Transcript Land Use / Transportation Planning in Clark County

Oregon and Washington:
A Comparison of State Mandated
Land Use Planning Programs
Presented by:
Richard H. Carson, director
Clark County Department
of Community Development
Vancouver, Washington
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
1. Urban growth
2. Reduce sprawl
3. Transportation
4. Housing
5. Economic development
6. Property rights
7. Permits
8. Natural resource
industries
9. Open space &
recreation
10. Environment
11. Citizen participation
12. Public facilities
13. Historic preservation
- RCW 36.70A.020
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...
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
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 . . .
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
Washington: State legislature retains all
policy-making authority which is balanced
by the Governor’s veto.
Oregon: Land Conservation and Development Commission is appointed by Governor
and has strong administrative rule making
authority delegated by state legislature.
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
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?
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?
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 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
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
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
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 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
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
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)
Results in a land use denial if level-ofservice 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)
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
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
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
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
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.