|
which are mater systems under OAR 660-024-0060(8). [May 6,2009.1) p. 40, 42-43, 60-
<br />61, 71-73, 75-791
<br />Newland Communities The findings support inclusion of the objector's 149
<br />agrictlltmrally designated acres in the northeast area that are surrounded by exception
<br />lands oil the northeast, tiorth, west, and south. InclmSiOll of this land should be augmented
<br />with a better "legal and factual argtunent"' based on the record, which the objector
<br />provides. The city properly followed the location analysis in Goal 14, OAR 660-024-
<br />0060, and ORS 197.298. [May 7, 2009, pp. 3, 9-10, 22]
<br />Harold W. Sampson - The city should include the exception lands east of N. Highway 97
<br />bordered by the Burlington Northern Railroad and Juniper Ridge and should eliminate the
<br />auto mall and industrial area west of N. Highway 97. [May 1, 2009, p. 1 ]
<br />Brooks Resources Corporation Land selected for employment uses is not suitable for
<br />that use. [April 29, 2009, pp. 5-8]
<br />d. Ali a A'S
<br />The city and county locational analysis of where to expand its UGB does not comply
<br />with ORS 197.298, Goal 14 or the pertinent provisions of OAR 660, division 24 as
<br />summarized above. Tile analysis does reflect a substantial effort to examine what lands
<br />are best suited for addition to the UGB, but the methodology and approach used
<br />improperly excluded a substantial amoulit of land planned and zoned as exception lands
<br />(including a significant allloLllnt Of land ill existing stlbtlrban Subdivisions, mane' of which
<br />rely on septic systems) from consideration for inclusion in the UGB. This resulted from
<br />the city's use of suitability criteria, some of which did not correspond to the future
<br />housing and employment needs idcntified by the city, and some of which simply do not
<br />comply with state law.G
<br />Generally, the analysis OfsLiitabi[ity is not transparent and lacks clear explanations
<br />linking its analysis to the data in the record. In addition, once they began considering
<br />farm land for the UGB expansion, the city and comity were required to analyze farm
<br />lands with the poorest soils first, which they failed to do. The record does not
<br />demonstrate that all resource lands within the study area are grouped by soil capability,
<br />and then considered and added according to capability (lower capability lands before
<br />higher capability lands), in accordance with Goal 14, ORS 197.298, and OAR 660-024-
<br />0060.
<br />('t On or about April 10, 2008, the city plamiing commission was presented with a proposed "strategy" for
<br />the city's boundary alternatives alialysis. [R. a( 7772-75] The memorandum quoted relevant portions of
<br />Goal 14, OAR 660-024-0060, and ORS 197.298, but its explanation of how those laws must be applied was
<br />incorrect. In letters dated N,lay 27, 2008, October 24, 2008, and November 21, 2008, the department
<br />advised the city of the deficiencies in its UGB location analysis, and offered detailed direction on how to
<br />complete the analysis correctly under state law. [R. at 3758, 4356, 4722, and 7268] The incorrect "strategy"
<br />proposed in the menioranduni appears to be the methodology that (lie city Lised to arrive at Alternative 4A,
<br />which the city council adopted oti January 5, 2009.
<br />Bend UGB Order 001775 115 of 156 January 8, 2010
<br />
|