In determining alternative land for evaluation under ORS 197.298, "land adjacent to the UGB" is <br />not limited to those lots or parcels that abut the UGB, but also includes land in the vicinity of the <br />UGB that has a reasonable potential to satisfy the identified need deficiency. <br />The study area for the industrial land expansion, including all land in the vicinity of the UGB that has a <br />reasonable potential to satisfy the identified need deficiency, is addressed under Section Ill.a., below. <br />b. Categorize Candidate Land into the Four Priority Categories of <br />ORS 197.298(1) <br />ORS 197.298(1) sets out the initial requirement for analyzing land in the study area by requiring the City <br />to sort the study area land into four basic categories: <br />a. Land that is designated urban reserve land; <br />b. Land identified in Lane County's rural comprehensive plan or the Metro Plane as an exception <br />area or non-resource land, including resource land that is completely surrounded by exception <br />areas unless such resource land is high-value farmland; <br />c. Land designated as marginal land; and <br />d. Land designated in Lane County's rural comprehensive plan or the Metro Plan for agriculture or <br />forestry, or both. <br />This is addressed under Section Ill.b. of this study, below. ORS 197.298(1) and OAR 660-024-0060(1) <br />below set out a "priority" system among the four land categories described above. The order of priority <br />corresponds with the order in which the categories are listed above, highest (a) to lowest (d). This <br />priority system begins with the general rule that cities will expand onto land in the highest-priority land <br />category, expanding onto lower priority land only if the higher-priority land is "inadequate to <br />accommodate the amount of land needed." <br />C. Starting with Land in the Highest Priority Category, Apply State's <br />Factors for Dismissal of Candidate Land <br />Under Ill.c.f., below, the land in each priority category is analyzed. For every subarea, the analysis <br />applies the following factors, in order, as required by ORS 197.298, Statewide Planning Goals 14 and 9, <br />OAR 660-024, OAR 660-009 and the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals' decision in 1000 <br />Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239, 262 (2011) (often referred to as "the McMinnville decision") <br />is particularly noteworthy, as it provides the most specific direction regarding these steps and the <br />application of ORS 197.298, Goal 14 and OAR 660-024, which apply to all UGB expansions. <br />(1) Dismiss Candidate Land with "Development Constraints" Factors that Temporarily or <br />Permanently Limit or Prevent the Use of Land to Address the Identified Industrial Land <br />Deficit (244 Or App 239 (2011)) <br />2 For some areas, the land use designations of the Metro Plan are not parcel-specific as of the development of this <br />document. As a result, portions of tax lots may fall into one priority while the majority of the tax lot is in a different <br />priority. <br />Appendix B to Findings May 2017 Page 3 <br />