Bill to audit and update Statewide Planning Goal 1 draws wide support and organized opposition

Representative Thuy Tran and supporters told the committee House Bill 2950 would create a goals advisory committee to audit and recommend updates to Statewide Planning Goal 1, the statute that directs citizen involvement in land-use planning.

Proponents including planners, 1000 Friends of Oregon and other civic groups said Goal 1 — adopted in the 1970s and without substantive update — relies on outmoded notice methods and has not kept pace with modern engagement practices or equity considerations. Jonathan Harker, chair of the legislative and policy affairs committee for the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association, said Goal 1 has no implementing administrative rules or updates since 1974 and urged a process to ensure “input through each phase” of planning. Mary Kyle McCurdy of 1000 Friends of Oregon said failing to modernize Goal 1 leaves historically underserved communities out of planning processes and can produce zoning and regulatory outcomes that contribute to inequitable housing and health outcomes.

Representative Tran said the bill will gather experts from local government, community justice advocates, planners and others — and that she expects amendments to expand the timeline for the advisory process. She said the proposal is intended to calibrate engagement methods to the type of planning action being considered (plan amendments, zone changes, or site-level permits).

Opponents — including Oregon Business & Industry, Oregon Property Owners Association, Oregon Home Builders and the Realtors association — said the bill, as drafted, risks additional hearings and appeals that could slow development and exacerbate housing shortages. Duke Shepherd (Oregon Business & Industry) argued the bill lacks balanced representation of business and property interests, and Dave Honeycutt (Oregon Property Owners Association) urged that reforms not undermine existing citizen-protection provisions in ORS (citing a statutory requirement for statewide hearings). Several development-industry witnesses said public involvement is important but urged the amendment to the advisory membership and for clarity that excessive late-stage public input should not block projects that comply with local plans and zoning.

Multiple committee members asked the sponsors to circulate a forthcoming amendment (the sponsor said it would lengthen the process and clarify advisory membership). Representative Vanessa Hartman called attention to tribal representation concerns and asked that the committee consider more than a single tribal seat if tribal nations request separate representation.

The committee recorded a broad public testimony record and left the matter open for amendment; the bill drew both organized support from planning and civic groups and coordinated opposition from business and development interests.