December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />DATE: November 2, 2015 <br />TO: Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) <br />CC: Carrie MacLaren, Bob Rindy and Gordon Howard <br />FROM: Beth Goodman and Bob Parker <br />SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON OAR 660-038 <br />The purpose of this memorandum is to submit comments on the September 10, 2015 draft of <br />OAR 660-038. We request our comments be placed in the official record of decision for the <br />proceedings related to adoption of OAR 660-038. Thank you for the opportunity to comment; <br />our intent is to provide useful input for the rulemaking process. <br />As a backdrop, ECONorthwest has worked with Oregon municipalities for decades on Urban <br />Growth Boundary (UGB) amendments. Through our involvement with McMinnville, <br />Woodburn and many other cities, we have developed a deep understanding of the current <br />program. As HB 2254 articulates, the current process is too uncertain, too complicated, and too <br />expensive, The millions of dollars many cities invest in UGB review could better be applied to <br />other services, including planning efforts that will better achieve the desired outcomes of the <br />Oregon land use program. <br />We organize our comments as follows: <br />Areas of Concern, with Suggestions for Changes. This section is the list of the items <br />that we are most concerned about, with our suggestions for changes to OAR 660-038. <br />Areas for Clarification. This section lists the items that we think need to be clarified in <br />the revised version of OAR 660-038. These are lower priority concerns or sections of the <br />rule that we think are ambiguous. <br />• Items to Keep. This section describes the portions of the rule that we think are <br />addressed particularly well or where we think the proposed solution is both relatively <br />simple and sufficiently addresses the issues. <br />As a general comment, we appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness of DLCD staff in drafting <br />the rule. We understand how difficult it is to interpret legislative direction and strike a balance <br />between simplicity and good planning. The draft rule is a good start and it is, in our view, <br />imperative that the rule achieve the stated objective of being the preferred pathway for UGB <br />amendments. <br />The HB 2254 legislation articulates the shorter, faster, cheaper objective for the new rule. While <br />the window has closed on opportunity to comment on the legislation, we are concerned that the <br />14-year planning period required by the rule will only serve to compound complications with <br />public facilities planning that cities face as a result of the UGB program. This is both an issue of <br />timing and uncertainty. Coordination of land use and public facility plans is a cornerstone of <br />the Oregon program. The legislation attempts to address this by requiring cities to demonstrate <br />that they can provide services to land prior to inclusion in a UGB. This is a laudable goal, <br />