Relating to urban growth boundary expansion.
HB 3758 would create a new process allowing cities outside the Metro regional government area to expand their urban growth boundaries when land already counted in the city’s buildable lands inventory is later found to be unbuildable. If a city determines that one or more acres in its inventory no longer qualify as buildable lands, the city may add a roughly equal number of acres to its urban growth boundary. The bill makes that expansion subject to the existing UGB amendment process in ORS 197A.285, but it also specifies that the decision is a land use decision and is not subject to review by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under ORS 197.626.
The bill also revises the standards for how non-Metro cities evaluate land for inclusion in an urban growth boundary. It directs the commission to require cities to study all contiguous land within a commission-specified distance, while allowing certain lands to be excluded if they are impracticable to serve, pose significant hazards, contain important scenic, natural, cultural, or recreational resources, are federal rural-use lands, or are designated as rural reserve. The bill establishes a priority order for selecting land, beginning with urban reserves, then exception or nonresource lands, then marginal lands, then lower-capability agricultural or forest lands, and only then predominantly high-value farmland, with limits on selecting prime or unique soils unless no other land is available.
HB 3758 would affect Oregon’s land use planning laws by amending ORS 197A.285 and adding a new section to ORS chapter 197A. It would give cities an additional, explicit authority to adjust UGBs in response to changes in buildable lands inventories, and it would further define how cities and the Land Conservation and Development Commission must evaluate candidate lands for expansion. The bill also preserves existing authority to add or exchange lands within and outside UGBs, and it allows special treatment for expansions aimed at a particular industrial use or public facility with unique site requirements.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the overall sentiment around the bill cannot be measured from legislative debate or roll calls. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a technical land-use adjustment bill intended to give cities more flexibility to replace lost buildable capacity while still preserving protections for farmland, forestland, and other resource lands.
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between local flexibility and resource-land protection. Supporters would likely favor the bill for helping cities respond to shortages in buildable land and for streamlining UGB adjustments, while critics may object to the potential for urban expansion onto agricultural or forest lands, especially high-value farmland and prime soils. Another possible issue is the bill’s removal of commission review for the new UGB expansion process, which could be seen as reducing state oversight.
HB 3758 would amend Oregon’s land use statutes governing urban growth boundaries, especially ORS 197A.285, and add a new authority for non-Metro cities to expand UGBs when buildable lands inventories contain land that is no longer buildable. It would create a new land use decision pathway for these expansions, limit certain state-level review, and set out detailed criteria for how cities must prioritize lands for inclusion, with protections and exclusions for hazardous areas, resource lands, rural reserves, and high-value farmland.
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll calls. On its face, the bill appears policy-driven and technical rather than ideological, with an apparent intent to help cities manage growth and land supply. The text suggests a generally pragmatic approach, but one that would likely draw both support from local governments and concern from land conservation interests.
The likely contention is between advocates of local housing and growth flexibility and defenders of farmland, forestland, and other resource protections. Supporters may argue the bill is needed when land counted as buildable turns out not to be usable, while opponents may worry it creates a pathway for UGB expansion that could pressure agricultural lands and weaken state oversight. The provision excluding the new expansion process from LCDC review is another likely flashpoint, because it shifts authority toward cities and away from state commission oversight.