Oregon's land use laws

SB 100

Oregon is blessed to have robust land use laws, thanks to the visionary Governor Tom McCall, who ushered in Oregon's first land use bill in 1973, Senate Bill 100 (SB 100). Tom McCall's objective was to stop the sprawl he saw happening in other states. SB 100 provided for the implementation of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) around each city and a specific process for expanding the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in an objective, controlled manner. It required every city and county to prepare a comprehensive plan in accordance with general state guidelines. Considered revolutionary its time, SB 100 provided for the adoption of 19 goals, with the #1 goal being "Citizen Involvement". These goals are the heart of Oregon's land-use planning program. SB 100 also created a new state agency, "the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)" to oversee compliance of local planning with statewide goals.

Under the system, cities are required to submit their proposed UGBs to the LCDC and to justify them according to "19 Statewide Planning Goals," which include preservation of highest-quality agricultural lands and conservation of forests and open space. The goals also aim to develop high-quality, livable cities and towns by increasing density, improving public transit options, and encouraging affordable housing close to jobs. Source: oregonencyclopedia.org

In 1979, a regional government, Metro, was created by Portland-area voters. One of its responsibilities is to manage the UGB in the three-county metropolis (Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington). Metro is one of some 240 UGB jurisdictions in the state. These urban zones are required to adjust their UGBs every five years to maintain a 'twenty-year supply' of land that can be developed. Source: oregonencyclopedia.org

Save Helvetia actively supports Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, in all levels of government decision-making. We have challenged our governmental bodies when we observe that Goal 1 is lacking in their deliberations and decisions.

SB 1011

In 2007, the legislature passed SB 1011, which enabled the Portland metro area to develop a system of "urban reserves" and "rural reserves" -- identifying areas outside the UGB where growth is planned over a 40- to 50-year time horizon (urban reserves), and, correspondingly, where land should not be developed long-term (rural reserves) -- that is to say, 20 to 30 years beyond the UGB's current 20-year projections. The goal of SB 1011 was to provide certainty to farmers, businesses, cities and citizens about where the future urban growth expansions would come from. From 2008 to 2009, the three Metro counties engaged citizens and governments in committees to identify areas in each county that would best meet the "factors" of urban reserves and rural reserves. While "factors" are not considered absolute criteria, they are considerations called out in SB 1011 to aid in evaluating the best use of farmland and forestland.

Washington County's Coordinating Committee was comprised of 15 representatives of the urban areas and 2 representatives of the rural area (farmers). The two farmers were only allotted one vote between them. The farmers were outvoted in every meeting when they objected to the unfair characterization of non-irrigated farmland as being less valuable than irrigated farmland. The urban interests of the cities won out. As a result, Washington County nominated thousands of acres of high-value non-irrigated farmland as urban reserves and kept the irrigated farmland as rural reserves.

Washington County had to find a way to justify the nomination of productive non-irrigated farmland as poor and ill-suited for farmed. They found a long-discredited report from the 1980's (the "Huddleston Survey") that said exactly what they wanted: non-irrigated farmland was not as productive. No matter that this analysis did not follow the statutory factors in SB 1011. The county was hellbent on getting as many urban reserves for their cities as possible and this scheme would accomplish that goal.

From 2009 to 2014, thousands of high-value non-irrigated farmland remained nominated as urban reserves, including hundreds of acres of Helvetia farmland and 1,700 acres in Northwest Hillsboro. Save Helvetia, 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) farmers and citizens testified before Washington County, Metro and LCDC about Washington County's misapplication of the statutory factors and use of the unlawful Huddleston Survey instead of the statutory ODA factors of SB 1011 for analysis of farmland.

Oregon Court of Appeals (2014)

In 2011, Metro and LCC approved Washington County's bogus nominations of urban reserves. In 2013, Save Helvetia and 1000 Friends of Oregon appealed the decision based on the county's disregard for the statutory factors for irrigation, parcelization and suitability.

On February 20, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued their ruling: Washington County "predicated its assessment on narrow circumscribed pseudo factors that did not meaningfully engage with the content of the statutorily prescribed factors . . . " The Court of Appeals concluded that "because Washington County's analysis of the rural reserve factors was legally impermissible, it necessarily misapplied the rural reserve factors and LCDC erred in concluding otherwise. Thus, LCDC's order is unlawful in substance in that regard and must be reversed and remanded."

Save Helvetia felt vindicated in the long battle to get Washington County to adhere to the lawful statutory factors in SB 1011 in their analysis of suitability of farmland for rural reserves. SB 1011 mandated that non-irrigated farm land had the same productivity as irrigated farm land - different crops needed to be used but the productivity was equal. The other two Metro counties followed the law in SB 1011 but Washington County followed their incestuous relationship with developers and the City of Hillsboro to grab as much foundation farmland as possible for urban reserves. if it wasn't for the appeals from Save Helvetia and 1000 Friends of Oregon, Washington County's overreach would have proceeded undeterred.

HB 4078 (the "Grand Bargain")

A month before the Oregon Court of Appeals issued their ruling, developers got a bill introduced to the 2014 Oregon Legislature that would ratify the 2011 decision by Metro of urban and rural reserves. Developers wanted to move on developing almost 2,000 acres in Washington County and they were worried that there could be years of potential legal challenges. The new bill was called House Bill 4078 (HB 4078).

Save Helvetia submitted testimony opposing the bill because we believe that land use decisions should not be pursued through the legislature. Oregon's land use laws have served Oregon well for decades. Going to the legislature to make land use decisions is a slippery slope as it erodes existing land use laws by allowing anyone to get bills submitted that go around the land use laws for their own purpose.

Things picked up rapidly when the Court of Appeals issued their ruling, remanding Washington County's urban and rural reserves planning and opening the possibility the county would essentially need to redo the public process. Local leaders joined in marathon, closed-door negotiations with legislators. From that emerged a series of swaps. South Hillsboro development got the green light to move forward while the city agreed to dial back North Hillsboro urban reserves. (Source: Katherine Driessen, The Oregonian March 28, 2014.) By February 23, 2014, the detail of the areas were nailed down. As with any compromise, no one was happy. The City of Hillsboro received approval for 1,050 acres in Northwest Hillsboro to be immediately added to their UGB, without having to go through any justification. Another 1,700 acres in Northwest Hillsboro was converted to rural reserves. For Helvetia, it was a mixed blessing: about 400 acres were converted from urban reserves to rural reserves but about 600 acres were converted from rural reserves to urban reserves at the request of a local developer without our knowledge.