A revived proposal to sidestep Oregon’s normal process for expanding urban growth boundaries around cities is still drawing fierce opposition, but some critics appear willing to negotiate its parameters.

Without dropping their objections, a couple of leading land preservation groups are urging lawmakers to at least impose more constraints if they do enact the one-time UGB bypass.

Does proposal go far enough?

Meanwhile, some supporters of loosening the standards for UGB expansion believe the proposal doesn’t yet go far enough to alleviate housing shortages.

“In short, the biggest barriers are found within the state’s land use system, not in any other particular area,” said Dan Dias, economic development director for the City of Hillsboro, Ore.

Last year, lawmakers narrowly rejected a bill allowing cities to enlarge UGBs up to 150 acres without following the state’s ordinary requirements to prove such increases are necessary.

‘People didn’t walk away’

A similar concept will now be considered during the 2024 legislative session at the behest of Gov. Tina Kotek, who called herself its “chief architect and chief cheerleader” at the bill’s initial hearing Feb. 8.

“People didn’t walk away. They sat down and worked on it,” Kotek said.

Senate Bill 1537 is intended to be the “spark” that will “jump start” housing production in Oregon, which is a top priority for residents across the state, she said. The proposal includes a “full suite” of actions intended to reduce housing shortages, including the controversial “one-time” UGB additions.

“Not every community needs that,” Kotek said. “But if they do, we get to say, ‘This is how we want to see that happen.’”

Requirements listed

The legislation keeps the 75- and 150-acre UGB expansion limits proposed last year, depending on population, but imposes additional qualification requirements for cities and offers another 15-acre option with lower hurdles.

The requirements are:

• To qualify for a UGB increase, cities would need to ensure 30% of the new housing meets affordability criteria.

• The expansion must follow a “conceptual plan” that includes mixed residential densities, parks and open spaces, commercial zones and paths for walking and biking.

• The enlargement would need to be adjacent to existing city boundaries and be within “urban reserves” or “non-resource lands,” which is intended to protect high-value farmland and forestland.

• Cities would be eligible for the one-time enlargement if they haven’t already expanded their UGBs within the past 20 years, unless they still have 20 acres or more in an undeveloped residential zone.

• If they’ve enlarged their UGBs more recently, cities would still qualify if 75% of the added area has been developed and they still need more affordable housing.

• The 15-acre expansion option would not require a conceptual plan and wouldn’t be available within the Portland metropolitan area, which would be subject to additional regional government oversight.

The Oregon Association of Nurseries considers the UGB process to be “super siting” by another name, but after discussions with Kotek, the organization is neutral on the bill.

The requirement for the expansions to occur in urban reserves is a mitigating factor, but any acreage added under the process should be subtracted from a city’s next UGB increase under the regular process, said Jeff Stone, OAN’s executive director.

The organization also wants “on the record acknowledgement” of the right to farm next to the expanded UGBs, he said, referring to the state’s prohibition against local regulations and nuisance and trespass lawsuits related to normal farm practices.

Supporters: System needs change

The bill’s supporters, such as Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, said the UGB provisions strike the right balance between maintaining land protections and introducing flexibility to address housing needs.

“If our land use system cannot accommodate moderate change, it will calcify and fracture over time,” Marsh said.

The 1,000 Friends of Oregon farmland preservation nonprofit supports the infrastructure investments and other components of SB 1537, but it considers expedited UGB expansion “a fatal flaw.”

Though the organization still wants lawmakers to remove these provisions, they should at least shorten the 10-year period the opportunity is available, said Mary Kyle McCurdy, its deputy director.

If the period remains that long, it would be inconsistent with new UGB procedures for income-targeted housing that become effective in two years under previously approved legislation, she said.

“We urge you not to place two separate processes that are in conflict with one another and consider shortening the time period in this bill,” McCurdy said.

The Central Oregon Landwatch nonprofit largely supports SB 1537 as well, but continues to believe the UGB expansion provisions are “not necessary,” said Corie Harlan, its program director for cities and towns.

Harlan didn’t characterize her group’s stance as non-negotiable, however.

Instead, she told lawmakers that such one-time enlargements should be crafted to avoid exacerbating “funding gaps” for roads, sewers and other infrastructure. Cities should still need to demonstrate a “strong need” for more land, she said.

“If those sections do remain in the bill, we’ll need to keep working together on adjustments that ensure it’s a right-sized tool for cities that truly need it,” Harlan said.

Opponents: ‘A major threat’

Despite these suggestions, the battle over UGB enlargement still promises to be intense during the monthlong short session.

The Oregon Conservation Network, a coalition of 40 environmental groups, has categorized the bill as a “major threat” due to the expedited UGB procedures.

The organizations worry these additions will be counterproductive, spurring development along the far edges of cities while diluting the amount of money available to incorporate new housing.

“Limited infrastructure funding should be laser-focused within UGBs,” said Julia DeGraw, coalition director for the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, an affiliated group. “We urge you to amend this bill so we can support this transformative housing policy.”

At the same time, SB 1537’s streamlined UGB process is also drawing fire for being too rigorous and unworkable for cities that face housing emergencies.

The City of Hillsboro would like to support the bill but cannot as originally written, said Dan Dias, its economic development director.

Too many obstacles currently bar cities from eligibility if they have undeveloped land remaining within their UGBs, he said.

“As drafted, no city interested in using an expedited UGB process, including ours, is going to be able to meet the needs criteria,” Dias said.