Bend council moves 5-2 to ease accessory dwelling rules

Bend city councilors agreed 5-2 Wednesday night to move forward with revised rules that will in some ways make it easier for homeowners to build a second, accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on their property – but not before another long debate over the balancing act of creating more affordable housing while protecting neighborhood livability.

As they had two weeks earlier, councilors grappled with whether to go along with what a citizen panel and the city’s planning commission recommended – to make it less onerous for those seeking to build smaller (up to 800 square feet) homes in a backyard, for aging parents, adult children or add some needed income, among other reasons.

One key issue was whether to require notification for adjacent neighbors, as Councilor Doug Knight strenuously sought, while some colleagues noted that the path was anything but clear on what, if anything, neighbors who did object could do about it.

But first they heard one more round of public testimony, from people such as Erin Marlowe of Bend 2030, who said surveys and open houses found a large majority of the over 1,000 participants backed creating more affordable housing and removing the costlier, longer “conditional use” permit process for ADUs.

On the other side of that argument was 42-year Vicksburg Avenue resident Michael Smith.

“I think the lack of notification is very problematic,” Smith said, noting that many neighborhoods have restrictive CC&R ((covenants, conditions and restrictions)) provisions but no homeowners’ association or any other means of enforcing them. Without prior notice, he warned, construction could “start a process of litigation that didn’t have to happen.”

But Councilor Sally Russell said those characterizing the revised rules as only “loosening” the requirements miss that “some places where ADUs would be allowed today won’t be allowed under the proposal. I think that’s a really important point.”

Councilor Victor Chudowsky said he respects the amount of work citizens put into wrestling with the issues and putting forward a plan that he believes is “moving in the right direction.”

But Knight would have none of that.

“This is a Trojan horse under the guise of affordable housing, affecting the single-family livability of our neighborhoods,” Knight argued. “We are taking away a chance to have a necessary conversation” before someone loses the privacy of their backyard to a new home just across the back fence.

“It’s OK to allow some streamlining, to allow more people to live in our community affordably,” he said, “but I can’t do that at the expense of the rights to my outdoor privacy.”

Knight noted that the rules crafted in last year’s debate over short-term rentals do require notification, “because it’s a courtesy to do so.” That requires notice to a 250-foot radius, while in this case Knight was simply asking that the ADU applicant have to notify 2-3 directly adjacent neighbors.

But Councilor Nathan Boddie was not alone in asking what recourse those neighbors would have, if they object.

“If we preserve neighbor notice without a conditional use process, we don’t accomplish much,” Boddie said, to which Knight replied that the applicant “might modify his application” to ease neighbor concerns.

Knight soon backed Mayor Jim Clinton’s proposed option of a “checkbox” on the application proving (perhaps through registered mail) that the neighbors have been notified.

“But if they don’t like it, what is their possible course of action?” Chudowsky askeid, to which Clinton replied, “They could write the Planning Department, saying it doesn’t mean the criteria.”

City Manager Eric King also questioned how all that would be enforced. Knight said without it, the application would be deemed incomplete.”

Chudowsky countered, “The whole idea of going through this was to streamline the process, not to put in more hoops or roadblocks. It was to allow more, different types of housing. We’re losing the spirit of the original intention.”

And Councilor Barb Campbell said it could get even stickier, if the neighbor said they never got the notice.

The application checkbox idea died in a 3-4 vote, so Knight moved onto his next bone of contention – the move to allow larger, 800-square-foot ADUs, calling that a “de facto triplex,” even with the restrictions such as setbacks and a “floor area ratio” formula to be sure the lot can handle a larger structure and still have open space. Councilors also had planners add a requirement that stairs and lights, etc. face inward on the property – not toward neighbors.

Councilor Casey Roats said he was surprised a majority of councilors were sticking to their guns on the ADU issue, saying it “has the potential to change the face of Bend neighborhoods.” He said in two elections, voters have backed candidates who “have said, ‘We’re going to infill and densify your city, period.'”

“This is the future of Bend, and it’ll be a little different than we have now,” Roats said, noting that his grandparents arrived in the late ‘20s – and that “nothing is more constant in Bend than change.”

“While I hold on and appreciate the past. it pains me to find these solutions I’m not accustomed to,” Roads said. “But the greater good is truly finding that housing mix, and if that means there is some discomfort – and we always have the ability to throttle this thing back, if it runs away – but the policy has been consistent. I expected some of you to crack, I’ll give you this. While it isn’t what I love, it is something I support.”

“This is tough,” Russell said, but she added that she believes the way the rules are set, “I think this will be sensitive to the neighborhoods. It is a specific type of housing inventory that will help the community. We need every single home right now in Bend.”

Chudowsky said even if the city didn’t need to address “efficiency measures” to win state approval of an expanded urban growth boundary, “I’d favor this. I think people should be given the choice to add onto their house, make a little money on the side, have a place for relatives to stay. It’s almost a property rights issue, to add flexibility on how people can arrange their living situation.”

“Not every neighborhood will be affected,” he said. “Some will. I will. But I don’t think the changes as a result of this are as dramatic as a lot of people may believe.”

Clinton, who voted with Knight against the ADU rules, said he did feel they are “a big improvement over the previous code. … However, I think we could have done more and should have done more to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods, to provide more mitigation for the negative effects. I’m also worried about an 800 square foot ADU on a small lot.”

But Roats said that could be just right for “a single mom and two kids. To me, if there’s a little consternation in a neighborhood, but those people can afford to live and, heaven forbid, save money so they can get into a house,” or for retirement, or college, it’s worth the tradeoffs.

However, Roats – a strong proponent of a larger UGB, despite the state’s throwback of a larger expansion years ago, quickly added with a laugh: “Give me a couple thousand acres on the UGB, and I could swap this vote so quick.”

Clinton also agreed that “some of the concerns (raised) are overdone,” and that he would simply have preferred “striking a balance in a slightly different spot.”

The second reading and formal adoption are expected at the council’s next regular meeting, on Feb. 17 – but first comes a goal-setting session next Monday and a UGB Steering Committee meeting next Wednesday from 1-4 p.m. at which councilors will review the map of a warmly received recent compromise on what areas to add in the new UGB expansion proposal.

Then, on Feb. 24, councilors take up a controversial bid to remove the “public facilities” designation for Troy Field, the decades-old, grass-covered play field east of City Hall and the headquarters of the Bend-La Pine Schools – which hopes to sell the spot for $1.9 million to a Portland developer intending to build a downtown hotel.

A city hearings officer recently recommended rejecting the school district’s bid to change the parcel’s designation to “commercial limited,” but the decision is in the council’s hands.

Several people did speak to councilors about Troy Field in the visitors’ section of Wednesday night’s meeting, but councilors and others had to advise that they couldn’t really address the issue ahead of the hearing because of the way land use rules and a “quasi-judicial” role work.