Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development"

Transcription

1 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Budget Presentation Richard Whitman, Director Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 0

2 Presentation Outline Pages Agency Performance Overview 2-48 Program Priorities Essential Budget Level Governor s Recommended Budget Agency Policy and Program Alternatives 63 Listing of Appendices 64 Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 1

3 Agency Performance Overview Mission Statement Support all of our partners in creating and implementing comprehensive plans that reflect and balance the statewide planning goals, the vision of citizens, and the interests of local, state, federal and tribal governments. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 2

4 Agency Performance Overview Land Conservation and Development Commission (SB 100) Seven volunteer members Appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate State Statutes Statewide Planning Goals Administrative Rules Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 3

5 Agency Performance Overview Five Divisions Community Services Division Planning Services Division Ocean and Coastal Services Division Operations Services Division Measure 49 Development Services Division Two Budget Units Planning and Administration (all program services) Grants to Local Governments (no staffing) Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 4

6 Agency Performance Overview Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 5

7 Agency Performance Overview Long Term Strategic Goals Short Term Strategic Initiatives Key Performance Measures Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 6

8 Agency Performance Overview Long-Term Strategic Goals 1. Promote Economic Development and Quality Communities 2. Secure Oregon s Legacy 3. Improve Collaboration 4. Deliver the Highest Level of Customer Service Possible 5. Streamlining Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 7

9 Agency Performance Overview Long-Term Strategic Goals 1. Promote Economic Development and Quality Communities: Support local planning to improve economic development and enhance livability and sustainability in communities statewide. - Top Priority for Technical Assistance - Top Priority for Grant Funding - Economic Opportunity Analysis - ERT Coordination Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 8

10 Agency Performance Overview Grant Awards (General Fund and Federal Funds) Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 9

11 Agency Performance Overview Long-Term Strategic Goals 2. Secure Oregon s Legacy: Protect farm, forest, coastal and other natural and economic resources. - Effectively preserving agricultural land base - Measurable effect in reducing the loss of forest land to developed uses since it was implemented - Effectively protecting and developing estuarine areas Source: Institute for Natural Resources August 2008 Report Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 10

12 Agency Performance Overview Long-Term Strategic Goals 3. Improve Collaboration: Foster a network of publicand private-sector partners to identify and promote shared interests. - Ongoing Meetings with ODOT, OECDD, and ERT - Planners Network Meetings - Realtors Conferences - Oregon Solutions Tillamook and Vernonia - Regional Problem Solving Bear Creek - HB 3337 (2007) Support for Eugene & Springfield Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 11

13 Agency Performance Overview Long-Term Strategic Goals 4. Deliver the Highest Level of Customer Service: Improve workforce excellence, assure consistency and clarity, and deliver the highest level of customer service possible. - Internal Decision-making: Policy Team, Urban Team and Rural Team - Work Group Charters: Climate Change, Information Technology and Geospatial Information Systems - Internal Resource Alignment - See also KPM Information Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 12

14 Agency Performance Overview Long-Term Strategic Goals 5. Streamlining: Strive to make the statewide planning program less process-oriented and more outcomeoriented. - Wind Energy Facilities Rule Changes - Urban Growth Boundary Safe Harbor Rule Changes - Measure 49 Administrative Rule Changes Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 13

15 Agency Performance Overview Short-Term Strategic Initiatives 1. Implementation of Ballot Measure 49 (2007) Year Review of the Statewide Land Use Planning Program (The Big Look Task Force) 3. Land Supply and Sustainable Economic Development 4. Government Streamlining Activities 5. Collaboration related to Urban Transportation 6. Development of Non-Regulatory Tools for Farm/Forest Protection Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 14

16 Agency Performance Overview Short-Term Strategic Initiatives 7. Coastal Resources Work, Including Wave Energy & Territorial Sea Plan Amendments 8. Hazards Planning and Climate Change Preparation 9. Improve Local Natural Resources Inventories 10. Training and Outreach to Local Partners 11. Enhance Capacity for Information Management and Delivery of DLCD Services Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 15

17 Agency Performance Overview Short-Term Strategic Initiatives 1. Implementation of Ballot Measure 49 (2007) - 1,558 initial ownership reviews completed - 1,200 initial completeness reviews done - 1,068 claims assigned to claims analysts draft Preliminary Evaluations forwarded to Department of Justice for review draft Preliminary Evaluations returned to the department for completion and issuance Preliminary Evaluations issued final decisions issued Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 16

18 Agency Performance Overview Short-Term Strategic Initiatives Year Review of the Statewide Land Use Planning Program (The Big Look Task Force) - Adopt four guiding principles as a framework for land use planning in Oregon - Provide a healthy environment - Sustain a prosperous economy - Ensure a desirable quality of life - Provide fairness and equity to all Oregonians - Foster regional land use planning (continued) Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 17

19 Agency Performance Overview Short-Term Strategic Initiatives (continued) - Allow counties to develop regional criteria for designating farm and forest lands, if they also protect important natural areas and assure that development is sustainable - Reduce complexity - Strategically plan for a sustainable Oregon Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 18

20 Agency Performance Overview Key Performance Measures Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 19

21 Agency Performance Overview Annual Performance Progress Report: Management Report See Appendix O. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 20

22 Overview of KPMs Program: Land Supply (KPM# 1, 2, 4, 8, 9) Public Facilities (KPM# 3, 5, 6) Conservation (KPM# 10, 11, 12) Agency: Periodic Review and Plan Amendments (KPM# 13, 14, 16, 18) Customer Service (KPM# 7, 15, 17, 19, 20) Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 21

23 Program: Land Supply Five KPMs addressing adequate supply of land for growth Related to land for jobs and housing Addresses constrained lands Measures local plan updates, not state actions Met four of five targets Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 22

24 Program: Land Supply KPM 1 EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY Percent of cities that have an adequate supply of land for industrial and other employment needs to implement their local economic development plan. Measure since: 2002 KPM 1 - EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 23

25 Program: Land Supply KPM 2 HOUSING LAND SUPPLY Percent of urban areas that have a sufficient supply of buildable residential land to meet housing needs. Measure since: 2002 KPM 2 - HOUSING LAND SUPPLY Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 24

26 Program: Land Supply KPM 4 CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL SITES Number of new industrial sites certified as project-ready added each fiscal year. Measure since: 2003 KPM 4 CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL SITES Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 25

27 Program: Land Supply KPM 8 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING Percent of estuarine areas designated as development management units in 2000 that retain that designation. Measure since: 2002 KPM 8 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 26

28 Program: Land Supply KPM 9 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORIES Percent of urban areas that have updated buildable land inventories to account for natural resource and hazard areas Measure since: 2002 KPM 9 NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 27

29 Program: Public Facilities Three KPMs addressing planning for urban public facilities and services Related to sewer and water, transitsupportive land use, and transportation funding Measures local actions, not state actions Met two of three targets, barely missed third Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 28

30 Program: Public Facilities KPM 3 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS Percent of cities that have updated the local plan to include reasonable cost estimates and funding plans for sewer and water systems. Measure since: 2002 KPM 3 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 29

31 Program: Public Facilities KPM 5 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE Percent of urban areas with a population greater than 25,000 that have adopted transit-supportive land use regulations. Measure since: 2002 KPM 5 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 30

32 Program: Public Facilities KPM 6 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Percent of urban areas that have updated the local plan to include reasonable cost estimates and funding plans for transportation facilities. Measure since: 2002 KPM 6 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 31

33 Program: Conservation Three KPMs addressing conservation of farm and forest resources Met or exceeded all three targets Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 32

34 Program: Conservation KPM 10 FARM LAND Percent of farm land outside urban growth boundaries zoned for exclusive farm use in 1987 that retains that zoning. Measure since: 2002 KPM 10 FARM LAND PRESERVATION Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 33

35 Program: Conservation KPM 11 FOREST LAND Percent of forest land outside urban growth boundaries zoned in 1987 for forest or mixed farm/forest use that remains zoned for those uses. Measure since: 2002 KPM 11 FOREST LAND PRESERVATION Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 34

36 Program: Conservation KPM 12 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EXPANSION Percent of land added to urban growth boundaries that is not farm or forest land. Measure since: 2002 KPM 12 UGB EXPANSION Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 35

37 Agency: Periodic Review and Plan Amendments Four KPMs addressing the effectiveness of professional services to local governments Local government and department coordination in periodic review Department responsiveness to local governments plan amendment proposals The technical merit of department appeals of local planning and development decisions Department ability to respond to local government submittals of periodic review tasks Met or exceeded all four targets Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 36

38 Agency: Periodic Review and Plan Amendments KPM 13 PERIODIC REVIEW REMANDS Percent of periodic review work tasks that are returned to local jurisdictions for further action. Measure since: 2003 KPM 13 PERIODIC REVIEW REMANDS Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 37

39 Agency: Periodic Review and Plan Amendments KPM 14 TIMELY COMMENTS Percent of DLCD concerns or recommendations regarding local plan amendments that are provided to local governments within the statutory deadlines for such comments. Measure since: 2003 KPM 14 TIMELY COMMENTS Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 38

40 Agency: Periodic Review and Plan Amendments KPM 16 LAND USE APPEALS Percentage of agency appeals of local land use decisions that were upheld by LUBA and the Courts. Measure since: 2003 KPM 16 LAND USE APPEALS Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 39

41 Agency: Periodic Review and Plan Amendments KPM 18 TASK REVIEW Percent of periodic review work tasks under review at DLCD for no longer than four months. Measure since: 2003 KPM 18 TASK REVIEW Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 40

42 Agency: Customer Service Five KPMs addressing the quality of services provided to customers Involvement in ERT process Overall customer service Timely processing of grants Timely processing of new Measure 49 claims LCDC best practices Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 41

43 Agency: Customer Service Customers: Oregon s Statewide Planning Program is a partnership between citizens, communities, and state and local decision-makers. Customers also include local governments, tribes, agency partners, special interests and others. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 42

44 Agency: Customer Service Services: Technical assistance Planning grants Data collection & reporting Archival library of planning documents Training and outreach for local governments LCDC regional tours and discussion Planners Network meetings State agency coordination Land use proposal review Periodic Review coordination Financial reporting and accountability Vested rights determinations Government to Government relations Economic development planning Natural resource protection Transportation and land use coordination Housing needs analyses Natural hazards inventories Cultural, historic and natural resource inventories Citizen involvement Recreational needs analysis Agricultural protection Forest protection Strategic planning Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 43

45 Agency: Customer Service KPM No. 7: ERT Focuses on customers at the local and state government level Overall quality of service for DLCD was 70.3 percent The department's results place second behind the top scoring ERT agency Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 44

46 Agency: Customer Service KPM 15 GRANT AWARDS Percent of local grants awarded to local governments within two months after receiving application. Measure since: % 80% 60% 40% 20% GRANT AWARDS Actual Target 0% Actual 14% 36% 77% 75% 76% Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 45

47 Agency: Customer Service KPM No. 17: Customer Service Focuses on the quality, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness and availability of services 70 percent of respondents rated satisfaction with overall service at DLCD as "good" or "excellent" Knowledge and expertise was rated most highly in 2008 at 82.1 percent Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 46

48 Agency: Customer Service KPM No. 19: Measure 49 Originally related to Measure 37 and revised after the passage of Measure 49 in 2007 Focuses on timely processing of new claims only All new claims have been processed by the department within the required 180 days Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 47

49 Agency: Customer Service KPM No. 20: Best Practices The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) meets 100 percent of its Best Practices Criteria through: Regular meetings of its LCDC Budget and Management Subcommittee Active participation in development of the Strategic Plan and review of the Biennial Report Regular meetings with the Director during commission and legislative meetings Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 48

50 Program Priorities See Appendix D for details. Summary Cross References (SCRs) Planning and Administration (all program services) Grants (General Fund grants, no staffing) Detailed Cross References (DCRs) Administration (Operations Services and Director s Office) Community Services Division Planning Services Division Ocean and Coastal Services Division Measure 49 Development Services Division Budget structures fully integrated no single core program that can be easily disconnected. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 49

51 Program Priorities Primary Purpose: Economic Development Others: Environmental Protection, Public Health, and Community Development Other Criteria for Prioritization: Activities providing direct service to local government partners are core to the planning program. The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program is federally mandated; federal funded grants must be provided to local jurisdictions as a condition of state receipt of federal CZM grant. TGM and FEMA programs provide support for the regional representatives and are a part of federally funded programs. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 50

52 Essential Budget Level See Appendix F for details. General Fund Federal Funds Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for floodplain management work. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for coastal planning and management. Other Funds From federal transportation funds, via ODOT Minimal amounts from subscriptions to plan amendment notice and duplicating services. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 51

53 Essential Budget Level Legislatively Approved Budget 97 positions, FTE $27.96 million Total Funds Phase-outs: Measure 49 implementation, FEMA Map Modernization program Other adjustments: Vacancy factor, non-pics personal services actions, inflation and state government service charges, etc Essential Budget Level 60 positions, FTE $23.44 million Total Funds Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 52

54 Essential Budget Level Summary of Budget Crosswalk 001: Planning Program Includes funding for all program services All positions and related costs 003: Grants Program Funding assistance for local governments No positions or related costs Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 53

55 GRB Legislatively Approved Governor s Recommended General Fund $13,786,288 $20,794,123 $19,735,869 Other Funds $759,582 $798,687 $1,146,814 Federal Funds $5,370,272 $6,.363,069 $6,808,291 All Funds $19,916,142 $27,955,879 $27,690,974 Positions FTE Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 54

56 Governor s Recommended Budget Major Budget Issues Continuing to build economic and community development capacity Measure 49 implementation Dependence on General Funds Diminishing local government resources Balancing staff and grants for local needs Increasing demands for urban planning assistance Climate change adaptation and mitigation Increasing demand for grants Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 55

57 Governor s Recommended Budget Legislative Proposals (No Additional Funding in GRB) HB 2225: Affordable Housing Pilot Program HB 2226: Metolius River Basin Large-Scale Development HB 2227: Destination Resort Modifications HB 2228: Forest Land Conversion And Transferable Development Rights HB 2229: Recommendations Of The Oregon Task Force On Land Use Planning HB 2230: State Agency Coordination (SAC) Program Update Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 56

58 Governor s Recommended Budget Policy Package 104: Ocean Planning 1.00 FTE Other Funds: $326,969 This package provides Other Funds from the Department of State Lands to DLCD to prepare a comprehensive plan for wave energy and deliver it to LCDC for adoption as an amendment to the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan. The source of funding is from the New Carissa settlement. The Governor has charged DLCD with submitting the plan to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for approval. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 57

59 Governor s Recommended Budget Policy Package 105: Flood Hazard Map Mod 1.25 FTE Other Funds: $299,730 This package authorizes expenditure of secured Federal Funds to continue its map modernization project, supported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This package allows the department to continue its obligations under FEMA s Flood Hazard Map Modernization Initiative. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 58

60 Governor s Recommended Budget Policy Package 107: Measure FTE General Fund: $5,964,826 This package continues the limited-duration positions for processing Measure 49 claims. The package assumes resolution of claims by December 31, 2010 consistent with direction given during the 2008 Supplemental Legislative Session. Some adjustment will be necessary to reflect continued process improvements by the department. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 59

61 Governor s Recommended Budget Policy Package 108: Ocean and Coastal Reconciliation 0.47 FTE Federal Funds: $68,213 This package adds FTE to an existing part-time coastal planning position in order to meet workload needs, streamline permit approvals, and provide timely and accurate service to permit applicants, local governments, and state and federal agencies in the Oregon Coastal Management Program. Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 60

62 Governor s Recommended Budget General Fund Reduction Alternatives See Appendix I for House Bill 3182 Reductions Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 61

63 Governor s Recommended Budget General Fund Reduction Alternatives Measure 49 reductions GRB took a reduction of $2.4 million to Base Budget Some limited duration replacement may be necessary Landowner Notification funding Approximately $90,000 No base funding; fiscal Impacts for Measure 56 related bills Reduction to General Fund Grants Impact to periodic review program, local and regional planning projects Potential delays in economic recovery for Oregon communities Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 62

64 Policy and Program Alternatives See Appendix J for 20% Reduction List to LFO Additional Reduction to General Fund Grants $500,000 related to 2007 Budget Note for unincorporated urbanizing areas Deeper impact to periodic review program and other grant priorities, including economic development Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 63

65 Appendices A. Program Overview B. Biennial Reports (DLCD, Coastal, TGM, Big Look) C. Strategic Plan (2004) D. Prioritization List E Budget Crosswalk F. Essential Budget Level (EBL) G. State Government Service Charges H. Prior Budget Notes I. House Bill 3182 Reductions J. Detail of 20% Reduction to Essential Budget Level K. Local Jurisdiction Grants (General Fund) L. Coastal Grants (Federal Fund) M. Major Program Changes in the Past 10 Years N Annual Performance Progress Report O. Annual Performance Progress Report: Management Report P. Memo to Natural Resources Subcommittee Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2009) 64

66 Department of Land Conservation and Development Program Overview 1. Introduction...2 Mission...3 Vision...3 Oregon s Statewide Planning Goals Organization...7 Commission Members...7 Current Organization Organizational Chart Organizational Chart...10 How DLCD s Organization Relates to the Budget Services...12 Communities of Interest We Serve...12 Key Tools Performance Management...16 Long-Term Strategic Goals...16 Short-Term Strategic Initiatives...16 Performance Measures Budget Overview...19 Major Budget Issues...19 Governor s Recommended Budget Summary

67 INTRODUCTION Oregon s leaders were bold and visionary when they adopted the statewide land use planning program in Thousands of Oregonians across the state participated in shaping the planning goals that framed the vision of what we wanted to achieve with land use planning. And there was an excitement about what the program would bring to the state. Today, 36 years later, we are witnessing exciting times of a different nature as leaders of the statewide planning program. During the biennium the director and his staff have traveled to most parts of the state, meeting with local officials and concerned citizens. Likewise, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has continued to meet in a variety of communities, taking a firsthand look at some of the major land use issues in cities and counties in every region of the state. Through these efforts and the daily work of its regional representatives, the agency is keeping in close contact with the diverse needs, desires and experiences of people in all corners of Oregon to encourage experimentation while also making the land use program more than the sum of its parts. The biennium has also been a time to focus on completing the work required by a series of recent initiatives from the legislature and the voters, including: Oregon ballot measures 37 and 49, as well as the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning, and the Portland Metro Urban and Rural Reserves effort directed by SB At the same time, the department has begun to work on several major newlyemerging challenges including climate change and changes in land markets that threaten our working forests. Work on these major initiatives has been carried out even as the core work of the department has continued, with an emphasis on coordinating the land use system with the Governor s economic development agenda, and renewing periodic review of the comprehensive plans of larger communities. 2

68 As we head into more difficult economic conditions, we will be challenged to complete the work the legislature has set out for us while also continuing to meet the evolving needs of communities to plan for sustainable futures. With challenge comes opportunity, and the agency is committed to playing an active role in helping to build the foundation for longterm improvement in our economy, while preserving the quality of life that makes Oregon such a special place to live. DLCD s Mission Support all of our partners in creating and implementing comprehensive plans that reflect and balance the statewide planning goals, the vision of citizens, and the interests of local, state, federal and tribal governments. DLCD s Vision Our purpose is to guide land use policy to: Foster livable, sustainable development in urban and rural communities; Conserve coastal resources; Protect farm and forestlands and other natural resources; and Improve the well-being and prosperity of citizens, businesses and communities throughout Oregon. As we move through the fourth decade of statewide land use planning, DLCD is committed to: Making a positive contribution to the state s economic competitiveness; Working to always earn the public s trust; Aspiring toward innovative and sustainable urban development; Balancing resource protection and growth management; Respecting the interests of all our partners; and Maintaining national recognition as a leader in the arena of land conservation and development. 3

69 Oregon s Statewide Planning Goals DLCD manages the statewide planning program that has one basic purpose: to protect and advance Oregon s quality of life. For most people, that quality of life is a combination of bountiful natural resources, livable communities, affordable housing, a robust economy, clean air and water, and efficient, low-cost public services. Because Oregon s quality of life has all those components and more, the program to protect it is equally diverse. The program rests on a foundation of 19 statewide planning goals. The goals are broad statements of state policy for local governments to use in developing their comprehensive plans and land use ordinances. To develop the goals, LCDC and DLCD conducted a yearlong public outreach effort in 1974 *. More than 100 public hearings and workshops were held; more than 10,000 Oregonians participated. Oregon s 19 planning goals state the following: 1. Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 2. Land Use Planning To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. 3. Agricultural Lands To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. 4. Forest Lands To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forestland base and to protect the state's forest economy. 5. Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces * Goal 15 was adopted in Goals were adopted in

70 To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. 6. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. 7. Areas Subject to Natural Hazards To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. 8. Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities, including destination resorts. 9. Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon s citizens. 10. Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. 11. Public Facilities and Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. 12. Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. 13. Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. 14. Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. 15. Willamette River Greenway To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. 5

71 16. Estuarine Resources To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands, and to protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries. 17. Coastal Shorelands To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. 18. Beaches and Dunes To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and to reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced actions associated with these areas. 19. Ocean Resources To conserve the long-term values, benefits, and natural resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf. 6

72 ORGANIZATION The Land Conservation and Development Commission Like many of Oregon s state agencies, a citizen commission the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) directs DLCD. The Commission s seven members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. Most of LCDC s seven volunteer members are now or were formerly officials of cities or counties across Oregon. Photo Not Yet Available John VanLandingham, Chair Attorney, Eugene Greg Macpherson, Attorney, Lake Oswego Dennis Derby Real Estate Developer, Builder, Portland LCDC sets agency policy, develops regulations, and oversees the management and operations of the agency. Marilyn Worrix Real Estate Broker, McMinnville Christine M. Pellett Real Estate Appraiser, Rose Grower, Central Point Tim Josi County Commissioner, Tillamook Hanley Jenkins, County Planning Director, Union 7

73 DLCD s Organization Many agency staff are based in Salem, in the north wing of the Agriculture Building. DLCD has a Portland field office with six employees. DLCD also has field offices in Newport (3 employees), Bend (3), Springfield (1), La Grande (1) and Central Point (1). The Department of Land Conservation and Development has five divisions: Community Services Division Planning Services Division Ocean-Coastal Services Division Measure 49 Development Services Division Operations Services Division Each division has a manager who reports to the director and deputy director. Policy analysis, legislative liaison functions, rules coordination, LCDC support and communications are in the director s office. Director s Office Community Services Division Planning Services Division Ocean- Coastal Services Division Measure 49 Dev. Services Division Operations Services Division Current Organization DLCD s budget, as approved by the 2007 and 2008 Legislative Assemblies, authorizes FTE. The Governor s Recommended Budget for includes FTE. DLCD s structure is shown in the organization chart on the next page (page 9). The agency s structure, in accordance with the Governor s Recommended Budget for , is shown on page 10. 8

74 Agency Wide FTE Positions 97 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION Positions 15 FTE 15.0 * positions established 3/1/ DLCD ORGANIZATION CHART Theodore R Kulongoski, Governor Land Conservation & Development Commission BRD/COMM Member (7) 7 Positions.00 FTE DIRECTOR 8 Positions 7.67 FTE Total 2.67 FTE LD DEPUTY DIRECTOR 4 Positions 3.34 FTE Total 1.34 FTE LD OCEAN & COASTAL SERVICES DIVISION Positions 12 FTE PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Positions 16 FTE M 49 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Positions 31 FTE FTE Positions 12 OPERATIONS SERVICES DIVISION Positions 9 FTE

75 Agency Wide FTE Positions 90 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION Positions 15 FTE DLCD ORGANIZATION CHART Theodore R Kulongoski, Governor Land Conservation & Development Commission BRD/COMM Member 7 Positions 0.0 FTE DIRECTOR 6 Positions 6.0 FTE Total 5.0 FTE Perm POPs : 1.0 FTE Perm DEPUTY DIRECTOR 4 Positions 4.0 FTE Total 2.0 FTE Perm POPs : 2.0 FTE Perm OCEAN & COASTAL SERVICES DIVISION Positions 13 FTE PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Positions 15 FTE M 49 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Positions 28 FTE FTE 10.0 Positions 10 OPERATIONS SERVICES DIVISION Positions 9 FTE

76 How DLCD s Organization Relates to the Budget The Governor s Recommended Budget for DLCD has two budget units: Planning and Administration (all program services) Grants to Local Governments (funding assistance for local governments, no staffing) 11

77 SERVICES Communities of Interest We Serve Oregon s statewide planning program addresses a wide array of issues and interests. Each community in the state has unique needs. DLCD identifies its program functions based on services to these communities: Citizens Statewide planning Goal 1 empowers Oregon citizens to participate in all phases of local and state land use planning process. We provide information to help citizens participate through our website, publications and through direct assistance. DLCD also provides staff support to the Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (ORS ), which advises local governments and LCDC on how to improve citizen participation. Local Governments Oregon s cities and counties are our partners and implement the land use program through local land use plans, zoning ordinances, development ordinances and other regulations. We support them by providing direct technical assistance grants. DLCD also provides staff support to the Local Officials Advisory Committee (ORS ). The Oregon Legislature The legislature maintains oversight authority for the land use enterprise. We provide information, serve on legislative committees and help inform the legislature s decisions. Development Interests The department s economic development team and field service staff provide technical assistance to development interests that do business in Oregon s communities. Agriculture and Natural Resource-Based Economies Natural resource-based industries are pillars of Oregon s economy and way of life, particularly in rural areas. We provide technical assistance to the natural resource industries to help them address their land use issues. 12

78 Housing and Development Economies A key function of the land use enterprise is to ensure that communities have a range of housing types. State Agencies State agencies have responsibilities and authorities related to land use and development. Federal Agencies Federal agencies own or manage more than 53 percent of the state s land area. Some have significant regulatory programs that influence state and local land planning. Tribal Governments Oregon s tribal governments are increasingly assuming management responsibility for lands and resources and are carrying out a variety of community development activities on these lands. We work with the tribes through the Government-to-Government program (SB 770, 2001). Ports and Special Districts Oregon s 23 port districts are local governments that serve both public and private purposes. Ports own land to support a variety of economic enterprises. We work with ports to address their specific land needs. Integrating Transportation and Growth The Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program supports community efforts to expand transportation choices for people. By linking land use and transportation planning, the program works in partnership with cities and counties to create vibrant, livable places in which people can walk, bike, take transit or drive where they want to go. Managing Oregon s Coastal and Ocean Resources The Oregon Coastal Management Program receives federal Coastal Zone Management funding to provide a variety of services to meet the challenge of balancing growth and development with the responsibilities of protecting coastal resources enjoyed by all Oregonians. Natural Hazards Planning Planning for natural hazards requires up-to-date maps and information. DLCD has been working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) since 2005 to modernize all flood hazard maps statewide so that local 13

79 governments and property owners have the most accurate information via digital maps on the Internet. Federal Consistency Review DLCD reviews proposed federal projects and permits affecting the coastal zone (west of the crest of the Coast Range) to ensure that federal actions and permitted activities are consistent with Oregon s Coastal Management Program. Key Tools DLCD uses an array of tools to help local governments address planning issues and solve problems. Key tools are briefly described below. A more extensive explanation of each tool is found in this presentation s detailed discussion. Technical Assistance Many cities, counties and individual citizens depend on DLCD staff for vital information and advice regarding planning and development issues. This comes in the form of verbal consultation as well as development and distribution of handbooks. DLCD s regional representatives and planning specialists are the key agents for this work. Grants to Local Governments DLCD offers grants to local and regional governments for a variety of activities, including economic development opportunities analyses, buildable lands inventories and planning for growth. The grants help cities and counties adopt, apply, and update their plans and ordinances, meet statutory obligations and comply with the statewide goals. Periodic Review To be most useful, local comprehensive plans must be periodically updated. LCDC establishes a schedule for plan updates and DLCD works with local governments to complete the updates. (ORS ) Plan Amendment Review Each year, DLCD reviews hundreds of amendments to local comprehensive plans and land use ordinances. DLCD staff works with local governments on most of these amendments to attain compliance with the statewide planning goals. In the biennium, local governments filed 1,474 adopted plan updates, comprising 38,204 amendments. 14

80 DLCD staff worked proactively with local governments on most of these amendments to help attain compliance with the statewide planning goals. On rare occasions, the department appeals a local government proposal; during the biennium, the department appealed nine locally adopted plan amendments. (ORS ) Process Streamlining DLCD works with local governments to make the statewide planning goals and administrative rules efficient, clear, consistent with new legislation and case law, and responsive to the needs of local governments. The agency also works with local governments to streamline their regulations and ensure that the regulations do not hinder desired development. (Executive Order 01-03) Agency Collaboration The agency director and key staff actively participate in the Economic Revitalization Team (ERT), working with state agencies and local governments to solve specific local problems. DLCD also has coordination agreements with 26 state agencies that have programs affecting land use (ORS ). Landowner Notification Ballot Measure 56 (1998) requires notification to property owners when a regulation is adopted or amended that may affect the value of their property. DLCD provides written notices about changes in land use laws and reimburses local governments for their costs of mailing the notices to affected landowners. 15

81 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Long-term Strategic Goals The goals below, along with the vision and mission statement at the beginning of this presentation (Page 4), form DLCD s Strategic Plan. LCDC approved the plan in 2002 after a series of stakeholder meetings. The goals are a statement of DLCD s aspirations over the next six to 10 years. 1. Promote Economic Development and Quality Communities Increase projects that improve economic development and enhance livability and sustainability in communities statewide. 2. Secure Oregon s Legacy Protect farm, forest, coastal and other natural and economic resources. 3. Improve Collaboration Establish a network of public- and private-sector partners to identify and promote shared interests. 4. Deliver the Highest Level of Customer Service Possible Improve workforce excellence and deliver the highest level of customer service possible. 5. Streamlining Strive to make the statewide land use system less processoriented and more outcome-oriented. Short-term Strategic Initiatives DLCD has identified a set of short-term initiatives. These initiatives are part of the agency s business plan, which has a two-to-four year timeframe. In the and biennium, DLCD will focus on these 11 strategic initiatives, consistent with available funding. 1. Implement Ballot Measure 49 (2007): Implement provisions of Ballot Measure 49, the state s property rights 16

82 compensation and conservation program. Resolve claims and provide support, customer service and technical assistance Year Review of the Statewide Planning Program: Support the Task Force and implement its recommendations. The task force was charged with the responsibility to study and make recommendations on (a) the effectiveness of Oregon s land use planning program in meeting current and future needs of Oregonians in all parts of the state; (b) the respective roles of state and local governments in land use planning; and (c) land use issues specific to areas inside and outside of urban growth boundaries and at the interface between areas inside and outside urban growth boundaries. 3. Land Supply/Sustainable Economic Development: Continue to work with local governments and state agencies to assure an adequate supply of developable land for housing (including affordable housing), commerce, and employment in urban areas (and appropriate rural areas), especially shovel-ready industrial sites necessary for employment and economic development statewide. Lead state involvement in implementing Senate Bill 1011 (urban and rural reserves effort in the Portland metropolitan area). 4. Government Streamlining: Continue to work with stakeholders (including state, federal, tribal, and private entities) to coordinate and integrate policies and programs, and the Office of Regulatory Streamlining to identify and implement cost-effective improvements in order to streamline statewide requirements and procedures. 5. Urban Transportation: Continue to collaborate with the Oregon Department of Transportation and local governments to preserve and improve the performance of transportation systems in urban areas. 6. Farm/Forest Programs: Develop non-regulatory tools to complement regulations designed to ensure a sustained land supply for Oregon s agricultural and forest industries. 7. Coastal Resources: Carry out a variety of programs with local governments and state agency partners to protect and manage estuarine resources, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes, and ocean resources. Prepare a plan for ocean wave energy development, assist the Commission with 17

83 Performance Measures administrative rules to adopt that plan as an amendment to the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan, and submit the adopted plan to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for approval as an amendment to the Oregon Coastal Management Program. 8. Hazards Planning: Assist local governments in identifying and providing appropriate plans and measures to protect people and property from natural hazards, including floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, wildfires, and the effects of climate change. Work with stakeholders to help local governments plan for adaptation to the negative effects of climate change; add staff and grant funds to help accomplish this work. 9. Environmental Protection: Work with state and federal agencies and local governments to complete inventories and protection programs for key environmental resources. 10. Outreach: Through education in new forums and outreach to existing partners, increase awareness and civic engagement in land use planning statewide. 11. DLCD Services: Improve the department s services to citizens, local governments, and agencies by enhancing workforce and workplace productivity, emphasizing service to our constituents, and enhancing agency capacity for information management and delivery. The department s progress on its current performance measures can be found in the DLCD s 2008 Annual Performance Progress Report (Appendix N). 18

84 BUDGET OVERVIEW Major Budget Issues Building Economic and Community Development Capacity in DLCD Oregon s statewide planning program is fundamental to the state s economic prosperity. The program helps local governments plan for economic development and to make land available for housing, industrial and other employment and community needs. Measure 49 Measure 49 was referred by the 2007 Legislature, approved by the voters on November 6, 2007, and became effective on December 6, It modif[ies] Ballot Measure 37 (2004) to ensure that Oregon law provides just compensation for unfair burdens while retaining Oregon s protections for farm and forest uses and the state s water resources. The measure replaces the two alternate remedies of Measure 37 (a waiver of land use regulations or the payment of compensation) with an approval for claimants to establish a specific, but limited, number of home sites. This remedy is available only for claimants who filed Measure 37 claims on or before June 28, In addition to modifications to Measure 37 claims, Measure 49 allows for new claims to be filed, but only against land use regulations that are adopted after January 1, The Measure 49 Development Services Division leads the department s implementation of Measure 49 (2007). The division coordinates the mailing and return/receipt of Measure 49 election packets and new Measure 49 claims. Working closely with the Director s Office and the Oregon Department of Justice, as well as counties and relevant state agencies, it evaluates and resolves elections and claims submitted to the state under the measure. The division also works closely with the Measure 49 Compensation and Conservation Ombudsman to ensure a high level of customer service to claimants. 19

85 The measure has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on department workload, as well as staffing and Attorney General (and related) costs. The Governor s Policy Package 101: Measure 49, or a revised version of it as necessary, will fund the department s continued Measure 49 processing efforts and any related litigation costs. Dependence on General Funds DLCD depends principally on General Funds for its core activities, including technical assistance to local governments and grants to local governments. Diminishing Resources on the Local Level Oregon s statewide planning program is, in essence, a system of local comprehensive plans. Local governments, however, face increasing problems with funding the work that goes into developing and updating these plans. Many cities and counties have little or no funds to support planning services to meet local needs. Fees rarely cover actual costs, let alone comprehensive planning. During the 1990s, local governments suffered large reductions in General Funds. As a result, cities and counties have not had the resources to do planning projects, even though an up-to-date plan is a key tool to support sustainable communities. Balancing Staff and Grants for Local Needs Any significant reduction in General Fund expenditures would result in a reduction of staff or grants to local governments. Reducing staff affects services to communities that rely on the department for planning assistance. At the same time, local governments depend on grants from DLCD to update their plans. In making the hard choices about priorities, the state has tried to find a balance that will maintain the highest level of services to local governments. Increasing Demands for Urban Planning Assistance DLCD s workload has also increased due to a greater need to provide technical and financial assistance to local governments facing urban planning issues. DLCD staff work closely with local planners to address complex urban issues such as economic development and transportation systems. Agency professionals are more effective if they can be proactive on these issues. It is also important to note that a two biennia moratorium on periodic review was lifted at the 20

86 beginning of the biennium. Approximately 20 jurisdictions became subject to periodic review in July 2007 and more will become eligible during the biennium. Each will likely need assistance developing and carrying out a work program for plan updates. Governor s Recommended Budget Summary DLCD is funded through General Fund, Federal Funds and Other Funds. Federal Funds come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for floodplain management work. They also come from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for coastal planning and management. Other Funds, derived from federal transportation funds, come through the Oregon Department of Transportation. The chart below shows a summary of DLCD s Legislatively Approved Budget for the biennium and the Governor s Recommended Budget for Legislatively Approved Budget Governor s Recommended General Fund $20,794,123 $19,735,869 Federal Funds 6,363,069 6,808,291 Other Funds 798,687 1,146,814 Total Funds $27,955,879 $27,690,974 Positions Full-time Equivalents The Governor s Recommended Budget includes four policy packages listed below. Policy Package 104: Ocean Planning (1.00 FTE - $326,969 Other Funds) Policy Package 105: Flood Hazard Map Modernization (1.25 FTE - $299,730 Federal Funds) Policy Package 107: Measure 49 (19.25 FTE - $5,964,826 General Fund) Policy Package 108: Ocean and Coastal Reconciliation (0.47 FTE - $68,213 Federal Funds) 21

87 Biennial Report to the 75th Legislative Assembly From the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

88 TABLE OF CONTENTS Message from the Director 1 Introduction 2-4 Managing Oregon s Statewide Planning Program 2-3 Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) 3 Links to Oregon s Benchmarks 4 Summary for Annual Performance Measure Report 4 Major Policy Initiatives 5-12 Staffing the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning 5-8 Ballot Measure Other Policy Initiatives Working with Local Governments Helping Cities and Counties through Communications and Technical Assistance Grants to Local Governments 14 Keeping Local Plans Up to Date Reasons for Periodic Review 15 Plan Amendment Review 15 Appeals of Land Use Decisions Economic Development 17 Economic Development Accomplishments 17 Sustaining Farm and Forest Lands Agricultural and Forest Land Goals 18 Sustaining Farm and Forest Lands is Vital of Oregon s Economy Monitoring Development on Farm and Forest Lands Managing Oregon s Coastal and Ocean Resources Helping Oregon s Coastal Communities 21 On-Site Advice and Assistance Financial Assistance 22 Training, Education and Information 22 Addressing Emerging Coastal Issues Conserving Coastal Resources Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

89 Natural Hazards Program 26 Integrating Land Use and Transportation Planning TGM Grants for Oregon Communities TGM Direct Community Assistance 29 Coordinating Programs of State Agencies 30 Funding for Oregon s Planning Program 30 Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) 31 Local Officials Advisory Committee (LOAC) 31 DLCD Divisions and Offices ATTACHMENT A: Map of Director Visits in Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

90 By Richard Whitman Message from the Director I had the opportunity to join the department in January In the past year, I have traveled to most parts of the state, meeting with local officials and concerned citizens. Likewise, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has continued to meet in a variety of communities, taking a first-hand look at some of the major land use issues in cities and counties in every region of the state. Through these efforts and the daily work of its regional representatives, the agency is keeping in close contact with the diverse needs, desires and experiences of people in all corners of Oregon to encourage experimentation while also making the land use program more than the sum of its parts. Richard Whitman, Director The biennium has also been a time to focus on completing the work required by a series of recent initiatives from the legislature and the voters, including: Oregon ballot measures 37 and 49, as well as the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning, and the Portland Metro Urban and Rural Reserves effort directed by SB At the same time, the department has begun to work on several major newly-emerging challenges including climate change and adjustment in land markets that threaten our working forests. Work on these major initiatives has been carried out even as the core work of the department has continued, with an emphasis on coordinating the land use system with the Governor s economic development agenda, and renewing periodic review of the comprehensive plans of larger communities. As we head into more difficult economic conditions, we will be challenged to complete the work the legislature has set out for us while also continuing to meet the evolving needs of communities to plan for sustainable futures. With challenge comes opportunity, and the agency is committed to playing an active role in helping to build the foundation for long-term improvement in our economy, while preserving the quality of life that makes Oregon such a special place to live Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

91 Introduction Oregon s 19 Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal 3: Agricultural Lands Goal 4: Forest Lands Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 8: Recreational Needs Goal 9: Economic Development Goal 10: Housing Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Goal 12: Transportation Goal 13: Energy Conservation Goal 14: Urbanization Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway Goal 16: Estuarine Resources Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes Goal 19: Ocean Resources Oregon s rapid population growth and development during the 1960s and 1970s prompted concern about the effects of that growth on the state s environment, natural resources, and livability. In a state where agriculture and timber were the two largest industries, Oregonians feared that conversion of those lands for development presented a direct threat to the state s economy. Those concerns, among others, led to the passage of Senate Bill 100 in 1973, creating our statewide system for land use planning. From the start, the planning program was a partnership between the state, cities and counties. While Senate Bill 100 required state standards, it also envisioned that the program would be made up of local plans, with each community developing its own image of what the future should look like within the general parameters of the state planning goals. SB 100 also created an agency to administer the program, and provide grants and technical assistance to help local governments plan for their futures. This report from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) provides a brief summary of where we are as a state in the evolution of our land use program, and describes what the program has accomplished during the biennium. Managing Oregon s Statewide Planning Program DLCD manages the statewide planning program, which has one basic purpose: to sustain and advance Oregon s quality of life. That quality of life is derived from our bountiful natural resources, livable communities, affordable housing, a robust economy, clean air and water, and efficient, low-cost public services. Because Oregon s quality of life has all those components and more, the program is equally diverse. The program rests on a foundation of 19 statewide planning goals that frame land use planning for cities, counties, special districts, and state agencies. The 19 goals can be found on the department s website at: DLCD works closely with local governments and other state agencies to achieve the goals, using a variety of programs and activities. These are the key tools of Oregon s statewide planning effort: Assistance to local governments: DLCD advises, gives grants, and provides technical assistance to cities and counties Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 2

92 Periodic Review: DLCD works with cities and counties to update and improve their comprehensive plans. Plan amendment review: DLCD annually reviews several hundred proposed amendments to local plans and ordinances. Transportation and Growth Management (TGM): Through this joint effort with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), DLCD helps cities deal with issues of transportation and growth management. The department s coastal division works with coastal cities, counties, and state and federal agencies to administer Oregon s federallyapproved Coastal Management Program. The program protects Oregon s estuaries, shorelands, beaches and dunes, and ocean resources. DLCD implements Oregon s ballot measures 37 and 49, providing relief to property owners adversely affected by regulations. Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) LCDC is the policy-making arm of the state land use program. LCDC is made up of seven citizens from different geographic areas of the state. The commission sets the statewide land use planning goals and rules, and provides policy direction to DLCD. The commissioners are unpaid volunteers, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners are appointed to four-year terms and may not serve for more than two terms. As of December 2008, LCDC volunteers included: Commissioner Hanley Jenkins, during a tour of Baker Valley. John VanLandingham, Chair (Eugene); Margaret Kirkpatrick, Vice-Chair (Portland); Dennis Derby (Portland); Marilyn Worrix (McMinnville); Christine Pellett (Central Point); Tim Josi (Tillamook); and Hanley Jenkins (Union). The statute establishing the commission, ORS , also directs that the members be representative of certain regions of the state, and that there be a current or former elected official of a city and a county. The commission meets about every six weeks. In the biennium, LCDC held meetings around the state in Ashland, Baker City, Corvallis, Damascus, Enterprise, Gresham, Prineville and Tillamook, as well as Salem. When the commission meets on the road, it usually tours the local area and hosts roundtable meetings for local and state officials and tribes Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

93 Links to Oregon Benchmarks The department s strategic planning goals are linked to and help the state achieve the following Oregon Benchmarks (OBMs): OBM 4: Job Growth; OBM 70: Commuting; OBM 72: Road Condition; OBM 74: Affordable Housing; OBM 77: Wetlands Preservation; OBM 80: Agricultural Lands; OBM 81: Forest Land; and OBM 87: Native Fish and Wildlife. Land use planning is one of several programs that contribute to the state s efforts to meet these benchmarks. Other important influences include government and private investment, tax structures, and a variety of state and federal regulations. Oregon s statewide planning program plays a key role in facilitating local land development decisions that lead to job growth, affordable housing, convenient transportation systems, conserving agricultural and forest lands for commercial production, and protecting natural resources. Summary for Annual Performance Measure Report In 2008, DLCD submitted its Annual Performance Progress Report. A few highlights of the report include: The department anticipates revising its performance measures for the biennium, as recommended by the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning and a recent evaluation of the land use program by the Institute for Natural Resources. The department notes the targets for several key performance measures were exceeded. This includes key performance measures pertaining to affordable housing, certified industrial sites, transit supportive regulation adoption, transportation facilities, updated buildable land inventories for natural resource and hazard areas, and timely completion of periodic review work tasks. Several key performance measures met the 100 percent target, including: Best Practices met by the commission; local land use decisions upheld by LUBA and the courts; timely comments on local plan amendments; and estuarine areas retaining development management unit designation. For more information on the report, please see the department s website at: Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 4

94 Major Policy Initiatives 1. Staffing the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning: A 30-Year Review of the Statewide Planning Program The 2005 Legislature passed Senate Bill 82 (The Big Look), which called for a broad review of the statewide planning program. The bill created a task force to guide the effort and required recommendations to be reported to the 2009 Legislature. Members of the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning Ken Bailey David Bragdon Steve Clark Jill Gelineau Judie Hammerstad Wes Hare Cameron Krauss Gretchen Palmer Mike Thorne Nikki Whitty In January 2006, the 10-member Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning was appointed by Governor Kulongoski, Speaker of the House Karen Minnis and Senate President Peter Courtney. DLCD has staffed the task force since its inception, along with a consultant team. The task force is charged with studying and making recommendations on the: Effectiveness of Oregon s land use planning program in meeting the current and future needs of Oregonians in all parts of the state; Respective roles and responsibilities of state and local governments in land use planning; and Land use issues specific to areas inside and outside urban growth boundaries and the interface between areas inside and outside urban growth boundaries. Since its first meeting in March 2006, the task force met almost monthly; except for a period between July 2007 and February 2008 when funding was suspended pending the outcome of Ballot Measure 49. Measure 49 was approved by voters in November 2007, and the legislature restored funding to The Big Look process in February After reconvening in early 2008, the task force has continued on an expedited schedule to meet its legislative mandate to produce a final set of recommendations for the 2009 legislative session. This effort included: Task force debate and consideration on the major issues; and development of preliminary recommendations (January June 2008) Completion of a stakeholder briefing booklet summarizing key issues and preliminary recommendations (May 2008) Targeted, interactive discussion with over 40 stakeholder groups on the major issues and the policy tradeoffs inherent in different options that address the major issues (June June 2008) Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

95 LCDC members (foreground) engage the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning in Prineville. A concentrated and extensive public engagement process, to obtain input from citizens on the key issues being considered by the task force. This effort contained several components (August October 2008): A series of 11 townhall meetings across the state, attended by more than 1,400 people. A 12-page newspaper insert that reached 500,000 Oregonians via 25 newspapers. Distribution of a press packet to media throughout the state, resulting in more than 20 newspaper articles, and television and radio coverage, including an hour-long program on Oregon Public Broadcasting. A state-wide public opinion survey that was completed by more than 1,800 people who participated in the public engagement process. Updates and new content for The Big Look website: Peak website activity during this period ballooned to several hundreds hits a day, with a high of 542 hits on September 18, and more than 5,000 visits for the month. Since the beginning of 2008, the website has had more than 17,000 visitors. A statewide statistical survey of 842 Oregonians reflecting the state s race, income, geography, and urban/rural distributions. A 30-minute documentary, The Big Look: Examining Oregon s Land- Use System. A full day roundtable with 26 interest groups. This facilitated discussion provided a thorough review of the issues and the preliminary draft legislation, with a focus on solutions and compromises to be carried forward as legislation. (October 2008) Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 6

96 In November of 2008, the task force produced its final recommendations for a legislative concept. And in December the task force completed its final report and recommendations. In conjunction with the task force s work, the agency also worked with the Institute for Natural Resources (INR) at Oregon State University (as well as with Portland State University faculty) to complete a partial evaluation of how effective Oregon s land use system has been in achieving several of the key statewide planning goals. This evaluation reported that, for the most part, the program has been successful in slowing the rates of land conversion for farm and forest lands to other uses, and in reducing sprawl relative to other areas of the nation. A copy of the INR report is available at: The task force s draft legislation contains three main areas of proposed changes in Oregon s land-use system: Increase local flexibility, thus avoiding the one-size-fits-all approach, while maintaining strong safeguards against sprawl and loss of farm and forest land. This would encourage customized regional approaches to identify and designate farm and forest land. Two or more counties could work together to develop a proposed definition of what their productive agricultural and forestry lands are reflecting what lands are important to the farm and forest industries in that part of the state. When counties decide to follow this approach, they must also identify what lands are important natural areas and develop programs to protect those areas. This may include market-based incentives, such as conservation easements and transfer of development rights, to conserve lands of ecological importance. In addition, any lands that are rezoned for uses other than agriculture or forestry must meet state standards to ensure that any development is consistent with the carrying capacity of the land, does not result in sprawl, and does not create negative fiscal effects on counties or cities. Finally, if counties propose new areas for residential development, they must require any new homes in these areas to be clustered to reduce land-use conflicts and to increase efficiencies. Facilitate and encourage regional planning and infrastructure financing The state should offer incentives and flexibility to encourage counties and local governments to make decisions regionally. This would support better decision making among participating governments and allow for better coordination among state agencies Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

97 The state also should prioritize investment in infrastructure that supports state goals such as infill and redevelopment. Create an integrated state strategic planning process and reduce complexity The state should develop an integrated strategic plan that addresses climate change and other critical issues. A strategic plan should include performance standards to measure progress toward achieving the state s goals and benchmarks. LCDC should form a work group to conduct an audit of the current land-use laws, guidelines and rules. The group then would propose a more accessible, easily understood and functional set of standards for implementing the existing larger goals of the system. The purpose of the review is to develop further recommendations to reduce unnecessary complexity and redundancy. 2. Ballot Measure 49 (2007) On November 6, 2007, Oregonians approved Ballot Measure 49 (2007). The measure, referred by the 2007 Legislature as House Bill 3540 (2007), modified Ballot Measure 37 (2004) and took effect on December 6, A. Claims Processing Measure 49 gives qualifying landowners with Measure 37 claims the right to build a particular number of homes as compensation for land use restrictions imposed after they acquired their properties. It also gives landowners the ability to seek compensation for any new land use regulations enacted at the state or local level that restrict residential uses of real property. To obtain an authorization under Measure 49, Measure 37 claimants must elect to proceed with a supplemental review of their claim under either Section 6 or Section 7 of Measure 49. Claimants may build up to three homes if that would have been lawful when they acquired their property (Section 6). Four to 10 homes can be built if claimants can document both that they would have been allowed that level of development when they acquired their property, and that subsequent land use regulations had the effect of reducing the value of their property by at least as much as the value of the homes they now seek to develop (Section 7) Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 8

98 Claimants may not build more than three homes on high-value farm lands, forestlands, or groundwater-restricted lands. The measure allows claimants to transfer homebuilding rights upon sale or transfer of properties, and extends rights to surviving spouses. Measure 49 Processing Steps Ownership Review Completeness Review Analysis of Claim and Preparation of Preliminary Evaluation (PE) PE and Public Notice Issued Public Comment Period Claimant Response Period Preparation of Final Decision Final Decision Issued The measure also authorizes future claims based on regulations that restrict residential uses of property or farm or forest practices. During its 2008 Supplemental Legislative Session, the Legislative Assembly provided staffing and funding resources to DLCD to implement provisions of the Measure. The Measure 49 Development Services Division has authority for approximately 30 positions and has organized into regional groups to streamline implementation. The major tasks in reviewing claims are to document when property was acquired, and to then determine what level of residential development would have been lawful at that time. In effect, this requires a historical land use analysis of each property. As required by the Measure, the department began implementation by issuing and receiving election notices for claims filed under Measure 37. Claimants had 90 days from the date the election notice was issued to submit their election to the department. As of December 15, 2008, the department reports the following information relative to elections: 10,629 election notices were issued to the claimants and agents of 6,619 claims filed under Measure 37. 4,538 elections for claims filed under Measure 37 were received by the deadline, as follows: 4,183 claims elected to proceed under Section 6; 148 claims elected to proceed under Section 7; 137 claimants notified the department that they considered their claims vested; 33 claimants notified the department that their property is within a city or urban growth boundary (UGB); 37 claimants elected to withdraw. In coordination with the Department of Justice, DLCD has begun the supplemental review of those claims that elected to proceed under Section 6 or Section 7. As of December 29, 2008, the department had issued: 448 Preliminary Evaluations; and 186 Final Orders Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

99 B. Litigation The volume and extent of litigation has declined dramatically since enactment of Measure 49. In December of 2007, just prior to the date Measure 49 modified Measure 37, there were more than 300 court cases pending in trial and appellate courts in Oregon involving Measure 37. As of December 18, 2008, there were 67 court cases pending involving Measure 49. Much of the current litigation involves cases where the property owner has claimed a vested right to continue development started under Measure 37. The state has participated in a limited number of these cases, and the general parameters of what development will be vested is now relatively clear. It appears that 100 to 150 developments under Measure 37 proceeded far enough so that they are vested and will be allowed to be completed. There are still several legal challenges to Measure 49 pending. The principal set of claims that are being litigated are cases where property owners assert their Measure 37 waivers constitute a contract that could not be nullified by the legislature or the Oregon voters. A federal court judge has held that a number of waivers issued by Jackson County were contracts, and that the county s waivers are still in effect. However, the state was not a party to this case, and the Oregon Supreme Court has held that Measure 37 waivers were subject to being amended or even eliminated by subsequent legislative action. As a result, further state court litigation will be necessary to resolve this issue. 3. Other Policy Initiatives: Streamlining and Updating the Land Use Planning Program The agency continued its efforts to streamline and update the land use program throughout the biennium. Several projects were initiated by the commission in response to concerns raised by local governments, the courts, citizens and interest groups. Policy and rule accomplishments this biennium include: 1. Efforts by LCDC undertaken during this period were: (a) rulemaking to implement Measure 49; (b) rulemaking to implement SB 1011 (Metro Urban and Rural Reserves); and (c) to change the criteria for siting wind energy facilities on farm lands based on the experience of the past eight years with these projects. 2. Development of proposed legislation for the 2009 Legislative Assembly to address the growing issue of conversion of forest lands to large-lot residential use. In parts of the state, the value of forest land for large-lot residential development now exceeds the value of the property for timber production. To support the economic benefits of the timber Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 10

100 In Janaury 2008, LCDC amended four administrative rules to allow Metro and Metro counties designate urban and rural reserves (SB 1011, 2007) industry to the state, and to avoid long-term conflicts between scattered residential development and other societal values including fire protection, carbon sequestration, water supply, and preservation of rural communities, DLCD has worked with the Oregon Department of Forestry and several counties to develop a pilot program that would authorize the residential development rights on forest land to be transferred to other lands where additional development is consistent with the state s land use program. 3. Preparation of several other important legislative initiatives, including: (a) an update of our destination resort laws; (b) an update of the program that coordinates the permitting activities of state permitting agencies and local governments; and (c) a pilot program to provide lands for affordable housing. 4. Agency coordination efforts continue, with DLCD and ODOT senior staff meeting regularly to coordinate policy efforts and responses to particular land use and transportation issues arising in specific communities. In early 2009, the agencies will begin including the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) staff in these meetings Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

101 6. Close work with Jackson County and cities in the Bear Creek region on the regional problem solving effort to establish coordinated urban reserves to guide long-term growth for those communities. 7. Development of several presentations to LCDC, local governments, and realtors concerning the predicted effects of climate change, and the role of our land use system in reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector. DLCD staff also have begun work on resources for local governments in planning for adaptation to climate change, and in best planning practices to reduce reliance on automobiles Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 12

102 Working with Local Governments The department focuses significant effort on building and maintaining collaborative working relationships with local and regional governments. These efforts include providing technical assistance and consultation, funding planning projects, and reviewing local government comprehensive plan amendments. Helping Cities and Counties through Communications and Technical Assistance DLCD staff provides advice and technical assistance to local governments through formal and informal communication. During the past biennium, the department conducted six planners network meetings around the state (Medford, Springfield, Monmouth, Hillsboro, Bend and Baker City) and four coastal planners network meetings (Yachats, Rockaway, Bandon and Florence). These network meetings serve as forums for the department and local governments to exchange information and develop stronger working relationships. The department will continue to host network meetings during the biennium. Planners network meetings have enhanced coordination and communiction between local governments and DLCD. In addition, the coastal division hosted 14 specific training sessions on coastal zone management for more than 150 local government officials and staff. The training covered the statewide planning program, with an emphasis on the special responsibilities that local governments and state agencies play related to estuaries, beaches and dunes, and shorelands in the coastal zone Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

103 Department staff members also participate on the following boards and committees: Technical advisory committees for local planning projects; Regional Economic Revitalization Teams; Area commissions on transportation; Regional investment panels for economic and community development; and Other local government discussions on request. Informally, DLCD staff also field questions regarding state goals, rules, laws, and general planning practices. Questions frequently come to the department though telephone calls, s, and in person at various meetings. The nature of this technical assistance varies depending on the needs of the local jurisdiction, and ranges from short exchanges regarding planning procedures to substantive engagements on planning policy, development proposals, or plan amendments. Grants to Local Governments DLCD has several grant programs for local governments. One program is used to implement the Coastal Zone Management Program (see Managing Oregon s Coastal and Ocean Resources, page 22). Another program is dedicated to improving the integration of land use and transportation planning (see Integrating Land Use and Transportation Planning, page 27). The general fund grant program assists local governments with general planning activities and with Periodic Review. As of mid- November: About $1.9 million in technical assistance grants was awarded to local governments for comprehensive plan update projects; Nearly $250,000 went to cities and counties for Periodic Review grants; and An additional $116,000 was awarded to small cities (under 2,500 population) and counties (under 15,000 population) for general planning activities. Keeping Local Plans Up to Date In order for the statewide planning program to function properly, local comprehensive plans must be updated and maintained. Local governments typically identify needed updates and amend their plan via a Post-Acknowledgment Plan Amendment (PAPA) process. The roles for DLCD in the Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment process include reviewing and commenting on the proposal and providing notice of the proposal to a subscriber list. Department staff is frequently asked to provide technical assistance as well. Many local Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 14

104 governments are also required to review and update their plans on a schedule through a process called Periodic Review. Reasons for Periodic Review Growth and other changing circumstances can render a comprehensive plan so obsolete that it does not satisfy the needs of the local government, citizens or developers. Statutes require many cities to periodically review their plans to ensure they continue to accommodate needed land and infrastructure for economic development and housing. Certain statutory and rule provisions are implemented through Periodic Review as well. LCDC will submit a full report on the status of Periodic Review to the 75th Legislative Assembly. Plan Amendment Review A local government can amend its comprehensive plan to address local needs outside the Periodic Review process through the PAPA process. These amendments may be initiated by a city or county, or by a property owner, who wishes to change the allowed use(s) of their land. For any proposed PAPA, the appropriate local government is required to send notice of proposed amendments to DLCD. As previously stated, DLCD s primary role is to review the proposal and provide guidance where appropriate. The department expects to receive about 1,400 by the end of the biennium. Of the projected proposals, DLCD anticipates that two-thirds of them will not require a response. Appeals of Land Use Decisions The department often provides guidance to a local government on local land use proposals and, in most cases, the local government and the department work together to resolve potential legal or technical challenges. In cases where the local government makes a decision the department believes violates a statewide planning goal, the department may, with LCDC approval, appeal that local decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) for clarification of the decision. Between July 1, 2007 and November 20, 2008, 342 local decisions statewide had been appealed to LUBA. Eight of those were initiated by DLCD: 1. A comprehensive plan amendment/zone change that would have allowed a major, urban-scale retail development in rural Umatilla County. The county withdrew its decision and made a different decision that was not appealed Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

105 2. Determination by Douglas County that a Measure 37 waiver granted by the county to Percy Langdon, who is deceased, is an asset of Percy Langdon s estate. DLCD voluntarily dismissed this appeal. 3. Approval to subdivide property in Jefferson County into 60 lots and place a dwelling on each lot, based on a Measure 37 waiver to a deceased claimant (William Burk). LUBA reversed the county s decision and the Court of Appeals upheld LUBA s reversal. 4. A comprehensive plan amendment/zone change that would have allowed a major, urban-scale retail development on 120 acres of industrial land in rural Klamath County. This decision was jointly appealed by ODOT. The appeal is still pending, and DLCD and ODOT are working with the county to attempt to resolve the appeal. 5. Amendments to residential dwelling siting standards in the Significant Resources Overlay for the Big Game Winter Range. This decision was jointly appealed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. This appeal is still pending. 6. Appeal of a Lane County resolution to not utilize the population forecast prepared by the Lane Council of Governments and to prepare a population forecast at the next Periodic Review of the Lane County Comprehensive Plan. The county has withdrawn its decision and the appeal has been dismissed. 7. Approval on remand of a 10-lot subdivision on a acre parcel zoned AF-20 in Yamhill County, based on a Measure 37 waiver (Kroo). LUBA has reversed the county s decision. 8. Approval of a Measure 37/49 preliminary subdivision plat by Clatsop County, based on a Measure 37 waiver. This appeal is still pending. NOTE: Status of above appeals as of December 30, Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 16

106 Economic Development Recipients of Technical Assistance Grants Cascade Locks Cascade West COC Clackamas County Cottage Grove Damascus Independence Junction City Keizer Klamath Falls La Grande La Pine Lowell METRO Milton-Freewater Mid-Willamette Valley COG Portland Roseburg Umatilla County Union Wallowa County Yamhill County DLCD is a partner in the Governor s Economic Revitalization Team (ERT). ERT was established by the 2003 Legislature (HB 2011) to focus state agencies on working together at the local level to increase economic opportunity and bring industrial sites to shovel-ready status. ERT works with state agencies and local governments to: Streamline permitting for business and industry; Increase opportunities to link and leverage public and private investments; and Provide greater local access to state resources and assistance. The Governor s office has directed the ERT agencies directors to create lasting and systematic changes to agency policies, programs and processes for greater effectiveness and improved efficiency. Economic Development Accomplishments Oregon s planning program supports the state s economy by ensuring that local governments have an adequate land supply, infrastructure and services to meet a variety of economic opportunities. Statewide Planning Goal 9 is at the center of the state land use program s policy on economic development. The goal calls for local governments to provide an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses. Goal 9 encourages local governments to identify sites needed for industrial and commercial development to meet both long-term (up to 50 years) and short-term needs. Economic development is the highest priority for available Technical Assistance grants awarded by DLCD. The grant program is guided by a Grants Allocation Plan, which is recommended by a standing grants advisory committee and adopted by LCDC. The allocation plan has listed economic development as the top priority for three consecutive biennia. In addition, DLCD staff provides technical assistance to local governments to help them identify and analyze their economic development opportunities and develop strategies for attracting the identified industries. Through grants and technical assistance, DLCD helps communities throughout the state become better prepared to attract jobs Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

107 Sustaining Oregon s Farm and Forest Industries Development approvals for dwellings and land divisions on farm and forest lands during the biennium continue to reflect the influence of changes to state laws and LCDC rules enacted since Agricultural and Forest Land Goals The 2003 National Resource Inventory shows that the rate of conversion of farm land to other uses in Oregon is about half that for the nation as a whole, and that the amount of cropland in the state has held steady since The amount of land in forest cover has increased slightly. These facts underscore the effectiveness of Oregon s farm and forestlands protection program over the last three decades. Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) defines agricultural land and requires counties to adopt exclusive farm use (EFU) zoning to sustain them. State statutes, Goal 3 and LCDC s Goal 3 rules establish standards for dwellings, uses and land divisions in farm zones. About 15.5 million acres are currently zoned as farmland. The farm value property tax assessment program covers a similar amount of land. Statewide Planning Goal 4 (Forest Lands) defines forestlands and requires them to be zoned for timber management and other forest uses. Over 11 million acres of private land have been zoned for forest or mixed farmforest use. Standards for dwellings, uses and land divisions on forestlands are provided in state statutes, Goal 4 and in LCDC s Goal 4 rules. Sustaining Farm and Forest Lands is Vital for Oregon s Economy In 1974, when Goals 3 and 4 were adopted by LCDC, the principal reason for enacting such strong state land use policies was economic. The same is true today. Agriculture and wood products are still two of Oregon s most important industries. Ponderosa Pine forest, near Sisters. Figures released by the Oregon Department of Agriculture report that the total direct and indirect contribution to the state s economy by the agricultural and food processing industry in 2007 was more than $12 billion; 10 percent of Oregon s Gross State Product. The wood products industry also remains an important force in the state s economy, generating about $13 billion annually in direct and indirect sales and services, or 11 percent of the state s economic output Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 18

108 Commercial farming and forestry require large supplies of land. However, both industries are seriously affected by the loss of land to other uses, by the fragmentation of the resource land base, and by conflicts and complaints from nearby landowners who are not engaged in farm and forest activities. That is why sustaining these valuable resource lands is so important to Oregon s economic strength and stability. A failure to limit harmful development and land parcelization would result in higher costs for farmers, timber managers and taxpayers, and would discourage continued resource use. Probably the biggest concern for the future of our farm and forestlands is the fact that such lands are also viewed as areas for rural home sites. Despite stricter laws and rules, the competition between resource production and residential use continues to be one of the most difficult issues facing the rural side of Oregon s statewide planning program. A Polk County farm. Monitoring Development on Farm and Forest Lands The land use approval data referenced in this report come from Oregon s 36 counties for the reporting period. County planning departments have been required since the late 1980s to give DLCD annual reports on dwellings, uses, and land divisions occurring in farm and forest zones. The reporting system, along with plan amendment data, provide the information needed to regularly review and evaluate existing policy and regulations and to make appropriate adjustments in the program. For complete information and tables, please refer to the Farm and Forest Report to be available in January Lot-of-Record Dwellings: The current statutory standards for allowing lot-of-record dwellings on farm and forest lands were established to recognize individual or family ownerships that existed prior to LCDC s acknowledgment of most county comprehensive plans (January 1, 1985). The legislature enacted the provisions to provide a measure of equity for owners of resource land whose dwelling opportunity was limited by subsequent zoning actions in order to comply with Goals 3 and 4. Dwellings in EFU Zones: The latest data on farm dwelling approvals continue to show that LCDC s rules are making a difference. Previous requirements had allowed hundreds of new farm dwellings to be approved each year, at a time when the number of farms in Oregon was declining. Changes in the farm dwelling approval standards have been critical in supporting the viability of Oregon s agricultural economy Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

109 The number of non-farm dwelling approvals has increased slightly since 2005; the majority being approved on small parcels of less productive land in eastern and southern Oregon. Non-farm dwelling opportunities have been designed to recognize different farmland capabilities in various parts of the state. Because the ability to site a non-farm dwelling on high-value farmland in the Willamette Valley is very limited, the number of new non-farm dwellings in that valley is small. Other dwelling opportunities in EFU zones include: relative farm help dwellings, other accessory farm help dwellings, replacement dwellings, temporary hardship dwellings, and lot-of-record dwellings. Dwellings in Forest Zones: State law provides for two principal types of dwelling opportunities in forest zones besides the lot-of-record. They include a large-tract dwelling option and the option for a template dwelling that reflects a certain amount of existing development and parcelization in the area. Forest dwelling opportunities reflect the varying levels of productivity between eastern and western Oregon forestlands. Other dwelling opportunities include: temporary hardship dwellings and replacement dwellings. Land Divisions in Farm and Forest Zones: State statutes and LCDC rules are designed to ensure that newly-created parcels on farm and forestlands remain commercially viable for farm and forest use and do not contribute to the fragmentation of the resource land base. Generally, current standards for land divisions require an 80-acre minimum parcel size for land in farm and forest zones and 160 acres in rangelands. As authorized by the statutes, counties also have the opportunity to demonstrate to LCDC that a lower minimum parcel size is appropriate to continue commercial resource enterprises. A few counties have done a go-below, as they are called. New non-farm land divisions are allowed to accommodate new dwellings and other permitted uses on parcels that are determined by counties to be generally unsuitable for farm use. This option results in the creation of hundreds of new nonfarm parcels each year; primarily in southern and eastern Oregon. This provision has provided considerable flexibility in the program over the years. New non-forest land divisions for new dwellings are generally not allowed. Measure 37 and 49 Activity: It remains to be seen how claims filed and waivers granted under ballot measures 37 and 49 may result in residential development on farm and forest lands. The extent to which these claims will result in actual development is presently unclear, and is not reflected in this biennial report. Rezonings: Each year, farm and forestlands are rezoned by counties to other uses. Some of this is the planned conversion of resource lands to urban uses, as new lands are included in urban growth boundaries (UGBs). Other lands that are already partially developed or committed to non-resource uses are rezoned to a variety of rural development uses. In 2006 and 2007, more than 5,000 acres of farm and forest lands were rezoned to non-resource uses; less than 20 percent of which represented additions to UGBs and more than 80 percent occurred in rural areas. The ability to rezone appropriate lands provides a pressure valve to accommodate planned urban development as well as a certain amount of rural development Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 20

110 Managing Oregon s Coastal and Ocean Resources Since 1977, Oregon s Coastal Management Program (OCMP) has protected the priceless treasures of the Oregon coast while enabling coastal communities to develop and grow. The OCMP is based on the statewide planning goals, with emphasis on the goals aimed at estuaries, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes, and ocean resources. It is implemented by local comprehensive plans and state agency programs. Oregon s program was the second in the nation to be approved under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Oregon gains two key benefits from federal approval of its Coastal Management Program: 1. Funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. During the biennium, the department received $4.4 million dollars to implement the Coastal Management Program. 2. Authority to review federal agency actions and approvals that affect Oregon s coastal zone to make sure that they are consistent with Oregon s enforceable policies, which include state laws, agency regulations, and local government comprehensive plans and ordinances. During , the OCMP focused on three program initiatives: Helping Oregon s Coastal Communities Addressing Emerging Coastal Issues Conserving Coastal Resources Helping Oregon s Coastal Communities Oregon s coastal communities face unique challenges. In addition to land use issues common throughout Oregon, coastal local governments have special responsibilities to protect estuaries, ocean shores, dunes and other resources. They face risks from shoreline erosion, ocean flooding, severe storms, tsunamis, and the effects of climate change. Rugged geography, isolation, and limited transportation options add to these challenges. The OCMP assists local governments with: On-Site Advice and Assistance The OCMP provides direct technical and planning assistance to local governments on a daily basis. Three staff members work from the coastal services center in Newport: two regional representatives provide planning advice and assistance and a third focuses on coastal hazard and shoreland issues. Other policy and program specialists in the central Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

111 Surfer at Short Sands Beach, near Manzanita. Salem office provide advice and assistance as needed and often travel to meet with local governments on the coast. Financial Assistance During the biennium, OCMP grants coordinator managed more than $750,000 in grant awards to local governments from federal funds including: Planning Assistance (CZM) grants that enable local governments to maintain core planning services, review development proposals, prepare plan changes, update ordinances, and other planning work. All jurisdictions receive a minimum grant of $3,000, for which a 1:1 local match is required. Technical Assistance/Priority Project (306-TA) grants that help cities and counties to plan for economic development, identify buildable lands, develop capacity in GIS and information technologies, and assess coastal hazards. Stormwater Management (306-NP) grants help local governments to reduce or prevent water pollution caused by stormwater runoff. Training, Education, and Information The OCMP responded to requests from local governments to provide training for local planning staff, elected and appointed officials. The OCMP carried out four training and information activities: Coastal planning seminars: Day-long training sessions, entitled CZM 201, were held in Gold Beach and Rockaway Beach. A total of 75 local planning staff, planning commissioners, and elected officials attended. The seminars provided an overview of the statewide planning program, special coastal requirements, and the roles of state agencies in coastal land use planning and decisions. Local planning commission training: The OCMP held a series of 4- hour training sessions in 14 coastal communities that reached more than 150 planning commissioners and elected officials. Training was conducted by a veteran professional planner based on a curriculum developed in collaboration with the OCMP regional representatives. To address on-going training needs, the OCMP is developing an online training curriculum for local planning commissioners. GIS technical assistance: An OCMP GIS specialist provided inshop GIS training and trouble-shooting assistance for local governments. This over-the-shoulder assistance helped local staff to avoid start-up and training costs while providing a hands-on learning experience. Oregon Coastal Atlas: The OCMP unveiled an updated Oregon Coastal Atlas which provides a wide range of mapped data and information about the Oregon coast to users via the Internet. A principal function of the Atlas is to serve data from other state agencies, such as the Department of Human Services beach water quality monitoring data and natural hazards data from the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. The Atlas contains more than 3,500 data bases and can be found at: Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 22

112 The harbor at Newport. Addressing Emerging Coastal Issues The Oregon coast was a hotbed of major new coastal and ocean activities that made front-page news across the state. As a result, the OCMP devoted significant staff resources and expertise to working with the Governor s office, the Department of Justice, and other state agencies to address five emerging issues: 1) Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Oregon s federal consistency review authority put the OCMP in the spotlight during the biennium, in which significant staff resources were devoted to major land use and environmental issues arising from proposals for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import facilities and associated pipelines on the Columbia River and on Coos Bay. OCMP staff worked with the applicants, local governments, the Oregon Department of Justice, the Governor s office, the public, nongovernmental organizations, federal agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and others. Significant policy, procedural, environmental, and economic issues surround each of these proposed facilities and their associated pipelines. 2) Coastal Impacts from Climate Change OCMP worked extensively with other state agencies, academic specialists, and local planners to prepare a report that identifies and describes the likely effects of climate change on the Oregon coast and its communities. This report is provided to the 2009 Legislature and to coastal local officials. The OCMP effort closely tracks and begins to Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

113 implement the recommendations of the Governor s Climate Change Integration Group. The report identifies elements of a strategy to address potential impacts of climate change, so the OCMP is now working with these same partners and other stakeholders to develop a Coastal Adaptation Strategy to frame an appropriate, timely response to likely effects of climate change on the coast. 3) Ocean Wave Energy Development The Oregon coast and nearshore ocean is favorable for development of energy from ocean waves and thus several proposals have been received to site wave energy facilities. As a result, the OCMP devoted substantial staff resources to ocean wave energy issues. In March 2008, Governor s Executive Order charged the department with preparing a plan for ocean wave energy and submitting it to LCDC for adoption as an amendment to the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan. Preparation for that planning work is underway with a variety of stakeholders. The majority of planning work, which is subject to a Policy Option Package, is expected to take place in the biennium and beyond. 4) Marine Reserves OCMP staff played three roles in carrying out Governor s Executive Order related to marine reserves. One is as an ex-officio agency member of the Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC). The second is as staff, administrative, and financial support to the OPAC and its Marine Reserves Working Group, which met numerous times during the biennium. The third role is as provider of information and data products to the OPAC, state agencies, and the public to support marine reserves planning. During the biennium the OCMP hosted a Coastal Fellow sponsored by the NOAA Coastal Services Center with expertise in marine science and information technologies whose mission is to develop and provide marine geo-spatial information via the Internet. The Fellow and Coastal Atlas Coordinator worked with many other agencies and academic scientists to provide information via 5) West Coast Governor s Agreement on Ocean Health In September 2006, the governors of Oregon, Washington, and California announced a historic agreement to work together on a host of ocean and coastal issues of mutual interest. Subsequently, the OCMP provided technical and policy assistance to the Governor s office in developing an action plan that was released in May Several OCMP staff have taken on active roles in working with colleagues from California, Washington, and federal agencies to implement the climate change, alternative ocean energy, and overall ocean management policy elements of the agreement. The West Coast Governor s Agreement is one of several voluntary regional agreements for ocean and coastal governance that resulted from 2004 recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 24

114 Conserving Coastal Resources The Oregon coast is rich in a variety of natural and cultural resources that are important to Oregonians. The OCMP carried out several program activities to assist in conserving these resources: The Coastal and Estuarine Lands Conservation Program (CELCP) Created by Congress, CELCP provides competitive grants to states and local governments to acquire and conserve special coastal areas. The OCMP administers this program for Oregon. During the biennium, the OCMP assisted the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to acquire several coastal properties. Public Access Oregon places great emphasis on public access to coastal beaches, shorelands, and waters. The OCMP is revising and updating the inventory of all public access sites along the Oregon coast and will make that inventory available via the Oregon Coastal Atlas. Coastal Resource Policy Assistance Coastal law and policy can be complicated given the many state and federal authorities and programs affecting coastal resources. OCMP policy specialists provides policy assistance to local governments, other state agencies, and the Governor s office on issues related to protection and use of estuaries, coastal shorelands, coastal hazards, and ocean resources. Ocean Shore Special Area Management The OCMP receives federal program enhancement funds to improve management of the ocean shore and nearshore ocean. These funds support ocean beach erosion studies by the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, coastal park master planning by Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and field studies on nearshore rocky reef habitats by the Department of Fish and Wildlife Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

115 Natural Hazards Program DLCD s Natural Hazards Program is the state s coordinating agency for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), through an agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Oregon has 261 cities and counties that are subject to flooding, and all participate in the NFIP, thereby making flood insurance available to their residents and businesses. The NFIP has three basic components: flood hazard mapping, floodplain insurance, and floodplain regulations. DLCD contributes to each of these components. Since 2002, DLCD has received $950,000 in federal grants to support FEMA s Map Modernization Program. The program will provide 183 Oregon cities and counties with digital flood insurance rate maps by Grant funds are used to: Review maps; Assist cities and counties with flood hazard ordinance amendments necessary because of the new maps; and Provide technical assistance, where necessary, to ensure cities and countied are able to efficiently use digital flood insurance rate maps in their planning programs. DLCD has entered into interagency agreements with the DAS Geospatial Office to make digital flood maps more available to the public via the Internet. DLCD participates in the flood insurance and flood hazard components of the NFIP by providing technical assistance and resources to Oregon s NFIP-participating communities. The Natural Hazards Program conducts training on NFIP requirements aimed at local planners, surveyors, building officials, and real estate agents. The program routinely answers technical questions from local governments, building contractors, surveyors, and the public about NFIP issues and standards. The Natural Hazard Program also works closely with Oregon s NFIP communities to ensure they are meeting NFIP requirements. These activities are funded in part from federal grants, which are renewed annually. Finally, the Natural Hazards Program works closely with the Oregon Office of Emergency Management before, during, and after natural disasters (particularly floods) to ensure that recovery complies with both the NFIP and the State of Oregon planning goals. In the past biennium, DLCD s Natural Hazard Program and the Transportation and Growth Management program collaborated to address planning issues that arose after severe flooding occurred in Vernonia Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 26

116 Integrating Land Use and Transportation Planning The Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program supports community efforts to expand transportation choices for people. Linking land use and transportation planning, TGM works in partnership with cities and counties to create vibrant, livable places in which people can walk, bike, take transit or drive where they want to go. Jointly administered by DLCD and ODOT, this non-regulatory program is funded by the Federal Highway Administration. TGM Grants for Oregon Communities During the biennium, TGM awarded $3.8 million for 60 projects in 54 communities. These grants have helped communities to develop and update Transportation System Plans (TSPs) for needed transportation facilities and to conduct integrated land use and transportation planning. Activities supported by TGM emphasize three key planning principles: Mixed-use, compact development, which brings stores, homes, job centers and services closer together; Good connectivity, which yields more direct routes and shorter distances between local destinations; and Pedestrian-friendly design, which makes distances seem shorter and more walkable. A TSP or TSP update provides a comprehensive assessment of an existing transportation system and helps a community develop solutions for current and future transportation needs. Many TGM grants awarded this biennium helped local governments prepare or update a TSP. As of December 2008, TSP updates were underway in Bandon, Monmouth, Deschutes County, and other communities. Better integration of transportation and land use planning helps Oregon communities accommodate anticipated growth, plan for needed transportation facilities, and prepare for and respond to new economic development opportunities. For example, Curry County is planning the street network for a nearly 4,000-acre urban growth area south of Brookings. Also, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments is engaged in integrated land use and transportation planning for Central Point s urban reserve areas Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

117 Many communities have used TGM grants to plan for transportation improvements to support downtown development and Main Street revitalization. This is the case in Gladstone, Toledo, Turner, and Ontario. Other communities have used TGM grants to plan new bike and pedestrian paths to better connect local destinations. Happy Valley, for example, is developing a pedestrian access plan, while Roseburg is preparing a pedestrian and bicycle plan. Marion County, meanwhile, is working with seven school districts on a safe-routes-to-school project to improve safety for students walking to and from 25 schools on or near county roads. TGM encourages pedestrian friendly development, which enables people to take short trips by foot instead of by car. TGM grants also help communities plan for development in a way that minimizes impacts on the state transportation system. By planning for compact rather than randomly scattered strip development, communities help reduce congestion on state highways intended to serve longerdistance travel and reduce the need for costly highway improvements Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 28

118 TGM Direct Community Assistance In addition to planning grants, TGM offers direct assistance to local governments through its Quick Response, Code Assistance, and Outreach programs. These programs make specialists in transportation, land use, and urban design available to communities seeking to resolve transportation and growth management challenges. Quick Response: Quick Response helps local governments and developers consider designs for proposed developments that enhance transportation choices. During the biennium, Quick Response: Initiated an effort with Vernonia to balance flood safety and transportation issues while choosing a site for schools after the December 2007 floods; Designed a new streetscape scheme for Culver, to be constructed with a Transportation Enhancement grant; Planned for the redevelopment of a former mill site in Ashland to include the campus for a large software company; Helped Garibaldi and Silverton with the transition to new zoning and standards for downtown by showing private property owners how their property could redevelop within the new vision; and Assisted Dallas with the creation of a mixed-use center. Code Assistance: Through Code Assistance services, TGM helps cities and counties reassess and update local land use regulations with a view to making them more supportive of compact, mixed-use development that improves transportation choices. This program helped Coquille revise its outdated land development regulations, provided expert assistance with guidelines for a new light rail station area in Clackamas County, and joined a broader effort to revitalize Hillsboro s downtown by identifying and fixing regulatory barriers to good development Outreach: Through Outreach, TGM supports educational workshops, public forums, and other activities aimed at enhancing public awareness and understanding of transportation-efficient development concepts. During the biennium, outreach workshops and forums took place in Ashland, Baker City, Bend, Estacada, Gladstone, La Grande and Mt. Angel. In partnership with the Oregon Association of Realtors, the Eugene Association of Realtors, the National Association of Realtors, and the cities of Eugene and Springfield, TGM also sponsored a conference on transportation, housing and growth issues in Lane County. Almost 300 realtors and local civic and neighborhood leaders attended a day-long forum to hear experts discuss creative ways to address transportation and land use challenges Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

119 Coordinating Programs of State Agencies The statewide planning program relies on cooperation and coordination among state agencies whose plans and programs affect land use, and local governments that adopt and implement local land use plans. An important goal of the statewide planning program is to ensure that all state agency programs and state permits regarding land use issued under such programs are consistent with the statewide planning goals and compatible with local land use plans. Consistency among state and local governments is maintained through state agency Coordination Agreements, completed and approved by LCDC in the late 1990s. However, the department has not engaged in a formal and concerted effort to update its coordination agreements since that time. In the meantime, local government comprehensive plans and land use regulations, and state agency rules, plans and programs affecting land use, have changed substantially. The department is proposing legislation to provide for re-engagement of agencies and updated coordination agreements. The legislation would also direct LCDC to update state permit compliance and compatibility rules to eliminate unclear or conflicting provisions, to maintain a high level of coordination among state agencies and local governments regarding actions that affect a use of property, and to streamline state and local permitting procedures. During the biennium, the department initiated and participated in regular senior staff meetings with the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. State agency coordination also occurs through the Governor s Economic Revitalization Team (ERT), which brings together 26 state and regional agencies on a regular basis to coordinate economic development programs and activities in all regions of the state. Funding for Oregon s Planning Program In terms of budget and staff, DLCD is among the smallest of state agencies. DLCD s legislatively-approved budget for the biennium is $27,955,879. The three main sources of funding are: General Fund... $20,794,123 Other Fund...$798,687 Federal Fund...$6,363,069 DLCD does not administer permit programs and therefore does not generate any revenue from permit fees Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 30

120 Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) ORS Chapter 197 established the Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee to advise LCDC and local governments on matters pertaining to citizen involvement. CIAC is an advisory body only; it has no explicit or implied authority over any local government or state agency. The committee does not set policy or review local land use plans (except for Citizen Involvement Programs) or decisions. The CIAC has eight members, one from each of Oregon s five congressional districts and three chosen at large. CIAC members are unpaid volunteers and are appointed to four-year terms by LCDC. The committee meets bi-monthly in Salem. During the biennium, the CIAC: Completed the third edition of: Putting the People in Planning: A Primer on Public Participation in Planning; Served on four DLCD work groups; Assisted Damascus in developing a Citizen Involvement Program; and Worked with the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning. Citizen participation is a hallmark of Oregon s planning program. Each city and county plan includes a citizen involvement program that describes how the public can participate in each phase of the planning process. Local governments must periodically evaluate their efforts to involve citizens, and, if necessary, update their programs. These requirements are established in Statewide Planning Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. Local Officials Advisory Committee (LOAC) ORS Chapter 197 established the Local Officials Advisory Committee to advise LCDC and the department on matters involving local governments. The LOAC is made up of members representing cities, counties and Metro. They are appointed by LCDC in consultation with the League of Oregon Cities and the Association of Oregon Counties. LOAC is specifically charged by statute with the responsibility to review and advise LCDC on proposed goal amendments. The LOAC did not meet in , but is expected to reinitiate its work in Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

121 DLCD Divisions and Offices DLCD is organized into five divisions: The Community Services Division is composed of regional representatives who assist local governments in the implementation of the statewide land use planning program by providing technical and educational assistance to local government planners and officials, the general public, and interest groups. The division also provides financial assistance to urban and rural communities. The Planning Services Division provides specialized technical assistance and policy consultation to DLCD s regional representatives serving local governments and citizens. The division includes the Transportation and Growth Management program (TGM) and specialists dealing with urban development, farm and forest land protection, mineral and aggregate resources, economic development, natural resource management, and floodplain management. The Ocean and Coastal Services Division works with coastal cities, counties, and state and federal agencies to administer Oregon s federally approved Coastal Management Program, which emphasizes conservation of estuaries, shorelands, beaches and dunes, and ocean resources. The division provides financial and planning assistance to local governments, implements a coastal hazards and assessment program, supports the Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council, maintains an online Oregon Coastal Atlas, and has authority under federal law to review federal programs and activities for consistency with Oregon s federally approved coastal program standards. The Measure 49 Development Services Division receives, evaluates and resolves claims submitted to the state under Measure 49. The measure was referred by the Oregon Legislature, approved by the voters on November 6, 2007, and became effective on December 6, In addition to modifications to Measure 37 (2004) claims, Measure 49 allows for new claims to be filed, but only against land use regulations that are adopted after January 1, The Operations Services Division provides services in the following areas: budget, accounting, purchasing, payroll, safety, space and facility management, mail distribution, information systems, landowner notification, agency policy and procedure development, inventory and property control, and reception Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 32

122 The department is based in Salem, but has field offices in Portland, Springfield, Newport, Bend, La Grande and Central Point. The following is a list of DLCD offices and contact information for local regional representatives: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (Main Office) 635 Capitol St., NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR Richard Whitman, Director, (503) x280 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 800 NE Oregon St., # 18, Suite 1145 Portland, OR Meg Fernekees, (971) Jennifer Donnelly, (971) Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 644 A Street Springfield, OR Ed Moore, (541) Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 810 S.W. Alder Street, Unit B Newport, OR Laren Woolley, North Coast: (541) Dave Perry, South Coast: (541) Steve Williams (541) Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development P.O. Box 3275, 155 N. First St. Central Point, OR John Renz, (541) Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 888 N.W. Hill Street, Suite 2 Bend, OR Mark Radabaugh, (541) Jon Jinings, (541) Doug White, (541) Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 105 Fir St., Suite 210 La Grande, OR Grant Young, (541) Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

123 NOTE: The Biennial Report was designed and edited by Cliff Voliva, Communications Officer for the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Copies of this report can be obtained by: MAIL: Department of Land Conservation and Development Attn: Communications Officer 635 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR PHONE: (503) x268 VIA THE WEB PHOTO CREDITS: Constance Beaumont: page 28 Laren Woolley: pages 22, 23 Cliff Voliva: front cover, pages 1, 3, 6, 13, 18, 19 Cover photo is of Prineville, from the rimrock southwest of town. PRINTING This report was printed by the Publishing and Distribution Divison of the Department of Administrative Services (December 2008) Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 34

124 ATTACHMENT A: Map of Oregon Showing 2008 Visits by DLCD Director Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

125 Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

126 Biennial Report, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

127 Protecting and Managing Oregon s Coastal and Ocean Resources BIENNIAL REPORT Oregon Coastal Management Program Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Richard Whitman, Director

128 This document was produced with funding assistance from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, grant award NA08NOS

129 OUR MISSION: To conserve and protect Oregon s outstanding coastal resource by assisting local governments to develop livable, resilient coastal communities and knitting together the programs and activities of local, state, and federal agencies on the Oregon coast. We are pleased to present this report to the people of Oregon, for whom the coast is a very special place. This report summarizes the work of the Oregon Coastal Management Program, led by the Department of Land Conservation and Development, in partnership with many dedicated individuals in coastal cities and counties, state agencies, federal agencies, non governmental organizations, and citizens. We are proud to continue a long history of coastal conservation and consider it a privilege to work with such outstanding Oregonians. We are especially indebted to and inspired by Dr. Bob Bacon, Gearhart, whose fierce determination, public spirit, and good cheer were instrumental in persuading the 1967 Oregon Legislature to keep Oregon s beaches open to public use, forever. For more information, contact The Oregon Coastal Management Program 635 Capitol St. NE, Ste. 150, Salem, OR Bob Bailey, Coastal Program Manager (503) x 281 bob.bailey@state.or.us Coastal Services Center Office 810 SW Alder St., Newport, Oregon Laren Woolley, No. Coast Field Representative laren.woolley@state.or.us Dave Perry, So. Coast Field Representative dave.perry@state.or.us Steve Williams, Shorelands Specialist willias@lcd.state.or.us Cover photo: The ocean beach and vegetated dunes at the north end of the dune sheet that extends south from Heceta Head to Cape Arago at Coos Bay.. Photo credits: p. 3, Jay Charland; p. 6, Greg McMurray; p. 5, Steve Williams; pp 4, 7, 8, cover, Bob Bailey

130 For more information about the Oregon coast, check out The Oregon Coastal Atlas. The Atlas provides background information for different coastal systems, interactive mapping, aerial photos, online geospatial analysis tools, and direct download access to various planning and natural resource data sets about the Oregon Coast.

131 Introduction Since 1977, the Oregon s Coastal Management Program (OCMP) has helped to protect Oregon s coastal resources and assist coastal communities plan for growth and development. The OCMP is based on the work of the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission which, in 1975, laid the groundwork for the statewide planning goals to protect estuaries, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes, and ocean resources. Oregon s program was second in the Nation to be approved under the national Coastal Zone Management Act. Oregon benefits from this federal approval in two key ways. First, Oregon receives funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. During the biennium, the Department received $4.4 million dollars in federal funds to implement the Coastal Management Program. A substantial percentage was directed to coastal cities and counties to support planning work and to state agencies to assist key coastal activities. Second, Oregon is empowered to review federal agency actions and approvals that affect the coast to make sure these are consistent with Oregon s laws, agency regulations, and the local comprehensive plans and ordinances. This federal consistency authority is a crucial legal tool in reviewing federal decisions for dredging, energy facility siting such as LNG or wave energy, and offshore oil or gas development. This report summarizes activities in three principal program areas during : Helping Oregon s Coastal Communities Addressing Emerging Coastal Issues Conserving Coastal Resources 1

132 Oregon s Coastal Zone Oregon s Coastal Zone covers state ocean waters to three nautical miles from shore and all coastal watersheds except the Columbia River above Puget Island, the Umpqua River above Scottsburg, and the Rogue River above Agness. The Oregon Coastal Zone, described by the Oregon Legislature in 1971, was approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1977 under the National Coastal Zone Management Act. In this area federal agency permits and activities must be consistent with the enforceable policies of the Oregon Coastal Management Program, including state laws, statewide planning goals, and local land use plans and ordinances. Vital Statistics Total Coast Length: miles Clatsop Co miles Tillamook Co miles Lincoln Co miles Lane Co miles Douglas Co miles Coos Co miles Curry Co miles Total Area Land Ocean Estuarine 9,728.9 sq. mi. 8,260.5 sq. mi. 1,256.2 sq. mi sq. mi. Land Ownership Federal 2,670.2 sq. mi. State 1,044.6 sq. mi. Private 4,545.4 sq. mi. Other 23.4 sq. mi. Urban Growth Areas sq. mi. 2

133 HELPING OREGON S COASTAL COMMUNITIES Oregon s coastal communities face unique challenges. In addition to land use issues common statewide, coastal local governments must also protect estuaries, ocean shores, dunes and other coastal resources. They face risks from shoreline erosion, ocean flooding, severe storms, tsunamis, and the effects of climate change. Adding to these challenges are rugged geography, isolation, and limited transportation options. The OCMP assists coastal cities and counties in three ways: On Site Advice and Assistance The OCMP provides direct technical and planning assistance to 32 coastal cities and seven counties on a daily basis. Three staff members work from the Coastal Services Center in Newport: two regional representatives provide planning advice and assistance and a third focuses on coastwide coastal hazard and shoreland issues. Other policy and program specialists in the central Salem office provide advice and assistance as needed and often travel to meet with on-site with local government planning staff. Financial Assistance During the biennium, OCMP Grants Coordinator managed more than $750,000 in grant awards to local governments from federal funds including: Planning Assistance (CZM) grants help local governments to maintain core planning services, review development proposals, prepare plan changes, update ordinances, and other planning work. All jurisdictions receive at least $3,000 for which a 1:1 local match is required. Technical Assistance/Priority Project (306 TA) grants help cities and counties to plan for economic development, identify buildable 3

134 HELPING OREGON S COASTAL COMMUNITIES lands, develop capacity in GIS and information technologies, and assess coastal hazards. Water Quality Maintenance (306 NP) grants help local governments to reduce or prevent water pollution and loss of watershed functions caused by urban development. Training, Education, and Information The OCMP responded to requests from local governments to provide training for local planning staff, elected and appointed officials. The OCMP held four kinds of training and information activities: Coastal Planning Seminars: Day-long training sessions, entitled CZM 201, were held in Gold Beach and Rockaway Beach. A total of 75 local planning staff, planning commissioners, and elected officials attended. The seminars provided an overview of the statewide planning program, special coastal requirements, and the roles of state agencies in coastal land use planning and decisions. Local Planning Commission Training: The OCMP held 4-hour training sessions in 15 coastal communities, reaching 150 planning commissioners and elected officials. To address on-going training needs, the OCMP began developing an on-line training curriculum for local planning commissioners. GIS technical assistance: The OCMP GIS specialist provided inshop GIS training and trouble-shooting assistance to local governments. This assistance helped local staff to avoid start-up and training costs while providing a hands-on learning experience. Oregon Coastal Atlas: The Oregon Coastal Atlas is an on-line data depot for the public. It provides mapped data and information about the Oregon coast. The Atlas serves more than 3,500 data sets and can be found at In 2008, the Atlas received more than 8,000 hits per day and a total of about 2.5 million hits. # # #

135 ADDRESSING EMERGING COASTAL ISSUES The Oregon coast was a hotbed of major coastal and ocean activities of statewide interest. As a result, the OCMP devoted staff resources, funding support, and expertise to working with the Governor s Office, the Department of Justice, and other state agencies to address five emerging issues. Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Oregon s federal consistency review authority put the OCMP in the spotlight during the biennium. A major amount of staff resources was devoted to reviewing proposals to site Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import facilities and pipelines on the Columbia River and on Coos Bay. OCMP staff worked with applicants, local governments, the Oregon Department of Justice, the Governor s Office, non-governmental organizations, state and federal agencies to address significant policy, procedural, environmental, and economic issues posed by each of these proposed facilities pipelines. Coastal Impacts from Climate Change OCMP staff began a serious examination of how climate change is likely to affect the Oregon coast and its communities. The OCMP worked with other state agencies, academic specialists, and local planners to prepare a report and strategy to respond to the likely effects of climate change on the Oregon coast. This report to the 2009 Oregon Legislature and coastal local officials uses the recommendations of the Governor s Climate Change Integration Group to focus on the special needs of coastal communities. Ocean Wave Energy Development The Oregon coast and nearshore ocean are favorable for harvesting energy from ocean waves. Thus several companies have made formal proposals to site ocean wave energy generation equipment. As a result, the OCMP targeted substantial staff resources on ocean wave energy and is a 5

136 ADDRESSING EMERGING COASTAL ISSUES leader in scientific and technical investigations related to wave energy (see In addition, the OCMP is the lead agency for planning for ocean wave energy development pursuant to Governor s Executive Order directing the DLCD to prepare a plan for ocean wave energy and submit it to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for adoption as amendment to the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan. That planning work is expected to be mostly complete by December, 2009, with Commission rule-making to follow in Marine Reserves The OCMP played three critical roles in carrying out the Governor s Executive Order related to marine reserves. First, the OCMP Senior Policy Analyst served as an Ex-Officio member of the Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC). Second, the OCMP provided staff, administrative, and financial support to the OPAC and its Marine Reserves Working Group. Third, the OCMP NOAA Coastal Fellow and Coastal Atlas Coordinator worked with many other agencies and academic scientists to provide information via West Coast Governor s Agreement on Ocean Health In September 2006, the governors of Oregon, Washington, and California announced an agreement to collaborate on ocean and coastal issues of mutual interest. Subsequently, the OCMP provided technical and policy assistance to the Office of the Governor in developing an Action Plan released in May, 2008, and worked actively with colleagues from California, Washington, and federal agencies to implement the agreement. The West Coast Governor s Agreement is one of several voluntary regional agreements for ocean and coastal governance that resulted from 2004 recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. # # #

137 CONSERVING COASTAL RESOURCES Oregon s coast is rich trove of natural and cultural resources that are highly valued by Oregonians and are fundamental to Oregon s coastal environment. Several OCMP programs assist in conserving these resources: CELCP: The Coastal and Estuarine Lands Conservation Program Created by the Congress, the CELCP provides competitive grants to states to acquire and conserve special coastal areas. The OCMP administers this program for Oregon. During the biennium, the OCMP worked with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, The Nature Conservancy, and the Beavercreek Natural Area Partnership to secure $6.2 million to acquire several important coastal properties at Fort Stevens (Clatsop Co.), Beaver Creek (Lincoln Co.), and Big Creek (Lane Co.). Public Access to Beaches and Coastal Waters Oregon places great emphasis on public access to coastal beaches, shorelands, and waters. OCMP staff are using GPS and digital technology to revise and update the inventory of all public access sites in the Oregon Coastal Zone. The inventory will be posted on the Oregon Coastal Atlas for the public to search and find information about access to beaches and waters of the Oregon coast. Coastal Resource Policy Assistance Coastal law and policy can be complicated given the many state and federal authorities and programs affecting coastal resources. OCMP policy specialists provides policy assistance to local governments, other state agencies, and the Governor s Office on issues related to protection, management, and use of estuaries, coastal shorelands, and ocean resources, as well as littoral cell planning and ocean shore hazard protection. 7

138 CONSERVING COASTAL RESOURCES Ocean Shore Hazards and Management The OCMP receives special federal funds to improve management of the ocean shore and to protect development from hazards along Oregon s dynamic coastal shoreline. The OCMP provides these funds to the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries to support ocean beach erosion and monitoring studies at Rockaway Beach, Neskowin, Clatsop Spit, and other locations. The OCMP also provides funds to the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to update and improve coastal state park master plans that will implement the Oregon Shores Management Plan and Habitat Conservation Strategy completed by OPRD in Ocean Resource Field Studies and Assessments Oregon s nearly 1200 square miles of ocean waters contain outstanding ocean resources that are a fundamental part of the coastal economy and coastal environment. For fifteen years the OCMP has provided funds to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to survey and assess resources of nearshore rocky reefs. During the biennium the ODFW completed first-ever bathymetric surveys of Redfish Rocks near Port Orford and continued studies of fish abundance and distribution at Perpetua Reef south of Yachats. Stormwater Management and Coastal Water Quality Maintaining the quality of coastal waters is important to the health of coastal ecosystems, the coastal economy, and human health. The OCMP assisted Curry County to assess the potential effects on water quality from stormwater runoff in the Harbor Hills and partnered with Oregon Extension Sea Grant to help local governments improve development codes that encourage practices to reduce or prevent non-point source pollution. Data from the Oregon Beach Water Quality Monitoring Program is posted on the Coastal Atlas # # #

139 LOOKING AHEAD: The Oregon coast will continue to face challenges from growth and development despite national and global economic circumstances. Wave energy development will pose challenges and opportunities. The effects of climate change on the coast are likely to become even more pronounced. During the coming biennium the OCMP will continue to provide a high level of service and assistance to assist local governments to improve and implement local planning programs; assist coastal communities and agencies address the effects of climate change through a strategy for adaptation; enhance training for local officials and planners through an on-line web-site and locally-based workshops; work with stakeholders, partner agencies, and the Land Conservation and Development Commission to complete a plan for ocean wave energy development; complete the update of the Oregon Coast Access Guide; make continuous improvements to the Oregon Coastal Atlas website and work with adjacent states to develop regional services on the Atlas; assist the Governor s Office with implementation of the West Coast Governors Agreement on Ocean Health; assist state agencies and local governments to compete for funds from the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Conservation Program; support work of the departments of Geology and Mineral Industries, Parks and Recreation, and Fish and Wildlife, and other agencies to conserve and manage coastal resources; and participate in national issues and initiatives through the Coastal States Organization to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act, secure annual appropriations for coastal programs, create an Ocean Trust Fund, and re-align NOAA programs and services to support state coastal management programs. # # # 9

140 COASTAL MANAGEMENT PARTNERS Oregon s Coastal Management Program (OCMP) is the combined effort of many organizations, governmental entities, and individuals. The Department of Land Conservation and Development administers the program.. Cities Oregon s 32 coastal cities plan for growth, approve development, and provide essential public services to residents and businesses inside urban areas. Cities also protect key coastal resources through planning, zoning, and other regulations. Counties Coastal counties vary widely in geography, growth pressures, and resource economics. All work hard to maintain forest and agricultural lands, protect estuaries and other natural resources, while providing housing and economic opportunities. State Agencies State agencies, such as Oregon Parks and Recreation Department and Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, have coastal programs and responsibilities. They assist local governments, provide technical information, enforce regulations, and carry out state laws to protect coastal resources. Federal Agencies The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies are partners in conserving and developing Oregon s coastal resources. Coastal Organizations The OCMP works with coastal port districts, local watershed councils, the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association, Oregon Sea Grant Extension, seafood commodity commissions, local fishery organizations, and citizen-based groups such as the Haystack Rock Awareness Program. All are critical partners. The Coastal Goals Four statewide planning goals are at the heart of the OCMP. These goals are the result of planning work by the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission from Local government plans and ordinances carry out the requirements of goals 16, 17, and 18. State agencies carry out Goal 19. Goal 16, Estuarine Resources protects estuarine habitats and ecosystems in all Oregon estuaries and creates a coastwide estuary classification system; Goal 17, Coastal Shorelands preserves unique habitats and requires existing waterfront land to be protected for water-dependent uses; Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes respects the natural processes of the ocean shore and prohibits shorefront protection structures for development after 1977; Goal 19, Ocean Resources protects and conserves long-term values of renewable ocean resources. 10

141 Coastal Management Partners State Agencies Governor s Natural Resources Office Dept. State Lands South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve Parks and Recreation Dept. Dept. Geology and Mineral Industries Dept. Fish and Wildlife Dept. Transportation Dept. Energy Economic - Community Development Dept. Dept. Environmental Quality Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Dept. Agriculture Dept. Forestry Water Resources Dept. Oregon Solutions Program Organizations and Academia Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association; Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce; Portland State University National Policy Consensus Center; Oregon State University College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Geosciences Department, Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon Sea Grant, Sea Grant Extension, Hatfield Marine Science Center; Port Orford Ocean Resources Team. Coastal Indian Tribes Coquille Indian Tribe; Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw; Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde; Confederated Tribes of Siletz. Federal Agencies US Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon Coastal Refuges Complex; National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division; US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District; National Ocean Service Coastal Services Center, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management; US Environmental Protection Agency Pacific Coastal Ecology Laboratory; US Minerals Management Service Pacific Region; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Alternative Energy Program; US Forest Service Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area; US Bureau of Land Management Coos Bay District. Regional State Partners State of Washington Department of Ecology Shorelands Division; State of California Resources Agency, California Coastal Commission, California Coastal Conservancy, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Coastal Local Governments Clatsop County CREST* Astoria Warrenton Gearhart Seaside Cannon Beach Tillamook County Manzanita Nehalem Wheeler Rockaway Beach Garibaldi Bay City Tillamook Lincoln County Lincoln City Depoe Bay Siletz Newport Toledo Waldport Yachats Lane County Florence Dunes City Douglas County Reedsport Coos County Lakeside North Bend Coos Bay Coquille Myrtle Point Powers Bandon Curry County Port Orford Gold Beach Brookings * CREST is an association of local governments at the mouth of the Columbia River. DLCD Coastal Program Staff Dave Perry, South Coast Representative Laren Woolley, North Coast Representative Steve Williams, Coastal Shoreland Tanya Haddad, Coastal Atlas Jeff Weber, Coastal Conservation Projects Randy Dana, Coastal GIS Amanda Punton, Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Paul Klarin, Coastal Policy Dale Blanton, Federal Affairs Jay Charland, Coastal Permits Diana Evans, Coastal Grants Greg McMurray, Principal Marine Scientist Andy Lanier, NOAA Coastal Fellow Lorinda DeHaan, Administratio/Operations Bob Bailey, Coastal Program Manager Steve Shipsey, Counsel, Dept. of Justice Larry Knudsen, Counsel, Dept. of Justice

142

143 BIENNIAL REPORT Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program A joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development January 2009

144 TGM MISSION Oregon s Transportation and Growth Management Program supports community efforts to expand transportation choices for people. By linking land use and transportation planning, TGM works in partnership with local governments to create vibrant, livable places in which people can walk, bike, take transit or drive where they want to go. TGM: Better Ways to Better Places This report and the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program are funded by the State of Oregon and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, through monies authorized by the Federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

145 TABLE OF CONTENTS Message from TGM Program Agency Directors...1 TGM: Planning Principles and Services...2 Project Highlights from Around the State...5 TGM Grant Projects by Region...13 TGM Advisory Committee...17

146 MESSAGE FROM TGM PROGRAM AGENCY DIRECTORS When the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program began in 1993, gas cost about a dollar a gallon. The general public knew little about global warming and even less about transportation-related greenhouse gases. Today it s hard to pick up a newspaper without seeing articles on unstable fuel prices, climate change, or both. From its inception, TGM has worked to give Oregonians more transportation choices, especially by making walking, biking, and using transit more convenient and by planning more efficient street networks. This expansion of transportation options always made good sense, but today s concerns about volatile fuel prices and climate change make TGM s longstanding goal of improving transportation choices more important than ever. By helping local governments do better transportation planning and better integrate transportation and land-use planning TGM accomplishes several objectives in addition to expanding transportation choices: It gives Oregonians an opportunity to soften the impact of future gas-price hikes on their wallets. It gives communities a way to reduce their carbon footprints. It improves safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. It helps communities strengthen their economic vitality and attract new business. And it enhances the efficiency of the overall state transportation system so that highways can handle the movement of goods and people. Projects launched by TGM during the current biennium range from a safe-routes-to-school initiative in Marion County to plans for bicycle-pedestrian networks in Roseburg and Joseph; from better rail and bus connections in Elgin to zoning for more walkable development in Ashland; and from a local street network plan in John Day to a regional strategy for transportation system management in the Portland metropolitan region and a highway corridor study in South Redmond. Meanwhile, TGM projects completed in previous biennia have borne fruit. In Irrigon, for example, a new city hall opened its doors, advancing local efforts to create a strong town center. In the Portland area, Beaverton and Hillsboro moved ahead with a parking strategy intended to foster transit and pedestrian-oriented development in major regional centers. And in Medford, a new bus station celebrated its grand opening in October In these and other ways, the TGM Program advances goals widely supported by Oregonians and identified as critical by the Governor, the Oregon Transportation Commission, and the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. Richard Whitman, Director Department of Land Conservation & Development Matthew Garrett, Director Oregon Department of Transportation 1

147 TGM: PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND SERVICES The Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM) works with local governments to give Oregonians more transportation choices. A partnership between the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and the Oregon Department of Transportation, TGM seeks to make walking, biking, and using transit safer and more convenient; economic centers more vibrant and successful; neighborhoods more livable, walkable, and better connected. In advancing these goals, the program enhances the state s road system as a whole and improves the ability of commercial enterprises to move along the highways to deliver goods and services. When many of Oregon s transportation needs, especially those requiring new infrastructure, are hugely expensive, TGM offers a way to make many small, low-cost improvements that, taken together, yield big results for the system as a whole. Inexpensive but thoughtfully conceived improvements to community design can not only allow many people to get where they want to go, cheaply and easily, but they can also reduce the need to travel in the first place. Moreover, because TGM is funded primarily by the Federal Highway Administration, the program enables Oregon to leverage a comparatively small state investment with federal dollars. Through this nonregulatory, voluntary program, local governments may take advantage of an alternate route to greater transportation efficiencies. TGM recognizes that land use patterns and community design significantly affect transportation options. For example, scattered development that lacks good connections between local destinations increases the need for driving. Such development often requires people to take very short trips sometimes even between neighboring businesses by car. Wellplanned development with good street and walkway connections improves transportation options and reduces the need to drive. Pedestrian friendly development encourages people to take short trips by foot instead of by car 2

148 As Oregonians look for ways to save money in the face of volatile fuel prices, TGM continues to promote planning concepts that make savings possible by shortening the distances between the places we need to go. These concepts include: mixed-use, compact development, which brings stores, homes, job centers and services closer together; good connectivity, which yields more direct routes and shorter distances between local destinations; downtown and main street revitalization, which enables communities to take advantage of, and enhance, existing public and private investments in areas that already offer good transportation options; and pedestrian-friendly design, which enhances safety and makes distances seem shorter and more walkable. TGM continues to support planning for public transit, transit-oriented development, bicycle and pedestrian networks, and smart development generally. However, the program also recently identified two new issues for special focus: safe routes to school and the reduction of transportationrelated greenhouse gases through better planning. Helping Oregon communities with these challenges will receive special focus in the coming biennium. For the Biennium, TGM is providing $3.8 million in planning grants and technical assistance to 60 projects in communities throughout Oregon. Many TGM grants fund Transportation System Plans that strengthen local economies by improving local street systems so that they are better able to handle local trips, and by enhancing the ability of the state highway system to handle through traffic. Other grants advance local efforts to revitalize downtowns and capitalize upon new economic development opportunities. Still others help communities identify ways to complete bicycle and pedestrian networks, improve public transit services, and make other transportation-related improvements. Grants for transportation plans and integrated land use and transportation planning account for about 80 percent of the TGM budget. About 20 percent of the budget supports TGM s three Community Assistance services: Outreach, Quick Response, and Code Assistance. Through Outreach, TGM sponsors workshops, lecture series, and other events at which regionally and nationally prominent experts improve public understanding of land use and transportation planning concepts. Through Quick Response, TGM offers direct design assistance to communities seeking to resolve thorny issues presented by imminent development projects. And through Code Assistance, TGM helps local governments revise zoning and development codes to encourage the kind of growth communities want while discouraging the transportation inefficiencies they seek to avoid. During this biennium TGM also introduced a new service: Transportation System Plan (TSP) Assessments. These assessments: help local communities identify key issues in TSPs that may need updating or further planning work; and suggest approaches to solutions. 3

149 Local governments can use the assessments to focus future transportation planning efforts rather than spending limited resources on issues that do not require attention. The assessments will also aid local governments in their search for grant funds to carry out projects. Through its web site ( TGM puts Oregonians in touch with many publications and information resources that help citizens address topics ranging from local street planning to safe routes to school, from transit-oriented development to main street revitalization, and from smart development to grants for transportation planning. TGM is working with Eugene on station area planning for the new Bus Rapid Transit system. 4

150 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS FROM AROUND THE STATE While all TGM projects aim to improve transportation choices for Oregonians, they typically bolster other goals as well: economic development, enhanced livability, the movement of goods and services, and the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. A complete list of TGM projects funded during the Biennium appears on page 14 of this report. Highlights from a representative sampling of local projects around the state are described below. Planning for Transportation and Economic Development Fifteen years ago, Elgin saw a railroad excursion service linking its community to Joseph as just a dream, but the city included this idea in its economic development plan anyway in hopes that the dream might come true. Today, thanks to the efforts of railroad buffs and citizen volunteers, it has. After Union and Wallowa Counties teamed up to purchase rail lines linking the two cities, local railroad enthusiasts raised money to acquire rail passenger cars, and now an excursion service is up and running. Ridership has doubled in the last three years, with more than 3,000 people having taken the excursion last year. Ridership is expected to continue to grow. But Elgin needs a new depot (the historic depot was torn down in the 1990s) as well as loading platforms, parking, and other facilities to accommodate the traveling public. In addition, the city wants to lure passengers attracted to the excursion service into its downtown so local businesses can get an economic shot in the arm. With these goals in mind, Elgin is using its TGM grant to develop a new strategy for linking its planned depot with the downtown. The grant will help the city improve rail, bus, pedestrian, bicycle, and street connections around its rail station and in its downtown. The benefit of this project to our community is huge, says Joe Garlitz, Elgin s city manager. People enjoy coming out here as tourists. The excursion line takes them through a beautiful roadless area. Travelers taking the excursion train linking Elgin and Joseph enjoy scenes like this. 5

151 Transportation System Plans (TSPs) are required by the State of Oregon, which encourages local governments to sift through competing transportation projects and establish funding priorities. In its award-winning plan, Milwaukie used its TGM grant to give local residents a meaningful say in the city s TSP. Starting with a locally broadcast kick-off meeting attended by over 200 citizens, and through topic-specific advisory committee meetings, electronic communications, and even outreach at the local farmers market, Milwaukie expanded efforts to involve as many local residents as possible in the development of its transportation plan. The TSP ultimately adopted by Milwaukie will help the city accomplish several goals, including: completing Milwaukie s streets to allow for better pedestrian connections within neighborhoods and to schools, parks, activity centers and transit stops; closing gaps in Milwaukie s now deficient bicycle network; enhancing local transit service; managing downtown parking to better serve customers and employees; designing streets to protect neighborhood character and livability; and improving freight access to the north industrial area of Milwaukie. Our plan calls for a multi-modal approach to transportation and reflects the community s vision for Milwaukie, says Susan Shanks, senior planner for the city, who notes that the community s extensive involvement in shaping the plan generated widespread support for it. The plan adoption process proved to be more celebratory than bureaucratic because residents involved in creating the plan also took part in presenting it to the City Council, she adds. By enabling people to take many short trips by foot or bike, TGM helps the state to reduce traffi c congestion like this and to enable truck traffi c to move more smoothly 6

152 Expanding Transportation Choices A TGM project completed by Medford in 2005 served as the catalyst for the recent construction of the city s new Greyhound bus station, which held its grand opening in October The station grew out of a TGM-funded plan for Medford s Middleford Commons, a nine-block redevelopment project aimed at revitalizing downtown Medford. The station, which will help to establish an intermodal transportation hub in Medford s downtown, will ease transfers between local and regional bus services and provide a stop for a shuttle that takes Amtrak passengers to Klamath Falls. Medford celebrates the opening of its new bus station The new 3,000-square-foot bus station was designed to complement nearby historic buildings and to harmonize with Medford s 1910 railroad depot, which now serves as a restaurant. This project illustrates the collaborative efforts of several agencies, including the Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD), Greyhound Lines, Inc., and the Medford Urban Renewal Agency (MURA). It also shows how TGM contributed to the RVTD S long-term master plan and Medford s Middleford Commons project, says Jackie Rodgers, executive director of MURA, which played a major role. 7

153 In Joseph, the city is well on its way to completing a comprehensive bicycle-pedestrian plan. This project grew out of local concerns for the safety of elderly residents at the Alpine Assisted Living Facility, who now must take a hazardous walk along a highway simply to go downtown. The plan will not only address the need for sidewalks linking the Alpine Facility to downtown, but will also identify bicycle and pedestrian routes to connect Joseph s schools, rodeo grounds, Wallowa Lake, a new state park, and other popular destinations. It is often difficult to imagine how community transportation needs may change in 20 years, says Mark Lacey, Joseph City Councilor. Thanks to the TGM program, we have been given the opportunity and the tools to create a vision of what we would like that change to be. Communities that make biking and walking safe and convenient can change travel behavior. Given uncertain and volatile gas prices, communities everywhere are showing more interest in the creation of better bicycle and pedestrian networks. In Newberg, a new bicycle-pedestrian plan offers a model for other communities by emphasizing accommodations for physically disabled persons. In the past, wheelchair users have found the city s transportation system to be a patchwork of poorly connected sidewalks. As Roy Gathercoal, a local resident who uses a wheelchair, put it: Each attempt to get to the library, the store, or City Hall has meant facing an ordeal of missing curb cuts, breaks in the sidewalk, and dangerous intersections. People who relied on wheelchairs simply stayed home if they didn t want to expose themselves to these hazards. Now the city has a plan for opening up the community to those in strollers, in wheelchairs, on bicycles, or on foot. The plan represents a big first step toward giving people with disabilities greater independence. TGM s support made this vital step possible for our community, Gathercoal adds. 8

154 Students can walk home safely from well-sited schools close to neighborhoods. Marion County is working with 25 schools in seven school districts to identify sidewalk gaps, unsafe road crossings, and other safety hazards on routes that students take to and from school. The county is using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology, parent surveys, and other tools to gather information that will provide the foundation for a comprehensive strategy for creating safe routes to school throughout the county. The strategy will help the county establish funding priorities and obtain funds to address them. The county sees a great benefit in this project, says Karen Odenthal, civil engineering associate for the Marion County Department of Public Works. We re excited about the prospect of coming up with a prioritized list of projects so that we can use our limited resources more effectively and make our roads safer for students. As it builds the needed improvements, Marion County hopes to relieve congestion in and around schools. Parents who drive their children to school make up as much as 25 percent of morning traffic. The congestion caused by this traffic creates safety problems, which, in turn, cause even more parents to drive their children to school. The county wants to break this cycle and to encourage children to develop a lifelong habit of integrating simple exercise, such as walking and biking, into their daily routine. 9

155 Vibrant Downtowns and Main Streets Increasingly, communities recognize that vibrant and walkable town centers are key to economic revitalization and development. This is especially true in Oregon s coastal communities, which rely heavily on tourism to sustain their economies. With a view to revitalizing its main street, and following a TGM outreach workshop in 2007, the City of Garibaldi adopted new downtown land use standards in February The standards are intended to carry out downtown planning concepts embodied in ODOT s Special Transportation Areas. These concepts help areas become more pedestrian-friendly and call for, among other things: buildings to abut sidewalks, as opposed to being set back from the street amid seas of asphalt; parking to be located behind buildings, rather than in front of them, so the main street attracts more pedestrian traffic; and mixed land uses e.g., retail stores at the street level with residential units on upper floors. Having taken this important step toward revitalizing its main street, Garibaldi is now working to apply similar standards to a site on the city s west end, says Kevin Greenwood, Garibaldi s city manager. With a combination of grants, tax increment financing, and other funding sources, we plan to begin construction of new streetscape improvements in Spring Garibaldi is working to revitalize its center with better designed, more pedestrian-friendly development. 10

156 In the Portland metropolitan area, the 2040 Growth Concept envisions higher-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development for designated centers. One of these is downtown Beaverton. But like many cities, Beaverton wanted to learn if its parking policies might be hindering progress toward the goal of an economically vibrant urban center. To identify parking policies that would support the type of development envisioned in the 2040 plan, Beaverton undertook a Downtown Parking Solutions project with TGM assistance. The new parking strategy sets forth a variety of steps that the city can take to support its downtown redevelopment objectives. We ve already completed several actions recommended by the study, says Margaret Middleton, Beaverton s senior transportation planner. This project was very successful and should offer a template for other regional centers. Like other communities in Central Oregon, Redmond has experienced rapid population growth. With this growth has come a haphazard patchwork of new development along U.S. 97 on the city s southern edge. Access management issues are being handled individually rather than through a corridor-wide strategy. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are intermittent, discouraging the use of alternative transportation modes along this corridor. The TGM-funded South Corridor Study will focus on these and other issues affecting the entire corridor. The study will propose better access management and a plan for better pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Finally, it will identify ways to improve the appearance of this corridor with a view to enhancing its economic vitality. Around the State: Community Assistance Services In addition to the grant-funded projects described above, TGM provided technical services during this biennium to local governments through the program s Community Assistance services: Outreach, Quick Response, and Code Assistance. Several outreach projects advanced local efforts to strengthen the economic vitality of downtowns and main streets. In Ashland, for example, a workshop stimulated the city s repeal of an outdated zoning requirement for 20-foot setbacks along Lithia Way, a downtown arterial. By repealing this requirement, the city plans to encourage more pedestrian-friendly development compatible with Ashland s historic downtown. In Gladstone, La Grande, and Mt. Angel, outreach workshops helped these cities identify ways to rejuvenate the cities central business districts while improving transportation connections. In Lane County, a TGM-sponsored smart growth conference attended by nationally prominent experts drew nearly 300 realtors, developers, and local officials. 11

157 A TGM project infl uenced the placement of Irrigon s new City Hall, located in an area the city wants to turn into a vibrant town center TGM s quick response program, which provides direct design assistance to communities, helped Irrigon determine the best site for its new City Hall, which was recently completed in an area now targeted to become the city s new town center. In Culver, a new streetscape plan will help the city enhance the safety, beauty, and vitality of its downtown corridor. Through its code assistance services, TGM helped Coquille revise an outdated land development code and Clackamas County formulate new development guidelines for a light rail station. In Hillsboro, TGM s code assistance program supported local downtown revitalization efforts by helping the city identify and overcome regulatory barriers to smart development. 12

158 TGM GRANT PROJECTS BY REGION Clatsop Columbia Wallowa Tillamook Yamhill Polk Washington 1Multnomah Clackamas Marion Hood River Wasco Sherman Gilliam Morrow Wheeler Umatilla Union Baker Lincoln Benton 2 Linn Jefferson Grant Lane Deschutes 4 Crook 5 Coos Malheur 3 Douglas Lake Harney Curry Josephine Klamath Jackson 13

159 GRANTS AND COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROJECTS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS BY ODOT REGION Grant Projects Region 1 Banks Transportation System Plan... $49,455 Beaverton 2035 Transportation System Plan Update...$155,000 Canby Transportation System Plan Update...$100,000 Columbia County US 30 Transit Access Plan... $85,150 Damascus Development Code Project... $95,080 Damascus Transportation System Plan...$250,000 Gladstone Portland Avenue Streetscape Plan...$83,600 Happy Valley Pedestrian Access Plan... $63,326 Metro Regional Strategy for Transportation System Management...$170,880 Multnomah County SW Scholls Ferry Road Streetscape Design... $50,700 Portland Bicycle Master Plan Update: Phase II... $75,000 Portland Central Eastside Street Plan...$116,278 Portland Eastside MAX Station Area Planning...$350,000 Sandy Transportation System Plan Update...$130,535 Tigard Multi-Modal Pathways... $69,577 Tigard Transportation System Plan Update...$175,801 Washington County 2035 Transportation Plan Update...$178,407 Wood Village Arata Road Streetscape Design... $19, Community Assistance Projects Region 1 Clackamas County Code Assistance, LRT Station Area Standards Phase I...$4,250 Clackamas County Code Assistance, LRT Station Area Standards Phase II...42,700 Estacada Outreach Workshop...$15,972 Gladstone Outreach Workshop... $19,924 Hillsboro Code Assistance, Downtown Code Amendments... $43,300 Tigard Code Assistance, Downtown Code Amendments... $36,300 Vernonia Quick Response, School Siting...$148,100 14

160 Grant Projects Region 2 Aumsville Transportation System Plan...$109,200 Aurora Transportation System Plan Update...$74,200 Bay City Transportation System Master Plan...$63,700 Carlton Transportation System Plan Update... $76,000 Coburg Multimodal Loop Implementation Strategy... $65,000 Corvallis Area MPO 9 th Street Access Management Plan... $99,700 Detroit Transportation System Plan Update... $82,350 Marion County Safe Routes to School Engineering Solutions Project...$68,530 Monmouth Transportation System Plan Update...$113,980 Polk County Transportation System Plan Update... $75,900 Rockaway Beach Transportation System Plan... $60,000 Tangent Comprehensive Plan...$107,400 Port of Toledo Downtown/Waterfront Linkage Project... $68,500 Turner 3 rd and Denver Downtown Planning Project...$70,928 Woodburn Downtown Development Plan Update...$132, Community Assistance Projects Region 2 Carlton Code Assistance, Code Assessment...$15,320 Dallas Code Assistance, Code Assessment...$11,300 Dallas Quick Response, Wyatt Node...$30,000 Garibaldi Quick Response, Walnut Station...$43,500 Mt. Angel Outreach Workshop...$19,542 Silverton Quick Response, Potter Automotive Redevelopment... $28,400 Veneta Code Assistance, Phase II Code Update...$30, Grant Projects Region 3 Bandon Transportation Refinement Plan...$70,000 Curry County Harbor Area Transportation Refinement Plan... $79,345 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Update...$13,350 Rogue Valley Regional Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan...$63,945 Council of Govts 15

161 Roseburg Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan... $70,819 Yoncalla Local Street Network Plan... $40, Community Assistance Projects Region 3 Ashland Outreach Workshop...$16,932 Ashland Quick Response, Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan...$77,800 Coquille Code Assistance, Phase II Code Update...$39, Grant Projects Region 4 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Update...$100,000 Redmond South US 97 Corridor Plan...$176,556 Wasco County Transportation System Plan...$114, Community Assistance Projects Region 4 Culver Quick Response, Downtown Streetscape Plan...$47, Grant Projects Region 5 Elgin WURRA Passenger Facilities Plan...$75,000 John Day Local Street Network Plan...$65,971 Joseph Sidewalk Pedestrian Plan...$78,080 Ontario Downtown Revitalization Plan...$132, Community Assistance Projects Region 5 Baker County & Outreach, School Siting/Safe Routes to School Workshops... $12,000 Union County La Grande Outreach... $20, Statewide Community Assistance Project Statewide Outreach Planning for Climate Change Handbook... $60,059 16

162 TGM ADVISORY COMMITTEE The TGM Advisory Committee provides general direction for the program and offers guidance regarding program priorities, grant criteria, and other important issues. ERIK KVARSTEN League of Oregon Cities ART SCHLACK Association of Oregon Counties JON CHANDLER Oregon Home Builders Association RANDY TUCKER Metro ROB ZAKO 1000 Friends of Oregon KELLY ROSS Special Districts Association of Oregon 17

163 18

164 p. 2: (tree-lined sidewalk with couple walking): Constance Beaumont/TGM p. 4: (graphic: light rail train): Newlands & Co., courtesy of Lane Transit District p. 5: (train crossing bridge): Leon Werdinger, courtesy of Wallowa Union Railroad & Union County Tourism p. 6: (cars): Constance Beaumont/TGM PHOTO AND GRAPHIC CREDITS p. 7: (Medford bus station): Jana Tepper, courtesy of Brian H. Hawkins Architects p. 7 (ribbon cutting at Medford bus station): Courtesy of Medford Urban Renewal Agency p. 8: (bicycle sculpture): Constance Beaumont/TGM p. 9 (children walking home from school): Constance Beaumont/TGM p. 10: (graphic of plaza): Courtesy of SERA Architects p. 12: (Irrigon City Hall): Courtesy of Gerald Breazeale/City of Irrigon Report Graphics and Layout: Cathy Sattergren, Reprographics and Design Services 19

165 TGM Program Co-Managers ROB HALLYBURTON Planning Services Division Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development ROBERT MAESTRE Transportation Development Division Oregon Department of Transportation January 2009 TGM: Better Ways to Better Places

166 Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning Final Report to the 2009 Oregon Legislature January 2009

167 this page left intentionally blank

168 table of contents Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning Final Report to the 2009 Oregon Legislature EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...i INTRODUCTION...v Chapters 1 Guiding Oregon s Land Use System Planning for Regional Initiatives Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas Reducing Complexity Strategic Planning for a Sustainable Oregon Improving Citizen Participation Improving Infrastructure Finance Addressing Climate Change Planning for a Vibrant Economy AFTERWORD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDIXES... 45

169 the big LOOK TASK FORCE Oregon Big Look Task Force on Land Use Planning Members Ken Bailey Vice President and Shareholder in Orchard View Farms, Inc. in The Dalles. Orchard View Farms grows, packs and ships premium fresh cherries for domestic and international sales. Ken grew up on the family farm and returned to farm after his graduation from Oregon State University with a B.S. in horticulture. Ken s service on community and industry boards includes: Oregon State Board of Agriculture, Mount Hood Economic Alliance, Wasco County Economic Development Commission, Wasco County Board of Adjustment (land use board of appeals), Wasco County Fruit and Produce League, National Council of Agricultural Employers, Oregon Farm Bureau and The Food Alliance Stewardship Council. David Bragdon Became the Metro Council s first regionally elected President in January 2003 after first being elected to the council in Prior to his service on the council, David spent most of his career in the private sector, primarily in the international trade and freight transportation industry. He developed and administrated transportation strategies at Oregon-based companies such as Nike, Lasco Shipping Co. and Evergreen Airlines. He then worked for five years as the Port of Portland s marketing manager. A graduate of Harvard University, he lives in Southeast Portland. Steve Clark President of the Portland Tribune newspaper and President and Publisher of Community Newspapers, a group of 19 weekly and monthly and community newspapers published in Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties. Steve is active in the region and the state in working to address and link livability, land-use, economic strategy and transportation issues and solutions. As a board member of the Westside Economic Alliance, he led the development of an economic strategy for Portland area s Westside. He is co-chair of the Oregon Business Council s efforts to expand the availability of land in Oregon for jobs. He is a member of the steering committee that has developed a Portland regional economic development strategy and chairs that effort s land use committee. He lives in Tigard. Jill S. Gelineau A litigator who represents landowners in condemnation and land-use litigation, Jill represented the Dolan family in the Dolan v. City if Tigard trial following its remand from the United State Supreme Court. She has been a speaker at numerous conferences locally, nationally and internationally, primarily speaking on the topics of condemnation and land use. She recently participated in the rewriting of the chapter on Compensation in Nichols on Eminent Domain, the preeminent treatise in the field of condemnation law. She is a shareholder with Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt, P.C. in Portland. Judie Hammerstad In addition to her elected terms on the Lake Oswego School Board ( ), in the State Legislature ( ), and the Clackamas County Commission ( ), other government experience includes service on the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Committee, member of the Board of Directors for Portland State Institute, Portland Streetcar, Inc., and recent chair of Metro s Task Force on Measure 37. Her second term as mayor of Lake Oswego began on January 4, 2005 and expires December 31, Mayor Hammerstad has a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from the University of Oregon and is a retired teacher, education specialist and editor. Wes Hare Albany City Manager who has served Oregon local governments since 1984, when he was elected to Eugene s Bethel School District board of directors. He has since worked as the city administrator or manager in Oakridge, La Grande and Albany. Wes earned a B.S. degree in political science and an M.S. in public administration from the University of Oregon following service in the United States Navy. Cameron Krauss General Counsel for Swanson Group, Inc., a forest products company, headquartered in Glendale, Oregon. Along with handling the company s day-to-day legal issues, Cameron devotes a great amount of time to natural resource issues at the state and federal levels. This work includes land use. A native Oregonian born and raised in Grants Pass, Cameron received his B.S. in Fisheries and Wildlife from Oregon State University in 2001 and his law degree from the University of Oregon School of Law in He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Oregonians for Food and Shelter and the Executive Committee of the American Forest Resource Council. Gretchen Palmer With a degree in elementary education from the University of Oregon, Gretchen taught pre-school for several years, owned and managed a restaurant, and then went to work full time as Secretary/Treasurer for Palmer Homes, a business she has owned with her husband for 25 years. She currently serves as Principal Broker for Palmer Homes Sales, Inc. She has lived in Central Oregon for nearly 30 years and worked extensively with the City of Bend on its Development Code Revision and been very active on the local, state and national levels of the National Association of Home Builders. Mike Thorne A Pendleton rancher, Mike is the former Executive Director of the Port of Portland and CEO of the Washington State Ferry System in Seattle. He served in the Oregon Legislature from 1973 to 1991 and was a member of the committee that wrote the original Oregon land use planning act. He and his wife, Jill, reside in Pendleton and he is currently a member of the Board of Directors of StanCorp Financial headquartered in Portland. Nikki Whitty Coos County Commissioner, 1998 present. Previously South Coast Area Manager for CCD Business Development Corporation. Also served in a variety of staff positions for legislators and other elected officials in Salem. Nikki is very active in local and state boards and commissions currently serving as the Chair for Rural Development Initiatives, Chair of Jefferson Behavioral Health and Chair of the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) District 4 consisting of Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson and Josephine Counties. She also serves on the Community Development Forum, the Governor s Oregon Solutions Team, the local Regional Investment Board and the Board of Directors for AOC. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

170 executive summary Executive Summary In 2005, the Oregon Legislature and Governor Ted Kulongoski created the Big Look Task Force to review our state s land use planning program. The task force was charged with making recommendations to the 2009 Legislature on the following issues: The effectiveness of Oregon s land use planning program in meeting the current and future needs of Oregonians in all parts of the state; The respective roles and responsibilities of state and local governments in land use planning; and Land use issues specific to areas inside and outside urban growth boundaries. We have considered these issues with the understanding that we expect as many as two million more residents in the next 25 years, and that our economy is now much more diverse and complex than when the land use program was initiated in Further, we learned that we also needed to address the mounting global warming challenges we face, and citizens views about expanded consideration of private property rights, equity and fairness. After three years of extensive input from experts and citizens throughout the state, the task force has developed its findings and recommendations that are described in this report. The primary conclusions reached by the task force are that: Oregon needs a more flexible land use system, one that responds to regional variations rather than providing one size fits all standards. The state should foster greater regional cooperation among cities and counties to resolve land use planning issues collaboratively and efficiently. The state should coordinate planning for land use, economic development and transportation and clearly articulate what outcomes we are trying to achieve. The state also should develop systems to monitor how we are doing in achieving those outcomes, along with asking for feedback about what is and what is not working. Oregon s land use system needs to be simplified to remove the complexity that has built up after 35 years of regulation so that ordinary citizens can understand the basics of the program. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 executive summary i

171 executive summary The Big Look Task Force is not recommending an overhaul of our state s land use system, but instead a series of strategic adjustments designed to improve the program for all Oregonians. We are mindful of the current challenges before the legislature, but believe that important public policy issues, such as improvements to the land use system, can be discussed and evaluated now and prioritized for implementation and investment in phases. Legislative Recommendations in the Draft Task Force Legislation Primary recommendations from the task force are to: Adopt four guiding principles as a framework for land use planning in Oregon The task force recommends adopting four principles as a guiding framework for the land use system. These principles do not replace the existing 19 statewide land use planning goals, but instead collectively describe the outcomes the land use system should achieve. The principles are to: Provide a healthy environment Sustain a prosperous economy Ensure a desirable quality of life Provide fairness and equity to all Oregonians Foster regional land use planning Existing statutory provisions that give cities and counties some incentives for regional land use planning issues should be strengthened significantly. By working collaboratively, cities and counties can be more efficient and do more to achieve their shared goals and strategic outcomes for the future than is possible on their own. Allow counties to develop regional criteria for designating farm and forest lands, if they also protect important natural areas and assure that development is sustainable Counties should be allowed to propose specialized rules to decide what lands are designated as farm or forest land. The draft legislation would require counties that use regional criteria to set limits on any new uses to assure that development is consistent with the carrying capacity of the lands. In addition, counties would be required to review, update, and institute protections for important natural areas. Reduce complexity The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) should appoint a work group to undertake a comprehensive but policy-neutral review and audit of state s land use planning statutes and rules. The purpose of this review is to simplify the legal structure of the land use program so that it is understandable to average Oregonians. This will help ensure effective citizen participation and decision making. ii Executive summary oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

172 Strategically plan for a sustainable Oregon The task force recommends that key state agencies develop an integrated strategic plan, which includes updated benchmarks, performance measures, and monitoring systems. The strategic plan should coordinate state land use, transportation, economic development and other key planning efforts such as global warming and water policy. The state strategic plan should be regularly updated to ensure it matches Oregonians values and priority outcomes as they evolve over time. executive summary Other Recommendations in the Big Look Final Report In addition, the task force recommends other important steps: Improve citizen participation The task force recommends that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) develop techniques and guidelines to improve citizen participation in land use planning and in specific land use decisions. Improve infrastructure finance The task force recommends that the state examine existing state prohibitions on local options for financing infrastructure that s needed to support new growth. In addition, the state should evaluate the long-term implications of current property tax limitations, particularly as they relate to new development. These limitations make it difficult for most communities to assure that new development pays an appropriate share of the cost of public facilities and services needed to serve that development. Addressing climate change The Global Warming Commission and the Transportation Vision Committee have made important recommendations to the governor regarding the role our land use system can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in adapting to climate change. These recommendations and several other possible amendments to existing land use tools deserve careful and thorough consideration by LCDC. Planning for a vibrant economy The state should continue and expand its program for certified industrial sites and develop safe harbors for urban growth boundary expansions that meet strong employment criteria. It s also important to develop methods to prevent or limit rezoning of industrial lands into retail or residential uses except where there are significant public benefits. Our state land use program has played an important role in helping communities direct their futures and will continue to do so. At the same time, we have seen a period of significant controversy in the land use system, and there are substantial future challenges posed by predicted population growth, constraints on public financing, environmental protection, climate change, and limited resources. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 executive summary iii

173 executive summary The Big Look Task Force recommendations provide a framework for responding to these challenges. In light of our current economic situation, the task force prioritized and designed these recommendations so they can be implemented over a period of time, as resources become available. In this period of substantial economic turmoil, now is the time to lay the foundation for adjusting to our land use system so that the state can continue to create quality communities and a high quality of life. The task force expresses its sincere thanks to Governor Kulongoski and members of the state legislature for this opportunity to serve the citizens of Oregon. We offer our continued support as the legislature considers and prioritizes implementation of these recommendations. iv Executive summary oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

174 introduction Introduction History of the Big Look Task Force The 2005 Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 82, establishing the Big Look Task Force. The governor and the legislature created the task force to carry out a comprehensive review of Oregon s statewide land use planning system and to make recommendations to the 2009 Legislature. The task force began by meeting throughout the state to hear testimony from elected officials, interest groups, public agencies, and citizens regarding their views of the land use system. Initially, the task force broke into six working groups to gather further information. The groups focused on the following areas of land use consideration: Benefits and burdens The economy Growth management The roles of state and local government Citizen involvement Infrastructure, finance and governance Each work group developed a list of potential issues, as well as a work plan for analyzing those issues. The task force also collectively reviewed comparisons of Oregon s land use system with land use programs in Washington, Maryland, Colorado, California, Florida, New Jersey and other states. Preliminary Report The task force completed a report of its Preliminary Findings and Recommendations in July That report identified 11 initial findings and conclusions, and a series of broad alternatives that summarized the task force s preliminary work and set general direction for its second phase of effort. 1 The 11 preliminary conclusions were: Part One Evaluation Report 1. Oregon s land use system has protected agricultural and forest lands. 2. Oregon has contained urban sprawl and managed growth better than have most states. 3. Oregonians generally support land use planning, but they also believe strongly in private property rights. The Big Look Task Force on Oregon Land Use Planning June The "Preliminary Findings and Recommendations" of the Big Look Task Force are available at: centralpt.com/upload/301/2528_biglook_stakeholderbrochure.pdf oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 introduction v

175 introduction 4. Oregon s land use program is more often viewed as a regulatory program than as a resource for jurisdictions. And there is a perceived lack of coordination and strategic alignment between Oregon s land use agency the Land Conservation and Development Commission and other state agencies and local governments. 5. The program has become a complex mix of statute, case law, amendments, administrative rules and specific exceptions. The perceived one size fits all approach does not adequately recognize our state s diverse landscapes, economies and values. 6. The land use system should reflect distinct differences between the high growth and low growth areas of the state. 7. Exclusive farm use zoning (EFU) is inflexible, and can only be amended by the legislature. 8. Oregon will be challenged to finance and maintain the infrastructure needed to accommodate the growth of 1.7 million more Oregonians projected by the year Oregon should be a leader in adopting best practices such as providing more incentives, more flexibility and a higher recognition of the role that market forces play in shaping development patterns. 10. Oregon does not have a strategic method for understanding the values of Oregonians, particularly as those values shift or change over time. 11. Most Oregonians share a few basic principles that, when properly balanced in the state planning system, will help create a sustainable Oregon. BIG The Big Look Task Force on Oregon Land Use Planning LOOK CHOICES FOR OREGON S FUTURE DRAFT 5/30/08 Preliminary Recommendations After reconvening in early 2008, the task force completed an analysis of its preliminary conclusions along with the work from the six working groups and consolidated this information into the following main areas of preliminary recommendations. In May of 2008, the task force issued a briefing booklet for the public and interest groups summarizing key issues and the preliminary recommendations. The task force then held more than 40 meetings to obtain feedback on those preliminary recommendations. Those preliminary recommendations addressed the following areas: Guiding principles for the land use program Articulate what outcomes our land use program should achieve. Complexity in the system Conduct a comprehensive review and audit of our land use laws and regulations to reduce complexity and clarify the system so that ordinary Oregonians can understand and participate in it. Regional planning Assist urban and emerging urban areas to meet their housing, economic development, environmental, financial and other goals through regional problem solving. Farm, forest and natural areas Allow regions to establish specialized rules for what lands are designated as farm or forest land, while also protecting natural areas and limiting rural development to sustainable levels. vi introduction oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

176 introduction Develop and maintain a state strategic plan Integrate state land use, transportation, and economic development programs by developing an integrated strategic plan. As part of this effort, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) should develop performance standards to measure progress toward achieving the state s goals and benchmarks. Accompanying these benchmarks will be a comprehensive monitoring program. Public Engagement In the summer and fall of 2008, the task force focused its efforts on a comprehensive public engagement process to get feedback from citizens and organizations about possible changes to Oregon s land use system. This effort included: A concentrated public outreach to involve citizens in the decision-making process to help the task force determine best options available for improvements to the state s land use system. (August October 2008): A statewide newspaper insert. The task force produced a 12-page color insert as a general public invitation to a series of statewide town hall meetings and as an introduction to relevant land use topics. Nearly 500,000 newspaper inserts were distributed in more than 32 different newspapers throughout the state. Press release and press packet. Press releases and packets were distributed to television, radio, and newspaper contacts throughout the state resulting in more than 20 newspaper articles in papers throughout the state, television and radio coverage, and an hour-long program on Oregon Public Broadcasting. Media outreach also included e-blast messages to hundreds of stakeholder groups, grassroots organizations and citizens. Updated design and content for the oregonbiglook.org Web site. Complementing other outreach strategies, the Big Look project Web site was updated with design improvements, extensive new content, a media center, and the posting of a documentary film about the Big Look. The Web site became a central source for information on the town hall meetings, topic areas, and background on the project. Peak Web site activity during this period ballooned to several hundreds hits a day, with a one-day high of 542, and more than 5,000 visits for the month. Since the beginning of 2008, the Web site has had more than 43,000 visitors. A documentary film The Big Look: Examining Oregon s Land Use Laws. An Oregon filmmaker was commissioned to produce a 28-minute film reviewing Oregon s current land use system, the Big Look project and differing perspectives from Oregonians about our land use laws. The documentary includes footage gathered from interviews with Oregon farmers, foresters, developers, politicians, conservationists, housing advocates and Big Look Task Force members. It was shown at each town hall meeting as an introduction to the issues. The film can be viewed on the Big Look Web site and may be shown on public television stations later this winter. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 introduction vii

177 introduction Town hall meetings. Eleven (11) town hall meetings held throughout the state were attended by nearly 1,400 Oregonians. At these interactive meetings, participants were able to learn more about land use issues, and discuss potential changes, and provide written responses to the Big Look statewide public opinion survey. Meetings in a box. Town hall meeting materials were made available to those interested in hosting this home version of the meeting. The meeting kit was made available through notification in all other of the engagement efforts. About 60 groups and individuals around the state requested the kit and hosted these informal meetings with their friends, neighbors or constituents. Statewide public opinion survey. A survey was developed to gauge public support for various policy issues under consideration by the task force. The survey was completed by about 1,800 people who participated in the town hall meetings, visited the Big Look Web site and participated in the meetings in a box. The results were tabulated and provided to the task force as representative of the opinions of Oregonians who pay attention to land use issues and attend public meetings. These findings are discussed in the appendix of this report. BIG LOOK FALL 2008 SURVEY Thank you for participating in Oregon s Big Look. We value your opinions, and assure you that your answers will be kept anonymous and completely confidential. Your answers to this survey will assist the Big Look Task Force conduct a comprehensive review of the state s land use system. For more information about the Task Force, go to Farm, Forest & Natural Areas The following questions relate to the way we manage our private farm, forest and natural areas. 1 The State of Oregon encompasses nearly 2 62 million acres of land, about half of which is private land. Cities and towns occupy just over 1% of this private land. Rural homes cover another 2%. On most of the remaining private land, development is restricted to preserve the farming and forestry economies, and to prevent urban sprawl. Some feel that owners of these lands should be able to develop their properties with housing or commercial activities. Which is the best way to decide how to use lands outside of cities that may not be suited for farming and forestry? A Keep the current restrictions as they are now B Let counties decide how to handle these lands Let counties decide but require them to develop C plans that incorporate statewide guidelines Let counties decide how to use lands but limit D the amount of growth that can be allowed X Don t know Comment: Much of Oregon s natural areas are located outside cities and are somewhat protected by development limitations that are in place for the protection of farm and forest lands. In cities, natural areas are primarily protected for safety reasons (e.g., flood prone areas and steep slopes) or for water quality. Would you support additional protections for natural areas in cities and the countryside? Y Yes N No X Don t know Comment: more survey take this survey online: go to Statewide statistical survey. The task force commissioned Davis, Hibbitts and Midghall, a public opinion research firm, to conduct a statistical survey of more than 840 Oregonians, who accurately portray the demographic make up of the state in terms of race, income breakdown, geographic distribution, and spectrum of urban to rural lifestyles. The results of this survey were compared to the more self-selective results from the public opinion survey described above. A final, all-day, facilitated roundtable meeting with 26 interest groups representing a broad spectrum of concerns on land use issues. This discussion provided a thorough review of the issues and draft legislation, with a focus on solutions and compromises to be carried forward as proposed legislation. (October 2008) Final legislative recommendations that were included in a draft legislative concept. (November 2008) Preparation of a final report outlining the task force s legislative and nonlegislative recommendations. (December 2008) The findings of the statewide public opinion survey, statewide statistical survey, meetings with stakeholder groups, and the 11 town hall meetings are summarized in each of the following nine chapters of this report. Evaluation of Selected Aspects of Oregon s Land Use Program In the summer of 2008, the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University completed a review of selected aspects of the state s existing land use planning viii introduction oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

178 introduction program. 2 The report concluded that the program has been effective in achieving many of the goals originally established for the program when statewide land use planning was conceived in the early 1970s. The report found that the land use system has preserved agricultural lands and limited the conversion of forest lands to other uses. In total, 89 percent of the non-federal resource lands in western Oregon and 97 percent in eastern Oregon have remained in resource uses since the mid-1970s. No other state has come this close to preserving farm and forest lands. The report also finds that urban growth boundaries have led to downtown revitalization, a decrease in residential racial segregation, increased use of alternative transportation modes in urban areas, and higher levels of personal income and retail activity. In addition, while urban growth boundaries have resulted in higher land values, studies have not clearly associated UGBs with higher housing prices. The report also found that between 1982 and 1997, Oregon had the lowest level of land converted to urban uses of all states studied (a rate of 0.43 percent, with Colorado second at 0.62 percent). These findings, by and large, reinforce the preliminary conclusions of the task force that the state s land use program has been successful in achieving many of its original objectives. While Oregon s land use system can count many successes, policy makers and citizens have concerns with how our system will address future challenges such as significant population growth, infrastructure finance, economic recovery and climate change. Some have concerns that certain farm and forest lands were mislabeled. Many believe the state should do more to protect important natural areas through the land use program. Related Proposals by Other Advisory Bodies Some of the topics and issues reviewed by the task force were also examined by other state groups: the Revenue Restructuring Task Force, the Transportation Vision Committee and the Global Warming Commission. Each of these groups has made recommendations that relate to land use issues. Given the timing of these efforts, the Big Look Task Force has been unable to fully evaluate the work of these groups. Nevertheless, the task force wants to underscore that all of these groups see the direct linkage among land use, transportation, public finance, and environmental priorities. Given the close connection among these issues, the task force recommends that policy makers review and consider the reports from these groups collectively. 2 The Oregon Land Use Program: An Assessment of Selected Goals. Oregon State University, Institute for Natural Resources, Corvallis, Oregon, August oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 introduction ix

179 this page left intentionally blank

180 Chapters and Recommendation Categories 1 Guiding Oregon s Land Use System 2 Planning for Regional Initiatives 3 Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas 4 Reducing Complexity 5 Strategic Planning for a Sustainable Oregon 6 Improving Citizen Participation 7 Improving Infrastructure Finance 8 Addressing Climate Change 9 Planning for a Vibrant Economy

181 CHapter one guiding oregon s land use system Chapter one: Guiding Oregon s land use system economic prosperity As part of its initial work in evaluating the state land use system, the task force assessed the underlying and unifying purposes that should guide our state program going forward. From this, the task force identified four guiding principles that describe the outcomes that Oregonians want our state s land use program to achieve: Healthy Environment Equity & Fairness Provide a healthy environment Sustain a prosperous economy Quality of Life & Livable Communities Ensure a desirable quality of life Provide fairness and equity to all Oregonians Problem Statement The task force also examined Oregonians underlying values in terms of what they want for their state and their community. The task force reviewed data from recent polls and other studies of Oregonians opinions and values. It found both confusion about what our current land use system is trying to achieve, as well as broad consensus about what it should be working toward. Based on the data and analyses, the task force reached the following conclusions concerning Oregonians values: Oregonians strongly support environmental protection Oregonians strongly support sustaining and building a prosperous economy Oregonians want a high quality of life and to create livable communities Oregonians believe that the land use system must have fair and equitable processes and outcomes With respect to the fourth value listed above, Oregonians have a strong belief in the value of private property rights. In many cases, people hold apparently contradictory beliefs: that the state should protect land for farm and forest 2 chapter one oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

182 CHapter one guiding oregon s land use system uses, while also supporting an individual s right to use land without government interference. It is important to understand that these contradictory values are not the result of different factions or special interest groups disagreeing with one another; instead, they are internal conflicts within many Oregonians. In the future, Oregon s planning system should more explicitly recognize private property rights and develop specific ways to balance that value with others. Legislative Recommendations Adopt a set of guiding principles as an overarching framework for the Oregon land use planning system While there are many definitions for goals, the task force searched for principles that were more outcome-based and would be understood and supported by a large majority of Oregonians. The task force developed a simpler set of principles that have both broad support and represent a clearly defined outcome. Section 1 of the task force legislation would adopt these principles as an overarching framework for Oregon s land use planning system. The four guiding principles: Provide a healthy environment; Sustain a prosperous economy; Ensure a desirable quality of life; and Provide fairness and equity to all Oregonians. The guiding principles do not replace the existing 19 statewide land use planning goals. Instead, they provide a set of principles that must be considered when the land use goals and their implementing rules are altered. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter one 3

183 CHapter two Planning for Regional Initiatives Chapter two: Planning for regional initiatives Regional planning is a process where multiple jurisdictions collaborate to find solutions to their common concerns. While Oregon s land use system has accomplished much, the practice of planning is largely focused within individual local governments. In some cases, the practice of growth management planning has resulted in fractionalized local governments focusing almost exclusively on local planning and issues. Consequently, growth management has been closely tied to local land use tools such as the comprehensive plan. This local emphasis is counter to the fact that in an increasingly regional and global society, cities and communities no longer function as entities unto themselves. Cities and counties function as regions interdependent both socially and economically. In many parts of the state, people conduct their lives as regional citizens who live, work and play in multiple communities with little regard to jurisdictional boundaries. Since the form of settlement and commerce in many areas in Oregon and the world extends beyond local government boundaries, land use planning will be most effective if it takes place within a region-wide context. During the past few decades many areas in the nation, both large and small, have engaged in various forms of regional planning. While rarely regulatory in nature, these plans provide a regional point of view and a forum where various parties can discuss and develop cooperative ventures to address regional challenges. A notable example is the Blueprint planning process in California, which grew out of local initiatives to create regional plans in the four large metropolitan areas of Southern California, the Bay Area, San Diego and Sacramento. The state has since embarked on a process to encourage and reward regional efforts in other 4 chapter two oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

184 CHapter two Planning for Regional Initiatives parts of California. There are many other regional planning successes in the United States, often based on explicit state encouragement. Oregon s Existing practices in regional collaboration Regional planning in Oregon has had varying levels of success. Metro, the three-county regional government in the Portland metropolitan area, has been successful in providing a framework for neighboring cities and counties to work together. Metro has a home rule charter, authority over the regional UGB, and over some aspects of land use and transportation planning. Cities within Metro continue to have their comprehensive plans acknowledged by the state, but also must comply with Metro s functional plans and regional goals as well. Metro uses regional planning to address issues such as maintenance or expansion of the regional urban growth boundary, development of transportation systems, open space protection and provision of recreational facilities. Other jurisdictions around the state also have successfully coordinated plans and services. Counties generally are responsible for land use coordination. In a few areas, UGBs are shared, but there is no regional government with full authority to plan for them. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have the responsibility to prepare transportation plans for larger metropolitan areas in the state but have limited authority to address land use. Regional Problem Solving Regional Problem Solving (RPS) is an existing set of statutes intended to encourage multiple jurisdictions to work together to resolve land use planning problems that cross jurisdictional lines. While the application and success of RPS in Oregon has been limited, its overall intent is to provide incentives for regional planning by authorizing more flexibility to cities and counties that use a regional approach. The most prominent example of RPS in Oregon is the Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS project. The Bear Creek effort, which seeks to establish coordinated urban reserves to guide long-term growth in that region, has been hampered by a number of ambiguities in existing state statutes. A primary issue with the RPS process is how much flexibility should be given to local governments that participate in regional problem solving. Specifically, should cities and counties participating in RPS be freed from the requirement to comply with the details of all applicable LCDC administrative rules? What about the broad policies of LCDC goals? Should cities and counties be able to ignore those policies as well if they are acting as a coordinated region? oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter two 5

185 CHapter two Planning for Regional Initiatives For example, Metro formulates a regional urban growth boundary and its corresponding growth capacity requirements. When Metro calculates a 20- year supply of buildable land, it can consider the blended capacity of all the cities and unincorporated counties within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Some individual cities have far less and some far more than a 20-year supply of buildable land, but the region is judged as a whole. Under an RPS process, other areas of the state could develop regional solutions to planning problems that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Public Comments: on regional initiatives Throughout the course of the project, the task force heard from local governments and both business and environmental groups about of the need to promote more regional collaboration and planning. They recommended that the state land use planning system do more to help local governments plan cooperatively to address common challenges such as transportation, open space and natural resource protection, adequate housing, and economic development. Current state statutes that authorize regional problem solving are limited in scope and contain confusing and conflicting requirements that make them difficult to utilize. In addition, the statutes are unclear whether all local governments must agree to a plan developed through an RPS process. Unanimity can be difficult to achieve in practice, and sometimes can result in governments negotiating for advantages that are beyond the scope of the regional planning issue. Clarifying who must participate in an RPS process (and what the advantages are of doing so) will help encourage local governments to use this tool, and to take on more efficient regional approaches to planning problems that span jurisdictional lines. Problem Statement While the current state RPS process has shown some promise, it has had limited success because it requires unanimous agreement among local governments and because the incentives to undertake regional approaches are not strong enough. The key problems include the following: There should be a better structure to allow governments to cooperate in regional planning. The decision-making structure should ensure that all necessary parties are involved, but should provide for a realistic decision making structure where something less than a unanimous decision is permitted The state should give more flexibility to cities and counties that use an RPS process, by evaluating LCDC goal compliance at a regional level rather than on a jurisdictionby-jurisdiction basis. 6 chapter two oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

186 CHapter two Planning for Regional Initiatives Legislative Recommendations Expand the authority and incentives for regional planning Sections of the task force s proposed legislation expand the authority and incentives for regional problem solving and allow more flexibility for local governments that work together as a region. Regional planning could be used to complete planning for economic development purposes using the resources available within multiple communities. For example, communities could plan together to provide industrial land supply, infrastructure development, and housing and also to find a fair means for sharing the costs and benefits. LCDC provides review and approval in regional planning and problem solving programs Sections of the task force legislation give LCDC specific rule authority to require additional controls if needed. Approval of plan or regulation amendments done through regional problem solving will be based, in part, on regional circumstances identified in those plans, and the legal standard of conforming on the whole to the statewide planning goals. Expand the use of transfer of development rights in regional problem solving Section 15 of the task force legislation provides that participants in a regional problem solving process may authorize the transfer of development rights from non-conforming lots or parcel to areas within or adjacent to an urban growth boundary. Transfer of development right programs under this section may cross jurisdictional lines. This is intended as another incentive for a county to work with one or more cities to resolve planning problems caused by non-conforming lots and parcels on rural lands. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter two 7

187 CHapter three Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas Chapter Three: Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas Two of the primary reasons for establishing Oregon s land use system were the desire to preserve working farms and forest operations and to limit inefficient sprawl. Recent research indicates that Oregon s program has been relatively successful in achieving both of these goals relative to other states. Nevertheless, there is continuing sentiment in some parts of the state that our land use policies do not adequately recognize differing conditions in different regions, either in terms of what lands are needed for farming or for forestry, or in terms of growth pressures. Some counties also report that their mapping of farm and forest lands is not accurate. The classification of lands for farm or forest uses is a key foundation of Oregon s land use planning system. Although owners of farm and forest lands receive property tax incentives for these uses, landowner discontent can arise if the lands are not economically productive for those uses and non-farm and nonforest uses are limited or prohibited. The farm economy also is in a continual state of evolution, with the types and amounts of land needed for production changing over time. Lands that may have been economically viable for growing one crop or for a particular type of livestock when the land use system was first conceived may no longer support the same kind of economic base. In other areas, some lands considered low quality 20 years ago are now home to highly successful agriculture uses, such as vineyard operations. This perceived disconnect has created discord and resentment that the state land use system is too inflexible, and that farm and forest designations are too focused on soil types rather than what lands are functionally necessary or important for agriculture or forestry. How the system works Oregon s land use system aims to preserve the state s agriculture and timber economies primarily by preventing other uses of lands designated for farm or 8 chapter three oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

188 CHapter three Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas forest use. Farming and forestry are maintained through regulatory designations that restrict the use and division of lands to uses and sizes associated with, compatible with, and at a scale needed for agriculture and harvesting timber. Farm and forestry uses also are encouraged through property tax deferral programs that provide well more than $100 million in incentives for property owners every year to keep their lands in farm or forest use. How lands are designated Protection of farm and forest lands is specifically addressed in the Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4, as well as in state statutes. Implementation of the goals and state laws is performed through county comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The division of these lands is restricted to preserve lands in larger blocks, as resource industries historically have operated at a large scale. State standards for what lands qualify as farm land and for restrictions on land divisions do vary among different parts of the state, specifically with differing criteria to reflect the different growing conditions of western and eastern Oregon, as well as for range lands. State statute largely controls land divisions of farm and forest lands, and restricts of farm lands. LCDC goals and rules control what lands are designated for farm or forest use and complement statutory controls over land divisions and uses. Lands classified for farm or forest use are known as resource lands. Other rural lands (outside of urban areas) are typically designated for low-density residential uses. LCDC goals and rules limit the amount of residential use of these lands, but generally allow development of rural residential areas at a density of 5 or 10 acres per dwelling unit. LCDC rules also allow rural unincorporated communities at higher densities. A few counties, Klamath County in particular, have established non-resource lands. Of the state s 62 million acres of land, 27.7 million acres are privately owned (not federal, state, or tribal land). Farm and forest uses (and farm/forest) occupy 93.6 percent of these privately-owned lands. 93% of privately owned lands are designated for farm and forest (and farm/forest). This represents roughly half of the state s 62 million acres. See table 1 on the next page. Farmland classification Farmland is classified in terms of soil productivity, as measured under the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Capability Classification System. In western Oregon, lands with class I-IV soils are classified as farmland. In eastern Oregon, lands with Class I-VI soils are considered farmland, with some exceptions. State statutes generally prohibit divisions of farm land into parcels below 80 to 320 acres, depending on the characteristics of the land and whether it is in western or eastern Oregon. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter three 9

189 CHapter three Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas Table 1: Land Use Planning Designations for Private Lands in Oregon Oregon s Private Lands Plan DEsignations Acres % Farm 15.5 million 55.8 Forest 8.2 million 29.7 Farm/Forest 2.3 million Rural Residential 890, Non-resource Lands 105, UGBs 781, TOTAL 27.7 million 100 Source: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Oregon s Statewide Land Use Planning Program. Forestland classification Forestlands were first classified according to the capacity of the land to produce timber, again according to NRCS data. LCDC goals and rules restrict allowable uses to cultivating and harvesting timber and certain compatible uses (such as recreation, timber processing, or other activities that serve timber activities). State statutes require counties to apply a minimum lot size of 80 acres in forest zones. Current economy Farm and forest lands represent a significant portion of Oregon s land and income base. They also provide key ecosystem services, such as clean water, wildlife habitat and open space. They also represent important tourist destinations and are the foundation of Oregon s unique beauty. According to the Institute for Natural Resources (The Oregon Land Use Program: An Assessment of Selected Goals, Oregon State University, 2008), income from all agriculture related components (inputs, production, processing, transportation, warehousing and wholesale trade) totaled $12 billion in About 50 percent of the value of Oregon s agricultural production (in 2007) could be attributed to the Willamette Basin. Agriculture is a key traded sector, ranking first in the volume of goods shipped out of state and third in the value. According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, the culture of farming has evolved over the past few decades. At present, nearly 70 percent of Oregon s 40,000 farms are part-time or lifestyle operations. These farms are generally 10 chapter three oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

190 CHapter three Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas made up of fewer than 50 acres and have annual sales of less than $10,000. They are often referred to as hobby farms. Some are operated as organic farms and have a strong and growing connection with consumers, primarily in urban areas. Forestland generates about $12.6 billion annually to the state s economy, about seven percent of the gross state product ( Forestry products and services employ more than 85,000 people directly in Oregon and are essential to Oregon s rural communities. Change in predominant land uses As shown in Tables 2 and 3, data from recent reports prepared by the Oregon Department of Forestry illustrate that the rate of change from agricultural and forest land uses to urban and rural residential uses has slowed dramatically in both western and eastern Oregon since the beginning of the state land use system. The rate of change has slowed particularly since the mid 1980s, when county land use plans were approved by the state and after 1993 when additional state standards were put in place. These data and trends are summarized in the following two tables. Table 2. Dominant Land Uses of Non-Federal Lands in Central and Eastern Oregon, 1975, 1986 and 2001 Dominant Land Use Thousand acres % Annual change % Annual change total % change The Institute for Natural Resources reached the following conclusions concerning Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) in its recent assessment : 3 Our review of existing data and literature pertaining to Goal 3 suggests that Oregon s land use planning system has been successful in preserving agricultural lands for agricultural uses. Areas of concern identified in the literature include spatial variation in the program s performance, with better success in western Oregon than in eastern Oregon, where significantly more resource land (especially rangeland) has been developed. Wildland Forest 3,349 3,329 3, % -0.04% -1% Wildland Range 9,362 9,228 9, % -0.05% -2% Mixed Forest/ Agriculture Mixed Range/ Agriculture Intensive Agriculture Low-Density Residential % -0.27% -10% % 0.14% 3% 3,743 3,798 3, % 0.01% 1% % 1.26% 62% Urban % 1.36% 54% totals 17,628 17,628 17,628 3 The Oregon Land Use Program: An Assessment of Selected Goals, Institute for Natural Resources, August 2008, pages The conclusions regarding Goal 4 (Forest Lands) are less definitive, but suggest that the land use program has reduced the amount of residential development that would have otherwise occurred on forest lands. Id., at oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter three 11

191 CHapter three Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas Table 3. Dominant Land Uses of Non-Federal Land Area in Western Oregon, 1973, 1982 and 2000 Thousand acres % Annual change total % change Dominant Land Use Wildland Forest 7,335 7,238 7,200 7, % 0.0% 0.0% -2% Intensive Agriculture Mixed Forest/ Agriculture Low-Density Residential 2,076 1,967 1,943 1, % % -7% % -0.2% 0.0% -7% % 0.5% 0.0% 45% Urban % 0.6% 0.1% 36% totals 11,078 11,078 11,078 11,078 Table 2 and 3 Source: Oregon Department of Forestry, Land Use Change on Non-Federal Land in Western Oregon, ; Oregon Department of Forestry, Land Use Change on Non-Federal Land in Eastern Oregon, Natural areas The purpose of Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5 is to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. However, Goal 5 generally is a process-oriented goal that leaves decisions about which resources are significant and what significant natural resources should be protected up to local governments. Outside of urban areas and on lands designated for farm or forest use, Goal 5 is even less prescriptive concerning what resources should be evaluated and considered for protection. 4 Most directly, Goal 5 does not regulate farm or forest practices, which are addressed through regulatory programs of other agencies. In part, this framework was in recognition of the relatively low level of development allowed on farm and forest lands. As a result, any program change to reevaluate farm and forest land designations and to allow other uses on rural lands raises the potential for conflict between those newly allowed uses and natural areas or resources that counties previously did not protect. More recently, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has completed the Oregon Conservation Strategy (2006), which analyzes conservation needs and 4 For a detailed discussion of this subject see No Place for Nature: The Limits of Oregon s Land Use Planning Program in Conserving Fish and Wildlife Habitats in the Willamette Valley, Defenders of Wildlife, chapter three oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

192 CHapter three Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas strategies by ecoregion and identifies key statewide conservation issues. The Oregon Conservation Strategy provides one framework for considering the relationships between the natural environment and land use policy. Problem Statement Throughout the course of its work, the task force heard from a large number of farm and forestry organizations, conservation groups, economic development experts, public agencies and citizens about the state s regulations and practices governing farms, forests and natural areas. While there is wide support for continued preservation of farms and forests and significant interest in developing new programs to designate and conserve natural areas and resources, a number of issues with the current system have been raised. These issues have more to do with fine-tuning the system than with a substantial reorientation of how we manage rural lands. Nevertheless, the issues continue to be the source of much friction in the system, and should be addressed in order to avoid future instability. The task force identified the following primary issues: Some farm and forest lands are either non-productive or cannot otherwise reasonably be defined as farm and forest. As a functional matter, what constitutes productive farm or forest land varies in different regions of the state to a greater degree than is reflected in current goals or statutes. Lands should be re-designated for other rural uses if they can t reasonably be used for farm or forest uses. If lands are re-designated for other rural uses, current limits on development are inadequate to assure that the types and intensities of uses are consistent with the carrying capacity of the land and other resource constraints. In addition, if lands are re-designated, critical habitats and other important natural areas also need to be reevaluated, as new uses may lead to new conflicts. Natural areas and habitats that did not need particular protection when land uses were limited to farming or forestry may need protection if other uses are allowed. public comments: on protecting farm, forest and natural areas Of all the topics discussed by the task force, the regulations, preservation and planning of farms, forest and natural areas generated the highest volume of input during the town hall meetings in the fall of Respondents to the statewide public opinion survey generally support a system with continued statewide land use controls and regulations. Among the general public, 60 percent of survey respondents support using public funds to protect farms and forests, and 65 percent favor additional protections for natural areas. In addition, a 2005 statewide survey (issued by Conkling, Fiskum & McCormick for the Oregon Business Association) found that as many as 67 percent of Oregonians believe that protecting the rights of property owners is very important to our land use system and processes. Legislative Recommendations The recommendations developed by the task force for farm, forest and natural areas provide a framework for counties to reevaluate their current farm and forest land designations by developing region-specific criteria for what lands should continue to be classified in this manner. The criteria, which must be based on the functional characteristics of the farm and forest industries in those areas, must be proposed by two or more counties and must be approved by the state. Such criteria would more accurately distinguish areas that are suitable for farming or forestry. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter three 13

193 CHapter three Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas Once a regional definition is in place, a single county may opt to reevaluate the lands in the county, but only if the county also develops appropriate limits on the type and level of development that may occur on lands that are rezoned to assure that uses are consistent with the long-term carrying capacity of the lands. In addition, as part of their reevaluation, a county must also review and revise (as necessary) its designation of important natural resources and areas and build on its program to protect such areas. Establish regional criteria authorizing two more counties to petition for the reevaluation of farm and forest land designations Section 6 of the task force legislation authorizes two or more counties to petition for an amendment to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) or 4 (Forest Lands). The petition would be required to contain the counties proposed criteria, and their proposal for what region the criteria should apply to (which will normally be an area larger than the two counties). The region should reflect an area where the farm and/or forest industries, related practices, and important land forms for the industries, are relatively uniform. The petition is reviewed by the LCDC, based on statutory criteria that include: soils the land needs of current and future agricultural and forest uses the importance of the lands to agricultural and forest operations on nearby lands the availability of water existing land use patterns existing agricultural and forestry land use patterns the health of the economic infrastructure supporting farm and forest uses and climate change 5 The petition review must be coordinated with all affected local governments, as well as the Oregon Departments of Agriculture and Forestry. There must be at least one public hearing in the region where the new criteria would apply. Allow counties to update their plan and zoning map farm and forest designations based on the regional criteria approved by the LCDC Section 7 of the task force legislation states that once the new regional criteria are approved by LCDC, a county in that region may review its plan and zoning map designations using the new criteria. Counties may conduct this 5 A complete discussion of analyses and procedures for assessing climate change impacts is presented in Chapter chapter three oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

194 CHapter three Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas review in cooperation with other counties on a regional basis. Any map changes adopted are reviewed by LCDC in coordination with the Oregon Departments of Agriculture and Forestry and other local governments that may be affected by the changes. Require the identification of natural areas and set specific limits on the development of rural lands when counties want to reevaluate farm and forest designations Under Section 8 of the task force legislation, if a county chooses to reevaluate its farm or forest map designations it also must (as part of its reevaluation) analyze the lands it is reviewing to determine if they contain ecologically significant natural areas or resources and, if so, decide what lands are the highest priority for protection. The county also must adopt limitations on uses of lands that are rezoned as other rural lands based on LCDC rules that are designed to assure that the type, location and pattern of development is rural in character and to ensure that rural land development doesn t interfere with development of nearby urban areas. In addition, the LCDC rules must be designed to avoid conflicts with farm or forest uses and avoid adverse effects on: water quality and water supply; energy use, transportation facilities, habitat, fire risk or costs of fire suppression, the cost of public facilities or services, or other adverse fiscal effects on a local government. Together, these criteria are intended to ensure that the development allowed on other rural lands is sustainable from a local, regional and state perspective. Finally, any additional residential development that is authorized generally should be clustered. Require counties to establish programs for the protection of natural areas if they choose to rezone farm and forest lands In Section 9 of the legislation, counties that choose to rezone farm and forest lands using the new regional criteria must also develop programs to protect ecologically significant natural resources or areas. LCDC must consider the adequacy of the county s program in determining whether to approve rezoning of farm or forest lands, but LCDC may not establish new regulatory requirements to protect such resources or areas. County measures may include market-based incentives, such as conservation easements and transfer of development rights, to conserve lands of ecological importance. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter three 15

195 CHapter three Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas Non-Legislative Recommendations DLCD should develop Geographic Information System (GIS) based tools, assessment guidelines, protocols and model protection techniques to assist counties with a multifaceted review of farm, forest, non resource, and other land inventories DLCD should coordinate with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in this work. DLCD should authorize the transfer and/or purchase of development rights to preserve farm, forest, and natural areas. DLCD should support the legislation authorizing the transfer of development rights or the purchase of development rights as a non-regulatory method to preserve farm and forest lands for those uses, as well as to protect important natural resource areas. DLCD should develop a statewide land trust with incentives for the preservation of farm, forest, and natural areas DLCD should work with other state and federal agencies to develop a statewide land trust for preserving farm, forest and natural areas with incentives for landowners such as tax credits or deductions. DLCD and other state agencies also should develop a system to coordinate land preservation efforts among private land trusts, including a central registry and monitoring system for conservation easements. 16 chapter three oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

196 CHapter four Reducing Complexity in the Land Use Planning System Chapter Four: Reducing Complexity in the Land Use Planning System After 35 years, the state s land use planning system is in need of a policyneutral audit and comprehensive review. With each passing year, new requirements and exemptions have been added to the state s land use system through legislative action as well as administrative rule-making. The end result is a land use system of growing complexity that produces tremendous benefits, but is weighed down with years of complex amendments and cross references that make the system unapproachable for many citizens. Problem Statement Many citizens believe that our land use system is unnecessarily complex, limiting their ability to be involved in decision-making. Across the state in meetings with the task force, citizens and local governments expressed frustration in trying to participate in long-range land use planning efforts as well as decisions about specific developments. Additionally, some citizens complained about the expense of appeals. Some commented on the need for the state to boost its education efforts to help both the public and decision-makers better understand how the state s land use laws work and how individuals can play a productive role in land use planning processes. Many noted the need for land use policies to be communicated in clearer, more concise language that is easy to understand. Planning practitioners are also frustrated with the interaction between planning statutes and administrative rules. The general consensus is that too many provisions have been placed in statute, which are difficult to adapt over time, and where there is no immediate ability to vary requirements to reflect differing conditions in different regions. public comments: on reducing complexity When the task force approached interest groups to gauge their support regarding a state audit, most groups were very supportive. Some groups see the audit as a tool to potentially offer more flexibility within the state s land use system by identifying and eliminating unnecessary steps and detail. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter four 17

197 CHapter four Reducing Complexity in the Land Use Planning System Addressing the complexity of our land use system must be paired with improved education and citizen involvement efforts. These are important issues addressed in Chapter 9, Re-Engaging Oregonians in Land Use Planning. Statewide Public Opinion Survey Comments: A sampling of comments taken from many of the 1800 respondants to the statewide public opinion survey indicates that the public perceives Oregon s land use system as overly complex: Legislative Recommendations Appoint a work group to conduct a policy-neutral review and audit of the state s land use planning system. In Section 18 of the legislation, the task force recommends the creation of a work group by the LCDC to conduct an impartial review and audit of state s land use planning system and goals. The work group should be comprised of analysts and evaluators representing various disciplines to pursue a policy-neutral review and evaluation. The audit should identify the major policies that should be contained in state statute, and those policies that can be placed in a statewide planning goal or rule to reduce complexity and increase flexibility. After a technical review is completed, the work group should involve a broader range of interests, including legislators, to conduct a final review prior to submitting a proposal for legislation to assure that the outcome is balanced in policy terms. I do think land use laws are very complex which scares a lot of people off. You need a certain level of education just to participate. (Need) easier to understand language. Simplify the process. Appeal process to land use rules should have a clear process and be available to land owners. Goals of state and exceptions process too rigid and inflexible. Increase (the) use of local media to inform public; streamline processes, simplify laws. Use layman language in summaries and provide workshops and forums do not rely on , websites, which do not fully explain ramifications of proposals. 18 chapter four oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

198 CHapter five Strategic Planning for a Sustainable Oregon Chapter Five: Strategic Planning for a Sustainable Oregon The task force found that state agencies should do more to coordinate land use priorities with economic development strategies and transportation and public infrastructure investment policies. While not endorsing one specific approach, the task force believes there is value in learning from the coordination of land use planning and investment strategy practiced in other states such as Maryland s Strategic Planning process and Washington s Growth Management Act. A state-level system to update the land use system regularly to reflect changes in societal values and visions for our communities is highly desirable. Updates to our land use system should be integrated with similar state planning efforts for transportation, infrastructure and economic development. Repeatedly, over the course of its work, the task force observed that a major area of concern and complaint about the land use planning system is that it is difficult to assess its effects and its costs and benefits. Existing measures do not do an effective job tracking performance or communicating the expected outcomes of specific policies to the public or to decision-makers. The task force has found that there are continuing limitations in capacity for local governments to implement the state land use system. A study by William Jaeger at Oregon State University found that Oregon counties have relatively low levels of staffing available to carry out land use planning compared to other western states. Given the complexity of Oregon s land use system and the degree to which counties must meet state requirements, the level of support is remarkable and has implications for any significant effort for future innovations in land use. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter five 19

199 CHapter five Strategic Planning for a Sustainable Oregon public comments: on strategic planning While the statewide public opinion survey did not include questions about the analytical capability of the DLCD, or how well state agencies coordinated their efforts toward land use goals, participants at town hall meetings and stakeholder group meetings often commented on these issues. Some citizens lacked confidence about whether state agencies are coordinating their efforts, citing instances where they attended briefings and/or hearings by individual agencies that could have been combined with meetings of other state agencies. In addition, some stakeholders stated that local jurisdictions lack the technical capability needed to prepare land use plans, and suggested that DLCD play a larger advisory and data/plan development role in such areas. Problem Statement The state has not invested in the tools or systems to enable DLCD to monitor the state s performance in achieving desired policy outcomes. What data the DLCD does have is organized around statutory reporting requirements put in place many years ago. In addition, some goal processes do not direct particular outcomes, making measuring performance difficult. State agencies and local governments do not have adequate staffing, research, and data management for land use planning, making it difficult for government to make informed decisions about adjustments to existing programs as well as new initiatives. While state agencies do attempt to coordinate their efforts associated with land use matters, more work should be done to assure cost-effective investments while also meeting state and local community goals. Finally, economic development efforts and decisions about transportation improvements can still be better integrated with the land use planning system. Legislative Recommendations LCDC will develop a state strategic plan together with other Oregon boards, commissions and agencies Section 19 of the task force legislation states that the state should develop and maintain a system for achieving and monitoring the performance of the state land use system. Section 19 states the state should develop an integrated strategic plan that includes, but is not limited to, coordination of land use, transportation, economic development, and other key economic and community objectives. Section 20 states the Oregon Progress Board and DLCD work together to review and revise Oregon benchmarks relating to the state and local land use system, and develop corresponding performance standards to measure progress toward achieving the statewide planning goals. Non-Legislative Recommendations Enhance the analytic capabilities and resources of DLCD to be responsive to changing conditions and to monitor progress toward meeting performance standards established by the strategic plan In particular, DLCD needs a GIS system containing demographic, land use, natural resource and other data sets that influence planning. The agency also needs in-house analytical staff to properly inform decision-makers including those at LCDC. In addition, all land use mapping, comprehensive plans and land use regulations submitted by local jurisdictions to DLCD should be systematically organized in one database in order to monitor the conditions in each jurisdiction as well as the state as a whole. 20 chapter five oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

200 CHapter five Strategic Planning for a Sustainable Oregon State agencies involved in land use, transportation and economic development should work together with the governor s Economic Revitalization Team (ERT) to develop an integrated strategic plan The state strategic plan should addresses how to maximize the state s limited transportation and infrastructure funds, while supporting sustainable and efficient patterns of urban development, environmental protection, and other societal goals. State agencies involved should be DLCD, Oregon Department of Transportation, and Oregon Economic & Community Development Department. DLCD should work with the Oregon University System and local governments to develop goal-specific performance measures and the means to monitor performance over time DLCD should revise its current performance measures to develop appropriate outcome-based metrics for each statewide planning goal. As part of this effort the state should identify and support the reporting and monitoring necessary to track performance over time. The state should consider increasing support to local land use planning efforts if it wishes to maintain Oregon s system of state goals implemented by local governments The land use system depends on local governments to implement both statelevel policies and each community s own particular land use priorities and vision. Relative to other states, Oregon s land use system is poorly funded at both the state and local levels. As resources are available, the state should invest in adequate funding for land use planning. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter five 21

201 CHapter six Improving Citizen Participation Chapter Six: Improving Citizen Participation Goal 1 of Oregon s Statewide Land Use Planning Goals directs local governments to establish programs to ensure that citizens are involved in land use planning. State statutes require notice of land use plan changes and of land use decisions. The statutes allow public testimony before decision-makers and provide for a relatively fast, non-judicial appeals process. Generally, the program has been successful in ensuring citizens have the opportunity to participate in land use decisions. The program provides relatively quick land use decisions and offers a relatively high level of predictability for property owners. For most citizens, participation in land use planning is something that gains importance only when a particular proposed development has a direct effect on where they live or work. Citizens may not understand how abstract planning policies can affect their lives or their community. They may have little interest in attending a hearing, serving on a committee, or otherwise getting involved until they see signs of development in a nearby vacant lot or at a favorite location. By then, the main planning decisions have often been made, and they are left frustrated and upset with their inability to affect the system. Even if citizens want to get involved in local, regional or statewide planning processes, they often find the system s procedures complex and intimidating. The Big Look Task Force has identified the need for better citizen access and involvement in all public planning processes as an important element to the longterm success of the statewide land use planning system. Problem Statement The level of citizen participation in local efforts to adopt or amend land use plans is limited to a small percentage of our communities. People are most likely to become involved when there is a decision on a land use application that may directly affect them or their family. In some circumstances, the ability to appeal decisions has been limited. The task force heard that while citizen 22 chapter six oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

202 CHapter six Improving Citizen Participation participation efforts continue to require a substantial amount of time in the planning process, a smaller number of people is involved in those efforts. In quasi-judicial hearings on land use applications, decision-makers are constrained in what they can consider, and the ability of citizens to affect decisions is limited. As a result, citizens often spend their time and effort speaking to issues or policy decisions that have already been made when a plan policy or designation was adopted with the result that their testimony is irrelevant and unproductive. This mismatch between when broader policy issues are decided, and when citizens are confronted with specific proposals that directly affect them, creates frustration for everyone and often results in appeals that are really directed at decisions that were made years earlier. Non- Legislative Recommendations The task force recognizes the critical importance of effective citizen participation in ensuring a functional statewide land use planning system. The task force chose to recommend administrative efforts to improve the citizen participation process using the following goals and strategies. Encourage local governments to use electronic mail and other forms of electronic communication to the public regarding land use issues and pending actions Local jurisdictions can use supplemental forms of electronic notification to distribute more information more quickly. These tools should supplement but not replace traditional print and U.S. Postal Service notification. LCDC should develop techniques and guidelines to improve citizen participation in land use decisions on specific applications Specifically, the task force recommends LCDC pursue the following strategies: For land use applications that may have a significant impact on community quality of life, encourage pre-application meetings between the applicant, local individuals, and groups Provide additional resources for applicants, local governments, and community organizations to mediate land use disputes and avoid winner-take-all outcomes public comments: on improving citizen participation The task force heard testimony both about unproductive citizen participation and various barriers to meaningful participation. Barriers include prohibitive appeals costs, complicated and complex land use processes and procedures, a lack of certainty for property owners, and frustration in trying to influence land use decisions and developments. Many noted the need for land use policies to be communicated in clearer, more concise language that is easy to understand. Others commented on the need for the state to boost its education efforts in order to help both the public and decision-makers better understand how the state s land use laws work and how individuals can play a productive role. Finally, some expressed frustration over the ability of individuals and organizations not directly affected by a decision to appeal the decision. Develop guidelines for public engagement activities appropriate for different types of public processes so that jurisdictions can ensure that the right level and type of public input is available Provide education to the public regarding how to participate in a productive way in land use processes Reduce barriers to meaningful participation in land use decisions. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter six 23

203 CHapter six Improving Citizen Participation DLCD should help local governments improve citizen participation adopting and amending land use plans Specifically, the task force recommends DLCD encourage local governments to employ the following techniques: Conduct early engagement with community organizations in land use planning efforts Provide town hall meetings, community forums and public workshops on key issues Use informal planning workshops and charrettes to allow citizens to visualize the specific outcome resulting from particular planning choices Use and e-blasts to inform citizens about land use planning efforts Use Web sites with frequent updates, RSS feeds etc. Review notice requirements to focus notification efforts on decisions where public input is most likely to be meaningful. 24 chapter six oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

204 CHapter seven Improving Infrastructure Finance Chapter Seven: Improving Infrastructure Finance Infrastructure and land use planning are inextricably linked. Oregon s future prosperity will depend on how we manage key challenges associated with our roads, water, wastewater and other utilities. Our ability to manage urban growth boundaries, provide land for new employment areas, and design highquality communities throughout the state depends on having the appropriate infrastructure so we can grow where we want at a price the market will bear. History of federal assistance for infrastructure The infrastructure funding gap is part of a national problem that has grown during the past 30 years. In the 1970s, federal grants financed 75 percent of water and wastewater project costs and 80 percent of transportation projects. In the 1980s, Congress reduced these grants, placing more responsibility on state and local governments. By the 1990s, federal funding sources were further reduced and converted from grants to loans. This created even more of a financial burden for state and local governments, which had to pay more for water and wastewater projects in order to meet environmental and other regulatory requirements. The state s role in financing infrastructure State funding for infrastructure is provided through road taxes (i.e., state gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, and weight-mile taxes), bond measures, user fees and state lottery dollars. With respect to roads, Oregon s taxes and fees for a passenger vehicle amount to 31.7 cents per gallon, compared to a range of 59.9 cents per gallon to cents per gallon for the six neighboring western states after accounting for additional fees (such as ad valorem and sales taxes) assessed in those states. 6 The largest of these revenue sources 24 cents per gallon state gasoline tax has remained unchanged since Together with increasing fuel 6 Western States Automobile Tax Comparison 2008, ODOT Office of Financial and Economic Analysis, February 2008, oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter seven 25

205 CHapter seven Improving Infrastructure Finance efficient automobiles, Oregon s gasoline tax has experienced a dramatic decline in purchasing power, while the costs for maintaining and building roads, sidewalks, transit systems, and other transportation infrastructure has increased at a higher rate than the overall rate of inflation. 7 Other infrastructure finance tools available to state government also have not increased at the rate of inflation. And with many of the user fees for water and wastewater systems dedicated to new growth, the state has been unable to adequately maintain older systems. Oregon s existing statewide Planning Goal 11 for public facilities and services contains requirements for local governments to plan for and provide infrastructure. The goal requires cities with a population of more than 2,500 to develop a public facilities plan as part of their comprehensive land use plan. The public facilities plan describes the water, sewer and transportation facilities required to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The plan is designed to ensure that adequate services will be available to growing communities. Implementation measures for infrastructure suggest that local governments develop capital improvement plans and then use a variety of other land use tools to guide development in urban areas. These rules and guidelines provide a foundation for Oregon communities in planning for infrastructure needs, but do not address funding or implementation. More specifically, the Transportation Planning Rule requires that if land use development (either through a comprehensive plan, plan amendment, land use regulation, etc.) would result in the transportation system being unable to meet its intended function, that either the plan be modified or the intended function of the transportation system be downgraded to allow for worsening performance conditions (i.e., higher levels of congestion). Local jurisdiction s role in providing infrastructure In Oregon, urbanization usually occurs within the limits of an incorporated city. Cities often provide public facility services (sewer, water, and storm drainage) as well as public safety services (police and fire). However, in some areas special districts provide one or more services, and hundreds of thousands of Oregonians live in urban areas that are not incorporated but served by special service districts. In truth, the emerging urban areas of the state have a mosaic of services provided by a variety of city, county and special service governments. 7 Data Digest, Associated General Contractors of America, November 2007, com/2007/11/construction-inflation-higher-than-cpi.html 26 chapter seven oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

206 CHapter seven Improving Infrastructure Finance Current infrastructure finance tools Several infrastructure financing mechanisms could be available to counties, incorporated cities and a wide array of special purpose districts that operate both within and outside incorporated cities. Primary tools include property tax, water and sewer fees, real estate transfer tax, construction excise tax, system development charges, gas tax, vehicle registration fees, tax increment financing, jurisdictional revenue sharing, and federal and state grants and loans. During the past two decades, funding available to local jurisdictions to fund infrastructure has changed. Due to a number of ballot measures, property tax rates were frozen, resulting in a more limited tax base. Water and sewer fees must relate directly to costs incurred by those services. The local authority to adopt a real estate transfer tax was repealed in Other fees, such as system development charges, are limited by the state. As a result, infrastructure finance options have been seriously constricted. Problem Statement In the coming decades, Oregon s population is projected to grow by another 1.7 million people. Federal funding once available for public improvements has declined dramatically. Although some new federal funds may be made available by the new federal administration, those moneys are likely to be targeted to maintenance and other efforts that can be undertaken with little or no lead time rather than on long-term planning and development of infrastructure. Long-term, sustainable financing for our state and local infrastructure is needed to be successful in creating viable communities that can absorb growth while maintaining the quality of life that gives Oregon an advantage over many other parts of the country. While the amount of additional land likely needed for urban areas during the next 50 years is relatively small between 40,000 and 120,000 acres providing urban services to newly urbanized areas will be problematic as evidenced by recent expansions in a number of communities. This problem arises from limitations we have placed on the local authority to raise revenues. These limitations now mean that tax revenues are no longer able to pay for the corresponding infrastructure and services needed in most communities. Added to the fiscal burden of paying for needed facilities and services is the burden of dealing with deferred maintenance and replacement of aging systems. According to a report from the Oregon Economic and Community oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter seven 27

207 CHapter seven Improving Infrastructure Finance Development Division, Oregon s water and wastewater infrastructure needs(including storm water) total nearly $4.5 billion during the next years to remain safe and environmentally sound. 8 Of that, $2.9 billion (64 percent) will be needed to accommodate new development, population growth, and job creation and retention. The report estimates that Oregon s local governments have the financial resources to pay for about 44 percent of the cost, leaving a significant funding gap. Infrastructure Funding Problems Several communities in Oregon have faced issues in infrastructure funding. In North Bethany, a recent addition to the Metro Portland urban area, there was insufficient funding for the $300 million to $400 million of infrastructure needed for the new lands. 10 The new city of Damascus faced a similar (but even larger) infrastructure deficit. A recent state study found that Oregon cities had identified $10 billion in infrastructure needs over the next ten years. 11 Meeting these infrastructure needs poses a significant challenge. In terms of transportation, the Oregon Department of Transportation reports that during the next 25 years demand for roads will increase by 40 percent, while the buying power of motor fuel tax revenues will decline by percent due to inflation. 9 Oregon and other states have sought alternate financing methods to replace the loss of federal funds for infrastructure. These include system development charges, urban renewal and tax increment financing, increased user fees, and public-private partnerships. However, a number of possible alternative sources are not permissible under current state law. Going forward, Oregon will face difficult choices directly through some combination of lower service standards, requiring development patterns that minimize costs, and/or a combination of property tax reform or higher taxes and fees. Legislative Recommendations Prioritize state infrastructure funding on projects that support efficient development patterns Section 16 of the task force legislation states that state decisions regarding infrastructure funding should consider the efficiency of the development patterns that the infrastructure will support, along with other existing criteria. 8 Report to the Legislature: Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Needs 2007 Infrastructure Inventory Results, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, adopted by the Oregon Economic and Community Development Commission Appendix J, Presentation by Matthew Garrett, Director of Oregon Department of Transportation, to Big Look Task Force, December 12, Minutes of 8/21/2007 meeting of the Washington County Board of Commissioners: Testimony by Brent Curtis, Planning Division Manager 11 Report to the Legislature: Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Needs: 2007 Infrastructure Inventory Results, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, adopted by the Oregon Economic and Community Development Commission Appendix J, chapter seven oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

208 CHapter seven Improving Infrastructure Finance Ensure that in the future, lands added to urban growth boundaries will be annexed to cities when they urbanize Section 17 of the task force legislation requires that cities agree to annex lands before they are added to an urban growth boundary. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure it s clear who will govern lands that will become urban in the future. This also would designate who is responsible for planning and financing the infrastructure (including transportation) improvements necessary to make efficient development occur. Cities may well elect and contract to have service districts provide particular services, particularly where they can do so more cost-effectively, but it should be clear what government entity has overall responsibility. Non-Legislative Recommendations Consider eliminating state preemptions of local finance options The state should review existing limitations on local mechanisms and options to raise revenue for infrastructure. The primary revenue sources for cities property taxes, franchise fees, state shared revenues are declining, and use of some of revenue sources is restricted e.g., property taxes, transient lodging taxes, and systems development charges. Other revenue sources including beer, wine and liquor taxes; cigarette and tobacco taxes; construction excise taxes; and the real estate transfer tax have been preempted by the legislature. Eliminating the local preemption on the real estate transfer tax would allow the largest revenue impact, if utilized, without requiring a constitutional amendment. For example, a 1/10th of one percent real estate transfer tax in Washington County generates approximately $6 million to $7 million per year. If that same rate were used across the state, it would generate $30 million annually. The task force recognizes that there are other considerations involved, but the example of a real estate transfer tax would be an important source of revenue to finance future infrastructure needs. public comments: on improving infrastructure finance To gauge the public s thoughts on infrastructure finance options, the task force asked questions in a statewide public opinion survey regarding whether new development should pay for the cost of infrastructure or if these costs should be shared by the public. Nearly 70 percent of respondants believe that new construction should pay for the roads, transit, sewers, water systems, and parks that support urban growth. However, in another question respondents indicated strong preference for shared responsibility between private developers and public investment to support infill development in existing urban area. These findings differ somewhat from statements made by several of the stakeholder groups that asked the Big Look Task Force to break the current barriers to infrastructure financing. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter seven 29

209 CHapter eight Addressing Climate Change Chapter Eight: Addressing Climate Change Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets In 2007, the Oregon Legislature adopted House Bill 3543 that required the following targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: By 2010, arrest the growth of Oregon s greenhouse gas emissions (including, but not limited to CO2) and begin to reduce them, making measurable progress toward meeting the existing benchmark for CO2 of not exceeding 1990 levels. By 2020, achieve a 10 percent reduction below 1990 greenhouse gas levels. By 2050, achieve a climate stabilization emissions level at least 75 percent below 1990 levels. Scientific consensus now exists that greenhouse gas accumulation due to human activities is contributing to global warming with potentially serious consequences. International and domestic climate policies generally seek to limit the temperature increase from climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions by percent below 1990 levels. In Oregon, about 34 percent of greenhouse gas emissions occur from transportation. Reducing transportation-related emissions depends on what is often described as a three-legged stool: one leg related to improving vehicle fuel economy, one leg related to reducing the carbon content of transportation fuels, and the third leg to reducing the amount of driving or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in personal vehicles. Another 36 percent of emissions occur from electricity consumption (residential, commercial and industrial) and residential heating. Land use plays an important role both in affecting transportation-related emissions as well as residential heating and electricity consumption. Although vehicle efficiency is expected to increase along with fuels, a growing population is likely to push greenhouse gas emissions higher unless we also change our land use patterns to encourage people to use alternative modes of 30 chapter eight oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

210 CHapter eight Addressing Climate Change travel (transit, bicycle and walking), and to shorten trips where automobiles are used. Oregon already has reduced its per capita use of automobiles (as measured by vehicle miles traveled), and leads the nation in this regard. However, much more must be done to achieve to the state greenhouse gas reduction targets recently recommended by the governor and enacted by the legislature. The state s land use system will play a critical role in the state s ability to meet these greenhouse gas reduction targets. More than 100 rigorous empirical studies have established that more compact development can reduce vehicle miles traveled by 20 percent to 40 percent over more dispersed forms of development. 12 Models show that if VMT increases, it may cancel out the benefits of planned increases in fuel efficiency. Adapting to changing conditions Adapting to the consequences of climate change is another critical land use planning challenge. The state, together with local jurisdictions, must consider how to protect communities from the potentially increased environmental hazards and impacts related to sea-level rise, coastal storms and erosion, modified flood hydrographs, increased stress on levees, wildfire risks, and growing demands for water supply. Carbon reduction benefits of our current land use system The fundamental elements of our state s land use program the emphasis on protection of farm and forest uses outside of cities, and the containment of growth and development within compact urban areas produces tremendous greenhouse gas emission benefits. Controls that encourage most of our growth to occur within compact urban areas tend to reduce the travel distance and time between where we live and work. Higher densities also make alternative modes of transportation economically feasible in larger urban areas further reducing private vehicle use. LCDC s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) wants to ensure that Oregon s transportation system supports a pattern of travel and land use in urban areas that avoids the air pollution, traffic and livability problems faced by other areas of the country. The rule aims to improve the livability of urban areas by promoting changes in land use patterns and transportation systems that make it more convenient for people to walk, bicycle, or use transit, and drive less to meet their daily needs. From the outset in 1993, the TPR required larger communities to develop and implement measures to reduce VMT. Since the TPR was adopted, public comments: on addressing climate change Throughout the task force s work, climate change has been a recurring issue for interest groups and the public in general. At hearings, town hall meetings, through comments on surveys, many individuals and organizations call for a statewide approach that includes specific land use benchmarks for carbon reduction. Some groups favor a statewide approach to climate change mitigation, but are concerned that new regulations could harm economic development. 12 Growing Cooler: The Evidence of Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute, page 6, smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/growingcoolerch1.pdf oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter eight 31

211 CHapter eight Addressing Climate Change per capita VMT has been essentially flat in Oregon with a small but significant decline beginning in about A recent analysis of multiple studies comparing mixed-use neighborhoods with low-density sprawl found that doubling density, mix of uses, and street connectivity can reduce per capita VMT by 33 percent. State and local governments can reduce VMT through the following land use planning techniques: Supporting transit-oriented development that places residents close to transit lines and provides them with safe access to those lines. Portland s Green Dividend One recent study by CEOs for Cities found that Portland area residents save a total of $2.6 billion because of the city s land use and transportation policies. For example, the city s median commute is four miles shorter than the national average, and there are corresponding high rates of transit and bike use. The cost savings are pumped into the local economy resulting in what the report calls Portland s Green Dividend. As Oregon responds to climate change, documenting the benefits to the local economy will be as important as the benefits to the environment. Creating and implementing incentives for VMT or greenhouse gas reductions in local governments comprehensive plans. Evaluating development proposals that have major transportation impacts for greenhouse gas emissions effects and potential means to avoid or mitigate such effects. Problem Statement Although Oregon already has oriented its land use program toward efficient urban development and reduced VMT, we need to do more. We need to encourage rapidly growing areas of the state to plan for development patterns that decrease overall drive distances and times and that reduce energy consumption in buildings. The task force believes our state land use system must continue to promote development choices that can reduce dependence on the automobile through infill and redevelopment, maximizing carbon sequestration in rural areas, improving public transportation options, and by making necessary goods and services accessible and convenient. Non-Legislative Recommendations LCDC should carefully consider the Global Warming Commission recommendations At the same time that the task force conducted its review of Oregon s land use system, the legislature and the governor convened the Oregon Global Warming Commission. The Global Warming Commission presented LCDC with the following recommendations: Cooperate with the Global Warming Commission, the Oregon Department of Transportation and other agencies and jurisdictions to set greenhouse gas (GHG) targets and benchmarks for use by local governments Assure that carbon impact is considered in local government rezoning decisions 32 chapter eight oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

212 CHapter eight Addressing Climate Change Cooperate with sister agencies, and their governing boards and commissions, to clarify responsibilities for incorporating climate considerations into state policies, programs and regulations Incorporate adaptation recommendations to help Oregon prepare for the impacts of climate change Extend/expand on Oregon s success at reducing GHGs in urban and in rapidly growing areas Encourage rural development patterns that contribute to meeting Oregon s greenhouse gas reduction goals while helping rural Oregon adjust to energy price increases Define lands of statewide significance to include areas necessary for renewable energy production and transmission, and employ a more flexible planning system to assist Oregon in its transition to a low-carbon energy economy Provide guidance and incentives for reforestation/afforestation in local land use plans that result in effective carbon sequestration. LCDC should carefully consider the Transportation Vision Committee recommendations The governor s Transportation Vision Committee has included related recommendations in its report. Those recommendations include: Provide state funding and technical support for amending land use and transportation plans to reduce greenhouse gases, and require metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and affected local governments to do so. ODOT and DLCD should support and assist MPOs in developing accurate models for estimating the amount of car and light truck travel in each metropolitan commuting area under different future land use and transportation scenarios. Developing Rural Partnerships in Carbon Sequestration Through an innovative Oregon Climate Trust (OCT) project, the Deschutes River Conservancy recruits and pays area landowners to plant native trees along denuded riparian habitat. The project results in the carbon emission reduction equivalent of taking more than 46,000 cars off the road for a year. Landowners enter legally binding agreements to plant and maintain trees for at least 50 years and receive compensation funded from the purchase of OCT offsets. As the trees grow they sequester carbon, rehabilitate trout habitat, improve water quality, and present a new model for addressing climate change through rural economic partnerships on resource lands. Develop a least cost transportation planning model for use by the state, MPOs and local governments. The model should incorporate environmental costs, including greenhouse gas emission constraints. Such a model should become a tool for selection and development of plans and projects. Study national best practices for improving decision-making and delivery of metropolitan transportation services. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter eight 33

213 CHapter eight Addressing Climate Change LCDC should pursue additional strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions In addition to the Global Warming Commission and Transportation Vision Committee recommendations, the task force recommends that LCDC consider the following for the larger metropolitan areas in the state: Incorporate jobs/housing/transportation balance in evaluating amendments to urban growth boundaries. Document reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from existing statewide land use planning provisions including: Goal 10 provisions for cities to provide a range of housing types (e.g., by requiring cities to plan for workforce and lower income housing) Goal 9 provisions for cities to plan for economic opportunities for their citizens Goal 14 provisions encouraging communities to use land within existing urban areas to accommodate population growth. LCDC and DLCD (along with the Oregon Departments of Forestry and Agriculture) also should promote and expand carbon sequestration programs as a means of encouraging rural land uses to be maintained, and for natural areas and resources to be preserved This also may be a means of stimulating economic development in rural areas through market-based preservation efforts such as transfer of development rights and carbon trading. 34 chapter eight oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

214 CHapter nine Planning for a Vibrant Economy Chapter Nine: Planning for a Vibrant Economy As this report is being prepared, Oregon is following the rest of the nation into a period of difficult economic conditions, with a rapidly increasing unemployment rate and high rate of home foreclosures. Although Oregon export industries, particularly in the agricultural sector, have held up relatively well through the slowdown of the past year, growth in those industries is now slowing due to changing economic conditions. Land use planning can create constraints on economic growth if adequate lands are not made available and planned for changing economic conditions and employment growth. In addition, land use planning can play a positive role in fostering a healthy economy by encouraging efficient and desirable development patterns that reduce public facility and service costs, attract a skilled workforce, and ensure adequate housing near employment centers. While the statewide land use system and local comprehensive plans include provisions for an adequate land supply for employment uses, it has only been in recent years that significant attention has focused on the role of land use planning in economic development. Oregon s economy is still relatively tied to its natural resource base. The agriculture and forest products industries have maintained and, in some cases, improved their prosperity. However, the importance of other sectors of the Table 4. Manufacturing $ Output as a Percent of Gross State Product % Change Oregon 14.7% 18.8% 27.9 Washington 8.8% 9.5% 8.0 California 11.2% 9.7% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross State Product Estimates, 2003 and 2005 oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter nine 35

215 CHapter nine Planning for a Vibrant Economy economy has mushroomed. Oregon continues to have a higher share of its economic base in manufacturing than most other western states (see Table 4). This is important because, like the agriculture and forest products industries, manufacturing is a traded-sector industry that also brings new income and wealth into the state. public comments: on planning for a vibrant economy Stakeholder groups discussed the economic effects of our land use regulations in great detail. Most wished to continue to preserve farm and forest land but believed that ancillary uses, or uses that would not have significant impacts on those lands, be permitted to ensure the continued economic productivity of farms and forests for commercial purposes. Affordable housing was mentioned by multiple groups as a significant challenge to our ability to guarantee the workforces we ll need in the future. Finally, the certified industrial lands program was generally noted as a success, but one that needs additional land in its inventory to meet future manufacturing needs. There are important and growing linkages between urban and rural economies. For example, the ability to build, maintain and operate an international marine system on the Columbia River is economically feasible by exporting agricultural and mineral products. As a result of these facilities being built, Oregon urban and rural industries together are contributing to a global economy. Similarly, while the air passenger services into Portland are based largely upon serving the critical mass of the Portland area, the rural economy benefits by having the ability to ship high-value agriculture products nationally and internationally. The urban areas provide important professional services and markets to rural industries, such as legal, financial, health care and retailing. And rural Oregon provides a highly desirable set of recreational amenities for urban residents, making the aesthetic quality of the state one of its most attractive features. The foundation for these and other economic successes, as well as our future prosperity, is a direct result of our land use planning system s objectives and strategies. Problem Statement The task force heard from a number of sources that Oregon suffers from a relative lack of large industrial sites for new manufacturing companies. Expanding urban growth boundaries to accommodate new employment growth can be very time-consuming, putting the land use planning process out of synch with global economic trends and cycles. When lands are planned for industrial uses, the absorption rate is often slower than for other uses with a higher land value, leading to pressure to convert such lands to retail and residential uses. In some areas of the state the conversion has led to shortages of industrial lands and has created transportation impacts that reduce the desirability of remaining industrial lands. 36 chapter nine oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

216 CHapter nine Planning for a Vibrant Economy Legislative Recommendations The recommendations for economic development developed by the task force are included in the legislative recommendations for Protecting Farm, Forest and Natural Areas (Chapter 3) and Strategic Planning for a Sustainable Oregon (Chapter 5). For example, under the proposed legislative criteria for designation of farm, forest and natural areas, rezoning of those lands, and/or limiting development on those lands, LCDC will consider whether those changes meet or adversely affect local and state economic development objectives. Similarly, the legislative recommendations for strategic planning must be based, in part, on economic trends and desired economic outcomes, including the development of performance standards that compare the costs and benefits of land development strategies. Non-Legislative Recommendations Use contingency planning Urban growth management in Oregon relies on long-range forecasts of people, housing and jobs to shape comprehensive plans. Unfortunately, the accuracy of long range forecasts suffers from the myriad of possible unanticipated future events. The task force recommends that communities preparing long range plans (including comprehensive plans, transportation system plans, plan amendments, etc.) develop multiple reasonably accurate scenarios for accommodating growth. With contingency planning, policies and short-term actions can be identified for the most plausible or developing scenarios. This would give cities and counties the flexibility they need to avoid reliance on a single long-range plan based on a relatively narrow set of assumptions. Update and expand the Certified Industrial Sites Program The task force believes the Oregon Certified Industrial Site program has had significant success in providing an inventory of shovel-ready industrial sites that the state and local governments and private entities can market. Although many of the most readily developable sites have been identified, the state and local governments need to continue to update and maintain an adequate inventory of sites over time. The program also should focus on redeveloping sites within existing urban areas. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 chapter nine 37

217 CHapter nine Planning for a Vibrant Economy Develop additional safe harbors for urban growth boundary expansions LCDC should continue to explore and experiment with the creation of safe harbors by rule for expansions of urban growth boundaries to meet employment land needs. A safe harbor is a specific policy direction or optional course of action that may be followed to ensure compliance with a related regulatory process. Safe harbor expansions should include performance standards to assure that planned employment benefits are achieved. Set limits on the conversion of key industrial lands Goal 9 contains some limits on rezoning of industrial lands; however, the task force recommends that LCDC (in conjunction with OECDD and ODOT) explore additional limitations. These would protect important industrial lands that are of regional or state significance due to their location or unique advantage for employment from conversion to other uses. 38 chapter nine oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

218 afterword AFTERWORD Throughout the three years of policy review, discussion, and consideration of Oregon s land use planning system, the Big Look Task Force learned many lessons about how Oregon can update its system to meet future needs. The task force also developed insight into the difficultly that task force committees commissioned by the state often face in approaching their charge. In particular, the task force learned there is a significant need for a charter to guide the work of future citizen committees and task forces. The absence of specific guidelines for analyzing, evaluating and making recommendations can delay the substantive work of support staff and the task force and negatively affects the quality of the work. The task force therefore recommends that the Department of Administrative Services, in consultation with appropriate representatives from the Oregon University System, develop a model charter for future task force/citizen committee groups to include the following: Statement of purpose Staffing level and budget Analytic model and tools Citizen involvement standards and methods Other processes and procedures as identified by Department of Administrative Services and the Oregon University System The task force believes that instituting a charter to guide the approach and scope of work of future task force committees will improve the quality and depth of their recommendations. oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 afterword 39

219 this page left intentionally blank

220 acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Big Look Task Force is grateful to Governor Kulongoski, Senate President Peter Courtney, former House Speaker Karen Minnis and the 2005 Legislature for its appointment and the tremendous opportunity to serve the state of Oregon. The Big Look Task Force would like to thank all the individuals, citizen groups, policy makers and legislators who participated in various aspects of the Big Look throughout its project history. Many people took the time to attend town hall meetings, fill out surveys, give testimony, submit research reports, provide comment and offer their views on Oregon s land use planning system. The task force acknowledges the contribution so many dedicated Oregonians made to this project by offering time out of their evenings, days and weekends to engage in a conversation about Oregon s land use system. The Big Look Task Force would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the following stakeholder groups that met with the task force on a number of occasions to review documents, discuss the task force s preliminary recommendations and offer their suggestions: stakeholder groups 1000 Friends of Oregon Associated General Contractors Associated Oregon Industries Association of Oregon Counties Central Oregon Cities Association Coalition for a Livable Future Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Coquille Tribes County Planning Directors Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians Defenders of Wildlife Global Warming Commission Goal One Coalition Housing Alliance Land Conservation and Development Commission Land Watch Lane County League of Oregon Cities League of Women Voters Metro Metropolitan Policy Advisory Committee Metropolitan Technical Advisory Committee Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association Oregon Association of Nurseries Oregon Association of Realtors Oregon Business Association Oregon Environmental Council Oregon Farm Bureau Oregon Forest Industries Council Oregon Homebuilder s Association Oregon League of Conservation Voters Oregon League of Women Voters Oregon Nursery Association Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Oregon State Bar Association Oregon Sustainability Commission Oregon Tourism Commission Oregon Transportation Commission Oregon Trout Oregon Winegrowers Association Oregonians in Action Port of Portland Staff Portland Audubon Society Portland Business Alliance Special Districts Association The Nature Conservancy Urban Greenspaces Institute Westside Economic Alliance oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 acknowledgements 41

221 acknowledgements Big Look Task Force Technical Advisory Committee The Big Look Task Force would like to acknowledge the technical support and expertise provided by the Big Look Task Force Technical Advisory Committee members: Dick Benner, former DLCD Director; Legal Counsel, Portland Metro Richard Bjelland, analyst, Oregon Housing and Community Service Brian Campbell, former Port of Portland Planning Manager Arnold Cogan, former DLCD Director; principal, Cogan Owens Cogan Sonny Condor, economist, Portland Metro Andy Cotugno, director of Planning, Portland Metro John Freece, National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education, University of Maryland Rich Hall, Secretary of Planning, state of Maryland Shane Hope, former Washington Growth Management Services manager, Seattle Judith Innes, expert in Public Engagement, University of California at Berkeley Jim Johnson, Land Use and Water Planning Coordinator, Oregon Department of Agriculture Gerritt Knapp, National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education, University of Maryland Rob Lang, expert on Mega-Regions; director, Metropolitan Institute, Virginia Tech University Matt McKinney, expert in Regional Collaboration, Public Policy Institute-University of Montana Lisa Nell, Transportation Planning Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation Arthur C. Nelson, expert in Land Use Planning, Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech University Richard Ross, expert in Land Use Planning; Oregon Paleo Lands Institute Ethan Seltzer, professor, Portland State University Urban Planning Program Sumner Sharpe, FAICP, past American Planning Association President; expert on Oregon Planning Don Stuart, American Farmland Trust Allan Wallis, expert in Regional Governance, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado 42 acknowledgements oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009

222 acknowledgements ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONSULTANT TEAM The work of the Big Look Task Force was staffed by the Department of Land Conservation and Development with additional support provided by consultants: Department of Land Conservation and Development Richard Whitman, DLCD Director John Evans, Big Look Project Coordinator Jody Haury, Big Look Project Assistant Jenny Hill, Executive Assistant Sarah Watson, Executive Assistant Lane Shetterley, former DLCD Director, Cora Parker, Interim DLCD Director, 2007 Becky Steckler, former Big Look Coordinator Thomas Houge, DLCD, former Big Look Coordinator Big Look Consultant Team Fregonese Associates: John Fregonese, Principal Glen Bolen, Vice President Dana Visse Ribner, Urban Planner C.J. Gabbe, Urban Planner Robert McCracken, Urban Planner Emily Picha, Technical Assistant Heather Bissell, Office Administrator Sonya Bastendorff, Consultant to Fregonese Associates Lisa Godwin, Consultant to Fregonese Associates Robert Wall, Consultant to Fregonese Associates Sorin Garber, Sorin Garber Consulting Group Robert Grow, Robert Grow Consulting Peter Kinney, Civic Results John Parr, Civic Results Jeanne Lawson, Jeanne Lawson Associates John Morgan, The Luke Center Adam Davis, Davis Hibbitts Midghall Tom Frisch, Filmmaker oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 acknowledgements 43

223 this page left intentionally blank

224 appendix oregon task force on land use planning - final report Jan 2009 APPENDIX 45

225 DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN March 2004 DLCD s Mission Support all of our partners in creating and implementing comprehensive plans that reflect and balance the statewide planning goals, the vision of citizens, and the interests of local, state, federal and tribal governments. DLCD s Vision Our purpose is to guide land use policy to: Foster livable, sustainable development in urban and rural communities Protect farm and forestlands and other natural resources; Conserve coastal and ocean resources; and Improve the well-being and prosperity of citizens, businesses and communities throughout Oregon. Our philosophy is a commitment to land stewardship and public service, achieved through our shared values: Teamwork Integrity Professionalism Responsiveness Accountability Fairness Our position as the nationally recognized leader in the arena of land conservation and development is established by: A dedication to resource protection and growth management; An aspiration for innovative, sustainable urban development; Our contribution to the state's economic competitiveness; A pledge to always work to earn the public s trust. DLCD s Goals Goal 1: Use land use planning to optimize development and provide buildable lands. Goal 2: Use land use planning to make community transportation systems work better. Goal 3: Use land use planning to protect farm and forest resources. Goal 4: Streamline DLCD land use planning activities. 1

226 Agency Name: Department of Land Conservation & Development Biennium Agency Number: Agency-Wide Program/Division Priorities for Biennium Priority (ranked with highest priority first) Dept Prgm/ Div Dept. Initials Identify Key Program or Activity Initials Program Unit/Activity Description Performance Measure(s) 1 0 DLCD Admin Administration 1 1 DLCD CSD Community Services Division 1 2 DLCD Planning Plannning Services Division through through through Primary Purpose Program- Activity Code GF LF OF NL-OF FF NL-FF TOTAL FUNDS Pos. FTE New or Enhanced Program (Y/N) Included as Reduction Option (Y/N) 6 3,460, , ,680 0 $ 3,711, Y Y 6 2,862, ,622 0 $ 3,280, N N F 6 2,377, , ,506 0 $ 3,581, Y N F Legal Req. Code (C, F, or D) Comments on Proposed Changes to EBL included in GRB POP 107: Measure 49 Development $ 390,941 GF 3.0 FTE Three administrative positions related to Measure 49 support would be added to this division. While above the EBL level, the positions continue current limited duration positions from POP 105 Map Modernization: $299,730 FF 1.25 FTE This request would enable the department, as the state s land-use planning agency, to receive federal Flood Hazard Map Modernization funds in the biennium; and continue limited-duration positions authorized for the biennium to carry out the Flood Hazard Map Modernization Initiative.While above the EBL level, the positions continue current limited duration positions from 07-09, and are actually slightly less than approved in that biennium. 1 3 DLCD Coastal Ocean/Coastal Division through ,387,540 0 $ 5,387, Y N F POP 104 Ocean Planning $326,969 OF 1.0 FTE: The funding for this request (transferred in from the Dept. of State Lands "New Carissa" settlement) would support fulfillment of the Governor s Executive Order No Directing State Agencies to Protect Coastal Communities in Siting Marine Reserves and Wave Energy Projects. POP 108: Ocean Coastal Reconciliation $68, 213 FF 0.47 FTE This package would increase a part time, limited duration position to full time in order to meet work load needs, ensure customer service, streamline permit approvals, and provide timely, accurate performance reporting required by NOAA. The POP 107 Measure 49 Development Services: $3,563,087 GF FTE 1 4 DLCD M49 Measure 49 Development Services through ,682, $ 4,682, Y Y DLCD is responsible for implementation of Ballot Measure 49. During the biennium, the legislature approved funding for DLCD at a level intended to resolve claims by December 31, This request is consistent with the originally anticipated 2010 end date. It is important to reiterate that ultimate costs can be affected by actual processing rates and other factors such as the time required to fill authorized positions or legal costs related to interpretation, litigation, or claims evaluation and processing. The department recognizes that additional evaluation of budgetary needs, and likely revisions to this package, will be necessary. ANA 090 Analyst Adjustments: $(2,408,243) GF 2 1 DLCD Grants General Fund Grants LFO:09-11 Program/Division Priorities through ,796, $ 2,796, N Y Agency 660 file: d-prioritization List DLCD_Agency_wide This adjustment to Base realligns the amount for Attorney General consistent with projections from printed 02/20/2009 1:42 PM

227 Priority (ranked with highest priority first) Dept. Initials Identify Key Program or Activity Initials Program Unit/Activity Description Performance Measure(s) Primary Purpose Program- Activity Code GF LF OF NL-OF FF NL-FF TOTAL FUNDS Pos. FTE New or Enhanced Program (Y/N) Included as Reduction Option (Y/N) Legal Req. Code (C, F, or D) Comments on Proposed Changes to EBL included in GRB $ - $ - 16,179, ,845-6,440,348 - $ 23,439, Within each Program/Division area, prioritize each Budget Program Unit (Activities) by detail budget level in ORBITS Document criteria used to prioritize activities: 7. Primary Purpose Program/Activity Exists 19. Legal Requirement Code 1 Civil Justice C Constitutional 2 Community Development F Federal 3 Consumer Protection D Debt Service 4 Administrative Function 5 Criminal Justice 6 Economic Development 7 Education & Skill Development 8 Emergency Services 9 Environmental Protection 10 Public Health 11 Recreation, Heritage, or Cultural 12 Social Support **The department cannot truly remove one piece of its detail cross reference structure without impacting the rest of the agency mission and vision. The department's budget structure is interconnected. However, in order to meet the requirements of this project, the department has established the following criteria in prioritizing its detail cross references in the planning budget unit. They are: **Activities providing direct service are core to the planning program. **CZM is federally mandated. **TGM and FEMA program provide support for the field representatives and are a part of federal funded mandates. **Statutorily required federal funded grants must be provided to local jurisdictions as a condition of state receipt of federal coastal zone management grant. **Coastal grant funds support economic development. **Department's priority for state is economic development. LFO:09-11 Program/Division Priorities Agency 660 file: d-prioritization List DLCD_Agency_wide printed 02/20/2009 1:42 PM

228

229

230

231 TOTALS FUND TYPE POS FTE ALL General Lottery Other Federal Nonlimited FUNDS Fund Funds Funds Funds Other Federal LEGISLATIVELY ADOPTED BUDGET ,124,337 15,962, ,687 6,363,069 Emergency Board Actions (through 4/2008) ,831,542 4,831, Legislatively Approved Budget ,955,879 20,794, ,687 6,363,069 Base Budget Adjustments: Net Cost of Position Actions: Administrative, Biennialized E-Board, Phase-Out (37) (27.83) (2,495,703) (2,411,436) (765) (83,502) Estimated Cost of Merit Increase 254, ,017 24,114 72,729 Base Debt Service Adjustment Base Nonlimited Adjustment Capital Construction Adjustment Summary of Budget Department of Land Conservation and Development Subtotal: Base Budget ,715,036 18,540, ,036 6,352,296 Essential Packages: Package No. 010 Vacancy Factor (Increase)/Decrease (23,783) (9,460) (2,684) (11,639) Non-PICS Personal Service Increase/(Decrease) 21,421 15,103 (936) 7,254 Subtotal (2,362) 5,643 (3,620) (4,385) Package No. 021/ Phased-In Programs Excl. One-Time Costs Phase-Out Programs and One-Time Costs (3,378,488) (3,317,371) (61,117) Subtotal (3,378,488) (3,317,371) (61,117) Package No. 031/032/033 Cost of Goods & Services Increase/(Decrease) 965, ,836 2,188 94,380 State Govt Service Charges Increase/(Decrease) 139,889 81,474 (759) 59,174 Subtotal 1,105, ,310 1, ,554 Package No. 040 Mandated Caseload Increase/(Decrease) Package No. 050 Fund Shifts Package No. 060 Technical Adjustments Subtotal: Essential Budget Level ,439,479 16,179, ,845 6,440, Governor's Recommended Budget Page 107BF03

232 TOTALS FUND TYPE POS FTE ALL General Lottery Other Federal Nonlimited FUNDS Fund Funds Funds Funds Other Federal Essential Budget Level - Page 1 Subtotal ,439,479 16,179, ,845 6,440,348 Package No. 070 Revenue Shortfalls Subtotal: Modified Essential Budget Level ,439,479 16,179, ,845 6,440,348 Emergency Board Packages: (List ORBITS Package number and title) Subtotal Emergency Board Packages Policy Packages: Analyst Adjustments Pkg (2,408,243) (2,408,243) Pkg 104: Ocean Planning , ,969 Pkg 105: FEMA Map Modernization , ,730 Pkg 107: Measure ,964,826 5,964,826 Pkg 108: Ocean and Coastal Reconciliation ,213 68,213 Subtotal Policy Packages ,251,495 3,556, , ,943 Total: Budget ,690,974 19,735,869 1,146,814 6,808,291 Percent Change From Leg. Approved -7.2% -6.9% -0.9% -5.1% 0.0% 43.6% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% Percent Change From Essential Budget Level 50.0% 38.1% 18.1% 22.0% 0.0% 39.9% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% Governor's Recommended Budget Page 107BF03

233 TOTALS FUND TYPE POS FTE ALL General Lottery Other Federal Nonlimited FUNDS Fund Funds Funds Funds Other Federal LEGISLATIVELY ADOPTED BUDGET ,403,705 13,241, ,687 6,363,069 Emergency Board Actions (through 4/2008) ,831,542 4,831, Legislatively Approved Budget ,235,247 18,073, ,687 6,363,069 Base Budget Adjustments: Net Cost of Position Actions: Administrative, Biennialized E-Board, Phase-Out (37) (27.83) (2,495,703) (2,411,436) (765) (83,502) Estimated Cost of Merit Increase 254, ,017 24,114 72,729 Base Debt Service Adjustment Base Nonlimited Adjustment Capital Construction Adjustment Summary of Budget Department of Land Conservation and Development--Planning Program Subtotal: Base Budget ,994,404 15,820, ,036 6,352,296 Essential Packages: Package No. 010 Vacancy Factor (Increase)/Decrease (23,783) (9,460) (2,684) (11,639) Non-PICS Personal Service Increase/(Decrease) 21,421 15,103 (936) 7,254 Subtotal (2,362) 5,643 (3,620) (4,385) Package No. 021/ Phased-In Programs Excl. One-Time Costs Phase-Out Programs and One-Time Costs (3,378,488) (3,317,371) (61,117) Subtotal (3,378,488) (3,317,371) (61,117) Package No. 031/032/033 Cost of Goods & Services Increase/(Decrease) 889, ,658 2,188 94,380 State Govt Service Charges Increase/(Decrease) 139,889 81,474 (759) 59,174 Subtotal 1,029, ,132 1, ,554 Package No. 040 Mandated Caseload Increase/(Decrease) Package No. 050 Fund Shifts Package No. 060 Technical Adjustments Subtotal: Essential Budget Level ,642,669 13,382, ,845 6,440, Governor's Recommended Budget Page 107BF03

234 TOTALS FUND TYPE POS FTE ALL General Lottery Other Federal Nonlimited FUNDS Fund Funds Funds Funds Other Federal Essential Budget Level - Page 1 Subtotal ,642,669 13,382, ,845 6,440,348 Package No. 070 Revenue Shortfalls Subtotal: Modified Essential Budget Level ,642,669 13,382, ,845 6,440,348 Emergency Board Packages: (List ORBITS Package number and title) Subtotal Emergency Board Packages Policy Packages: Analyst Adjustments Pkg (2,408,243) (2,408,243) Pkg 104: Ocean Planning , ,969 Pkg 105: FEMA Map Modernization , ,730 Pkg 107: Measure ,964,826 5,964,826 Pkg 108: Ocean and Coastal Reconciliation ,213 68,213 Subtotal Policy Packages ,251,495 3,556, , ,943 Total: Budget ,894,164 16,939,059 1,146,814 6,808,291 Percent Change From Leg. Approved -7.2% -6.9% -1.4% -6.3% 0.0% 43.6% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% Percent Change From Essential Budget Level 50.0% 38.1% 20.6% 26.6% 0.0% 39.9% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% Governor's Recommended Budget Page 107BF03

235 TOTALS FUND TYPE POS FTE ALL General Lottery Other Federal Nonlimited FUNDS Fund Funds Funds Funds Other Federal LEGISLATIVELY ADOPTED BUDGET 2,720,632 2,720,632 Emergency Board Actions (through 4/2008) Legislatively Approved Budget 2,720,632 2,720,632 Base Budget Adjustments: Net Cost of Position Actions: Administrative, Biennialized E-Board, Phase-Out Estimated Cost of Merit Increase Base Debt Service Adjustment Base Nonlimited Adjustment Capital Construction Adjustment Summary of Budget Department of Land Conservation and Development--Grant Program Subtotal: Base Budget 2,720,632 2,720,632 Essential Packages: Package No. 010 Vacancy Factor (Increase)/Decrease Non-PICS Personal Service Increase/(Decrease) Subtotal Package No. 021/ Phased-In Programs Excl. One-Time Costs Phase-Out Programs and One-Time Costs Subtotal Package No. 031/032/033 Cost of Goods & Services Increase/(Decrease) 76,178 76,178 State Govt Service Charges Increase/(Decrease) Subtotal 76,178 76,178 Package No. 040 Mandated Caseload Increase/(Decrease) Package No. 050 Fund Shifts Package No. 060 Technical Adjustments Subtotal: Essential Budget Level 2,796,810 2,796, Governor's Recommended Budget Page 107BF03

236 Essential Budget Level - Page 1 Subtotal 2,796,810 2,796,810 Package No. 070 Revenue Shortfalls TOTALS FUND TYPE POS FTE ALL General Lottery Other Federal Nonlimited FUNDS Fund Funds Funds Funds Other Federal Subtotal: Modified Essential Budget Level 2,796,810 2,796,810 Emergency Board Packages: (List ORBITS Package number and title) Subtotal Emergency Board Packages Policy Packages: Analyst Adjustments Pkg 090 Pkg 104: Ocean Planning Pkg 105: FEMA Map Modernization Pkg 107: Measure 49 Pkg 108: Ocean and Coastal Reconciliation Subtotal Policy Packages Total: Budget 2,796,810 2,796,810 Percent Change From Leg. Approved 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ` Percent Change From Essential Budget Level 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Governor's Recommended Budget Page 107BF03

237 Governor's Recommended Budget Agency 660 Dept. of Land Conservation & Development Charges by Other Agencies (detail) DAS Sevice Charges Director's Office 6,917 Budget & Management 10,398 State Controller's Division 17,602 Human Resource Management Division 55,724 E-Government 15,269 IT Investment and Planning 6,039 Geospatial Enterprise Office 3,450 Enterprise Security Office 40,570 Business Continuation Plan 1,298 State Procurement Office 5,758 Shuttle Mail 12,118 Statewide Facilites Coordination 1,128 Mall Plaza Debt Service 1,257 Legislative Information Notification Update System 823 TOTAL 178,351 - Adjustments: (25,005) DAS Service Charges, GRB: 153,346 State Data Center: 159,318 g-state Government Service Charges 1 of 1 02/23/2009 4:30 PM

238

239

240

241

242 Reduction Options ORBITS Budget Narrative The department has established the following criteria in establishing its budget and in addressing legislative reductions to the program. The reduction criteria reflect the department s commitment to continue work on the agency s goals and strategic initiatives even if funding is reduced. Criteria for developing Budget Reductions 1. Take approximately commensurate reductions in program units (grants and planning programs). Grants to local governments have been held as harmless as possible. 2. Take an incremental approach to minimize impact on local governments and to maintain technical and grant support for local governments. General Fund grants are reduced; however, DLCD will continue to provide grants through the coastal program, and through the joint DLCD/ODOT TGM special grant match payment, which leverages federal transportation funds at a rate of about 1 to Maintain statutory responsibilities at a minimal level. DLCD is seeking to maintain at least a minimal level of service that will meet statutory requirements for local government periodic review of comprehensive plans, Measure 49 claim processing, DLCD plan amendment review, required reporting (e.g., farm/forest report), and the Landowner Notification Program (Measure 56). 4. Minimize reduction of core program assets. The agency has sought to maintain grants as well as field staff and specialists that work with local governments to develop and update plans and ordinances. 5. Maintain agency s ability to implement its Strategic Plan. DLCD has sought to maintain functions needed to achieve our Strategic Plan, but the magnitude of proposed HB 3182 reductions would force decisions that impact our ability to achieve the goals in the Strategic Plan Governor s Recommended Budget Page 107BF02-O

243 ORBITS Budget Narrative HOUSE BILL 3182 REDUCTIONS Activity or Program DESCRIBE REDUCTION AMOUNT AND FUND TYPE RANK AND JUSTIFICATION (which program or activity will not be undertaken) 1. Reduce Measure 49 Attorney General services funding. 2. Reduce Landowner Notification Reimbursement funding by 90%. 3. Eliminate Measure 49 Development Services Division permanent position. (DESCRIBE THE EFFECTS OF THIS REDUCTION. INCLUDE POSITIONS AND FTE IN AND ) Reduce M49 AG services in permanent funding. Limited duration funding may be needed through policy package and beyond. Larger reduction in this category may be possible as further implementation of measure 49 occurs. Reduce special payments to local jurisdictions. Reduction will decrease available funds for reimbursement to local jurisdictions for landowner notification notices. If notice reimbursement needs increase, department will need to request additional funding through emergency board. Eliminate 1.0 FTE, c1098 Planner 3 Sr claims analyst, Pos # Limited duration funding through policy package and beyond will be needed as further implementation of Measure 49 occurs. (GF, LF, OF, FF. IDENTIFY REVENUE SOURCE FOR OF, FF) $915,136 GF 1 $89,952 GF 2 $165,591 GF 3 (RANK THE ACTIVITIES OR PROGRAMS NOT UNDERTAKEN IN ORDER OF LOWEST COST FOR BENEFIT OBTAINED) 4. Eliminate Measure 49 Development Services Division permanent position. 5. Decrease FTE for Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) position and associated supplies and services. Eliminate 1.0 FTE, c0870 Policy analyst 1, Position # Limited duration funding through policy package and beyond will be needed as further implementation of Measure 49 occurs. Eliminate 0.64 FTE, C1098 Planner 3, Position # & instate travel. Department does not charge fees. Department does not have other fund revenues capable of supporting a reduction beyond this proposal. Other funded reimburseable TGM program is the only location for an Other fund reduction. Other fund reduction generates an accompanying decrease in General Fund match. $147,018 GF 4 $76,409 OF PERSONAL SERVICES $6,566 OF SERVICES & SUPPLIES $21,615 GF PERSONAL SERVICES Governor s Recommended Budget Page 107BF02-O 5

244 ORBITS Budget Narrative 6. Reduce FF grants to local governments. 7. Reduce Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) services 8. Reduce grants to local governments. Significantly reduce special payments to local jurisdictions. Reduction proposal is approximately 40% of available funding. Decreased funding will significantly impact coastal local jurisdiction capacity to accomplish land use planning activities. Reduce personal service contracts associated with ocean and coastal services division land use planning activities. Decrease in funding impact department ability to provide technical assistance to coastal local jurisdictions. Reduce special payment funding levels to local jurisdictions by 10%. Decrease in funding impacts department ability to provide technical assistance and outreach to all local jurisdictions. $ 500,000 FF 6 $ 142,102 FF 7 $279,681 GF Governor s Recommended Budget Page 107BF02-O

245 Department of Land Conservation and Development Biennium Agency Num #REF! Detail of 20% Reduction to Essential Budget Level Priority (ranked with highest priority first) Dept. Initials Prgm. or Activity Initials Program Unit/Activity Description GF LF OF NL- OF FF NL- FF TOTAL FUNDS Pos. FTE Impact of Reduction on Services and Outcomes Dept Prgm/ Div 10 % reduction options Measure 49 DLCD M 49 M 49 S&S-Attorney General activity 2,408,243 $ 2,408,243 additional options to 15% reduction Measure 49 DLCD M 49 M 49 general S&S 20,247 $ 20,247 Reduction to Base Budget taken in GRB. Brings EBL budget in line with permanent needs. Additional funds requested in policy package on limited duration basis only. Additional reduction to M 49, unspecified. Agency would likely absorb in Attorney General line-item. additional options to 20% reduction Administration DLCD Landowner Notification Special Payments 89,952 $ 89, GF Grants DLCD General Fund Grants Unincorporated Urbanizing Areas 500,000 $ 500, GF Grants DLCD General Fund Grants Other GF Grants, to be determined 219,544 $ 219,544 LFO:09-11 Detail of 25% Reduction to EBL $ $ $ $ Reduce Landowner Notification Sp Pmts by 90 percent. It is believed that this reduction would have a minor immediate impact. Because a base amount would no longer be included in the agency budget, it is likely that related legislative bills would include a specific fiscal impact (which could be limited duration in nature). If additional funds are needed beyond those identified through legislative measures, the department would move forward with a request to the Emergency Board to reimburse local jurisdictions for notices prepared under periodic review Reduction at this level would remove the additional funds provided by Budget Note (BN) for the biennium for GF Grants. While funds for this purpose are undersubscribed, reduction would eliminate ability to reprogram to oversubscribed periodic review and technical assistance purposes. On-the-ground outcome is that local governments would not be able to timely and effectively complete comprehensive land use plan review or related process. To the extent funds were requested for BN purposes, the impact would be to make integrated planning more difficult exacerbating land use conflicts Reduction at this level would further reduce capacity in the GF grants program. Impact is same as above but to a deeper level. Local governments will continue to lack resources available for land use planning. j-detail of 20% Reduction to Essential Budget Level Reductions Page 1 of 2

246 20% target: 3,237,986 - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3,237, $ 3,237, LFO:09-11 Detail of 25% Reduction to EBL j-detail of 20% Reduction to Essential Budget Level Reductions Page 2 of 2

247 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development General Fund Grants for the Biennium Planning Assistance offered to all cities smaller than 2,500 population, and counties smaller than 15,000 for general planning support. City Amount City Amount City Amount Adair Village $1,000 Halfway $1,000 Scotts Mills $1,000 Adams $1,000 Halsey $1,000 Seneca $1,000 Amity $1,000 Helix $1,000 Sisters $1,000 Aurora $1,000 Heppner $1,000 St. Paul $1,000 Bay City $1,000 Hines $1,000 Sublimity $1,000 Bonanza $1,000 Idanha $1,000 Sumpter $1,000 Butte Falls $1,000 Imbler $1,000 Tangent $1,000 Cannon Beach $1,000 John Day $1,000 Turner $1,000 Canyon City $1,000 Joseph $1,000 Ukiah $1,000 Canyonville $1,000 Lakeside $1,000 Union $1,000 Carlton $1,000 Lonerock $1,000 Vale $1,000 Cascade Locks $1,000 Lowell $1,000 Vernonia $1,000 Coburg $1,000 Lyons $1,000 Waldport $1,000 Columbia City $1,000 Malin $1,000 Wallowa $1,000 Condon $1,000 Manzanita $1,000 Wasco $1,000 Dayton $1,000 Maupin $1,000 Waterloo $1,000 Dayville $1,000 Mill City $1,000 Westfir $1,000 Depoe Bay $1,000 Millersburg $1,000 Weston $1,000 Detroit $1,000 Mitchell $1,000 Wheeler $1,000 Drain $1,000 Monroe $1,000 Yachats $1,000 Dufur $1,000 Moro $1,000 Yoncalla $1,000 Dunes City $1,000 Mosier $1,000 Durham $1,000 Mt. Vernon $1,000 Echo $1,000 North Plains $1,000 County Amount Elkton $1,000 Oakland $1,000 Gilliam County $3,500 Falls City $1,000 Pilot Rock $1,000 Grant County $3,500 Fossil $1,000 Port Orford $1,000 Harney County $3,500 Garibaldi $1,000 Powers $1,000 Lake County $3,500 Gaston $1,000 Prairie City $1,000 Morrow County $3,500 Gates $1,000 Richland $1,000 Sherman County $3,500 Gearhart $1,000 Rockaway Beach $1,000 Wallowa County $3,500 Glendale $1,000 Rogue River $1,000 Wheeler County $3,500 Gold Beach $1,000 Rufus $1,000 Gold Hill $1,000 Scio $1,000

248 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development General Fund Grants for the Biennium Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area: To assist Hood River, Multnomah and Wasco counties in their responsibilities in implementing the requirements of the National Scenic Area Act. The Counties received the follow: Hood River - $80,000, Multnomah - $70,000, Wasco - $90,000 Periodic Review assists local governments in startup and completion of periodic review tasks. City/ County Amount City/ County Amount Albany $25,800 Keizer $50,000 Florence $14,500 MWCOG-Keizer $25,000 Forest Grove $43,000 Portland $100,000 Junction City $86,000 Troutdale $3,000 Technical Assistance assists local governments in the update or planning, ordinances, and/or conducts other needed planning projects outside periodic review. Also used for Dispute Resolution. City/ County Amount City/ County Amount Astoria $30,000 La Pine $90,000 Brookings $20,000 Lane County $50,000 Cascade Locks $30,000 Lebanon $10,000 Clackamas County $28,500 Lowell $20,000 Columbia County $16,250 Marion County $25,000 Coos Bay $30,000 Milton-Freewater $45,000 Cottage Grove $35,000 MWVCOG-Aurora $25,000 Damascus $225,00 MWVCOG-Gates $12,000 Deschutes County $90,000 OCWCOG $50,000 Durham $21,500 PSU Dispute Resolution $20,000 Eugene $100,000 Redmond $40,000 Harney County $20,800 Reedsport $22,000 Hood River County $15,000 Roseburg $41,174 Independence $18,400 Union City $30,000 John Day $5,000 Umatilla County $10,000 Klamath Falls $68,400 Wallowa County $42,000 La Grande $25,000 Wood Village $7,800 La Pine $9,000 Yamhill County 105,000

249 ALLOCATION OF COASTAL GRANTS ( ) Description Basic Planning Grants Technical Assistance Grants Total Astoria $20,000 $35,000 $55,000 Bandon $10,000 $0 $10,000 Bay City $6,000 $0 $6,000 Brookings $12,000 $0 $12,000 Cannon Beach $6,000 $0 $6,000 Clatsop County $34,000 $0 $34,000 CREST $70,000 $0 $70,000 Coos Bay $32,000 $0 $32,000 Coos County $72,000 $0 $72,000 Coquille $10,000 $0 $10,000 Curry County $59,000 $25,000 $84,000 Depoe Bay $6,000 $0 $6,000 Douglas County $20,000 $0 $20,000 Dunes City $6,000 $1,500 $7,500 Florence $16,000 $9,500 $25,500 Garibaldi $6,000 $0 $6,000 Gearhart $8,000 $0 $8,000 Gold Beach $5,000 $0 $5,000 Lakeside $6,000 $0 $6,000 Lincoln City $16,000 $0 $16,000 Lincoln County $60,000 $0 $60,000 Manzanita $6,000 $0 $6,000 Myrtle Point $6,000 $0 $6,000 Nehalem $6,000 $0 $6,000 Newport $20,000 $0 $20,000 North Bend $20,000 $0 $20,000 Port Orford $8,000 $17,424 $25,424 Reedsport $10,000 $0 $10,000 Rockaway Beach $6,000 $0 $6,000 Seaside $12,000 $0 $12,000 Siletz $0 $10,000 $10,000 Tillamook $10,000 $15,000 $25,000 Tillamook County $56,000 $0 $56,000 Toledo $8,000 $0 $8,000 Waldport $8,000 $16,500 $24,500 Warrenton $12,000 $0 $12,000 Wheeler $6,000 $0 $6,000 Yachats $6,000 $0 $6,000 Total $680,000 $129,924 $809,924 ALLOCATION OF COASTAL CONTRACTS ( ) Jane Barth (OPAC facilitation) $14,999 Heather Reiff (OSU intern) $2,000 Jed Roberts (OSU intern) $2,000 Mitch Rohse (Local training) $5,000

250 CREST (Conference) $500 DOGAMI (Coastal hazards) $27,508 OCZMA (Fisheries database) $68,000 ODFW (Reef research) $52,000 OPRD (Parks Master Plans) $23,000 SSNERR (Estuary workshop) $5,000 Total $200,007

251 Major Program Changes in the Past 10 Years The past decade has brought significant changes and challenges to Oregon s statewide planning program. Key changes are summarized here in reverse chronological order: 2008: Implementation of Measure 49 In February of 2008, the legislature authorized funding to complete implementation of Measure 49 by December of LCDC adopted rules to streamline procedures, and the department put systems in place to review claims. 2007: Ballot Measure 49 The measure modified Measure 37 (2004) to authorize limited development for qualified landowners. In addition to modifications to Measure 37 claims, Measure 49 allows for new claims to be filed, but only for land use regulations that are adopted after January 1, : Rulemaking LCDC adopted new policy and rulemaking efforts to strengthen the state s economic development goal (Goal 9), and to clarify and to streamline the processes for amending urban growth boundaries and for periodic review. 2005: 30-Year Review of the Statewide Planning Program The 2005 Legislature passed SB 82, creating the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning. The task force, which received its administrative support from the department, was charged with conducting a comprehensive review of the statewide planning program. 2004: Ballot Measure 37 The measure required state and local governments to compensate landowners or waive, modify or not apply land use regulations when the regulations have caused loss of value to private property. DLCD created a new division in 2005 to administer the claims process. As of Dec. 1, 2006, the department had received more than 6,000 claims. Local governments also faced significant numbers of claims, and a large volume of litigation occurred. 2004: Rulemaking LCDC enacted rule amendments to reinstate a process to site small aggregate mines through a conditional use permit (in response to a Court of Appeals decision), and to allow for the extension of sewer services to rural residential properties located in an existing service district and within 300 feet of an existing sewer line. 2003: Increased Emphasis on Economic Development HB 2011 recast the Community Solutions Team into the Governor s Economic Revitalization Team (ERT). The bill also added 3 ½ positions to the department to accentuate economic development, including services to counties and cities and staffing the department s new Economic Development Policy Advisory Committee.

252 2003: Budget Cuts Budget shortfalls curtailed agency operations, forced some personnel to be laid off and prompted reorganization. 2003: Actions to Increase the Availability of Industrial Lands LCDC approved a Metro UGB expansion to include 1,900 acres of industrial land. The commission also adopted a temporary rule to reduce restrictions on industrial development in rural areas. 2002: Service Improvements DLCD launched an initiative to work more collaboratively and improve its services to local governments. The commission adopted an administrative rule that allows Metro to consider land use needs on a sub-regional basis : Budget Cuts Budget shortfalls curtailed agency operations, reduced grant availability, forced some personnel to be laid off and prompted reorganization : Increases in Coastal Grants DLCD s coastal program received a significant increase in Federal Funds for grants to local governments. 2001: Ballot Measure 7 The measure amended Oregon s Constitution to require compensation for existing and new land use regulations if they reduced the value of property. The measure was found to be unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court. 1999: Senate Bill 543 After passage of this bill on periodic review, DLCD wrote new rules and changed its review procedures and grants to reflect the new law. SB 543 increased the agency s emphasis on employment, housing, transportation, and public facilities.

253 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Annual Performance Progress Report (APPR) for Fiscal Year ( ) Proposed KPM's for Biennium ( ) Original Submission Date: 2008

254 KPM # Approved Key Performance Measures (KPMs) EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY Percent of cities that have an adequate supply of land for industrial and other employment needs to implement their local economic development plan. HOUSING LAND SUPPLY Percent of cities that have an adequate supply of buildable residential land to meet housing needs. 3 4 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS Percent of cities that have updated the local plan to include reasonable cost estimates and funding plans for sewer and water systems. CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL SITES Number of industrial sites certified as project-ready added each fiscal year TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE Percent of urban areas with a population greater than 25,000 that have adopted transit supportive land use regulations. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Percent of urban areas that have updated the local plan to include reasonable cost estimates and funding plans for transportation facilities. ERT Percentage of local participants who rank DLCD involvement in the ERT process as good to excellent COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING Percent of estuarine areas designated as development management units in 2000 that retain that designation. NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES Percent of urban areas that have updated buildable land inventories to account for natural resource and hazard areas. FARM LAND Percent of farm land outside urban growth boundaries zoned for exclusive farm use in 1987 that retains that zoning FOREST LAND Percent of forest land outside urban growth boundaries zoned in 1987 for forest or mixed farm/forest use that remains zoned for those uses. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EXPANSION Percent of land added to urban growth boundaries that is not farm or forest land. 13 PERIODIC REVIEW REMANDS Percent of periodic review work tasks that are returned to local jurisdictions for further action.

255 KPM # Approved Key Performance Measures (KPMs) TIMELY COMMENTS Percent of DLCD concerns or recommendations regarding local plan amendments that are provided to local governments within the statutory deadlines for such comments. GRANT AWARDS Percent of local grants awarded to local governments within two months after receiving application. 16 LAND USE APPEALS Percentage of agency appeals of local land use decisions that were upheld by LUBA and the Courts CUSTOMER SERVICE: Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency s customer service as good or excellent : overall customer service, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise and availability of information. TASK REVIEW Percent of periodic review work tasks under review at DLCD for no longer than four months. 19 MEASURE 49 - Percentage of Measure 49 claims assigned to the agency that are processed within 180 days. 20 BEST PRACTICES Percent of total best practices met by the Board.

256 New Delete Title: Rationale:

257 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agency Mission: To support all our partners in creating and implementing local comprehensive plans that reflect and balance the statewide goals, the vision of local citizens, and the interests of local, state, federal and tribal governments. Contact: Bob Rindy Contact Phone: Alternate: Michael Morrissey Alternate Phone: SCOPE OF REPORT Green = Target to -5% Yellow = Target -6% to -15% Red = Target > -15% Exception Can not calculate status (zero entered for either Actual or Target) This is the final report of the department s progress on performance measures for Data for the majority, but not all, of the Key Performance Measures are based on the current fiscal year. Agency programs/services addressed by key performance measures Build Oregon s Economy: 2/20/2009 Page 5 of 68

258 The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) ensures that local land use plans throughout the state provide an adequate supply of developable land for housing, commerce and industry. The department assists local governments in coordination with other agencies and the Economic Revitalization Team (ERT), to: (1) identify and plan for developable industrial lands that are project-ready with suitable infrastructure, access, zoning and location; (2) plan and zone an adequate supply of buildable land for housing and employment in urban areas, supported by public facilities and services; (3) plan and improve transportation systems that support planned land uses; (4) revitalize and maintain vibrant downtowns and main streets; (5) encourage sustainable and livable communities; and (6) protect farm, forest, coastal and other natural and economic resources. DLCD Performance Measures 1 through 12 and 16 link to this area of focus. Streamline the Land Use Process: The department is streamlining statewide regulations to reduce complexity, costs to local government and the development community, and to encourage local economic development planning that supports the state s economy. The department will continue to work with the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to streamline and improve land use rules and goals to: (1) encourage local governments to increase the supply of project-ready industrial land in communities throughout the state; (2) encourage affordable housing; and (3) streamline the process for evaluating and, if necessary, amending urban growth boundaries (UGBs). The department is also continuing its effort to reduce the workload burdens for local governments regarding their efforts to periodically review and update local land use plans. DLCD Performance Measures 1, 4, 7, 9 and 15 link to this area of focus. Provide Excellent Service to Local Governments: The department helps local governments implement Oregon s land use system to improve local communities, solve local economic development and other development problems, and increase public awareness and civic engagement in land use planning statewide. The department also works with local governments and other key stakeholders to identify and adopt cost-effective improvements to the land use program and streamline statewide requirements and procedures. DLCD Performance Measures 7 and 13 through 19 link to this area of focus. Continue Implementation of Ballot Measure 49: The department is continuing implementation of Ballot Measure 49 and will continue to evaluate and resolve, in a timely manner, all new claims submitted to the state under Measure 49, as well as property owner elections filed relative to existing Measure 37 claims. (NOTE: If a valid new claim is not resolved within 180 days from the date the claim was filed, the measure provides that the claimant may bring an action against the state). Resolution of individual property owner elections regarding Measure 37 claims is not statutorily required within a specified period of time. Based on approved budget, the department plans to resolve those claims by no later than December 31, DLCD Performance Measure 19 links to this program. Agency programs/services, if any, not addressed by key performance measures Modernize Information Technology (IT) and Delivery: 2/20/2009 Page 6 of 68

259 The department is continuing to implement its plan to modernize and enhance information technology and databases in order streamline agency programs and to improve service to the public, businesses, local governments, and other agencies. The department made significant strides during to build a modern and efficient IT infrastructure and will continue to focus on improving database and information management, including geo-spatial data, pursuant to the department s Information Resources Management Strategic Plan. The department has proposed policy packages in supporting the continued efforts to create a sustainable information technology infrastructure. No external DLCD performance measures link to this program. However, the department has made strides toward developing internal key performance measures tracking the lifecycle replacement program. Continued investment by the legislature in the information technology capacity of the department will improve the agency s ability to meet key performance measure targets and assist local jurisdictions in implementing the statewide land use program. Land Use Program Review: The Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning is carrying out its review of the state land use program in accordance with the objectives outlined by 2005 Senate Bill 82. The Task Force will issue a report and recommendations to the 2009 Legislature. Key performance measures do not currently address the Task Force s review of the land use program. New or amended agency performance measures may be needed depending on the Task Force final recommendations and any subsequent legislative changes to the land use program or direction to the agency based on the Task Force recommendations. 2. THE OREGON CONTEXT DLCD s strategic planning goals are indirectly linked to the following Oregon benchmarks: OBM 4: Job Growth, OBM 70: Commuting, OBM 72: Road Condition, OBM 74: Affordable Housing, OBM 77: Wetlands Preservation, OBM 80: Agricultural Lands, OBM 81: Forest Land, and OBM 87: Native Fish and Wildlife. Oregon s Statewide Planning Program plays a key role in assisting local governments, citizens and the development community with land use decisions that improve job growth, encourage affordable housing, efficient transportation systems, conservation of agricultural and forest lands for farm industry and forestry production, and protection of natural resources. In Oregon, state and local governments share responsibility for achieving these benchmarks. Under Oregon s Statewide Planning Program, the state sets broad goals and requirements for land use planning, and cities and counties adopt comprehensive land use plans that are based on these statewide goals and requirements. Local land use decisions must be consistent with local land use plans that have been acknowledged as meeting state goals and other land use requirements. The statewide planning goals are not the same as the state s benchmarks, but are similar in many respects. Oregon s Statewide Planning Program is one of several programs that contribute to the state s efforts to meet the state benchmarks. Other important programs not associated with the department, but that influence progress toward the benchmarks, include government and private investment programs, tax structures, and a variety of state and federal regulations. For example, progress in preserving the agricultural land economy in Oregon is influenced by a supportive property tax system, investments made by the federal and state governments to subsidize certain crops, and investments 2/20/2009 Page 7 of 68

260 by certain industries that use those crops. 3. PERFORMANCE SUMMARY In general, DLCD's performance measures portray a positive trend for the program. Sixteen of the 19 measures effectively meet or exceed the goal. In the three instances where this is not the case, the trend of actual performance is in a positive direction, and a program for improvement is being implemented This performance report provides data for fiscal year In 2008, the department requested an administrative change to key performance measure 19, reflecting passage of Measure 49 (2007). Pending the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning s review of the Statewide Planning Program and final recommendations, additional substantive changes to the department s key performance measures may be necessary. 4. CHALLENGES Oregon s Statewide Planning Program faces many challenges. One of these is the reduced financial capacity of many local governments necessary to maintain up-to-date and high-quality land use plans that prepare cities and counties for future growth and that support infrastructure necessary for land development and other land use decisions contemplated by local plans. The department also has insufficient capacity to fulfill all its mandated programs, provide adequate land use planning help to local governments through technical assistance and grants, and to track and measure the progress of all its programs. Oregon statutes regarding the periodic review and update of local comprehensive plans focus DLCD resources largely on certain land use planning efforts in cities with a population of 10,000 or more. While there is a benefit to focusing limited state resources on certain priorities, the lack of funding and mandatory requirements to maintain and update local plans may exacerbate problems in smaller jurisdictions and all local governments with regard to certain reprioritized issues affecting all local governments. Without continued investment in the department s staffing capacity and additional grant resources to assist local government planning, smaller cities and counties plans will likely grow more and more out of date and will be less and less likely to meet local needs and state planning requirements. This, in turn, will affect the agency s performance with respect to the measures and targets discussed in this report. The continued implementation of Measure 49 may require DLCD to reassess some of its performance measures if it is necessary to divert staff from other responsibilities. The additional workload brought about by Measure 49 may require use of other staff to assure public expectations for prompt action are met, which may, in turn, necessitate lowering of some performance measure targets. To the extent the department s ability to meet its performance measure targets is dependent on adequate staff, and the agency s ability to provide adequate technical assistance and grants to local governments, the department s success may be affected by the demands of Measure 49 claims administration and review. 5. RESOURCES AND EFFICIENCY 2/20/2009 Page 8 of 68

261 The department Legislatively Adopted Budget for its three fund types is $23 million. Performance Measures 14, 15, 18, and 19 concern efficiency measures for the department with regard to DLCD programs. 2/20/2009 Page 9 of 68

262 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #1 EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY Percent of cities that have an adequate supply of land for industrial and other 2002 employment needs to implement their local economic development plan. Goal Oregon Context Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities. OBM 4: Job Growth Data Source Owner DLCD tracking of periodic review approval orders and post-acknowledgment plan amendments. Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY Periodic review and plan amendment review are the major department activities associated with this measure. Under periodic review, each city updates its land use plan and other local programs to improve the local economy, forecasts its industrial land and employment needs for the next 20 years, and amends the plan and the local Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), if necessary, in order to increase the land supply for economic 2/20/2009 Page 10 of 68

263 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS development. The department provides technical and financial assistance to local governments for planning tasks intended to evaluate or increase the supply of industrial and other employment lands. Under the periodic review program, DLCD tracks 100 cities with 2,500 or more people within their UGBs as of July 1, The base year is DLCD records when a city or county completes, and the state approves, a periodic review task adding commerical or industrial land to the local employment land inventory. Under this KPM, the department also counts progress under a periodic review work program if a local government evaluates commercial and industrial land supply and determines it already has an adequate supply. Additionally, when a city completes and adopts an economic opportunities analysis (EOA), and the department approves it, the department counts that jurisdiction as compliant with Statewide Planning Goal 9 and related state economic development requirements and counts that compliance toward meeting this KPM. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS Progress toward this target is determined by estimating the number of cities that are likely to finish the year with an adequate (i.e., 20-year) supply of developable industrial and other employment land. In determining progress toward the target, the department considers the following tasks related to this measure: the number of cities expected to complete periodic review work tasks for industrial or other employment lands, the number of cites expected to complete periodic review after determining that no land inventory increase is needed and the number of cities expected to complete a major economic development-related comprehensive plan update outside of periodic review through the plan amendment process provided by statute. The total derived from these estimates was divided by the total number of Oregon cities over 2,500 in population in order to arrive at the department s determination of progress toward this target. During the biennium, individual cities determine whether they complete one of the above qualifying tasks and the department evaluates their success and the adequacy of their efforts in determining progress toward this target. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING Although the target for this measure was not met for this reporting period, the department improved its performance relative to the target for this year compared to previous years. Oregon cities are continuing to maintain and improve their supply of industrial and other employment lands; however, more work needs to be done. Progress toward the targets in this measure is expected to improve in the near future for two reasons. First, a majority of Metro-area cities are eligible to enter periodic review in the next year, and this constitutes a large number of cities that historically have a high success rate regarding this task. Second, most DLCD planning grants awarded in the current biennium have been directed toward local planning efforts to determine and meet needs for industrial and other employment lands. These analyses are expected to result in an increase in land supplies for long-term and near-term industrial and other employment needs. 4. HOW WE COMPARE 2/20/2009 Page 11 of 68

264 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS There is no other equivalent public or private industry standard to evaluate the sufficiency of employment lands within UGBs. Other states have programs and standards involving shovel-ready industrial sites and economic analyses. While these programs have some elements related to DLCD s standards, they are significantly different than Oregon s program. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS Recent legislation eliminating the requirement for cities with a population less than 10,000 outside Metro to periodically review and update the local land use plan may impair the department s ability to meet targets. Also, DLCD did not have a high success rate in getting technical assistance grants approved during the first half of this biennium and none were approved in time to result in completed local work prior to June 30, In addition, the moratorium on periodic review due to legislation in 2003 delayed many comprehensive plan updates that had been anticipated when DLCD set these targets. The recent amendments to the methodology for this measure, although helpful toward producing greater accuracy, also affected this year s results. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE For cities no longer subject to periodic review, DLCD must increasingly rely on state grant programs to encourage local governments provide an adequate supply of industrial land and other land planned for employment needs. Planning for economic development needs is the top priority for use of the department s general fund technical assistance grants. Better tracking of local efforts to meet this measure is also needed, because periodic review will no longer provide an effective method to track and measure progress of those cities under 10,000 in population that do not volunteer to undergo periodic review. Adequate funding of the department s technical assistance and grant programs is critical for the agency to achieve the targets. Even if funding is maintained or improved, the targets may need to be lowered to account for the loss of the mandatory periodic review process, and related mandatory requirements regarding land supply, for cities less than 10, ABOUT THE DATA The reporting cycle for this measure is Oregon s fiscal year. Progress under this measure is counted when a city completes and the department approves a periodic review task to add industrial and other employment lands to its UGB, or when a city completes periodic review after evaluating the land supply and determines it already has sufficient industrial and other employment land. Progress is also counted when a city completes a major land use plan update relating to its industrial or employment land supply outside of periodic review, such as a plan update that includes adoption of an economic opportunities analysis that determines near-term and long-term employment land needs in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 9. 2/20/2009 Page 12 of 68

265 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #2 HOUSING LAND SUPPLY Percent of cities that have an adequate supply of buildable residential land to meet housing 2002 needs. Goal Oregon Context Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities. OBM 74: Affordable housing Data Source Owner DLCD tracking of periodic review approval orders. Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 HOUSING LAND SUPPLY Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY This measure tracks the percentage of cities with a population over 2,500 that have completed a major update of their local land use plan in order to provide an adequate (i.e., a 20-year) supply of buildable residential land within the city's urban growth boundary (UGB). Planning and zoning a sufficient amount of land, based on an up-to-date housing needs analysis, helps assure that enough land is available for construction of new housing 2/20/2009 Page 13 of 68

266 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS at various price ranges and rent levels in these communities. An increasing percentage of lower- and middle-income Oregon households pay more for housing costs than is considered reasonable under standard indicators. This gap emphasizes the importance of the department's work with other state agencies and local governments to assure an adequate supply of residential land in UGBs. The buildable residential land supply is one factor that directly affects a city s ability to provide for affordable housing needs. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The higher the percentage reported under this measure, the better the performance. The targets were based on estimates of the number of cities that will update their plans each year outside of periodic review, plus the number of cities that will enter periodic review with a relevant work task, and estimates of which year each city in periodic review is expected to complete the relevant work tasks. The targets generally assume that an amended local plan on this topic will provide an adequate 20-year land supply over the average 10-year period prior to the next anticipated update, except for plans for cities within the Portland Metropolitan Service District boundaries. State statutes require Metro (and cities within Metro) to review and update the residential land supply within its UGB every five years. As such, all cities with populations over 2,500 within Metro are counted as having an adequate supply of residential land for the year that Metro completes a residential land evauation, plus the four following years. Please note that 2007 legislation granted Metro a one-time 2-year extension of the mandatory 5-year update. Therefore, all cities with populations over 2,500 within Metro will be counted as having an adequate supply of residential land for the period (seven years), instead of (five years). After 2009, the 5-year planning period for Metro cities will resume. A legislative moratorium on periodic reviews began July 1, 2003 and ended June 30, The 2007 target for KPM 2 includes an estimated number of overdue pre-moratorium periodic review work tasks that were expected to be completed in Fiscal Year Completions of periodic review work tasks expected to start after July 1, 2007 are included in the targets for 2008 and HOW WE ARE DOING In Fiscal Years 2005, 2006 and 2007, performance was lower than the targets. In Fiscal Year 2008, however, performance exceeded the target by three percent. 4. HOW WE COMPARE The department s performance measure of residential land supply is more long-term than most relevant private industry standards. Most land supply measurements concern the two- to five-year, or near-term supply, while DLCD measures the 20-year, long-term supply. Either due to this difference, or due to other differences, public and private studies have tended to reach widely varying conclusions on the effects on housing costs 2/20/2009 Page 14 of 68

267 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS and affordability due to the Oregon s requirements for a 20-year residential land supply within a UGB. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS Positive factors affecting this measure include: 1) A city is in periodic review (required for cities with populations over 10,000), and its periodic review work program includes a task to complete or update a residential land needs analysis and/or a UGB evaluation; 2) State grant funds are available for local buildable land inventories, residential land needs analyses, and UGB evaluations, either during periodic review or otherwise; 3) A city in periodic review is on schedule to complete its work program; 4) A city updates its buildable land inventory and residential land needs analysis at least every 10 years; and 5) Department staff resources are available to provide local governments with technical assistance. Barriers include: 1)The legislative moratorium on periodic reviews from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2007; 2)The fact that that the department has little influence, except through grants, on whether cities not subject to periodic review (i.e., with populations less than 10,000) choose to undertake the planning necessary to provide an adequate supply of residential land; 3) Historically, that State grant funds have not covered all qualified and needed land supply planning projects, and the department's ability to provide financial assistance to cities decreases each biennium; and 4) Less staff time is available for technical assistance due to the rate of staff turnover during the previous and current biennium. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Continue tracking this measure using the recently revised data sources and methodology. In order to encourage more local governments to update their land supply, the department should pursue additional funds from the legislature and other sources for grants to local governments that would support residential buildable lands inventories, land need analyses, and urban growth boundary land supply evaluations. 7. ABOUT THE DATA The reporting cycle is Oregon s fiscal year. The data for this measure derive from two sources: periodic review work program products submitted to the department for review, and post-acknowledgment plan amendments for cities with populations over 2,500 that are reported to the department. For periodic reviews, the department counts approved residential lands evaluation tasks, approved work program completions, approved city findings of adequacy of residential land, and approved urban growth boundary (UGB) evaluation or amendment tasks. For post-acknowledgment plan amendments, the department counts adoption notices received for residential buildable land inventories, residential land need analyses, and legislative UGB amendments to add residential land. Post-acknowledgement plan amendments need not be acknowledged to be counted as progress toward targets under KPM 2; the city need only adopt the amendments. 2/20/2009 Page 15 of 68

268 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS Strengths of the data: The data used for this measure primarily includes the larger urban areas in Oregon, where most of the state's population resides and where much of the state s housing supply growth occurs. Weaknesses of the data: 1) With the present database, which was designed for a different purpose, it is difficult to extract the specific data needed for this KPM. Staff evaluating data for this measure must review a large amount of data to cull out a small percentage of relevant data. 2) The data omit 139 incorporated cities in Oregon with populations less than 2,500, including many within proximity of larger metropolitan areas that are experiencing growth. 2/20/2009 Page 16 of 68

269 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #3 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS Percent of cities that have updated the local plan to include reasonable cost estimates and 2002 funding plans for sewer and water systems. Goal Oregon Context Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities. OBM: 4 Job Growth and OBM 74: Affordable Housing Data Source Owner DLCD tracking of periodic review approval orders. Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY This measure tracks the percentage of cities with a population over 2,500 that have completed an update of their local plans for providing water and sewer system facilities needed to serve future land development within their urban growth boundary (UGB), including cost estimates and funding plans. The timely provision of public facilities is a prerequisite for most urban development, including affordable housing and market-ready industrial 2/20/2009 Page 17 of 68

270 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS sites. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The higher the percentage reported under this measure, the better the performance. The targets are based on estimates of the number of cities that will update their plans each year outside of periodic review, the number of cities that will enter periodic review with a relevant work task, and the number of years that cities in periodic review are expected to take to complete the relevant work tasks. The targets generally assume that an amended local plan on this topic will be adequate for a 10-year period. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING Performance was 4% below the target in FY 2007, but in FY 2008, performance was only 1% below the target, indicating that the department will soon be back on track in meeting or exceeding its targets as it did in FY 2004, FY 2005 and FY HOW WE COMPARE The department is aware of no other public or private industry standard that evaluates progress toward updating plans for urban sewer and water facilities. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS Positive factors affecting this measure include: 1) A city is in periodic review (required for cities with populations over 10,000) and its periodic review work program includes a task to prepare or update a public facilities plan; 2) State grant funds are available for public facilities plans, either during periodic review or otherwise; 3) A city in periodic review is on schedule to complete its work program; 4) A city updates its public facilities plan at least every 10 years; and 5) Department staff resources are available to provide local governments with technical assistance in preparing public facilities plans. Barriers include: 1) The legislative moratorium on periodic reviews from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2007; 2) The department has little influence over whether cities that are not subject to periodic review (i.e., with populations less than 10,000) undertake the preparation or updating of public facilities plans; 3) Historically, state grant funds have not covered all qualified and needed local projects, and the department's ability to provide financial assistance to cities decreases each biennium; and 4) Less staff time is available for technical assistance to cities on this program due to the 2/20/2009 Page 18 of 68

271 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS rate of staff turnover in the previous and current biennium. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Continue using the recently revised methodology for tracking this measure in future years. Pursue additional budgeted funds from the legislature for grants to local governments to encourage cities to prepare or update public facilities plans. The department has submitted a request for additional grant funds, a portion of which would be used to assist local governments land use planning efforts. 7. ABOUT THE DATA The reporting cycle is Oregon's fiscal year. The data for this measure derive from two sources: periodic review work programs submitted to the department for review, and post-acknowledgment plan amendments for cities with populations over 2,500 reported to the department. For periodic reviews, the department counts approved public facility plan tasks. For post-acknowledgment plan amendments, the department counts notices received regarding newly adopted public facilities plans. Strengths of the data: It includes the larger urban areas in Oregon where most of the state's population resides and where much of the state s growth occurs. Weaknesses of the data: 1) With the department s current database, which was designed for a different purpose, it is difficult to extract the specific data needed for a KPM. Staff assigned to track this measure must review a very large amount of data to cull out a small percentage of relevant data. 2) Data omits 139 incorporated cities in Oregon with populations less than 2,500, many which are within proximity of larger metropolitan areas and are experiencing growth. 2/20/2009 Page 19 of 68

272 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #4 CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL SITES Number of industrial sites certified as project-ready added each fiscal year Goal Oregon Context Data Source Owner Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities. OBM: 4 Job Growth Department records. Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL SITES Data is represented by number 1. OUR STRATEGY Increasing the supply of project-ready industrial sites is a shared responsibility with the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) as the lead agency, as well as other agencies that participate in the Economic Revitalization Team (ERT). DLCD provides technical assistance to local governments regarding planning for adequate land supply, zoning ordinances and design review, related to economic 2/20/2009 Page 20 of 68

273 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS development, and also assists OECDD and ERT with land use related aspects of this effort. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS Targets were set in consultation with the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department and the Economic Revitalization Team office at the onset of the program, before a track record on this program had been established. As such, the targets were unrealistically high when the program was new and without a track record. In general, potential providing a supply of project-ready sites is an effort that entails more complex and more costly issues to resolve than anticipated, and the total acreage provided so far, for potential sites, has turned out to be smaller than originally projected. It is assumed that the initial years of this program will see the greatest number of sites added. Once the more accessable supply of sites that are easily made project ready is exhausted, the number of sites added each year is expected to drop and then level off. As project ready sites are developed over time, replenishing these sites is also expected be increasingly difficult. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING The targets were exceeded for this reporting period. Locating, recruiting and certifying potential project-ready sites has proved to be more complex and more costly than anticipated when the targets were set. The department is reporting at this time on 2007 target changes approved by 2007 Legislature in order to synchronize DLCD s report with the Oregon Economic and Community Development target changes approved in their report to a 2006 Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Nevertheless, Oregon is on track toward creating and maintaining a competitive portfolio of certified industrial sites. It is expected that certified industrial sites will develop with new and expanded industry over time, and therefore must be replaced. Information on Oregon's certified industrials sites is available at 4. HOW WE COMPARE Only a few states have certification programs for industrial sites but Oregon s program has many unique features and therefore a meaningful comparison with other state programs is not possible. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS The reduction in the number of cities required to undergo mandatory periodic review will continue to reduce the number of cities that evaluate and update their industrial land supply, including the supply of project-ready industrial sites. The changes in state law reducing the number of cities required to undergo periodic review were enacted in Therefore, over time, this statute change will hinder the state s ability to meet targets for project-tready industrial sites. 2/20/2009 Page 21 of 68

274 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE For cities no longer subject to periodic review, DLCD must increasingly rely on state grant programs to encourage local governments to provide an adequate supply of project-ready industrial sites. DLCD needs to continue providing grants and other assistance to local governments to encourage periodic evaluation and update of the industrial land supply. Other state agencies should assist as necessary to maintain Oregon s portfolio of certified sites. The department is seeking additional budget for grants to local governments specifically targetted at economic development, which will assist cities in planning for industrial sites and make the sites ready for certification. 7. ABOUT THE DATA The fiscal year (July 1-June 30) reporting data were derived from lists published by the Oregon Economic and Community Development regarding sites certified as project-ready. 2/20/2009 Page 22 of 68

275 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #5 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE Percent of urban areas with a population greater than 25,000 that have adopted 2002 transit supportive land use regulations. Goal Oregon Context Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities. OBM 4: Job Growth and OBM 70: Commuting Data Source Owner Periodic review work task orders and post acknowledgment plan amendments. Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY This performance measure demonstrates whether local communities are adopting land development regulations that assure land use and public transit systems are integrated and mutually supportive, as required by the transportation planning rule (OAR ) and Statewide Planning Goal 12. Transit-supportive land use regulations are necessary to allow development at densities adequate to support transit service and to ensure that 2/20/2009 Page 23 of 68

276 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS pedestrian and transit facilities are provided as part of new developments. The combination of adequate intensity of uses along a transit line with safe and convenient access for pedestrians is important to enable transit systems to operate efficiently. The department assists local governments in adopting land development regulations intended to improve local transportation options. This work will ultimately assist with transportation problems in Oregon s communities, enhance the efficiency of public transit systems, and, therefore, indirectly assists with job growth. Governmental partners include local governments, transit districts, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Non-governmental partners include property owners, developers, and realtors who participate in planning and outreach efforts to promote transportation-efficient land use patterns. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The targets were established based on the rate that local government comprehensive plans and transportation system plans have been adopted by local government and acknowledged by DLCD over the past ten years. Accomplishment of higher percentages is desirable. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING The data reveals that the targets have been achieved. Local governments are adopting transit-supportive land development regulations. The general trend shows a gradual improvement as many local jurisdictions adopt transit supportive standards. The department has been focusing effort on the remaining jurisdictions, especially the larger cities such as Eugene, Medford, and Salem, where only partial progress has been made. The department and the City of Salem recently reached an agreement on the planning work remaining for the city to comply with the TPR through a Periodic Review work task. The TGM program continues to support planning in Eugene related to the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system and the Franklin Station area in particular. 4. HOW WE COMPARE There are no directly comparable public or private industry standards for this measure. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) does have similar standards it uses to evaluate the extent to which a city is transit supportive when applying for a new starts grant for major transit improvements. FTA s performance measure is a rating of transit supportive land use policies and supportive zoning regulations. FTA provides ratings as high, medium high, medium, low-medium, or low. FTA s standards are set out in 49 CFR and Appendix A to Part FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS 2/20/2009 Page 24 of 68

277 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS Factors affecting the results include the complexity and controversy often associated with planning for transit supportive land uses, lack of public understanding and support for transit and related development regulations, and concern from some local elected officials that transit supportive regulations may be inconsistent with real estate market trends. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE The department will continue providing technical assistance and grants to local governments, including the joint ODOT-DLCD Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program. As the compliance rate approaches 100%, the remaining cities often provide the most difficult challenge. The department will continue to focus effort on these remaining jurisdictions, especially the larger cities such as Eugene, Medford, and Salem, where only partial progress has been made. The TGM program will provide general planning grants and targeted technical assistance for code updates. 7. ABOUT THE DATA Data is reported as of June 30, Data is based on the numbers of TSP's and implementing ordinances that have been adopted by the city and acknowledged by DLCD (through periodic review or the plan amendment process). 2/20/2009 Page 25 of 68

278 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #6 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Percent of urban areas that have updated the local plan to include reasonable cost 2002 estimates and funding plans for transportation facilities. Goal Oregon Context Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities. OBM 4: Job Growth and OBM 72: Road Condition Data Source Owner Periodic review approval orders. Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY This measure indicates the percentage of cities with a population over 2,500 that have completed a Transportation System Plan (TSP) as required by LCDC s Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660, division 12, and Statewide Planning Goal 12). These TSP's address streets and highways, mass transit for large cities, and air and rail facilities, and are intended to assist local and state efforts to improve transportation facilities. These plans 2/20/2009 Page 26 of 68

279 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS are coordinated at the city, county and state level. They contain lists of major transportation projects which are needed to support compact, urban development for the next 20 years. The department assists local governments in adopting TSPs and related land developments regulations. This work will ultimately assist with resolving commuting problems in Oregon s communities, enhance the efficiency of the transportation system, and, therefore, indirectly assist with job growth. Governmental partners include local governments, transit districts and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Non-governmental partners include property owners, developers, and realtors who participate in planning and outreach efforts to promote efficient transportation systems and supportive land use patterns. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The targets were established based upon the acknowledgement rate of comprehensive plans and transportation system plans over the past ten years. Accomplishment of higher acknowledgement rates is desirable. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING The data reveals that the targets have been achieved and progress is continuing to be made. Local governments are adopting TSPs that include cost estimates and funding plans. The general trend between 2000 and 2007 shows a gradual improvement, although the adoption rate slowed gradually between 2004 and This slowing in local TSP adoption occurred because there are fewer cities that have not already completed their TSP. Most cities tracked by this KPM have completed or will complete their first TSP, and TSP updates will be more common in the near future. 4. HOW WE COMPARE There are no directly comparable public or private industry standards. Federal law does require that metropolitan areas prepare and regularly update 20-year regional transportation plans and three to five year transportation improvement programs. These plans must include cost estimates and a funding plan based on reasonably expected funding sources. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers these requirements. Metropolitan Planning Areas (MPOs) must have an approved, up-to-date plan to receive federal funding for transportation projects. Oregon has six federally designated MPOs: Portland Metro, Salem-Keizer, Eugene-Springfield, Medford, Corvallis, and Bend. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS Factors affecting the results include the complexity associated with planning for transportation systems and supportive land uses, the availability of 2/20/2009 Page 27 of 68

280 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS grants and technical assistance funds to help local governments prepare TSPs, and the difficulty encountered in preparing reliable projections on the availability of federal, state, and local transportation funding. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Periodic review, plan amendment review, ODOT/DLCD Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grants, and technical assistance grants are the major activities in support of this measure. Recent legislation has removed cities with a population under 10,000 from mandatory periodic review. For these cities, more emphasis needs to be placed on grant programs to assist local governments and on the voluntary plan amendment process to encourage local governments to complete TSPs outside of periodic review. With a greater emphasis on economic development for the department s grant programs, greater reliance on TGM grants and technical assistance is needed. The department will also work to increase the awareness of the projected shortfall in available federal, state, and local transportation funds to construct the planned transportation facilities and services identified in TSPs. 7. ABOUT THE DATA Data is reported as of June 30, The 2004 report for this KPM used data only from periodic review, and included the following disclaimer: The data for 2003 did not include any TSPs completed through the plan amendment process; it is likely that some TSPs completed as plan amendments were not counted and the target was exceeded by a greater amount than shown above. Subsequent reports tracked new TSP's primarily through the periodic review process. This report is based ona new review of periodic review and plan amendments outside periodic review, and thus reports a higher completion rate for previous years actual data. 2/20/2009 Page 28 of 68

281 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #7 ERT Percentage of local participants who rank DLCD involvement in the ERT process as good to excellent Goal Oregon Context Data Source Owner Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities. DLCD Mission. Customer service survey results provided by economic revitalization team (ERT). Richard Whitman, ext 271 ERT Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY The Governor s Economic Revitalization Team [ERT] include, questions measuring customer satisfaction for four partner agencies [DLCD, PUC, ERT, DWR] in their 2008 Oregon Joint Customer Satisfaction Report for the Progress Board. Questions measure the agencies involvement in ERT projects with regard to timeliness, helpfulness, accuracy, knowledge and expertise, availability of information and overall quality of service. The 2/20/2009 Page 29 of 68

282 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS desired outcome is a high percentage of responses that report a high overall quality of service with regard to DLCD involvement in the ERT process. Quality of service was chosen as the best indicator of DLCD performance and ERT oversight because this seemed most important from a customer point of view. That 2008 survey result for reporting purposes is 70.3 percent. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS This is the second year for this measure. The department participated with ERT in the customer satisfaction survey sponsored by the Department of Administrative Services Budget and Management Division in The department anticipated a biennial survey of its customers and therefore does not and will not have data to report for 2007 and Biennial targets for this measure were established by the agency and approved by the 2007 Legislature. DLCD anticipates potential changes to these targets as more clarity on ERT customer service survey methodology is determined. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING This is a the second year for this measure. There is no trend and interpretation of the data is difficult due to data and statistical quality issues. ERT projects are the most difficult and complex, often as a result of the need to coordinate competing program goals and regulations across several agencies. These projects typically have heightened political profiles. 4. HOW WE COMPARE DLCD s result of 70.3 placed the agency second behind the top scoring ERT agency result of 84.6%. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS For the reasons stated in section 3 above, customer satisfaction results are expected to be lower for these selected projects than reported elsewhere for the agency as a whole. Due to the small number of projects ERT works on each year, relative to overall partner-agency projects, the survey sample size is necessarily small and therefore sample size may impact survey results and conclusions drawn from those results. In addition, this is only the second year ERT-related questions have been included in ERT s Customer Satisfaction Study for the four targeted agencies. The wording of the questions has been changed, and may yet need further refinement. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE 2/20/2009 Page 30 of 68

283 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS DLCD will continue working with ERT to improve access to information about state programs and processes and continues to make quality customer service a focus in its planning efforts. The Economic Revitalization Team will also look for communication/outreach opportunities which could improve customer service ratings. 7. ABOUT THE DATA This data is reported as summary data from the 2008 Oregon Economic Revitalization Team Oregon Joint Customer Satisfaction Study (biennial). The department anticipates a biennial survey. There have been changes in how the biennial survey is to be conducted that may make it impossible to include these ERT sub-agency survey questions. 2/20/2009 Page 31 of 68

284 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #8 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING Percent of estuarine areas designated as development management units in that retain that designation. Goal Oregon Context Secure Oregon s Legacy OBM 4: Job Growth Data Source Owner DLCD databases on periodic review, plan amendment, and permit consistency review. Bob Bailey, ext 281 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY The agency strategy for this goal is to retain the total number and distribution of estuary management units zoned for development. These areas constitute a relatively small percentage of the total estuarine land which are located in the shallow draft and deep draft estuaries, and are generally associated with and intended for industrial and commercial uses that are strictly water-dependent, such as those located in ports. The development 2/20/2009 Page 32 of 68

285 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS management units are located in estuarine areas where there is substantial public investment in facilities to support coastal marine-based commercial and industrial uses, such as where there are inlets with federally maintained jetties and channels, navigation aids, dock and port facilities, and other infrastructure. These areas, and the investments made within them, are limited and can not be recreated or relocated. There are no substitute or alternative areas that can be developed for these purposes if the current areas are converted to other uses. Recent examples of new water dependent uses which require location in these areas include the Liquid Natural Gas port and the wave energy power generation facilities. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The target is 100 percent. There should be no net loss in the amount of acreage or location of these development management units. There is a possibility that the amount of acreage could increase through plan amendment or goal exception process to accommodate new water-dependent development in estuarine areas not currently zoned for those types of industrial or commercial uses. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING There has been no net loss or redistribution of estuary management units zoned for development during the reporting period. 4. HOW WE COMPARE Oregon performs extremely well in comparison to other states in the manner that we manage and protect the limited number of estuarine areas that are available for water-dependent industrial and commercial uses. Generally speaking, in many states, these areas are not protected for water-dependent industrial and commercial uses, but are subject to normal development pressures and speculation. As such, in other states, such areas may be converted and have been converted to other non water-dependent uses, such as residential, non water-dependent commerical or other non-compatible uses, or incompatible uses may be located adjacent to them, causing conflicts. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS There are no external factors affecting the results of this measure. The data and results are readily confirmed by department records and are not disputed. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE 2/20/2009 Page 33 of 68

286 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS No change. The department will continue to work with the local governments and ports to ensure that these sites are maintained as viable estuarine water-dependent industrial development units. This is a routine activity of the department and no new or different actions need to be conducted. 7. ABOUT THE DATA The reporting cycle is from July 1, 2007 to June 30, Zone changes in these areas require either a major plan amendment or a goal exception. The zone change data is derived directly from the plan amendment and goal exception submittals from local governments that are reviewed by the department. Specific uses within estuaries also require local, state and federal permits. The department routinely reviews those types of permitted activities. The department must issue a federal consistency determination for all activities that require a federal permit or that are conducted by a federal agency. 2/20/2009 Page 34 of 68

287 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #9 NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES Percent of urban areas that have updated buildable land inventories to account 2002 for natural resource and hazard areas. Goal Oregon Context Data Source Owner Secure Oregon s Legacy OBM 4:Job Growth, OBM 67:Emergency Preparedness, OBM 74:Affordable Housing, OBM 77:Wetlands Preservation, OBM 87: Native Fish and Wildlife DLCD tracking of periodic review approval orders. Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY For urban residential development to occur in the manner contemplated by local land use plans and the statewide planning goals, local land use plans must account for building constraints due to natural resources and natural hazards on land otherwise planned and zoned for development. Most 2/20/2009 Page 35 of 68

288 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS urban area land use plans were adopted decades ago without adequate inventories of natural resource and hazard areas. As buildable land inventories are updated, these inventories should include improved assessments of natural resources and hazards that affect the actual amount of land inventoried and assumed to be developable. Such inventories are necessary to provide a solid basis for residential development planning and zoning. DLCD verifies the adequacy of natural resource and hazards inventories during the periodic review and post acknowledgement plan amendment review processes. An approved periodic review task or adopted plan amendment serves as evidence that updated buildable land inventories account for natural resource and hazard areas. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS This target counts cities with population greater than 2,500 that, during the fiscal year, either have received approval for a periodic review work task or have adopted a comprehensive plan amendment that includes an updated buildable lands inventory with goal-compliant natural resource and hazards inventories. This measure tracks the success of local governments in determining development constraints on urban residential lands due to the presence of sensitive natural resources inventoried under Statewide Planning Goal 5 (e.g. wetlands, riparian areas, wildlife habitat) and natural hazards inventoried under Statewide Planning Goal 7 (e.g., floodways and floodplains, landslide hazard areas, urban wildfire zones). The FY 2007/08 target of 10% equates to an expectation that approximately 10 cities during the fiscal year would update their buildable lands inventories, and that these updates would account for the diminished development potential due to the presence of a sensitive natural resources or natural hazards in areas planned for development. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING For the first time since FY 2004, performance exceeded the target. This result indicates that (1) more cities are preparing and adopting residential buildable land inventories, and (2) local governments are making progress in comprehensively assessing the impact of natural resource and hazard constraints on their urban land supplies. 4. HOW WE COMPARE The department is not aware of any related public or private standards to measure the effects of natural resource or hazards constraints on the long-term (20-year) supply of buildable lands. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS This measure was originally crafted when periodic review was the primary means of assuring and tracking local government updates of buildable 2/20/2009 Page 36 of 68

289 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS lands inventories. Legislative changes to periodic review have substantially reduced the number of jurisdictions subject to periodic review, and have also required that other planning work not associated with natural resource or hazards planning be given higher priority by jurisdictions still subject to periodic review. Also, as a result of this legislation, state grant funding for natural resource inventories has been substantially reduced. Due to different funding sources, natural hazards inventories are more likely to remain up-to-date than natural resource inventories, but this measure does not separate these two types of inventories. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Continue using the revised methodology in future years. Pursue additional budgeted funds from the legislature for grants to local governments to encourage them to update buildable land inventories to account for natural resources and natural hazards. It is important to note that buildable land is a statutory term that pertains only to residential land. However, of natural resource and hazard constraints are also important with respect to land provided for industrial and other employment uses (see KPM 4, above). As such, over time the department should consider amendment of this measure to assess natural resource constraints on inventories of land planned for industrial and employment use. 7. ABOUT THE DATA The reporting cycle is Oregon s fiscal year. Data sources are the department s periodic review approvals spreadsheets and the plan amendment database for cities with a population of 2,500 or more. Even though this KPM was designed to track inventory updates during periodic review only, the department has expanded the data base to include inventory updates that occur as plan amendments outside of periodic review, in order to approximate the previous database. 2/20/2009 Page 37 of 68

290 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #10 FARM LAND Percent of farm land outside urban growth boundaries zoned for exclusive farm use in 1987 that retains that 2002 zoning. Goal Oregon Context Secure Oregon s Legacy. OBM 4: Job Growth, OBM 81: Agricultural Lands Data Source Owner DLCD s rural lands GIS database, plan amendment, and farm/forest databases. Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 FARMLAND Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY Statewide Planning Goal 3 is intended to preserve agricultural land for commercial farm use, consistent with legislative policies in ORS and DLCD seeks to achieve this goal through acknowledgment of local comprehensive land use plans and exclusive farm use zoning. 2/20/2009 Page 38 of 68

291 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS This Key Performance Measure tracks the percentage of agricultural land outside UGBs that remains zoned exclusive farm use (EFU) over time as compared to the acreage zoned EFU in The less farmland rezoned for rural development relative to the total amount zoned EFU in 1987, the greater the indication that local plans and ordinances are working to protect farmland for commercial agriculture. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The targets developed here acknowledge that while the land use program is intended to protect agricultural land from conversion to other uses, there nevertheless will be a small amount of land rezoned for urban and rural development as cities grow and where rural exceptions to farm protections can be justified under certain circumstances. This factor is built into the target, which provides for a small amount of yearly rezoning of agricultural land. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING The results for 2007 show that the State s land use program continues to work well to maintain agricultural lands for commercial farm use, although the level of rezonings from EFU to other rural uses is somewhat higher and slightly off-target for From a base of 16.1 million acres of EFU-zoned land in 1987, a total of 14,859 acres have been rezoned to other urban and rural uses in the 20-year period through About 22% of this rezoning activity, or 3,253 acres, occurred in About one-third of this acreage was rezoned to forest or farm-forest use, and thus continues to be used for resource industry. 4. HOW WE COMPARE To our knowledge, there are no public or private standards for farmland zoning to compare with Oregon s land use program. However, there is indirect evidence of the effectiveness of Oregon s extensive EFU zoning. The most recent US Census of Agriculture figures show that Oregon is holding onto its large and mid-sized farms at a higher rate than the rest of the nation. Between 1978 and 2002, the rate of loss of large (500+ acres) farms in Oregon was less than half the rate for the nation, while the rate of loss of mid-sized farms ( acres) was almost four times lower than for the nation as a whole. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS Rezoning of farmland occurs through local government decisions in response to applications to change EFU zoning or expansion of urban growth boundaries. The approval of such applications is generally not influenced by the Department, but is restrained by LCDC goals, rules and State land 2/20/2009 Page 39 of 68

292 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS use statutes. While this performance measure provides a good overall assessment of the longevity of EFU zoning over time, the modest amount of land rezoned out of EFU compared to the very large base of current EFU zoning is so small as to be insignificant on the Farmland graphic. This measure offers only a partial assessment of Goal 3 as it does not track the cumulative impact of EFU rezonings over time, nor does it distinguish between high- and non-high value farmlands rezoned, nor does it measure the type or level of development and land division activity that occurs within EFU zones, including that projected to occur through Measure 49 claims (development of farm land under measures 37 and 49 does not require a rezoning of land, and therefore is not tracked by this measure). Finally, the data do not reflect downgrading within EFU zoning categories, such as EFU-80 to EFU WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Continue current efforts toward meeting the target, but consider refining the performance measure or adding new measures to allow more detailed evaluation of Goal 3 farmland protections and for the effects of Measure ABOUT THE DATA The data come from information submitted by local governments to the Department for each calendar year, as required by ORS and Local governments have the opportunity to review and respond to draft compiled data in the annual Farm Report before it is finalized. 2/20/2009 Page 40 of 68

293 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #11 FOREST LAND Percent of forest land outside urban growth boundaries zoned in 1987 for forest or mixed farm/forest use 2002 that remains zoned for those uses. Goal Oregon Context Secure Oregon s Legacy. OBM 4: Job Growth, OBM 81: Forest Land Data Source Owner DLCD s rural lands GIS database and plan amendment database. Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 FORESTLAND Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY Statewide Planning Goal 4 provides for the conservation of forest lands for forest uses and protection of the State s forest economy. The Department accomplishes this goal through statute and rule restrictions of uses allowed on forest land, and through programs that monitor and assist with local comprehensive land use plans and forest zoning. 2/20/2009 Page 41 of 68

294 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS This Key Performance Measure tracks the percentage of forest land that remains zoned for forest or mixed farm-forest use over time as compared to the acreage zoned for forest or farm-forest uses in The less forest land rezoned for urban and rural development relative to the amount zoned forest or farm-forest in 1987, the greater the indication that local plans and ordinances are working to protect forest land for commercial and other forest uses. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The targets developed here acknowledge that while the land use program is intended to protect forest land from conversion to other uses, there nevertheless will be a small amount of land rezoned for urban and rural development as cities grow and where rural exceptions to forest land protection requirements are justified. This factor is built into the target, which provides for a small amount of yearly rezoning of agricultural land. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING The results for 2007 show that the State s land use program continues to work well; maintaining forest lands for commercial and other forest uses. The acreage of land rezoned from forest or farm-forest use to development uses was consistent with trends in previous years and just slightly off the projected target. From a base of 11.8 million acres of forest- and farm-forest zoned land in 1987, a net total of 286 acres were rezoned for development in 2007; no forest- or farm-forest zoned land was rezoned for urban uses that year. It is noteworthy that 1,115 acres of land that were in EFU zoning were placed into forest- or farm-forest zones, significantly reducing the net loss of forest-zoned lands. 4. HOW WE COMPARE To our knowledge, there are no public or private standards for forestland zoning to compare with Oregon s land use program. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS Rezoning of forest land occurs through local government decisions in response to applications to change forest or farm-forest zoning. The approval of such applications is generally not influenced by the Department, but is restrained by LCDC goals, rules and State land use statutes. While this performance measure provides a good overall assessment of the longevity of forest and farm-forest zoning over time, the modest amount of land rezoned out of forest use compared to the very large base of current forest and farm-forest zoning is so small as to be unnoticeable on the Forest Land graphic. This measure offers only a partial assessment of Goal 4 as it does not track the cumulative impact of forest and farm-forest rezonings 2/20/2009 Page 42 of 68

295 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS over time, nor does it measure the type or level of development and land division activity that occurs within forest and farm-forest zones, including that projected to occur through Measure 37 and 49 claims (development of forest land under measures 37 and 49 does not include a rezoning of land, and therefore is not tracked by this measure). Finally, the data do not reflect downgrading within forest zones, such as from forest to farm-forest. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Continue current efforts toward meeting this target, but consider refining the performance measure or adding new measures to allow more detailed evaluation of Goal ABOUT THE DATA The data come from information submitted by local governments to the Department for each calendar year, as required by ORS and Local governments have the opportunity to review and respond to draft compiled data in the biannual Forest Report before it is finalized. 2/20/2009 Page 43 of 68

296 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #12 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EXPANSION Percent of land added to urban growth boundaries that is not farm or 2002 forest land. Goal Oregon Context Secure Oregon s Legacy. OBM 81: Agricultural Lands, OBM 82: Forest Land Data Source Owner Plan amendment and periodic review database. Rob Hallyburton, ext 239 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EXPANSION Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY Statewide Planning Goal 14 requires each city (or Metro) to establish an urban growth boundary (UGB) to separate urban land from rural farm and forest land, and assure that urban areas have sufficient land for long-term growth while providing for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Land included in a UGB must be selected consistent with priorities set forth in ORS and Goal 14 intended to conserve 2/20/2009 Page 44 of 68

297 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS farm and forest land as much as possible. Those priorities require that farm or forest land be considered last when considering land for UGB expansion. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The target for this Key Performance Measure was set based on historic trends and the state s goal to limit the amount of land that is zoned for EFU or forest use added annually to UGBs and rezoned for development. While the Department cannot directly control the amount or types of land added to UGBs, a desirable target is that a minimum of 55% of lands added to UGBs each year be land currently zoned for non-resource uses rather than land currently zoned for farm or forest use. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING In 2007, 78% of the acreage added (418 acres) to UGBs Statewide was land that had been zoned for nonresource uses and 22% of the acreage added was land previously zoned for farm or forest uses. The Department therefore exceeded its target. 4. HOW WE COMPARE To our knowledge, there are no public or private standards for UGB expansions to compare with Oregon's land use program. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS The total number of UGB amendments and acreage involved is highly variable from year to year. Many UGB amendments occur in areas surrounded by farm or forest-zoned lands. In some areas, non-resource zoned lands are in increasingly short supply, so cities have no choice but to include farm or forest land as the urban area expands. Local governments select the type of land added to urban growth boundaries through plan amendments approved at the city and county level. LCDC has some authority to disallow UGB amendments that do not follow statutory priorities regarding farm land, but this ability will not improve performance where local governments have no other options for urban expansion. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Continue current efforts toward meeting the target, but periodically reevaluate the target based on the relataive availability of non-resource zoned lands available for inclusion in UGBs. 2/20/2009 Page 45 of 68

298 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS 7. ABOUT THE DATA The data come from information submitted by local governments to the Department for each calendar year, as required by ORS and Local governments have the opportunity to review and respond to draft compiled data in the biannual Farm and Forest Reports before they are finalized. 2/20/2009 Page 46 of 68

299 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #13 PERIODIC REVIEW REMANDS Percent of periodic review work tasks that are returned to local jurisdictions for further 2003 action. Goal Oregon Context Improve Collaboration. DLCD Mission Data Source Owner Department records. Darren Nichols, ext 255 PERIODIC REVIEW REMANDS Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY DLCD works with cities and counties to periodically update local land use plans. The department s strategy is to ensure that comprehensive plan amendments adopted in response to periodic review requirements are consistent with statewide land use goals. This measure relies on DLCD and LCDC s authority to review and approve land use plan changes submitted for periodic review approval. 2/20/2009 Page 47 of 68

300 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The target reflects that a certain number of periodic review work task submittals will not satisfy all applicable state requirements. A lower percentage is desirable. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING The department has met the target. The target for is for the department to not exceed 15 percent of submitted work tasks returned to local jurisdictions. No tasks were remanded, or returned for additional work. 4. HOW WE COMPARE There are no public or private standards to compare with this measure. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS Each periodic review is different, and the nature of the various periodic review tasks undertaken by local government has a bearing on to the likelihood that a local government s work on a particular task may be sent back for further action. The more complex or controversial, the more likely a task may be sent back. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE The department should continue to work closely with local governments involved in periodic review in order to improve the planning products submitted to the state for approval. 7. ABOUT THE DATA The 2008 data is for all periodic review approval decisions made by DLCD or LCDC for the fiscal year from July 1, 2007 through June 30, There are four possible outcomes for each submittal: approval, remand, partial approval and partial remand, or referral to LCDC for a decision. The 2/20/2009 Page 48 of 68

301 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS data is typically derived by dividing the total number of approval decisions (0 for the reporting period) by the number of remands (there were no remands this reporting period) and partial remands (there were no partial remands this reporting period). 2/20/2009 Page 49 of 68

302 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #14 TIMELY COMMENTS Percent of DLCD concerns or recommendations regarding local plan amendments that are 2003 provided to local governments within the statutory deadlines for such comments. Goal Oregon Context Improve Collaboration and Deliver the highest level of customer service possible. DLCD Mission Data Source Owner Department records. Darren Nichols, ext 255 TIMELY COMMENTS Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY DLCD staff reviews proposed local plan amendments and provides comments, concerns or recommendations to the local government, when warranted, in a timely manner. 2/20/2009 Page 50 of 68

303 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS DLCD should make comments within the deadlines established by statute. Thus, the target is set at 100 percent. The statutory deadline is 15 days before the final evidentiary hearing at the local governmentt. Local jurisdiction are required to submit plan amendments to the department at least 45 days prior to the local government's first evidentiary hearing. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING The department met the target this year. During the report, the department relied on data that used the date of the first evidentiary hearing for the department's response deadline instead of the date of the final evidentiary hearing. That discrepancy mistakenly led to an apparent shortfall of the performance measure. The current report corrects the data to more appropriately demonstrate that the department meets its key performance target. 4. HOW WE COMPARE There is no public or private industry standard to compare with this measure. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS The complexity of some submittals makes the review deadline difficult to attain in some cases. In some cases, the proposal as submitted is not complete, further complicating department review. The department continues to strive for early coordination and communication with local governments in its efforts to provide accurate, constructive and timely help to Oregon communities. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE The department needs to continue to emphasize the importance of providing constructive comments within the required statutory time lines. DLCD distributed a plan amendment processing schedule and to relevant staff. This procecedure helps the department continue to provide comments in an efficient, timely manner. 7. ABOUT THE DATA The department maintains a database of plan amendments notices and tracks department responses. The 2007 data is for comments made by DLCD during the fiscal year from July 1, 2007 through June 30, /20/2009 Page 51 of 68

304 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #15 GRANT AWARDS Percent of local grants awarded to local governments within two months after receiving application Goal Oregon Context Data Source Owner Improve Collaboration and Deliver the highest level of customer service possible. DLCD Mission Department records. Darren Nichols, ext 255 GRANT AWARDS Data is represented by percent 1. OUR STRATEGY In order to provide quality customer service to local governments, DLCD endeavors to make decisions on grant applications quickly. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS 2/20/2009 Page 52 of 68

305 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS The 90 percent target was established as an ambitious but attainable objective. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING DLCD was not able to meet its target in this reporting period. While making significant improvements in internal processes and priorities related to grants administration during the first year of the biennium, DLCD needs to continue to improve its progress on this measure. DLCD s efforts to streamline grant awards was challenged in part by a transition in the management of the grants program. The current grant program manager recognizes and is working to further improve the timeliness and effectiveness of the department s grant program. 4. HOW WE COMPARE There is no public or private industry standard to compare with the department s measure. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS The grant program operates on a biennial basis, and most of the activity is during the first year (reported in 2007). There were 157 grant applications during this reporting period. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE The department needs to continue refining internal processes for grant evaluation. The department has convened an internal staff group to review and recommend improvements for the grant application/awards process. The department has also asked for input from its Grants Advisory Committee regarding the same issues. 7. ABOUT THE DATA The data is for grant approvals by DLCD during the fiscal year from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, including General Fund grants, commonly referred to as Technical Assistance, Periodic Review, and Gorge grants. These grants are awarded on a biennial basis, and the current reporting period included a significant increase in grant applications relative to the applications reported in the previous year. 2/20/2009 Page 53 of 68

306 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #16 LAND USE APPEALS Percentage of agency appeals of local land use decisions that were upheld by LUBA and the 2003 Courts. Goal Oregon Context Data Source Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities. DLCD Mission DLCD appellate case database. Owner Darren Nichols, ext 255 LAND USE APPEALS Data is represented by percent 2/20/2009 Page 54 of 68

307 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS 1. OUR STRATEGY DLCD emphasizes strategies to work closely with local governments and provide incentives, grants, and technical assistance to achieve compliance with state land use requirements. Appeal of a local land use decision is a last resort, and DLCD, with LCDC approval, does not appeal unless the local decision is clearly in error and has broad implications for land use policy. 2. ABOUT THE TARGETS The target of 100 percent success at LUBA or in higher courts is based on the assumption that DLCD would only appeal a local land use decision that clearly violates a state land use regulation. 3. HOW WE ARE DOING There continue to be few appeals of local government land use decisions. DLCD prevailed in the one case where a decision was reached during ; this case therefore represents a 100 percent performance. 4. HOW WE COMPARE The Land Use Board of Appeals, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court issued approximately 283 final opinions in land use appeals during the reporting period. All but seven of these were brought by parties other than the department. The department has not determined the success rate of appeals brought by other parties. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS The amount of funding available to the department for appeals is one factor in DLCD s decision whether or not to appeal a local decision. Also, LCDC approval is required for all appeals. The Commission did not deny the staff recommendation to participate in any appeals during the reporting period. 6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Continue to appeal only where an appeal has merit and land use policy implications. 2/20/2009 Page 55 of 68

308 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS 7. ABOUT THE DATA The data reported is for appeals acted on by the Land Use Board of Appeals and the Court of Appeals between July 1, 2007 and June 30, There was one appeal brought by the department that generated a decision during that period, and DLCD prevailed in that case. 2/20/2009 Page 56 of 68

309 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS KPM #17 CUSTOMER SERVICE: Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency s customer service as good or 2006 excellent : overall customer service, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise and availability of information. Goal Oregon Context Improve Collaboration and Deliver the highest level of customer service possible. DLCD Mission Data Source Owner Department survey results. Richard Whitman, ext 271 PERCENT RATING SERVICE GOOD OR EXCELLENT 1. OUR STRATEGY The 2005 Legislature approved Statewide Customer Service Performance Measures and required all state agencies to survey and report on customer satisfaction. The department participated in the customer satisfaction survey sponsored by the Department of Administrative Services Budget and Management Division in The department anticipates a biennial survey of its customers and therefore obtains new data once every biennia. 2/20/2009 Page 57 of 68

Oregon John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor

Oregon John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor Oregon John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 Phone: (503) 373-0050 Fax: (503) 378-5518 www.oregon.gov/lcd

More information

Periodic Review. Quick and easy guidance on the when and how to update your comprehensive plan

Periodic Review. Quick and easy guidance on the when and how to update your comprehensive plan TTHEE COMPLETE PLANNER S GUIDE TTO Periodic Review Quick and easy guidance on the when and how to update your comprehensive plan Idiot-proof steps for getting through all the hoops on the first try Down

More information

PART II THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

PART II THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT A. THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT In response to intense pressure on coastal resources, and because of the importance of coastal areas of the United States, Congress passed

More information

Great Peninsula Conservancy Strategic Plan November 17, 2015

Great Peninsula Conservancy Strategic Plan November 17, 2015 Great Peninsula Conservancy Strategic Plan 2016-2020 November 17, 2015 Vision Statement Great Peninsula Conservancy is a trusted, visionary, and self-sustaining community leader that is making a difference

More information

ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS STRATEGIC PLAN P age 75 Years of Locally Led Conservation

ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS STRATEGIC PLAN P age 75 Years of Locally Led Conservation ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS STRATEGIC PLAN 2017-2020 1 P age 75 Years of Locally Led Conservation 2 P a g e 75 Years of Locally Led Conservation OUR MISSION To support Conservation Districts

More information

Request for Proposals. April 7, 2014

Request for Proposals. April 7, 2014 STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF COASTAL & LAND USE PLANNING Request for Proposals Municipal Public Access Planning & Municipal Coastal Vulnerability Assessment Grant

More information

AGENDA STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE AGENDA LOCATION AGENDA REPORT #

AGENDA STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE AGENDA LOCATION AGENDA REPORT # CITY of THE DALLES 313 COURT STREET THE DALLES, OREGON 97058 (541) 296-5481 ext. 1125 FAX: (541) 298-5490 www.ci.the-dalles.or.us AGENDA STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE AGENDA LOCATION AGENDA REPORT # TO: FROM:

More information

PUBLIC NOTICE Application for Permit

PUBLIC NOTICE Application for Permit PUBLIC NOTICE Application for Permit 30-Day Notice Issue Date: January 24, 2017 Expiration Date: February 22, 2017 US Army Corps of Engineers No: NWP-2007-5/2 Oregon Department of State Lands No: N/A Interested

More information

Alabama Coastal Area Management Program Strategic Plan

Alabama Coastal Area Management Program Strategic Plan Alabama Coastal Area Management Program Strategic Plan 2013-2018 January 2013 Lee Yokel, Dauphin Island Sea Lab Will Brantley, Carl Ferraro, Amy Gohres, Janis Helton, Phillip Hinesley, Amy King Alabama

More information

Appendix Tactics and Metrics from State Agencies and Organizations

Appendix Tactics and Metrics from State Agencies and Organizations Appendix Tactics and Metrics from State Agencies and Organizations Florida s Economic Development Vision: Florida will have the nation s top performing economy and be recognized as the world s best place

More information

APPENDIX 1 BROWARD COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES

APPENDIX 1 BROWARD COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES APPENDIX 1 BROWARD COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES Broward County Land Use Plan Amendment Requirements Amendments which are not within the rules of flexibility or more

More information

FOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC

FOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC Page 1 of 39 Information on how to comment is available online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/planningrule/directives. FOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC CHAPTER 1920 LAND

More information

WATER SUPPLY RESERVE FUND

WATER SUPPLY RESERVE FUND Introduction Senate Bill 06-179, adopted by the 2006 General Assembly, created the Water Supply Reserve Account, now called the Water Supply Reserve Fund (per SB13-181) (WSRF). The legislation, codified

More information

Idaho Statewide Implementation Strategy for the National Fire Plan

Idaho Statewide Implementation Strategy for the National Fire Plan Idaho Statewide Implementation Strategy for the National Fire Plan December 2006 Purpose Provide a collaborative framework for an organized and coordinated approach to the implementation of the National

More information

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 484

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 484 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013 SESSION LAW 2013-51 HOUSE BILL 484 AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A PERMITTING PROGRAM FOR THE SITING AND OPERATION OF WIND ENERGY FACILITIES. The General Assembly

More information

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING COOPERATIVE ECOSYSTEM STUDIES UNITS NETWORK

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING COOPERATIVE ECOSYSTEM STUDIES UNITS NETWORK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Continuation of the COOPERATIVE ECOSYSTEM STUDIES UNITS NETWORK among the NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research

More information

Comprehensive Planning Grant. Comprehensive Plan Checklist

Comprehensive Planning Grant. Comprehensive Plan Checklist Comprehensive Planning Grant Comprehensive Plan Checklist This form was updated April 2010 Comprehensive Planning Grant Program Department of Administration Division of Intergovernmental Relations 101

More information

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA For the Agenda of: January 13, 2010 Agenda Item No. 12 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NATOMAS JOINT VISION PROGRESS

More information

Part IV. Appendix C: Funding Sources

Part IV. Appendix C: Funding Sources Part IV Appendix C: Funding Sources FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCE FUNDING PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LAND ACQUISITION / ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FEDERAL US Department of the Interior,

More information

PART 1 Background, Introduction, and Administration

PART 1 Background, Introduction, and Administration WATER SUPPLY RESERVE ACCOUNT CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES DEVELOPED JOINTLY BY THE COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD AND INTERBASIN COMPACT COMMITTEE FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FROM THE ACCOUNT BY THE COLORADO

More information

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION Support Division Planning & Community Zoning Administration Review & Compliance Land Use & Design Rezoning & Permitting Plan Review Community LDO Management Zoning &

More information

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Appropriations for Other Purposes

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Appropriations for Other Purposes Land and Water Conservation Fund: Appropriations for Other Purposes Carol Hardy Vincent Specialist in Natural Resources Policy September 1, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44121

More information

South Platte Basin Roundtable

South Platte Basin Roundtable South Platte Basin Roundtable Water Supply Reserve Fund (WSRF) Program Guidelines Revised November 2016 The South Platte Basin Roundtable s (SPBRT) primary objective is to help solve the water supply gap

More information

Direct Component Project Evaluation Form

Direct Component Project Evaluation Form Direct Component Project Evaluation Form Please complete the following information needed to evaluate your proposal. In order to be considered, complete evaluation packets must be received by October 31,

More information

26,614,000. Article 1 Sec moves to amend H.F. No. 707 as follows: 1.2 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert:

26,614,000. Article 1 Sec moves to amend H.F. No. 707 as follows: 1.2 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert: 1.1... moves to amend H.F. No. 707 as follows: 1.2 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert: 1.3 "ARTICLE 1 1.4 OUTDOOR HERITAGE FUND 1.5 Section 1. APPROPRIATIONS. 1.6 The sums shown in

More information

Inventory: Vision and Goal Statements in Existing Statewide Plans 1 Developing Florida s Strategic 5-Year Direction, 29 November 2011

Inventory: Vision and Goal Statements in Existing Statewide Plans 1 Developing Florida s Strategic 5-Year Direction, 29 November 2011 Inventory: and Goal Statements in Existing Statewide Plans 1 Developing Florida s Strategic 5-Year Direction, 29 November 2011 Florida Department of Economic Opportunity: State of Florida Job Creation

More information

CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DOUGLAS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION & LAND SERVICES Public Involvement Plan Supplement 2013 Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan & Development

More information

Attachment B. Long Range Planning Annual Work Program

Attachment B. Long Range Planning Annual Work Program Attachment B Long Range Planning 2016-17 Annual Work Program Page 1 FY 2015-2016 Completed Projects The Board of Supervisors through their review of the FY 2015-2016 Work Program, prioritized projects

More information

Public Health Director

Public Health Director Public Health Director $76,950 to $102,601 First Review August 1, 2016 Astoria and the Astoria/Megler Bridge viewed from the top of the Astoria Column. The Astoria/Megler bridge and a signature sunset.

More information

Visitor Capacity on Federally Managed Lands and Waters:

Visitor Capacity on Federally Managed Lands and Waters: Visitor Capacity on Federally Managed Lands and Waters: A POSITION PAPER 1 TO GUIDE POLICY Prepared by the Interagency Visitor Use Management Council 2 June 2016, Edition One INTRODUCTION The Bureau of

More information

Actual Expenditures, Last Three Budgets, include funding sources:

Actual Expenditures, Last Three Budgets, include funding sources: Actual Expenditures, Last Three Budgets, include funding sources: Actual Expenditures: 2011-13: $450,666 2013-15: $685,017 2015-17 (projected): $803,010 Funding Sources: Fees collected from program applicants,

More information

Sec moves to amend H.F. No as follows: 1.2 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert:

Sec moves to amend H.F. No as follows: 1.2 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert: 1.1... moves to amend H.F. No. 1731 as follows: 1.2 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert: 1.3 "Section 1. CLEAN WATER FUND APPROPRIATIONS. 1.4 The sums shown in the columns marked "Appropriations"

More information

LAND PARTNERSHIPS GRANT PROGRAM. PROGRAM GUIDELINES April 2018

LAND PARTNERSHIPS GRANT PROGRAM. PROGRAM GUIDELINES April 2018 LAND PARTNERSHIPS GRANT PROGRAM PROGRAM GUIDELINES April 2018 Cumberland County Planning Department 310 Allen Road, Suite 101 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-5362 www.ccpa.net/landpartnerships TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE A strong and diversified economy provides a high quality of life for the citizens of Jefferson County and the region. This in turn generates the resources through which local

More information

Outreach and Adaptive Strategies for Climate Change: The Role of NOAA Sea Grant Extension in Engaging Coastal Residents and Communities

Outreach and Adaptive Strategies for Climate Change: The Role of NOAA Sea Grant Extension in Engaging Coastal Residents and Communities Outreach and Adaptive Strategies for Climate Change: The Role of NOAA Sea Grant Extension in Engaging Coastal Residents and Communities Introduction Outreach and Adaptive Strategies for Climate Change:

More information

Updated Hurricane Harvey s Fiscal Impact on State Agencies PRESENTED TO SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF

Updated Hurricane Harvey s Fiscal Impact on State Agencies PRESENTED TO SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF Updated Hurricane Harvey s Fiscal Impact on State Agencies PRESENTED TO SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF DECEMBER 2017 LBB Hurricane Cost Survey The LBB is surveying state agencies

More information

NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACTIVITIES OF THE NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST

NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACTIVITIES OF THE NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST BOARD TITLE 137 RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACTIVITIES OF THE NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST February 2005 1 TITLE 137 RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACTIVITIES OF THE NEBRASKA

More information

King County Flood Control District 2017 Work Program

King County Flood Control District 2017 Work Program Attachment A 2017 Budget Work Program November 7, 2016 FCD2016-20 Attach A King County Flood Control District 2017 Work Program The District work program is comprised of three categories: district oversight

More information

THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED (by WIOA in 2014) Title VII - Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living

THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED (by WIOA in 2014) Title VII - Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED (by WIOA in 2014) Title VII - Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living Chapter 1 - INDIVIDUALS WITH SIGNIFICANT DISABILITIES Subchapter

More information

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR January 2017 ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR Flood-Related General Water Management Water Supply Projects The following inventory contains information about a variety of funding programs offered by

More information

Transmittal # Scheduled Review Date: 2/15/19 Attachments: Replaces Policy Dated: 9/1/11 A - Grant Opportunity Approval Form APPROVED:

Transmittal # Scheduled Review Date: 2/15/19 Attachments: Replaces Policy Dated: 9/1/11 A - Grant Opportunity Approval Form APPROVED: GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE Transmittal # 18-2 Policy # 2.3 Applicability: {x} All DJJ Staff { } Administration { } Community Services { } Secure Facilities Related Standards & References: Presidential

More information

21st International Conference of The Coastal Society SEA GRANT'S ROLE IN IMPROVING COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN HAWAII

21st International Conference of The Coastal Society SEA GRANT'S ROLE IN IMPROVING COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN HAWAII 21st International Conference of The Coastal Society SEA GRANT'S ROLE IN IMPROVING COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN HAWAII Christopher L. Conger, Hawaii Sea Grant Abstract Many of Hawaii's government agencies, operating

More information

Welcome To Gulf County RESTORE Web Portal Overview. October 13 th, :00 p.m. EDT Emergency Operations Center

Welcome To Gulf County RESTORE Web Portal Overview. October 13 th, :00 p.m. EDT Emergency Operations Center Welcome To Gulf County RESTORE Web Portal Overview October 13 th, 2015 4:00 p.m. EDT Emergency Operations Center Introductory Remarks Warren Yeager, Gulf County RESTORE Coordinator Today s Agenda 1. 4:00

More information

WHOLE WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE Request for Proposals for Community-based Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon and Washington

WHOLE WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE Request for Proposals for Community-based Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon and Washington WHOLE WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE 2014 Request for Proposals for Community-based Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon and Washington Proposal Deadline January 9, 2014 at 5:00 PM Pacific Standard

More information

2015 FIDIC Awards Oregon Transportation Investment Act III State Bridge Delivery Program

2015 FIDIC Awards Oregon Transportation Investment Act III State Bridge Delivery Program 2015 FIDIC Awards Oregon Transportation Investment Act III State Bridge Delivery Program A Blueprint for Sustainable Infrastructure Investment Oregon officials knew the state s transportation infrastructure

More information

NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES

NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES PRESENTATION TO THE SENATE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE JED HERMAN SENATE COMMITTEE SERVICES January 2017 1 In 2015-17 natural resources represent 0.75% of NGF-S, while total funds

More information

Hurricane Harvey s Fiscal Impact on State Agencies PRESENTED TO HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF

Hurricane Harvey s Fiscal Impact on State Agencies PRESENTED TO HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF Hurricane Harvey s Fiscal Impact on State Agencies PRESENTED TO HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF OCTOBER 2017 Hurricane Harvey Disaster Declaration Timeline August 23: Governor

More information

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Long-Term Community Recovery Strategy Town of Union, NY

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Long-Term Community Recovery Strategy Town of Union, NY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Long-Term Community Recovery Strategy Town of Union, NY The Town of Union is seeking the assistance of a consultant to prepare a Long-Term Community Recovery Strategy. The deadline

More information

NOW THEREFORE, the parties enter into the following Agreement:

NOW THEREFORE, the parties enter into the following Agreement: Interlocal Agreement Between the Board of County Commissioners of St. Johns County, Florida, City of St. Augustine, City of St. Augustine Beach, Town of Hastings and the School Board of St. Johns County,

More information

New York s Great Lakes Basin Small Grants Program 2014 Request for Proposals

New York s Great Lakes Basin Small Grants Program 2014 Request for Proposals New York s Great Lakes Basin Small Grants Program 2014 Request for Proposals 1 Release date: 1 August 2014 New York Sea Grant (NYSG) in partnership with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation

More information

HOW DOES A PROJECT GET INTO THE STIP?

HOW DOES A PROJECT GET INTO THE STIP? HOW DOES A PROJECT GET INTO THE STIP? The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, known as the STIP, is a list that shows prioritization, funding, and scheduling of transportation projects and programs

More information

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY REORGANIZATION PLAN November 25, 2002

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY REORGANIZATION PLAN November 25, 2002 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY REORGANIZATION PLAN November 25, 2002 Introduction This Reorganization Plan is submitted pursuant to Section 1502 of the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( the

More information

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN GENERAL The City of Tyler currently serves as the fiscal agent for the Tyler Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which represents the Tyler Metropolitan Study Area.

More information

CONNECTED CITY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

CONNECTED CITY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1) What is the Connected City project? CONNECTED CITY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS The Connected City Corridor is a State-initiated pilot program that is unique to Pasco County, and will be the first planned

More information

Legal Services Program

Legal Services Program Legal Services Program Standards and Guidelines May 29, 1998 Revised November 12, 2010 Oregon State Bar Legal Services Program Standards & Guidelines Table of Contents I. Mission Statement... 4 II. Governing

More information

Final Report. Recommendations for Improved Local Government Capacity for Project Management of State Funded Capital Construction

Final Report. Recommendations for Improved Local Government Capacity for Project Management of State Funded Capital Construction Final Report Recommendations for Improved Local Government Capacity for Project Management of State Funded Capital Construction Prepared for: Infrastructure Finance Authority of Business Oregon 99 W 10

More information

***DRAFT*** Chapter 1: Introduction

***DRAFT*** Chapter 1: Introduction ***DRAFT*** Chapter 1: Introduction The Park, Arts, Recreation, Culture & Conservation (PARCC) Plan is the functional plan for the Parks & Recreation Department, which is adopted by amendment into the

More information

TOWN OF GREENWICH Annual Department Operational Plan (FY )

TOWN OF GREENWICH Annual Department Operational Plan (FY ) TOWN OF GREENWICH Annual Department Operational Plan (FY 2012 2013) 1. Department: Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency 2. Divisions: N/A 3. Department Mission Statement: The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses

More information

PUBLIC NOTICE. Attn: Mr. Christopher Layton 1200 Duck Road Duck, North Carolina CB&I 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28409

PUBLIC NOTICE. Attn: Mr. Christopher Layton 1200 Duck Road Duck, North Carolina CB&I 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28409 US Army Corps Of Engineers Wilmington District PUBLIC NOTICE Issue Date: January 15, 2015 Comment Deadline: February 16, 2015 Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2014-02202 The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers

More information

Economic Development Plan For Kent County, Maryland

Economic Development Plan For Kent County, Maryland Economic Development Plan For Kent County, Maryland October 2013 FINAL Submitted by: Kent County Economic Development Advisory Board File: Economic Development Office: EDAB_Plan_final_2013_10_02.doc Economic

More information

VERMONT S RESILIENCE PROGRESS REPORT ROADMAP. August 20, 2015 BACKGROUND WHAT IS RESILIENCE? TRACKING OUR PROGRESS.

VERMONT S RESILIENCE PROGRESS REPORT ROADMAP.   August 20, 2015 BACKGROUND WHAT IS RESILIENCE? TRACKING OUR PROGRESS. PROGRESS REPORT August 20, 2015 VERMONT S ROADMAP TO RESILIENCE BACKGROUND Preparing for Natural Disasters and the Effects of Climate Change in the Green Mountain State In December 2013, following an 18-month

More information

Long-Range Planning Public Engagement Plan 2018 Amendments

Long-Range Planning Public Engagement Plan 2018 Amendments Long-Range Planning Public Engagement Plan 2018 Amendments The City of Tacoma does not discriminate on the basis of disability in any of its programs, activities, or services. To request this information

More information

INSPECTOR GENERAL DISTRICT FLORIDA MANAGEMENT WATER SOUTH. Invites your interest in the position of:

INSPECTOR GENERAL DISTRICT FLORIDA MANAGEMENT WATER SOUTH. Invites your interest in the position of: SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Invites your interest in the position of: INSPECTOR GENERAL West Palm Beach, Florida About the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) The SFWMD, based in

More information

CONSERVATION STRATEGY GROUP

CONSERVATION STRATEGY GROUP CONSERVATION STRATEGY GROUP October 26, 2011 Cindy Gustafson, President Tahoe Fund P0 Box 7124 Tahoe City, CA 96145 RE: Proposal for Lobbying and Consulting Services for the Tahoe Fund for 2011-12 Dear

More information

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/22/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-20265, and on FDsys.gov 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

More information

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 2016 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TREE PLANTING SERVICES ON SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE LANDS WITHIN THE ISABELLA RESERVATION General Information

More information

Oregon State Hospital Governor s Budget

Oregon State Hospital Governor s Budget Oregon State Hospital 2017 2019 Governor s Budget Presented to the Human Services Legislative Subcommittee On Ways and Means February 22, 2017 Greg Roberts, Superintendent, Oregon State Hospital John Swanson,

More information

Business Oregon Annual Performance Progress Report Reporting Year 2016 Published: 10/3/2016 1:28:54 PM

Business Oregon Annual Performance Progress Report Reporting Year 2016 Published: 10/3/2016 1:28:54 PM Business Oregon Annual Performance Progress Report Reporting Year 2016 Published: 10/3/2016 1:28:54 PM KPM # Approved Key Performance Measures (KPMs) 1 Number of jobs created - 2 Number of jobs retained

More information

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FORUMS

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FORUMS REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FORUMS Discussion Summary Central Oregon Region Bend, Oregon Input from economic development organizations, local government, business groups, employers and education leaders

More information

Analysis Item 10: Military Department Solar Eclipse Response Costs

Analysis Item 10: Military Department Solar Eclipse Response Costs Analysis Item 10: Military Department Solar Eclipse Response Costs Analyst: Julie Neburka Request: Appropriate $260,724 from the General Fund to the Oregon Military Department to reimburse the agency for

More information

(132nd General Assembly) (Amended Senate Bill Number 37) AN ACT

(132nd General Assembly) (Amended Senate Bill Number 37) AN ACT (132nd General Assembly) (Amended Senate Bill Number 37) AN ACT To enact section 109.804 of the Revised Code and to amend Section 243.20 of Am. Sub. H.B. 49 of the 132nd General Assembly to require the

More information

Dane County Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Goals & Objectives HED Work Group July 7, 2006

Dane County Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Goals & Objectives HED Work Group July 7, 2006 Dane County Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Goals & Objectives HED Work Group July 7, 2006 Section I. Goal 1: Dane County will help to build and promote a robust, sustainable economy that enhances

More information

VETERANS' AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT of

VETERANS' AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT of Annual Performance Progress Report (APPR) for Fiscal Year (2009-2010) Proposed KPM's for Biennium (2011-2013) Original Submission Date: 2010 Finalize Date: 2009-2010 KPM # 2009-2010 Approved Key Performance

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY. SENATE, No SENATE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO. with committee amendments DATED: NOVEMBER 9, 2015

STATE OF NEW JERSEY. SENATE, No SENATE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO. with committee amendments DATED: NOVEMBER 9, 2015 SENATE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO SENATE, No. 2769 with committee amendments STATE OF NEW JERSEY DATED: NOVEMBER 9, 2015 The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee reports favorably

More information

Assistant Professor (Practice)

Assistant Professor (Practice) Position Details Position Information Department Position Title Job Title Appointment Type Job Location Position Appointment Percent Sea Grant Extension (RSG) Academic Teaching/Research Faculty Bandon

More information

Act 13 Impact Fee Revenues Frequently Asked Questions

Act 13 Impact Fee Revenues Frequently Asked Questions Act 13 Impact Fee Revenues Frequently Asked Questions Revised March 2015 Act 13 Impact Fee Revenues Frequently Asked Questions Table of Contents Overview of Act 13... 3 Local Government Distributions...

More information

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CATEGORY: DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING/ZONING TITLE: TRANSPORTATION PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATIONS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CODE NUMBER: AC-13-16 ADOPTED:

More information

American Farmland Trust Conference October 20-23, 2014 Lexington, KY

American Farmland Trust Conference October 20-23, 2014 Lexington, KY American Farmland Trust Conference October 20-23, 2014 Lexington, KY Sandra Romero Thurston County Commissioner Cynthia Wilson Thurston County Long Range Planning Manager Background Population 262,388

More information

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL FIRE

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL FIRE Forest Health Program Draft Grant Guidelines 2016-17 Funding provided via the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) December 2016 Presentation

More information

Restoration of the Mississippi River Delta in a Post-BP Oil Spill Environment

Restoration of the Mississippi River Delta in a Post-BP Oil Spill Environment Restoration of the Mississippi River Delta in a Post-BP Oil Spill Environment Whit Remer, Senior Policy Analyst & Attorney Estelle Robichaux, Restoration Project Analyst Presentation to the Natural Floodplains

More information

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary EXECUTIVE ORDER

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 19, 2018 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - OCEAN POLICY TO ADVANCE THE ECONOMIC, SECURITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED

More information

Request for Applications to Host a Citizens Institute on Rural Design Workshop in 2018

Request for Applications to Host a Citizens Institute on Rural Design Workshop in 2018 Request for Applications to Host a Citizens Institute on Rural Design Workshop in 2018 INTRODUCTION The Citizens' Institute on Rural Design (CIRD) connects communities to the design resources they need

More information

OHA Nurse Staffing Advisory Board. September 2016 Legislative Report

OHA Nurse Staffing Advisory Board. September 2016 Legislative Report PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, Center for Health Protection Health Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Section Health Facility Licensing and Certification Program Kate Brown, Governor Survey & Certification

More information

Section 3. LMS Team Organization and Operating Procedures

Section 3. LMS Team Organization and Operating Procedures Section 3. LMS Team Organization and Operating Procedures 3.1 Purpose of the LMS Team The purpose of the Bay County LMS Team is to recommend measures to decrease the vulnerability of the citizens, governments,

More information

Sustainable Communities Grant Consortium Consortium Agreement

Sustainable Communities Grant Consortium Consortium Agreement Sustainable Communities Grant Consortium Consortium Agreement WHEREAS, In June 2009, the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency

More information

NH Rivers Management and Protection Program. Love Your River? Don t t Procrastinate Nominate!

NH Rivers Management and Protection Program. Love Your River? Don t t Procrastinate Nominate! NH Rivers Management and Protection Program Love Your River? Don t t Procrastinate Nominate! NH Rivers Management and Protection Program RSA 483: Created by NH Legislature in 1988 Why: Competing interests/and

More information

DOD INSTRUCTION THE READINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INTEGRATION (REPI) PROGRAM AND ENCROACHMENT MANAGEMENT

DOD INSTRUCTION THE READINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INTEGRATION (REPI) PROGRAM AND ENCROACHMENT MANAGEMENT DOD INSTRUCTION 4715.24 THE READINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INTEGRATION (REPI) PROGRAM AND ENCROACHMENT MANAGEMENT Originating Component: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

More information

S One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION

S One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION An Act S.1438 One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for

More information

Leadership Advisory Board Member Handbook

Leadership Advisory Board Member Handbook Leadership Advisory Board Member Handbook Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Leadership Advisory Board Handbook INTRODUCTION Working hand in hand with its Texas A&M System partners, the state legislature,

More information

This appendix provides the following Federal and State Regulations related to the Hazard Mitigation Planning process.

This appendix provides the following Federal and State Regulations related to the Hazard Mitigation Planning process. APPENDIX A: APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS This appendix provides the following Federal and State Regulations related to the Hazard Mitigation Planning process. Federal Code of Federal Regulations

More information

Professional Planning Services to Complete Recreation Plan Update

Professional Planning Services to Complete Recreation Plan Update Professional Planning Services to Complete Recreation Plan Update Deadline to Submit: August 15, 2013 @ 4:00 PM City of Monroe Attn. Loretta LaPointe Recreation Department 120 East First Street Monroe,

More information

Title SANTEE COURT PARKING FACILITY PROJECT / 636 MAPLE AVENUE INTER-MODAL PARKING STRUCTURE

Title SANTEE COURT PARKING FACILITY PROJECT / 636 MAPLE AVENUE INTER-MODAL PARKING STRUCTURE ***************************************************************************** Office of the City Clerk, City of Los Angeles This report was generated by the Council File Management System on 07/07/2018

More information

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT: Goals, Objectives and Policies Goal 1: To give the Town the maximum amount of input, control, and advisory power with other public agencies for the protection of

More information

Northern Arizona Council of Governments Annual Work Program Amendment 1

Northern Arizona Council of Governments Annual Work Program Amendment 1 Northern Arizona Council of Governments Annual Work Program Amendment 1 State Fiscal Year 2017 July 1, 2016 June 30, 2017 I. Work Program Purpose Each year the Arizona Department of Transportation Multimodal

More information

Board of Supervisors' Agenda Items

Board of Supervisors' Agenda Items A. Roll Call COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGULAR MEETING MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016, 9:00 A.M. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NORTH CHAMBER 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, ROOM 310, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

More information

The CESU Network Strategic Plan FY

The CESU Network Strategic Plan FY Strategic Plan Executive Summary June 2003 The CESU Network Strategic Plan FY2004-2008 Executive Summary Introduction Management and stewardship of the nation s federal lands and waters requires skillful

More information

BLOCK ISLAND. The Town of New Shoreham, Rhode Island. is seeking a TOWN MANAGER. One of the twelve last great places in the Western Hemisphere

BLOCK ISLAND. The Town of New Shoreham, Rhode Island. is seeking a TOWN MANAGER. One of the twelve last great places in the Western Hemisphere One of the twelve last great places in the Western Hemisphere The Nature Conservancy The Town of New Shoreham, Rhode Island BLOCK ISLAND is seeking a TOWN MANAGER Block Island Block Island is located in

More information

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ALASKA STATE PARK S 2016 ARTIST IN RESIDENCE PROGRAM for the summer at the ERNEST GRUENING STATE HISTORICAL PARK in Southeast Alaska. Deadline: March 1, 2106 Contact: Ryan Thomas

More information

Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce 2012 Legislative Policies

Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce 2012 Legislative Policies Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce 2012 Legislative Policies The Roanoke Regional Chamber works on behalf of its members to create a thriving business climate, strengthen private enterprise, and improve

More information

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN CALIFORNIA THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN CALIFORNIA THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN CALIFORNIA THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU ) is entered into by federal,

More information