (GTAC)/Bell (Rem Rec 8379, 9961) • Dickson (Rem Rec 6079, 6083, 9035) This property was removed from the draft preferred scenario during part of the refinement process, in order to reduce development in the North Triangle overall and limit the amount of urban development abutting the rural residential neighborhood to the north. The property owner, along with several adjacent property owners in the North Triangle, provided written and oral testimony that the Bell property (tax lot 171208D0 TL 100) should be included in the preferred scenario8. GTAC/Bell/Colucci/Dickson proposed dedicating 25% of the minimum number of calibrated housing units for their area for affordable housing. The USC considered the additional social benefits of providing more land for affordablehousing, along with this commitment of the property owers. Based on the testimony, the USC -approved including the Bell property in the UGB for Scenario 2.1G., < 4,;:w,` Northeast Overview of Refinements-- The efinements- The following refinements were made to Scenario in the northeast area: • Including the entire area referred to in testimony as either Butler Market Village or the Perfect Rectangle • Including:Rock Ridge and, Pine Nursery Parks Public Testimony and Response Several property owners and interested parties submitted testimony regarding the Northeast subarea. The Perfect Rectangle • Murphy (Rem Rec 4325, 5420) • Lane (Rem Rec 3917, 3921, 6156) • Bend Park and Recreation District (Rem Rec 4948, 4968) 8 See oral testimony from Liz Dickson (Rem Rec 10150) and Ann Marie Colucci (Rem Rec 10151) from April 21, 2016 USC Meeting. See also written testimony from Ann Marie Colucci (Rem Rec 9961). Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-38 Murphy and several other parties testified that a larger area in the northeast should be considered for UGB expansion. This particular area is referred to as either Butler Market Village or the Perfect Rectangle. The Boundary TAC and then the USC proposed including this area in Scenario 2.1 for analysis because of the many benefits it provided. These benefits included, but are not limited to, a large and relatively level area within which to master plan, a working group of property owners, the close proximity of public infrastructure (sewer), and the potential to mix land uses to achieve the needed housing mix and with jobs, schools, and parks. This area has been included in Scenario 2.1G as the Northeast and includes 465 total acres of which 222 acres are for housing, 22 acres for jobs, with another 196 acres of nearby park land that will be included in the UGB. East/Southeast Overview of Refinements The following refinements were made to Scenario 2:1 to the East and Southeast: • Inclusion of small fragment of Burns/Pacwest property on East Highway 20 for affordable housing • reduction of size of large lot site on DSL • refinement of land uses in Elbow to respond to testimony and promote compatibility • swap of land uses between Elbow and Thumb Ward'properties in response to testimony Public Testimony and:Response Several property owners and interested parties submitted testimony regarding the East and Southeast. Burns/Pacwest Property • Hopp'(Rem Rec.:3914. 8230, 9957 Hopp/Burns/Pacwest proposed developing their entire property with multi -family housing, and targeting households earning„80% area meidan income (AMI). The USC included this property in the UGB forthe social benefit of providing additional land for affordable housing, along with a commitment of the land owner to -develop. DSL Property • Russell for DSL (Rem Rec 4926) The DSL representative testified requesting that the Targe lot industrial site designation on the property be limited to 50 acres (consistent with the Regional Large Lot Industrial Land provisions for Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson Counties in OAR Chapter 660, Division 24), rather than 56 acres (as initially identified in the EOA). The USC included the entire portion of Section 11 (aka DSL property) in the UGB, and included one of the large lot industrial sites on this property, but reduced the designation to 50 acres as requested. Ward Property • Wise/Ward for JL Ward Company (Rem Rec 4142, 5321, 6076) Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-39 The Ward Family provided testimony on their property in the Elbow and asked that 12.8 acres of residential from the Thumb be swapped with 12.8 acres of commercial. The USC approved this swap, with 12.8 acres of residential lands for housing added to the 15th Street/Elbow property outside the UGB and 12.8 acres of commercial land added to the Thumb. South/Southwest Overview of Refinements The following refinements were made to Scenario 2.1 to the South and Southwest: • swap of land uses between Elbow and Thumb Ward properties in response to testimony • Baney property removed from scenario then brought back based on testimony and affordable housing commitment Public Testimony and Response Several property owners and interested parties submitted testimony regarding the South and the Southwest Baney Property • Baney/McMahon for Baney (Rem Rec 3911, 9929) Baney/McMahon were among a group of parties that testified'before the USC at their April 21, 2016 meeting. Their testimonyarguedfor:; including'Baney's property on Rocking Horse Road in the UGB, and if included, the°future development of this property would include a component of affordable housing. They proposed;: developing amix of housing types on his property and ensuring 25% of the units_;would be: made available for affordable housing. This testimony further clarified that this housing would-be targeted for citizens earning $15.00 an hour, roughly $16,000 to $22,000 annually. This -would correspond to 30% of AMI. Based on this testimony, previous analysis on tha,,parcel showing its suitability plus the additional social benefit of providing affordable housing, the USC directed staff to include the Baney property in the preferred UGB Scenario. Ward Property` • Wise/Ward for JL Ward Company (Rem Rec 4142) Wise/Ward provided testimony-insupport of including the "Thumb" in the UGB expansion, and the arrangement of land uses. The USC responded to this testimony by supporting the swap of land between the Ward property in the Thumb with the Ward property in the Elbow on 15th Street. More land for housing was provided in their opportunity area on 15th Street, and more land for employment and commercial services was allocated to the Thumb. West / Northwest Overview of Refinements The following refinements were made to Scenario 2.1 to the West and Northwest: Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-40 • Including additional land in the West Area for the transect and for the extension of Skyline Ranch Road • Including additional land in the West Area for development of affordable housing • Including additional land on Shevlin Park Road for housing and a commercial node Public Testimony and Response Several property owners and interested parties submitted testimony regarding the West and the Northwest. Day/Rio Lobo Property • Conway (Rem Rec 4861, 6095, 8221, 9973) Day/Rio Lobo/Conway proposed dedicating 20% of their multi -family residential units for affordable housing, and further clarified that these units would be affordable based on the definition used in the BDC. The USC approved the addition of 40 acres of the Day/Rio Lobo property based on prior evaluation results and the social benefits associated with the designation of some of their property in the West Area to be dedicated for affordable housing, based on their testimony. Coats Property • Lewis (Rem Rec 3926, 5352, 6204, 9942) Lewis, on behalf of Coates, testified that the southern portion of the Coates property should be included in the UGB because it fills an existing "notch" between developed areas, improving connectivity in that area. The USC approved the inclusion of an additional 80 acres of the Coats (represented by Lewis) property for additional housing and for a small, commercial node on Shevlin Park Road. West Area / Transect • Miller (Rem Rec 4094, 4933) • Schueler (Rem Rec 4965) • Schueler, Dewey, Swisher, Miller (Rem Rec 6070). • Swisher (Rem Rec 4937) The Boundary TAC heard testimony that proposed a boundary and land use concept for the West Area. The land use concept proposed a "transect" — the gradual reduction in residential densities as development moved closer to the boundary between the UGB and the undeveloped forest lands on Bend's west side. The Boundary TAC and USC both heard testimony on this proposal. The benefits articulated of including this area in the UGB included allowing for the extension of Skyline Ranch Road within the planning horizon, providing for cohesive wildlife corridors and wildfire mitigation strategies throughout the area, providing a gradual and appropriate transition to public park land to the west, and the area having ready access to necessary infrastructure . The proposal for the transect from Dewey, Miller, Schueler, and Swisher was presented to the Boundary TAC at their January 20, 2016 meeting (See meeting minutes at Rem Rec 5965). The USC considered this proposal as well and directed staff to include it in the UGB scenario during their February 2016 meeting (See meeting minutes at Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-41 Rem Rec 9209). This area is included in Scenario 2.1G. The proposed Growth Management Chapter (Rem Rec 10362) includes policies that include housing mix for specific areas of development, areas designated for wildlife travel, and area within which fire mitigation treatments will take place. Goal 14 analysis: Why certain properties included, why others not included • Colucci (Rem Rec 8379) • Conway (Rem Rec 4861, 6095, 8221) • Dickson (Rem Rec 6079, 6083, 9035) • Hopp (Rem Rec 8230) • Lewis (Rem Rec 5352, 6204, 9942) • UGB Team — Comment Log of Public Testimony (Rem Rec 8335) The Council finds that the City documented the process through which properties were evaluated for the UGB amendment in several resources, including the UGB Scenario Evaluation Report (Rem Rec 6209), the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 9679), and the Findings in this section. The record includes testimony from a number of individuals and groups testifying in support of certain property being included, and testifying against property on the West side of Bend being included. The record does not include testimony that argues against expansion into other geographic directions (e.g. East or Southeast). The Council understands this testimony to argue that certain properties should have been included in the UGB, and because these properties were already adjacent to the UGB, could°.be.served with infrastructure, and/or provided some benefit to.the:..City. State law (OAR 660-024, Goal 14, -and ORS '197298), governs -how the City must go about determining land needs<for urban uses, and then evaluating properties if a need has been shown for additional land.TTheselaws4include several key sideboards on the determination of whether a UGBexpansion is needed and was properly evaluated. Goal 14 outlines that the establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on a demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population. This population is based on the coordinated population forecast Deschutes County adopted in 20049. The population forecast for the City 10 2028 is 115,063, and is based on the acknowledged population forecast of 109,389 for Bend in 2025. No evidence has been submitted to the record to cause the re-evaluation of this forecast and the consideration of another forecast that should be adopted and acknowledged in its place. This forecast, and the employment forecast in the EOA provided the bases upon which the land need estimates were developed. The City needed approximately 2,300 acres of land, and had to select this amount from 5,400 acres of land that performed the best against the performance measures. The Council finds that the City has documented the process through which a study area was formed, properties were evaluated based on performance measures recommended by the 9 The 2004 Coordinated Forecast Report is the 2009 UGB Record at Rec. 1980. The City and County coordinated on the development of the forecast between 2002 and 2004. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-42 Boundary TAC and approved by the USC, and then organized into potential UGB expansion subareas. These same subareas were considered in different configurations in different scenarios before the USC recommended Scenario 2.1A as the scenario for which additional evaluation would be conducted. The USC then considered several potential versions of this scenario, before deciding on April 21, 2016 to forward Scenario 2.1G to a public hearing. State law (OAR 660-024-0060) does not require the City to prepare findings explaining how each property in a study area was rated, whether it was to be included in the UGB or not, with additional findings explaining why not. State law allows, and the City chose, to consider larger geographic areas consisting of multiple properties to better allow needed housing and jobs in different configurations. State law also does not require the City to explain its decision of considering larger geographic areas instead of conducting a property by property comparison, which in this case is practically impossible given the amount of needed acres of expansion and numbers of parcels in the study area. The Council finds that the City decided early in the process to focus the analysis of potential areas for expansion on those rural residential, exception, and non -resource lands that were considered Priority 2 lands under ORS 197.298(1)(b). This means that the City would not consider any lands designated as resource lands — those lands designated for agriculture or forest uses — under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. None of these lands are included in the proposed UGB expansion. -In Bend's case, there was more Priority 2 land than the City needed for UGB expansion, and the City used the Goal 14 factors to evaluate, weigh, and balance which areas would best meet the City's needs. In October 2015, the USC directed the team;t o use;Scenarie2.1, with certain changes of theirs, as the scenario to use;,for further infrastructure evaluation andrefinement. This scenario went through multiple modifications between the Boundary TAC's next meeting on December 14, 2015, and the f inal version Scenario -2:1 (2.1G), considered by the USC at their April 21, 2016 meeting._ Each round of changes came atthe direction of the Boundary TAC and/or the USC, none of which reflected a final decision on the boundary. The project team presented changes to the scenario at each publicmeeting-based on factual information and policy direction (of the Boundary TAG and USC), and- each committee received public comment at their respective meetings that included comment directed at changes to Scenario 2.1 and why they should or should not have been made. Why certain adjustments were -made Transect • Schueler (Rem Rec 4965) • Schueler, Dewey, Swisher, Miller (Rem Rec 6070). The Boundary TAC heard testimony that proposed a boundary and transect for the West Area UGB expansion area. This proposal included the gradual reduction in residential densities as development moved closer to the boundary between the UGB and the forest lands on Bend's west side. The Boundary TAC and USC both heard testimony on this proposal. The proposal for the transect from Dewey, Miller, Schueler, and Swisher was presented to the Boundary TAC Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-43 at their January 20, 2016 meeting (Rem Rec 5965). The USC considered this proposal as well and directed staff to include it in the UGB scenario during their February 2016 meeting (Rem Rec 9209). This area is included in Scenario 2.1G. The proposed Growth Management Chapter includes policies that include housing mix for specific areas of development, areas designated for wildlife travel, and area within which fire mitigation treatments will take place (Rem Rec 9233). Affordable Housing • Baney, McMahon (Rem Rec 10152) for Baney (Rem Rec 9929) • Conway (Rem Rec 10153) for Rio Lobo (Rem Rec 9973) • Colucci (Rem Rec 10151) for the GTAC/Bell (Rem Rec 9961) • Hopp (Rem Rec 10152) for Burns/Pacwest (Rem Rec.9957) The above -listed parties testified at the April 21, 2016 USC meeting that either their or their clients' should be included in the UGB based on their individual proposals to provide what they described as affordable housing. In addition to these parties, both Paul Dewey and Elizabeth Dickson provided oral testimony that the City needed to do more to satisfy Goal 10, and that including this'additional land was necessary for the development of affordable housing, and would assist the City in complying with Goal 10. Baney/McMahon proposed developing multi -family units on his property and ensuring 25% of these multi -family units would be made availablefor work force housing. This testimony further clarified that this housing_wou_ld be targeted for citizens earning $15.00 an hour, roughly $16,000 to $22,000 annually: This would correspond to 30%0 :of average median income (AMI). Day/Rio Lobo/Conway proposed dedicating 20% Of their proposed multi -family residential units for affordable housing, and further clarified that these units would be affordable based on the definition used 'in Section 3.6:20Q(C)14 the: BDC. GTAC/Bell/Colucci/Dickson proposed dedicating 25% of the minimum number of calibrated housing units for their area 'for affordable housing, targeting 30% of AMI with a recommended target of 80% -owner occupancy. Hopp/Burns/Pacwest proposed developing their entire property with multi -family housing, and targeting households earning 80% AMI. The City has provided findings in Section 9 of this report addressing compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing. The City has also provided findings explaining that these properties were included due to their commitments to provide affordable housing. The Council finds that, in Section 4 of the Findings report, that the City's work has satisfied Goal 10. To summarize briefly, the City's work on remand satisfies Goal 10 because the City has inventoried buildable lands for housing, completed a housing needs analysis, proposed efficiency measures that would not only add capacity for housing in the current UGB, but for the purpose of providing additional zoned land for needed types of housing. In addition, the City's work complies with Goal 10 because the proposed UGB expansion provides the land needed Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-44 for future population growth and has been plan designated so that housing is developed to help achieve the City's needed mix of 55% single family detached, 10% single family attached, and 35% multi -family housing. The Council finds that adding land to the UGB specifically for affordable housing helps secure needed housing at specific income levels. The Council finds that while these additional lands will help the achieve its needed housing mix of 35% for multi -family, the benefit they provide is the provision of housing that will be affordable to those households earning 30% to 80% of AMI because this level of affordability will be provided through the implementation of Area Planning policies related to specific percentages of units being made affordable to specific income levels. The Council also finds that these same areas have the added benefit of being located in areas that are close to jobs, schools, parks, and services. The City has proposed policies in the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure such housing is developed once these respective areas are in the UGB and annexed to the City (Rem Rec 10310). Perfect Rectangle • Murphy (Rem Rec 4325, 5420) • Lane (Rem Rec 3917, 3921, 61.56). Parties Murphy and several others testified that a; larger area in the northeast should be considered for UGB expansion. This particular area is referred to as either Butler Market Village or the Perfect Rectangle. yThe'Boundary TAC and the;:USC proposed including this area in Scenario 2.1 for analysis' because of the many?benefits it provided. These benefits included, but are not limited to, a large and relatively level areas within which to master plan, a working group of property owners, the close proxiityof public infrastructure (sewer), and the potential to mix land uses to achieve.the needed housing mix and with jobs, schools, and parks. This area has been included in Scenario 2.1G as the Northeast;; and includes 465 total acres of which 222 acres are for housing, 22 acres for jobs, with another 196 acres of nearby park land that will be included in the UGB. Public Process • Smith (Rem: Rec 4958) • Van Valkenburg (Rem Rec 4963) • Schueler (Rem Rec 4965) • Dewey (Rem Rec 5311, 5313, 5315) The City received a significant amount of testimony regarding the public process used to determine the UGB scenario between the USC's October 22, 2015 meeting and their December 14, 2015 meeting. The public process used to determine the UGB expansion, particularly the work of the Boundary TAC that was approved by the USC, was the topic of a number of pieces of public testimony. The testimony cited above is a sample of this testimony. The purpose of this finding is to document the work of the Boundary TAC in both Phases 1 and 2, including how their work was approved and/or modified by the USC, to show that the steps taken to identify Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-45 potential expansion areas and compare and contrast them occurred in an open and public process. The Boundary TAC began Phase 1 of their work in August 2014. Between August 2014 and February 2015, the TAC met six times with the focus of their work to identify suitable lands for UGB expansion and to identify performance measures that would be used in Phase 2 for evaluating alternative UGB scenarios. The USC approved the recommendations of the Boundary TAC for Phase 1 at their March 19, 2015 meeting (See USC meeting packet at Rem Rec 3551; See 3/19/15 meeting minutes at Rem Rec 8275). The Boundary TAC began Phase 2 of their work in April 2015. They also participated with the other TACs and the USC in the Boundary Workshop on April 30, 2015. From this meeting, the project team got feedback from the workshop on which areas to consider for UGB expansion of those areas identified as suitable for expansion in Phase 1. During May and June of 2015, the Boundary TAC met and developed several potential UGB expansion scenarios for evaluation, along with a supplemental analysis area (SAAM) map that was used to arrange expansion areas into three additional scenarios. The Boundary TAC recommended these three scenarios and the SAAM to the USC at their June 24, 2015 meeting. The USC approved the slate of scenarios and SAAM for evaluation over the summer at their June 25, 2015 meeting (Rem Rec 8275). During the months of July, August, and September 2015 the project team worked to evaluate the six (6) total scenarios against the performance measures approved in Phase 1. The team released the UGB Scenarios Evaluation Report and included it in the meeting packet of the Boundary TAC's October 8, 2015 meeting (Rem Rec 6619). The materials provided to the Boundary TAC also included_a transportation study__(Rem Rec 6851) and appendices that presented the results of the evaluation of the scenarios against all the performance measures (Rem Rec 6737). The Boundary TAC conducted two meetings in October of 2015 to review the scenario evaluation, and then make a recommendation on a final scenario to the USC for final evaluation. The TAC recommended a Scenario 2.3, Scenario 2.1 with several changes, to the USC at their second meeting on October 24, 2015. The USC considered this scenario at their meeting, held the same day on October 24, 2015, and made a decision to go forward with Scenario 2.1 along with several changes. Between December 2015 and April 2016, the Boundary TAC and the USC met to consider the final scenario, and potential changes to the boundary. Between the two committees, they held a total of six public meetings, with the Boundary TAC meeting twice in March. The two committees considered seven (7) different versions of Scenario 2.1 between December 2015 and April 2016. The Boundary TAC recommended Scenario 2.1 F to the USC at their March 30, 2016 meeting. The USC approved this scenario, along with several additions to the boundary, to develop Scenario 2.1G at their April 21, 2016 (Rem Rec 10144). Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-46 The Boundary TAC held a total of eight (8) public meetings over Phase 2 of the Remand Project, during which they provided input to the project team and recommended UGB scenarios to the USC. Each meeting was publicly noticed, and public input was solicited at each meeting. The USC met five times over Phase 2, and like the Boundary TAC, asked for public input before making decisions and/or providing direction to the project team on the UGB scenario evaluation. These findings demonstrate the planning process and resulting proposed UGB expansion integrated citizen involvement, a factual basis, and applicable legal requirements. 7.4.4.5. Preferred Scenario Description The preferred scenario is described and mapped in the Urbanization Report (See pages 82-101 at Rem Rec 10896-10915). The Council finds that the conclusions in this section draw on that summary. The proposed 2016 UGB expansion (the "preferred scenario") is for a.total of 2,380 acres: • 1,142 gross acres of residential land (including land for future schools and future parks not yet in BPRD or school district ownership); • 815 gross acres of employment land; • 285 acres of land for public facilities currently in BPRD or school district ownership; and, • 138 acres of existing right-of-way within and fronting; UGB expansion areas, needed to provide urban street improvements to support growth in' -the expansion areas. Like previous expansion scenarios, the preferred scenario focuses future growth in opportunity areas within the existing UGB and in new complete communities in expansion areas. Nearly all expansion areas include;a mix of housing, employment areas, shopping/services, and schools and parks. A "transect"'concept in the West Area reduces the density of development near the west edge of -the City in recognition .of the-natural"resources and open spaces to the west. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-47 Figure 7-9: Preferred UGB Expansion Scenario Preferred Urban Growth Boundary Expansion: Scenario 2.1 G UGB EXPANSION AREAS Residential/Employment Park North"Triangle" 188 Acres 20 9 i 147 Acres Rock Ridg Pa& Shevlin 68 Acres Northeast 465 Acres PineNursery A LER MARKET Rr] Park West 344Aaes REED MARKET East Hwy 20 2 Acres OSI. Property 362 Acres The "Elbow" 474Acres Southwest 57 Acres The"Thumb" 222 Acres NORTH Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-48 Figure 7-10: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designations Comprehensive Plan Designations CB S IG MU RH PF 111 CC IL 0 MN RL CG ME IS PO RM CL MR PO/RM/RS RS Findings Report Disclaimer: Land uses are subject to refinement during master planning and City -initiated area planning, Service Layer Credits: Deschutes County GIS (2014) July 2016 Sp Stiea*/Rivers Uttian GrOlitth EioundarY RbadiillighWay*iftliRroposed Current Section 7-49 Table 7-3: Preferred UGB Expansion - Key Metrics from Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10900) Housing Mix14 0 N N • co a W Total Acres c -c m o a) Eco �. O co •- 70 ° `—' = CI) V) c �- .Q •V to 3 ._ ca O c C4—IW J a. u- W o I u_ co 0 W North "Triangle" 188 86 88 0 14 505 44% 13% 42% 835 Northeast 471 222 22 196 31 1,099 50% 10% 40% 214 East Hwy 20 2 2 0 0 0 70 0% 14% 86% 0 DSL Property 368 223 139 0 6 1,001 49% 11% 41% 880 "The Elbow" 479 122 246 75 36 819 36% 17% 47% 2,274 "The Thumb" 245 44 177 0 24 266 49% 15% 37% 1,573 Southwest 57 34 5 14 4 240 24% 16% 60% 80 West 347 321 21 0 5 983 69% 10% 21% 261 Shevlin 68 60 8 0 0 174 69% 10% 21% 74 OB Riley 154 28 109 0 17 125 70% 10% 20% 990 Expansion Total 2,380 1,142 815 285 138 5,282 50% 12% 38% 7,181 The total residential, employment and park and school land need in the UGB expansion includes within it small amounts of buildable land and developed land that is unlikely to redevelop within the planning horizon located on parcels that have other vacant, buildable land. It also includes land for things like future parks and open space, future schools, future right-of- way, and other future urban uses. A breakdown of the land need is provided in Table 7-2. 10 Residential Land identifies total acres of residential plan designations on tax Tots. 11 Employment Land identifies total acres of employment plan designations on tax lots. 12 Public Facilities land indicates land owned by the park or school district to which the PF plan designation is being applied; land for additional parks & schools is provided within residential land acreage. 13 Housing units are modeled capacity estimates. Policies in the new Growth Management chapter of the Comprehensive Plan specify minimum and/or maximum housing capacities for each expansion area that are based on the modeled capacity estimates, but may be rounded slightly or incorporate slight refinements based on negotiated agreements. 14 SFD = Single Family Detached; SFA = Single Family Attached; MF = Multifamily (includes duplex & triplex). Housing mix reflects policy requirements for the expansion area in total; individual properties may vary. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-50 Table 7-4: Components of Land Need Total expansion acres on parcels by plan designation Unbuildable Land's Developed Land Not Expected to Redevelop16 Vacant and Redevelopable Buildable Acres Land for future right of way, future parks & open space, future schools, and other urban uses Net Buildable Residential / Employment Acres 7.4.4.6. Evaluation of the Preferred Scenario Residential Land 1,142 11 13 1,119 475 644 Employment Land 815 2 13 800 255 545 Public Facilities 285 3 152 130 130 0 The evaluation of the preferred scenario is summarized in the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10904-10915). The findings in this section draw on that summary, as well as additional detailed information in the supporting technical memoranda; evaluating the preferred scenario (Rem Rec 11223-11250, 11201-11222, 10183-10218, 10223-10263). Overview The purpose of this section is to summarize the evaluation of the Preferred UGB Expansion Scenario relative to the four Goal 14 factors. This summary draws on technical memoranda prepared by APG, Fregonese Associates, "DKS-Associates;:'and MSA addressing specific topics and provides a summary of key findings from those evaluations The evaluation of the preferred -scenario was: based on=the same "Community Outcomes" and largely the same set of "Performance Measures""used to evaluate the original scenarios and SAAMs (see page 7-25 of this section). The methodology used to evaluate each performance measure was generally similar to,previous evaluations for the initial scenarios and SAAMs. Some refinements to land use and =transportation assumptions have been applied in order to more accurately reflect elements such as current and proposed development code regulations, updates to the BLI, street and blocksize standards, and housing cost factors. In addition, the details of the methodology were refined -for a few of the performance measures in order to make the results more.. informative. 'This is noted in the summary below where applicable. In some cases, these refinements, whilemore accurately capturing the performance of Scenario 2.1G, cannot be directly compared to the results of the original scenarios and SAAMs because the differences are not a result of the alternative boundary locations. In cases where results are not comparable to the original scenarios and SAAMS, other reference points (e.g. existing conditions, or an average for the current UGB) have been provided where possible. 15 See page 46 for an explanation of lands identified as unbuildable. 16 A quarter acre of land on each property with an existing home(s) was assumed to be developed. Redevelopment assumptions are the same as those for developed land inside the UGB (based on the plan designation / development type). For existing schools and parks, the area developed with existing uses was estimated based on aerial photography. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-51 Factor 1: Efficient accommodation of identified land needs Complete Communities and Great Neighborhoods Scenario 2.1G efficiently accommodates the land need through a focus on complete communities and using expansion areas to complete existing neighborhoods inside the UGB. Access to schools, parks, and commercial services is among the highest of all scenarios considered: • 62% of all future housing units (existing plus new, throughout the existing UGB and expansion areas) in Scenario 2.1G are within a half -mile of existing or future school sites. • 99% of all future housing units in Scenario 2.1G are within a half -mile of existing or future parks. • 86% of all future housing units are projected to be within a half -mile of commercial services in the preferred scenario. Nearly all subareas have a mix of residential and employment land. Only the small East Hwy 20 expansion area is exclusively residential, and it is very small and adjacent to existing commercial areas. The OB Riley area has a high ratio of jobs to housing, due to its good transportation access (Hwy 20, Cooley Road, Hwy 97, OB Riley Road), generally flat topography, and larger parcel sizes. The Council finds that theefficient accommodation ofrland,needs in$cenario 2.1G is supported by new proposed policies tlatrequire area planning -(See "Specific Expansion Area Policies" in the draft Growth Management Chapter of the" ComprehensivePlan, starting at Rem Rec 10390). The proposed area planning policies,require that all expansion areas will be subject to either new City -initiated _area plans—or property -owner ledinaster planning under BDC, Chapter 4.5. The policies and code will regulate new development to implement, through adopted area plans and master plans, the identified land needs, specifically: the amounts, types, and mix of housing; the amounts and types of employment; and lands for parks, schools and other needs. Area planning: and master planning will': coordinate the land use with needed transportation facilities, natural resource protection, and compatibility with adjacent uses. Taken together, the area planning policies will support complete communities which will efficiently accommodate identified land needs. A significant expansion in the West area and expansions on other large sites make this scenario mostly (over 75%) large property owners. This is among the highest shares of growth that will be subject to master planning requirements of all the alternatives considered. Efficient, Timely Growth Scenario 2.1G achieves a distribution of residential density across many subareas. East Hwy 20 has a very high housing density (estimated at over 23 units per gross acre), because it is small (just over two acres) and dedicated to providing affordable housing. The West and Shevlin areas have wildlife and wildfire considerations that make high densities inappropriate. A "transect" concept was applied in these areas to address transitions to natural resource areas; Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-52 the transect reduces density at the western edge in order to reduce environmental impacts as compared to medium- and high-density development. As a result, the gross density for these areas is a little over 3 units per gross acre of residential land. Other subareas range from 4.3 to 8.7 units per gross acre of land in residential and mixed use plan designations. Net densities for new residential development are much higher — close to 10 units per net residential acre on average for the UGB expansion area. The difference is due to land needed for right of way, parks and open space, and other non-residential uses within residential plan designations. This is substantially higher net density than the existing UGB, which had an overall average net residential density of 4.4 units per net acre as of 2008 (see Appendix B, Rem Rec 10932). Overall residential densities are somewhat lower than for the initial set of scenarios and SAAMs due to refinements to assumptions about the yield for efficiency measures inside the UGB and refinements to the recommended minimum density threshold for master plans in the RS zone. These refinements result in more "reasonably likely" assumptions about density, market response to efficiency measures, and redevelopment rates in opportunity areas. The proposed recommendations and assumptions about efficiency measures inside the UGB, as well as the inclusion of additional land to meet the need for future parks and the inclusion of adjacent right of way abutting UGB expansion areas, translates to a larger total expansion than the initial set of scenarios and SAAMs (2,380 acresin total). 'The, additional land is needed to meet identified land needs.; Scenario 2.1G includes very little ;land in expansion; areas that is currently developed (only 5% of acres, primarily located in the Northeast Edge and the Elbow). It includes a greater proportion of development on vacant land than nearly all previous scenarios/SAAMs. Factor 2 -Orderly and; economic provision of public facilities and services Balanced Transportation System ° Scenario 2:1:G retains a focus on walkable mixed use redevelopment in the core and complete communities in expansion areas t which are important elements of reducing reliance on the automobile. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Per Capita As measured with the regional travel demand model, Scenario 2.1 G performs better than the prior scenarios and SAAMs, with 9.76 daily VMT per capita versus 9.92 to 10.13 daily VMT per capita for the initial scenarios. This is attributable mostly to refinements to demographic and land use inputs, with some influence of land use patterns and improved connectivity in expansion areas. Projected VMT growth in Scenario 2.1G results in a 1.2% increase over 2010 and 4.1% increase over 2003 (after accounting for all of the nuances of the TPR requirements)." This meets the requirement that VMT is unlikely to increase by more than 5% 17 Percent change relative to 2003 incorporates credit for connectivity improvements since 1990. See Attachment 6 of Bend's Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan for details. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-53 over the planning horizon.'$ However, Scenario 2.1 G generated a higher average daily round trip length than the prior scenarios. This is due to additional growth in non -centralized areas, including the West and Thumb areas. This impact is compounded by The Thumb having the highest average trip distance of the subareas. Looking solely at household VMT (only trips that begin or end at home, as measured using the ET travel behavior model), the preferred scenario has an overall average of 9.41 household vehicle miles traveled per capita in 2028. Because there were several minor adjustments to the methodology (including the calculation of activity density and fine-tuning household income assumptions) between the analysis of the original scenarios and SAAMs and Scenario 2.1, the results are not directly comparable to previous results. As in the previous analysis, the expansion areas and areas on the fringe of the City generally are projected to generate more VMT per capita than areas closer to the City's existing major activity centers, even with the emphasis on complete communities in the expansion areas. Mode Split. Walk Trips. and Transit Access The preferred scenario is projected to result in an 8% non -auto share and a 92% auto share for all household trips. Despite the minor changes to methodology mentioned previously, this is nearly indistinguishable from the previous scenarios at the full future UGB scale. There was little variation in mode split at that level for the original scenarios and SAAMs, and the preferred scenario continues to show the same pattern. The estimate for Scenario 2.1G is also essentially unchanged from the ET model estimate of existing conditions (using 2014 built environment and demographic data and 2016 transit service), which estimates an 8.5% non - auto share and a 91.5% auto share for all household trips UGB-wide (including existing population in proposed UGB expansion areas). However, these results do not capture additional strategies and policies that the City has committed to through its ILUTP (Rem Rec 11012), which is expected to -improve mode split beyond what is reflected in the model. Walk trips per capita are down slightly from the original scenarios and SAAMs, but the variation is minimal at the full future UGB scale. Walk trips are also slightly below the existing (2014) average. However, analysis of walk trip frequencies at a smaller geographic scale reveals that the complete communities approach to UGB expansion will encourage greater walking, biking, and transit usage in many peripheral areas inside the current UGB and adjacent to UGB expansion areas. These areas will have new opportunities to walk and bike to parks, schools, and commercial services. An estimated 49% of all future housing units and 65% of all future jobs (existing and new, throughout the existing UGB and expansion areas) are projected to be within a quarter mile of transit in Scenario 2.1G. While this is a decrease relative to 2014 (due to the expansion areas being mostly outside of transit corridors), this is a higher proportion of housing and employment 18 See Bend's Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan for additional discussion of VMT growth relative to requirements in the TPR. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-54 than in any of the other scenarios and SAAMs. This level of transt access does not depend on expansions to the current transit network, which would further increase access. Safety and Connectivity As in all prioraoenahoa,thophnnaryoonnecUonefronntheaxpenoiononaoatothereetofthe City wiH be via collector and arterial roads, Scenario 2.10 provides enhanced connectivity in west and northeast relative to Scenario 2.1 due to the inclusion of Skyline Ranch Road and Yeoman Road extensions. It also retains and enhances the important new connections in the southeastthatwere part of Scenario 2.1. In the North Triangle, fewer collector roads are proposed than in Scenario 2.1, which somewhat reduces connectivity in this area, but key connections remain. East Highway 20 is a very small expansion area with access directly onto Highway 20; making other connections to the east will depend on coordination with undeveloped land inside the UGB. Most other subareas arsimilar to Scenario 2.1. Congestion Overall, Scenario 2.1G would include 12.14 peak hour miles of congested network, which is a 10% decrease from the prior Iowest scenario. While Scenario 2.1G was shown to generate longer trips in some growth areas, there are two primary reasons for the reduction in congested corridors: ° Growth was emphasized in some UGB expansion subareas that were less reliant on congested corridors. These areas made:useof existing under-utilized capacity in the transportation system. w The mix of uses (inctuding employment uses in non-centra areas) created a reverse commute in some cases that would take advantage of remaining roadway capacity on routes that experience congestion in one direction. ` Cost -Effective Infrastructure Transportation Capital costs for transportation infrastructure for Scenario 2.1G are lower than the preliminary estimates for the initial scenarios and SAAMs reported as part of the scenario evaluation in October 2015. This is due to more detailed consideration of and refined assumptions about railroad and canal crossing needs, and functional classifications and alignments for new roads. Scenario 2.10 includes additional connectivity improvements relative to Scenario 2.1, including Skyline Ranch Road and Yeoman Road. The transportation improvements needed to support Scenario 2.1G, beyond those already planned for and funded as part of the City's existing TSP, include: • $1 19 miltion for close to 12 miles of new collector roadways to serve and link expansion areas as well as the Iarge vacant opportunity area in southeast Bend; and • $2.4 million for intersection improvements (at two intersections) and $2.5 million for capacity improvements (on one road segment), based on increased traffic volumes. This results in a totaT costestimate, using consistent methodology with the analysis of the original scenarios and SAAMs, of $126.3 million. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-55 In addition to repeating the scenario evaluation methodology oriinm|k/uaedfortheinitim/ scenarios and SAAMs19, which focused on ideroads where volumes are projected to exceed roadway capacity,2° a more detailed analysis (sometimes referred to as TPR analysis" because it is required by OAR 660-012-0060) was done for Scenario 2.1G. TPR analysis is required to identify whether any parts of the state highway system in Bend would both exceed ODOT's adopted mobility standards (which are generally below the physical capacity of the roadway) and experience more traffic volume based unScenario 2.1Gthan based onthe Cib/'a - current UGB and current adopted comprehensive plan designations.21 TPR analysis was not done for the six initial scenarios and SAAMs because of the level of effort and detail involved and because identifying appropriate mitigation for impacts to the state highway system can require negotiations with ODOT that are more appropriately focused on the preferred alternative. See Section 8 for the Findings for complete TPR findings. Scenario 2.1G is also expected to resltinagremteramo local than Scenario 2.1 in the expansion areas due to the increased overaH acreage of development22. (.) Sanitary Sewer In terms of total initial capital costs for sanitary sewer, Scenario 2.1G falls between the least - cost and highest -cost initial alternatives, and is more expensive than Scenario 2.1. east-ooetandhigheat-costin0a|aMernobveo'andiamunaexpensivethanGcamahu2.1. Comparing cost per acre, it is slightly higher than Scenario 2.1 and other low-cost initial alternatives. The main reason for the increased cost isalarger expansion in the West area, especially the northern portions, and the, inclusion of a portion of the Shevlin area. These areas contribute to additional improvements beyond those identified in Scenario 2.1, including a lengthy gravity line to convey wastewater from the northern West area to the Awbrey Glen pump station, and capacity improvements of the Awbrey Glen pump station. These areas also rely on pumping rather than gravity conveyance, which is less efficient in the long run than other expansion subareas. However, Scenario 2.1G avoids an expensive new pump station in the northwest plus constructing the extension of the Northeast Interceptor from the north of the City, across the Deschutes River, and southward by keeping growth in that area within the capacity of the existing Awbrey Glen force main. Scenario 2.1G continues to make .efficient use of the Hamby alignment with growth in the northeast and southeast; avoids an additional pump station to serve the Bear Creek Road area; and is otherwise Iargely comparable to Scenario 2.1 in those areas. The Northeast Edge relies 19 See "Scenario Evaluation: Transportation Analysis Technical Memorandum" from DKS Associates to the Urban Growth Boundary and Growth Scenarios Technical Advisory Committee, dated October 7, 2O15.for adetailed explanation mfthe methodology unedforth000enahoeva|uadon. Rem Rec 6851 mOnthostotehighwaynyotem.ifcmrridordemondwmufonanaehudtoexcaedoapaoih/.butthmvo|umao were less than those in the Bend MPO MTP, additional mitigations were not recommended. oThomethpdn|ugyandomoumptionoforthoTPRanalyoiuonadocumenhudininumemuUUed^8and UGB Expansion — TPR Evaluation For Changes Within the Current UGB" from DKS Associates, dated July 14, 2016. Rem Rec 10183 22 The ET model was calibrated with more precise roadway assumptions for Scenario 2.1G, which may account for some of the difference. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-56 on the Hamby alignment, as in Scenario 2.1. Growth in this area is focused around Butler Market Road, so it does not need to contribute to the cost of the portion of the Hamby alignment south of Butler Market Road. This reduces the costs assigned to the subarea slightly (there is no change to the total cost of the Hamby alignment). The Thumb, Elbow, and DSL all require similar improvements to Scenario 2.1 — contributions to the Southeast Interceptor and the Hamby alignment as well as gravity line extensions to connect to existing lines. As in Scenario 2.1, the eastern portion of The Elbow requires an interim lift station and force main to connect to the Southeast Interceptor. The East Highway 20 area can be served by short connections to existing gravity sewer lines and does not require an interim lift station. As in Scenario 2.1, the Southwest area requires extension of a new gravity line, which may also provide service to adjacent areas inside the UGB that are on septic currently. In addition, the Southwest service area requires up-sizing of existing gravity lines above the sizing recommended in the CSMP and increased sizing of unconstructed portions of the Southeast Interceptor. This would require modifying the design of the most upstream segment of the Southeast Interceptor between Highway 97 and Parrell Rd. The North Triangle and OB Riley also require the same improvements as Scenario 2.1 which include contributions to the Northeast Interceptor east of Highway 97 to the Wastewater Treatment Plant (including increasing sizing relative to the CSMP) and extension of the Northeast Interceptor to the west to serve these areas. Drinkina Water Because few distinctions were identified between the initial scenarios and SAAMs, a detailed analysis of the water system was not conducted for Scenario 2.1G. However, interpolating based on how the land use in Scenario 2.1G compares to prior scenarios, minimal concerns are anticipated for the drinking -water storage or distribution system assuming implementation of the WMP capital improvement program including a major perimeter transmission pipeline in the northwest and additional system storage. The one exception includes the highest elevations of the West subarea, which may experience pressures below 40 psi during peak hour demands. These higher elevation water customers may require individual booster pumps to improve system pressure. Like all of the six initial scenarios and SAAMs, Scenario 2.1G includes development within DWPAs. The Thumb, Southwest, portions of the West area, and portions of the existing UGB lie within the DWPA. The total acreage of development within DWPA in Scenario 2.1G is less than any of the initial scenarios and SAAMs (partly due to modifications to BLI assumptions inside the UGB). Stormwater and Geoloav Scenario 2.1G has a greater amount of total impervious area than Scenario 2.1 in the expansion areas due to the increased overall acreage of development, but less impervious area within the existing UGB because the COID property is not expected to develop within the planning horizon and larger portions of the River Rim area are expected to be preserved for open space than previously assumed. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-57 Expansion areas in Scenario 2.1G contain somewhat greater development in welded tuff areas than Scenario 2.1 — primarily in the West Area. However, there is Tess development in welded tuff areas overall due to changes in development assumptions within the existing UGB, specifically the COID property and areas in the southwestern part of the City. In such areas, on- site retention and treatment are required rather than a community stormwater system. Factor 3: Comparative environmental, social, economic and energy consequences (ESEE) Quality Natural Environment (Environmental and Energy Consequences) Development in Wildlife Areas Scenario 2.1G strikes a balance between urban development and protection of wildlife habitat on the outskirts of Bend. Protected areas within the Deschutes County "Wildlife Combining Zone" were not part of any growth scenario analyzed, but Scenario .2.1 G does include land labeled by the ODFW as big game winter range (BGWR) in the Shevlin Area, the West Area, the Southwest Area, the "Thumb," and the "Elbow." In addition to the winter range areas, an ODFW biologist identified general areas that the agency believes may be particularly important for wintering elk and deer, which have been identified as "Potential Elk/Deer Range." The original six scenarios evaluated contained between 325 and 1,400 acres of mapped BGWR in the expansion areas. Scenario 2.1G includes about 820 acres of mapped BGWR in the expansion areas, roughly at the midpoint of other scenarios evaluated. Scenario 2.1G also includes a small portion of the Shevlin area, which is partially included in the "Potential Elk/Deer Range" identified by ODFW biologists. The`portion of the Shevlin area included in Scenario 2.1G is smaller than the -portion included in Scenario 3.1 and;SAAM-1, the original alternatives that included that area, and is surrounded on three sides by urban development. It is also only partially within the generalar:ea identified as Potential Elk/Deer Range. Currently, this portion of the site has.nunlerous buildings which are associated with the surface mining operation to the north. These uses will: be replaced with lower density= housing. The City has provided a Goal 5 ESEE report describing the -included: areas in detail and recommending a protection program for these areas(see Appendix A of Section"9 of these Findings). Many areas included in the proposed expansion are generally adjacent to urbanized areas and roadways, or disturbed by existing industrial activity. The West neighborhood will be developed at a low density, using the "transect" concept to -transition to the lowest density at the western edge, and is expected to provide habitat corridors and other features that will be as friendly to wildlife as possible. It is also important to note the presence of a large (400+ ft.) rural buffer between the existing UGB (Shevlin Commons) and the 40 acre expansion on the west just south of Shevlin Road, which provides a natural corridor in this area to facilitate north/south movement of large game. Development alono Riparian Corridors Scenario 2.1G does not include any proposed development adjacent to identified Goal 5 riparian areas of Tumalo Creek. This is the same as Scenario 2.1, and better than the scenarios that included the full extent of the Shevlin Area and the Gopher Gulch area. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-58 Wildfire Hazard The City conducted analysis of wildfire hazard for each potential expansion subarea using a mix of aerial photography and on -the -ground evaluation by wildfire experts. Wildfire risk was evaluated as high to extreme around the entire UGB. However, the evaluation concluded that proper vegetation management and imposition of mitigation measures (e.g. special building codes) could minimize risk in nearly all areas. The combination of topography and adjacent vegetation bordering Tumalo Creek in the Shevlin area creates a mitigation challenge. Scenario 2.1 G avoids development along steep slopes adjacent to Tumalo Creek. In addition, areas of particular concern to some TAC and community members — the West Area and Shevlin Area — will use the Rural -Urban Transect to provide better wildfire hazard mitigation and development under the "Firewise" standards on the edge of the City. The lower density in conjunction with fuel reduction and fire resistant building practices plus enhanced road access (Skyline Ranch Road) and access to municipal water sources further reduce the threat from wildfire in the West and Shevlin Areas. In addition, the City is adopting a policy addressing wildfire into both the new Growth Management chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 10 (Natural Forces) (Rem Rec 10383 and 10512) The City will adopt strategies to reduce wildfire hazard on lands inside the City and included in the Urban Growth Boundary. These strategies may include the application of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code or equivalent with modifications to allow buffers of aggregated defensible space,, or similar tools, as appropriate. Water Use. Enerav Use, and: Greenhouse Gas Emissions_. The household carbon emissions, energy use, and water consumption showed little variation between the original scenarios because they are strongly correlated with housing mix. As a result they can be expected to be roughly the'same as Scenario 2.1 and the other scenarios and SAAMs.. Greenhouse gas emissions are linked to VMT, but these also showed little variation among the original scenarios and SAAMs. Scenario 2.1G falls within the range of the original scenarios and SAAMs. Housing Options and Affordability (Social Consequences) Housina Mix Scenario 2.1G continues to provide a mix of housing types in all subareas, even the relatively low-density West Area, and Shevlin Area. East Highway 20 and the Southwest Area contain a high percentage of multifamily housing, but they are small properties that are expected to help "complete" nearby single-family neighborhoods. By providing a mix of housing types in each subarea, and increasing the housing mix in opportunity areas within the existing UGB, Scenario 2.1G distributes new housing opportunities to all areas of the City. Housina Cost Due to the complexity of the housing affordability analysis done for the original scenarios and SAAMs, and the fact that changes to building assumptions would have meant that results were not directly comparable to prior scenarios, this evaluation was not repeated for Scenario 2.1G. Based on the areas where growth is focused in Scenario 2.1G relative to Scenario 2.1, there are Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-59 several hundred more housing units in the expansion areas west and northwest of the City that are likely to have relatively higher costs. However, there are also more housing units that will be built in relatively lower cost areas in the north, northeast, southeast, and south. A comparison of projected housing costs to Bend income levels (not done for the original scenarios and SAAMs, but useful as an absolute indicator of affordability) shows that roughly 29% of new housing units in Scenario 2.1G as a whole are projected to be affordable to households making at or below the median family income (MFI) for Bend ($59,400). Under the Base Case, only about 20% of new housing units within the current UGB would be projected to be affordable at or below the MFI. In addition, affordable housing commitments by several property owners in UGB expansion areas will provide income -restricted housing units affordable to those below the area median income, which will further contribute to housing affordability in Scenario 2.1G. Strong Diverse Economy (Economic Consequences) Site Suitability for Large Lot Industrial Scenario 2.1G includes Industrial Large Lot sites at Juniper Ridge and at the southern portion of the DSL property. An ideal site for this use is large and under a single ownership, flat, and with good transportation access. Each scenario, included one site at Juniper Ridge and one additional site elsewhere within the UGIT expansion areas. The Employment TAC recommended the DSL site as the preferred location=. of the Large Lot Industrial site outside of the existing UGB (as originally evaluated in Scenario 12,.and incorporated into Scenario 2.1G) due primarily to its public: ownership and other appropriate attributes such as size and topography. Thus, the two sites identified in Scenario 2.1G are the best performing sites evaluated. Site Suitability for Other Industrial and'Mixed Employment Land Other industrial sites have similar needs to the Large Lot Industrial sites, but are less reliant on large tractsof land in single ownershipS23 Scenario 2.1G is performs very similarly to Scenario 2.1 in this evaluation, but arrangement of land uses and creation of urbanization of policies aim to address the compatibility issues of industrial land adjacent to existing and planned residential development. Scenario 2.1G has; intentionally provided better buffers between industrial areas and residential areas in the North Area. Sizing of other industrial areas (i.e. Mixed Employment in the West area) refined to be more context -sensitive. Site Suitability for Commercial Land Commercial sites have similar needs to industrial sites, but can tolerate somewhat greater topography and site -preparation costs, and have more need of visibility from pass -by traffic.24 Scenario 2.1G is very similar to Scenario 2.1. Commercial uses are generally supported by 23 See Bend EOA, Table 15. 24 See Bend EOA, Table 15. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-60 surrounding land uses and transportation network. The West area and Shevlin Area lack a large amount of pass -by traffic, so commercial uses will likely be locally -serving. Factor 4: Compatibility of proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB Compatibility with Farms and Forests Impact to Farms Scenario 2.1G is similar to Scenario 2.1 in the amount of development near high value farm lands. The Northeast Edge properties, East Highway 20, DSL Property, and the "Elbow' include development within 1/4 mile of land zoned as Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land. The Northeast Edge and DSL properties are within 1/4 mile of commercial farms and low -impact hay fields. The "Elbow" properties are within'/ mile of two commercial farms, one of which is an active operation that includes a feed lot for beef along Knott Rd. To aid in compatibility, Scenario 2.1G limits residential uses near the feed lot. Impact to Irrigation Districts Scenario 2.1G is similar to Scenario 2.1 in the amount of development that may impact irrigation district lands. Scenario 2.1G contains somewhat more development in the OB Riley area and the Northeast Edge than Scenario 2:1, but less development in impacted areas than other scenarios evaluated. By not including any highly-parcelized'areas served by these irrigation districts, Scenario 2.1G lessens its overall; impact to -irrigation districts. Impact to Forest Land;,, Scenario 2.1G continues to avoid development in -close proximity to designated forest land. Only a very small portion of the West Area is within'/4 mile of designated forest land, and this area is expected to implement a,"trarisect",conceott, providing an appropriate transition to natural areas West ofthe City Preferred: Scenario Evaluation Conclusion The preferred scenario offers a balance of: • strong facuson complete communities to improve access to schools, parks and commercial -areas within existing neighborhoods as well as in expansion areas; • area planning policies to support complete communities and efficient development; • highly efficient land usein areas with few constraints, and an overall increase in residential density relative to existing conditions; • a sensitive approach to development in areas adjacent to natural resources to improve environmental consequences and reduce natural hazard risk; • expansion areas that provide a mix of housing types and costs and that will leverage voluntary affordable housing commitments from property owners in order to improve social consequences and ensure that housing is available to meet the needs of residents at all income levels; • new employment land focused in suitable areas where it will contribute to Bend's economic growth; Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-61 • cost-effectjve use of recerit and future sewer investments; p an orderly and connected network of new roads that will support efficient travel by all modes; and • minimal concerns for farm and forest compatibility. The Council finds that this demonstrates consideration and balancing of the required Goal 14 location factnre, consistent with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 14 and OAR 600 Division 24. 7.4.4.7. Alternatives Evaluation Conclusion The CouncU finds that the City has considered and baiancedatl fall urGoe|14lonoUonfnotons required under Statewide Planning Goal 14 and OAR 660 Division 24 in evaluating alternative UGB locations and selecting the preferred scenario, as documented in this section. The relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of the preferred scenario and all other afternative UGB expansion areas and scenarios with respect to the provision of public facilities and services were evaluated and compared, consistent with OAR 660-024-0060(7) and (8). These costs, advantages and disadvantages were given due consideration, and also balanced against ESEE conseqences, efficient land use, and compatibility with nearby farm and forest land for each 7/4.5. Overall Conclusion Regarding. ^ ` As demonstrated in the findings of section,.The Pf Bend -has: • established a reasonable study area, and eliminated Very little land from consideration prior to applying thre :Goal 14 location fadtprs; • provided an amount of UG,I3 eXpansion thatls matched to land need; • eXPanded solely.onto exCeption iand,,avoiding, lower priority farm and forest land entirely; • considered and balanced the .Gpal 14 location factors at each point from narrowing the pool Of potential expanSion areas.to refining the final UGB proposal to identify the best • assigned aPpropriate urban plan designations to the added land, consistent with identified land'needs. The proposed UGB expansiOn accommodates the projected land needs through 2028, and complies with Goal 14, relevant state statutes, and administrative rules. Findings Report July 2016 Section 7-62 8. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 8.1. Introduction The findings in this section focus on the metropolitan planning requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), Oregon Administrative Rule, Division 12 (660-12-000)1. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land- use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. 8.2. Summary of Relevant Legal Standards In the Remand and Partial Acknowledgement Order, LCDC found that the City is required to address portions of Goal 12 and the TPR relating to metropolitan planning in its UGB amendment. Table 8-1 summarizes the organization of the findings and the relevant legal standards. Table 8-1: Relevant Legal. Standards Section Heading in Findings 8.4.1: Coordination Requirements in MPO Areas 12 8.4.2: Reducing Reliance on the Auto (Integrated 12 Land Use & Transportation Plan) 8.4.3: Transportation Analysis for Amendments to Plan or Land Use Regulations Applicable Statewide Planning Goal(s) 12 & 14 Applicable Oregon Administrative Rule(s) (OAR) 660-012-0016 660-012-0035 660-024-0020 660-012-0060 1 Findings in Section 7 (UGB Location) address the evaluation of the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of transportation facilities needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-1 8.3. Substantial Evidence Table 8-2 summarizes the key evidence that supports the findings in this section. Access to the 2009 UGB Record and the 2011-2016 Record on Remand is available on the City's website for the UGB Remand Project htto://www.bend.or.us/index.asox?paae=1290. Table 8-2: Key Record References 2011-2016 Record on Remand Base Year Travel Demand Model Selection for VMT Evaluation Bend MPO 2040 MTP Financially Constrained Project List Bend MPO meeting minutes adopting Financially Constrained_ Project List Bend UGB Steering Committee Meeting Minutes Buildable Lands Inventory Chapter 11 Bend Comprehensive Plan — Growth Management Chapter 7 Bend Comprehensive Plan — Transportation Development Code Amendments — Efficiency Measures Remand Order — Section 8, Transportation Planning Scenario 2.1G Evaluation: Transportation Analysis Technical Memorandum Scenario Evaluation: Transportation Analysis Technical Memorandum (Stage 4) TPR Evaluation for Changes within Current UGB TSP Amendment, Integrated Land Use & Transportation Plan Urbanization Report 8.4. Findings 8.4.1. Coordination Requirements in. Metropolitan Areas: OAR 660-012-0016 Date Page # 7/18/14 11251 1 9/15/14 10219 1 9/15/14 10220 1 9/4/2014 3553 July 2016 10513 July 2016 10362 July 2016 10339 July 2016 11149 11/2/10 5837 7/18/16 11223 10/7/15 6851 7/14/16 11255 July 2016 10994 July 2016 10814 OAR B60-012-0016: Coordination with Federally -Required Regional Transportation Plans in Metropolitan Areas` (1) ln;metropolitan areas, local governments shall prepare, adopt, amend and update transportation system plans required by this division in coordination with regional transportation plans (RTPs) prepared by MPOs required by federal law. Insofar as possible, regional transportation system plans for metropolitan areas shall be accomplished through; a single coordinated process that complies with the applicable requirements of federal law and this division. Nothing in this rule is intended to make adoption or amendment of a regional transportation plan by a metropolitan planning organization a land use decision under Oregon law. The Council finds that OAR 660-012-0016 establishes planning requirements for cities within metropolitan planning areas (MPOs), and that, at the time of the adoption of the acknowledged 2000 Bend TSP, the City of Bend was not yet part of a designated MPO. The Bend MPO was established in December 2002. A federally -compliant regional transportation plan, the Bend Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-2 2040 MTP2), was adopted in June 2007. The MTP was updated in 2014, four years after the UGB Remand Order from DLCD, to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The 2040 MTP included the full list of projects that were developed for the City's TSP Financial PIan3. The Council finds that the travel demand model network modeling for the UGB analysis was based on the Bend 2040 MTP4, inclusive of motor vehicle facilities and transit service that are included in the financially constrained system, adjusted to 2028 (Rem Rec 6851). The amendments to the Bend TSP (Rem Rec 10994) required for the Bend UGB expansion were coordinated with the 2040 MTP. A 2028 calibrated version of the 2040 MTP transportation demand model was utilized to determine the transportation effects of the UGB expansion proposal, and a coordinated list of projects was created. Conclusion: The Council finds that the City of Bend's TSP, as amended, complies with the regional transportation plan because it is coordinated with the Bend 2040 MTP. Coordination is accomplished through use of the MTP project list, calibrated to 2028. The projects included in the UGB analysis and amended TSP reflect the MPO projects that are anticipated to be completed and/or funded by 2028. As discussed in the findings for OAR 660-012-0060, below, the only significant effect of the proposed UGB expansion would be the further degradation of the mobility targets for a section of Highway 20 that is already identified as a funded project in the 2040 MTP. This illustrates how the amendment of the Bend TSP has been coordinated with the MPO and thus meet the legal standard of this: OAR 660-012-0016. 8.4.2. Reducing Reliance on the Automobile (Integrated Land Use & Transportation Plan): OAR 660-:01.2-0035y OAR 660-012-0035 includesrequirements regarding coordinating with MPO plans as well as planning for transportation choices=<and-reduced reliance on the automobile. This section of the TPR includes the requirement to establish standards, a specific target for reduction in VMT, and provides. timeframes for completion and review periods. The findings in this section are organized" by subsection of -OAR -012-0035. 8.4.2.1 TSP evaluation of alternatives OAR 660-01'2-0035 2 Official Notice — The Bend MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan dated September 25, 2014 is available online through the MPO's website - htto://bendoreaon.aov/index.asox?0aae=124. 3 The Bend TSP was completed as part of Periodic Review in 2000. The TSP was remanded by DLCD to the City in 2001 with a work plan to address 10 deficiencies, including the lack of a Financial Plan. The Financial Plan was the final element needed for full acknowledgment. The Financial Plan was adopted by the City IN 2012 and acknowledged by DLCD in 2013. 42040 MTP encompasses a planning period of 2014-2040, with a model year of 2010. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-3 (1) The TSP shall be based upon evaluation of potential impacts of system alternatives that can reasonably be expected to meet the identified transportation needs in a safe manner and at a reasonable cost with available technology. The following shall be evaluated as components of system alternatives: (a) Improvements to existing facilities or services; (b) New facilities and services, including different modes or combinations of modes that could reasonably meet identified transportation needs; (c) Transportation system management measures; (d) Demand management measures; and (e) A no -build system alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or other laws. The Council finds that the City's acknowledged TSP, as amended for the proposed UGB expansion and including an ILUTP (Rem Rec 10994), identifies the components listed in (1)(a) - (e), above. The UGB expansion analysis included evaluation of six growth scenarios to accommodate need, each addressing transportation impacts measured through the MPO's calibrated 2028 model. Needs for additional capacity projects at intersections and along roadways were evaluated (Rem Rec 11223). The preferred UGB expansion scenario was analyzed with the same mod&, and the resulting projects in the TSP were identified to address potential impacts to thetransportation network as a result of the UGB expansion. This included new transportation facilities, improvements td.existin4facilitieSrtransportation system management, and transportation demand management. The combination of the strategies and projects were identified in the ILUTP and discussed further under findings for OAR 660-012- 0035, below, New projectsidentifiedin the amended TSP were based on analysis reflecting a "no build (the absence of new projects in the Travel Mod& analyses associated with the UGB expansion). The Council finds that the resulting policies, strategies, and projects in the adopted TSP, which also includes the ILUTP, resulting from the UGB expansion demonstrates these requirements have been, met. 8.4.2.2 Consideration of land use strategies: (2) Local governments in MPO areas of larger than 1,000,000 population shall, and other governments may_also,_evaluate alternative land use designations, densities, and design standards to meet local and regional transportation needs. Local governments preparing such a strategy shall consider: (a) Increasing residential densities and establishing minimum residential densities within one quarter mile of transit lines, major regional employment areas, and major regional retail shopping areas; (b) Increasing allowed densities in new commercial office and retail developments in designated community centers; Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-4 (c) Designating lands for neighborhood shopping centers within convenient walking and cycling distance of residential areas; and (d) Designating land uses to provide a better balance between jobs and housing considering: (A) The total number of jobs and total of number of housing units expected in the area or subarea; (B)The availability of affordable housing in the area or subarea; and (C) Provision of housing opportunities in close proximity to employment areas. The Council finds that the Bend MPO is not an area larger than 1,000,000 population; however, under OAR 660-12-0035(5)(c)(A), the Council finds that the City is applying (2)(a) -(d), above, as part of an ILUTP. (See Findings under OAR 660-12-0035(5) below, for additional discussion of the ILUTP). The Council finds that the City is adopting a package of "efficiency measures" with the 2016 UGB expansion that also address many of the land use strategies identified in the TPR. The measures proposed that address each of the required categories are summarized below. The Council finds that areas in close proximity to transit, employment, and retail areas that have the most opportunity to increase residential development are currently designated for commercial or industrial uses. Because of this, the City is proposing a set of land use re - designations in key "Opportunity Areas" identified through the UGB project and other planning studies (e.g. the Central -Westside Plan and the Bend Central District Plan) (see Figure 8-1 for a map of the opportunity areas). Many of these are changes from commercial or industrial designations to mixed use designations that allow for and encourage residential development and more compact form. Specifically, new mixed use designations and/or zones are proposed in concert with the 2016 UGB expansion for • The Bend Central District, between the Parkway and 4th Avenue from roughly the railroad on the south to Revere on the north (implemented as a special plan district); • CWP/Century Drive opportunity site (implemented using the new mixed use plan designations developed for the UGB project; the land use designations and projects in the CWP have been predicted through both Envision Tomorrow and transportation demand modeling to result in lower VMT); • KorPine opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Urban plan designation and zone developed for the UGB project); • East Downtown opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Urban plan designation and ultimately the new Mixed Use - Urban zone developed for the UGB project); and • The Inner Highway 20 / Greenwood Ave opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Neighborhood plan designation and ultimately the new Mixed Use - Neighborhood zone developed for the UGB project). Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-5 The Council finds that, by enabling and encouraging mixed use, more residential development will be possible in close proximity to transit, employment, and shopping within Bend's core. In addition, a minimum residential density is proposed for residential development in commercial and mixed use zones within 660 feet of transit so that the land is used efficiently and developed at transit -supportive densities. The new mixed use zones also reduce parking standards and allow for taller buildings and more urban development patterns that effectively increase allowed density for new commercial office and retail developments. In addition, because there are many existing low-density neighborhoods near transit, employment, and retail, the Council finds that several of the city-wide modifications to the development code also have the effect of potentially increasing residential densities in those targeted areas. This proposed package of efficiency measure code changes include: • raising the minimum density in the RS zone (especially for new master -planned neighborhoods); • allowing a greater mix of housing types outright in the RS zone; • increasing the maximum residential density in RL zone; and • removing the cap on net density for mufti -family housing in the RM and RH zones to allow greater flexibility in reaching the allowed maximum gross density. The Council finds that other proposed code amendments being adopted in the UGB Remand will encourage greater densities in the ME zone by removing maximum lot coverage and the minimum front setback,. amongother changes, This zone is largely applied along major roadway corridors that are also transit routes. Finally, the Council finds that proposed reductions to parking requirements for mixed use development and for development within 660 feet of a transit route also have the effect of slightly increasing allowed densities for new office and retail development, particularly around -transit.- — All UGB expansion areas include commercial nodes to complete existing and new residential neighborhoods. In addition, new commercial nodes are proposed on the largest vacant residential site in the existing UGB (the 15th Street opportunity area). The Council finds that these new nodes will help provide walkable local services for many more neighborhoods. Over time, as the UGB expansion areas develop as complete neighborhoods, it is assumed that VMT growth could be minimized because of the complete neighborhoods and street patterns. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-6 Figure 8-1: Opportunity Areas Opportunity Areas 1. Bend Central District 2. East Downtown 3. Inner Hwy 201 Greenwood 4. Central West Side 1 Century Drive '` 5. KorPine 6. Juniper Ridge 7. SE 15th Street 8. COD Property 9. River Rim Legend :---,Proposed Urban Growth Boundary ipt iCore Area Dopportunity Areas mime Major Transit Lines Transit Corridors "� Miles ,.-.r.;r 'Ai:, Data Source: Deschutes County GIS (2014) Source: ILUTP, Rem Rec 10994 Findings Report Streains(Riveis Roads/Highways: July 2016 Section 8-7 The Council also finds that the proposed expansion areas also help improve jobs/housing balance in many areas, including: • South and Southeast Bend, where new employment areas are proposed north of Knott Road and east of US 97 to help balance a largely residential area of the city; • the "North Triangle", where a mix of housing types, including multifamily housing, is proposed in an area dominated by employment uses with excellent access to jobs; and • the OB Riley area, where a mix of housing and employment is proposed, providing additional housing opportunities in close proximity to large employment areas. Furthermore, the Council finds that the adoption of new mixed use designations in opportunity areas within central Bend also helps provide affordable housing opportunities in the central core where there is access to significant employment opportunities. 8.4.2.3 Standards to evaluate and select alternatives (3) The following standards shall be used to evaluate .and select alternatives: (a) The transportation system shall support urban and rural development by providing types and levels of transportation facilities and services appropriate to serve the land uses identified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; (b) The transportation system shall be consistent with state and federal standards for protection of air,_land and water quality including the State Implementation Plan under the Federal Clean Air Act and the State Water Quality -Management Plan; (c) The transportation system shall minimize adverse economic, social, environmental and energy consequences;' (CO The transportation System shall minimize conflicts and facilitate connections between modes of transportation; and- (o)' .The transportation system shall avoid principal reliance on any one mode of transportation by increasing transportation choices to reduce principal reliance on the automobile. In MPO areas this shall be accomplished by selecting transportation alternatives'which meet the requirements in section (4) of this rule. The Council finds that the City's acknowledged TSP, as amended for the proposed UGB expansion (including an ILUTP), identifies the components listed in (3)(a) -(e), above. The transportation projects contained in the TSP support urban development by remedying significant impacts to the transportation system arising through the UGB expansion, since the projects are included to meet the City's and ODOT's performance standards. The TSP also plans for a transportation system that implements the Bend 2040 MTP. The transportation system in the TSP reflects the preferred UGB expansion which considered the economic, social, and environmental and energy consequences through the Goal 14 factors. The Council finds that the proposed UGB expansion and resulting changes to the TSP are based on the UGB expansion scenario which minimized adverse ESEE consequences, and thus meets this Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-8 requirement (Rem Rec 10814). The resulting transportation system reflected in the TSP includes the ILUTP, which reduces reliance on the automobile, and balances projects across multiple modes. The modernization and new connectivity projects include pedestrian, bicycle and streetscape improvements. The ILUTP includes additional strategies to enhance non -auto modes. The Council finds that these policies, strategies and projects demonstrate that alternative modes have been evaluated and included in the resulting TSP and were considered as part of the Goal 14 weighing (see Section 7) and balancing of factors, thus demonstrating these requirements have been met. 8.4.2.4 Requirement to reduce reliance on the automobile (4) In MPO areas, regional and local TSPs shall be designed to achieve adopted standards for increasing transportation choices and reducing reliance on the automobile. Adopted standards are intended as means of measuring progress of metropolitan areas towards developing and implementing transportation systems and land use plans that increase transportation choices and reduce reliance on the automobile. It is anticipated that metropolitan areas will accomplish reduced reliance by changing land use patterns and transportation systems so that walking, cycling,and use of transit are highly convenient and so that, on balance, people need to and are likely to drive less than they do today. Please see Findings under OAR 660-12-0035(5)below. 8.4.2.5 Requirements for standards and strategies to reduce. reliance on the automobile (5) MPO areas shall adopt standards to demonstrate progress towards increasing transportation choices, and' reducing automobile reliance as provided for in this rule: (a) The°°commission shall approve standards by order upon demonstration by the metropolitan area that: (A) Achieving the standard will- result in a reduction in reliance on automobiles; (B) Achieving the standard will accomplish a significant increase in the availability or convenience of alternative modes of transportation; (C) Achieving the standard is likely to result in a significant increase in the share of trips made by alternative modes, including walking, bicycling, ridesharing and transit; (D) VMT per capita is unlikely to increase by more than five percent; and (E) The standard is measurable and reasonably related to achieving the goal of increasing transportation choices and reducing reliance on the automobile as described in OAR 660-012-0000. (b) In reviewing proposed standards for compliance with subsection (a), the commission shall give credit to regional and local plans, programs, and actions implemented since Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-9 1990 that have already contributed to achieving the objectives specified in paragraphs (A)—(E) above. (c) If a plan using a standard, approved pursuant to this rule, is expected to result in an increase in VMT per capita, then the cities and counties in the metropolitan area shall prepare and adopt an integrated land use and transportation plan including the elements listed in paragraphs (A)—(E) below. Such a plan shall be prepared in coordination with the MPO and shall be adopted within three years of the approval of the standard. (A) Changes to land use plan designations, densities, and design standards listed in subsections (2)(a)—(d); (B) A transportation demand management plan that includes significant new transportation demand management measures; (C) A public transit plan that includes a significant expansion in transit service; (D) Policies to review and manage major roadway improvements to ensure that their effects are consistent with achieving the adopted strategy for reduced reliance on the automobile, including policies that provide for the following: (i) An assessment of whether improvements would result in development or travel that is inconsistent with what is expected in the plan; (ii) Consideration of alternative measures to meet transportation needs; (iii) Adoption of measuresto limit possible unintended effects on travel and land use patterns including access management, limitations on subsequent plan amendments, phasing of improvements, etc.; and (iv) Eor_pur_poses of thi_s_se_ction a major roadway expansion" includes new arterial roads or streets and highways, the addition of travel lanes, and construction of interchanges to a limited access highway (E) Plan and ordinance provisions that meet all other applicable requirements of this division. (d) Standards may include but are not limited to: (A) Modal share of alternative modes, including walking, bicycling, and transit trips; (B) Vehicle hours of travel per capita; (C) Vehicle trips per capita; (D) Measures of accessibility by alternative modes (Le. walking, bicycling and transit); or (E) The Oregon Benchmark for a reduction in peak hour commuting by single occupant vehicles. (e) Metropolitan areas shall adopt TSP policies to evaluate progress towards achieving the standard or standards adopted and approved pursuant to this rule. Such evaluation Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-10 shall occur at regular intervals corresponding with of the regional transportation planThis shall include monitoring and reporting ofNMTper capita. The Council finds that City of Bend has completed and is adopting an 1LUTP to address the OAR 660-12-0035 requirements for reducing reliance on the automobile (Rem Rec 10994). The standards listed in the |LUTP—Oenaitv: Land Use; Design: Complete Streets; Destinations: Transit, Land Use, and Transportation Demand Management; and Diversity: Land Use (see Table 3 of the LUTP) — have been selected because they have been iinked to a reduction in driving through studies and modeling outlined and referenced in the ILUTP. The Council finds that achieving the standards will reduce reliance on automobiles as follows: • An increase in activity density in the Central Core, Core Opportunity Areas, and Key Transit Corridors will put more households and more jobs in areas that are walkable, bikeable, and accessible by transit, facilitating use of alternate modes and reduced rehance on automobiles. It will also help provide the level of activity density needed to make transit operate more efficiently and help support additional businesses that are focused toward foot traffic rather than vehicle traffic. • Implementation of all programn1 Streets Projects will increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and convenience as well as transit trips, supporting the choice to waik bike, or use transitto move around town. � ' * Increasingthe percentage of households and employees with access to transit means that more peothe choice to take transitto work,to school, or to key destinations such as downtown and inituoneauchae mchoo|aandhospita|a. * Implementing OSU Cascades wffl reduce reiance on the automobile by ensuring that students and faculty have incentiyes and to support using afternative modes to access the campus. Achieving * �vm0 more even balance ofjobs and housing in the Central Core and Core Opportunity Areas will mean that more people tive in employment -rich areas, and that there are more opportunities to |ive and work within the Central Core. Based on the Envision Tomorrow (ET) 7D transport model, which generates mode split assumptions based on built environment and demographic factors, the preferred UGB expansion scenario (2.1G)iaprojected ionsou|tine7.896non-aubonhaneondo92.2Y6auto share for aH household trips, UGB-wide. This is essentially unchanged from the ET model estimate of existing conditions (using 2014 built environment and demographic data and 2016 transit service), which estimates an 8.596 non -auto share and a 91.5% auto share for aH household trips UGB-wide (including existing population in proposed UGB expansion areas). Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-11 However, these results do not capture all of the City's proposed strategies in the ILUTP. The reasons for this include: • The 2016 transit service expansion was factored in to the existing mode split evaluation, although it was not in place as of 2014. Thus, the impact of this recent transit improvement is captured in the existing mode split data. • While the land use efficiency measures proposed with the 2016 UGB expansion are significant, their impact on redevelopment in the Central Core is projected to be relatively modest through 2028. • Even the ET model, which is sensitive to the built environment, does not account for the quality of the street environment in a connected area (e.g. the presence of street trees, sidewalk width, or the availability of bike lanes), nor does it fully account for gaps and barriers in the bicycle and pedestrian network, such as unsafe crossing points of major roads. As a result, the model is not reflecting the benefits of the complete streets improvements that the City has committed to funding and building by 2028. • The ET model does not account for existing or proposed TDM programs at OSU, COCC, or Juniper Ridge. These would tend to shift travel in these areas to alternative modes (including ride sharing and shuttles, which are not identified as separate modes in ET) beyond what the built environment and demographic factors would suggest. The Council finds that, while theoverall mode split UGB-wide shows little change from 2014 to 2028, analysis of the rates of non -auto trips per household reveals that the complete communities approach to UGB expansion will encourage greater walking, biking, and transit usage in many_ peripheral areas inside the current UGB and adjacent to UGB expansion areas. These areas will have new opportunities to walk and bike to parks, schools, and commercial services. Note that rate of walking, biking and transit usage per household as modeled in ET within the Central Core is not expected to improve relative to existing conditions because those areas are already highly complete and connected and have the best transit service in the City. The households already living in those areas enjoy these conditions today. As noted above, the complete streets improvements are not reflected in the mode split estimates by the ET model; consequently, the City expects that active mode splits (walking, biking, and transit) will increase as the streetscape and safety is improved. In order to more accurately reflect the impact on walking and biking due to the City's proposed Complete Streets improvements, the City will be installing permanent pedestrian and bicyclist counters at key locations in the Central Core (e.g. Newport, Portland, Colorado, Reed Market, Greenwood, and Franklin bridges). These will provide baseline data prior to complete streets improvements as well as on-going bicycle/pedestrian count data following the improvement. The Council finds that, based on evaluation using the regional travel demand model to measure VMT per capita as specified in the TPR, the preferred UGB Expansion Scenario (2.1 G) is Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-12 expected to result in a 1.2% increase in VMT relative to the 2010 baseline that best reflects the 2008 starting point of the 20 -year planning horizon for the UGB Remand. Because of the roughly 5% increase in VMT estimated between the 2003 model and the 2010 model, this translates to a 6.3% increase relative to 2003. The UGB Remand described using the regional travel demand model scenarios for year 2003 and 2030, which were the model years available at the time of the prior UGB evaluation to approximate the 2008 to 2028 planning horizon. The Council finds that, since the time of the UGB Remand, the Bend MPO and ODOT have updated the regional model scenarios to base year 2010 and future year 2028. The travel demand model scenario for 2003 described in the UGB Remand does not account for the increases in population, the new roadway network additions, and the new transit system that occurred between 2003 and 2008. These factors affect the amount and location of trips, mode choice, and trip distribution/assignment, which significantly affects the VMT per capita calculation. Therefore, the 2003 model scenario is not a valid predictor of 2008 VMT per capita conditions compared to the 2010 model scenario. The model scenario inputs for 2010 are a much better and accurate representation of the land use and transportation in Bend in 2008. These inputs affect the amount and location of trips, mode choice, and trip distribution/assignment, all of which significantly affect VMT per capita analysis (Rem Rec 11251). OAR 660-012-0035(5)(b) allows that "In reviewing proposed standards for compliance with subsection (a), the commission shall give credit to regional and local plans, programs, and actions implemented. since 1990. that have alreadycontributed to achieving the objectives specified in paragraphs (A)—(E) above." As documented in detail in the ILUTP, the City of Bend implemented several connectivity improvements between 1990 and 2003 that would be expected to reduce VMT per capita, such as a new river crossing and an extension of Empire Avenue. To measure the benefit of these improvements, 2003 -level demand was applied to both the base 2003 mode_ I network and to a 1990 network that did not include these connectivity improvements. VMT per capita from these model runs were compared in order to calculate the VMT benefit of actions implemented in the intervening 13 years. This analysis showed that VMT per capita in 2003 would have been roughly 2.2% higher if not for the connectivity improvements made since 1990. When the 2028 VMT results are compared against the VMT that would have resulted in 2003 without the benefit of those connectivity improvements, the increase is 4.1%. Given this, the Council finds that the evidence demonstrates that VMT per capita is unlikely to increase by more than 5% over the 20 -year planning horizon of the UGB Remand, especially when considering the actions (connectivity improvements) that the City has implemented since 1990 that have already contributed to reducing growth in VMT. The Council finds that the standards listed in ILUTP (Density, Design, Diversity and Destinations) are measurable, given Census data, data from the Oregon Employment Department, building permit data from the City, and GIS data on transit routes, and use of the ET model, all of which the City has access to. The Council finds that these standards are Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-13 reasonably related to achieving the goal of increasing transportation choices and reducing reliance on the automobile as described in response to (5)(A) and (B), above. As is true with most U.S. cities of Bend's age, urban form, and rapid growth, Bend's VMT per capita has been increasing in recent decades. Bend is measuring growth in VMT per capita against baseline years of 2003 (as specified in the Remand) and 2010 (which the project team believes is a better indicator of conditions in 2008 — the beginning of the 20 -year planning horizon for the UGB work). In order to evaluate the impact of various VMT reduction strategies, a series of land use and transportation packages, or scenarios, were created and tested. These scenarios included: • Three UGB expansion scenarios and three "Supplemental Analysis Area Maps" (SAAMs) for 2028 testing different potential growth areas, with consistent assumptions about growth, redevelopment and transit service inside the UGB • A hypothetical land use and transportation scenario for 2028 to test the impact of increasing redevelopment in the core, increasing transit frequency, and increasing connectivity in new neighborhoods5; • The draft and final preferred UGB expansion scenario; • Several iterations of hypothetical 2040 scenarios to understand how the policies and strategies identified in this ILUTP may affect VMT over time and determine what it will take to reverse the tendon VMT growth in the longterm; and • The key conclusion from the VMT analysis was that each of the six scenarios tested increased per capita VMT relative to 2010 (ranging from a 2.9% to a 5.1°/0 increase) due to the amount of growth located outside the center of the city. The increase relative to 2003 ranged from 8.1 % to 10.3%. Expansion Scenario 2.1 had the lowest estimated VMT rate and the scenario was further refined and enhanced as the preferred UGB land use expansion scenario; (Rem Rec 10814). Because the analysis showed that Bend will experience an increase in VMT, an ILUTP has been prepared, addressing OAR 660 -12- 0035(2)(A) -(D). The standards to reduce reliance on the automobile as required are included in the Acknowledged TSP, and in the amended TSP adopted with the UGB. Standards are found in the ILUTP (Rem Rec 10994): 5 The UGB Technical Advisory Committee directed the project team to not over -assume redevelopment in the urban core because if redevelopment does not occur as expected, needed housing would not manifest as planned and required by Goal 10. The strategy was to implement efficiency measures, promote additional infill and redevelopment, but not at the risk of providing sufficient land for needed housing (Rem Rec 3551). Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-14 The ILUTP identifies "Proposed Strategies", which are intended to be adopted with the UGB expansion proposal, and also "Additional Strategies for Further Consideration" over the longer- term future. The strategies relate to each of the required elements identified in (5)(c)(A-(E). Key strategies are summarized below. Note that the City already has programs, policies, and/or regulations in place addressing many of the required elements of an ILUTP. These are summarized in Chapter 4 of the ILUTP, along with details of the proposed strategies and additional strategies for further consideration summarized below. Table 8-3: ILUTP Strategies ILUTP Element Land Use Strategies (5)(c(A) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking Management (5)(c)(B) (5)(c)(C) Proposed Strategies Designate and ultimately rezone mixed use opportunity areas identified in UGB project. Adopt efficiency measures identified in UGB project. Set policy supporting incentives approach to TDM and increasing applicability of TDM programs. Conduct analysis and. feasibility for parking: management and pricing Establish TDM .: requirements for institutional and employment master plans Support and maintain 2016 service improvements Define -and enhance transit centers and corridors in opportunity and core areas. Propose new and enhanced transit funding Additional Strategies for Medium -Term Designate additional mixed use areas along transit corridors Adopt design standards for key pedestrian areas and transit corridors. Further Consideration Long -Term Consider up -zoning selected neighborhoods where there is potential and community support for infill development. Strengthen connectivity standards for new master -planned neighborhoods. Consider transportation SDC reductions for TDM measures Require TDM programs for additional large: businesses / institutions Partner to establish TMAs for certain areas -Implement-parking management programs in key areas based on outcomes of parking study Implement most components of Bend Transit Plan, including additional hours of service, more frequent peak headways, and two new routes. Implement parking pricing in key areas (e.g. downtown and 3rd Street / Central Area), based on the results of the parking study. Implement further hours of service, improved service and headways on specific routes primarily in opportunity and Core areas, and conversion of 3 routes from bus service to pre- BRT types of service Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-15 ILUTP Element Roadway Improvement Management and Policies (5)(c)(D) Complete Streets and Connectivity Investment (5)(C)(E) Proposed Strategies Implement selective "road diets" where safety issues have been identified Implement programmed projects Prioritize streetscapes in opportunity and core areas and transit corridors. Additional Strategies for Further Consideration Medium -Term Long -Term Develop pedestrian and biking Continue to develop safety projects for the opportunity and implement policies areas that enhance walking, that increase walking biking, and transit modal splits. and biking safety by modifying street standards Evaluate funding mechanisms for complete street improvements Implement planned but not -yet - funded projects, focusing improvements in opportunity areas and adjoining corridors. Refinement and potential implementation of aspirational projects The Council finds that the proposed strategies are being adopted through the UGB, and the preceding findings demonstrate VMT increases by Tess than 5% as required. These strategies are based on current best practices and research on the subject of enhancing non -automotive modes through strategies which when applied together result in less reliance on the automobile as described in the ILUTP. The ILUTP focuses these strategies in the core area of the City, which corresponds with the proposed efficiency measures such as allowing more mixed use and residential and job densities in the core of the City (Rem Rec 11149). This demonstrates that the City has made a wide range of changes to land use plans, designations, and design standards, with a focus in the core area of the City, because research has demonstrated that will be the most effective places to apply those tools. -TDM-strategies-have been added to the ILUTP as well, with a focus on major institutions and employers. Expansion of public transit is another strategy, and one which the:ILUTP has demonstrated would result in a decrease in VMT. Future amendments to the transit plan, which are conducted by the MPO and Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, will rely on the newly adopted land use pattern reflected in the proposed UGB expansion and efficiency measures. This will include new routes and enhanced services consistent with the ILUTP standards. The Council finds that the ILUTP is an element of the TSP, and is empowered through policies in the TSP, and thus will create a new framework upon which to review and manage major roadway improvements for consistency with the Plan and TSP. The rule provides guidance, but not requirements, regarding the types of standards to be used in evaluating decreased reliance on the automobile. The ILUTP included evaluation of some of the suggested standards such as modal share, and vehicle trips per capita; however, alternative standards to measure progress towards reducing reliance on the automobile are proposed in the ILUTP. The proposed standards and strategies go beyond the advised standards by focusing on attributes of the built environment which are easier to quantify and track, and which Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-16 research referenced in the ILUTP demonstrates are meaningful in affecting travel behaviors. Importantly, the proposed strategies and several of the proposed standards are within the jurisdiction and influence of City laws, codes, and programs. The Council finds that focusing standards and strategies on aspects of the built environment that can be influenced by City planning, development approvals, capital investment plans and strategies is more effective than focusing standards on outcomes that are inherently imprecise given available data (US Census, local) and models (regional travel demand model). The ILUTP strategies and standards are also elements of the TSP (Rem Rec 10994). The existing Bend TSP and General Plan include existing goals and policies that call for reducing reliance on the automobile and encourage mixed use development, which support the ILUTP. The policies below are new policies specific to implementing the ILUTP, including evaluating progress towards meeting the standards in the ILUTP, as required in OAR 660-012- 0035(5)(e). These policies will be added to Chapter 7 (Transportation) of the City's Plan (Rem Rec 10339) and included as an amendment to the City's TSP (Rem Rec 10994) as part of the UGB expansion project. • The City will implement the land use, transportation demand management, parking management, transit, and complete streets strategies, projects and programs that are identified as Proposed Strategies in Chapter 4 of the ILUTP. • The City will conduct a planning study to evaluate the potential for Transportation Management Areas for the opportunity areas, transit centers, and public and private institutions and companies: • The City will include streetscape projects in opportunity - and core areas and transit corridors when developing the transportation capital improvement program priorities and projects: • The City will develop transit priority -corridors in the opportunity and core areas that include a combination of landuse policies and codes and transportation enhancements that encourage transportation options. • The City will update the assessments of the ILUTP standards at each update of the Bend MPO regional transportation system plan and the City TSP. Conclusion: The Council finds that the above findings demonstrate the proposed standards comply with the requirements -of OAR 660-012-0035(5). 8.4.2.6 Option to comply by demonstrating VMT reduction (6) A metropolitan area may also accomplish compliance with requirements of subsection (3)(e), sections (4) and (5) by demonstrating to the commission that adopted plans and measures are likely to achieve a five percent reduction in VMT per capita over the 20 -year planning period. The commission shall consider and act on metropolitan area requests under this section by order. A metropolitan area that receives approval under this section shall adopt interim benchmarks for VMT reduction and shall evaluate Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-17 progress in achieving VMT reduction at each update of the regional transportation system plan. The Council finds that the City determined through modeling that a 5% reduction in VMT per capita over the planning period was not feasible. Therefore, as directed in OAR 660-12- 35(5)(c), the City prepared an ILUTP to demonstrate that the VMT per capita can be held to an increase of less than 5% per capita over the planning period. 8.4.2.7 Requirement to include benchmarks to measure progress (7) Regional and local TSPs shall include benchmarks to assure satisfactory progress towards meeting the approved standard or standards adopted pursuant to this rule at regular intervals over the planning period. MPOs and local governments shall evaluate progress in meeting benchmarks at each update of the regional transportation plan. Where benchmarks are not met, the relevant TSP shall be amended to include new or additional efforts adequate to meet the requirements of this rule. The Council finds that the ILUTP will be adopted as an appendix to the amended TSP (Rem Rec 10994). The ILUTP includes standards that are intended to function as benchmarks for the City for the time frame between adoption and 2028.. The standards include: • Density (land use), measured as housing _units plus employment over total acres in three different key geographic areas; • Design (complete -streets), measured -as implementation of all programmed projects; • Destinations (transit, land use, and TDM), measured as percent of housing units and employment within a quarter mile of transit, walkable access to commercial services, and active TDM programs and • Diversity (land use)_, measured. as jobs -housing balance in two key areas. Conclusion The Council finds that the City of Bend has completed an analysis of the transportation effects of proposed changes to land use within the UGB and the proposed expansion areas, and has prepared an ILUTP demonstrating a clear path forward to achieving the VMT reduction goals of OAR 660-12-0035. The Council finds that the proposed standards are measurable, clear, and phased to become more intensive and robust through the planning period. The regional transportation plan will be updated on a roughly five-year timeframe, and will now be able to reference the strategies contained in the ILUTP in its plan, to facilitate additional analysis and reporting. The Council finds that the City has therefore met the requirement of the OAR. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-18 8.4.3. Transportation Analysis for Amendments to Plan or Land Use Regulations: OAR 660-012-0060 OAR 660-012-0060 requires local governments to maintain consistency between land use regulations and the transportation system plan and demonstrate that planned transportation facilities will be adequate to serve planned land uses. It addresses amendments to land use regulations as well as functional classification systems. 8.4.3.1 Deferral of OAR 660-012-0060 Analysis for UGB Expansion OAR 660-024-0020: Adoption or Amendment of a UGB. "(1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable when establishing or amending a UGB, except as follows: *** (d) The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 need not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim zoning that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary * * *. " OAR 660-024-0020(1) allows cities to defer addressing the requirements of OAR 660-12-0060 of the TPR (which req uires a demonstration that there -are adequate planned transportation facilities to serve the planned development) untill, property added to a UGB is re -designated or rezoned to allow urban development.: The Council finds that the proposed amendments to the UGB expansion areas includes newCitty of Bend Plan designations to meet anticipated land needs until 2028 The zoning of areas outside the current city limits and Bend UGB, but included= in the revised and expanded UGB, will retain their existing rural zoning designations managed -through Title 19"ofthe Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. In accordance with this provision, the:City is proposing to retain existing County zoning on lands in the expansion areas until annexation -occurs, at which time a TPR compliance analysis will be a requirement of annexation, along with master planning or area planning. The City has language in the adopted Development Code (4.6.600 Transportation Planning Rule Compliance) requires that: When a development application includes a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment or land use district change, or both, the proposal shall be reviewed to determine whether it significantly affects a transportation facility, in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060. [Ord. NS -2016, 2006], Conclusion: The Council finds that the proposal is in compliance with this section of the TPR. 8.4.3.2 Determination of Significant Effect for Amendments inside the Current UGB: OAR 660-012-0060 Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-19 (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet theperformance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The Council finds that, because the City has chosen to defer addressing the requirements of OAR 660-12-0060 of the TPR for UGB expansion areas, the following section, which addresses the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060, is restricted to addressing the effects of the proposed land use changes within the existing UGB. Transportation planning and TPR compliance will be accomplished for expansion areas with Master or Area planning prior to, or at the time of annexation. In order to determine if the proposed changes to the UGB would have a significant effect on the transportation system, as defined in this section of the TPR, the following approach was applied. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-20 Summary of Land Use Actions The proposed changes to Plan designations and land use regulations within the current UGB include: • New mixed-use designations and/or zones in opportunity areas, including: o The Bend Central District, between the Parkway and 4th Avenue from roughly the railroad on the south to Revere on the north (implemented as a special plan district); o CWP/Century Drive opportunity site (implemented using the new mixed use plan designations developed for the UGB project; zone changes are being deferred); o KorPine opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Urban plan designation and zone developed for the UGB project); o East Downtown opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Urban plan designation; zone changes are being deferred); and o The Inner Highway 20 / Greenwood Ave opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Neighborhood plan designation; zone changes are being deferred). • Changes to land use regulations, including: o Minimum residential densities for residential development within 660 feet of transit in commercial and mixed-use_ zones o Reduced parking standards for mixed use development o Raising- the minimum density rn the RS -zone: o Allowing a_ greater mix of housing types outright in the RS zone; o increasing the maximum residential density in RL zone; Removing theTcap_on net density formulti-family housing in the RM and RH zones to; allow greater flexibility in reaching the allowed maximum gross density; and o:. Enabling greater densities in ME zoned land by removing maximum lot coverage and the minimum front setback as well as providing height bonuses for affordable housing and vertical mixed use. Because these proposed changes include Plan map, zoning map and development code modifications, a TPR evaluation was conducted to determine if the changes would cause a significant effect (i.e., impact): to the transportation system that requires mitigation. Approach Through scoping coordination with ODOT Region 4 and DLCD staff, it was determined that a travel demand model Zink -level analysis utilizing the MPO regional travel demand model was appropriate for assessing those impacts to the transportation system within the current UGB. There are several reasons for this approach: Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-21 • ODOT Region 4 staff determined that link -level analysis was adequate for TPR evaluation within the current UGB as the intended outcome of the actions is to improve land use efficiency and transportation system performance, with any potential impacts likely occurring in areas that have been studied in-depth in past plans with known issues and potential solutions. • The increased development potential generated by the broadly -applicable changes to land use regulations is spread over thousands of acres (most of the vacant and redevelopable land within the current UGB). Furthermore, many of the changes have the effect of increasing the minimum intensity of development than increasing the maximum intensity of development. As a result, differences in expected intensity of development within the planning horizon are generally modest and diffuse relative to the reasonable worst case development potential under the existing regulations. Methods The following sections describe the key methods/assumptions used as the basis for the technical analysis (Rem Rec 11155). Mobility Standards for Traffic Capacity Analysis The City's TSP does not include mobility standards to utilize forlimpact assessment. However, the City's development code includes a volume to capacity (v/c)ratio standard for major intersections of 1.0 for peak hours (or the hour adjacent to the peak hour for certain areas). To support the traffic capacity analysis-describedinthe'previous;section, the City's intersection v/c ratio standard were applied to travel .model links; representing City facilities. For links representing ODOT facilities;, v/c ratio, standards from the Oregon Highway Plan were applied. These targetswer-e-utilized to compare UGB Scenario 2.1G to the TPR base and where the proposed changes were found to cause a link to;:exceed mobility targets or further degrade an alreadyover-target condition, the links were identified for potential mitigation. (Note: this analysis does not identify improvements -,for all facilities to meet mobility standards in the future; it identifies where mitigations` needs to be considered to offset the impact of the proposed actions.) Horizon Year for Evaluation The City's TSP was based., on travel demand modeling of growth to the year 2020; however, due to issues with land use buildout consistencies and partner agency support of the technical modeling work that underlies the analysis, it cannot serve as a base for comparison for TPR analysis. The UGB planning horizon and corresponding Remand requirements are based on a horizon year of 2028. Therefore, 2028 was used as the horizon year for TPR evaluation. The Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-22 Acknowledged Bend TSP financial plan includes projects in the near and mid-term that are assumed to be funded by year 20326. Base -Case Scenario for Determining Significant Effect When conducting TPR significant effect evaluation, a key data point for comparison is how the planned system performs under the current Plan and TSP. For the Bend area, the TSP's modeling work cannot be relied upon and the MPO's regional travel demand model does not currently have a scenario specifically developed to represent growth to 2028 based on currently designated land uses. Therefore, the project team developed a 2028 land use allocation and corresponding travel model scenario that achieves population and employment control totals within the existing UGB and is consistent with existing Plan designations. For consistency with the UGB expansion scenarios, the project team utilized Envision Tomorrow to allocate the housing and employment growth based on the current regulations and plan designations. Specifically, the approach to allocating population and employment was as follows: • Use ET to allocate housing and employment growth. • Begin from the BLI that underlies the draft preferred UGB expansion scenario and current plan designations, and the base case assumptions developed to estimate capacity under current plan designations and historic trends. • Adjust the original base case development type assumptions and application of development types as follows: o Apply development 'types consistent with current plan designations to residential lots that are allowed to add at least one unit under the existing plan designation density and are not within a historic district, but were not identified as having capacity because there is little or no=undeveloped land on the property. o Apply development types to additional commercial and industrial properties, consistent with the existing plan designations, where projected employment densities are above current employment densities. o Add a small redevelopment rate to residential development types (2-7% of developed acres, with higher rates on RM and RH than RL and RS). o Increase redevelopment rates for commercial, industrial and mixed use development types to about 35% of developed land (except MDOZ, which is about 20%). o Adjust the building mix across most development types to increase density and bring the overall housing and employment mixes more into line with the needed housing mix present in the draft preferred UGB expansion scenario. Continue to rely only on buildings that meet current development code standards (e.g. 6 Because the Bend TSP's Financial Plan was adopted in 2012, the 20 -year planning horizon is 2032. The Remand planning horizon is 2028. For the purposes of this analysis, these two planning horizons were considered to be sufficiently concurrent. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-23 parking, building height and setbacks) and keep residential density within the currently allowed density ranges so that all assumed development is consistent with existing regulations. o Reduce amount of land set aside as "other land" from 13% to 3% for all development types (less private open space assumed than historical trends). o Adjust development assumptions for Juniper Ridge to match the "reasonable worst case" identified for the Employment Subdistrict Zone Change transportation study for development through 2025 (as an approximation of 2028). • Add projected population / housing and employment growth to estimated existing housing and employment from 2014 to establish 2028 totals. Note that the Oregon State University (OSU) Cascades Campus was not part of the Envision Tomorrow modeling of the TPR base scenario (because its employment and student housing was accounted for separately from other employment and housing growth for UGB capacity purposes), but it was built into the transportation model for the TPR base scenario. (For Scenario 2.1G, the OSU assumptions were integrated into Envision, but with the same population and employment numbers and types as in the TPR base scenario.) For school enrollment areas, the approach wasto; • Identify new schools: only inside the UGB and on School District owned property outside the UGB based on input from the School District on the 2028 UGB scenarios. • Adjust from 2Q10 attendanceboundaries to reasonablyapproximate attendance areas for new schools: = Reasonably Funded Network Assumptions The finat:key assumption for the TPR evaluation was the future improvements that were accounted`for in the travel forecasting and system performance evaluation. As described in the TPR, only improvements that are reasonably likely to be funded were assumed. For regionally significant facilities, the recent`Bend 2040`MTP includes a financial assessment and a corresponding constrained project>list. MPO staff has subsequently coordinated with City and ODOT staff to determine a subset of the planned improvement list that aligns with the funding forecast through the year 2028. For other City facilities, the City has recently completed a detailed funding evaluation (including SDCs and bond revenues) to determine which TSP improvements are reasonably funded by 2032' (those identified for near-term and mid-term funding). Finally, funding for transit system enhancements have been recently approved that increase service levels for 2015 to levels previously planned for 2028. Therefore, the newly implemented transit system was maintained in the model network. These three combined 7 Official Notice — The Bend Transportation Plan is available online through the City's website - htto://www.bend.or.us/index.asox?oaae=634 Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-24 improvement programs formed the basis for the 2028 transportation network for TPR evaluation. Summary of Results The attached figures show the travel demand model link plots utilized for the analysis. Figure 8- 2 and 8-3 show forecasted weekday PM peak hour volume and demand -to -capacity (d/c) ratios for the TPR base and preferred scenario (Scenario 2.1G), respectively. Table 8-4 lists d/c ratios and model volume data for specific state highway links to further explain the data shown in Figures 8-2 and 8-3. This information was utilized to assess where the mixed-use land use changes and other efficiency measures and new plan designations caused a facility to exceed a mobility target or further degrade a condition already above the; mobility target under the TPR base scenario. (Note: this analysis does not identify improvements for all facilities to meet mobility standards in the future, as some locations are planned to exceed mobility targets in the future under a financially constrained investment scenario; it identifies where mitigations needs to be considered to offset the impact of the proposed actions.) Figure 8=3 shows the isolated volume change on the system between the scenarios based on the opportunity site locations, where the mixed-use land use changes and other efficiency measures and new plan designations are concentrated. This data was used to -isolate the changes shown in Figures 8-2 and 8-3 and Table 8-4 that is specifically attributable to locations within the UGB and not part of the proposed expansion areas incorporated into Scenario 2.1-G. Based on the link analysis, the following conditions were determined: • The proposed;plan, zone, and code changes would cause Hwy 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street to further degrade ;above the mobility target compared to the TPR base scenario. • Isolating -the transportation changes from the=opportunity site zones (Figure 8-4) found thatthe proposed. plan, zone, and code amendments do not cause significant increase traffic volumes on links exceeding mobility targets (Figure 8-3), except for Hwy 20 between Cooley Road 3rd`Street as previously noted • Other locations on the state highway system were found to either be below mobility targets, not further degrade, or in some cases improve with Scenario 2.1G relative to the TPR base scenario. For example, US 97 between Colorado Avenue and Revere Avenue is shown to exceed a v/c ratio of 1.0 in both plots, but actually has lower volumes in the 2.1 G'Scenario (note that this congestion is consistent with the Bend MPO 2040 MTP, which calls for a Corridor Plan to be completed to identify improvements). On Hwy 20 (Greenwood Avenue) between 3rd Street and 15th Street, Scenario 2.1G shows lower v/c ratios. Therefore, while some locations may show v/c ratios that do not meet mobility targets in either the TPR or 2.1 G scenarios based on the financially constrained scenarios, the proposed plan, zone, and code changes would not further degrade those locations and would not be required to mitigate to meet OAR 660-012- 0060). Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-25 Table 8-4: TPR Segment Analysis Conclusion • '0 W W 9W G)G)t �• } — N } } r } a}• } �• } O C C Xi 0 O ri ONC E OO42 W00 G) W G) W W EEEEDEEEEvEE E -de • o � >' > >-0 o> > c > > o>� uaoO� > O > > oOo>.0 >� 2 2 m a 2 E E aO W �' E WmWO O 0 O W W O W O 0 0. ec. a a a a a c .0 m e m ea a k Em a o CLIC c -15 Z c c E E E E c c c c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 -- W— - W-- W c c m W 0 Z C C E> W C C E Z z z Z z c c E c c E c c E v>cm 0a� a� v�damd'0t, c yvu °13)i 13 0a > > >N > WNH W Q W Day C N N W 0 Y aWON N N NH a) .O tN W � CU 7W O N f0 @ a CO ma CO O. CO E v e 2t6£v' Oa � W 0-4maev d v f0EEWE W E C0COC> W C CpC 3-0 cccucy• • 4 •n N O • 0y O-0 -0 v -o GO O O (2.,WltWapN,pWv ZWE•pW'ZWpWpWpW-aW•pW•O Z W •o Z W •0 z J 9 ..;.. =°E��������� �� �coti ? W n ��� o�my �y `m�m?oom >c>��nc�� > ° °°> ° > v0 > Z > c :° :° > .> r ;° > c > c c > c > c > 4.:9 > : .W > : I 8 -a�`� "+ N .m H Ls mG > v) SB +25; NB +15 Z :.,. iii -Q O rn r (0 00 U) to SB -175; NB -55 SB -240; NB -50 SB -85; NB -30 SB -110; NB -20 0 Ori M 4 8 co to 8: h• 8 n CU 4 th0 8 O �8�p N h s2s�� p4p g N O N8t� c4 CO cG+D� w ? GO h- O c0 W- N r .h- - .�- N M M (9 (9 M M (N9 CN9 (9 N N N °o t•t d r ~ V N W O n l0 GNO• W Oh) n O n 10 t9 O (.0pp c0 r0 h h h h O t0 N,0) t0 M O h O N 0 0 0 r h O O M to 1 O O O O O O 0 D O D O r O O Or r r 0 O IO 0 0 0 O e�•� Gpp�N�0 �9 a� M 8N W 8O8ONO N 40 a c9 O O 4 � 4 0 8 8 0 8 N 8 M 8 p •� O r p O O) O r r r r r r N M M I') r. CV (09 M N N r) N c. c�' N (0 CO f0 r O c0 d• r r M M 0 d' 0 M N co (9r O h h c9 h d' h r N t0 t0 N t0 O (O O t0 0 h r m h h O W O h (0 N O 0 O h O r 0 0 0 r h 0) 0 0) CO O O O r O r 0 r O d O O C r C C r r r O r r r r r r O O C O O c 0 in co olcococococoalcococaco co co co r o com Z(0ZWZU)ZU)Z U) 5j W co 5j W 5 W ZCAZ1ZU)ZU)ZOZ (o Z(0 Z N h. C tri: P v - O ` to to t0 t0 O to to t0 t0 t0 to to In to to to _ o OJ tp e0 co. to co a0 GO a0 co co.a0 co O a0 Gpm. ��.�� C o o O o C O C C O O C O C O 11) 8 W C W O p 3 W v a N 73 C a o N v� W ar > > �� �i a cr 01N '� r� D� w¢ o � '- �� t'n� �a ba o¢ a2 0 UIC =-41 U y TW O a 0 d is h to T N N v 6. gt� ` + ro 1� c O CO U J K 44 m N N N N (0 •O N 0 0 m CO 0) O 01 N. to r. O N. O.0 E 1 U) t/) 3)) (0 0 t.. (3) (!) V) (1) N f!) (3) U) (0 ll) U) :fl = ol 0z D D > > a > > ) > > > > > >a 13 C CC 8 N Section 8-26 Figure 8-2: Average PM Peak Volume in TPR Base Scenario Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-27 Figure 8-3: Average PM Peak Volume - Scenario 2.1G Findings Report July 2016 Legend Volume -Capacity Ratio — ®.ao - 0.80.0.89 ------ 0,90 - t.0 - >t.0 Erre leg UGB Exp Ares Section 8-28 Figure 8-4: PM Peak Volume Difference with Opportunity Areas (2.1G - TPR) Findings Report July 2016 Loon d vOlUITIO Difference ....... 2G VOW*, TPR - ZIG Warne TPR — - . 50 100 100 051 egsin; UG8 egg F.43 Area 74' OpportnityArea TAZ Section 8-29 Therefore, based on the results of the modeling, the Council finds that it was determined that theprnpneednlan.zone.andcwdeamandnnentovvithinthmUGBdnnotnmuoomsignificant effect, with the exception of Highway 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street, which would be further degraded above ODOT's mobility target. To remedy this impact, the corridor can be improved by an improvement p'mct that is ah-eady identified in the Bend 2040 MTP as needed due to general background growth in the City. The pject would add a travel lane to southbound H 20 from Cooley Road 10 3d Street. The Council finds that Highway 20 p'entia|iotedin1hmBend2U40K8TPfisoaUyoomatroinmd project list as a City funded pject from system development charges and private development. The d pted MTP project|ieti included Chapter project list with the identified funded sources such as City and ODOT was approved by the MPO as Resolution 2014-06 at the September 25, 2014 Bend MPO Board Meeting (Rem Rec 10219 and 10220). The 2040 fiscally constrained project list did not indicate when, within the 2014 2040 timeline, the Highway 20 lane addition project would be constructed. However, the City, as the identified funding source, anticipates that funds for the project are reasonably likely to be available by 2028 because of the vacant commercial properties that exist from Robal Lane to Cooley Road along Highway 20. These properties, when they develop, will include frontage and likely lane improvements on Highway 20. Therefore the project on Highway 20 will be developer funded. Also, the UGB BLI "and the pDA document and anticipate the properties along Highway 20 from RolDal to Cooley'aS likely tO be developed by 2028 (Rem Rec 10513). 8.4.3.3 Response to Signifidant.Effect: _ (2) If a local government determinesthat there would be a significant effect, then the local government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified functiort-cepocity, andpetforrhance-standarels of the facility measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adoPted TSP through one or a combination of the ''remedies listed in(a) through (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test iuhsection (2)(e) of this sechbn or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A.local government I./sing subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approvean amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional capacity for mot& vehicles' in response to this congestion. (a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility. (b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the reents of this such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facilityimprovement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-30 (c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility. (d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including, but not limited to, transportation system management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall, as part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided. (e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or improvements at other locations, if the provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in consistency for all performance standards. The Council finds that the proposed changes to land uses within the UGB would cause Highway 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street to further degrade above ODOT's mobility target, which is identified as a significant effect in OAR 660-12-060(1)(c)(C). To remedy this impact, the corridor can be improved by an improvement to the project that is already identified in the Bend 2040 MTP as needed due to general background growth in the City. The project would add a travel lane to southbound Hwy 20 from Cooley. Road to 3rd Street. The Council finds that, as described above under OAR 660-0012-0060(c)(C), the Highway 20 project is listed in the Bend 2040 MTP fiscally: constrained project list as_a City funded project from system development charges_and private development (Rem Rec 10219 and 10220). 8.4.3.4 Allowed Exceptions; (3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and,(2) of this rule, a local government may approve n amendment` that. would Significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the allowed landuses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standardsof the facility where: (a) In; -the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements; and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency: with the identified function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP; (b) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or measures; (c) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph (4)(d)(C); and Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-31 (d) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (c) of this section. The Council finds that the only significant effect identified by the analysis is the further degradation of Highway 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street to further degrade above ODOT's mobility target. To remedy this impact, an improvement project is already identified in the Bend 2040 MTP to add a travel lane to southbound Hwy 20 from Cooley Road to 3rd Street. As described above under OAR 660-0012-0060(c)(C), the Highway 20 project is listed in the Bend 2040 MTP fiscally constrained project list as a City funded project from system development charges and private development (Rem Rec 10219 and 10220). 8.4.3.5 Coordination Requirements: (4) Determinations under sections (1)—(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. (a) In determining' whether an amendment has a significant effect on an existing or planned transportation facility under subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities, improvements and services set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below. ; _.. (b)Outside of interstate: interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities, improvements and services: (A) ,Transportation "facilities, improvements or services that are funded for construction or implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or regionally adopted transportation improvement program or capital improvement plan_ or program of a transportation service provider. (B) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is in place or approved. These include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities, improvements or services for which: transportation systems development charge revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement district has been established or will be established prior to development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund the improvement have been adopted. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-32 (C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) area that are part of the area's federally -approved, financially constrained regional transportation system plan. (D) Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when ODOT provides a written statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities or services that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when the local government(s) or transportation service provider(s) responsible for the facility, improvement or service provides a written statement that the facility, improvement or service is reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in (b)(A)—(C) are considered planned facilities, improvements and services, except where: (A) ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section; or (8) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in that planand which are also identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section. (d) As used in this section and section (3): (A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or comprehensive plan; (8) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and (C) Interstate interchange area means: (1) Property within one-quarter mile of the ramp terminal intersection of an existing or planned interchange on an Interstate Highway; or (ii) The interchange area as defined in the Interchange Area Management Plan adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan. (e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E) or (c)(A) provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is a planned transportation facility, improvement or service. In the absence of a written statement, a local Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-33 government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified in paragraphs (b)(A)-(C) to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of the remedies in section (2). The Council finds that the only significant effect identified by the analysis is the further degradation of Highway 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street to further degrade above ODOT's mobility target. To remedy this impact, an improvement project is already identified in the Bend 2040 MTP to add a travel lane to southbound Hwy 20 from Cooley Road to 3rd Street. As described above under OAR 660-0012-0060(c)(C), the Highway 20 project is listed in the Bend 2040 MTP fiscally constrained project list as a City funded project from system development charges and private development (Rem Rec 10219 and 10220). 8.4.3.6 Transportation facility not a basis for an exception for development on rural lands (5) The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for an exception to allow residential, commercial, institutional or industrial development on rural lands under this division or OAR 660-004-0022 and 660-004-0028. The Council finds that City does not intend to provide facilities or improvements to rural lands that will be outside the newly expanded and proposed UGB expansion area. New facilities and improvements will not be allowed until land is annexed into the City. Annexation is dependent upon completion of an Area or Master Plan, which requires the identification of all needed infrastructure, including new transportation_facilities and the upgrading of rural roads to urban standards. No exceptions to allow residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial development on rural lands is proposed, andJ therefore this standard is met. 8.4.3.7 Credit for mixed use, pedestrian -friendly centers and neighborhoods (6) In determining whether proposed land uses would affect or be consistent with planned transportation facilities as provided in sections (1) and (2), local governments shall give full credit: for potential reduction in vehicle trips for uses located in mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly centers, and neighborhoods as provided in subsections (a)—(d) below; (a) Absent adopted local standards or detailed information about the vehicle trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly development, local governments shall assume that uses located within a mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly center, or neighborhood, will generate 10% fewer daily and peak hour trips than are specified in available published estimates, such as those provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual that do not specifically account for the effects of mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly development. The 10% reduction allowed for by this section shall be available only if uses which rely solely on auto trips, such as gas stations, car washes, storage facilities, and motels are prohibited; (b) Local governments shall use detailed or local information about the trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly development where such information is Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-34 available and presented to the local government. Local governments may, based on such information, allow reductions greater than the 10% reduction required in subsection (a) above; (c) Where a local government assumes or estimates lower vehicle trip generation as provided in subsection (a) or (b) above, it shall assure through conditions of approval, site plans, or approval standards that subsequent development approvals support the development of a mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly center or neighborhood and provide for on-site bike and pedestrian connectivity and access to transit as provided for in OAR 660-012-0045(3) and (4). The provision of on-site bike and pedestrian connectivity and access to transit may be accomplished through application of acknowledged ordinance provisions which comply with 660-012-0045(3) and (4) or through conditions of approval or findings adopted with the plan amendment that assure compliance with these rule requirements at the time of development approval; and (d) The purpose of this section is to provide an incentive for the designation and implementation of pedestrian -friendly, mixed-use centers and neighborhoods by lowering the regulatory barriers to plan amendments which accomplish this type of development. The actual trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly development will vary from case to case and may be somewhat higher or lower than presumed pursuant to subsection (a) above. The Commission concludes that this assumption is warranted given general information about the expected effects of mixed- use, pedestrian -friendly development and its intent to encourage changes to plans and development patterns. Nothing in this section is intended to affect the application of provisions in local plans or ordinances which provide for the calculation or assessment of systems development charges or in preparing conformity determinations required under_theiederal Clean Air Act. The Council finds that the City's analysis demonstrated that, because the significant effects of the City's proposed actions within the existing UGB are limited to a previously identified portion of Highway 20, this section of the TPR is not needed and does not apply to this proposal. However, it is worth noting that, the City's proposed Opportunity Areas are meant to implement the planning concepts outlined in this Section, creating denser, more diverse, walkable, and complete neighborhoods. (7) Amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations which meet all of the criteria listed in subsections (a)—(c) below shall include an amendment to the comprehensive plan, transportation system plan the adoption of a local street plan, access management plan, future street plan or other binding local transportation plan to provide for on-site alignment of streets or accessways with existing and planned arterial, collector, and local streets surrounding the site as necessary to implement the requirements in OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) and 660-012-0045(3): (a) The plan or land use regulation amendment results in designation of two or more acres of land for commercial use; Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-35 (b) The local government has not adopted a TSP or local street plan which complies with OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) or, in the Portland Metropolitan Area, has not complied with Metro's requirement for street connectivity as contained in Title 6, Section 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; and (c) The proposed amendment would significantly affect a transportation facility as provided in section (1). The Council finds that this criterion does not apply to Bend because it has an adopted TSP which complies with OAR -12-0020(2)(b). (8) A "mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly center or neighborhood" for the purposes of this rule, means: (a) Any one of the following: (A) An existing central business district or downtown; (B) An area designated as a central city, regional center, town center or main street in the Portland Metro 2040 Regional Growth Concept; (C) An area designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as a transit oriented development or a pedestrian district; or (D) An area designated as a special transportation area as provided for in the Oregon Highway Plan. (b) An area other than those listed in subsection (a) above which includes or is planned to include the following characteristics: (A) A concentration of a variety of land uses in a well-defined area, including the following: (i) Medium to high density residential- development (12 or more units per acre); (ii) Offices or office buildings; (iii) Retail stores and services; (iv) Restaurants; and (v) Public open space or private open space which is available for public use, such as a park or plaza. (B) Generally include civic or cultural uses; (C) A core commercial area where multi -story buildings are permitted; (D) Buildings and building entrances oriented to streets; (E) Street connections and crossings that make the center safe and conveniently accessible from adjacent areas; Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-36 (F) A network of streets and, where appropriate, accessways and major driveways that make it attractive and highly convenient for people to walk between uses within the center or neighborhood, including streets and major driveways within the center with wide sidewalks and other features, including pedestrian -oriented street crossings, street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting and on -street parking; (G) One or more transit stops (in urban areas with fixed route transit service); and (H) Limit or do not allow low -intensity or land extensive uses, such as most industrial uses, automobile sales and services, and drive-through services. The Council finds that the City is not relying on mixed use development patterns to meet the requirements of OAR 660-12-060, however, it is worth noting that the City's proposed Opportunity Areas are meant to implement the planning concepts outlined in this Section, creating denser, more diverse, walkable, and complete neighborhoods. Conclusion: Based on the information and reasons outlined in the findings above, the Council finds that the City of Bend has met the requirements of OAR 660-12-0060. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-37 8. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 8.1. Introduction The findings in this section focus on the metropolitan planning requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), Oregon Administrative Rule, Division 12 (660-12-000)1. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC: The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. 8.2. Summary of Relevant Legal Standards In the Remand and Partial Acknowledgement Order, LCDC found that the City is required to address portions of Goal 12 and the TPR relating to metropolitan planning in its UGB amendment. Table 8-1 summarizes the organization of the findings and the relevant legal standards. Table 8-1: Relevant Legal;:Standards Section Heading in Findings 8.4.1: Coordination Requirements in MPO Areas 12 8.4.2: Reducing Reliance on the Auto (Integrated 12 Land Use & Transportation Plan) 8.4.3: Transportation Analysis for Amendments to Plan or Land Use Regulations Applicable Statewide Planning Goal(s) 12 & 14 Applicable Oregon Administrative Rule(s) (OAR) 660-012-0016 660-012-0035 660-024-0020 660-012-0060 1 Findings in Section 7 (UGB Location) address the evaluation of the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of transportation facilities needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-1 8.3. Substantial Evidence Table 8-2 summarizes the key evidence that supports the findings in this section. Access to the 2009 UGB Record and the 2011-2016 Record on Remand is available on the City's website for the UGB Remand Project http://www.bend.or.us/index.asmOoaae=1290. Table 8-2: Key Record References 1 | 201Y-301GRecord mnRemand Date Base Year Travel Demand Model Selection for VMT Evaluation � 7/18/14 Bend MPO 2040 MTP Financially Constrained Project List �`' 9/15/14 Bend MPO meeting minutes adopting Financially Constrained Project List 9/15/14 Bend UGB Steering Committee Meeting Minutes '' ''` 9/4/2014 Buildable Lands Inventory '��� '�`' July 2016 Chapter 11 BondCnmprehonoiveP|an—G,uwthMo ort ' '. July 2016 Chapter 7 Bend Comprehensive PIan — Transportation July 2016 Development Code Amendments — Efficiency Measures July 2016 Remand Order—Section 8, Transportation Planning 11/2/10 Scenario 2.1G Evaluation: Transportation Analysis Technical Memorandum 7/18/16 Scenario Evaluation: Transportation AnalysisTechnical Memorandum(Stago4) TPR Evauation for Changes within Current UGB TSP Amendmerit, tntegrated Land Use & Transportation Pian Urbanization Report Page # 11251 10219 10220 3553 10513 10362 10339 11149 5837 11223 10/7715 6851 7/14/16 1 11255 July 2016 | 10994 July 2016 1 10814 8.4. Findings 8.4i1 Coordination OAR,660-0-12-0016: Cobrdination with Federally -Required Regional Transportation Plans in Metropolitan Areas (1) In metropolitan areas, local governments shall prepare, adopt, amend and update transportation system plans required by this division in coordination with regional transportation plans (RTPS) prepared by MPOs required by federal law. Insofar as possible, regional transpOrtation system plans for metropolitan areas shall be accomplished through a single coordinated process that compiles with the applicable requirements of federal law and this division. Nothing in this rule is intended to make adoption or amendment of a regional transportation plan by a metropolitan planning organization a land use decision under Oregon law. The Council finds that OAR 660-012-0016 establishes planning requirements for cities within metropolitan planning areas (MPOs), and that, at the time of the adoption of the acknowledged 2000 Bend TSP, the City of Bend was not yet part of a designated MPO. The Bend MPO was established in December 2002. A federally -compliant regional transportation ptan, the Bend Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-2 2040 MTP2), was adopted in June 2007. The MTP was updated in 2014, four years after the UGB Remand Order from DLCD, to ensure compliance with federal requirements, The 2040 MTP included the full Iist of projects that were developed for the City's TSP Financial PIan3. The Council finds that the travel demand model network modeling for the UGB analysis was based on the Bend 2040 MTP4, inclusive of motor vehicle facilities and transit service that are included in the financially constrained system, adjusted to 2028 (Rem Rec 6851). The amendments to the Bend TSP (Rem Rec 10994) required for the Bend UGB expansion were coordinated with the 2040 MTP. A 2028 calibrated version ofthe 2040 MTP transportation demand model was utilized to determine the transportation effects of the UGB expansion proposal, and acoordinated list cfprojects vvaocn*oted.� .' Conclusion: The Council finds that the City of Bend's TSP, as amended,complies with the regional transportation plan because it is coordinated with the Bend 2040 MTP. Coordination is accomptished through use of the MTP project listcalibrated to 2028in the UGB analysis and amended TSP reflect the MPO pjects that are anticipated to be compteted and/or funded by 2028.As discussedin the findings forOAR 660-012-0060, below, ov' the only significant effect of the proexpansior'w�uld be the further degradation of the mobility targets for a section of Hway 20 that is already identified as a funded project in the 2040 MTP. This illustrates how the amendment coordinated with the MPO and thus meet the legal standard pf this OAR 660-012-0016. 8.4.2. Reducing Reliprice on file AutomObIle (Integrated_Land Use & Transportation Plan): OAR 660-012-0035 - OAR 660-012-0035 includes requirements regarding coordinating with MPO plans as well as planning fortranOprtation choides-and-reduced reliance on the automobile. This section of the TPR inclUdeS- the requirement to establish standards, a specific target for reduction in VMT, and provides timeframes for cOmpletkin and review Periods. The findings in this section are organized by subsection of OAR -0124)035. 842./ TSP ovaluation of alterljatives OAR _ - _-,__ 2 Official Notice — The Bend MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan dated September 25, 2014 is available online through the MPO's website - htto://bendoreaon.aov/index.asox?oaae=124. The Bend TSP was completed as part of Periodic Review in 2000. The TSP was remanded by DLCD to the City in 2001 with a work plan to address 10 deficiencies, including the lack of a Financial Plan. The Financial Plan was the finat element needed for full acknowledgment. The Financial PIan was adopted by the City IN 2012 and acknowledged by DLCD in 2013. 42O4OMTP encompasses aplanning period of2014-2O40.with omodel year of2O1U. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-3 (1) The TSP shall be based upon evaluation of potential impacts of system alternatives that can reasonably be expected to meet the identified transportation needs in a safe manner and at a reasonable cost with available technology. The following shall be evaluated as components of system alternatives: (a) Improvements to existing facilities or services; (b) New facilities and services, including different modes or combinations of modes that could reasonably meet identified transportation needs; (c) Transportation system management measures; (d) Demand management measures; and (e) A no -build system alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or other laws. The Council finds that the City's acknowledged TSP, as amended for the -proposed UGB expansion and including an ILUTP (Rem Rec 10994), identifies the components listed in (1)(a) - (e), above. The UGB expansion analysis included evaluation of six growth scenarios to accommodate need, each addressing transportation impacts measured through the MPO's calibrated 2028 model. Needs for additional capacity projects at intersections and along roadways were evaluated (Rem Rec 11223). The preferred UGB expansion scenario was analyzed with the same model, and the resulting °°projects in the TSP were identified to address potential impacts to the. transportation network as a result of the UGB expansion. This included new transportation facilities; improvements to existing -facilities, transportation system management, and transportation demand management. The combination of the strategies and projects were identified in the and discussed further under findings for OAR 660-012- ." 0035, below... New projects` identified in the amended TSP were based on analysis reflecting a "no build" (the`absence-of new projects in the Travel Demand Model analyses associated with the UGB expansion). The'Council~finds that the resulting policies, strategies, and projects in the adopted TSP, which also includes the IILUTP, resulting from the UGB expansion demonstrates these requirements have been'met. 8.4.2.2 Consideration of land use strategies: (2) Local governments in MPO areas of larger than 1,000,000 population shall, and other governments may also, evaluate alternative land use designations, densities, and design standards to meet local and regional transportation needs. Local governments preparing such a strategy shall consider: (a) Increasing residential densities and establishing minimum residential densities within one quarter mile of transit lines, major regional employment areas, and major regional retail shopping areas; (b) Increasing allowed densities in new commercial office and retail developments in designated community centers; Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-4 (c) Designating lands for neighborhood shopping centers within convenient and cycling distance of residential areasand (d) Designating land uses to provide a better balance betweenjobs and housing considering: (A) The total number ofjobs and total of number of housing units expected in the area or subarea; (B)The availability of affordable housing in the area or and (C) Provision of housing opportunities in close proximity to employmentermao. The Council finds that the Bend MPO is not an area larger than 1,000,000 population; however, under OAR 660-12-0035(5)(c)(A), the Council finds that the City ieapplying (2)(o)-(d).above, ma part of an ILUTP. (See Findings under OAR 660-12-0035(5) belowfor additional discusson 'of the ILUTP). The Council finds that the City is adopting a package of "efficiency measures" with the 2016 UGB expansion that also address many of the land use strategies identified in the TPR. The measures proposed that address each of the required categories are summarized below. The Coil fids that areas in | the most opportunity to increase residential development are currently designated for commercial or industrial uses. Because of this, the City is proposing a set of land use re- design?tions in key "Opportunity Areas" identified through the UGB project and other planning studies (e.g. the CentratWesteide- Plan and Vie Bend CentrarDistrict Plan) (see Figure 8-1 for a map of the opportunity areas). Many of these are changes from commercial or industrial designations to mixed use designations that allow for and encourage residential development and more compact -form. Specifically,-new_mixed use designations and/or zones are proposed in concert with the 2016 UGB expansion for: • The Bend Central District, between the Parkway and 4th Avenue from roughly the railroad on the south to Revere on the north (implemented as a special plan district); • CWP/Century Drive opportunity site (implemented using the new mixed use plan designations developed for the UGB project; the land use designations and projects in the CWP haveteen predicted through both Envision Tomorrow and transportation demand modeling to result in lower VMT); • KorPine opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Urban plan designation and zone developed for the UGB project); • East Downtown opportunity site using the new Mixed Use - Urban plan designation and ultimately the new Mixed Use - Urban zone developed for the UGB project); and • The Inner Highway 20 / Greenwood Ave opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Neighborhood plan di natonandu0maia|ythenevvK8ixedUsa- Naighborhomdzonedevm|opedhortheUGBproject). Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-5 The Council finds that, by enabling and encouraging mixed use, more residential development will be possible in close proximity to transit, employment, and shopping within Bend's core. In addition, a minimum residential density is proposed for residential development in commercial and mixed use zones within 660 feet of transit so that the land is used efficiently and developed at transit -supportive densities. The new mixed use zones also reduce parking standards and allow for taller buildings and more urban development patterns that effectively increase allowed density for new commercial office and retail developments. In addition, because there are many existing low-density neighborhoods near transit, employment, and retail, the Council finds that several of the city-wide modifications to the development code also have the effect of potentially increasing residential densities in those targeted areas. This proposed package of efficiency measure code changes include: • raising the minimum density in the RS zone (especially for new master -planned neighborhoods); • allowing a greater mix of housing types outright in the RS zone; • increasing the maximum residential density in RL zone; and • removing the cap on net density for multi -family housing in the RM and RH zones to allow greater flexibility in reaching the allowed maximum gross density. The Council finds that other proposed code amendments being adopted in the UGB Remand will encourage greater densities in the ME zone by removing maximum lot coverage and the minimum front setback,among. other changes. This, zone is largely applied along major roadway corridors that are also transit routes. Finally, the Council finds that proposed reductions to parking requirements for mixed use development and for development within 660 feet of a transit route also have the effect of slightly increasing allowed densities for new office and retail development, particularly around Transit. All UGB expansion areas include commercial nodes to complete existing and new residential neighborhoods. In addition, new commercial nodes are proposed on the largest vacant residential site in the existing UGB (the 15th Street opportunity area). The Council finds that these new nodes will help provide walkable local services for many more neighborhoods. Over time, as the UGB expansion areas develop as complete neighborhoods, it is assumed that VMT growth could be minimized because of the complete neighborhoods and street patterns. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-6 Figure 8-1: Opportunity Areas Opportunity Areas 1. Bend Central District 2. East Downtown 3. Inner Hwy 20! Greenwood 4. Central West Side / Century Drive 5. KorPine 6. Juniper Ridge , 7. SE 15th Street 8. COID Property 9. River Rim Legend ---,Proposed Urban a Growth Boundary se up ▪ diCore Area EMI Opportunity Areas esesos Major Transit Lines 6,21 Transit Corridors Data Source: Deschutes County GIS (2014) Source: ILUTP, Rem Rec 10994 Findings Report 2 Miles tr:• NORTH StMaintfRiverS —7- -:Roads/1-11000: July 2016 Section 8-7 The Council also finds that the proposed expansion areas also help improve jobs/housing balance in many areas, including: • South and Southeast Bend, where new employment areas are proposed north of Knott Road and east of US 97 to help balance a largely residential area of the city; • the "North Triangle", where a mix of housing types, including multifamily housing, is proposed in an area dominated by employment uses with excellent access to jobs; and • the OB Riley area, where a mix of housing and employment is proposed, providing additional housing opportunities in close proximity to Targe employment areas. Furthermore, the Council finds that the adoption of new mixed use designations in opportunity areas within central Bend also helps provide affordable housing opportunities in the central core where there is access to significant employment opportunities. 8.4.2.3 Standards to evaluate and select alternatives (3) The following standards shall be used to evaluate and select alternatives: (a) The transportation system, shall support urban and rural development by providing types and levels of transportation -facilities and services appropriate to serve the land uses identified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; (b) The transportation system shall be consistent with state and federal standards for protection of air, land: and water quality including the State Implementation Plan under the Federal Clean -Air Act and the State Water Quality -Management Plan; (c) The transportation system shall minimize adverse economic, social, environmental and energy consequences (d) The transportation -system shall minimize Conflicts and facilitate connections between modes of transportation and (0' The transportation system'' shall avoid principal reliance on any one mode of transportation by increasing transportation choices to reduce principal reliance on the automobile-. In MPO areas shall be accomplished by selecting transportation alternatives which meet the requirements in section (4) of this rule. The Council finds that the City's acknowledged TSP, as amended for the proposed UGB expansion (including an ILUTP), identifies the components listed in (3)(a) -(e), above. The transportation projects contained in the TSP support urban development by remedying significant impacts to the transportation system arising through the UGB expansion, since the projects are included to meet the City's and ODOT's performance standards. The TSP also plans for a transportation system that implements the Bend 2040 MTP. The transportation system in the TSP reflects the preferred UGB expansion which considered the economic, social, and environmental and energy consequences through the Goal 14 factors. The Council finds that the proposed UGB expansion and resulting changes to the TSP are based on the UGB expansion scenario which minimized adverse ESEE consequences, and thus meets this Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-8 requirement (Rem Rec 10814). The resulting transportation system reflected in the TSP includes the ILUTP, which reduces reliance on the automobile, and balances projects across multiple modes. The modernization and new connectivity projects include pedestrian, bicycle and streetscape improvements. The ILUTP includes additional strategies to enhance non -auto modes. The Council finds that these policies, strategies and projects demonstrate that alternative modes have been evaluated and included in the resulting TSP and were considered as part of the Goal 14 weighing (see Section 7) and balancing of factors, thus demonstrating these requirements have been met. 8.4.2.4 Requirement to reduce reliance on the automobile (4) In MPO areas, regional and local TSPs shall be designed to achieve adopted standards for increasing transportation choices and reducing reliance on the automobile. Adopted standards are intended as means of measuring progress of metropolitan areas towards developing and implementing transportation systems and land use plans that increase transportation choices and reduce reliance on the automobile. It is anticipated that metropolitan areas will accomplish reduced reliance by changing land use patterns and transportation systems so that walking, cycling, and use of transit are highly convenient and so that, on balance, people need to and are likely to drive less than they do today. Please see Findings under OAR 660-12-0035(5) below. 8.4.2.5 Requirements.for standards and strategies -to reduce -reliance on the automobile (5) MPO areas shall adopt standards to demonstrate progress towards increasing transportation choices and reducing automobile reliance as provided for in this rule: (a) The commission shall approve standards by order upon demonstration by the Metropolitan area that. (A) Achieving the standard will -result in a reduction in reliance on automobiles; (B) Achieving the standard will accomplish a significant increase in the availability or convenience of alternative modes of transportation; (C) Achieving the standard is likely to result in a significant increase in the share of trips made by alternative modes, including walking, bicycling, ridesharing and transit; (D) VMT per capita is unlikely to increase by more than five percent; and (E) The standard is measurable and reasonably related to achieving the goal of increasing transportation choices and reducing reliance on the automobile as described in OAR 660-012-0000. (b) In reviewing proposed standards for compliance with subsection (a), the commission shall give credit to regional and local plans, programs, and actions implemented since Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-9 1990 that have already contributed to achieving the objectives specified in paragraphs (A)—(E) above. (c) If a plan using a standard, approved pursuant to this rule, is expected to result in an increase in VMT per capita, then the cities and counties in the metropolitan area shall prepare and adopt an integrated land use and transportation plan including the elements listed in paragraphs (A)—(E) below. Such a plan shall be prepared in coordination with the MPO and shall be adopted within three years of the approval of the standard. (A) Changes to land use plan designations, densities, and design standards listed in subsections (2)(a)—(d); (B) A transportation demand management plan that includes significant new transportation demand management measures; (C) A public transit plan that includes a significant expansion in transit service; (D) Policies to review and manage major roadway improvements to ensure that their effects are consistent with achieving the adopted strategy for reduced reliance on the automobile, including policies that provide for the following: (i) An assessment of whether improvements would result in development or travel that is inconsistent with what is expected in the plan; (ii) Consideration of alternative measures to meet transportation needs; (iii) Adoption of ineasures,to limit possible unintended effects on travel and land use patterns including access management, limitations on subsequent plan amendments, phasing of improvements, etc.; and (iv) For -purposes of this seciidn rnajor roadway expansion" includes new arterial roads or streets and highways, the addition of travel lanes, and construction of interchanges to a limited access highway (E) Plan and ordinance provisions that meet all other applicable requirements of this division. (d) Standards may include but are not limited to: (A) Modal share of alternative modes, including walking, bicycling, and transit trips; (B) Vehicle hours of travel per capita; (C) Vehicle trips per capita; (D) Measures of accessibility by alternative modes (i.e. walking, bicycling and transit); or (E) The Oregon Benchmark for a reduction in peak hour commuting by single occupant vehicles. (e) Metropolitan areas shall adopt TSP policies to evaluate progress towards achieving the standard or standards adopted and approved pursuant to this rule. Such evaluation Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-10 shall occur at regular intervals corresponding with federally -required updates of the regional transportation plan. This shall include monitoring and reporting of VMT per capita. The Council finds that City of Bend has completed and is adopting an ILUTP to address the OAR 660-12-0035 requirements for reducing reliance on the automobile (Rem Rec 10994). The standards listed in the ILUTP — Density: Land Use; Design: Complete Streets; Destinations: Transit, Land Use, and Transportation Demand Management; and Diversity: Land Use (see Table 3 of the ILUTP) — have been selected because they have been linked to a reduction in driving through studies and modeling outlined and referenced in the ILUTP. The Council finds that achieving the standards will reduce reliance on automobiles as follows: • An increase in activity density in the Central Core, Core Opportunity Areas, and Key Transit Corridors will put more households and more jobs in areas that are walkable, bikeable, and accessible by transit, facilitating use of alternate modes and reduced reliance on automobiles. It will also help provide the level of activity density needed to make transit operate more efficiently and help support additional businesses that are focused toward foot traffic rather than vehicle traffic. • Implementation of all programmed Complete Streets Projects will increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and convenience as well as transit trips, supporting the choice to walk bike, or use transit to move around town. • Increasing the percentage of households and employees with access to transit means that more people have the choice to take transit to work, to school, or to key destinations such as downtown and institutions such as schools and hospitals. • Implementing an institutional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program at OSU Cascades will reduce reliance on the automobile by ensuring that students and faculty have incentives and information to support using alternative modes to access the campus. • Achieving a more even balance of jobs and housing in the Central Core and Core Opportunity Areas will mean that more people live in employment -rich areas, and that there are more opportunities to live and work within the Central Core. Based on the Envision Tomorrow (ET) 7D transport model, which generates mode split assumptions based on built environment and demographic factors, the preferred UGB expansion scenario (2.1G) is projected to result in a 7.8% non -auto share and a 92.2% auto share for all household trips, UGB-wide. This is essentially unchanged from the ET model estimate of existing conditions (using 2014 built environment and demographic data and 2016 transit service), which estimates an 8.5% non -auto share and a 91.5% auto share for all household trips UGB-wide (including existing population in proposed UGB expansion areas). Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-11 However, these results do not capture all of the City's proposed strategies in the ILUTP. The reasons for this include: • The 2016 transit service expansion was factored in to the existing mode split evaluation, although it was not in place as of 2014. Thus, the impact of this recent transit improvement is captured in the existing mode split data. • While the land use efficiency measures proposed with the 2016 UGB expansion are significant, their impact on redevelopment in the Central Core is projected to be relatively modest through 2028. • Even the ET model, which is sensitive to the built environment, does not account for the quality of the street environment in a connected area (e.g. the presence of street trees, sidewalk width, or the availability of bike lanes), nor does it fully account for gaps and barriers in the bicycle and pedestrian network, such as unsafe crossing points of major roads. As a result, the model is not reflecting the benefits of the complete streets improvements that the City has committed to funding and building by 2028. • The ET model does not account for existing or proposed TDM programs at OSU, COCC, or Juniper Ridge. These would tend to shift travel in these areas to alternative modes (including ride sharing and shuttles, which are not identified as separate modes in ET) beyond what the built environment and demographic factors would suggest. The Council finds that, while the -overall mode split UGB-wide-shows little change from 2014 to 2028, analysis of the rates of non -auto trips per household reveals that the complete communities approach to UGB expansion will encourage greater walking, biking, and transit usage in many_per_ipheral areas__inside the current UGB and adjacent to UGB expansion areas. These areas will have new opportunities to walk and bike to parks, schools, and commercial services. Note that rate of walking, biking and transit usage per household as modeled in ET within the Central Core is not expected to improve relative to existing conditions because those areas are already highly complete and connected and have the best transit service in the City. The households already living in those areas enjoy these conditions today. As noted above, the complete streets improvements; are not reflected in the mode split estimates by the ET model; consequently, the City expects that active mode splits (walking, biking, and transit) will increase as the streetscape and safety is improved. In order to more accurately reflect the impact on walking and biking due to the City's proposed Complete Streets improvements, the City will be installing permanent pedestrian and bicyclist counters at key locations in the Central Core (e.g. Newport, Portland, Colorado, Reed Market, Greenwood, and Franklin bridges). These will provide baseline data prior to complete streets improvements as well as on-going bicycle/pedestrian count data following the improvement. The Council finds that, based on evaluation using the regional travel demand model to measure VMT per capita as specified in the TPR, the preferred UGB Expansion Scenario (2.1 G) is Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-12 expected to result in a 1.2% increase in VMT relative to the 2010 baseline that best reflects the 2008 starting point of the 20 -year planning horizon for the UGB Remand. Because of the roughly 5% increase in VMT estimated between the 2003 model and the 2010 model, this translates to a 6.3% increase relative to 2003. The UGB Remand described using the regional travel demand model scenarios for year 2003 and 2030, which were the model years available at the time of the prior UGB evaluation to approximate the 2008 to 2028 planning horizon. The Council finds that, since the time of the UGB Remand, the Bend MPO and ODOT have updated the regional model scenarios to base year 2010 and future year 2028. The travel demand model scenario for 2003 described in the UGB Remand does not account for the increases in population, the new roadway network additions, and the new transit system that occurred between 2003 and 2008. These factors affect the amount and location of trips, mode choice, and trip distribution/assignment, which significantly affects the VMT per capita calculation. Therefore, the 2003 model scenario is not a valid predictor of 2008 VMT per capita conditions compared to the 2010 model scenario. The model scenario inputs for 2010 are a much better and accurate representation of the land use and transportation in Bend in 2008. These inputs affect the amount and location of trips, mode choice, and trip distribution/assignment, all of which significantly affect VMT per capita analysis (Rem Rec 11251). OAR 660-012-0035(5)(b) allows that "In reviewing proposed standards for compliance with subsection (a), the commission shall give credit to regional and local plans, programs, and actions implemented since 1990 that have already contributed to achieving the objectives specified in paragraphs (A)—(E) above." As documented in detail in the ILUTP, the City of Bend implemented several connectivity improvements between 1990 and 2003 that would be expected to reduce VMT per capita, such as a new river crossing and an extension of Empire Avenue. To measure the benefit of these improvements, 2003 -level demand was applied to both the base 2003 model network and to a 1990 network that did not include these connectivity improvements. VMT per capita from these model runs were compared in order to calculate the VMT benefit of actions implemented in the intervening 13 years. This analysis showed that VMT per capita in 2003 would have been roughly 2.2% higher if not for the connectivity improvements made since 1990. When the 2028 VMT results are compared against the VMT that would have resulted in 2003 without the benefit of those connectivity improvements, the increase is 4.1%. Given this, the Council finds that the evidence demonstrates that VMT per capita is unlikely to increase by more than 5% over the 20 -year planning horizon of the UGB Remand, especially when considering the actions (connectivity improvements) that the City has implemented since 1990 that have already contributed to reducing growth in VMT. The Council finds that the standards listed in ILUTP (Density, Design, Diversity and Destinations) are measurable, given Census data, data from the Oregon Employment Department, building permit data from the City, and GIS data on transit routes, and use of the ET model, all of which the City has access to. The Council finds that these standards are Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-13 reasonably related to achieving the goal of increasing transportation choices and reducing reliance on the automobile as described in response to (5)(A) and (8), above. As is true with most U.S. cities of Bend's age, urban form, and rapid growth, Bend's VMT per capita has been increasing in recent decades. Bend is measuring growth in VMT per capita against baseline years of 2003 (as specified in the Remand) and 2010 (which the project team believes is a better indicator of conditions in 2008 — the beginning of the 20 -year planning horizon for the UGB work). In order to evaluate the impact of various VMT reduction strategies, a series of land use and transportation packages, or scenarios, were created and tested. These scenarios included: • Three UGB expansion scenarios and three "Supplemental Analysis Area Maps" (SAAMs) for 2028 testing different potential growth areas, with consistent assumptions about growth, redevelopment and transit service inside the UGB • A hypothetical land use and transportation scenario for 2028 to test the impact of increasing redevelopment in the core, increasing transit frequency, and increasing connectivity in new neighborhoods5; • The draft and final preferred UGB expansion scenario; • Several iterations of hypothetical 2040 scenarios to understand how the policies and strategies identified in this ILUTP may. affect VMT over time and determine what it will take to reverse the trend on VMT growth in -the long term; and • The key conclusion from the VMT analysis was that each of the six scenarios tested increased per capita VMT relative to 2010 (ranging from a 2.9% to a 5.1% increase) due to the amount of growth located outside the center of the city. The increase relative to 2003 ranged from 8.1% to 10.3%. Expansion Scenario 2.1 had the lowest estimated VMT rate and the scenario was further refined and enhanced as the preferred UGB land use expansion scenario; (Rem Rec 10814). Because the analysis showed that Bend will experience an increase in VMT, an ILUTP has been prepared, addressing OAR 660 -12- 0035(2)(A) -(D). The standards to reduce reliance on the automobile as required are included in the Acknowledged TSP, and in the amended TSP adopted with the UGB. Standards are found in the ILUTP (Rem Rec 10994). 5 The UGB Technical Advisory Committee directed the project team to not over -assume redevelopment in the urban core because if redevelopment does not occur as expected, needed housing would not manifest as planned and required by Goal 10. The strategy was to implement efficiency measures, promote additional infill and redevelopment, but not at the risk of providing sufficient land for needed housing (Rem Rec 3551). Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-14 The ILUTP identifies "Proposed ies", which are intended to be adopted with the UGB expanson proposal, and also 'Additional Strategies Strategies for Further Consideration" over the longer- termterm future. The strategies relate to each of the required elements identified in (5)(c)(A-(E). Key strategies are summarized below. Note that the City already has pnognamo, po|/oiea, and/or regulations in place addressing many of the required eements of an ILUTP. These are summarized in Chapter 4 of the ILUTP, along with details of the proposed strategies and additional strategies for further consderation summarized below. Table 8 -3 8 -UTP Strategies ILUTP Element Land Use Strategies (5)(c(A) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking Management (5)(c)(B) Transit (5)(c)(C) Proposed Strategies Designate and ultimately rezone mixed use opportunity areas identified in UGB project. Adopt efficiency measures identified in UGB project. Set poiicy supporting incentives approach to TDM and increasing applicability of TDM programs, , Conduct analysis and feasibility for parking management and pricing requirements for employment ~master plans Support and maintain 2016 service improvementsDefine and enhance transit centers and corridors in opportunity and core areas. Propose new and enhanced transit funding Additional StrategiesfmrFurthmrCmnwidermtion Medium -Term Designate additional mixed use areas along transit corridors Adopt design standards for key pedestrian areas and transit corridors. Strengthen connectivfty standards for new mnmd neighborhoods. Consider transportation SDC reductions for TDM measures Require TDM programs for additional / institutions-` `.� Partner to establishTMA for certairi areas Amplement-parking management programs iri key areas based on outcomes of parking study Implement most components of Bend Transit PIan, including additional hours of service, more frequent peak headways, and two new routes. Long -Term Consider up -zoning selected neighborhoods where there is potential and community support for infill development. Implement parkin pricirig in key areas (e.g. downtown and 3rd Street / Central Area), based on the results of the parking study. Implement further hour of service, improved service and headways on specific routes primarily in Opportunity and Core areas, and conversion of 3 routes from bus service to pre- BRT types of service Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-15 ILUTP Element Roadway Improvement Management and Policies (5)(c)(D) Complete Streets and Connectivity Investment (5)(C)(E) Proposed Strategies !mpiement selective "road diets" where safety issues have beer, identified Implement programmed projects Prioritize streetscapes in opportunity and core areas and transit corridors. Additional Strategies for Further Consideration Medium -Term Develop pedestrian and biking safety projects for the opportunity areas that enhance waiking, biking, and transit modal splits. Evaluate funding mechanisms for complete street improvements Implement planned but not -yet - funded projects, focusing improvements in opportunity areas and adjoinh-ig corridors. Long -Term Continue to develop and implement policies that increase waiking and biking safety by modifying street standards Refinement and potential implementation of aspirational projects The Councii finds that the proposed strategies are being adopted through the UGB, and the preceding findings demonstrate VMT increases by less than 5% as required. These strategies are based on current best practices and research on the subject of enhancing non -automotive modes through strategies which when applied together result in less reliance on the automobile as described in the ILUTP. The ILUTP focuses these strategies in the core area of the City, which corresponds with the proposed efficiency measures such as allowing more mixed use and residential and job densities in the core of the City -(Rem Rec 111" 49): This demonstrates that the City has made a wide range of changes to land use plans, designations, and design standards, with a focus in the core area of the City, because research has demonstrated that will be the most effective places to apply -those tools. TOM -strategies -have been added to the ILUTP as well, with a focus on major institutions and employers. Expansion of public transit is another strategy, and one which the ILUTP has demonstrated would result in a decrease in VMT. Future amendments to the transit plan, which are conducted by the MPO and Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, will rely on the newly adopted land use pattern reflected in the proposed UGB expansion and efficiency measures. This will include new routes and enhanced services consistent with the ILUTP standards. The Council finds that the ILUTP is an element of the TSP, and is empowered through policies in the TSP, and thus will create a new framework upon which to review and manage major roadway improvements for consistency with the Plan and TSP. The rule provides guidance, but not requirements, regarding the types of standards to be used in evaluating decreased reliance on the automobile. The ILUTP included evaluation of some of the suggested standards such as modal share, and vehicle trips per capita; however, alternative standards to measure progress towards reducing reliance on the automobile are proposed in the|LUTP. The proposed standards and strategies go beyond the advised standards by focusing on attributes of the built environment which are easier to quantify and track, and which Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-16 research referenced in the ILUTP demonstrates are meaningful in affecting travel behaviors. Importantly, the proposed strategies and several of the proposed standards are within the jurisdiction and influence of City laws, codes, and programs. The Council finds that focusing standards and strategies on aspects of the built environment that can be influenced by City planning, development approvals, capital investment plans and strategies is more effective than focusing standards on outcomes that are inherently imprecise given available data (US Census, local) and models (regional travel demand model). The ILUTP strategies and standards are also elements of the TSP (Rem Rec 10994). The existing Bend TSP and General Plan include existing goals and policies that call for reducing reliance on the automobile and encourage mixed use development, which support the ILUTP. The policies below are new policies specific to implementing the ILUTP, including evaluating progress towards meeting the standards in the ILUTP, as required in OAR 660-012- 0035(5)(e). These policies will be added to Chapter 7 (Transportation), of the City's Plan (Rem Rec 10339) and included as an amendment to the City's TSP (Rem Rec 10994) as part of the UGB expansion project. • The City will implement the land use, transportation demand management, parking management, transit, and complete streets strategies, projects and programs that are identified as Proposed Strategies in Chapter 4 of the ILUTP. • The City will conduct a planning study to evaluate the potential for Transportation Management Areas for the opportunity areas; transit centers, and public and private institutions andIcompanies: • The City will include streetscape projects in opportunity and core areas and transit corridors when developing the transportation capital improvement program priorities and projects: • The City Will develop transit priority corridors, in the opportunity and core areas that include a combination of land use policies and codes and transportation enhancements that:encourage transportation ==options. • The City will update the assessments of the ILUTP standards at each update of the Bend MPO regional transportation system plan and the City TSP. Conclusion: The Council finds that the above findings demonstrate the proposed standards comply with the requirements of OAR 660-012-0035(5). 8.4.2.6 Option to comply by demonstrating VMT reduction (6) A metropolitan area may also accomplish compliance with requirements of subsection (3)(e), sections (4) and (5) by demonstrating to the commission that adopted plans and measures are likely to achieve a five percent reduction in VMT per capita over the 20 -year planning period. The commission shall consider and act on metropolitan area requests under this section by order. A metropolitan area that receives approval under this section shall adopt interim benchmarks for VMT reduction and shall evaluate Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-17 progress in achieving VMT reduction at each update of the regional transportation system plan. The Council finds that the City determined through modeling that a 5% reduction in VMT per capita over the planning period was not feasible. Therefore, as directed in OAR 660-12- 35(5)(c), the City prepared an ILUTP to demonstrate that the VMT per capita can be held to an increase of less than 5% per capita over the planning period. 8.4.2.7 Requirement to include benchmarks to measure progress (7) Regional and local TSPs shall include benchmarks to assure satisfactory progress towards meeting the approved standard or standards adopted pursuant to this rule at regular intervals over the planning period. MPOs and local governments shall evaluate progress in meeting benchmarks at each update of the regional transportation plan. Where benchmarks are not met, the relevant TSP shall be amended to include new or additional efforts adequate to meet the requirements of this rule. The Council finds that the ILUTP will be adopted as an appendix to the amended TSP (Rem Rec 10994). The ILUTP includes standards that are intended to function as benchmarks for the City for the time frame between adoption and 2028.. The standards include: • Density (land use), measured as housing units plus employment over total acres in three different key geographic areas; • Design (complete streets);==.measured"as implementation of all programmed projects; • Destinations (transit,, land use, , and TDM), measured as percent of housing units and employment within `aquarter mile of transit, walkable access to commercial services, and?`active TDM programs; and • Diversity (land use), measured as jobs -housing balance in two key areas. Conclusion:, The Council finds that the City of Bend has completed an analysis of the transportation effects of proposed changes to land use within the UGB and the proposed expansion areas, and has prepared an ILUTP demonstrating a clear path forward to achieving the VMT reduction goals of OAR 660-12-0035. The Council finds that the proposed standards are measurable, clear, and phased to become more intensive and robust through the planning period. The regional transportation plan will be updated on a roughly five-year timeframe, and will now be able to reference the strategies contained in the ILUTP in its plan, to facilitate additional analysis and reporting. The Council finds that the City has therefore met the requirement of the OAR. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-18 8.4.3. Transportation Analysis for Amendments to Plan or Land Use Regulations: OAR 660-012-0060 OAR 660-012-0060 requires local governments to maintain consistency between land use regulations and the transportation system plan and demonstrate that planned transportation facilities will be adequate to serve planned land uses. It addresses amendments to land use regulations as well as functional classification systems. 8.4.3.1 Deferral of OAR 660-012-0060 Analysis for UGB Expansion OAR 660-024-0020: Adoption or Amendment of a UGB "(1) Al! statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable when establishing or amending a UGB, except as foffows: * * * (d) The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 need not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim zoning that does not allow, development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary * * OAR 660-024-0020(1) allows 'cities to defer addressing the requirements of OAR 660-12-0060 of the TPR (which requires a demonstration that there are adequate planned transportation facilities to serve the planned development) until property added to a UGB is re -designated or rezoned to allow urban development. The Council finds that the proposed amendments to the UGB expansion areas includes new City of Bend Plan designations to meet anticipated land needs until 2028. The zoning of areas outside, the current city limits and Bend UGB, but included in the revised and expanded UGB, will retain their existing rural zoning designations managed through Title 19 of Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. In accordance with this provision, the City is proposing to retain existing County zoning on lands in the expansion areas until annexation,occurs, at which time a TPR compliance analysis will be a requirement of annexation, along with master planning or area planning. The City has language in the adopted Development Code (0.600 Transportation Planning Rule Compliance) requires that: When a development'application includes a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment or land use district change, or both, the proposal shall be reviewed to determine whether it significantly affects a transportation facility, in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060. [Ord. NS -2016, 2006]. Conclusion: The Council finds that the proposal is in compliance with this section of the TPR. 8.4.3.2 Determination of Significant Effect for Amendments inside the Current UGB: OAR 660-012-0060 Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-19 (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meetthe performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The Council finds that, because the City has chosen to defer addressing the requirements of OAR 660-12-0060 of the TPR for UGB expansion areas, the following section, which addresses the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060, is restricted to addressing the effects of the proposed land use changes within the existing UGB. Transportation planning and TPR compliance will be accomplished for expansion areas with Master or Area planning prior to, or at the time of annexation. In order to determine if the proposed changes to the UGB would have a significant effect on the transportation system, as defined in this section of the TPR, the following approach was applied. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-20 Summary of Land Use Actions The proposed changes to Plan designations and land use regulations within the current UGB include: New mixed-use designations and/or zones in opportunity areas, including: o The Bend Central District, between the Parkway and 4th Avenue from roughly the railroad on the south to Revere on the north (implemented as a special plan district); o CWP/Century Drive opportunity site (implemented using the new mixed use plan designations developed for the UGB project; zone changes are being deferred); o KorPine opportunity site (implemented using the,new Mixed Use - Urban plan designation and zone developed for the UGB project); o East Downtown opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Urban plan designation; zone changes are being deferred); and o The Inner Highway 20 / Greenwood Ave opportunity site (implemented using the new Mixed Use - Neighborhood plan designation zone changes are being deferred). • Changes to land use regulations. including: o Minimum residential densities for residential development within 660 feet of transit in commercial and mixed-use zones o Reduced parking standards for mixed-use 'development o Raising the minimum density 16-theAS zone; _ o Allowitiga greater mix of housing types outright in the RS zone; o Increasing the maximum residential density in RL zone; 0L---Remoying the_Cap.On:net:depsity foi;taulti-family housing in the RM and RH zones to allow greater flexibility in reaching the allowed maximum gross density; -;- and Enabling greater densities in ME zoned land by removing maximum lot coverage and the minimiim front setback as well as providing height bonuses for affordable housing and vertical mixed use. Because these proposed changes include Plan map, zoning map and development code modifications, a TPR evaluation was conducted to determine if the changes would cause a significant effect (Le., impact) to the transportation system that requires mitigation. Approach Through scoping coordination with ODOT Region 4 and DLCD staff, it was determined that a travel demand model link -level analysis utilizing the MPO regional travel demand model was appropriate for assessing those impacts to the transportation system within the current UGB. There are several reasons for this approach: Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-21 ODOT Region 4 staff determined that link -level analysis was adequate for TPR evaluation within the current UGB as the intended outcome of the actions is to improve land use efficiency and transportation system performance, with any potential impacts likely occurring in areas that have been studied in-depth in past plans with known issues and potential solutions. • The increased development potential generated by the broadly -applicable changes to land use regulations is spread over thousands of acres (most of the vacant and redevelopable land within the current UGB). Furthermore, many of the changes have the effect of increasing the minimum intensity of development than increasing the maximum intensity of development. As a result, differences in expected intensity of development within the planning horizon are generally modest and diffuse relative to the reasonable worst case development potential under the existing regulations. Methods The following sections describe the key methods/assumptions used as the basis for the technical analysis (Rem Rec 11155). Mobility Standards for Traffic Capacity Analysis The City's TSP does not include mobility standards utilize for impact assessment. However, the City's development code includes a volume to capacity (WO -ratio standard for major intersections of 1.0 for peak hours (or the hour adjacent to the peak hour for certain areas). To support the traffic capacity previous the City's intersection v/c ratio standard were applied to travel model links,representing City facilities. For links representing ODOT facilities, v/c ratte,standards'ftgm the Oregon Highway Plan were applied. These targets*ere:citilized f076o*46V0-B' Scenario 2.1G to the TPR base and where the proposed changes were found to cause a Iiiik-*exaeed mobility targets or further degrade an already,over-target condition, the links were identified for potential mitigation. (Note: this analysis does not identify improvements for all facilities to meet mobility standards in the future; it identifies where mitigations needs to be considered to offset the impact of the proposed actions.) Horizon Year for Evaluation The City's TSP was based on travel demand modeling of growth to the year 2020; however, due to issues with land use buildout consistencies and partner agency support of the technical modeling work that underlies the analysis, it cannot serve as a base for comparison for TPR analysis. The UGB planning horizon and corresponding Remand requirements are based on a horizon year of 2028. Therefore, 2028 was used as the horizon year for TPR evaluation. The Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-22 Acknowledged Bend TSP financial plan includes projects in the near and mid-term that are assumed to be funded by year 20326. Base -Case Scenario for Determining Significant Effect When conducting TPR significant effect evaluation, a key data point for comparison is how the planned system performs under the current Plan and TSP. For the Bend area, the TSP's modeling work cannot be relied upon and the MPO's regional travel demand model does not currently have a scenario specifically developed to represent growth to 2028 based on currently designated land uses. Therefore, the project team developed a 2028 land use allocation and corresponding travel model scenario that achieves population and employment control totals within the existing UGB and is consistent with existing Plan designations. For consistency with the UGB expansion scenarios, the project team utilized Envision Tomorrow to allocate the housing and employment growth based on the current regulations and plan designations. Specifically, the approach to allocating population and employment was as follows: • Use ET to allocate housing and employment growth. • Begin from the BLI that underlies the draft preferred UGB expansion scenario and current plan designations, and the base case assumptions developed to estimate capacity under current plan designations and historic trends. • Adjust the original base case development type assumptions and application of development types as follows: o Apply development"types consistent with current plan designations to residential lots that are allowed to add at least one unit under the existing plan designation density and are not within a historic district, but were not identified as having capacity because there -is -little or no._undeveloped land on the property. o Apply development types to additional commercial and industrial properties, consistent with the existing plan designations, where projected employment densities are above current employment densities. o Add a small redevelopment rate to residential development types (2-7% of developed acres, with higher rates on RM and RH than RL and RS). o Increase redevelopment rates for commercial, industrial and mixed use development types to about 35% of developed land (except MDOZ, which is about 20%). o Adjust the building mix across most development types to increase density and bring the overall housing and employment mixes more into line with the needed housing mix present in the draft preferred UGB expansion scenario. Continue to rely only on buildings that meet current development code standards (e.g. 6 Because the Bend TSP's Financial Plan was adopted in 2012, the 20 -year planning horizon is 2032. The Remand planning horizon is 2028. For the purposes of this analysis, these two planning horizons were considered to be sufficiently concurrent. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-23 parking, building height and setbacks) and keep residential density within the currently allowed density ranges so that all assumed development is consistent with existing regulations. o Reduce amount of land set aside as "other land" from 13% to 3% for all development types (less private open space assumed than historical trends). o Adjust development assumptions for Juniper Ridge to match the "reasonable worst case" identified for the Employment Subdistrict Zone Change transportation study for development through 2025 (as an approximation of 2028). • Add projected population / housing and employment growth to estimated existing housing and employment from 2014 to establish 2028 totals. Note that the Oregon State University (OSU) Cascades Campus was not part of the Envision Tomorrow modeling of the TPR base scenario (because its employment and student housing was accounted for separately from other employment and housing growth, for UGB capacity purposes), but it was built into the transportation model for the TPR base scenario. (For Scenario 2.1G, the OSU assumptions were integrated into Envision, but with the same population and employment numbers and types as in the TPR base scenario.) For school enrollment areas, the approach was to: • Identify new schools=only inside the;UGB and, on. School District owned property outside the UGB basedw-oninput;from the School Districton the 2028 UGB scenarios. • Adjust from 2010 attendance boundaries: to reasonably approximate attendance areas for new schools.:' ReasonablyFtmdedNetworl csumptions The final key assumptionfor the TPR evaluationwas the future improvements that were accounted' -for in the travel forecasting and system performance evaluation. As described in the TPR, only improvements that are reasonably likely to be funded were assumed. For regionally significant facilities, the recent Bend 2040 MTP includes a financial assessment and a corresponding constrained project_list. MPO staff has subsequently coordinated with City and ODOT staff to determine a subset of the planned improvement list that aligns with the funding forecast through the year 2028. For other City facilities, the City has recently completed a detailed funding evaluation (including SDCs and bond revenues) to determine which TSP improvements are reasonably funded by 2032' (those identified for near-term and mid-term funding). Finally, funding for transit system enhancements have been recently approved that increase service levels for 2015 to levels previously planned for 2028. Therefore, the newly implemented transit system was maintained in the model network. These three combined 7 Official Notice — The Bend Transportation Plan is available online through the City's website - htto://www. bend.or.us/index.aspx?Daae=634 Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-24 improvement programs formed the basis for the 2028 transportation network for TPR evaluation. Summary of Results The attached figures show the travel demand model link plots utilized for the analysis. Figure 8- 2 and 8-3 show forecasted weekday PM peak hour volume and demand -to -capacity (d/c) ratios for the TPR base and preferred scenario (Scenario 2.1G), respectively. Table 8-4 lists d/c ratios and model volume data for specific state highway links to further explain the data shown in Figures 8-2 and 8-3. This information was utilized to assess where the mixed-use land use changes and other efficiency measures and new plan designations caused a facility to exceed a mobility target or further degrade a condition already above the mobility target under the TPR base scenario. (Note: this analysis does not identify improvements for all facilities to meet mobility standards in the future, as some locations are planned to exceed mobility targets in the future under a financially constrained investment scenario; it identifies where mitigations needs to be considered to offset the impact of the proposed actions.) Figure 8-3 shows the isolated volume change on the system between the scenarios based on the opportunity site locations, where the mixed-use land use changes and other efficiency measures and new plan designations are concentrated. This data was used to isolate the changes shown in Figures 8-2 and 8-3 and Table 8-4 that is specifically attributable to locations within the UGB and not part of the proposed expansion areas incorporated into Scenario 2.1G., Based on the link analysis, the following conditions were determined: • The proposed:plan, zone,` and code changes.: would =cause Hwy 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street to further degrade above the mobility target compared to the TPR base scenario. • Isolating=tire-transportation-changesfrom the= opportunity site zones (Figure 8-4) found thatthe proposed plan, zone, and code amendments do not cause significant increase traffic volumes on`:links exceeding mobility targets (Figure 8-3), except for Hwy 20 between Cooley Road`;and 3rd;' Street as previously noted • Other locations on the state highway system were found to either be below mobility targets, notfurther degrade, or in some cases improve with Scenario 2.1G relative to the TPR base scenario. For example, US 97 between Colorado Avenue and Revere Avenue is shown to exceed a v/c ratio of 1.0 in both plots, but actually has lower volumes in the 2.1G Scenario (note that this congestion is consistent with the Bend MPO 2040 MTP, which calls for a Corridor Plan to be completed to identify improvements). On Hwy 20 (Greenwood Avenue) between 3rd Street and 15th Street, Scenario 2.1G shows lower v/c ratios. Therefore, while some locations may show v/c ratios that do not meet mobility targets in either the TPR or 2.1G scenarios based on the financially constrained scenarios, the proposed plan, zone, and code changes would not further degrade those locations and would not be required to mitigate to meet OAR 660-012- 0060). Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-25 Table 8-4: TPR Segment Analysis Conclusion SI •0 C) C) C) a) 0. . r N C =' w C >:a :c c E -17) .a cE cN ° O W 0 0 o O V E E > E E > > > o 0. o >II 2 2 u O 2 0 a1 E y° 0a °• y ie, •- o Y c E E v E c c c° z C C C a u "0 v v 0 o — m v, ° Z Z c E 0 CCE ma R0. oc ooy3`o °oo a0 -0c v g vyoa,:° a0> 00 0 vE E c EdEv= dEE c= c= c > 0 .0 c o c o c v° •0 C! _ co d N ,d N •� C) v z o f •D v 2 Eo Eo E- Ea; E�Etoat.ov.mm 47) oa°j°j°>z>c>c>99>c>°9 SB +25; NB +15 SB -55; NB -30 L y Y Y cc c c c o a a s o EE0.1 CU CL1 .EE .EE EEE> > E a0i a)v3ID7, a)03 0 0 0 0 o v>$av>°0a—a°,�v, d d d d d •0 0 c.0 0 C 'n 0 c E E c ce c c cccc o ° _ 2 Z Z Z ZCcEccECcE 000000000 0.1 01 CU,o yo01ov>a 0co0. 0 . 0 O. v 2 E vv a, E 6c 2 E 0)Edv E ID 0 '0 'c do vZ c Z a) .0 a),0a, a d a y -o)-,„0 0„ Ev E13 E� E� E� E ° tt E mm3 , nom_ o 0 o 0 o 0 O% o N o foo 0 ,,a ,�a O m m > C > c > is > C > C > ++ - > 4. ♦+ > ++ Y g r _. ; - ' 2 z w w.. z } co U ?_,' S .. < -s -'. m) SB -240; NB -50 SB -85; NB -30 SB -110; NB -20 4 2 O t0 a 0) ti (° 4 N 8 O 8 n ti 2 4 N N O 0 4 n 4 �2 y n N O O co CN O M O 40 M N V 4 2 M A N 2 N N M 2 N N V N 2 r r r r r r 0. 0 U � c o Z U) Z U) 2 U) Z (O Z N W W W Z N Z U) Z U) Z N Z U) Z U) Z (0 Z H 0 n n n 0) CO (D Cl () N 1, n 0) C0 0 N O p� (p O r O n n n n u) (� a) () m O W v O n (0 a0 co O) n O n M O O n 0 N 0 0 0 r n `Oi fD m CO t0 O O O O O O ci 0 0 O O O O r r O r r r r a- O O O O O 0 7 r 4 V r M N 2 N UMl (0 M M 8 V ras N W p c4i 8Q O 8 Op) y r O v �i m O) O N r v v h r) v N 4i M N) M M (0 (0 (D r O CO Ne r r C) M 0 0 M N 00 M et r O h n l'7 h h r 40 (O 10 rl 0 O) (D O 0 O n r m n n O) 0 0 n c N O O n O r 0 0 0 r n 0) (0 0) o) h O Ci r G C r Ci D ci 0 O r O Ci •-^ r Ci O O C Ci C? Section 8-26 (0 O N > 7 g. t ^ N to in O V) 10 10 10 ID t0 10 10 ID 10 N ,N ° O� O a0 CD O CO 0) 00 CO CD 00 CO co. CO cU CO CO CO � C o o O C C C O O O O C C O O ',C h0 0 ° N 4 G z� D� W¢ p �< 0 �' m� �a �a U¢ 0 d� U= c a) >, ) C�y y UaQ>�T y m> Cl $2 r co 1). -0 10av ” U� C t o re to -3 p U ID 2 re co o) 2 O m E 0 N N N U) •0 N N N 00)) 0) 0) 0) 0) O O 0) ,t43 O) o U) U) U) to 3 A U) U) V) co co U) U) U) co U) co -o = LS > > a > > > > > > > 3 > > Q ti C 4. Figure 8-2: Average PM Peak Volume in TPR Base Scenario Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-27 Figure 8-3: Average PM Peak Volume - Scenario 2.1G 1 Findings Report Legend Volume -Capacity Ratio eo_ao — 0.80 - 089 .—_.. 0.93 -1.o — >1.o Bch Sag LIG8 Exna area July 2016 Section 8-28 Figure 8-4: PM Peak Volume Difference with Opportunity Areas (2.1G - TPR) Findings Report July 2016 Legend Volume Differenc• •••• 2.1G Whim> TPR - ZIG Volume.< TPR —<-o --- -50- 0 - 0 - 50 MON650- 103 IMMIIIP TOO -,70 Edina oGe Ex: Area OpixwtxityArea Section 8-29 Therefore, based on the results of the modeling, the Council finds that it was determined that the proposed plan, zone, and code amendments within the UGB do not cause a significant effect, with the exception of Highway 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street, which would be further degraded above ODOT's mobility target. To remedy this impact, the corridor can be improved by an improvement project that is already identified in the Bend 2040 MTP as needed due to general background growth in the City. The project would add a travel lane to southbound Hwy 20 from Cooley Road to 3rd Street. The Council finds that Highway 20 project is listed in the Bend 2040 MTP fiscally constrained project list as a City funded project from system development charges and private development. The adopted MTP project list is included in Chapter 6 (Motor Vehicles) of the 2040 MTP. The project list with the identified funded sources such as City and ODOT was approved by the MPO as Resolution 2014-06 at the September 25, 2014 Bend MPO Board Meeting (Rem Rec 10219 and 10220). The 2040 fiscally constrained project list did not indicate when, within the 2014- 2040 timeline, the Highway 20 lane addition project would be constructed. However, the City, as the identified funding source, anticipates that funds for the project are reasonably likely to be available by 2028 because of the vacant commercial properties that exist from Robal Lane to Cooley Road along Highway 20. These properties, when they develop, will include frontage and likely lane improvements on Highway 2Q. Therefore the project on Highway 20 will be developer funded. Also, the UGB BLI and the EOA document and anticipate the properties along Highway 20 from Robal to Cooley as likely to be developed by 2028 (Rem Rec 10513). 8.4.3.3 Response to-:Significant=Effect: (2) If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local government must ensure that allowedland uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and -performance standards,, of the facility measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the remedies listed in (a). through, (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve =an amendment: recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and: that other providers would not be expected to provide additional capacity for motor=vehicles in response to this congestion. (a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility. (b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-30 (c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility. (d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including, but not limited to, transportation system management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall, as part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided. (e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or improvements at other locations, if the provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in consistency for all performance standards. The Council finds that the proposed changes to land uses within the UGB would cause Highway 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street to further degrade above ODOT's mobility target, which is identified as a significant effect in OAR 660-12-060(1)(c)(C). To remedy -this impact, the corridor can be improved by an improvement to the project that is already identified in the Bend 2040 MTP as needed due to general background growth, in the City. The project would add a travel lane to southbound Hwy 20 from Cooley Road to 3rd Street. The Council finds that, as described above under,OAR 660-0012-0060(c)(C);.the. Highway 20 project is listed in the Bend 2040 MTP fiscallyeonstrained project;:llst as a City funded project from system development charges.end private= development (Rem Rec 10219 and 10220). 8.4.3.4 Allowed Exceptions: (3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the al%wed land'iuses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility where: (a) In the absence of"the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency; with the identified function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP; (b) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or measures; (c) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph (4)(d)(C); and Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-31 (d) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (c) of this section. The Council finds that the only significant effect identified by the analysis is the further degradation of Highway 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street to further degrade above ODOT's mobility target. To remedy this impact, an improvement project is already identified in the Bend 2040 MTP to add a travel lane to southbound Hwy 20 from Cooley Road to 3rd Street. As described above under OAR 660-0012-0060(c)(C), the Highway 20 project is listed in the Bend 2040 MTP fiscally constrained project list as a City funded project from system development charges and private development (Rem Rec 10219 and 10220). 8.4.3.5 Coordination Requirements: (4) Determinations under sections (1)—(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. (a) In determining whether an amendment has a_significant effect on an existing or planned transportation facility under subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities, improvements and services set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below r,(b) Outside' of interstate `interchange ° areas, the following are considered planned facilities, improvements and services: (A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are funded for construction or implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or regionally adopted transportation improvement program or capital improvement plan or program of a transportation service provider. (8) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is in place or approved. These include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities, improvements or services for which: transportation systems development charge revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement district has been established or will be established prior to development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund the improvement have been adopted. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-32 (C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) area that are part of the area's federally -approved, financially constrained regional transportation system plan. (D) Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when ODOT provides a written statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities or services that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when the local governments) or transportation service provider(s) responsible for the facility, improvement or service provides a written statement that the facility, improvement or service is reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in (b)(A)—(C) are considered planned facilities, improvements and services, except where: (A) ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section; or (B) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are also identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section. (d) As used in this section and section (3): (A) Planned, interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or comprehensive plan; (B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and (C) Interstate interchange area means: (1) Property within one-quarter mile of the ramp terminal intersection of an existing or planned interchange on an Interstate Highway; or (ii) The interchange area as defined in the Interchange Area Management Plan adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan. (e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E) or (c)(A) provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is a planned transportation facility, improvement or service. In the absence of a written statement, a local Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-33 government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified in paragraphs (b)(A)-(C) to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of the remedies in section (2). The Council finds that the only significant effect identified by the analysis is the further degradation of Highway 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street to further degrade above ODOT's mobility target. To remedy this impact, an improvement project is already identified in the Bend 2040 MTP to add a travel lane to southbound Hwy 20 from Cooley Road to 3rd Street. As described above under OAR 660-0012-0060(c)(C), the Highway 20 project is listed in the Bend 2040 MTP fiscally constrained project list as a City funded project from system development charges and private development (Rem Rec 10219 and 10220). 8.4.3.6 Transportation facility not a basis for an exception for development on rural lands (5) The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for an exception to allow residential, commercial, institutional or industrial development on rural lands under this division or OAR 660-004-0022 and 660-004-0028. The Council finds that City does not intend to provide facilities or improvements to rural lands that will be outside the newly expanded and proposed UGB expansion area. New facilities and improvements will not be allowed until land is:annexed into -the City. Annexation is dependent upon completion of an Area or Master Plan, which requires the identification of all needed infrastructure, including new transportation facilities and the upgrading of rural roads to urban standards. No exceptions to allow,residential, commercialymstitutional, or industrial development on rural lands is proposed, and therefore this standard is met. 8.4.3.7 Credit for mixed ii§e, pedestrian -friendly centers and neighborhoods (6) In determining whether proposed land uses would affect or be consistent with planned transportation facilities as provided in sections (1) and (2), local governments shall give full credit for, potential= reduction in vehicle trips for uses located in mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly centers, and neighborhoods as provided in subsections (a)—(d) below;"- (a) elow;°„ (a) Absent -adopted local standards or detailed information about the vehicle trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly development, local governments shall assume that uses -located within a mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly center, or neighborhood, will generate 10% fewer daily and peak hour trips than are specified in available published estimates, such as those provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual that do not specifically account for the effects of mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly development. The 10% reduction allowed for by this section shall be available only if uses which rely solely on auto trips, such as gas stations, car washes, storage facilities, and motels are prohibited; (b) Local governments shall use detailed or local information about the trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly development where such information is Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-34 available and presented to the local government. Local governments may, based on such information, allow reductions greater than the 10% reduction required in subsection (a) above; (c) Where a local government assumes or estimates lower vehicle trip generation as provided in subsection (a) or (b) above, it shall assure through conditions of approval, site plans, or approval standards that subsequent development approvals support the development of a mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly center or neighborhood and provide for on-site bike and pedestrian connectivity and access to transit as provided for in OAR 660-012-0045(3) and (4). The provision of on-site bike and pedestrian connectivity and access to transit may be accomplished through application of acknowledged ordinance provisions which comply with 660-012-0045(3) and (4) or through conditions of approval or findings adopted with the plan amendment that assure compliance with these rule requirements at the time of development approval; and (d) The purpose of this section is to provide an incentive for the designation and implementation of pedestrian -friendly, mixed-use centers and neighborhoods by lowering the regulatory barriers to plan amendments which accomplish this type of development. The actual trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly development will vary from case to case and may be somewhat higher or lower than presumed pursuant to subsection (a) above. The Commission concludes that this assumption is warranted given general information about the expected effects of mixed- use, pedestrian -friendly development and its intent to encourage changes to plans and development patterns. Nothing in this section is intended to affect the application of provisions in local plans or ordinances which provide for the calculation or assessment of systems development charges or in preparing conformity determinations required under -the -federal Clean -Air -Act. - The Council finds that the City's analysis demonstrated that, because the significant effects of the City's proposed actions within the existing UGB are limited to a previously identified portion of Highway 20, this section of the TPR is not needed and does not apply to this proposal. However, it is worth noting that the City's proposed Opportunity Areas are meant to implement the planning concepts outlined in this Section, creating denser, more diverse, walkable, and complete neighborhoods. (7) Amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations which meet all of the criteria listed in subsections (a) -(c) below shall include an amendment to the comprehensive plan, transportation system plan the adoption of a local street plan, access management plan, future street plan or other binding local transportation plan to provide for on-site alignment of streets or accessways with existing and planned arterial, collector, and local streets surrounding the site as necessary to implement the requirements in OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) and 660-012-0045(3): (a) The plan or land use regulation amendment results in designation of two or more acres of land for commercial use; Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-35 (b) The local government has not adopted a TSP or local street plan which complies with OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) or, in the Portland Metropolitan Area, has not complied with Metro's requirement for street connectivity as contained in Title 6, Section 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; and (c) The proposed amendment would significantly affect a transportation facility as provided in section (1). The Council finds that this criterion does not apply to Bend because it has an adopted TSP which complies with OAR -12-0020(2)(b). (8) A "mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly center or neighborhood" for the purposes of this rule, means: (a) Any one of the following: (A) An existing central business district or downtown; (B) An area designated as a central city, regional center, town center or main street in the Portland Metro 2040 Regional Growth Concept; (C) An area designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as a transit oriented development or a pedestrian district; or (D) An area designated as a special transportation area as provided for in the Oregon Highway Plan: (b) An area other than those listed in subsection (a) above which includes or is planned to include the following characteristics: (A) A concentration of a variety of land uses in a well-defined area, including the following: (i) : Medium to high density residential development (12 or more units per acre); (ii) Offices or office buildings; (iii) Retail stores and services; (iv) Restaurants; and .` (v) Public open space or private open space which is available for public use, such as a park or plaza: (B) Generally include civic or cultural uses; (C) A core commercial area where multi -story buildings are permitted; (D) Buildings and building entrances oriented to streets; (E) Street connections and crossings that make the center safe and conveniently accessible from adjacent areas; Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-36 (F) A network of streets and, where appropriate, accessways and major driveways that make it attractive and highly convenient for people to walk between uses within the center or neighborhood, including streets and major driveways within the center with wide sidewalks and other features, including pedestrian -oriented street crossings, street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting and on -street parking; (G) One or more transit stops (in urban areas with fixed route transit service); and (H) Limit or do not allow low -intensity or land extensive uses, such as most industrial uses, automobile sales and services, and drive-through services. The Council finds that the City is not relying on mixed use development patterns to meet the requirements of OAR 660-12-060, however, it is worth noting that the City's proposed Opportunity Areas are meant to implement the planning concepts outlined in this Section, creating denser, more diverse, walkable, and complete neighborhoods. Conclusion: Based on the information and reasons outlined in the findings above, the Council finds that the City of Bend has met the requirements of OAR 660-12-0060. Findings Report July 2016 Section 8-37 9. COMPLIANCE WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS �� - __~.~...~.~~ 9.1 Introduction ORS 197.1 ) requires that cities and counties amend and revise complans in compliance with the goals approved by the commission. The following findings address the proposai's compliance with the applicable statewide planning goals. The findings included herein are those of the Bend City Council. This Section nts the findiof th City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. With respect to Statewide Planning Goal 15, the Willamette River Greenway, the City Council finds that this goal is not applicable because this river does not abut or run through the City of Bend. The City Council further finds that StateWide Planning Goals 16 through 19 are not applicable to this proposal. These goals address estuarine resources, coastal shorelands, beaches and dune, and ocaanrasources;the City is:either not adjacent to or does not includes 9.2 Findings on OAR 6604)15, StateWide Planning Goals 9.2.1 Goatt -Citizen To deVelop a citizen liwOhiement program thatinsures the opportunity for citizens to be involved=hiall phases of the planning process. The Council find$ that the propOsal meets Goal 1 because the City followed its adopted citizen involvement prograinp insure citiiens had the opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process for this remaneThe City accepted its current Citizen Involvement Program in 2009. The Citizen Involvement.R=ogram states the City will use a variety of methods for involving citizens in land uSadecisions, including updates to the Comprehensive Plan. These methods include those the City used for involving citizens in the remand process; TACs, open houses, public meetings through which public input was solicited, releasing materials through the city's website, and notifying stakeholders and interested citizens through media notices and direct electronic mail communications. The public involvement process for the remand began in January, 2011, with the appointment of three city councilors and two city planning commissioners to serve on the UGB RTF. The RTF met 17 times between March 3, 2011 and May 19, 2014, with each meeting conducted as a Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-1 public meeting. Meeting materiais were availabie in advance of each meeting on the city's website, and pubiic comment was soiicited at each meeting. In May, 2014, the City Council approved a reconstitution of the RTF and renamed this group the USC. The USC included all seven members of the Bend City Council, two Bend Planning Commissioners, and a member of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. The USC met nine /8\times between June 18,2D14and April 21.2018.with each meeting noticed ose public meeting and with meeting materials made available in advance of the meeting through the City's website. Each meeting of the USC was noticed as a public meeting, with notice going out to the local media contacts and eiectronic mail notices to the TAC members and ali of the interested persons who had provided an email address for such n�tice. The meetings of the USC inciuded sections for public comments, staff presentations of the work completed by the TACs and presented for the USC's approvai, and USC approvai of their written meeting minutes of their prior meeting. In addition to the USC, the City employed three (3) additional TACs to assist the city in completing the work associated with the remand. These TACs included one devoted to housing and related tasks (Residential TAC), and second focused on the employment lands and related tasks (Employment TAC), and a third focused on developing a methodology against which candidate sites were evaluated for UGB expansion (Boundary and Growth Scenarios TAC). With each committee, the pubiic was invited to commet during the course of the nne*Ung, and to provide written uVmnnnentabzeithertheUSC andforone or more of the TACs during the process. The foUovvihgtab|e|iatathenumber / public meetings from March 2011 through April 2016. Table 9-1: Public Meeting Log for Bend UGB Re # / Date • 1 I March 3,2O11 2 |Apr|28.2O11 3 June 2.2U11 4 July 28.2O11 5 September 8.2O11 6 November 1O.2O11 7 April 5, 2012 8 June 24.2U13 9 July 1.2O13 10 |July 3A.2013 11 August 19, 2013 12 September Q.2O13 13 October 21.2O13 14 November 18.2013 15 January 13.2O14 16 January 24.2014 17 February 1U.2U14 18 | March 17, 2014 19 1 May 10.2014 nd Meeting --� Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meetiriq RemandTask Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting UGBExoannionOpUuno—maeUnqwithstakoholdere Remand Task Force meetinq Rernand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meetinq UGB Post Acknowledgement PIan Amendment — meeting with stakeholders Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting Remand Task Force meeting Findings Repoit July 2016 Section 9-2 # Date 20 June 19, 2014 21 July 29, 2014 22 August 4, 2014 23 August 4, 2014 24 August 5, 2014 25 August 5, 2014 26 August 25, 2014 27 August 25, 2014 28 August 26, 2014 29 August 26, 2014 30 September 4, 2014 31 October 9, 2014 32 October 13, 2014 33 October 13, 2014 34 October 14, 2014 35 October 14, 2014 36 November 17, 2014 37 November 17, 2014 38 November 18, 2014 39 November 18, 2014 40 December 15, 2014 41 December 16, 2014 42 December 16, 2014 43 January 26, 2015 44 January 26, 2015 45 January 27, 2015 46 February 23, 2015 47 February 23, 2015 48 February 24, 2015 49 February -24,-2015 50 March 19, 2015 51 April 7, 2015 52 April 30, 2015 53 June 9, 2015 54 June 24, 2015 55 June 25, 2015 56 July 21, 2015 57 July 21, 2015 58 August 25, 2015 59 August 25, 2015 60 October 1, 2015 61 October 7, 2015 62 October 8, 2015 63 October 22, 2015 64 October 22, 2015 65 November 19, 2015 66 November 19, 2015 67 December 14, 2015 68 January 20, 2016 69 February 10, 2016 Meeting UGB Steering Committee #1 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Orientation Residential TAC meeting #1 Employment TAC meeting #1 Boundary TAC meeting #1 UGB Remand Drop In Meeting Residential TAC meeting #2 Employment TAC meeting #2 Boundary TAC meeting #2 Drop in Meeting UGB Steering Committee #2 All technical advisory committees (TACs) meeting Residential TAC meeting #3 Employment TAC meeting #3 Boundary TAC meeting #3 Drop in meeting #3 Residential TAC meeting #4 Employment TAC meeting #4 Boundary TAC meeting #4 Drop in meeting #4 Joint Residential - Employment TACs Workshop (meeting 6) Boundary TAC meeting #5 Drop in meeting #5 Residential TAC meeting #6 Employment TAC meeting #6 Boundary TAC meeting #6 Residential TAC meeting #7 Employment TAC meeting #7 Boundary TAC meeting #7 Drop-in meeting #7_ UGB Steering Committee meeting #3 Boundary TAC Meeting #8 USC/TACs Scenarios Workshop (Residential & Employment TAC mtg #8) Boundary TAC #9 Boundary TAC Meeting #10 UGB Steering Committee meeting #4 Residential TAC Meeting #9 Employment TAC Meeting #9 Residential TAC Meeting #10 Employment TAC Meeting #10 Bend UGB Open House at Bend Park and Rec (6:30 pm to 8:30 pm) Joint meeting of the Residential and Employment TACs Boundary TAC Meeting #11 Boundary TAC Meeting #12 UGB Steering Committee Meeting #5 Residential TAC Meeting #12 Employment TAC Meeting #12 UGB Steering Committee Meeting #6 Boundary TAC Meeting #13 UGB Steering Committee Meeting #7 Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-3 # Date 70 | March 16, 2016 71 | March 17, 2016 72 | March 3O.201O 73 |April 21.2O1O Meeting Boundary TAC Meetinq #14 Joint Residential and Employment TAC Meeting (final for both) Boundary TAC Meeting #1 5 UGB Steering Committee Meeting #8 The City conducted 41 meetings wth the three TACs between August 2014 and March 2016. Each TAC meeting included a staif introduction of the topics that would be addressed at that meeting, and whether consultant team products were new for consideration or amended in response to TAC direction and/or direction from pubfic comments. Each meeting included time for public comments, and the City received both oral and written comments at each meeting. The City collated and uploaded the written comments to the City's website so that interested persons could access the comments. Alt of these comrnents were also entered into the record. In addition, the City ensured that each TAC approved writtenrniu|aooftheirpriornlaeUngfVr not only their benefit for tracking progress, but to create a public record of the decisions they made at each meeting; these minutes were also posted to the City's website for pubtic access and included in the Remand Record. The Council finds that the record includes a significantomontofpublic testimony that argued for several properties being included in the UGB. To summarize this testimony briefly, a number of property owners and/or their rentot ed fotheir property's inclusion in the UGB, their merits, and any feedback as to whether the process of evaluation was conducted, in their view, adcording to state law. Several pieces of testimony offered specific incentives and benefits for certairr-property being included in the UGB, including certain properties that would be part of a transect, several that offered the development of affordable housing, and several that argued for being included because they were included in a large group. The follovying findings respond to the publig testimony directed at the boundary and the location analysis. The City notes that the UGB project team provided responses to some of this testimony in Appendix E (Rem Rep 8335) to the USC Meeting Packet for their June 25, 2015 meeting (Rem Rec 8273). In additiOn to public meetings, the Council finds that City staff delivered over 40 presentation since the end of 2013 through 2016 on the topic of the UGB to a wide variety of civic groups, agencies, Neighborhood Associations, and boards. The City Council and the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners held a joint public hearing in August 2016. Each governing body deliberated separately at noticed public meetings before making final decisions. Based on the forgoing, the Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 1 with respect to citizen involvement. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-4 9.2.2 Goal 2, Land Use Planning To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 2 because it is supported by an adequate factual base and its development was coordinated with all affected governmental units. 9.2.2.1 Adequate Factual Base The Council finds that the proposed amendment to a comprehensive plan, such as those proposed through this remand, must be supported by an adequate factual base. In determining compliance with Goal 2, the legislative decisions of the City and Deschutes County must demonstrate that these amendments are supported by an adequate factual base. The City's and County's decisions on the UGB and related plan and code amendments are legislative decisions. The Goal 2 requirement for an adequate factual base requires that a legislative land use decision be supported by substantial evidence. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of North Plains, 27 Or LUBA 372,-376-378, aff'd 130 Or App 406, 882 P2d 1130 (1994), DLCD v. Douglas County, 37 Or LUBA 129. 132(1999). Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole,_ would permit a reasonable person to make that finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c) and Dodd v. Hood River County. 317 Or 172, 179, 855 P2d 608 (1993). Where the evidence itilhe,record is conflicting. ifalea5onable person could reach the decisions the City and the County made in view of all the evidence in the record, the choice between the conflicting evidence belongs to the City and/or the County, respectively. Mazeski v. Wasco County, 28 Or LUBA 178, (1994), aff'd-03 Or App 258, 890 P2d 455 (1995). _ - The Council finds that the City has establisheda-Noluminous record that includes technical memoranda, studies, anCVenelysisthat supports each element of the UGB Remand. The key documents'eelied upon and which form the adequate factual base for our findings are listed = - , below1: 1. New Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5— Housing, Rem Rec 10310; . 2. New Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6 — Economy, Rem Rec 10326; 3. Amended Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7 — Transportation, Rem Rec 10339; 4. New Comprehensive Plan Chapter 11 — Growth Management, Rem Rec 10362; 5. Other Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rem Rec 10405; 6. BLI (2016), Rem Rec 10513; 7. HNA (2016), Rem Rec 10572 ; 8. EOA (2016), Rem Rec 10687; 9. Urbanization Report (2016), Rem Rec 10814; 1 Prior findings in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have provided record citations to these documents Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-5 10. Urban Form Report, Rem Rec 10950; 11. Transportation System Plan Amendments, Rem Rec 10994; 12. Bend Comprehensive Plan Map, Rem Rec 11145; 13. Bend Zoning Map, Rem Rec, 11147; 14. Bend Development Code Text Amendments, Rem Rec 11149 The Council finds that the City has prepared the forgoing findings based on these documents and the technical memoranda, studies, and analysis that supports each element of the UGB Remand which reside in the remand record. It should be noted that neither testimony nor evidence was entered into the record that undermined the research, analysis, and/or conclusions presented in these products. 9.2.2.1 Coordination with the Plans of Affected Governmental Units The Council finds that ORS 197.015(5) states,that a plan is coordinated with the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible.. Goal 2:further defines "Affected Governmental Units" to include those local governments, state and federal agencies, and special districts which have programs,_Iand ownerships, or responsibilities within the area included in the plan. For this response to the remand order, the City finds that the following units of government are those affected units: Arnold Irrigation District • Bend La Pine:,School District • 'Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife • Bend MPO • Oregon DSL • Oregon DLCD • BPRD • • Deschutes 'County., • Oregon Departmentof Forestry, ODOT Swalley Irrigation District Tumalo Irrigation District United States Forest Service The Council finds that the City relies upon the Commission's findings on coordination to outline what is required=to`satisfy Goal 2 ; ,The coordination elements of Goal 2 require local governments to exchange information with affected governmental units. In addition, information received from affected governmental units must be used by the adopting local government. Santiam Water Control District 'v City of Stayton, 54 Or LUBA 553, 558-559 (2007); DLCD v. Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997); Brown v. Coos County, 31 Or LUBA 142, 145 (1996). The coordination requirement of Goal 2 is satisfied when a local government has engaged in an exchange of information regarding an affected governmental unit's concerns, put forth a reasonable effort to accommodate those concerns and legitimate interests as much as possible, and made findings responding to legitimate concerns. This set of findings, where applicable, addresses the specific concerns of those affected governmental units who provided written and/or oral testimony for the record. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-6 With respect to the irrigation districts in particular, the Council finds that the City has documented meeting with the representatives of the irrigation districts on several occasions, asking for their written input on the City's analysis of alternative boundary locations under Goal 14. Table 9-2 documents the meetings with all or some of the irrigation district managers and representatives. Swalley Irrigation District has provided both oral and written testimony for the record. With respect to Swalley's written testimony, it is included in the record on remand (Rem Rec 4032, 4035, 4208, and 7771). Swalley provided input that was presented to the Boundary TAC for their consideration, for the April 30, 2015 Scenario Workshop, and ultimately incorporated in how the City considered Goal 14 Factor 4 in Swalley's particular district boundaries (Rem Rec 3834). With respect to ODOT, the Council finds that the City appointed a representative of ODOT Region 4 to the Boundary and Growth Scenarios TAC (Rem Rec 1348-1349). The City has met with ODOT Region 4 staff on several occasions, and used the meetings of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) TAC to communicate with staff from Deschutes County and ODOT Region 4 on the progress of the UGB Remand project (See Table 9-2). The City has shared the transportation analysis prepared on the UGB expansion scenarios with Region 4 staff for their review and input (Rem Rec 6851). As of the date of these findings, the City has not received any written testimony from ODOT that the Council would need to consider and address to satisfy Goal 2. The Council incorporates the following meeting log in these findings to document date on which meetings were held with an affected government or.a,group of representatives from several affected governments. Table 9-2: UGB Agency Coordination Meetings Date ` Meeting --- March 30, 2015 Irrigation District Managers: Swalley Irrigation District; Craig Horrell, Central Oregon Irrigation District; Ken Reick, Tumalo Irrigation District, and;; Shawn Gerdes, Arnold Irrigation District. April 20,2015 Wildfire Focus Group: Deschutes County Forester; Oregon Department of Forestry, and US Forest Service/BLM, Bend Fire Dept May 20, 2015 Agency Coordination Meeting — Review of Scenarios 6 through 8, attendees represented: Bend -La Pine School District; Deschutes County Library District; Bend Park and Recreation District; US Forest Service, and; Bend Fire Department. May 27, 2015 Meeting with Swalley Irrigation District to Review Scenarios 6 through 8: Suzanne Butterfield and Steve Shropshire. June 3, 2015 Bend MPO Technical Advisory Committee — presentation of Scenarios 6 through 8: Deschutes County; Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council; Cascades East Transit; OSU- Cascades; ODOT Region 4, and; Bend Park and Recreation District. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-7 Date Meeting June 15, 2015 ODOT Region 4 management — Bob Bryant, Jon Heacock, Amy Pfeiffer, Gary Farnsworth, Joel McCarroll, Jim Bryant June 17, 2015 Meeting with Jim Bryant and Amy Pfeiffer on how City and ODOT coordinate on UGB Remand work related to transportation. July 1, 2015 Bend MPO Technical Advisory Committee — update on Scenarios 1.1, 2.1, and 3.1 of UGB Remand, schedule of upcoming TAC meetings and schedule through summer 2015: ODOT Region 4, MPO Citizen Advisory Committee; Deschutes County; Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council; Cascades East Transit; Bend Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee; Commute Options. August 3, 2015 Irrigation District — City of Bend Coordination on UGB Scenarios. Meeting with Suzanne Butterfield and Steve Shropshire of Swalley Irrigation District. No other district reps attended. August 5, 2015 Bend MPO Technical Advisory Committee — update on Scenarios 1.2, 2.1, and 3.1 of UGB Remand, schedule of upcoming TAC meetings: ODOT Region 4; Deschutes County; Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council; Cascades East Transit; Deschutes County Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and; Commute Options. August 20, 2015 Meeting with; Suzanne Butterfield and Steve Shropshire, of Swalley Irrigation District September 22, 2015 Conference call with Suzanne Butterfield and Steve Shropshire, of Swalley Irrigation District -. September 22, 2015 Meeting with Jason Wick, Avion Water Company September 25, 2015 Meeting with Amy Pfeiffer, Jim Bryant, and Rick Williams, ODOT Region 4, on six UGB expansion scenarios October 23, 2015 Meeting with Amy Pfeiffer; Jim Bryant of ODOT with City staff on UGB expansion scenario and forthcoming work on ILUTP December 11, 2015 ;Meeting with Deschutes County staff Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, and Peter Russell regarding City of Bend and Deschutes County coordination on UGB remand, including adoption of documents, potential changes to county's planning documents. January 6, 2016 Meeting with Bend MPO TAC. Attendees included representatives from ODOT, COIC, COCC, Commute Options. Shared updated on UGB process, upcoming meeting dates, and latest version of UGB Expansion Scenario 2.1B. February 3, 2016 Meeting with Bend MPO TAC. Attendees included representatives from ODOT, COIC, COCC, Commute Options. Shared update on UGB process, upcoming meeting dates, and the latest version of the UGB expansion, Scenario 2.1D. February 5, 2016 Agency drop in meeting, to review UGB Expansion Scenario 2.1D. Attendees included representatives from Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2, Bend LaPine School District, Deschutes Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-8 Date April 6, 2016 May 4, 2016 May 4, 2016 June 1, 2016 June 3, 2016 July 6, 2016 Meeting National Forest, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (Rem Rec. 06208). Meeting with the Bend MPO TAC. Reported on final meetings of the three TACs in March 2016; approval of Scenario 2.1E by the UGB Steering Committee in February 2016, and notice of April 21, 2016 meeting of the UGB Steering Committee. Attendees included representatives from: Deschutes County, ODOT Region 4, Central Oregon Community College, OSU Cascades, Commute Options, Bend La Pine School District, Cascades East Transit, and Bend Park and Recreation District. Meeting with staff and legal counsel of the Bend Park and Recreation District. Purpose of meeting was to review draft plan designations for park district properties included in the UGB expansion, discuss next steps, and exchange of needed information. Meeting with Bend MPO TAC. Reported on final meeting on April 21, 2016 of the UGB Steering Committee. Described changes to UGB Expansion Scenario 2.1G. Provided explanation of the transportation analysis of the six UGB expansion scenarios and supplemental analysis area for ODOT Region 4 representative. Pointed out to the TAC that August 2016 looks like the start of public hearings on the adoption package. Attendees included: OSU-Cascades, ODOT Region 4; Bend La Pine School District; Commute Options, Deschutes County, and Central Oregon Community College. Meeting with the Bend MPO TAC. Reported on final Scenario 2.1G, provided -copy of May -2016 Project update. Provided update on start of public hearings in August 2016. Attendees included representatives from: Central Oregon Community College, ODOT Region 4; Deschutes County Community Development, Bend Park and Recreation District, Commute Options, Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and a citizen representative to the MPO TAC. Meeting with staff of the Deschutes County Community Development Department. The agenda for this meeting included reviewing the final UGB scenario, confirming the schedule for public hearing and items needed for the 35 -day notice, and outlining tasks to complete before submitting the 35 -day notice to DLCD. Meeting with the Bend MPO TAC. Provided copy of May 2016 Project update, which included map for Scenario 2.1G. Also provided TAC members with a three-page summary of the draft Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan (ILUTP). Informed them of materials being submitted to the Department of Land Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-9 Date Meeting Conservation and Devebpment with 35 -day notice on July 21, 2016. Members present inc!uded representatives from ODOT Region 4, Deschutes County Community Development, Commute Options, Deschutes County BPAC, and two citizen representatives to the MPO TAC. Based on the forgoing, the Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 2 with respect to having an adequate factual base and being coordinated with all affected governmental units. 9.2.3 Goals 3 and 4, Agriculture and Forestry The Council finds that the neither Goa3 nor Goal 4 are applicable to this proposal. The Boundary and Growth Scenarios TAC recommended and the USC approved two decisions that were intended to avoid including any resource land in a UGB expansion. First, the USC approved the decision to follow the statutory priorities in ORS 197.298 and focus first on exception lands (Priority 2 under ORS 197.298(1)(b)). Second, the USC approved the use of a two (2) mile study area within which properties would be evaluated for UGB expansion. These decisions led to research that showed there were over 0000 acres of exception lands that the City could evaluate for UGB expansion, and that there was the no need to consider resource lands (Priority 4 under ORS 197.298(10)) (ReM Rec 3588). _The proposed UGB amendment does not include any lands that were deSignated under -the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as either agriculture or for6s:t lands. 2 - -- 9.2.4 Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces To protect natwal fesouraiS and COnserve scenic and histork areas and open spaces. The Council finds thatthe_proposed,expansiortereas exclude the following Goal 5 resources: riparian corridors, wetiandS; federal Wild and Scenic Rivers; State Scenic Waterways; groundwaier'iresources; apprOved Oregon, Recreation Trails; natural areas; wilderness areas; mineral and ag4regate resourees; energy sources; and cultural areas. The City relied on the inventory included:in the DeschUtes County Comprehensive Plan3 as well as information available from State -and Federal sources to make this determination. The Council fufther finds that big game winter range (BGWR) is included in the West, Shevlin, Thumb, and a portion of the Elbow subareas. In 2009, a map of big game (deer and elk) winter range was made public by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (see Figure 1 of «Official Notice — The City takes official notice of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, which is available to view online through www.deschutes.ora. aOfficial Notice — The City takes offioia/notice nfChapter 5ofthe Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Supplemental Sections, which includes the County's Goal 5 inventories. The protections for certain Goal 5 resources are also identified on the Deschutes County Combining Zones Map. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-10 Appendix A of Section 9). This map, which encompasses Iarge portions of the west and south sides of the City, was not available to the City during its 2008 (remanded) UGB expansion efforts. Because of this new information, the City has elected to err on the side of caution and broaden the consideration of wildlife issues beyond that associated with the Deschutes River and Tumalo Creek (as directed by the Remand Order) to include a consideration of BGWR. The Safe Harbor provisions of Goal 5 (OAR 660-023-0030) allow the City to limit its Goal 5 inventory to consideration of available information where one or more of the following conditions exist: (a) The habitahas been documented to perform alife support function for ewildlife species Iisted by the federalgovernment as a threatened or endangered species or by the state of Oregon as a threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; (b) The habitat has documented occurrences of more than incidental use by a species described in subsection (a) of this section; (c) The habitat has been documented as a sensitive bird nesting, roosting, or watering resource site for osprey or great blue herons pursuant to ORS 527.710 Forest Practices Act) and OAR 629-0 -0700 (Forest Practices Rules); (d) The habitat has been documentedto be essential to achieving or population objectives specified in a wildlife by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission pursuant to ORS Chapter 496; or (e) The area is identified and !napped by0DFW as habitat for a wildlife species of concern and/or as a habitat of concern (e.g., big game winter range and migration corridors, golden eagle and prairie falcon nest sites, or pigeon springs). Because ODRN-has a Management Plan for big game habitat including winter range, in Deschutes County% sections (d) and (e) potentially apply. Although the 2009 BGWR map is not directly referenced in the Management Plan (nor has it been adopted by ODFW), the City assumes that the BGWR map illustrates the area covered by the Management Plan, since that is how it is being used by ODFW. The Council finds that, as part of the current UGB expansion process, all lands protected by the Deschutes County Wildlife Coexcluded from consideration for UGB expansionthrough the City's Goal 14 process. This process included a screening process for potential expansion areas. Land within the WiIdIife Combining Zone was screened out of consideration for expansion based on a number of factors, depending on its location. For example, land in the Combining Zone west of the current UGB was screened out due significant potential infrastructure costs, potential inefficiency of land use and development given current development patterns, as well as the presence of wildlife habitat. However, the areas identified on the 2009 BGWR map extend beyond those areas currently protected by the Deschutes County Widllfe Combining Zone. Lower Deschutes WildUfe Area Management PIan, Oregon Department of Fish and WiIdIife, 2009. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-11 As allowed by the Safe Harbor rule, the City is relying on the 2009 BGWR map plus verba information provided by ODFW to consider Goal 5 resources for the affected area. According to ODFW, the 2009 BGWR map is based on inventories and field knowledge of the areas utilized by deer and elk for summer, transition, and winter range. ODFW reportedly has collected data over a period of decades, in the form of fall and spring animal counts, to support this mapping. However, the buk of this detailed data was unavailable to the City because only a fraction of the data (from only the last couple of years and only for certain herd ranges) has been digitized and subsequently mapped. ODFW also indicates that collaring studies have been done since 2005, and notes that those results support the 2009 BGWR map. However, this data also was not available to the City due to the same mapping issues. Although not formally inventoried and mapped as a Goal 5 resource by Deschutes County, ODFW considers the mapped areas as Goal 5 resources, and labels the habitat as Category 2 under the ODFW Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy'. According to the [)OFVV. Category 2 habitat is ''aignifinant." although that is not stated explicitly within the Policy. Interviews with the ODFW Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist stated that the agency places the highest value on the deer and elk winter range habitat that is currently protected by the Deschutes County Wildlife Combining Zone. However the District Wildlife Biologist identified several general areas that the agency believes may be important for wintering elk or deer relative to surrounding areas within this Iarger mapped area. These areas are identified on the map entitled Exception Land & Big GameWinter Ranges as rough ovals (see Figure 1 of Appendix A of Section 9), and were used aS a decision-making factor under Goal 14. There are no Safe Harbor provi�K�hsboQuidethe�n��onofg/wildlife protection program; therefore theCity must the environmental, and energy (ESEE) analysis process and requirements OfOAR bbO-O23-DO40and OOO'O23'O05Otoguide development ofm'pn»tectinn'ppngoann. The ESEE analysis includes the foliowing • SUmmary of the, lOcation, quantity, planning area, as identified by ODFW; • Identification of conflicting useS based on the proposed land uses; • Analysis of economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of protecting,resources where conflicts exist; and • A plan to protect significnt resources. The Council finds that, of the three areas identified by ODFW as particularly important wintering range for deer and elk, onlY the Shevlin area is potentially affected by the proposed UGB expansion. However, because ODFW has identified all of the mapped BGWR as significant, the City has elected to conduct an ESEE analysis for the proposed expansion areas known as the West Area, Thumb, Alpine Park, and a portion of the Elbow. The entire ESEE analysis is incuded as Appendix A to Section 9. The ESEE analysis directs the City to achieve one of three standards for protection: Category 2 habitat is considered "essential or important, but not irreplaceable habitat." Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-12 1 Allow conflicting uses without restriction ("Allow" scenario). For the purposes of this disouaoion.dle/UlovvaoenahnammunleathotdleCity'npn000sed|anduoedesignations are applied. 2. Limit Conflicting uses ("Limit" scenario) — For the purposes of this discussion, this scenario assumes that the City's proposed land use designations would be applied but that they would include limitations on development aimed at reducing impacts on wildlife habitat (e.g., reduced densities or clustering requirements, limitations on erecting fences or other barriers, and/or minimizing the scope or scale of activities that have the most significant potential impacts on wildlife). 3. Prohibit confticting land uses ("Prohibit" scenario). Forthe purposes of this discussion, this scenario assumes that proposed used currently allowed under City land use designations would be prohibited in the BGWR habitat areas. The Council findmthat the ESEE analysis concludes: • The BGWR values in the Shevlin, West and Alpine Park can be protected by applying a combined "Limit" and "AHow"approach through the proposed Transectconcept and Master Planning. • The BGWR is of low value in the Thumb, Southwest and Elbow; therefore, the "Allow" approach is recommended. Conclusion: Based on theforgoing, the Council findsthethe pro |vNUbennnoistentwithGoa| 5. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-13 9.2.5 Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state, The Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 6 because it will maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state inside the current UGB and with the proposed expansion. The proposal does not include new areas along the Deschutes River or Tumalo Creek; the proposed efficiency measures and areas for expansion direct growth away from these areasThe proposal will maintain and improve the quality of air resources because it has been designed to reduce the growth of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which will help in limiting or avoiding new greenhouse gas emissions from auto and truck traffic. The planned housing mix makes a shift from single-family detached, to more attached housing types, which studies have shown typically consume less energy than single-family dwellings. Finally the proposal will maintain and improve the quality of land resources by directing new urbanization away from wildlife habitat, sensitive areas, and areas with the potential for wildfire hazard. The proposal directs most of the projected growth to several opportunity areas inside the current UGB, and in limited areas for expansion. The subareas targeted for expansion area designed to ensure new development will not iMpact wildlife habitattncrease the risk of wildfire, and ensure that development will not impact sensitive areas such as the bat habitat in Section 11 (aka the DSL Property). 9.2.6 Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural,Hazards- To protect people and property -from natuial ii#ards. The Council finds that the'proposai'0%Wies Goal -7 because the City has considered the risks of the naturel,hez**Jdfire in,th.0-`6‘4,liatuatiORf the PrGB expansion areas. For the purpose of ga6i,\MO-:CitY tb *Os_ On 'Wildfire. There are other natural hazards such eS,'ffoods and landski§ that ere:not addresed here because the City has avoided considerafibp of areas where:such hazards might occur. The City has also not included any areas in the tiGl3 expansion Where Goal 7;natural hazards have either been identified or mapped. For example, the CitY:has not included new segments of the Deschutes River in the proposed UGB woarl§ion that weuld be located within the 100- year flood plain. In addition, there are no mapped lendslide 'areas outside of the current UGB that are also adjacent to the city. The risk of wildfire was an issue raised on appeal in the City's prior before LCDC on the 2009UGBproposer. Early inthe remand process, the City broached the topic of whether to consider wildfire with the Boundary and Growth Scenarios TAC (Rem Rec 2494, 2899). In Phase 1 of the pject, the Boundary TAC recommended to the UGB Steering Committee that the staff and consultant team address wildfire risk in the Factor 3 ESEE analysis 6 See Subissue 6.2 at pages 92 and 93 of the Commission's Remand Order (REM REC 5815). Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-14 and comparisonofUG8oKanloUvasvvhennnonsinfonnaUqnieavei|ab/eon|andnemda.ne|abve wildfire risks, and mitigation strategies(RennRmo3597.30U3). This work also included mapping the composite wildfire risk ratings from the Greater Bend Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CVVPP)(Rem Rec26OB\. In Phase 2 of the remand pject, the UGB Steering Committee approved an approach to conducting wildfire assessments for the areas under consideration for UGB expansion, mitigation strategies the city should consider, and the formation of a task force for potential code -based mitigation measures (Rem Rec 3946). Wildflre risk was evaluated as high around the entire UGB, and this information was incorporated in the evaluation of UGB expansion scenarios. In the Evaluation of UGB expansion scenarios, wildfire hazard was included as one of the performance measures for evaluating the scenarios against Goal 14 Factor 3 (Rem Rec 6720, 6824)8. With respect to implementation, the Council finds that the proposed Growth Management Chapter (New Chapter 11) of the Comprehensive Plan includes policy language focused on mitigating the risk of wildfire. This new chapter includes the foliowing Poticy11-5: The City will adopto reducwildfire hazard on lands inside the City and included in the Urban Growth BounThese strategies may include the application of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code or equivalent with modifications to allow buffers of aggregated defensible space, or similar tools, as The City received a significant arriount of public testimony on the topic of wildfire, some of which focused on the risk of wildfire in the areas to the west of Bend. This testimony included, but was not limited to, Dewey (Rem Rec 36F39, 3694), and Vora (Rem Rec 4038). While the record includes eviderice-ancl testimony that wildfirerisk is -high in the areas west of Bend, the City acknowredges that there is also evidence in the recard that shows the risk of wildfire is high all around the City in all four -directions (Rem Rec 3946, 3953). The City relied on a wildfire consultant t6 inform the Cityls work and.approach to wildfire in the boundary location analysis (Rem Rec 3946). ,The City chose to rely O'n this evidence and the work of the wildfire consultant to ensure the risk of wildfire could be considered in the evaluation of all UGB expansion subareas, and that suCh risks would be mitigated through implementation. Based on the forgoing,the Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 7. 'See Meeting Minutes for the June 9, 2015 Boundary and Growth Scenarios TAC meeting at Rem Rec 4104. «SeeHomReoG831bxthoDotobmr1.2U15BandUrbon{SnowthBuundoryExpansionScanariooReport Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-15 9.2.7 Goal 8, Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. The Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 8 because the UGB expansion incorporates several public park sites to help meet the need for future park land. The proposal further satisfies Goal 8 because it does not impact any existing Goal 8, destination resorts, and includes a relatively small amount of land that was previously mapped as eligible for the siting of a destination resort. The Council finds that the City has developed a need estimate for park land that is presented in the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814). The need is 227 acres, and is met through existing parkland in the UGB, parkland that is included inthe proposed UGB expansion, and the estimate of additional land that has been incorporated in the UGB expansion for future park land uses (Rem Rec 9750, 9755-9756). The Council finds that the location, arrangement, and estimate of park land will satisfy Goal 8 because this land has been provided for the siting of necessary recreational facilities inside the current UGBend through the UGB expansion. With respect to destination resorts, the Bend Urban Area General Plan includes plan text and policies upon which the City has relied to Map eligible, lands for development of a Goal 8 destination resort9. The General Plan includes Figurer5-8(also identified as Figure 22), which identifies eligible andsthatare eiSo designated Urban Area Reserve and zoned UAR10, Urban Area Reserve. This eligible areas are located due west of the city, and some of this area has been developed with the TetheroW Resort. • The proposed UGB expansion.inOludes Smile of h e ands mapped as eligible that are west of the current UGB and northof Skyliners Road. Theproposedexpansion has arranged the land in the West Area to include the future development of Skyline Ranch Road, which is designated as a major collector on the TSP Map oriented to allow for travel in a north -south direction along the western edge, of the UGB. The Council finds that the arrangement of land in this expansion subarea will not preclude or interfere with future development of a destination resort on eligible lands due to its design and orientation for Skyline Ranch Road. Based on the forgoing, the City finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 8. 9 Official Notice — the City takes official notice of the Bend Area General Plan, which is also available for public viewing through the City's website wvvw.bendorepon.aov. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-16 92.8 Goal 9, Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens, The Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 9 because through the UGB expansion and reated set of efficiency measures, the city will ensure an adequate supply of land for economic opportunities in Bend by providing needed types and amounts of employment lands in suitable locations as required by Goal 9, and documented in the EOA and Urbanization Report. The above findings the completion of a BLI (Rem Rec 10513) ardanEOA (Rem Rec 10687). The City's consultant team used the results of these work procluctsto estabUsh a need for employment land in the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec1Q814).This need came to 812 acres of land for approximately 7 040 jobs for commercialindustrial, an^^'related uses. This d is the residual of the jobs that can be accommodated in the current UGB. Finally, the Council finds that the City has prepared foregoing findings in Section 5 to address OAR 660-009, to demonstrate the proposal satisfies the administratiye rules drafted to implement Goal 9. 9.2.9 Goal 10, Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens,of the state.= The Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 1:0 because the ppB expansion and related set of efficiency measureewiliensure the City, has en -adequate supply of buildable land for needed housing. The-ebove findings in Sectinn 4'dird to thesdOrnpletion of a Buildable Lands Inventory (Rem Rec 10513) and a -Housing Needs Analysis (Rem Rec 10572). The City's consultant team used thesework prOducts to establish a need for housing land in the Urbanizatinn-Repert-1(Rem kee-40,814)'..,.-3ne-Orbaniiation Report shows the City's supply of land within:the current_OGB will be,,able to ancernmodate 69% of forecasted housing unit growth.':i This capacity estiMate is beSed on the buildable lands inventory, proposed plan designationsiand zone changes for theppportunity areas, and the efficiency measures to be added to theBend DevelopmeritCode. The residual land need for housing came to a total of 1,142 acres of land_for approxinietely 5,282 housing units. This additional land, plus the land already in the UGB Vvift provide a:eupply of buildable land that the City has shown will help meet the City's needed mix ofihousingln both the existing boundary and those areas added through the expansion. Finally, Coundil finds that the City has prepared findings in Section 4 to address OAR 660-008, to demonstrate the proposal satisfies the administrative rules drafted to implement Goal 10. These findings also address an issue of whether the City had considered alt types of housing when addressing housing needs, The City received oral testimony from Paul Dewey and Liz Dickson regarding the proposed UGB amendment's compliance with Goal 101°. This testimony 10S minutes ofthe April21.2010meeting ofthe USC (Rem Rec1O144). Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-17 argued that what the City had prepared for the UGB amendment, and the proposed efficiency measures, did not go far enough to comply with Goal 10 to address what they described as affordable housing. The City presents this additional finding to address this testimony. The findings in Section 4 show the City will need 17,234 housing units for the remainder of the planning period (2008-2028). All of these units are needed under ORS 197.296 and 197.303(1) (See Rogue Valley Realtors v. City of Ashland 35 Or LUBA 139 (1998)). The City identified a need for more multi -family housing units, and adjusted the needed housing mix so that 35% of future units will be allocated to multi -family attached units. The City understands this allocation of units to the multi -family units will include both market -rate units available for rent and units available for rent for which some form of subsidy will berequired to assist certain households in renting housing (Rem Rec 10651-10652). The City used this housing mix to allocate buildable lands for multi -family units in both the current UGB, with efficiency measures and opportunity areas, and in the UGB expansion areas. The findings in Section 7 of this report, and the Urbanization Report together show the city has, allocated sufficient buildable lands that can help meet this need and plan designated them accordingly. The forecasted growth in multi -family housing will significantly increase the inventory of multi- family units. As of 2013, the City had 8;647 units of multifamily housing within the current UGB (See HNA Figure 1, Rem Rec 10589). The proposed mix of 35% for future multi -family housing would allocate land for another 6,331 multi -family -Units. (See HNA Table 20, Rem Rec 10659). The construction of these units would increase the inventory of multi -family housing from 8,467 units to 14,798 total units, an increase of 74%over the'planning period (2014-2028). The City finds that increasing the supply of multi -family attached units as proposed will satisfy Goal 10. Doing so will add more land that will: be available -for the development of multi -family housing, including housingfor which a:subsidy will be required to assist households in paying rent. In addition, this new supply of multi family attached units -will be available to households who earn 50% orless of median income (MFI) and for.whom multi -family housing is the type of housing within their means'to,rent. Such households represent approximately 34% of all householdsin Bend in 2013 (See HNA Table 19, Rem Rec 10654). The Council finds that the City began a proactive approach to support the development of affordable housing in 2006 by developing and implementing a program focused on development of affordable housing. This program is funded through Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and similar funds made to certain cities to support the development of affordable housing. The City implemented an affordable housing fee in 2006, which serves as a surcharge on permits". These funds are made available to assist developers of affordable housing in funding projects and/or securing additional funding for projects. In addition to this funding source, the City implemented incentives for affordable housing developers in the form of " Information the City's affordable housing program and fee are available through the City's website - htto://www. bendoreaon.cov/index.aspx?pane=99. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-18 expedited permit review processessystem development charge (SDC) deferrals, density bonuses, and permit fee waivers. With respect to this issue of affordable housing, the Council finds that the proposed UGB amendment aHocates sufficient buildable land for the development of such housing, in both the current UGB and in the expansion areas. The City already supports the development of affordable housing through its Affordable Housing PpoAnonn, which includes combination of funding sources and developer incentives. These resources are available to the developers of the affordable housing proposed in the expansion areas. In addithe proposed housing mix that includes 35% multi -family attached will provide land for the development of another 6,331 units of multi -family attached houoiOg, significantly increasing the supply of such housing. Several parties testifiedeither their or their clients' should be included in the UGB based on their individual proposals to provide what they described as affordable housing12. In addition to these parties, both Dewey (Rem Rec. 10154) and Dickson (Rem Rec. 10150) provided testimony that the City needed to do more to satisfy Goal 10, and that including this additional land was necessary for the development of affordable housing, and would assist the City in complying with Goal 10. The additional land for guaranteed affordable housing helPs oreate additional certainty that affordable housing targeting specific incorne levelswill be constructed in the planning period. The City finds that while the,e, additional lands will help the achieve its needed housing mix of 35% for multi -family, the penefit,they provide is the,proviSion of h6uSing that will be affordable to those households earning 30% to -;'60% of MIL The_ tity afsolinds that these same areas have the added benefit of being located-in'areas that are close to jobs, schools, parks, and services. The City has-i„proposed policies_14-the draftHousing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure sugh hoUsing is developed once these'respebtive areas are in the UGB and annexed to Based on this finding, the Council conclUdes the proposed measures to encourage the development dt additional multi -family attathed housing will also support the development of needed affordable -attached housing, and will therefore satisfy Goal 10. 9.2.10 Goa111, Public Fao les Services jut and To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of ublic nd setvices to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 11 because it includes a plan to develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a 12 Findings in Section 7, UGB Location; See also Minutes of April21, 2016 USC meeting at Rem Rec. 10144. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-19 framework for future urban development in the existing UGB and in the UGB expansion areas. For this proposal, the City is focusing on the needed water, sewer, stormwater, and transportation infrastructure needed to serve the development of land inside the current UGB and in the UGB expansion. The City's PFPs for water, sewer collection, transportation, and stormwater are all adopted and acknowledged13. The proposal is based upon transportation and sewer modeling that evauated several boundary expansion scenarios. The Council finds that the City has an acknowledged transportation system plan, and the proposal's consistency with this plan and Goal 12 are addressed in subsequent findings. OAR 680-U12-OOOU/4\allows aTSP adopted pursuant toOAR 06O.Division 12.hmfulfill the requirements for public facilities required under ORS 1S7.712/2\(e).Goal 11.and Chapter 80O. Division 11, as they re!ate to transportation facilities. For the purpose of this finding, the City focuses on sanitary sewer with respect to sewer collection. The City's plan for expansion and imprvement of the city's wastewater treatment facility was acknowledged in 2010 with the Partial Acknowledgement/Remand Order (Rem Rec 5871). . . The project team worked with the Boundary andGnn^th rios TAC (Boda TAG) during Phase 1 of the remand project to develop State 2 Base Mapping indicators and Stage 4 Scenario Evaluation performance measures that incorporated indicators and performance measures for sewer collection and transportation. The UGB Steering Committee approved the Stage 2 indicators and,Stage 4 performance measures at their March 2015 meeting (Rem Rec. 3635). These indicators and performance measuris were tie'd to Statewide Planning Goal 14 Factor 2: Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services. In addition to the indicators and performanCe measures, the USC approved Stage 2 base maps that used these In the suMmer of 2015, as the City evaluated six (6) UGB expansion scenarios and eight (8) subareas for a final UGB expansion scenario. In evaluating these scenarios and expansion subareas, the City relied upon the Stage 4 performance measures approved in March 2015. The results of this analysis were presented to both the Boundary TAC and the USC in October 2015, and included the results of the analysis of transportation and sewer optimization15. The Boundary TAC recornmended and the USC ultimately approved Scenario 2.1 E on which the consultant team conducted an additional round of optimization modeling for both water and 13 Official Notice — The City takes official notice of the adopted and acknowledged public facility plans for water, sewer collection, stormwater, and transportation for the City of Bend. wSeemeeUngpauhethxMaroh10.2O15UBSUaohngCnmmittoaMeeUng.AppmndixE `»SeeRemRao0851fovUhebanoportationanm|yoio.SeeRemReoG783fordhamewmrooUecUon analysis by MSA. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-20 sewer collection. This modeling was documented in the Bend Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Scenarios Evaluation Report (October 1, 2015) (Rem Rec 6631). Murray Smith Associates conducted a separate sanitary sewer analysis and documented the results of this analysis in an October 1, 2015 technical memorandum (Rem Rec 6783). The City's project team worked with a technical advisory committee to develop evaluation criteria for considering and comparing UGB expansion areas. The project team relied upon these criteria and the City's adopted and acknowledged PFPs to evaluate potential expansion areas, and to ensure that opportunity areas within the existing UGB have adequate infrastructure. The analysis presented in the October 1, 2015 Expansion Scenarios Report, including its appendices of sewer and transportation analysis, further identified improvements that would be needed to serve this future urban development: Based on the forgoing, the City finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 11. 9.2.11 Goal 12, Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The Council finds that the proposal for changes to land within the existing UGB satisfies Goal 12 because it has been designed to: • Coordinate transportation planning with the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization; • Meet the transportation needs of the proposed changes to land uses within the existing UGB while reducing reliance on the automobile; - • Addresses therequirements` of Division12, 0035 as directed by the Remand Order; and • Avoid significant effects tothte-.existing transportation system. Findings demonstrating compliance with OAR; 660-1Z Sections 16, 35, and 60 are addressed in Section8` The Goal `14 Administrative Rule (OAR660-12-020(1)(d)) recognizes that: The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 need not be applied to a :UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining:the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim zoning that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary. Bend Development Code 4.6.600 (Transportation Planning Rule Compliance) requires that: When a development application includes a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment or land use district change, or both, the proposal shall be reviewed to determine whether it significantly affects a transportation facility, in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060. [Ord. NS -2016, 2006]. Therefore, the City has met the criteria of OAR 660-12-020(1)(d). Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-21 9.2.12 Goal 13, Energy Conservation To conserve energy. The Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 13 because it has been designed to conserve energy and to maximize the conservation of energy. The proposal achieves this by directing more growth in housing and employment to opportunity areas inside the existing UGB, considering energy in the evaluation and arrangement of land uses in UGB expansion areas, and ensuring that the areas added to the UGB are well connected to the transportation system in the UGB. The Council finds that the proposal directs most of the projected housing and employment growth to areas within the current UGB (Rem Rec 10814). This element of the proposal includes changing the zoning and the plan designations of lands within nine (9) opportunity areas within which the City will focus on more=dense residential and employment development. This element of the proposal will help the City in reducing reliance on the automobile, by making walking, bicycling and using transit more possible with shorter trips. The record includes analyses cited above under prior findings that referred to indicators and performance measures used to evaluate UGB expansion scenarios (Rem Rec 6631). These performance measures include, but were not limited to: housing units within walking distance of schools, parks, and commercial services;' household VMT/capita;,greenhouse gas emissions; household energy uses; household water usage, and; housing and jobs within walking distance to future transit corridors. Energy conservation was`a factor in'evaluating subareas for expansion. Finally, the Council;: finds that:the meets `Goal 13 because it provides for connectivity between: existing neighborhoods in the UGB and;theareas included in UGB expansion. The proposed amendments to the Bend:TSP show theroad extensions into and through the UGB expansion;. areas, showing lhOw, people: will move through these same corridors using the automobile, walking, bicycling, and potentially transit. Based on the forgoing finding, the Council finds the proposal satisfies Goal 13. 9.2.13 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. The Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 14 because the City has developed it according to the requirements of the Goal 14 administrative rule (OAR 660-024) and by following the boundary location analysis process outlined in 1000 Friends v. Land Conservation Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-22 and Development Commission and City ofMcMinnville, 244{JrApp 238(2O11) (Rem Rao 2158). The Council finds that the versions of Goal 14, its inting administrative rule, and ORS 197.298 are those versions that were in effect in June 2007 when the City submitted its original UGB proposal to DLCD16. The City has prepared findings that address the 2007 version of OAR 660-024 that are presented in Section 7 above. These flndings further show that the City relied onwhat |ereferred toas"Priority 2^land under ORS 197.2SG(1)(b). The City has no statutory urban reserves that were approved pursuant to ORS 195.145, and has included no lands identified as marginal lands under ORS 197.247/1991 Edition). The proposed UGB expansion does not include any resource land under ORS 197.298(1)(d). The Council finds that the City has satisfied the 2007 version of Goal 14 because it demonstrated a need to amend the UGB to accommodate future urban population and job growth within the Bend UGB17. To summarize, the City has inventoried its buildable lands in the current UGB for both housing and employment. The City has forecasted future needs for housing and employment based on the 20 year population forecast for the UB. The City determined that a UGB expansion is needed to provide 20 -year suppUes of land for needed housing and economic opportunities. Before coming to the conclusion a UGB expansion was justified, the City evaluated potential efficiency measures through which the City could reasonably accommodate additional housing and employment in the current UGB. The City has foflowed Goal 14 to developcriteria for u ngn^itab|e|mndo formwpansion.andmzrnpo| d andavm/uateddifferontUGB' expansion mubonaao/and scenarios. The City has already presented forgoing findings establishing the need for land for needed housing and economic opportunities._ This need was established by establishing a need to accommodate -2028 -forecasts -of 1-15,063_people, 17,234 housing units, and 21,943 jobs18. Through the Urbanization Report, the City has documented the capacity of the current UGB to accommodate these units and jobs, including the improvements in capacity created through new efficiency measures. This report further presents the analysis of capacity that shows and supports the proposed expansion of 2,380 acres (Rem Rec 10822). The Urbanization Report further summarizes the process through which the City identified lands that were suitable for UGB expansion, developed indicators and performance measures for evaluating these lands, and then narrowed down for evaluation the number of UGB expansion scenarios to six (6) scenarios. The performance measures themselves were developed to `oSeeSubiseue01.pogom123-130cf the 2010 Remand Order (REM REC 5725). 17 See the Urbanization Report at REM REC 9679. mForthepnpu|adonandhousingunitforeoants.SeetheHnuningNeedoAna|ysio(2O18).REK4RED 10572; forthe employment forecast,See the Economic Opportunities Analysis, REM REC 10687 Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-23 demonstrate the City had weighed and balanced the Goal 14 boundary location factors (Rem Rec 6631)19. The Council finds that the City has further documented through forgoing findings that the six UGB expansion scenarios were narrowed down to a preferred scenario, Scenario 2.1G (Rem Rec 10170). This narrowing from six scenarios to one preferred scenario was conducted through a public process that involved both the Boundary and Growth Scenarios TAC and the UGB Steering Committee considering changes to the original starting point of Scenario 2.1. This process occurred over eight meetings between December 2014 and April 201620. The City has addressed how the proposal was developed according to the administrative rules that implement Goal 14, OAR 660-024, and found that the development of the proposed UGB amendment satisfied the applicable rules in this chapter and division. The City documented the process through which properties were evaluated for the UGB amendment in several resources, including the UGB Scenario Evaluation Report (Rem Rec 6209), the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814), and Section 7 of the Findings. The record includes testimony from a number of individuals and groups testifying in support of certain property being included, and testifying against property on the West side of Bend being included. The record does not include testimony that argues against expansion into other geographic directions (e.g. East or Southeast). The City understands this testimony to argue that certain properties should have been included in the UGB, and because these properties were already adjacent to the UGB, could be served with infrastructure, and/or provided some benefit to the City. State law (OAR 660-024, Goal 14, and ORS 197298), governs how the City must go about determining land needs for urban uses, and then evaluating properties if a need has been shown for additional land. These laws include several key sideboards on the determination of whether a UGB expansion is needed and was properly evaluated. Goal 14 outlines that the establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on a demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population. This population is based on the coordinated population forecast Deschutes County adopted in 200421. The population forecast for the City in 2028 is 115,063, and is based on the acknowledged population forecast of 109,389 for Bend in 2025. No evidence has been submitted to the record 19 See the Bend Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Scenarios Report (Rem Rec 6631), and its Appendices at Rem Rec 6737 and 6851. 20 See the Public Meeting Log with the finding addressing Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. 21 The 2004 Coordinated Forecast Report is the 2009 UGB Record at Rec 1980. The City and County coordinated on the development of the forecast between 2002 and 2004. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-24 to cause the re-evaluation of this forecast and the consideration of another forecast that should be adopted and acknowledged in its place. This forecast, and the employment forecast in the EOA provided the bases upon which the land need estimates were developed. The City needed approximately 2,380 acres of land, and had to select this amount from 5,400 acres of land that performed the best against the performance measures. The Council finds that the City has documented the process through which a study area was formed, properties were evaluated based on performance measures recommended by the Boundary TAC and approved by the USC, and then organized into potential UGB expansion subareas. These same subareas were considered in different configurations in different scenarios before the USC recommended Scenario 2.1A as the scenario for which additional evaluation would be conducted. The USC then considered several potential versions of this scenario, before deciding on April 21, 2016 to forward Scenario 2.1G to a public hearing. State law (OAR 660-024-0060) does not require the City to prepare findings explaining how each property in a study area was rated, whether it was to be included in the UGB or not, with additional findings explaining why not. State law allows, and the City chose, to consider larger geographic areas consisting of multiple properties to better allow needed housing and jobs in different configurations. State law also does not require the City to explain its decision of considering larger geographic areas instead of conducting a property by property comparison. The City decided early in the process to focus the analysis of potential areas for expansion on those rural residential, exception, and non -resource lands that were considered Priority 2 lands under ORS 197.298(1)(b). This means that the City would not consider any lands designated as resource lands — those lands designated for agriculture or forest uses — under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. None of these lands are included in the proposed UGB expansion. In Bend's case, there was more Priority 2 land than the City needed for UGB expansion; -and the -City used-ttre-Goal 14 -factors to -evaluate, weigh, and balance which exception lands areas would best meet the City's needs. In October 2015, the USC directed the team to use Scenario 2.1, with certain changes of theirs, as the scenario to use for further infrastructure evaluation and refinement. This scenario went through multiple modifications between the Boundary TAC's next meeting on December 14, 2015, and the final version of Scenario 2.1 (2.1G), considered by the USC at their April 21, 2016 meeting. Each round of changes came at the direction of the Boundary TAC and/or the USC, none of which reflected a final decision on the boundary. The project team presented changes to the scenario at each public meeting (of the Boundary TAC and USC), and each committee received public comment at their respective meetings that included comment directed at changes to Scenario 2.1 and why they should or should not have been made. Based on the forgoing, the Council finds that the proposal satisfies Goal 14. Conclusion: Based on the forgoing findings, the City finds that the proposal satisfies and is consistent with all of the applicable statewide planning goals. Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-25 Findings Report July 2016 Section 9-26 10. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES OF BEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 101 Preface of Bend Area General Plan (1998) Changes proposed by individuals or other agencies. A proposal by an individual, corporation, or public agency to change to the Plan text, land use map, other exhibits, or policies shall be considered as determined by the procedures ordinance. A person or agency proposing a change has the burden to demonstrate a public need and benefit for the change. In response to the directives of the Remand Order, updated Community priorities, and an extensive community process, the Council has proposed changes to various chapters of the Bend Area General Plan. In addition, the Council is initiating forrnatting and minor corrective text changes to the City's General Plan, now referred to in this and subsequent findings as the Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The Council has prepared this finding to meet -the burden of demonstrating a public need and benefit for changes in the comprehensive plan. Within the Findings below, reference to existing Plan policies are shown in italics with the existing numbering. New Plan policies are shown using the new two -number system. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City _Council. --These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City dtBend. The applicable State-land:Use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARsf.'The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. - . In this context, the CounCII-proposes to amend Bends UGB, along with corresponding changes to plan designations and in some instances zoning and plan designations for several areas inside the boundary, changeajaplan designation for areas added to the boundary, and related changes in the taxt to the Plan -and the BDC to support future development in these areas. In addition to the directives of the 2010 LCDC Remand and Partial Acknowledgement Order, which contained responses to Objections to the City's prior UGB expansion ordinances and directives which require changes to the Plan, the need for these changes has been set forth in several documents, which -are -part of the factual base for the Plan amendments and boundary expansion analysis and will be adopted as Appendices to the Plan. These include: • BLI; Appendix J (Rem Rec 10513); • HNA; Appendix K (Rem Rec 10572); • EOA; Appendix E (Rem Rec 10687); and Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-1 • Urbanization Report; Appendix L (Rem Rec 10814)1. These findings address the applicable comprehensive plan policies required by Statewide Planning Goal 2 and ORS 197.175 related to the change being sought. In addition to the amendment to the urban growth boundary, the Council proposes to modernize the appearance of the Comprehensive Plan. The most obvious change is the formatting. All chapters have been converted to the new format which includes a change in the way policies are numbered. The new format is a two -number system. The first number indicates the chapter number; the second number separated by a hyphen indicates the policy number. Other proposed changes to the Plan are corrective in nature, and include deleting existing policies shown in these findings as existing policy numbers in italics. Where deleted, it is because either (1) they are obsolete as the directive within the policy has been accomplished or (2) they are no longer necessary as minor amendments to outdated text within the body of the individual chapters will better factually and legally support the urban growth boundary expansion. The minor text amendments will also be addressed in more detail in Section 11 of the Findings. 10.2 Chapter 1 — Plan Management and Citizen Involvement Policies General Policy Guidance 1-1 -The Goalsstated within ;this Cornprehei sive Plan are intended to be 'guiding and ,aspirational;; they are not regulatory policies. The Policies in the Comprehensive Plan areregulatory and are used as the basis for determining "consistency with;the Comprehensive Plan". Comprehensive Plan designations may be rearranged on a development site through the Type 111 Master Plan process in a way that will best meet individual development priorities while maintaining the same overall acreage 'of each designation and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies. The Council finds that--Policy:-0 has been added to provide general guidance to determine how to apply the goals and policies of the Plan; and that Policy 1-2 provides guidance for modifying the arrangement of Plan designations on property. This modification will typically apply to properties that are going through a Master Plan process within an opportunity area or as an Area Plan or Master Plan within the expansion area. These policies are implemented through the BDC. 1 These findings include remand record references for these documents in Sections 4, 5, and 7. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-2 Urban Planning Coordination 1-3 Growth in the Bend Area shall be managed through the cooperative efforts of the City of Bend and Deschutes County. 1-4 The city and special districts shall work toward the most efficient and economical method for providing their services within the UGB. The Council finds that, consistent with these policies and Statewide Planning Goal 2, the City and County have held regular coordination meetings to discuss issues on the urban growth boundary. The City of Bend and Deschutes County have a current Joint Management Agreement that outlines the duties and responsibilities of each. entity with regard to the management of the Bend Area. Similarly, the Council finds that the City has held meetings with special districts including the Bend-LaPine School District, BPRD,private utilities and affected irrigation districts throughout the process to ensure their concerns are addressed. Section 2 of the Findings provides a detailed chronology of work on the Bend UGB Remand, including meeting dates and topics. Development within the Urban Growth Boundary 1-7 The city will encourage compact development and the integration of land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary to reduce trips, vehicle miles traveled, and facilitate non-automobile travel::; 1-8 The city wilt, encourage°infill and redevelopment of the core area of the city. The Council finds that, consistent; with -the above 'Policies, the City evaluated the efficient use of existing urban land-and identified "opportunity areas" (Rem Rec 10814) within the City that are appropriate`for new development for jobs and housing due to their location, zoning, development status andor;proximityto urban services. The Council finds that these areas inside the current City limits-will provide needed housing and new opportunities for jobs thereby reducing vehiicle.miles traveled-(VMT) and minimizing the need for expansion of the boundary. The Council finds that the transportation analysis used in the evaluation of existing urban land also showed that infill and redevelopment could reduce VMT and facilitate other modes of transportation. As a result, the City has developed and will adopt an Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan (ILUTP) (Rem Rec. 10994) in support the UGB expansion. The Council finds that the ILUTP describes actions intended to reduce the amount of driving necessary to meet daily needs through a combination of actions, focused on Opportunity Areas, including: • Intensifying development; • Mixing land uses; • Providing complete streets to encourage walking, bicycling and transit; and • Implementing measures such as parking and demand management. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-3 Citizen Involvement 1-15 The city shall continue to use advisory committees in the planning process, members of which are selected by an open process, and who are widely representative of the community. 1-16 The city will use other mechanisms, such as, but not limited to, meetings with neighborhood groups, planning commission hearings, design workshops, and public forums, to provide an opportunity for all the citizens of the area to participate in the planning process. The Council finds that, throughout the UGB expansion process, the City implemented and extensively used a variety of public outreach efforts. At the core of the process were the Council -appointed TACs for Residential Lands, Economic Lands and the Boundary. These TACs have met 72 times since June 2011. Members of the TACs also appeared before the USC, which met 26 times since March 2011. In addition to the TAC work, the City maintained a public record of all documents created during the process and testimony submitted. The public record and these materials have been, and are accessible on the city's website, Chapter 1 Conclusions: The Council finds that the proposed UGB amendment is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies of Chapter 1, Plan Management and Citizen Involvement because the City has demonstrated compliance with,Chapter 1 policies by conducting an open and transparent public�process"that was inclusive of Bend's citizens, public interest groups, and public agencies. The proposal rs further supported by technical documents adopted and incorporated as appendices to the:;Plan: 10.3 Chapter 2 — Natural Features and ;Open Space he City`slall evaluate and adopt standards for the types of landscape materials and amount of open area buffers around structures that reduce the risk of loss from wildfires at the edge of the urban area. 2-1.3 The City;shall ensure through conditions of approval that development in the Urban. Reserve Area adjacent to or within one mile of lands designated -by the County's wildlife overlay zone incorporate setbacks or buffers to protect designated wildlife areas. The Council finds that the City's UGB process raised awareness of both wildfire risk and wildlife habitat protection; as a result, both wildfire and wildlife played a significant role in determining the future UGB. The Council finds that the City used wildfire risk as one of the performance measures for evaluating potential areas and scenarios for UGB Expansion2. The Council finds that the City considered the effects of development in wildlife areas when evaluating the UGB 2 See the UGB Scenario Evaluation Report, Rem Rec. 6209 Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-4 expansion scenarios.3 Section 7 of the Findings provides a description of the Factor 3 performance measures used in the Goal 14 boundary anatysis. Section 9 of these Findings address in detail goal compliance with Goal 5 (wildlife) and Goal 7(wi|dfive). tn addition to the poticies above, the Councit finds that the City has committed, through poliin Chapters 10 and 11 of the Plan, to identify strategies for reducing the risk of wildfire in and around the Bend urban area. Chapter 2 Conclusions: The Council finds that the City's proposed UGB consistent with the applicable Plan policies of Chapter 2, NatUral Features and Open Space as indicated above and demonstrated by the Goal 14 Boundary -analysis discussed in Section 7 of the Findings. The Council finds that the proposed UGB has minimized expansion into elk and deer winter range and minimizes the risk of wildfire hazard. 10.4 Chapter 3 — Community Connections 3-5 The City will apply a new for public oorksand facilities |O|`''area. �' � The Council finds that coordination with Bend Park and Recreation District has allowed the City to determine that there is a public need,for,additional land for parks4. The Council finds that designating new park and schpol sites within the Planhingarea as' -"Public Facilities" provides a level of certainty that the!lend will Pe developed for public parks in'the future. The Council finds that this supports the' TAC goal bfrdevelopingiPprtiplete coihrNhities. 3-6 The City will sqpport effoi4s:by the Park and Recreation District and = Bend-La:Pihe SohopIDistriCt_tp jointly develop school -park sites to meet , :neighboitiPOd park arid -School recreation needs. The CounciL!finds that, as part of the -qty's Goal 2 coordination efforts, the City has met with representatiVes of the BpRD 00 the behd_La Pine Schools District to ensure that adequate park and school:land is available as the City grows. The City relies on the BPRD District Comprehensive Plehand the School District's Comprehensive Plan for World Class Schools to inform the planning prOcess5. The Council finds that these plans are incorporated in land need analyses and findings ddbumerrited throughout the City's proposal and findings, notably the BLI and Urbanization Report (Rein Rec. 10513 and 10814). Chapter 3 Conclusions: The Council finds that the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814) acknowledges the land need established by the BPRD and the Bend La Pine School District through the year 2028. The Council finds that the City's proposed UGB amendment will » Ibid. See the Urbanization Report for this documentation, Rem Rec. 10814. 5SeealsptheCity'sFindingeonQna|2horonordinaUonwithafhsotedunhaof|ooa|govennmentinSeoUnn 9. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-5 accommodate the identified land needed for future schools and parks. Therefore, the Council finds that the proposed UGB expansion is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies of Chapter 3, Community Connections as indicated above. 10.5 Chapter 4 — Population and Demographics Policies The city shall review and update the urban area population forecast every five years. The city shall update income levels, household size, and other demographic information for the urban area after every U.S. census, or when other data for the City of Bend are available. The Council finds that the UGB Remand did not include a remand on the:City's population forecast. The City relied on the acknowledged,' Coordinated population forecast for 2025 and extended forward to develop a forecast of 115,063 in.2028.:The Director of DLCD concluded that this extension of the population forecast complied with applicable law6. The -Council finds that the City has demonstrated that the proposed UGB expansion is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Section 4 addresses Goal 10 with regard for needed housing and Section 5 addresses Goal 9 regarding;,employment. Chapter 4 Conclusions:The'Council finds that City's proposed UGB amendment is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive; Plan policies ofsChapter 4 Population and Demographics as indicated above. 10.6 Chapter: 5` --Hous# The Council finds that proposed UGB amendment directly responds to the policies of this Chapter." As; part of the proposed amen dment, the City updated the Buildable Lands Inventory (Rem Rec 1051:3), the Housing Needs Analysis (Rem Rec 10572) and has rewritten the Housing and Residential Lands. Chapter 5 to reflect the updated information. The chapter title has been shortened to Housing and new policies are being added. The intent of many of the existing policies have been retained and rewritten, re -organized, replaced and/or deleted. The new Chapter 5 plan policies are listed below by subject. Where necessary to demonstrate consistency with prior Chapter 5 Plan policies, those policies have been inserted as indicated below. 6 Official Notice — Report and Order of the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, January 8, 2010. This report is available online through: htto://www.oreaon.aov/LCD/docs/aeneral/directors report 001775.odf. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-6 Population Forecasts 5-1 The City will coordinate with and provide data to Portland State University for their preparation and regular update of a coordinated 50 -year population forecast for the Urban Growth Boundary. 5.2 Using the new coordinated 50 -year forecast, the City will, within 5 years after acknowledgment of the current update becomes final and no bnger subject to appeal, initiate a su| nto| UGB and/or urban reserve area planning to demonstrate continuing compliance with state needed hsing laws for a new full 20 -year planning period. 5-3 The City will use regular updates of population forecasts and Housing Needs Analyses to monitor' housing trends relative to the planned housing mix, densities, location, and affordability assumed within the Urban Growth Boundary. The CouncU finds to reflect the new approach to regular updates the population forecasts end related updates to the Housing Needs Analysis. The Council finds that these Policies acknoWledge the City's commitment to maintain sufficient residential lend to accommodate needed housing units under Statewide Planning Goal Housing Mix, Density and:Affordability . The City,',011F60-01y;-Fij'an_designetions, zoning districts and development Cede regulafjons to iMplement the mix of housing indicated in the adopted The um densities shown on the PIan Map is to maintain proper relationships between proposed public facilities and services ati,c1 population distribution. One purpose of minimum densities is to:assure efficiency of land use, particularly for larger sites. Another is to encourage development of housing in locations and at densities that suppbti healthy, accessible, and affordable housing choices. 5-6 Upon application, the City shall zone residentia lands in accordance with their plan d ' nations, and without a separate showing of public need, subject only to conditions, if applicable, requiring annexation or availability of public sewer or public water before occupancy. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-7 5-7 The City wfll continue to create incentives for and remove barriers to development of a variety of housing types in al! residential zones, consistent with the density ranges and housing types aflowed in the zones. This policy is intended to implement the City's obligation under the State Housing Goal to "encourage the avaUability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the flnancial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for fiexibility of housing Iocation, type, and density". The City will apply innovative and flexible zoning tools to support a mix of housing types and densities. The Coil findthat th|i[j 5-4 thh 5-8 are primarily new existing policies. New Policy 5-5 above replaces policy 21 (below) to articulate the purpose of minimum and maximum densities and to provide policy support for the proposed efficiency measures relating to minimum densities. The Council finds that the City needs these new policies to encourage the availability of a more diverse housing stock and provide a greater incentives for development of infill and the efficient use of land within the current City limits. The Council finds that the City has identified specific efficiency measures to be accomplished by changes to the BDC, which include an increaSe in,the miniMum density in the RS zone from 2 units to 4 units per acre and an increase in the maXiMum density for the RL zone from 2 units to 4 units per acre. The re -written policy puts -emphasis on achieving'higher minimum densities with a variety of .-- Other corresponding existing policies for the Housing, Density and Affordability section are shown b8klmk'��'�� � '�� Densities recommended on the Plan shall be recognized in order to maintain proper relationships hetviieen proposed public facilities and services and 23. The -city shall rezone residential lands to the designated General Plan densities when sewer service is available to the area. 24. Accessory dwellings to a single family home may be allowed in new subdivisions or Planned Unit Dethat the maximum General Plan density is not exceeded. The city will calculate accessory dweffing density using the same fraction of a fuJi dwelling unit provided in the Systems Development Charges resolution. The Council finds it remains the goal of the City to provide sewer to all lands within the existing City limits and the expansion areas; however, goal is expressed in Chapter 8 policies, therefore Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-8 the existing policy 23 is redundant and is deleted. The Council finds that, in order to promote affordable housing, potentially increase the supply of rental housing, and as an efficiency measure, the BDC was amended in early 2016 to allow accessory dwellings as a permitted use; therefore, policy 24 is no longer needed for direction in the Comprehensive Plan and is also deleted. 5-9 The City and County will support public and private non-profit and for- profit entities that provide affordable housing in Central Oregon. 5-10 The City and County will coordinate with each other and other affected governments as required by the State Housing Goal to ensure that "the needs of the region are considered in arriving at a fair allocation of housing types and densities" and that "needed housing is provided on a regional basis through coordinated comprehensive plans". 5-11 The City will continuously monitor the yield of efficiency measures as required by the state needed housing statute and publish the results on its Growth Management Documents website not less than once a year. 5-12 To promote complete neighborhoods and the integration of other supporting uses. the City will employ a master planning process for large development sites which are'20.acres or greater. The master plan process will offer two options for approval 1) applying clear and objective standards or 2) applying, discretionary= standards for more flexibility. 5-13 Existing Residential Standard density areas that are adjacent to commercial-orsmixed.use development may be re -designated for Residential; Medium and=:_High`. densitydevelopment. 5-14 The City will support re -designation of suitable low density areas that are within`015-minute. walk to transit corridors for medium -density development. 5-15' . The City shall employ special redevelopment standards and other strategies==for manufactured home parks as an incentive to retain and redevelop existing affordable housing stocks at affordable prices and rent levels: 5-16 The City may consider density bonuses as an incentive to providing affordable housing. 5-17 The City will monitor parking needs for residential uses and set parking requirements to the lowest standards that will meet the community's needs in order to reduce land utilized for parking, reduce the cost of housing development, and encourage a more walkable development Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-9 pattern. 5-18 The City will assist in identifying, obtaining and leveraging funding sources for the development of new housing for very low, low, and moderate - income residents, as determined by appropriate percentages of Area Median Family income in the Housing Needs Assessment. 5-19 The City will monitor the results of actions and programs funded through the use of the City's Affordable Housing Fee Trust Fund. 5-20 When affordable housing development is required by City policy or code or to meet eligibility criteria for a City incentive program or a policy requirement, affordable housing rn6ans-housing with a sales price or rental amount that is within the means of a household that may occupy moderate- and low-income housing. Unless otherwise specified, affordable housing must meet one of the thresholds defined below. Nothing in this policy prevents the city from providing support for housing at other levels of affordability: o In the case of dwelling units for sale, affordable means housing in which the -Mortgage, amortized interest, taxes, insurance, and condominium or association fees, if any, constitute no more than 30 percent of such gross annual household income for a for a family at 80% of the Methanincome, based upon most recent HUD Income Limits for the Bend Metropolitan Statistical Area (Bond MSA). O -In-Ah-case-tifdwellin4--iinits for rent, affordable means housing for which the rent and utilities constitute no more than 30 percent of such gross annual household income for a family at 60% of the area median income, based upon most recent HUD Income Limits for the Bend MSA. 5-21 In order to ensure the continued affordability of affordable housing that has beehlcommitted by a property owner or required by the City, the City may: o Specify a minimum number of years that affordability must be maintained; o Require an applicant to demonstrate how affordability will be ensured throughout the specified period, including addressing how units will be made available to households meeting the targeted income level, resale/recapture for ownership units, and/or rent increases for rental units, as applicable; Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-10 o Establish phasing requirements for construction of affordable housing units; o Condition land use approvals to implement affordable housing requirements; o Require restrictive covenants, deed restrictions, and/or related instruments as deemed necessary by the City; and/or o Require other measures deemed necessary by the City. The Council finds that policies 5-9 through 5-21 are primarily:new policies or re -worded existing policies. The Council finds that these policies stress the importance of providing a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a broad range of Bend's population. The Council finds that the City has implemented a variety of efficiency measures in conjunction with the UGB expansion to remove barriers for developing affordable housing. The applicable corresponding existing policies are shown below. 26. The city shall evaluate the community's housing mix and density levels every five years beginning in 2000. 27. When new commercial centers are created in- developing residential areas, the city and county may allow up to 20 acres of medium -density residential housing within one-eighth__ of a mile of the commercial center. 28. Existing low-density residential areas that are adjacent to commercial or mixed use development at the south or north ends of the commercial corridor may be re -designated for medium -density development. The Coundjl-finds that existing Policy 26 was replacedwith a new policy 5-3 under Population`Forecasts to specifically: avoid references to specific years for tasks to be completed that become outdated quickly, The Council finds that Policies 27 and 28 are outdated and -limit the number of acres that could be rezoned to multi -family regardless of need or location.; The Council finds that the City has established a need for more multi- family housing through the Housing Needs Analysis, and also wants the flexibility to consider potential changes to support development of new multi -family housing on a case by case basis. Therefore, existiing,policies 27 and 28 have been replaced with new policies 5-13 and 5-14. Residential Compatibility 1. Future development and local development standards shall recognize and respect the character of existing areas. 2. In areas where existing urban level development has an established lot size pattern, new infill subdivision or PUD developments shall have a compatible lot Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-11 transition that respects the number of adjoining lots, lot size and building setbacks of the existing development while developing residential densities within the range for the underlying zone. New developments may have smaller lots or varying housing types internal to the development. 3. The development of infill areas may, as an alternative to the standard subdivision review process, proceed through a public involvement process that would allow the maximum flexibility of design and provide for neighborhood participation. The Council finds that existing policies 1-3 are inconsistent with the City's proposed efficiency measures for developing urban levels of housing and encouraging the efficient use of land and are therefore deleted. 5-22 Private and public nonresidential uses are necessary and will be encouraged within residential areas for the convenience and safety of the residents. Such facilities shall be compatible with surrounding developments, and their appearance should enhance the area. 5-23 Of necessity, nonresidential uses may abut residentially planned and zoned areas in different parts of the community. In these instances, nonresidential uses will be _subjected to=special development standards such; as setbacks, landscaping, sign regulations, and building design that harmonizeand provide transitions consistent`with the primary purposes of ie adjacent'; zones. The Council finds that the; policies_referenced above represent the re -wording of existing policies andhemphasize complete communities both inside the existing UGB and within the areas included in the UGB expansion. The rewording of the existing policies build on the intent and purpose of the goals: of the UGB-amendme"rif and provide clarity and better direction for future growth. 5-24 Homes built to HUD Class A manufactured home standards will be permitted either in manufactured home parks, or on individual lots. Non - Class Amanufactured homes may be allowed in manufactured home parks;°or'as replacement for non -conforming manufactured homes subject to conditional use approval standards that are clear and objective and that encourage retention and replacement of existing affordable housing stock. 5-25 Homes built to HUD manufactured home standards located on individual Tots in areas already developed with conventional housing shall be subject to special siting standards as provided by the state needed housing law. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-12 5-28 Manufactured and modular homes meeting IRC Modular and CABO building code standards shall be permitted on the same basis as site - built homes. 5-27 Private covenants and deed restrictions recorded hereafter that support compact urban form, higher densities and better access to affordable housing are encouraged as supportive of City policy. The Councfl findsthat thU i 5-24 thh 5-27 conform to State law and support the Council goal of retaining of affordable dwellings. Policies 5-24 through 5-26 are existing policies that have been reworded to provide better guidance and clarity for manufactured homes standards. Policy 5-27 is a new policy added to encourage desired private sector behavior and build on the intent and purpose of the goals of the UGB amendment Manufactured housing continues to be an affordable housing type for a segment of Bend' population (Rem Rec 9526- 9527). 5-28 Neighborhood commercial shopping areas may be located within residential districts and shall have deVelopment standards that appropriately limit theirscale and recognize their residential setting. 5-29 In many cases, sMall horhe-based businesses are a legitimate use within,:reSidential areas, and !I* be:permitterisubject to design and 5-30 Certain private recreational uses, such as golf courses or tennis courts, may rated into residentiaareas provided the _lopation:s,design, and Operatiomare compatible with surrounding residentiardevelopmentS and do not prevent development of lands inventoried for heeded housing to minimum density standards. 5431 Residential areas will offer a wide variety of housing types in locations best suited;Ao a range of housing types, needs and preferences. The Council finds thateXisting policies above were retained in the updated Chapter 5 and that these existing policies pre,siipportive of the UGB Expansion goals of providing complete neighborhoods. 12. Rehabilitation or redevelopmentof older residential areashall be The Council finds that existing poli12 shown above is very broad and doos not provide guidance for planning or land use decisions and is often confused with preservation of historic sites and structures which are addressed in Chapter 3. Therefore, this policy is deleted. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-13 Neighborhood Appearance 5-32 Above -ground installations, such as water and sewer pumping stations, power transformer substations or natural gas pumping stations, shall be screened and designed to blend with the character of the area in which they are located. 5-33 All new developments shall include trees in the road right of way, as practical, in the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. 5-34 Walls and fences along arterial or collector streets shall be subject to special design standards. The area between the fence or wall and the curb or pavement, shall be landscaped. 5-35 All residential development will respect the natural ground cover of the area and existing and mature trees within the community`. should be preserved where practicable. 5-36 The City encourages flexibility in design to promote safety, livability and preservation of natural features. To that end, the City will provide development code standards to allow flexibility on dimensional standards, such as~:lot size and setbacks,;toachieve these objectives. 5-37 -_Hillside areas -shall be given special consideration in site design by both thedeveloper and local regulations. Building sites, streets, and other improvemeits°`shall'be designed and permitted in a manner that will minimize excessive cuts and fills and other erosion -producing changes. (Note. see related policies in Chapter 10, Natural Forces.) The Council finds that new policies 5-32 through 5-37 retain much of the intent of the existing policies but were re -worded for clarity. Policy 5-36 represents the blending of the existing policies 18 and 19shown 18. The cityencourages flexibility in design to promote safety, livability and preservation of natural features. Lot sizes as small as 4,000 square feet may be applied for in the RS zone to meet these objectives. 19. To encourage flexibility in design and preservation of natural features in areas planned for medium density housing. Lots as small as 2,500 square feet shall be allowed in the RM -10 and RM zoning districts. The Council finds that new policy 5-36 is supportive of the City's proposed efficiency measures and eliminates specific lot sizes that could be interpreted as development standards. The City's proposed efficiency measures are intended to remove barriers to developing affordable housing Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-14 and encourage a greater variety of housing types. The ability to develop smaller lot sizes provides flexibility in design and provides opportunities for affordable housing. 16. Walls and fences in the setback area between the front of the house and the adjacent street shall not exceed 3Y2 feet in height. The Council finds that existing policy 16 shown above is written as a design standard and is better contained in the BDC; therefore policy 16 is deleted from the new Chapter 5. Transportation Connectivity 5-38 Medium -and high-density residential developments should have good access to transit (preferably within % mileof transit corridors), K-12 public schools, commercial services, employment and public open space to provide the maximum accessto the highest concentrations of population. 5-39 Street widths on residential lOcal streets shall be as narrow as reasonably possible to preserve safety, and limitthe effects of surface, runoff and excessive vehicle speed. 5-40 The City may require adjustments to the street design in order to discourage high speed traffic on local residential streets. 5.41 -fin--011reSidehtial areas the City shall encourage the use of open space amenities such as landscaped traffic islands or extra -width planting strips. ,s- 5.42 Schools and Orks may be distributed throughout the residential sections of the community, and dwelling units should have safe and convenient access to schools and parks. = 5-43 The aty-vviii coordinate with the school and parks districts to ensure that the respective plansofeach local government are coordinated and consistent with state law. Sidewalks will be required in all new developments. Separated sidewalks will_berequired on all new streets. However, an alternative system of walkways that provide adequate pedestrian circulation may be approved. 5-45 Per the City's Transportation Systems Plan, the City will complete or connect priority walkways on routes to schools, parks, or commercial areas. 5-44 5-48 Bikeways shall be considered as a transportation element, and adequate facilities shall be provided as a part of new development. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-15 5-47 Efforts will be made to extend tras, pedestrianvvayo.and bikeways through existing residential areas. Existing trails, pedestrianvvoyo.and bikeways will be extended through new developments to allow further extension and promote aternative modes of travel. 5-48 The City will encourage pedestrian scale block Iength to encourage connectivity and pedestrian access. When existing conditions or topography prevent a cross street, a pedestrian accessway to connect the streets may be required. 5~49 Residential local streets shall be developed whenever practicable to increase connectivity within and between neighborhoods. 5-50 Cul-de-sac and "hammer -head" residential streets may be allowed only where existing development, steep slopes, open space, or natural features prevent connections, or when the objectives of connectivity are met within the neighborhood. 5-51 The City will consider the need or emergency equipment access for any new development. The Council finds that, in addition to transportatiompolicies fotind in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan, transportation poliaies 5-38.throu9h 5-51 relate specifically to housing and residential ctOidlopment:T7hese polid6s aro-re-wOrdedlor clarity and guidance. Policy 5-41, 5-49 and 5-50'pre retained,in their entirety. Policy 5-43 is a new policy which emphasizes the importance of 0).02 and th,_ .'City's coordination with other agencies. - 5-52 All'reSidentiat areas will be provided with community water and sewer , serviceS-and other facilities necessary for safe, healthful, convenient 2 urban liVing consistent with the density of development. 5-53 -Residentiatdevelopment shall be coordinated with other land use elementS'and community facilities that are consistent with projected houping densities. 5-54 Electric power, telephone, teiephone, and cab!e TV distribution and service lines shall be Iocated underground in new developments. 5-55 New street names shall be unique within the County. The Council finds that related policies on public facilities can also be found in Chapter 1, Plan Management and Chapter 8, Public Facilities and Services of the Plan. Of the policies Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-16 referenced above, policies 5-52, 5-53 and 5-55 are retained in their entirety. Policy 5-52 is modified but retains the intent of the existing policy. The modified policy is more concise and provides clarity and direction. Policy 47 is deleted as indicated below. 47. Street lighting shall be provided in all new subdivisions at the time of development. Street light fixtures shall be shielded to direct light down. The existing policy 47 above is a mandatory statement rather than a policy, and is more consistent with BDC language and for that reason, is deleted. Destination Resorts 5-56 A destination resort within the Urban Area Reserve may be served by municipal water and sewer service or an approved community water and sewer service for domestic use compliant with state law. 5-57 Properties that are eligible for destination resort development will lose that eligibility upon inclusion into the UGB. The Council finds that there are numerous -existing policies relating to destination resorts in the Comprehensive Plan, and that most provide direction on designating lands for destination resorts within the Urban Area Reserve ordevelopment standards for destination resorts. The Council finds that the policies referenced above directly address how the City will treat properties with destination resort eligibility that are adjacent to -the UGB or are included within an expansion area. Policy 5-56 is an existing policy that has been slightly reworded to provide clarity. Policy 5-57 is anew policy which is an important part of the UGB expansion assumptions and.future planning for urban_ reserve areas. All other existing policies regarding destination` resorts are indicated below. In addition to`lands excluded from eligibility for destination resort siting under state law, the following lands within the Urban Area Reserve shall not be mapped as eligible for destinationresort siting: (a) All lands owned by public agencies. (b) All landszoned for surface mining. (c) All `lands zoned SR -2 Y2 and all lands platted for subdivisions. (d) Land for which contiguous area not otherwise removed from eligibility is less than 160 acres, except where adjoining land under the same ownership outside the Urban Area Reserve is mapped with the Deschutes County destination resort (DR) overlay. (e) Single parcels, or adjoining parcels in the same or related ownership (including lands outside the Urban Area Reserve) of less than 160 acres. (f) Lands not adjacent to either (1) F1 zoning, or (2) Deschutes County destination resort (DR) overlay adjoining F1 zoning. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-17 50. Destination resorts, as defined by state law, shall only be allowed in areas designated for such use as shown on the adopted destination resort map. An exception to statewide goals relating to agricultural lands, forestlands, public facilities and services or urbanization is not needed for development of a destination resort on the eligible lands in the urban area. 51. A destination resort within the Urban Area Reserve shall be served by municipal water and sewer service or an approved community water and sewer service for domestic use. 52. No destination resort master plan shall be approved in the Urban Area Reserve until the county, pursuant to its management agreement with the city, has adopted destination resort development standards that, at a minimum, satisfy the standards in state law. 53. Any destination resort developed within the Urban Area Reserve shall provide a sufficient open space buffer between any development and the Deschutes National Forest lands to protect against wildfires and to protect the scenic values and wildlife values of the forest. 54. Destination resorts shall provide, for any arterial or collector streets that are shown on the transportation system; plan map to -be extended through the site, or as needed_as aresult of a traffic study. . 55. Destination resorts shall provide forpedestrian-rtand bicycle access through the development from the urban area to the National Forest and/or other public lands such as parks, scenic"areas, and designated trails. The Councilffn "s„ at existing spolicies 4above=are a carry-over from the initial General 9�Pn, 9. —, Plan adopted in 1981 and, established an UGBland: a non -statutory urban reserve area boundary for the City of Bend. The:; Urban Area Reserve is located in the outer boundary, under the jurisdiction, of Deschutes County. The finds that the City has no regulatory authority to implement' these policies and' -they are therefore deleted. Refinement Plan Areas, 5-58 A refinement plan that includes residential areas may prescribe residential density limits on specific properties which differ from the density range provided for in the General Plan. However, the average density of residential development allowed within a refinement plan area shall not be less than 80 percent or more than 100 percent of the maximum density, including applicable density bonuses or transfers, prescribed for the area by its pre-existing comprehensive plan map designations. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-18 The Council finds that Refinement PJanning is defined by State statute and is different from Master Planning as defined by the City. PoIicy 5-58 was modified but retained much of the intent of the existing policy. The modified policy includes specific density ranges required for a refinement plan in order to achieve residential efficiency measures identified in the Plan. Related policies on refinement plans can also be found in Chapter 1, Plan Management of the Plan 57. The Lava Ridge Refinement Plan is adopted as part of the Bend Area General 58. If the city and county do not adopt refinement plans for the two study areas shown on Figures 22A and 22B by January 2000, the RL zoned land in those areas shall be rezoned to RS. The Council finds that existing policies 57 and 58 are obsolete and no longer necessary. The Lava Ridge Refinement Plan was adopted as amappendix of the Plan and has been codified in the BDC. The Lava Ridge Refinement Plan area was rezoned; a second refinement Plan area called Hollygrape was never finalized and the area has since been zoned RS. Therefore, these two policies are deleted. Chapter 5 Conclusions: The Council finds that the proposed,,UGB amendment directly responds to both the new policies as aniehded and existing policies of Chapter 5. As part of the proposed amendment, tha Oity:updated the BuildabJeLands inventory (Rem Rec 10513), the Housing Needs Analysia`(Rem-Rec. 10572) and_hae-,rewritterr,the new Housing, Chapter 5 (Rem Rec 10310) to reffect the updated inforMation. The Council finds that, concurrent with the UGB Expansion, the City has propoSed numerodS,afficiency measures implemented through the Development Code (see Section1I'Pindings)'arid that the efficiency measures remove barriers td_develciphient and encdOrage highar denSity development, a greater variety of housing t,"-tpes and encourages the -development Ofaffordable housing. Therefore, the Council finds thafthe City's propoSad,LJGB aitlendment is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policieapf- chapter 5, HouSing. -" 10.7 Chapter 0;7- The EcOriomy and Lands for Economic Growth FINDINGS: The Cou* findathat, as part of the UGB amendment, the City updated the Buildable Lands Invento6i(kaai-Rec 10513) and the Economic Opportunities Analysis (Rem Rec 10687) and has rewritten The Economy and Lands for Economic Growth; Chapter 6, now referred to in this and subsequent findings as Economy (Rem Rec 10326). The new Chapter 6 reflects the updated information and new policies have been added. The Council finds that the intent of many of the existing policies have been retained and several have boen rewritten for clarification, re -organized, replaced or deleted. The Chapter 6 plan policies are Iisted below by subject. These policies contain a new numbering system that references the Chapter number foUowed by the policy number, Where necessary to demonstrate consistency with prior Chapter Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-19 6 Plan policies, those italics. policies have also been included with the original numbering and shown in Section 5 Findings provide a complete discussion on the Economy of Bend and the compliance with Goal 9. General Policies 6-1 6-2 Bend's economic lands (commercial, industrial and mixed use) serve Bend residents and the needs of a larger region. Bend is a regional center for health care, art and culture, higher education, retail, tourism, and employment. The economic land policies recognize Bend's role in the region, and the need to support uses that bolster the local and regional economy: o The Medical District Overlay Zone provides economic lands for a variety of health care and related services to a -population much larger than the City of Bend.' o Commercial and Mixed Use -designated lands support retail, tourism, and arts'_and culture uses to serve a local and regional role. o Public Facility and Special Plan:TDistricts support higher education to serve Bend residents and the= needs of the region. Industrial and Mixed -Employment -designated land located at un per`Ridge-has a`tocal and regional role. Investment-'intransportation. water, sewer, fiber, and other utility infrastructure should be prioritized to serve economic lands. Infrastructure will be planned, designed, and constructed to support continued: economic growth and orderly development. 6-6 The Bend -Municipal Airport is one of the City's highest -value economic development assets. Bend will coordinate with Deschutes County to create policies and development regulations that ensure long-term employment growth at the airport. Employment lands for Bend's target sectors will be provided and protected to promote expansion of existing businesses and attract new businesses. 6-7 Bend will diversify its economic base to withstand expansions and contractions in the business cycle. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-20 6-8 The City will recognize the statements of the City's overall economic development objectives and desirable types of employment contained in the 2016 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). 6-9 The City will prioritize providing an adequate number of suitable industrial sites while also providing a variety of commercial sites. 6-10 The City will seek opportunities to designate or allow additional sites for employment use and increase the use of existing employment land within the existing urban growth boundary prior to expanding the UGB. 6-11 The City will periodically review existing development and use patterns on industrial and commercial lands. The City may consider modifying Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning to better respond to opportunities for redevelopment and revitalization of employment lands in underutilized areas. Short Term Supply Policies 6-12 The City establishes a goal to have at least 25% of the predicted economic land need identified in the adopted EOA qualify as competitive short-term land supply. 6-13 eginningin 2019, and-eveLtwo years thereafter, the Citywill: o Update the econormic'lands Buildable Lands Inventory to identify developed and vacant economic lands by Comprehensive Plan designation; Estimate the acreageof vacant economic lands that qualify as competitive short-term supply; o `°ifthe acreage of vacant lands that qualify as competitive short- terrn supply is less than the 25% goal, then staff will deliver a report to the City Council that details: Economic lands that have a relatively good opportunity to qualify as competitive short-term land supply to meet the 25% goal, • Obstacles preventing those lands from qualifying as competitive short-term supply, and • Efforts, plans, and potential funding mechanisms to pre- pare the lands to qualify as competitive short-term supply. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-21 The Council finds that Policies 6-1 through 6-11 listed under General Policies and policies 6-12 through 6-13 listed under Short Term Supply Policies are new policies intended to support and reflect the updated 2016 EOA (Rem Rec 10687). Policies 6-1 through 6-11 clearly state Bend's desire to encourage and support target sector employment. Specifically, Policy 6-2 identifies Bend a regional economic center. Policies 6-12 through 6-13 express the importance of maintaining a short term supply of economic land for the long term economic health of a growing city like Bend. Compliance with Goal 9 is discussed detail in the Section 5 Findings. Industrial Development 6-14 Large -lot industrial sites (over 50 acres) are important to the overall inventory of available economic land. Any sites included in the UGB to meet this special site need will be protected with specific plan and/or code provisions. 6-15 The City supports the redevelopment of brownfield sites to make efficient use of existing economic lands and improve the quality of the City's land and water resources. The Council finds policies 6-14- and 6-15 above are new and consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9. Policy 6-14 is especially important as the City;has included two 50 -acre sites for large -lot industrial development in the proposed UGB expansion. One site is within the existing UGB in Juniper Ridge and the second is in the expansion area referred to as the "DSL Property." The Cour:fain-Ms that"both sites are earmarked"for ndustrial use and will be protected as such through the master planning provisions and policies in the new Chapter 11, Growth Management (Reni Rec 10362). The Juniper Ridge District inside the Bend UGB will be used to help meet the:=long-term,`need for futureindustrial and employment development. 17 At least 30% of the total net buildable area of the portion of Juniper Ridge District inside the UGB should be reserved for sites of ten acres and larger in size. 6-18 The City will work to preserve prime industrial lands for industrial purposes and protect them from incompatible commercial and residential uses. 6-19 The community will attempt to diversify its industrial base. 6-20 Existing industrial operations are encouraged to reducewaste discharge levels and improve air quality conditions. 6-21 Industrial developments along highways will be subject to special development standards relating to setbacks, landscaping, signs, and Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-22 outside storage. 6-22 Wherever industrial uses abut residential uses or residential zoning, special development standards relating to setbacks, screening, signs, and building height will be established forthe industrial uses. The Council finds that policies 6-16 through 6-22 are retained from the original Chapter 6 policies and reworded to provide clarity and consistency with the 2016 EOA. 2. Prior to permitting industrial development on the Juniper Ridge site, the City shall prepare and adopt a development plan, for the area. Preparation of the plan shall include an assessment of public facilities improvements, including transportation facility improvements thatmay be needed to support industrial development. 7. Since it has been established thatthe quality of the air may be adversely affected by additional discharges, the development of new industrial sites will be closely monitored in cooperation with the, DEQ to prevent substantial degradation of the air shed. 12. Development of the industrial lands at the West edge of the urban area between Skyliners Road and Shevlin Park Road shall be 'limited to the Industrial Park and Mixed Employment land use categories,to minimize additional heavy truck traffic on Newport Avenue -and Galveston Avenue 13. The 95 acre industrial area at theWest edge of the urban area shall be designed and developed as,port of an overall master plan for future industrial, commercial residential developmen between-Skyliners Road and Shevlin Park Road. FINDINGS: The Counciil-:finds that current policies2, 12 and 13 above have been implemented through the,Special Planned District' plans for Juniper Ridge and Northwest Crossing, adopted in the Bend Development Code, and are no longer needed. The Council finds that policy 7 creates an inaccurate expectation that the City of Bend can enforce air quality conditions when in fact the City does -not regulate air quality and the City's policies cannot require a State agency such as the Department:; of Environmental Quality to take mandatory action. For these reasons, the four existing policies are deleted. Mixed Use Development 6-23 Mixed-use development may be regulated through one or more plan designations and zoning districts to encourage the development of a mix of employment, or a mix of employment and residential uses. 6-24 Mixed-use development will achieve the following purposes: Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-23 o provide a variety of employmentoppodun0enmnd housing types; o foster pedestrianandothernon-mnotmrvehicleaooeoovvithinandto the site; o ensure compatibitity of mixed-use development with the surrounding area and minimize off-site impactsassociated with the development; o ensure the site planningaccess, rking areas and building designs are functionally coordatedandeeethetinaUyp|mao|ng; and o where applicable, improve the natural conditions along the Deschutes River, and:encourage access to and enjoyment of the Deschutes River. 6-25 The City will encourage vertical mixed use development in commercial and mixed use zones, especially where those occur within the Central Core, Opportunity Areas and along transit corridors. The Council finds that policies 6-23 and;6-24.are re -worded from the original policies to provide broader meaning to a larger area of Berid,i,Conourrent with the UGB Expansion, the City is proposing to implement,tWo'fbew mixed use::districts: Miied Use Urban (MU) and Mixed Use Neighborhood (MN).f7he heWM4and MN tones,wilienaomrage mixed use in select areas providing a variety of employmentiabportunitieS,and a diverse hOusing mix. The Council finds that policy 6-25 reflectS tbejact that', yertical mixe4 use buildings are a relatively new building type in Benci..-yertical mixed_Liseip4069§,will ailOwfor greater employment density and provide 9ppo(tutiities'jor upper';ildbr residehttai houSihg. Many of the identified opportunity areas inside the currentOGB I-6ve-a, plan deSigkation of MN or MU. The Council finds that vertical nixed use:I:important to the„success of the City's proposed efficiency measures identified for the UGB exparisibp. 6725 is supportive of the opportunity area known as the Bend central biOtOct which allOvii:s: f, or veriital mixed use buildings. Commercial Devplopmerit 6-26 The:01S:ting pattern of commercial designations shown on the Corriorehensive Plan Map along arterial and collector streets including Newport Avenue and Gaiveston Avenue will not be extended into residentially designated areas untess approvedthrough an Area Plan. 6-27 New employment areas with a mix of employment desinations such as commercial, industria, and mixed use may be created along Highway 97, Highway 2O.and 0.B. Riley Road. 6-28 The City will encourage development and redevelopment in commercial Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-24 corridors that is transit -supportive and offers safe and convenient access and connections for all transportation modes. 6-29 New commercially designated areas are encouraged to develop with mixed-use centers to include housing, open space, commercial development, and other employmentuses. 6-30 The City shall strive to retain and enhance desirable existing commercial areas and encourage property owners' effortsto rehabilitate or redevelop older commercial areas. 6-31 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map, amendments for new commercial centers shall meet the location and size standards in the Comprehensive Plan text in addition to Planar endment and/or zone change criteria. 6-32 All commercial developments shall be subject to development standards relating to setbacks, landscaping, physical buffers, screening, access, signs, building heights, parking areas, and design review: 6-33 The City will encourage the development of Neighborhood Commercial centers. Such centers should be scaled to serve the frequent needs of the residents of the neighborhood. 6-34 Unless -otherwise approved through an Area -Plan, new Convenience CommercialµComprehensive Plan designations should be limited to five acres and should be at least one mile from another commercial Comprehensive; Plan designation. Commercial developments that abut residential zones or residential uses shall,be subject to special setback and screening provisions. 6 The City shall continue the revitalization process in the Central Business District through rehabilitation or redevelopment of existing areas. 6-37 w ;The City will provide a process through the development code to review =and approve exceptions to height limits where it supports City goals and policies. 6-38 Commercial development adjacent to arterial streets and highways shall be subject to City of Bend and/or Oregon Department of Transportation access management standards (as applicable) and shall provide for multimodal access. The Council finds that many of the commercial policies were retained or re -stated to support the 2016 EOA. Policies 6-26 and 6-28 were re -worded to encourage commercial development along arterial and collector streets to redevelop as commercial centers that provide a variety of Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-25 commercial and residential uses. The UGB expansion areas include a mix of employment uses that will discourage strip commercial development. 30. An area south of Murphy Road on the west side of Highway 97 has been marked for highway commercial with a flexible "sawtooth" boundary. This area shall be approved for development only when a system of frontage road and limited access control is created that will protect the capacity and safety of Highway 97 and South 3rd Street. The Council finds that policy 30 is outdated and inconsistent With the adopted Comprehensive Plan map. The City no longer uses the "sawtooth" designation to indicate a flexible boundary. The area referred to in the policy has been incorporated into -a "Special Planned District" called the Murphy Crossing Refinement Plan that includes higher densityresidential and a variety of mixed and commercial uses. 6-39 The City will limit the amount of ground -floor residential development in the commercial zones and Mixed employment zones to preserve economic lands for economic uses. 6-40 The City will monitor parking needs for commercial uses and set requirements at the lowest level to meet the community needs. 6-41 The City will write parking requirements to encourage walkable commercial development while providing for adequate parking. „ The Council finds that new policies 6-39 through 6-41 are added to the updated Chapter 6 because they are irnportaritto implementing the efficiency measures within the current UGB identifiecias7"OpportUnity areas." These policies will be implemented by a concurrent BDC proposal that will remove barrierSAO,develoPment-and encourage a variety of housing and employment opportunities as described in the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814) Chapter 6 Conclusions: The Council finds that the proposed UGB Expansion will designate opportunity areas within the existing City limits to allow greater employment opportunities where public facilities are currently available. The areas for expansion will designate properties for both employment and housing to provide complete neighborhoods. The Council finds that City's proposed UGB amendment is consistent with both the new and the existing Comprehensive Plan policies of Chapter 6, Economy and supports the updated EOA. 10.8 Chapter 7— Transportation Systems The Council finds that, as part of the City's UGB amendment, the City has updated the TSP (Rem Rec. 10994) and developed a new ILUTP for Bend adopted as Appendix F of the TSP. The existing Chapter 7 of the Plan consists of duplicate information provided in the acknowledged TSP. The proposed amendment simplifies Chapter 7 (Rem Rec 10339) by Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-26 removing the TSP Benchmarks and Implementation from the Chapter, eliminating duplication with the TSP, deleting policies where the directive has been completed, and deleting or modifying text that is obsolete or no longer relevant, and adding new policies as appropriate.. Transportation System Plan Objectives and Policies Objectives: • To promote land use patterns that support fewer vehicle;trips and shorter trip lengths • To ensure that future development, including re -development will not interfere with the completion of Bend's transportation system The Council finds that the existing Plan Objectives have served the City well. The UGB expansion process utilized proximity to existing uses as a filter to determine the most efficient boundary for expansion. The Council finds that the City is planning for complete neighborhoods, thereby reducing VMT and encouraging alternate modes of travel. Policies 7-3 The City shall consider potential land needs for long-range transportation system corridor improvements and related facilities including transit during the review of 'subdivisions partitions, and individual site applications. 7-4 Developments at the edge of the urban area shall be designed to provide connectivity to existing and -future development adjacent to the urban area 7-5 The City shall _continue lb -explore mixed use zoning as one of the land use patterns' that will promote fewer vehicle trips and shorter trip lengths. The Council finds that the future transportation needs of the City were considered as an integral part of the UGB expansion work.- The Goal 14 Analysis addressed in the Section 7 Findings and the Transportation Analysis in the Section 8 Findings provide a comprehensive description of the future needs, costs and, -feasibility of providing those transportation facilities as Bend grows. Consistent with policy 7-5 above, an important part of the analysis was exploring different land use patterns that influence vehicle trips. The Council finds that the City intends to create complete neighborhoods that promote safe and convenient access to goods and services, including access to schools and parks. 7-8 As areas that are currently beyond Bend's existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) are urbanized, the city, property owners, developers and all applicable service districts shall work cooperatively to develop appropriate plans for extensions and connections of the transportation Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-27 system, including but not limited to; roado, aidevva|ko, trails and/or public transportation. The objective of this planning effort will be to ensure that the new areas promote and facilitate the development of urban land use densities and systems that will fulfill the goals and objectives of the Transportation System Plan. 7-1 1 The City of Bend shall coordinate the City TraPlan with the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan. The City shafl emphasize continuity in the cIassificationof roads and appropriate desgn standards for roads that link urban mreanv�ihruna|areemouteidathe urban growth boundary. The City shall agree on the functional classification and design /standards ofCnuMtvnnadewithinthe URAs. The Council finds that, consistent with Goal 2, the City and County coordinated the future transportation needs for the expansion areas. Any necessary changes th the City and County TSPs will be adopted concurrently with the UGB expansion. 5. orientation and site plans tor cornmercial and public facilities promote pedestrian and bicycle access to andfrom nearby neighborhoods. The Zoning Ordinance shall be revised so that building design, building The Council finds that all ekisting TSP politjes were-retain-e_d with the exception of the above policy 5. This policy4ig-deleted Ile -Cause this'direct,ive was ComPleted with the 2006 Development Code update, which ,Was acknowle'dged; therefore, this policy is no longer - ' ��t' '-z-:-..-' • To reeloce peak hour treffic loading_on the roadway system • ImplementetiOn of a TDOPlan (Central Oregon Commute Options Program) for the city Policies „ T, 7-23 The City shall manage and regulate parking by: a) Establishing programs to iower parking demand in commercial and business districts citywide by providing preferential parking for carpooers, encouraging mass transit use, encouraging shuttle For reference, TDM refers to Transportation Demand Management Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-28 systems from external parking Tots, and maintaining an adequate supply of strategically placed bike parking facilities. b) Requiring business groups and employers to develop parking management strategies that support reduced roadway system demand during the peak motor vehicle travel times. The Council finds that the proposed UGB expansion is consistent with policy 7-23. To increase efficiency within the existing urban growth boundary, Opportunity Areas have been identified that will allow for more compact development and a mix of uses making it easier to implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures and encourage alternative modes of travel. The Council finds that parking reductions along transit corridors and for mixed use buildings have been added to the BDC (Rem Rec 11149) as an efficiency measure to encourage the development of residential housing, promote multi -modal travel and remove barriers to vertical mixed use development. Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems Objectives • To support and encourage increased levels of bicycling and walking as an alternative to the automobile p convenientg • To provide safe, accessible and �icycln and walking facilities Policies 7-27 The'cfty shall''work with the'County, State, Forest Service, Park District and public ag_encies:to acquireedevelop and maintain a series of trails r -along the:.. Deschutes River, Tumalo Creek, and the canal system so that these features can be retained as a community asset. Connections between the Bend Urban Area Bicycle and Trails System should be made to the USFS trail system. 7-28 The City work with the Park District together to acquire, develop and maintain the primary trails designated on the Bend Urban Area Bicycle and Pedestrian System Plan, Figure 7-2. New development shall be requiredto construct and dedicate Primary Trails for public use according to this plan. The alignments depicted are general in nature and shall be located according to criteria defined in TSP Section 6.3.1.3. These trails, and future trail additions, shall support the need for non -motorized travel in the community. 7-43 As land areas that are currently beyond Bend's existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) are urbanized and as it relates specifically to the Bend Primary Trail System, external destinations (beyond the UGB) and Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-29 specific connection points (within the existing UGB) have been delineated on the Bend Urban Area Bicycle and Pedestrian System Plan, Figure 7-2. The Council finds that the objectives and policies in Chapter 7 guide the future location of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the City and were considered when determining the most efficient expansion areas for the UGB. The requirement for including pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities for new roads within the expansion area was considered in the cost estimates of providing transportation services to the UGB. The Transportation Analysis in the Section 8 Findings provides a comprehensive description of the future needs, costs and feasibility of providing those transportation facilities as Bend grows. 19. The City shall work with the Burlington Northern — Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad to determine where, if possible, railroad right-of-ways could be used also as trail corridors. Provided this joint -use agreement can be reached with the Railroad Company, the City shall evaluate the entire Rails with Trails Corridor in light of opportunities to augment the local primary trail system and future amendments to the TSP should be considered to establish those corridors as a part of the Transportation System Plan. 20. There are expansion plans for the city domestic water storage and supply facilities on the Overturf Butte Reservoir site, therefore the existing "connector trails" alignments shown on the plan shall be considered temporary in nature. These trails shallbe subject to relocation if conflicts arise relative to future plans to expand or alter the water storage facilities on the Butte. Relocation of these trails to alternative alignments shall not require a Transportation System Plan amendment. In the event that these trails cannot be relocated to an alternative location that serves the same trail function on the Butte and therefore the affeod trail(s) must be closed to public use, this type of action shall require an amendment to the TSP. 21 The city of Bend and Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to define respective agency roles and responsibilities relative to the network of trails on Overturf Butte. The Council finds that there are sound reasons to delete existing policies 19 through 21. Policy 19 directs the City to work with the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad to determine potential trail corridors. After years of trying to engage BNSF, this policy was abandoned. Policies 20 and 21 are deleted because the directives contained within the policies have been completed and are no longer necessary. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-30 Public Transportation System Objectives: • Continue to develop public transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged • Reduce reliance on automobiles and develop public transportation facilities • Increase mobility and accessibility throughout the urban area • Continue to provide infrastructure and land use planning to support transit Policies 7.45 The City shall coordinate with the MPO and Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council to evaluate funding alternatives and seek appropriate resources to support a public transportation system. Effort should be made to evaluate creative funding techniques that may include the combination of public -and private transportation resources in coordination with other agencies and transportation providers. The City shall work together with Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council to develepinter-urban public transportation services. Priority shall be given t6 high load; ridership corridors. The Council finds that supporting the development of a complete Transit System is a top priority for Bend's future transportationsystem. Transit was;, factored, into the transportation analysis for the UGB expansion and the necessary improvements needed:..' The City eiWt preserve and improve; the existing Dial -A -Ride service (efficiency, expanded ridership -and routes„ zone- destination) and develop a strategic plan for its future expansion:that results in:the initiation of a citywide public transportation 1. system. The Council finds that the existing policy above is deleted because the referenced Dial -a -ride system is not a" City; service. Itis;operated by the Cascade East Transit and the City cannot be responsible for the administration-' of the Cascade East Transit System$. Street System Objectives; • To provide a practical and convenient means of moving people and goods within the urban area that accommodates various transportation modes • To provide a safe and efficient means to access all parts of the community 8 The City transferred authority for operating the Dial -a -Ride system to Cascades East Transit. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-31 ■ To provide an attractive, tree -lined, pedestrian friendly streetscape sensitive to protecting the livability of the community Policies: General 7-50 Streets shall be classified and generally located according to the Bend Urban Area Roadway System Plan, Figure 7-1, and the Street Functional Classification, Table 7-1. Street right-of-ways and improvements standards shall be developed to meetthe needs of the Transportation Plan and Functional Classification System. Transportation project development review and approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Bend Development Code and.Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012, Section 0050, as applicable. The Council finds that the street classifications within the City and adjacent expansion areas are consistent with the City and County TSPs. Any improvements to streets that extend into the expansion areas will be constructed to City standards:once:the lands have been annexed into the City. Residential Streets 7-60 A.grid-like pattern of residential`iocal streets shall be developed whenever practical ili order to increase=street connectivity within a neighborhood 7-61 The=City may. require adjustment to the street pattern or installation of traffic calming devices -in order=to discourage high speed and volume vehicular traffic on local'' residential streets. The Couricil finds that the developmentof complete neighborhoods is a goal of the UGB expansion project and connectivity of safe streets is a fundamental element of complete neighborhoods. Arterial Streets: 7-67 The City shall evaluate the effect of transportation demand management (TDM)and transportation system management (TSM) measures that would successfully eliminate or delay the need for minor arterial street widening beyond the existing travel lanes within the twenty-year design life of a proposed roadway project. Transportation system computer modeling is one acceptable evaluation method that can be used to assist in the assessment of forecast travel demand and the associated vehicle travel lane needs. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-32 TDM/TSM measures as an alternative to roadway widening: The TDM and TSM measures incorporated into this analysis, as an alternative to roadway widening, shall be capable of funding and fulfillment within a reasonable time period such that the subject arterial level -of -service shall not diminish below an acceptable adopted City standard. TDM/TSM measures AND roadway widening: If the implementation of TDM and TSM measures from the previous analysis are determined to be insufficient in meeting the transportation system needs along the subject roadway corridor, the City shall undertake an evaluation of the consequences that additional roadway widening may have on adjoining neighborhoods as well as the benefits gained by additional street construction. The Council finds that policy 7-67 supports the implementation of the City's ILUTP, since TDM measures are an important tool for reducing VMT, especially in the proposed Opportunity Areas. 22. The City shall involve the public, the Park District and other governmental agencies in developing a, roadway design for the southern river crossing that complements the natural features of the river area. 27. The state highway system >(i.e , Highways 97 and 20, Century Drive and the Parkway) shall be designated as the through truck route system. Trucks shall be permitted on the City and County arterial street system for local trip activity, unless otherwise restricted. The Council finds that policies 22 and 27 are deleted because the directives within the policies have been accomplished.'`: Parkway 3Q The Bend Parkway will be planned, constructed, and managed to limit direct access to the facility to meet the policies and requirements of the Oregon Highway Plan, to protect the integrity of the routes through capacity, and to promote public safety. 31. To maintain the viability of the existing East 3rd Street and downtown business districts, the Bend Parkway will provide convenient access to these areas in so far as this does not compromise the function of the Parkway. 32. The Bend Parkway shall, to the greatest extent possible, include landscaping, medians, separated sidewalks, and bike lanes. The Council finds that policies 30-31 regarding the Parkway are deleted as part of the City's update of Chapter 7 with the UGB expansion because the Parkway projects identified in each policy have been completed, making the policies no longer necessary. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-33 Bend Central District (BCD) 7-84 The City will partner with property owners and developers to make improvements to transportation facilities within the BCD Overlay to improve connections for all modes of travel, including implementing a well-connected system for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. 7-85 The City will implement street designs identified in the BCD Plan over the long term. Improvements may be phased in over time and will be refined, as needed and appropriate, through more detailed facility design processes. 7-86 The City will encourage and work with local businesses and residents to implement transportation demand management programs and strategies. 7-87 The City will work with local businesses and property owners to develop and implement a parking strategy for the BCD that meets local parking needs while also encouraging us of alternative modes (e.g., bicycling, walking, and transit) to travel to, from, and within the BCD. The Council finds that the BCD policies 7-84 through, 7-87 have. been added to Chapter 7 in support of the BCD. The.Council finds thatthe BOD, -Was identified as an "Opportunity Area" through the UGB process: to. achieve greater efficiency`within the existing boundary for housing and employment. Concurrent witb:the UGB adoption, new development code text to implement the BCD will be added` The code text for the BCD will support transit oriented development and alternative modes of travel. Use and Transportation Plan 7-88 The. City will implement the land use, transportation demand management, parking management, transit, and complete streets strategies, projects and programs that are identified as Proposed Strategies in Chapter 4 of the ILUTP. 7-89 The City conduct a planning study to determine Transportation Management Areas for the opportunity areas, transit centers, and public and private institutions and companies. 7-90 The City will include streetscape projects in opportunity and core areas and transit corridors when developing the transportation CIP priorities and projects. 7-91 The City will develop transit priority corridors in the opportunity and core areas that include a combination of land use policies and codes and Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-34 transportation enhancements that encourage transportation options. 7~92 The City wilupdate the assessments of the ILUTP benchmarks at each update of the regional transportation system pan. The Council finds that the City has developed an ILUTP as Appendix F of the TSP (Rem Rec 10994) in cojunction with the UGB expansion. Policies 7-88 through 7-92 are new and have been added to Chapter 7 (Rem Rec 10339) to support and guide the City's work to reduce VMT inside the existing City Iimits and the UGB expansion areas. TSP Map Updates ^' 7-93 Any Bend TSP map that illustrates a dashed line for a proposed transportation facility may be -updated administratively by staff upon the construction/completion of that facility. Updating of any affected maps shall convert any "dotted" -tines into "solid" lines that follow as -built alignments, as much as practical, and shall not constitute a land use decision. The Council finds that, consistent with Goal 2, the City is coordinating with the County on the future alignments for collector and arterial Streets that may extend into the expansion areas. These new alignments and existing propOSed alignMents within the current City limits will be shown as dashed lito the publtc as right of wayThe Council P map will be adopted concurrently with the UGB8dVptmn: 7-93 The Finanoing Prograni'projections show that sufficient funding wiH be availablethat are included in the TSP and further defined as the near- and mid-term priorities.iHowever; if existing and future funding levels do not fully cover increasecrdemand on the system, the City Council may accept additional ':-congestiOnCn the roadway system to allow transportation projects to be pOstponed'beyond the planning period. The Council finds that, with the update of the TSP, the City has considered the cost to construct necessary ito serve the proposed expansion area. A variety of funding strategies are being considered. TDM ptays a targe rote in reducing the overall transportation infrastructure costs. The Councit finds that the City acknowtedges that congestion may increase on certain facilities. Chapter 7 Conclusions: The Council finds that, concurrent with the UGB expansion, the City is amending the TSP (Rem Rec 10994) and adopting an ILUTP as Appendix F of the TSR Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-35 Complete findings regarding Transportation are located in Section 8. The Council finds that the City's proposed UGB amendment is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies of Chapter 7, Transportation. 10.9 Chapter 8 — Public Facilities and Services The Council finds that Chapter 8 was recently amended in April 2013 to add the City's new Water Public Facilities Plan and in December 2014 to add the new Sewer Collection Public Facilities Plan. Modifications to policies were made at that time. The policies applicable to the urban growth boundary are addressed below. Sewer Collection Facilities 8-1 All new development within the City Limits should be connected to City sewer. 8-2 The City is the primary provider of sewage collection and treatment services for the City's service area under Statewide Planning Goal 11. 8-3 To reduce the reliance'on individual -,sewage disposal systems within the Urban Growth Boundary the ;city will work with unsewered neighborhoods to find solutions for sewer service. The Council finds that.S proposed: change to PolicyW8-1 to change the reference from the UGB to City Limits is necessary; because" the current City limits and the urban growth boundary are the same line._The proposed UGB`expansion will -extend beyond the existing City limits. State law prohibits urbanlevel public facilities to be extended beyond the city limits service boundary. Once properties withinthe.expansion area have;annexed into the city the public facilities can be extended:: -The Council finds=that both:policies 8-1 and 8-3 address the importance of providing sewer within:>the City limits prior- to servin°g_the UGB. There are areas within the existing city limits that are not connected to -City sewer are still reliant on septic disposal systems. To maximize efficient -ruse of land, the`:.City is constructing new sewer interceptors in the southeast and north consistent with the adopted Collection System Master Plan. The new interceptors will serve existing properties within;°tie City limits and provide capacity for new development within the urban growth boundary:; expansion areas. Water Facilities and Systems 8-13 The City of Bend is the provider of water service for the City's service area under Statewide Planning Goal 11. 8-14 Avion Water Company is the provider of water service for its franchise area under Statewide Planning Goal 11 and pursuant to the franchise Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-36 agreement between the City and Avion adopted under Ordinance NS 1514, as amended. 8-17 The City shall continue to coordinate with private providers and irrigation districts in matters of water concerns within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Council finds that the City and Avion Water will be responsible for providing domestic water service within the expansion areas. As expansion areas are annexed into the City limits, the respective water systems will be constructed to serve the new; development. 8-19 The City may allow water service. outsid e the UGB at rural levels consistent with Goal 11. The Council finds that Policy 8-19 is a new policy, proposed with the UGB expansion. The policy is necessary because there are several destination resorts that are adjacent to the City limits with the ability to request water service from the City consistent with statewide planning Goal 11. In addition, there are a few legacy properties that,_ receive City waterservice outside the City limits, and properties that can be legally extended municipal water service, since County land use regulations would not allow an increase in rural densities under Goal 11 as a result of such service. The Council finds that such water services can be beneficial to the City for health, environment and fire suppression purposes. Storm Drainage acilitie and System 8-31 Hazard and :resource areas with the following characteristics shall be considered=unsuitable for urban development: flood✓zones; water supply watersheds; and • riparian corridors and natural drainageways. The City'siall regulate development near water courses to reduce ;erosion antipollution and to provide open, natural areas. The Council finds that the=controt'of storm water has become more important as the City urbanizes and expands into -rural areas. Higher densities and impervious surfaces increase the impacts from storm events causing erosion and flooding. Drinking water protection areas and storm water retention were factored into the Goal 14 analysis. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-37 General Policies 8-47 The City may consider funding mechanisms and agreements to address on-site and off-site improvements, modernization of existing infrastructure to City's standards and specifications, and impacts to infrastructure inside the current City Iimits. The Council finds that the policy 8-47 is necessary to provide guidance when working with homeowners and business owners on large infrastructure improvement p'eutm. This policy is also included in the new Chapter 11, Growth Management and was vetted through the UGB Steering Committee. Chapter 8 Conclusions: The Council fidthat the adopted Public Facilities Plans were considered in the Goa/ 14 Analysis. A complete diecussion of the Goal 14 Analysis are in Section 5 of the Findings. The City's proposed UGB amendment is consistentwi1htha applicable Comprehensive Plan policies of Chapter 8, Public Facilities and Services. 10.10 Chapter 9 — Community Appearance Policies 9-2 Community appearance shall continue to be a major concern and the subject of -a major effOrt in the area. Major natural features, such as rock outcrops or Stands of trees,Shbuld be preserved as a community asset at the area develops. — The citY-Wili,:uSe advisory conimittees, public workshops, and other measureS,,,to identify those characteristics that give the community its individual identity and preserve and expand those characteristics as growth occurs. The Council believes that the nattiral landScape surrounding Bend continues to be an important asset for the comer:01h. The CitY':has successfully protected and preserved areas along the Deschutes River as Welt as upland natural features. The BDC implements these policies through the developmerrtgodeS for Upland Areas of Special Interest and the Waterway Overlay Zone. The Council finds thafthese codes will continue to be in force and will apply to the expansion areas area annexed when into the city limits. Ajoint management agreement between Deschutes County and the City will allow the City to use Title 19 for administering land use review within the unincorporated expansion areas. The Councils finds that, as part of the UGB expansion work, an Urban Form Report (Rem Rec 10950) was developed to address how Bend will look as it urbanizes. There is an emphasis on complete neiQhborhooda, corridor types and connections and urban form considerations as the Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-38 city transitions into the expansion areas. The Urban Form Report will be adopted as part of the updated Plan as Appendix M. 6. After the Highway 97 Parkway opens, the city and county shall work with ODOT to improve the appearance of Highway 20, NE 3rd Street and South Business Highway 97. 11. The city shall develop ordinances requiring grading permits. The Council finds that the directives in the policies 6 and 11 haVer been accomplished by the City and are no longer necessary, so the policies are deleted. Chapter 9 Conclusions: The Council finds that the City 'S proposed UGB amendment is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies of Chapter 9, Community Appearance. 10.11 Chapter 10 — Natural Forces Policies Natural Hazards 10-12 The City shall continue to apply Flood Plain zoning regulations along the Deschutes River and Tumalo Creek based on the best available data. The Council finds that the proposed UGB expansion does not include any new lands along the Deschutes River or Turilalo,preek 'City building:.cp_d es andzoning ordinance regulate the development within. the floOdOlairi3Oth*DeschuteSRiver within the current City limits. -• Wildfire 110-18 The City will adopt strategies to reduce wildfire hazard on lands inside the City and included in the Urban Growth Boundary. These strategies may, among others, include the application of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code with modifications to allow buffers of aggregated defensible space or similar tools, as appropriate, to the land included in the:U6B.'6'nd annexed to the City of Bend. The Council finds that the topic of wildfire was an important factor in determining the location for the new UGB. The City has experienced severe wildfire events over the past 20 years and recognizes the threat of wildfire as a natural hazard. Section 7 of the Findings discusses how wildfire was included in the Factor 3 boundary analysis. A new section of text called "Wildfire" and the accompanying plan policies have been added to Chapter 10. Detailed findings related to Goal 7, Natural Hazards, which include wildfire can be found in Section 9. The Council finds that the risk of wildfire must be taken seriously as the City expands into forested areas and Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-39 areas of unmaintained natural vegetation that surround the entire City. The city received a grant for Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire from Wildfire Planning International and Headwaters Economics. The grant products will assist the City in achieving this policy. Chapter 10 Conclusions: The Council finds that, the City's proposal minimizes the risk of wildfire by applying a development transect to the expansion areas on the west. Specific area planning policies set a maximum density for development as described in the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814) and Chapter 11, Growth Management (Rem Rec 10362) The Council finds that the City's proposed UGB amendment is consistent with the applicable Plan policies of Chapter 10, Natural Forces as indicated above. 10.12 Chapter 11 — Growth Management The Council finds that the Growth Management Chapter (Rem Rec 10362) is a new chapter for the Plan. It captures the City's goals and policies regarding future planning for growth. The following is a brief overview of the chapter and its organization. • The Background section provides the legal context on growth management required by Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization; a brief summary of Bend's community setting, history and priorities; an aspirational future urban form diagram for the City along with an overview of urban form typologies; and brief descriptions of; the opportunity areas identified through the UGB project. • Goals set broad direction and intent (e.g Implement an overall strategy to "Wisely grow up and out"). They are intended to; be guiding and aspirational;; they are not regulatory policies. • The policies are regulatory; they are used as, the basis for determining "consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, when specified by either the development code or the comprehensive- plan. The Council finds that the, City must,plan for how; and what types of land are needed for future growth and to some degreeddeterm ne°the form of new development to ensure a livable community and an enhanced quality ofI'ife:, The Growth Management Chapter provides the background, goals and policies for implementing the UGB expansion and builds on Bend's Urbanization Report and UrbanForm report adopted as Appendices L and M respectively. The Growth Management Chapter policies support the Goal 14 findings discussed in detail in Section 7 and provides guidance for implementing the UGB. Policies General Growth Management Policies (See related policies in Chapter 1, Plan Management and Citizen Involvement and Chapter 10, Natural Forces.) Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-40 11-1 The City will encourage compact development and the integration of land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary to reduce trips, vehicle miles traveled, and facilitate non-automobile travel. 11-2 The City will encourage infill and redevelopment of appropriate areas within Bend's Central Core, Opportunity Areas and transit corridors (shown on Figure 11-1). 11-3 The City will ensure that development of large blocks of vacant land makes efficient use of land, meets the city's housing and employment needs, and enhances the community. , 11-4 City will adopt strategies to reduce wildfire hazard on lands included Streets in the Centers and Corridors, Employment Districts, Neighborhoods, and Opportunity Sites will have: the appropriate types of pedestrian, biking, and transit scale amenities to ensure safety, access, and mobility. 11-5 The in the Urban Growth Boundary. These strategies may, among others, include the application of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code with, modifications to allow_buffers of aggregated defensible space, or similar tools, as appropriate, to the land included in the UGB and annexed to the City_of Bend Policies for Centers and Corridors (See related policies inChapter 6, Economy: The City willencouragvertical mixed use development in commercial and mixed use. zones, especially where those occur within the Central Core, Opportunity. Areas and along transit corridors. The existing pattern of commercial plan designations shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map along arterial and collector streets including Newport Avenue and Galveston Avenue will not be extended into residentially designated areas unless approved through an Area Plan. 11-8 New commercially designated areas are encouraged to develop with mixed-use centers to include housing, open space, commercial development, and other employment uses. 11-9 The City will encourage development and redevelopment in commercial corridors that is transit -supportive and offers safe and convenient access and connections for all modes. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-41 11-10 The City will encourage the development of Neighborhood Commercial centers. Such centers should be scaled to serve the frequent needs of the residents of the neighborhood. 11-11 Unless otherwise approved through an Area PJan, new Convenience Commercial Comprehensve PJan designations should be Iimited to five acres and should be one mile from another commercial Comprehensive Plan designation. Policies for Employment Districts (See related policies in Chapter 6, Economy.) 11-12 New employment districts vvith a mix of Plan designationseuohas commercial, industrial, employment be created along Highway 97, Highway 20, -and 0.B. Riley Road. , 11-13 The City will periodically reView existing development and use patterns on industrial and commercial lands. The Cify may consider Modifying Comprehensive Plan designations and Zoning to better respond to opportunities for redevelopment and revitalization of employment lands in underutilized areas. Policies for Residential Areas and NeignboihOb,ds (See related poliCieS in Chapfe5, Housing.) - 11-14 The',Oty wilt-sOpport re-deSignation of suitable areas that are within a 1/4 mile WelkEtOrenitreorridorS'tOm a lower density designation to a higher ,density de.signation, whet -pi -plan amendment criteria are otherwise met. -2', 11-15 Neighborhood=tpmmercial shopping areas may be located within residenfral,distriotS abd have development standards that appropriately _ limit their 5:pale and iecognize their residential setting. 11-16, Medium-,a:hd high-density residential developments should have good access16,4ransit, K-12 public schools where possible, commercial serviOes;:employment, and public open space to provide the maximum access to the highest concentrations of population. 11-17 Schools and parks may be distributed throughout the residential sections ofthe community, and all types of dweUing units should have safe and convenient access to schools and parks. The School District and Park District facilities plans witi determine the Iocation and size of needed schools and parks. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-42 The Council finds that General Growth Management Policies 11-1 through 11-17 are included in Chapter 11 and in some instances appear again in other related chapters as referenced in the sub -headings. The Council finds that these policies provide general guidance for achieving the desired form in which the City will grow. Policies for Special Site Needs 11-18 The City has identified a need for a speciat site for a university as part of the Urban Growth Bd Process. University is developing plans for a Bend campus. If OSU's plans are approved by the City, their campus wilfmeet this identified need. The campus site currently being develbpedis-between Century Drive, Mt. Washington Drive and Simpson Avenue (see -Figure 11-3). Further expansions of the university within this area of the City are also being considered. Such a deSignation for this area doe's not preclude land uses other than institutional. - 11-19 The City has for r targeted industries specthe opportunity for othe eastern portion of Juntper Ridge and one 6* lot iridUttnal site oh the DSL property (see Figure 11-20 ga Special site need shall include regulations to protect the site for the identified usp..The regulations will be consistent with the Regional Large Lot inottototind:_:proyisior*fpr Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson 10-ox.intie-e'49regon AdMinistrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 24. The regqletions consistenf with the model code prepared as part of the 2011-Re9ionel-Egonomic Opportunities Analysis. The Council finthlhat policies 11,718 throUgh 11-20 address the special site needs identified the City. DLCD detenhined that the City's findings and 2008 EOA established an by 20 - year) estimate based onemployment. The Council finds thatthrough the remand, it was determined that the unsite and one of the Iarge ot industrial sites could be accommodated within the current City Umits. The policies help clarify the intended site locations. General Area Planning Policies 11-21 Area Plans are intended to coordinate development and provide flexibility to tailor land use regulations and/or transportation and infrastructure plans to respond to area- or site-specific conditions. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-43 11-22 The city will establish development codes to provide a variety of approaches to area planning in order to further the development of complete communities, unique developments which implement comprehensive pan policies, and provide for adequate public infrastructure. 11-23 The City may require Area Plans prior to development in UGB expansion areas. 11-24 Where Area Plans propose and uses that are inconsistent with the adopted plan designation(s), a plan amendment must be approved prior to or concurrent with adoption of the Area Plan. 11-25 An Area PIan that inctudes residentially designated land may prescribe residential range provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the average density of housing within each residential plan designation in the plan area must remain within the range established by the adopted comprehensive plan map designationS and applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, including applicable density bonuses or transfers. Deviation from thiarange requires approval of a plan amendment prior to or concurrent with the Area Plan that creates consistency between the plen_designations and the average densities vvithin each plan designation the area Plan. Certaiii incliidiPdlarge master plan sites and UGB expansiOn areas are subject to additional policies in this Chapter and/6r additional standards in the development code regarding residential -26 Area.Plans for land within UGB expansion areas shall comply with the poliCies-of this -Chapter. There is flexibility to refine the spatial arrangement of plan map designations provded that identified land and housing needs are euxnet. Where specific expansion area poicies '~ identify a6roages of specific plan designations or general categories of -Plan designa ions (e.g. commercial) are identified, compliance is defined as providing the required acreages of gross buildable land to the nearest acre: Where expansion area policies identify a required minimum housing capacity and mix, compliance is defined as providino less than the required number of units and providingthehousingnliX specified to the nearest percentage point (e.g. 37%). 11-27 Where changes are proposed to the arrangement of plan designations, the proposed arrangement must compty with the relevant policies of this Chapter. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-44 11-28 Some UGB expansion areas have identified preliminary needs for schools and parks. The need and Iocation for schools and parks is determined by the facility panning of the School District and Park District. The School Attendance Areas and Park Service Areas may change and the Area Plans for the UGB expansion areas should take into account any updated school and park needs when the p!an is prepared. The Council finds that "Area Planning" is a term used to capture a variety of tools to refine land use, transportation, and lor infrastructure plans for a specificarea. The area planning policies are intended to help achieve the various objeives for the expansion areas, and align with the annexation process. MasterPolicies Planning 11-29 The City will provide a mechanism in the development code for property owner -initiated master plans. The development codeishall specify approval criteria and procedures for sach master plena.. 11-30 Master plans in expansionoxeanare subject b)policies 11-56 to 11-131 of this chapter. 11-31 The purposes of Master plans are to: ei promote and facilitate -coordinated development and efficient use �- of o process to,consider future development on larger sites - analyze future demand on public facilities; and an opportunity for innovative and creative development while',Providing long4erm predictability for the applicants, ".surroundipg neighborhoods, and the entire community. 114; The City provide the opportunity for master plans to proceed under clear and,eb:jective standards where the applicant does not seek to deviate freM the standards of the development code, the adopted zoning Map; or'Comprehensive Plan map. 11-33 Residentially designated land within master plans must meet hihar minimum density standards than established for the residential plan designations generalty and must provide for a variety of housing types. The City wiu set appropriate standards in the Devetopment Code for housing mix and density for master ptans in each residentiat zone/ptan designation. Such standards wiU ensure minimum densities and minimum housing mix that are no tess than those listed in Table 11-1. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-45 11-34 Where a specific expansion area policy specifies a required overall housing mix for a given area, the total housing mix specified in policy shall apply in addition to the mix by plan designation listed in Table 11-1. 11-35 Master plans are required for developments over 20 acres unless otherwise specified in the Development Code. Properties in UGB expansion areas where a master plan is required are shown on Figure 11-4. 11-36 Where an approved City -initiated Area Plan exists, the City may find that some or all elements of a required master plan have been addressed and satisfied if they are already addressed by the Area Plan. 11-37 Approval of a City -initiated Area Plan that encompasses one or more properties over 20 acres (including abutting land in common ownership) does not exempt such properties from master plan requirements. The Council finds that Master planning is the primary tool used for area planning and will be required in all expansion subareas and opportunity areas. Policies 11-29 through 11-37 are specific to master planning. Concurrent with the UGB expansion the City has proposed development code amendments for implementing the Master Planning policies above. Development within the expansion sub -areas will also be subject to specific policies as outlined in Comprehensive Plan policies 11-56 through 11-131 as applicable. City -Initiated Area. Plan Policies 11-38 The City may initiate Area Plans for neighborhoods, UGB expansion areas, =opportunity-areaswithin-the city, or other discrete geographic areas. >11-39 Area Plans may be initiated by the City Council at its own initiative or at the request of property owners, if the owners agree to bear the cost of creating the plan. The City may, at its discretion, assist with some or all of the cosf of creating an Area Plan initiated at the request of property owners. 11-40 The area to be included in a City -initiated Area Plan, and the scope, shall be approved by the City Council by resolution. The Council finds that, based on input from the TACs, within the expansion sub -areas where the pattern of existing development has many parcels and multiple property owners, it may be necessary for the City to initiate an area plan. The level of City—initiated area plans would focus on framework -level planning and include the basics of transportation, parks, schools, water infrastructure, sewer collection infrastructure and minor land use refinements. This level of planning would provide the appropriate guidance to the physical cohesion of the various sub - Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-46 areas and would allow smaller properties to move ahead with annexation and site specific master planning. The Council finds that policies 11-38 through 11-40 provide the basic guidance on how the City initiated plans are intended to work. The process is considered discretionary, based on City resources including financing and staffing, and is initiated by Council resolution. Annexation Policies 11-41 Annexations will follow the procedural requirements of state law. 11-42 Annexations will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable annexation procedures and approval criteria. 11-43 Requests for annexation must demonstrate how the annexed land is capable of being served by urban services for sanitary sewer collection, domestic water, transportation, schools and parks, consistent with applicable district facility plans and the City's adopted public facility plans. 11-44 Annexations will be consistent with an approved Area Plan where applicable. The Area Plan may be reviewed and approved concurrent with an annexation application. 11-45 Th e City_ may, where' appropriate in a specifia area, allow annexation and require planning prior to development approval. 11-46 Land to be annexed must be contiguous -to the existing City limits unless the`_pr:..opertylowners requesting annexation show and the City Council finds that a "clerry-stem" annexation will both satisfy a public need and provide a'public benefit::•: 11-47 Compliance with:specific expansion area policies and/or Area Plans will be implemented through master plan approval or binding annexation agreement:that will control subsequent development approvals. 11-48 Existing rural infrastructure systems and urban systems (water, sewer, transportation, stormwater) serving annexed areas may be required to be modernized and constructed to the City's standards and specifications, as determined by the City. 11-49 The City may consider funding mechanisms and agreements to address on- and off-site improvements, modernization of existing infrastructure to the City's standards and specifications, and impacts to infrastructure inside the current City limits. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-47 11-50 Properties over 20 acres (including adjacent property in common ownership) as of the adoption of the UGB expansion (shown on Figure 11-4) are subject to master plan requirements, regardless of property acreage upon annexation. The Council finds that annexation policies 11-41 through 11-50 are important for an orderly boundary expansion as public infrastructure becomes available prior to or with master planning approval. The policies will also provide guidance for developing an annexation application process. The Council finds that no annexations will be processed for the expansion areas before annexation policies are adopted and the final UGB expansion boundary urban growth boundary ordinances and comprehensive plan amendments have been acknowledged. General UGB Expansion Policies 11-51 The City will consider the value of balancing and distributing UGB expansions geographically around the city consistent with State of Oregon laws and rules to distribute the benefits (and impacts) of growth and to provide more options for new -neighborhoods. 11-52 The City will utilize new growth in expansion areas as a strategy to help make existing neighborhoods, centers,' corridors, and employment districts. inside the boundary more "complete".by: diversifying the housing mix, providing local commercial services and jobs; increasing transportation connectivity; and providing needed public facilities such as parks and schools. The City=_willtake into consideration the context of land beyond a single UGB expansion to inform;the type and intensity of uses that are appropriateiin each potential' expansion area. 11-54 The City'; will consider applying the concept of a "transect" to appropriate areas. The; transectis a series of zones that transition from urban to rural which can` reduce the risk of wildfire and provide an appropriate transition from urban uses to national forest lands and other resource areas, such as:wildlifehabitat, that will not be urbanized within the long-range future. 11-55 The City will consider the relative ability of proposed expansion areas to address the city's affordable housing needs in balancing the social and economic consequences of bringing alternative expansion areas into its urban growth boundary. The Council finds that policies 11-51 through 11-55 are intended as local policy guidance to evaluating alternative future UGB expansions in the context of meeting state laws and administrative rules and balancing the factors established in state regulations. The emphasis Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-48 on "guidance" above recognizes that the City will define goals and evaluation criteria to be applied for each unique UGB expansion process. The Council finds that the general expansion policies above build on the lessons learned from the current UGB Expansion process. Future expansions will utilize the process and goals set forth by the current UGB expansion process and continue the goal to grow wisely. Specific Expansion Area Policies Northeast — Butler Market Village: 11-56 The City will initiate an Area Plan for the Northeast - Butler Market Village area. The Area Plan will address policies 11-57 through 11-63. Prior to completion of the Area Plan, annexations in this area must be a minimum of 40 contiguous acres and be the subject of a,master plan application, which includes a framework level Area Plan for"the rest of the subarea. Following adoption of the Area Plan, annexation and: development of individual properties or groups of properties of any size,consistent with the Area Plan, may be approved. 11-57 Within the area identified on Figure 11-4, the central planning concepts are to: create a new,complete community as a node that sets the stage for additional urban growth in the future: and increase the mix of housing and land; uses in the area to increase the completeness of the existing .;'neighborhoods inside the UGB. 11-58 This -area shalt provide fora mix of residential and commercial uses, including 222:gross acres of residential plan designations and 22 gross ;res ofcommercial plan designations (excluding existing right of way). 11-59 In order to provide sufficient'housing capacity and mix, the residential plan designations- shall include 178 gross acres of RS, 21 gross acres of RM, and16 gross acres of RH. Acreages exclude existing right of way. The acreage of RS includes roughly 14 acres for an elementary school site, whichmay be designated PF if a site has been acquired by the School District prior to completion of the Area Plan. Alternatively, the AreaPlanmay demonstrate that this area will provide capacity for a minimum of 1100 housing units, including at least 10% single family attached housing and at least 40% multifamily and duplex/triplex housing types. The Area Plan may include and rely on plan designations, zones, special plan districts, and/or other binding development regulations to demonstrate compliance with the specified mix and capacity. 11-60 The street, path and bikeway network shall provide connectivity throughout this area, connect to existing abutting local roads, and provide Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-49 opportunities for connections to adjacent undeveloped land both inside and outside the UGB. The transportation network shall be consistent with the Bend Transportation System Plan. 11-61 Coordination with the Bend-LaPine School District is required in order to identify a suitable site for an elementary school within this area. 11-62 Coordination with Bend Park and Recreation District is required in order to address provision of parks and/or trails within this area. 11-63 Coordination with Central Oregon Irrigation District is required in order to address circulation and access issues related to the existing canals in this area and to identify opportunities for trails to be co -located with canal easements or right of way. East Highway 20: 11-64 This area (identified on Figure 11-4) shall provide for affordable housing, consistent with policies 5-20 and 5-21 of the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: o The minimum number of affordable housing units shall be 100% of the housing -units developed on the portion of the property shown on Figure 11-4.; o Guarantees, in-aformJ°acceptablefo the City, shall be in place to ensure that affordable housing units will meet the affordability requirements for not: _less than 50 years. DSL Propel 11-65 Master.: planning is required for this area. The master plan must be consistent with both master plan standards in the development code and policies 11-66 through 11-74 below. 11-66 The overall planning concept for the DSL property as identified in Figure `11-4 is for a new complete community that accommodates a diverse mix of housing and employment uses, including the potential for a large -lot industrial site. 11-67 This area shall provide for a mix of residential and commercial uses, including 163 gross acres of residential plan designations, 60 gross acres of residential and/or public facility plan designations, 46 gross acres of commercial plan designations, and 93 gross acres of industrial plan designations, including one large -lot industrial site. (Gross acreages exclude existing right of way.) Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-50 11-68 In order to provide sufficient housing capacity and mix, the residential plan designations shall include 196 gross acres of RS, 9 gross acres of RM, and 19 gross acres of RH. Acreages exclude existing right of way. The acreage of RS includes roughly 21 acres for an elementary school site and up to 35 acres of parks and public open space, which may be designated PF if land has been acquired by the school or park district at the time of the master plan. Alternatively, the master plan may demonstrate that this area will provide capacity for a minimum of 1,000 housing units, including at least 11% single family attached housing and at least 41 % multifamily and duplex/triplex housing types. 11-69 Subsequent planning for this area shall -address preservation of at least 50 acres for a large lot industrial site in compliance with the policies in Chapter 6. 11-70 Coordination with the Bend -La Pine School District is required in order to identify a suitable site for an elementary school within this area. 11-71 Coordination with Bend Park and Recreation district is required in order to address provision of parks and/or trails within this area. 11-72 Coordination with other special districts and utility providers is required within this area. 11-73 ::Bat habitat should be mapped and protected from development, including a suitable buffer around any,identified habitat areas in order to ensure their' -continued habitat value:; 1-74 "Trails should.be provided,along canal easements and through other open space wherever feasible. 11-75:;. The City will initiate an Area Plan for the Elbow area. The Area Plan will address policies 11-76 through 11-84. Prior to completion of the Area Plan, annexations in this area must be a minimum of 40 contiguous acres and be the subject of a master plan application which includes a framework level Area Plan for the rest of the subarea. Following adoption of the Area Plan, annexation and development of individual properties or groups of properties of any size, consistent with the Area Plan, may be approved. 11-76 This area, as identified in Figure 11-4, is intended to provide for employment uses to take advantage of good transportation access on Knott Road and 27th and existing city streets (and future improved Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-51 access with the Murphy Extension) with a mix of residential uses providing a compatible transition from the employment lands to existing neighborhoods to the west. This mix of uses is also intended to increase the completeness of the existing low density neighborhoods. 11-77 This area shall provide for a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses, including 122 gross acres of residential plan designations, 67 gross acres of commercial plan designations, 76 gross acres of industrial designations, 103 gross acres of mixed employment plan designations, and 75 gross acres of public facilities (excluding existing right of way). 11-78 In order to provide sufficient housing -capacity and mix, the residential plan designations shall include 77 acres of RS, 36 acres of RM, and 9 acres of RH (excluding existing right of way). Alternatively, the Area Plan may demonstrate that this area will provide capacity for a minimum of 820 housing units, including at least 17% single family attached housing and at least 47% multifamily and duplex/triplex housing types. The Area Plan may include and rely on plan designations, zones, special plan districts, and/or other binding -development regulations to demonstrate compliance with the specified mix and capacity. 11-79 The alignment of a collectorstreet between 15th Avenue and 27th Avenue-/ Knott Road shall be determined in coordination with the City, consistent' with the Transportation System. Plan. 11-80 Subsequent planning for this subarea shall address funding for the Murphyextension from:Brosterhous to 15th Avenue. Roadext 11-81 The.streetpath and bikeway network shall provide connectivity throughout thisarea, connect to existing abutting local roads, and provide opportunities for connections to adjacent undeveloped land inside the UGB. The transportation network shall be consistent with the Bend Transportation System Plan. 11-82 Coordination with Bend Park and Recreation district is required in order to address provision of parks and/or trails within this area. 11-83 Coordination with the Bend -La Pine School District will occur during area planning within this subarea. 11-84 Coordination with other special districts and utility providers is required within this area. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-52 The Thumb: 11-85 Master planning is required for this area. The master plan must be consistent with both master plan standards in the development code and policies 11-86 through 11-91 below. 11-86 The planning concepts for the Thumb, which is depicted in Figure 11-4, include: a new complete community; provision of needed local commercial services to serve the Thumb and existing neighborhoods to the north; inclusion of industrial and other employment uses near the railroad line to take advantage of good proximity to Highway 97 and Knott Road, and, creation of an attractive southern gateway to Bend. 11-87 This area shall provide for mix of residential and commercial uses, including 44 gross acres of residential plan designations, 86 gross acres of commercial plan designations, 60 gross acres of industrial designations, and 31 acres of mixed employment plan designations (excluding existing right of way); 11-88 In order to provide sufficient housing capacity, the residential plan designations shall include 35 gross acres of RS, 7 gross acres of RM, and 2 gross acres of RH (excluding existing right of way). Alternatively, the master plan may -demonstrate. that this area will provide capacity for a minimum of;270 housing„units_, includinguat least 15% single family attached housing and atleast 37% multifamily and duplex/triplex housing types: Coordination with`Bend:Park and Recreation district is required in order to address provision of parks and/or trails within this area. -11-90 Coordination with the Bend -La Pine Schools District is required during area planning for this subarea. Southwest: 11 -91, -;Coordination with other special districts and utility providers is required `within this area. 11-92 Master planning is required for this area. The master plan(s) must be consistent with both master plan standards in the development code and policies 11-93 through 11-99 below. 11-93 Within the area identified on Figure 11-4, the central planning concepts are to: provide affordable housing opportunities; increase the mix of housing and land uses in the area to increase the completeness of the Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-53 existing neighborhoods inside the UGB; and provide compatible transitions to adjacent development. 11-94 This area shall provide for a mix of residential and commercial uses, including 26 gross acres of residential plan designations, 8 gross acres of residential and/or public facility plan designations, 3 gross acres of commercial plan designations, and 2 gross acres of mixed use plan designations (excluding existing right of way). 11-95 In order to provide sufficient housing capacity and mix, the residential plan designations shall include 14 gross acres of RS, 14 gross acres of RM, and 5 gross acres of RH. Acreages exclude existing right of way. The acreage of RM includes roughly 8 acres-for an elementary school site, which may be designated PF if land has been acquired by the school district at the time of the master plan. Alternatively, the master plan may demonstrate that this area will provide capacity for a=minimum of 240 housing units, including at least 16% single family attached housing and at least 60% multifamily and duplex/triplex housing types. 11-96 This area (identified on Figure 11-4)`shall provide for affordable housing, consistent with policies"5_20: and 5-21 of the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: o Theminimum number of affordable housing units shall be 125 housing units or-25%=of all housing units approved by the City, whichever is greater. Affordable housing units shall be affordable to households earning up to 30% of the median income. o `;Guarantees, in a form acceptable to the City, shall be in place to ensure that affordable housing units will meet the affordability requirements for not less than 50 years. West Area: 11-97 ;Coordination with Bend Park and Recreation district is required in order to address provision of parks and/or trails within this area. 11-98 Coordination with the Bend -La Pine Schools District is required during area planning for this subarea. 11-99 Coordination with other special districts and utility providers is required within this area. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-54 11-100 Master planning is required forforthis area. The master pfan(s) must be consistent with both master plan standards in the development code and policies 11-101 through 11-106 below. 11-101 FortheWestArea, shown on Figure 11-4, the central planning concepts are to: provide a limited westward expansion that complements the pattern of complete communities that has begun with Northwest Crossing due to the existing concentration of schools, parks, commercial and employment lands; and create a transect from higher densities along Skylirie Ranch Road to lowerdensity d open space along thevwystnrn edge in this area which approaches National Forest land and park open spaces, in order to provide buffers f�r wildlife and wildfire. 11-102 This area shall provide for a mix of residential -and commercial uses, including 321 gross acres of residential plan designations, 7 acres of commercial plan designations, and 14 gross acres of mixed employment plan designations (excluding existing right of way). 11-103 This area shall provide capacity for a minimum of 870 housing units and a maximum of 967 housing units, including at least 9% single family attached housind 6.nci atleast 21% multifamily housing types (including dtwlex,and triple4. 'The required minimunl-of 870 housing units rePresentt 90% of the maximpm'allpWed nuMber of units. 11-104 absence of an approved Area Plan for this subarea as a whole, eabfi propertyincluded in the 2016 UGB expansion in this subarea (see . Figure,11-5'beiowlithall prov40 the maximum number and mix of units 7= . - ;-,,epecified'Wow. The toinimufil 'required units (total and by housing type) 90,?/9 of ih4.gPecified rria*imum. 0 ; aster Plan Area 1: 650 housing units, including at Ieast 60 single family attadhed units and at least 142 multifamily and dupilex/triplex units. 0 Matter Plan Area 2: 65 housing units, including at least 12 single -family attached units. o Master PIan Area 3: 136 housing units, including at least 16 single family attached units and at least 59 multifamily and/or duplex/triplex units. o Master PIan Area 4: 116 housing units. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-55 11-105 Master Plan Area 3, identified on Figure 11-5, shall provide for affordable housing, consistent with policies 5-20 and 5-21 of the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: o The minimum number of affordable housing units shall be 20% of all multifamily and duplex/triplex housing units proposed in the master plan. o Guarantees, in a form acceptable to the City, shall be in place to ensure that affordable housing units will meet the affordability requirements for not less than 50 years. 11-106 The master plan process shall be Used to establish appropriate development regulations to implement the transect concept, measures to make the development and structures fire resistant, and RL plan designation densities within this area while providing for a mix of housing types and clustering developed areas to provide for open space preservation. 11-107 Coordination with Bend Park and Recreation district is required in order to address provision;:of parks and trails within this area. 11-108 Coordination with the Bend -La Pine Schools. District is required during area planning for this `subarea Shevlin Area: 11-109 Master planning is required for this area. The master plan must be consistent(with both -diaster plan standards in the development code and policies 11-110 through' 11-.1.14 below. 1-110 The concepts for the Shevlin area, shown on Figure 11-4, are to promote efficient;land use and neighborhood connectivity by filling in a "notch" in the prior UGB with compatible residential development; help complete =adjacent neighborhoods with small, neighborhood -scale commercial services;'and avoid development in sensitive areas nearer to Tumalo Creek. 11-111 The master plan process shall be used to establish appropriate development regulations to implement the transect concept, measures to make the development and structures fire resistant, and RL plan designation densities within this area while providing for a mix of housing types and clustering developed areas to provide for open space preservation. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-56 11-112 This area shall provide for a mix of residential and commercial uses, including 60 gross acres of residential plan designations and 8 gross acres of commercial plan designations (excluding existing right of way). 11-113 This area shall provide capacity for a minimum of 162 housing units and a maximum of 200 housing units, including at least 10% single family attached housing and at least 21% multifamily and duplex/triplex housing types. 11-114 Coordination with Bend Park and Recreation district is required in order to address provision of parks and/or trails within this area. 11-115 Coordination will occur with the Bend -La Pine School District during area planning for this area. OB Riley area: 11-116 The City will initiate an Area Plan for the OB Riley area. The Area Plan will address policies 11-117 through 11-121. Prior to completion of the Area Plan, annexations in this area must be a minimum of 40 contiguous acres and be the subject -of a master, plan application which includes a framework level Area Plan for the rest of the subarea. Following adoption of the Area Plan, annexation and development of individual properties or ;groups of properties of=any size, consistent with the Area Plan, may be approved. 11-117 The OB Riley;area, shown:on Figure 11-4, is intended to provide for a mix of employ iaent uses to take advantage of good transportation access, while also; including residential` uses to ensure a complete community and provide a transition to existing urban residential areas to the south. The OB Riley area will also provide an attractive northern gateway into Bend. 11-118 This area shall provide for a mix of residential and commercial uses, including 2'8 gross acres of residential plan designations, 47 gross acres of commercial plan designations, 41 gross acres of industrial designations, and 21 gross acres of mixed employment plan designations (excluding existing right of way). 11-119 In order to provide sufficient housing capacity and mix, the residential plan designations shall include 27 gross acres of RS and 3 gross acres of RM. Alternatively, the Area Plan may demonstrate that this area will provide capacity for a minimum of 125 housing units, including at least 10% single family attached housing and at least 20% multifamily and duplex/triplex housing types. The Area Plan may include and rely on plan designations, zones, special plan districts, and/or other binding Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-57 development regulations to demonstrate compliance with the specified mix and capacity. 11-120 The street, path and bikeway network shall provide connectivity throughout this area and connect to existing abutting local roads. 11-121 Coordination with Bend Park and Recreation district is required in order to address provision of parks and/or trails within this area. North Triangle: 11-122 The City will initiate an Area Plan for the North Triangle area. The Area Plan will address policies 11-123;through ,11-131. Prior to completion of the Area Plan, annexations in this area must be a minimum of 40 contiguous acres and be the subject of a master plan application. Following adoption of the Area Plan which includes a framework level Area Plan for the rest of the subarea, annexation and development of individual properties or groups of properties of any size, 'consistent with the Area Plan, may be approved. 11-123 The concept for :this area, shown on Figure 11-4, is to provide for a mix of uses, including residential development to balance the mix of employment uses: in this area and provide a transition to existing rural residential areas to tle`'n'orth 11-124 This area shall provide for:: a `mix of residential and commercial uses, including 86`gross acres of:residential plan designations, 40 gross acres of commercial -plan -designations, and 22 gross acres of industrial designations, and 26 gross acres of mixed employment plan designations (excludingexisting right of way). 11.125 In order to provide= sufficient housing capacity and mix, the residential plan designations shall include 60 gross acres of RS, 21 gross acres of RM, and 5:gross acres of RH. The acreage of RM includes 3 to 4 acres :..for a neighborhood park site, which may be designated PF if a site has been acquired by the Bend Park and Recreation District prior to completion of the Area Plan. Alternatively, the Area Pian may demonstrate that this area will provide capacity for a minimum of 510 housing units, including at least 13% single family attached housing and at least 42% multifamily and duplex/triplex housing types. The Area Plan may include and rely on plan designations, zones, special plan districts, and/or other binding development regulations to demonstrate compliance with the specified mix and capacity. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-58 11-126 The properties identified on Figure 11-6, below, shall provide for affordable housing, consistent with policies 5-20 and 5-21 of the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: o The minimum number of affordable housing units shall be 25% of all housing units approved by the City on each property. o Guarantees, in a form acceptable to the City, shall be in place to ensure that affordable housing units will meet the affordability requirements for not less than 50 years. 11-127 As an alternative to meeting the requirements of Policy 11-126, affordable housing, consistent with policies 5-20 and 5-21 of the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements below, may be implemented within the North Triangle as a whole through an area plan, with prior written consent of affected property owners and guarantees in a form acceptable to the City.. . o The minimum number of affordable housing units shall be 77. o Guarantees, in a form acceptable to the City, shall be in place to ensure that affordable, housing -units will meet the affordability requirements,for not fess than 50 years. 11-128; Buffering measures are:regiuired between, industrial uses and abutting residential within and adjacent to this area. 11-129 The street,;, path- and bikeway network shall provide connectivity througloutt-his area -and connect to existing abutting local roads. Circulation plans for this area shall be coordinated with ODOT. 1-130 Coordination with the Bend Park and Recreation District is required to identify -a suitable site for a neighborhood park within this area. 11-131. Coordination with other special districts and utility providers is required within this area. The Council finds that Specific Expansion Area policies 11-56 through 11-131 provide direction and guidance to properties within the expansion sub -areas on the expected outcomes from the sub -areas. To ensure that subarea planning remains consistent with the capacity work and assumptions for the UGB, the Council finds that specific policies have been applied to each subarea that addresses housing mix and density as well as the total acreage by plan designation categories for residential, commercial, mixed use and industrial. The policies also memorialize the commitments made by various property owners to provide affordable housing (Rem Rec 9929, 9957, 9961, 9973, 10144). Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-59 Conclusion: The Council finds that the proposed text amendments described above are consistent with the Preface of the Plan which states, "the Comprehensive Plan is a document that changes over time to reflect new information and new direction for the future". There is a public need and benefit for the citizens of Bend to have a Plan that is internally consistent as well as consistent with the community goals and supported by policy to ensure that the vision of the community will be realized. The Council finds that this criterion has been met. Findings Report July 2016 Section 10-60 11. BEND DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE 11.1 Introduction The BDC includes both procedural requirements and specific approval criteria that apply to proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan (formerly the Bend Area General Plan) and the BDC. The procedural requirements are those that apply to Type IV applications and those land use matters that are on Remand. BDC 4.1.500 includes those requirements applicable to Type IV applications, with BDC 4.1.1200 outlining requirements for dealing with matters on Remand, such as this Remand from LCDC. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the BDC. The. Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developed to support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. In addition to the procedural requirements identified above, BDC 4.6.200 (Legislative Amendments), has approval criteria applying to proposed changes to both the Plan and the BDC. The following findings' first address and how the City has or will comply with the procedural requirements in BDC 4:;1..500 and'41-1200. These findings are followed by findings addressing Plan compliance (11.4) and Code compliance (11.5) with BDC 4.6.200. With respect;to the.findings presented._below, the City Council presents these as their findings, including those`that refer to actions taken by the City. 11.2 Compliance with=Procedural Requirements of BDC 4.1.505 and 4.1.1200 11.2.1 BDC 4.1.500, Type IV; Applications 4.1.505 Type IV Applications:'°' Legislative decisions are made after public notice, public hearings and a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Such applications generally involve broad public policy decisions that apply to other than an individual property. [Ord. NS -2122, 2009; Ord. NS - 2016, 20067 The Council finds that the City proposes a legislative decision that would have the effect of amending the text and the implementing maps of the Plan and the BDC. This decision includes a proposed expansion of the Bend UGB, and new chapters for the Plan. The Council finds that Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-1 these decisions are broad public policy decisions that affect areas within the existing UGB, and areas added to the UGB through the expansion. 4.1.510 Hearing Required. No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a final public hearing before the City Council. Public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Development Services Director, unless otherwise required by State law. [Ord. NS -2251, 2015; Ord. NS -2122, 2009; Ord. NS -2016,--2006] The City Council will hold a joint public hearing with the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on August 25, 2016. Review by the Planning` Commission is not required in this situation because the matters before the City Council are on remand from LCDC. The Council has provided findings addressing BDC 4.1.1200 below regarding the remand. 4.1.515 Notice. A. Published Notice. 1. Notice of a Type IV legislativechange shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 20.days prior to each public hearing. 2. The notice shall state the time and iplace of the -hearing and contain a statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration. The Council finds that the proposed=;decision satisfies 4.1.515(A)(1) above because the City has caused notice to be published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on August 5, 2016. The notice satisfies BDC 4.1.515(A)(2) because it includes the time and place of the hearing, and describes the purpose;of the ordinance under consideration. B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be°posted at the discretion of the Development Services Director. C. Individual Notice. For site-specific applications, individual notice to property owners, as defined in BDC 4.1.220(A,) shall be provided. The Council finds that BDC.4 1-.515(B) is not a mandatory requirement that the City must satisfy. In addition to the published notice describe above, the City has provided written notice to property owners who may be affected by the changes in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code written notice that satisfies ORS 227.186 (aka Measure 56 Notice). The City also provided notice to interested persons, members of the TACs, and the UGB Steering Committee through electronic mail on August 4, 2016. BDC 4.1.515(C) is not applicable because the proposed legislative decisions affect broad groups of properties and not limited to those properties that abut a property which is the subject of a proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-2 D. Neighborhood Associations. Notice of Type IV legislative changes shall be mailed to the designated representative of any neighborhood association recognized by the City of Bend, where the legislative change affects any land within the boundary of such neighborhood association. [Ord. NS -2251, 2015; Ord. NS -2122, 2009; Ord. NS -2016, 2006] The Council finds that the City has complied with this requirement by sending notice via electronic mail and through first class mail to the Land Use Chairs of the City's neighborhood associations. The email notice was sent out on August 4, 2016; the written notice mailed on August 5, 2016. 4.1.520 Initiation of a Legislative Change. Requests for a plan map or text amendment of the Bend Urban Area General Plan or its implementing documents may be initiated by an individual, corporation, or public agency upon submittal of an application, supporting documentation and payment of required fees. The City Council, Planning Commission or Development Services Director may also initiate legislative changes. [Ord. NS -2251, 2015; Ord. NS -2122, 2009; Ord, NS -2016, 2006] The City Council initiated the work to address the 2010 Remand Order on January 19, 2011. 4.1.525 Review Authority. Any Type IV change shallbe reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the City Council. [Ord NS -2122, 2009; Ord, NS -2016, 2006]- The Council finds that the Planning;` Commissions': review is not required in this situation because thelegislative decision is in response to a 2010 Remand Order from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (Rem Rec 5725). 4.1.530 Final Decision. All legislative changes shall be adopted by. ordinance. [Ord. NS -2122, 2009; Ord. NS -2016, 2006] The City Council has proposed adoption of Ordinance 2271, through which the Council would adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Development Code, and map amendments that would also recognize the expanded UGB. 11.2.2 BDC 4.1.1200, Notice Requirements under ORS 227.186 227.186 Notice to property owners of hearing on certain zone change; form of notice; exceptions; reimbursement of cost (1) As used in this section, "owner" means the owner of the title to real property or the contract purchaser of real property, of record as shown on the last available complete tax assessment roll. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-3 (2) All legislative acts relating to comprehensive plans, land use planning or zoning adopted by a city shall be by ordinance. (3) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, at least 20 days but not more than 40 days before the date of the first hearing on an ordinance that proposes to amend an existing comprehensive plan or any element thereof, or to adopt a new comprehensive plan, a city shall cause a written individual notice of a land use change to be mailed to each owner whose property would have to be rezoned in order to comply with the amended or new comprehensive plan if the ordinance becomes effective. (4) At least 20 days but not more than 40 days before the date of the first hearing on an ordinance that proposes to rezone property, a city shall cause:a written individual notice of a land use change to be mailed to the owner of each lot or parcel of property that the ordinance proposes to rezone. The City Council finds that notice to property owners, as required by ORS 227.186, was mailed according to the requirements of this statute and therefore satisfies its requirements. With respect to (2) above, the City has already provided findings -above that the proposed UGB expansion and related changes to the Comprehensive Flan`and Development Code, will be adopted through Ordinance 2271. The Notice required under (3) and (4) above was mailed to owners of record of property, as defined in. (1) above, on Julst 282016. The date on which the notice was mailed was 27 days from the date set forthe-August 25i.:2016 joint hearing. The City has incorporated this noticeand:the mailing list identifying; the property owners to whom the notice was sent in theVGB Remand Record: 11.2.3 BDC 4.1.1200, Proceedings pn Remand 4.1.1210 Pu>pse. This chapter shall govern the procedures to be followed where a decision of the City has been remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) or the Appellate Courts. [Ord. NS -2251;-2015; Ord. NS -2122, 2009; Ord. NS -2016, 20061 The Council finds that the foliowing requirements are applicable to this proposal because the legislative decisions proposedare in response to a 2010 Remand Order of LCDC. The order is included the Record on Remand at page 5725, and was issued by the LCDC on November 2, 2010. The order remands joint decisions of the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners that approved a previous expansion of the Bend UGB that was submitted to the DLCD on April 17, 2009. 4.1,1215 Hearings Body. The Review Authority for a remanded decision shall be the last Review Authority from which the appeal to LUBA or DLCD was taken, except that in voluntary or stipulated remands, the Council Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-4 may decide that it will hear the case on remand. [Ord. NS -2251, 2015; Ord. NS -2122, 2009; Ord. NS -2016, 2006] The Review Authority for this proposal is the City Council. The City Council approved the previous decision on the 2009 UGB proposal that was submitted to DLCD that same year. The LCDC Remand was neither voluntary nor stipulated. 4.1.1220 Notice and Hearings Requirements. A. The City shall conduct a review on any remanded decision if requested by the applicant in writing or initiated by the City for a City project. The remand procedure shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of this section, the LUBA, DLCD or LCDC or Appellate Court, decision, and applicable State law. Unless State law requires otherwise, only those persons who were parties to the proceedings before the City shall be entitled to notice and be entitled to participate in any hearing on remand. The Council finds that the City has conducted this review of the remanded 2009 UGB decision as initiated by the City Council on January 19, 2011. The remand procedure the City is following is outlined under BDC 4.1.1200 and there are no state laws that provide further direction on how to conduct the remand. This report includes findings in Section 12 that show how the City addressed the specific requirements of the Remand Order that directed the City to revise certain work from the 2009 UGB proposal. The, City has provided notice and will conduct a joint public hearing between the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners on August 25, 2016, using the notice procedures listed above under BDC 4.1.515. B. The review procedures shall comply with State law and with the requirements of this code for either legislative or quasi-judicial procedures, whichever was employed for the initial decision oras required by the remand. (Ord. NS -2251, 2015; Ord. NS -2122, 2009; Ord. NS - 2016, 2006] The Council finds that the procedures the City has employed to develop and review this proposal are those applicable to legislative decisions under BDC 4.1.500. The Remand requirements in this section do not require review of the Planning Commission; they direct that the decision that was the subject of the remand be reviewed by the body from which the decision came, which in this situation is the City Council. 4.1.1225 Scope of Proceeding. A. On remand, the Review Authority shall review only those issues that LUBA, DLCD, LCDC or the Appellate Court required to be addressed. The Review Authority shall have the discretion to reopen the record in instances in which it deems it to be appropriate. The City Council will review those issues that LCDC directed the City to address in its Remand order. Section 12 of these Findings outlines those issues that required further work according to Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-5 the Remand Order, and provide findings that explain how that work was completed and satisfies both the Order and relevant state law. B. If additional testimony is required to comply with the remand, parties may raise new, unresolved issues that relate to new evidence directed toward the issue on remand. Other issues that were resolved by LUBA, DLCD, LCDC or the Appellate Court or that were not appealed shall be deemed to be waived and may not be reopened. The Council finds that the Remand Order (Rem Rec 5725) identifies those issues that were settled by LCDC, and those issues where LCDC directed the City to complete new or revise prior work. These findings and the work products upon which they are based were developed to respond to those issues where additional work was required.- Section 12 of these Findings addresses these remand issues. C. Notwithstanding subsections A and B of this section, for remands of City -initiated legislative amendments, the City Council may allow the introduction and processing of new work tasks, issues, evidence and testimony if the Council determines that the information or task is necessary and/or valuable in order to resolve the remand. (Ord. NS -2251, 2015; Ord. NS -2122, 2009; Ord. NS -2016, 2006] The Council finds that the proposal thatis the of this finding is a City -initiated legislative amendment intended to address and respond to`the2010 Remand Order of LCDC. The work products developed by the project team are -those focused -on satisfying both state law (both statutes and administrative rules) and the requirements of ti, -Remand Order. The City Council approved a work program to complete this work on"April 7, 2014, with its contract with the Angelo Planning Group to'ensure``that work products completed were those necessary to satisfy both the Remand Order and state`;Iaw. 11.3 Comprehensive Plan`,Compliance:with BDC 4.6.200 A. Applicability, Procedure and Authority. Legislative amendments generally involve broad public policy decisions that apply to other than an individual property owner. These include. without limitation. amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and map, Development Code -:and changes in the Zoning Map not directed at a small number of properties. ' They are reviewed using the Type IV procedure in accordance with BDC Chapter 4.1. Development Review and Procedures, and shall conform to BDC 4.6.600, Transportation Planning Rule Compliance. A legislative amendment may be approved or denied. The Council finds that the City proposes legislative amendments to the City's Plan that affect a broad number of properties. The City proposes to include 2,380 acres of land into the UGB, and to change the plan designation on approximately 705 acres of land within the current UGB. In addition, the Plan includes a number of new policies affecting density and development types Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-6 throughout the City. Therefore, these proposals are legislative decisions subject to the following criteria (4.6.200(6)(1-3)): B. Criteria for Legislative Amendments. The applicant shall submit a written narrative which explains how the approval criteria will be met. A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for a legislative amendment shall be based on all of the following criteria: 1. The request is consistent with the applicable State land use law; The Council finds that Sections 4-9 of these Findings demonstrate consistency of the City's UGB expansion proposals with applicable State land use statutes and rules as follows: • Section 4: Needed Housing; • Section 5: Economic Development and Employment Lands; • Section 6: Other Needed Lands; • Section 7: Urbanization; • Section 8: Transportation; and • Section 9: Statewide Planning Goals. Based on the analysis con y tainedin those sections of the Findings, the Council concludes the proposal satisfies criterion (B)(1). 2. The request is consistent with the applicable Bend Area General Plan goals and policies; The Council finds that the Comprehensive Plan has been updated to provide consistency with revised goals created by USC for the UGB expansion. Certain changes to the Comprehensive Plan are needed to support the City's goals to provide for land needed for housing, employment, schools, parks, and other necessary land uses. Therefore, text changes have been made to support the UGB expansion and comply with the Remand Order and the Statewide Planning Goals. Changes to the Plan language fall into two categories: substantive and "housekeeping". Substantive changes include new or reworded policies. Findings in Section 10 demonstrate how the UGB expansion complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies, as amended (see Section 10). "Housekeeping" changes to the Plan are corrective in nature and include deleting existing policies that are obsolete because the directive within the policy is no longer necessary, as well as minor amendments to outdated text within the body of the individual chapters. Although less substantive than the language described in Section 10, it is also necessary for these changes to comply with BDC 4.6(6)(2). Since the substantive changes have been Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-7 addressed with findings in Section 10, housekeeping text amendments' consistency with the Comprehensive Plan are addressed below in Section 11.3. 3. The applicant can demonstrate a public need or benefit for the proposed amendment • Changes proposed by individuals or other agencies. A proposal by an individual, corporation, or public agency to change to the Plan text, land use map, other exhibits, or policies shall be considered as determined by the procedures ordinance. A person or agency proposing a change has the burden to demonstrate a public need and benefit for the change. The Council finds that Section 11.3 provides findings to demonstrate the public need and benefit of the specific proposed changes to the Plan arising out of the UGB expansion process and Remand Order. The Council proposes this expansion of the UGB, and adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, to achieve the following: 1. A need for additional land for housing. This land need is intended to accommodate approximately 5,282 housing units that cannot be reasonably accommodated in current UGB, even with the adoption of efficiency measures. In addition, this land need for housing is intended to provide land for more single family attached and multifamily housing for present and future households. 2. A need for additional land for jobs. This land need for jobs is intended to accommodate approximately 7,181 jobs that cannot reasonably be accommodated in the current UGB, even with the adoption of efficiency measures; and 3. A need -for -land for public -parks and_schools..__ The City began this work with the submittal of a final UGB expansion proposal to the DLCD in April of 2009. In January of 2010, the DLCD Director issued a report and order remanding the proposal back to the City for significant work and revision. Following appeals by the City and several parties of this decision, LCDC issued a partial acknowledgement/remand order in November 2010. The Council finds that there is a public need for the land to accommodate forecasted growth in housing units and jobs that have been documented in the HNA (Rem Rec 10572) and the EOA (Rem Rec 10687). These lands needs can be met, in part, in the current UGB through efficiency measures, but will require additional land, as documented in the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814). The Council finds that the community interest in the UGB expansion and resulting changes to the Plan has been ongoing and extensive. The public benefit achieved is an updated Plan and BDC that will support Bend's growth and ensure development occurs that helps achieve the needed mix of housing and jobs. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-8 11.4 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments The City is initiating house -keeping changes to the City's Plan. The following findings summarize the house -keeping changes needed to demonstrate compliance with Section 4.6(6)(2 and 3) of the BDC and therefore support the City's goals to provide for land needed for housing, employment, schools, parks, and other necessary land uses. Substantial changes are addressed in Section 10 of the findings. The most obvious change is the formatting. All chapters have been converted to the new format, which includes a change in the way policies are numbered. The new format is a two - number system with the first number indicating the chapter number and the second number separated by a hyphen indicates the policy number. Other changes include removal of obsolete language and updating dates and numbers. 11.4.1 Preface The Preface of the Plan contains dated text about Bend's population in the mid -1900's and the anticipated growth. This text was updated to reflect the current planning period. Text was deleted from the Preface under the `heading of Plan Maps. This section describes the land use categories shown on the map. Includedinthe description is a, reference to the use of symbols to locate future school, parks and neighborhood commercial nodes. This practice is no longer in use and is therefore being deleted. The Preface has been updated to include current background information to support the Plan's provisions:._ 11.4.2 Chapter 1, PtanManagement and Citizen Involvement Chapter 1 was last updated 0-1998 and contains' community goals that are almost 20 years old. The goals forthe UGB expansionJbuild on t ie work Pone in 1998. It is important to illustrate the continued work towards these goals:and the new;goals that support the UGB. New text was added to the existing community goals recognize the consistency of the goals identified in 1998 and 2016,UGB process. Goals are!not regulatory, but capture Bend's aspirations for the future. The UGB section of Chapter 1 was updated to the current planning period of 2008-2028. A more significant change to Chapter 1 is the proposal to delete the entire section titled Urban Reserve Boundary andthe corresponding policies. Consistent with State Statutes and Statewide Planning Goal 2, the task of coordinating Urban Area Reserve Planning is the responsibility of Deschutes County. Through the UGB process, the County will be updating their comprehensive plan to clarify their role in Urban Area Planning. The duties of both the City and the County will be addressed in the creation and subsequent adoption of a new Joint Management Agreement. In addition, the text in this section refers back to the 1981 acknowledged boundary where the City and County proposed inner and outer urban growth boundaries. The adopted and acknowledged UGB represented what the plan described as the "inner UGB." The outer Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-9 boundary of the lands designated Urban Area Reserve (UAR) represented the "outer UGB." The lands designated UAR do not have the same legal status as lands that have been designated as statutory urban reserves under ORS 195.145 and OAR 660-021. Retaining this text in the Comprehensive Plan is confusing and misleading. A new map showing the proposed UGB expansion area and the existing City limits will be added to replace the current "Bend Urban Planning Area." New policies were added to Chapter 1; these are addressed in Section 10.2. The Council finds that Chapter 1 has been updated to include current background information to support the Plan's provisions. 11.4.3 Chapter 2, Natural Features and Open Space The proposed text changes for Chapter 2 are housekeeping changes to clarify content. Within the text is a table that illustrates the acreages of: -public open space within the City. The list dates back to 1995 before the City annexed the remaining, unincorporated land in the UGB and prior to the passage of bonds by the school and park districts to acquire and construct new facilities'. This table was updated to be consistent with the current land need estimates for schools and parks. Under the policy heading for Natural Features and Open Space is a policy that requires action by the City on a recurring basis as shown -below. 'This policy is being deleted. 5. Beginning no lateraban 1999 and every three years thereafter, the Bend City Council.' or its designee shall hold public hearings to receive information identifying Areas of Special Interest and natural features. The city and county shall use this information to; update and clarify the designation of Areas of Special lnterest`and natural e tures on the Plan Map. The Council finds that the expectation was that Bend citizens would come forward to designate new Areas Of Special Interest (ASI) Since 1998, no new areas have been designated; the reverse has occurred. Some designated areas have been removed from the Plan map. There is a process in place for an individual to amend the Plan map should new ASI's be discovered. This policy is no longer neededto-implement the Plan. 15. The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall designate areas in parks with significant natural values as undeveloped, managed open spaces for natural habitat, educational, aesthetic and passive recreational use, and provide opportunities for trails, observation platforms, boardwalks, and interpretive signage. 1 The annexation of the remaining unincorporated areas of the UGB was approved by voters at the November 1998 general election, and became effective on July 1, 1999. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-10 16. The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall acquire strategic areas along the rivers, streams, and canals to protect and conserve scenic, recreational, and natural values, and make such areas accessible to the community. 17. The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall acquire park sites and open space lands where possible to establish pedestrian, bikeway and greenway linkages between parks, open spaces, neighborhoods, and schools. The Council finds that the existing Chapter 2 policies shown above direct the BPRD to coordinate with the City on specific actions or preform actions outright. The City does not have the authority to provide policy direction to the BPRD through the City's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, these policies have been modified. Chapter 2 has been updated to include current and accurate information to support the Plan's provisions 11.4.4 Chapter 3, Community Connections Minimal housekeeping changes are -proposed for Chapter 3, as follows: Park and Recreation Facilities:.: 5. The BendMetro Park and Recreation District, 'with the support of the city and county, shall ensure an equitable distribution of parks and open spaces throughout the District's jurisdiction. The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall identify "park deficient" reds of thecornniunityand,shall-ecquire park and open space property in theserareas. ~ The Bend=Metro Park and Recreation District shall design parks and facilities that excel'inaperformance, function, image and affordability; facilitate social ;gathering opportunities and provide a balance of active and passive recreational opportunities, with an emphasis on multiple use and park basics," including picnic areas, play areas, and multi -use turf and courts; and are good neighbors to adjacent properties. 8. The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall provide comprehensive sports complexes at dispersed locations throughout the community. 9. The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall orient riverfront parks to the river and to the riparian values of the river corridors. 10. The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall employ "soft" engineering practices when developing or revitalizing park sites, utilizing on-site storm Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-11 water swales and retention ponds rather than piping water off-site, and shall restore wetland whenever possible. 11. The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall include operation efficiency, patron safety, and barrier -free access when designing or revitalizing park sites. 12. When it is consistent with the needs identified in the Park and Recreation District's Comprehensive Management and Development Plan, park land may be acquired from a willing developer during the land subdivision process. 15 The Park and Recreation District shall;strive to develop neighborhood parks or community parks within a convenient distance of every residence in the community. The Council finds that policies 5 through 15 require policy direction specifically to the BPRD. The City of Bend does not and cannot require another agency to act through its comprehensive plan policies. Any required action would need to be addressed in an intergovernmental agreement with BPRD. These references are therefore deleted. State law requires the City to coordinate with other agencies on planning matters, including BPRD. In addition, the Parks map referred to as Figure 3-4 is being updated to: reflect all park ownerships within the existing city limits and the proposed UGB. This section of Chapter 3 has been updated to include current and accurate info:rmation;.to support the Plana; `pro",visions.' Urban Trails 19,. ,, , The city work the irrigation districts to limit development within the nal easements that would impair;the maintenance and operation of the canals. The Council'. finds that policyabove should be deleted because the City of Bend has no authority over the irrigation canal easements. TheCity provides notice of land use action where canals are affected. It`s:the responsibiljt-y of the irrigation district to communicate and coordinate with landowners to prevent development with easements or rights of way that benefit the irrigation district. In addition, the sub -heading text "Central Oregon Community College" is being changed to Colleges and Universities. The title and associated text was changed to reflect the recent decision by the state to open a new OSU-Cascades branch campus of Oregon State University in Bend. The campus will occupy land identified through the UGB expansion process as a special site for the University. This section of Chapter 3 has been updated to include current and accurate information to support the Plan's provisions. This policy is deleted. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-12 11.4.5 Chapter 4, Population and Demographics No changes to the text in this Chapter are proposed. The Council finds that the PRC at PSU now coordinates the population projections for the state of Oregon, and for all the counties and cities within the state. In addition, the population and demographic data upon which the plan is based will now reside in the HNA, which will be incorporated as an appendix to the Plan. The City finds that an entire chapter dedicated to population and demographics is no longer necessary. The policies directing the City to coordinate with PSU have been included in the new Chapter 5; Housing and are addressed in Section 10.6. In the interim, Chapter 4 will remain as a reference document until the next update of the Plan. 11.4.6 Chapter 5, Housing This chapter has been substantially rewritten to comply with the direction of the UGB expansion. The new Chapter 5 addressed completely in Section 10.6. 11.4.7 Chapter 6, Economy This chapter has been substantially:rewritten to comply with the direction of the UGB expansion. The new Chapter 5 addressed completely in Section 10.7. 11.4.8 Chapter 7, Transportation As part of the City's UGB:, amendment, the City updated the -TSP (Rem Rec 10994) and developed a ILUTP for' -Bend adopted as Appendix F'`of the -TSP. The City acknowledges that the existing Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan�includes duplicate information also provided in the acknowledged TSP.:`, The proposedamendment will simplify Chapter 7 by removing the TSP Benchmarks and, Implementation from Chapter7__ of the Plan will eliminate this duplication with the TSP, deleting; policies where the directivehas been completed, and deleting or modifyirg:text that is obsolete or notonger relevant. The updated Chapter 7(Rem Rec 10339) is addressed -.in detail in Section,10.8. 11.4.9 Chapter; Public Facilities and Services Chapter 8 has been recently updated to include the City's newly adopted sewer and water public facilities plans. This;chapter has been substantially rewritten to comply with the direction of the UGB expansion. The:tew Chapter 5 addressed completely in Section 10.9. 11.4.10 Chapter 9, Community Appearance The proposed text changes for Chapter 9 are housekeeping changes to update or clarify content and provide format consistency. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-13 6. After the Highway 97 Parkway opens, the city and county shall work with ODOT to improve the appearance of Highway 20, NE 3rd Street and South Business Highway 97. 11. The city shall develop ordinances requiring grading permits. The Council finds that the two existing policies shown above are deleted because the directives within the policy have been accomplished. The proposed changes provide consistency with other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Additional, more substantive changes are addressed in Section 10.10. 11.4.11 Chapter 10, Natural Forces Proposed changes to Chapter 10 include new text arid associated policies regarding wildfire (See Section 10.11) and housekeeping changes; to: delete policies where the directive within the policy has already been accomplished or is no:longer valid as indicated -below. Air Quality 1. The city shall encourage DEQ to perform more thorough monitoring of the air quality of the Bend Area, and shall work with DEQ to ensure that state and federal ambient air quality Standards°° shall not be exceeded. The Council finds that the,above policy is removed, becausethe Department of Environmental Quality no longer performs air quality monitoring Othe Bend office. 10-8 The City, in cooperation with State and local agencies and volunteer special; interaStnterest gups, shati consider a long range strategy for mproving air quality to=address issues such as the reduction of air toxins, haze;°:and air particulate. At a minimum, the strategy shall include: o Develop a "covered load" ordinance for construction, development, sand & gravel and debris hauling within the city limits. The Council finds that the directive in the sub -policy above to develop a "covered load" ordinance has been accomplished by the city and is therefore this policy is deleted. Other consistency changes made throughout the Policies section is the removal references to the county and/or state where those references obligate those agencies to a policy action. The City does not have any authority to direct other agencies to act through Plan policies. Chapter 10 has been updated to include current and accurate information to support the Plan's provisions. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-14 11.4.12 Chapter 11, Growth Management The Growth Management Chapter is an entirely new chapter that will be added to the Comprehensive Plan as Chapter 11 (Rem Rec. 10362) and is addressed in Section 10.12. The Chapter discusses the City's goals and policies regarding the future planning for growth as described below. Conclusion: The Council finds that the proposed text amendments described above are consistent with the Preface of the Plan which states, "the Comprehensive Plan is a document that changes over time to reflect new information and new direction for the future". There is a public need and benefit for the citizens of Bend to have a Comprehensive Plan that is consistent with the community goals and supported by policy to ensure that the vision of the community will be realized. The City Council finds that this criterion has been met. 11.5 BDC Text Amendment Compliance with Section 4.6.200 8. Criteria for Legislative Amendments. The applicant shall submit a written narrative which explains how the approval criteria will be met. A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an, application for a -,legislative amendment shall be based on all of the following criteria: 1. The request is consistent With the applicable State land use law; The Council finds that certain" portionsof theBDC.: are` being, updated as part of the Bend UGB process to ensure efficient use of land within the current UGB and within the proposed expansion areas. The City_has presented findings:;in Sections 4-9 that demonstrate consistency with applicable„State land' use;law Based on these findings, the City concludes that the proposedchanges to the BD which are.meant to enact the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, satisfy criterion (B)(1). 2. =; The request isco nsistent with the applicable Bend Area General Plan goals and policies: . The Council finds`thatthe role of the BDC is to implement the Plan. The UGB process identified efficiency measures (Rem Rec 11;'149) that will be implemented within the current UGB prior to expanding the boundary. Below is a summary of the proposed code text amendments that will be adopted concurrent with the adoption of the UGB, consistent with the Bend Comprehensive Plan. 11.5.1 Approach to Minimum Density The following changes to densities are proposed to meet the City's identified housing needs (Rem Rec 10572): • Increase the maximum density in the RL zone from 2.2 to 4.0 units per gross acre; • Increase the minimum density in the RS zone from 2.0 to 4.0 units per gross acre; and Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-15 • Retain the existing range of 7.3 to 21.7 units per gross acre in the RM zone. The Council finds that this section of code implements Plan policies discussed in Section 10.6. Barriers to development were modified to allow a broader range of housing types in the RS and RM zones (see below). These changes are intended to create a greater mix of housing types generally within the currently allowed density ranges in order to meet the needed housing types identified in the UGB analysis (Rem Rec 10572). The overall set of changes focus on requiring more mixing of units rather than dramatic increases to density levels. The Council finds that the City presented findings on the need for a new housing mix that included a greater proportion of multi -family housing in Section 4 (see Section 4.4.3, Needed Housing Types and Mix). The Housing Needs Analysis (RemRec10572) identified a need for more single family attached and multifamily housing to meet the needs of present and future households. This change in mix was recommended by the Residential TAC, and ultimately approved by the USC. The project team relied on this new housing mix to ensure the UGB includes an adequate supply of buildable land for housing (Rem Rec 10814). The Council finds this best meets the identified housing needs. 11.5.2 Ensuring Housing Mix This section of code implements Plan policies discussed in Section 10.6. In the RS zone, additional housing types will _be permitted outright rather than asconditional uses, including: 1) single family attached townhomes; 2) courtyard housing (detached housing with modified side setbacks); and 3) duplexes and triplexes. These-amendments'build on work that has already been completed by the:CommunityDevelopment Department and Planning Commission to allow a greater housing mix in the <RS;Zone. In the RM zone, at least half of the units in' developments between 3 and 20 acres will be required;tobe something: other than ..single family housing. The Councilfinds that this change is consistent with the changes to the Plan intended to encourage the development Of housing that will help the City achieve the needed mix of housing units without changing the minimum density. The proposed changes to the densities in certain zones will encourage=the development of additional housing in the existing UGB, thereby helping the City use land more -efficiently. The Council found in Section 4 that the needed housing mix needed to be changed to encourage the development of more single family attached and multifamily housing. 11.5.3 Master Plan Density and Mix Requirements This section of code implements Plan policies discussed in Section 10.6. The current code requires a flat minimum percentage of the maximum density (60%) for master planned sites. The amended code tailors the requirements to each of the residential zones. Below is the proposed minimum density for master planned sites in each zone: Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-16 • RL: 50% of maximum (2.0 units per gross acre) • RS: 70% of maximum (5.11 units per gross acre) • RM: 60% of maximum (13.02 units per gross acre) • RH: base zone minimum (21.7 units per gross acre) In addition, the draft code amendments include housing mix standards for each zone: • RL and RS: at least 10% single family attached, duplex/triplex, or multifamily housing • RM: at least 67% single family attached, duplex/triplex, or multifamily housing Any combination of single family attached, duplex/triplex, and/or multifamily housing can be used to meet the standard, but not other housing types such as ADUs or cottage housing. This is consistent with the HNA (Rem Rec 10572) and the policies for "expansioneareas in the new Growth Management Chapter 11 of the Plan (Rem =Rec 10362). The BDC amendments also allow single family attached townhomes and duplex/triplex outright as part of a master plan in the RL zone (which will be applied in some expansion areas on properties subject to master planning) to make it easier to_ meet mix standards. The Council finds that these changes are consistent with the changes to the Comprehensive Pian intended to encourage the development of housing that will help the City achieve the needed mix of housing units. 11.5.4 Minimum Lot Sjze'Req.utrements This section of code implements Plan policies discussed in Section 10.6. Minimum lot sizes for certain housing types in certain residential zones'are be reduced or eliminated in order to make it easier to build at the higher=end-of the allowed gross density range. Changes to minimum lot area (shown in square: feet or"sif);by zone and:;l ousing type include: • RL4one: Single Famly;Detached,reduced from 15,000 sf to 10,000 sf; duplex/triplex reduced from 30,000 sfto 20,000 sf • RS zone: f no, changes proposed • RM zone: Single FamilyDetached reduced from 3,000 sf to 2,500 sf; townhomes reduced from 2-,000 sf, per unit to 1,600 sf per unit; Multifamily housing, duplexes and triplexes — no minimum=(gross density controls) • RH zone: townhomes reduced from 2,000 sf per unit to 1,200 sf per unit; Multifamily housing, duplexes and triplexes — no minimum (gross density controls) The Council finds that this change is consistent with the changes to the Plan intended to encourage the development of housing that will help the City achieve the needed mix of housing units. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-17 11.5.5 Regulating Building Mass and Lot Coverage This section of code implements Plan policies discussed in Section 10.6. In order to ensure that development is feasible on smaller lots but also compatible with surrounding development, the Residential TAC recommended regulating Floor Area Ratio (FAR) rather than lot coverage for residential development. The BDC amendments include eliminating lot coverage standards in favor of FAR for nearly all housing types and zones. The proposed FAR standard (0.55) was researched and developed during the Community Development Department's work on ADU regulations and was broadly accepted by the Bend Planning Commission and stakeholders in that process. The Council finds that this change is consistent with changes to the Plan intended to encourage the development of housing that will help the City achieve the needed mix of housing units. 11.5.6 New Mixed Use Zones This section of code implements Plan Policies discussed in Section 10.6. The code amendments include two new mixed. use plan designations arid corresponding implementing zones: urban -scale (Mixed Use — Urban or MU) and neighborhood -scale (Mixed Use — Neighborhood or MN). The new zones are intended to accommodate a range of residential and commercial uses in pedestrian -oriented mixed use centers and corridors (Rem Rec 10814 and 10950). The scale of uses in the MN zone;(primarilybuilding heights) is less intense than the MU zone. The code amendments also include changes `to`the current Mixed Employment (ME) zone to restrict single-family detached housing and encourage°vertical mixed use. The Council finds that the':new mixed use zones `and the modifications to the current ME zone in the Development Code are'' consistent; with the policies in Chapter 6, Economy (Rem Rec 10326) and Chapter 7,' -Transportation (Rein Rec 10339). The new zones will support the efforts to reduce= vehicle miles -traveled aelrequired in the City's ILUTP (Rem Rec 10994) and adopted as Appendix M of the Plan. 11.5.7 Revisions, to Parking -Standards This section of code implements Comprehensive Plan Policies discussed in Section 10.6. Targeted revisions to parking standards were identified as efficiency measures (Rem Rec 11149) and also as a strategy in the ILUTP (Rem Rec 10994) as part of the UGB process, including: • Reductions to parking requirements for residential and commercial uses in the MU zone, similar to those in the CBD (1 space per housing unit; 1 space per 500 square feet of commercial); • Automatic 5% reduction to minimum parking requirements for mixed use development; • Automatic 10% reduction to minimum parking requirements for development adjacent to transit; Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-18 • Apply existing parking reduction for affordable housing (1 space per housing unit) regardless of location, rather than limiting it to locations within 660 feet of transit; and • Reductions to parking for 1 -bedroom duplexes and triplexes (from 2 to 1 space per unit). The Council finds that the revised parking standards will support the efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled as required in the City's ILUTP (Rem Rec 10994) and adopted as Appendix M of the Comprehensive Plan. 11.5.8 Simplified Zone Changes In order to ensure that the BDC is implementing the goals and policies of the Plan, the City developed a streamlined approach to allow property owners to obtain a zone change that is consistent with the Plan designation applied to their property. The BDC now includes simplified approval criteria for zone changes that are consistent with the plan designation, focusing on adequate public facilities, and not requiring a showing of compliance with the Plan policies or statewide planning goals. Analysis of significant effects under the TPR may not be required where the zone will be changed to match the corresponding plan designation, as a result of the TPR analysis (Rem Rec 10994) completed for the UGB expansion. The Council finds that this change is consistent with changes to the Plan intended to encourage the development of housing and employment that will help thaCity achieve the needed mix of housing units, as well as to reduce VMTas required in. the City's`ILUTP (Rem Rec 10994) and adopted as Appendix Mof the Comprehensive Plan Conclusion: The proposed changes summarized above are consistent with the policies of the Bend Comprehensive Plat -land support the plan assumptions for development. Based on this finding, the -City -concludes the proposal satisfies criterion (B)(2). The applrcant canr' demonstrate a;public need or benefit for the proposed amendment • Changes proposed by individuals. or other agencies. A proposal by an individual, corporation, or public agency to change to the Plan text, land use map, other exhibits, or policies shall be considered as determined by the procedures ordinance. A person or agency proposing a change has the burden to demonstrate a public need and benefit for the change. `. The Council finds that the proposed changes to the BDC support the Plan, as amended (see Section 10), and ensure that the policies in the Plan will be realized through development. There is a public need and benefit to the citizens of Bend for development ordinances that clearly and consistently implement the community's Plan and supporting appendices. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the BDC meet this criterion. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-19 Conclusion: The proposed text amendments to the BDC discussed above meet the criteria for a legislative amendment under BDC 4.6.200B. The proposed amendments are an integral part of the UGB adoption package and are necessary to implement the efficiency measures identified through the Remand Order and then resulting remand process, as well as the statewide planning goals and needed housing statutes. Findings Report July 2016 Section 11-20 12. COMPLIANCE WITH LCDC'S 2010 REMAND ORDER 12.1 Introduction This section presents the City Council's findings that address directives from LCDC's 2010 Remand Order, including those that were referenced in the DLCD Director's January 2010 Report. The findings presented here either reference findings presented in a previous section of this report or address remand directives directly with findings that demonstrate compliance with state law. Here, as in the prior chapters of this Findings Report, the findings presented below are those of the City Council. This Section presents the findings of the Bend City Council. These findings explain how the City's proposed plan and land use regulation amendments satisfy applicable land use laws of the State and the City of Bend. The applicable State land use laws are those identified in either the ORS or the OARs. The applicable City land; use laws are cited as either policies from the Plan or approval and procedural criteria from the_BDC. The Findings also refer to evidence in the UGB record on remand that has been developedto support the proposed changes to the Plan and BDC. The LCDC Order was organized into several sections; within each section, topics were arranged by subissue, and included LCDC's conclusions. LCDC's conclusions for the following subissues included directives to the -City to,, prepare or revise worleto satisfy state law. Those subissues not presented below were settled and required the City to take no further action. This final section of the Findings` Report outlines these remand subissues; and refers the reader to findings in a previous section to show what action'the City took or completed that satisfies a given remand subissue. 12.2 ,::Substantia Table 12-1=summarizes the key, evidence that supports the findings in this section. Access to the 2009 UGB'Record and the°2011-2016"Record on Remand is also available on the City's website for the-UGB Remand Project www.bendoreaon.aov/benduab. Table 12-1 Key Record References Description 2011-2016 Record on Remand 2016 Buildable Lands Inventory 2016 Housing Needs Analysis 2016 Economic Opportunities Analysis 2016 Urbanization Report Date Page # Remand Record [Rem Rec.] 7/18/16 10513 7/19/16 10572 7/19/16 10687 7/18/16 10814 Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-1 Description Date Page # New Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5: Housing 7/2016 10310 New Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6: Economy 7/20/16 10326 New Comprehensive Plan Chapter 11: Growth 7/2016 10362 Management Amendments to Text of Bend Development Code (BDC) 7/19/16 11149 Amendments to Bend Comprehensive Plan Map 7/2016 11145 Amendments to Bend Zoning Map, if any 7/20/16 11147 12.3 Findings by Remand Order Subsection Section VI, Substantive Objections and Appeals, presented the LCDC's conclusions on issues raised in appeals and in objections to DLCD. This section organized topics by subsection, within which the Commission presented their conclusions and: disposition on each topic. The following findings follow this same order and format so the reader can review the Council's findings against the LCDC's conclusions in the Remand Order. Subsection 1 addressed the Adequacy of Findings for Review; and addressed the requirements for findings and for an adequate factual base that were presented in Section 3 of this report. 12.3.1 Residential Lands Needs 12.3.1.1 Subissue-.2.2 — Buildable Lands Inventory The Council finds that the City. has -satisfied this subissue by preparing a revised buildable lands inventory for -housing -according to=state law and LCDC's direction. The City presented findings on the developmentof;`the BLI in -Section 4 of these findings. The BLI classifies residential land according;to the DLCD's direction, and employment land based on the Goal 9 administrative rule. 12.3.1.2 Subissue 2.3 — Housing Needs Analysis The Council finds that;the City has satisfied this subissue by preparing a revised HNA that satisfies state law and addressed the remand order. Section 4 of these Findings describes how the HNA satisfies State law.,:: The HNA presents the needed housing mix with three (3) types of housing: single family detached, single family attached, and multi -family. The findings in Section 4 further explain the City's decision to pursue a housing mix different from past trends to support the development of needed types of housing. 12.3.1.3 Subissue 2.4 — Adequate Land Supply for Needed Housing The Council finds that the proposal satisfies this subissue because the City has documented that supply of land for needed housing within the current UGB, opportunity areas, and UGB Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-2 expansion areas includes enough land to meet this need. Findings on this subissue are in Sections 4 and 7. These findings rely on the BLI and HNA cited above along with the Urbanization Report. 12.3.1.4 Subissue 2.5 — Second Homes The Council finds that the proposal satisfies this subissue because the City has relied on the record developed in support of its second home land need estimates (Rem Rec 23). See Section 4 findings. The City incorporated this estimate into its land need estimate for housing and residential land, and did not modify it during the course of the remand (Rem Rec 10572- 10686, 10814-10949). 12.3.1.5 Subissue 2.6 — Inclusion of Land Not Suitable for Urbanization The Council finds that the City did not include lands not suitable for urbanization; therefore, this subissue is no longer applicable. 12.3.1.6 Subissue 2.7 — Inclusion of Land in Addition of Total Land Supply Needed The Council finds that the City did not include lands in addition to the total land supply needed; therefore, this subissue is no longer applicable.. 12.3.1.7 Subissue2.8 - Consistency, with Housing Policies The Council finds that the proposal„ satisfies this subissue because the City has presented findings demonstrating; the proposal is consistent -with the existing and new policies of Chapter 5 of the Plan (aka General:#Plan), Housing. The Findings addressing new and proposed policies for the Housing; Chapter in Section 10,"(Rem Rec 1.0310). 12.3.2 Capacity of the Existing UGB & Efficiency Measures 12.3.2.1' `;; Subissue 31.:7, -;,Reasonable Accommodation of Land Need The Council finds that the proposal satisfies this subissue because the City has demonstrated through forgoing findings the land;; needs for housing, employment, and other land uses cannot reasonably be accommodated within the current UGB. Through Findings in Sections 4, 5, and 7, the City has shown that; not; all of the land needs can be reasonably accommodated, even with proposed changes in plan designations and zoning within nine opportunity areas. These Findings were based on the work presented in the Buildable Lands Inventory and the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10513, 10814). These Findings show that approximately 70% of the housing units and jobs can be accommodated within the current boundary, with efficiency measures. The proposed UGB amendment is intended to ensure that the residual land needs for housing and employment can be met in the expansion areas. Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-3 12.3.2.2 Subissue 3.2 — Efficiency Measures Demonstrably Increase the Likelihood that Residential Development will occur at Needed Type, Mix, and Density The Council finds that the proposal satisfies this subissue because the City has presented findings that show the proposed efficiency measures will increase the likelihood that the needed types of housing will develop at the needed mix and density. In Section 4 of the findings, the City presented a needed housing mix of 55% single family detached, 10% single family attached, and 35% multi -family attached. These findings on housing mix are supported through the work presented in the HNA. Through the proposed opportunity areas, development code efficiency measures, the City has the capacity to accommodate the needed mix of housing. 12.3.3 Other (Non -employment) Land Needs 12.3.3.1 Subissue 4.1— Other Lands Factor` The Council finds that this proposal satisfies this subissue because the City has elected to use a factor of 12.8% to account for what are described as "other" lands. The Findings in Section 6 address this subissue, and the evidence upon which the analysis relied upon to support a 12.8% factor. The City determined that the record did not support a factor greater than 12.8%. 12.3.3.2 Subissue 4.2 — Land Needs for Parks and Schools The Council finds that the:proposal satisfies this subissue, because: the City has revised its land need estimates and findings for schools and parks, based on, their respective district plans updated to reflect needs between`2016 and 2028`tThe City'presented findings on this subissue in Section 6, including the evidence upon which the City relied for making these findings (see Urbanization Report). Theevidenceincludes the°district plans of the Bend La Pine School District and-BP-RD_;-for-µwhich=the City hastaken Official Notice. The City used each plan to identify land need estimates for public schools and,public parks. 12.3.3.3 Subissue 4:3 - Accommodating Land Needs for Parks and Schools in Current 1GB The Council finds th'at the proposal satisfies this subissue because the City has provided Findings that show to'what extent the land need for public schools and parks can be satisfied within the current UGB See the: Findings on this subissue in Section 6, including the evidence upon which the City relied=toprepare the Findings (see findings at 6.4.2.2). 12.3.4 Employment Land Needs 12.3.4.1 Subissue 5.1— Establish 20 -year Employment Land Need Using Scenario B The Council finds that the proposal meets this subissue because the City has prepared this land need estimates based on the 2016 EOA, and the Urbanization Report. The City did not prepare new findings using Scenario B from the 2008 EOA. Instead, the City relied on Scenario A in this Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-4 prior EOA to help develop the 20 -year land need for employment land (Rem Rec 1484, 1581). The Findings addressing this subissue are in Section 5. 12.3.4.2 Subissue 5.2 — Redevelopment Factor Assumption The Council finds that the proposal satisfies this subissue because the City conducted an analysis of redevelopment potential that was included in the 2016 EOA. The City relied on this analysis to determine to what extent additional employment would be accommodated in the UGB through redevelopment. The Findings in Section 5 (see 5:4.4.1) address this issue. 12.3.4.3 Subissue 5.4 — Market Choice The Council finds that this subissue is no longer applicable to this proposal because the City has elected to not use a market choice factor when estimating future employment land needs. (Rem Rec 1484, 1581). 12.3.4.4 Subissue 5.5 — Short Term Land Supply The Council finds that this proposal satisfies this subissue. because the City's 2016 EOA documents the short-term land supply and the infrastructure that will support it. The City's Findings in Section 5 (see Section 5.4,5.1 findings) document this analysis, including the analysis of necessary infrastructure plans.to support. development (Rem Rec 10687). 12.3.4.5 Subissue 6 4 Vacancy Rate The Council finds that: is. subissue:is'no longer'applicable because the City's 2016 EOA does not assume a vacancy rate for employment lands.:_,Instead, the EOA assumes that the 2006 employment densities reflect; the vacancy rates for office space and industrial land at that time. See Findings -An SectioR5. Subissue 5`8' Employment Uses in Residential Zones The Council` Inds that this subissue is nolonger applicable because the City has not accounted for employment uses consuming119 acres of land in residential zones. The prior estimate of 119 acres was increased due to j6e City's use of a market choice factor (see Subissue 5.4 above). The City found throughltie update of the buildable lands inventory and use of the ET model showed that rougllymuch less than 119 acres of residential land were occupied with employment uses. The HNA;accounted for 90 jobs in the Base Case that are expected to be accounted for in the RS, RM, and RH Zones, which are not including home occupations, contract workers, and similar "non -covered" employment. The Urbanization Report (See Table 16, page 46, Rem Rec 10860) identifies just over 150 jobs on residential land inside the UGB with efficiency measures. This accounts for just 5.6 net acres of employment and mixed use land within residential plan designations (see Urbanization Report Appendix D, table 3, Rem Rec 10947). Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-5 12.3.4.7 Subissue 5.9 — Compliance with Commercial Plan Policies The Council finds that the City's Findings include those in a forgoing section (see Section 10), within which the City has documented compliance of the proposed UGB amendment with the applicable plan policies from Chapter 6, Economy and Employment Lands, of the current Bend Area General Plan (Rem Rec 10326). 12.3.5 Natural Resources and Hazards 12.3.5.1 Subissue 6.1— Compliance with Goal 5, OAR Chapter 660, Division 23 The Council finds that the proposal satisfies this subissue because the City's findings on Goal 5 in Section 9 show the City has satisfied OAR 660, Division 23. The Remand directed the City to conduct a Safe Harbor inventory for riparian resources and wildlife along the Deschutes River and Tumalo Creeks, if either of those areas were proposed for inclusion into the UGB. The Council finds that, since no riparian areas are proposed to be included in the UGB expansion, this direction does not apply.- However, in 2009, maps of deer and elk habitat and winter range were made public by; ODFW that encompass a much larger area than was identified in 2008; therefore wildlife habitat analysis in this Finding is based on this new information (see Findings Section g and an ESEE analysis at Appendix A of Section 9) that supports the City's compliance with"Goal 5. The Remand required theCity` to: adopt localrequirements fo:implement the State Plan for protection the Middle"Deschutes Scenic Waterway include setback from the canyon rim for structures; however, the Council finds that the proposed UGB expansion area does not include any sections of the Scenic Waterway, therefore, this requirement does not apply. The Remand -required the City to clarify the Status of mineral and aggregate sites that occur in the study area but that are;not onthe County's acknowledged surface mining inventory. The site in question is the Shevlin°Sand ar4Gravel site located in the northwest quadrant of the City on Shevlin Park Road. The maps used toconduct the analysis for potential UGB expansion were modified toshow only the -portion of the site that has a current and active State surface mining permit (09-0018) for resource extraction as an area with a Goal 5 resource. The Council finds that this area was not included in the proposed UGB expansion. 12.3.5.2 Subissue 6.2 Considering wildfire risk during boundary location analysis The Council finds that the Remand Order did not require a consideration of wildfire risk; however, LCDC strongly suggested that the City consider wildfire risk during the boundary location analysis. The Goal 14 boundary analysis included the consideration of wildfire risk as 1 The Middle Deschutes Scenic Waterway is located from the northern Bend UGB to approximately river mile 161 at Tumalo State Park, as a Recreational River Area. Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-6 part of the ESEE factor, which as considered in the proposed UGB expansion. The City did so, and this is documented in Section 7 of these Findings, along with findings addressing Goal 7 in Section 9. The consideration of wildfire risk is further documented in the Scenarios Evaluation Report (Rem Rec 6209, 6315) and summarized in the Urbanization Report. Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan was amended to add a text section on Wildfire Risk and a new policy. Findings for this plan amendment can be found in Section 10 (Rem Rec 10512). 12.3.5.3 Subissue 6.3 Planning for Surface Mining Consistent with DOGAMI Permit The Council finds that this subissue is not applicable because the City has not included any of the land under State surface mining permit 09-0018 with this UGB amendment. Section 7 of this report outlines which properties were included in the UGB amendment Approximately 70 acres of the property owned by Shevlin Sand and Gravel was included in the UGB; all of which are located outside of the areas that is the subject of State surface mining permit 09-0018. 12.3.6 Public Facilities Planning 12.3.6.1 Subissue 7.1 — Adoption, Revision Of Public Facility Plans The Council finds that the City adopted Goal 11 PFPs for its key infrastructure before making this decision on the UGB amendment. Section 9 includes findings that address compliance with Goal 11. These Findings also include Official Notice of the Citys adopted water PFP (2013), sewer collection system PFP (2014), and stormwater PFP_(2014),.':In addition, DLCD acknowledged the City'S7S0 in 2013. whicnalso serves as the transportation public facilities plan under Goal 112..:These plans were relied-0On for analyses associated with public infrastructure as explained in detail in Section 7 of the findings. In short, the modeling for expansion areas relied on systems in place, or planned in the recently adopted and acknowleOdOpUbliclacility plans: This1S44ifferant-approach than the original proposal because the relative adVantages,'clisadvantagas;:costs, and benefits of different UGB expansion areas were arial$rOd according to acknowledged PFPs rather than coupling new and amended PFPs with the UGB expansidnproposal. The City's recent adoptions of a Water PFP, Collections System Master Plan (Sewer PFP), and TSP follow the direction of the remand sub - issue because it adopted PFPs for land uses within the prior and currently acknowledged UGB. The city anticipates updating these PFPs in the coming years to reflect the newly expanded UGB associated with this proposal. The referenced documents are attached to the Plan as Appendices. The Council finds that the City has addressed this subissue. 2 See OAR 660-012-0000(4) — "Transportation system plans adopted pursuant to this division fulfill the requirements for public facilities required under ORS 197.712(2)(e), Goal 11 and chapter 660, division 11, as they relate to transportation facilities." Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-7 12.3.6.2 Subissue 7.2 — Location of Sewer Collection Infrastructure Outside UGB The Council finds that, as explained in Subissue 7.1, this subissue is not applicable to review of the City's current UGB proposal because the City has already adopted a 2014 Collection System PFP. The City has not proposed any concurrent amendments to the PFP through this process. The PFP itself was acknowledged in 2014. 12.3.6.3 Subissue 7.4 — Consistency of Public Facility Plans with Proposed Land Uses The Council finds that this subissue is not applicable to review of the City's current UGB proposal because the City has already adopted PFPs for the City's water, sewer collection, and stormwater systems. The City adopted these PFPs in 2013 and 2014, and all three have already been acknowledged. In addition, all three PFPs were based on the land uses contemplated under the 1998 Bend Area General Plan (now calledtheBend Comprehensive Plan). 12.3.6.4 Subissue 7.5 — Coordination with Private Water. Utilities The Council finds that this subissue is not applicable to review of the City's current UGB proposal because the City has already adopted a water PFP for the Bend UGB. The City coordinated with the Avion Water Company and the Roats Water Company in 2011 to develop the City's Goal 11 Water PFP. The City's adoption of the plan' -was affirmed by LUBA in 2013 (Central Oregon Landwatch v; City of Bend:68 Or LUBA-173 (201°3))3. For completion of the UGB Remand, the City coordinated with the AvionyWater Company to obtain their feedback on providing water service to potential UGB expansion areas within'their service area (Rem Rec. 3258, 3434). Therefore, the City has complied byincluding these service areas in the Goal 14 analysis (See Section 7), mapped these,areas, and incorporated their comments regarding their systems through analysis and coordination. Subissue 77°- Address UGB Expansion area under Goals 11 and 14 The Council`finds that the City: addressed; this subissue because it considered the entire UGB expansion area and newly proposed expansion areas under Goals 11 and 14. Findings in Section 7 outline -the -process through which the City conducted the Goal 14 boundary location analysis. This analysis; included the evaluation of expansion scenarios and subareas themselves, with a particular=focus on sewer collection and transportation, as well as stormwater, and water. The"Goal 14 analysis described in Section 7 analyzed all proposed UGB expansion areas for their impacts on the city's public infrastructure systems, and those of private water utilities. In this respect, the City's UGB expansion analysis was not influenced by "gaps" in the analysis present during the original UGB expansion proposal which is the subject 3 See ORS 197.625(1)(b). if an appeal has been timely filed, the Land Use Board of Appeals affirms the local decision or, if an appeal of the decision of the board is timely filed, an appellate court affirms the decision. Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-8 of the Remand Order. As required by this subissue, findings documenting the analysis pertaining to Goal 11 and 14 have been adopted in Section 7 of the Findings, as well as the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814-10949). 12.3.6.6 Subissue 7.9 — Consideration of Costs of Public Facilities to UGB Expansion Areas The Council finds that the City addressed this subissue in the analysis of UGB expansion scenarios, and in the final evaluation of the preferred UGB expansion scenario (see findings in Section 7). The Section 7 findings also demonstrate that the infrastructure modeling included the impacts associated with the efficiency measures required to comply with Goal 10. This remand subissue has been fully addressed by the City's proposal. 12.3.7 Transportation Planning 12.3.7.1 Subissue 8.1— Analysis of Relative Transportation Costs The Council finds that this subissue required the City to analyze the relative transportation costs of lands in the same priority category, rather than aggregating its analysis into subareas without regard to the priorities under ORS 197298. The Council finds that the City addressed this subissue in the analysis of UGB expansion scenarios, and in the final evaluation of the preferred UGB expansion scenario (see findings in Section. 7): Within the initial two-mile study area, there were sufficient amounts of `higher priority lands (i.e. exception lands) to meet the identified land needs, as required under OAR 660 Division 24. No lower priority lands are proposed for inclusion in the UGB. Therefore, the City conducted its analysis of the relative costs of transportation in accordance with this Remand issue. With specific reference to transportation improvements, the findings: in_ Section.7-=describe how transportation impacts and costs were weighed*nd considered as part of the Goal 14 boundary evaluation and the resulting proposed UGB expansion. 12.3.7.2 Subissue 8.2 -=Consideration of Costs of Major Roadway Improvements Needed 4n, the Northern Area Relative to Different UGB Expansion Scenarios The Council finds -that this subissue required the City to explain its basis for assigning the costs of major roadway improvements: to expansion areas in the same priority category, and consider whether changes in the extent or location of the UGB expansion would reduce the need for major improvements in this area. All lands considered for expansion were in the same priority class, as discussed above in 8.1. Therefore, the Council finds that this portion of Remand subissue 8.2 no longer applies. The Council finds that transportation improvements required by different infill and UGB expansion scenarios were allocated to sub -areas and the expansion scenarios in order to consider the impacts on transportation systems regardless of the type of improvement (i.e. a regional project vs. local project). Both localized and regional transportation projects identified to be constructed in the planning period in the City's TSP and Bend 2040 MTP were assumed Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-9 to be in place in the analysis of all UGB expansion scenarios in order to accurately predict the impacts on transportation systems associated with different UGB expansion scenarios. This subissue also required the City to consider whether changes in the extent or location of the UGB expansion would reduce the need for major roadway improvements, particularly for the northern portions of the State Highway system. The Council finds that the proposed expansion scenario was, in part, selected because it minimizes impacts to the State system. The exception is that the proposed expansion would further degrade the ODOT mobility targets on a section of Highway 20 between Cooley Road and. 3!d Street, a project that is already identified on the financially constrained project list in the Bend 2040 MTP to remedy this impact. Therefore, the Council finds that this portion of Remand subissue 8.2 has been addressed. 12.3.7.3 Subissue 8.3 — Relative Costs of Required Transportation Improvements The Council finds that is subissue required the City to revise its findings to provide comparable cost estimates for proposed expansion areas. The. City addressed this subissue in the analysis of UGB expansion scenarios, and in the.final evaluation of the preferred UGB expansion scenario (see findings in Section 7), wherein relative transportation costs were used as part of Factor 1 comparison of alternatives (Efficient: Accommodation of Identified Land Needs). Therefore, the Council finds that Remand subissue 8.3 has been addressed. 12.3.7.4 Subissue 8.4 L -Status of the Deschutes River Bridge The Council finds that this subissue required the City to clarify that a new bridge over the Deschutes River is not needed within the planning, horizon. The current proposal does not trigger the need for any new bridges;: ;Therefore, the. Council finds that Remand subissue 8.4 no longer applies.:; 12.3.7:'5':;:`:. Subissue`8;57 Goal =.14 Analysis Consistency with Policies to Restrict Widening of Certain Arterials This subissue was affirmed on -the City Appeal. For clarity, the transportation analysis of the current proposal does not show`;aneed to widen any arterials with the City, with the exception of a previously identified needrto,add a lane to Highway 20 between Cooley Road and 3rd Street, a project that is already identified on the financially constrained project list in the Bend 2040 MTP to remedy this impact. 12.3.7.6 Subissue 8.6 — Compliance with TPR requirement to coordinate with MPO; Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Actions to Reduce VMT per Capita This subissue required the City to coordinate with the MPO, and to implement measures to reduce reliance on the automobile. The City has satisfied this subissue by coordinating project lists and approaches with the MPO (see Section 8 for a discussion of OAR 660-12-0016). The Council finds that the City has further satisfied this subissue by preparing an analysis of its Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-10 baseline VMT along with an analysis of project VMT over the planning period with proposed land use and transportation measures to reduce VMT per capita. If the analysis showed that there would be an increase of VMT per capita, the City would be required to prepare and adopt an ILUTP. Upon analysis, each of the six scenarios tested increased per capita VMT due to the amount of growth located outside the center of the city. Therefore, City has completed an ILUTP (Rem Rec 11012), which includes strategies for reducing VMT and standards by which to benchmark progress. The ILUTP is included as an Appendix to the City's amended TSP (see Section 8 for a more complete discussion of OAR 660-12-35). The Council finds that remand subissue requirements have been met because the City has adopted an ILUTP. 12.3.8 Location of the UGB Expansion Area 12.3.8.1 Subissue 9.1— Process and Steps to Evaluate Alternative Boundary Locations The Council finds that the City has satisfied this subissue by conducting the boundary location analysis according to the steps outlined under Subissue 9.1. This report includes findings in Section 7 that outline how the City addressed the six steps outlined on pages 129-130 of the Remand Order (Rem Rec 5852-5853). These findings and the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814-10949) demonstrate the sparing use of suitabilitycriteria and how the required boundary analysis utilizes the approach established through applicable case law. 12.3.8.2 Subissue 9.2— Demonstration of Land .Uses that Cannot Reasonably be Accommodated inCurrent UGB The Council finds that the City has satisfied thissubissue by demonstrating to what extent the estimated land needs for bousing and employment can be accommodated in the current UGB. The City presented findings on this topic in Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this report. The City documented the capacity of the current UGB-to accommodate needed housing and employment, with efficiency measures, in the Urbanization Report. The City has showed that even with efficiency measure s, the current UGB can accommodate roughly 70% of the projected housing units and jobs over planning period. The Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814-10949)'and Sections 4, '5;76 and 7 of these Findings demonstrate what land needs can be reasonably accommodated iin the prior UGB as required by this subissue. 12.3.8.3 Subissue 9.3 —Use of Exceptions under ORS 197.298(3) The Council finds that the City is not required to address this subissue because the City did not rely upon any of the exceptions under ORS 197.298(3) to develop the proposed UGB amendment. The Findings in Section 7 show the City relied upon exception lands or "Priority 2" lands under ORS 197.298(1). 12.3.8.4 Subissue 9.4 — Are County UAR Lands Exception or Resource Lands? The DLCD Director determined that Urban Area Reserve lands are exception lands and the City considered them as such in the current effort. Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-11 12.3.8.5 Subissue 9.5 — Exclusion of Land as Too Expensive to Meet Affordable Housing Needs; Subissue 9.6 — Exclusion of Lands of Less Than 3 Acres That Include a House; and Subissue 9.7 — Adequate Factual Base for Threshold Suitability Criteria The Council provided findings in Section 7 that outline how the City addressed the six steps outlined on pages 129-130 of the Remand Order (Rem Rec 5852-5853). These findings and the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814-10949) demonstrate the sparing use of suitability criteria and how the required boundary analysis utilizes the approach established through applicable case law. 12.3.8.8 Subissue 9.8 — Use County Code as a Standard for UGB Expansion This appeal was denied. 12.3.8.9 Subissue 9.9 — Reconsideration of Lands to the NW of Prior UGB and Subissue 9.10 — Exclusion of Buck Canyon Area The Council provided findings in Section 7 that outline how the City addressed the six steps outlined on pages 129-130 of the Remand Order (Rem Rec 5852-5853). These findings and the Urbanization Report (Rem Rec 10814-10949) demonstrate the sparing use of suitability criteria and how the required boundary analysis utilizes the approach established through applicable case law. 12.3.9 Other Issues -= 12.3.9.1 Subissue`1Q:1— Are-Qbjections on; City's Decision Relevant to Appeals of Director's Decision: This was -an issue related to procedure and isnot relevant to the current proposal. 12.3.9.2 "` Subissue 10:2= Plan Designations and Zoning for Areas Included in UGB The Council finds that the City has addressed this subissue by proposing plan designations for areas included in the-UGB amendment as shown by the newly proposed zoning and comprehensive plan maps (Rem.Rec 11145-11148). The City proposes to adopt plan designations for the areasiraci'uded in the UGB amendment. The county zoning that has been applied to the properties in the UGB amendment will remain in place until the City approves either a master plan or a city -initiated area plan for the subarea. The proposal includes a draft Growth Management chapter for the Plan (Rem Rec 10362). This chapter outlines which expansion subareas will be subject to either a master plan or a City -initiated area plan, and requirements specific to a given subarea to make sure the assumed employment and housing needs are met. The City has not proposed a framework planl for the areas included in this UGB proposal. Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-12 The Growth Management Chapter also includes a map that identifies the mapped special site needs for the two (2) large lot industrial sites, and a university site. The Council finds that the City has already concluded that the university site need will be met within the current UGB. One of the large lot industrial needs will be met in the UGB expansion subarea identified as the DSL property. The City has not included any resource land in this UGB proposal, and therefore finds that the exceptions under ORS 197.298(3)(a) are not applicable. 12.3.9.3 Subissue 10.3 — Adequate Notice; Subissue 10.4 — Goal 2 Coordination Obligations; Subissue 10.4 — Goal 1 Compliance; and Subissue 10.6 — Timing of Material Placed into the Record; and Subissue 10.7 — Definition of Scope of Remand These subissues address procedural issues that are not applicable to the current proposal. CONCLUSION: Based on the forgoing findings, the City Council concludes that the requirements of the 2010 Remand Order have -been satisfied. Findings Report July 2016 Section 12-13 APPENDIX A ESEEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE The purpose of this Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) analysis is to establish the basis for designation of Goal 5 wildlife habit resources within the areas analyzed and ultimately to apply a regulatory program to minimize adverse impacts to those resources if needed. The analysis also may be used to support application of Comprehensive Plan designations in the areas evaluated. In 2009, a map of big game (deer and elk) winter range (BGWR) was made public by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (Figure 1). This map, which encompasses Targe portions of the west and south sides of the City, was not available to the City during its 2008 (remanded) UGB expansion efforts. Because of this new information, the City has elected to err on the side of caution and broaden the consideration of wildlife issues beyond that associated with the Deschutes River and Tumalo Creek to include a consideration of BGWR, for the reasons discussed below. Goal 5 Inventory The Safe Harbor provisions of Goal 5 (OAR 660-023-0030) allow the City to limit its Goal 5 inventory to consideration of available information where one or more of the following conditions exist: (a) The habitat has been documented to perform a life support function for a wildlife species listed by the federal government as a threatened or endangered species or by the state of Oregon as a threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; (b) The habitat has documented occurrences of more than incidental use by a species described in subsection (a) of this section; (c) The habitat has been documented as a sensitive bird nesting, roosting, or watering resource site for osprey or great blue herons pursuant to ORS 527.710 (Oregon Forest Practices Act) and OAR 629-024-0700 (Forest Practices Rules); (d) The habitat has been documented to be essential to achieving policies or population objectives specified in a wildlife species management plan adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission pursuant to ORS Chapter 496; or (e) The area is identified and mapped by ODFW as habitat for a wildlife species of concern and/or as a habitat of concern (e.g., big game winter range and migration corridors, golden eagle and prairie falcon nest sites, or pigeon springs). Because ODFW has a Management Plan for big game habitat in Deschutes County', sections (d) and (e) potentially apply. Although the 2009 BGWR map is not directly referenced in the Management Plan (nor has it been adopted by ODFW), the City assumes that the BGWR map illustrates the area covered by the Management Plan, since that is how it is being used by ODFW. As part of the current UGB expansion process, all lands protected by the Deschutes County Wildlife Combining Zone for big game habitat were excluded from consideration for UGB expansion through the City's Goal 14 process. This process included a screening process for 1 Lower Deschutes Wildlife Area Management Plan, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009. A-1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE potential expansion areas. Land within the Wildlife Combining Zone was screened out of consideration for expansion based on a number of factors, depending on its location. For example, land in the Combining Zone west of the current UGB was screened out due significant potential infrastructure costs, potential inefficiency of land use and development given current development patterns, and presence of wildlife habitat. However, the areas identified on the 2009 BGWR map extend beyond those areas currently protected by the Deschutes County Wildlife Combining Zone. As allowed by the Safe Harbor rule, the City is relying on the 2009 map plus verbal information provided by ODFW to help update its Goal 5 inventory for the affected area. According to ODFW, the 2009 BGWR map is based on inventories and field knowledge of the areas utilized by deer and elk for summer, transition, and winter range. The agency reportedly has collected data over a period of decades, in the form of fall and spring animal counts, to support this mapping. However, the bulk of this detailed data was unavailable to the City because only a fraction of the data (from only the last couple of years and only for certain herd ranges) has been digitized and subsequently mapped. ODFW also indicates that collaring studies have been done since 2005, and notes that those results support the 2009 BGWR map. However, this data also was not available to the City due to the same mapping issues. Although not formally inventoried and mapped as a Goal 5 resource by Deschutes County, ODFW considers the mapped areas to be significant wildlife resource areas that meet requirements for Goal 5 resources, and ODFW labels the habitat as Category 2 under the ODFW Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy2. According to the ODFW wildlife biologist, ODFW considers Category 2 habitat to be "significant," although that is not stated explicitly within the Policy. Interviews with the ODFW Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist stated that the agency places the highest value on the deer and elk winter range habitat that is currently protected by the Deschutes County Wildlife Combining Zone. However the District Wildlife Biologist identified several general areas that the agency believes may be more important for wintering elk or deer than surrounding areas within this larger mapped area. These areas are identified on the map entitled Exception Land & Big Game Winter Ranges as rough ovals (Figure 9-1), and were used as a decision-making factor under Goal 14 and in conducting this ESEE analysis. 2 Category 2 habitat is considered "essential or important, but not irreplaceable habitat." A-2 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Exception Land & Big Game Winter Ranges i[1 Proposed UGB: _ ODFW- Dear & Elk Winter Range ODFW Potential Winter.Range 2MilesfromUGB EIk Urban Gr 'th Boundary Strl3arnslRitiet s':° —= 'Roads%Highways __ FOR INFORMATION USE ONLY Service Layer Credits: Oregon Department of Fish and WIdilk (2011-2012). Deschutes County GIS Note: Areas of potential concem based on ince views with ODFW Prepared 5/12/2016 Figure 1 A-3 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Of the three areas identified by ODFW staff as particularly important wintering range for deer and elk, only the Shevlin area is potentially affected by the proposed UGB expansion. However, because ODFW has identified all of the mapped BGWR as significant, the ESEE analysis is also applied to the proposed expansion areas known as the West Area, Thumb, Alpine Park, and a portion of the Elbow. There are no Safe Harbor provisions to guide the creation of a wildlife protection program; therefore the City must use the standard ESEE procedures and requirements of OAR 660-023- 0040 and 660-023-0050 (see below) to guide development of a protection program. The ESEE analysis includes the following: • Summary of the location, quantity, and quality of significant Goal 5 resources within the planning area, as identified by ODFW; • Identification of conflicting uses based on the proposed land uses; • Analysis of economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences of protecting resources where conflicts exist; and • A plan to protect significant resources. Big Game Winter Range Habitat Impact Areas The 2009 ODFW BGWR map with Deschutes County Exception land is shown on Figure 1. Areas identified by ODFW staff as particularly important to deer or elk for winter range are shown on the map as ovals. The ovals are approximate and are based on rough hand drawn maps provided by ODFW to the City. Because the ODFW Big Game Winter Range map includes the entire west and southern sides of the City, and the UGB proposal assumes development of the entirety of each area, the impact area was assumed to be the entirety of each expansion area. Assessments of the value of each area as big game winter range was either provided verbally by ODFW or based on the values identified in the Oregon EIk Management PIan3, which indicates that thermal cover in the form of topography and vegetation, along with minimal human disturbance, are the most critical factors for big game during the winter months. This more nuanced information can be considered both in documenting environmental and other consequences of different land use scenarios and in establishing a Goal 5 protection program. Shevlin Area: The Shevlin area is a 68 -acre parcel in single ownership that has been significantly altered by activities associated with the ongoing surface mining operation. Although not directly mined itself, the site has been used as the Shevlin Sand and Gravel operations area for many decades (Figure 2). The surrounding area is a mix of juniper, bitterbrush, and ponderosa pine habitat that has been managed for wildfire hazard reduction. The land to the east is Shevlin Park, a large open space park managed by Bend Parks and Recreation District. Land to the west is the Awbrey Golf course and residential development. Land to the north is being mined for sand and gravel or is 3 Oregon's EIk Management Plan, February 2003. A-4 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE in mixed age ponderosa pine forest and bitterbrush. The Shevlin area is located within the southern edge of a general area identified by ODFW as important winter range for elk. Discussions with ODFW staff indicated that elk are present in the general area, mainly using open fields and a golf course north and east of the Shevlin area for forage. The City was unable to obtain any actual elk counts or similar data from ODFW, given the nature of how the data has been compiled and mapped. It is unlikely that elk are using the Shevlin area as winter range because of the amount of human disturbance (heavy machinery) and lack of cover. Bend UGB Shevlin Area Context Legend C3 Proposed UGB Current UGB Shevlin Area LTJ 0 250 500 1,000 A reef Figure 2 A-5 Date: 6!112016 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE West Area: The West area is a total of 344 acres in several private ownerships. The land is mainly ponderosa pine habitat in various stages of management, ranging from well -cleared mature ponderosa forest to bitterbrush and mixed age ponderosa pine stands (Figure 3). Lands to north and west are similar habitat, while land to the south is developed in 10 -acre parcels. Lands to the east are in residential development inside the City. Bend UGB West Area Context Legend ED Proposed UGB rni Current UGB Expansion Area 0 500 1.000 2.000 3.000 4,000 reet A Figure 3 A-6 Date: 6!112016 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Alpine Park: Alpine Park is an undeveloped 14 -acre site owned by Bend Park and Recreation District located west of Bend's city limit (Figure 4). The site provides a primary trail connection to the east, through the Broken Top neighborhood to Cascade Middle School and Skyline Sports Complex. Trails also connect to the Haul Road Trail along the south side of Century Drive and to the Forest Service trails to the west. The park was burned in the 1991 Awbrey Hall fire, losing much of its tree cover and diminishing its value as big game winter range. However, the park has been replanted with trees and can be expected to regain habitat value over time in terms of vegetative and thermal cover and potential for foraging. Figure 4 Southwest Area: The Southwest area is a total of 57 acres in a single private ownership. The property is currently vacant with scattered juniper and pines (Figure 5). This area was not identified by ODFW as particularly important elk or deer winter range; however, the adjacency to publicly owned and managed forest lands provides the potential for higher wildlife habitat value, compared to similar land not adjacent to publicly managed forest lands. Thumb Area: The Thumb is a 222 -acre single -ownership parcel that has been highly managed for wildfire, with brush removed, and so provides very little thermal cover. It is bordered on three sides by major roadways and developed land (Figure 9-5). This area is located directly north of an area that ODFW identified as being important deer winter range. A-7 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Bend UGB Thumb Area Context Legend ED Proposed UGB Current UGB Expansion Area 0 500 1,000 Figure 5 A-8 2000 A ica Nous Date: 61112016 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Elbow: Approximately 132 acres of the Elbow are included in the mapped ODFW elk winter range (does not include deer winter range). This area is divided into a number of rural parcels (Figure 6). This area is located directly north of an area that ODFW identified as being important deer winter range; however the area itself is fragmented with moderate levels of human disturbance, and does not provide the values of cover and low disturbance identified by ODFW as important for elk or deer habitat nor was it identified by the ODFW Wildlife Biologist as relatively more important winter range habitat. Bend UGB Elbow Area Context Legend 0 Proposed UGB ® Current UGB Expansion Area 0 500 1.000 Figure 6 A-9 2.000 e A �eewen APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Identification of Conflicting Uses This discussion Identifies land uses and activities that conflict (i.e., could adversely impact) BGWR habitat areas. According to the Goal 5 administrative rule, a conflicting use is one that, if allowed, could negatively impact a significant resource. To identify such conflicts, the Rule directs local governments to examine the uses allowed within broad zoning categories (e.g., residential, commercial). This analysis uses the existing County zoning and new City proposed Plan Designations to identify potential conflicting uses. Table 3 depicts the existing County zoning and the proposed City land use designations that apply to each of the five identified resource sites Table 3: Land Use by Resource Site Area Existing County Proposed City Designation Zoning Allowed Land Uses Shevlin Surface Mine Residential Urban Low Density RL: single family home, accessory dwelling unit, (RL), Convenience Commercial residential care facility, adult day care, home (CC) occupation, bed & breakfast (C), destination resort (C), agriculture, nursery (C), small hydroelectric, large animal veterinary clinic (C), institutional uses (C), parks (C), schools (C), hospitals (C), child care (C),boarding kennel (C) CC: Existing residential, residential as part of mixed use, retail sales small, retail sales auto- dep (C), food and beverage, drive-through food (C), offices & clinics, lodging, public parking, indoor entertainment/ recreation, indoor commercial storage, daycare, vet clinic (small animal), medical & recreational marijuana retail small (large — C), government — NH service, parks, schools, churches (C), small manufacturing, small hydroelectric, small marijuana processing West Urban Area Residential Urban Low Density, Reserve, 10 -acre Commercial Limited (CL), Mixed min Employment (ME). A-10 RL: See above CL: Same as CC, except ; also allowed: temporary housing (C), production office (C), convention center, hospitals, outdoor commercial storage, outdoor entertainment (C), redemption center, campground (C), marijuana wholesale, government service — City, colleges, large manufacturing (C), warehouse, industrial service, freight distribution (C), manuf. home sales (C), building supplies (C), hydroelectric (C), mini -storage (C), large marijuana processing (C); permitted outright: retail sales large, retail sales auto -depend., clubs/churches, large medical & recreational marijuana sales, mortuary APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Southwest Rural Residential, 10 -acre min Thumb Elbow Rural Residential, 10 -acre min Urban Area Reserve, 10 -acre min Residential Urban Standard Density (RS), Residential Urban Medium Density (RM), Residential Urban High Density (RH), Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN), Commercial Limited Residential Urban Standard Density, Commercial General (CG), Mixed Employment (ME) Residential Urban Standard Density, Residential Urban Medium Density, Commercial General, Mixed Employment; Industrial A-11 ME: Residential uses same as RM except: single family and multi -family dwellings as primary uses (C); commercial & industrial uses same as CG except: conference center (C), freight distribution (C) RS: Same as RL except no boarding kennel, farm use or destination resorts; also allowed: courtyard housing (C), manufactured home park (C), duplex, triplex (C), attached single family (C), temporary housing (C), Laundromat (C), retail (C), personal services (C), repair services (C), mixed use (C) RM: Same as RS; also allowed: multi -family residential and small-scale food and beverage (C); single family courtyard, attached SF, manufactured home park, laundromats, retail and mixed use are outright permitted RH: Same as RM except most plant nurseries and manufactured homes on individual lots are not permitted; also allowed: SF detached, courtyard housing are conditional uses; and small-scale food and beverage allowed MUN: Not yet adopted; uses will be similar to mix of RM and CC CL: See above RS: See above CG: Same as CL except not allowed: outdoor entertainment, large manufacturing, large marijuana processing; permitted outright: production office, mini -storage, outdoor entertainment, freight distribution, manuf. home sales, building supplies ME: See above RS: See above RM: See above CG: See above ME: See above Industrial: Light and heavy manufacturing, wrecking yards, research & development (C), wholesale, warehousing, fuel distribution (C), production office (C), wholesale processing, food & beverage processing, marijuana growing, processing, testing & wholesale sales, vehicle equipment storage & repair, industrial service, medical & dental labs (C), outdoor commercial (C), small-scale personal, professional uses (C), kennel, equipment rental & repair, corp. HQ (C), contractor storage, heavy equipment sales, ambulance service/repair, commercial parking (C), APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Alpine Park Urban Area Reserve, 10 -acre min Public Facilities recreational facility (C), redemption center (C), government facilities, vocational schools (C), parks (C), small hydroelectric facilities Public buildings, parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities, community meeting halls & similar uses, water facilities, elementary & middle schools, high schools (C), colleges, parking lots, utility maintenance facilities (C), sports complexes with night lighting & amplified sound (C), solid waste facilities (C), outdoor amphitheaters (C), small hydroelectric facilities This section provides a general review of the potential conflicts between permitted and proposed conflicting uses and big game winter range. The uses are discussed in general categories below. Where the same impacts are identified for different conflicting uses, the first impact analysis in the text is referenced and not repeated. Residential Uses The City's proposed land use designations include four levels of urban residential density -- Low, Standard, Medium, and High — as well as a Mixed Use designation that includes a residential component. The Residential Urban Low Density land use designation provides the opportunity to transition from higher to lower density at the urban edge, increasing the opportunity to buffer wildlife from the impacts associated with urban levels of development. This designation is proposed to be applied to the Shevlin and West areas. The higher levels of density found in the Standard, Medium, and High density residential potentially have more significant impacts on wildlife habitat. These designations are currently proposed for the Southwest, Thumb, and Elbow, where the big game habitat is of lower or no value as winter range habitat. All forms and densities of residential uses are known to have adverse impacts on wildlife habitat. In addition to the construction of homes, rural dwellings typically include the construction of garages and other accessory buildings, access drives, parking areas, landscaped areas, utility connections, and roads. There is some evidence that dispersed residential intrusion into wildlife habitat can have a greater adverse impact than clustering residences and preserving greater areas of less disturbed habitat". Preparing land for housing commonly includes removal of vegetation that provides forage and cover for big game species. Habitat fragmentation caused by the clearing of vegetation for residential uses, including large yards or pastures and fencing, and can increase the isolation of one habitat area from another, forming barriers to wildlife migration and limiting the genetic exchange among populations. Roads and fences can also form barriers to wildlife movement. 4 Conservation Value of Clustered Housing Developments, Conservation Biology, Volume 20, Issue 5, October 2006. A-12 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Household lights, loud noises, outdoor human activities, and dogs disturb big game, leading to avoidance of area. These impacts are described in more detail in the following section. In general, deer adapt better than elk to dispersed, low density rural development, particularly with clustering that allows habitat corridors to remain. Elk will generally avoid areas with even moderate levels of human occupations Commercial Uses Proposed City land use designations include Convenience, Limited, and General commercial. In addition, the proposed Mixed Employment and Mixed Use Neighborhood land use designations also allow commercial uses. Commercial and mixed uses have all of the adverse impacts described for higher density residential uses above. These larger scale uses typically require more extensive site clearing and grading, and the detrimental effects of vegetation removal, building construction, and human use are generally greater than those described for residential uses. In the Shevlin and West areas, the potential commercial areas are very limited in size. In the Southwest, Thumb, and Elbow proposed planning designations allow for more intensive development of commercial uses. Industrial Uses There is an area of proposed industrial located in the portion of the Elbow. Industrial uses have similar impacts to commercial. They tend to have fewer employees and can generate less traffic, reducing impacts related to human intrusion and conflicts between vehicles and wildlife. However, they can have more significant impacts related to Tight, noise and odor. 5 "Big Game Winter Range Recommendations for Subdivision Development: Justification and Rationale," January 2012, Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. A-13 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Public Facilities (transportation facilities. utilities and other public facilities) Alpine Park is currently zoned Urban Area Reserve. The City's proposed land use designation is Public Facilities, which includes parks as an allowed use, as well as a variety of other public facility uses, including other recreational uses, water facilities, solid waste facilities and community meeting facilities, schools (including colleges), among others. Parks uses focus on natural areas, play areas, and other public amenities such as picnic shelters and community gardens. Removal of vegetation and construction of buildings are activities commonly associated with development of parks and open areas. Larger recreational facilities and other types of public facilities (e.g., water and solid waste facilities) can have more intensive activities, including larger parking areas, lighting and amplified sound for sporting events, and the operation of vehicles and machinery. Transportation facilities (roads and pathways) and utilities are allowed in most zones, in addition to being allowed in the City's Public Facilities zone. The effects on wildlife habitat resulting from creating and maintaining parks are similar to those described for residential uses, except that normally a smaller percentage of land area is covered by buildings or impervious surfaces, and the opportunity exists to design and manage the park to provide wildlife habitat. Impacts on wildlife from sports complexes, other larger recreational facilities and schools are similar to those from commercial uses, including impacts related to traffic, noise, lighting and vegetation removal. Impacts from other types of public facilities such as water and solid waste facilities are similar to those from industrial uses. Economic, Social, Environmental & Energy (ESEE) Analysis for Big Game Winter Range Scenarios Each of the six areas has both existing and proposed conflicting uses, as outlined above. The next step in the Goal 5 process is to evaluate the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences of protecting big game winter range. The following section presents the analysis of the six areas. The analysis is based on the Goal 5 inventory and on the identified conflicting uses. The analysis considers the consequences of three alternatives for protecting BGWR habitat: • AIIow conflicting uses without restriction ("Allow" scenario). For the purposes of this discussion, the AIIow scenario assumes that the City's proposed land use designations are applied. • Limit Conflicting uses ("Limit" scenario) — For the purposes of this discussion, this scenario assumes that the City's proposed land use designations would be applied but that they would include limitations on development aimed at reducing impacts on wildlife habitat (e.g., reduced densities or clustering requirements, limitations on erecting fences or other barriers, and/or minimizing the scope or scale of activities that have the most significant potential impacts on wildlife). A-14 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE • Prohibit conflicting land uses ("Prohibit" scenario). For the purposes of this discussion, this scenario assumes that proposed used currently allowed under City land use designations would be prohibited in the BGWR habitat areas. Because of similarities in the quality and function of the BGWR habitat, the Shevlin, West and Alpine Park areas are discussed together as Area 1, and the Thumb, Southwest and Elbow areas are discussed together as Area 2. Types of Impacts The uses described in the previous section can have a variety of different positive or negative consequences on economic, social, environmental, and energy resources and conditions. Following is a summary of the different types of impacts considered and which are referenced in the text and tables in the following section of the Report. Economy Economic value derived from development. The ability to develop a property to the maximum level or density of development allowable under City zoning will increase the economic or market value of a property or set of improvements which can be realized if the property is sold. This type of impact is most important for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. It is relatively Tess applicable to transportation, utility, or community facilities, or to parks, open spaces, or trails. Allowing conflicting uses provides the highest economic benefit in this regard, while prohibiting those uses provides the lowest benefits. Tax revenues. A large percentage of tax revenues in Oregon come from a combination of property, income, and payroll taxes. Maximizing the development of a property will generally increase the property tax revenues associated with it. Income and payroll taxes also will increase for employment-related uses (primarily commercial, civic, industrial and certain types of public facility uses, with a smaller impact from transportation, utilities and parks, recreation, and open space). In general, the highest positive economic consequences in this regard will be for allowing commercial and industrial employment-related uses, followed by residential uses, with parks, open space, and trails uses receiving the lowest net benefit in this regard. Prohibiting uses will generally have a negative economic impact in relation to tax revenues. Employment. For commercial, industrial or other uses that provide job opportunities, employment generates personal and business income, which has a positive economic consequence if development is allowed and a negative impact if it is prohibited. Self-sufficiencv and economic equity. The majority of households earn enough money to cover their basic household needs — i.e., are economically self-sufficient. However, a certain percentage of households do not. In particular, workers in the food and drink service and retail sectors are less likely to earn wages that result in self-sufficiency while workers in construction, manufacturing, and distribution jobs are more likely to do so. Land uses that promote economic self-sufficiency have a higher economic net benefit associated. Open space value. People value open space and wildlife habitat for its potential recreational amenities, as well as its scenic value. It is possible to quantify the value people place on open A-15 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE space simply because it exists. Developing wildlife habitat for non -park or open space purposes has a negative economic consequence in this regard, with larger scale development having a greater impact. Prohibiting such development can have a positive economic consequence. Ecosystem services. Wildlife habitat areas provide ecosystem goods and services, which in turn provide economic and social value. Ecosystem services associated with BGWR habitat generally include air cooling and purification, carbon sequestration, soil fertilization and pollination. Ecosystem goods in this area include commodities like timber and minerals. Ecosystem goods also include supporting recreation and tourism. Allowing conflicting uses will result in negative economic consequences in this regard while prohibiting them will have positive consequences. The degree of impact will depend on the amount of area affected, the type of resources and the proximity to it. The economic benefits of ecosystem services come in large part from the savings associated with amenity values associated with wildlife habitat areas which increase property values, While the economic value of eco -system services associated with certain types of resources can be relatively high, they are typically lower than economic values associated with employment and tax revenues. Social Human health and welfare. Physical and mental health and welfare are related to a variety of factors that can be impacted positively or negatively impacted by conflicting uses. They include: • Employment opportunities. Household income is one of the most important factors in determining human health and welfare and is directly dependent on employment. Income can provide access to better quality food and housing, as well as health care services. Similar to economic self-sufficiency, jobs with higher wages will have a more positive impact on social welfare. Allowing conflicting uses that will provide employment opportunities will have a positive impact on social resources in this regard while prohibiting them will have a negative impact. • Access to nature and recreation. Access to natural areas and recreation opportunities, including access to viewing wildlife, has positive impacts on physical and mental health. Recreation has multiple health benefits, including improving overall physical health, strengthening immune systems, and preventing a variety of diseases and medical conditions. In addition, studies show that viewing vegetation and wildlife can reduce stress and aggression, improve cognitive development, and enhance medical recovery. Allowing conflicting uses will generally have a negative impact on social resources in this regard while limiting or prohibiting them will have a positive impact. • Air and water quality. Air and water pollution adversely impact human health. Conflicting uses can impact air quality in two ways, either by introducing pollutants into the air or by eliminating vegetation that can help filter pollutants and improve air quality. Relatively few of the specific conflicting uses allowed in these zones produce point sources of air or water pollution, with the exception of some industrial and public facility uses. However, increased use of automobiles or equipment that produce carbon or other emissions associated with virtually all of the uses allowed can have some impact A-16 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE on air quality, as well as water quality via stormwater runoff from roads or other impervious surfaces or via erosion. In all cases, consequences would be negative for allowing or limiting uses and positive for prohibiting uses, except possibly for parks and open space uses where natural areas would be retained. • Light, noise, and traffic. Both noise and Tight can have negative consequences, including reducing enjoyment of leisure activities; contributing to health effects such as hypertension, heart disease, and sleep interruption; reduction of property values; and/or elimination of the ability to see the night sky (for light). Noise and Tight can come from human activity, equipment, and/or traffic associated with the majority of the conflicting uses described previously. Similar to air and water quality, consequences would be negative for allowing or limiting uses and positive for prohibiting uses, except possibly for parks and open space uses where natural areas would be retained. Industrial and large- scale commercial uses likely would have the highest negative impacts due the size of areas impacted, the type of equipment used, and truck traffic generated, while park and open space and residential uses typically would result in the lowest level of impacts. • Opportunities for social interaction. Opportunities for social interaction have positive benefits on psychological health, formation of social networks, and the ability for community members to collectively discuss and achieve community goals. Allowing uses that promote or provide opportunities for social interaction will have positive effects in this regard. Prohibiting or limiting such uses will have negative impacts, with the highest negative impacts from prohibiting them. Cultural values associated with Native American values and habitation. Most forms of development have an impact cultural or archeological resources if they are present through grading and other soil disturbing activities. Degradation of wildlife habitat also has potential negative impacts on the cultural value associated with those resources. Limiting development can significantly lessen these impacts by either shifting the location of development to minimize impacts or requiring investigation, documentation, and preservation of archeological resources if they are discovered during the course of development. Other cultural values. Bend area and Oregon residents place a high value on the environment and quality of life. Development of a set of values to guide the City's recent UGB expansion effort and public engagement around that effort confirmed these values. Allowing development which can adversely impact natural resources can have an effect on these values. Environment Environmental functions and potential impacts associated with BGWR habitat areas in the study area include the following. Direct loss of habitat. Clearing of trees or vegetation associated with building structures, roads or other forms of development will directly reduce the amount of wildlife habitat in the area. Edge effects. Loss of habitat can impact the viability and quality of remaining adjacent wildlife habitat. Impacts can include increased vulnerability of remaining trees to wind throw, increased A-17 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE predation of wildlife due to proximity and visibility to predators, and increased travel of wildlife outside the habitat area where they also are more prone to predation or other adverse impacts. Roads and fences. Roads introduce increased impervious areas and present hazards and barriers to wildlife movement, including hazards from vehicles. Large mammals such as elk and deer tend to either avoid roads, restricting their movement, or follow road corridors to forage which can increase their risk of death or injury from vehicles. Fences also create barriers to wildlife movement although wildlife -friendly design of fences can lessen these impacts. Fragmentation. Large tracts of forested land are necessary to sustain forest -based wildlife species. If wildlife habitat areas are broken up into small fragments, the resulting area can become too small to support wildlife or will not support the same diversity of wildlife. Native Veaetation Removal. Native vegetation typically provides important habitat for wildlife. Removal of native vegetation through rural residential, commercial, industrial or other development increases the potential for erosion and flooding; reduces the availability of food and cover for wildlife; results in replacement by other plant species, leading to less biodiversity; and can result in an increase in nutrient loading and chemicals if native vegetation is replaced with lawns or gardens. Application of pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizers. Use of these chemicals can reduce or destroy habitat diversity and plants that provide food and cover for wildlife. It also introduces toxins into the soil and water that are harmful to wildlife health, either by killing insects that serve as food to other species or by directly harming them. As noted above, fertilizers also can increase nutrient loading to streams and waterways, decreasing water quality, and allowing non- native vegetation to thrive. Excavation and topsoil removal. Soil excavation and removal typically removes vegetation, increases erosion and adds sedimentation to streams and wetlands. It also can make it more difficult for vegetation to become re-established. All of these effects are detrimental to wildlife habitat. Human intrusion. Impacts of human intrusion associated with development or other activities range from frightening animals by human presence and vegetation damage by off-road driving to shooting animals. Pet impacts. If allowed to roam free, dogs and other domestic animals will harass wildlife, including deer and elk. If dogs form packs, they can chase and run off deer, elk, and other large animals. Increased impervious surface areas. Virtually all types of development, including road and utility construction, residential and commercial development, and mining can increase impervious surfaces. This generally results in loss of vegetation and increased surface water runoff, impacting erosion and water quality, as well as related impacts described previously. A-18 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Water quality impacts. Many of the effects described above adversely impact water quality. Reduced water quality affects the viability of aquatic wildlife and other wildlife that depend on aquatic species for food. Development within BGWR habitat areas can introduce these impacts. In general, allowing development would have the greatest potential impacts while limiting it to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource areas would have a lower impact. Prohibiting development would have the least impact. Energy The following types of energy related impacts are considered in this analysis. Transportation and Land Use. Different types of development will have varying impacts on energy associated with transportation. Creating complete, mixed use communities with a combination of residential, commercial and other employment uses that support local residents can decrease energy associated with transportation. Allowing for schools, parks, and trails can have similar impacts. Allowing industrial uses can increase energy costs associated with transportation of manufactured goods or other services in general, but it can reduce those energy costs if the good and services are relatively closer to markets in nearby urban areas than similar resources in other parts of the region or state. Allowing streets to traverse BGWR habitat areas can reduce out of direction travel. Similarly, utilities may need to cross corridors to ensure an efficient network. Developing land at urban densities in proximity to needed commercial and other services also will reduce energy use associated with transportation and construction. Energy production. Allowing energy extraction and transmission uses will generally have positive energy impacts by allowing energy to be distributed to homes and businesses that need it and by reducing energy related transportation impacts to the extent that energy production in the study area is relatively closer to nearby market areas in comparison to other energy production sources. Consequences Economic Consequences Scenario A - Allowing conflicting uses within the resource and impact areas Under this scenario there would be no land use regulations restricting conflicting uses within the Goal 5 wildlife habitat or impact areas. Tables A-1-1 through A-1-4 and A-2-1 through A-2-4 identify the likely positive and negative consequences to both the habitat and the conflicting use of allowing the conflicting use (for example both the economic goods and services provided by the conflicting uses and the related economic value provided by the significant BGWR habitat area). The expected net effect of allowing the conflicting use, either positive (+1), neutral (0), or negative (-1), is identified in column 4. Separate tables are provided for Areas 1 and 2. A-19 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Consequences for Area #1 Table A-1-1 Economic Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Positive Social Consequences Negative Social Consequences Net Effect Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development • Property owners realize full development potential of parcels; structures not required to avoid BGWR habitat areas. • Residential improvements increase property tax base. • No mitigation is required, which reduces the cost to develop. • Development potential of parcels fully realized enhancing potential for local economic development. • Commercial improvements increase property tax base. • Depending on development type, potential increase in property values for adjacent landowners. • Helps to satisfy governmental long-term capital facility needs. • Potential benefits associated with economic self-sufficiency. • Development potential of parcels fully realized enhancing potential for local economic development. • Industrial improvements increase property tax base. • Helps to satisfy governmental long-term capital facility needs. • Potential benefits associated with economic self-sufficiency. A-20 • Loss of ecosystem services results in reduction in ecosystem service and associated amenity values. • Amenity/development premium for parcels adjacent to resource areas is eliminated. • Environmental impact costs passed on to County could lead to increased taxes. • Same as residential, but with potential greater loss of amenity value due to larger development area size associated with civic and commercial development. -1 +1 • Same as residential, but with lesser loss of amenity value and greater potential for increased costs resulting from lost ecosystem services due to larger development area size associated with industrial +1 development. APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Positive Social Consequences Parks, open • May create a development space and trails premium and amenity for adjacent undeveloped parcels or developed parcels, respectively. • Recreation facilities that are a community attraction may enhance potential for local economic development. • Some ecosystem services could still be provided. Transportation • Potential for improved facilities and connectivity and movement of utilities people and goods. • No mitigation is required, which reduces the cost to develop streets and roads. • Potential positive benefits associated with economic self- sufficiency. Other public • Provides essential services for facilities other land uses. • Economic benefits associated with employment • Helps to satisfy governmental long-term capital facility needs. A-21 Negative Social Consequences • May decrease property values for adjacent landowners if higher pedestrian traffic or active recreation create a nuisance. • Higher municipal service costs relating to maintenance, law enforcement, etc. • Some loss of ecosystem services possible with certain types of parks facilities (e.g., active recreation facilities). • Loss of ecosystem services. • Environmental impact costs could be passed on to County, thus increasing taxes. • Loss of ecosystem services. • Environmental impact costs could be passed on to County, thus increasing taxes. Net Effect 0 +1 +1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Table A-1-2 Social Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Positive Social Consequences • Provides residents with access to nature and recreation. • Positive impacts of allowing for rural residential lifestyle. • Civic and commercial development provide community gathering places with positive social benefits. • Employment opportunities represent positive social benefits. • Positive impacts associated with employment, income and living standards. • Parks and open space provide community gathering places. • Opportunities for active recreation provide community health benefits. • Good connectivity encourages the use of active transportation modes, which can improve public health. • Provides enhanced ability to access social activities, benefits. • Utilities and telecommunication facilities provide ability for residents to communicate, gather and socialize. • Similar to industrial development. • Meets community needs for necessary services. A-22 Negative Social Consequences Net Effect • Potential impact to historic, aesthetic and cultural values or resources. • Potential impacts to air and water quality result in potential negative health impacts. • Same as residential, but with greater potential for impacts due to development size and lesser health-related impacts. • Potential light, noise and traffic impacts on residents associated with additional commercial traffic. • Consequences similar to residential, but with greater potential for impacts due to potential size and intensity of uses. • Noise and related impacts have negative impact on rural character and quality of life. • Consequences similar to, but less than, residential, depending on amount of active recreation +1 area and non-native landscaping provided. • Similar to residential, but with a lower degree of impact, depending on nature of improvements. • Potential light, noise and traffic impacts on residents. 0 - 1 - 1 • Similar to industrial development. +1 0 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Table A-1-3 Use Category Residential development Environmental Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Positive Environmental Consequences • Opportunities for voluntary good stewardship practices by property owners. Commercial • Same as residential development development. and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities • Same as residential development. • Public ownership may help ensure that resource units are maintained in the future. • Good connectivity encourages the use of active transportation modes and lessen travel times and vehicle miles traveled which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Telecommunication facilities allow residents to telecommute or purchase goods and services online, reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. A-23 Negative Environmental Consequences • Direct loss of habitat. • Barriers to wildlife movement due to roads and fences. • Increased fragmentation reduces habitat quality and diversity. • Application of chemicals impacts wildlife health. • Human intrusion and pet impacts impact large mammals. • Reduced water quality impacts health of large mammals. • Similar to residential, but with potentially greater impacts from the size of the development and related impacts on vegetation removal, fragmentation, traffic impacts and water quality. • Lesser impacts related to fencing and pet intrusion. • Similar to commercial uses, but with potential greater impacts -1 due to size of development. • Developed parks and open space may displace BGWR habitat. • Maintenance practices may introduce pesticides and fertilizers. • Human intrusion and pet impacts similar to residential development. • Similar to residential, with potentially greater impact due to light and noise from automobile traffic, impervious area impacts, barriers to wildlife movement, and injury or death associated with automobile conflicts. Net Effect - 1. - 1 - 1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Other public facilities Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Positive Environmental Consequences • Similar to industrial development, except higher potential to mitigate or avoid negative impacts. Negative Environmental Consequences • Similar to industrial development. Table A-1-4 Energy Consequences of Allowin Positive Energy Consequences • Opportunities to reduce out -of - direction travel are increased. • Avoids locating residential uses in other areas that are more expensive or difficult to serve with infrastructure. • Providing needed services reduces energy needed for transportation by nearby residents. • Potentially more resource - effective than other expansion areas. • Local production and use of goods can reduce energy needed to import goods from other locations. • Similar to civic and commercial. In addition, allowing trails encourages non -motorized modes of transportation. • Good connectivity encourages use of active transportation modes and lessen travel times and vehicle miles traveled. • Telecommunication facilities allow residents to telecommute or purchase goods and services online, reducing energy usage. • Improves efficiency of energy grid and potentially reduces transmission -related energy losses. A-24 Net Effect -1 g Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect • Possible increased energy consumption due to loss of vegetation and microclimate effects. • Similar to residential development. • Similar to residential development but with potential greater impacts due to increased areas of activity. • Similar to residential, although impacts could be less depending on the amount of impervious area. • Similar to residential development but to a lesser degree. +1 +1 0 +1 +1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Other public • Potentially more resource - facilities effective than developing facilities in other expansion areas. • Similar to industrial development. 0 Table A-1-5 summarizes the net effect of allowing the conflicting uses in Area #1. The cumulative net effect column shows the "strength" of the positive or negative consequences of allowing the conflicting use. The maximum positive score is +4 and the maximum negative score is -4. A strong positive score suggests that on the whole, allowing the conflicting use would provide a net benefit to the city, whereas a negative score would suggest that the use should not be allowed without limitations. Results of this table are carried forward to the program recommendation section of this analysis. Table A-1-5 Summary of Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Economic Social Environ- mental Residential development -1 0 -1 Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development +1 -1 -1 Parks, open space and trails 0 +1 -1 Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities +1 0 -1 +1 -1 -1 Energy Cumulative Effect +1 -1 +1 0 0 -1 +1. +1 +1 +2 0 0 As shown in Table A-1-5, the net effect of allowing conflicting uses is positive for parks, open spaces and trails, as well as transportation and utility facilities and negative or zero for all other uses. The economic and energy consequences are positive or neutral for most uses, while social and environmental consequences are neutral or negative for most uses. Consequences for Area #2 Table A-2-1 Economic Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Positive Social Consequences • Same as for Area 1 but with greater benefits associated with increased density of development. • Same as for Area 1 but with greater benefits associated with increased intensity of development. A-25 Negative Social Consequences • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat. Net Effect 0 +1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Table Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Positive Social Consequences • Same as for Area 1 but with greater benefits associated with increased intensity of development. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. Negative Social Consequences • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat. • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat and less erosion potential. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat and less erosion potential. A-2-2 Social Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Positive Social Consequences Net Effect +1 0 +1 +1 Negative Social Consequences Net Effect • Provides residents with access to • Same as for Area 1 except with nature and recreation to the more limited negative impacts. +1 south. • Same as for Area 1 but with • Similar to Area 1. greater benefits associated with increased intensity of development. • Same as for Area 1 but with • Same as for Area 1. greater benefits associated with increased intensity of development. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. A-26 -1 0 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Table A-2-3 Environmental Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Positive Environmental Negative Environmental Net Consequences Consequences Effect Residential • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer development negative consequences due to -1 lower quality of habitat. Commercial • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer development negative consequences due to -1 and civic uses lower quality of habitat. Industrial Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer development negative consequences due to -1 lower quality of habitat. Parks, open • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer space and trails negative consequences due to 0 lower quality of habitat. Transportation • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer facilities and negative consequences due to -1 utilities lower quality of habitat. Other public • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer facilities negative consequences due to -1 lower quality of habitat. Table A-2-4 Energy Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Positive Energy Consequences Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect Residential Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. +1 development Commercial • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. development +1 and civic uses Industrial Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. 0 development Parks, open • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. +1 space and trails Transportation • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. facilities and +1 utilities Other public • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. 0 facilities Table A-2-5 summarizes the net effect of allowing the conflicting uses in Area #2. Results of this table are carried forward to the program recommendation section of this analysis. Table A-2-5 Summary of Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses, Area 2 A-27 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Economic Social Environ- Energy Cumulative mental Effect Residential development 0 +1 -1 +1 +1 Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities +1 -1 -1 +1 0 +1 0 -1 0 0 0 +1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 +2 +1 0 -1 0 0 As shown in Table A-2-5, the net effect of allowing conflicting uses is positive or neutral for all uses in this area. The economic and energy consequences are positive or neutral for most uses; the environmental consequences are negative for all uses; and social consequences vary. Scenario B - Limiting conflicting uses within the resource and impact areas Under this scenario, conflicting uses would be limited (by regulations) within the Goal 5 resource or its impact area. Uses would be permitted in resource or impact areas if it could be demonstrated that they would not have a negative effect on Goal 5 resources and uses and activities would generally be located on portions of a land parcel or within an area where adverse impacts would be reduced or minimized. Tables B-1-1 through B-1-4 and B-2-1 through B-2-4 identify the likely positive and negative consequences of limiting the conflicting use. Consequences for Area #1 Table B-1-1 Economic Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Residential development Positive Economic Consequences • Property owners realize most of the development potential of parcels through clustering of residential development. • Economic development still facilitated by allowing development of residential land for relocating/new employees. • Most ecosystem services are retained reducing costs to replace services or repair impacts. • Most of the amenity/development premium for adjacent parcels is preserved and may be enhanced by mitigation. A-28 Negative Economic Consequences Net Effect • Loss of some ecosystem services still possible but to more limited degree. • Steps to protect or enhance BGWR habitat are required, which increases the cost to develop. +1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Positive Economic Consequences • Some of the development potential of parcels fully realized. • Enhances potential for local economic development by providing some opportunities for commercial development and employment. • Depending on development type, potential increase in property values for adjacent landowners. • Helps to satisfy governmental district long-term capital facility needs. • Similar to commercial uses. • Limited amount of parks, open space and trail development allowed within the resource or impact area may create a development premium and amenity for adjacent parcels and a community attraction, enhancing potential for local economic development. • Most ecosystem services are provided. • To the extent that some facilities are allowed within resources and impact areas, connectivity can be achieved. • Potential for local economic development is enhanced by providing access for goods and people. • Supports economic benefits of other land uses. • Provides employment and other direct economic benefits. • Potentially more cost-effective than building similar facilities in other expansion areas. A-29 Negative Economic Consequences Net Effect • Similar to residential, but with greater potential for increased costs resulting from lost ecosystem services. • Similar to commercial uses except that negative impacts are potentially greater as a result of larger scale facilities. • Similar to residential, but to these extent these facilities are allowed, they may decrease property values for adjacent landowners if higher level of use creates a nuisance. • Higher municipal service costs relating to maintenance, law enforcement, etc. • Loss of some ecosystem services and economic value of open space still possible but reduced through mitigation. • Mitigation is required, which increases the cost to build facilities. • Similar to transportation but with higher potential negative impacts due to size of area affected. +1 +1 0 +1 +1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Table B-1-2 Social Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Positive Social Consequences • Community scenic, historic and cultural values are preserved for the most part and may be enhanced by mitigation. • Mitigation sites can become an amenity. • Supports cultural values associated with desire for rural lifestyle. • Access to nature and recreation provides social benefits for residents. • To the extent that these uses are permitted within resources and impact areas, they provide community gathering places. • Potential jobs and other economic impacts have beneficial social consequences. • Positive impacts associated with employment, income and living standards. Parks, open • Same as civic and commercial. space and trails • Opportunities for active recreation provide community health benefits. • Enhanced access to clean air and water provide positive health benefits. A-30 Negative Social Consequences Net Effect • Some potential loss of scenic, historic and cultural values could still occur which cannot be offset by mitigation. • Light, noise and traffic impacts associated with new development may negatively impact existing residents. • Air and water quality impacts may negatively impact existing residents. • Similar to residential, but impacts may be more significant due to the larger size of the developments. • Consequences similar to residential, but with greater potential for impacts due to potential size of use; consequences reduced by limitations or mitigation requirements. • Noise and related impacts have negative impact on rural character and quality of life; can be mitigated by limitations, requirements. • Similar to residential, but with potentially fewer or minimal impacts depending on amount of active recreation area and non-native landscaping provided. +1 0 0 +1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Positive Social Consequences • If achieved, connectivity can help encourage use of active transportation modes, which can improve public health. • Telecommunications facilities can allow for telecommuting, reducing pollution and improving public health. • Help provide needed services for new and existing residents. Negative Social Consequences Net Effect • Similar to residential, but with greater potential for impacts due to potential for noise, light and glare. • Similar to transportation and utilities. Table B-1-3 Environmental Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Residential development Positive Environmental Consequences • Opportunities for voluntary good stewardship practices by property owners. Commercial • Same as residential development development. and civic uses Industrial development • Same as commercial and residential development. A-31 Negative Environmental Consequences • Direct loss of habitat. • Barriers to wildlife movement due to roads and fences. • Increased fragmentation reduces habitat quality and diversity. • Application of chemicals impacts wildlife health. • Human intrusion and pet impacts impact large mammals. • Reduced water quality impacts health of large mammals. • All impacts less than for "allow" scenario and are moderated by limited quality of some habitat and nearby approved residential development (Miller Tree Farm) • Similar to residential, but with potentially greater impacts from the size of the development and related impacts on vegetation removal, fragmentation, traffic impacts and water quality. • Lesser impacts related to fencing and pet intrusion. • Similar to residential development but with potential greater impacts due to increased areas of activity. 0 0 Net Effect -1 -1 -1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Positive Environmental Consequences • Public ownership may help ensure that resource units are maintained in the future. • Good connectivity encourages the use of active transportation modes and lessen travel times and vehicle miles traveled which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Telecommunication facilities allow residents to telecommute or purchase goods and services online, reducing impacts on air pollution and carbon emissions • Similar to industrial use but with potentially greater opportunity to provide mitigation. Negative Environmental Consequences • Developed parks and open space may displace native BGWR habitat. • Maintenance practices may introduce pesticides and 0 fertilizers. • Human intrusion and pet impacts similar to residential development. • Similar to residential, with potentially greater impact due to light and noise from automobile traffic, impervious area impacts, barriers to wildlife movement, and injury or death associated -1 with automobile conflicts. Net Effect • Similar to industrial use but with potentially greater opportunity -1 to reduce impacts. Table B-1-4 Energy Consequences of Limiting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Positive Energy Consequences Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails • Opportunities to reduce out -of - direction travel are increased with development of "complete community" in this area. • Providing needed services reduces energy needed for transportation by nearby residents. • Local production and use of goods can reduce energy needed to import goods from other locations. • Similar to civic and commercial. In addition, allowing trails encourages non -motorized modes of transportation. A-32 Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect • Possible increased energy consumption due to loss of vegetation and microclimate effects. • Similar to residential development. • Similar to residential development but with potential greater impacts due to increased areas of activity. • Similar to residential, although impacts could be less depending on the amount of impervious area. 0 0 0 0 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Positive Energy Consequences Tra nsportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities • Good connectivity encourages use of active transportation modes and lessen travel times and vehicle miles traveled. • Telecommunication facilities allow residents to telecommute or purchase goods and services online, reducing energy usage. • Improves efficiency of energy grid and potentially reduces transmission -related energy losses. • Potentially more resource - effective than developing facilities in alternative expansion areas. Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect • Possible increased energy consumption due to loss of vegetation and microclimate effects. • Similar to industrial development. +1 +1 Table B-1-5 summarizes the net effect of limiting the conflicting uses in Area 1. Results of this table are carried forward to the program recommendation section of this analysis. Table B-1-5 Summary of Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Economic Social Environ- mental Residential development +1 +1 -1 Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development +1 0 -1 Parks, open space and trails 0 +1 0 Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities +1 0 -1 +1 0 -1 +1 0 -1 Energy Cumulative Effect 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 +1 As shown in Table B-1-5, the net effect of limiting conflicting uses is positive or neutral for all categories. This is primarily due to the positive economic and energy consequences. The environmental consequences are generally negative for most uses in recognition that while limiting uses will reduce negative impacts, there are relatively few positive environmental consequences of most development types. Social consequences are typically positive or neutral except for industrial development. A-33 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Conseauences for Area #2 Table B-2-1 Economic Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Positive Economic Consequences Negative Economic Consequences Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities • Same as for Area 1 but with greater benefits associated with increased density of development. • Same as for Area 1 but with greater benefits associated with increased intensity of development. • Same as for Area 1 but with greater benefits associated with increased intensity of development. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat. • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat and less erosion potential. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer negative consequences due to lower quality of habitat and less erosion potential. Net Effect +1 +1 +1 0 +1 +1 Table B-1-2 Social Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Positive Social Consequences Negative Social Consequences Net Effect Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails • Provides residents with access to nature and recreation to the south. • Same as for Area 1 but with greater benefits associated with increased intensity of development. • Same as for Area 1 but with greater benefits associated with increased intensity of development. • Same as for Area 1. A-34 • Same as for Area 1 except with more limited negative impacts. +1 • Similar to Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. 0 0 0 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Positive Social Consequences Transportation • Same as for Area 1. facilities and utilities Other public • Same as for Area 1. facilities Negative Social Consequences Net Effect • Same as for Area 1. 0 • Same as for Area 1. 0 Table B-2-3 Environmental Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Positive Environmental Negative Environmental Net Consequences Consequences Effect Residential • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer development negative consequences due to -1 lower quality of habitat. Commercial • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer development negative consequences due to -1 and civic uses lower quality of habitat. Industrial Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer development negative consequences due to -1 lower quality of habitat. Parks, open • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer space and trails negative consequences due to 0 lower quality of habitat. Transportation • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer facilities and negative consequences due to -1 utilities lower quality of habitat. Other public • Same as for Area 1. • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer facilities negative consequences due to -1 lower quality of habitat. Table B-2-4 Energy Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Positive Energy Consequences Negative Energy Consequences Residential • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. development Commercial • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. development and civic uses Industrial • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. development Parks, open • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. space and trails Transportation • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. facilities and utilities A-35 Net Effect 0 0 0 0 +1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Positive Energy Consequences Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect Other public • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. +1 facilities Table B-1-5 summarizes the net effect of limiting the conflicting uses in Area #1. Results of this table are carried forward to the program recommendation section of this analysis. Table B-2-5 Summary of Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Economic Social Environ - Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities 1 Other public facilities mental +1 +1 -1 +1 +1 0 +1 Energy 0 Cumulative Effect +1 0 -1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 As shown in Table B-2-5, the net effect of limiting conflicting uses is positive for residential uses, as well as for transportation, utilities and other public facilities and zero for all other uses. The economic and energy consequences are positive or neutral for all uses; the environmental consequences are neutral or negative for all uses; and social consequences neutral or positive for all uses. Scenario C - Prohibiting conflicting uses within the resource and impact areas Under this scenario conflicting uses would be completely prohibited within the BGWR habitat or impact areas. Tables C-1-1 through C-1-4 and C-2-1 through C-2-4 identify the likely positive and negative consequences of prohibiting the conflicting use. The expected net effect of prohibiting the conflicting use, either positive (+1), neutral (0), or negative (-1), is identified in column 4. A-36 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Conseauences for Area #1 Table C-1-1 Economic Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Positive Economic Consequences • Existing ecosystem services are preserved. • Amenity/development premium for adjacent parcels is preserved. • Environmental impact costs are avoided. • Given, relatively low value of habitat and character of surrounding existing uses, benefits are only modest • Same as residential development. • Same as residential uses. • Similar to residential. • Lower municipal service costs relating to maintenance, law enforcement, etc. • Existing ecosystem services are preserved. • Environmental impact costs are avoided. A-37 Negative Economic Consequences Net Effect • Property owners don't realize full development potential of parcels. • Decrease in potential tax revenues to County. • Development potential of parcels not realized. • Reduces potential for local economic development. • Decrease in potential tax revenues to County. • Does not help to satisfy governmental long-term capital facility needs. • Loss of potential economic self- sufficiency benefits. • Same as commercial development. • Recreation facilities, which are a community attraction that may enhance potential for local economic development, are not provided. • Connectivity and movement of people and goods is restricted, impacting potential for local economic development and economic self-sufficiency. • Cost of building transportation facility is increased. • Ability to obtain essential services needed for economic activity is not available. • Loss of potential economic self- sufficiency benefits -1 -1 -1 0 -1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Other public facilities Positive Economic Consequences • Similar to residential uses. Negative Economic Consequences Net Effect • Ability to obtain essential services needed for economic activity is not available. • Loss of potential economic self- sufficiency benefits Table C-1-2 Social Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Positive Social Consequences Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development • Scenic, historic and cultural values of existing resources are preserved. • Passive recreational and educational opportunities of existing resources are preserved. • Same as residential development. • Same as residential development • Potential noise, pollution impacts of energy-related activities are eliminated. Parks, open • Same as residential development. space and trails Transportation • Same as residential development. facilities and utilities A-38 -1 Negative Social Consequences Net Effect • Negatively impacts cultural values associated with desire for rural lifestyle. • Diminishes direct access to nature -1 and recreation and associated social benefits for additional residents. • Reduces social benefits associated with income and employment. • Reduces benefits associated with community gathering places. • Reduces social benefits associated with income and employment. • Parks and open space, which provide community gathering places, are impacted. • Opportunities for active recreation and outdoor education, which provide community benefits, could be precluded or reduced. • Good connectivity, which encourages the use of active transportation modes and can improve public health, may not be possible. • Reduces social benefits associated -1 with income and employment. • Access to essential services for communication, social well-being and health are more limited or costly. -1 0 -1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Other public facilities Table C-1-3 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Positive Social Consequences • Same as residential development. Negative Social Consequences Net Effect • Reduces social benefits associated with income and employment. • Limits ability to serve other uses, with resulting indirect negative consequences. Environmental Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Positive Environmental Consequences • Microclimate and shade benefits are maintained. • Ecosystem services values are maintained. • BGWR habitat is maintained. • Water quality is maintained. • Wildlife connectivity is maintained. • Barriers to wildlife migration and movement are avoided. • Impacts of human intrusion and pets are avoided. • Similar to residential uses but to a potentially greater degree. • Similar to residential development but to a potentially greater degree. • Impacts from activities such as removing native vegetation and disturbing stable slopes and soil, are avoided. • Developed parks and open space don't displace BGWR habitat. • Maintenance practices don't occur which could introduce pesticides and fertilizers. A-39 Negative Environmental Consequences • None. • None. • None. • None. -1 Net Effect +1 +1 +1 +1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Transportation facilities and utilities Positive Environmental Consequences • Similar to residential uses but to a lesser degree. • Impact due to light and noise from automobile traffic, introduction of polluted runoff from the transportation facility, and vulnerability that accidents that may introduce high levels of pollutants are avoided. • Potential collisions between wildlife and vehicles are avoided. Other public • Similar to transportation uses but facilities to a lesser degree. Negative Environmental Consequences • Good connectivity, which encourages the use of active transportation modes and lessen travel times and vehicle miles traveled, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions, may be precluded. • Lack of ability to telecommute or purchase goods and services online requires increased use of automobiles, increasing air & water pollution and runoff • None. Net Effect +1 +1 Table C-1-4 Energy Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Positive Energy Consequences Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities • No increased energy consumption due to loss of vegetation and microclimate effects. • Same as residential development. • Same as residential development. • Similar to residential, although benefits could be less depending on the amount of impervious area. • Additional energy is not required to build and maintain facilities. A-40 • Limited opportunities for reducing energy use from driving between residential and other uses without proposed complete community in this area. • Efficient siting may reduce energy cost due to access of uses to nearby residential areas. • Similar to commercial use. • • • • Similar to civic and commercial. Allowing trails encourages non - motorized modes of transportation. Good connectivity encourages the use of active transportation modes and lessens travel times and vehicle miles traveled. Lack of ability to telecommute or -1 purchase goods and services online requires increased use of automobiles, increasing energy use. 0 0 0 -1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Positive Energy Consequences Other public • Similar to residential development. facilities • Reduction in energy required to build facilities. Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect • More energy required to provide services to existing residents from -1 more distant facilities. Table C-1-5 summarizes the net effect of prohibiting the conflicting uses. Results of this table are carried forward to the program recommendation section of this analysis. Table C-1-5 Summary of Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 1 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Economic Social -1 -1 0 -1 - 1 - 1 Environ- Energy mental +1 0 +1 0 +1 +1 0 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 Cumulative Effect -1 - 1 0 -1 -2 - 2 As shown in Table C-1-5, the net effect of prohibiting conflicting uses in Area 1 is negative or neutral for all categories, with the exception of industrial development. This is primarily due to negative or neutral economic, social and energy consequences. The environmental consequences are uniformly positive because natural resource values and ecosystem services would be maintained. Consequences for Area #2 Table C-2-1 Economic Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Positive Social Consequences • Same as for Area 1 but with lesser benefits associated with less valuable habitat. • Same as for Area 1 but with lesser benefits associated with less valuable habitat. • Same as for Area 1 but with lesser benefits associated with less valuable habitat. A-41 Negative Social Consequences Net Effect • Similar to Area 1 but with greater negative consequences due to more intensive planned development. • Similar to Area 1 but with greater negative consequences due to more intensive planned development. Similar to Area 1 but with greater negative consequences due to more intensive planned development. - 1 - 1 - 1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Positive Social Consequences • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. Negative Social Consequences • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. Net Effect 0 -1 -1 Table C-2-2 Social Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Positive Social Consequences Negative Social Consequences Net Effect Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities • Similar to Area 1 but with fewer positive impacts. • Same as for Area 1 but with fewer positive impacts. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Diminishes direct access to nature and recreation and associated social benefits for additional residents. • Similar to Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. - 1 - 1 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 Table C-2-3 Environmental Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Positive Environmental Consequences • Same as for Area 1 but with fewer positive impacts due to lower quality habitat. • Same as for Area 1 but with fewer positive impacts due to lower quality habitat. • Same as for Area 1 but with fewer positive impacts due to lower quality habitat. • Same as for Area 1 but with fewer positive impacts due to lower quality habitat. A-42 Negative Environmental Consequences • Same as Area 1. • Same as Area 1. • Same as Area 1. • Same as Area 1. Net Effect +1 +1 +1 +1 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Use Category Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Positive Environmental Consequences • Same as for Area 1 but with fewer positive impacts due to lower quality habitat. • Same as for Area 1 but with fewer positive impacts due to lower quality habitat. Negative Environmental Consequences • Same as Area 1. • Same as Area 1. Table C-2-4 Energy Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Positive Energy Consequences • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. Net Effect +1 +1 Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect • Similar to Area 1 but greater negative consequences due to more intensive planned development. • Similar to Area 1 but greater negative consequences due to more intensive planned development. • Similar to Area 1 but greater negative consequences due to more intensive planned development. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. • Same as for Area 1. -1 -1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 Table C-2-5 summarizes the net effect of prohibiting the conflicting uses in Area #2. Results of this table are carried forward to the program recommendation section of this analysis. Table C-2-5 Summary of Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses, Area 2 Use Category Economic Social Environ- Energy Cumulative Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Effect -2 -2 - 1 - 1 - 2 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE 1 Other public facilities 1 -1 1 -1 1+-1 1 -1 1 -2 As shown in Table C-2-5, the net effect of prohibiting conflicting uses in Area 2 is negative for all uses. The environmental consequences are positive for all uses. However, the economic, social and energy consequences are negative or neutral for all uses. Summary of General Conclusions and Recommendation Table 2, below, identifies the "net effect" from Tables A-1-5, B-1-5, and C-1-5 and provides a general recommendation for each use category for Area 1. Table 3 provides a similar summary for Area 2 based on the "net effect" from Tables A-2-5, B-2-5, and C-2-5. As noted previously, the possible numeric values range from -4 to +4. A value of -4 suggests that the scenario (allow, limit, prohibit) would likely result in negative economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences. Whereas, a value of +4 suggests that the scenario would likely result in positive consequences. The goals of the recommended scenario is to encourage the strongest positive outcome, along with balancing relevant regulatory and other factors. Table 2: Summary of Net Effect of Allowing, Limiting or Prohibiting Conflicting Uses within BGWR Habitat Areas, Area 1 Use Category Allow Limit Prohibit (from Table A-10) (from Table B-10) (from Table C-10) Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities 0 +1 +1 +1 0 -1 -2 -2 Table 3: Summary of Net Effect of Allowing, Limiting or Prohibiting Conflicting Uses within BGWR Habitat Areas, Area 2 Use Category Residential development Commercial development and civic uses Industrial development Parks, open space and trails Transportation facilities and utilities Other public facilities Allow (from Table A-10) +1 0 Limit (from Table B-10) +1 Prohibit (from Table C-10) -2 0 -2 0 0 +1 0 -1 -1 +2 +1 -2 0 +1 -2 A-44 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE The analysis and weighing of the ESEE factors from the three scenarios indicates the following for Area 1: • The allow scenario offers the greatest or equal net benefit for parks, trails and open space, transportation, utilities and other public facilities. • Limiting residential uses in this area provides the greatest net benefit. • Limiting or allowing commercial uses provides the greatest net benefit • Limiting or prohibiting industrial uses provides the greatest net benefit. For Area 2, the analysis indicates the following: • The allow scenario offers the greatest or equal net benefit for parks, trails and open space, transportation, utilities and other public facilities. • Limiting or allowing residential, commercial or industrial uses provides the greatest net benefit RECOMMENDED PROTECTION PROGRAM On balance, the ESEE analysis generally supports implementation of a combination of the Limit and Allow scenarios. In addition, the analysis points to implementing limitations on land use and development differently in Areas 1 and 2. Although ODFW classifies the area encompassed by the 2009 BGWR map as significant, an examination of the actual habitat in the areas proposed for the Urban Growth Boundary expansion provides a more nuanced view of the relative value of each area for deer or elk, given the physical characteristics and existing and prior land use patterns in each area. Area 1 Several strategies are recommended in this area to implement a combination of the Limit and AIIow scenarios and to protect relatively more significant BGWR habitat areas here (compared to those in Area 2): • Allow certain uses, including parks, trails and open spaces, transportation facilities needed to access other allowed uses and other needed public facilities. • Apply a low density residential planning designation to residential areas within the Shevlin and West sub -areas to reduce impacts to BGWR habitat. • Use a "Transect" approach to future land uses in this area. This approach was discussed by the City, landowners and other stakeholders, including Central Oregon Landwatch as part of the UGB planning effort. The Transect is proposed to be applied to the Shevlin and West areas in conjunction with the proposed Low Density Residential land use designation. This concept establishes a land use pattern that is less dense at the urban edge, providing: • Preservation of the open space character of the permanent natural areas of US Forest Service and Bend Park and Recreation lands • Separation of structures at the western edge of the development to reduce risk of catastrophic damage from wildfires area • Increase open space and reduce conflicts for wildlife A-45 APPENDIX A to Section 9: GOAL 5 ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BIG GAME WINTER RANGE • Location of non-residential (small-scale commercial and other employment uses) closer to the adjacent urban area and further from the adjacent US Forest Service and park lands. • Apply the Transect concept in combination with required Master Planning processes for Area 1 which would be used to cluster housing around commercial services along roads and in centers. • Implement requirements for the design of roads, trails and fencing that will reduce their potential impacts on wildlife movement and safety. • Allow for a limited scale of commercial and other employment uses in the area, consistent with the Convenience Commercial, Commercial Limited and Mixed Employment zones proposed for the area. • Use the City's conditional uses standards and approval processes to further limit the scale or intensity of uses in this area, if needed to reduce impacts on BGWR habitat. Area 2 As noted earlier in this report, BGWR habitat resources are determined to be less significant in this area, in comparison to Area 1 for the following reasons: • The specific UGB expansion areas (Southwest area, Thumb and Elbow) were not identified as particularly significant by ODFW staff. • Surrounding land use patterns and physical characteristics further reduce habitat potential within the expansion areas. • Potential adverse impacts to adjacent areas (ovals) identified by ODFW can be reduced by buffering or other measures to minimize edge impacts. • Given that the ESEE findings indicate that the Allow or Limit scenarios provide an equal net benefit for a variety of land uses, these habitat conditions warrant a regulatory program in this area that will substantially allow uses currently permitted in proposed Comprehensive Plan and corresponding zoning designations. This should be done in combination with taking steps to minimize impacts on the edges of the areas to reduce edge effects, human disturbance and impacts on water quality or other things that could adversely impact wildlife nearby. More specifically, the recommended program for this area includes the following: Apply Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations proposed for the area. • Allow most uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning designations. • Use Master Planning process and the following implementation strategies to minimize potential impacts on nearbLiy BGWR habitat areas, including by clustering housing around roads and commercial centers. • For areas located on the edge of these areas and most directly adjacent to BGWR habitat areas identified by ODFW staff, implement requirements for the design of roads, trails and fencing that will reduce their potential impacts on wildlife movement and safety. • Use the City's conditional uses standards and approval processes to reduce impacts of more intensive uses on BGWR habitat, particularly at the outer edge of these planning areas. A-46