GroundWater Issues

The 2008 Legislature passed Senate Bill 1069, relating to water conservation, reuse and storage and providing funding for the Umatilla Basin to investigate a regional aquifer recovery assessment. In 2009 (and likely in 2011), the Legislature needs to assure that these activities continue, and that Oregon’s pursuit of water supply and storage is appropriately funded.

The State of Oregon, through the Water Resources Department, has identified approximately 15 Groundwater Limited Areas and seven Groundwater Critical Areas. These designations identify locations with declining groundwater levels - a groundwater quantity concern. Through the Department of Environmental Quality, concerns with groundwater quality have been identified in three locations around the State of Oregon. Considerations of groundwater quantity and/or quality will affect many major population centers of Oregon. In some areas, these concerns overlap.

Recommendation:

  • LPAC is authorized to support the continuation of the efforts initiated in Senate Bill 1069 (2008) and other projects that will address the need to assure a continuous supply of clean water for all of Oregon.
  • Because water quality and quantity are becoming increasingly important issues in Oregon, funding needs to be available to both conduct studies and build projects throughout the state to address these issues. LPAC is authorized to support water initiatives and funding.

Alternative Recommendation:

  • LPAC will watch for legislation related to groundwater quality and quantity and will report to the Board.
  • LPAC is authorized to support funding for additional studies and partnering of such studies with the USGS.
  • The Board and LPAC may support legislation that is supported by good science. LPAC will work with organizations to determine what constitutes good science in this area.

Affordable Housing

Rising housing prices in the recent past, followed by increasing unemployment rates, have made the issue of affordable housing a more pressing issue. Current trends have pushed affordable housing out of the major cities into satellite communities, making the issue not just of housing, but of transportation and climate change.

DLCD is proposing a re-examination of Goal 10 and related rules to determine their efficacy, and determine changes that may be needed to address the issue of affordable housing. DLCD has also proposed the following actions:

  • Maintaining a "placeholder". LCDC has appointed an affordable housing rulemaking advisory work group to determine which statues, if any, require amendment to allow the rule making currently underway to achieve the intent.
  • Adopting rules in the fall of 2008 to authorize a limited number of communities to designate sites “Dedicated to affordable housing,” including manufactured dwelling parks and mobile home parks, as a “pilot project.” The workgroup may explore streamlining of UGB requirements regarding urban growth boundary amendments to help the pilot communities achieve this purpose. This may necessitate statutory amendments.
  • Potentially proposing statutory changes if the rules require that such sites be maintained for affordable housing for the long term.
  • Potentially providing for an exchange between a site added to the UGB for an area already within the UGB, in order to provide the affordable housing site in an area that already provides necessary transportation and other services for residents.

Recommendation:

  • LPAC is authorized to support efforts at allowing pilot projects in accordance with DLCD’s concept.
  • LPAC is authorized to draft legislation or support other's legislation to remove the ban on inclusionary zoning, as set forth in ORS 197.309. In the alternative, the Board supports pilot programs for removing the ban.

DESTINATION RESORTS

In December of 2006 and again in October of 2008, the OAPA Board voted unanimously to support the economic benefits of tourist-focused destination resorts in appropriate rural locations with appropriate safeguards, while opposing what amounts to exurban communities within commuting distance of rapidly-growing cities. The 2007 legislature considered several site-specific bills regarding destination resorts, and modified the ratio for units for sale to overnight lodging. The Board had concerns over the impacts of destination resorts on the case-by-case approach attempted by in the 2007 legislative session, and expressed the need for a thorough review of present rules and statutes followed by adoption of statewide standards.

Recommendations:

LPAC is authorized to support legislation consistent with the October 13, 2008 letter to LCDC regarding destination resorts, including:

  • Supporting the DLCD legislative concept (attached);
  • Addressing issues in the DLCD legislative concept, including land use, public facilities and environmental impacts, through rule-making that requires state agencies to coordinate with counties to address and mitigate for identified impacts in the siting of destination resorts;
  • Adopting both statutory and rule amendments to address the siting of, and impacts from, destination resorts in rapidly growing urban areas;
  • Identifying areas of special statewide environment concern and protecting such areas from most types of rural development, including destination resorts;
  • Providing workforce housing in destination resorts; and
  • Adoption of administrative rules limiting the type and number of destination resorts near defined urban clusters with combined populations of 100,000 or more.

POPULATION COORDINATION

Counties are required to adopt coordinated population projections for each city within their jurisdiction as part of their Rural Comprehensive Plan. If a county has not adopted a coordinated population, cities have only two options – they may either pay for their own population projection and submit a plan amendment request to the county, or they may use the new “Safe Harbor” method adopted under ORS 195.034(2). The county may then adopt or deny the city’s population projection. Neither statute nor administrative rule provides a method for conflict resolution between cities and counties over population coordination outside of the normal appeal process.

If a city cannot get the county to agree to use its population projection, or chooses to use the Safe Harbor, it must use the “county share” method to determine its population forecast. The “County Share” method is an extrapolation of existing population trends. The county share method does not account for either documented long-term demographic trends or recent events that have a reasonable likelihood of changing historical trends as specified in section (2) of 660-024-0030.

The effect of this OAR 660-024-0030(2) Safe Harbor is to encourage the concentration of growth in large cities, which have documented long-term growth and greater county share of population. Also, in rural areas, the Safe Harbor does not reduce the overall number of people projected to come to the unincorporated portion each County. By limiting the growth capacity of cites, the projected population growth may have to be accommodated in rural areas. This result fails to acknowledge recent rapid growth in smaller edge cities and the desire of many small cities to grow at rates faster than their historic rate. The effect of using safe harbor in all cities could be the under-planning of infrastructure in the small cities that will experience the growth in any event. Forcing cities to use the safe harbor numbers actually exacerbates the problem of loss of resource land and sprawl.

Oregon APA recognizes the need for coordinated and accurate population projections. However, the default means of achieving projections in the absence of city-county agreement leaves an inadequate means of dealing with increased population and its allocation among cities and unincorporated areas. OAPA believes the Safe Harbor process for population allocation does not meet the needs of the state. Moreover, OAPA opposes the unilateral adoption of population figures by cities and counties.

Recommendations:

  • Action should take place in two phases: conflict resolution for the short term and (decennial) problem solving for the long term.
  • Support legislation to correct the population coordination Safe Harbor to enable cities to plan for infrastructure development. That legislation would establish a conflict resolution process with LCDC acting as mediator or, if necessary, arbitrator between cities and counties.
  • Provide state funding for population coordination.
  • Require a coordination projection between counties and cities within 2 years of release of decennial census numbers, with the prospect of LCDC arbitration if the counties and the cities within them cannot agree. Metro would continue to be the population coordinator for the Portland Metropolitan Area.

tHE BIG LOOK

The Big Look Task Force (BLTF) is currently undertaking its public outreach and is expected to provide recommendations to the legislature in 2009. Currently, the Re-engage Oregon Committee (ROC) of OAPA is working with the Board in presenting testimony to the BLTF.

Recommendation:

  • LPAC will work with ROC in tracking, making recommendations and testifying on legislation related to the Big Look.

PERIODIC REVIEW

Because small jurisdictions are exempt from periodic review, many have not updated their comprehensive plans or related ordinances since the first acknowledgement by LCDC. Population projections are often outdated, as are buildable land inventories. While it is in the best interest for all jurisdictions to update plans and codes, many jurisdictions cannot do these updates without adequate funding from the state.

Recommendation:

With the Big Look coming out with proposals, it is doubtful that any action will be taken on periodic review. However, LPAC will keep this issue on its watch list, and will work to support grants and funding to local jurisdictions to digitize their plans and regulations.

COORDINATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

LPAC will continue its efforts to coordinate and collaborate with other organizations on issues impacting planning, including the League of Oregon Cities and the Association of Oregon Counties Planning Directors.

PLACEHOLDERS (To be updated by the December Board Meeting)

  • MARINE RESERVES AND WAVE ENERGY
  • GOAL 14 RULE

2009 Legislative AgendaPage 1