HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 001 - Bend UGB - Findings - Exhibit DFindings in Support of UGB Expansion 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion
Page
I. Proposal Summary 1
Map Amendment
Text Amendments
Background Studies and Source Documents
II. Background 7
Overview of Planning Process
Principles for Delineation of Proposed UGB
Summary of Study Area Analysis
III. Findings - Residential and Related Land Needs 14
Goal 14 Land Need Factors
OAR 660, Division 24 (Goal 14 Rule)
ORS 197.296
IV. Findings – Employment Land Needs 51
Goal 14 Land Need Factors
OAR 660, Division 24 (Goal 14 Rule)
OAR 660, Division 9 (Goal 9 Rule)
V. Findings - UGB Alternatives Analysis 114
Goal 14 Boundary Location Factors
OAR 660, Division 24 (Goal 14 Rule)
ORS 197.298
VI. Findings – Statewide Planning Goals 156
Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement
Goal 2 – Land Use Planning
Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
Goal 8 – Recreational Needs
Goal 9 – Economic Development
Goal 10 – Housing
Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services
Goal 13 – Energy Conservation
Goal 14 – Urbanization
VII. Findings – Conformance with Bend Area General Plan and
Development Code 171
Bend Area General Plan
Bend Development Code
"Exhibit D" to Ordinance 2009-001
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 1
I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY
In June 2007, the City of Bend initiated a legislative post-acknowledgment plan
amendment to amend the Bend Area General Plan by expanding the Urban Growth
Boundary (the "UGB") and adopting related amendments to the General Plan and Bend
Development Code (City File No. 07-361). Following an initial public hearing on the
proposal on July 26, 2007, the Bend City Planning Commission began a series of work
sessions to review all elements of the proposal in detail and consider amendments as
called for. By October 2008 the Commission had completed its detailed review process
and held a public hearing on a modified proposal, known as Alternative 4, on October
27, 2008. On October 28, 2008 the Planning Commission adopted a motion
recommending to the Bend City Council adoption of Alternative 4, with several
suggested adjustments. The City Council held a joint public hearing with the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners on November 24, 2008 to consider the Planning
Commission’s recommendation, and to receive public testimony. On that date, the City
Council and the County Board closed the hearing for oral testimony, leaving the written
record open until 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2008. The legal record for this proposal
was closed at that time. On December 3, 2008, the City Council convened to deliberate
on the proposal. Following further deliberations on December 17, 2008 the City Council
directed staff to prepare an ordinance adopting the amended UGB and related General
Plan amendments as described in this findings document. The City Council tentatively
approved the UGB amendments on December 17 on the Planning Commission's
recommendation with the changes recommended by staff on December 3. The City
Council by a vote of 4-3 tentatively approved the amendment with the following changes:
1) Removed 143 acres of the "Section 11" property in the southeast from the
amendment.
2) Transferred the large parcel, targeted sector industrial site and the
residential acreage in Section 11 to the priority 2 Jan Ward property (aka
the "thumb" property) along south Highway 97 north of Knott Road.
3) Increased the size of the "thumb" property to accommodate master
planning consistent with the October 29, 2008 memorandum.
That ordinance is scheduled for first reading and approval on December 22, 2008.
The City provided 45-day notice to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development ("DLCD") prior to the initial evidentiary hearings before the Planning
Commission. The City mailed the notices with the proposed text on June 11, 2007 and
again on October 8, 2008. Although the second mailing was not required, the City chose
to do so in order to give more notice than required. The City will comply with OAR 660-
018-0045 by specifying the substantial amendments to the proposal in the post-decision
notice to the Director that have been made since the original notice.
The purpose of this ordinance is summarized below.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 2
A. Amend the Bend Area General Plan and expand the existing Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate estimated 20-year (2028) land needs for:
Housing & related uses: 2,866 acres
Employment & related uses: 2,090 acres
TOTAL: 4,956 acres
The proposed UGB expansion includes a total of 8,462 gross acres. However, much of
this acreage is already developed or otherwise unsuitable for accommodating
documented land needs. Total suitable and available acres included in this proposal
amount to 5,475, leaving a theoretical “surplus” of about 519 acres. This apparent
“surplus” of acreage provides a modest cushion against the possibility that the total
estimate of 4,956 needed acres is too conservative.
OAR 660-024-0040 (1) provides that the 20-year need determinations are estimates
which are not to be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. Given the City's
desire to have a small buffer, this rule allows the City and County to adopt, and the State
to approve, the full UGB expansion with this buffer because the rule does not require
precision with respect to the UGB expansion acreage. Further, the City finds that OAR
660-024-0040(4) does not prevent a small surplus under OAR 660-024-0040(1). The
needs analysis is consistent with the coordinated population forecast and Goal 10,
Division 8.
These additional acres are also the by-product of the City’s desire to configure the
expanded UGB in a manner that is logical, provides the best opportunity for cost-
effective and efficient provision of public services, and excludes high value farmland to
the maximum feasible extent. Wherever possible, for example, the boundary includes
both sides of existing and future roads. Along the Hamehook /Hamby Rd. corridor, in
particular, sufficient land area has been included on both sides of these roads to
encourage a level of development sufficient to support the significant expense of
installing a future sewer interceptor, as well as upgrading these roads from rural
collectors to a continuous urban arterial. Inclusion of these additional acres also is
necessary to facilitate the development of complete neighborhoods, with convenient
access to employment, shopping, parks and schools. Area 6 on the Alternative 4-A
map, for example, consists of 149 acres that will be master planned with about 13 acres
of commercial development to support 117 acres of RS residential development and 19
acres of RM residential development. The commercial services on this site will also
serve future neighborhoods that are programmed to develop in close proximity to the
north and south along both sides of Hamehook /Hamby Rd. Finally, this theoretical
“surplus” of acreage within the expanded UGB is a result of a desire to distribute
employment lands throughout the expansion area, rather than forcing a higher
concentration within a more constrained boundary. The Economic Opportunities
Analysis notes the importance of avoiding a concentration of employment lands, in order
to provide more choice to the commercial and industrial market, and to seek closer
proximity to workforce housing (See Exhibit L-7). This desire is reflected in draft policies
contained in updated Chapter 6 of the Bend Area General Plan, to seek numerous sites
for employment uses in a variety of locations (see Exhibit G-6).
Figure I-1 shows the proposed UGB expansion area, identified as Alternative 4-A. City
staff has recommended adoption of this alternative.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 3
Figure I-1
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 4
B. Adopt a package of amendments to the Bend Area General Plan (map and text)
and the Bend Development Code (map and text) to establish a policy framework
for management of future urban development in the proposed UGB expansion
area, using strategies such as an Urban Holding zone, a Framework Plan, and a
Master Planning process.
The proposed UGB expansion area is currently zoned Suburban Residential
(SR- 2 ½), Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10), Mixed Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB and EFU-AL) by Deschutes County. “Urban
Holding” plan map designations and zones will be applied to the UGB expansion
areas until master plans are completed and specific urban plan designations and
zoning applied at the time of annexation. However, the proposed UGB
expansion is intended to meet critical land needs for housing, employment and
related uses as outlined in background reports and the UGB findings.
Additionally, a Draft Framework Plan depicts a hierarchy of neighborhood
centers, multi-family zones and a connected local street system to serve the
expanded UGB.
C. Amend the text/policies of the following chapters of the Bend Area General Plan
to reflect updated urbanization, housing, economic growth, public facilities and
services and transportation systems to support urbanization of the expanded
UGB (see Exhibit G).
Chapter 1 – Plan Management and Citizen Involvement
Update text, maps, and policies relating to the urban reserve, urban growth
boundary, framework planning and annexation, and master planning.
Chapter 2 – Natural Features and Open Space
Update text, maps, and policies relating to the character of the UGB expansion
area and potential for future Goal 5 resources.
. Chapter 3 – Community Connections
Update text, maps, and policies relating to existing and planned schools, parks,
and other facilities that will be needed to serve the expansion area.
Chapter 5 – Housing and Residential Lands
Update background information, goals and policies to address the Housing
Needs Analysis. Adopt a comprehensive new package of housing strategies that
include targets to evaluate progress for each strategy.
Chapter 6 – The Economy and Lands for Economic Growth
Update background information and policies to reflect the 2008 Economic
Opportunities Analysis.
Chapter 7 – Transportation System Plan (See Exhibits E & F)
Update background information, policies and maps to reflect plans to
extend/connect multi-modal streets and protect rights-of-way in the expanded
UGB and Bend Urban Reserve.
Chapter 8 – Public Facilities and Services (See Exhibit L)
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 5
Update background information, policies and maps to reflect recent updates to
the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan and Water System Master Plan.
D. Amend Chapters 2.1, 3.6, and 4.3 of the Bend Development Code to include a
new “Urban Holding” District and outline standards and procedures for approval
of master plans for the designated “Urban Holding” district (See Exhibit I).
E. Adopt an updated Collection System Master Plan and Water and updated Water
System Master Plan as amendments to the City’s Public Facilities Plan. (See
Exhibit L-9).
The findings in this report support the proposed UGB expansion and related
amendments to the Bend Area General Plan and Development Code, and include
references to attached materials and documents in the record that relate to these
findings.
State law, the Bend City Code, and the Inter-Governmental Agreement (the "IGA")
between Bend and Deschutes County require that the Bend Planning Commission hold
a public hearing on this proposal, followed by a recommendation for adoption (or
adoption with modifications) to the Bend City Council. The Bend City Council is required
to hold a second public hearing and adopt an ordinance to adopt the proposal and
related amendments. Finally, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is
required to hold a hearing to consider the Council’s action and then forward the proposal
and related amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for
acknowledgment.
Background Studies and Source Documents
The UGB Findings set forth in Sections III through VII of this report are based on and
supported by a range of background studies and source documents that are
incorporated by reference and accessible on the City’s web site. These additional
materials are listed in the Table of Contents for the proposal package, and are attached
to this report as exhibits.
Among the most significant of these attached materials are the Residential Lands Study
(Exhibit L-4) and the 2008 Economic Opportunities Analysis (Exhibit L-7). The
Residential Lands Study estimates the number of housing units needed to accommodate
forecast growth to 2028, considers capacity of the current UGB to accommodate new
units, and estimates the number of new units needed in an expanded UGB 1. Based on
documented density assumptions and needed acres for supportive and related uses, it is
estimated that there is a need for a total of 2,866 suitable and available acres within the
expanded UGB to accommodate new housing and related uses during the planning
period. Table I-1 summarizes this need.
1 See Section III of this report.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 6
Table I-1: Summary of Residential Land Need 2008-2028
Type
Acres Needed in Planning
Period
Acres for new housing units 941
Acres for public schools 192
Acres for public parks 474
Acres for second homes 500
Subtotal of Residential Land 2,107
15% of net for institutional/private open
space 316
21% for public rights of way 443
Total Estimated Acres of Residential Land Needed 2,866
The 2008 Economic Opportunities Analysis estimates that during the 2008-2028
planning period there will be a need for land to accommodate over 20,600 new
employees to Bend. In addition to accommodating traditional commercial and industrial
uses, the EOA also identifies a need to accommodate several new, large-scale
employment activities, including a future university, a major hospital / healthcare facility,
and two large industrial centers. Table I-2 below summarizes acreage need estimates to
accommodate economic growth during the planning period.
Table V-2: Summary of Economic Land Need 2008-2028 from Draft City of Bend EOA, September, 2008
General Plan Designations and Special Site Needs
Gross Acres Needed in
Planning Period
Commercial (CB, CC, CG, CL, MR) 1,008
Industrial/Mixed Employment (IG, IL, IP, ME) 118
Public Facilities (PF) 144
Residential (RH, RM, RS) Economic Uses (add to residential need) 119
Medical (MDOZ) 252
New Hospital Site 112
University 225
Two, 50-acre Industrial Sites (Targeted Sector and Heavy Industrial Site) 112
Total Gross Acres of Economic Land Need in UGB Expansion 2,090
Taken together, the City estimates a total need of some 4,956 suitable, available acres
in an expanded UGB to accommodate forecast growth. As discussed further in Section
V of this report, the proposed UGB expansion area includes 5,475 suitable available
acres to meet this need. Of this amount, about 4,069 acres are in the highest priority
category (Priority 2) under state law for inclusion in a UGB; the remaining 1,407 acres
are in the Priority 4 category. These lower priority lands are justified for inclusion under
allowances of ORS 197.298(3)(a) and (c), as discussed in Section V. Findings in
Section V also explain how higher priority lands were chosen for inclusion,
demonstrating that all applicable requirements in state law for UGB expansion have
been addressed and satisfied.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 7
II. BACKGROUND
Context
The City of Bend has experienced explosive growth that has challenged land use and
infrastructure planning and changed the face of the community. When the Bend Area
General Plan and UGB were acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission in 1981, the city had a population of 17,425 and the UGB encompassed
about 20,600 acres. The city’s population has grown by over 60,000 people since 1981
and the UGB has been expanded by a total of only about 700 acres since that time with
these separate amendments:
• Expansion for the Lava Ridge Elementary School
• Expansion for the Deschutes County Public Works Facility
• Expansion for the first phase of Juniper Ridge
• Expansion for William Miller Elementary School
• Expansion for Bend Pine Nursery Park site
No land has been added to the UGB for housing and related uses since the boundary
was acknowledged 27 years ago.
The first major update of the General Plan was completed in 1998 based on a population
forecast of 68,775 people in Bend by the year 2020. Bend’s population surpassed the
2020 forecast by 2005, fifteen years earlier than anticipated. Obviously, absorbing this
amount of population growth has resulted in the rapid consumption of buildable
residential land for new housing long before 2020. In addition to unprecedented
population growth, available residential land has been consumed much faster than
anticipated partly because detached single-family units have made up a larger
percentage of overall units (75 percent) than estimated in the 1998 Plan.
Over the past three years the city has committed substantial time and resources to
update numerous land use and public facility plans to address infrastructure deficiencies
within the existing UGB and to identify the most suitable and efficient areas to
accommodate future residential growth and future employment land needs, based on an
updated Economic Opportunities Analysis.
Planning Process
As Bend reached a population in excess of the General Plan forecast for the year 2020,
and as work began on an update of that forecast, it became apparent that a re-
evaluation of the city’s buildable land supply for housing and for economic development
was called for. The updated population forecast, prepared as part of the Deschutes
County Coordinated Population Forecast, was completed and adopted in 2004. The
coordinated forecast was acknowledged by LCDC in early 2005. For Bend, it estimated
a 2025 population of 109,389, a substantial increase over the 1998 forecast of 68,775 by
2020.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 8
The Residential Lands Study (RLS) was initiated in 2004 in response to several years of
unprecedented growth and the findings of the updated population forecast. The RLS
was undertaken in two phases. Phase 1 consisted chiefly of a buildable lands inventory
and a housing needs analysis, both required by state law as a basis for estimating 20-
year needs for residential land and for the types and densities of housing units called for
by local conditions. Phase 2 followed with studies to estimate the remaining capacity of
the existing UGB, calculate needed acres beyond the current UGB, draft amendments to
General Plan text and policies, analyze public facility impacts, and propose an expanded
UGB.
Based on direction from the Bend City Council in August 2007, the City expanded the
scope of the June 2007 UGB expansion proposal to also include full consideration of
city-wide employment land needs for the 2008-2028 planning period. This resulted in an
expanded and updated Economic Opportunities Analysis which looked beyond the
Juniper Ridge site, and identified long-term land needs for the full range of commercial,
industrial, and mixed-use developments consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
The City engaged a technical advisory committee (TAC) from October 2004 through
March 2007 that provided input on a number of products including the buildable lands
inventory, the housing needs analysis, the redevelopment measures, and the proposed
housing element (Chapter 5). In addition, the City Council appointed a Steering
Committee composed of the Bend Planning Commission and one representative from
each of Bend’s neighborhood associations. The Steering Committee met monthly with
staff from January 2006 through May 2007 to provide a citizen’s perspective on the
framework plan and the principles for developing completed neighborhoods that have
been incorporated into the Framework Plan, policies, and development standards.
At the direction of the Bend City Planning Commission, the TAC was re-engaged to
assist in considering modifications to the June 2007 UGB proposal. That TAC met 15
times from October 2007 to September 2008.
Staff and Planning Commission members have provided regular updates to the City
Council on the expanded UGB proposal. The Commission has held 32 work sessions
since October 2007 to consider modifications to the initial proposal, and to shape the
current proposal package. These work sessions included representation from the
Deschutes County Planning Commission, in the form of liaisons, to ensure effective
communication and coordination between the City and the County.
Study Area Boundaries
In preparation of the initial UGB proposal, the City established a study area for the
purpose of UGB expansion and urban reserve planning in January 2006 (See Figure II-
1). This study area included approximately 27,000 acres of land for evaluation as
potential expansion area for the UGB and/or potential designation as urban reserve.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 9
Figure II-1: January 2006 UGB/URA Study Area Map
As the Planning Commission and the TAC began work sessions in the fall of 2007, it
was decided to consider an enlarged study area, consisting of all land within a 2-mile
radius of the existing UGB. This revised study area included a total of 6,361 parcels,
comprising over 44,000 gross acres, and is outlined in Figure II-2, below.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 10
Figure II-2
Over the course of one full year of Planning Commission work sessions, criteria were
developed to determine acreage within this study area that would be considered suitable
for meeting identified land needs to 2028, consistent with Goal 14 (see Sec. V of this
report). Figure II-2 indicates those parcels that met threshold suitability criteria as
shaded areas. After determining threshold suitability, these parcels were evaluated for
their priority status under ORS 197.298 to develop five UGB alternatives, in addition to
the initial, June 2007 proposal. Goal 14 location factors were applied to these additional
alternatives in order to make comparisons and evaluate the extent to which they met
identified needs for accommodating Bend’s forecast growth and complied with
requirements in state law, including ORS 197.298. As a basis for developing the UGB
alternatives, the criteria for suitability and for the Goal 14 location factors were applied to
parcels within the modified study area through a GIS-based analysis. The results of this
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 11
analysis identified areas that ranked relatively high or low for suitability and for meeting
specific needs. As an example, Figure II-3 below ranks parcels meeting suitability
criteria by statutory priority category and relative infrastructure cost for meeting housing-
related needs. A series of similar maps indicating parcels that ranked relatively high or
low for various employment uses, as well as for relatively low public facilities costs, were
also prepared, and are attached as Exhibit L-10.
Figure II-3
Bend’s Planning Context
As discussed in Section V of this report, the City has complied with requirements to
address the priorities of ORS 197.298(1) when considering land for inclusion in an
expanded UGB. In Bend’s case, the highest priority for inclusion are “exception areas,”
considered Priority 2 under the statute. These exception areas consist of land adjacent
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 12
to the current UGB that were designated as a local urban area reserve in 1981 (but
these lands are not "statutory" urban reserve areas), as well as a number of scattered,
low-density, rural residential subdivisions that were developed under the jurisdiction of
Deschutes County over many decades. The highest priority under the statute for
inclusion is land that has been designated as urban reserve and acknowledged by
LCDC under ORS 195.145. Bend’s local UAR was designated locally 12 years before
the urban reserve provisions of ORS 195.145 were adopted, and does not meet state
requirements as statutory urban reserve areas, hence its Priority 2 “exception” status.
Interspersed among the local UAR and other exception areas are lands classified as
“agricultural” by Deschutes County. Agricultural lands are considered lowest priority
(Priority 4) for inclusion in a UGB under ORS 197.298. The intent of ORS 197.298 is to
exclude lands designated “agricultural” from consideration for UGB expansion except
under very limited circumstances, as provided in ORS 197.298(3):
(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in
an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate
to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this
section for one or more of the following reasons:
a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably
accommodated on higher priority lands;
b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the
higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical
constraints; or
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.
As discussed in Section V, this proposal includes 1,407 suitable and available acres of
Priority 4 land within the expanded UGB, making up about 26% of total available acres.
Inclusion of these Priority 4 lands has been justified under subsections (3)(a) and (3)(c)
above. It is important to note that despite the agricultural designation of much of the
land under consideration for UGB expansion, primarily on the east side, there is very
little active, economically viable farming activity occurring on these “agricultural” lands.
This is due to the fact that soils generally within the expansion area are poorly suited for
agriculture, many of these Priority 4 lands have been divided into small parcels (hobby
farms), and some of the largest parcels have no irrigation water rights (e.g. Juniper
Ridge and Section 11). Nevertheless, the City has followed the hierarchy in ORS
197.298(1) and deviated from these priorities only subject to the reasons in ORS
197.298(3). The City has succeeded in fully conforming with requirements in state law
for analyzing and evaluating land for inclusion in an expanded UGB, and in crafting a
comprehensive proposal that will meet Bend’s needs for the 2008-2028 period.
New Urban Reserve Designation
As discussed above, the Bend Area General Plan currently designates approximately
3,200 acres outside the current UGB as Urban Area Reserve. These UAR areas were
designated in 1981, and are located mainly to the west, northwest, and northeast of
Bend urban area. These are not acknowledged urban reserves as described in ORS
195.145. The initial, June 2007 UGB amendment proposal included a draft proposal to
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 13
establish new urban reserves, pursuant to ORS 195.145. Deschutes County took a
leading role in preparing this urban reserve proposal, as the County would continue to
have jurisdiction over land use activity within the new urban reserve. As both the City
and County Planning Commissions were conducting joint, initial public hearings on City
File No. 07-361, Deschutes County made the decision to withdraw the draft urban
reserve proposal that was under consideration. As a result, this modified UGB
amendment proposal does not include a proposal to also designate urban reserves for
Bend.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 14
III. FINDINGS - RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED LAND NEEDS
Overview
These findings address the following criteria:
Need Factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14 (OAR 660-015-0000(14));
OAR Division 660-024-030 through 660-024-050;
ORS 197.296;
Goal 10 (OAR 660-015-0000(10)), and;
OAR 660-008, Interpretation of Goal 10.
ORS 197.296 Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban
growth boundary; analysis and determination of residential housing patterns.
FINDING: ORS 197.296 is applicable because the city is pursuing a legislative review of
its comprehensive plan concerning its urban growth boundary. This same legislative
review also requires the application of Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, and
requires evaluation of buildable lands for residential use within the Bend UGB. The 20-
year period that is the subject of this legislative review is 20 years; 2008 to 2028.
OAR 660-0015-0000(14) Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization.
Land Need
Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on
the following:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population,
consistent with a 20-year population forecast coordinated with
affected local governments; and
(2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities,
livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads,
schools, parks or open space, or any combination of the need
categories in this subsection (2).
In determining need, local government may specify characteristics,
such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to
be suitable for an identified need.
Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments
shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated
on land already inside the urban growth boundary.
FINDING: This legislative review of the Bend UGB proposes an expansion of the Bend
UGB expansion to provide additional land for needed housing. This review of land for
housing also covers uses that do not provide housing, but do consume residential land.
The findings in this section compare projected land needs through the year 2028 with
the supply of land within the existing (2008) Bend UGB. Land needs for housing,
schools, and parks are directly related to projected population growth.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 15
Projected 20-year land needs for housing and related uses that typically locate in
residential zones are addressed in this section of the UGB Findings. Together with a
discussion of measures to increase the efficiency of land use within the existing UGB,
these findings provide the basis for determining the amount and characteristics of land
outside the existing UGB that is needed for residential and related uses through the year
2028.
OAR 660-015-0000(14) Goal 14, Factor 1 and OAR 660-024-0030
Coordinated Population Forecast
Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population,
consistent with a 20-year population forecast coordinated with
affected local governments.
FINDING: The city is relying on its adopted coordinated population forecast to 2025 to
develop the estimate of land need for housing and related uses. This forecast was
coordinated and adopted by Deschutes County in 20042. The forecast was upheld on
appeal before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals in 2005 3. The city adopted this
forecast and incorporated it in Chapter 4 of the Bend Area General Plan in June 2005.
This decision was not appealed and was acknowledged in July 2005.
The adopted population forecast for Bend for the year 2025 is 109,389. City staff
extended this forecast forward using the growth rate for the 2025-2030 period to 2028,
which produced a forecast of 115,063 4. As required by State law, UGB changes shall be
based on a 20-year population forecast that is coordinated with county and state
forecasts. 5 The Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast for Bend is shown
in Table III-1. 6 City staff extended the forecast by three (3) years (to 2028) to meet the
20-year planning period for the UGB analysis. 7
2 See Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025 (Exhibit L-2 to 6/11/07
45-day notice).
3 See Oregon LUBA No. 2004-160 - http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/docs/Opinions/2005/03-
05/04160.pdf .
4 See November 19, 2007 memorandum to Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County
Planning Commission Liaisons.
5 See Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization) and OAR 660-024-0040(1).
6 Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000-2025.
7 Under OAR 660-024-0040 (2) (a), the 20-year planning period for a UGB amendment
conducted as a post-acknowledgement plan amendment must commence on the date initially
scheduled for final adoption of the amendment specified by the local government in the 45-day
notice.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 16
Table III-1: City of Bend Population Forecast (2000-2028)
Year Population Average Annual Growth Rate
2000 52,800 -
2005 69,004 5.50%
2010 81,242 3.32%
2015 91,158 2.33%
2020 100,646 2.00%
2025 109,389
2028 115,063 1.70%
OAR 660-015-0000(14) Goal 14 – Factor 2, OAR 660-024-0040
Housing Unit Projection
FINDING: Housing choices of individual households are influenced in complex ways by
dozens of factors, and the housing market in Bend is the result of the individual
decisions of thousands of households. These points should underscore the complexity
of projecting the types of housing that need to be built in Bend over the 20-year planning
horizon. 8
The complexity of the housing market is a reality, but it does not eliminate the
requirement for a forecast of future housing need, and its implications for land demand
and consumption. Such forecasts are inherently uncertain. This uncertainty is
recognized in the Goal 14 rule, which states:
660-024-0040(1) The 20-year land 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.
The Goal 14 rule (660-024-0040-7) includes the following “safe harbors” that may be
used in determining housing needs: 9
(a) Local governments 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.
(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
8 The city has been working on these amendments to the Bend Area General Plan since 2004.
For the purpose of the proposed UGB amendment, the starting population reflects the PSU
population estimate for 2005 (70,330).
9 Under OAR 660-024-0010(2) a “safe harbor” means an optional course of action that a local
government may use to satisfy a requirement of Goal 14. Use of a safe harbor prescribed in this
division will satisfy the requirement for which it is prescribed.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 17
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 6-12 units per acre, a separate estimate of the
need for manufactured dwelling parks is not required.
FINDING: The city has applied all of the “safe harbors” noted above in determining
housing needs. Data from the 2000 U.S. Census has been used in the baseline
assumptions for projecting housing unit needs. Additionally, the Bend Development
Code:
Does not regulate government-assisted housing as a separate housing type;
Allows manufactured homes on individual lots in all residential zones that allow
10 or fewer dwelling units per acre; and
Includes a specific zone (RM-10) that permits manufactured home parks within
the density range of 6-12 units per acre.
Therefore, the city is not required to estimate land needs separately for government-
assisted housing, manufactured homes on individual lots or manufactured home parks.
Supporting documents, including the Housing Needs Analysis 10 and the Draft
Amendments to the Housing and Residential Lands Chapter of the General Plan, 11
include substantial data and specific strategies relating to government-assisted housing
and manufactured dwelling parks.
The starting point in the housing needs analysis is to project the number of new housing
units needed during the planning period. The following key assumptions were used
through Phases I and II of the Residential Lands Study. The city prepared 2008 to 2028
housing unit forecast based on the 2008 population projection for Bend and the following
assumptions:
The Deschutes County coordinated population forecasts are a reasonable
approximation of Bend’s population in 2028.
Persons in group quarters will maintain the same percentage reflected in the
2000 Census (2.3 percent of population). 12
For the planning period, the average household size will remain the same as the
2000 Census figure of 2.4 persons per household.
Vacancy rates will be cyclical, but will average 6.4 percent over the planning
period based on data from the 2000 Census 13 .
10 See Exhibit L (3) Housing Needs Analysis.
11 See August 2008 Draft Amendments to Chapter 5 of the General Plan – Housing and
Residential Lands. This chapter includes an updated 2008 Housing Needs Analysis for Bend.
12 U.S. Census Bureau defines “group quarters” as a place where people live or stay that is
normally owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the
residents. Group quarters include such places as college residence halls, skilled nursing
facilities, correctional facilities and homeless facilities.
13 The Census Bureau reports that the vacancy rate includes some increment of the percentage
due to second or seasonal homes. For the purpose housing unit projection, the city is assuming
that this rate refers to homes that are on the market for sale or rent but not occupied.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 18
Staff reviewed these assumptions with the planning commission and documented this in
a memorandum that is included in the record 14 . Table III-2 below presents the
assumptions translate into an estimated need for 16,681 new housing units to
accommodate the 2028 population forecast for Bend. The city finds that the estimated
number of housing units needed by 2028 is consistent with the coordinated population
forecast and with the “safe harbor” assumptions included in the Goal 14 administrative
rule.
Table III-2: Assumptions used for forecast of new housing units, 2008-2028
Coordinated population forecast for 2028 = 115,063
Less population on July 1, 2008 - 76,551
Equals new persons, 2008-2028 = 38,512
Less new persons in group quarters (2.3%) - 886
Equals new persons in households, 2008-2028 = 37,626
Divided by average household size ÷ 2.4 persons/household
Equals new occupied housing units = 15,678
Plus vacancy factor (6.4%) + 1,003
Equals new housing units needed, 2008-2028 = 16,681
ORS 197.296(3), OAR 660-024-0050, and OAR 660-0015-0000(10) Goal 10 (Housing)
Buildable Land Inventory and Capacity for Housing Units
ORS 197.296(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
OAR 660-024-0050(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 660-024-0050. For residential land, the buildable land
inventory must include vacant and redevelopable land, and be conducted
in accordance with OAR 660-008-0010 and ORS 197.296.
FINDING: The city completed an inventory of developed, vacant, and potentially
redevelopable residential land in June of 2005. 15 This inventory has been updated
several times. One update was documented in 2006 16 . The final inventory was updated
to include new housing units that were built or permitted as of March 13, 2008 17 . The
Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) was developed in accordance with the methodologies
outlined in OAR 660-008-0010 and ORS 197.296. The city staff also reviewed this
inventory with the Bend Planning Commission and UGB technical advisory committee.
14 See November 19, 2007 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes
County Planning Commission Liaisons.
15 See Exhibit L-1. City of Bend Buildable Lands Inventory, (July 2005). .
16 See Exhibit L-4, April 11, 2006 memorandum to Bend City Council.
17 See Table 5-4 of the August 2008 Chapter 5, Housing and Residential Lands, of the Bend Area
General Plan.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 19
The BLI is based on a parcel-level data base. City staff assigned each tax lot within the
four primary residential plan designations within the Bend UGB to one of the several
categories of development status, including vacant acres (platted lots), vacant acres
with minimal improvements, vacant acres with physical constraints, and redevelopable
acres. The following table presents the inventory of vacant and redevelopable land in
the four residential plan designations in the Bend UGB.
Table III-3: Acres of Vacant and Redevelopable Residential Lands (2008)
Plan Designation Vacant and Redevelopable Acres
of Land
Residential Urban Low Density (RL) 135
Residential Urban Standard Density (RS) 2,410
Residential Urban Medium Density (RM) 339
Residential Urban High Density (RH) 25
Total 2,909
ORS 197.296 requires that the City of Bend determine the housing capacity of the
buildable residential lands based on actual building data collected since the last periodic
review or five years, whichever is greater. Table III-4 summarizes how many housing
units could be accommodated on the 2,909 net vacant and redevelopable acres within
the existing UGB 18 . The record includes a March 3, 2008 memorandum and March 10,
2008 spreadsheet that provides the detail on the densities assumptions for each plan
designation and each category of vacant or redevelopable lands. To summarize this
discussion, the city is assuming that development in the RL, RS, and RM designations
will meet minimum densities for vacant lands; development in the RH designation will
occur at lower than minimum densities because of the parcelized pattern of RH lots in
the current UGB. The density of redevelopment will be lower than minimum as well
because of the parcelized pattern of redevelopable lots within the current UGB. The
March 3, 2008 memorandum includes additional data that show the range of lot sizes
redevelopable lots.
Table III-4: Potential Capacity of Housing Units by Plan Designation in the UGB (2008)
RL RS RM RH Totals
Potential Units from Vacant Acres 38 1,504 822 104 2,469
Potential Units from Vacant Acres Proposed
New Lots 1 2,021 217 132 2,371
Potential Units from Vacant Acres in Platted
Lots 64 2,530 265 23 2,882
Potential Units from Redevelopable Acres 18 423 219 2 662
Potential Units from Redevelopable Acres -
Pending New Lots 42 979 655 0 1,676
Measures
Central Area Plan 500
Upzoning along Transit Corridors 600
Potential Units, Including Measures 163 7458 2177 261 11,159
18 See Table 5-20, August 2008 Chapter 5 of the Bend Area General Plan, Housing and
Residential Lands.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 20
Placed in context, Bend staff has concluded that 11,159 of the 16,681 new housing units
needed from 2008-2028 can be accommodated on the remaining vacant and
redevelopable land within the existing UGB, assuming that all of the land is developed
for housing. This estimate shows that approximately 67% of the housing unit projection
can be accommodated in the current UGB, based on plan designation and the proposed
measures. The housing capacity shown in Table III-4 does not account for vacant or
redevelopable land that might not be developed during the 20-year time frame because
of property owner preferences or constraints relating to lot shape or location of existing
dwellings. The estimate of potential units on redevelopable lands assumes lower
densities of development, based on recent redevelopment, lot sizes, and zoning 19 . Also,
the analysis does not consider infrastructure constraints that might limit development
within certain areas of the existing UGB or account for other uses such as schools,
parks, and institutions that might locate in residential zones and reduce the amount of
land that is available for construction of new housing.
The city has prepared an inventory of buildable residential lands within the existing UGB
and estimated housing capacity as required by the Goal 14 administrative rule (660-
024-0050) and ORS 197.296. Based on the analysis, the existing UGB has the
capacity to accommodate 11,159 new housing units, assuming that all vacant and
redevelopable residential land (2,909 net acres) is developed for housing at recent built
densities.
OAR 660-024-0040, Goal 10 (Housing) and ORS 197.296
Housing Needs, Mix, and Density
(5)(a) Except as provided in 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 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:
(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.
(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
19 See March 3, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and the Deschutes
County Planning Commission and March 10, 2008 capacity spreadsheet available through -
http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/community_development/docs/CapacitySpreadsheet31008.pdf . These
estimates were modified using a right of way assumption of 21% instead of the 31% used in March 2008.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 21
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.
FINDING: Statewide Planning Goal 10 (Housing) requires that incorporated cities
maintain an inventory of buildable residential lands and “encourage the availability of
adequate numbers of housing units at price and rent ranges commensurate with the
financial capabilities of its households.” The city understands that this goal does not
place an affirmative obligation on the city to build housing. The city received testimony
on the issues of housing mix and density from DLCD, Pace, Central Oregon Landwatch,
and the Swalley Irrigation District.
A key objective of Goal 10 is to ensure that residents and workers in any community in
Oregon can find housing that meets their needs and is within their financial means
(typically described as spending no more than 30% of income on housing). While State
policy does not make a clear distinction between housing demand and housing need,
public policy typically attempts to address areas where the market does not meet needs
for affordable housing for both low and middle-income households.
Bend, similar to other cities in Oregon, has distinct plan designations and zoning districts
that allow for development of a variety of housing types at different densities. While
cities cannot dictate the price of housing that is built, 20 housing prices are affected by
plan policies and ordinance standards relating to issues such as minimum lot sizes,
maximum densities, permitted housing types and design and development standards
(e.g., lot coverage, minimum landscaping, off-street parking requirements, etc.).
Additionally, cities such as Bend can take a more active role in monitoring the residential
land supply and the types of housing built and use this information to ensure enough
land is zoned for potentially more affordable housing types such as smaller lot cottages
and higher density attached housing and apartments (e.g., RM and RH zones).
While the housing forecasts focus on “new” housing, it is important to recognize that
affordable housing needs in Bend are likely to be satisfied by a combination of existing
housing and more affordable new housing types such as cottages and townhomes. The
older, used stock of existing homes is typically less expensive per foot than new
housing. Thus, forecasting the type of new units that might be built in Bend (by type,
size, and price) may not bear a significant relationship to the type of housing to which
most people with acute housing needs will turn to solve their housing problems. This
fact is recognized in the City of Bend 2004-2009 Consolidated Plan, which includes an
objective to rehabilitate and preserve existing affordable housing in addition to aiding in
the production of new affordable units. 21
20 Per ORS 197.309.
21 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Plan for the City of Bend, 2004-2009 , final
report dated September 30, 2003.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 22
In 1995, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2709, now codified as ORS 197.296.
The statute defines the factors cities shall use to establish and maintain a 20-year
inventory of residential land within urban growth boundaries to meet housing needs.
The HB 2709 forecast requires analysis of actual housing mix and density trends for the
past five years or since the most recent periodic review, whichever time period is
greater. Bend completed its most recent periodic review in 1998. Therefore, the
timeframe for the HB 2709 forecast for Bend is January 1, 1998 through December 31,
2005. 22 In looking at the mix of housing constructed in Bend, the Bend Planning
Commission also looked at data for calendar years 2005 through 2007 23 .
Table III-5 summarizes building permits issued for new housing construction by type
within the City of Bend for 1998-2005, and compares the data with housing mix
assumptions from the 1998 Plan. The data indicate that 77% of the residential building
permits issued were for single-family detached dwellings, while 12% were for multiple
family dwellings. No permits were issued for manufactured homes in mobile home
parks. Combined, permits for “plexes” (2, 3 & 4-unit buildings) accounted for 11% of total
permits issued. 24
Table III-5: Building Permits Issued for New Housing in Bend, 1998-2005 25
Housing type Actual housing types
1998-2005 (units and
percent)
Projected housing types
from 1998 Plan (percent)
Single family dwellings
(including SF attached
and manufactured homes
on lots)
9,812
(77%) 55%
Manufactured homes in
parks
-0- 10%
Plexes (2, 3 & 4 units) 1,438
(11%)
Included with multi-family
category below
Multi-family (5 or more unit
buildings)
1,548
(12%) 35%
Total 12,798 (100%) -
Clearly, the development market has delivered a very different housing mix than was
anticipated in the 1998 General Plan. The following factors have likely influenced the
heavy emphasis on single-family home construction from 1998-2005:
Historically low mortgage rates greatly expanded opportunities to purchase
homes and single-family homes are typically the predominant choice for
ownership
22 The City completed the General Plan update in November 1998. The analysis period used in the HB
2709 forecast covers calendar years 1998 through 2005.
23 See page 4-8 of January 7, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and County Planning
Commission liaisons.
24 The category of “single family attached housing” describes a housing unit built on an individual lot that
shares a wall with a housing unit built on an adjacent individual lot (also described as “townhomes”). The
category of “plexes” describes 2, 3 or 4 housing units built on an individual lot.
25 Housing mix data from City of Bend Census Reports on building permits issued 1/1/98 through 21/31/05.
Projected housing mix percentages from Figure 5-6 of the 1998 Bend Area General Plan.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 23
Strong market demand for Central Oregon amenities (including demand from
investors and 2 nd home purchasers)
Developer/builder and finance industry comfort with detached single-family home
products
While land values and home prices have risen dramatically, rental rates have
risen much more slowly and dampened interest in construction of rental housing
Dwindling supply of vacant land zoned for multifamily housing (RM and RH)
Low interest rates and a strong housing market have boosted Central Oregon’s
economy, with construction and financial activities surging in recent years. However,
while housing prices have risen rapidly, wages have risen much more slowly. One
consequence of the actual development trends since 1998 is a growing disconnect
between the price of new homes and local wages. According to a recent Workforce
Housing Needs Assessment, 92% of the residential real estate listings in both
Deschutes and Crook Counties are priced above what is affordable for households
earning 120% of the area median income (AMI). 26
Development trends since 1998 have also reflected an increasing presence of second
homes in the community. Deschutes County data on incomes from transfer payments
and investments support the argument that many current Bend residents are not earning
their living locally. This dynamic creates a market for relatively expensive homes that
are not supported by the local economy. The disconnect between some aspects of the
local economy and the local housing market creates a situation in which housing
providers have less of an incentive to build housing for local workers. 27
In the 2007 UGB expansion findings, the city compared three (3) forecasts that are
reviewed here. The House Bill 2709 or “trend” forecast is presented in Table III-6.
Again, this forecast is based on extrapolation of the actual housing mix since the last
periodic review to the forecast of housing units needed from 2008-2028.
Table III-6: HB 2709 Trend Forecast of New Housing by
Type, 2008-2028
New persons, 2008-2028 38,512
Housing units needed, 2008-2028 16,681
Housing types, 2008-2028
Single family
Plexes (2, 3 & 4 units)
Multi-family (5+ unit buildings)
(77%) 12,844
(11%) 1,835
(12%) 2,002
The HB 2709 trend forecast also requires consideration of actual housing densities since
the last periodic review. Table III-7 outlines potential land needs for housing if the recent
development trends continued over the planning period to 2028.
26 Central Oregon Workforce Housing Needs Assessment (July 2006), prepared for Central
Oregon Regional Housing Authority.
27 Consolidated Plan for the City of Bend 2004-2009 (September 2003), Section III, page 20.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 24
Table III-7: HB 2709 Trend Forecast of Residential Land Needs to 2028 28
Housing type Number/percent of units Assumed density
(units/net acre)
Land need for
housing
(net acres)
Single family 12,844 (77%) 4 3,211
Plexes 1,835 (11%) 12 153
Multi-family 2,002 (12%) 19 105
Total 16,681 (100%) - 3,469
The City prepared a second forecast using the Oregon Housing Needs Model to identify
the mix and tenure of housing that would be needed to satisfy Goal 10. The City notes
that the Housing Needs Model has a built-in parameter of distributing housing on a
tenure mix of 55/45 (owned/rented) that is not also a legal requirement under state law.
The Goal 10 “Housing Need” Forecast looks beyond the HB 2709 data on recent
housing trends to consider relevant national, state and local demographic and economic
trends and factors that may affect the 20-year projection of structure type and mix. The
Housing Needs Analysis prepared by staff in 2005 includes detailed information on
demographic and economic trends and the full report should be consulted for a
comprehensive discussion. 29
To gain insights to the types and density of housing that would be affordable in Bend to
compare with the trend data described earlier for the HB 2709 forecast, staff used the
State’s Housing Needs Model developed by the Oregon Department of Housing and
Community Services (HCS). 30 The model’s primary benefit to a local community is to
provide the basis for working to comply with Goal 10 and to quantify needed housing
and associated land requirements based on community demographics. These
demographics include age of householder, household income, and tenure choices. The
model provides the user with the number of needed units by tenure, price, and rent
assuming each household in the community will find housing it can afford.
The Housing Needs Model is based on an assumption that 55 percent of new housing
units will be owner-occupied and 45 percent will be renter occupied. While the city
acknowledges that the model has these parameters built in, neither ORS 197.296 nor
Goal 10 require such a specific split of housing based on tenure. ORS 197.296 is also
clear to define that the local government project the mix and density of housing, not
tenure. The U.S. Census Bureau 2005 American Community Survey estimates the
current tenure split for housing units in Bend at 60 percent owner-occupied and 40
percent renter-occupied.
While the HCS Housing Needs Model provides a useful tool to estimate housing needs
by housing type and price, the model has certain limitations:
It is virtually impossible to forecast income distributions 20 years out. The model
assumes that incomes will remain constant over the 20-year analysis period.
28 Assumed densities based on actual built densities from 1998-2005 as presented in the Buildable Lands
Inventory (See Exhibit L-1). Net density means dwelling units per full acre of developable land, exclusive of
streets and unbuildable area.
29 City of Bend Housing Needs Analysis (June 2005) – City of Bend Community Development Department.
See Exhibit L-3.
30 Oregon Housing Needs Model for Bend.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 25
The model does not allow for allocation to single-family attached housing
products (ownership units that achieve multifamily densities). It is not
unreasonable to assume that attached housing products such as townhouses or
multi-story condominiums could represent a growing share of the overall housing
mix in Bend.
To provide a comparison with the HB 2709 Trend forecast, the following table updates
the number of units needed from 2008-2028 for consistency and comparison purposes,
but otherwise applies the housing mix assumptions from the Housing Needs Model. It is
important to emphasize that the Housing Needs Model for Bend includes extensive
detail on housing units needed by tenure and cost, while Table III-8 focuses only on the
distinction in the mix of housing types between the HB 2709 and Goal 10 Housing Need
forecasts.
Table III-8: Housing Needs Model Forecast of New Housing by
Type 31 2008-2028
New persons, 2008-2028 38,512
Housing units needed, 2008-2028 16,681
Housing mix, 2005-2027
Single family (including manufactured
homes on lots)
Manufactured dwelling park units
Plexes (2, 3 & 4 units)
Multi-family (5+ unit buildings, including
condominiums)
(46.5%) 7,757
(8.5%) 1,418
(6.1%) 1,018
(38.9%) 6,489
Similar to the HB 2709 forecast, the Goal 10 forecast assumes that future development
will achieve the average planned density of each residential district. For the RS, RM and
RH districts, the average densities are consistent with recent development trends. 32
Table III-9 outlines potential residential land needs if the housing mix assumptions from
the Housing Needs Model are extrapolated to the 2028 planning period.
Table III-9: Housing Needs Model Forecast of Residential Land Needs to 2028
Housing type Number/percent of
units
Assumed density
(units/net acre)
Land need
(net acres)
Single family 7,757 (46.5%) 4 1,939
Manufactured
homes in parks
1,418 (8.5%) 5 284
Plexes 1,018 (6.1%) 12 85
Multi-family 6,489 (38.9%) 19 342
Total 16,681 (100%) - 2,650
Note: numbers may not match total due to rounding
This third and last forecast provides a “transition” between actual development trends in
Bend over the past eight years and anticipated housing needs looking forward at
changing demographics. This forecast is consistent with the approach recommended in
an April 11, 2006 memorandum to the Bend City Council. The purpose for doing so was
31 Housing mix assumptions from Oregon Housing Needs Model for Bend (see Exhibit L-3).
32 City of Bend Buildable Lands Inventory (2005).
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 26
to recognize that the city may not see a shift in housing mix by type between the 77/23 in
2007 and 55/45 as called out in the Housing Needs Model. This forecast was also
updated using the time period of 2008-2028. This final forecast collapses the needed
housing mix from 2008-2028 into detached and attached units as shown in Table III-10.
The purpose for doing so is to recognize, based on the testimony and evidence
submitted on this topic, that the housing mix will take longer than 20 years to change
from a detached/attached mix of 77/23 to 55/45. The city understands the purpose for
DLCD encouraging such a shift, but respectfully disagrees that such a change will or
must take place in order to meet Goal 10 by 2028. The city finds that this final forecast
(aka transition forecast) will meet Goal 10.
Detached units include single family dwellings or manufactured homes on individual lots.
Attached units include single family attached units, plexes (2, 3 & 4 units) and multi-
family buildings (including units for rent and condominium units). This forecast was
modified from the July 25, 2007 version to reflect the change in housing mix approved by
the Bend Planning Commission in January 2008 33 . The commission received testimony
and evidence that supported a change of the housing mix to 65% detached and 35%
attached over the 20 year planning period. City staff evaluated this testimony and
concurred through a separate memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and
Deschutes County Planning Commission Liaisons 34 .
Table III-10: Forecast of New Housing by Type, 2008-2028
Housing type Existing units as of
2008
New units needed
2008-2028 35
Detached 25,484 (76%) 10,843 (65%)
Attached 8,246 (24%) 5,838 (35%)
Total 33,730 16,681
The city received testimony on the housing mix from DLCD, Pace, Landwatch, and the
Swalley Irrigation District, Winterbrook Planning, and Newland Communities. The city
acknowledges that the housing mix is a key variable in estimating the need for
residential land and that changing the housing mix one way or the other can have the
result of increasing or decreasing the amount of land needed for housing. The city
arrived at the 65%/35% housing mix after consideration of this testimony and work
sessions with the Bend Planning Commission and UGB technical advisory committee.
The issue of housing tenure was raised in DLCD’s 11/21/2008 comment on the UGB
expansion. The purpose of this finding is to respond to this issue. The city is assuming
that most of the detached units will be owner – occupied, as identified in the city’s
housing needs analysis 36 . The city is also assuming that while the proportion of owner
occupied attached units increases over time, e.g. through the construction of
condominiums and attached single family housing, that most of the attached housing will
be renter occupied and will provide housing to meet the needs of very low, low, and
33 See January 7, 2008 technical memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County
Planning Commission Liaisons.
34 See March 6, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County Planning
Commission liaisons.
35 Phase II Task 1 Report to Bend City Council (April 11, 2006), City of Bend Community Development
Department; See also Table 5-25, August 2008 Chapter 5, Housing and Residential Lands, Bend Area
General Plan.
36 See Exhibit L-3, Housing Needs Analysis (2005).
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 27
moderate income households. The ACS data on tenure further shows that the attached
housing in Bend has a tenure split oriented toward renter-occupied households (e.g.
38% owner occupied and 62% renter occupied). The city expects this trend to increase
as most of the attached housing will be developed to meet the housing needs of very
low, low, and moderate income households.
The city also received comments from DLCD and the Swalley Irrigation District regarding
the consideration of manufactured housing in Bend. The 2005 Housing Needs Analysis
and April 11, 2006 report to the City Council concluded that supply of manufactured
housing was decreasing and assumed that this type of housing would be provided with
less frequency in the future. The city also assumed that other types of housing would be
provided to meet this housing need, and addressed this with the 65%/35% housing mix.
The city currently allows manufactured housing in a manner consistent with ORS 197.
The city has provided zones that allow for manufactured home parks to develop at
densities of 6 to 10 units to the acre with the RM and the RM-10 Zones. While the city
has not made a policy decision to encourage the development of this housing type, this
type of housing is allowed and provided for in the city’s Development Code in a manner
consistent with state law.
Housing Land Need Estimates
This section of findings presents the city’s estimates of land need for housing using the
forgoing variables. This section already includes findings in a forgoing section that
shows, even with measures, that the city will not have the capacity to accommodate the
2028 housing unit projection of 16,681 units within the UGB. This section provides
findings on the allocation of housing within the areas included for expansion. To
translate the housing split into a distribution by zone, the city staff and planning
commission assumed the following: 37
Table III-11: Distribution of Units by Plan Designation
Plan Designation Detached Units Attached Units
% # % #
100% 3,830 100% 2,062
RS 78% 2,987 5% 103
RM 22% 843 58% 1,196
RH 0% - 37% 763
This distribution is based in part on the existing distribution of housing in these three
plan designations in the current UGB. This distribution also assumes no new needed
housing will be developed in areas plan designated with an RL, Urban Low Density
Residential designation. The purpose for doing so is to encourage the development of
needed housing with a 65/35 mix and to an overall average density of six units to the net
acre. The city received testimony on the use of this distribution that criticized it, but also
found that this testimony did not recommend a housing mix different from the 55/45
tenure split built in to the Oregon Housing Needs Model.
37 City of Bend Residential Lands Study, Pages 7-15 (See Exhibit L-4).
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 28
City staff relied on the same approach in estimating residential land needs and
presented this in the August 2008 version of Chapter 5 of the General Plan, Housing and
Residential Lands 38 .
Table III-12 converts the proportion of detached and attached units by zone into needed
acres for each type of housing. Table III-12 shows the city will need to add 941 acres of
land to its UGB to meet the city’s need for land for housing between 2008 and 2028. To
estimate the amount of land needed, staff is relying on the mix of detached and attached
housing built in Bend as documented in the 2008 Buildable Lands Inventory 39 . The
proposed future densities reflect assumptions that current densities of housing will
continue or increase. For the RS Zone, this translates into higher densities for attached
housing closer to the maximum of 7.3 units to the gross acre. For the RM Zone, this is
reflected in better than minimum density of 7.3 units to the gross acre for detached
housing, and middle of the density range for attached housing. The density range for
the RM designation is a minimum of 7.3 and a maximum of 21.7 units to the gross acre.
For the RH, the city assumes no new detached housing will be built because of changes
in the Development Code that now treat single family detached housing as a conditional
use 40 . The city has assumed that the new housing in the RH designation will be
attached during the planning period.
Table III-12: - Forecast of Residential Land Needs to 2028
Zone Housing types Units Density
(units/net
acre)
Land need
(net acres)
RS Detached 2,799 4 700
Attached 97 6 16
RM Detached 790 8 99
Attached 1121 12 93
RH Attached 715 22 33
Totals - 5,522 941
To estimate 20-year land needs for housing, the City of Bend evaluated housing mix and
density trends as outlined in relevant planning goals, statutes and administrative rules.
The City considered building permit data since the last periodic review to develop the HB
2709 or “trend” forecast. The City updated this data to consider trends in new housing
construction based on building permits between calendar years 2005 and 2007 41 . If the
actual housing mix from 1998-2007 were maintained over the 20-year planning period,
the City would need 3,469 net acres to accommodate 16,681 new housing units. The
City also used the State’s Housing Needs Model to look beyond the HB 2709 data on
recent development and consider relevant data on demographic and economic trends
and factors that may affect the 20-year projection of structure type and mix. If the future
38 See discussion at pages 5-28 through 5-30 of August 2008 Chapter 5 of the Bend Area General Plan,
Housing and Residential Lands. This method and materials was also reviewed with the Bend Planning
Commission and Deschutes County Planning Commission liaisons at the March 24, 2008 work session on
the Bend UGB expansion -
http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/community_development/docs/ResidentialCapacityandLandestimate32408.p
df .
39 See Table 2 of the March 6, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and the Deschutes
County Planning Commission.
40 See Table 2.1.200 of the Bend Development Code.
41 See Tables 7 and 8, January 7, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes
County Planning Commission Liaisons.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 29
housing mix includes a larger percentage of multi-family units as forecast with the
Housing Needs Model, the land needed to accommodate the same number of housing
units would be reduced by about 1,000 net acres when compared with the HB 2709
trend forecast.
Clearly, assumptions regarding the mix of housing units have a significant impact on
estimated land needs. The city received testimony from a number of parties that
questioned whether the split recommended in 2007, a 54/46 split, would be achievable
in this housing market. Several parties argued that the city had never achieved this kind
of split, and based on recent trends in development, should consider a split more
oriented to a higher proportion of detached units to attached units. After considering
alternative housing mix forecasts, the City concluded that a variety of housing types of
different price ranges and rent levels will be needed in Bend based on changes in
households and household incomes. To ensure that Bend meets the intent of Goal 10,
the City has assumed that new housing needed from 2008-2028 would reflect a mix of
65% detached and 35% attached units. This housing mix is based in part on work
completed by staff and by testimony that argued a 65/35 split would be more achievable
and could result in encouraging the development of needed housing 42 . Additionally, the
City assumed that residential densities for the RS, RM and RH districts would be higher
than densities seen in recent development because the 2006 Development Code
requires minimum densities of development to ensure housing developed in the RM and
the RH zone occurs at densities higher than the assumed overall average of six units to
the net acre. The city feels compelled to point out that the needed density of six units to
the net acre is 50% higher than the current net density of just under 4 units to the acre.
Regarding density, the city also received comments from DLCD in its November 21,
2008 letter that will be addressed here. The residential densities shown in Table 3-7
above reflected densities in place in 2005 when the city performed that run of the
Oregon Housing Needs Model. The densities shown in Table 3-10 reflect those
densities the city can be achieved in the standard, medium, and high density residential
plan designations. They reflect densities higher than the minimums now required in the
Bend Development Code. Regarding the alleged density gap of 5-12 units to the acre,
the city believes this issue is addressed in an existing zone identified as the RM-10,
Medium density Residential 10 Zone. This zone has a density range of 6-10 units to the
acre and is intended primarily to accommodate manufactured housing developments.
On this topic, the city needs to also point out that the 2005 Housing Needs Analysis
concluded that no new manufactured home subdivisions or parks were developed in
Bend between 1998 and 2005.
The City of Bend find that the housing mix, density and land need assumptions outlined
in Table 3-10 above are consistent with the requirements of Goal 14 (Urbanization),
Goal 10 (Housing) and ORS 197.296. As noted in OAR 660-024-0040(1), the 20-year
land 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. The city and county have coordinated to use the same “transition” forecast as
the basis for the estimated land needs for housing for the 2028 UGB expansion.
42 See discussion in January 7, 2008 technical memoranda to the Bend Planning Commission and
Deschutes County Planning Commission Liaisons. This memorandum summarizes the testimony received
on this topic of the 65/35 housing mix.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 30
Efficiency Measures
OAR 660-024-0050 and ORS 197.296
FINDING: The purpose of these findings is to show that the city has proposed
measures to ensure that residential land within the UGB is used efficiently to provide
needed housing. The city has received comments on the proposed measures from a
number of parties, the most detailed coming from DLCD in its letters dated 10/24/2008
and 11/21/2008. The following findings will show that the city has already taken a
number of concrete steps to encourage the efficient use of residential land, and that
these steps along with the proposed measures satisfy ORS 197.296. The measures
mentioned at ORS 197.296(9) include:
1. Increase permitted densities in residential zones
2. Provide financial incentives for higher density housing
3. Permit additional density beyond that generally allowed in the zoning district in
exchange for amenities and features provided by the developer
4. Removal or easing of approval standards or procedures
5. Establish minimum density ranges
6. Develop strategies for infill and redevelopment
7. Authorize housing types not previously allowed by the plan or regulations
8. Adopt an average residential density standard
9. Consider rezoning non-residential land
It is important to note that the measures listed under ORS 197.296(9) are actions that a
local government may use to comply with ORS 197.296, but are not required 43 . ORS
197.296(7) is also clear that the local government can provide additional land for
needed housing through expansion of the UGB, the implementation of measures, or
some combination of the two. The following findings will touch on several of these
measures that the city has already implemented.
The Goal 14 administrative rule provides additional guidance on addressing land need
deficiencies as follows:
OAR 660-024-0050(5) 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 660-024-0050, 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.
The City has demonstrated a need for 941 acres of additional land for needed housing to
accommodate 5,522 dwelling units that cannot be accommodated inside the Bend UGB.
The analysis of capacity found that even by employing measures to encourage the
development of needed housing in the city’s Central Area and along transit corridors that
43 See August 20, 2007 letter to Mark Radabaugh, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 31
the city will still need additional land for needed housing 44 . The existing UGB (2008)
includes an inventory of 2,909 net vacant and redevelopable acres and can potentially
accommodate 11,159 new housing units. This estimate of 11,159 housing units
represents 67% of the 2028 housing unit projection of 16,681 units.
The City of Bend has taken a number of steps to use residential land within the UGB
more efficiently since the last General Plan update was completed in 1998. As one key
indicator, the density of residential development within the Bend UGB has increased for
all housing types since 1998. Before 1998, the overall density for single family dwellings
in Bend was about 3.8 units per acre. In the 7-year period following the update of the
Bend General Plan, the built density for single family dwellings increased to about 5
units per acre. 45 This incremental increase in density, along with a greater mix of land
uses and a broader variety of housing types, has been supported by key general plan
and development code amendments and other factors such as changing demographics
and increasing land and housing prices in Bend. The trend of gradually increasing
residential densities is expected to continue.
The recently adopted Bend Development Code (2006) includes numerous provisions to
increase land use efficiency within the current UGB. References to key sections are
highlighted in Table 3-13, with special emphasis on provisions that relate to housing and
that address the “efficiency measures” listed in ORS 197.296.
Table III-13 - Bend Development Code
Land Use Efficiency Measures
Efficiency Measure Code Section
New minimum densities in Residential Districts 2.1.600 (Residential Density)
New restrictions on detached SF dwellings in
High Density Residential (RH) District
Table 2.1.200 (SFD a conditional use in RH
District)
New restrictions on professional offices in High
Density Residential (RH) District
Table 2.1.200 (only office uses lawfully existing
prior to adoption date of the Code are
permitted in the RM and RH Districts)
Option for decreased lot sizes in RS District
(down to 3000 SF) when approved as part of a
master plan & internal to a development
Changes to General Plan Policy #18 (page 5-
26); Revisions to Table 2.1.500 (Lot Area)
Opportunities for accessory dwelling units Table 2.1.200 (Permitted Uses in Residential
Districts)
Section 3.6.200.B (Accessory Dwelling
Standards)
New options for multifamily (outright use) in
Commercial Districts
Table 2.2.300 (New Residential Uses permitted
in CBD, CC, CL and CG)
New residential compatibility standards and
building mass & scale standards to address
infill and redevelopment concerns
Section 2.1.300.G (Residential Compatibility
Standards)
Section 2.1.400 (Building Mass and Scale)
New options for neighborhood commercial
uses in Residential Districts (no longer requires
zone change approval)
Table 2.1.200 (See Neighborhood Commercial
Uses permitted in Residential Districts)
New flexibility in off-street parking requirements
(can count available on-street parking in certain
situations)
Section 3.3.300.B (Credit for On Street
Parking)
44 See March 3, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County Planning
Commission Liaisons.
45 City of Bend Community Development Department, Buildable Lands Inventory (July 2005).
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 32
Table III-13 - Bend Development Code
Land Use Efficiency Measures
Efficiency Measure Code Section
Maximum parking standards Section 3.3.300.E (Maximum Number of
Parking Spaces)
New infill development options and master
planning provisions in Chapter 4.5
Section 4.5.200 (Infill Options)
Section 4.5.300 (Master Planned
Development)
Section 4.5.400 (Planned Neighborhoods)
Affordable housing strategies
- Expedited review and permit processing
- Planning & Building Fee Exemptions (up to
$10k per project)
- System Development Charge Deferrals
Section 3.6.200.C (Affordable Housing
Strategies)
See Council Resolutions #2423 and #2428
To summarize Table 3-13 shows the city has already employed the following efficiency
measures recommended under ORS 197.296(9):
Removal or easing of approval standards or procedures
Establish minimum density ranges
Authorize housing types not previously allowed by the plan or regulations
Through this legislative amendment, the city proposes two additional projects as
measures that will have the effect of adding capacity to the UGB for needed housing.
The city has committed to completing these projects through policies in the General
Plan. These projects are the Central Area Plan and Transit Corridor Planning.
Central Area Plan. The city initiated development of the Central Area Plan in 2006. The
Central Area Plan – Part 2 is currently in progress. Within the 3 rd Street corridor portion
of the study area, preliminary estimates indicate a demand over the 20-year planning
period for approximately 500 new attached units at relatively high densities 46 . In March
2004, the City Council directed staff to begin the process of developing a master concept
plan for what is known as the Central Area of Bend in order to prepare for and guide the
growth anticipated to occur over the next 20-30 years. The Central Area generally
comprises the historic downtown business core area and its surrounding neighborhoods.
The CAP proposes changes in zoning and plan designations to accommodate more
mixed use development and changes in development regulations to allow buildings of
greater height to accommodate these uses.
One of the purposes for providing this background on the CAP is to show that it
represents a legitimate measure for encouraging the development of needed housing at
higher densities in the city’s central core. This measure also provides the added benefit
of providing the right conditions to encourage housing in close proximity to employment
opportunities in the historic downtown core and the areas along 3 rd street. The 500 units
estimated through this measure represent another 500 units of attached housing that will
contribute to the shift in housing mix of 65/35.
46 See March 26, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and the Deschutes County
Planning Commission Liaisons.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 33
Transit Corridor Planning . With the establishment of a fixed-route transit system, the
City will be investigating opportunities for re-zoning segments along the more heavily
used transit corridors for mixed-use development and higher-density housing. This
planning work and resulting zone changes is expected to take place within the next 5
years. The initial focus of transit corridor planning is expected to be portions of 3 rd Street
south of the Central area and 27 th Street. Other candidates for corridor planning could
include segments of the 14 th Street, Galveston, and Newport corridors. As outlined in a
memorandum on efficiency measures, 47 it is difficult to estimate with certainty how many
needed units of attached housing might be developed in the transit corridors during the
planning period. Staff has assumed that 50 acres could reasonably be rezoned to an
average density of 12 units per acre. At that rate, it is conceivable that upcoming transit
corridor planning projects could yield roughly 600 needed housing units. To
demonstrate the City’s commitment to pursue these and other efficiency measures, new
policy language has been proposed for Chapters 5 and 6 of the Bend Area General
Plan. 48
DLCD provided comments on the city’s proposed efficiency measures at pages 10 and
11 of its November 21, 2008 letter. This finding responds, in part, to these comments.
As shown above, the city is proposing to strategically encourage the development of
higher density multi-family housing in the central core of Bend through the Central Area
Plan and along transit corridors. The city anticipates that the density of development in
these areas could vary from 12 to 50 units per acre. The city has shown the additional
opportunities for redevelopment of existing residential lands are very limited due to the
existing pattern of zoning and the pattern of land divisions in the current UGB 49 . The city
has proposed additional RM and RH land in the UGB expansion areas for the
development of high density single family and multi-family housing.
The City of Bend has implemented or is pursuing a variety of measures to use
residential land more efficiently and reduce the amount of land that must be added to the
UGB to accommodate estimated 20-year housing needs. The measures will help
achieve the City’s needed housing mix and densities as identified in the Housing Needs
Analysis. Even with the efficiency measures, the City of Bend is still required to expand
the UGB by about 941 net buildable acres to accommodate the remaining needed
housing units. The city has shown that the proposed measures would provide capacity
for another 1,100 units in the existing UGB, and help the city to reach a 65/35 housing
mix over the planning period 50 .
47 Residential Land Measures (May 2, 2007), See Exhibit L-4.
48 See proposed policies 7 and 8, August 2008 Chapter 5, Housing and Residential Lands, Bend Area
General Plan.
49 See also the March 3, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County
Planning Commission liaisons.
50 See March 6, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County Planning
Commission liaisons on housing mix.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 34
Second Homes
One of the issues that the city has addressed with its estimate of land need is land
consumed by second or vacation homes. The city attempted to address this issue by
accounting for land that was believed to have been developed with second homes in the
2007 UGB expansion proposal, which included 377 acres for second or vacation homes.
A number of parties have submitted testimony on this issue, which include the following:
Winterbrook Planning, 10/17/2007 memorandum
Winterbrook Planning, 11/13/2007 memorandum
Pace, 1/4/2008 and 1/24/2008 memoranda
City of Bend, 4/242008 memorandum
DLCD, 10/24/2008 letter
Pace, 11/8/2008 letter
Landwatch, 11/21/2008 letter
DLCD, 11/24/2008 letter
Kellington 11/24/2008 letter
The city received testimony on this topic from a number of parties. Those documents
referenced above reflect those where the city received the most significant and detailed
testimony.
The city presented findings on this issue in the July 23, 2007 findings document
submitted to DLCD on July 24, 2007. The purpose of presenting these findings is to
reflect the decisions of the Bend Planning Commission and the Bend City Council on this
use that, like others, consumes residential lands but does not provide needed housing.
At the beginning, the city takes the position that the purpose for accounting for land that
will be consumed by second homes is a legitimate Goal 10 issue. Both Goal 10 and
ORS 197.296 require the city to have a 20-year supply of buildable residential land
within the UGB. Through this work, the city has attempted to not only inventory and
project land needs for housing, but to account for additional land uses that do not
provide needed housing, but nonetheless consume land in residential zones. The
purpose for doing so was not to artificially and illegitimately inflate the residential land
need as some parties have argued. The city has received oral testimony from a number
of parties questioning whether the UGB expansion would provide enough land, and
argued that much more was required. The city wanted to show all parties that we had
accurately accounted for those lands uses that also consume residential land, so that
city could still demonstrate it met state law and could show a 20-year supply of
residential land for needed housing.
In January 2008, the Bend City Planning Commission conducted a work session on this
issue with the Deschutes County Planning Commission liaisons and city staff. At their
January 14, 2008 work session, the planning commission decided to not pursue an
estimate of land for second homes based on a “backfill” – that land needed to be
accounted for in the estimate of future lands for housing based on an estimate of 377
acres of land that the city estimated were developed with second homes during the
previous seven year period. The planning commission decided, and the city council
agrees, that the record did not support using this method for estimating land consumed
by second homes in the UGB that existed in 2008.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 35
The City Council concurs with the estimate developed by the Planning Commission
during their January 14, 2008 work session, and summarized in the April 24, 2008
memorandum to the planning commission and county planning commission liaisons 51 .
The commission received evidence from Winterbrook Planning that it found more
compelling than that submitted by others in estimating the amount of acres of land
consumed by second homes. The commission decided to assume a certain percentage
of housing on top of the housing unit projection presented in the forgoing section would
be second homes. The commission considered the proposed 20 percent factor from
Winterbrook and did not agree. After discussion, the Bend Planning Commission agreed
to a percentage of an additional 18% of homes above the housing unit projection of
16,681 for second homes. City staff used this percentage of the 2028 housing unit
projection (.18 x 16,681 = 3,002 units) to produce a land need estimate of 500 acres.
This acreage estimate was developed by dividing the 3,002 units by an average density
of six (6) units to the net acre (3,002 units / 6 du/acre = 500 acres).
When second homes are developed on residential land within the existing UGB, the
inventory of land that is available to accommodate projected year-round population
growth is diminished, with implications for maintaining a 20-year supply of land for
housing. This is a critical issue for cities because land consumed by second homes,
primarily for detached single family housing, is then not available for housing at price
ranges and rent levels commensurate with households that need a more affordable
housing product.
The city received evidence and testimony on this issue that argued for much more or
much less land to account for second homes. It is important to stress that the purpose
for this accounting is to ensure a 20-year supply of buildable lands for needed housing,
as required by Statewide Planning Goal 10. The city has established that it needs
additional housing for very low, low, and moderate income households. These same
households will not have the resources to purchase or rent housing available on the
market as second homes. Therefore, to ensure adequate land is available for needed
housing, the city is estimating what additional lands may be needed to ensure this
supply, assuming some proportion of housing is not available because it has been
consumed as second homes. The city documented its rationale for the second home
land need estimate in an April 24, 2008 memorandum to the city planning commission
and county planning commission liaisons 52 . The city has reviewed the other testimony
from other parties, including Pace and Central Oregon Landwatch, the city found the
testimony and evidence more persuasive from Winterbrook Planning. While the
testimony from Pace and Landwatch pointed out potential flaws with the data relied upon
by Winterbrook Planning, none of these parties clearly demonstrated that this estimate
was not achievable during the planning period.
The Bend Planning Commission and County Planning Commission liaisons conducted a
work session that included discussion of this topic on the record 53 . Staff conducted
some additional research to evaluate the potential acre of land for second homes
already consumed inside the existing UGB, and land that would be consumed by second
51 See April 24, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County Planning
Commission liaisons.
52 See April 24, 2008 memorandum.
53 See meeting minutes for January 14, 2008 meeting -
http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/community_development/planning_division_2/docs/January_14__2008Ml.pdf
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 36
homes in new lands included through expansion of the UGB 54 . The city staff also
received testimony that it found credible on how to address second homes in the UGB
expansion 55 . The Bend Planning Commission decided to not address land consumed by
second homes in the current UGB (a.k.a backfill), but did decide to account for second
homes as a percentage of the future housing needs projection. This projection was 18%
of the total units between 2008 and 2028 56 .
RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS FOR RELATED USES
Goal 14 – Factor 2 and OAR 660-024-0040
Goal 14, Land Need factor (2) recognizes that changes to a UGB may be based on
demonstrated need for “livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads,
schools, parks or open space.” The need for public and institutional facilities such as
schools, parks, churches, etc. will expand as population increases. Such uses are
necessary to support planned population growth and (in the case of parks, open space
and schools) increase the livability of residential neighborhoods. In Bend, such uses
typically locate on land designated for residential use. Publicly owned and developed or
planned school and park sites can also be designated and zoned “Public Facilities”.
The city is aware that the administrative rules under OAR 660-024-0040(9) provide a
safe harbor for local governments to use in estimating land for public facilities and rights
of way. The city is also aware that this topic was raised in DLCD’s comments from July
11, 2007 and most recently in the Department’s letter dated November 21, 2008. These
letters appear to treat the safe harbor under OAR 660-024-0040(9) as a legal standard.
The administrative rule is clear that OAR 660-024-0040(9) is not a legal requirement the
city must satisfy. OAR 660-024-0010(2) defines a safe harbor as an optional course of
action that a local government may use to satisfy a requirement of Goal 14 57 . The city is
also not compelled by state law to provide findings explaining why it chose not to employ
this or any other safe harbor.
The city has developed an adequate factual base under Goal 2 regarding its estimated
land needs for schools, parks, other land uses, and rights of way. The following findings
provide estimates that were developed based on substantial evidence and through
coordination with the affected school and parks districts regarding the city’s estimated
needs for land for public schools and public parks.
Public Schools (K-12)
Findings: The Bend-La Pine School District (District) adopted a Sites and Facilities
Plan (Plan) in December of 2005. 58 The city has not adopted this document, but
acknowledges that is has been submitted into the record and constitutes evidence on
which the city can rely 59 . The land need recommendations in these findings have been
54 See January 7, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and the Deschutes County
Planning Commission Liaisons.
55 See October 29, 2007 and November 13 2007 memoranda from Winterbrook Planning.
56 See June 16, 2008 variables checklist; January 7, 2008 memorandum to Bend Planning Commission and
county planning commission liaisons.
57 See definition at OAR 660-024-0010(2).
58 Bend-La Pine School District, 2005 Sites and Facilities Plan (December 2005).
59 See record for July 26, 2007 public hearing.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 37
coordinated with the District and are consistent with the methodology used in the 2005
District Plan.
John Rexford, Assistant Superintendent for the District, provided the following formula to
estimate school land needed based on the common population and housing unit
projections to 2028.60
0.397 public school (K-12) students per housing unit
× 0.029 acres per public school student (pro-rated per grade level)
0.0115 acres of school land needed per housing unit
The city has presented a 2008 through 2028 housing unit projection of 16,681 new
housing units to accommodate a forecast population of 115,063. Applying the school
district formula to the housing unit forecast results in the following estimate of land
needed for school facilities to the year 2028:
16,681 new housing units
× 0.0115 acres of land needed per housing unit
192 acres of land needed for new school facilities (2008-2028)61
Given the extremely competitive real estate market, the few number of vacant sites, and
the need for the recommendations to remain flexible, the Facilities Subcommittee
recommended that the District use site selection criteria to provide the best sites
possible within their constraints. The subcommittee recommended the following site
size criteria for new schools:
7 acres for small elementary school (300 students)
15 acres for prototypical elementary school (600 students)
25 acres for a middle school
40 acres for a high school
Neighborhood and Community Parks
Findings: Bend Metro Park & Recreation District (BMPRD) is a special parks district
that serves the greater Bend area. In September 2005, the district adopted a new Park,
Recreation and Green Spaces Comprehensive Plan for long-term park planning over the
next 20 years. The city acknowledges that it has not incorporated this plan by reference
in the city’s General Plan. However, the Parks District has provided testimony and
evidence based on this plan for the record. The District’s plan establishes development
standards for park facilities that address the purpose, service area, size guidelines,
location criteria, facility features, and other development considerations.
The BMPRD plan separates the various types of park facilities into five broad categories
or “classes” and predicts park needs based upon acres per 1000 people for these
classes. Per capita calculations serve as general guidelines for determining park land
needs. Specific to the Residential Lands Study, the District recommends using the
60 Memorandum from John Rexford to Damian Syrnyk, December 5, 2005.
61 See also January 7, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County
Planning Commission liaisons.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 38
target Level of Service (LOS) to estimate future land needs for Neighborhood and
Community Parks. The following park land needs are estimated for the coordinated
population projection for Bend between 2008 and 2028 based on the target LOS
standards 62 .
Type of Park or
Facility
New population
2008-2028 63
Parks Standard Park Land Need
(acres)
Neighborhood Parks 38,512 2 acres/1,000 pop 77
Community Parks 38,512 5 acres/1,000 pop 193
Trails 38,512 2.4 acres/1,000 pop 92
Total Acres 362
The Parks District supplemented their testimony with a November 24, 2008 submitted
into the record before the City Council and the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners. Through this letter, the Parks District reported the results of their work
to further estimate park land needs (parks and trails) on a quadrant basis using the city’s
Framework Plan. This work resulted in an increase to the park land need from 362
acres to 474 acres 64 . The city found this work credible and concurred with the analysis
of park land. The city believes that this work constitutes an adequate factual base under
Goal 2 to increase the land need for public parks from 362 acres to 474 acres, based on
this information from the District. The city also acknowledges that no other testimony
was submitted which undermined the credibility of this data, and that the city staff’s use
of this data is consistent with city council direction on the UGB expansion 65 .
Other Land Uses
The work to estimate land need with the original UGB proposal focused on land for
housing and related uses. These related uses included public schools and parks,
second homes, institutional uses, neighborhood commercial areas, and rights of way.
This initial estimate was approximately 2,550 acres. The initial proposal also proposed
adding another 500 acres for employment within the UGB.
The City Council directed staff in August 2007 to also pursue through this current UGB
expansion proposal a full 20-year supply of employment land. This change of scope has
led staff to consider how to estimate the future needs for land for uses that will consume
land that’s also needed for housing and employment.
The work to estimate future land needs for housing and employment has also addressed
other land needs that consume such land. For example, for housing, staff considered
the land needs for public schools, public parks, and institutional uses to ensure that the
20-year supply estimates for housing land will not be further reduced by such uses.
62 See January 7, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County Planning
Commission liaisons.
63 See November 19, 2007 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County
Planning Commission Liaisons.
64 See Figure 3, Net Park and Trail Acres Needed, November 24, 2008 letter from Bruce Ronning, Bend
Metro Parks and Recreation District.
65 See November 19, 2007 Issue Summary “Draft Policy Statements for Urban Growth Boundary
Expansion.”
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 39
The public testimony on the variables that affect land need has raised questions on
whether to estimate how much additional land will be needed for the UGB expansion.
The purpose for doing so it to ensure 20-year supplies of buildable land for housing and
employment by accounting for such uses and estimating how many additional acres of
land they may consume.
For residential lands, the purpose for estimating these “other” land needs is to account
for much land will be consumed by these uses so that the city can still have a 20-year
supply of residential land for housing. In January 2008, city staff conducted a GIS query
of the city’s residential and employment lands database to identify those land uses that
did not fit into one of the following categories: housing, employment, schools, parks,
public rights of way. These uses were also lands that were not vacant or redevelopable
because of their status in the county’s assessor’s records. The query counted 21,259
gross acres of land within the Bend UGB, of which 17,695 acres were in tax lots. Of the
21,259 gross acres in the UGB, 2,708 acres were in open space, private rights of way,
or other uses that were described with a catch-all title “institutional” uses. The following
table presents this calculation presented to and discussed with the Bend Planning
Commission and County Planning Commission liaisons on January 28, 2008 66 .
Of the net (tax lot) acres in UGB: Tax lots Acres % of Net
Acres
Institutional 115 233 1.32
Open Space 1,010 2,028 11.46
Rights of Way (e.g. private roads) 555 446 2.52
Total "Other" Lands in UGB (net acres) 1,680 2,708 15.30
NOTE: Net acres represented above are tax lot acres. The vast majority of public roads do not
fall
within these net acres - they are NOT covered by a tax lot. Also, the Deschutes River is not
covered by a tax lot and is thus not included in the net acres listed above.
The Bend Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate 15% into the land needs for
housing and employment to ensure the uses addressed in this query were accounted for
in the final land need estimates 67 .
Summary of UGB Expansion Needed for Residential and Related Uses
Table III-14 summarizes the UGB expansion needed to accommodate housing and
related uses such as schools, parks and other land uses based on the assumptions and
analysis included in these findings. The City of Bend coordinated with the Bend-La Pine
School District and the Bend Metro Park District and relied on their respective facility
plans and methodologies to estimate land needs for K-12 schools and neighborhood and
community parks. Estimated land needs for other land uses were incorporated into the
final estimate of land for housing and related uses.
66 See minutes for January 28, 2008 work session -
http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/community_development/planning_division_2/docs/January_28__2008MI.pdf
67 See also January 28, 2008 spreadsheet on other land needs -
http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/community_development/docs/Other_Lands_Summary_Jan2808handout.pdf
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 40
To estimate land needs for street rights of way, the City has applied a factor of 21
percent of the net buildable acres determined for residential land needs. This ratio was
developed based upon a GIS analysis that was reviewed by the Bend Planning
Commission and County Planning Commission liaisons during work sessions on the
UGB expansion 68 . Staff also documented this methodology for estimating rights of way
and the results of this work in a memorandum to the record 69 . The city reviewed the
comments from DLCD in its November 21, 2008 letter and concurred that errors in this
methodology need to be corrected and has done so resulting in the revised right of way
factor of 21%.
PROPOSED FINDINGS DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 10,
HOUSING
Goal 10: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall
encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price
ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of
Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density.
FINDING: The following findings are based upon the forgoing findings, the proposed
amendments to Chapter 5 of the Bend Area General Plan, and the resource documents
upon which they are based 70 . The city has proposed a new housing element (a.k.a.
Chapter 5) in this package of legislative amendments. The amendments to Chapter 5
meet Goal 10 because they incorporate the March 2008 inventory of buildable lands for
residential use, an analysis of housing needs pursuant to ORS 197.296, and include
68 See meeting minutes for January 28, 2008 and February 11, 2008,
69 See September 28, 2008 memorandum to the Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County
Planning Commission liaisons.
70 The draft of Chapter 5 of the BAGP referred to in these findings is dated December 2008.
Table III-14: Summary of UGB Expansion Needed for Housing and Related
Uses (2028)
Acres of land for new housing units
941
Acres of land for public schools
192
Acres of land for public parks and trails
474
Acres of land consumed by second homes
500
Subtotal of Residential Land
2,107
15% for other land uses (e.g. institutional, private open space)
442
21% for rights of way
316
Estimate of Acres of Residential Land for UGB Expansion 2,866
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 41
policies, strategies, and benchmarks for encouraging the availability of adequate
numbers of needed housing units. The proposed policies shown in the new housing
element further meet Goal 10 because they encourage the development of housing for
very low, low, and moderate income households, thereby also providing for flexibility of
housing location, type, and density.
A. PLANNING
1. In addition to inventories of buildable lands, housing elements of a
comprehensive plan should, at a minimum, include: (1) a comparison of the
distribution of the existing population by income with the distribution of available
housing units by cost; (2) a determination of vacancy rates, both overall and at
varying rent ranges and cost levels; (3) a determination of expected housing
demand at varying rent ranges and cost levels; (4) allowance for a variety of
densities and types of residences in each community; and (5) an inventory of
sound housing in urban areas including units capable of being rehabilitated.
FINDING: The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 meet this criterion because it
incorporates the elements called out under (A)(1). The Housing Needs Analysis (HNA)
of 2008, incorporated in the August 2008 amendments to Chapter 5, includes the
elements outlined under (1) through (5). The HNA includes tables generated from the
city’s work with the Oregon Housing Model that presents data comparing the distribution
of households by income, and the distribution of available housing units by cost. This
data is also projected forward to 2030 and was incorporated in the 2005 HNA. The
proposed amendments meet (2) because the city relied on the vacancy rate from the
2000 Census, comparisons of this rate with the 2005 and 2006 American Community
Survey, and the data from the 2007 Rental Owner Survey to determine vacancy rates for
owner- and renter-occupied housing. The proposed amendments meet (3) because the
2008 HNA, like the 2005 HNA, relies on tables generated by the Oregon Housing Needs
Model to estimate the expected housing demand at varying rent ranges and cost levels.
The model produced tables of this data that were then used to develop policies for
encouraging the development of needed housing 71 . The proposed amendments meet
(4) because Chapter 5 includes several residential plan designations, implemented
through corresponding zone designations in the city’s Development Code, that allow for
housing of a variety of types and densities. Finally, the proposed amendments meet (5)
because the city’s inventory of housing includes housing of all conditions, including
those capable of being rehabilitated. The city did not purposely exclude units capable of
being rehabilitated from the inventory.
2. Plans should be developed in a manner that insures the provision of
appropriate types and amounts of land within urban growth boundaries. Such
land should be necessary and suitable for housing that meets the housing needs
of households of all income levels.
FINDING: The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 meet this criterion because these
amendments have been developed to provide for appropriate types and amounts of land
for housing within the urban growth boundary. The forgoing findings in Section III outline
the city’s findings for determining the 20-year needs for land for housing, and how this
land should be allocated among three (3) residential plan designations. The city has
71 See 2008 Appendix to Chapter 5 – Targets and Benchmarks.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 42
also recommended through its Framework Plan and amendments to the General Plan
those lands that are necessary and suitable for meeting housing needs for households
of all income levels.
3. Plans should provide for the appropriate type, location and phasing of public
facilities and services sufficient to support housing development in areas
presently developed or undergoing development or redevelopment.
FINDING: The proposed amendments to the General Plan meet this criterion because
the city’s planning staff has coordinated the amendments to Chapter 5 with the
development of water, sewer, and transportation facilities. The record includes a Water
System Master Plan (2007) and a Collection System Master Plan (2007) that both relied
on the city’s buildable lands inventory for estimating current and future needs for water
and sewer service inside the current UGB. The city also used these resources and
coordinated with the city’s Engineering Division to evaluate areas outside the UGB for
expansion 72 . The proposed amendments to the General Plan also include amendments
to Chapter 8, Public Facilities and Services, to ensure that these plans are incorporated
and implemented as Goal 11 public facility plans.
4. Plans providing for housing needs should consider as a major determinant the
carrying capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning area. The
land conservation and development actions provided for by such plans should
not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources.
FINDING: The proposed amendments meet this criterion because the projections of
population and housing were relied on to develop the city’s water and sewer collection
system master plans. Both utility master plans relied on this information to ensure the
city had adequate water resources and could collection and treat effluent without
exceeding the carrying capacity of the land and water resources of the planning area.
B. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Plans should provide for a continuing review of housing need projections and
should establish a process for accommodating needed revisions.
FINDING: The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 meet this criterion because they
include provisions for continuing review of housing need projections. Proposed policies
1 of these amendments requires the city to establish and maintain a supply of land in
each residential zoning district consistent with the recommendations of the 2008
Housing Needs Analysis and update every five years. The city also reinforced this
commitment to monitoring through the adoption of the Bend 2030 Our Community Vision
Action Plan 73 .
72 See August 18, 2008 sewer and water memoranda from Victoria Wodrich, City Engineering Division.
73 See http://www.bend2030.org/Action_Plan/ . – Well Planned City Action Items 4.2 and 5.1.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 43
2. Plans should take into account the effects of utilizing financial incentives and
resources to (a) stimulate the rehabilitation of substandard housing without
regard to the financial capacity of the owner so long as benefits accrue to the
occupants; and (b) bring into compliance with codes adopted to assure safe and
sanitary housing the dwellings of individuals who cannot on their own afford to
meet such codes.
FINDING: The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 meet this criterion because the
proposed policies, Targets, and Benchmarks include recommended actions for using city
resources to stimulate rehabilitation of housing. The proposed amendments to Chapter
5 include proposed policies 14, 15, and 19 to support local programs that rehabilitate
and maintain affordable housing. In addition, the 2008 Targets, Strategies, and
Benchmarks included proposed targets, strategies, and benchmarks for supporting the
rehabilitation of housing.
3. Decisions on housing development proposals should be expedited when such
proposals are in accordance with zoning ordinances and with provisions of
comprehensive plans.
FINDING: This criterion is not applicable because the city is not considering concurrent
housing development proposals with this legislative amendment to the General Plan.
4. Ordinances and incentives should be used to increase population densities in
urban areas taking into consideration (1) key facilities, (2) the economic,
environmental, social and energy consequences of the proposed densities and (3)
the optimal use of existing urban land particularly in sections containing
significant amounts of unsound substandard structures.
FINDING: The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 meet this criterion because they
include proposed policies intended to encourage higher density housing in areas
suitable for higher density housing. The proposed amendments include proposed
policies 7 and 8 that propose evaluating and implementing redevelopment to encourage
needed higher density housing in the Central Area and along transit corridors.
5. Additional methods and devices for achieving this goal should, after
consideration of the impact on lower income households, include, but not be
limited to: (1) tax incentives and disincentives; (2) building and construction code
revision; (3) zoning and land use controls; (4) subsidies and loans; (5) fee and
less-than-fee acquisition techniques; (6) enforcement of local health and safety
codes; and (7) coordination of the development of urban facilities and services to
disperse low income housing throughout the planning area.
FINDING: This criterion is not applicable because it lists methods and devices that are
not described here as approval criteria.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 44
6. Plans should provide for a detailed management program to assign respective
implementation roles and responsibilities to those governmental bodies operating
in the planning area and having interests in carrying out the goal.
FINDING: The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 meet this criterion because they
identify those actions that will be pursued by the city through implementation. The
proposed Targets, Strategies, and Benchmarks appendix to Chapter 5 also meet this
criterion because it prescribes actions the city will take to coordinate with key partners,
including but not limited to, the local housing authority, state and federal agencies, and
the local community action agency.
OAR 660, DIVISION 8 - INTERPRETATION OF GOAL 10 HOUSING
660-008-0000
Purpose
(1) The purpose of this rule is to assure opportunity for the provision of adequate
numbers of needed housing units, the efficient use of buildable land within urban
growth boundaries, and to provide greater certainty in the development process
so as to reduce housing costs. This rule is intended to define standards for
compliance with Goal 10 "Housing" and to implement ORS 197.303 through
197.307.
(2) OAR 660-007-0000 et seq., Metropolitan Housing, are intended to complement
and be consistent with OAR 660-008-0000 et seq., Goal 10 Housing. Should
differences in interpretation between OAR 660-008-0000 et seq. and 660-007-0000
et seq. arise, the provisions of OAR 660-007-0000 et seq. shall prevail for cities
and counties within the Metro urban growth boundary.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.295 - 197.314 & 197.475 - 197.490
Hist.: LCDC 3-1982, f. & ef. 7-21-82; LCDD 3-2004, f. & cert. ef. 5-7-04
FINDING: The city has proposed amendments to Chapter 5 of the General Plan,
Housing and Residential Lands, that are intended to meet (1) of this Purpose statement.
The forgoing findings, and the proposed amendments to Chapter 5, assure opportunity
for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of
buildable land within the urban growth boundary. OAR 660-008-000(2) is not applicable
here because the city of Bend is not located within the Metro urban growth boundary.
660-008-0005
Definitions
For the purpose of this rule, the definitions in ORS 197.015, 197.295, and 197.303
shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Attached Single Family Housing” means common-wall dwellings or
rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 45
(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.
(3) “Detached Single Family Housing” means a housing unit that is free standing
and separate from other housing units.
(4) “Housing Needs Projection” refers to a local determination, justified in the
plan, of the mix of housing types 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;
(b) Consistent with any adopted regional housing standards, state statutes and
Land Conservation and Development Commission administrative rules; and
(c) Consistent with Goal 14 requirements.
(5) “Multiple Family Housing” means attached housing where each dwelling unit is
not located on a separate lot.
(6) “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.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 196 & 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.295 - 197.314 & 197.475 - 197.490
Hist.: LCDC 3-1982, f. & ef. 7-21-82; LCDC 3-1990, f. & cert. ef. 6-6-90; LCDD 3-
2004, f. & cert. ef. 5-7-04; LCDD 3-2008, f. & cert. ef. 4-18-08
FINDING: The city has relied on these definitions to develop the forgoing findings, and
the subsequent findings, to demonstrate compliance with Goal 10.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 46
660-008-0010
Allocation of Buildable Land
The mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs
projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive
plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the
housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory must document the
amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.295 - ORS 197.314 & ORS 197.475 - ORS 197.490
Hist.: LCDC 3-1982, f. & ef. 7-21-82
FINDING: The proposed amendments to chapter 5 meet this criterion because the city
has developed a housing mix and density through the housing needs projection. The
proposed amendments to Chapter 5 describe how the city developed a housing mix of
65% detached and 35% attached, and how ensuring this mix of housing with allocations
through zoning will encourage the development of needed housing consistent with Goal
10. The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 also designate sufficient buildable lands
through comprehensive plan designations to satisfy the housing needs by type and
density range 74 . The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 also meet this criterion
because they include the adoption of the 2008 Buildable Lands Inventory as an element
of the plan’s housing chapter 75 . The proposed amendments also meet this criterion
because the city has shown how the mix of housing will be allocated through the
Framework Plan. This plan shows 2,396 acres of RS designation, 400 acres of RM
designation, and 69 acres of RH designation.
660-008-0015
Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required
Local approval standards, special conditions and procedures regulating the
development of needed housing must be clear and objective, and must not have
the effect, either of themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing
through unreasonable cost or delay.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.295 - ORS 197.314 & ORS 197.475 - ORS 197.490
Hist.: LCDC 3-1982, f. & ef. 7-21-82
FINDING: DLCD addressed this issue in its October 24 and November 24, 2008
comments 76 . These comments refer to existing text in the Bend Development Code.
The city updated its development code in 2006, and is working to complete several
amendments on remand from DLCD.
The city’s position is that this criterion is not applicable to any of the new amendments
proposed because the city has not proposed amendments to the implementing land use
regulations for housing contained in Chapter 2 of the Development Code. The city has
74 See Tables 5-25 through 5-29, and related discussion, in the August 2008 amendments to Chapter 5.
75 See Table 5-4 of the August 2008 amendments to Chapter 5.
76 See pages 17 and 18, October 24, 20080 letter and page 16, November 24, 2008 letter.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 47
not proposed changes to Chapter 2.1, Residential Districts that would have the effect of
discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. The city
acknowledges that there are several outstanding issues from the 2006 development
code remand to address and resolve.
660-008-0020
Specific Plan Designations Required
(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.
FINDING: The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 meet this criterion because the city
has proposed plan designations that allow and require residential uses for buildable
lands 77 . The proposed amendments also meet this criterion because the city has
proposed adoption of a Framework Plan that further designates land for residential
development in one of four different residential plan designations 78 . The proposed
amendments to Chapter 5 provide the specifics on the designations, their intended uses,
and the range of density of housing allowed in each plan designation.
(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, location 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.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 197
Stats. Implemented:ORS 197.295 - ORS 197.314 & ORS 197.475 - ORS 197.490
Hist.: LCDC 3-1982, f. & ef. 7-21-82; LCDD 5-1999, f. & cert. ef. 7-2-99
FINDING: The city has proposed an Urban Reserve Residential plan designation for
certain areas proposed for inclusion in the Bend UGB as land for housing. In the
amendments to Chapter 1, the city has proposed changing zoning and implementing the
plan designations contained in Chapter 5 through annexation and subsequent master
planning that would implement one of the residential plan designations in Table III-3.
77 See the proposed amendments to the Bend Area General Plan map -
http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/community_development/docs/Bend_Area_General_Plan_Map.pdf .
78 See proposed amendments to Chapter 1 and corresponding Framework Plan.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 48
660-008-0025
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.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.295 - ORS 197.314 & ORS 197.475 - ORS 197.490
Hist.: LCDC 3-1982, f. & ef. 7-21-82
FINDING: This criterion is applicable because the city has proposed deferring rezoning
of land within the areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB to the maximum planned
residential density. The city has outlined in the proposed amendments to chapter 1 the
use of a Framework Plan that will be implemented through master or refinement plans,
as defined by the Development Code 79 .
660-008-0030
Regional Coordination
(1) Each local government shall consider the needs of the relevant region in
arriving at a fair allocation of housing types and densities.
(2) The local coordination body shall be responsible for ensuring that the regional
housing impacts of restrictive or expansive local government programs are
considered. The local coordination body shall ensure that needed housing is
provided for on a regional basis through coordinated comprehensive plans.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.295 - ORS 197.314 & ORS 197.475 - ORS 197.490
Hist.: LCDC 3-1982, f. & ef. 7-21-82
FINDING: The proposed amendments to Chapter 5 meet this criterion because the city
has considered the needs of the central Oregon region in its housing needs analysis.
The record includes the 2005 Housing Needs Analysis, and its update in the August
2008 Chapter 5 of the Bend Area General Plan, Housing and Residential Lands. These
documents show that through the work required to complete the Housing Needs
Analysis, the city had examined regional data to determine how to best meet the housing
needs of the city during the next 20 years (2008 to 2028).
79 See amendments to Chapter 1, Plan Management and Citizen Involvement.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 49
660-008-0035
Substantive Standards for Taking a Goal 2, Part II Exception Pursuant to ORS
197.303(3)
(1) A local government may satisfy the substantive standards for exceptions
contained in Goal 2, Part II, upon a demonstration in the local housing needs
projection, supported by compelling reasons and facts, that:
(a) The needed housing type is being provided for elsewhere in the region in
sufficient numbers to meet regional needs;
(b) Sufficient buildable land has been allocated within the local jurisdiction for
other types of housing which can meet the need for shelter at the particular price
ranges and rent levels that would have been met by the excluded housing type;
and
(c) The decision to substitute other housing types for the excluded needed
housing type furthers the policies and objectives of the local comprehensive plan,
and has been coordinated with other affected units of government.
(2) The substantive standards listed in section (1) of this rule shall apply to the
ORS 197.303(3) exceptions process in lieu of the substantive standards in Goal 2,
Part II. The standards listed in section (1) of this rule shall not apply to the
exceptions process authorized by OAR 660-007-0360.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.295 - ORS 197.314 & ORS 197.475 - ORS 197.490
Hist.: LCDC 3-1982, f. & ef. 7-21-82
FINDING: This portion of the rule is not applicable because the city has not proposed to
take an exception to any part of Goal 10 or the administrative rule implementing Goal 10.
660-008-0040
Restrictions on Housing Tenure
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.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.295 - ORS 197.314 & ORS 197.475 - ORS 197.490
Hist.: LCDC 3-1982, f. & ef. 7-21-82
FINDING: DLCD addressed this rule in its November 24, 2008 comments 80 . This rule
clearly states that if a local government restricts the construction of housing by tenure,
then it must include a determination of housing needs according to tenure in its housing
needs projection. The Bend Development Code includes zoning and development
80 See page 8 of November 24, 2008 detailed comments.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 50
regulations in Chapter 2.1. This chapter does not restrict housing because of tenure in
any of the residential zones. Therefore, the city’s position is this portion of the rule is not
applicable because the Bend Development Code does not restrict tenure through the
residential districts in Chapter 2.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 51
IV. EMPLOYMENT LAND NEED FINDINGS
Goal 14: Urbanization - OAR 660-015-0000(14) Land Need Factors 1 and 2
Goal 14 Rule - OAR 660, Division 24
Goal 9: Economic Development - OAR 660-015-0000(9)
Goal 9 Rule - OAR 660, Division 9
The following findings address the above statewide goals and rules pertaining to
economic lands associated with this proposal. The format of the findings uses italics to
present the text of the goals and rules followed by Findings in normal text. Many of the
statewide goals and rules are very similar, so the findings may reference other findings
to avoid duplication. This proposal also references other documents and exhibits in the
proposal. Generally, findings summarize more detailed analysis found in other technical
documents in order to address the requirements and help the reader understand the
city’s proposal. The preceding findings are more easily understood if the reader has
access to exhibits commonly referenced in these findings, including Exhibits C, D, G(5),
L(1), L(5), L(6), and L(7).
Description of the Proposal
The three main components to the city’s economic lands proposal in addition to these
findings are :
1. Determination of need documented in the 2008 EOA (see exhibit L(7));
2. General Plan text and policies related to economic lands (see Chapter 6 of
Exhibit G); and
3. Zoning, General Plan, and Framework Plan maps describing how documented
need and policies are implemented in land use designations in the expanded
UGB (see Exhibits D and K).
The following is an explanation of how these three elements are integrated and fit into
the broader context of Bend’s proposed UGB expansion.
Exhibit K, the Framework Plan Map, most accurately describes the overall form of the
Bend UGB expansion. This land use distribution epitomizes a form that promotes
decreased reliance on the automobile, mixed use neighborhoods, “walkable” commercial
and employment centers, and choice in the marketplace for economic lands. Note that
new economic lands are concentrated and mixed, tend to be in clusters of multiple and
compatible uses adjacent to medium and higher density residential, are located near
major highways or arterial/collector streets, and spaced to distribute economic lands in
each of the major geographic regions of Bend. Also note smaller commercial/mixed
use/medium to high density residential nodes are developed within larger residential
areas to promote reduced trip lengths and “walkable” neighborhoods. Master planned
areas are also proposed to integrate economic lands into larger residential
developments.
The proposed distribution of economic lands is possible because of the factual basis
presented in the 2008 EOA. The 2008 EOA provides a description of Bend’s unique
demographic and employment trends, employment projections, a description of Bend’s
land supplies, and land need estimates. A key component of the 2008 EOA is a
discussion of a minimum versus preferred land need estimates. The 2008 EOA
presents a rationale for providing slightly more economic land in the expanded UGB than
minimum land need estimates predict. Factors have been applied to land need between
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 52
25 to 50 percent to increase supplies above a minimum need determination based on
employment projections and employment densities. Given the uncertainty inherent in
forecasting employment and future employment land needs, the city finds these factors
to be appropriate, necessary, and conservative. These factors are necessary in order to
distribute economic lands and provide choice in the market place so businesses have a
variety of sites to select for their unique business needs. Given that Bend is the regional
hub of retail, industrial, commercial, medical, and educational uses, these factors are an
appropriate response to uncertainty and need for a well integrated UGB expansion. Also
considering Deschutes County and Bend have experienced, and are expected to see
some of the highest rates of population and employment growth in the state over the
next 10 to 20 years, these factors are necessary to insure Bend has an adequate and
responsive economic land base to support expected and unexpected growth.
Growth shall conform to proposed policies contained in the General Plan. Generally,
expansion lands are held in holding zones allowing rural levels of development to
encourage annexation prior to allowing urban levels of development. Urban levels of
development are allowed only after annexation, zone changes, and development
proposals consistent with the Framework Plan and General Plan policies. Lands will
only be added only if adequate infrastructure is available, and if development is
consistent with the General Plan and Framework Plan (see policies in Chapter 1 of the
General Plan in Exhibit G). The UGB proposal includes a conceptual grid road network
that will be developed upon annexation (see Exhibit F). The General Plan, Chapter 6,
contains spacing and minimum size standards for economic uses so they are distributed
and sized appropriately.
The following is a narrative generally describing the economic land elements of the UGB
proposal and Bend’s general development objectives related to economic lands.
The economic land base proposed for Bend’s future involves more mixing of land uses
to create diverse and flexible employment centers rather than large swaths of industrial
and commercial lands isolated from other uses. The proposed UGB expansion typifies
this approach by creating a variety of employment clusters with different mixes of land
uses. The intent is to provide future employers with a wide variety of regulatory (land
use) environments to serve internal and external markets, with a recognition of Bend’s
economic advantages. Overall, the distribution of uses enables city residents to have
lower reliance on the automobile to provide for the basic necessities of living, and
opportunity to live and work in close proximity. It is also equally important to recognize
Bend’s regional role as a retail trade center, and acknowledge that commercial and
industrial businesses require convenient access to high volume transportation facilities.
The resulting pattern of new economic land uses is generally described below to
describe the texture and shape of Bend’s proposed economic landscape. These new
centers are sited in recognition of the existing distribution and diversity of economic
lands inside the proposed UGB.
• Large holdings of publicly owned industrial lands with a supportive town center
and university are located in the north part of Bend at Juniper Ridge. This will
facilitate the gradual development of the Juniper Ridge Master Plan.
• Existing large retail uses in the north of Bend are enhanced and enlarged
“inward”, not along, Highway 97, and also include residential and mixed
employment. This area has been suggested to be the most competitive and
appropriate location for retail uses with a regional draw. The mixed employment
and residential uses along Highway 20 break up the somewhat homogonous
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 53
appearance of large retail development and create opportunity for industrial,
office, and residential use.
• A new hospital site and medical district with supporting commercial and high
density residential south of Bend will provide the opportunity for one of Bend’s
dominant industries to grow in the future once the existing hospital site is built
out. This new medical campus is sited to address the industry’s underserved
market area to the south. Another medical center is supported by other
commercial uses on Highway 20 north of Bend.
• A diverse and new retail, mixed employment, medical use, and industrial park
east on Highway 20 provides a similar mix of uses found in the north of Bend, but
is smaller and accounts for the needs of surrounding residential areas and
businesses with markets to the east. This are is surrounded by medium and high
density residential uses to create affordable housing types adjacent to
employment and anticipated transit routes. Existing parks and schools are
adjacent to this employment center.
• A new commercial and mixed employment area southwest of Bend on Highway
97 will serve existing underserved residential areas inside and outside the
current UGB. The small amount of economic land addresses business that serve
the south Bend and south county markets.
• The Westside of Bend north of Skyliners road to Highway 20 would have
numerous small mixed employment, commercial, and industrial uses to
complement master planned residential communities. These areas would
include parks, schools, the economic uses above, and large residential areas.
• Small scale commercial uses and mixed employment uses are distributed
throughout residential areas to provide services and employment opportunities.
These are often sited with medium and high density residential development,
public parks and schools, in convenient and readily accessible locations.
• Open spaces, unique natural features, institutional uses, trails, and recreational
amenities are assumed to be important components of commercial
developments to preserve Bend’s unique identity, create functional trail networks,
and serve the needs of employees and nearby residents. These land uses are
accommodated on the acreages described in Table 4-3.
The following are findings that demonstrate the proposal’s compliance with applicable
Statewide Goals and statutes pertaining to economic lands. These findings summarize
where possible, provide references to other source documents, and address general
points of opposition raised during the public process.
Goal 14: Urbanization - OAR 660-015-0000(14) Land Need Factors 1 and 2
Land Need:
Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the
following:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population,
consistent with a 20-year population forecast coordinated with affected
local governments; and
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 54
(2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability
or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open
space, or any combination of the need categories in this subsection (2).
In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as
parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an
identified need.
Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall
demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already
inside the urban growth boundary.
Findings:
The findings below pertain to requirements (1) and (2) above. Findings specifying site
characteristics are addressed in Section V, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Findings pertaining to demonstrating needs cannot reasonably be met are found below
under sections 660-0024-0050(1)(3)(4), and are incorporated herein to address the
requirements above.
The proposed Bend UGB expansion addresses land needs for housing, employment,
schools, parks, institutional uses, and streets and roads (public and private rights-of-
way) through the year 2028. The findings in this section compare projected economic
land needs through the year 2028 with the supply of land within the existing (2008) Bend
UGB. Land needs for housing, schools, and parks are addressed in Section III of these
findings.
Land needs for economic uses are detailed in the 2008 Economic Opportunities Analysis
(2008 EOA), found in Exhibit L(7) of this proposal. This document is incorporated herein
by reference to demonstrate how the economic land needs were derived for the planning
period. The following is a summary of how these land needs were derived based on the
anticipated employment growth and current economic land supplies in Bend.
Economic Trends and Employment Projections
The approach and content of the 2008 EOA is consistent with the requirements of the
administrative rule 660-009-0015. Generally, the approach of the 2008 EOA begins with
an analysis of demographic and economic trends in Bend and Deschutes County from
1970 to 2007. This analysis examines the structural changes in the local and regional
economy during this time frame. This is characterized by high rates of population
growth, a decline in employment in manufacturing to increases in service and retail trade
and diversification of the economic profile of Bend. The 2008 EOA presents an
extensive discussion of local economic and demographic trends, regional, state, and
national trends. Some the key findings are presented below:
• Bend’s population has grown at approximately 6% per year from 1990 to 2008,
driven mostly by in-migration from people born in states other than Oregon.
Population growth in Bend is expected to grow from 69,004 persons in 2005 to
115,063 persons in 2028.
• Population growth is not driven solely by in-migration from retired persons, but by
working-age persons expected to be a part of the economy for decades to come.
Baby-boomers will continue to represent the largest peak of population age
structure in Deschutes County in the near future, but this peak is followed by a
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 55
sizable wave of children and grandchildren who will be part of the workforce over
the planning period.
• Bend is a relatively highly educated community and its population has higher
percentages of people with at least a college education than Deschutes County,
Oregon, and the U.S. The level of education in a community may determine a
community’s economic success in the future, with higher rates of education being
related to higher rates of income, growth of well paying jobs, and other social
benefits such as lower crime and higher property values.
These trends are used as a basis for making employment projections and additional
estimates of land need, as well as for sites for Bend’s economic aspirations. Trends
information also places Bend’s economic growth in the context of economic larger
economic trends in the county, region, state, and nation. Employment projections are
not made for other jurisdictions, but are crafted for Bend based on its share of
employment growth in Deschutes County and other factors. Some the key findings are
presented below:
• Job growth in Deschutes County is expected to be some of the highest in the
state over the next 10 years.
• Bend has experienced job growth in broad industries expected to see the highest
rates of job growth in Oregon, including Professional and Business Services,
Educational and Health Services, and Leisure and Hospitality.
• Job growth has outpaced population growth in Bend and in surrounding
communities. Job growth in Bend does not appear to be at the expense of job
growth in surrounding cities and counties.
• The decline of growth in manufacturing jobs in Deschutes County and Bend has
been replaced by job growth in professional services, construction, services, and
retail trade.
• Manufacturing is expected to grow statewide and in Deschutes County, but not at
levels seen during the 1990s through 2007.
• Bend is well positioned to grow employment in its targeted economic sectors
including: hospitality, higher education, health care, secondary wood products,
renewable energy resources, aviation, recreational equipment manufacture,
specialty manufacturing, and information technologies.
• Unemployment in Bend and Deschutes County has been approximately 5%
between the 1990s and to year 2008. Unemployment rates in Deschutes County
tend to be slightly higher than the U.S. and similar to the State of Oregon. This
suggests that as the National and State unemployment rates fluctuate, so will
Bend’s.
• Structural unemployment does not appear to have affected Deschutes County in
the recent past, suggesting a good match between local employment resources
and the needs of employers.
• Threats to Bend’s economic success include limited land supplies, high housing
costs, lack of workforce housing.
A number of employment projections are presented in the 2008 EOA to describe the
types of employment expected in the city, as well as the types of land they will require.
The 2008 EOA predicts there are 45,840 total covered and uncovered employees
working in the city as of 2008. Total employment in 2028 is expected to be 73,789
employees, suggesting 27,950 total new employees will work in Bend. This is helpful
information, but is only one step to determine land needs. The employment projections
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 56
were refined further to exclude shift-employees (so as not to overestimate land needs
derived by applying employment densities), and subtract employees expected to utilize
redeveloped employment lands. Employment densities used in the EOA are much
higher than recommended by DLCD and rival densities seen in the metro region. While
more conservative estimates could have been used, the 2008 EOA used high
employment densities which ultimately result in more conservative land need estimates.
After subtracting shift employees, the City of Bend anticipates approximately 22,891 new
non-shift employees will require employment lands during the planning period. After
subtracting 10% of new employment with the assumption that these new employees will
be employed on existing “developed” or “redevelopable” employment lands, land needs
are calculated based on 20,602 future new non-shift employees, as illustrated in Table
4-1. This table is a simplification of a much more complex employment projection
methodology described in the 2008 EOA. Employees by industry are projected, and
then allocated to more general employment categories based on the land use type they
will require. Typically, DLCD does not recommend removing shift-workers from
estimates of new employees. Again, the 2008 EOA was conservative in estimating the
number of new employees requiring new employment lands as the basis for the
minimum land need estimate. Including shift workers would have resulted in adding
considerably more land to the minimum land need estimate, but this was not done in
favor of applying minor market choice factors to calculate recommended land needs and
the eventual UGB proposal.
Table 4-1. Employment Change & New Employees Requiring Land: 2008-2028
Major Employment
Categories
2008 Non-shift
Emp.
2028 Bend Non-
shift Emp.
New Employees
(2008-2028)
Infill/Refill
Factor
New Employees
Requiring New Land
Industrial
Industrial Heavy 3,807 5,180 1,373 10% 1,236
Industrial General 5,370 8,002 2,632 10% 2,369
Retail
Large Retail 3,474 5,849 2,374 10% 2,137
General Retail 3,244 5,293 2,049 10% 1,844
Office/Services 9,879 16,557 6,678 10% 6,010
Leisure and Hospitality 3,306 5,532 2,226 10% 2,004
Medical 4,100 7,036 2,936 10% 2,642
Other/Misc. 1,051 1,547 496 10% 446
Government 3,485 5,611 2,126 10% 1,913
Total 37,716 60,607 22,891 20,602
Source: City of Bend based on OED 2006 Geo-coded data for City of Bend.
The 2008 EOA converts expected employment growth into land need estimates with a
consideration for creating adequate variety of all economic lands by location, type, and
size.
Economic Land Supply Inside the Current UGB
The 2008 EOA provides a full description and analysis of Bend’s economic land supply
as of 2008 on pages 83-99. This inventory meets the requirements of the administrative
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 57
rule because definitions in the rule were used to define Bend’s land supply and the
supply was derived through use of the city’s GIS.
Properties in the city were inventoried by their existing General Plan designation and
categorized as Vacant, Vacant-Pending Land Use, Developed, or Constrained. Lands
defined as Vacant and Vacant-Pending Land Use are assumed to be available for
development. The development status of all economic lands in the Bend UGB is based
on the applicable definitions of OAR 660, Division 9, Economic Development.
Table 4-2 summarizes the development status of economic parcels inside the Bend
UGB. The more detailed inventory data is in Appendix D of the 2008 EOA. The city
contains a total of 5,000 net acres of developed and vacant economic land inside the
UGB: 74 percent is developed, and 26 percent is vacant. The summary illustrates the
very small inventories of all economic land types, especially commercial lands. Table 4-
2 shows a total of 804 acres of industrial land, including the 494-acre vacant Juniper
Ridge site. Outside of Juniper Ridge, the city only has 204 acres of vacant industrial
land. This land may be further constrained by future development plans of existing
businesses owning these vacant lands.
Table 4-2. Economic Land Inventory from 2008 Buildable Lands Inventory
Zone Type Zone-Abbreviation and Name Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres
Commercial CB - Central Business District 0 0 280 36 0 0 0 0 280 36
CC - Commercial Convenience 1 8 12 178 67 0 0 0 0 186 79
CG - Commercial General 51 128 560 599 1 5 0 0 612 732
CL - Commercial Limited 32 96 825 294 0 0 0 0 857 390
MR - Mixed Riverfront 16 30 439 190 1 4 22 1 478 225
PO - Professional Office 2 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 7
Subtotal 109 272 2,284 1,187 2 9 22 1 2,417 1,469
Industrial/ IG - Industrial General 8 13 162 197 0 0 0 0 170 210
Mixed IL - Industrial Light 78 662 576 618 0 0 0 0 654 1,280
Employment IP - Industrial Park 13 23 9 5 0 0 0 0 22 28
ME - Mixed Employment 19 106 259 169 0 0 0 0 278 275
Subtotal 118 804 1,006 989 0 0 0 0 1,124 1,793
Public Facilities PF - Public Facilities 14 117 224 1,361 0 0 71 9 309 1,487
Medical (MDOZ) MDOZ - Medical District Overlay Zone 27 62 144 183 0 0 17 6 188 251
Totals 268 1,255 3,658 3,720 2 9 110 16 4,038 5,000
Vacant Developed Total Constrained Platted Residential
Source: City of Bend
Notes:
1. CC totals exclude land in the MDOZ. MDOZ totals include CC lots and acreages, as well as
residential acres by development status.
2. The MDOZ is mostly residential land with some CC and PF, but is considered an economic
land type in the EOA.
3. The PO/RM/RS General Plan designation is not included in the inventory (6 net acres of
vacant and developed land).
4. Surface Mine (SM) acreage is not included in the inventory of economic lands.
5. CH, CN, are not General Plan designations, so are not included in the inventory above.
6. Industrial/Mixed Employment includes the 494-acre Juniper Ridge parcel.
Key findings of the 2008 with respect to the city’s land supply are summarized below:
• Bend has only a handful of industrial parcels over 10 acres in size, less than
30 parcels between 2-10 acres, and over 100 parcels between 0.5 and 2
acres. This illustrates Bend has a severe shortage of medium to large sized
industrial/mixed employment parcels in its current inventory.
• The majority of the city’s industrial land supply inside the current UGB is
located on one parcel called Juniper Ridge. This parcel is 494 gross acres
and is owned by the City of Bend.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 58
• In a city over 21,000 gross acres in size and with 3,720 net acres of
developed economic land, only 1,255 net acres are considered vacant and
996 are considered net-developable land.
• The city estimates approximately 228 net acres of economic lands are
available as short-term supply, which means these lands currently have
capacity to be developed or the city’s master plans are currently written to
provide service to these lands in 20 years.
• The city is planning to provide a variety of economic lands by type, size, and
location in the planning period to distribute economic lands in different
locations, enable businesses to have choices where to locate, and provide
convenient pedestrian and transportation access to economic lands.
Determining Economic Land Needs
The city is also proposing a UGB expansion for residential land as part of this proposal.
The residential analysis assumes all residential lands are developed during the planning
period, and are therefore not available for conversion to economic uses. This proposal
meets Goal 14 because the economic needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on
residential land already inside the urban growth boundary. It also meets this
requirement because all other vacant economic lands are assumed to be fully developed
at current employment densities.
The 2008 EOA documents the total gross acreage of needed economic lands after
development of all vacant lands inside the current UGB, and anticipated infill on existing
lands. Table 4-3 presents the total gross acres of economic lands required for the City
of Bend to meet anticipated needs, provide adequate selection of sites of different sizes,
locations, and types, and accommodate unique sites for specific industries. Please see
pages 100-128, incorporated herein by reference, for specifics regarding how these land
need estimates are generated. Land needs exceed land supply and therefore the city is
proposing a UGB expansion for economic lands.
Three factors are described below and applied to anticipated employment land demand
to convert the demand into gross acres for economic use: 1) private and public rights-of-
way; 2) land for institutional, private open space, and other land; and 3) vacancy rate.
Private and Public Rights-of-way
The City of Bend calculated land uses that consume residential and economic land in
the current UGB as part of the 2008 UGB expansion. The city estimates that 21 percent
of land inside the current UGB is used for public and private roads, highways, and rail
rights-of-way. The 21 percent figure was calculated through a methodology that
analyzed a city-wide land base including residential and economic lands. This figure is
used to transform net needs to gross land needs in the subsequent analysis in order to
account for the roadways that will be used to serve economic lands. Because the
methodology examined the entire existing UGB and all its land types, this estimate is
applied to net land needs for all types to convert the need to gross acres. DLCD has
commented that a separate analysis should have been performed for economic lands,
but the city believes the methodology used to calculate the total estimate for rights-of-
way for roadways is appropriate and accurate because it considers all land uses and
their corresponding needs for rights-of-way. Also, there are not legal requirements to
require separate analysis of right-of-way for residential, public facility, and economic
lands. The state’s own safe harbor assumptions are applied to all land needs, not
separate categories of land. Please see Exhibit L (5) of the 2008 UGB expansion
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 59
proposal for more information on the methodology used to calculate public and private
rights-of-way.
Further evidence in the record from Wendy Eddy of Bend’s Stormwater division in Public
Works recommends not decreasing estimates for future rights-of-way because future
stormwater systems will rely on surface treatment or treatment in regional facilities which
will consume more land in public and private rights-of-way for these facilities. Also,
further reliance on complete street grids, increased widths of new collectors and arterials
(25 percent and 33 percent larger than arterials primarily developed in the existing UGB)
all suggest that future rights-of-way will tend to consume more land than is currently
used in the Bend UGB (which is the source of the 21 percent figure). For these reasons,
using the 21 percent estimate is considered conservative and appropriate for using in
the expansion area.
Land for Institutional, Private Open Space, and Other Lands
The City of Bend also calculated the amount of land that is consumed by institutional,
private open space, and other land needs as part of the 2008 UGB expansion. The
calculation resulted in a determination that 15 percent of net developed land in the entire
UGB (including residential and economic) are used for these uses. The 2008 EOA
methodology removed all employment from these lands so they are not included in the
economic projections to avoid double counting. A factor of 15 percent is applied to the
net economic land need to account for the uses included in the “other” lands analysis.
Similar to rights-of-way, because the analysis was done for the entire UGB and all its net
land types, the resulting 15 percent factor is appropriate to apply to all net land needs for
the expansion. Please see Exhibit L (6) for more information on the methodology used
on this factor.
Vacancy Rate
A vacancy rate of 15 percent is applied to the net land need as recommended by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development “Industrial and Other Employment
Land Analysis Guidebook”. As stated on page 2-32 of the Guidebook, “for efficient
market operation, a minimum vacancy rate for built space is between 5% and 15%. The
estimate of total acres of demand should be increased by this percentage as the market
often requires more options than the employment estimates seem to require”. The
Guidebook illustrates this vacancy rate is applied to long-term land needs, not just short-
term conditions (see Guidebook , page 2-2 of Advanced EOA section, Long-term
Demand Checklist, Demand Task 7: Adjust for Vacancy Rate). The following
explanation includes references to research documents which are included in the
bibliography of the 2008 EOA. Please refer to the bibliography of the 2008 EOA for
complete information on the citations below.
Page 55 of the 2008 EOA presents recent historical vacancy rate data for Bend between
the years 1993 and 2005. Generally, industrial vacancy rates have fluctuated between 4
and 9 percent, while office has moved between 4 and 13 percent during the 12 year time
frame. According to the Compass Commercial Real Estate Services, Points publications
for 2nd quarter 2006, 2007, and 2008, vacancy rates have steadily increased in Bend
since 2005. The office space vacancy rate in Bend was 9.0 percent in 2006; increasing
to 13.5 percent in 2008. Similarly, the industrial space vacancy rate in 2006 was 2.9
percent, and increased to 12.1 percent in 2008. While a 15 percent vacancy rate is
higher than recently experienced in Bend, it is only slightly higher than historical and
current conditions.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 60
The following explains why a 15 percent rate is used as a long-term vacancy rate for
Bend in the 2008 EOA. Research shows that lower vacancy rates tend to drive up the
cost of rents for industrial and office space. Higher vacancy rates tend to drive the costs
down. This is illustrated by The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco article “Natural
Vacancy Rates in Commercial Real Estate Markets”:
We tend to believe that an increase in vacancy rates is bad news for property
owners…Of course, increases in the vacancy rate could very well be good news
for tenants and for the overall economy if an unnaturally low amount of available
space is choking economic growth.
Only 18 months ago, circumstances dictated such a competitive demand for Similarly, the 2008
Q2 Compass Commercial Real Estate Services, Points publication headline is “Best
Practices for Savvy Landlords in This Tenant-Driven Market”. The article goes on to
lead with the following sentence:
commercial office space that a tenant had no choice but to grab a deal quickly or
risk losing it to someone else. Landlords were able to set their own terms. But
the tables have turned. Tenants are not in the driver’s seat, devising strategies
and offering terms that have not been seen in this market for the last twenty
years, if ever.
The Stakeholder group consistently mentioned Bend’s high prices for land and rents as
a major threat to Bend’s economy and assuming a structural vacancy rate of 15 percent
will tend to create more supply and lower rents and land prices. As the 2008 EOA has
pointed out on page 55, firms find it difficult to find land at affordable prices and Bend
commonly loses firms because land is not available or is not affordable. In the
November 21, 2008 issue of The Business Journal, an example of an “ideal” vacancy
rate is given at 8 to 10 percent. Other sources indicate low vacancy rates of 3-5 percent
create supply limitations and price increases. Since a vacancy rate must be assumed, it
becomes a question of what rate to assume and why. With price and availability being a
major deterrent to economic growth in Bend, assuming a higher vacancy rate will help
combat tight land supplies over the long term. Since 8 to 10 percent is considered ideal,
a vacancy rate that is higher will make conditions more favorable to businesses through
lower land prices and rents. Also, recent Points publications clearly indicate higher
vacancy rates are leading to better terms for tenants, and are nearing 15 percent. The
city is generally seeking to create more favorable conditions for existing and new
businesses and sees a 15 percent vacancy rate as one way to establish these favorable
conditions. Therefore, the 15 percent figure is warranted given current trends and their
impact on rents, the advice from Stakeholders to generally lower land and rent prices for
businesses, and the desire of the Planning Commission and City Council to increase
land supplies in the expanded UGB. The estimate of 15 percent is slightly higher than is
currently observed in Bend, but is realistic given data from larger municipalities such as
Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City have actual vacancy rates observed between
14 and 17 percent (Krainer).
Land Needs (continued)
The land need totals in Table 4-3 are in general categories, but the 2008 EOA suggests
more details regarding the specific types of General Plan designations to meet
anticipated needs. The Framework Plan in Exhibit K allocates the land needs in Table
4-3 to specific General Plan designations referenced in the 2008 EOA. See Tables 43
and 45 of the 2008 EOA illustrating the suggested breakdown of economic land needs
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 61
by General Plan designation. These recommendations are reflected in the designations
shown in the Framework Plan.
A total of 1,008 gross acres of commercial land are needed in the planning period. In
addition, 118 gross acres of industrial and mixed employment lands are required to meet
anticipated industrial employment. The city estimates 252 acres of medically-oriented
land uses are required to support the city’s development of this targeted employment
sector.
The 119 acres of Economic Uses in Residential Zones in Table 4-3 refer to employment
activities taking place in residential zones that are not in residential structures. This
includes a wide variety of uses such as offices and retail stores that consume
residentially zoned land. The city encourages this type of economic development since
it provides readily accessible services and employment in residential areas. This land
need estimate was created so supplies of residential land used for residential uses are
not diminished during the planning period. The acreage and distribution of Urban
Reserve Residential shown in the Framework Plan includes the 119 acres of Economic
Uses in Residential Zones determined in the 2008 EOA. It is appropriate to consider
these land needs because employment uses in residential zones consume residential
land and are encouraged by Bend’s development code (based on the state’s Model
Development Code). For example, child care facilities, food services, laundromats, retail
goods and services, personal services, repair services, and mixed use buildings are all
permitted conditionally or outright in all residential zones. These uses are considered
“neighborhood commercial” uses; which are new to the development code, and were not
allowed as such as in prior codes. Also, diagnostic testing, counseling and
administrative offices for non-profits and community service programs, bed and
breakfasts, and plant nurseries are also permitted conditionally or outright in all
residential zones. Not included in the estimate of 119 acres are uses considered in the
15 percent figure for institutional uses, nor are land needs for schools and parks (which
were calculated separately). This demonstrates that land needs for economic uses in
residential zones do not involve double counting with other analysis and are appropriate
to consider because they consume residential land. The city also finds the estimate is
appropriate and conservative because the city assumes the rate of development of
economic uses in residential zones will be at least equal, if not greater than, levels
experienced in the past.
As shown in Table 4-3, 144 acres of Public Facility lands are required in the expanded
UGB to provide for a portion of the institutional land needs. Employment on these lands
would typically include intensive office, storage, maintenance yards and service and
repair centers for city, county, state, federal, special district (parks, irrigation district),
school administration, fire, and city and county police offices. The Framework Plan does
not explicitly show a land use designation for these uses, but assumes they are
distributed around the UGB expansion area in areas shown as Urban Reserve
Residential. The acreage and distribution of Urban Reserve Residential shown in the
Framework Plan includes the 144 acres of Public Facility uses determined in the 2008
EOA. These land needs were not double counted with the 15 percent for institutional
uses. Employment on institutional lands used to generate the 15 percent estimate was
removed from the employment base data used in the employment forecast. The 144
acre figure does not include land for public schools and parks included in the residential
analysis, but does consider the land needs for accessory uses and administrative offices
for these entities that were excluded form the school and park land need analysis.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 62
The Goal 9 rule includes provisions for providing lands to meet Bend’s employment
aspirations that are outside of the employment projections. A total of four sites for four
uses have been identified as sites for aspirational employment for Bend. This includes a
site for a new hospital, university, and two, 56-acre industrial sites. The city has added
additional acreage to account for the university, hospital site, and two industrial sites
above calculated land needs because these land needs are not part of the existing
employment base (and employment projections) and therefore do not appear in
calculated land need estimates. However, since the site needs are unique and critical to
Bend’s long-term economic strategy and success, these sites are added to the city’s
overall land needs as special sites to identify and protect. These sites are depicted on
the Framework Plan to protect these sites for these uses.
The resulting economic land needs for the 20-year planning period are shown in Table
4-3, below. The preceding findings meet Goal 14 because the 2008 EOA and preceding
discussion demonstrate the need for this acreage to meet anticipated employment
opportunities, livability considerations such as public and private open spaces and
rights-of-way for roadways, and institutional uses.
Table 4-3. Total Economic Lands Required for Bend UGB: 2008-2028
Gross Acres Needed in
Planning Period
Commercial (CB, CC, CG, CL, MR) 1,008
Industrial/Mixed Employment (IG, IL, IP, ME) 118
Public Facilities (PF) 144
Economic Uses in Residential Zones (RH, RM, RS) 119
Medical (MDOZ) 252
New Hospital Site 112
University 225
Two, 56-acre Industrial Sites (Targeted Sector and Heavy Industrial Site) 112
Total 2,090
General Plan Designations and Sites for Aspirational Employment
Source: City of Bend
Addressing Concerns of DLCD and Similar Concerns Raised in Testimony
A number of concerns have been raised over the appropriateness of the 2008 EOA
methodology and resulting land need estimates. These can be characterized as the
following:
• The city has exceed the minimum land need estimate for economic lands
illustrated in Scenario A of the 2008 EOA (see page 111 of the 2008 EOA) and
has not provided an adequate basis or rationale for exceeding the minimum need
estimates.
• The economic land need estimate results in an economic land’s supply which is
overextended.
• Use of periodic review is a better mechanism to add additional employment lands
in the future versus adding slightly more supplies at this point.
The following findings address these concerns by providing reasons why the choice
factors are appropriate, why sites for Bend’s economic aspirations are appropriate, and
why it is preferable to add slightly more supply at this point rather than through periodic
review in the future.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 63
Table 40 of the EOA suggests that 648 gross acres should be added to the city’s
commercial land base. The sum of the “average” size of all Commercial and Mixed
Riverfront General Plan designations in Table 41 of the 2008 EOA is 268 acres. Given
the total need predicted under a conservative need estimate, only 2.4 new “average”-
sized commercial areas of each type would be required to be added to the city’s
inventory of economic lands. Given that Bend has population centers in the north,
south, east, and west, “average” sized commercial designations could not be distributed
in each of Bend’s “sides” or “areas”. This analysis suggests that the total of 648
commercial acres in Scenario A would not be sufficient to provide commercial centers
within convenient walking, biking, or a short driving distance from existing and new
residential areas. Also taking into account pedestrian barriers such as the Deschutes
River, Highways 97 and 20, the rail road, and varied topography, it is clear that providing
two “average”-sized commercial centers in the expansion will not provide convenient
pedestrian access to new commercial centers. It is also clear that if only two new
“average”-sized commercial areas are provided, there would be a limited ability for these
areas to provide new businesses the choice in location and size to site businesses to
serve the diverse market needs of specific areas in the current and expanded Bend
UGB.
As shown in Table 40 of the 2008 EOA, no additional industrial land would need to be
added to the city’s inventories. As discussed in the 2008 EOA, the result is that nearly
all the city’s medium, large, and very large industrial parcels would be located on one
parcel in one location (Juniper Ridge). This clearly does not provide a variety of
locations for future industrial development. This result was also roundly discarded by
the Stakeholder group, TAC, Planning Commission, and City Council. Stakeholders
noted that industrial lands should be placed throughout the expansion area to provide
convenient use of these lands in each of Bend’s industrial sub-markets. Employment
centers containing Mixed Employment and Industrial land would not be within walking
distance from new neighborhoods, and could not be located along new transit corridors
planned in the expansion areas.
The same analysis applies to the need for the conservative need estimate of 76 acres of
new public facility lands. Given the average size of a PF zone is approximately 38
acres, only two “average” sized PF designated areas would need to be added to the
city’s inventory under the minimum land demand estimate.
Table 40 of the 2008 EOA estimates only 144 acres of land for medical uses would need
to be added to the city’s current inventories. This small amount would likely not be
sufficient based on discussions with representatives from medical service providers in
the city. In discussions with facility planners for Cascade Healthcare (owners of St.
Charles Medical Center), they clearly stated a need for a 100-acre hospital site plus
additional lands (100 acres) for supporting medical uses. The current Medical District
Overlay Zone contains 209 acres, and contains the St. Charles Hospital. Assuming that
100 acres would be sufficient for such supporting uses, the predicted need would only
leave 27 acres for a second medical facility and its supporting uses, not including other
distributed medical facilities. This suggests that the total acreage demanded may not be
sufficient for the long-range medical needs after considering potentially two new medical
facilities, their required supporting uses, and other distributed medical facilities.
Summary of Reasons a Minimum Land Need of Scenario A Is Not Desirable for Bend
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 64
1. Stakeholders, the Planning Commission, and City Council desire to disperse
commercial and industrial lands throughout the new UGB expansion area and
implementing the minimum land need scenario would only allow an average of
2.4 average sized commercial centers to be located in the expansion area and
no additional industrial acreage to be added to the Bend UGB.
2. Stakeholders clearly indicated a majority of industrial land holdings should not be
located in one location and under one ownership, and should be dispersed
throughout the UGB expansion area (see Appendix F of 2008 EOA for
Stakeholder summary).
3. Establishing new transit corridors and mixed use centers in the expansion area
requires sufficient economic lands to create the centers, and a minimum land
need does not allow economic lands to be located in the west, north, east, and
south of the expanded Bend UGB.
4. Research (Grunkemeyer, William et al, see Bibliography in 2008 EOA) calls for a
community to have a wide variety of industrial sites with varying regulatory
models and controls in different locations to facilitate employment growth.
5. Research (Arvanitidis, Paschallis, see Bibliography in 2008 EOA) concludes that
property markets need to have more flexibility to provide a quality and quantity of
lands to sustain economic development. Not adding additional industrial land
options beyond Bend’s current mix of industrial lands is viewed as being highly
constrained in 2008 and will not provide the proper mix of industrial land to
sustain additional industrial employment.
6. Current shortfalls in public infrastructure, particularly transportation in the north of
Bend, limit existing supplies of industrial land, and demonstrate having “all the
eggs in one basket” (to quote Stakeholders) make concentrated land supplies
vulnerable to site specific public facility shortfalls.
7. A strict implementation of the minimum land need scenario would result in
smaller neighboring cities such as Redmond having more industrial land than the
largest city in Central Oregon.
8. The minimum land need represented in Scenario A of the 2008 EOA does not
adequately account for uncertainty inherent in making a 20-year estimate of land
needs for Bend based on a simple application of employment densities to
expected employment levels (see discussion in following findings).
Reasons the Proposal’s Land Need Estimates are Appropriate and Desirable for Bend
The following presents an alternative analysis of land need for commercial, economic
uses in residential zones, public facilities, and medical uses above the minimum need
described in Scenario A.
The conclusion of Scenario A is that a minimum land need estimate derived through a
strict application of dividing employment projections by employment densities yields land
need estimates that are not consistent with the policy direction from the City Council,
Planning Commission, Stakeholder group, and economic development professionals in
Bend. As discussed above, the scenario will not enable a dispersion of economic lands
to develop commercial, mixed use, and industrial centers in nodes throughout the UGB
expansion area. Since the city has developed policies around the distribution of
economic lands to place them along potential transit corridors, near residential areas,
and placed in a variety of locations to provide choices of location to new businesses,
Scenario B is developed to explore how making additional economic lands available will
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 65
be more consistent with Bend’s overall growth policies for economic lands (see Chapter
6 policies, framework policies, and transportation policies).
Scenario B is the result of developing alternative UGB expansions with the Bend City
Council and associated public testimony received during hearings. Originally, the City
Council was presented with a land need estimate that included 50% more land for CB,
CC, CG, CL, economic uses in residential zones, PF, and MDOZ than documented in
Scenario A. Public testimony suggested removing CG land in the north of Bend to be
used for an auto mall. The council agreed with this testimony and removed the CG land
associated with the auto mall. The result is a lower factor for additional CG land from 50
percent to 25 percent, which is incorporated into the land need table below associated
with Scenario B.
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development “Industrial and Other
Employment Land Analysis Guidebook”, provides a description of market factors as
used in this analysis. As stated in the Guidebook , “real estate markets operate
efficiently if there is more supply than immediate demand. With respect to land, most
real estate economists accept an available supply two to five times greater than the
immediate demand” (2-31).
While the Guidebook suggests this is only with respect to short-term demand, it is
unclear how the local real estate market can operate efficiently throughout the entire 20-
year planning period without adding a similar factor to the minimum long-term economic
land need. For example, if only enough economic land is provided to meet the 20-year
minimum demand, businesses seeking land in the first five years of the planning period
would be able to select from a full 20-year supply (or four times the five year demand as
recommended by the Guidebook ). Business seeking land in years 5-10 would have a
land supply that is less than the first five years (or three times the five year demand, less
than is recommended by the Guidebook). Business seeking land in years 10-15, would
have two times the five year demand. Business seeking land in years 15-20 would have
the choice of what remains.
It is clear from this analysis that if a market is expected to operate efficiently for the
entire 20-year period, then a greater supply of economic land above the 20-year
minimum supply is needed. Without making additional lands available in the entire 20-
year period, businesses will have less and less selection than the previous years to
select from until all acres are used up. An approach of providing a minimum land supply
also does not account for ideal or desirable lands being used up sooner, and that
constrained supplies may not be able to adjust to changing economic conditions or
needs. Providing more supply enables businesses to have more selection throughout
the entire planning period, and if necessary, seek adjustments to the type of zoning.
While it is true that Periodic Review is a process to create additional supply throughout a
20-year period, it is a time consuming process that cannot react quickly enough to
respond to short-term market needs. The implicit assumption in using Periodic Review
to add needed supplies within a 20-year time frame is that it is acceptable to
underestimate a 20-year need and to adjust upward during periodic review. In Bend’s
case, adding more supply at the outset of the 20-year period provides more certainty to
land owners and helps develop needed infrastructure. Land acquisition, infrastructure
construction, annexation, and site planning take years to complete. Knowing long-term
urbanization plans will create “vested interests” and the incentive for land owners to
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 66
participate in funding and constructing systems for both economic and residential uses.
The Periodic Review process may take years to complete, and timely completion to
respond to immediate needs is not a certainty given likely appeals. Additionally, public
testimony relied upon by the council indicates that having more than a minimum supply
of economic lands allows long-range planning for site acquisition, annexation, and
eventual development; a process which takes years to accomplish.
Relying solely on employment projections to determine land needs does not adequately
address the uncertainty inherent in these projections. Adding slightly more supply of
economic lands provides a buffer to account for this uncertainty. Given Bend’s role as
the economic “center” of the region and its tremendous and unexpected employment
growth over the last decade, Stakeholders, the Planning Commission, and City Council
believe accounting for uncertainty by adding slightly more land than is estimated through
the application of employment densities to expected employment is appropriate.
Table 4-3A illustrates the scope of the uncertainty inherent in employment projections,
and illustrates why Bend finds it critical to add slightly more economic lands to its supply
than featured in Scenario A of the 2008 EOA. Ten-year employment projections for the
year 2006-2016 for Deschutes County are the basis for Bend’s employment projections
featured in the 2008 EOA. Ten-year employment projections for Region 10 (Deschutes,
Jefferson, and Crook Counties) made in 1996 underestimated employment in the region
by over 13,000 employees. OED reported employment figures for Region 10 in 2006
was 83,611, but was estimated at 70,430 in 1996. While the city finds the 10-year
employment projections by OED to be the best available information and a good starting
point for an analysis, it should be treated with caution. The city is addressing the
uncertainty inherent in employment projections by applying modest factors to provide
enough economic land in the proposed UGB.
Table 4-3A. Region 10 Employment, 10-year Projected Employment: 1996-2006
Employment, Rates\Year
1996
Employment 1
2006 OED Projected Covered
and Farm Employment 1
2006 OED Reported Covered
and Farm Employment 2
Difference Between Reported
and Projected
Total Covered Employment
Including Farm Employees 56,674 70,430 83,611 13,181
10-year Growth Rate 3 NA 24% 48% 23%
1 Source: e-mail by Dwayne Stevenson, OED. 1996 Employment Projection for Region 10.
2 Source: "Total All Occupations Employment in 2006" from OED Employment Projections by Industry and Occupation 2006-2016, Region 10, November, 2007.
3 Source: City of Bend
Commercial, Public Facility, Economic Uses in Residential Zones, and MDOZ (Medical)
Lands
Table 4-3 illustrates the amount of needed acres under a different and relatively simple
assumption. The assumption is to add 25 percent more land for CG and 50 percent
more land for other lands to the supply than the minimum demand after taking into
account a vacancy rate and current land supplies by category. Think of this as a
business seeking to locate in Bend. If only 1 acre of land is demanded for that
businesses use in Table 40, then Table 42 would provide 1.5 acres in the market for that
same use, and 1.25 acres for uses in the CG zone.
Implementing Table 4-3 would have significant beneficial impacts on the supply and
distribution of commercial lands in an expanded Bend UGB. With a predicted need of
1,008 acres of commercial land, an 360 additional acres of commercial are proposed
over the minimum need in Scenario A. Using “average” sizes of commercial General
Plan designations from Table 41 of the 2008 EOA, the acreage could be distributed as
follows:
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 67
• Approximately 3.7 new commercial areas composed of each of the following plan
designations and sizes:
o CB: 14 acres.
o CC: 5 acres.
o CG: 119 acres.
o CL: 36 acres.
o MR: 94 acres.
• Or, grouping these acreages differently based on the minimum and maximum
acreages of these designations in Bend:
o CB: one, 50-acre town-center similar in size to “downtown” Bend
o CC: 14, 4-acre commercial nodes to be distributed throughout the Bend
UGB to provide commercial services which are “walkable” and imbedded
in and around residential areas.
o CG: two, approximately 240-acre “large retail” areas to complement
existing retail centers to the north or east, or distribute to underserved
areas such as the south. These areas would be slightly smaller than the
largest CG commercial area currently zoned in Bend. Bend currently has
five major areas zoned CG.
o CL: ten, approximately 24-acre commercial centers to provide a mix of
small to larger commercial uses distributed throughout the Bend UGB to
maximize ease of access, proximity to employment and services, and
provide a greater range of services closer to residential, industrial, and
other mixed employment centers. These centers would be slightly
smaller than average CL-designated areas in Bend, but in this example,
would provide be distributed to maximize create small
employment/service centers.
o MR: two, approximately 75-acre small scale commercial centers to place
adjacent to larger retail centers to create a transition to residential uses,
or to distribute as explained in the CL discussion above.
These examples point out that with and additional supplies of commercial land added to
the Bend land base, it is possible to effectively distribute commercial uses throughout
Bend. Without making adjustments to the needed supply of commercial lands, it is not
possible to distribute viable commercial uses throughout all existing and new residential
areas without requiring these areas be accessed primarily by the automobile.
Some commercial uses, such as large retail centers, require larger blocks of land to
function properly. For example, the average size of a CG zone (the most intensive retail
zone in Bend) is 199 acres, with the largest commercial area at 269 acres. Under
Scenario A, only one new large commercial center would practically result from the
minimum land need estimate (assuming acreage for other uses need to be provided). It
is possible that one new commercial center may not be sited correctly, or that
infrastructure deficiencies in this area may decrease its viability, or that the placement
does not match future economic conditions. The recommended land need in Table 4-3
provides the ability to site up to two such retail centers to distribute and diversify
ownership, locations, and opportunities.
Table 4-3 estimates approximately 144 acres of public facility lands are needed in the
Bend UGB. A factor of 50 percent was applied over the minimum land need of Scenario
A in the 2008 EOA to result in the 144 gross acres of need in Table 4-3. Employment on
these lands would typically include office, storage, maintenance yards and service and
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 68
repair centers for city, county, state, federal, special district (parks, irrigation district),
school administration, fire, and city and county police offices. Many of these uses are
sited to provide rapid service, response times, or geographically based services (police,
fire, school and park facilities). Nearly all require offices that are in a convenient
location, and, in some cases, storage yards and similar uses are ideally placed in more
distant locations. It is essential that adequate land be available to site necessary public
facility uses in ideal locations.
The following is a brief example to illustrate how the 144-acre land-need estimate for
public facilities is necessary and appropriate in order to provide an adequate supply of
sites in a variety of locations. Assuming the ten main public service providers
referenced above need the three types of facilities in the planning period, 144-acre
estimated need could be accommodated on sites of approximately 5 acres. An analysis
of PF-zoned areas in Bend indicates approximately 25 percent of PF designated areas
are less than 5 acres, demonstrating a need for such sized sites. This analysis may be
conservative because it assumes each of the ten public entities only require one new
office, one new storage yard, and one new maintenance facility over the next 20-years.
Table 4-3 establishes a 252-acre need for medical land uses in the Bend UGB over 20
years. This amount of land would provide an adequate supply of medical land uses in a
variety of locations versus relying on the 144-acre need estimated in Scenario A. This
land total would allow approximately 100 acres to be sited adjacent to a new 100-acre
hospital for supporting medical uses (see discussion on special sites later in this
Section). Testimony from representatives from Cascade Healthcare (St. Charles
Medical Center) has clearly expressed a preference for a site in the south of Bend, with
approximately 200 acres of medical related uses. Other medical providers have
expressed interest in having adequate lands for additional facilities as well. Assuming
that 100 acres could be located in the north, to create an even distribution of medical
uses (north, south, and the existing facility in the east), then the additional 52 acres of
need would easily be absorbed into other commercial or mixed use developments in the
west. Without the additional 50 percent factor over the minimum need to result in the
totals in Table 4-3, anticipated land needs for new medical uses would not be met.
Industrial and Mixed Employment Land Needs
The city received comments from the Department of Land Conservation and
Development regarding the proposed UGB expansion and application of factors to
increase land needs for industrial uses. The comments indicated that using a factor of
“three” to increase land needs would be considered the maximum allowed by the
department, and that the burden of proof to establish such a factor would require
significant effort. The Bend City Council received testimony from residents and ODOT
that having industrial lands in the north of the city would be detrimental to livability and
the overall function of the state highways in the vicinity. The Council also received
testimony regarding the need to enhance industrial land supplies to provide additional
lands in the UGB expansion area. The results of this input lead the City Council and
staff to decrease the market choice factors for industrial land. The following explains the
why it is important to apply a smaller market choice factor for industrial land and the
subsequent revisions to market choice factors for industrial land which differ from the
original proposal.
As shown in Scenario A, a slight surplus of industrial land would be expected with the
strict application of employment densities to expected industrial employment in the
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 69
planning period. As discussed in Scenario A, this would not allow for additional supplies
to be made available in the UGB expansion, threatening Bend’s ability to provide
industrial land in a variety of locations outside the city-owned Juniper Ridge.
Research on industrial parks suggests that “a general rule of thumb of parks is that in
order to be economically feasible a park should have at least 25 acres in size”
(Grunkemeyer et al.,, see Bibliography in 2008 EOA). Other research suggests that
Bend’s targeted industries require varying size sites, such as: renewable energy (50-100
acres in size), medical/biotech campus (35-50+acres), information technologies (sites as
small as 12-200 acre campuses), and supportive commercial uses of 5-10 acres (City of
Hillsboro et al., 23-24). Other considerations such as creating compatibility between
industrial and residential/commercial areas, and having “developable” areas outside of
topographically constrained areas also influence site and park size. Given the minimum
site needs for Bend’s targeted industries, need for supporting industrial and commercial
uses in new industrial areas, new industrial centers should be considered in units of 25
acres (for small scale, less intensive industrial/mixed employment uses) to 75 acres (for
parks to attract a targeted sector and include a large site). Given that the average IG-
zoned area in Bend is 62 acres, and IL-zoned areas are 212 acres, this minimum
matches known the average size of existing IG lands in Bend.
Grunkemeyer points out it is not enough to consider the size of industrial sites and
parks, but also the general nature and type of park. Some important differences include:
1. Privately or publicly owned – public ownership of a park may enable users to
receive incentives such as lower land cost or reduced fees to users, while private
ownership of a park may offer other advantages.
2. Range of amenities – amenities may include access to a rail spur, training
centers, nearby airports, recreational opportunities and others. These determine
the type of business locating in the park, so having a variety of parks/sites with a
variety of amenities creates a land base that is responsive to different market
conditions and opportunities.
3. Performance standards – from “none” to “advanced”, having a range of
performance standards (CCRs, deed restrictions, etc.) in different parks will
attract a wider variety of businesses from open storage “yards” to high-end
corporate parks.
4. Type of park/site – different types of industrial developments include commercial
oriented parks and sites that include call centers and back office operations,
corporate headquarters, high-tech and science parks, warehousing and
distribution, in addition to light to heavy manufacture.
Providing new supplies of industrial land in the Bend UGB as recommended in Table 4-3
will allow for these different types of industrial parks to be developed, and for Bend to
offer a wider variety of industrial lands in different locations. The Stakeholder group
noted that Juniper Ridge will not be appropriate for all needed types of industrial land
because it is attempting to attract higher-end, “attractive”, R&D types of uses in a
corporate park like setting. Many “typical” industrial uses may not fit into the Juniper
Ridge model, or may seek fewer regulatory controls over the appearance of the
buildings and grounds.
Table 4-3, applies a factor of 35 percent to the minimum land need for industrial land
need in order to establish a new industrial land supply to fit within recommended size
requirements for industrial parks, provide new locations for industrial development, while
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 70
also reducing the total amount of industrial land added to the Bend UGB. The factor was
selected to match the direction of the City Council on the Bend UGB expansion after
reducing the amount of industrial land originally proposed. The result has the effect of
creating a need for 118 acres of industrial land, which would be implemented through
the creation of one new large industrial park (approximately 75 acres) and two smaller
parks (approximately 25 acres) in different locations in the UGB expansion area.
The city has sufficient industrial land located in the north (Juniper Ridge). There are no
industrial lands in the east, south, and southeast areas of Bend. The proposal would
provide a small variety of locations for new industrial lands, likely to be placed to the
east, south, southeast, and possibly some smaller industrial parks in the west. Also
considering the different types of industrial parks, amenity levels, varying performance
standards, and ownership types, this scenario provides a minimal opportunity to develop
a range of industrial parks. Given the wide variety of industrial/mixed use sites to be
demanded and considering the wide variety of different types of industrial developments,
multiple industrial parks/sites are needed in Bend in order to provide variety in market.
Aspirations for Bend’s Economy and Corresponding Land Needs
The Goal 9 rule includes provisions for meeting unique site needs for industries that are
an integral component of a city’s economic development strategy. The uses and sites
describe below represent Bend’s aspirations for employment above the anticipated
employment described in the employment projections.
These sites are also being treated as sites with special site characteristics. Policies to
protect these special sites for their intended uses need to accompany planning for these
sites and are included in Chapter 6 of Bend’s General Plan. Policies could include
minimum size requirements (say 50-100 acres) and use restrictions.
The State’s rule encourages jurisdictions to accommodate special site uses for
economic growth. O.A.R. 660-009-0025(8) states “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…”. These sites must be identified and
protected for those specific uses and from incompatible uses.
Through discussions with the Stakeholders, Planning Commission, and public testimony,
the 2008 EOA considers the following uses for aspirational employment and special
sites. The factual basis for these sites is also described to illustrate they are all critical
components to Bend’s overall economic success in the planning period. The following
acres corresponding to the use include “other” open space and institutional uses, which
are approximately 15 percent of the net acres for the use.
1. New Hospital Site – Approximately 112 acres in the southern part of Bend for a
new hospital. This acreage and location has been identified through numerous
discussions with representatives from Cascade Healthcare (owners of St.
Charles Medical Center), the region’s largest regional medical provider.
Feedback from these representatives originally placed the new hospital site in
the north of Bend, but since the completion of a ten-year facilities master plan,
their strategy had evolved to suggest the south is a more appropriate location for
a new hospital. Their work suggests the current hospital site will be the regional
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 71
flagship medical center that will be enhanced and enlarged during the next 10
years. However, at the end of the planning period an entirely new hospital will
likely be needed based on population growth and facility obsolesce.
The special site characteristics for the use include better proximity to the center
of the underserved regional health care market, a minimum acreage of 100
acres, and simplified, convenient access from within and outside of Bend.
Another significant site requirement is proximity to supportive uses (medical
offices), commercial services for patrons and employees, and housing. It is
critical that these uses be placed together in close proximity to support one
another or the hospital site would not function. It is helpful to view the hospital
site need more as a new medical campus than a single site user.
This land need is not included in the 252 acres of land need estimated for
medical uses. This need is additive because strict application of employment
projections divided by employment density would calculate only a fraction of the
total site needed for this use. In effect, a single and entire 100 acre parcel is
needed for this use is needed beyond what is suggested by employment
projections so the hospital can be planned and designed in the planning period.
This parcel would be designed and developed in the planning period, but would
not expected to be “fully employed” within the planning period.
Goal 9 encourages cities to work with existing businesses to determine their
expansion needs. The new hospital site is included based on discussions with
Cascade Healthcare. Medical and Health Care is also a targeted sector for
Bend, and the hospital site will advance Bend’s goal to retain its position as a
regional health care provider. Testimony received from Cascade Health Care,
experts in the medical field and owners and operators of St. Charles Hospital,
illustrate how the city worked with this employer to plan for their unique site
requirements. This description and Cascade Health Care’s testimony represent
substantial evidence as they are experts in their field.
2. University District – 225 acres for a new university in conjunction with the
industrial, commercial, and residential development at Juniper Ridge. The
university has been identified as a critical component in the 2030 Vision as well
as the Juniper Ridge Master Plan. This master plan was developed by Cooper
Robertson and the city acquired it for approximately $2.5 million in 2008. The
land need estimate for this use was based on a review of numerous universities
throughout the nation as part of the Juniper Ridge Master Plan (see Appendix G
of the 2008 EOA).
The special site characteristics for the use include a large minimum acreage of
225 acres, surrounding compatible and supportive uses, and public ownership.
The ideal site would provide convenient transportation access from a local and
regional perspective. Surrounding uses must be compatible with a university and
include commercial, housing, open space, and other supportive uses. The site is
also ideal as a regional education center because it is located in the approximate
“center” of the region’s urbanized areas. This land is not included in any
estimates for land need and would be in addition to existing land deficiencies.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 72
Since employment projections are based on existing employment, and no
employment is occurring at a university in Bend, the projections do not address
the land need for a university.
Higher Education is also a targeted sector for Bend as documented in the Sector
Targeting section of the 2008 EOA, and is a critical component to advancing
Bend’s overall economic objectives. As noted in research documents in the 2008
EOA, the presence of a university in Bend complements its overall economic
growth strategy to attract high-tech manufacturing, bio-tech, and renewable
energy enterprises (all targeted sectors). The presence of a university in Bend
would complement Bend’s efforts to attract professional services, high-tech
manufacturing, and other businesses that require highly educated workers. A
university would also provide additional opportunities for citizens to obtain 4-year
and graduate level education in Central Oregon. Bend is also the community
best suited in Central Oregon for a university site, since it is the largest
community and is located in the approximate “center” of the region. The
university is also a key feature of the Juniper Ridge Master Plan (portion included
in Appendix G). The Stakeholder group also noted that it is important to plan for
a university in Bend. In summary, the City Council, Bend 2030 Visioning project,
Economic Sector Targeting work, Juniper Ridge Master Plan, and greater
community support efforts to develop a university in Bend at Juniper Ridge.
Without the land base to support this use, it is extremely difficult to attract and
retail a university in Bend.
To further demonstrate the city’s factual basis for the university, a brief
discussion of the Central Oregon Regional Education Consortium Team is
presented. This is a team that met for two years with a focus on attracting and
developing a 4-year and post-graduate university with a research focus to
Juniper Ridge. This work following on the completion of the Sector Targeting
work previously discussed. Members of the team included the superintendents
of the Redmond and Bend school districts, President of Central Oregon
Community College, CEO of the OSU Cascade Campus, Mayor and other
councilors of the Bend City Council. The team hired one of the nations top
higher educational recruitment firms as a consultant to bring a university to the
Juniper Ridge campus. This consultant worked on the development of the new
University of California Merced campus in Merced, California. This effort has
been suspended until university land is added to the Juniper Ridge site because
having the land base to support the university is the first step in attracting this
use.
3. Large Industrial Sites – Some Stakeholders believed that having at least one or
two very large sites (between 50-100 acres) on hand to meet the needs of a
large-site user would allow Bend to compete for firms that have ignored Bend in
the past due to land supply limitations. Through the Planning Commission
recommendation and City Council approval process for the UGB expansion, this
site need evolved into two, 56-acre industrial sites: one for targeted economic
sector uses, and another for a heavy industrial site user.
This land is not included in any estimates for land need and would be in addition
to existing land deficiencies. These sites are not included in Bend’s employment
projections because the industries Bend seeks for these sites are generally not
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 73
present in Bend. Also, since Bend has very few large sites in it current UGB, so
estimating the need for these sites based on site needs is problematic.
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 56 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.
These sites are needed in addition to predicted industrial land needs because the
total amount of industrial acreage is relatively small (118 acres), and placing 112
acres to be held in two large lots would consume nearly all of the needed 20-year
supply. These sites are also needed because they will create the land base
needed to attract Bend’s targeted sectors.
Summary of Reasons Why Applying Minor Market Choice Factors to Bend’s Minimum
Land Need Estimates In Addition to Including Sites to Meet Bend’s Economic
Aspirations are Desirable for Bend
1. In addition to the discussion above, the following underlying demographic and
employment trends suggest that providing slightly more land than documented
minimum land needs for commercial, public facilities, and medical lands is
warranted:
a. Bend has led the region in population growth and economic growth over
the last decade, and is also the cultural, retail, and manufacturing center
for Central Oregon.
b. Bend and the region are expected to be one of the fastest growing
economies in the state in the next ten years.
c. Bend, and the region, are expected to continue strong economic growth
in sectors requiring commercial land; especially in retail trade,
professional and business services, education and health services,
leisure and hospitality, and government.
d. Bend continues to diversify its economy, even in light of a downturn in
housing and construction, and an adequate land base is needed to
support continued diversification.
e. It is not possible to distribute commercial lands throughout the expansion
area within a walkable distance of residential areas, or in association with
mixed use transit nodes, without slightly more lands being made
available.
f. Nearly all targeted sectors previously noted can utilize commercial as well
as industrial land, so slightly higher supplies will enable the city to attract
businesses in targeted sectors.
g. Bend is the retail center for Central Oregon and providing slightly more
commercial land in Bend’s supplies will enable Bend to have a land base
to support further growth of these sectors.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 74
h. The amount of additional land for employment is relatively minor, with
additional lands being added at rates of 25 percent for CG and 50 percent
for other commercial lands.
i. Slightly more commercial lands are required over industrial lands
because Bend employment growth is expected to be higher in industries
seeking commercial versus industrial land.
2. In addition to the discussion above, the following explain why slightly more land
than documented minimum needs are required for industrial land and why land
for Bend’s economic aspirations should be included in land need estimates:
a. Minimum land need estimates result in a small surplus of for industrial
land, a result which Stakeholders and other economic development
experts strongly disagree with. Adding no additional industrial land to
Bend’s supply places the majority of industrial land in one location, and in
one ownership, is contrary to providing a variety of locations and sites
required by Goal 9.
b. Economic Sector Targeting efforts and the 2030 Vision for Bend rely on
attracting businesses that cannot be adequately served with existing land
supplies, particularly large site users.
c. Medical and Health Care employment is a targeted sector for Bend, and
the hospital site need was established by coordinating with the city’s
largest health care provider (consistent with Goal 9).
d. The two, 56-acre industrial sites are sought because Stakeholders
believe a small supply of large lot industrial will attract users that currently
have no supply to choose from in Bend. The sites are reserved for
targeted sectors, and protection of this acreage from documented needed
supplies would consume nearly all of Bend’s expected land need versus
making it available to other industries.
e. The 200 acre university is a key component of the Juniper Ridge Master
Plan for the 494 acre site, is a use that will attract employment in high-
tech, professional service, and other targeted and growth industries in
Bend, and is also a component of the 2030 Vision for Bend supported by
the Stakeholder group
Based on these forgoing findings, the city finds an adequate factual basis to substantiate
its land needs consistent with both Goal 14 and Goal 9 (addressed later in these
findings).
Goal 14 Rule - OAR 660, Division 24
660-024-0040 Land Need
(1) The UGB must be based on the adopted 20-year population forecast for the urban
area described 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 estimate
which, although based on the best available information and methodologies, should not
be held to an unreasonable high level of precision.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 75
Findings:
Please see the preceding Goal 14 Land Need findings. These findings are incorporated
herein to demonstrate how the economic lands analysis meets 660-024-0040(1)
requirements.
In addition, the requirements of this rule are met because the economic land need
estimates are based on the best available information. For example, the basis for
employment projections for Bend begin with the most recent geo-coded employment
data for Bend (year 2006). Enhancements were made to this data to improve the spatial
accuracy of this data set by comparing addresses to superior address files maintained
by the city. Generally, this employment data was grown at rates by specific industries
based on Oregon Employment Department data for the most recent 10-year forecast for
Deschutes County (2006-2016). Employment was then grown by population growth
rates for Bend contained in the Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast.
Small adjustments were made to enhance growth rates for targeted employment sectors
where Bend has competitive advantages and has targeted employment sectors. Further
refinements were made to account for employees not included in the OED data, and for
shift-workers who would otherwise inflate the need for employment lands. Employment
densities, land inventories, estimates for private and public rights-of-way for roadways,
and the amounts of institutional/private open space uses were all derived through a GIS
analysis based on the most current data available. At all stages, multiple sources of
data were sought to improve the quality of the data and findings including aerial
photographs, city building and land permit databases, and other data sources.
The methodologies employed in the 2008 EOA are based on guidelines for economic
analysis generated by DLCD and professional economic forecasting consultants.
Experts in agencies such as OED, local businesses, and land development
professionals were consulted during Stakeholder interviews to review and provide
guidance on the 2008 EOA. The testimony and input from these experts is contained in
the 2008 EOA. Finally, all work products were reviewed by the Planning Commission,
UGB Technical Advisory Committee, and public through a series of public work
sessions, meetings, and public hearings.
(5) Except for a metropolitan service district described in ORS 197.015(14), the
determination of 20-year employment land need for an urban area must comply with
applicable requirements of Goal 9 and OAR 660, division 9, and must include a
determination of the need for a short-term supply of land for employment uses consistent
with OAR 660-009-0025. 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.
Findings:
The proposal meets this requirement because it meets the requirements of Goal 9 and
OAR 660, division 9, as shown in subsequent findings. The proposal meets this rule
because, as shown in theses findings, job growth and employment land needs are
based on a reasonable justification of job growth and land needs. Job growth and land
needs are based on the 2008 EOA, which is a reasonable justification for these needs.
Job growth is not directly linked to population growth, but as mentioned in previous
findings, population growth is a factor considered in the job growth estimates. The
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 76
proposal also meets this rule because short-term supplies of economic land are provided
in the 2008 EOA and described in subsequent findings.
(8) The following safe harbors may be applied in determining employment needs:…
Findings:
The proposal does not rely on safe harbors afforded by the rule and therefore this
portion of the rule does not apply to the proposal. Safe harbors are not mandated, but
“may” be used. The Goal 9 rule requires a level of effort and analysis based on the size
and complexity of the jurisdiction. An analysis based on safe harbors, while defensible,
would likely not account for the complexity of the employment land needs for Bend, and
arguably would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of Goal 9.
660-024-0050 Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency
(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(3).
Findings:
The proposal meets this requirement because the land inventory prepared in the 2008
EOA and provided in these findings was conducted in accordance with OAR 660-009-
0015(3). Findings for OAR 660-009-0015(3) are made in later in this section to
demonstrate compliance with these requirements. The land inventory included all
suitable vacant and developed land for all economic uses in the current UGB.
The 2008 EOA assumes all vacant and vacant-pending land use acres are fully
developed at employment densities referenced in the 2008 EOA. Also, an infill/refill
factor of 10 percent was assumed to take place on existing developed land. The
residential analysis component of the UGB proposal assumes all vacant land is used for
residential purposes and fully developed at residential densities.
(3) As safe harbors when inventorying land to accommodate industrial and other
employment needs, a local government may assume that a lot or parcel is vacant if it is:
(a) Equal to or larger than on-half acre, if the lot or parcel does not contain a
permanent building; or
(b) Equal to or larger than five acres, if less than one-half of the lot or parcel is
occupied by a permanent building.
Findings:
This proposal does not use the safe harbor definition, so this criterion does not apply.
The proposal relies on the definition of “vacant” in the Goal 9 administrative rule (OAR
660-009-0005(7), which is slightly different than the safe harbor definition above. It is
unclear if the slight difference in the two definitions is clearly intended by the state.
However, the definition for “vacant” employment lands used in the 2008 EOA and BLI in
Exhibit L(1) follows the Goal 9 rule. One reason for using the Goal 9 definition of
‘vacant” is that conducting a land inventory analysis of over 21,000 gross acres of land
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 77
inside the Bend UGB makes it extremely difficult to discern what may be a “permanent
building” versus a “non-permanent building”.
(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. Changes
to the UGB must be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent
with OAR 660-024-0060.
Findings:
The rule is nearly identical to the Land Need Factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14. Generally, the
city has determined the need for new economic lands exceed the supply of economic
lands inside the current UGB. Therefore, the findings in Goal 14 - OAR 660-015-
0000(14) Land Need Factors 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference. Findings
regarding the changes to the UGB are made in Section V of this proposal, and are
incorporated herein by reference. Based on these findings, the proposal meets this
requirement.
As part of a recent UGB expansion for industrial land, the city conducted a thorough
analysis of measures to increase the supply of industrial and commercial land from the
existing UGB. This work is summarized in the City of Bend Economic Lands Study, Part
2- Meeting Forecast Needs, December 2000. The city relied on the findings of this
report with respect to implementing many efficiency measures since the relevant issues
have not changed significantly since the report’s use in 2004.
The conclusion of the ELS suggested that adding under-developed sites, redevelopment
of existing sites, and revising zoning codes have very little impact on reducing overall
economic land needs, and recommended adding land to the UGB for industrial
purposes. Rezoning large residential parcels was examined in depth, and the report
concluded that given strong needs for residential land, that these parcels are surrounded
by residential areas, and parcels are located off-highways in residential areas, rezoning
was not desirable. This study illustrates why the suggestion that significant rezoning of
residential lands inside the UGB by Westside property owners is not an appropriate way
to enhance the city’s supply of economic lands. The study also recommended changes
to the development code, notably, removing retail uses from industrial zones. These
and other recommended measures to expand Bend’s economic land base were included
in the recent development code update of 2006. Unrestricted commercial, retail, and
office uses were removed from industrial and RH zones. Building heights were also
expanded in commercial zones. Parking was reduced by “in-lieu” on-street parking
credits in some commercial zones. Uses in the MDOZ were changed to allow medical
uses outright, but limit commercial uses to protect lands for high density residential and
medical uses.
Staff also examined the impact on land needs from implementation of the Central Area
Plan. The project is currently “on hold” due to funding constraints. The TAC and
Planning Commission recommended using a “1/3 implementation” scenario to estimate
the impacts of CAP implementation on the proposed UGB expansion. The “1/3
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 78
implementation” assumes that 1/3 of the full effect of the CAP will take place between
2008 and 2028. The “1/3 implementation” was selected due to the uncertainty of the
project moving forward, the amount of rezoning, design work, and infrastructure needed
for full implementation of the CAP by 2028.
Table 4.3B illustrates the net industrial and commercial acres that would be gained and
lost by the 1/3 implementation of the CAP. Buildout employees were determined based
on documentation in the CAP. Employment densities used in the 2008 EOA were used
to convert employment to land “needed” and “gained” in industrial and commercial uses.
The analysis in Table 4.3B suggests only a 6 net acre difference between increased
commercial capacity and lost industrial capacity in the Central Area. Industrial jobs were
assumed to be lost, and commercial jobs gained, by implementing the CAP. Given the
uncertainty of the ultimate fate of the CAP, eventual mix of uses allowed, and 6 net acre
“gain” of economic land capacity, the UGB expansion proposal for economic land does
not consider CAP implementation to have any appreciable impact on economic land
needs in the planning period.
Table 4.3B. Estimated Impacts of Central Area Plan Implementation: 2008-2028
Type of Use
Net New
Employees at
Buildout 1
Estimated Net New
Employees by Year 2028
2
Employment Densities based
on Existing General Plan
Employment Densities 3
Net Commercial Acres
Developed (+) in C.A.P.
by Year 2028
Net Industrial Acres
Replaced (-) in C.A.P. by
Year 2028
Office 4002 1509 74.4 20 NA
Retail 581 219 74.4 3 NA
Light Industrial -678 -256 11.6 NA -22
Hotel 260 98 19.6 5 NA
Totals 4165 1570 NA 28 -22
1 Source: Central Area Plan, Appendix D, Table 6. Tech Memo 4: Economic and Real Estate Analysis.
2 Source: City of Bend Memorandum, March 21, 2008 from Brian Shetterly to Central Area Plan Advisory Committee assumes 37.7% buildout in C.A.P. by 2028.
3 Source: City of Bend G.I.S. analysis of year 2006 employment densities by General Plan.
Office and Retail employment densities assumed to be year 2006 Central Business District employment density.
Light Industrial employment density assumed to be year 2006 Mixed Employment density.
Hotel employment density assumed to be year 2006 Commercial Limited employment density.
Based on the foregoing findings, the city has examined measures to enhance the
supplies of economic land inside the current UGB and determined that these measures
are neither appropriate, nor effective, in expanding employment land supplies during the
planning period. The city examined rezoning residential land to economic zones,
implementing the Central Area Plan, and making code changes to increase productivity
of existing economic lands. These measures are not warranted due to impacts on
existing residential developments adjacent to parcels that could be rezoned, or are not
effective in increasing land supplies (in the case of the CAP). The city has recently
adopted a new development code that has enhanced the capacity of existing economic
lands to a great extent, and finds these measures have the desired effect of increasing
yields on economic lands while considering the desires of Bend residents to retain the
city’s character, views, landscape standards, and similar aesthetic concerns.
(5) 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 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 potential for planned urban development until the land is
rezoned for the planned urban uses. The requirements of ORS 197.296 regarding
planning and zoning also apply when local governments specified in that statute add
land to the UGB.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 79
Findings:
The discussion below demonstrates how the proposal meets the preceding rules.
Meeting the above requirements first requires a discussion of the expected process to
urbanize lands in the proposed UGB to provide needed supplies of economic lands and
public services. The 2008 EOA estimates the gross acres of needed economic lands.
The city’s Framework Plan in Exhibit K allocates the gross acres by General Plan
designation to meet the needs specified by the 2008 EOA. The proposed zoning in the
UGB expansion area will be holding zones that do not allow urban levels of
development. Please see Exhibit C, Proposed Deschutes County Zoning, to illustrate
these holding zones. The Comprehensive Plan designations in the UGB expansion area
will also be holding zones, but with more specificity: Urban Reserve Commercial, and
Urban Reserve Industrial. Please see Exhibit D, Proposed Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Designations, for these designations. Urbanization and
development of intensive economic uses will require annexation, master planning, and
rezoning consistent with the Framework Plan.
The 2008 EOA documents the total gross acreage of needed economic lands after
development of all vacant lands inside the current UGB, and anticipated infill on existing
lands. Table 4-3 presents the total gross acres of economic lands required for the City
of Bend to meet anticipated needs, provide adequate selection of sites of different sizes,
locations, and types, and accommodate unique sites for specific industries. These totals
include sites for aspirational employment, previously discussed. Table 4-3 is in gross
acres. Please see pages 100-128, incorporated herein by reference, for specifics
regarding how these land need estimates are generated. As previously discussed,
gross acres of Economic Uses in Residential Zones, Public Facility, and 76 acres of
Convenience Commercial are shown as RS, Institutional, Public Facilities, and additional
Schools/Parks in the Framework Plan in Exhibit K.
The land need totals in Table 4-3 are in general categories, but the 2008 EOA suggests
more details regarding the specific types of General Plan designations to meet
anticipated needs. The Framework Plan in Exhibit K allocates the land needs in Table
4-3 to specific General Plan designations referenced in the 2008 EOA. See Tables 43
and 45 of the 2008 EOA illustrating the suggested breakdown of economic land needs
by General Plan designation. Needed acreages in Tables 43 and 45 are allocated to the
designations shown in the Framework Plan, General Plan designations, so the proposal
is consistent with this requirement.
Based on the preceding findings, the proposal meets the rule because needed land
types are assigned appropriate future urban plan or zoning designations in the
Framework Plan and General Plan, consistent with the need determination. The
proposal meets the rule because it has applied an interim zoning that maintains the
land’s potential for planned urban development until the land is rezoned in conjunction
with annexation and master planning consistent with the Framework Plan.
Goal 9: Economic Development - OAR 660-015-0000(9)
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 80
Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute to a stable and healthy economy in all
regional of the state. Such plans shall be based on inventories of areas suitable for
increased economic growth and activity after taking into consideration the health of the
current economic base; material and energy availability and cost; labor market factors;
educational and technical training programs; availability of key public facilities;
necessary support facilities; current market forces; location relative to markets;
availability of renewable and non-renewable resources; availability of land; and pollution
control requirements.
Comprehensive plans for urban areas shall:
1. Include an analysis of the community’s economic patterns, potentialities,
strengths, and deficiencies as they relate to state and national trends;
2. Contain policies concerning the economic development opportunities in
the community;
3. Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types,
locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial
uses consistent with plan policies;
4. Limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial
uses to those which are compatible with proposed uses.
In accordance with ORS 197.180 and Goal 2, state agencies what issue permits
affecting land use shall identify in their coordination programs how they will coordinate
permit issuance with other state agencies, cities and counties.
Findings:
The city has proposed a new Economic Opportunities Analysis (2008 EOA), General
Plan text and polices in Chapter 6 (The Economy and lands for Economic Growth) to
directly address the long-term economic needs of the citizens of Bend. The 2008 EOA
is also to be adopted as an appendix to the General Plan and Chapter 6. Other
proposed elements of the General Plan are transportation, water, and sewer public
facility plans in chapters 7, 8, and in Exhibits L(9). These amendments support the
levels of economic growth anticipated by the 2008 EOA in the current and expanded
UGB. These meet Goal 9 because they are based on inventories of employment and
land (2008 EOA) based on the current and expected economic base, availability of land,
natural resources, and energy resources, labor markets, educational resources, and
other necessary support facilities. The amendments address expected gains in
employment and corresponding land needs based on population growth, regional
economic growth trends, and other local factors such as Bend’s competitive advantages.
The General Plan policies also meet Goal 9 because they address Bend’s anticipated
economic growth potential which is founded in current and anticipated market forces and
markets, and the availability of resources and land. Policies have been formed in
Chapter 6 to address how industry is expected to meet DEQ standards for pollution
control.
The 2008 EOA and Chapter 6 meet Goal 9 because they address the requirements of 1-
4, above, and result in a UGB expansion proposal that provides adequate choice of
economic lands in areas that are suitable and compatible with economic uses. Sections
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 81
1 and 2 of the 2008 EOA and text of Chapter 6 provide information required by (1) and
(2) above, and since both are included in the General Plan, they meet the requirements
above. The 2008 EOA and Chapter 6 also address (2) and (4), so meet these
requirements.
Guidelines
A. Planning
1. A principal determinant in planning for major industrial and commercial
development should be the comparative advantage of the region within which the
developments would be located. Comparative advantage industries are those
economic activities which represent the most efficient use of resources, relative
to other geographic areas.
Findings:
The proposal meets Goal 9(1) because the 2008 EOA and Chapter 6 specifically
address Bend’s economic strengths, targeted economic sectors, and its role as a
regional economic center. Policies, land need estimates, and the UGB expansion
directly reflect Bend’s comparative advantages and unique economic structure. These
advantages are demonstrated in by recent economic growth in Bend, and its
demographic and economic characteristics which are well documented in the 2008 EOA.
The 2008 EOA documents Bend’s population growth, age structure, future population
and employment growth, education, income, labor force participation rates, and
unemployment rates. It also addresses recent economic shifts in Bend and Deschutes
County, regional, statewide, and national trends. Efforts to target specific industries
which Bend is well positioned to grow are also a component of the 2008 EOA.
Employment projections are based on the best available employment data and are
enhanced by making adjustments for Bend’s economic strengths. Land need estimates
are directly founded on these employment projections and therefore, the UGB expansion
meets the intent of Goal 9. Please see the findings for Goal 9 rule, OAR 660, Division 9
(4)(5), incorporated herein by reference.
2. The economic development projections and the comprehensive plan which is
drawn from the projections should take into account the availability of the
necessary natural resources to support the expanded industrial development and
associated populations. The plan should also take into account the social,
environmental, energy, and economic impacts upon the resident population.
Findings:
The proposal meets Goal 9(2) because the employment projections are based on
current employment trends which factor in existing utilization of natural resources and
population growth. It is noteworthy that employment in resource based manufacturing is
not expected to grow in the planning period, and is a declining industry for Bend. The
2008 EOA, Chapter 6 policies, and UGB expansion incorporate these findings, therefore,
addressing the availability of these natural resources. However, population growth is
expected to remain strong throughout the planning period, so other non-resource based
employment is expected to grow according to regional long-term employment growth
rates adjusted to account for Bend’s population growth.
The proposal takes into consideration the social, environmental, energy and economic
impacts upon the resident population by providing adequate lands for economic growth
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 82
in a compact UGB expansion that distributes economic lands throughout the expansion
area to place employment and services in close proximity to existing and proposed
residential areas. The proposal meets Goal 9 because new major commercial and
industrial centers are placed close to existing major transportation facilities to reduce
impacts on residential areas and reduce trip distances. Additionally, economic lands are
also distributed in all parts of the expansion area to enable residents inside and outside
the UGB convenient access to services and employment. New commercial and mixed
use nodes are also placed directly in residential areas to reduce reliance on the
automobile and promote alternative modes of transportation. Planned transit routes
correspond to employment centers, further reducing the energy impacts of the UGB
expansion.
3. Plans should designate the type and level of public facilities and services
appropriate to support the degree of economic development being proposed.
Findings:
The proposal includes updated city sewer and water master plans (Exhibit L(9)),
associated General Plan policies in Chapter 8 (Exhibit G(7)), and an updated
Transportation Systems Plan and findings (Exhibits E, F, and G(7)). These plans
anticipate the proposed economic land base in the proposed UGB and existing
economic lands inside the current UGB, and therefore meet Goal 9 by designating public
facilities and services to support the economic development anticipated in the planning
period.
4. Plans should strongly emphasize the expansion of and increased productivity
form existing industries and firms as a means to strengthen local and regional
economic development.
Findings:
Goal 9(4) is met because the proposal adds sufficient economic land to Bend’s land
base to accommodate the expansion of existing businesses and new businesses.
Based on discussions with local businesses (see Stakeholder summary in Appendix F of
the 2008 EOA), the primary concern of local businesses is land availability, not
incompatibilities with existing uses. Therefore, based on this input, the emphasis of
Chapter 6 and the UGB expansion is to provide an adequate land supply. Chapter 6
includes numerous policies to address compatibility between unlike uses in order to
preserve the development potential of all economic lands. Also, the placement of uses
in the expanded UGB creates compatible mixes of economic uses and buffers to reduce
conflicts between future economic uses.
5. Plans directed toward diversification and improvement of the economy of the
planning area should consider as a major determinant, the carrying capacity of
the air, land and water resources of the planning area. The land conservation
and development actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the
carrying capacity of such resources.
Findings:
Goal 9(5) is met because employment projections and land need estimates do not
significantly grow employment in intensive industrial uses requiring significant natural
resources, or with negative environmental impacts on air, land, and water resources.
For example, natural resource and mining employment was only 0.9% of covered
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 83
employment in Deschutes County in 2007 (see Table 16 of 2008 EOA in Exhibit L(7)).
Employment in resource based industries is obviously limited in Deschutes County and
Bend, and therefore, the carrying capacity of the areas natural resources is not
threatened by this level of economic activity. Expected employment gains in natural
resource and mining between 2006 and 2016 is an additional 60 employees, again
suggesting that this level of employment growth in resource based industries will not
reach the carrying capacity of Bend’s natural resources. In addition, Chapter 6 contains
policies which require industries to improve waste discharge levels and monitor air
quality for industrial uses in concert with DEQ. Based on these findings, the city’s
proposal will not exceed the carrying capacity of these resources.
B. Implementation
1. Plans should take into account methods and devices for overcoming certain
regional conditions and deficiencies for implementing this goal, including but not
limited to
(1) tax incentives and disincentives;
(2) land use controls and ordinances;
(3) preferential assessments;
(4) capital improvement programming; and
(5) fee and less-than-fee acquisition techniques.
2. Plans should provide for a detailed management program to assign respective
implementation roles and responsibilities to those private and governmental
bodies which operate in the planning area and have interests in carrying out this
goal and in supporting and coordinating regional and local economic plans and
programs.
Findings:
The proposal meets these requirements through land use controls directed by the
General Plan, involvement of private organizations in the formulation of public policy,
and other city incentive programs administered separately from the General Plan. The
proposal addresses the different roles of private bodies operating in the planning area by
including some of them in the formulation of the 2008 EOA and subsequent expansion
proposal. Also, Chapter 6 contains text addressing the roles of different private and non-
profit groups working on economic development issues.
The Stakeholder group formed by the city to assist in creating the 2008 EOA included
representatives from the Bend Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development of
Central Oregon. Concerns of these groups were mostly around adequate supplies of
economic land and public facilities. This input helped to formulate the proposed UGB
expansion and therefore meets the intent of Goal 9.
Chapter 6 references the roles of private and non-profit organizations in meeting the
city’s economic goals. Chapter 6 states: “To keep pace with changing economic
conditions the City of Bend, the Central Oregon Economic Development Council
(COEDC) and Bend Chamber of Commerce strive to recruit and retain or expand
businesses that will position Bend for the next generation of jobs. The city, COEDC, and
the Chamber’s strategies for job recruitment and retention/expansion are described in
the adjacent box. One of the key strategies is to recruit new primary job employers that
have salary levels that will support a family”. The text box reads: “Seek new firms that
provide primary jobs; retain and expand existing businesses that provide primary jobs;
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 84
provide adequate sewer, water, transportation systems, and land for economic growth.”
This text clearly illustrates the city is working with other organizations to meet its
economic objectives as required by Goal 9.
Programs have been offered through the Bend Urban Renewal Agency to provide
financial incentives to businesses locating in three urban renewal districts in the city,
including the 494-acre Juniper Ridge property. Incentives include expedited land use
review, SDC deferral, and less than full market land sales to targeted employers. A key
element of all urban renewal districts is to use the tax-increment financing to construct
necessary public infrastructure or enhancements as a way to improve blighted
conditions and lessen financial burdens on businesses locating in the districts. While
these programs do not reside in the General Plan, they are nonetheless available to
businesses locating in urban renewal districts.
Goal 9 Rule - OAR 660, Division 9
660-009-000 Intent and Purpose and 660-009-0005 Definitions
Findings:
The city has relied upon the intent and purpose statements and definitions, above, to
conduct the analysis in the 2008 EOA. The 2008 EOA’s use of terms is consistent with
the terms defined in 660-009-0005. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement.
660-009-0010 Application
(4) For a post-acknowledgement plan amendment under OAR chapter 660, division 18,
that changes the plan designation of land in excess of two acres within an existing urban
growth boundary from an industrial use designation to a non-industrial use designation,
or an other employment use designation to any other use designation, a city or county
must address all applicable planning requirements, and:
(a) Demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with its most recent
economic opportunities analysis and the parts of its acknowledged
comprehensive plan which address the requirements of this division; or
(b) Amend its comprehensive plan to incorporate the proposed amendment,
consistent with the requirements of this division; or
(c) Adopt a combination of the above, consistent with the requirements of this
division.
(5) The effort necessary to comply with OAR 660-009-0015 through 660-009-0030 will
vary depending on 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.
(6) The amendments to this division are effective January 1, 2007. A city or county may
voluntarily follow adopted amendments to this division prior the effective date of the
adopted amendments.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 85
Findings:
The City of Bend is proposing a post-acknowledgment plan amendment under OAR
chapter 660, division 18, which will result in providing a 20-year supply of residential,
economic, public facility, institutional and open space lands in a newly expanded UGB.
This effort is being undertaken after January 1, 2007, so the proposal will meet the
requirements of OAR 660-009-0015 as required. Part of the proposal is to rezone
approximately 100 acres of plan designated light industrial land to accommodate a future
university and add a new commercial town center to an existing city-owned and master
planned light industrial development known as Juniper Ridge. This displaced industrial
land was added to the UGB expansion so industrial land supplies are not diminished. As
explained below in subsequent findings, the requirements of OAR 660-009 are met by
the proposal.
An economic opportunities analysis consistent with division 9 has been prepared to meet
this requirement. The City of Bend 2008 Economic Opportunities Analysis (2008 EOA)
is incorporated herein, by reference, and is found in Exhibit L(7) of this submittal. The
2008 EOA is also an adopted element of the Bend Area General Plan as shown in the
text of Chapter 6 (Exhibit G(5)). The 2008 EOA is extensively referenced in these
findings to reduce unnecessary duplication of information.
To meet the requirements of OAR 660-009, the 2008 EOA has assembled data,
analysis, and input from the following sources:
1. The Bend Area General Plan Chapter 6 and other Chapters as they pertain to
economic lands.
2. Oregon Employment Department employment data for the region and City of
Bend.
3. Input from a Stakeholder group of local industrial and commercial developers
and state agency representatives.
4. City of Bend UGB Technical Advisory Committee to review work products
and provide guidance.
5. City of Bend Planning Commission to provide guidance on the
appropriateness of assumptions, analysis, and conclusions.
6. The City of Bend Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database
assembled to analyze employment and land use patterns.
7. The City of Bend Economic Sector Targeting facilitated by Chabin Concepts
Team to identify preferred economic development objectives for the City of
Bend.
8. Other economic opportunities analyses conducted by varying consulting firms
for other Oregon cities.
9. Guidance from DLCD staff as it pertains to interpretations of planning goals
and rules and the appropriateness of the city’s analysis.
10. Research and publications on specific topics as needed.
These data sources are the most current and appropriate sources of demographic and
economic data, as well as public input, meeting the requirements of this division.
Testimony was received that underlying employment estimates from 2006 are outdated
and should rely on newer information to account for the recent economic slowdown.
Year 2006 geo-coded employment data from OED was used because it was the most
current GIS (geo-coded) data available at the outset of the 2008 EOA. Using newer
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 86
data was not possible at the time and would have resulted in using non-geo-coded data
for Bend, which is less accurate than the 2006 data. Also, the underlying assumption of
the criticism is not appropriate because longer time-series data for forecasting is
generally more accurate than using any one year’s data. For example, it would be
questionable to assume that employment growth in any single year between 2000 and
2005, with its record setting employment growth rates, would be appropriate to assume
for a 20-year period. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to use record setting rates of
population growth in 2005 for Bend for the entire planning period. In the case of
economic and population growth estimates, extremely high rates of growth observed in
between 2000 and current are expected to decrease to slower, more typical, rates of
growth.
600-009-0015
Cities and counties must review and, as necessary, amend their comprehensive plans to
provide economic opportunities analyses containing the information described in
sections (1) to (4) of this rule. This analysis will compare the demand for land for
industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land.
(1) Review of National, State, Regional, County and Local Trends. The economic
opportunities analysis must identify the major categories of 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. This review of trends is the principal basis for estimating future
industrial and other employment uses as described in section (4) of this rule. A
use or category of use could reasonably be expected to expand or locate in the
planning area if the area possesses the appropriate locational factors for the use
or category of use. Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to analyze
trends and establish employment projections in a geographic area larger than the
planning area and to determine the percentage of employment growth
reasonably expected to be captured for the planning area based on the
assessment of community economic development potential pursuant to section
(4) of this rule.
Findings:
The proposal meets this requirement because the approach and content of the 2008
EOA are consistent with the requirements of this rule. Exhibit L(7) is incorporated herein
by reference to prove the requirements of the rule are met. Generally, the approach of
the 2008 EOA begins with an analysis of demographic and economic trends in Bend and
Deschutes County from 1970 to 2007. This analysis examines the structural changes in
the local and regional economy during this time frame. This is characterized by high
rates of population growth, a decline in employment in manufacturing to increases in
service and retail trade and diversification of the economic profile of Bend. The 2008
EOA presents an extensive discussion of local economic and demographic trends,
regional, state, and national trends. Please see pages 12-59 of the 2008 EOA,
incorporated herein by reference, as evidence that trends are an integral component of
the 2008 EOA.
These trends are used as a basis for making employment projections. Trends
information also places Bend’s economic growth in the context of economic larger
economic trends in the county, region, and state. Employment projections are not made
for other jurisdictions, but are crafted for Bend based on its share of employment growth
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 87
in Deschutes County. The trends information presented in the 2008 EOA is a foundation
for subsequent employment projections. These projections are detailed in pages 68-82
and Appendix A of the 2008 EOA, incorporated herein by reference.
A number of employment projections are presented in the 2008 EOA to describe the
types of employment expected in the city, as well as the types of land they will require.
The 2008 EOA predicts there are 45,840 total covered and uncovered employees
working in the city as of 2008. Total employment in 2028 is expected to be 73,789
employees, suggesting 27,950 total new employees will work in Bend. This is helpful
information, but is only one step to determine land needs. The employment projections
were refined further to exclude shift-employees (so as not to overestimate land needs
derived by applying employment densities), and subtract employees expected to utilize
redeveloped employment lands.
After subtracting shift employees, the City of Bend anticipates approximately 22,891 new
non-shift employees will require additional employment lands during the planning period.
After subtracting 10 percent of new employment with the assumption that these new
employees will be employed on existing “developed” or “redevelopable” employment
lands, land needs should be calculated based on 20,602 future new non-shift
employees, as illustrated in Table 4-1, and also considering market choice and Bend’s
site needs for its economic aspirations. This table is a simplification of a much more
complex employment projection methodology described in the 2008 EOA. Employees
by industry are projected, and then allocated to more general employment categories
based on the land use type they will require.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 88
Table 4-1 (duplicated). Employment Change & New Employees Requiring Land:
2008-2028
Major Employment
Categories
2008 Non-shift
Emp.
2028 Bend Non-
shift Emp.
New Employees
(2008-2028)
Infill/Refill
Factor
New Employees
Requiring New Land
Industrial
Industrial Heavy 3,807 5,180 1,373 10% 1,236
Industrial General 5,370 8,002 2,632 10% 2,369
Retail
Large Retail 3,474 5,849 2,374 10% 2,137
General Retail 3,244 5,293 2,049 10% 1,844
Office/Services 9,879 16,557 6,678 10% 6,010
Leisure and Hospitality 3,306 5,532 2,226 10% 2,004
Medical 4,100 7,036 2,936 10% 2,642
Other/Misc. 1,051 1,547 496 10% 446
Government 3,485 5,611 2,126 10% 1,913
Total 37,716 60,607 22,891 20,602
Source: City of Bend based on OED 2006 Geo-coded data for City of Bend.
(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 site characteristics
typical of expected uses. Cities and counties are encouraged to examine
existing firms in the planning area to identify the types of sites that may be
needed for expansion. Industrial or other employment uses with compatible site
characteristics may be grouped together into common site categories.
Findings:
The 2008 EOA converts expected employment growth into land need estimates with a
consideration for specific sized industrial sites, and creating adequate variety of all
economic lands by location, type, and size. Please see pages 100-128 of the 2008
EOA, and findings under Goal 14: Urbanization - OAR 660-015-0000(14) Land Need
Factors 1 and 2, incorporated herein by reference, for more detail.
The 2008 EOA presents a detailed discussion of the number, size, and type of industrial
sites needed in the planning period ending in 2028. It also examines land needs for
commercial, medical, economic uses taking place in residential zones, and public facility
uses, industrial, and sites to meet Bend’s economic aspirations. All estimates are
founded on economic projections and actual employment densities, except for sites to
meet Bend’s economic aspirations. Site needs for these uses were based on input from
the Stakeholder group, Sector Targeting report, and existing businesses (for the
hospital). Table 4-4 (as in Table 4-3) presents the total demand for gross acres of
economic lands in the expanded UGB after assumed development of all vacant
economic lands in the current UGB.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 89
Table 4-4. Recommended Land Needs for Bend UGB: 2008-2028
Gross Acres Needed in
Planning Period
Commercial (CB, CC, CG, CL, MR) 1,008
Industrial/Mixed Employment (IG, IL, IP, ME) 118
Public Facilities (PF) 144
Economic Uses in Residential Zones (RH, RM, RS) 119
Medical (MDOZ) 252
New Hospital Site 112
University 225
Two, 56-acre Industrial Sites (Targeted Sector and Heavy Industrial Site) 112
Total 2,090
General Plan Designations and Sites for Aspirational Employment
Source: City of Bend
The 2008 EOA also presents the input from a Stakeholder group representing local
businesses and commercial land developers. The input from Stakeholders was critical
to identify specific industry site needs, advantageous locations for future employment
growth, and to shape the eventual distribution of employment lands in the expanded
UGB. Please see Appendix F: Stakeholder Summary Report in the 2008 EOA for a
detailed summary, incorporated herein by reference.
The 2008 EOA identifies major categories of industrial and other employment uses that
will reasonably be expected to locate or expand in Bend during the planning period. The
trends section creates the foundations for the employment projections and subsequent
land need estimates, as well as the choice to apply factors and sites for aspirational
employment for Bend’s land needs. Trends and projections are also placed in the
context of national trends, expected employment trends established by the Oregon
Employment Department, and tailored to Bend’s unique situation. Therefore, the
requirements of the rule have been satisfied.
(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;
B. A description of any development constraints or infrastructure
needs that affect the buildable area of sites in the inventory;
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.
b. When comparing current land supply to the projected demand, cities and
counties may inventory contiguous lots or parcels together that are within
a discrete plan or zoning district.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 90
c. Cities and counties that adopt objectives or policies providing for prime
industrial land pursuant to OAR 660-009-0020(6) and 660-009-0025(8)
must identify and inventory any vacant or developed prime industrial land
according to section 3(a) of this rule.
Findings:
The 2008 EOA provides a full description and analysis of Bend’s economic lands on
pages 83-99, incorporated herein by reference. This inventory meets the requirements
of the rule, above. The City of Bend is also in a Metropolitan Planning Organization, and
is therefore required to estimate the amount of land in the short-term supply. This
information is also in the 2008 EOA, but is summarized below.
Properties in the city were inventoried by their existing General Plan designation and
categorized as Vacant, Vacant-Pending Land Use, Developed, or Constrained. The
development status of all economic lands in the Bend UGB is based on the applicable
definitions of OAR 660, Division 9, Economic Development. OAR 660-009-0005(14)
defines vacant land as “a lot or parcel: (a) equal to or larger than one half-acre not
currently containing permanent buildings or improvements; or (b) equal to or larger than
five acres where less than one half-acre is occupied by permanent buildings or
improvements.” Developed land is “non-vacant land that is likely to be redeveloped
during the planning period.” The term “redeveloped” is not defined by the statute. The
2008 EOA does not identify “redevelopment” properties, but assumes that 10 percent of
new employment will take place on existing lands.
The city created a Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) that assigned a “development status”
to each tax lot or parcel in the Bend UGB. The 2008 EOA focuses on the lands with an
economic land use designation made by the General Plan. The only exception is that
lands inside the Medical District Overlay Zone (MDOZ), which are predominantly
residential, are considered an economic land for purposes of the 2008 EOA. This is
because these lands are subject to a special use overlay allowing medical uses; the
dominant land use in the MDOZ.
The methodology used to determine the development status generally involved queries
of improvement values and assessor improvement codes for properties assigned by
Deschutes County Assessor’s Office and maintained by the County’s GIS data set. This
data was further updated and refined by considering building permit and land use activity
tracked by the City of Bend. Aerial photos from 2004 and 2006 were also used to verify
and correct errors, determine development areas on large parcels, and for general
accuracy checks. The parcel data was last updated on 2/25/2008, but was last
summarized on 9/2/2008. The full BLI summarizing all lands inside the UGB is in
Appendix D of the 2008 EOA.
The development status of each parcel is defined as follows:
1. Developed – a) lots less than 0.5 acres; b) lots between 0.5 acres and 5 acres
that have permanent structures or improvements (having improvement values in
the Deschutes County GIS); c) lots 5 acres or larger with 0.5 acres or more of
development, structures, and use as determined by measuring development
areas with aerial photographs.
2. Vacant – a) lots more than 0.5 acres that contain no permanent structures or
improvements (having no improvement values in the Deschutes County GIS); b)
lots greater than 5 acres with less than 0.5 acres of development, structures, and
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 91
use as determined by measuring development areas with aerial photographs; c)
includes lands with a pending land use permit being processed by the City of
Bend; d) lots not used for public schools, parks, rights-of-way, open spaces,
parking lots, or institutional uses addressed in the residential land needs
inventory.
3. Constrained – includes lots with development constraints such as no public road
access, or a physical constraint such as 25% slopes, flood plain, or Area of
Special Interest on 50% or more of the lot.
Inventory of Bend’s Economic Lands
Table 4-2 summarizes the development status of economic parcels inside the Bend
UGB. The more detailed inventory data is in Appendix D of the 2008 EOA or Exhibit
L(1). The city contains a total of 5,000 net acres of developed and vacant economic
land inside the UGB: 74 percent is developed, and 26 percent is vacant. The summary
illustrates the very small inventories of all economic land types, especially commercial
lands. Table 4-2 shows a total of 804 acres of industrial land, including the 494-acre
vacant Juniper Ridge site. Outside of Juniper Ridge, the city only has 204 acres of
vacant industrial land.
Table 4-2 (duplicated). Economic Land Inventory from 2008 Buildable Lands
Inventory
Zone Type Zone-Abbreviation and Name Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres
Commercial CB - Central Business District 0 0 280 36 0 0 0 0 280 36
CC - Commercial Convenience 1 8 12 178 67 0 0 0 0 186 79
CG - Commercial General 51 128 560 599 1 5 0 0 612 732
CL - Commercial Limited 32 96 825 294 0 0 0 0 857 390
MR - Mixed Riverfront 16 30 439 190 1 4 22 1 478 225
PO - Professional Office 2 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 7
Subtotal 109 272 2,284 1,187 2 9 22 1 2,417 1,469
Industrial/ IG - Industrial General 8 13 162 197 0 0 0 0 170 210
Mixed IL - Industrial Light 78 662 576 618 0 0 0 0 654 1,280
Employment IP - Industrial Park 13 23 9 5 0 0 0 0 22 28
ME - Mixed Employment 19 106 259 169 0 0 0 0 278 275
Subtotal 118 804 1,006 989 0 0 0 0 1,124 1,793
Public Facilities PF - Public Facilities 14 117 224 1,361 0 0 71 9 309 1,487
Medical (MDOZ) MDOZ - Medical District Overlay Zone 27 62 144 183 0 0 17 6 188 251
Totals 268 1,255 3,658 3,720 2 9 110 16 4,038 5,000
Vacant Developed Total Constrained Platted Residential
Source: City of Bend
Notes:
7. CC totals exclude land in the MDOZ. MDOZ totals include CC lots and acreages, as well as
residential acres by development status.
8. The MDOZ is mostly residential land with some CC and PF, but is considered an economic
land type in the EOA.
9. The PO/RM/RS General Plan designation is not included in the inventory (6 net acres of
vacant and developed land).
10. Surface Mine (SM) acreage is not included in the inventory of economic lands.
11. CH, CN, are not General Plan designations, so are not included in the inventory above.
12. Industrial/Mixed Employment includes the 494-acre Juniper Ridge parcel.
City staff analyzed the 117 acres of land zoned Public Facilities and had determined that
37.2 acres will likely be available for development during the planning period. Lands
with this designation include vacant public parks, city, county, and state owned lands
that may not be useful for the wide variety of public facility uses. These potential uses
are primarily office uses, but also include storage and maintenance yards, and other
facilities. The vast majority of the vacant PF lands are found in one location: the
Demolition Dump owned by Deschutes County. These lands were historically used for a
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 92
landfill. After the closure of this landfill, portions of the site were found to be affected by
underground fires, ground subsidence (open pits), and the release of gasses associated
with the underground burning. These lands are currently being held by Deschutes
County for environmental monitoring. Discussions have been held about the future re-
use of this site, but numerous questions remain about the economic viability of
redevelopment. Therefore, staff assumed this site would not be available for re-use in
the 2008 EOA.
Table 4-3. Economic Land Supply Converted to Net Developable Acres
Lot Size
Number
of Lots Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent
0.5-1 acre 45 41% 32 12% 32 13%
1-2 acres 23 21% 28 10% 28 12%
2-5 acres 27 25% 78 29% 78 32%
5-10 acres 8 7% 60 22% 47 19%
10-20 acres 6 6% 74 27% 58 24%
20+ acres 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Totals 109 100% 272 100% 244 100%
Lot Size
Number
of Lots Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent
0-1 acre 11 41% 5 9% 5 10%
1-2 acres 11 41% 15 24% 15 28%
2-5 acres 1 4% 2 4% 2 5%
5-10 acres 3 11% 18 29% 14 26%
10-20 acres 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
20+ acres 1 4% 21 35% 17 31%
Totals 27 100% 61 100% 53 100%
Total Net Vacant IL, IG, IP, ME
Lot Size
Number
of Lots Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent
0.5-1 acre 54 47% 37 5% 37 6%
1-2 acres 35 29% 48 6% 48 7%
2-5 acres 14 12% 45 6% 45 7%
5-10 acres 8 6% 52 6% 41 6%
10-20 acres 4 4% 48 7% 38 6%
20+ acres 3 2% 574 69% 453 68%
Totals 118 100% 804 100% 662 100%
IL, IG, IP, ME Including Juniper Ridge
Total Net Vacant PF
Net Vacant CB, CC, CG, CL, PO, MR Total Vacant Gross CB, CC, CG, CL, PO, MR
Total Vacant Gross MDOZ
All vacant lands in the 2008 BLI are described as “net” vacant acres. While this is true
for smaller parcels which may not need additional rights-of-way to be removed as part of
the development process, larger parcels will most likely be reduced in size to account for
new roadways to serve the development or make connections to neighboring properties.
Table 4-3, present the city’s vacant and vacant-pending land use acreages and sites by
General Plan designation. Since lots of 5 acres or more can easily be subdivided,
partitioned, or otherwise will likely require dedicating additional rights-of-way during
development, the net developable acreage of these parcels is estimated by reducing
their acreage by 21 percent. The city has estimated that 21 percent of the city is used
for public and private rights-of-way for roadways. If this adjustment is not done, then
applying employment densities, which were calculated based on net land areas of
developed parcels, will greatly overstate the development potential of land inside the
existing UGB. The clearest example of this is Juniper Ridge, which should not be
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 93
treated as one 494-acres site expected to be developed without roadways. The city did
not assume parcels less than 5 acres would require additional right-of-way since they
are smaller and may accommodate a single user. However, it is worth noting that it is
common practice for additional road dedications, widening, and to be made of parcels
less than 5 acres.
The 2008 EOA provides additional detail of the industrial and mixed employment land
supply by parcel size. This information in Figure 4-1 and Table 4-5, below, is included
below to highlight the extreme lack of medium and large industrial and mixed use sites in
Bend.
The city has only 15 vacant industrial and mixed employment parcels greater than 5
acres in the current UGB. Eight vacant parcels are between 5-10 acres, four are
between 10-20 acres, and three are above 20 acres. One of the three parcels above 20
acres is the 494-acre city-owned Juniper Ridge site.
Figure 4-1. Parcel Size Distribution: Vacant Industrial/Mixed Employment Parcels
Number of Industrial/Mixed Employment Vacant Lots
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.5-1 acre 1-2 acres 2-5 acres 5-10 acres 10-20
acres
20+ acres
Parcel Size Category
#
P
a
r
c
e
l
s
Number of Lots
Source: City of Bend, Leland Consulting Group.
Table 4-4 shows the data in Figure 4-1 in tabular form. Notice the extremely small
supply of lots over 10 acres (only seven lots excluding Juniper Ridge). The EOA notes
this supply is in stark contrast to the supply of neighboring Redmond, which has six new
industrial parks with over 144 acres of industrial land.
Table 4-4. Vacant Industrial/Mixed-Employment Land by Parcel Size
Lot Size
Number
of Lots Percent Acres Percent
0.5-1 acre 54 47% 37 5%
1-2 acres 35 29% 48 6%
2-5 acres 14 12% 45 6%
5-10 acres 8 6% 52 6%
10-20 acres 4 4% 48 7%
20+ acres 3 2% 574 69%
Totals 118 100% 804 100%
IL, IG, IP, ME Including Juniper Ridge
Source: City of Bend.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 94
Short-term Supply of Vacant Economic Land
The City of Bend is within a Metropolitan Planning Organization and must describe the
approximate total acreage of sites within each plan designation that comprise the short-
term supply of land. OAR 660-009-0005(10) establishes the definition of “short-term
supply of land” as:
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
sufficient to qualify land for the short-term supply of land. Funding availability is
not required.
Staff’s working assumption in conjunction with this definition is that a typical approval
process begins with land use approval, then building permit issuance. Therefore, staff
assumed a “start date” on identifying deficiencies, potential remedies, and preliminary
design for delivering services to a site would begin an additional 6 months to one year
(associated with pre-application and land use approvals) before receiving a building
permit for a project.
Planning and engineering staff reviewed the vacant economic land supply of the BLI,
definitions of “serviceable” and “short-term supply” and categorized all vacant lands as
meeting, or not meeting, the definitions. A maximum development scenario (net acres
multiplied by employment density by General Plan designation) was assumed for each
property. Facility master plans, schematics, and a wide variety of modeling and analysis
were considered in designating the lands. This exercise, while somewhat subjective, is
appropriate because the nature of the exercise requires considerable assumptions about
future conditions. Thus, it is important to consider these acreages approximate at best .
This information was then added to the city’s GIS to facilitate further analysis.
The following tables show vacant lands that are considered part of the “short-term
supply” after considering water, transportation, and sewer services. Stormwater
infrastructure was not considered to be a significant development limitation since
development codes require on-site treatment of stormwater. Only parcels that meet the
definitions for all three public facilities are included. For example, if a site has adequate
capacity in the water and sewer systems, but not transportation, then it would not qualify.
Table 4-5 shows the amount of land that qualifies as “short-term supply”. Approximately
20 percent of the city’s economic land supply qualifies as part of the “short-term supply”.
A total of 228 acres, split evenly between industrial and commercial land types, qualify.
The percent of “short-term supply” available by category is as follows: 34 percent of
commercial land, and 12 percent industrial/mixed employment. These are approximate
figures that likely understate the supply.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 95
Table 4-5. Approximate Short-term Supply of Vacant Economic Land
Zone Type Zone-Abbreviation and Name Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres Lots Net Acres
Commercial CB - Central Business District 0 0 0 0 0 0
CC - Commercial Convenience 1 8 12 7 11 1 1
CG - Commercial General 51 128 23 64 28 64
CL - Commercial Limited 32 96 4 5 28 91
MR - Mixed Riverfront 16 30 8 7 8 23
PO - Professional Office 2 6 2 6 0 0
Subtotal 109 272 44 93 65 179
Industrial/ IG - Industrial General 8 13 2 4 6 9
Mixed IL - Industrial Light 78 662 44 49 34 613
Employment IP - Industrial Park 13 23 13 23 0 0
ME - Mixed Employment 19 106 10 19 9 87
Subtotal 118 804 69 95 49 709
Medical (MDOZ) MDOZ - Medical District Overlay Zone 27 62 13 39 14 23
Totals 254 1,138 126 228 128 910
Total Supply - Vacant Short-term Supply - Vacant Not Short-term Supply - Vacant
Source: City of Bend
The city has elected to not pursue a Prime Industrial Lands policy. Therefore, this
portion of the rule does not apply.
(4) Assessment of Community Economic Development Potential. The economic
opportunities analysis must estimate the types and amounts of industrial and
other employment uses likely to occur in the planning area. The estimate must
be based on information generated in response to sections (1) to (3) of this rule
and must consider the planning area’s economic advantages and disadvantages.
Relevant economic advantages and disadvantages to be considered may include
but are not limited to:
a. Location, size and buying power of markets
b. Availability of transportation facilities for access and freight mobility;
c. Public facilities and public services
d. Labor market factors
e. Access to suppliers and utilities;
f. Necessary support services;
g. Limits on development due to federal and state environmental protection
laws; and
h. Educational and technical training programs.
(5) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to assess community economic
development potential through a visioning or some other public input based
process in conjunction with state agencies. Cities and counties are strongly
encouraged to use the assessment of community economic development
potential to form the community economic development objectives pursuant to
OAR 660-009-0020(1)(a).
Findings:
The proposal meets these requirements because the 2008 EOA and resulting UGB
proposal address the factors, above. Sections 2 and 3 of the 2008 EOA, incorporated
herein by reference, examine Bend’s relative economic advantages and disadvantages
and the process used to create the 2008 EOA. In addition to findings made above with
respect to the historic and recent demographic and employment trends and employment
projections, the following is a summary of the 2008 EOA’s main findings with respect to
Bend’s economic advantages and disadvantages, and public involvement process to
assess the city’s community economic development potential.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 96
The following are excerpts from the 2008 EOA, to explain the work Bend has done to
assess its economic development potential, and demonstrate compliance with this rule.
An EOA is a technical analysis that projects trends, but it is also an aspirational
economic development tool that identifies the land needs to achieve the type of
employment that the community desires to have. Thus, it is important to have a vision
for what type of City Bend wants to be in the future. Fortunately, Bend has recently
completed a number of visioning and planning exercises that clarify exactly how it wants
to grow in the future.
Over the past decade, Bend has continued to fulfill its promise as a forward-looking
community by developing several broad policies and visions that will guide growth in the
city and region. First among those visions are a revised General Plan and Bend 2030.
These are complemented by planning documents such as the Juniper Ridge Concept
Plan, Economic Sector Targeting report, and others.
The growth and changes that take place in Bend’s economy during the next two
decades will be profoundly shaped by the city’s existing policies and visions. The
following contains brief summaries of those policies and visions, and some of the ways
that they will influence Bend’s economy and this EOA.
Bend 2030
In Bend 2030, the city’s residents have set forth a concise and accessible vision for the
future of their community. The complete vision document is available on line at
www.bend2030.org . The vision document was completed in June 2006, and identifies
the following six primary goals:
• A Well-Planned City
• A Vibrant Economy
• A Quality Environment
• Safe, Healthy People
• A Strong Community
• A Creative, Learning Culture
Within those six broad goals, Bend 2030 identifies numerous more specific objectives.
The following objectives are most relevant to the EOA, and most are explained in greater
detail in later Sections of this report:
• Targeted Industries . The city has identified a number of “target industries” in
which it can excel and provide job opportunities over the long term.
• Living Wage Jobs . If Bend is unable to sufficiently 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. This objective is perfectly aligned to
the purpose of this report – to ensure that there is enough land to accommodate
future jobs and businesses, and the buildings and land they will occupy.
• Diversified Economy . This objective overlaps considerably with “targeted
industries.” Bend must continue to diversity from a wood products and tourism-
oriented economy to a more diversified one that provides professional service,
high-skill manufacturing, high-tech, and other living wage jobs.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 97
• Sustainable Industries . Bend seeks to attract and retain businesses that
maintain their high-quality natural environment.
• Establish a university and research center . There is broad support in the
community for a high-quality university in Bend. 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.
Bend Area General Plan
The Bend Area General Plan, as with the Bend 2030 Vision, is intended to guide the
city’s long-term land use and transportation planning. The narrative aspect of the Bend
Area General Plan – particularly Chapter 6, “The Economy and Lands for Economic
Growth” - offers a perspective similar to both Bend 2030 and the ELS on Bend’s
employment future.
The Bend Area General Plan underwent a major update in 1998 and has since been
revised periodically. The plan plays a major role in shaping Bend’s “employment
geography” by guiding the size and shape of the city’s various employment zones,
including commercial, industrial, and mixed-employment zones. The use and disposition
of each zone is further detailed in the city’s Development Code, which relates closely to
the Bend Area General Plan.
Juniper Ridge Concept Plan
The Juniper Ridge Concept Plan represents an initial attempt by Bend to shape its vision
for the 1,500-acre publicly owned parcel on the city’s north border. Since the inception
of the Juniper Ridge planning process, it has been clear that because of its size,
location, and city ownership, the site had the potential to play a major role in Bend’s
economic future, by providing the area for future businesses to locate. The specifics
contained in the Concept Plan will almost certainly undergo major and minor changes
over its long implementation period, but the city hopes to stay true to the plan’s
underlying visions and aspirations.
Based on direction from the Bend City Council, the Plan proposes that the site’s
development be driven by several primary uses:
• Light-Industrial Research Park
• Educational Research and Technology Campus
• Mixed-use areas
• Residential areas
Primarily due to the first two uses listed above, Juniper Ridge is seen as a key part of
Bend’s economic development strategy, as it will provide land on which the city’s
targeted industries and university can grow. Thus, there is expected to be a significant
amount of interaction between the results of the 2008 EOA and Juniper Ridge, as some
of the employment growth forecast here will likely be accommodated on the city’s site.
Approximately one third of Juniper Ridge’s total area – the 494-acre parcel called
Juniper Ridge Phase 1 – is currently within Bend’s UGB and designated light industrial in
the General Plan. The remaining approximately 1,000 acres is referred to in this
document as Juniper Ridge Phase 2, despite the fact that the project may have many
more phases before completion. The UGB proposal adds 150 acres for a university at
Juniper Ridge, and displaces 100 acres of light industrial land with 50 additional acres
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 98
for the university (totaling 200 acres), and a 50-acre town center to support the industrial
uses. Light industrial acreage “moved” from Juniper Ridge was allocated to areas in the
expanded UGB.
Economic Sector Targeting
In 2005, city staff and a broad group of economic stakeholders took part in an Economic
Sector Targeting process, which included several daylong workshops and ultimately a
report. Through this analysis, the city identified nine different industry sectors in which it
should concentrate its efforts to retain and grow existing businesses and attract new
ones. The sectors were chosen due to a number of different criteria, including an
existing industry cluster already in Bend; significant growth opportunity; living wage job
potential; and likelihood for sustainable business practices. The group developed a set
of nine targeted industries, shown in Table 4-6; the sectors listed in the left column can
be developed from an already-strong existing base in Bend.
Table 4-6. Targeted Economic Sectors
Source: City of Bend Economic Sector Targeting Report, 2005
Due to the city’s clear policy direction on targeted industries, and anticipated ongoing
effort to attract them, the 2008 EOA’s projections reflect slightly greater employment
increases within these sectors.
The focus on targeted industries also has implications for the type of land and other
public infrastructure that the city will need to supply in the future. For example,
information technology firms will be more likely to locate in commercial, rather than
industrial land.
Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast
The Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast was adopted by Deschutes
County and finalized in 2004 by county and city staff, project consultants, and a broad
range of stakeholders. The population projections identified in their findings are used in
this report, the Residential Lands Study, and the other studies undertaken by Bend and
Deschutes County referenced below.
Concurrent Studies
The City of Bend is currently managing several other studies that examine aspects of the
community’s long-term prospects and needs. There has been some overlap between
these studies and the EOA, all managed by city staff.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 99
In any case, readers should be aware of the other projects, as no single part of the
community’s future can be understood on its own. For example, lands allocated for
residential growth will be unavailable for traditional employment use. And decisions
about where to locate roads and sewer and water lines will have long-term impacts on
where employment development takes place.
• Residential Lands Study
• Water Facilities Master Plan
• Sewer Collection System Master Plan
• Bend Metropolitan Transportation Plan
• Updated Transportation Systems Plan
Public Involvement: Planning Commission, Stakeholder Input, UGB Technical Advisory
Committee
Beginning in June of 2007 and concluding in October 2008, the City of Bend Planning
Commission held worksessions nearly weekly regarding the UGB expansion. The 2008
EOA was created in the context of these public meetings, public input, input from the
UGB Technical Advisory Committee, and input from the Stakeholder group. This public
process allowed ample opportunity for decision makers and the public to engage in the
formulation of technical guidance for the 2008 EOA and eventual agreement on its
conclusions.
City staff assembled a list of local stakeholders to guide the 2008 EOA. The purpose of
the interviews was to receive pointed feedback from local experts active in commercial
and industrial land appraisal, entitlement, development, marketing, sale, and use. The
stakeholder group represents over 200 years of combined local experience with these
issues. Stakeholder input was used to inform staff and decision makers of broad areas
of agreement and disagreement with the EOA, which lead to changes in the
assumptions and results of the 2008 EOA.
A 20 person UGB Technical Advisory Committee (UGB TAC) and the City of Bend
Planning Commission have been consulted throughout the creation of the 2008 EOA.
Generally, the UGB TAC met twice monthly to review the revised UGB expansion work
products. The Planning Commission met twice a month, then weekly to review staff
work and provide direction on the UGB expansion and 2008 EOA.
Assessment of Bend’s Economic Advantages and Disadvantages
As the economy and population of Central Oregon continue to grow, aspects of Bend’s
role as the “central city” or regional center will intensify. For example, because of the
existing business network and suppliers, firms’ executive decision-making functions will
be more likely to locate in the city. The uncertainty involved in how this role will
influence Bend’s land needs is difficult to measure and predict, but is a significant reason
why the city believes that adding slightly more lands above minimum estimates is
appropriate.
This role will continue to be important to the quantity and types of jobs that Bend
attracts. Downtown Bend is the cultural, culinary, and specialty retail hub of the region.
Bend hosts the region’s largest medial facility (St. Charles Medical Center and
associated medical organizations), the largest news media organization (the Bend
Bulletin), and numerous governmental agencies, from the federal (U.S. Forest service),
to the regional (Deschutes County), to the local (City of Bend) – all of which are major
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 100
employers. Within the private sector, Bend is also the home address for many of the
region’s largest and most influential employers – either as the headquarters of the main
employment location – including: Mt. Bachelor; Les Schwab; Microsemi (formerly
Advanced Power Technology); Jeld-Wen Windows and Doors; Cessna (formerly
Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing); Idatech; Nosler Inc. ; and TRG iSKY.
Although the 2008 EOA is obviously focused on employment, the importance of Bend as
a social and cultural center should not be overlooked or minimized, even as a driver of
economic growth. Bend’s high quality cultural and natural amenities are repeatedly cited
by business owners and employees as reasons to relocate to ore remain in Bend. This
will prove especially important in some industry sectors, such as IT, in which well-paid
managers and their employers can choose between communities, and land and building
space costs play a less significant factor in business success.
Bend can be expected to grow faster than the rest of the region within certain industries
– particularly, industries identified by the Economic Sector Targeting and OED that are
knowledge-based or have an existing base of operations in Bend.
The Portland metropolitan region has gone through a similar process of identifying and
capitalizing on targeted sectors, which tend to locate and succeed in certain
geographical areas – even though instant digital communications seem to have
rendered distance less relevant. For example, downtown Portland, the Portland region’s
Central City, excels in Creative Services (advertising, marketing, design, etc.) and
Professional Services. For example, more than 70 percent of the region’s advertising
and graphic design revenues were earned by Portland-based firms. Meanwhile,
Washington County, to the west of downtown Portland, is a center for the several parts
of the High Tech and other industries.
In the early 20 th century, professional service and knowledge-based businesses
consistently located in downtown central business districts; in recent decades these
firms have dispersed to suburban business centers, but have still shown a strong
tendency to locate in moderate-or high-income areas close to managers and employees;
proximity to suppliers, collaborator (and even competitive) firms; existing capital
investment, public infrastructure, and amenities. Whether employment in Central
Oregon follows the former or later model, Bend is likely to continue to attract such firms,
because the city’s entire urbanized area is considered to be the Central City.
In short, Bend should attract a disproportionately larger share of firms within the region’s
fastest growing industry sectors. The above figures illustrate this “Central City effect,”
which is also factored into the EOA’s employment projections and use of market choice
factors and aspirational site needs.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 101
Figures 4-2 and 4-3. Central Oregon Centers Concepts
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 102
Figure 4-4. Central Oregon Centers
Source: Leland Consulting Group
Further evidence of Bend’s role as Central City can be seen on Highway 97 during the
weekday commute southbound into the city, as shown by the OED data in Figure 4-5.
During the 1990s (which reflects the latest U.S. Census data available), Deschutes
County, and by extension, Bend, widened its gap as an “employment importer” over
Jefferson and Crook Counties. Also considered that while in 2004, 37 percent of the
region’s population lived in Bend, 54 percent of the region’s jobs were located in the city.
Figure 4-5. Share of Residents Commuting to Another County for Work: 1990-
2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Oregon Employment Department
Unfortunately, as with its population growth, Bend’s role as a regional central city carries
potentially negative as well as positive consequences.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 103
The Threat to Industrial Firms
The first among those is higher land and building values, and lower land and building
vacancies. This trend is particularly significant to industrial and manufacturing business,
which consume far more land (on a per employee basis) than office/service and other
commercial businesses, and thus can feel the effects of higher land prices much more
acutely. In fact, the scarcity and high price of industrial-zoned land has long been a sore
point for industrial business owners in the Bend area, and is an important issue that the
2008 EOA addresses.
When industrial land is scarce and expensive, industrial firms are, of course, less likely
to be able to expand and thrive in Bend. This is true of both traditional wood products
manufacturers, and firms in the targeted sectors of Specialty Manufacturing, Aviation
and Aerospace, as well as others. Thus, high land and building prices present a
significant hindrance to Bend’s economy.
Figure 4-6 below shows that since 1999, the stock of available built industrial space has
consistently fallen; today approximately 3 percent of this space is vacant and available to
be leased.
Figure 4-6. Office and Industrial Vacancy Rates
Source: Compass Commercial
Further evidence of constraints on industrial businesses includes the price of industrial
land. In Bend, industrial land sells for $13 per square foot; in Redmond, the figure is $7,
or just 54 of the price in Bend. Industrial land is also less expensive in the Portland
metropolitan area, though the price varies depending on the location. Further, in the
decade between 1996 and 2006, Compass Commercial, a regional brokerage that
tracks real estate data in Central Oregon, reported a 473 percent increase in the price of
industrial land. It is important to note that, in this context, even if the 2008 EOA’s land
supply inventory showed plentiful land available, many industrial firms might perceive a
scarcity of appropriate product, simply because it is out of their price range.
The Bend Bulletin story, “City Industrial Land Supply Tight,” (14 May 2006), offers
anecdotal evidence that employers are seeking alternatives to high-priced industrial
land, most often considering a move elsewhere. The article cites Campers President
David Hogue, who currently employs 70, and is looking to expand to as many as 200.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 104
According to the Bulletin, “So far, he’s found nothing but frustration in his six-month
attempt to find expansion room in Bend.”
Living Wage Jobs and the “Aspen Effect”
Another challenge in Bend’s future, partially brought about by the community’s
desirability as a Central City and high land values, is overcoming what one local property
brokerage dubbed the “Aspen Effect.” This is the process by which a community splits
into upper and lower economic strata, with the tow’s elite and well-off out-of-towners at
the top, served by a large group of employees in the relatively low paying retail, service,
tourism, and hospitality industries. This kind of stratification threatens Bend’s identify as
a solidly middle class community that has supported itself through industry and hard
work since its inception.
Apart from issues of pride and perception, retail and tourism-based jobs tend to be lower
paying. An economy that is over-reliant on any one sector is less prepared to weather a
downturn or changes in the economy.
Thus, those shaping visions for Bend’s economic future, from Bend 2030 participants to
EDCO, include a diversified economy that pays living wages among their top priorities.
For example, Bend 2030 community meeting participants made the following
recommendations about the economy:
• Foster economic growth in a diversified manner including a balance between
tourism, wood products, commerce, clean industry and health care services.
• Increase per capita personal income by developing more middle-income
employment opportunities and reducing economic reliance on tourism.
Lack of Workforce Housing
The scarcity of affordable workforce housing is another feature of the Central Oregon
economic climate that could have long-term consequences for Bend’s ability to create
jobs and expand. The 2006 study, “Central Oregon Workforce Housing Needs
Assessment,” prepared for the Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority, documents
the problem and begins to estimate its effects on the economy. In general, the term
“workforce housing” applies to the housing owned or rented by low-and milled-income
residents.
A scarcity of workforce housing could significantly constrain job growth by making it
difficult for existing employers to retain or attract qualified employees, or discouraging
employers who are considering a move to the area. In short, when employees cannot
comfortably live in an area, potential jobs go unfilled. Of the Deschutes County
employers surveyed during the 2006 study, 57 percent felt that the scarcity of workforce
housing was a critical or serious problem. The report found that thousands of jobs have
gone unfilled in Central Oregon due to this problem.
Unless Bend and the region are able to find a way to make affordable housing available
to low and middle-income residents, economic growth will be hindered during the study
period.
Education’s Role in the Economy
There is very widespread consensus that an improved educational system, from
kindergarten through the university and graduate levels, will play an essential role in
enabling Bend to reach its vision of a diversified economy offering living-wage jobs.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 105
Many of the jobs identified thus far in this report are knowledge-based and will require a
variety of high-level skills, including expertise in math, engineering, physics, business,
computer science, communication, and marketing.
In order to train a workforce that can perform these types of jobs, the City Council has
made it clear that Bend should seek to add a true four-year university with graduate
programs to the city’s existing higher education system. The new university would be
located at Juniper Ridge and be paired with an integrated research park, following in the
model set by the Stanford Research Park or North Carolina Research Triangle. Thus,
the Juniper Ridge Concept Plan calls for 225 acres of the site to be devoted to university
use.
The 2008 EOA projects that 225 acres will need to be added to the UGB at Juniper
Ridge in order to accommodate a university.
660-009-0020 Industrial and Other Employment Development Policies
(1) Comprehensive plans subject to this division must include policies stating the
economic development objectives for the planning area. These policies must be
based on the community economic opportunities analysis prepared pursuant to
OAR 660-009-0015 and must provide the following:
a. Community Economic Development Objectives. The plan must state the
overall objectives for economic development in the planning area and
identify categories or particular types of industrial and other employment
uses desired by the community. Policy objectives may identify the level
of short-term supply of land the planning area needs. Cities and counties
are strongly encouraged to select a competitive short-term supply of land
as a policy objective.
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
OAR 660-009-0015.
c. Commitment to Provide Adequate Sites 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 must 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 or that
adopt policies relating to the short-term supply of land, must include detailed
strategies for preparing the total land supply for development and for replacing
the short-term supply of land as it is developed. These policies must describe
dates, events or both, that trigger local review of the short-term supply of land.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 106
(3) Plans may include policies to maintain existing categories or levels of industrial
and other employment uses including maintaining downtowns or central business
districts.
(4) Plan policies may emphasize the expansion of and increased productivity from
existing industries and firms as a means to facilitate local economic
development.
(5) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to adopt plan policies that include
brownfield redevelopment strategies for retaining land in industrial use and for
qualifying them as part of the local short-term supply of land.
(6) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to adopt plan policies pertaining to
prime industrial land pursuant to OAR 660-009-0025(8).
(7) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to adopt plan policies that include
additional approaches to implement this division including, but not limited to:
a. Tax incentives and disincentives;
b. Land use controls and ordinances;
c. Preferential tax assessments;
d. Capital improvement programming;
e. Property acquisition techniques;
f. Public/private partnerships;
g. Intergovernmental agreements.
Also 660-009-0025(3)
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.
b. Affected cities and counties that are unable to achieve the target in
subsection (a) above may set an alternative target based on their
economic opportunities analysis.
c. A planning area with 10 percent or more of the total land supply enrolled
in Oregon’s industrial site certification program pursuant to ORS 284.565
satisfies the requirements of this section.
Findings:
Chapter 6 of the Bend Area General Plan, “The Economy and Lands for Economic
Growth” has been rewritten to address the requirements of OAR 660-009-0020 and
incorporate the findings of the 2008 EOA. The revisions meet the requirements of OAR
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 107
660-009-0020 as discussed below. The proposed Chapter 6 is incorporated herein by
reference, but excerpts are provided below.
State law requires a city to adopt general economic objective. The 2008 EOA creates
this objective by brining together concepts in Chapter 6 of the Bend Area General Plan
(Economic Development), statements in recent economic visioning projects, Bend’s
economic advantages, and Bend’s recent economic growth trends outlined in the 2008
EOA. Further, Chapter 6 policy #1 reads: “The City accepts the statements of the City’s
overall economic development objectives and desirable types of employment contained
in the 2008 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA).” Therefore, the general economic
objective in the 2008 EOA is adopted as a policy of the Bend Area General Plan. The
general economic objective, stated below, demonstrates the overall economic objectives
are clear and particular types of industrial and other employment types desired by the
community are identified, meeting the requirements of the rule.
General Economic Objectives
The following expression of Bend’s economic development objectives is from the “Bend
2030, A Visioning Project by and for the People of Bend, Oregon ”. This narrative is
implemented through the 2008 EOA, policies of the Bend Area General Plan, and
represents the city’s general economic development objectives.
Bend has a diversified economy that provides healthy work environments and
sufficient living wage jobs to support our local population. Our economic vision
has attracted people, resources, and investment focused on diverse industries
that offer economic opportunity, longevity in the global market, and a clean and
sustainable environment. Bend is a leader in ‘green’ building materials and
technology, and sustainable energy. An established university and research
center in Bend promote creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship that
empower and advance a skilled and competitive local workforce. Our access to
the global marketplace is efficient and viable due to enhancements of local and
regional communications and transportation systems including air, rail, highways,
and alternative modes of travel.
The city is required to identify particular types of desirable employment to develop during
the planning period as part of the general economic objective. The list below reflects
desirable employment uses identified in the “2030 Vision” as well as employment types
Bend is well positioned to continue to grow into the future. The following represent
desirable employment uses for the City of Bend to develop, but not be limited to, during
the planning period:
1. Employment in downtown Bend – opportunities for businesses, shops,
restaurants, and housing should be expanded while preserving downtown’s
unique character.
2. Employment in targeted industries – the “2030 Vision” suggests expanding
employment opportunities in industries identified as “targeted industries” by the
“2005 Economic Sector Targeting” exercise. The targeted industries include:
a. Leisure and hospitality uses
b. Higher education
c. Health care
d. Secondary wood products
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 108
e. Aviation-Aerospace
f. Renewable energy resources
g. Recreation equipment
h. Specialty manufacturing
i. Information Technologies
2. Employment in tourism – the “2030 Vision” supports building year-round tourism
through developing a diverse mix of arts, entertainment, sports, and natural and
cultural attractions. Projects to improve employment in the tourism industry
include constructing a new performing arts center and museum of fine arts.
3. Employment in higher education – higher education enables and provides
diverse employment options. The “2030 Vision” supports the Central Oregon
Community college and a new University. The University should ideally provide
an attractive learning environment, include a research emphasis, offer graduate
programs and scholarship opportunities, and serve existing residents while
attracting a diverse student body.
4. Small neighborhood centers – small service-oriented employment centers should
be located so the city’s residents can walk or bike to employment opportunities,
public gathering places, parks, recreational facilities, and other services.
5. Mixed-use development – these uses should be located along key corridors and
in designated centers, or as buffering uses.
6. Opportunity for all economic levels – the “2030 Vision” promotes economic and
housing opportunities for all income levels so that all groups are able to live here.
7. In addition to economic uses stated in the “2030 Vision” and “2005 Economic
Sector Targeting” work, the following economic uses as desirable and suitable to
expand during the planning period based on the findings of the EOA:
a. Regional employment centers for public agencies, health care providers,
and retail uses
b. Employment in professional office and service uses
c. Employment in leisure and hospitality uses
Proposed Bend Area General Plan Policies
The following is a brief discussion and proposed policies from Chapter 6 of the Bend
Area General Plan. These policies meet the requirements of the rule as explained
below.
• Policies #2-#6 create an adequate economic land supply and flexibility in
assigning land use designations to address evolving markets.
• Providing adequate short-term supplies are addressed via policies #7 and #8.
However, since making such supply available is time consuming and expensive,
the focus is to continuously keep the issue at the forefront and place public
infrastructure deficiencies in the context of providing adequate land supplies.
The city hopes these efforts will direct investment in public infrastructure towards
economic lands necessary to meet immediate market needs. Proposed policies
#7 and #8 include references to timelines, dates, and events.
• Proposed policies #2-#6 and #9-#13 also commit the city to designate an
adequate number of sites of suitable sizes, types and locations.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 109
• Non-mandatory policies suggested by the rule for brownfield remediation and
increased productivity from existing sites are addressed in policies #14
(brownfield sites), #18 (increased productivity), and #20 (increased productivity).
• The city does not have formal policies pertaining to financial incentives
recommended by the rule, but financial incentives such as land use controls and
ordinances, capital improvement programming, public/private partnerships, and
intergovernmental agreements are used to attract and retain businesses.
Please refer to Exhibit G(5) for all of the proposed policies of Chapter 6 of the Bend Area
General Plan.
660-009-0025 Designation of Lands for Industrial and Other Employment Uses.
Cities and counties must adopt measures adequate to implement policies adopted
pursuant to OAR 660-009-0020. Appropriate implementing measures include
amendments to plan and zone map designations, land use regulations, public facility
plans, and transportation system plans.
4. 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. Compatible
uses with similar site characteristics may be combined into broad site categories.
Several broad site categories will provide for industrial and other employment
uses likely to occur in most planning areas. Cities and counties may also
designate mixed-use zones to meet multiple needs in a given location.
5. 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 designated must 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.
Findings:
These findings are divided into two parts: 1) identification of needed sites; and 2) total
land supply.
1) Identification of Needed Sites
Findings under Goal 14: Urbanization - OAR 660-015-0000(14) Land Need Factors 1
and 2, discussed at the beginning of the findings for economic lands are incorporated
herein by reference to avoid duplication of findings. These findings demonstrate how the
city identified the approximate acreage and site characteristics of sites needed to
accommodate industrial and other employment uses to implement plan policies. These
sites were grouped into categories by General Plan designation, or specific uses for
Bend’s economic aspirations. The proposed Framework Plan and General Plan
demonstrate how the acreage needs were distributed to needed sites in the expansion
area consistent with the city’s economic policies in Chapter 6.
2) Total Land Supply
The discussion below demonstrates how the city meets the preceding rules. Meeting
the above requirements first requires a discussion of the expected process to urbanize
lands in the proposed UGB to provide needed supplies of economic lands and public
services. The 2008 EOA estimates the gross acres of needed economic lands. The
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 110
city’s Framework Plan in Exhibit K allocates the gross acres by General Plan designation
to meet the needs specified by the 2008 EOA. The proposed zoning in the UGB
expansion area will be holding zones that do not allow urban levels of development.
Please see Exhibit C, Proposed Deschutes County Zoning. The Comprehensive Plan
designations in the UGB expansion area will also be holding zones, but with more
specificity: Urban Reserve Commercial, and Urban Reserve Industrial. Please see
Exhibit D, Proposed Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Designations.
Urbanization and development of intensive economic uses will require annexation,
master planning, and rezoning consistent with the Framework Plan.
Public facility plans including a Draft TSP Amendment and TSP Map in Exhibits E and F,
new General Plan text regarding transportation and public facility systems in Chapters 8
and 7 in Exhibit G, and public facilities documentation in Exhibit L(9) illustrate how facility
master plans can provide needed services to all UGB expansion lands including
economic lands. 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 locate or can be upgraded to have adequate capacity within the
20-year planning period.” The master plans presented in the aforementioned exhibits
show how all lands in the existing and proposed UGB will be provided with services
within the 20-year planning period. Therefore, these documents meet the intent of the
rule. The combination of these facility plans illustrates how the city has met the
requirements of 660-009-0025.
The Framework Plan in Exhibit K allocates the land needs in Table 4-3 to specific
General Plan designations referenced in the 2008 EOA. See Tables 43, 45, and 46 of
the 2008 EOA illustrating the suggested breakdown of economic land needs by General
Plan designation.
Demonstrating New Land Needs Are Servicable
Transportation
Exhibits E, F, and G(6) present new transportation systems and policies to provided
needed transportation facilities to lands added to the UGB. See Exhibit E findings
demonstrating how the proposed transportation facilities will provide needed
transportation facilities to the expansion area and areas inside the current UGB.
Water, Sewer, Stormwater
New Master Plans for city water and sewer services are in Exhibit L(9) of this findings
document. These illustrate how new public facility plans provide services to UGB
expansion areas. Chapter 8, Public Facilities and Services updates the city’s General
Plan to address these new plans as well as stormwater services. Together, these
documents illustrate how proposed economic lands are serviceable.
660-009-0025(4)
Findings:
This subsection of the rule does not apply to this proposal since the city is not in periodic
review at this time.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 111
660-009-0025 continued
6. Institutional Uses. Cities and counties are not required to designate institutional
uses on privately owned land when implementing section (2) of this rule. Cities
and counties may designate land in an industrial or other employment land
category to compensate for any institutional land demand that is not designated
under this section.
Findings:
As shown in Table 4-3, above, 144 acres of Public Facility lands are required in the
expanded UGB to provide for a portion of the institutional land needs. Employment on
these lands would typically include intensive office, storage, maintenance yards and
service and repair centers for city, county, state, federal, special district (parks, irrigation
district), school administration, fire, and city and county police offices. Many of these
uses are sited to provide rapid service, response times, or geographically based
services (police, fire, school and park facilities). Nearly all require offices that are in a
convenient location, and, in some cases, storage yards and similar uses are ideally
placed in more distant locations. It is essential that adequate land be available to site
necessary public facility uses in ideal locations. The Framework Plan does not explicitly
show a land use designation for these uses, but assumes they are distributed around the
UGB expansion area in areas shown as Urban Reserve Residential. The acreage and
distribution of Urban Reserve Residential shown in the Framework Plan includes the 144
acres of Public Facility uses determined in the 2008 EOA.
Other institutional land needs outside of lands with a Public Facility plan designation are
included in the 15 percent factor for institutional, private open space, and “other” lands.
The land needs between the PF designated 144 acres and lands associated with the 15
percent are mutually exclusive. Land needs for the 144 of PF were calculated by taking
employment on lands zoned PF outside of public schools and public parks through the
employment projection and land need methodology in the 2008 EOA. Employment on
lands used to determine the 15 percent for institutional, private open space, and “other”
land were removed from employment projections. All land needs for these uses have
been designated and assigned to the Framework Plan.
7. Compatibility. Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to manage
encroachment and intrusion of uses incompatible with industrial and other
employment uses. Strategies for managing encroachment and intrusion of uses
incompatible with industrial and other employment uses. Strategies for
managing encroachment and intrusion of incompatible uses include, but are not
limited to, transition areas around uses having negative impacts on surrounding
areas, design criteria, district designation, and limiting non-essential uses within
districts.
Findings:
Compatibility is addressed through policies included in Chapter 6 of the Bend Area
General Plan. Please see the policy discussion in the preceding findings relating to
policies. Policies such as #19-#22 address compatibility and appearance of industrial
zones and meet the requirements of 7, above. Policy language require industrial areas
be protected from incompatible commercial and residential uses.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 112
8. Availability. Cities and counties may consider land availability when designating
the short-term supply of land. Available land is vacant or developed land likely to
be on the market for sale or lease at prices consistent with the local real estate
market. Methods for determining lack of availability include, but are not limited
to:
a. Bona fide offers for purchase options in excess of real market value have
been rejected in the last 24 months;
b. A site is listed for sale at more than 150 percent of real market values;
c. An owner has not made timely response to inquiries from local or state
economic development officials; or
d. Sites in an industrial or other employment land category lack diversity of
ownership within a planning area when a single owner or entity controls
more than 51 percent of those sites.
Findings:
The city did not specifically consider availability as offered by the above rule. However,
this issue is particularly relevant to the industrial land supply and decision to provide a
variety of choices of industrial sites by size, type, and location in the UGB proposal. The
resulting UGB proposal distributes industrial lands throughout all areas of the proposed
UGB in order to avoid having a 20-year supply of industrial lands concentrated in one
location and under one owner (city-owned Juniper Ridge site).
9. 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, or coastal shoreland sites designated as suited
for water-dependent use under Goal 17. 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.
Findings under Goal 14: Urbanization - OAR 660-015-0000(14) Land Need Factors 1
and 2, discussed at the beginning of the findings for economic lands are incorporated
herein by reference to avoid duplication of findings. These findings demonstrate how the
city identified the approximate acreage and site characteristics of sites needed to meet
Bend’s economic aspirations for a new hospital site (112 acres), university (225 acres),
and two 56-acre industrial sites for targeted sector and heavy industrial use. The
proposed Framework Plan and General Plan demonstrate how the acreage needs were
distributed to needed sites in the expansion area consistent with the city’s economic
policies in Chapter 6. These sites are protected for the specific use by having the
specific use on the Framework Plan and through policies in Chapter 6. Development
must be consistent with the Framework Plan. Other policies of Chapter 6 discuss
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 113
compatibility between different uses. The proposal meets this requirement because
unique sites have been identified and are protected through policies of Chapter 6 and
specific designations on the Framework Plan.
Prime Industrial Lands
City planning staff presented an analysis of pursuing a “Prime Industrial Lands”
designation for Bend’s targeted economic sectors. The staff memorandum and analysis
is included in Appendix C of the 2008 EOA.
Of the six target industries for the City of Bend, staff recommended that
aviation/aerospace and secondary wood products have the most consistent and unique
site requirements, and warranted further identification as “Prime Industrial Uses”. Since
they are both targeted industries, have siting requirements that are unique and difficult to
replicate, and tend to require more tailored policies to create and protect these sites,
staff recommended the land needs for these industries be treated as prime industrial
lands. While other targeted industries are important, it appears that site needs for the
same type of business vary considerably, and can be addressed by providing an
adequate supply in a variety of locations. For example, information technologies,
renewable resource industries, and specialty manufacturing may successfully locate in
industrial, mixed use, or industrial settings. It may be counterproductive to pinpoint sites
and protect them for these specific uses.
The Planning Commission modified staffs recommendation to pursue a Prime Industrial
Land designation, and instead suggested adding two special large industrial sites to the
UGB expansion. These two sites would be industrial land for targeted sectors and would
be in addition to demonstrated needs for industrial land. Subsequent work with the
Planning Commission evolved into adding two, 50-acre industrial sites to the needed
industrial land need estimate for the 20-year planning period. One site would be for a
targeted sector industry and the other for a heavy industrial user. As discussed, both
sites are protected from incompatible surrounding uses and from further subdivision
through Chapter 6 policies.
660-009-0030 Multi-Jurisdiction Coordination
(1) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to coordinate when implementing OAR
660-009-0025.
(2) Jurisdictions that coordinate under this rule may:
(a) conduct a single coordinated economic opportunities analysis; and
(b) Designate lands among the coordinating jurisdictions in a mutually agreed proportion.
Findings:
This portion of the rule is elective and the city did not choose to conduct the 2008 with
Deschutes County. However, the county and city are coordinating through the UGB
expansion as required by law.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 114
V. FINDINGS – UGB ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
UGB Boundary Location Factors, ORS 197.298 and OAR 660-Division 24
OAR 660-024-0060 Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis
OAR 660-024-0060(1) outlines the steps and considerations that must be followed in the
boundary location alternatives analysis.
(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.
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).
The boundary location factors of Goal 14 are as follows:
(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.
Finding: The location criteria in Goal 14 require a comparative evaluation of potential
UGB expansion areas that can reasonably be expected to meet identified needs. As
described in the Proposal Summary (Section I), the City of Bend has identified a need to
expand the UGB by about 4,956 buildable acres to meet land needs for housing and
employment uses, various related uses, and five special site needs. Tables V-1 and V-
2, below, summarize these land need estimates.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 115
Table V-1: Summary of Residential Land Need 2008-2028
Type
Acres Needed in Planning
Period
Acres for new housing units 941
Acres for public schools 192
Acres for public parks 474
Acres for second homes 500
Subtotal of Residential Land 2,107
15% of net for institutional/private open
space 316
21% for public rights of way 443
Total Estimated Acres of Residential Land Needed 2,866
Table V-2: Summary of Economic Land Need 2008-2028 from Draft City of Bend EOA, September, 2008
General Plan Designations and Special Site Needs
Gross Acres Needed in
Planning Period
Commercial (CB, CC, CG, CL, MR) 1,008
Industrial/Mixed Employment (IG, IL, IP, ME) 118
Public Facilities (PF) 144
Residential (RH, RM, RS) Economic Uses (add to residential need) 119
Medical (MDOZ) 252
New Hospital Site 112
University 225
Two, 50-acre Industrial Sites (Targeted Sector and Heavy Industrial Site) 112
Total Gross Acres of Economic Land Need in UGB Expansion 2,090
Total Gross Acres of Economic and Residential Land Needed 2008-2028: 4,956
Estimates of acres needed for public schools and public parks are based on analysis
provided by the Bend La Pine School District and the Bend Metro Park and Recreation
District, respectively. Explanations for the basis for the second homes acreage
estimate, the institutional / private open space factor, and acres needed for public rights-
of-way are referenced in Sections III and IV of this report. In all cases, these estimates
are based on analysis of conditions specific to Bend. For this reason, the City believes
these estimates to be accurate, and has chosen to use the acreage need estimates
shown in tables V-1 and V-2 for these factors, rather than relying on the option of using a
“safe harbor” estimate allowed by OAR 660-024-0040(9).
As summarized in Section II of this report, the city refined and reduced the size of the
study area for the 20-year UGB expansion (2028) in an iterative fashion. For the initial
UGB proposal released in June 2007, the city used a proposed Bend Urban Reserve
that was then under consideration as the initial study area for evaluating alternative
boundary locations to expand the UGB. That initial study area encompassed about
14,771 acres. In early 2008 the Planning Commission reconsidered the study area and
designated parcels within a two-mile radius of the current UGB as the revised study
area. This enlarged study area included a total of 46,135 gross acres, from which to
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 116
identify suitable acres to meet the identified 20-year land needs for about 4,956
buildable acres.
Suitability Criteria
OAR 660-024-0060 requires the City to determine the suitability of land to accommodate
all of its identified land needs, and to be considered in the boundary location alternatives
analysis. OAR 660-024-0060(1)(e) reads as follows:
(e) For purposes of this rule, the determination of suitable land to
accommodate land needs must include consideration of 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.
OAR 660-024-0060(5) also authorizes the City to specify characteristics to be used for
identifying suitable parcels for meeting identified needs:
(5) If a local government has specified characteristics such as parcel
size, topography, or proximity that are necessary for land to be suitable
for an identified need, the local government may limit its consideration to
land that has the specified characteristics when it conducts the boundary
location alternatives analysis and applies ORS 197.298.
Finding: The City has developed and applied suitability criteria under both of these
provisions of OAR 660-024-0060. Table V-3, below, lists threshold suitability criteria
which were applied through GIS analysis to all parcels within the 2-mile radius study
area to determine which parcels could be considered suitable for meeting any urban
need.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 117
Table V-3
Suitability Criteria Applied to All Tax Lots in Study Area*
*If any of these criteria are not met, the tax lot is not considered suitable.
Figure V-1 shows those parcels within the study area which were found to satisfy these
suitability criteria. These parcels are shown by their priority status under ORS
197.298(1). All parcels within the study area are considered either as Priority Class 2
(“exception” lands) or Priority Class 4 (agriculture, or “resource” lands).
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 118
Figure V-1
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 119
An additional suitability criterion for housing and related needs considered whether an
entire parcel was located within a steep slope area (>25%). If so, that parcel was
considered unsuitable. Where less than the entire parcel was affected by steep slopes,
only that portion outside of the steep slope area was considered as available (buildable)
acres.
As noted in Table V-3, above, parcels of three acres or less that were occupied by a
dwelling were not considered to be redevelopable for additional dwelling units. These
larger residential parcels are found typically in several rural residential subdivisions
within the expansion area. Very often, the potential for redevelopment of these lots is
limited or eliminated by conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R’s) that apply to
the property, or by placement of the existing house and outbuildings, or due to the high
value of the existing residence relative to the lot. Following is additional analysis which
supports the City’s position on this matter.
UGB expansion Alternative 4-A includes 16 existing subdivisions with rural residential
development. The lots within these subdivisions range in size from approximately one-
half acre to over three acres in size. These same lots are considered Priority 2 land
under ORS 197.298 because they were acknowledged by the county as rural residential
exception areas under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan or urban reserve
under the Bend Urban Area General Plan. The zoning applied to these properties is
UAR10, SR2.5, MUA10, or RR10.
The following table presents these subdivisions and basic information on the range of
lots sizes 81 .
Table V-4, Platted Subdivisions within area considered for UGB Expansion
Subdivision Name Number of
Lots
Minimum
Lot Size
(acres)
Maximum
Lot Size
(acres)
Average Lot
Size
(acres)
Total Acres in
Subdivision
AWBREY MEADOWS 54 0.43 7.74 1.93 104.09
BEE TREE SUBDIVISION 16 1.51 2.92 2.16 34.63
BRADETICH PARK 39 0.46 2.20 0.77 30.00
COUNTRY VIEW ESTATES 13 1.66 2.60 2.22 28.90
EAGLE VIEW ESTATES 14 1.10 1.82 1.29 18.00
EAST VILLA 67 0.37 0.59 .49 32.91
EASTMONT ESTATES 16 1.58 3.75 2.25 36.06
J-D RANCH ESTATES 26 1.00 4.20 1.35 35.04
LOS SERRANOS 38 0.14 14.97 5.1 189.14
OLD DESCHUTES 14 2.43 5.07 2.68 37.52
OLD DESCHUTES WEST 19 2.50 2.57 2.51 47.74
OVERTREE RANCH 11 2.47 2.51 2.50 27.45
QUAIL RIDGE 24 1.60 5.34 2.42 58.13
RONALD ACRES 7 0.72 5.50 3.90 27.32
ROYAL OAKS ESTATES
PHASE I 3 2.57 2.84 2.66 7.98
ROYAL OAKS ESTATES 5 2.50 2.74 2.56 12.78
81 These findings are based upon the city’s Goal 14 analysis database, which was entered into the record
and before the Bend Planning Commission at the October 27, 2008 public hearing.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 120
PHASE II
SUNNY ACRES SUBDIVISION 15 0.25 4.47 2.32 34.81
VISTA DEL SOL 24 1.77 3.02 2.24 53.70
Totals 405 816.2
The subdivisions in the study area included 816 acres of land platted into 405 lots. This
table further shows the most of the subdivisions have an average lots size of less than
three acres; Los Serrannos and Ronal Acres being the exceptions with average lot sizes
of 5.1 acres and 3.90 acres, respectively. In addition, five of the subdivisions have
average lots sizes less than two acres size.
Table V-5: Numbers of subdivided lots with housing units
Subdivision Name Number of
Lots
Number of
Housing Units
AWBREY MEADOWS 54 38
BEE TREE SUBDIVISION 16 16
BRADETICH PARK 39 28
COUNTRY VIEW ESTATES 13 13
EAGLE VIEW ESTATES 14 13
EAST VILLA 67 66
EASTMONT ESTATES 16 15
J-D RANCH ESTATES 26 23
LOS SERRANOS 38 32
OLD DESCHUTES 14 14
OLD DESCHUTES WEST 19 19
OVERTREE RANCH 11 9
QUAIL RIDGE 24 20
RONALD ACRES 7 6
ROYAL OAKS ESTATES
PHASE I 3 3
ROYAL OAKS ESTATES
PHASE II 5 4
SUNNY ACRES SUBDIVISION 15 14
VISTA DEL SOL 24 24
Totals 405 357
This table shows of the 405 lots within the UGB expansion, 357 are developed with a
single family dwelling. This proportion represents 88 percent of the lots within these
subdivisions.
The following table lists those subdivisions that have CCR’s that prohibit or have
regulations that would have the effect of making division of land impracticable 82 .
82 The CCR’s for these and other subdivisions in the UGB expansion study area were entered
into the record on Monday, December 1, 2008 through an email of the same date to the City
Council and the Board of County Commissioners.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 121
Table V-6: Subdivisions with CCRs
Subdivision Name CCR’s Land Division
Restrictions Comments
AWBREY MEADOWS Yes Yes No land divisions allowed
BEE TREE SUBDIVISION Yes None Limited to residential use
BRADETICH PARK Yes Yes Limited to one house per lot. CCR’s expire in
2023
COUNTRY VIEW
ESTATES No None
EAGLE VIEW ESTATES Yes None Limited to residential use
EAST VILLA Yes None Limited to single family residential use
EASTMONT ESTATES Yes None Setback standards might limit divisions
J-D RANCH ESTATES Yes None Setback standards might limit divisions
LOS SERRANOS Yes Yes New lots must be no less than one-half of
original lot
OLD DESCHUTES Yes None
OLD DESCHUTES WEST Yes None
OVERTREE RANCH Yes None
QUAIL RIDGE Yes Yes New lots must be no less than half of original
lot
RONALD ACRES Yes Yes
No parcel shall be less than one-half (1/2) of
the original size. All lots were five (5) acres
in size when created.
ROYAL OAKS ESTATES
PHASE I Yes Yes No owner shall have the right to divide or
partition any lot
ROYAL OAKS ESTATES
PHASE II Yes Yes No owner shall have the right to divide or
partition any lot
SUNNY ACRES
SUBDIVISION Yes Yes Minimum lot size of 95,830 square feet
VISTA DEL SOL Yes Yes
No parcel shall be less than one-half of the
original size of the parcel as the on the
recorded plat.
Within this group of subdivisions, nine have some prohibition or limitation on future land
divisions, such as partitions. Two of these eight subdivisions have setback standards
that might limit the division of land; new lots may not be large enough to accommodate a
dwelling that can meet the recorded setbacks.
This data shows that a number of these subdivisions are unsuitable for meeting the city’s
future needs for land for housing because they are already developed and have
restrictions that prohibit or will likely limit future division. With respect to the other nine
subdivisions, the city finds that most of the lots within these subdivisions are also
developed with a dwelling, and while it they do not have recorded covenants that may
restrict land division, the city finds that the combination of their size and development
pattern together make then less likely to be divided for additional housing if they were
included in the UGB and ultimately rezoned to allow for urban levels of housing. The city
finds that these subdivisions are more likely to remain large-lot residential subdivisions,
even after inclusion in the UGB.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 122
The total amount of acreage satisfying threshold criteria for suitability for meeting the
city’s urban needs is 9,716. Of this amount, 5,733 acres are in the Priority 2 category,
and 3,983 are in the Priority 4 category. However, not all of this acreage can be
considered available for meeting identified needs. The City anticipates that some 299
acres of land meeting the suitability criteria will be unavailable for urban uses because of
their significance as scenic or natural resources. While the precise location and size of
these significant resources are unknown at this point, there is substantial evidence that
at least this amount of acreage within the expansion area will be unavailable as a
consequence of future measures to protect these resources. This evidence includes the
following:
• A GIS analysis of the “viewshed” within and adjacent to the Deschutes River
canyon and the Tumalo Creek corridor suggests that approximately 199 acres
may need to remain unbuilt in order to preserve scenic views.
• The Deschutes River canyon within the expansion area was designated in 1988
by the State of Oregon as a State Scenic Waterway.
• Preliminary surveys conducted in 1981 and 1999 identified approximately 100
acres of prominent rock outcroppings formed as volcanic pressure ridges in the
west and northwest expansion area. These rock outcroppings are potential
scenic resources that may reduce development capacity.
With this adjustment, the amount of suitable and available acres within the study area is
9,417, as shown in Table V-7, below.
Table V-7
Suitable and Available Acres for Meeting Urban Needs
Acres
Acres Satisfying Threshold Suitability Criteria 9,716
Less Potential Scenic and Natural Resources 299
Total Suitable and Available Acres 9,417
When these 9,417 available acres are allocated by priority category, a total of 5,434
acres are in Priority 2 lands, and the remaining 3,983 acres are Priority 4 lands.
Three additional criteria were applied for identifying suitable sites for meeting economic
land needs. These additional economic criteria are contained in Table V-4, below.
• The City also considered five special economic land needs for which suitability
criteria were developed. These criteria relate to parcel size, topography, and
proximity that are necessary for land to be suitable for the following identified
needs 83 :A future university
• A major hospital / healthcare campus
• A large-site, targeted-sector industrial employment center
83 See Findings document, Section IV.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 123
• A large-site general industrial employment center
• An auto mall
For these special site needs, the City has limited its consideration to land that has the
specified characteristics listed in Table V-4 when conducting the boundary location
alternatives analysis and applying ORS 197.298. (Through subsequent analysis and
evaluation, the City has determined that an auto mall is not warranted as a special
economic land need, therefore this proposed UGB amendment does not include a
specially designated site for that purpose.)
Table V-8
Suitability Criteria for Economic and Special Site Needs
The suitability and evaluation criteria for all special site needs were applied to all parcels
within the study area through GIS analysis. Results of this analysis can be found in
Exhibit L-10. This analysis led to designation of these special site needs within the
proposed UGB expansion area as follows:
• An area of 150 acres is designated for a future university site on Resource land
at the north end of the UGB, on the City-owned Juniper Ridge property. When
combined with at least 50 additional acres on adjacent land under the same
ownership lying within the current UGB, a 200-acre or larger site will be available
to accommodate a future university campus with supportive uses.
• A 112–acre site is designated for a major hospital / healthcare campus at the
south end of the UGB, on the east side of S. Hwy. 97, north of Knott Rd.
• An area of 56 acres is designated at the south end of the UGB, on the east side
of S. Hwy. 97, north of Knott Rd., for a large-site, targeted-sector employment
center. When combined with additional acreage proposed for other industrial
and employment uses, this site will comprise over 75 acres to support large-site,
targeted-sector employment.
• An area of 357 acres of Resource land is designated in the vicinity of the
intersection of E. Hwy. 20 and Hamby Rd., for a major employment center,
anchored by a large-site, general industrial area.
Each of these special needs is located on a site that ranked high in the City’s GIS
analysis for satisfying criteria specific to these needs (see Exhibit L-10).
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 124
ORS 197.296 Land Use Efficiency Measures
Language in ORS 197.296 requires the city to consider land use efficiency measures
within the current UGB that might increase capacity for housing and employment uses,
thus reducing acres needed for UGB expansion. As discussed in Sections III and IV of
this report, a number of efficiency measures have been considered and carried out in
estimating the capacity of the current UGB. For housing, in particular, the City has
assumed that 500 new housing units will be developed in Bend’s central area during the
planning period through implementation of the Central Area Plan (CAP), completed in
early 2008. The CAP envisions long-term redevelopment of an area near the city’s core
for a variety of commercial, service, housing, and mixed-use developments. At build-
out, the CAP estimates market demand for up to 1,300 new housing units. That build-
out number is unlikely to be achieved during the 2008-2028 planning period, and
perhaps not at all. Among other reasons, the CAP identified significant deficiencies in
the central area’s transportation, sewer, and water infrastructure. Correction of these
deficiencies must occur before significant redevelopment can begin, and is not expected
to take place at a rate that could support the build-out estimate of 1,300 housing units.
Based on a review of the cost and scope of needed infrastructure upgrades, and after
consulting with members of the Central Area Plan Advisory Committee (made up of
landowners, business owners, developers, and other stakeholders in the central area),
the City has estimated that approximately 500 new housing units might reasonably be
built during the planning period.
The City also finds that an additional 600 housing units could be built within the current
UGB through land use efficiency measures connected with upzoning along major transit
corridors. Draft policies call for the City to pursue opportunities to provide higher-density
housing and mixed –use development along transit corridors following adoption of the
UGB. The 600-unit estimate is based on a cursory review of redevelopment
opportunities along candidate transit corridors, resulting in an estimate that a one-mile
(either contiguous or interrupted) strip of land along a corridor or corridors might
reasonably be upzoned from existing commercial or lower-density residential
designations. At an assumed depth of 400 ft., and an assumed average density of 12
units per acre, a net yield of approximately 600 new units would result.
ORS 197.298 Priority Areas for UGB Expansion
In determining which lands to consider generally for UGB expansion, State statute
provides a specific list of priorities that cities must follow. This list is found in ORS
197.298(1):
(1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization,
land may not be included within an urban growth boundary except under the
following priorities:
a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS
195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action plan.
b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate
the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban
growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan
as an exception area or nonresource land. Second priority may include
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 125
resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such
resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215. 710.
c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to
accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as
marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247.
d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to
accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated
in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture, forestry, or both.
Finding: The Bend urban area has no land that has been designated urban reserve
under ORS 195.145, rule, or metropolitan service district action plan. The Bend area
also has no land designated by Deschutes County as marginal land, pursuant to ORS
197.247. All land adjacent to the existing UGB has either been designated in the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as exception area (Priority 2) or for agriculture
or forestry (Priority 4). The Priority 2 exception areas are designated by Deschutes
County as Urban Area Reserve (UAR) or Rural Residential Exception Area. Lands
designated as UAR were identified as an exception area by the County in 1980 84 . This
designation was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission in 1981. The Priority 4 lands are designated by the County as Agriculture
or Forest. Figure V-2 and V-3 show those suitable and available parcels within the study
area that are designated as Priority 2 Urban Area Reserve, and other exception areas;
Figure V-4 shows those suitable and available Priority 4 resource lands.
84 See Deschutes County Ordinance 80-216
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 126
Figure V-2
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 127
Figure V-3
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 128
Figure V-4
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 129
Priority Exceptions
In addition to establishing the priority of land to be included in an urban growth
boundary, ORS 197.298 contains the following exception:
(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be
included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is
found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land
estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the
following reasons:
a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably
accommodated on higher priority lands;
b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the
higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical
constraints; or
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.
Finding: The City finds that two of the special site needs listed above cannot
reasonably be accommodated on higher priority lands. These are the future university
site and the large-site, general industrial center. Both of these identified land needs are
proposed for Priority 4 resource sites. The future university site is located on land zoned
by Deschutes County as EFU, at the north end of the UGB, within the City-owned
Juniper Ridge property. The large-site general industrial center is located on County-
zoned EFU land adjacent to the intersection of E. Hwy. 20 and Hamby Rd.
The university site is recommended in the Economic Opportunities Analysis. 85 The
EOA states that,
The special site characteristics for the (future university) use include a
large minimum acreage of 200 acres, surrounding compatible and
supportive uses, and public ownership. The ideal site would provide
convenient transportation access from a local and regional perspective.
Surrounding uses must be compatible with a university and include
commercial, housing, open space, and other supportive uses.
GIS analysis finds that the City’s Juniper Ridge site scores high to moderate for meeting
these criteria (see Exhibit L-10). The only Priority 2 site that scores high for meeting the
criteria for a future university is a 300-acre parcel at the south end of the city, adjacent to
the east side of S. Hwy. 97 and Knott Rd. This parcel is privately owned, and relatively
remote from other supportive uses. It also has relatively poor transportation access from
the perspective of the Central Oregon region. A university location at the north end of
the city provides better access for residents of Bend as well as most other urban centers
in the region. Other Priority 2 sites that are large enough to accommodate a future
university site scored low or moderate in the GIS analysis. These other Priority 2 sites
85 Exhibit L-7, City of Bend 2008 Economic Opportunities Analysis.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 130
are located to the west and northwest of the urban area. They are also privately owned,
and relatively remote from convenient transportation access.
A community-wide preference for Juniper Ridge as the site for a future university is
expressed in the Bend 2030 Action Plan, adopted by the Bend City Council in December
2007:
VE 2.3: Higher Education/Business Interaction. Closely integrate higher
education at Juniper Ridge with businesses providing opportunities for
interaction both inside and outside the classroom. 86
For these reasons, the City finds that accommodation of a future university site with the
characteristics outlined above is impractical and unreasonable on higher priority lands.
The second special site need proposed for lower priority land under ORS 197.298(3)(a)
is the large-site general industrial center, designated for an area adjacent to the
intersection of E. Hwy. 20 and Hamby Rd. This is one of two, proposed, large-site
industrial centers, recommended by the EOA. The need for these centers is described
in the EOA as follows:
Some stakeholders believe that having at least one or two very large sites
(between 50-100 acres) on hand to meet the needs of a large-site user
would allow Bend to compete for firms that have ignored Bend in the past
due to land supply limitations. Through the Planning Commission
recommendation and City Council approval process for the UGB
expansion, this site need evolved into two, 56-acre industrial sites: one
for targeted economic sector uses, and another for a heavy industrial site
user…
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. 87
The targeted sector large-site has been proposed for Priority 2 land, as part of a master
plan also containing a future hospital site, housing, and commercial uses on the east
side of S. Hwy. 97, north of Knott Rd. The general industrial large-site center is
proposed for Priority 4 land in the vicinity of the intersection of E. Hwy. 20 and Hamby
Rd. because that center cannot reasonably be accommodated on higher priority lands.
The parcel which is designated for large-site industrial use acts as the anchor for an
integrated employment center consisting of 357 available acres of Industrial (IL), Mixed-
Employment (ME), and General Commercial (CG) uses. These supportive uses are
86 Bend 2030 Action Plan, 2007, p. 18.
87 See 2008 Economic Opportunities Analysis, Exhibit L-7.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 131
necessary for the large industrial special site need to succeed. With their close
proximity, these supportive uses will provide technical and logistical support to the large-
site industries, as well as a full array of commercial goods and services. This major
employment center is supplemented by additional, adjacent acreage designated for
Moderate-Density Residential (RM) and High-Density Residential (RH) uses. Taken
together, these components comprise a high density employment center which will also
accommodate housing for employees and commercial services that will benefit both
employees within this center and residents within the vicinity. This mix of uses is
necessary to support needs of the large-site industrial uses which will anchor this center,
and to provide the elements of a complete live, work, and shop district.
The number of potential sites within any priority category which could reasonably
accommodate an employment center of this size is very limited. As indicated by GIS
analysis shown in Exhibit L-10, there are only two Priority 2 sites that scored high for
meeting threshold criteria for this large-site general industrial center. One of these is on
the east side of S. Hwy. 20, north of Knott Rd. This site is already proposed for
accommodating two of the special site needs discussed above: the future hospital /
healthcare campus, and the large-site targeted sector industrial center. The second
Priority 2 site is on the west edge of the urban area. Although this site technically
qualifies as a candidate for this need, it is severely constrained by transportation
facilities that are inadequate for this purpose. This west side site is served by only one
arterial street (Skyliners Rd.). The E. Hwy. 20 / Hamby Rd. site has significantly better
transportation access, located adjacent to a state highway and a future arterial street
(Hamby Rd.). Hamby Rd. will connect to a grid network of arterial and collector streets
proposed for the east side expansion area. This network will provide convenient
connections between the Hwy. 20/Hamby site and a number of existing and proposed
major employment centers in the northeast, east and southeast urban area. The west
side site lacks close proximity to other major employment centers; travel to and from
this site would require passing through well-established west-side residential areas.
Finally, the west side site has topographical disadvantages that could make
development of large-scale industrial and commercial uses impractical. A number of
shallow ravines traverse this site, whereas the Hwy. 20/Hamby vicinity is virtually flat.
The proposed UGB expansion also includes 1,253 acres of Priority 4 lands under the
allowance provided in ORS 197.298(3)(c). These Priority 4 lands are all located on the
northeast or east side of the urban area. They consist of four clusters of Resource land
identified as Areas A through D. Inclusion of each of these clusters is justified in order to
achieve maximum efficiency of land uses within the urban growth boundary, and in order
to include or to provide services to higher priority lands, as described below.
•Area A is an area of Resource land lying east of the Juniper Ridge site and
extending to Pioneer Loop. Covering 143 available acres, it is located between
the current UGB to the west, and an area of Exception land abutting both sides of
Pioneer Loop. Inclusion of this area will allow for extension of urban services
from the current UGB to the Pioneer Loop Exception land. Inclusion of Area A
will allow for the extension of Cooley Rd. eastward to Deschutes Market Rd. and
eventually to a link with Hamehook/ Hamby Rd. In addition, the planned North
Sewer Interceptor will pass through Area A as it is extended westward from the
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 132
wastewater treatment plant 88 . This interceptor is included in the City’s adopted
Sewer Public Facility Plan, and will not only serve the Exception land along
Pioneer Loop and the acreage within Area A, it is also needed to provide sewer
service to Juniper Ridge, already within the current UGB. The North Interceptor
will also provide badly needed additional capacity to existing sewer interceptors
within the current UGB (i.e. the West Side Interceptor) as it is extended to Hwy.
97. Urbanization of the Resource land within Area A is required in order to
provide these needed urban services to lands within the current UGB, and to
higher priority Exception lands along the south end of Pioneer Loop Rd., thereby
maximizing efficient land use within the proposed UGB. Despite the EFU zoning
of much of Area A by Deschutes County, a detailed on-site soils analysis in the
record indicates that at least three of the parcels abutting the west side of
Deschutes Market Rd. are comprised of low-value soils for agriculture. 89
Figure V-5
•Area B includes 422
available acres,
extends south from
Repine Dr., along both
sides of Hamehook
Rd. to Butler Market
Rd., and continues
southward to the north
boundary of Los
Serranos subdivision.
This Resource area is
included in order to
provide urban
services (specifically
the planned Hamby
Rd. sewer interceptor)
from Exception lands
abutting Pioneer Loop
in the north to
Exception lands on
both sides of Hamby,
south of Nelson Rd.
As planned in the
City’s adopted Sewer
Public Facility Plan,
the Hamby interceptor
will run south in
Hamby Rd. from the
wastewater treatment
plant and the plant
interceptor, and must pass through these Resource lands in order to reach
higher priority Exception areas to the south. Both sides of Hamby Rd. are
88 Exhibit L-9, Collection System Master Plan Final Report, July, 2007, as amended.
89 Soil Investigation Report for Elizabeth Brandenburg, by Roger Borine, July 13, 2008
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 133
included in this alternative to achieve maximum efficiency of land use, and to
permit the urban levels of development that will be needed to assist in funding
the sewer interceptor, improvement of Hamby to a minor arterial, and other
services. Urbanization of the Resource lands within Area B is required in order
to extend sewer services to higher priority Exception lands south of Nelson Rd.,
thereby maximizing efficient land use within the proposed UGB. Area B includes
EFU property designated by Deschutes County. As a result, it is considered as
priority 4 land. Much of this acreage, however, is nonagricultural land. In
specific cases, such as Area 7 on Alternative 4-A, 85% of its soils have been
shown to be Class VII and VIII by a professional soil scientist study. Similar
studies have confirmed the presence of low-value agricultural soils for a 60-acre
resource parcel northwest of Area 7, abutting the west side of Hamehook Rd.
(Tax lot 806 17-12-14), as well as two parcels in Area A.90
•Area C includes 536 available acres and also flanks Hamby Rd., extending from
Los Serranos subdivision to Bear Creek Rd. This area is anchored by the large-
site, general industrial area, accompanied by supportive industrial, mixed-
employment, and commercial acreage discussed above. As addressed above,
this combination of uses comprises a 357-acre employment center which fulfills a
special identified land need that cannot be accommodated on higher priority land,
and is therefore allowable on Resource land under ORS 197.298(3)(a). This
area also represents another segment of the Hamby Rd. corridor which is
needed to extend the Hamby Rd. sewer interceptor and other urban services to
higher priority lands south of Bear Creek Rd. Approximately 120 acres of
Resource land in Area C, abutting the north side of Neff Rd. east of Hamby, are
occupied by Big Sky Park, Buckingham School, and a District 2 Fire Station.
These sites are not considered “suitable” for meeting housing or employment
needs because of their public ownership. Nevertheless, they are included in this
alternative in order to achieve a logical boundary and maximum efficiency of land
uses, as well as to ensure provision of the full range of urban services to these
facilities. In addition to fulfilling a special identified land need for a 357-acre
employment center, inclusion of the remaining portions of Area C is required in
order to provide urban services, including sewer, parks and schools to higher
priority lands to the north and south, thereby maximizing efficient land use within
the proposed UGB as contemplated under ORS 197.298(3)(c).
•Area D indicates a cluster of 152 available Resource acres located south of Bear
Creek Rd., between the existing UGB and SE Ward Rd. This cluster lies
between the current UGB and a J-shaped area of Priority 2 lands which abuts the
west side of SE Ward Rd. and swings toward the southwest to connect to the
current UGB. The 152 acres of Priority 4 land is located directly between the
existing UGB and about 123 acres of higher priority Exception lands, and must
be included in the UGB in order to extend necessary urban services to the higher
priority area and maximize the efficiency of land uses. A boundary which
included the Priority 2 lands adjacent to Ward Rd. but excluded this cluster of
Priority 4 lands to the west of Ward Rd. would create a near island of non-
90 Soil Investigation Report for Acme Development, LLC, Roger Borine, August 3, 2008;
Agricultural Use Evaluation, New Century Ranch, Deschutes County, Oregon, PBS
Environmental & Engineering, May 2008; Soil Investigation Report for Elizabeth Brandenburg, by
Roger Borine, July 13, 2008
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 134
urbanized land and would result in an inefficient pattern of land use. Inclusion of
these 152 acres of Priority 4 land will allow for the logical and efficient extension
of streets, utilities, and other public services from the current UGB to Exception
land adjacent to Ward Rd.
Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis
As noted above, OAR 660-024-0060 requires that, when considering a UGB
amendment, the City must determine which land to add by evaluating alternative
boundary locations. In accordance with this requirement, the City has prepared and
evaluated seven alternative UGB amendments to achieve the 4,956 buildable acres
estimated to be needed to the year 2028. The first alternative was prepared as an initial
proposal for UGB expansion in June 2007. This proposal was the subject of a 45-day
notice provided to DLCD on June 11, 2007, and a joint public hearing that was held
before the Bend City Planning Commission and the Deschutes County Planning
Commission on July 26, 2007. Subsequently, based on the Bend Planning
Commission’s direction, additional analysis and evaluation were conducted, leading to
five new UGB alternatives. Finally, the Bend City Council acted to modify the alternative
recommended by the Planning Commission on October 28, 2008 (Alternative 4),
resulting in the adopted boundary, known as Alternative 4-A. The alternatives leading
up to Alternative 4-A are shown in Exhibit L-11. The Planning Commission considered
the first three of the alternatives prepared subsequent to the June 2007 proposal on
September 8, 2008. Following further discussion and public input, Alternative 3 was
modified as Alternative 3-A, and then further modified for recommendation to the City
Council as Alternative 4. These alternatives are summarized below.
Alternative 1 This alternative places a strong emphasis on the statutory
priorities of ORS 197.298(1). All UAR parcels meeting the threshold suitability
criteria are included in this alternative. An additional 1,628 buildable acres of
other exception lands are also included. Combined, these higher priority parcels
make up 87% of total acreage in the expanded UGB. Only 769 acres, or 13% of
the total, fall into the Resource category. As with all of the alternatives,
Alternative 1 includes all of the acres needed to accommodate housing and
employment growth for the 20-year planning period. However, because of the
overriding emphasis on including higher priority lands under the statute, some
lower-cost areas that ranked high for meeting employment land needs have been
excluded. This alternative would also force special site needs to be placed in
locations that cannot reasonably accommodate them. Finally, it excludes large
areas of suitable land that would allow for the cost-effective, orderly provision of
public facilities.
Alternative 2 This alternative places an emphasis on inclusion of lands that are
estimated to have relatively lower combined costs for public infrastructure:
transportation, sewer, and water. Alternative 2 seeks to maximize the cost-
effective, orderly, and economic provision of public facilities and services as
these areas are urbanized. Nearly two-thirds of the buildable acres in this
alternative fall into the higher priority Exception category. The remaining 37% of
buildable lands are in the Resource category. In this alternative, employment
lands are distributed in relatively large clusters along the north, south, and east
sides of the current UGB. Most remaining areas within this expansion area are
designated for residential use.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 135
Alternative 3 This alternative takes a more balanced approach to considering
the city’s long term needs for residential, commercial, and industrial uses in ways
that are mutually supportive and consistent with public facilities master plans.
Mixed-use employment centers are proposed in locations that scored well for
meeting employment-related criteria. These centers are comprised of varying
combinations of general industrial, commercial, moderate-density housing, and
high-density housing. These combinations are intended to ensure easy and
convenient access among housing, shopping, and jobs, and to relate well to
existing activity centers within the current UGB. The configuration of the
Alternative 3 boundary is also designed to include territory needed to support
cost-effective construction of future street, sewer, and water facilities.
Alternative 3-A includes elements of Alternatives 1-3. This alternative includes a
total of 6,077 available (buildable) acres. Of this amount, approximately 4,771
acres are classified as Priority 2 under ORS 197.298. All available Urban Area
Reserve acres are included in Alternative 3-A. In addition, 1,201 acres of other
Exception lands are included. In order to accommodate special site needs and
to achieve maximum efficiency of land uses, 1,306 acres of land in the Resource
category are included in Alternative 3-A.
Alternative 4 was recommended by the Planning Commission for City Council
adoption on October 28, 2008. This alternative includes a total of 5,954 available
acres, of which 74% is Priority 2 land, with the remaining 26% in the Priority 4, or
Resource, category. As with the previous alternatives, Alternative 4 included
acreage to accommodate estimated need for housing and employment-related
land, as well as the special site needs discussed above.
Based on City Council direction on December 17, 2008 Alternative 4-A was selected for
adoption. This alternative is very similar to Alternative 4, with the following adjustments:
• The area designated for a future auto mall and adjacent industrial uses at the
north end of the city, flanking both sides of N. Hwy. 97, was removed from the
boundary. This action reduced the overall size of the proposed UGB expansion
by 332 available acres. It was taken in response to concerns expressed by the
Oregon Department of Transportation, the Department of Land Conservation and
Development, and neighbors whose testimony in the Council’s public hearing
expressed concern about compatibility of the proposed commercial and industrial
uses with nearby rural residential neighborhoods.
• About 143 acres of proposed special site needs and supportive industrial and
residential uses on Section 11, west of SE 27 th St., were removed from the
boundary. This action was in response to concerns of DLCD regarding the
amount of Priority 4 land included within the boundary, and compatibility
concerns expressed by some neighbors of this site within the current UGB.
• About 91 acres were added to the area lying east of S. Hwy. 97 and north of
Knott Rd. This action makes more efficient use of this single-owner, Priority 2
site, allowing for master planning which will include both the future hospital /
healthcare campus and the target-sector, large industrial site.
• About 69 acres of proposed Mixed-Employment and Industrial land on the west
side of S. Hwy. 97 were removed from the boundary. This action was taken in
response to DLCD concerns about the amount of employment land that had
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 136
been estimated as needed, and in response to ODOT concerns about potential
transportation impacts to S. Hwy. 97.
The resulting Alternative 4-A boundary includes a total of 5,475 suitable, available acres.
Table V-9 below summarizes the amount of available acres by priority category. Figure
V-6 shows the Alternative 4-A boundary as adopted by the Bend City Council.
Table V-9
Summary of UGB Expansion Alternative 4-A
December 17, 2008
Statutory Priority
Available
Acres *
% Acres by
Priority
URBAN AREA RESERVE (Priority 2) 3,196 58
OTHER EXCEPTION (Priority 2) 873 16
RESOURCE (Priority 4) 1,407 26
TOTAL 5,475 100%
* Available acres are those that are suitable and available for residential and/or economic uses.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 137
Figure V-6
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 138
Alternative 4-A – Boundary Alternatives Analysis
Findings below demonstrate consistency with requirements of ORS 197.298 and OAR
660-024 for Alternative 4-A, with respect to choosing which land to include in the
expanded UGB.
Finding:
The highest priority land available for Bend’s UGB expansion is Priority 2 under ORS
197.298(1), i.e. land that has been acknowledged by LCDC as exception areas. The
City has identified a total of 5,434 available acres of suitable and available land in the
Priority 2 category to be considered for meeting identified needs. After identifying lower
priority lands to be included in the proposed UGB under the available exceptions created
by ORS 197.298(3), the City has applied the Goal 14 location factors to Priority 2 parcels
to determine which lands in that priority should be included in the UGB, as
contemplated under OAR 660-024-0060(1)(b). The City’s detailed findings applying the
Goal 14 location factors to specific Priority 2 areas are attached as Exhibit L-11. As a
result of this analysis, 4,069 acres of suitable Priority 2 lands have been included in the
boundary for Alternative 4-A, and 1,365 Priority 2 acres have been excluded.
The city notes that in the Oregon Court of Appeals decision in Hildenbrand v. City of
Adair Village , the court considered the application of the Goal 14 location factors to the
ORS 197.298 analysis, and stated that "a higher priority of land under ORS 197.298(1)
may be 'inadequate' because of 'the locational considerations that must be taken into
account under Goal 14." In other words, the location factors under Goal 14 may also be
relied upon by the city in order to justify the exclusion of Priority 2 lands in favor of lower
priority Resource lands in Areas A-D on the eastern side of the city. In addition to the
city's reliance on the Goal 14 factors to choose which Priority 2 lands to include, relative
to other Priority 2 lands (as described in the preceding paragraph), the city also finds
that the reasons stated in the findings attached as Exhibit L-11 regarding the Goal 14
location factors (and summarized below) may be relied upon in order to justify the
exclusion of certain Priority 2 lands in favor of Resource land.
Among the Priority 2 exception area acres included in the boundary are 3,196 available
acres that were given a local UAR designation when the Bend Area General Plan was
adopted and acknowledged in 1981. These UAR lands were not designated pursuant to
ORS 195.145, and local UAR designation does not elevate them to Priority 1 status.
However, it is important to point out that language in the Bend Area General Plan refers
to these locally designated UAR lands as being a high priority for consideration for UGB
expansion. Specifically, Chapter 1 of the General Plan contains the following
statement:
Lands in this Urban Reserve area are considered first for any expansion of the
Urban Growth Boundary 91 .
Consistent with this intent, the Alternative 4-A boundary includes all suitable land with
the local UAR designation, consisting of 3,196 suitable, available acres, as well as 873
acres of additional Priority 2 exception land. Figure V-7 below shows local UAR and
other Priority 2 exception lands that are included and excluded in Alternative 4-A.
91 Bend Area General Plan, Chapter 1, Plan Management and Citizen Involvement, p. 1-4.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 139
Figure V-7
Included / Excluded Priority 2 Lands
Alternative 4-A – Findings for Priority 2 Lands
Findings addressing Goal 14 location factors for available Priority 2 lands for Alternative
4-A (Exhibit L-11) indicate that large areas of Priority 2 lands to the south, to the
northeast, and a small number of small parcels to the north have significant constraints
to efficient accommodation of identified land needs, and to the orderly and economic
provision of public facilities and services. These Goal 14 findings demonstrate that the
4,069 acres of available Priority 2 lands included in Alternative 4-A are superior to the
approximately 1,365 acres of excluded Priority 2 lands, based on the location factor
findings of Exhibit L-11, as summarized below.
Northeast Quadrant Much of the excluded, available Priority 2 acreage is located in
the northeast quadrant of the UGB study area. These excluded areas consist of
discontinuous clusters of MUA-10 parcels that are relatively remote from the existing
urban area. In some cases, these clusters are separated by intervening areas of Priority
4 resource lands. Efficient accommodation of land needs would be more difficult to
achieve on these Priority 2 lands due to their relative remoteness and disconnectedness.
Development of complete neighborhoods would be more difficult, with likely negative
energy, social, and economic consequences. Due to the proximity of larger areas of
Resource lands, conflicts with urban uses would be more likely to occur. (See location
factor findings for Alternative 4-A [Exhibit L-11] for more detail on compatibility issues
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 140
with nearby agricultural activity.) In the northeast quadrant, those suitable Priority 2
exception areas that generally lie closest to the existing UGB were found to satisfy the
Goal 14 location factors for inclusion in the expanded UGB.
Northwest Quadrant Figure V-7 also indicates an area consisting of about 332
available acres in the Priority 2 category that are excluded from the Alternative 4-A
boundary. As detailed in findings attached as Exhibit L-11, this area was found to have
significant transportation constraints, as well as potentially negative social
consequences for neighboring property owners, when compared with other suitable
Priority 2 lands. The Oregon Department of Transportation expressed concern about
inclusion of this area in previous alternatives, and in particular about its proposed use as
an auto mall and industrial employment center 92 .
Southwest Quadrant The location factor findings attached as Exhibit L-11 also identify
significant deficiencies with an additional 618 suitable acres of Priority 2 land in the
southwest quadrant. To the west of S. Hwy. 97 adjacent to the existing UGB is an area
of Priority 2 land where only that portion adjacent to Hwy. 97 and abutting the existing
UGB has been included in Alternative 4-A. Location factor findings contained in Exhibit
L-11, indicate that the excluded Priority 2 lands in this area will be relatively less efficient
in accommodating identified land needs than other Priority 2 lands. Those parcels west
of Hwy. 97 that are excluded include 51 parcels that do not satisfy suitability criteria.
Eighteen of these unsuitable parcels are directly abutting the existing UGB, making more
difficult an efficient pattern of development transitioning southward from the current
UGB. By comparison, all of those Priority 2 parcels in the southwest quadrant that are
included satisfy fully all of the City’s suitability criteria. The pattern of suitable parcels in
this included area is consolidated, which will facilitate a more efficient development
pattern. Also, as noted in Exhibit L-11, those Priority 2 parcels west of Hwy. 97 that are
excluded are poorly served by a discontinuous road network that would rely on
Brookswood Blvd. as the sole connection to the rest of the urban area. Those parcels
included in Alternative 4-A are directly abutting the existing UGB, and will be served by a
frontage road that will parallel Hwy. 97 and connect to Buck Canyon Rd. 93 In addition to
serving this UGB expansion area, that frontage road will also serve as a connection to
the urban area to the north, helping to relieve congestion on Hwy. 97. Excluded parcels
in the southwest quadrant will not be as efficiently or economically served by
transportation facilities. Finally, the location factor findings of Exhibit L-11 indicate that,
although sanitary sewer service may be technically feasible at some point for the
excluded Priority 2 parcels of the southwest quadrant, such service is unlikely to be
available within the 20-year planning period. These excluded parcels are the most
remote from the wastewater treatment plant of any Priority 2 lands within the UGB study
area. Service to this excluded area will only be available as a new southeast interceptor
is extended within the current UGB from the northeast. 94 In order to reach these
excluded parcels, local connectors will need to be installed though a series of built-out
and well established neighborhoods within the current UGB that are now being served
by on-site waste disposal systems. Parcels included within the Alternative 4-A boundary
are directly abutting the current UGB, and are located nearer to the proposed southeast
92 Letter from Mark DeVoney, ODOT Region 4 Planning Manager, to Damian Syrnyk, October 27,
2008.
93 See draft TSP Map, Exhibit F.
94 See Collection System Master Plan, Exhibit L-9.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 141
interceptor, and are therefore more likely to receive this needed urban service within the
planning period.
Southeast Quadrant
All Priority 2 parcels in the southeast quadrant that meet the City’s suitability criteria
have been included within the Alternative 4-A boundary. These consist of those parcels
designated as Urban Area Reserve adjacent to the current UGB, lying west of 27 th St.
and north of Knott Rd.
Inclusion of the 4,069 suitable and available acres of Priority 2 land, when combined with
the 1,407 acres of Priority 4 lands justified under ORS 197.298(3), results in a total UGB
expansion of 5,475 suitable acres to meet the estimated need of about 4,956 acres.
This apparent “surplus” of acreage provides a modest cushion against the possibility that
the total estimate of 4,956 needed acres is too conservative. This possibility is
recognized in language of OAR 660-024-0040(1), wherein it is acknowledged that, “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.” These additional acres are also the by-product of the City’s desire to
configure the expanded UGB in a manner that is logical, provides the best opportunity
for cost-effective and efficient provision of public services, and excludes high value
farmland to the maximum feasible extent. Wherever possible, for example, the
boundary includes both sides of existing and future roads. Along the Hamehook/Hamby
Rd. corridor, in particular, sufficient land area has been included on both sides of these
roads to encourage a level of development sufficient to support the significant expense
of installing a future sewer interceptor, as well as upgrading these roads from rural
collectors to a continuous urban arterial. Inclusion of these additional acres also is
necessary to facilitate the development of complete neighborhoods, with convenient
access to employment, shopping, parks and schools. Area 6 on the Alternative 4-A
map, for example, consists of 149 acres that will be master planned with about 13 acres
of commercial development to support 117 acres of RS residential development and 19
acres of RM residential development. The commercial services on this site will also
serve future neighborhoods that are programmed to develop in close proximity to the
north and south along both sides of Hamehook/Hamby Rd. Finally, this theoretical
“surplus” of acreage within the expanded UGB is a result of a desire to distribute
employment lands throughout the expansion area, rather than forcing a higher
concentration within a more constrained boundary. The Economic Opportunities
Analysis notes the importance of avoiding a concentration of employment lands, in order
to provide more choice to the commercial and industrial market, and to seek closer
proximity to workforce housing (See Exhibit L-7). This desire is reflected in draft policies
contained in updated Chapter 6 of the Bend Area General Plan, to seek numerous sites
for employment uses in a variety of locations (see Exhibit G-6).
Alternative 4-A – Findings for Priority 4 Lands
Finding: As discussed above, Alternative 4-A includes 1,407 suitable and available
acres of Priority 4 land. As addressed elsewhere in these findings, inclusion of these
lower priority lands is justified under ORS 197.298(3). Nevertheless, it is important to
note that nearly all of the Priority 4 land included is land of lower capability as measured
by the capability classification system. The only Priority 4 areas within the boundary that
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 142
appear to meet the City’s criteria for “commercial farm” (i.e. high-value farmland when
irrigated) are a 76-acre portion of Area 6 on the Alternative 4-A map; a 61-acre parcel
directly northwest of Area 6, across Butler Market Rd.; portions of two parcels
comprising 37 acres directly north of Area 6, abutting the east side of Hamehook Rd.;
and a pocket of 59 acres of land south of Bear Creek Rd., lying between the existing
UGB and Priority 2 land to the east (see Area D, in Figure V-5, above). Despite the
apparent commercial farm status of Area 6 and the parcel to its northwest, detailed
analysis in the record indicates that these two areas have only Class VII and VIII soils,
even when irrigated, and do not qualify as high value farmland. 95
Although the exceptions of ORS 197.298(3) authorize the elevation of lower priority
lands to higher priority status, efforts have been made in locating the Alternative 4-A
boundary to minimize the inclusion of resource lands, and to avoid areas with higher
quality soils to the maximum feasible extent, as indicated below. Findings below also
summarize the results of the Goal 14 location factor analysis for Priority 4 lands
supporting Alternative 4-A (see Exhibit L-11).
Northeast Quadrant The City has considered all four of the boundary location factors
of Goal 14 in establishing the boundary for its expanded UGB (see Exhibit L-11).
Resource land was included within the UGB to efficiently accommodate identified land
needs in cases where an exception is allowed by ORS 197.298(3). The boundary line
was drawn to include serviceable land on both sides of major roadways where the road
is planned to be developed with sewer interceptor lines identified by the sewer master
plan. It was also drawn, in some cases, to include areas where resource lands were
interspersed with goal exceptions lands of the highest priority for inclusion in the urban
growth boundary. This approach allows the City to spread the costs of sewer service to
both sides of the road and to serve an entire area rather than skip properties within the
area. This approach is consistent with the Goal 11’s direction that sewer lines should be
built to serve urban, not rural lands.
This efficient development along both sides of major roadways also furthers the orderly
and economic provision of public facilities and services. This allows the cost of urban
utilities, such as water, sewer and natural gas lines, to be shared by property owners on
both sides of the road. It is also most cost-efficient to allow roads that are developed to
urban standards to be used by land on both sides of the road. A split in jurisdiction
would make it difficult for the City to use local improvement district funding for urban
facilities because costs for road improvements could not be imposed on owners of land
outside of the urban growth boundary even though they would benefit from street
improvements adjacent to their rural property.
The City considered the comparative environmental, energy, economic and social
consequences of the Alternative 4-A boundary selected using a rating and mapping
system that looked at a wide variety of factors that relate to these issues. Proximity of
land to parks, schools, infrastructure costs likely to be borne in part by future residents
and other similar factors were considered. As a general rule, the Alternative 4-A
95 Soil Investigation Report for Acme Development, LLC, Roger Borine, August 3, 2008;
Agricultural Use Evaluation, New Century Ranch, Deschutes County, Oregon, PBS
Environmental & Engineering, May 2008; Soil Investigation Report for Elizabeth Brandenburg, by
Roger Borine, July 13, 2008
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 143
boundary configuration minimizes environmental and energy impacts by adding lands
that are in the closest proximity to the urban growth boundary. The City included land in
the northeast area that includes a mix of resource and goal exceptions lands because
residential development can occur in this area with a relatively low impact on the area’s
state highway system. The northeast area includes four major existing or planned
employment centers, including the very largest of such centers – the St. Charles Medical
Center campus and related medical district facilities (The Center, Bend Memorial Clinic
and offices for other medical professionals). Residents in northeast Bend can travel a
short distance to these employment centers without using the State highway system.
This has a positive environmental impact of reducing pollution by reducing vehicle trip
length for commuters and enhances the social life of residents who will be able to live
near their place of employment.
Finally, the City considered the compatibility of proposed urban uses with nearby
agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB. The
City’s review shows that the proposed urban uses within the 4-A boundary and nearby
farm and forest activities are not incompatible. The City considered the locations of
irrigated farmland in selecting the 4-A urban growth boundary. The vast majority of the
boundary does not adjoin irrigated agricultural lands. Much of the agricultural land
adjacent or close to the boundary is not currently employed in farm use. Almost all
agricultural uses near the proposed urban growth boundary are “hobby farms” where
income from nonfarm sources is required to support the farmer. The City determined the
location of potentially impacted forest lands and considered this information in making its
boundary determination. All forest lands that might be affected by the urban growth
boundary expansion are located to the west of the Deschutes River, outside the
Alternative 4-A boundary.
The City has considered agricultural uses north of Highway 20 and east of N. Hwy. 97 in
northeast Bend. This is the main area where farm use occurs on agricultural lands in
close proximity to the proposed UGB boundary. A review of the record shows, however,
that the actual amount of agricultural activity is low and that agricultural use is
constrained by the presence of a high amount of nonagricultural Class VII and VIII soils
that are not used for farm use, despite their agricultural comprehensive plan designation
by Deschutes County.
In the northeast area, NRCS soils data and maps show that almost all of the agricultural
land that adjoins the eastern boundary of the urban growth boundary contains Class
58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp, 0 to 15 percent slopes soil. The only significant
exception is where the eastern boundary parallels Hamehook Road. There are minor
exceptions where the boundary adjoins a power substation near Highway 20 and two
small parts of the boundary created by the inclusion of the Hughes Road exception area
(at the north and south ends).
The 58C soil complex is 75% Class VII and VIII “nonagricultural” soils. Fifty percent of
this soil is Gosney (Class VII), twenty five percent is Rock outcrop (Class VIII), twenty
percent is Deskamp (Class VI) and five percent of the soil type contains contrasting
inclusions. Lands with this soil type are typically dry and fallow. This fact is confirmed
by aerial photographs and mapping by NRCS on file with the City. These areas of poor
soils are very wide in most places and provide an adequate separation between land
included in the urban growth boundary and agricultural uses occurring on higher value
farm soils found, in most cases, a considerable distance to the east of the boundary. In
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 144
the northeast part of the northeast urban growth boundary area, the 58C soils adjoin
59C Gosney-Rock Outcrop-Deskamp dry soils that have the same composition as 58C
soils but are located in areas of low rainfall.
Where the urban growth boundary line heads west at the north end of the northeast part
of the UGB to connect to the current UGB (Juniper Ridge) it unavoidably crosses some
agricultural properties that contain soils rated 36A and 38B, as well as 58C. Only the
36A, Deskamp loamy sand soil is rated high value when irrigated. About 2400’ of the
boundary crosses the 36A soil area. It is necessary to cross this area to connect the
boundary as the 36A soil is located in a long, relatively narrow swath of land that runs
north to south along Deschutes Market Road and extends down into a rural residential
goal exceptions area that is being included in the UGB due to its high priority rating and
proximity to the city.
The City’s irrigated lands water rights maps show that the urban growth boundary for the
northeast area minimizes the locations where it adjoins irrigated agricultural lands found
outside the new boundary. No part of the urban growth boundary, between Highway 20
and Butler Market road adjoins irrigated agricultural land. From Butler Market Road, the
boundary heads west to exclude irrigated farm land. This land is separated from urban
uses by Butler Market Road, an arterial street that provides a well-used transportation
link to the Bend Airport, Pronghorn destination resort, Brasada Ranch destination resort,
Powell Butte and Prineville.
The City considered an agricultural use survey of land adjacent to the UGB boundary in
northeast Bend (from Highway 20 to Juniper Ridge) in locating the boundary 96 . This
survey looked at all lands that may be affected by urbanization. Maps were included
with the study to show the area that might be impacted by urban development. The
agricultural use study found the following agricultural uses: horse operations, llama
operations, cow/calf operations, and pastures used for livestock grazing or raising hay.
There were no feed lot operations observed. In analyzing the potential for conflicts
between farm uses and future residential development, Deschutes County uses
information developed by Oregon State University that identifies potential conflicts. This
information is included in the record. The following are potential impacts from the
identified livestock farm uses that might cause complaints from new urban neighbors:
dust, manure odor, flies, livestock escape, cattle sounds (especially when cow and calf
are separated) and property damage. The potential impacts from pasture use are dust
when reseeding, the drift of herbicides which may be toxic, noise from hay balers that
may carry ¼ to ½ mile, manure odor if manure is used for fertilizer and possible run-off
from surface application of water and overspray by sprinklers. New residents may crowd
area roadways and make it more difficult for farmers to move farm equipment on these
roads. This problem is addressed, however, by creating a boundary that places urban
uses on both sides of roads. Agricultural lands outside the boundary are served by their
own rural roads. The Alternative 4-A boundary, in most areas, creates buffer areas of
unproductive farm ground and existing farm operations that eliminate or significantly
reduce the chance of conflicts between urban and farm uses.
The only urban uses planned for the area studied that are close enough to impact
agricultural lands are standard density residential development and large-site general
industrial development. The industrial development site is located north of Highway 20
96 Cite Newland survey submittal.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 145
and south of Neff Road. Industrial development can cause interference with farm uses
as it may generate pollutants and new traffic. The location selected, however, is
accessible by urban roadways. It adjoins agricultural land that is covered with sage and
junipers that is not used for farm use.
The agricultural use study reveals the following more specific information that supports
the City’s conclusion about impacts:
1. Between Highway 20 and Butler Market Road, all agricultural land adjacent to the
proposed UGB is not employed in farm use with the exception of two twenty-acre
parcels located north of Neff Road. In this area, a large swath of undeveloped
Class 58C soils exists and provides a buffer between farm activities and urban
uses.
a. One of the two adjacent twenty-acre properties, Tax Lot 202, Map 17-12-
25, is used for what appears to be low productivity pasture grazing on
poor, Class 58 soils. This property adjoins the Vista Del Sol subdivision.
This subdivision is an existing exception area that will be included in the
urban growth boundary. This subdivision is extensively developed with
residential uses at a density that far exceeds the density allowed by the
MUA zoning of the land (about one dwelling per 2.5 gross acres vs. one
dwelling vs. 10 gross acres allowed by MUA zoning). The residential
development in the Vista Del Sol subdivision has not prevented Tax Lot
202 from being used for agriculture use. Redevelopment of this
exceptions area is expected to occur at densities lower than typical urban
densities due to the fact that the area has been extensively subdivided
into lots that will remain desirable as large residential lots so the chance
of a conflict between uses is relatively low.
b. The other adjacent property in farm use is Tax Lot 400, Map 17-12-25.
This lot may be used for dry land grazing, most likely by horses. There
are two barns on the property but no developed pasture. The adoption of
the proposed UGB will not impact this property as the adjacent property is
already fully developed as a public park, the Big Sky Park sports
complex. After inclusion in the UGB, the park will continue to be used as
a public park with no change in impacts on the adjacent agricultural
property.
2. From the point where the Alternative 4-A UGB turns west at Butler Market Road
to the point where it reaches the intersection of Repine Road and Hamehook
Road, the following characteristics apply:
a. The land to the north of Butler Market Road where the boundary turns
and runs to the west for a distance of about 1320 feet, the 38.88-acre Tax
Lot 400, Map 17-12-13, contains 58C soils along most of its southern
boundary. This unproductive land divides and buffers the hay pastures
on the property from the impacts of future urban uses.
b. The urban growth boundary includes and excludes a part of Tax Lot 401
and 402, Assessor’s Map 17-12-13. These lands adjoin Hamehook
Road. Both properties are irrigated and used for hay production. The
properties are also used for or suited for cattle grazing. The part of each
property that adjoins Hamehook Road was included in the urban growth
boundary to achieve efficient urban development. A proposed sewer
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 146
interceptor must be installed along the Hamehook Road and Hamby
Road corridor to serve planned urban growth to the south on higher
priority lands (exceptions lands). The use of a part of these properties for
urban development is needed to enable the efficient provision of sewer
service and cost sharing along this urban corridor. The inclusion of parts
of these properties is allowed by ORS 197.298(3)(c). The boundary
location will have some future impacts on the use of the parts of Tax Lots
401 and 402 that are not included in the urban growth boundary as the
rear yards of urban residences will adjoin hay fields. This may limit the
ability of a farm owner to apply pesticides and herbicides or increase the
cost of that use by requiring the use of environmentally-friendly
chemicals. These impacts are lessened, however, by the fact that these
farm operators may choose to retain all parts of their property in
agricultural use and avoid possible negative impacts from developing
urban uses east of Hamehook Road. In any event, the City finds that
potential impacts on agricultural uses are outweighed by the need to
provide urban lands along both sides of the Hamehook/Hamby sewer
interceptor line.
3. At Repine Road, the urban growth boundary moves to the east and north to
include part of a rural residential exceptions area that adjoins Hughes Road. The
agricultural land immediately to the east of the boundary contains the poor, 58C
soils. As a result, the impacts of urbanization will fall primarily on lands of low
value for agricultural use. Also, the four agricultural parcels that adjoin this
boundary are less than twenty acres in size and are located between two heavily
parcelized rural residential exceptions areas. These small parcels are used for
grazing, horses and hay production and contain residences. Urbanization may
impact the cost of applying pesticides and herbicides but it is likely that the
existing rural residential development in the exceptions area and on these
substandard-sized farm parcels (less than 23 acres of irrigation water rights) has
already created this impact on the farm use of these small rural properties.
4. The land to the north of the part of the Hughes Road exceptions area included in
the UGB is exceptions land. This land is not, by definition, agricultural land. The
boundary, as it heads north and west from the Hughes Road exceptions area
adjoins other rural residential exceptions area until it reaches the agricultural
lands that adjoin Deschutes Market Road. These areas separate urbanization
from more distant agricultural lands. Aerial photographs show that these lands
do not appear to be employed in farm use as they are covered with juniper trees.
At most, these properties may be used for uneconomic, dry land cattle grazing
for brief periods of time during the year. This conclusion is consistent with the
fact that these lands consist of 58C and 59C soils that typically contain 75%
Class VII and VIII soils.
5. From the east boundaries of Tax Lot 304, Assessor’s Map 17-12-11, the
boundary crosses to the west to connect to the current urban growth boundary
and the Juniper Ridge property. This area contains a mix of lands in farm use
and lands that are dry, undeveloped property that are not used for farm use. The
farm uses in this area are grazing. Horses, cattle and goats were observed on
some of the area properties. The boundary cannot be located to avoid adjoining
farm uses or to avoid any impacts to farm use as a long strip of 36A soils exists
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 147
along Deschutes Market Road to the point where it intersects an exceptions area
that adjoins the existing urban growth boundary.
Southeast Quadrant The Alternative 4-A boundary in the southeast quadrant generally
avoids resource lands, except for a portion of the large commercial/industrial
employment center proposed for the vicinity of the intersection of E. Hwy. 20 and Hamby
Rd. This area is justified for inclusion under ORS 197.298(3)(a). Most of the boundary
south of E. Hwy. 20 separates exception areas included in the boundary from unsuitable
exception areas to the east. At the northwest corner of the intersection of SE Ward Rd.
and SE Stevens Rd. is a 40-acre agricultural parcel which abuts the expanded UGB on
its north and west sides. This is a non-commercial farm parcel, with a small pasture
area that appears to support several horses. Urban uses on adjacent properties within
the UGB are expected to have minimal impacts on this site. An area of about 153 acres
of Priority 4 land lies between the current UGB and SE Ward Rd., and between Bear
Creek Rd. and Stevens Rd. Inclusion of this area within the UGB is justified under ORS
197.298(3)(c), as discussed above. Section 11, an area of some 580 acres abutting the
south side of Stevens Rd., is a large Priority 4 area that will be separated from the
expanded UGB by Stevens Rd. Although designated EFU by Deschutes County,
Section 11 is vacant, and has no current agricultural activity or history. It also has no
irrigation rights. Urbanization of the area north of Stevens Rd. will present no
compatibility issues for Section 11.
Adjacent to the expanded UGB as it runs south down 27 th St. and then westward along
SE Knott Rd. are several small, scattered parcels designated EFU. Only one of these
has genuine agricultural activity; the remainder consist of small hobby farms. Future
urban uses with the expanded UGB in this area will have minimal impacts on these EFU
parcels.
See Exhibit L-11 for further analysis of Goal 14 location factor findings with respect to
the southeast quadrant.
Public Facility Findings
When evaluating UGB alternatives, OAR 660-024-0060(8) requires consideration of
relative costs for needed infrastructure, as well as impacts to, and capacities of, water,
sewer, stormwater, and transportation systems:
(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;
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 148
(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
(c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways and other
roadways, interchanges, arterials and collectors, additional travel lanes, other
major improvements on existing roadways and, for urban areas of 25,000 or more,
the provision of public transit service.
FINDING: Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-024 (Urban Growth Boundaries)
requires that when considering an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendment, a local
government must determine which land to add by evaluating alternative boundary
locations.
The boundary location factors of Statewide Planning 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 factors were
considered and balanced.
For purposes of Goal 14 Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis, “public facilities and
services” means water, sanitary sewer, storm water management, and transportation
facilities.
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.
The City has established the following criteria to address the locational analysis related
to the provision of services:
Goal 14 Criteria for All Uses –use to evaluate tax lots to form UGB alternatives &
use to evaluate UGB alternative boundary alternatives
Transportation Facilities:
1) Relative cost of transportation improvements (660-024-0060(8))
2) Reserve capacity of transportation facilities inside the UGB (660-024-0060(8)(a
3) Reserve capacity of transportation facilities outside the UGB (660-024-0060(8)(b))
(4) Need for new highways (660-024-0060(8)(c))
5) Need for new interchanges (660-024-0060(8)(c))
6) Need for new arterials (660-024-0060(8)(c))
7) Need for new collectors (660-024-0060(8)(c))
8) Off-site mitigation costs (660-024-0060(8)(c))
9) Proximity to existing transit service/bus routes (660-024-0060(8)(c))
Sewer Facilities:
10) Relative cost of providing sewer service/cost per acre to serve (660-024-0060(8))
11) Relative impacts to sewer facilities inside the UGB (660-024-0060(8)(b))
Water Facilities:
12) Relative cost per acre of providing water service (660-024-0060(8))
13) Water system improvement cost (660-024-0060(8)(b))
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 149
14) Total cost per acre of providing water service (660-024-0060(8)(b))
Storm Water Facilities:
15) Relative risk of pollutants entering drinking water supply (presence of DWPA)
(660-024-0060(8))
16) Relative cost of providing stormwater service (based on surficial geology) (660-024-
0060(8))
Other:
17) Proximity to high value, irrigated EFU land – distance from tax lots zoned EFU with
23 acres of high value soils and 23 acres of irrigation in the TRB sub-zone OR 36
acres of high value soils and 36 acres of irrigation in the AL sub-zone
For each of the UGB alternatives, the City has carried out analysis based on draft
master plans for sewer and water service, as well as amendments to the City’s
Transportation System Plan in, addressing OAR 660-024-0060(8). The sewer and water
master plans are attached as Exhibit L-9. They are proposed for adoption in connection
with this UGB amendment proposal, resulting in an update of the City’s public facilities
plan. For transportation facilities, the City has analyzed the relative costs and impacts
for seven scenarios that include areas considered for UGB expansion. This
transportation analysis is also attached in Exhibit L-8.
In order to estimate relative costs, impacts, and capacities of these infrastructure
systems, a series of technical memos has been prepared (see Exhibit L). The analyses
contained in these technical memos were used as inputs to a GIS-based analysis of all
suitable parcels within the UGB study area. This analysis enabled the City to estimate
relative costs, impacts, and capacities, and to determine the relative advantages and
disadvantages of areas under consideration for inclusion in the UGB in each of the UGB
alternatives. Based on the GIS analysis, a series of maps was prepared indicating those
areas that appear to be more or less costly to provide needed infrastructure
improvements for water, sewer, and transportation individually, as well combined
infrastructure cost estimates. These maps are attached as Exhibit L-10. The results of
the GIS analysis also served as the basis for findings addressing the Goal 14 location
factors for each of the UGB alternatives. These draft location factor findings are
attached as Exhibit L-11 for each alternative. Findings for Alternative 4-A indicate that
public facilities and services can be provided to the proposed expansion area in a cost-
effective manner, with manageable impacts to existing facilities, based on programmed
upgrades to ensure adequate capacities.
Transportation Findings: In considering transportation facilities, findings addressing
Goal 12 specifically have been prepared, and are contained in Exhibit E. In addition, a
number of amendments to the Transportation System Plan have been proposed (see
Exhibits E and F.) These findings and amendments satisfy OAR 660-024-0060(8) with
respect to transportation facilities, as well as Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning
Rule (OAR 660-012). However, subsection 0060 of the TPR has not been addressed as
part of this UGB amendment proposal. Deferral of this section of the TPR is allowable
under the following provision of OAR 660-024-0020:
(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
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 150
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.
In accordance with this provision, this proposal includes draft comprehensive plan map
and zoning map designations for the UGB expansion area that will not allow
development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by
current zoning. These designations are applied through proposed amendments to the
Bend Area General Plan Map, the Zoning Map, and the City of Bend Development Code
(see Exhibits B and I). These amendments create and apply Urban Holding
designations to properties within the UGB expansion area. Urban Holding designations
continue to permit development activity as currently permitted under UAR, MUA-10, RR-
10, and EFU zoning designations, but preclude more intensive urban uses until after
eligible areas are annexed to the city. Following annexation, urban development will be
permitted only after General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments consistent with the
type of Urban Holding designation that applies, and demonstration of compliance with
OAR 660-012-0060.
The transportation findings used to evaluate candidate sites are presented in the Bend
UGB Expansion: Transportation Analysis prepared by DKS and Associates. 97 This
report evaluated several alternative scenarios that followed the statutory priorities under
ORS 197.298: exception lands and then scenarios with EFU-zoned land. This report
was supplemented by analysis of an additional alternative (Alternative 7) which analyzes
transportation impacts resulting from urbanization of areas generally consistent with this
proposed UGB expansion. The Alternative 7 analysis, dated July 20, 2007 compares
transportation impacts and costs from the proposed UGB expansion with those of four
other alternatives. Overall impacts, needed mitigation measures, and costs are similar
under any of the alternatives analyzed. As a result, under any alternative UGB
expansion it will be important to maximize opportunities for extending or establishing an
efficient network of grid streets with future development that can minimize dependence
on individual arterial or collector streets and limit dependence on state transportation
facilities.
The major findings of the Bend Urban Growth Boundary Expansion transportation
analysis are:
• State highway facilities would be severely congested with Committed Network
improvements only and with build-out of the existing UGB by 2030. This is an
expected outcome, since the 2020 horizon year for the adopted TSP had a long-
term population of about 68,000 in the urban area, which is far less than the
119,000 population expected by 2030 with the new UGB expansions.
• The most severe congestion would be on US 97 north of Colorado Avenue to the
city limits. Significant system expansion, new facilities or new management
measures would be required to comply with state mobility standards.
• The Committed Street network would have moderate to severe congestion on
key city facilities by 2030, with any UGB alternative. These facilities include Reed
Market Road, 3 rd Street, and 27th Street.
97 See Exhibit L-8.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 151
• The total added investment for the Capacity Street network is estimated at $107
million (refer to Table 17 for details). This would be in addition to projects
included in the Committed Street network, and is targeted at serving the higher
population levels expected by 2030, even without UGB expansions.
• The four land use scenarios for UGB expansions have very similar relative
impacts on the Capacity Street network. Referring to Table 18, the location,
function and scale of needed additional improvements on the state and city street
network had very many common elements among the scenarios. That means
that the total expected investment to serve growth will be very similar, no matter
which combination of areas within the planning area is selected for UGB
expansion.
• Development in the Juniper Ridge area does have several unique roadway
elements associated with the state highways that do not occur with other land
use scenarios that were considered. These potentially could include upgraded
junctions with US 97 at Cooley Road, US 97 at Deschutes-Market Road and a
potential additional connection in between. The scale of these projects would
require additional review and approvals with ODOT.
• The total cost estimated for mitigations to the transportation system resulting
from UGB expansion ranges from $154 million to $232 million, which does not
include the cost of mitigation measures on US 97 from Empire Avenue to
Colorado Avenue. A major element of this cost range is targeted for
improvements at the US 97 / US 20 junction area, which is under study by ODOT
for a preferred alternative solution (cost estimated at $125 to $185 million in 2006
Refinement Plan).
• With the Capacity Street network and the additional mitigations in Table 18, the
transportation system will meet mobility standards on both city and state facilities.
However, further study is required at several locations to determine the scale and
extent of particular mitigations.
• Further study is required to select the best options on state facilities in the US 97
and Cooley Road area that were identified for the Juniper Ridge development
scenario. Recommendations made in this study are preliminary only. Specifically,
the concept of upgrades at Cooley Road and Deschutes-Market Road require
further study in conjunction with the Juniper Ridge Master Plan to understand the
best combination of investments on the state highway system.
• Other road facilities within the proposed UGB Expansion Areas would also
require upgrading to meet city urban design standards. The total estimated cost
for these facilities would be $173 million. A significant portion of these roadway
improvements in the expansion areas is anticipated to be funded by new
development, as it occurs.
• The composite investment to fund transportation improvements sufficient to
serve the projected population level of 119,000 (2030) within the urban area
could range up to $512 million.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 152
• This amount includes the $107 million for the projects in the Capacity Street
network, up to $232 million for mitigations identified in this study, and $173
million for streets within the expansion area.
• New revenue measures should be explored in order to fund the city portion of the
improvements to the transportation system anticipated with any of the UGB
expansion scenarios. For instance, this would likely include a significant
adjustment to the transportation System Development Charge program, and
could include other mechanisms to close the gap, such as local option gas tax
increment or a transportation utility fee. Based on experiences from other Oregon
cities, Bend could expect to increase its annual transportation revenue by about
$400,000 to $4 million per year, depending on the level and type of revenue
measures implemented.
Sewer Findings: With respect to criterion (8), the city has compared the relative costs
and advantages and disadvantages of alternative areas for UGB expansion. Those
areas that meet criteria (8)(a) through (8)(b) above are those that can be served using
the 2006 Sewer Collection System Master Plan, as amended.98 This also means these
same areas can be served using gravity to flow to the proposed interceptors. The city’s
evaluation considers the cost to serve the developable area within a basin and the
required downstream improvements. The cost to serve and the cost for downstream
improvements are based on the cost of sewer pipes needed to serve the proposed
basins. Sewer pipe cost in proportional to the flow in the pipe coming from areas outside
the UGB relative to total flow in the pipe.
The cost to serve an entire basin is typically different from the cost to serve a subset
area within that basin. Per OAR 660-024-0060 Boundary Locational Analysis, the
criteria used to analyze the basins include the relative cost to serve the basin per basin
area and the relative impact of flow from the basin on the existing sewer system.
The relative impact to the existing sewer system is based on whether a CSMP proposed
interceptor runs through the basin or if the basin flow travels to a proposed interceptor
via existing sewer that requires sewer upgrades. The assumptions in costing the
upgrades to existing pipe were based on the same unit costs used in the CSMP.
The total cost to serve a basin includes the interceptor, facility improvements required
inside the basin and downstream from the basin, and the cost to upgrade existing pipe.
A score from 3 to 1 was assigned to each basin based on the per acre cost to serve.
With respect to (8)(a), the city has evaluated the impacts to the existing sewer system
that serve areas inside the UGB. The collection master plan identifies the capacity
deficiencies inside the existing UGB, and where line upgrades and proposed
interceptors will relieve these deficiencies and provide capacity for future growth. The
technical memorandum supporting a new alignment for the plant interceptor shows an
area east of the current urban reserve boundary, north of Butler Market Road, and west
of the current study area boundary that could be served with this proposed alignment.
98 Technical Memorandum to Bend Planning Commission, from Victoria Wodrich, P.E., August
18, 2008.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 153
The CSMP, the Study Area Plans, and the Northeast interceptor technical memorandum
show that the areas with the greatest advantages are those due north, northeast, and
due east of the city. These areas are zoned UAR10, SR2.5, MUA10, and EFUTRB.
Areas evaluated by McKay & Sposito for the northeast/plant interceptor include those
properties east of Study Area 4 (see Exhibit ___). This area is east of Deschutes Market
Road and roughly north of Butler Market Road. This area meets criterion (a) because
construction of this new plant/northeast interceptor provides a shorter route from the
plant to 27 th Street and helps the city build the southeast interceptor faster than
recommended originally under the CSMP. This alignment may also be less expensive
for the city ($8.3 million instead of $9.0 million). This in turn helps reduce impacts to the
city’s existing sewer system because the construction of the northeast plant interceptor
provides the city the infrastructure to then construct the north and southeast interceptors.
With respect to (8)(b), the city has evaluated the capacity of existing sewer facilities
inside the UGB and the areas proposed for addition. Again, the new plant/northeast
interceptor alignment proposed by M&S provides an alignment for this interceptor that
will ultimately help improve the capacity of the existing collection system facilities.
Construction of this alignment provides the city the launching point for then constructing
the southeaster interceptor, which is needed to serve areas already within the city that
do not currently have sewer service. The southeast and the proposed plant/northeast
interceptor alignments are designed to provide wastewater collection using gravity to
direct flow to the treatment plant.
Water Findings: With respect to criterion (8), the city has compared the relative costs
and advantages and disadvantages of alternative areas for UGB expansion. Per OAR
660-024-0060 Boundary Locational Analysis, the criteria used to analyze the proposed
lands include the relative cost to serve the proposed land, the impacts to existing water
facilities that serve nearby areas already inside the UGB, and 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. 99
The criterion considers transmission mains needed inside the proposed area and
excludes neighborhood mains and service lines. The costs for neighborhood mains and
service lines would be considered relatively the same on a cost per developable acre for
all proposed areas. In addition, in includes improvements to storage, supply and
transmission mains required to meet peak and fire flow storage demand and average
day demand; and, secondarily, to bring service to the proposed area.
The city finds that most of the study area can be served by either the City of Bend or
Avion Water Company. The areas most advantageous for the city to consider for UGB
expansion are those north, northeast, due east, and southeast that are already served
by the Avion Water Company and areas located generally in the urban reserve areas
north and due west that are served by the City of Bend.
99 Technical Memorandum to Bend Planning Commission, from Victoria Wodrich, P.E., August
18, 2008.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 154
With respect to criterion (8)(a), the city has evaluated the impacts to the existing water
facilities that serve nearby areas already inside the UGB. For the properties served by
Avion Water Company, Figure 7 of the 6/11/07 technical memorandum and the master
plan itself show most of the territory to the north, northeast, due east, and southeast of
Bend have advantages for UGB expansion. The areas south of Cooley Road/Ann
Margaret Drive, north of Knott Road, and between the city limits and properties fronting
the east side of Hamby/Ward roads as those areas within which Avion can provide water
for urban levels of development. This area includes the EFU, UAR10 and SR2.5 areas
due east of Bend. Avion has existing lines already established in these areas through
which the company can provide water without compromising its existing capacity.
With respect to criterion (8)(b), the city has also evaluated the capacity of existing water
facilities to serve areas already inside the UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to
the UGB. The evaluation considers the distribution system upgrades within the
proposed areas and water facility improvements. This evaluation addresses both master
plans of the city and the Avion Water Company. Both the city and Avion have or will be
acquiring water rights to serve the next 20 years worth of population growth. The city
will be adopting a new water master plan in connection with this UGB expansion,
including recommendations on needed improvements to the city’s water system (see
Exhibit L-9). Avion Water Company has also developed a master plan that outlines the
company’s future capital improvements for new reservoirs and transmission lines.
With respect to the Avion master plan, this document already shows that Avion has
completed significant investments in capital improvements, including new reservoirs and
lines. Based on Avion’s master plan, the city believes that the areas to the northeast,
due east, and southeast of Bend, including those identified above under the finding
address criterion (8)(a), are readily serviceable for UGB expansion. Avion already has
the supply and delivery system in place to serve the existing population in these areas
and can provide water to serve urban levels of development.
Stormwater Facilities
Within the current UGB, the City’s stormwater facilities consist of 13 miles of piped
stormwater lines with outfalls to the Deschutes River, approximately 4,000 publicly
owned drywells and 1,000 drill holes, and a few publicly-owned drainage infiltration
ponds/swales as well as three manufactured treatment controls.
The City is nearing completion of its first Stormwater Master Plan. The master plan
proposes several stormwater management strategies which will be applied both to areas
within the current UGB and in the expansion area. These will include various
combinations of pipe flow, with controls and prior treatment, to the Deschutes River;
discharge to dedicated stormwater ponds at the existing water reclamation facility via
piping and open channels; and discharge to regional treatment facilities, with water
quality control provided by vegetated ponds or swales.
Using one or more of these and similar strategies, the UGB expansion area can be
served by stormwater management facilities. The underlying geology will determine
which strategies are most appropriate for each sub-area. Cost differentials between
sub-areas are not well quantified, however it is not expected that any given sub-area will
be significantly more or less costly to serve with stormwater facilities. Impacts to the
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 155
existing system from urbanization of the expanded UGB area will be non-existent, since
the existing system is very limited, and serves only a small area of the existing UGB in
proximity to the Deschutes River. The remainder of the urban area is served by a large
number of dry wells, drill holes, and a few publicly owned drainage ponds and swales.
New development in the UGB expansion area will be required to accommodate
stormwater consistent with policies of the Stormwater Master Plan.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 156
VI. Findings on Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement.
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
FINDING: This finding addresses Goal 1 and the city’s goals for citizen involvement in
Chapter 1 of the Bend Area General Plan.
The proposal meets Goal 1 because the city has provided opportunities for citizens to be
involved in all phases of this planning process, and followed the city's acknowledged
Goal 1 procedures for citizen involvement. The city engaged a technical advisory
committee (TAC) from October 2004 through July 2006 that provided input on a number
of products including the buildable lands inventory, the housing needs analysis, the
redevelopment measures, and the proposed housing element (Chapter 5). In addition,
the city also engaged a Steering Committee composed of the Bend Planning
Commission and one (1) representative from each of Bend’s eight (8) neighborhood
associations. The Steering Committee met monthly with staff from January 2006
through May 2007 to provide a citizen’s perspective on the framework plan and the
principles for developing completed neighborhoods that have been incorporated into the
Framework Plan, policies, and development standards.
Since the first public hearings in July and August 2007, the Bend Planning Commission
and Deschutes County Planning Commission liaisons held over 30 work sessions
through which they have reviewed staff work on a modified UGB amendment proposal.
At each work session, Chair Walkey provided opportunities for public comments from
those attending the meeting. Staff also provided reports on new testimony and evidence
submitted into the record, and reported on going coordination with the irrigation districts.
Chair Walkey also chaired a reconvened technical advisory committee (TAC) that met
15 times between October 2007 and September 2008. As discussed in more detail
below regarding the Goal 2 coordination requirement, since the first public hearing in
July 2007, city staff has met nine (9) times with affected irrigation districts to obtain
district input on the work products that informed the UGB expansion and to coordinate
on a model coordination agreement form that could be used by all four (4) irrigation
districts. The record also includes four (4) maps and a spreadsheet that presents the
numbers of irrigated acres potentially affected by each UGB expansion proposal in each
irrigation district 100 . City staff has also coordinated closely throughout the process of
developing this proposal with Deschutes County, the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation
District, and the Bend La Pine School District.
The Bend Planning Commission/County Planning Commission Liaison work sessions
were held almost weekly to review staff work and solicit public comments. This work led
to the development of five (5) alternative boundaries. Three (3) alternatives were
released in early September for public review and comment. Two additional alternatives
were developed and released in late September and early October, including Alternative
4, which was the subject of the October 27 joint planning commission public hearing.
100 See work session materials for September 22, 2008 and October 13, 2008 -
http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/community_development/UGB_Expansion.html .
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 157
Chair Walkey also met with and solicited input from the TAC one final time in September
on the four previous alternatives.
In addition, city staff have held a number of public presentations to public groups and
held work sessions with the Bend Planning Commission, the Deschutes County
Planning Commission and the Bend City Council between 2004 and 2008. Staff has
provided monthly updates to the council from April 2006 to date. In addition to council,
Staff provided public presentations on this project, including the following:
Public Meeting Chronology
2004
July 12 Presentation to Planning Commission
September 15 Presentation to City Council
October First meeting of Technical Advisory Committee
2005
March 28 Update to Planning Commission
April 8 Presentation to Bend Chamber Government Affairs Council
May 24 Meeting with Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA) Board
June 16 Presentation to Neighborhood Association Chairs and Officers
June 16 First meeting of Bend-LaPine School District Sites and Facilities
Committee
July 12 Meeting with Central Oregon Association of Realtors (COAR)
Government Affairs Committee
August 17 Presentation of Phase 1 products to City Council
August 18 Presentation of Phase 1 products plus involvement to Neighborhood
Association Chairs and Officers
August 22 Presentation of Phase 1 products to Planning Commission
August 25 Presentation of Phase 1 to Deschutes County Planning Commission
October 14 COAR Training
October 17 City Council committee of the whole
November 16 City Council work session – formation of steering committee
2006
January 18 City Council work session
March 8 Presentation to Oregon Association of Mortgage Professionals
(OAMP)
April 19 City Council work session
May 17 Council work session on potential phasing of UGB expansion
July 19 City Council work session and progress report
August 16 City Council work session and progress report
September 20 City Council work session and progress report
October 18 City Council work session and progress report
November 15 City Council work session and progress report
December 20 City Council work session and progress report
2007
January 17 City Council presentation on public involvement and decision-making
process
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 158
February 21 City Council presentation on public involvement and decision-making
process
March 21 City Council work session – presentation of reduced UGB Study Area
Map and Refined Urban Reserve map
April 12 Joint work session – Bend and Deschutes County Planning
Commissions
April 18 City Council work session
April 26 First public open house at Bend Armory
May 14 City Council work session on UGB land needs, transportation, and
Framework Plan and policies
June 4 City Council work session on legislative process, including both urban
reserve and UGB expansion
June 12 Press conference on proposed UGB expansion, urban reserve
June 25 First Bend Planning Commission work session on UGB expansion,
urban reserve, and related plan amendments
June 26 Second Open House at Bend Armory
June 28 First Deschutes County Planning Commission work session on UGB
expansion, urban reserve, and related plan amendments
July 9 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
July 26 City of Bend and Deschutes County Planning Commissions Joint
Public Hearing on the UGB Expansion
August 6 City of Bend and Deschutes County Planning Commissions Joint
Public Hearing on the UGB Expansion - Continued
August 23 City of Bend and Deschutes County Planning Commissions Joint
Public Hearing on the UGB Expansion - Continued
September 17 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
October 4 Technical Advisory Committee, First meeting of the re-convened TAC
for the purpose of assisting the Planning Commission
October 8 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
October 18 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
October 22 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
October 29 Joint City Council / Deschutes County Commission Work Session
November 1 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
November 15 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
November 26 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
November 29 Joint City Council / Deschutes County Commission Work Session
December 6 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
December 10 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
2008
January 10 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 14 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
January 24 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
January 28 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
February 6 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
February 11 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
February 21 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
February 25 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
March 6 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 159
March 10 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
March 19 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
March 24 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
April 8 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
April 14 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
April 23 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
April 28 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
May 5 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
May 6 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 12 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
May 19 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
May 22 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 26 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB – Final Regular
Meeting
June 9 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
June 16 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
June 26 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
July 7 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
July 14 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
July 21 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
August 4 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
August 11 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
August 18 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
August 20 Joint Planning Commission / City Council Work Session
September 8 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
September 18 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
September 22 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
September 29 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
October 6 Bend Planning Commission Work Session on UGB
October 13 Final Work Session with Bend Planning Commission
October 27 & 28 Scheduled Joint Public Hearing with Bend and Deschutes County
Planning Commissions
November 3 Scheduled Joint City Council / Deschutes County Commission Work
Session
November 24 Scheduled Joint City Council / Deschutes County Commission Public
Hearing
December 3 Work Session and Deliberation with City Council
December 17 Final recommendation by Council
December 22 First Reading of a UGB Ordinance
2009
January 5, 2009 Second Reading of a UGB Ordinance
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 160
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all
decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base
for such decisions and actions.
FINDING:
Adequate Factual Base
The proposal meets Goal 2 because the proposed amendments to the General Plan,
including the UGB expansion, have an adequate factual base. These amendments are
based upon a number of technical reports that were completed according to the
requirements of state law, where applicable. These supporting documents include those
listed under Exhibit L-1 through L-11 to the June 11, 2007 45-day notice to DLCD,
including the amendments to this notice filed on October 8 and October 20, 2008:
Coordinated Population Forecast (2004);
Buildable Lands Inventory (2005);
Housing Needs Analysis (2005);
Residential Land Study – Task 1, Phase 2 technical memorandum (April, 2006);
Residential Lands Study – Land Needs technical memorandum (April, 2007)
Residential Lands Study – ORS 197.296 Measures memorandum (May, 2007)
DKS and Associates – “Bend UGB Expansion: Transportation Analysis” (April
2007)
DKS and Associates – “Alternative 7 – North / Northeast (July 2007)
Economic Opportunities Analysis (October 2008 Draft)
The Water System Master Plan and related technical memoranda;
The Collection System Master Plan and related technical memoranda, and;
The Avion Water Company Master Plan
The city has followed the statutes, administrative rules, goals, and guiding workbooks to
prepare this factual base. The coordinated population forecast was adopted by
Deschutes County in 2004, and ultimately by the city in 2005 after the resolution of an
appeal to LUBA 101 . The Buildable Lands Inventory and the Housing Needs Analysis
were developed to meet Statewide Goal 10, Housing, and were prepared according to
the requirements outlines in a technical handbook for meeting Goal 10 102 . The three (3)
technical memoranda addressing the land needs for housing and measures were
prepared according to the requirements of the Goal 10 handbook (See footnote) and
ORS 197.296.
The record includes proposed revisions to Chapter 6 of the Bend Area General Plan,
Economy and Lands for Economic Growth. These revisions were prepared based on an
101 See Friends of Deschutes County and Sisters Forest Planning Committee v. Deschutes County
and the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters (OR LUBA 2004-160).
102 Planning for Residential Growth: A Workbook for Oregon’s Urban Areas (1997) Oregon Transportation and
Growth Management Program. Salem, Oregon - http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/publications.shtml .
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 161
economic opportunities analysis based on Goal 9, the administrative rule at OAR 660-
009, and the Goal 9 guidebook 103 .
The record includes proposed revisions to Chapter 8 of the Bend Area General Plan,
Public Facilities and Services. These revisions were prepared to address Goal 11,
Public Facilities and Services, and to incorporate the respective water and sewer
collection system master plans by references as public facility plans.
The record also includes proposed amendments to Chapter 7 of the Bend Area General
Plan, Transportation Systems Plan. These amendments were prepared to address
Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, and the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR) at OAR 660-012. These amendments also incorporate the applicable portions of
the transportation analysis prepared by DKS and Associates.
Coordination with local governments
The City has coordinated closely with the affected local governments through the public
process of developing the UGB expansion proposal and amendments to the general
plan and development code. While the city and the affected local governments have not
always reached agreement on the issues discussed, the following findings show that the
city has coordinated in a manner consistent with Goal 2.
School District
The Bend La Pine School District participated as a party to the process, and as a
member of the city’s technical advisory committee. The School District has also
provided written and oral testimony to the record that helped inform the estimates of land
need for future public schools, and the location of land on the Framework Plan map.
City and district staff also met as needed outside of Planning Commission work sessions
to review data and solicit the District’s input.
Park District
The Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District also participated as a party to this
process, and as a member of the technical advisory committee. The Parks District
provided written and oral comments to the record that helped inform the estimates of
land need for future public parks and trails, and on the location of parks on the
Framework Plan. The city and district staff also met outside of TAC and Planning
Commission work sessions as needed to jointly review data and solicit input on each
jurisdiction’s products.
Deschutes County
The city and county have been coordinating on the development of the factual base to
support the UGB expansion since 2004. The county participated as a member of the
TAC, and also met on a regular basis, sometimes weekly, to coordinate the public
process before the city and county planning commissions. City and county staff also
coordinated the public review of amendments to the each jurisdictions comprehensive
plans and implementing land use regulations.
103 Industrial and Other Employment Lands Guidebook (2005) Oregon department of Land
Conservation and Development. Salem, Oregon - http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/publications.shtml .
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 162
Irrigation Districts
There are four (4) affected irrigation districts with whom the city has been coordinating
since 2007. City staff met with the affected irrigation districts and their representatives at
a meeting on July 9, 2007 to review the proposed 2007 UGB expansion before the first
evidentiary hearing on July 26, 2007.
In response to concerns raised by the irrigation districts at the initial public hearings in
July and August 2007, the city committed to meet on a more regular basis with the
irrigation district staff while the Bend Planning Commission and County Planning
Commission liaisons were reviewing the UGB proposal and considering amendments to
the proposal and text of the city’s general plan and development code. The districts and
city staff met on the following dates to discuss the proposed UGB amendment and
issues of concern to the districts: December 17, 2007; February 6, 2008; March 5, 2008;
April 2, 2008; May 7, 2008; June 4, 2008, July 16, 2008; August 7, 2008, September 15,
2008, October 16, 2008, and December 8, 2008. The city and irrigation district staff
used these meetings to not only coordinate on the public review process for the UGB
expansion and plan amendments, but on land development issues, the development of
the city’s collection system master plan, and to develop an agreement form for on-going
city-irrigation district coordination after the completion of the UGB expansion.
The record includes comments from the Swalley, Central Oregon, and Tumalo Irrigation
Districts. Of these three, the Swalley Irrigation District (SID) has submitted the most
written testimony, including some comments that present a different perspective on
coordination between the city and the district. The city provides these findings to provide
an overview of where the reader can find supportive materials in the record on the city’s
coordination with SID, including memoranda that respond to the issues raised by SID.
The issues raised by SID go beyond coordination with the city on the development of a
factual base to demonstrate the need for the UGB expansion and the supportive
amendments to the General Plan and Development Code. SID has raised a number of
issues that are presented in the November 24, 2008 from its attorney. The tone and
content of the letter suggest that the district has motivations beyond simply being heard
and having their concerns addressed through coordination. These same comments
address issues that the city notes have not been raised by the other irrigation districts.
The following documents from the city and other parties include evidence and argument
that directly address and respond to the issues that have been raised by SID.
1. Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning
2. Definition of coordinated (ORS 197.015(5))
3. August 6, 2007 letter from Jeff Condit (Exhibit B, August 6, 2007 public hearing)
4. August 6, 2007 talking points from Ed and Dee Elkins, Gopher Gulch Ranch
(Exhibit L, August 6, 2007 public hearing)
5. September 17, 2007 memorandum from Perkins Coie
6. May 27, 2008 letter from Jeff Condit
7. May 27, 2008 letter from Gloria Gardiner, DLCD
8. July 28, 2008 memorandum from Patrick Griffiths, City of Bend. This
memorandum references several attachments that were entered into the record
at the August 4, 2008 Bend Planning Commission work session.
9. September 12, 2008 memoranda from Bruce White, including several exhibits
entered into the record on September 22, 2008.
10. September 16, 2008 memorandum from city staff
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 163
11. October 6, 2008 letter from Ed Elkins
12. October 27, 2008 memorandum from city staff
In addition to these materials, the city has addressed on the key issues raised by the
irrigation districts – the impact of the UGB expansion on irrigated lands. The city
completed two (2) geographic information systems (GIS) – based analyses, using
parcel-based data provided by the irrigation districts, to provide an accounting on the
numbers of irrigated acres that would be included in each UGB expansion alternative
considered. The results of these analyses were entered into the record on September
22, 2008 and October 27, 2008.
The Goal 2 coordination requirement requires that comprehensive plans be
"coordinated" with the plans of affected governmental units, including special districts.
The city has met its coordination obligation with SID and the other irrigation districts by
considering their legitimate concerns and accommodating them as much as possible.
The Goal 2 coordination requirement involves a two-step process wherein (1)
information is exchanged between the city and the affected local governments, and (2)
the city uses the information gathered to balance the needs of the affected governmental
units as much as possible. As explained above, and as evidenced by the substantial
amount of material submitted by SID into the record of this proceeding, SID and the city
have exchanged information regarding the proposed UGB amendment and SID has
been provided ample opportunity to explain its needs and concerns. The essence of
SID's objection is that it objects to the urbanization of lands within its district. The city
finds that it cannot balance SID's opposition to urbanization with the need for
urbanization of the identified lands, for all of the reasons explained in the city's findings.
However, the city council has removed a 332-acre area at the north end of the city
(including the proposed "auto mall") from the expansion area, which area is entirely
within SID's district and will no longer be urbanized. The city also notes that many of the
property owners within SID's territory actually support the inclusion of their lands in the
amended UGB, despite SID's strident opposition.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open
spaces.
FINDING: The proposal meets Goal 5 because it proposes an amendment to the Bend
Urban Growth Boundary that avoids to the extent practicable lands with county-
inventoried Goal 5 resources. The proposed UGB expansion was derived from an
original study area developed in January 2006. This study area was developed and
structured to include approximately 27,000 acres of land for consideration for either UGB
expansion or urban reserve designation. This study area was further reduced in size
and excluded areas northwest of Bend identified under the County’s Comprehensive
Plan as deer winter range, a Goal 5 wildlife habitat resource. The County's Goal 5
program does not identify any acknowledged Goal 5 riparian corridors, wetlands, wildlife
habitat or other Goal 5 resources within the proposed urban growth boundary
The City has taken additional steps to identify scenic areas along the north Deschutes
River and Tumalo Creek drainage corridor and potential upland Areas of Special Interest
in the west and northwest quadrants of the expansion area. In 1988, the north
Deschutes River canyon was designated by the State as an Oregon Scenic Waterway,
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 164
qualifying the river canyon for Goal 5 scenic protection. In the absence of any existing
County Goal 5 inventory and analysis of these areas within the proposed urban growth
boundary, these areas have been earmarked for future Goal 5 analysis by the city to
determine the appropriate level of protection prior to urbanization. The proposed
expansion of the boundary was crafted to ensure that future urban growth could avoid
these areas, yet include adequate land to meet the city’s future need for residential and
economic lands.
DLCD provided comments on Goal 5 in their letters of October 24, 2008 and November
21, 2008. The city provides these findings to address DLCD's comments and to provide
further support to show the proposed amendments to the Bend Area General Plan,
including the UGB expansion, satisfy Goal 5. The city has relied on the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan, which does not identify any protected Goal 5 riparian,
wetland, or wildlife habitat resources in the proposed expansion area. The city
incorporates the county plan by reference, including maps, 104 and relies on the county’s
goal 5 inventories as evidence.
Wildlife Habitat . DCC Chapter 23.104 includes the inventories of Goal 5 fish, bird, and
wildlife in Deschutes County. County policy directs the protection of these resources
through a wildlife area combining zone, found in DCC Chapter 18.88. These combining
zones are identified on the County’s Combining Zone Map. The proposed UGB
expansion does not include any lands mapped in a WA Combining Zone applied to Goal
5 wildlife habitat. The UGB expansion does not include any of the mapped deer winter
range to the northwest or any of the mapped elk habitat to the south and southwest.
Riparian Areas and Wetlands . DCC Chapter 23.112 includes the inventories, goals, and
policies for Goal 5 riparian areas and wetlands. The proposed expansion of the UGB
includes two (2) Goal 5 riparian areas that are protected through the county’s
comprehensive plan policies and development regulations associated with the
Landscape Management Combining Zone 105 . Most of these riparian areas are along the
Deschutes River and Tumalo Creek. Approximately 22 additional acres are located in
the proposed UGB expansion outside of the Deschutes River and Tumalo Creek.
Regarding wetlands, the county has adopted the U.S. Department of Interior National
Wetlands Inventory Maps as the County inventory of wetland resources 106 . These
mapped wetlands are subject to state and federal fill and removal regulations.
The proposed UGB amendment is consistent with Goal 5 because the city has existing
zoning regulations in place to protect any additional Goal 5 resources that may be
identified through future planning. The north Deschutes River canyon is an extension of
an existing city identified Goal 5 scenic resource. The city uses a waterway overlay
zone (WOZ) that was developed to protect the corridors of the Deschutes River and
Tumalo Creek within the UGB 107 . In addition to these river and stream corridors, the city
anticipates that through annexation, future master plans and refinement planning, any
additional areas of special interest will be identified in the new areas included in the
104 See 12/1/2008 electronic mail message to Bend City Council and Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
105 See DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone.
106 See DCC 23.113.040(3).
107 See Bend Development Code Chapter 2.7.600, Waterway Overlay Zone (WOZ)
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 165
UGB. To protect these natural areas, the city uses an overlay zone to protect the natural
features of the ASI’s 108 .
The city has included new policies that commit the city to performing a complete goal 5
inventory once the new UGB is acknowledged. Additional policies propose urban
reserve plan designations that prevent urbanizable lands from becoming urban until the
Goal 5 inventory is complete and protection standards are in place,
To summarize, the proposal meets Goal 5 because it includes new lands for
urbanization that are not designated wildlife habitat or having Goal 5 wetlands under the
County’s comprehensive Plan. The proposal further meets Goal 5 because the city has
zoning regulations in place to protect river and upland areas of special interest that will
be inventoried and designated through future planning.
Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the
state.
FINDING: The proposal meets Goal 6 because it is based upon an updated sewer
collection system master plans developed to ensure future development will maintain
and improve the quality of the water and land resources of the state. The proposed
expansion of the Bend UGB is based upon the Draft Collection System Master Plan
(CSMP) as amended through February 2008 and study area plans developed by MWH,
Inc. This CSMP was developed to ensure sewer service could be provided to areas
within the existing Bend UGB and the existing urban reserve areas using gravity flow to
the city’s treatment plant. The expansion of the Bend UGB was further evaluated based
on which additional areas could be served with the city’s sewer system and rely on
gravity for the collection and transmission of effluent to the treatment plant.
The proposal also meets Goal 6 because it will be implemented through a framework
plan that provides an illustrative guide for future development 109 . This framework plan
identifies future road corridors that provide a grid system for future transportation. This
grid will also facilitate the expansion of the city’s transit system as new areas are
incorporated into the city 110 . In addition, the proposal will further protect air quality
because it distributes employment centers and locations for neighborhood centers
throughout the planning area. These centers are intended to provide land for future
employment, neighborhood-supportive commercial uses and multi-family housing,
thereby providing such uses within closer proximity to neighborhoods and providing
opportunities to reduce vehicle trips that rely on automobiles and transit, and make
additional trips using bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
108 See Bend Development Code Chapter 2.7.700, Upland Areas of Special Interest Overlay Zone
109 See Exhibit K – 2008 Draft Framework Plan
110 http://www.ci.bend.or.us/bend_area_transit/index.html .
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 166
FINDING: The proposal meets Goal 7 because it does not include areas that are
subject to natural hazards under Goal 7. This goal considers the following to be natural
hazards: floods (coastal and riverine), landslides, earthquakes and related hazards,
tsunamis, coastal erosion, and wildfires. The section of the Deschutes River included in
the proposal does not represent a flood hazard because it is located in a canyon. The
expansion area does not include any areas identified as landslide or earthquake hazard
areas. In addition, the Bend UGB is not located on the Oregon coast, so no potential
threat of tsunami or coastal erosion exists.
With respect to wildfire, the proposed UGB does not include areas that are currently
forest land to the north and west of Bend. The areas to the north of the city on the west
side of Highway 20 are designated UAR10, Urban Areas Reserve, and include rural
residential exception areas and one farm. These areas, and the other areas included in
the UGB expansion proposal to the north and northeast are under the protection of
Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2 and will be protected by the Bend
Fire Department once included in the city. To further protect and guard against
catastrophic wildfire, the Framework plan proposes a low density residential buffer along
the west boundary. This low density buffer accomplishes several goals. The buffer
provides: 1) a land use compatibility transition from the adjoining RR-10 lands outside
the proposed boundary; 2) a transition for deer winter range also located outside the
proposed boundary and; 3) a reduction of fire fuels and provision of adequate access for
fire vehicles if needed. The proposed UGB meets Goal 7 to the greatest extent
practical.
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.
FINDING: The proposal meets Goal 8 because the proposed UGB expansion was
developed in coordination with the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District. The latter
portion of Goal 8 regarding destination resorts is not applicable because the city has not
proposed to include land designated for destination resort development or with an
approved destination resort.
The development of the UGB proposal was based in part on an estimate of future land
needed for parks and trails. This analysis is incorporated in the land needs technical
memorandum that supports the UGB expansion 111 and Chapter 3 of the Bend Area
General Plan. This estimate of land need was based upon a multiplier of acres of park
land per thousand population. In addition, the evaluation of potential areas to consider
for UGB expansion was based in part on a criterion of distance to existing and planned
parks. The proposed framework plan also meets Goal 8 because it identifies existing
public parks and the acreage needed by quadrant for future public parks and trails.
Goal 9: Economic Development
111 See April 25, 2007 technical memorandum, Land Needs.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 167
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
FINDING: This goal is applicable to the proportion of the UGB expansion that includes
employment land. The proposal meets Goal 9 because the city has prepared the
background analysis and developed policies to provide adequate opportunities for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of citizens. The
record includes an additional document of findings that address Goal 9 and how the
proposed UGB expansion meets Goal 9 112 . This report provides findings that are
summarized here for Goal 9. The proposed UGB expansion includes 2,090 acres of
employment land distributed throughout the expansion area. Included in this total is 100
acres to meet the City’s special site need for large lot industrial, 100 acres for a new full
service Hospital and 200 acres are for a future university to be sited in the Juniper Ridge
planning area. This proposal is based on the City’s 2008 updated economic
opportunities analysis (EOA). The EOA was prepared according to the recently
amended administrative rules for Goal 9 and relying on a guidebook for preparing
EOA’s 113 . The proposal responds to the EOA finding that Bend needs acres of
additional 1,008 acres of commercial land, 118 acres of industrial and mixed
employment land for economic uses to ensure a 20-year supply.
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
FINDING: The proposal meets Goal 10 because the proposed UGB expansion, and the
related amendments to the Bend Area General Plan, will provide for the housing needs
of the citizens. This finding is based upon a number of materials in the record, including:
the buildable lands inventory;
the housing needs analysis;
the land needs technical memorandum (April 25, 2007);
the measures memorandum (May 2, 2007), and;
the proposed amendments to Chapter 5 to the Bend Area General Plan: Housing
and Residential Lands.
The proposal meets Goal 10 because the city has inventoried its buildable residential
lands inside the current UGB according to ORS 197.296. The city identified a need for
2,714 acres of additional land for housing based on the inventory, the coordinated
population forecast, and the housing needs analysis. The city conducted a housing
needs analysis according to ORS 197.296 and identified the types of housing that will be
needed over the next 20 years, based in part on the existing housing stock and the
needs for housing based on demographic and economic trends. These technical
resources were used to revise the city’s housing element (Chapter 5) through the
development of policies, strategies, and benchmarks intended to encourage the
development of needed housing for different households based on type of housing, price
or rent range, and the amount of housing that could be afforded by households. The city
has taken a two-fold approach to provide additional land for housing, and to recommend
112 See City of Bend 2008 Draft Economic Opportunities Analysis.
113 See OAR 660-009 and http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/ECODEV/economic_opportunities_analysis.shtml .
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 168
policies that encourage the development of needed housing. The city provided
additional findings addressing Goal 10 and the Goal 10 administrative rule (OAR 660-
Division 8) in Section III of the findings.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities
and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
FINDING: The proposal meets Goal 11 because the city has developed proposed
amendments to Chapter 8 of the Bend Area General Plan, Public Facilities and Services,
that further incorporate new water and wastewater public facility plans. The proposed
amendment to Chapter 8 (See Exhibit I) incorporates the city’s water system master plan
and collection system master plan as Goal 11 public facility plans. These two plans will
guide the development of the city’s water system and sewer collection system within the
UGB.
In addition, the city has based the proposed expansion of the UGB in part on the
proposed development of three (3) new sewer interceptors that are located beyond the
city’s current UGB. The record includes a technical memorandum that evaluated
potential areas for UGB expansion based in part on whether they could be served by
gravity. The proposed UGB expansion includes those areas that could drain using
gravity and topography into one of the proposed sewer interceptors.
The proposal further meets Goal 11 because the city’s recommended framework plan
provides an illustrative guide for development consistent with Goal 11. The framework
plan identifies existing and planned public school and park sites and their proximity to
future neighborhood centers. In addition, the framework plans proposes an extension of
the city’s grid transportation system that can also provide rights of way for future water
and sewer facilities. The city provided additional findings on Goal 11 in an ordinance
adopting the city’s water and sewer public facility plans.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
FINDING: The proposal meets Goal 12 because the proposed amendments to Chapter
7 of the Bend Area General Plan, Transportation System Plan, demonstrate that a safe,
convenient, and economic transportation system will be provided. This finding is based
on a separate document that provides findings addressing the Transportation Planning
Rule, OAR 660-012 114 .
The proposed UGB expansion is based upon a transportation analysis prepared by DKS
and Associates. This analysis evaluated a number of alternative scenarios for UGB
expansion and identified needed mitigations for these alternatives. The proposed
findings that address Goal 12 rely on this report and identify those areas that meet Goal
12. The proposed UGB expansion intentionally makes every effort to avoid an
114 See Exhibit D to the June 11, 2007 transmittal to DLCD.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 169
expansion to the north and south along the state highway facilities to minimize impacts
to their facilities. In addition, the record includes the proposed framework plan (Exhibit
K) and amendments to the TSP map (Exhibits E and F) that identify needed roadway,
pedestrian, and bicycle connections to serve these new areas recommended for
inclusion in the Bend UGB.
Goal 13: Energy
To conserve energy.
FINDING: The proposal meets Goal 13 because the UGB expansion is based upon and
supported by a framework plan intended to conserve energy. The framework plan
proposes an extension of the city’s grid transportation plan that will support both
automobile travel and public transit. The plan also identifies potential locations for future
neighborhood centers that are intended to include multi-family housing and
neighborhood supportive commercial. These elements of the framework plan work
together to reduce energy consumption for travel by providing housing and
neighborhood supportive commercial centers closer together.
In addition, the framework plan and the amendments to the city’s TSP include proposed
changes intended to serve both pedestrian and bicycle travel. These changes also
support the extension of the city’s transit system, which will provide further opportunities
to conserve energy through public transit.
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.
FINDING: The proposal meets this criterion because the city proposes a General Plan
map and a zoning map for the urban growth boundary. The General Plan map proposes
urban reserve designations for Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Public Facilities
land uses to assure the identified economic and residential needs will be met within the
proposed urban growth boundary. General Plan policies will allow properties to convert
from urbanizable to urban only when key urban facilities and services can be provided to
the area in an efficient and orderly manner. The Zoning map includes holding zones that
will preserve the land for future urbanization. Both the Urban Holding-10 (UH-10) and
Urban Holding-2 ½ (UH-2 ½ ) zones respect the existing pattern of development and
permit reasonable use of the land in the interim while retaining the rural densities. Both
holding zones allow lot sizes as small as 15,000 square feet in size provided that the
overall density of the development does not exceed the density of the zone. This
“cluster development” provision encourages maximum retention of large lot parcels. Too
often holding zones with ten acre minimum lot sizes develop with “hobby” farms and
ranchettes that never redevelop to urban potential. Cluster development allows
residential development at the same rural density but preserves the majority of the land
for urban development. Clustering residential development also provides for maximum
efficiency when providing needed utilities for development.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 170
The proposal meets this criterion because the forgoing findings in Sections IIII, IV, and V
show that the proposal was developed according to the Goal 14 and the implementing
rules for urban growth boundaries at OAR 660-024. The proposed expansion of the
urban growth boundary was developed pursuant to the land need factors of Goal 14 as
documented in the findings in Section III. These findings addressed the need for land for
housing. Section IV addressed the land need for employment. Section V addressed the
location criteria in Goal 14 and OAR 660-024-0060.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 171
VII. Findings Demonstrating Compliance with Bend Area General Plan
Preface to the Bend Area General Plan, pages P-6 – P-7
The General Plan is a document that changes over time to reflect new information and
new directions for the future. Amendments or additions to the General Plan text, exhibits,
and policies go through a public hearing and review process before being adopted by
the governing bodies.
Changes and updates can be generated in at least six ways:
Regularly scheduled reviews and updates by the city and county. Every five
years, beginning in the year 2000, the city and county will review the population
growth, the housing mix and acreage needs, the industrial lands absorption, and
the commercial lands absorption against the long-term forecasts in the General
Plan. Other issues may also be evaluated during these regular views.
Preparation of more detailed refinement plans for neighborhoods or geographic
areas. As provided for in Oregon land use law, the city or county may prepare
more detailed land use and development plans for parts of the urban area that
have large vacant or under-utilized parcels. Such refinement plans could address
future street patterns and other utility systems, housing density and compatible
uses, site and design standards, locations for parks, schools, and open space,
and other land use issues.
Evaluation of land use topics required to be reviewed under the Oregon Land
Conservation and Development Commissions periodic review of the General
Plan. The state requires all local plans to be updated periodically to comply with
applicable new state laws, administrative rules, or to incorporate new data
available to the state.
Other state laws or legislative actions that require changes to the Plan outside of
the normal periodic review cycle. The state legislature or the voter
referendum/initiative process can require changes to local land use plans within a
specific time period.
City or county response to new issues or changes. Issues that were unforeseen
during the development of the plan can arise that have an impact on a particular
neighborhood or the whole urban area. The city and county officials can direct
staff to amend the Plan to address these issues.
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.
FINDING: This finding addresses the foregoing language from the Bend Area General
Plan and shows that the proposed changes to the General Plan are required and
consistent with this text.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 172
Public Need
Deschutes County adopted a coordinated population forecast for the unincorporated
county and the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters in 2004. The city adopted a new
version of Chapter 4, Population and Demographics, in 2005 that incorporated the 2000
to 2025 population forecast. This forecast estimates Bend’s population will be 109,389
people in 2025.
Using this new information, the city initiated an amendment to the Bend Area General
Plan to address residential lands. This work included the completion of a buildable lands
inventory and a housing needs analysis in 2005. The forecast established that Bend’s
population is growing faster than forecasted under the 1998 General Plan. The
buildable lands inventory established Bend’s supply of buildable residential land. The
housing needs analysis established what Bend’s future housing needs will be based on
a population of 119,009 in 2030 115 .
Through two technical memoranda, the city established that the current UGB does not
have a 20-year supply of buildable residential land for the next 20 years, and that
additional land would be needed through an expansion of the UGB 116 . The forecast,
buildable lands inventory, housing needs analysis, and technical memoranda forecasting
additional land needs demonstrate a public need for the proposed amendments to the
General Plan.
Public Benefit
The proposed amendments to the General Plan will provide a 20-year supply of buidable
residential lands and supportive policies to encourage development of needed housing.
These amendments related to housing are further supported by amendments to the
citizen involvement and plan management, economic development, public facilities, and
transportation chapters to support this future growth of housing. The public benefits
from these additional amendments to ensure that economic development is supported
alongside needed housing, and that both of these goals have adequate water, sewer,
and transportation infrastructure. These amendments are further tied together with the
proposed framework plan, which provides the illustrative guide for the proposed policies
in these respective chapters.
The proposal provides a public benefit through the addition of land to the Bend UGB for
housing and employment that has been planned alongside the required water, sewer,
and transportation infrastructure necessary to support this development. The proposed
amendments to the General Plan incorporate as public facility plans the city’s water and
collection system master plans. In addition, the transportation chapter amendments
support the proposed Framework and describe the transportation improvements (road,
bicycle, and pedestrian) needed to support this estimated growth with a multi-modal
transportation system.
115 The Housing Needs Analysis extended the 2025 population forecast to 2030 for the purpose of
forecasting needs over a 20 year period.
116 See April 10, 2006 and May 25, 2007 technical memoranda from City of Bend and Angelo Planning
Group, respectively.
Findings in Support of UGB Expansion 173
4.6.200 Legislative Amendments.
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;
FINDING: The proposal meets this criterion because the foregoing findings show that it
is consistent with applicable State land use law. The forgoing findings demonstrate that
the UGB expansion satisfies Goal 14, ORS 197.296 and 197.298, and the administrative
rules at OAR 660-024. The foregoing findings also show that the proposed UGB
expansion and related amendments to the Bend Area General Plan satisfy the
applicable Statewide Planning Goals and implementing administrative rules.
2. The request is consistent with the applicable Bend Area General Plan goals and
policies;
FINDING: The proposal meets this criterion because the foregoing findings addressing
the plan change text in the plan’s Preface show the proposal is consistent with the
applicable goals of the plan. The proposal includes a number of amendments to the
General Plan, including amended text and new policies in the citizen involvement,
natural features and open space, housing, economic lands, public facilities, and
transportation chapters.
3. The applicant can demonstrate a public need or benefit for the proposed amendment.
FINDING: The proposal meets this criterion because the foregoing findings addressing
the General Plan change text show that there is a public need and benefit for the
change. This proposal satisfies a pubic need for additional land for housing and
employment, and supportive policies that will influence future development toward
accomplishing public goals. The proposal provides a public benefit through the addition
of land to the Bend UGB for housing and employment that has been planned alongside
the required water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure necessary to support this
development. The proposed amendments to the General Plan incorporate as public
facility plans the city’s water and collection system master plans. In addition, the
transportation chapter amendments support the proposed Framework and describe the
transportation improvements (road, bicycle, and pedestrian) needed to support this
estimated growth with a multi-modal transportation system.