Agenda Item 4 - UGB Rulemaking <br />December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Meeting <br />Page 38 of 56 <br />UO was unable to determine the statewide redevelopment amount in their research; they found <br />that this data is not generally recorded by cities and as such there is no way to research it. The <br />department's proposal for these amounts is a judgement call that has not been agreed to by the <br />RAC. As such, it is shown in the 3rd public draft as an Option, both for commercial and <br />industrial. However, the remaining sections of the rule are provided as if this option is accepted <br />by the commission. If it is instead decided to omit this option, some renumbering of subsequent <br />sections will be required. <br />Finally, in section (5), the rule proposes a "push factor" (which is a term the RAC has used) to <br />indicate an anticipated long term increase in density for employment land overall. The values in <br />this proposed section were a result of a consensus during discussion with the RAC. As applied, <br />they ensure that the simplified method increases efficiency long term, as required by ORS 197A. <br />The department believes the intent of this push factor would or could also account for <br />redevelopment, and in a more simple manner than in the option described above. <br />0150: Determine if UGB Expansion is Necessary to Accommodate Employment Needs <br />(Page 21) <br />Sections (1) through (4) provide a method to determine whether the existing inventory of <br />employment land is sufficient to meet the projected 14-year needs. If the current inventory is <br />sufficient, no UGB expansion is necessary. If there is a surplus of one category (commercial or <br />industrial), but a deficit of the other category, the city must consider redesignating the surplus for <br />the deficit in the other category. Section (3) provides requirements for redesignating land from <br />one employment category to another to meet the employment land need within the UGB when <br />there is a surplus of one or the other. Goal 14 requires that land within a UGB must be <br />considered for redesignation before the UGB is expanded, and as such, this requirement fulfills <br />that general overall UGB requirement. <br />It should be noted that this redesignation raises concerns with local governments and other <br />interests, for several reasons. First, land provided for one category may not be suitable for the <br />other. Redesignation may constitute a downzoning. Also, the supply of industrial sites has been a <br />frequent subject of discussion by the commission and the legislature, so redesignating such sites <br />for commercial use raises several concerns. The proposed rules try and address these concerns by <br />indicating certain categories of industrial use that should not be redesignated. <br />Location rules: Overview of UGB "study area" and "priority of land" rules. <br />The rules at 0160 and 0170 are intended to implement ORS 197A.320, which provides a <br />somewhat different set of standards for determining the location of a UGB amendment than has <br />been used historically. That statute replaces ORS 197.298 (except for Metro). <br />ORS 197A.320 provides that LCDC must adopt new criteria for determining a study area for <br />possible UGB expansion. As provided in the next rule at 0170 (paired with this one), land from <br />the study area must be selected based on "priorities" when a UGB is expanded. The new law at <br />ORS 197A.320 provides that LCDC's new priorities rules will apply to all cities outside of <br />Metro that amend their UGB, whether using the simplified or traditional process. The fact that <br />