Supporters of Pilot Butte State Park have found themselves entangled in a land use process after learning about plans for a new apartment complex at the foot of the Butte. Because their concerns emerged after the public comment period for the development, members of the Save Pilot Butte group sought to appeal the development’s approval, launching a fundraising campaign to cover appeal fees. However, City planning staff told the group that because they didn’t file comments during the comment period, they don’t have standing to appeal. The group is challenging that notion, while also asking the City to make its own appeal.
Earlier today, the group’s de facto spokesperson Bill Smith, a former Oregon State Parks host at Pilot Butte (and husband to the well known Butte Lady, Carol Smith), sent a lengthy email to City Council. In it, he expressed the following concerns.
Signage about new development lacks important information
“[City Planning Manager] Colin [Stephens] pointed out the nature of the problem in getting a date on the sign. There is obviously a way to get the date on the sign (several ways in fact). When he gave me his explanation, I called him on it and he admitted there were ways. I was surprised to see him presenting this argument to council and most people shaking their heads in agreement. The argument doesn’t hold water. That’s obvious. If you want a date on a sign, you can do it. I can’t imagine any citizen buying the argument that it can’t happen.
But the date is only a start. The signs need some indication of people’s rights more than anything and while dates associated with that would be nice, more important would be a few lines of small but readable text explaining concisely why the signs are there including the importance of the 14 day period. I’ve been talking with reporters a lot. I always bring up the signs and they always agree they are inadequate. The other day a reporter asked why there isn’t a QR Code? The QR code could take people with a scanning app right to all of the relevant information on the web including the site plan. Ten to 14 days is a short time for people to get a sense of what is going on. I’m on record with many complaints about the type of answers I got from two different city planners. Getting people to the information they need quickly would seem both an easy and worthy goal that costs next to nothing. A QR code would be one possible mechanism.”
Renters are left out of the loop
“You need to build into code things about unique circumstances that might be encountered. Sure that might complicate things a bit but it was pointed out that these developers are sophisticated and I think they can handle a system that is slightly more complicated. Here’s an example not yet mentioned. The people notified directly are property owners. Renters are not notified. Most of the people located around this development are renters. It could even be that they all are. Maybe in a situation like that you should alert renters. It’s inexpensive and easy through the post office. It costs no more than alerting property owners in a more traditional neighborhood. So, say if 50 percent or more of people living in the target area are renters, maybe that triggers notification directly to all renters. Since it doesn’t cost more, maybe you just always include renters.”
One nearby property owner has a significant conflict of interest
“Here’s something else unique, the main landlord notified was the developer because they now own the large Pilot Butte Commons Apartments. I would think that in a situation like that it would make sense to expand the target area. Some landlords might actively seek input from their tenants to decide if they should respond. With the obvious conflict that Evergreen Development had, that is much less likely to happen.
FWIW, I seriously question the statement made by Colin that once the signs go up, the phone usually starts ringing off the hook. But I don’t work in his office and so I really don’t know. What I do know is if you take the issues you are already aware of with the signs themselves, these signs in particular (see below), renters not being notified in an area where most people rent, and a large portion of the target area for notification being owned by Evergreen Development, it makes sense that it took a while for people to get on board. I think the proof in this case is how fast and strong they got on board as soon as they knew.”
The traffic study is flawed
“I’m not saying how it happened (incompetence or intentional), but I’m convinced that the traffic study needed to be redone. Whose responsibility is it to determine that? If it is the city’s responsibility, why was this missed. If it is the developer’s responsibility, what are the consequences for submitting a report so seriously flawed? I have no intent to investigate further, but I think you should because I have been told these are not minor matters. They directly involve public safety. Is there any way when something like this is learned late in the game to fix the problem or are taxpayers expected to pay the bill for the improvements that will be needed?”
The City should be taking the lead
“Here’s the request. Contrary to what you were told, I believe the City Council does have the ability to take up this matter on appeal on your own motion. In other words, while standing was denied to us, the council must have standing in some shape or form. It’s not just my opinion, it came from competent practicing land use attorneys. I did my homework. While we were never able to get one of these attorneys to work for us for free, we were able to get a few questions answered. You may have been sued by the developer, but would the developer win? If you have standing, then you have a right to exercise it and actually represent the citizens who elected you. You also have insurance in case you are sued. That’s what I’m told. But for something like that to happen there would have to be a meeting of the minds and it would have made more sense to accomplish something like that during the working session or some special session that followed.”
Smith and the Save Pilot Butte group have stressed that they are aware of Bend’s housing shortage and are not opposed to having a new apartment complex in the area, but they are worried that, without input from Oregon Parks and neighbors, the project as proposed will cause safety issues. They are also concerned that an approved variance will allow the apartment buildings to be tall enough to obscure the views Pilot Butte is so well known for.
The window to file an appeal closes at 4 pm Monday.
This article appears in Aug 19-26, 2015.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
In case the city doesn’t go for this, we just provided them with a second option. They now have two options before them. Clearly this is the one we want, but the other option is acceptable to us. We are still in need of donations for the $5,195 fee the city charges to file an appeal:
https://www.gofundme.com/savepilotbutte/
Follow the whole saga on our FB page: https://www.facebook.com/SavePilotButte
You’ll find an interesting post there about a serious problem that appears to have been overlooked at an intersection on Hyw 20. We always knew apartments would go in at that location and were fine with it. But there are far to many serious concerns and that is the reason for the appeal. Fix the problems first and then build. It’s gotten to the point where it would be immoral to do anything else.
I should add that the problems are there regardless of whether or not we knew about this in time. The city should actively be trying to fix these problems. They said they had no options to help. We’ve provided them with two. Let’s see how much they care about safety, livability, iconic natural resources and many other issues in Bend. Btw, for those of you concerned about affordable housing, we’re told this developer recently purchased a large affordable housing complex near Pilot Butte and is in the process of turning it into luxury apartments. KTVZ reported the story about 10 days ago. This seems to be moving in the wrong direction. The new apartments are also going t be luxury apartments from what we here.
While housing is a need, a greater need is long term intelligent economic planning. That piece of land would better serve residents by alternative transport (reducing traffic congestion) and put a big water fountain art piece for people to play in, do a visitors center, and there you go… similar to the Old Mill District – improving outdoor entertainment which is what residents and visitors are drawn to. Right now the Eastside bites, except the hospital.
Is It TIME for RENT CONTROL in Bend? As a renter, I am seriously questioning that this might be a necessary evil. The proposed multi family units are anything but affordable, and though I have seen quotes of rental increases this last year of 1.5 to 2.5 % in the media, I can assure you that they are way higher than that! My own rent just increased over 7%, up from 4% last year. I work in community mental health and my clients have recently had increases in rent up to 30%. Is this even legal?!
We are not seeing salary increases. Central Oregon historically pays lower wages than other areas of Oregon, and especially in Bend. I have a Master’s Degree and over 15 years of experience in the field and I took more than a 50% cut in pay to live here. I have to have a roommate to help pay my rent. When the vast majority of the people who live in Bend are in the service industry, working in restaurants, hotels, and resorts, do you really think they can afford the proposed rents? Many people already work 2 or 3 jobs just to get by, and in case you haven’t noticed the huge amount of homeless people we have living in this county, with the continued rise in housing costs and lack of available housing, we will continue to have a serious problem of homelessness.
Is Bend really approving ‘affordable housing’? Affordable to whom? Certainly not for me, and certainly not for all those folks you buy your morning latte’ from! As far as ‘affordable housing’ meaning white trash and crime; as someone recently stated in the Source, open your limited view of the world. A family, where all the adults are gainfully employed, should be able to afford a reasonable rent to put a roof over their head and their children without having to spend half or more of their income to do so!
The parking, traffic, and planning issues are some of the issues with the proposed development. There are so many other problems associated with this current development it is imperative that it is revisited and revamped!
Lucy
It seems like it’s time for sweeping changes in Bend. This little experience has been way too frustrating. People shouldn’t have to work this hard to correct a few problems that everyone sees. Then they definitely shouldn’t be finding problems the city missed and taxpayers may need to fix down the road. Developers and property owners should have broad rights but not so broad that they cost the city/taxpayers money with the problems they create. Government is supposed to be paying attention and on top of things. Look at all the problems we have. You try solving the housing crisis and you end up creating a bunch of other crises. It all seems to be going the wrong direction fast. Someone needs to get a handle on all of this. I’m beginning to wonder if anyone in place now can.
Who does these “studies”?! A new elementary school set to open between Brosterhous and American Lane (plus an eventual 200+ housing units) apparently won’t cause traffic problems, according to the people who seem to “rubber stamp” these projects. A new college is being squeezed in (rammed down our throats) on the westside, when better/more accessible spots are available. These apartments? Yes we need housing, and traffic may be a concern. But your view of Pilot Butte being ruined…get over it or move. I guess that’s the new City of Bend Mantra! We’re imploding folks! (look it up)