HomeMy WebLinkAboutUGB Expansion Ltrs - DLCD - ODOTt�regon
Theodore R. Kulon ;o. ki, Governor
October 27, 2008
Damian Syrnyk
City of Bend Planning
710 NW Wall St
Bend, OR 97701
Oregon Department of Transportation
Program and Planning Unit
63085 N. Highway 97
Suite 107
Bend, OR ')7701
Telephone (541) 388-6333
FAX (541) 388-6361
E-mail: mark.devoney@odot.state.or.us
RE: ODOT Preliminary Comments on City of Bend UGB Expansion
Dear Damian,
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is currently reviewing the latest UGB expansion
recommendation documentation. We have some preliminary comments that we would like to share with the
City and will likely have additional comments after we are able to conduct a more in-depth review of all of
the supporting documentation. Our preliminary comments are listed below.
1. Extension of commercial & outer intensive land uses dont? the state highway system. We are ver2.
concerned about the proposal to extend commercial and other intensive zoning along both ends of
Highways 20 and 97. Of particular concern is the northerly portion of Highway 97 and 20. ODOT nd
the City have been working very closely over the last several months to identify both short and long term
measures to improve the function and safety of the state highway system in this area. Intensifying land
uses in this area will further complicate the process of identifying transportation solutions and given that
it will likely be 15-20 years before a long term solution could be constructed, these more intensive uses
will exacerbate the existing congestion and safety issues. Creating a mega auto mall north of the existing
UGB prior to identifying and funding the needed transportation infrastructure will create political and
legal issues that will be problematic to deal with later. This will also likely make it more challenging to be
able to accommodate development in Juniper Ridge. We have similar concerns about the proposed land
uses at the south end of Highway 97 and question the ability of the transportation system to support
nearly 500 acres of regional commercial and medical uses, including, evidently, over 100 -acres
designated for a new hospital. We are concerned about impacts from the proposed land use designations
on the rural Baker Road interchange. The extension of strip commercial along the east portion of
Highway 20 is also a concern, though this area are is Tess problematic than the proposals on US 97 since
the traffic volumes are considerably less.
2. Issues related to the amount of land included in the UGB expansion vs. the potential for redevelopment
inside the existing UGB. While we have not reviewed the supporting docutnentation in detail, our
preliminary review brings into question whether the amount of land proposed to be added is justified.
This includes questions about the size of `unsuitable parcels', amount of land needed for infrastructure
(particularly road ROW), and other assumptions.
3. Proposed text amendments to the Bend Area General Plan (BAGP). There are a number of text
amendments proposed to the BAGP. We support these amendments but believe more specificity is
needed in order to ensure that adequate local road infrastructure is provided in a timely fashion to parcels
which front the state highway system. For example, the policy text proposed for 6.9.1 #9 (page 7-6 is
very general and does not specifically require that local road systems be in place prior to developme it of
parcels fronting the highway. We worked closely with the City of Redmond during the development of
the US 97 North Redmond Interchange Area Management Plan and agreed on some detailed policy Ind
ordinance requirements that we believe would serve as a good model for the types of code and polic ✓
language that would be more effective (see IAMP Exhibit C, pp 13-14). We think it is critical for th,. City
and ODOT to work together to identify more detailed BAGP and code language to protect the highway
function and safety.
4. April, 2007 DKS Traffic Report. It is unclear to what extent this analysis reflects the impacts and
needed mitigation for the currently proposed `Alternative 4'. We are currently comparing this report to
the Alternative 4 proposal but it is clear that the preferred alternative has not been sufficiently analyzed to
determine what the transportation investment costs will be. Further, the assumption that alternative
mobility standards will be applied as needed is not supported by ODOT. Alternative mobility standards
are possible on a limited, prescribed basis and require approval from the Oregon Transportation
Commission. It is not acceptable to assert that the transportation system is sufficient when the statement
assumes the unrestrained use of alternative mobility standards.
Sincerely,..
`
�1- a
Mark DeVoney
Region 4 Planning Manager
Cc via e-mail:
Bob Bryant Gary Farnsworth
Peter Murphy Jon Heacock
Rod Cathcart Jerry Mitchell
Nick Arnis Jim Bryant
Bob Cortright Peter Russell
Mark Radabaugh
regon
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor
October 24, 2008
City of Bend Planning Commission
c/o Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner
710 NW Wall Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
Salem, Oregon 97301-2524
Phone: (503) 373-0050
First Floor/Coastal Fax: (503) 378-6033
Second Floor/Director's Office: (503) 378-5518
Web Address: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD
Deschutes County Planning Commission
c/o Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97701
Subject: Bend urban Growth boundary expansion and related amendments
(originally submitted as 4,884 acre expansion; revised as 8,943 acre
expansion)
Local file: 07-361; State file: Bend PAPA 010-07 Revised (Bend Urban
Growth Boundary)
Dear Chair Cliff Walkey and Chair R. Mike Shirtcliff:
This letter contains the Department of Land Conservation and Development's (the
"department") preliminary comments on the revised proposal to expand the City of
Bend's urban growth boundary (UGB). The revised proposal and notice was submitted
jointly by the city and Deschutes County to the department for its review pursuant to
ORS 197.610 on October 8, 2008. Since the revised proposal includes more than 50
acres of territory, it will be reviewed pursuant to the State of Oregon's periodic review
procedures, following co -adoption by City of Bend and Deschutes County. At that time, the
city should submit the co -adopted plan following procedures called out in OAR 660-025-
0175.
The October 8 submittal has included a draft General Plan map and companion zoning
map for the proposed UGB expansion area along with draft revisions to six chapters of
the Bend General Plan.' The submittal also includes revisions to Deschutes County Code
Title 19 (Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance) and an October 3, 2008 staff
memo to the city and county planning commissions concerning the UGB proposal.
' The October 8, 2008 submittal included Chapters 1 (Plan Management and Citizen Involvement),
Chapter 2 (Natural Features and Open Space), Chapter 3 (Community Connections), Chapter 5 (Housing
and Residential Lands), Chapter 8 (Public Facilities and Services) and a chapter relating to amendments to
the Bend Transportation System Plan which appears to be part of Chapter 7 (Transportation ittet
entitled "Community Appearance."
OCT 2 7 Z008
opA
DeSClllltes `,C a CDD 4
City of Bend -2- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
On October 20, 2008, Bend staff electronically submitted additional documentation
related to the UGB expansion proposal. Among these materials are proposed revisions to
the city's Economic Development Element and Economic Opportunities Analysis,
various background memos on buildable lands assumptions, a framework plan map and
draft findings for the UGB expansion. Due to the very short review time frame and
volume, department comments on these October 20 materials will be provided
subsequent to your scheduled October 27, 2008 public hearing, and you should anticipate
receiving at least one additional comment letter.
The department submitted previous comments on the city's first UGB proposal to the
joint planning commissions on July 11, 2007. We have also submitted a letter on
May 27, 2008 which responded to specific questions raised by city staff concerning
certain application of UGB planning requirements. The department specifically requests
that these prior letters be included in the record for this proceeding. Copies of those
letters are attached to this letter.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF REVISED UGB PROPOSAL
The following section summarizes our understanding of the revision and significant
changes since the city's June 2007 notice was provided to the department. The 2007
proposal totaled 4,884 acres, including a proposed need of 2,550 acres for residential uses
and 645 acres for employment land. The 2007 proposal also included approximately
1,690 acres which the city considered unsuitable for accommodating land needs for
housing and employment.
The current draft proposes adding 8,943 acres, including 3,005 acres for residential uses
and 2,645 acres for employment land. The current proposal includes 3,293 acres which
the city considers unsuitable for accommodating land needs for housing and employment
and another 304 acres which it calls "surplus" land which can be developed for housing
and employment.
For the current revised proposal, the city projects a housing need of 16,681 additional
dwelling units between 2008 and 2028. The city's housing needs analysis projects that
10,789 dwelling units can be accommodated within the current UGB, leaving 5,892
dwelling units that would need to be accommodated by a UGB expansion. The city has
targeted a density of 5.9 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for new residential UGB territory.
The 2007 UGB proposal generally focused growth to the northeast side of the city and
included significant amounts of resource land while not including significant amounts of
exception land located to the northwest, west and south.2
The 2008 UGB proposal includes much of the area proposed in the 2007 expansion,
along with most of the exception land located to the north, northwest and west, along
2 See ORS 197.298 regarding priority of lands to be included in a UGB expansion.
City of Bend -3- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
with a portion in the south. A mix of exception and resource lands are added in east and
southeast areas. A majority of the north Juniper Ridge area along with an area to the
farthest northeast has been removed in the current proposal.
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The following sections provide both general and specific comments. Under our general
comments, we have identified several important areas where documentation is either omitted,
incomplete or needs to be subsequently reviewed. We recognize that, due to limited time for
review, some of these comments are not explained completely, but we are prepared to work
closely with the city and county to explain more fully the comments and how they might be
addressed.
October 3, 2008 staff memorandum to city and county planning commissions
regarding UGB Alternative 4
The proposed UGB expansion is described as Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is based, in
part, on special site needs for "a future university, major hospital/health care campus, two
large -site industrial and mixed -employment centers, and an auto mall." At this point in
time, it appears that the proposal doesn't include the land need analysis (including
analysis of whether housing and employment land need can reasonably be accommodated
within the existing UGB considering current zoning and additional efficiency measures),
required by Goal 14, ORS 197.298, and OAR 660, Division 24.
Comments on Specific Areas Considered for UGB Expansion
According to the submittal, 476 acres of land must be added to the UGB because areas
are unbuildable due to undocumented Goal 5 resources (299 acres), a need for a very low
density residential buffer between urban and rural land in one particular area (29 acres),
and no or limited infill capacity for lots in a large exception area (148 acres). The
department believes the justification for these aspects of the proposal is insufficient.
Nearly 300 acres of exception land in the Urban Area Reserve zone west of the existing
UGB have been removed from consideration, apparently because of "topographical and
natural features." The proposal does not demonstrate that these features are in the city's
Goal 5 or Goal 7 inventories or how they are otherwise constrained. The proposal
includes findings to reduce the capacity of these lands for future urban development in
the absence of adoption and acknowledgment of a revised buildable land inventory in the
comprehensive plan.
The proposal includes a 29 -acre "Low Density Residential Buffer" with housing at a
density of two du/ac, along the west side of the existing UGB between Skyliners Road
and Shevlin Park. The department suggests that this land does not satisfy a housing need
and housing at this density is not urban, and therefore it should not be included inside the
UGB.
City of Bend -4- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
For much of the exception area to the east of the existing UGB proposed for inclusion in
the boundary (148 acres), the findings assume there will be no division of parcels smaller
than three acres, and a future development density of two dwellings per acre is assigned
for the entire area. The city must address the development capacity of these existing
smaller parcels and apply buildout targets in a manner that is consist with Goal 14 and
promotion of an efficient urbanization pattern.
Urbanizing resource land to help fund sewer and transportation facility improvements
does not meet the city's burden under ORS 197.298(3) for Area C.
Regarding Area D, the proposal doesn't include (1) an explanation of relevant physical
site needs from an Employment Opportunities Analysis (EOA) for an industrial land
need, or why commercial development has the same land need, and (2) findings on why
sewer service must go through this area to serve exception areas.
The findings do not establish that the 153 acres of resource land in Area E meet the
statutory priorities. Both exception areas abutting Area E are adjacent to the existing
UGB and would not be islands if Area E were added to the UGB, and the proposal
doesn't demonstrate why sewer service must go through this area to serve exception
areas.
The EOA findings for one 50 -acre targeted sector industry for Area F are missing, as are
the need analysis and physical site need characteristic determinations for 49 acres of light
industrial and 15 acres of commercial uses. The need for 29 acres of housing, and why
that need can be satisfied only on in this area, are also missing. There's no indication
what the remaining approximately 250 acres of Area F, which appears on the map to be
about 400 acres, would be needed for, and why in this particular location.
Priority of Land to be Included in the UGB
Exception lands are first priority for Bend to add to its UGB under ORS 197.298, the
standard for removing them from consideration is very high (see discussion later in these
comments). The findings under "Justification for Inclusion of Resource Land" and
"Advantages/Disadvantages" in the October 3 memorandum are not an adequate
boundary location analysis under Goal 14, ORS 197.298, and OAR 660, Division 24.
Instead, the analysis should substantially conform to the following process.
First, determine which lands in the study area are the highest priority. In Bend's
case, these are exception areas, including lands zoned as UAR, RR -10 and SR -
2.5. Determine which of these parcels satisfy the identified land need by
analyzing each parcel according to specific site suitability characteristics for the
intended use (i. e., residential, commercial or industrial), if such specific
characteristics were identified in the earlier need analysis (for example, if the
city's EOA identified special size, location and access characteristics necessary
for regionally significant industrial sites). The result is a preliminary list of
City of Bend -5- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
suitable highest priority parcels. If the preliminary list provides either the exact
amount of land needed, or less than the amount of land needed, then add all of the
exception land to the UGB.
If the preliminary list provides more land than needed, then apply the four
Boundary Location Factors in Goal 14 to each parcel to narrow down the list.3
Note that the city need not determine that a parcel or group of parcels satisfies
each and every location factor better than all other alternative parcels. Rather, the
considerations embodied in the factors are applied to each alternative parcel or
group of parcels. The parcel or parcels that, on balance, best satisfy the factors
should be selected (this is known as "weighing and balancing"). Locally adopted
suitability criteria may be applied as "tie breakers" after the Goal 14 location
factors are weighed and balanced. This provides a tentative list of highest priority
parcels to add to the UGB.
If the highest priority exception lands do not cover all of the land need, then the
city examines the next priority group of parcels in the study area, which, for
Bend, are low capability farm lands. The steps described for highest priority land
are applied to each available parcel of lower -capability farm land, providing a
tentative list of suitable parcels in this priority to add to the UGB.
Only if the previous analyses do not provide enough land to meet all of the need
does the city consider lower priority lands (i. e., the next set of higher capability
farm and forest lands) and produce a tentative list of suitable parcels in this final
priority to add to the UGB.
If the city believes that one or more parcels in any priority category should be rejected in
favor of land in a lower priority, then the findings must include an analysis consistent
with one or more of the three exceptions in ORS 197.298(3),4 which we addressed in our
3 The UGB amendment proposal does not indicate that the city has "weighed and balanced" Goal 14
boundary location factor 2, "Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services." The city's
locational analysis should follow the following hierarchy. The highest ORS 197.298 priority of land to add
to Bend's UGB is exception land, including land zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR). Those parcels must
be mapped and their acreage calculated. If the total acreage exceeds a 20 -year land need (residential,
employment, or other), then each of the four Goal 14 boundary location factors is applied to each exception
parcel or group of parcels. For factor 2, this means an evaluation and comparison of the relative costs,
advantages and disadvantages of each parcel or group of parcels consistent with OAR 660-024-0060(8).
The results of the 660-024-0060(8) evaluation and comparison are then "weighed and balanced" with the
results of applying the other three boundary location factors to the exception parcels, in order to select
which exception parcels to add. Note that public facilities capability alone may not determine the location
of a UGB amendment.
4 (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
City of Bend -6- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
May 27, 2008 letter and further address here. ORS 197.298(3) allows a city to remove
higher priority parcels from consideration before the city determines the amount of
suitable land in that priority.
There is a high threshold to justify exclusion of higher priority land, such as exception
lands (including UAR) and instead add lower priority lands, such as farmlands. For
example, the fact that it may cost more to service one parcel than to service others does
not (by itself) satisfy ORS 197.298(3)(b). Likewise, the fact that one parcel will yield
fewer new homes or less development than others does not satisfy ORS 197.298(3)(c).
LUBA and the courts have construed the ORS 197.298(3) exceptions narrowly to allow
inclusion of lower priority lands at the exclusion of higher priority lands only in cases
with compelling facts.
The findings under "Justification for Inclusion of Resource Land" in the October 3
memorandum do not appear to adequately justify substituting resource land for suitable
exception land under ORS 197.298(3). We don't see substantial evidence to support the
claim that a large amount of resource land designated as Area B is needed to provide
public facilities and services to a very small area of exception land along Pioneer Loop
Road. Similarly, a small exception area appears to be included on the east side of
Hamehook Road north of Butler Market Road by adding about 300-400 acres of resource
land on both sides of Hamehook Road both north and south of Butler Market Road
(Area C). Including these areas of resource land has not been adequately justified in light
of the many acres of exception land not included in Alternative 4.
The proposal doesn't include an adequate explanation regarding why some exception
lands are proposed for addition and some are not. As explained above, all suitable
exception lands (up to the amount of the land need) must be included. "Less suitable"
exception lands may not be rejected in favor of "more suitable" exception lands — and
resource lands.
Proposed amendments to Bend Area General Plan
Chapter 1 - Plan Management & Citizen Involvement
Urban Reserve Boundary (p. 1-6)
We suggest that you clarify the difference between the Urban Area Reserve zone outside
Bend's city limits, which is an exception area, and a, Urban Reserve established under
state administrative rules, which Bend and Deschutes County have not adopted. All
references to "Urban Reserve" in this section should be replaced by "Urban Area Reserve
zone."
(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.
City of Bend -7- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
Framework Planning (p. 1-9)
The revised text provides for an overall minimum density for the expansion area of six
dwelling units per net acre. This is a good start, but the plan should include an average
density target, and not just for the expansion area, but for the urban area as a whole, in
order to meet planned densities, meet the 20 -year land needs, and comply with Goal 14
and ORS 197.296. Also, the chapter does not include policies or other implementing
measures, including those that address the city's framework planning intentions and
scope, or the allocation of needed housing types in the existing and proposed UGB areas.
Joint Management Agreement (p. 1-9)
The text states that a new agreement was drafted this year. Has it been adopted? If not,
when do the city and county plan for adoption to take place? How does this document
relate to the current UGB proposal?
Chapter 2 — Natural Features and Open Space
The proposal does not provide sufficient information about potential natural areas, scenic
resources and topographically constrained areas and their potential impact on housing
yield.
Goal 5 requires cities to inventory significant riparian areas, wetlands and wildlife
habitat, and develop a program to protect these resources. For some Goal 5 resources the
rule allows cities to rely on inventories compiled by other agencies, and for other
resources the city may elect to conduct an inventory. For all inventoried significant
Goal 5 resources a local government must complete a process to develop and implement
appropriate protection measures. If a local program to protect a Goal 5 resource includes
development restrictions, the loss of buildable land that results from these restrictions can
be accounted for when determining the need for UGB expansion.
The requirements of Goal 5 apply at periodic review and when a post -acknowledgment
plan amendment changes an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the
amended UGB area (OAR 660-023-0250). Thus Bend must inventory Goal 5 resources
within the proposed expansion areas, including riparian and wetland resources that may
be associated with the Deschutes River.
The October 3, 2008 memo describes topological features and natural features that are
considered areas of special interest. It is not clear if these features are Goal 5 resources.
Based on the description, the most likely Goal 5 resource category for the areas of special
interest is scenic areas. Depending on the ecological function of these areas and the
city's intended management approach, these areas might also be considered open space
or wildlife habitat. Goal 5 also includes a category of natural areas, but this is an
example of where the rule relies on a specific existing inventory compiled by a state
authority. Below are the Goal 5 definitions for these four resource types:
City of Bend
Deschutes County
October 24, 2008
Open Space: For purposes of this rule, "open space" includes parks, forests, wildlife
preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries, and public or private golf courses (660-023-
0220).
Scenic Views and Sites: For purposes of this rule, "scenic views and sites" are lands that
are valued for their aesthetic appearance (660-023-0230).
Wildlife Habitat: "Wildlife habitat" is an area upon which wildlife depend in order to
meet their requirements for food, water, shelter, and reproduction. Examples include
wildlife migration corridors, big game winter range, and nesting and roosting sites (660-
023-0110).
Natural Areas: For purposes of this rule, "natural areas" are areas listed in the Oregon
State Register of Natural Heritage Resources (660-023-0160).
For resources that are not required to be inventoried and protected under Goal 5, the city
may want to consider other strategies for their protection. Some strategies that can be
used separately from Goal 5 are recognized on Page 2.6 of the Bend Area General Plan.
These strategies include: flexible subdivision lot and street standards; clustering options;
appropriate minimum density standards for constrained land; density credits, flexible
setbacks, lot coverage, and parking standards. Resources that are protected, over time,
through acquisition programs can be accounted for in subsequent adjustments to the
city's buildable land inventories.
Chapter 5 - Housing and Residential Lands
The 2008 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) is not included in the materials submitted to
the department; the proposal includes only a summary. The department is unable to
complete its review of the proposal without the data and assumptions for the BLI. This
information may be continued in the city's October 20th submittal.
On p. 5-22, the revised General Plan introduces its 2028 population projection, which is
extended from the county's acknowledged 2025 projection. The UGB proposal should
include a discussion of the methodology used to extend the coordinated forecast beyond
the county's acknowledged forecast consistent with ORS 195.034 and the Goal 14 rule.
We will be reviewing the materials submitted on October 20th to assure that the city's
population projection methodology meets planning requirements.
There is a discussion of Bend's housing affordability issues5, but almost no regulatory
measures exist or are proposed. Measures should be included to: (1) reverse the 1990-
2000 increase in the proportion of single-family housing, particularly single-family
detached, and increase the proportion of multi -family units in the city's housing mix (see
p. 5-7), (2) reverse the 1990-2000 increase in owner -occupied units compared to renter -
5 For example, Table 5-11 on p. 5-15 shows that in 2003, an average of 63% of households at 80% or less
of the average median incomewere cost -burdened.
City of Bend -9- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
occupied units (see p. 5-11), and (3) increase the built densities to accommodate and
encourage more units and more affordable units (see p. 5-10).
The Suburban Residential SR 2.5 zone is not appropriate as an urban holding zone in the
urbanizable area outside the city limits but inside the UGB, because the parcel size
renders it difficult to preserve land for future urban -level development (p. 5-8). The city
should amend the SR 2.5 zone to permit pre-existing residential development only and
prohibit the expansion of existing structures. The best practice for "interim
development" for land inside the UGB prior to annexation and urbanization, in order to
"manage the use and division of urbanizable land to maintain its potential for planned
urban development" and the efficient provision of the full range of urban services,6 is a
holding zone with minimum lot size of at least 10 acres, at an overall density of no more
than one dwelling per 10 acres, with siting standards to avoid future conflicts, and with
recorded covenants barring additional development, remonstrance against annexation and
remonstrance against extension of public facilities.?
The planned density range for the Residential Low Density RL zone is too low at 1.1 to
2.2 units per gross acre. A 20,000 square foot — one-half acre — minimum lot size
encourages inefficient urban development. The Residential Standard Density zone
should be the lowest density residential zone in the city. The minimum lot sizes and
maximum density for the Residential Standard Density zone are good, but the minimum
density of 2.2 units per gross acre (0.5 -acre lots) is neither appropriate nor conducive to
fostering efficient urbanization. Because this has been the predominate residential zone,
and the city plans to continue that predominance, build -out may occur at the minimum
end of the range, inappropriately using more of the residential land supply, increasing per
capita public facilities costs and hastening the need to expand the UGB again, primarily
from resource lands.
The assumptions and methodologies used to calculate the amounts of constrained and
redevelopable land are missing in the October 8 submittal (p. 5-9).
Table 5-6, "Actual Density and Mix of Housing Types" (p. 5-10), doesn't indicate
whether the acreage is gross or net. Either way, current built densities (an average of
3.17 du/ac for the 80 percent of residential land that is zoned single-family, with an
overall average of only 3.96 du/ac) are an inefficient use of urban land in a regional
center with a severe housing affordability problem. It is admirable that the city attempts
to achieve a higher average in the expansion area, but this will not demonstrate the
efficient use of land inside the existing UGB that Goal 14 requires before the city may
add land to the UGB.
6 Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization.
7 Interim Development Policies and Incentives, by Winterowd Planning Services for the Oregon
Transportation and Growth Management Program, June, 1995, pp. 6 and 12. These standards don't apply if
local regulations already assure either a 10 -acre minimum lot size, or a 5 -acre minimum lot size with
redivision plan or clustering requirements.
City of Bend -10- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
The original June 11, 2007 submittal subsequently included a July 23, 2007 Residential
Lands Study. This document includes findings comparing the planned densities in the
city's 1998 General Plan with the actual built densities for the period 1998-2005. The
study finds a significant amount of underbuild:
Available residential land has actually been consumed much faster than
anticipated because detached single-family units have made up a larger
percentage of overall units than estimated in the 1998 plan.
Clearly, the development market has delivered a very different housing mix
than was anticipated in the 1998 General Plan."
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 [than to build expensive
second homes for non-residents]. (p. 10, 26-27.)
Bend appears to have failed to achieve the housing mix it planned for in 1998. The
current submittal does not demonstrate compliance with Goal 14 by showing that the city
will develop efficiently inside its existing UGB. This section needs to demonstrate how
Bend will implement its housing policies in the next 20 years to get the planned mix.
Goal 14 and ORS 197.296 require taking reasonable measures to accommodate the city's
current and future housing needs within the existing UGB, which includes measures like
infill, redevelopment, re -zoning and up -zoning.
The revised plan mentions two concepts — 500 attached units in the Central Area Plan,
and 500 units of attached housing along transit corridors — but doesn't explain how those
concepts will be implemented or how they will provide needed housing types, numbers,
and densities. The 2007 Residential Lands Study states that certain master planned
developments8 and the new development code adopted in 2006 increased the average
density inside the UGB, but it doesn't explain how. There is also no explanation about
why these efficiency measures haven't provided a higher average density than 3.94 units
per acre, or how they are going to do so in the 20 -year planning period.
There is no explanation how inadequate land supply "forced" developers to build luxury
townhomes instead of affordable apartments and condos.
In light of the long-term trend of development being lower than planned densities, and
the current and future demographic and housing trends documented in the UGB proposal,
the department doesn't find adequate justification to support the city's assumption that
"most vacant and redevelopable land will be available and developed at current densities"
(see revised General Plan, pp. 5-23, 5-29). The reasons cited in the revised plan text do
8 Lava Ridge, Northwest Crossing, Dean Swift, and Murphy Crossing.
City of Bend -11- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
not fully address goal and statutory requirements for increasing the efficiency of urban
development.9
There is no indication whether the planned densities in Table 5-28, Table 5-29 and
corresponding text are gross or net, which makes them difficult to evaluate.
A footnote on p. 5-10 refers to a March 10, 2008 memorandum that is not included with
the other documents.
The city intends to locate new medium- and high-density housing in new commercial
nodes and transit corridors. However, there is no explanation of how this need can and
will be accommodated in these locations, or how the proposed transit corridor
redevelopment will significantly increase residential densities in the urban area overall.
The standard to support basic 30 to 60 minute fixed -route transit service is 8 du/net acre
or 6 du/gross acre for housing and 20 jobs/acre for employment.10 In addition, restricting
the RM and RH zones to transit corridors and new commercial nodes appears to prohibit
any housing other than low density single-family detached housing from other
neighborhoods.
Without either a minimum density or average density performance standard in the
development code, and a predominate RS zone with a 7,500 square -foot minimum lot
size and no maximum lot size, the city has not shown that planned densities will occur in
the next 20 years.
As a city with a population over 25,000, Bend is required to conduct its buildable land
inventory and residential land need analysis consistent with ORS 197.296. The 2007 .
Residential Land Study cites the ORS 197.296(9) examples of measures that
"demonstrably increase the likelihood of higher density residential development," but the
UGB proposal does not provide for implementation of many of these measures. For
example, "the City has a shortage of land in the higher density zones" (7-23-07
Residential Lands Study, pp. 34-35), but the UGB evaluation doesn't include re -zoning
or up -zoning some of the 83% vacant and redevelopable land in the RS zone.
9 "City staff is not recommending any changes to the allowed densities in the residential districts for two
reasons. First, the Buildable Lands Inventory report [which is not included with the October 8 submittal]
shows recent development (1999 through 2008) achieving higher densities than development that occurred
before that time (before 1999)." This ignores the fact, cited in the city's 2007 Residential Lands Study, that
from 1998 to 2005, built densities were much lower than the densities in the General Plan; in other words,
densities may have increased some amount, but they did not significantly change a large historic
underbuild. "Second, the city adopted a new development code in 2006 that includes required minimum
densities. The City Council chose not to increase densities with the adoption of the new development
code." The department strongly supports adoption of minimum residential densities, but that alone is not
enough for the city to meet its future housing needs in compliance with both Goal 10 and Goal 14. (See
revised plan, p. 5-29.)
1° Planning and Design for Transit by Calthorpe Associates, pp 17-18, November 1992; Pedestrian- and
Transit -Friendly Design: A Primer for Smart Growth by Reid Ewing, page 3; Fregonese-Calthorpe
Associates and Parsons Brinkerhoff, Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program workshop
on implications of urban form, September 2000.
City of Bend -12- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
The housing that is proposed for the city -owned Juniper Ridge area does not appear to be
included in the residential land need analysis (7-23-07 Residential Lands Study, p. 59.).
If the city can justify a need for this housing, it must be included in the city's 20 -year
residential land supply. In addition, the city must identify special physical site need
characteristics that require this housing to be in this specific location (see Goal 14 and
OAR 660-024-0060(5)). This has not been done, at least in the October 8 submittal.
The housing mix for the 20 -year planning period employed in the draft plan amendment
is not adequately explained. For much of its land need analysis, the city has used the
Oregon Dept. of Housing and Community Services' Housing Needs Model, which
provides a tenure mix of 55% owner-occupied/45% renter -occupied. The city appears to
bypass the model's mix and instead selects a 65/35 mix (p. 5-27) without apparent
justification. In addition to the lack of facts supporting the city's choice of mix numbers,
it's not clear what type of mix has been selected and used in the rest of the city's
residential land need analysis. The text on p. 5-27 describes a 65/35 tenure mix, but the
text on p. 5-28 and Tables 5-25 and 5-26 show a 65/35 detached v. attached mix. In
addition, the text mentions a current 72%/28% detached/attached mix, but Table 5-25
shows a 76/24 detached/attached mix for 2008. At this time, we are unable to evaluate a
future housing mix, for either the existing or new UGB areas.
As briefly mentioned above, the city relies on UGB capacity to reasonably accommodate
its 20 -year need that has been calculated using existing plan and zoning provisions. Bend
has not recalculated capacity within the existing UGB based on regulatory efficiency
measures. This must be done before land may be added to the UGB (ORS 197.296(7)).
The following proposed plan policies are good ones, but how and when the city will
implement them in the development code is not clear:
Goal 1: Zone Adequate Land for Housing
a. Encourage or require a mix of housing types and densities within proposed
large residential and mixed use developments.
b. Implement strategies to allow for infill and redevelopment at increased
densities.
c. Limit single-family detached housing in multiple family or mixed use
zones.
We suggest that these policies be clarified and provided in an overall context that appears
as a series of integrated framework planning policies throughout the city. This is a
critically missing component in the city's revised submittal.
All but one (no. 17) of the 19 policies for needed housing are non -regulatory. While the
non -regulatory strategies listed are good ones, there are a number of regulatory measures
that Bend can — and should — take to encourage the development of more needed housing.
City of Bend -13- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
The 2007 Residential Land Study included eight good policies that have apparently been
dropped.11
We don't understand the meaning of the Housing Density and Affordability Policy 36:
"Densities recommended on the Plan shall be recognized in order to maintain proper
relationships between proposed public facilities and services and population distribution."
This policy should be clear and unambiguous.
Appendix: August 2008 Housing Element Targets, Strategies and Benchmarks
Goal 1, Strategy B: Consideration of rezoning to achieve consistency with the city's
residential land need analysis should not be limited to areas where zoning doesn't
conform to General Plan designations.
Goal 2, Strategy A: Because Bend doesn't have "urban reserve lands," this term should
be revised to "Exception lands, including land in the Urban Area Reserve zone."
Chapter 7 - Transportation System
In July 2007 we made several comments about how proposed UGB and Transportation
System Plan (TSP) amendments relate to relevant requirements in the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR). While significant progress has been made in addressing these
comments, some additional work is needed as explained below.
A. Status of Proposed Roadway Improvements outside the UGB and future study
issues.
In our July 2007 letter we noted that the proposed TSP amendments showed several
roadway improvements outside of the proposed UGB. We noted that such road
improvements would require additional findings to comply with the TPR.
The 2008 TSP amendments appear to continue to show a number of planned roadways
outside the proposed UGB. These include several collector and minor arterial streets
along the eastern edge of the UGB. While the city's August 20, 2007 letter indicates that
these were included for "illustrative purposes," the TSP does not appear to distinguish its
treatment of improvements in and outside the boundary. For example, proposed roadway
improvements outside the UGB are colored and keyed in the same way as those inside
the UGB. Also the map key indicates that improvements are planned subject only to
11 These policies are:
1. Rezone parcels to allow higher density and redevelopment.
2. Zoning to meet housing needs as part of the UGB expansion.
3. Amend the MF and MU zones to prohibit single-family detached or require a CUP for them.
4. Rezone some low density residential areas to medium and high density residential.
5. Provide a density bonus for a percentage of affordable units.
6. Development standard flexibility for affordable units.
7. Relaxed parking requirements for affordable units.
8. Code changes to facilitate affordable housing for moderate income households.
City of Bend -14- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
possible minor revisions to roadway alignment. The city needs to either amend the TSP
map to clearly reflect its decision that roadways outside the proposed UGB are
"illustrative" and not planned improvements, or amend the findings to address relevant
TPR requirements.
The TSPs decision about a proposed Deschutes River Crossing needs to be clarified.
While this improvement is included in the plan's list of "outstanding issues," the text of
the plan suggests that the city has made key land use decisions about need, mode,
function and general location of this planned improvement. In particular Section 9.6.3
says:
[the circulation plan] contemplates a new bridge over the Deschutes River. This
new bridge would join an extension of Skyline Ranch Road, on the west side, to
an extension of Cooley Road on the east side. The exact location and alignment
of the affected roadways and the bridge crossing is the subject of further study
and evaluation.
If the city is making a decision that this roadway and bridge are planned facilities subject
only to subsequent decisions about selecting a precise alignment, the plan needs to
(1) address the relevant goals, including Goal 5, (2) establish an overall corridor within
which the roadway may be located; and (3) specify the process and standards by which a
subsequent decision selecting an alignment for the roadway and bridge will be made.
The TSP amendments also include discussion of additional plans for Highway 97 and 20
including a Highway 97/20 Refinement Plan and an EIS.
The discussion in this section should be clearer about the status of land use decisions for
possible highway and roadway improvements. We understand the plan to identify
ongoing planning processes that do not yet make decisions about need, mode, function or
general location of proposed facilities or improvements and that these decisions would be
made through subsequent amendments to the city's TSP. We recommend that section
9.6.4 be amended to so indicate. We also recommend adding language indicating that the
city would use these processes to generate information to support necessary land use
decisions, including plan amendments and, as necessary, goal exceptions for new
roadways outside the UGB.
We are concerned that the city's process for evaluating transportation costs associated
with different UGB expansion alternatives is not complete or detailed enough to address
the requirements of OAR 660-024-0060(8). The city's overall conclusion is that the set
of major roadway improvements needed will be the same regardless of which properties
are included in the UGB. In particular, the analysis concludes that two high cost
improvements (improvements in the north area of Bend associated with Highway 97 and
20 and a new crossing of the Deschutes River) will be needed in any UGB expansion
scenario. The Highway 97/20 area improvements are estimated to cost up to $185
million and represent about 2/3 of the total cost of transportation improvements
associated with the UGB expansion. The cost of a new Deschutes River Bridge does not
City of Bend -15- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
appear to be included in the analysis.
Further analysis is needed to explain why UGB alternatives that would focus growth in
other areas of Bend (i.e., to the east) would reduce the need for major improvements in
the north and northwest areas. In short, the city should do more to explain why reduced
growth in the north and northwest areas would not reduce the extent of needed
transportation improvements in this area. Since this expansion in this area has major
effects on the state highway system, this evaluation should be done in close coordination
with ODOT.
B. Requirements for Transportation Framework Plans and local street connections
Above, we've indicated the need for the city to more clearly lay out process and
requirements for framework planning within areas added to the UGB. This issue is also
important as it relates to transportation planning, especially as it relates to planning for
local street extensions and connections. TSP implementation policies 2 and 5 call for
development of transportation framework plans to guide local street planning in
urbanizable areas. While the city's August 2007 letter agreed more work was needed, the
policies in the 2008 proposal appear unchanged from the 2007 draft. Again, policies
should explain what actions require framework plans, the contents of such plans and list
relevant policies or requirements that must be addressed. We support the city's policies
which generally encourage or direct extension of a grid like network of local streets.
These need to be spelled out in more detail in implementing language guiding framework
planning.
We are concerned by the city's apparent decision to drop decisions about extending or
connecting existing local streets from the TSP map in favor of "standards only" approach.
In our experience, a map which decides in advance which existing local streets will be
extended and connected is the most effective way to make sure that connections are
actually made as new development is approved. Using a "standards only" approach tends
to defeat the objective of street connectivity by inviting neighboring and nearby property
owners to oppose individual street connections as new development proposals are made.
While the "standards only" approach can satisfy TPR requirements, the process and
standards need work to fully comply. City policies should be amended to:
1. Include standards to guide extension or connection of existing streets;
2. Set maximum block perimeter requirements that reflect plan diagrams which
call for 300- to 600 -foot street spacing. (City policies set only a maximum block
length requirement of 600 feet. This would allow blocks with a 2400 -foot
perimeter, almost one-half mile, which is excessive.) We recommend the city
adopt a maximum block perimeter of 1400 to 1800 feet;
City of Bend -16- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
3. Standards for allowing exceptions for topographic constraints or other factors,
should be revised to be consistent with the specific language set forth in TPR
Section 0045(3);
4. Policies and standards to guide preparation of framework plans and other
development approvals should to assure that adequate local street connections are
provided consistent with TPR Section 0045(3).
C. Clarify the relationship between the Bend Urban Area Transportation System
Plan and the forthcoming Bend Area Regional Transportation Plan
In our July 2007 comments we recommended that the city clarify the relationship of
proposed TSP amendments to the city's obligations to prepare and adopt a regional
transportation system plan (RTSP) in compliance with the TPR. Of particular note are
TPR requirements to plan for reduced reliance on the automobile. Because land use
strategies play an important role in accomplishing this objective, this work should be
integrated with the city's consideration of UGB amendments.
The city's Goal 12 findings indicate that adoption of an RTSP remains an outstanding
task that the city expects to adopt by the end of 2009. Since this extends beyond the
deadline in the TPR, the city needs to develop and submit a work plan to the Commission
for completion of this work.
We also recommend that the city revise or delete the finding related to TPR Section
0035(4). This section of the rule relates to adoption of measures to implement an
adopted, Commission approved standard (required of 0035(5)-(6)). As noted above,
work related to these requirements remain as an outstanding work task.
Chapter 8 - Public Facilities & Services
OAR 660, Division 11 requires certain elements of a community's public facilities plan
to be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan.12 The revised Chapter 8 does not
contain the required elements. In particular, we do not see any revised plans for water or
wastewater collection facilities and services.
Proposed amendments to Bend Municipal Code Title 19
Ch 19.04 Definitions
"Lot of record": Including a minimum lot size and lot width in the definition effectively
prohibits development of some vacant parcels and lots that may be suitable for
development, thereby reducing the buildable land. Many Oregon communities allow
12 The list of public facility project titles, a map or written description of the projects' locations or service
areas, and the policy(ies) or urban growth management agreement designating the provider of each system
(OAR 660-011-0045(1)).
City of Bend -17- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
residential development of legally created, currently substandard parcels and lots so long
as the development can meet current site development standards, such as setbacks,
parking, and landscaping. This assists compliance with Goal 14's requirement to develop
efficiently within the existing UGB before adding land to the UGB. Bend's definition is
also inconsistent with standards elsewhere in its code, since new lots smaller than 5,000
square feet are allowed in at least one residential zone.
Ch 19.13 Urban Holding -10 Zone
The recommended practice for "interim development" for land inside the UGB prior to
annexation and urbanization, in order to "manage the use and division of urbanizable land
to maintain its potential for planned urban development" and the efficient provision of
the full range of urban services,13 is a holding zone with a minimum lot size of at least 10
acres or more, at an overall density of no more than one dwelling per 10 acres. Such a
zone should have siting standards to avoid future conflicts, and require covenants barring
additional development until the property is annexed and rezoned, remonstrance against
annexation and remonstrance against extension of public facilities.14 Allowing new lots
as small as 15,000 square feet defeats the purpose of an urban holding zone.
Ch 19.14 Urban Holding -2 1/2 Zone
This zone allows new lots as small as 15,000 square feet, which, as explained above for
the UH -10 zone, is not consistent with an urban holding zone.
Chapter 19.25 Site Plan Review
Mandating site plan review with subjective approval criteria15 for all housing except
single family units on one lot appears to conflict with the needed housing statutes,
particularly ORS 197.307(6). This statute prohibits approval standards, special
conditions, and procedures for needed housing from (1) being subjective and (2) from
having the effect of discouraging needed housing "through unreasonable cost or delay."
The clear and objective standards in Section 19.25.075 (assuming they do not have the
effect of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay) do not cure
the problem, because the 19.25.075 standards apply "in addition to the standards of DCC
19.25.070" (19.25.075 A) (emphasis added).
Chapter 19.40 Special Use Standards
Statute requires cities and counties to allow manufactured homes on lots in all zones that
permit single-family homes, and with the same development standards and criteria
13 Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization.
14 Interim Development Policies and Incentives, by Winterowd Planning Services for the Oregon
Transportation and Growth Management Program, June, 1995, pp. 6 and 12. These standards don't apply if
local regulations already assure either a 10 -acre minimum lot size, or a 5 -acre minimum lot size with
redivision plan orclustering requirements.
15 For example, Section 19.25.070, subsections A, D, E, G, and H.
City of Bend -18- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
provided for stick -built single-family homes except for specific placement standards
specified in statute (ORS 197.307(5), 197.314(1)). In addition, approval standards and
criteria for needed housing may not have the effect of discouraging needed housing
through cost or delay (ORS 197.3907(6)). Requiring needed housing to go through a
conditional use process when other housing is permitted outright appears to be
inconsistent with the needed housing statutes.
Bend permits single-family housing outright in the Urban Area Reserve UAR, Suburban
Residential 2 '/2, Low Density Residential RL, Standard Density Residential RS, Medium
Density Residential RM -10, and Medium Density Residential RM zones. This means
that manufactured homes on their own lots must also be permitted outright in these zones
— and with no more restrictive approval standards and conditions than those applicable to
stick -built homes. However, Bend Code Section 19.40.280 C.1.a. restricts "Class A"
homes to the UAR-10, UH -10 and UH -2 1/2 zones, all of which are outside Bend's UGB.
Section 19.40.280 C.1.b. restricts Class B" homes to the RS zone by conditional use
permit, and Sections 19.40.280 C.1.c. & d. restrict "Class C" and "Class D" homes to
manufactured home parks. Thus, no manufactured homes on their own lots are permitted
in SR 2 '/2, RL, RM, and RM -10, and they are subject to a conditional use permit in RS.
Chapter 19.60 Cluster Developments
This chapter sets out subdivision clustering standards for the UH -10 and UH -2 1/2 zones.
It allows lots in the range of 15,000 square feet to one-half acre (21,780 square feet). As
explained regarding the UH -10 and UH -2 '/2 zones above, these lot sizes are too small for
an urban holding zone.
All of the Section 19.60.050 Standards for Approval are subjective and may therefore
violate the needed housing statutes.
CONCLUSIONS
We appreciate the extensive amount of work that the City of Bend and Deschutes County
have put into this effort, and the careful consideration of the Planning Commission. We
will continue to work with you to help identify and resolve concerns, and to try and
answer any questions you may have.
We anticipate forwarding additional preliminary comments after our review of materials
sent earlier this week on October 20 . If the October 20th submittal adequately responds
to concerns found in this letter, we will inform you of this in our subsequent comments.
Please place this letter and attachments in the record of proceedings concerning this matter.
Please inform and provide the department with any pertinent new information concerning
this proposed plan amendment. Please provide the department notice of any hearing
continuation(s) that is related to this proposal.
City of Bend -19- October 24, 2008
Deschutes County
If you have questions about our preliminary comments, do not hesitate to contact Mark
Radabaugh at (541) 318-2899. If you have specific questions about issues related to Goals
10 and 14, please contact Gloria Gardiner in our Salem office at (503) 373-0050 ext. 282. If
you have specific questions about issues related to Goal 12 and transportation, please
contact Bob Cortright in our Salem office at (503) 373-0050 ext. 241.
Richard Whitman
Director
Enclosures:
1. July 11, 2007 letter from the department
2. May 27, 2008 letter from the department (a copy of this attachment will be
forwarded early next week from the department)
c: Mel Oberst, Bend Community Development Director
Brian Shetterly, Bend Principal Planner — Long Range
Peter Gutowsky, Deschutes County Principal Planner
Mark DeVoney, ODOT — Region 4
Bob Cortright, DLCD
Gloria Gardiner, DLCD
Rob Hallyburton, DLCD
Tom Hogue, DLCD
Darren Nichols, DLCD
Amanda Punton, DLCD
Mark Radabaugh, DLCD
regon
Theodore R. Kulongoski., Governor
July 11, 2007
Department of Land Conservation and Development
Central and Eastern Region Office
888 N.W. Hill Street, Suite 3
Bend, OR 97701
(541) 318-2899
FAX (541) 318-8361
By Facsimile (541) 388-5519 and (541) 385-1764
& First Class Mail
Damian Syrnyk
Senior Planner
Bend Community Development Department
710 NW Wall Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
Peter Gutowsky
Senior Planner
Deschutes County Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
Subject: Bend Urban Reserve and related amendments (14,775 acres)
Bend Urban Growth Boundary expansion and related amendments (4,884 acres)
Local files: TA -07-04, PA -07-3; State file: Deschutes County PAPA 012-07 (Bend
Urban Reserve)
Local file: None; State file: Bend PAPA 010-07 (Bend Urban Growth Boundary)
Dear Damian and Peter:
Thank you for providing the department with the opportunity to provide its review and comments
on proposals to 1) create an urban reserve for the City of Bend and 2) expand the urban growth
boundary. These proposals, along with respective supporting plan amendments and background
documents, have been submitted jointly by the city and Deschutes County to the department for
its review pursuant to ORS 197.610. Since both proposals include more than 50 acres of
territory, they will also be subsequently reviewed pursuant to the State of Oregon's periodic review
procedures, following their co -adoption by City of Bend and Deschutes County. At that time, the city
should submit the co -adopted plans following procedures called out in OAR 660-025-0175.
The following pages provide both general and more specific comments. Under our general
comments, we have identified several important areas where documentation required by state planning
law is either omitted, incomplete or needs to be significantly amended. Generally, these areas involve
application of Goal 14 (Urbanization) and portions of its implementing rule (OAR 660-024) that relate
to the urban growth boundary proposal. Also, we have discovered a significant accounting error in
calculating the urban reserve land needs that will lower the land needed for the urban reserve, as well
as affecting its alternative location analysis pursuant to Goal 14. For this reason, these comments
must be considered provisional and it is anticipated that follow-up comments will be provided after
subsequent review by the department. The department would look forward to meeting with city and
county staff and its review bodies, as needed, to discuss continuing or remaining issues during your
review process.
General Comments:
The following are out general comments:
1. Areas found to be incomplete
The plan amendment submittal is incomplete in a number of ways. Additional documentation and
plan preparation needs to be provided concerning the following:
A. The city should carefully evaluate how each of the Goal 14 rule (OAR 660-024) components are
met as a result of the plan amendment submittal and its background and support documents. In
particular, the city will need to submit a "boundary location alternatives analysis" pursuant to
OAR 660-024-0060 which describes how it made choices in determining its UGB proposal.
B. The UGB proposal includes a framework plan map which has identified a number of important
land use plan features that appear consistent with its residential land needs analysis and major
policies on urban form. The framework plan map constitutes a general pattern of planned
residential uses that together, act as land use designation mapping that is required under OAR
660-024-0050(5) for the area of the UGB expansion. The mapping may be general or
simulate a "bubble" diagram, as long as the map shows land uses consistent with the city's
needs analysis. However, the framework plan does not show similar land use designations
for commercial and industrial lands that are part of the UGB needs analysis. This issue is
particularly noticeable in the Juniper Ridge area, where the city's needs analysis appears to
direct most, if not all of its commercial and industrial lands expansion. The framework plan
map will need to be amended to include the general location of new and amended
employment lands.
C. Under OAR 660-024-0020(c), Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and
Open Space) and related rules under OAR 660, division 23, Goal 5 applies to areas added to
the UGB, except as required under OAR 660-023-0070 and 660-023-0250. This Goal 5
assessment does not appear in the materials submitted to the department.
D. In Table 6 of the urban reserve analysis, land needs are supposedly calculated for the period
from 2027 to 2057, the 30 -year urban reserve time frame. However, it appears that the city's
2005 - 2027 need for residential land has been also included in the 2027 - 2057 timeframe,
thus leading to a double count of the land needs for the earlier UGB time frame. This
accounting error will have the effect of significantly reducing the amount of land needed for
2
the urban reserve. It will also require that the alternative location analysis be redone to reflect
the corrected land need.
2. Urban Reserve
The above accounting and analytical concerns will need to be resolved before the urban reserve
can be adopted.
The discussion of environmental, energy, economic and social (ESEE) consequences of the
adopting the urban reserve should be expanded to acknowledged that it will act to accommodate
urban development over the long-term. Generally, while urban development has considerable
ESEE consequences which should be generally described, advance planning with the urban reserve
tool in hand can act, in part, to mitigate some of the more adverse impacts associated with urban
development, while others are not fully mitigated. The discussion starting on Page 45 should be
amended to recognized these general consequences and impact that are associated with the
accommodation of urban development.
3. Urban Growth Boundary
There is considerable concern that the draft UGB expansion of 4,884 acres is not supported by
documentation found in the needs analysis for housing and economic development lands. In the
city's Residential Land Measures analysis dated May 2, 2007, 2,550 gross acres are identified for
residential land needs. The city's Economic Opportunity Analysis dated April, 2007 has identified
a net commercial land need of approximately 510 acres, along with a slight surplus of industrial
land. Without the city's Goal 14 boundary location alternative analysis in hand, it is impossible to
meaningful assess how the city arrives at an UGB proposal of 4,884 acres.
4. Framework Plan
Policies that support and guide implementation of the city's Framework Plan are found in Exhibit
F — Amendments to General Plan Chapter 1: Plan Management and Citizen Involvement. We
have already made comments regarding the need to designate employment lands in Figurel-3
(Framework Plan Map).
Policy 20.c. on Page 1-12 (General Plan Chapter 1) does little to assure that the city will gain the
needed housing mix at the time of annexation. The city currently has a significant shortage of
multi -family housing, and needs to advance policies and planning strategies that will close the
multi -family gap in early years of the planning period, if it is to have any hope of gaining on the
city's severe housing affordability problem. In the department's June 1, 2006 comments on the
city's draft Development Code, we provided the following observation:
Since 1990, we have seen Bend's housing tenure change dramatically, along with increasing rates of
unaffordability for households who work in Bend. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, Bend's tenure split
between owners and renters was approximately 55% to 45%, which is very close to what the state's Housing
and Land Use Model would project for a community of Bend's size if it was in housing price-salary/wage
3
equilibrium. By 2000, the U.S Census found that Bend's tenure split had dramatically moved away from
equilibrium to approximately 64% owner and 36% renter. This suggests that not enough affordable owner
and renter housing was being built, and suggests a strong trend of increased non-residents in the Bend
workforce, as these households either choose or were financially forced to move to lower cost housing
locations.
Framework planning policies on Page 1-12, that govern the mix of housing in the expansion area
provide some guidance towards housing mix, but we do not yet see how they will achieve a
solution for both the city's current shortfall in multi -family housing and then meet the 20 -year
target that restores the city owner -renter mix closer to the city's 1990 level. The city's Housing
Element has project a 56% owner and 44% renter mix by 2027.1 The city should specifically test
draft Policies 24 and 25 to confirm that they will promote the housing types that are projected in
the city's 20 -year housing needs analysis. If they do not promote an adequate amount of needed
housing, then these policies will need to be amended and/or supported by additional housing
(including measures) and framework policies. This is an important exercise, given that over 72%
of the city's residential units were single-family as of mid 2005, at the same time overall
residential density in Bend was a very low 3.96 units per acre.
5. Housing
The city draft Housing Element proves an analysis of housing needs that utilizes the state's
housing model. Table 5-20, when compared with Table 5-21, shows the extent of the city's
housing own -renter shortfall which is manifest by failure to build enough affordable housing, and
particularly multi -family housing, as discussed above.
Generally, policies found at the end of the draft Housing Element provide a good basis and
framework for many city actions that must be taken to encourage building of housing types that are
affordable to more of the Bend workforce. However, as noted above in our discussion about
projected performance of certain Framework Plan housing policies, more work needs to be done to
develop a land use and policy strategy that addresses how current housing type shortfalls (mull -
family and other smaller, affordable units) can be promoted early on during the planning period so
Bend can begin to restore a more balanced housing mix.
6. Economic Development
The city has designated Juniper Ridge as a future industrial site and has developed a master plan
to guide its development. The city has a vision, Bend 2030, a MOU with a developer and an
EOA to support their plan. But, because Juniper Ridge is the only place where the city appears to
have decided to designate needed industrial land, it will be important to assure that the land is
still available for industrial uses when it comes time for development. Unless the city takes clear
and direct measures to protect its Juniper Ridge industrial land base, there will be continuous
pressure to covert the land to other uses. Since the City owns Juniper Ridge, it is in a position to
hold it and strategically develop it over time.
1 The city's 56%-44% owner -renter mix target is consistent with the OHCS Housing Model and would provide a significant boost to
restoring a more affordable setting for Bend housing.
4
To ensure this Juniper Ridge land remains planned for needed industrial uses, the department
encourages the city to protect it by any of the following ways:
• Retain ownership (lease options);
• Create an industrial sanctuary ;
• Create buffers zones to prevent encroachment ;
• Limit the size of allowable retail, particularly large trip generators;
• Establish lot size minimums;
• Urban Renewal designation.
7. Public Facilities
8. Transportation
Generally, the city needs to do more work and coordination with ODOT to compare costs,
advantages and disadvantages of Juniper Ridge with other areas that the city is considering
adding to the UGB. The city's analysis does not draw a very complete picture of the difference
in adding Juniper Ridge versus others. (See 8.F., below). The following transportation issues
remain to be resolved before adoption of the city's UGB expansion:
A. Clarify the relationship between the Bend Urban Area Transportation System Plan (TSP) and
the forthcoming Bend Area Regional Transportation Plan.
The proposed plan includes conflicting findings about compliance with TPR requirements that
apply to MPO areas. In most situations the city appears to be deferring application of TPR
metropolitan planning requirements until the Bend MPO creates a regional transportation plan.
However, in several places the city makes findings that it is in compliance with or has met
specific TPR requirements that apply to MPO areas. (For example, findings addressing OAR
660-012-0035 suggest that the city meets the requirements for MPO areas to promote alternative
modes of travel because the plan is likely to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per capita over
the planning period and because the plan requires "bicycle and pedestrian facilities on all new.
collector and arterial streets"). In general we understand that the city has not yet modified its
TSP to respond to the requirements applicable to metropolitan areas.
Recommendation: Revise findings to clearly defer application of TPR metropolitan planning
requirements following adoption of the MPO plan. The TPR deadline for adoption of a TSP
should be noted. The city should add policy language to support its finding that the city is
committed to updating its TSP to address relevant requirements for metropolitan areas within one
year of the regional transportation plan adoption, currently scheduled for December 2007. To
the extent possible, the city should incorporate actions which either support or will be necessary
to comply with TPR.
5
B. Clarify status of proposed roadway improvements outside of the UGB and future study
issues.
One function of a TSP is to make clear land use decisions authorizing certain facilities and
improvements as "planned facilities" - where the plan includes supporting findings that address
the TPR and relevant statewide planning goals to establish the need, mode, function and general
location of the planned facility or improvement. For facilities proposed on rural lands,
additional findings are required to demonstrate compliance with the TPR. The draft TSP
includes several planned or proposed facilities whose status is unclear and where required TPR
or goal compliance findings have not been provided:
• The Draft Framework Plan Map (Figure 32) and the draft TSP Map (Exhibit E) show several
planned roadway improvements that would extend outside of both the urban growth boundary
and the proposed urban reserve. Including these roadways as planned improvements requires
either additional findings addressing OAR 660-012-0065 or possibly goal exceptions.
• Figure 32 also shows four "study areas" where further planning to specify needed
improvements is anticipated. The accompanying discussion in section 9.6 (Outstanding Issues)
makes it difficult to determine the planning status of roadway improvements that are under
consideration.
Generally speaking, the TSP must either make a decision about need, mode, function and general
location or clearly defer those decisions to a subsequent planning process and decision. As
written, these policies are not clear about what decisions have been made and what decisions
have been deferred. For example, Policy 9.6.3 discusses a new Deschutes River Crossing. The
policy indicates that the existing circulation plan "contemplates a new bridge over the Deschutes
River". The fact that the plan "contemplates" a bridge suggests that it is a proposal rather than
a plan decision to authorize the use (including decisions about need, mode, function and general
location.) However, the remainder of the policy suggests that a decision that a bridge will be
located here has been made because the policy calls for further study and evaluation only for "...
the exact location and alignment of the affected roadways and the bridge crossing." (Bend TSP
Amendment at 15)
• The discussion of the Highway 97/20 refinement plan (pages 15-16) notes that current work is
focusing on two alternatives (System Concepts 1 & 2). The description of system concept 1
indicates that it would include a new alignment connecting north of the UGB. Such a new
roadway would require a goal exception - a significant undertaking. Consequently, the TSP
should be revised to clearly indicate that an exception may be needed for Concept 1 and direct
the refinement plan be scoped to fully address exception requirements. In short, approval of an
exception would require a demonstration that there are no reasonable alternatives for meeting
transportation needs that do not require goal exceptions. Detailed guidance on exceptions for
new roadways is provided in OAR 660-012-0070.
Recommendation: For each of the study areas, the TSP needs to either clearly make
determinations about need, mode, function and general location or make it clear that these
decisions remain to be made. If the city proceeds with land use determinations, it needs to
6
•provide supporting findings addressing relevant goals and clearly specify the general location of
planned improvements. If the city defers decisions, it likely needs to call for preparation and
adoption of refinement plans as provided for in OAR 660-012-0025. While the city does not
call it a "refinement plan" it does in essence call for a refinement plan for options to deal with the
US 97 / Cooley Road area (Findings page 26 of 55).
C. Clarify requirements for "transportation framework plans" in areas under county jurisdiction.
Implementation policies 2 and 5 indicate that "new development shall provide transportation
framework plans for areas outside of the city limits but within the UGB if developed under
county jurisdiction in advance of annexation ...." The policy directs that such plans are to
"clarify how rural development will conform to future urban level transportation plans." While
the concept is good, the language of the policy is weak and may not be sufficient to assure the
plan is implemented. The policy should be clearer about the required details of a transportation
framework and establish a clearer standard for review and approval of such plans. Presumably,
the county would require a transportation framework plan for any significant development
outside the UGB and the submitted plan would have to show that the proposed development
preserves feasible corridors for rights of way to allow construction of roadways shown on the
draft framework plan (Figure 32) and local street connections consistent with Figure 15 and the
city's development code standards for local street connections.
D. Be clearer about planning for local street extensions and connections.
Figure 15 ("Proposed Local Street Connections") shows a series of local street extensions and
connections that would improve street connectivity (consistent with city policies and TPR
requirements.) The text of plan supporting this map (on page 55) is not clear whether these
connections are planned improvements or recommendations that the city may or may not
implement through development approvals. The city should clarify its expectations for this map.
We note that the Bend Development Code includes provisions that direct the city to apply
adopted street plans in its review of specific development proposals. (Bend Development Code,
3.4 I: "1. When a street plan has been developed and adopted by City Council along with an area
plan, such as a Refinement Plan, that street plan shall guide the location and spacing of future
streets pursuant to City of Bend Standards and Specifications.") We recommend that the city
clearly adopt figure 15 as a street plan to be applied as described in the development code.
E. Recognize need for additional planning for bike and pedestrian circulation needs in the
expanded UGB.
The plan includes an analysis of bike and pedestrian facility and improvement needs but the
analysis appears limited to addressing needed improvements on the arterial and collector street
system. While this is the majority of the work needed, the city needs to also consider whether
other connections or improvements are needed to provide a network or routes that provide for
safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the areas planned for urban
development. Examples of other improvements that should be considered are:
- additional local street connections to provide shorter more direct routes;
7
- addition of sidewalks to existing local streets that are important access routes to schools, parks,
shopping or transit;
- off-street accessway or walkway connections that would provide safer or more convenient
routes for pedestrians or cyclists;
- street crossing improvements.
The city should revise the plan and supporting findings to acknowledge the need for more
detailed planning for bike and pedestrian routes in the urbanizing areas.
F. Provide additional analysis to compare costs and benefits of different UGB expansion
options, particularly Juniper Ridge, in coordination with ODOT and other transportation
providers..
The Goal 14 rule (OAR 660-024) requires that the city evaluate and compare the costs of
alternative UGB expansion areas as they relate to transportation facilities. This evaluation and
comparison needs to be done in conjunction with affected service providers, particularly ODOT
as it relates to state highways.
OAR 660-024-0060(8) states:
"The Goal 14 boundary location determination requires evaluation and comparison of the relative
costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the
provision of public facilities and services needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. This
evaluation and comparison must be conducted in coordination with service providers, including
the Oregon Department of Transportation with regard to impacts on the state transportation
system. "Coordination" includes timely notice to service providers and the consideration of
evaluation methodologies recommended by service providers. The evaluation and comparison
must include:
(a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water and transportation facilities that
serve nearby areas already inside the UGB;
(b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the UGB as
well as areas proposed for addition to the UGB; and
(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."
Overall, the city's transportation analysis concludes that the four UGB expansion alternatives
considered have "very similar relative impacts". (Executive Summary, page 2). [This is not
surprising given the modest differences between growth allocations among the four alternatives].
At the same time, the analysis concludes that "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 connection in between.
8
The scale of these projects would require additional review and approvals with ODOT."
(Executive Summary, page 2). Further the findings note that the costs of these improvements -
estimated at $125 million to $185 million - are apparently not included in the total cost. The
high cost of these improvements, the fact that they call for improvements to the state highway
system and may potentially require goal exceptions necessitates a full and careful evaluation and
comparison of UGB expansion in this area with other options.
Recommendation: The city should provide a more detailed evaluation of the costs, advantages
and disadvantages of UGB expansion in different areas as required by OAR 660-024-0060(8) of
the Goal 14 rule. More detailed information is particularly needed for Juniper Ridge to address
likely costs, coordination with ODOT on state highway impacts, and to assess whether
supporting improvements would likely involve goal exceptions.
9. Urban efficiency measures pursuant to ORS 197.296(9)
There is no discussion or meaningful analysis in the Residential Land Measures memo dated May 2,
2007 to utilize the measures listed in ORS 197.296(9) to accommodate additional housing need inside
the current UGB. Instead, the memo focus on three planning projects as the sum of measures to met the
statute. There are certainly more measures that should be examined, including but not limited to 1) how
to address the city's large lot zone RL zone district as the city grows from its current population to its
2027 projected population and sewers are extended to these lands, 2) rezoning certain RL and RS lands
either RM and RH for purposes of reducing the current and future shortfall of multi -family housing, and
3) raising the permissible density in the RS designation and zone district. The statute includes a list of
the following measures and the feasibility of these measures needs to be specifically examined before the
city adopts any UGB expansion:
i. Increases in the permitted density on existing residential land;
ii. Financial incentives for higher density housing;
iii. Provisions permitting additional density beyond that generally allowed in the zoning
district in exchange for amenities and features provided by the developer;
iv. Removal or easing of approval standards or procedures;
v. Minimum density ranges;
vi. Redevelopment and infill strategies;
vii. Authorization of housing types not previously allowed by the plan or regulations;
viii. Adoption of an average residential density standard;
ix. Rezoning or redesignation of nonresidential land.
10. Goal 1 and citizen participation
Because the submittals are incomplete and do not contain significant documents described in this
letter, the department urges the city and county to provide ample opportunity for the public to
comment on the proposals and all of the forthcoming documents that will make the submittals
complete.
9
Specific Comments:
The following are specific page -by -page comments on certain sections of the UGB submittal.
Bend Area General Plan: Chapter 5: Housing and Residential Lands
Page 5-5, 4th bullet, 2nd sentence: Add "complete and citywide" before fixed route public transit
system.
Page 5-7, 3rd paragraph, last sentence: Add "...but multi -family units only contributed to 20% of
the housing stock.
Page 5-9, 1St paragraph: This paragraph states that the city used a "conservative scenario" to
estimate the supply of redevelopment land within the UGB. The text should include some
reasoning for making this choice, so that the public can be better informed about the city's
decision making.
Page 5-13, Table 5-9: This is an interesting table that shows that Bend's demographics is highly
skewed towards small household sizes, since 63% of households were either 1 or 2 person, while
only 20% of households included 4 or more persons. These demographics suggest that there is
considerable demand for smaller single-family attached and detached units, as well as the
obvious shortfall in current multi -family housing. The city should include specific policies and
implementation strategies that respond to this demographic pattern. Having over 70% of the
city's residential land supply devoted to relatively low density RS land may not be the best
response to meeting this demographic pattern, nor promoting increased housing affordability
over the short- and long-term.
Page 5-21, Future Trends and Forecasts: A number of trends are suggested that will likely
worsen the city's affordable housing problem. The real question that the city should be asking as
it looks at these trend is what are appropriate and possible public policy responses that will bring
about more housing affordability during the forecast period. For example, if low wage jobs are
part of the Bend economy, what housing type(s) should the city support so these wage earners
will be able to afford renting (or even owning) a house? If size and amenities continue to be a
problem that works against affordable housing, what actions and tools are available to the city to
reduce house size and amenities that maybe acting to limit housing affordability.? This section
appear incomplete without some response to these trends, particularly when they are adverse to
promoting restoration of affordability to Bend housing.
Bend Area General Plan: Chapter 6: The Economy and Lands for Economic Growth
* Page 6-19, A and B. I do not understand if they this means 168 acres plus 100 acres and if so
shouldn't gross and net acres be reconciled?
10
* Page 6-19, 9. Great, now define prime industrial land and list potential actions. Goal 9 defines
it, but the city may define it in a way that works for their context.
(8) "Prime Industrial Land" means land suited for traded -sector industries as well as other
industrial uses providing support to traded -sector industries. Prime industrial lands possess site
characteristics that are difficult or impossible to replicate in the planning area or region. Prime
industrial lands have necessary access to transportation and freight infrastructure, including, but
not limited to, rail marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities and
major transportation routes.
Please place this letter in the record of proceedings concerning this matter. Please inform and provide
the department with any pertinent new information concerning this proposed plan amendment. Please
provide the department notice of any hearing continuation(s) that is related to this proposal.
Again, the department is very supportive of continued coordination between the city, county and
department. We are very interested in finding a solution that is best for the city and county and which
remains consistent with the state's planning laws.
Meanwhile, if you have general question about our comments, do not hesitate to contact me at
318.2899. If you have specific questions about issues related to Goal 14, please contact either Gloria
Gardiner in our Salem office at 503.373.0050 ext. 282, or myself. If you have specific questions about
issues related to Goal 12 and transportation, please contact Bob Cortright in our Salem office at
503.373.0050 ext. 241.
Sincerely,
Mark Radabaugh
Central Oregon Region Representative
c: Mel Oberst, Bend Community Development Director
. Brian Shetterly, Bend Principal Planner — Long Range
Catherine Morrow, Deschutes County Planning Director
Mark DeVoney, ODOT — Region 4
Bob Cortright, DLCD
Gloria Gardiner, DLCD
Rob Hallyburton, DLCD
Darren Nichols, DLCD
Lane Shetterly, DLCD