Agenda Item 4 - UGB Rulemaking <br />December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Meeting <br />Page 4 of 56 <br />III. BACKGROUND <br />In June 2013 the Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill (HB) 2254, which provided new state <br />laws at ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325 directing LCDC to "develop and adopt simplified methods <br />for a city that is outside Metro to evaluate or amend the urban growth boundary of the city."a <br />This 2013, legislation was a product of a special committee - the "Design Team" - appointed by <br />the Governor's office in January 2012. The team was appointed and led by the Governor's <br />Natural Resource Advisor, Richard Whitman, and included members from local governments, <br />interest groups, planning consultants, land use attorneys, former LCDC chairs, and others with <br />experience and expertise in the UGB process. The design team met from January 2012 until <br />February 2013. This effort was initiated in response to concerns expressed by cities, legislators, <br />and other interest groups about the high cost and complexity of UGB amendments, and about <br />delay and uncertainty due to lengthy appeals of UGB amendments. A coinciding effort by the <br />department, cities, and counties proposed HB 2253 (also enacted in 2013), which established that <br />population forecasts for UGBs must be issued on a regular cycle by the Portland State University <br />Population Research Center. <br />The final proposal by the Design Team (which had a high degree of consensus and was reflected <br />in the legislation) was twofold. First, there should be a new optional "simplified" process that <br />cities could use to amend a UGB. The "traditional" UGB process would remain in effect, but the <br />intent of the law would be to encourage most cities to (eventually) use the new process. Second, <br />the legislation would change ORS 197.298 regarding "priorities" for land selection under a UGB <br />amendment, for both the "traditional" process and the new process. The intent of the Design <br />Team was that the traditional process would remain largely unchanged except for the new land <br />selection process. The new statutes under ORS 197A.302 indicate the "purpose" of the law; this <br />section essentially provides principles for LCDC to consider in designing the new UGB process <br />and in evaluating its effects over time. <br />The intent of the Design Team was that the proposed optional UGB process will be simpler and <br />more simplified, especially for small cities, and will require a 14-year rather than a 20-year <br />"planning horizon" for UGB planning. This shorter horizon is primarily intended to provide <br />increased attention to making sure land in UGBs is serviceable in the near term. Also, in order to <br />provide a simpler method, the proposed new process is to have, as a central component, a series <br />of "numbers" and "ranges" that cities could choose from in making key policy decisions <br />necessary in evaluating or amending a UGB. These ranges would provide, essentially, "safe <br />harbors" for cities (although that term is not used) and are reflected in a new Land Use Board of <br />Appeals (LUBA) standard of review which requires that, if a city selects a number or a value <br />within a stated range, LUBA must affirm that decision. <br />2 Depending on context, this report will usually cite "ORS 197A" rather than "HB 2254." They are the same. <br />However, the 2015 legislature corrected a legislative drafting error in ORS 197A that is not yet reflected in the <br />official statute provided on the Oregon Legislative Counsel Website. Attachment E to this report includes a link to a <br />version of 197A that displays the amended 197A. While the department believes this accurately portrays the statute <br />as amended, this is not an "official" version of the statute. <br />