The October/November 2013 Western Planner www.westernplanner.org OREGON’S STATEWIDE LAND USE PROGRAM: AN INSIDER’S 40-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE GROWTH OF COMMUNITIES HERITAGE WRESTLE WITH SHORELINE MASTER TOURISM IN PLAN UPDATES IN BUTTE, MT WASHINGTON ALSO: Bond financing overview Fairbanks, AK struggles with air quality The Journal for planning in the West since 1979 Created back in 1973, Oregon’s statewide land use program is still functioning and evolving. 40 YEARS ON THE OREGON LAND USE TRAIL by James B. Knight, Salem, Oregon ames Knight served on the staff of the Oregon Department of Land Conser- vation and Development from 1974 to J 2003 when he retired. Along with work- ing with a team of very talented, committed colleagues, these years afforded Knight a re- markable opportunity to be part of the start up, development and implementation of a state land use program that was and still is AERIAL VIEW: Once a small farm town, Forest Grove has grown and today sits on the western edge of the of the Port- unique in the nation. He shares how Oregon land metropolitan area and Willamette Valley. This aerial laid the framework for statewide land use photos shows that the urban/agricultural boundary still planning that still works to this day. persists. Photo by Amos Meron. Planning in Oregon before SB 100 Soon after the turn of the 20th century the first city and For many Americans in the 1830s and 1840s, Oregon county land laws began to appear in response to Oregon’s was seen as the place where land and opportunity could be burgeoning growth. Other significant land planning steps found. The well worn Oregon Trail from Independence, were to follow. In 1913, Gov. Oswald West persuaded the Missouri to Oregon City, Oregon was the path to start a state legislature to designate all Oregon beaches from the new life by homesteading on federal lands. The creation of mouth of the Columbia River to the California border as a the Oregon Territory became law in 1848, 11 years prior to public highway and the entire beach between low and high statehood. However, the granting of territorial status failed tides became forever open to the public. to provide procedures for settling land ownership disputes. In 1919 and 1923 the state authorized cities to develop All of the prior land laws of the earlier provisional gov- land use plans and regulations. However, it wasn’t until 1947 ernment were declared null and void. This oversight was that similar planning authority was granted to counties to corrected in 1850 with the passage by Congress of the Do- address the disorderly growth of urban fringe areas arising nation Land Act, allowing residents to receive free land in during and after World War II. Unlike earlier enactments their own names if willing to work for it. for cities, the 1947 law required counties to enact zoning The original Donation Law was followed by subsequent and other regulations to carry out their land use plans. donation and homestead laws aimed at further securing titles The concern over disorderly growth which began in the which by the late nineteenth century witnessed the transfer 1940s increased dramatically as more and more Oregonians of over 29 million acres to private land owners. What were began to view sprawl as an environmental threat seriously expanses of deserts, range land, forests and fields became squared, surveyed parcels and city and country lots. Continued on page 8.............. WWW.WESTERNPLANNER.ORG 7 “We’re talking about more than preserving the beauty of Oregon. We’re talking about the growth of Oregon and how that growth can be accomplished in a sane manner. We’re talking about the economy and the environment. We’re talking about balance. In short, we’re talking about People and the Land.” - OREGON GOV. TOM MCCALL (1973) jeopardizing the state’s grand scenery planning, very little of rural Oregon and extensive forest and agricultural was planned and zoned in the early land. Somewhat surprisingly the 1970s. major push for the state to respond Sensing that more was needed to to these problems came from farmers, bring about stronger local planning the not from city residents. legislature in 1969 passed Senate Bill The focus of the farmers’ concern 10 (SB 10). This law required every city was the state’s prime agricultural land and county to adopt a comprehensive where about two-thirds of the state’s land use plan and completely zone its “But there is a shameless threat population resided. This area is the jurisdiction by the end of 1971. Each to our environment and to the approximate 100 mile long Willamette community’s plan had to meet ten whole quality of life – unfettered Valley encompassing the Willamette broad goals listed in SB 10. The law despoiling of the land. Sagebrush River in western Oregon between the also authorized the governor to take subdivisions, coastal “condomania,” cities of Portland and Eugene, with over a local government’s planning and the ravenous rampage of the Coast Range on the west and the and zoning if the city or county did suburbia in the Willamette Valley Cascade Mountains on the east. not meet the 1971 deadline. SB 10 was all threaten to mock Oregon’s In the early 1960s, in response to the state’s first mandatory planning status as the environmental the growing threat from sprawl, the act, and was to become the basis for model of the nation.” Oregon Legislature strengthened laws SB 100 approved four years later. “We are in dire need of a state land passed in the 1940s and 1950s aimed use policy, new subdivision laws, at protecting farmland. Specifically Enacting SB 100 and new standards for planning the legislature authorized counties While SB 10 was a major advance and zoning by cities and counties. to create exclusive farm use (EFU) for Oregon land use planning, the bill The interests of Oregon for today zones. For farmers owning land zoned failed to include a process and stan- and in the future must be protected EFU, this legislation and subsequent dards for ensuring that local plans and from grasping wastrels of the land. revisions created strong incentives for ordinances met the state’s goals and We must respect another truism that farmers by setting property tax rates were coordinated. Gov. Tom McCall unlimited and unregulated growth for their land based on its productive gave a stirring opening address to the leads inexorably to a lowered capacity as agricultural land, rather 1973 legislature, that still resonates to- quality of life.” than its value for non-farm residential day. Here is a famous excerpt: development. In return, non-farm “Oregon is an inspiration even to With his words, the governor uses allowed in EFU zones were those who do not come here to live. sought to convince the legislature and sharply limited. The story of the Willamette River – the public that approving SB 100, the Unfortunately, to achieve such our ecological Easter – has evoked revised version of SB 10, was vital for benefits, state planning laws at that cries of “Hurrah!” across the nation the state’s future. For those wishing to time required counties to designate and in distant parts of the world. learn more about the beginning of the land for farm use in their adopted And we have heard, along with state land use program, read Sy Adler’s comprehensive plans before they applause for Oregon, lamentation 2012 book, Oregon Plans – The Making could be zoned EFU. With consid- for other states where progress has of an Unquiet Land-Use Revolution. erable county opposition to land use felled prey to expediency.” Continued on page 9............... 8 THE WESTERN PLANNER • OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2013 OPEN SPACES: Southeastern Oregon’s Steens Mountain, stands tall at 9,733 feet. Photo by Laren Woolley. Quiet Revolution in Land Use Controls group involvement, and intense tes- (1972) by Fred Bosselman and David timony, debates, and arguments both Callies and the American Law Institute’s directed to and among the Commis- Model Land Development Code (1974). sion members about the intent, word- The backers of SB 100 knew that ing and implementation of the goals. the state’s revised planning law had The DLCD’s mailing list for proposed to ensure that the statewide interest – goals was around 100,000 and about the interest affecting all Oregonians – 10,000 participants attended one or would be properly addressed in local more of the goal development work- land use decision-making. The vehicle shops held across the state in 1974. to accomplish this goal and the cen- For members of the small DLCD terpiece of SB 100 and the state plan- staff at that time, the latter half of ning program was the comprehensive 1974 was probably one of the most plan properly prepared and adopted exhausting, frenetic, and for many The final version of SB 100 passed by each local government. To make of us, rewarding periods of our pro- both houses of the legislature by wide sure there was no misunderstanding, fessional lives. And yet despite the margins. Signing it into law on May 29, SB 100 defined the term comprehen- demands of staffing countless goal 1973, Governor McCall called it “the sive to mean “all inclusive, both in workshops and meetings, process- most momentous piece of legislation terms of the geographic area covered ing the flood of workshop survey passed during my time here.” and functional and natural activities responses, supporting a number of and systems occurring in the area cov- technical advisory committees, and Establishing framework ered by the plan.” drafting and redrafting proposed SB 100 established the underly- goals language, the Commission met ing framework for today’s state land SB 100 created the Oregon Land Conservation and Development its one year deadline when it adopted use program.