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 the hot button issue aired at the Bend Chamber-hosted 2015 Real Forecast Breakfast, highlighting the reinvigorated push to expand the city’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
A packed house of business and community leaders at the Riverhouse Convention Center heard from keynote panelists with in-depth insight on the subject shedding light on the underlying process and differing values that could produce varying perspectives about the far-reaching decisions which will shape Bend’s undoubtedly more urbanized future.
Opening speaker Brian Fratzke gave some background to Oregon’s land use law framework, charting how iconic governor Tom McCall helped usher in legislation in the 1970s over concerns at the level of in-migration to the state and the need to craft a process that would not necessarily limit, but manage growth.
This played a part in creation of the urban growth boundary concept – which is basically a mapped line drawn around a city that identifies an estimated 20-year supply of land for employment, housing, and other urban uses – as mandated by Oregon State planning law and as reflected in the city’s General Plan long-range guidance document – to allow capacity for new neighborhoods and commercial areas, parks, schools, and public infrastructure.
State law dictates that a city demonstrate the need for such additional land for example from its urban reserve or “holding” area 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 back in 1981 when, Fratzke jocularly noted, Phil Donahue was a popular day-time talk show host, and the city’s inhabitants numbered just 17,425.
City of Bend long-range planning manager Brian Rankin recounted how, partly in response to a period of unprecedented growth starting in the 1990’s, 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 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 conducted numerous 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 in 2010 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 at some 8,000 acres was larger than the amount of land determined needed.
Rankin said that that while elements of the original proposal were accepted in principle, since that setback the City had catalyzed a new collaborative decision-making process involving local experts and interested parties in groups such as various Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) and a steering committee, with the goal of refining options, completing the remand process and having local adoption of a new UGB amendment in April 2016, whereafter a state decision would be expected the following year.
In addition, the City 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 the level of attendees at the forecast event – which also heard from forum participants including Compass Commercial Real Estate broker Ron Ross, Hayden Homes VP of Land Acquisition Bill Duffey and Central Oregon Builders Association’s Andy High – who also chairs the City’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
In addressing the question of why the local population should care so much over how the UGB adjustment process plays out, Fratzke gave direct examples of rising land price impacts related to the commercial real estate market, including describing how industrial lease rates had almost doubled in the last three years as demand increased and vacancy rates shrank, in part due to the relative scarcity of developable land and a consequent upward pressure on prices.
He added: “Had the expansion to our UGB been more timely, we believe lease rates may not have increased so dramatically.”
He concurred that in the future more frequent monitoring of the UGB process would be prudent, and indicated that given current constraints pending the expansion decision, infill projects and higher density re-development would be a feature, and the private investment sector was “already on it”.
Municipal fees such as Systems Development Charges (SDC’s) and labor costs also continued to rise, affecting the feasibility of speculative development projects.
High said that one of the precursors to refocusing on the potential UGB expansion was the identified need to provide more affordable housing options, giving vivid examples of three jars of dirt and their relative cost – $25,000 an acre from Redmond; $35,000 per acre for land just outside the UGB, and now $135,000 an acre from his own backyard in Bend.
He also indicated that even when an expanded UGB plan wins approval there could be several years involving annexation and supporting infrastructure requirements before entitlements could be obtained and an effective difference made on the ground in easing supply.
Duffey said his company strives to cater to entry level home buyers, but Bend’s median income of just over $55,000 and the “rule of thumb” that no more than 30 per cent of that figure should be spent on housing (assuming a 5pc down payment) translated into a feasible purchase price of $200,000, while the city’s median home price currently hovers around $315,000 – effectively illustrating an “income gap” of around $20,000.
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, Rankin 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 (such as 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.
One of the first issues the City must look to was efficient uses of vacant land and infill potential within its current perimeter – though much of that development occurred within the decade from 1998-2008 – including through “efficiency measures” such as revisions to the planning code catalyzing creation of more varied housing options.
Rankin and fellow panelists stressed the importance of the current education and public involvement phase before drilling down to feasible scenarios and a formal proposal which will shape the livability of the city for the next 20 years.
The consensus was rejection of the last UGB proposal cost the city considerable time and money, especially in light of heightened land prices in the interim, but there 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.
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 are also asked to follow “Smart Growth” principles such as providing for an appropriate mix of land uses; compact and transit-supportive development and a mix of housing types catering to different income levels.
Ross said though the UGB process should provide a 20-year cushion in terms of land supply, much of the land indicated as ‘vacant’ within the current boundary had constraints regarding developability, and his research had pointed to some 10,000 acres of feasible land for development within a two-mile radius of the current UGB.
He also lamented the fact that while he and his children had enjoyed plenty of “elbow room” in Bend’s traditional relatively lower density environment with larger yards, newer generations may be unable to enjoy such amenities as the pressure on density from metro-focused state bodies “that would like to see us look like the densest neighborhood in Portland” could see “the basketball area developed, and where we threw baseballs having an additional dwelling unit”.
Rankin said reaching the right balance was for the community as a whole to decide and the challenge lay in reaching a consensus, with the key being “adaptability”.
A wealth of information on boundary issues, current status and steps moving forward is contained on the City website, and members of the public can also get involved in the discussion in a variety of ways, including online forums like bendvoice.org where the entire community can have input without attending technical advisory committee meetings.
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 are open to the public.
In addition, the City Council will continue to hold public hearings to receive input prior to adopting ordinances implementing remand actions.
For more information see City website: www.bend.or.us, contact City of Bend Principal Planner Brian Rankin at brankin@bendoregon.gov or Senior Planner Damian Syrnyk at dsyrnyk@bendoregon.gov; or sign up for news and notices of upcoming meetings.
