December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Exhibit 1 <br />City of Community Development Department <br />fv P.O. Box 970 • 414 E First Street • Newberg, Oregon 97132 <br />New erg 503-537-1240 • Fax 503-537-1272 • www.newbergoregon.gov <br />November 23, 2015 <br />Land Conservation and Development Commission <br />Greg Macpherson, Chair <br />Department of Land Conservation and Development <br />Jim Rue, Director <br />635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 <br />Salem, OR 97301 <br />Re: 12/3/15 LCDC Agenda Item 4 - Rulemaking - Urban Growth Boundary Process <br />Dear Chair Macpherson and Members of the Commission: <br />The City of Newberg is extremely interested in the outcome of the UGB streamlining rulemaking process, <br />particularly as we have recently been involved in a time consuming, frustrating, expensive, and ultimately <br />unsuccessful attempt to expand our UGB through the traditional method. We commend the Commission, <br />Department staff, and all involved parties for taking on this difficult task of trying to create a workable UGB <br />process. We are hopeful that the new streamlined rules will provide a clear path for UGB expansions, and that <br />the rules are direct and clear enough to avoid litigation about semantics and interpretations. We have reviewed <br />the new draft rules (OAR 660-038), and while they are definitely on the right track, there are a number of issues of <br />concern we ask the Commission to review and revise and/or provide additional clarity. <br />Newberg has identified the following areas of concern with the draft rules: <br />• 660-038-0020(3) or (11): These two sections seem to say the same thing - are they different? One or both <br />of these should be updated to make it clear that an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) meeting the <br />requirements of Goal 9 and/or a Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) meeting the requirements of Goal 10 are <br />not required as the factual basis for findings if using the streamlined UGB process. We believe this is the <br />intent of the rule, but it needs to be much clearer to protect cities from litigation on this point. <br />660-038-0030(2) & -0100(1): There should be some ability to rely on previously adopted and <br />acknowledged population forecasts until such time as the regional PSU forecast is complete and available <br />for your specific region. Under this scenario, Newberg would not be able to begin a UGB amendment <br />proposal until after June 2017. <br />660-038-0130(2)(d) & (e): These subsections don't seem to specify the amount of reduced development <br />capacity for commercial and industrial land with significant slopes, just which lands qualify (the other <br />subsections say "a reduction to..."). How much of a reduction in development capacity would these lands <br />qualify for? <br />"Working Together For A Better Community-Serious About Service" <br />X:\FILES.UGB\EMPLOYMENT PATH WORKGROUP\LCDC LETTER 2015-1120.DOCX <br />