December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />1 determine that those factors either require that the development capacity be forecast at a <br />2 lower level over the planning period than for unconstrained land, or that no development <br />3 capacity should be forecast with respect to the need; <br />4 (c) The land is committed to a public or semi-public use that is not reasonably likely to be <br />5 discontinued during the planning period, for example, land within the boundaries of a public <br />6 use airport or within an area governed by compatibility requirements for public use airports <br />7 described in OAR 660-013-0080; <br />8 (d) The land is over 25% slope, or with respect to needed industrial uses only, the property is <br />9 over 5% slope, as measured in the manner described in OAR 660-024-0065(7)(a). <br />10 (6) Pursuant to section (1)(c), if the amount of suitable land in a particular priority category <br />11 under section (2) exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, the local <br />12 government must choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB by first applying the <br />13 Boundary Location Factors of Goal 14 and then applying applicable criteria in the acknowledged <br />14 comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged prior to initiation of the UGB <br />15 amendment. The local government may not apply local comprehensive plan criteria that <br />16 contradict the requirements of the Boundary Location Factors of Goal 14. The Goal 14 Boundary <br />17 Location Factors are not independent criteria; when the factors are applied to compare alternative <br />18 boundary locations and to determine the UGB location the local government must show that it <br />19 considered and balanced all the factors. <br />20 (7) The local government must apply the Goal 14 Location Factors in coordination with <br />21 service providers and state agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation <br />22 with respect to Factor 2 regarding impacts on the state transportation system, and the Oregon <br />23 Department of Fish and Wildlife with respect to Factor 3 regarding environmental <br />24 consequences. "Coordination" includes timely notice to agencies and service providers and <br />25 consideration of any recommended evaluation methodologies. <br />26 (8) In applying Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2 to evaluate alternative locations under <br />27 section (6), the local government must compare relative costs, advantages and disadvantages <br />28 of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public facilities and <br />29 services needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. For purposes of this section, the <br />30 term "public facilities and services" means water, sanitary sewer, storm water management, <br />31 and transportation facilities. The evaluation and comparison under Location Factor 2 must <br />32 consider: <br />33 (a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water and transportation facilities <br />34 that serve nearby areas already inside the UGB; <br />35 (b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the <br />36 UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to the UGB; and <br />Comment []RV3]: ODFW appreciates and <br />supports including some language to address the <br />concern of excluding and/or reducing buildable land <br />capacity. However, ODFW recommends this section <br />be further clarified specific to the coordination on <br />habitat resources and how a city would <br />evaluate/determine development capacity (with <br />respect to conflicting uses/compatibility). Some <br />additional coordination language, such as, "If the <br />land would qualify for an exclusion under OAR 660- <br />024-0065(4)(c) or factual information is submitted <br />demonstrating that a significant fish and wildlife <br />habitat resource is present in the study area, the <br />city must coordinate with appropriate wildlife <br />management agencies, such as the Oregon <br />Department of Fish and Wildlife, with regards to the <br />avoidance and minimization of protected species or <br />habitats". Language could also include coordination <br />with other appropriate natural resource agencies, <br />such as DSL, DEQ and ODA. <br />Comment []RV4]: ODFW appreciates the <br />revised language for coordinating on Goal 14. DLCD <br />may want to consider additional natural resource <br />agencies, such as DSL and DEQ, as well as providing <br />further clarification on how a city evaluates <br />"environmental consequences". It is not clear why <br />Boundary Location Factor 2 is clarified, yet the other <br />Factors are not given that specificity. <br />37 (c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways and other roadways, <br />38 interchanges, arterials and collectors, additional travel lanes, other major improvements <br />