December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Exhibit 1 <br />660-038-0150(3)(a) & (b): These subsections discuss converting surplus industrial land to commercial and <br />vice versa "...provided the land is suitable to meet that need..." This phrase needs significant clarification, <br />and is likely to be litigated unless a clear definition of "suitable" for commercial land and "suitable" for <br />industrial land is added. <br />660-038-0160(5)(c): This subsection deals with lands a city may consider impracticable to serve. <br />Subsection (5)(c) states that land isolated from existing service networks would require the city to <br />evaluate the impracticality of service by evaluating the "likely amount of development", "likely cost of <br />facilities and services", and "substantial evidence collected by or presented to the city regarding how <br />similarly situated land has, or has not, developed over time." This terminology is vague and almost certain <br />to be litigated. <br />660-038-0170(5)(a): This subsection is letting cities determine that vacant or partially vacant land is not <br />"suitable" to satisfy a need deficiency based on several factors. Subsection (5)(a) lists one of the factors <br />as "existing parcelization, lot sizes or development patterns of the land make the land unsuitable for an <br />identified need, or require that the development capacity of the lands be forecast at a lower level over <br />the planning period than for unconstrained lands with consideration of section (6) of this rule." Our <br />previous testimony to the commission touched on the idea of including a base suitability requirement for <br />employment land in the rule. This draft comes close by including the idea of parcelization, but the <br />language remains too vague and unsupported, and is likely to be litigated. We recommend the <br />commission clarify this language by adding actual standards such as the following: <br />660-038-0170(5)(a) Existing parcelization of land into parcels that are 2 acres or less in size, or <br />existing development patterns of the land with respect to the siting of structures and <br />infrastructure that would make future infill development unfeasible. make the land unsuitable to <br />satisfy an employment land deficiency (either commercial or industrial). <br />• 660-038-0210: This section depends on using public facilities plans to determine serviceability, but cities <br />don't plan for land outside the UGB. This creates an inherent problem with the rule - how do you make <br />findings to this section when your plans are only to serve areas within the current UGB. We wouldn't <br />absolutely know where a future UGB amendment would be until the location and priority analysis is done. <br />Would this require cities to do a public facilities analysis (or an update of their public facility plans since <br />the rule references acknowledged plans?) for lands they want to bring in to the UGB as part of the UGB <br />analysis? That would be time and cost prohibitive. Additionally, the funding portion of this section seems <br />to assume city funding, but often infrastructure is paid for by development - how would that be <br />permitted or addressed? <br />Section (3) requires a city to determine infrastructure capacity "for that portion of the 14-year period for <br />which capacity has not been demonstrated in accordance with section (2)" [the 7-year portion] by <br />identifying the type and amount of needed capacity, identifying the necessary system improvements, and <br />identifying the funding mechanisms. Again, it is unclear how a city is supposed to undertake this task, <br />how much detail will be required in this analysis, and if there is any specific methodology to be followed. <br />This section is almost certain to be litigated if not further clarified on terminology and process. <br />"Working Together For A Better Community-Serious About Service" <br />X:\FILES.UGB\EMPLOYMENT PATH WORKGROUP\LCDC LETTER2015-1120.DOCX <br />