Agenda Item 4 - UGB Rulemaking <br />December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Meeting <br />Page 52 of 56 <br />Comments from the cities of Bend, Eugene, and Springfield express concern about the <br />application the ORS 197A.320 and the new rules to their particular efforts already underway to <br />evaluate or amend their UGB. The department is sympathetic to the cities' concerns, and is <br />therefore recommending that cities "in progress" be authorized to continue under the existing <br />rules for location analysis. The RAC concurs with this recommendation. <br />The proposed amendments to division 24, and proposed new rules, are as follows (See <br />Attachment B). Rules that exist in this division that are not proposed for amendment are not <br />described here. <br />660-024-0000 Purpose and Applicability The department proposes to add a note to this opening <br />rule in division 24 to alert readers that rules in this division do not apply to the simplified process <br />under proposed division 38. The department also proposes to add a section indicating that the <br />amendments proposed in this draft would be effective January 1, 2016, with the exception of <br />cities who have already initiated a UGB evaluation. Such cities would have the authority to elect <br />whether to use the new rules in OAR 660-024-0065 and OAR 660-024-0067, or to utilize the <br />current administrative rules in division 24 that govern the locational analysis for UGB <br />expansions. This amendment addresses "in progress" city concerns, and is a consensus <br />recommendation of the RAC, supported by the department. <br />660-024-0040 Land Need: No amendments to these rules are proposed, they are included only <br />for context, and since they are referred to in later rules that are proposed for amendment. <br />660-024-0050 Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency Only one amendment to this rule is <br />proposed, citing to the new rules proposed at the end of the division to implement the new study <br />area and priority statutes in ORS 197A.320. <br />660-024-0060 Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis: This rule is the current priorities rules. <br />It is unchanged, except that it is amended (and renamed) so that its scope is narrowed to Metro <br />only. <br />660-024-0065 Establishment of Study Area to Evaluate Land for Inclusion in the UGB: This is a <br />new rule proposed to mirror the rule proposed in OAR 660-038-0160 regarding study area <br />establishment. While the department has attempted to start with the identical requirements as <br />proposed for division 38, some changes are necessary, particularly regarding citations, but also in <br />order to retain existing division 24 rules that should be applicable only to the traditional process <br />but not to division 38, described below. Otherwise, there should ultimately be no substantive <br />differences in this rule and the one in division 38. <br />One particular difference should be noted: the department believes that the division 24 rule is <br />intended to implement ORS 197A.320(6), which allows that, "when the primary purpose for <br />expansion of the urban growth boundary is to accommodate a particular industry use that <br />requires specific site characteristics, or to accommodate a public facility that requires specific <br />site characteristics and the site characteristics may be found in only a small number of locations, <br />the city may limit the study area to land that has, or could be improved to provide, the required <br />