Lawmakers hear mixed testimony on bill to confirm RoseburgUGB land swap that could unlock hundreds of homes

The Senate Committee on Housing and Development held a public hearing on House Bill 3921 on Aug. 30 to consider a proposed swap of land inside Roseburg's urban growth boundary (UGB) that supporters say could enable significant new housing development.

Bill summary and action: Committee staff summarized HB 3921 as approving the City of Roseburg and Douglas County ordinances that would swap parcels within the city boundary and urban growth boundary and amend city and county comprehensive plans; the bill would direct the director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to issue a confirming order. Staff described the measure as having minimal fiscal impact and no revenue impact. The committee opened the public hearing, took invited testimony from local legislators and a panel, and left the record open to hear additional public testimony later in the agenda.

Supporters' case: Representative Virgil Osborne (House District 2), whose testimony noted local need, said Roseburg needs "roughly pretty close to 100 houses a year" while currently building "probably closer to 25," and told the committee the proposed swap would remove two 90-acre steep, undevelopable parcels from the UGB and bring in 220 acres of flatter, buildable land that has existing access and water service; he estimated the site could accommodate "potential is around 670 plus houses" if developers come forward. Douglas County Commissioner Tom Kress, the city manager Nikki Messenger and other local officials and employers (including CHI Mercy Health and the Umpqua Economic Development Partnership) said the swap would help address a shortage of lots, enable workforce housing and remove parcels that are difficult to develop under city standards.

Opposition and procedural concerns: Several local residents and advocacy groups opposed legislative confirmation, saying the DLCD had remanded the city's prior UGB decision and identified issues to be resolved through the land-use process. Testimony from a neighborhood organization representative and attorney for Central Oregon Land Watch argued HB 3921 would "circumvent and sidestep the statewide land use system" and set a precedent for special legislative intervention in local land-use decisions. A local resident cited past remands and contested growth-rate assumptions and said the bill "eliminates the DLCD's expert advice." Committee members heard both the practical housing shortage arguments and concerns about procedure and local review.

Next steps: The committee took testimony from multiple parties and did not take a final vote on the bill during the Aug. 30 hearing. The record includes support from city and county officials and major local employers and opposition from neighborhood groups and land-watch organizations.

Ending: The hearing closed with the committee taking no immediate action; committee members indicated the bill raises competing policy questions about speeding housing supply versus preserving the state land-use review process.