|
December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem
<br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H
<br />1 (3) When a•1- purpose for expansion of the UGB is to accommodate a particular
<br />2 industrial use that requires specific site characteristics, or to accommodate a public facility that
<br />3 requires specific site characteristics and the site characteristics may be found in only a small
<br />4 number of locations, the preliminary study area may be limited to those locations within the
<br />5 distance described in section (1) or (2), whichever is appropriate, that have or could be improved
<br />6 to provide the required site characteristics vithin the planning period. This limitation shall be
<br />7 only for purposes of evaluating land for that particular industry use or public facility. Site
<br />8 characteristics may include but are not limited to size, topography and proximity. For purposes
<br />9 of this section:
<br />10 (a) The definition of "site characteristics" in OAR 660-009-0005(11) applies for purposes of
<br />11 identifying a particular industrial use.
<br />12 (b) A "public facility" may include a facility necessary for public sewer, water, storm water,
<br />13 transportation, parks, schools, or fire protection.
<br />14 (4) The local government may exclude land from the preliminary study area if it determines that
<br />15 ~ (a) Based on the standards in section (7) of this rule, it is impracticable to provide water,
<br />16 sanitary sewer, storm water management fire protection, or transportation facilities
<br />17 i9tilb ie f eil ti°s R to the land:
<br />18 (b) The land is subject to significant development hazards, due to a risk of:
<br />19
<br />20
<br />21
<br />22
<br />23
<br />24
<br />25
<br />(A) Landslides: substantial evidence demonstrates that the land is subject to risk of
<br />landslide that cannot be mitigated using commonly accepted construction techniques -,t4+@
<br />ct to.t;ao r a J;ao r + r~ 4;ar- n-lego (cr rPrn pialo„iso 3 2
<br />(DO ^ nor) P@e@ nb@r- 2014, 44@ +h4 th@ i4lepo^;t or- +4^"v tr,o a„t„
<br />rRd At ealp, of 1:40000 goof-,
<br />26 (B) Flooding, including inundation during storm surges: the land is within the Floodway
<br />27 or Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) identified on the applicable Flood Insurance Rate
<br />28 Map (FIRM);
<br />29 (C) Tsunamis: the land is within a tsunami inundation zone established pursuant to ORS
<br />30 455.446;
<br />31 (c) The land consists of a significant scenic, natural, cultural or recreational resource
<br />32 described in this subsection:
<br />33 (A) ,ands that are designated on an acknowledged comprehensive plan prior to
<br />34 initiation of the UGB amendment, or that are mapped on a published state or federal
<br />35 inventory at a scale sufficient to determine its location for purposes of this rule, as:
<br />Comment [14141]: This should be changed to
<br />ensure that cities don't have to do a separate PAPA
<br />for each of these uses. The commission should
<br />interpret the statute to mean the primary purpose
<br />of that PART of a UGB expansion is to site a
<br />particular industrial or public use.
<br />Comment [14142]: remove comma? it's not in
<br />the statute and may change the meaning. Eugene's
<br />suggestion
<br />Comment [14143]: Eugene wants this added.
<br />Comment [14144]: this needs to be defined to
<br />mean water, sewer, storm, fire, transportation, not
<br />left open ended like this. otherwise, we'll be having
<br />battles over what's "necessary"
<br />Comment [14145]: The SLIDO database does not
<br />map known landslide risks. It maps known historic
<br />slide areas, which may have happened in prehistoric
<br />times. The SLIDO website is clear that this mapping
<br />is appropriate for regional planning only, and is not
<br />a substitute for a site specific analysis - that's what's
<br />needed to determine whether there is a real risk
<br />today. The website states that SLIDO data should
<br />not be used to make legally binding decisions.
<br />Also, many risks can be mitigated with construction
<br />techniques - there's no need to exclude the lands.
<br />Again this is where a site specific analysis comes in.
<br />If this isn't changed, it will cause unnecessary loss of
<br />farmland.
<br />Comment [14146]: DLCD still hasn't
<br />acknowledged the fundamental problem with
<br />relying on county, state or federal habitat mapping
<br />to determine whether an area is so significant that
<br />cannot be urbanized.
<br />We should only list resources here if we can be sure
<br />than in every case, the resource is so valuable that it
<br />justifies jumping the priority scheme. When we
<br />exclude at this level, we are making a policy choice
<br />that no matter how good the farmland may be, it is
<br />not as important as this habitat resource. It that
<br />really Oregon policy?
<br />We cannot rely on county or state determinations of
<br />Goal 5 protections for rural land, to tell us whether
<br />or not a resources is significant enough to warrant
<br />sacrificing farmland. That's because a county would
<br />not have evaluated that question in an ESEE
<br />analysis, since rural land by definition is not going to
<br />be urbanized. Just because a county decided to
<br />protect big game range by limiting rural parcel sizes
<br />(for example), that doesn't constitute a decision
<br />that the resource is so significant that we have to
<br />avoid urbanizing it forever.
<br />Similarly, a state or federal mapping of habitat
<br />hasn't made that determination. Nobody has done
<br />an ESEE for these areas, to determine that in every
<br />case, prime farmland is less important than
<br />preserving the habitat. It's just an inventory of
<br />habitat.
<br />It seems the right approach here is to start with
<br />those areas that are already under regulatory
<br />limitations that prohibit destruction of habitat. For
<br />example, if there is an ESA nest site, that can't be
<br />disturbed no matter what. But federal critical
<br />habitat has no such restrictions.
<br />
|