Agenda Item 4 - UGB Rulemaking <br />December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Meeting <br />Page 17 of 56 <br />Section (6) concerns whether a city that has used the simplified method may subsequently use <br />the traditional method to reevaluate and if necessary amend the UGB. The statute (ORS 197A) is <br />silent on this important question. The department has proposed two options for this policy. The <br />first, more narrow option proposes that reuse of the traditional method is authorized only in <br />certain circumstances. The second option is broader, and simply authorizes a city to use the <br />"traditional" method after use of the simplified method. However, the city may not rely on need <br />determinations that were derived from the housing or employment paths in division 38, since <br />those paths were intended to provide a simplified methodology for 14-year need and were not <br />intended to be "extrapolated" to a 20-year need. <br />The department believes that restricting use of the traditional method after use of the simplified <br />method may give many cities pause in deciding to use the simplified method in the first place. <br />Since a fundamental principle with this project is to try and encourage "most" cities to eventually <br />use the simplified method (see purpose section), the commission should evaluate the options <br />with consideration as to whether they discourage use of the simplified process. <br />Under the first option, the city may reuse the traditional process only in four circumstances. First, <br />to accommodate a particular industry use that requires specific site characteristics, or to <br />accommodate a public facility that requires specific site characteristics and the site <br />characteristics may be found in only a small number of locations, as provided in OAR 660-024- <br />0065(3). The ability to provide for a particular use is not available in the simplified process, so if <br />a city wants to consider UGB amendment for these circumstances their only recourse may be <br />reverting to the traditional method. <br />Second, the city may use to the traditional process after using the simplified method if they wish <br />to designate Regional Large Lot Industrial Land pursuant to rules about that process in OAR <br />660-024-0045. The proposed simplified process would not allow use of the regional large lot <br />process, primarily because it concerns a time horizon that is at least 20 years but also because <br />other elements of that process do not comport with certain requirements in law under the <br />simplified method. As such, a city that has already used the simplified process, but at some point <br />wishes to add a regional industrial site could only do so using the traditional process. <br />Third, this option allows a city to revert to the traditional process so as to consider a "quasi- <br />judicial" plan amendment; i.e., a proposal for adding certain land to a UGB even though doing so <br />would not satisfy the entire 20-year land need deficiency. The simplified process does not allow <br />this, so only by allowing reversion to the traditional process would cities have this opportunity. <br />Many UGB amendments in the past 10 years have been under this provision. <br />Fourth and finally, the proposed Option 1 would allow a city to add land under the traditional <br />process (after using the simplified process) if "one or more of the circumstances in section (4) <br />have occurred"; i.e., the population of the city has grown by at least 50 percent of the amount of <br />growth forecast to occur in conjunction with the previous use of the method by the city or at least <br />one-half of the lands identified as buildable lands for employment needs or for residential needs <br />