My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC COMMENT - DAN TERRELL & BILL KLOOS ON BEHALF OF HBA (1-4-17)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
PUBLIC COMMENT - DAN TERRELL & BILL KLOOS ON BEHALF OF HBA (1-4-17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:48:08 PM
Creation date
2/7/2017 10:47:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
UGB ADOPTION PACKAGE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
1/4/2017
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
331
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />however, the uncertainty that is inherent in boundary reviews (and will continue to be after <br />OAR 660-038 is adopted) makes long-range public facilities planning difficult. This is a function <br />of the uncertainty about what lands might be included in the UGB in the future. <br />As a general observation, we think the rule is moving the right direction on the needs <br />component. The alternatives analysis looks a lot like it did before and will continue to require <br />considerable time and effort on the part of cities. Our conclusion is that it is very difficult to <br />streamline parts of the process and continue to be true to other requirements of the program- <br />particularly citizen involvement and priority of lands to be included in the UGB, This is the <br />issue that would most likely prevent the Division 38 rule from being the preferred pathway- <br />that is, it doesn't simplify the process enough. <br />Areas of Concern, with Suggestions for <br />Changes <br />This section describes the areas of OAR 660-038 that we have the largest concerns or questions <br />about. We organize the issues in this section roughly in order of priority, with highest priority <br />issues presented first. <br />Transferable Pathways (OAR 660-038-0020(5)) <br />Issue <br />DLCD staff have consistently stated that a city may choose to use the streamlined pathway or <br />the traditional pathway and that the choice of one or the other would not prevent them from <br />selecting a different pathway in the future, OAR 660-038-0020(2) suggests that using the <br />traditional pathway after using the streamlined pathway is only allowable in very narrow <br />circumstances: <br />(5) A city that adopts a UGB amendment using this division may subsequently add land to <br />the UGB using the "traditional" method described in OAR chapter 660, division 24, instead <br />of a method described in this division, only if the primary purpose for expansion of the UGB is to <br />accommodate a particular industry use that requires specific site characteristics or to accommodate a <br />public facility that requires specific site characteristics, as provided in ORS 13 197A.320(6). <br />[emphasis added] <br />Suggested changes <br />We recommend that OAR 660-038-0020(5) be deleted or otherwise amended to make it clear <br />that a city may choose to use the traditional pathway at any time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.