It’s a foregone conclusion that Bend is on a growth path
with forecasts that the current estimated population of more than 80,000, could
expand to 110,000 in the next decade and a half.
How and where the growth will be channeled and managed is
the challenge facing the several city committees now working under a deadline
to complete the state-required Urban Growth Boundary proposal.
It’s
a complex task, involving analysis of many factors related to growth--economic,
environmental, social--then identifying needed land for urban development, all
within an umbrella long term “vision” for the community.
At times it’s been a bumpy process--in part because the
state Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) returned the original 2008 plan to on “remand”
for the city to make revisions.
For some observers outside the government and development
sectors the process seems complicated and convoluted, something only a policy
and planning wonk would appreciate and endure.
But it’s a high stakes exercise that in the end could
make the difference on retaining that oft-touted quality of life that has drawn
new residents or retained natives and old-timers.
At
a Sept. 4 meeting the steering committee for the UGB effort took a major step
in accepting recommendations of three “technical advisory committees,” (TACs) essentially
moving the process to another phase on the way to a final proposal.
Some of the steering committee comments reflected the
protracted nature of the work.
“I
don’t want it to be pushed back to us like the last time and we’ve been working
on this for five years,” observed steering committee chairman Victor Chudowsky,
also a Bend city council member.
There
is also recognition that the state method of growth planning does not rely on a
traditional market demand model. This is especially evident in Bend where
newer single family detached housing
sales are strong but construction has lagged for typically more affordable
housing--such as apartments, townhomes and condominiums--in higher density
areas.
In
its current form, the UGB project has been organized around the steering committee
and three TACs--1) a residential committee charged with identifying needs and
housing types to meet that need; 2) an employment committee to identify land
needed to support jobs; and a 3) boundary committee focused on identifying land
for expansion of the city’s growth boundary or to develop within current lines.
Steering
committee members include the full city council, two planning commissioners, and a county
commissioner. The TACs are comprised of ex
officio representatives of planning staff, the state Department of Land Conservation
and Development, and Oregon Employment Department, along with local business
owners, developers and others from the real estate industry, various community organizations
and at large citizens.
Housing--what, how much and where?
Thus
far the most debated issues have emerged in the residential TAC committee,
involving the types of housing and number of units in each that will pass state muster, and fit into the city’s
vision for the future.
In its
2008 UGB proposal that was returned on remand by the state, the city assumed
65% of new housing needed by 2028 would be single-family detached, and 35% would
be combination of single-family attached, such as townhomes, and multi-family,
which would include duplexes. condominiums and apartment buildings for either
homeowners or renters.
The
TAC group began its work with a baseline assessment as of January of 2014 that
assumed 16,681 total new residential units would be required by 2028 in a mix
of 65% single family, 2% single family attached and 33% multi-family.
Then
the TAC considered two options,
designated Trend 1 and Trend 2, both of which would reflect the 16,681 units
needed by 2028, but with a different mix of housing types. Trend 2 would be
favor more single family attached and multifamily housing over single family
detached.
 |
| The UGB housing mix options |
Several
members of the residential TAC said at the Sept. 4 meeting that they voted for
Trend 2 with reservations, but with the intent to move along the process and
possibly refine the numbers in later discussion.
The LCDC said the city would need to show better “linkage” between forecast growth,
demographic characteristics of current and new residents and their ability to
pay for housing, and the availability of housing to address those criteria.
City
attorney Mary Winters noted that LCDC has warned the city, “it can’t rely on
market alone,” in developing the UGB plan. “The last time around we didn’t
listen to the state,” she added.
Decision not "cast in stone"
At
the suggestion of city planner Joe Dills the steering committee voted 6-2 to
proceed with Trend 2 as a guideline for integrating the residential needs
component into development of the overall UGB proposal.
Dills said the vote should be viewed “on the premise it is cast in clay...not in
stone,” to which planner Brian Rankin added, “It’s not in the kiln.”
The
steering committee voted 6-2 to proceed with the Trend 2 scenario.
Turning
to the employment TAC recommendations the eight voting steering committee
members unanimously adopted “Scenario A,” described in a memo from Dills and Rankin
as resulting from, “a relatively simple formula of dividing employment
projections by employment density to arrive at land need.”
Another
option, “Scenario B,” would be based on a
“market factor” to include more land for employment than required to
meet minimum needs. In part the recommendation of Scenario A tracked with the LCDC
“remand order” and considered that it “will be legally defensible,” according to the
memorandum.
Also
cited was a state Court of Appeals case related to the Woodburn UGB, which the
Dills and Rankin memorandum noted as an example that, “no city has successfully
justified a larger employment land need through use of a market factor.”
The
technical advisory committee working on the urban boundary recommendations was
confronted with the additional complication of a 2011 Court of Appeals decision
on the McMinville UGB coming after the 2008 LCDC remand order.
In
a memorandum to the boundary TAC, city attorney Winters summarized how the
court decision could be applied along with the remand order.
Winters
outline concluded the city should start with land needed according to the
forecast population and related need for housing, employment, public and
semi-public uses. Land under consideration would be categorized as exception
lands or resource lands, with sub-categories according to soil classes.
A 2-mile boundary study area
 |
| A 2-mile boundary expansion study area |
If
the amount of land remaining after exclusions is greater than the need, the
city would then “pick and choose” land to accommodate identified needs, in a similar reverse process using the characteristics
that were previously used to exclude lands.
Should
the land remaining after exclusions be less than needed land, the city could
then turn to analysis of resource lands, such as agricultural and forest lands,
using the same procedure as with the exclusion process.
The boundary TAC recommendation is based on
extending the current urban growth boundary study area by a uniform 2-miles
around the city, an area that would encompass 40,000 acres.
A
boundary TAC representative said a 3-mile study boundary was considered but
discounted in that the 2-mile line was
“considered more than adequate.” The TAC, it was noted, “has to come up with
land (estimates) first without knowing needs.”
According
to the city’s published schedule, this Phase 1 of establishing “methods and
policy direction” completed by February of 2015.
In
subsequent Phase 2 the city will work with consultants using a software
modeling program, Envision Tomorrow, to complete a plan that includes actual
growth and development scenarios. The
final Phase 3 would conclude with
adoption and implementation of the UGB plan by April of 2016.
