The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development has turned back objections to Portland’s 2035 comprehensive plan.

The state agency’s Dec. 5 ruling means the comprehensive plan has cleared a hurdle toward implementation by the city of Portland in 2018. Yet opponents could still appeal the plan to the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Land Use Board of Appeals.

One group left no doubt an appeal would be forthcoming.

“We’re going on with the appeal, and we’re working on it right now,” said Martie Sucec, chairwoman of the Multnomah Neighborhood Association.

The Multnomah Neighborhood Association in Southwest Portland was joined by the Goose Hollow Foothills League, Rose City Park Association and several individual property owners in lodging objections to the comprehensive plan.

Several objections concern changing the character of single-family neighborhoods by adding apartment buildings. Others also lodged complaints about the city’s process in adopting the comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive plan is a wide-ranging set of rules meant to guide how Portland will develop during the next two decades. The plan affects zoning throughout the city, and such crucial rules as maximum height and allowed building uses.

The Multnomah Neighborhood Association lodged objections against Multnomah Village being designated as a “neighborhood center,” and also against the city’s public process.

“We’ve just been ignored, which is why we’ve filed objections,” Sucec said.

The city’s neighborhood center designation “wipes out Multnomah as a single-family neighborhood,” she added.

Multnomah Village has seen a recent influx of apartment proposals. Crews are finishing construction of a four-story building with 70 units at 7661 S.W. Capitol Highway – a site that formerly held a gas station.

“What we don’t want is for developers to have free rein on any lot at any time,” Sucec said. “This is not good planning, to just say build anything, anywhere.”

Nevertheless, the DLCD turned back the group’s objections. The department found the city complied with its citizen involvement program during development of the comprehensive plan. It also found that designating an area a neighborhood center did not result in rezoning, and that rezoning would require further public notice.

The City Council adopted the comprehensive plan in June 2016. State law requires periodic review of a city’s comprehensive plan, and the 2035 plan is the first thorough overhaul of Portland’s rules since 1980.

The city’s plan allows neighborhoods to grow up to accommodate housing demand, DLCD Director Jim Rue stated in a news release.

“Portland is an attractive city with lots of people moving there each year,” he stated. “The City Council had to make difficult choices about how to best accommodate the expected growth. Our review found the plan to be consistent with the state’s requirements for efficient, managed use of land.”

The post Portland’s 2035 comprehensive plan upheld by state agency appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development on Friday approved new protections for historic sites and structures.

Among the new regulations is a mandatory demolition review process for any of the 11,594 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Previously, the vast majority of such properties could be demolished without any public review, following a 120-day waiting period.

“I think the fact that demolition (proposals) of these designated properties will be reviewed is huge,” said Peggy Moretti, executive director of Restore Oregon. “These irreplaceable assets can’t be lost without some thought about what they mean in the community.

“We think this is the biggest step forward in 20 years or more.”

She said that as many as 11,000 structures in the state will be covered.

Another rule provides the option of creating a local historic district with the consent of a simple majority of property owners.

“This gives communities a lot of flexibility,” Moretti said. “It will facilitate more customization of those districts and provide more options.”

Also, historic resource inventories can now be updated without property owners’ consent.

“Just to be able to inventory the historic places and not trigger something more with that is good,” Moretti said.

Lastly, the public can participate in discussions about possibly further protecting properties and districts listed on the national register.

“Communities can still add additional protections,” Moretti said. “This says there should be a public process around that.”

The post Oregon historic properties gain protections appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Oregon might soon gain greater protections for historic properties.

The Department of Land Conservation and Development will hold hearings on proposed new rules on Friday in St. Helens. DLCD officials will be able to choose to adopt the rules, reject them or continue to study them.

“It is probably the most important change in a couple of decades,” said Peggy Moretti, executive director of Restore Oregon. “It is very measured. These are modest steps.”

The proposal includes four key rules. First, it would mandate a public review for any project proposal to demolish one of the 11,594 properties in Oregon listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Second, it would allow creation of local historic districts with the consent of a simple majority of property owners.

Also, the proposal would clarify that taking an inventory of historic buildings is not a form of designation. That would allow cities to update their inventories without obtaining owners’ consent.

Lastly, the proposal would allow municipalities to apply any protections to properties listed on the national register or in historic districts, but only after a public process.

This would mark the first time that the state would have a uniform policy on how it treats historic properties. Currently, the only guidelines that address historic property use are set forth in the DLCD’s Goal 5 document that governs land use.

“It’s housed within Oregon’s land use policy,” Moretti said. “Goal 5 was aimed at natural resources, and historic resources got mushed in there with it.”

For the most part, those policies leave decisions entirely up to local municipalities. That leaves some areas, like Portland, with very strong rules about use of historic properties and other areas with no regulations at all.

“Oregon’s current guidelines are ill-defined, and insufficient to provide any meaningful protections at all,” Moretti said. “In some areas, the only oversight of a demolition is a demolition delay period of 90 days.”

The proposed rules are the result of more than four months of work by a rule advisory committee set up by the DLCD. The goal was to balance property rights with historic preservation aims.

“The guidelines we got were to clarify how (a municipality) and state does or does not act,” said Ian Johnson, associate deputy state historic preservation officer. “We needed to clarify how those interacted and how an owner could object.”

The State Historic Preservation Office worked in an advisory role to help develop the new rules. One of the big elements is that any proposed demolition of a historic property would be subject to public review.

“It says that it would have to have a local hearing,” Johnson said. “Approval would still be subject to the local government.”

The rules might have the biggest impact on smaller and rural communities. Larger cities and urban areas tend to have programs that oversee use of historic properties. Smaller communities often lack such oversight.

“Our big question was: How is this going to impact folks?” Johnson said. “This can’t be overly burdensome or not useful.”

So far, the most vocal opposition to the rules has come from Deschutes County. Officials there fear that existing protections of historic sites could be lost.

“We think it’s possible that county could do away with those protections anyway,” said Rob Hallyburton, community services division manager for the DLCD. “We don’t think these rules make it any more likely.”

The requirement of a hearing for a municipality to apply protection to a property listed on the national register would be a significant impact, Hallyburton said. Currently, many municipalities automatically extend those protections.

Another change in the proposed rules would be to preserve historic properties’ protections even after transfer of ownership. That would ensure compliance with an Oregon Supreme Court decision.

Overall, the new rules have been well-received, Hallyburton said.

“So far, we have had about 25 to 30 written comments,” he said. “The numbers of letters have been overwhelmingly positive.”

The challenge in developing the proposed rules was finding the proverbial middle ground, but Moretti believes that goal was achieved.

“We worked to strike the balance between private property rights and public benefit,” she said. “I think this does that.”

The post Proposed state rules would aid historic properties appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Metro Council next month will decide whether to expand the urban growth boundary, and the number of expansion possibilities is continuing to grow.

The Metro Policy Advisory Committee – a 21-member group that helps guide land-use decisions for the Metro Council – last week voted to recommend adding four areas, a total of 1,120 acres, to a list of potential residential expansion areas. The council already is set to consider two other areas that total 1,606 acres.

Urban growth boundary expansion possibilities

The Metro Council recommended areas for study to be included in potential UGB expansion for residential housing. They include:

• 1,063 acres south of Hillsboro – south of Tualatin Valley Highway and west of Southwest 209th Avenue; and
• 543 acres of the South Cooper Mountain area near Beaverton – north of Southwest Scholls Ferry Road and east of Tile Flat Road.

The Metro Policy Advisory Committee recommends considering four additional areas. They include:

• 256 acres west of Tigard, near the intersection of Southwest Roy Rogers Road and Southwest Beef Bend Road;
• 276 acres west of Sherwood, near Oregon Route 99W and Southwest Kruger Road;
• 272 acres south and east of Cornelius; and
• 316 acres adjacent to Wilsonville, near Advance Road.

Metro policy requires that a notice be sent to every household within one mile of an area being considered for an urban growth boundary expansion. Metro Council is expected to finalize the list of those households Tuesday afternoon.

“Considering there is a cost associated with mailing these notices, we’ve been trying to be very strategic in only considering areas that have a realistic chance of being included in an expansion,” said Ken Ray, a Metro spokesman.

The Metro Council has already determined it will consider a 1,063-acre area south of Tualatin Valley Highway and west of Southwest 209th Avenue near Hillsboro, and the 543-acre South Cooper Mountain area, north of Southwest Scholls Ferry Road and east of Tile Flat Road. Both areas are being considered to accommodate residential housing and not employment.

But MPAC members recommend four other areas be considered for residential expansion: three in Washington County and one in Clackamas County. These include a 256-acre parcel west of Tigard, a 276-acre parcel west of Sherwood, a 272-acre parcel southeast of Cornelius and a 316-acre parcel near Wilsonville.

Metro officials, staffers and MPAC members all have made it clear throughout the process that just because these areas are being considered for UGB expansion doesn’t mean they will be included in one.

“The action taken by MPAC isn’t an endorsement; it’s about what areas should be included in the noticing,” Ray said. “MPAC will make its recommendation for an expansion at its (Sept. 28) meeting.”

Both sides of the UGB expansion issue have advocates. Officials at the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland have strongly supported adding multiple areas to the UGB for housing needs, while land-use advocacy group 1000 Friends of Oregon has taken a hard stance against any expansion whatsoever.

Complicating the matter is the fact that the five potential expansion areas in Washington County could encounter a legal snag because of the county’s urban and rural reserves map. It outlines land that can and cannot be brought into the UGB over a 50-year period. After the long-range growth map was remanded to Washington County and Metro officials last year, the Land Conservation and Development Commission finally approved a revised version in August.

But even though the map received approval, it’s likely to be appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Cherry Amabisca, leader of Save Helvetia, said her group would most likely appeal the decision, but it is waiting for the LCDC to release its final written order.

According to Lisa Howard, assistant to the director of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, that final written notice is expected to be issued in November. The Metro Council plans to take its final vote on whether to expand the UGB at its Oct. 20 meeting.

But according to Ray, the possibility of an appeal won’t affect the council’s actions.

“No, we’re not going to wait for the Court of Appeals if the reserves process is appealed,” he said. “We’ve got the basis to make a decision since LCDC has approved the reserves map, and we feel fairly confident with the process we went through.”

In addition to lands being discussed for residential housing, the Metro Council is also going to examine at least one area for industrial employment: a 330-acre parcel north of Hillsboro. Also during the MPAC meeting, members decided to add two other industrial areas to the discussion: a 115-acre area north of Forest Grove and a 117-acre area south of Tualatin.

The post More land suggested to go inside urban growth boundary appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Department of Land Conservation and Development has given a vote of confidence to Washington County and its retooled map of where it can expand its urban growth boundary in the coming 50 years.

DLCD last week released a 60-page report that addressed concerns outlined by the Land Conservation and Development Commission when it remanded Washington County’s urban and rural reserves map last year. In conclusion, DLCD believes the changes made by Washington County officials are sufficient enough and recommended that the commission approve the map next week.

“The department has carefully reviewed each of the objections from each of the parties who filed in response to the Metro and county re-designation submittal,” acting DLCD Director Jim Rue wrote in the report. “…As a result, and for the reasons set out in below in more detail, the department recommends that the commission approve the designations of urban and rural reserves as submitted.

Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas counties were required last year to develop urban and rural reserves maps, which outline what land could and what land couldn’t be brought into the UGB during the next 50 years. While the maps proposed by Multnomah and Clackamas counties were approved, the Washington County map was remanded back to county officials because of concerns over two pieces of land: a 624-acre parcel north of Cornelius and a 508-acre parcel north of Forest Grove.

The county and Metro went to work retooling the map and decided to change a portion of the Cornelius urban reserve to undesignated, meaning it could still be brought in, and change the rest to rural. They also decided to replace the Forest Grove parcel with a 352-acre urban reserve north of U.S. Route 26 in Helvetia.

While the retooled map has received criticism from some land-use activists, it was approved earlier this year by both the Washington County Board of Commissioners and the Metro Council. But in order to be implemented it must be approved by LCDC.

LCDC will take the issue up at a public hearing starting at 8:30 a.m., on Thursday Aug. 18, and will run through Friday Aug. 19 if a conclusion isn’t reached by the end of the day on Thursday. The public hearing and vote will take place at the Metro Regional Center, 600 N.E. Grand Ave., in Portland.

The post Washington County land reserves map recommended for approval appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

McMinnville Planning Director Doug Montgomery has worked for years to help the city receive final approval for an urban growth boundary expansion. And after multiple appeals and remands, he is finding that the involvement of planners in the process is decreasing while the involvement of lawyers is increasing.

The trend, he said, shows that Oregon’s land-use process is heading in the wrong direction. From Bend to Woodburn to McMinnville, cities are encountering uncertainty, long delays and different interpretations of rules. But state land-use officials say finding practical solutions is difficult.

The state requires cities to review every five years whether they have enough land to accommodate job and population growth over the next 20 years. If a determination is made that the city has insufficient land, then officials must propose an expansion of the city’s urban growth boundary, make justifications for the amount of land brought in, and state why the particular land was chosen.

A UGB expansion proposal approved at the city, county and state levels then goes in front of the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The board can choose to either approve the proposal or remand it. Approvals often are appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals by land-use activists. The court can choose to seek revisions from either the LCDC or the city. Those changes could also be appealed.

That happened in McMinnville earlier this month and in Woodburn earlier this year. Officials in both cities have worked toward UGB expansions for nearly a decade, and they feel less certain about an outcome now than when the process started.

Rob Hallyburton, planning services division manager at the Department of Land Conservation and Development, said the recent McMinnville decision highlighted one of the main issues: The LCDC is working from an administrative rule, while the Court of Appeals is working from a state statute.

“They talk about the same things but (without) the same words,” said Hallyburton, in reference to statewide planning goal 14 and ORS 197.298. “Because of this interplay between rules and statutes, there are lots of places opponents can find to appeal.”

Montgomery agrees that in McMinnville’s case the problem is with different interpretations of the same rules.

“I’ve joked that we would be more comfortable with a UGB amendment czar than with our current system,” he said.

A city may disagree with a single authority’s decision, but at least it would be certain. In the existing system, Montgomery said, a UGB amendment could reach the Court of Appeals before a problem arises that could change everything.

“We went through a long process to determine how much land we needed, and now with the most recent ruling, it seems like we might have to change that,” he said. “That changes the entire process.”

Damian Syrnyk, a senior planner in Bend, agrees that in McMinnville’s case there is more uncertainty now than before the decision.

“In McMinnville, LCDC thought it was ‘A,’ (1000 Friends of Oregon, the appealing party) thought it was ‘B,’ and then the court decided they were both wrong and it was ‘C,’ ” he said. “It was a sobering moment for me when reading that decision.”

Bend has its own UGB expansion issues. Thirty years have passed since its existing boundaries were set, and planners have worked for the past five years to gain final approval for an expansion. Bend submitted its proposal in April 2009; the LCDC remanded it in November 2010. Now a city task force is making changes for resubmission by May 2013.

Montgomery added that cities are given strict deadlines to submit plans, but courts have no urgency. The court heard oral arguments for McMinnville in September 2010, but the remand wasn’t given until July 13, he said.

Hallyburton said past efforts by the state to improve the process have focused on increasing efficiency.

“We have a history of trying to streamline things, and I have a feeling that moving forward it will still be an issue,” he said.

Another key issue, according to Syrnyk, is that state rules and statutes limit a city’s ability to aspire. He believes officials should be able to plan for more than only expected population and economic growth.

“Maybe you look at something like tax framework or regulatory framework,” he said. “Cities have different goals and not everything should be tied to population.”

Hallyburton said recent decisions affecting Woodburn and McMinnville are leading more people to scrutinize the system. The Department of Land Conservation and Development is assembling a policy agenda for the LCDC to look at areas that could be improved.

Because of the issues between rules and statutes, he said, a fix probably would have to come at the legislative level.

“The McMinnville decision heightens the concerns around the state,” he said. “I would be surprised if we don’t see more attempts at the legislative level to fix these things.”

The post Oregon’s land-use system broken, critics say appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Urban growth boundary expansions usually put land-use activists and city governments at odds in Oregon.

But in McMinnville are two other unlikely foes: the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Land Conservation and Development Commission.

State land-use officials today expressed concern over a recent Court of Appeals decision to overturn McMinnville’s urban growth boundary expansion, which was approved by LCDC in 2008. The remand adds even more time to a process that McMinnville started in 2000 as part of the state-required review of its comprehensive plan.

The Court of Appeals determined that LCDC incorrectly applied state statute in determining that the city had significant evidence to expand its UGB by 1,200 acres. The decision remanded the approval back to LCDC so the commission could make a better case for the expansion or make revisions to it.

“We believe the commission followed its own rules faithfully and acted reasonably in upholding McMinnville’s UGB amendment,” said Department of Land Conservation and Development Acting Director Jim Rue. “…It should concern anyone involved in Oregon planning that a process consuming several years and still reaching an uncertain conclusion is not good for the state land use planning program.”

The UGB expansion’s approval was appealed by 1000 Friend of Oregon, the state-wide land-use advocacy group. The group appealed the original approval of the expansion to LCDC in 2006. Then after changes were made and it was approved by LCDC, the group appealed it to the Court of Appeals, the final land-use decision maker in the state.

But now that the Court of Appeals has sided against the other state land-use decision maker, LCDC, no one is sure how to proceed.

“The implications, while initially troubling, are not fully understood by many planners or lawyers,” said Richard Whitman, former DLCD director and current natural resources policy director to Gov. John Kitzhaber. “It will take some time to understand and resolve the issues raised in this decision. I expect to engage (Rue) and stakeholders from around the state to craft a workable solution.”

The post Land-use officials contest court’s urban growth boundary decision appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The city of McMinnville must return to the drawing board as it attempts to expand its urban growth boundary.

The Oregon Court of Appeals late last week sided against recent Land Conservation and Development Commission approval of the expansion, and called into question the inclusion of nearly 800 acres of farmland to accommodate population and job growth. Portions of the proposal now must be re-examined by the LCDC and retooled to receive state approval.

The city has worked since 2003 to expand the UGB in preparation for a projected population increase to 44,055 by 2023. The city’s population in 2010 was 32,187.

An original proposal was approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development in 2004; however, it was appealed by land-use advocacy groups Friends of Yamhill County and 1000 Friends of Oregon to the LCDC and then remanded to the city for more work. The city then adjusted some of the boundaries and eventually received approval from the LCDC.

Then the same groups appealed the amended plan to the Court of Appeals, which remanded it to the LCDC.

“We reached the frustration point several years ago,” said Doug Montgomery, planning director for the city of McMinnville. “We are now halfway through our 20-year projection period and it doesn’t seem like we’re that much closer than when we first started this 14 years ago.”

The appealing parties argued, and the court ruled, that the LCDC erred in approving the inclusion of 800 acres of high-priority farmland – productive land featuring top-quality soil. State law – ORS 197.298 – prioritizes which lands can be included in a UGB expansion; highly productive resource land, like farmland and forestland, is at the bottom of the list.

According to Sid Friedman, a 1000 Friends of Oregon staffer who represents Yamhill County, both rural residential exception lands and lower quality farmlands should have been included instead of the highly productive and well-used farmland. Friedman cited Southeast Booth Bend Road and Southwest Old Sheridan Road as examples of potential expansion areas.

“We hope and think that McMinnville can justify a UGB expansion without including intensively farmed areas with productive soil,” he said. “And while the court didn’t mention this, our concerns are more than just over the use of farmland in the expansion. It’s about keeping McMinnville a great place to live.”

Friedman added that the groups feel that the court’s decision vindicates their position.

“Let me add that both DLCD and LCDC don’t do these cities any favors by stringing them along and saying yes to these questionable lands,” he said. “It adds time and money to the process.”

Montgomery, meanwhile, is concerned about the state UGB expansion process.

“McMinnville isn’t alone here,” he said. “The city of Woodburn as well as plenty of others around the state are dealing with a similar appeals process. It takes a lot of time and money.”

But as Friedman pointed out, if cities’ expansion proposals weren’t so aggressive, appeals wouldn’t be filed. There are many cities that expand their UGBs without any contention whatsoever, he said.

Next, McMinnville officials will meet with attorneys to better understand the Court of Appeals ruling. City officials will then meet with the city’s assigned field representative from the DLCD and decide how to proceed.

Options range from retooling the expansion map, trimming the expansion, or providing more accurate and more thorough justification by the LCDC for approval of the UGB expansion.

“We’re all in this together,” Montgomery said. “It’s a requirement by the state, so we will sit down and once again work through this thing.”

The post Court shoots down McMinnville UGB expansion proposal appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

For citizen activist Dan Phegley, it’s pretty simple: If the taxpayers are going to pay for something, they should not only know what they’re paying for and how much it’s going to cost, but should also be able to have a say in it.

That’s why , a citizens group, has filed an initiative with the city of Damascus that, if approved, would require voter approval for any city planning document required by the state or Metro. The group believes the city is passing $3 billion in debt to citizens through creation of the state-mandated Damascus Comprehensive Plan without getting their input.

“This initiative is just an extension of what’s been going on out here,” Phegley said. “After everything that has gone on already, we don’t trust the (City Council) to make this decision, so we want the voters to get the final say.”

Damascus City Council has been assembling a comprehensive plan – an all-inclusive visioning document – since 2009. The document identified approximately $3 billion worth of projects to help manage growth sustainably into the future. The council earlier this year was ready to ship the plan to the state Department of Land Conservation and Development for final approval, but then Ask Damascus added a referendum to the May ballot that asked voters whether they agreed with the plan.

The comprehensive plan was shot down by 65 percent of the voters.

“If you take a town of 10,000 and put them in debt $3 billion, that’s economic suicide,” Phegley said. “And on top of that, the council didn’t tell us how much they wanted to put us in debt throughout the entire process.”

Diana Helm, president of the council, said it has since revisited the document, but she isn’t sure much will change.

“I’m not sure we will make any changes,” Helm said. “The changes they want fly in the face of our core values. But we are listening and re-examining the document.”

The comprehensive plan calls for dense, urban zoning surrounded by natural, open spaces. This includes 200-foot setbacks along any streams to protect the city’s water source.

The problem, according to Damascus Mayor Steve Spinnett, is that residents like the area’s rurality. When Damascus was incorporated in 2004, citizens agreed simply to avoid annexation into nearby cities, which would have made the area subject to those cities’ planning requirements.

“Planners have a tendency to do things the same way, like cluster development with wide-open green space,” Spinnett said. “But that’s not what the people want here. I don’t work for the city; I work for the people and the council needs to remember that they do too.

“I’m in complete support of what Ask Damascus is doing because the ballot box is the ultimate public involvement.”

The initiative was submitted to the city and is before the city attorney, who will draft the ballot measure language and then open a public notice period. Ask Damascus would then be able to start gathering the 400 verified signatures required for the initiative to go before voters.

If the initiative were approved, it would amend the Damascus City Charter and add a section titled Additional Powers Retained by Citizens.

The new section would read, “After March 1, 2011, the council shall not submit any ordinance or plan which affects property rights to Metro, the (Land Conservation and Development Commission), the DLCD or their successors until it is ratified by a majority vote of the city’s qualified electors voting in an election where at least 50 percent of the registered voters cast a ballot, or the election is a general election in an even-numbered year.”

The initiative also would require that the council include on the ballot an estimation of how much the plan would cost taxpayers after implementation, as well as a description of what it would do.

Both Phegley and Spinnett believe that the initiative will spur dialogue and potentially lead to compromises so a plan can be approved and sent to the state. But Helm warns that a change to city code could spin the entire process out of control.

“I just don’t think they understand that we are required to turn something in to the state, and just because they voted no on it, or vote no on it again, doesn’t mean that requirement, or the issue, will go away,” she said.

The post Damascus citizens group raises stakes in fight against comprehensive plan appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Woodburn city staffers are not the only ones disappointed that the process to expand the city’s urban growth boundary is taking so long. Officials with the state agency that approved the plan are bummed too.

Both the city and the Department of Land Conservation and Development learned this week that a group of land-use advocacy organizations would appeal the UGB expansion proposal approved in January by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. This marks the second time in the past several years that an approved Woodburn UGB expansion proposal will go before the Oregon Court of Appeals. The process will now be extended at least throughout the rest of the year.

“We believe the commission’s order on remand faithfully responded to the directions we received from the Court of Appeals (during the first appeal), and we are sorry that even more time will pass while the parties go through the Court of Appeals for a second time,” acting DLCD Director Jerry Lidz said.

Woodburn first submitted a UGB expansion plan to the LCDC in 2005 after spending years developing it as part of its state-mandated periodic review. In 2007, the LCDC approved that plan, which called for a 979-acre expansion.

The approval was soon appealed, and in September 2010 was reversed and remanded to the LCDC by the Court of Appeals. The court directed the commission to provide a better explanation of the proposed UGB expansion’s relationship to Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals Nos. 9 (economic development) and 14 (urbanization).

The DLCD then prepared a revised order and findings, which were officially approved by the LCDC on March 16. That decision was then appealed this week by 1000 Friends of Oregon, Friends of Marion County, the Marion County Farm Bureau and some area farmers. The parties call into question the justification for the plan including 409 acres of land designated for industrial employment.

“In this case, the department and commission spent considerable effort helping Woodburn assure it has the right amount of land for new jobs and new housing development,” Lidz said. “We naturally are disappointed that this matter remains unresolved for the community, nearly five years after the commission first approved the city’s growth plan.”

According to the staff attorney for 1000 Friends of Oregon, Mary Kyle McCurdy, who is representing the appealing parties, the appeal centers only on the justification for the industrial acreage. The appeal did not cite the 383.5 net acres included for residential growth or the 24 net acres included for commercial growth.

“Marion County is in the heart of Oregon agriculture, so this is an important topic to us and we are not going to take it lightly,” McCurdy said. “Looking at the evidence put in the record, we think they are putting about twice as much industrial land in the expansion than they can justify.”

Under state law, the city can expand the UGB only enough to meet needs for 20 years. The city based its proposal on a commercial and industrial lands inventory report, but it’s not the only type of report that can be used, and none are foolproof.

Woodburn Mayor Kathy Figley in the past has said that she fully understands the important role that agriculture plays in the community. However, she has noted throughout this process that additional industrial land could help provide higher paying jobs for the aging agricultural workforce that makes up a large portion of the community.

The appealing parties filed their petition for judicial review, and must file their brief – which outlines what they are appealing – before July. The LCDC and the city would then be able to file their own brief.

According to McCurdy, there is no timeframe on when the court of appeals will hear oral arguments and when it will make a decision. But she hopes it happens sooner rather than later.

The post Woodburn urban growth boundary expansion appealed again appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.