Agenda Item 4 - UGB Rulemaking <br />December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Meeting <br />Page 46 of 56 <br />is based on the "predominance" of soils types. In addition, the Oregon Department of Agriculture <br />has suggested that such a definition is necessary to prevent cities from "gerrymandering" the <br />study area in a manner that inappropriately reduces high-value farm land. Two options are shown <br />in the draft 3. The first allows a local government to make this determination in 200-acre areas, <br />or larger areas of similar soil types. The second definition is a property by property analysis. The <br />department recommendations Option 1, as that scale of analysis is more appropriate for a UGB <br />expansion and because it provides objective guidance to cities. Generally speaking, UGBRAC <br />members concur, but several (including the Oregon Department of Agriculture and 1000 Friends <br />of Oregon) request that the ability to study areas of 200 acres be eliminated, which would <br />effectively only leave the option of "similarly soils." <br />The Oregon Department of Agriculture has additional comments concerning the definition of <br />predominant in (4)(d), which the department is working to resolve. <br />Sections (5) is intended to be the "criteria established by the commission" referred to in <br />ORS 197A.320. Such criteria would define the method by which cities determine whether land in <br />a particular priority is appropriate for selection to accommodate a need deficiency. The statute <br />uses the terminology of "appropriate for selection" and also requires selection of land "to satisfy <br />the need for land." The proposed rule would clarify that we mean the need for land to <br />accommodate a deficit of either employment land or housing land determined under the housing <br />or employment path. <br />We note that in the "traditional" method, in division 24, this requirement was worded so as to <br />require a city to determine "suitable land" to meet a need deficit. This is further complicated by <br />the fact that there is a definition of "suitable" in division 9 that is not as broad as proposed here. <br />This term has also caused considerable debate in local UGB proceedings, in part because the <br />term was not defined in division 24. The redrafting of the priority requirement in ORS 197A did <br />not resolve this controversy although that may have been the intent; rather, ORS 197A simply <br />uses slightly different terminology and requires LCDC to provide a definition. In the end, this <br />discussion is about whether or not cities will have direction as to how they determine whether <br />land in the study area can reasonably accommodates a need. <br />This section provides that a city must assume that vacant or partially vacant land in a particular <br />priority category is "suitable" to satisfy a need deficiency unless it demonstrates that the land <br />cannot satisfy the need based on one or more of the conditions described in subsections (a) <br />through (e) of this section. This is intended as a closed list to describe conditions under which <br />land might be unsuitable. The department notes that the ability to determine suitability is difficult <br />to pin down to four precise categories, so commenters may suggest more than are listed here. <br />The City of Eugene has suggested that land in an adjacent public use airport should be on this list <br />(i.e., may be considered unsuitable with no additional reasons provided). The department does <br />not agree. We note that in Eugene's case the adjacent airport includes land in an exception area <br />that has potential development capability. This priority one exception land should not be <br />declared unsuitable simply because it is in public ownership, when in fact it is zoned to allow <br />further commercial and industrial development. In general, land should not be determined to be <br />