oregon and washington a comparison of state mandated land use planning programs l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Oregon and Washington: A Comparison of State Mandated Land Use Planning Programs PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Oregon and Washington: A Comparison of State Mandated Land Use Planning Programs

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25

Oregon and Washington: A Comparison of State Mandated Land Use Planning Programs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 243 Views
  • Uploaded on

Oregon and Washington: A Comparison of State Mandated Land Use Planning Programs. Richard H. Carson, director Clark County Department of Community Development Vancouver, Washington. Presented by:. In the beginning:.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Oregon and Washington: A Comparison of State Mandated Land Use Planning Programs' - benjamin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
oregon and washington a comparison of state mandated land use planning programs

Oregon and Washington:A Comparison of State Mandated Land Use Planning Programs

Richard H. Carson, director

Clark County Department

of Community Development

Vancouver, Washington

Presented by:

in the beginning
In the beginning:

Oregon adopted “Statewide Planning Goals” in 1973 (SB 100) - required of all 36 Oregon counties and 212 cities.

Washington adopted the “Growth Management Act” (GMA) in 1990 - mandated for only 29 “growth” counties of 39 and the cities within the growth counties. Other counties may voluntarily participate.

washington has 13 state planning goals
Washington has 13 state planning goals

8. Natural resource industries

9. Open space & recreation

10. Environment

11. Citizen participation

12. Public facilities

13. Historic preservation

- RCW 36.70A.020

1. Urban growth

2. Reduce sprawl

3. Transportation

4. Housing

5. Economic development

6. Property rights

7. Permits

oregon has 19 state planning goals
Oregon has 19 state planning goals

1. Citizen involvement

2. Land use planning

3. Agricultural lands

4. Forest lands

5. Open spaces, historic areas, natural resources

6. Air, water & land quality

7. Natural hazards

8. Recreational needs

9. Economic development

10. Housing

11. Public facilities

12. Transportation

13. Energy

14. Urbanization

15. Willamette Greenway

16-19. Coastal goals

- OAR 660-015-0010-4

goals are not created equal
Goals are not created equal...

Washington’s planning goals are not all required in the section that lists the elements of a comprehensive plan.* - RCW 36.70A.070

Oregon’s goals are all required to be addressed in a comprehensive plan, but some have specific requirements and others don’t.

(*Example: Property rights is not a requirement)

planning similarities
Planning similarities
  • 20-year comprehensive plans and zoning that need to be updated periodically.
  • 20-year capital facility plans and 6-year capital improvement plans.
  • Urban growth areas inside urban growth boundaries (UGBs) must accommodate a 20-year population projection.
  • Growth should pay for itself.
more planning similarities
More planning similarities . . .
  • Cities/counties adopt comprehensive plans.
  • Compact urban growth form that optimizes the provision and cost of infrastructure.
  • Plan monitoring and documenting performance before expanding UGBs.
  • Permits are to be processed in 120 days.
  • Up-zone urban areas. Down-zone rural areas with 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 acre minimum lot size. (Washington does not mandate minimum lot sizes)
state oversight authority
State oversight authority

Washington: State legislature retains all policy-making authority which is balanced by the Governor’s veto.

Oregon: Land Conservation and Develop- ment Commission is appointed by Governor and has strong administrative rule making authority delegated by state legislature.

state oversight agency
State oversight agency

Washington: Office of Community Development is a weak encouragement agency with no ability to sanction. State does not approve/deny final adopted plans.

Oregon: Department of Land Conservation and Development is a strong enforcement agency with fiscal and legal sanctions. State approves/denies final adopted plans

enforcement powers
Enforcement powers

Washington: Individuals or government agencies can take a local jurisdiction to court to force compliance with state land use laws. Governor can withhold state funds.

Oregon: Same as Washington, but LCDC can also use their “Enforcement Order” process in lieu of an appeal or withhold state funds.

who can appeal a decision
Who can appeal a decision?

Washington and Oregon: Individuals, organizations or government agencies can take a local jurisdiction to a specialized hearing board to force compliance with state land use laws. Both states have a 1,000 Friends organization.

Appellants must have “standing” and had participated in the public hearing.

who hears the appeal
Who hears the appeal?

Washington: Comprehensive plan appeals go to one of the 3 regional Hearings Boards who are appointed by the Governor. Results in more inconsistent, but tailored local decisions. Development approvals go to Superior Court following the LUPA process (Land Use Petition Act). Final appeal to Court of Appeals with discretionary review by state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

who hears the appeal13
Who hears the appeal?

Oregon: All appeals go to one state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) with referees who are appointed by the Governor. Results in more consistent decisions, but they are “one-size-fits-all” decisions.

Final appeal: both go to Court of Appeals with discretionary review by state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

environmental protection washington
Environmental protection -Washington

Washington has:

  • GMA “critical area” requirements.
  • Shoreline Management Act.
  • State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA).

SEPA is unpredictable and occurs after the development application is made. Local government could require an expensive and time consuming environmental impact statement. Oregon deliberately rejected the SEPA process.

environmental protection oregon
Environmental protection -Oregon

Oregon has:

  • Goal 5 - Open Spaces and Natural Areas
  • Goal 6 - Air, Water & Land Resources Quality
  • Goal 7 - Natural Disasters and Hazards
  • Goal 15- Willamette Greenway Goal
  • Goals 16-19 Coastal Goals

Goals result in a more predictable planning requirement that are built into the front end of development project applications.

annexation policies
Annexation policies

Washington: Annexation of land within a UGB not required in order to get urban services and develop. Recent court decisions have made election annexations highly unlikely.

Oregon: Annexation of land within a UGB is encouraged in order to get urban services and before development is allowed (unless a city cannot deliver such services).

voter annexation
Voter annexation

Voter annexation is a legal requirement that land can only be annexed to a city with the approval of the majority of the voters in the city.

Oregon: Allows local voters to enact voter annexation laws for cities by initiative.

Washington: Only charter counties can have a local initiative process, but state does not have (or allow?) voter-annexation .

property compensation
Property compensation

Washington: property compensation requires a higher burden of proof (basically a government decision would have to render the property valueless).

Oregon: Measure 7 would have lowered the burden of proof and most government devaluations would have been compensated. Measure overturned, Oregon now the same.

paying the cost of growth
Paying the cost of growth

Washington: Four (4) “impact fees” allowed to be collected only for roads, park and schools. Fire impact fees are allowed in cities, but not outside in fire districts.

Oregon: Five (5) “system development charges” (SDC) allowed to be collected only for roads, parks, water, sewer and stormwater.

concurrency washington
Concurrency (Washington)
  • Results in a land use denial if level-of-service is not deemed “adequate.”
  • Possible development moratoriums.
  • Reduction in the level-of-service standard for the public facility is the only legal relief.
  • Transportation facilities must be reasonably funded within 6 years of impact fee charged.
concurrency oregon
Concurrency? (Oregon)
  • There is no “concurrency” requirement in Oregon.
  • Possible development moratoriums only if there is no service is available.
  • Results in a denial of application only if level-of-service is deemed in “failure.” (as in no water available, no sewer capacity or traffic safety is compromised).
transportation concurrency
Transportation Concurrency

Washington has “transportation concurrency” which is quantitative, but unpredictable (I.e., determined after application and developer investment).

Oregon has “transportation planning rule” with is more qualitative (design driven) and more predictable.

development moratorium
Development moratorium

Washington: Concurrency means a development moratorium may be triggered by an inadequate level-of-service.

Oregon: development moratorium is triggered by a failure in level-of-service (as in no water available or no sewer capacity).

vesting rights
Vesting rights

Washington: Land use applications are vested under the existing regulations at the time the application is deemed “complete.” But impact fees are not vested.

Oregon: Land use applications are not vested unless land lawfully approved and physically committed to land use and being developed.

summary
Summary

Washington has a more decentralized planning system that allows for more local control. It also has less uniform local government and court decisions statewide.

Oregon has a centralized, “one-size-fits-all” planning system, with less local control. It also creates more uniform local government and court decisions statewide.