City Club of Central Oregon forum puts focus on critical proposed UGB expansion factors. The perennial thorny question of how to balance density and sprawl as Bend looks to chart a path for growth over the next decades was one of the issues aired at a recent forum highlighting the reinvigorated push to expand the city’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
The first of three events on the topic organized by the City Club of Central Oregon saw keynote speakers with in-depth insight on the subject shedding light on the underlying law, process and differing values that could produce varying perspectives about the far-reaching decisions which will shape Bend’s undoubtedly more urbanized future.
An urban growth boundary is a mapped line drawn around a city that identifies an estimated 20-year supply of land for employment, housing, and other urban uses – as required by Oregon State planning law and as reflected in the city’s General Plan long-range guidance document – to allow for new neighborhoods and commercial areas, parks, schools, and public infrastructure.
State law dictates that a city demonstrate the need for such additional land before expanding its UGB. This “demonstration of need” must also show that the land currently inside the UGB cannot reasonably accommodate the 20-year supply.
Bend’s population currently hovers around 80,000, and the City last expanded its UGB in 1981 when its inhabitants numbered just 17,425.
Partly in response to a period of unprecedented growth starting in the 1990s, the City spent considerable time and expense from 2004 on the process for demonstrating a need for widening the UGB, including the development and adoption of a coordinated population forecast with Deschutes County, followed by three years of technical work on buildable lands inventories, housing needs analysis, economic opportunities analysis, forecasting additional residential and employment lands, and public facilities (water, sewer, transportation) planning.
Between April 2007 and November 2008, the city and county (either jointly or separately) conducted 66 public meetings on the UGB expansion, including public hearings, workshops, planning commission and council work sessions, and meetings of the technical advisory committee, culminating in the formal UGB expansion proposal.
But that application ended up being remanded by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development for further work, in part because DLCD contended the size of the proposed expansion was larger than the amount of land determined needed.
Since that setback, the City has catalyzed a new collaborative decision making process involving local experts and interested parties in groups such as (three) Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) and a steering committee, with the goal of completing the remand process and having local adoption of a new UGB amendment in April 2016.
In addition, the City has pledged to employ best planning and engineering practices involving scenario development and analysis, engage, inform and receive input from the public with techniques best suited for the project and commit to providing additional resources to complete the project.
A measure of the interest generated by the re-emergent UGB discussion was evidenced by a full-house of attendees at the latest City Club meeting – hearing from forum participants including Bend City Councilor and Chair of the UGB Remand Steering Committee Victor Chudowsky, land use/natural resources attorney Paul Dewey, who is also Central Oregon LandWatch executive director and Sharon Smith, land use/real estate attorney with Bryant Lovlien and Jarvis – and a lively Q&A session following presentations.
Chudowsky outlined the perceived phases for the project and said that one of the precursors to refocusing on the potential UGB expansion was the identified need to provide more affordable housing options.
Median household incomes in Bend had dipped slightly in the last few years to $66,000, with the affordability “rule of thumb” that no more than 30 per cent of income should be spent on housing meaning that category could reasonably afford the mortgage on a single family home costing $200,000 – while the median house price in the city was now closer to $325,000.
More people were now being pushed into the rental pool at the same time vacancy rates were hitting historic lows, with affordable housing advocates voicing concerns about supply versus demand ratios prior to resolution of the UGB question.
On the housing front, Chudowsky said projections indicated Bend’s population would reach 115,000 by 2028, or approximately 16,700 new households. State law regarding accommodating that influx via the UGB expansion process implies the inventory of housing options should be roughly split 55 per cent single family detached, 10 per cent single family attached (duplex), and 35 per cent multifamily (rowhouses, condos, apartments etc.). Bend’s current housing stock is nearer a ratio of 71 per cent single family housing, versus 29 per cent higher density.
First the City must look to efficient uses of vacant land and infill potential within its current perimeter – though much of that development occurred within the decade from 1998-2008 – and if there is proven to be insufficient supply to meet the perceived demand, then the boundary could be expanded subject to suitability and feasibility criteria, with growth scenarios and a new proposed UGB being part of phase two of the overall schedule.
“This is where the rubber hits the road,” said Chudowsky. “It is important we first go through the education and public involvement phase before we get to feasible scenarios and a formal proposal which will shape the livability of our city for the next 20 years.
“Bend is no doubt going to be more urbanistic and a larger city and through this process we can propagate ideas to make sure we steer in a good direction.”
Chudowsky said rejection of the last UGB proposal cost the city considerable time and money, especially in light of heightened land prices in the interim, but now was an opportunity to rally around a common cause. A similar process regarding industrial/commercial lands efficiency was also ongoing as part of the UGB discussion to ensure enough availability to accommodate 20,000 new jobs within the same timeframe.
He added: “I commend the city for the concerted effort to involve the public, and groups like the City Club and Chamber for increasing awareness on this important issue, and I would encourage everyone in our community to actively engage in the process.”
Dewey also gave kudos to the City for its outreach efforts and saw the long-term project as a “balance between people and the environment. It’s not just about protecting natural resources outside the UGB, but to have an efficient land use system within our boundaries to avoid sprawl.
“Sprawl is bad because it destroys communities and increases the economic burden to build infrastructure and services. The goal is to save public money while having livable communities.
“As far as housing goes, the state has suggested we look at a whole range of housing options which could include creative use of additional dwelling units, townhomes and the like. People are at different stages of their lives and need different housing options at various times.”
Dewey cited examples of mixed use development embracing concepts such as alley access neighborhoods and walkable communities including shops and parks, while also supporting business and transit. He also highlighted statistics showing Bend having the lowest density of population (2,322 per square mile) compared to other metropolitan areas in the state like Corvallis (3,854/sq mile) with the highest being the Portland area, including Beaverton at 4,795/sq mile, indicating Bend may have plenty of “wiggle room” as it transitions to a more urban community.
Smith said: “There are two things Oregonians most dislike – density and sprawl!
“It is a fine balancing act; to avoid sprawl we must increase density but each community must determine what drives their decision.”
She said TACs currently involved in the process were pursuing UGB project goals based on City Council guidelines and the Bend 2030 vision including:
Quality Natural Environment;
Connections to Recreation and Nature;
Great Neighborhoods: Well designed, safe, walkable, schools, parks, neighborhood commercial centers, mix of housing types;
Strong Active Downtown;
Balanced Transportation System: Well connected system for walking, biking, transit and cars.
Advisory groups were also asked to follow “Smart Growth” principles such as:
1. Appropriate mix of Land Uses
-Compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly;
-Complete neighborhoods with Civic amenities, commercial centers, -schools and parks within walking distance;
-Concentrated Commercial/Mixed-use Centers;
-Integrate land uses so people can work and play near where they live.
2.Compact and Transit-Supportive Development
-Higher density near transit corridors;
-Encourage compact building/higher density to use land more efficiently;
-Reduce commute times and encourage walkable communities.
3.Mix of Housing Types and Income Levels
-Affordable housing evenly distributed, each neighborhood with a broad -range of housing types and price levels;
-Variety of housing types and sizes within zones so young to old can find suitable housing for their life-stage;
-Range of housing choices: apartments, townhomes, traditional suburban single family home with range of lot sizes
She added: “The trade offs in all this can be that reduced sprawl can mean increased density, or a smaller UGB, and scarcity of land can increase land costs – and the last thing any of us want to see is another boom-bust for the community which we witnessed in the last recession.
“The City code can direct some of the development policy, but can’t necessarily ensure for example that there is more affordable housing.
“The original UGB was appropriate in 1981, but since then has only expanded minimally (3.3 per cent from amendments adding 686 acres for schools, public works, US Forest Service and Juniper Ridge industrial park needs) compared to a 374 per cent increase in Bend’s population – which created a supply and demand problem and led to an increase in land costs.
“The UGB process should provide a 20-year cushion in terms of land supply, and I know from experience that much of the land indicated as ‘vacant’ within the current boundary has constraints regarding developability.”
Smith observed that higher land costs such as those experienced during the last boom reduces affordability of housing and forces workers to live in outlying cities and commute, which in turn leads to increased traffic, increased pollution from vehicles and a reduction in livability for the average citizen.
These results are not consistent with Smart Growth principles as they forced higher density, which could have aesthetic and social impacts if not done right, as well as limiting housing choices.
She concluded: “So what is the right UGB size? If it is too big it may be deemed not acceptable by the state which could lead to further delay, or see increased potential for sprawl.
“If it is too small it may be appealed by property owners who want to develop, leading again to further delay. If there remains an insufficient land supply – land costs could stay high, creating further affordable housing problems and a density possibly too high for our community.
“It is like trying to find a “Goldilocks” solution between the UGB being not too big and not too small.
“What is ‘just right’ is for the community to decide and the challenge is for us to reach a consensus and strike the right balance.
“I am excited to see the level of public engagement already and encourage more community involvement as this process unfolds.”
Members of the public can get involved in the discussion in a variety of ways, including via bendvoice.org – a new online forum where the entire community can have conversations without attending technical advisory committee meetings. The website promises to share some of the more intriguing questions that arise in advisory committee meetings and ask for public input.
The City Council has also formed a UGB Remand Task Force (RTF), consisting of all seven members of the Bend City Council and two Bend Planning Commissioners, which will meet periodically to review and act on the City’s responses to all remand issues. All RTF meetings will be open to the public.
In addition, the City Council will hold public hearings to receive input prior to adopting ordinances implementing remand actions.
For more information contact City of Bend Principal Planner Brian Rankin at brankin@bendoregon.gov or Senior Planner Damian Syrnyk at dsyrnyk@bendoregon.gov.
