Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
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:.
Richard H. Carson, director
Clark County Department
of Community Development
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.
8. Natural resource industries
9. Open space & recreation
11. Citizen participation
12. Public facilities
13. Historic preservation
- RCW 36.70A.020
1. Urban growth
2. Reduce sprawl
5. Economic development
6. Property rights
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
11. Public facilities
15. Willamette Greenway
16-19. Coastal goals
- OAR 660-015-0010-4
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Goals result in a more predictable planning requirement that are built into the front end of development project applications.
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 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 .
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.