Agenda Item 4 - UGB Rulemaking <br />December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Meeting <br />Page 42 of 56 <br />resources from the study area based on recommendations from DLCD coastal staff. Since these <br />areas are typically inventoried and protected under county plans, the department is confident that <br />the recommended rules properly describe these areas, and there is apparently no controversy <br />about these proposals. <br />Subsection (d): The statute allows exclusion of land that is owned by the federal government and <br />managed primarily for rural uses. While this seems a fairly simple requirement, it has been noted <br />that "rural uses" in this context is undefined in the law. However, providing such a definition is <br />problematic and is likely not necessary. <br />Section (3) requires that the study area include an amount of land that is at least 200 percent of <br />the combined need deficiency for residential, employment and other land. The minimum is to be <br />calculated after excluding areas described in section (3) of this rule. This is intended to make <br />sure that there are adequate alternative sites for a city to choose from as a city decides where to <br />expand. The 200 percent (or twice the amount of land needed) is an arbitrary factor chosen by <br />the department. In examining distances that are half a mile or a mile from current UGBs, the <br />department has determined that in almost all cases the study area would include a very large <br />supply of land, probably 10 times or more the amount of need in a typical case. As such, this <br />standard would not be a burden for cities, and may have an effect in only a very limited number <br />of cases, probably involving cities that identify a limited type of specific land need under <br />division 24 rather than in the simplified process. <br />Section (4) provides that the final "study area" is the preliminary study area after exclusions <br />described in other sections of this rule. <br />Section (5): implements ORS 197A.320(3), which specifically directs the commission to define <br />impracticability by rule, considering: <br />• The likely amount of development that could occur; <br />• The likely cost of facilities and services; <br />• Physical, topographical, or other constraints; <br />• Whether urban development has occurred on similarly situated lands (such that it is likely <br />that the lands will be developed during the planning period). <br />"Impracticability" is intended to remove lands from the preliminary study area that cannot <br />reasonably be served and therefore do not warrant further study or consideration through the <br />priority evaluation process. Cities are thus able to avoid a potentially costly study and evaluation <br />process where readily available information and data show that the land is obviously unsuitable <br />for urban services. For additional background on the impracticability provisions of the statute <br />and issues raised by commenters, see the discussion of this rule section found on page 31 of the <br />September staff report (note, at the time of that report, this was section (4)). <br />The department's initial approach in developing rule language for determining impracticability <br />was to create identifying criteria that could be relatively simply expressed and readily applied, <br />preferably via a numerical or other measureable standard, using available data. This concept was <br />questioned by some UGBRAC members and a number of commenters who expressed concerns <br />