Bill to bring in 260 acres into Bend's urban growth boundary back on the table

“If this project succeeds, this could be the most complete, sustainable expansion area in the history of our city, and it would come at a time when our housing needs are as acute as they’ve ever been.”

The bill, a version of which was first introduced last year by state Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, would bring the other half of the 642-acre Stevens Road tract into the urban growth boundary.

The other half, which is roughly 380 acres, is already within the boundary and was sold by the Department of State Lands to a developer. The tract sits east of SE 27th Street.

A nearly identical bill was reintroduced this year.

The bill is meant to be a solution to a development problem that began more than a decade ago. In 2009, developer Shane Lundgren sought to build an eco-resort in the Metolius River Basin.

But the state decided to protect the river basin from development, and stripped Lundgren of his development rights. In exchange he was given a transferable development opportunity to build a resort somewhere else in the state.

More than 10 years later, Lundgren has not been able to develop anywhere in the state. So in order to resolve the issue, Lundgren and Clem came up with a way to use the development opportunity, also known as a TDO, to bring land into Bend’s urban growth boundary to build more housing and all the other amenities that come with making complete neighborhoods.

The new council is hoping to change certain aspects of the bill to ensure more affordable and diverse kinds of housing will be guaranteed on this land if the bill passes.

“The prior bill wasn’t good enough. That’s just my perspective,” Broadman said Tuesday.

The proposed amendments include allowing for more houses to be built on a given area of land than is currently written and giving the city more control in the construction of affordable and middle-income housing, Broadman said.

Currently, there is an effort to have more land directly given to the city to own, which means the city could have more flexibility in who it gives or sells the land to develop, and more of a voice to say what kind of housing should be developed, Broadman said.

The proposal would double the amount of land the city would get in its control. The previous agreement, made by the previous council, would have made 12.5 acres deed restricted to people making 80% of the area median income, which is roughly $78,600.

“It gives the city a lot of options, whereas without that control you are hoping a developer will accomplish that goal,” he said.

Broadman emphasized the vision for the whole tract goes farther than just the 20 or so acres of land that would be possibly deed-restricted affordable housing. The goal is to have a diverse mix of housing, ranging from “missing middle” housing for people who work in professions like law enforcement and health care and still can’t afford homes, to permanent supportive housing and shelters.

“We’re not going to put more people here with California-style sprawl,” he said. “We need to honor the land available and one of the ways you do that is making sure there’s open space and making sure the houses are denser, and making sure these are 10-15 minute neighborhoods...where you don’t have to drive a car with every trip out of your house.”

Central Oregon LandWatch, a land use and environmental nonprofit organization, also expressed reservations about the current draft of the bill. Rory Isbell, a staff attorney with LandWatch, said the group had not yet seen the city’s proposed amendments, but emphasized that in order for this deal to work the percentage of land dedicated to low and moderate income housing should be “greatly increased.”

“Currently, the bill requires only 12.5 acres to be affordable for people making 80-120% of area median income. As this is public land and a rare opportunity to provide subsidized affordable housing, LandWatch believes that at least 50% of the acreage designated for housing should be affordable for people making 50% of area median income,” Isbell wrote in an email. “No similar opportunity to provide affordable housing for Bend’s neediest residents is likely on the horizon, and if this bill is to pass, the City should take fullest advantage of this opportunity.”

Some, like Karon Johnson of the Old Farm Neighborhood Association, object to the bill, saying that it sets a bad precedent for skirting the state’s land use system designed to prevent sprawl.

She questions whether Bend actually needs the 260 acres of land, and what the rush is to get it into the urban growth boundary if the city is planning to launch another urban growth boundary expansion process anyway.

“To me, it’s kind of a red herring,” said Johnson, who said she is a former prosecutor. “You look at this and it’s so confusing, but the city wants this land and so they say ‘Oh this looks fair.’”

Johnson is also dubious of how the TDO, or development opportunity, became a way to expand Bend’s growth boundary, and argues that Bend is ceding too much control of its land use planning to the Legislature.

Broadman said Johnson is basing her opinion on a version of the bill that will likely be changed, but also argued that the city will have plenty of control over the land use planning process.

“The city has expressed loudly and clearly that we need more affordable housing. If we can do that and save millions of dollars in the planning process we would normally take...I think we can accomplish all of our goals,” Broadman said.

Erik Kancler, the city’s lobbyist in Salem, said the actions in the bill can only move forward if the city agrees to the conditions, even if the bill passes the Legislature.

“There is no way we would have supported the legislation in the February session if the state was determining the outcome and if the state was the authority to make the determination,” Kancler said.