Our Impact

We litigate cases to enforce and uphold the land use planning system. In coordination with local organizations that we serve through our affiliate program and our Cooperating Attorney Program, our Rural Lands Attorneys also provide pro bono legal resources and representation to Oregonians in land use cases consistent with our mission. 

1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of Hillsboro (Land Use Board of Appeals) 

1000 Friends of Oregon appealed the City of Hillsboro's adoption of an Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA), with Metro intervening to also challenge the adoption. An EOA projects employment growth and employment land needs over a 20-year period. Any shortfall in employment land needs identified in the EOA can serve the basis for a future UGB expansion. Using a highly subjective methodology, Hillsboro projected an employment growth of over 61,000 employees and a need for over 2,000 acres of employment lands beyond its UGB. Additionally, as a city within Metro's boundaries, Hillsboro was required to apply Metro's coordinated population forecast to arrive at its growth conclusions and failed to do so. Combined with its unsupported methodology, Hillsboro's failure to apply Metro's forecast resulted in unreasonable growth projections and land need estimates that are considerably at odds with the growth that Metro is anticipating and planning around. If left unchallenged, these unreasonable conclusions would threaten valuable surrounding farmland by allowing Hillsboro to seek a UGB expansion.

Case name: City of Hillsboro EOA
Status: Awaiting decision from LUBA
Counsel: Devin Kesner on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon


1000 Friends of Oregon v. Josephine County

1000 Friends of Oregon and Rogue Advocates challenged Josephine County's decision to rezone 87 acres of forestland to non-resource land for a residential subdivision with five-acre lots. On a first appeal in LUBA No. 2021-116, LUBA agreed with our arguments that the county failed to demonstrate compliance with Goal 14 (requiring and orderly transition from urban to rural development) and the applicant's forester failed to follow the methodology required by law for determining whether the property qualifies as forest land. On remand, the county reapproved the application and we appealed for a second time based on continuing insufficiencies under Goal 14 and the forestry analysis.

Case name: Marvin Remand
Status: Appealed to LUBA
Counsel: Andrew Mulkey on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon and Rogue Advocates


1000 Friends of Oregon v. Lake County (Land Use Board of Appeals)

1000 Friends of Oregon and a neighboring landowner Lisa Hammonds have challenged Lake County's decision to permit a junkyard on farmland as a "site for the disposal of solid waste." This is the second attempt by the applicant to permit a junkyard at this location. The applicant wants to open up retail metal sales and store vehicles and old appliances and many other materials on 28 acres of rangeland. 1000 Friends has argued that the statute was intended to permit, as a limited exception, landfills and other sites intended to actually dispose of solid waste on farmland. These are uses that are difficult to locate inside cities and towns. In contrast, junkyards and scrapyards do not dispose of material on site; they are light industrial uses that are commonly found and easily located near customers on industrial zoned lands. Farmland is valuable land for raising food; it is not, should not be, and is not needed as place to store junk.

Case name: Hambleton Disposal Site
Status: Being briefed at LUBA
Counsel: Andrew Mulkey for 1000 Friends of Oregon and Lisa Hammonds

Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County (Land Use Board of Appeals)

1000 Friends appealed Deschutes County's decision to redesignate a 710-acre tract of agricultural land as "non-resource" land for a 70+ home subdivision in the middle of the county's exclusive farm use zone, about 4 1/2 miles northwest of Redmond and about 5 miles west of Terrebonne. 1000 Friends joined Central Oregon LandWatch, the Department of Land Conservation and Development, and local concerned parties in arguing the rezoning violated Goal 3's requirements to protect agricultural land and Goal 14's prohibition against urban level development in rural areas.

Case name: Eden Central
Status: The case is currently before the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Counsel:  Andrew Mulkey on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon


DLCD v. Yamhill County (Land Use Board of Appeals)

1000 Friends represents Friends of Yamhill County in an appeal of Yamhill County's approval of "psilocybin service centers" in parts of the county's exclusive farm and forest zones, which voters approved by ballot initiative. The case is currently stayed while 1000 Friends and Friends of Yamhill County work with the county to ensure that service centers are well defined and are not used as an excuse to permit activities unrelated to growing, processing, or actually administering psilocybin and providing counseling. 

Case name: Psilocybin Service Centers
Counsel:  Andrew Mulkey on behalf of Friends of Yamhill County


Friends of Marion County v. Marion County (Land Use Board of Appeals)

1000 Friends represents Friends of Marion County in an appeal of Marion County's approval 
of a "dwelling in conjunction with farm use" on high-value farmland. In this case, the applicant – seeking to qualify for a farm dwelling on high-value farmland – claimed to have earned income in advance for Christmas trees that are still five to seven years away from maturity, in an attempt to meet the $80,000 earned income standard . LCDC's rules require the applicant to have actually produced the commodities that earned the income necessary to qualify for a farm dwelling. The applicant in this case is 5 to 7 years away from demonstrating that they actually produced mature Christmas trees.

Regardless of the applicant's intent in this case, the risk is that this practice of claiming money toward crops that have not yet been grown becomes a loophole to avoid actually meeting the gross sales of farm products requirement for farm dwellings. (The money the applicant claims to have earned was given to him by his mother, who has no experience as a Christmas-tree retailer or wholesaler and only incorporated a business after the planning department initially denied the application.) Allowing the applicant's interpretation of LCDC's rules invites future applicants to make sham transfers in advance of planting or harvest for crops that may never in fact be grown or delivered.

Case name: Barth 
Status: Waiting for LUBA Decision
Counsel: Andrew Mulkey on behalf of Friends of Marion County



Tylka v. Clackamas County (Land Use Board of Appeals)

1000 Friends represents the petitioner Dennis Tylka who challenged Clackamas County's decision to allow short-term rentals in dwelling types intended to meet the county's affordable housing goals in its comprehensive plan. Mr. Tylka argues that the county failed to adequately consider the extent to which allowing short-term rentals in dwelling types intended to increase the number of available and affordable housing units conflicts with the county's comprehensive plan policies meant to promote additional and affordable housing for long-term residents. Mr. Tylka won a similar argument in a previous challenge to Clackamas County's zoning code amendments. In this case, the county determined that it had a housing need for an additional 5,000 units of affordable housing. In contrast, short-term rentals – which are currently not technically allowed pursuant to the county's zoning code and are operating illegally – occupy about 1,000 units, or 20 percent of the county's projected need. The county failed to consider how the number of short-term rentals might increase as a result of its zoning amendments.

Case name: STR Remand
Status: Awaiting decision from LUBA
Counsel: Andrew Mulkey