Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Cities and conservation groups split with property‑owner advocates over urban‑reserve rule changes
Summary
Stakeholders before the committee were divided over two competing amendments to SB 15‑22: cities and land‑use organizations backed a narrowly tailored dash‑2 to define built constraints, while property‑owner groups urged adopting dash‑1 to loosen prioritization and make urban reserves more practicable for housing growth. Farmers warned of farmland loss.
The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 15‑22, which concerns the statute and rules governing urban reserves — the outside‑of‑UGB areas that cities may hold for potential future urbanization.
Eric Chancellor of the City of Bend explained urban reserves' purpose as a long‑range planning tool to ensure land supply beyond a 20‑year urban growth boundary and described how the dash‑2 amendment would clarify that only existing physical constraints (including built constraints) should be considered — not planned future public investments — when evaluating lands for urban reserves. "We think the dash‑2 is an effective means of preserving the balance" between long‑term planning and resource protection, Chancellor…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
