December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />(b) The land contains a small amount of resource land that is bless than 50 percent <br />pia high value farmland I,, r oa r,;r r~i., r,a4° „r 4pFir e or- ffRi e <br />6o4and the land is completely surrounded by land of higher nriority for inclusion into <br />the urban growth boundary. <br />5 1 ~(4) For <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 (5) With respect to subsection (1)(a) of this rule, a local government must assume that vacant or <br />22 partially vacant land in a particular priority category is "suitable" to satisfy a need deficiency <br />23 identified in OAR 660-024-0050(4) or OAR 660-024-0065(3) unless it demonstrates that the <br />24 1 land cannot satisfy the specified need, ^t: t4at its eapaeit., to f tli n°°a qillst lw °a_°a <br />25 based on one or more of the conditions described in subsections (a) through (e) of this section: <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />~(a) Areas that are similarly situated and that have similar soils may be grouped together and <br />studied as a single unit of land. Provided, however, that soils of lower agricultural or forest <br />)oses of subsections (2)(c) and (d <br />this <br />intent of the subsection (2) priorities. <br />I(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, where a local government initiated the evaluation <br />or amendment of its UGB prior to January 1, 2016, where the analysis involves more than <br />one parcel or area within a particular priority cateaorv for which circumstances are the sar <br />~(c) When determining predominant capability classification system or the predominant <br />up the greatest percentage of the area of the land. <br />(a) <br />(b) The land would qualify for exclusion from the preliminary study area under the factors in <br />OAR 660-024-0065(4) but the local government declined to exclude it pending more detailed <br />analysis under this (the priorities) rule. T1 ° ala4it4g- t4is lard, 4w loea °r* ff+ust <br />0 <br />Comment [MN23]: redundant - included in HVF <br />definition 11 <br />Comment [MN24]: switch subsections (3) and <br />(4)? <br />Comment [MN25]: no longer necessary, defined <br />within (3) <br />Comment [MN26]: Different concept that <br />allows reasonable study areas, similar to current <br />rule but with sideboards. Dent' use parcel concept, <br />explained below. <br />Comment [MN27]: Escape hatch for cities that <br />have already initiated. <br />Comment [MN28]: In this case, predominantly <br />cannot mean 50 percent. we could have 35% Class <br />1, 40% Class 2, 25% Class 6 - with no one class <br />making up a majority. <br />Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" <br />Comment [MN29]: I don't think the <br />lot/parcel/tract concept works. Cities would be left <br />with a patchwork quilt of different priorities they'd <br />have to string together. Other problems: <br />Tracts can be manipulated, and can be much too <br />large to paint an accurate picture of the <br />resource. True also for parcels to a lesser extent. <br />Also - cities don't have a great way to know the legal <br />lot/parcel status of property unless the land has <br />been platted <br />And- sometimes only part of a tract or parcel will be <br />in the study area. 11 <br />Comment [MN30]: I'm not even sure what (b) <br />means, since it allows this to be calculated two <br />different ways. It can't say both lot/parcel and <br />tract... it has to be one or the other. <br />Comment [MN31]: this condition does NOT <br />render the land "unsuitable" it only reduces <br />capacity. For residential, HB 2254 clearly intended <br />that lands with reduced capacity be brought into <br />the UGB - this provision would subvert that since it <br />would allow the city to leave it out of the UGB. <br />Comment [MN32]: this is unaccpetable, it's <br />completely open ended and vague, a blank check - it <br />need s to spell out exactly what this means. and <br />most of it's unnecessary and /or contradiicts other <br />parts of this rule. <br />For residential, the parcelization issue has already <br />been resolved via OAR 660-024-0065(8) - the land is <br />suitable, and must be included. <br />Comment [MN33]: The situation for residential <br />lands has already been resolved via OAR 660-024- <br />0065(8) - this land is suitable, and must be included. <br />Comment [MN34]: again -this is contemplating <br />that the land WILL be included in the UGB, but <br />forecast at a lower capacity. but this function of a <br />declaration that land is not "suitable" is that it ee <br />7 <br />