Staff Memo 11-15-23 PC Mtg 11-27-23 w-Attach PP 22-0001
503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules (PP 22-0001) Work Session #3
DATE: November 15, 2023 MEETING DATE: November 27, 2023
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & ACTION REQUESTED
This memo provides background for the Commission’s November 27 work session, which will
include an overview of a revised project schedule and public engagement plan to comply with
the state’s Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules for parking reform (OAR
660-012-04001 to -04502). In response to a Commissioner’s request at a previous work session,
staff will also be presenting a high-level analysis of the pros and cons of the different options
available to the City to comply with the CFEC rules.
BACKGROUND
On September 5, 2023, the City Council held a study session to receive a presentation from
Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner at the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) with an overview of the purpose of the CFEC rules for parking reform.
During this study session, a majority of City Council members expressed interest in a Citywide
repeal of parking requirements under CFEC Parking Phase B – Option 1. Council also provided
direction to staff to attempt to simplify the proposed work plan to develop code amendments
that comply with Phase B of the CFEC parking rules by December 31, 2024, and to place more of
an emphasis on targeted public outreach.
Subsequently, on September 25, 2023, the Commission held their second work session on CFEC
parking reform. The work session included a similar presentation from Evan Manvel of DLCD
with an overview of the purpose of the CFEC rules. At the work session, staff also provided
answers to questions raised by the Commission at the previous July 24 work session, in addition
to an update on the direction received from Council during their September 5 study session.
1 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293026.
2 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293036.
Page 2 of 8
Recent Updates to CFEC Rules
On November 2, 2023, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted
clarifications, corrections, and adjustments to the CFEC program rules. Attachment A includes a
description of the amended rules, which took effect on November 7, 2023.
The updates adopted by LCDC include:
Clarifications and corrections to the Transportation Planning Rules (Oregon
Administrative Rules 660-012) originally adopted by LCDC in July 2022, as well as further
refinements to the adjustments the LCDC adopted as temporary rules in April 2023; and
Other rule changes as recommended by DLCD staff, including a small adjustment to the
bicycle parking requirements in OAR 660-012-06303.
With this recent change, multifamily residential developments will be required to provide one
bicycle parking space for every two units, with limited exceptions. Other updates to the
Transportation Planning Rules are primarily intended to formalize the temporary rules adopted
earlier this year, and do not include substantive changes to the requirements for compliance
with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450.
REVISED SCHEDULE AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN
In response to the direction provided by City Council, staff has drafted a revised project
schedule and public engagement plan – see Attachment B. The proposed project schedule is
excerpted, below.
Project Schedule
Rulemaking Updates & Extension
Request [Jun 2022 – Jul 2023]
Council Study Session #1 Jun 21, 2022
Planning Commission Update #1 Jun 27
Planning Commission Update #2 Jan 9, 2023
Planning Commission Work Session #1 Jul 24
Project Background and Overview
of Alternatives [Aug – Sep 2023]
Council Study Session #2 Sep 5
Planning Commission Work Session #2 Sep 25
Work Plan / Public Involvement
Plan / Scoping [Oct – Dec 2023]
Targeted Outreach Oct – Dec 2023
Planning Commission Work Session #3 Nov 27
Council Study Session #3 Dec 5
Targeted Outreach Jan – Mar 2024
3 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=307182.
Page 3 of 8
Initial Concepts /
Recommendations
[Jan – Apr 2024]
Open House / Community Meeting Mar 7, 2024
Joint PC-CC Study Session (#4) Apr 16
Draft Code Amendments
[Apr - Aug 2024]
Internal Review / Drafting Apr - Jun
Planning Commission Work Session #6 Jun 24
Final Code Adoption
[Sep – Dec 2024]
Planning Commission Public Hearing Oct 14
Planning Commission Findings Oct 28
City Council Public Hearing Nov 19
City Council Findings Dec 3
Effective Date: Jan 2, 2025
A draft public engagement plan is also included in Attachment B. It includes a description of the
roles of City staff in engagement efforts as well as a working list of the public involvement
activities proposed as part of the project. These engagement efforts are intended to build upon
existing relationships and community networks to the fullest extent possible through targeted
outreach, including the following activities:
Targeted Outreach to Key Stakeholders: Oct 2023 – Mar 2024
o This outreach would include staff presentations at the Mayor’s Roundtable
meeting, as well as presentations at meetings of key community stakeholders
such as the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network (LOSN), the Chamber of
Commerce, including the Lake Grove Business Committee (LGBC), the
Neighborhood Chairs Committee, and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB).
Focus Group Discussion with Key Stakeholders: Feb – Mar 2024
o This discussion would include representatives from the Housing Production
Strategy Task Force, the Sustainability Advisory Board, the Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion Advisory Board, LOSN, the Chamber of Commerce/LGBC, and TAB.
Project Website + Updates: ongoing
Project Email List: ongoing
Open House / Community Meeting: March 2024
Hello LO articles: ongoing / monthly in 2024
City Council meetings: ongoing
Planning Commission meetings: ongoing
Page 4 of 8
PROS AND CONS OF DIFFERENT CFEC OPTIONS
In response to a Commissioner’s request at a prior work session, staff has developed a high-
level analysis of the pros and cons of the different options available to the City to comply with
the CFEC rules. Available options for compliance with Phase B of the CFEC rules for parking
reform include:
1. No Mandates: Repeal parking requirements Citywide. No further action necessary.
2. Fair Policies: Implement at least two of five provisions under OAR 660-012-0445(a),
which include either (1) requiring “unbundled” parking for residential development, (2)
requiring “unbundled” parking for commercial development, (3) requiring that flexible
commute benefits be offered by employers of 50 or more employees, (4) establishing a
tax on commercial parking lots, or (5) reducing parking requirements for multifamily
residential development; and comply with one of the following options:
a. Remove parking requirements within and ¼ mile from Town Centers; or
b. Adopt parking management policies within Town Centers
3. Reduced Red Tape: Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements for several
types of developments, uses, and locations, including eliminating all parking
requirements within and ½ mile from Town Centers. (This analysis includes an
assumption that sub-option (a) (Remove parking requirements within and ¼ mile from
Town Centers) is selected for Option 3, due to the overlap with other Reduced Red Tape
requirements.)
Option 1: No Mandates
PROS CONS
Ease of
Implementation
Simple, easy to explain /
understand
Reduces staff workload
-
Cost of
Implementation
Minimal to no additional cost -
Level of
Flexibility for
Businesses
Results in the most flexible
regulations for new businesses
-
Level of
Flexibility for
Development
Results in the most flexible
regulations for all development
types
-
Page 5 of 8
Impact on
Development
Costs
Likely to reduce the cost of
development – including housing
development – Citywide
-
Impact on
Parking
Regulations
Consistent requirements would
apply evenly Citywide
Eliminates regulatory barriers
-
Impact on
Existing
Developments
Mostly applies to new development
or changes of use
-
Other Parking provided in response to
market demand
Could result in neighborhood
parking overflow in some
circumstances. Over the long-term,
the City may need to implement
additional parking management
policies to mitigate this potential
outcome.
Option 2a: Fair Policies + Reduced Mandates
PROS CONS
Ease of
Implementation
- More difficult to explain and
understand
Increases staff workload
Cost of
Implementation
- Increased complexity and cost to
implement
Requires new regulations and
compliance monitoring
Level of
Flexibility for
Businesses
Some flexibility for new businesses -
Level of
Flexibility for
Development
Some flexibility for development in
Town Centers
-
Page 6 of 8
Impact on
Development
Costs
Likely to reduce the cost of
development – including housing
development – within Town
Centers
-
Impact on
Parking
Regulations
Parking only required in locations
that are further from transit or less
walkable
Reduces regulatory barriers
Regulations depend on use and
location / proximity
Differing impacts in different parts
of the city
Impact on
Existing
Developments
- Unbundling and flexible commuter
benefit program would apply to
existing development
Other Parking reductions for providing
sustainable infrastructure or
accessible dwelling units
Could result in parking overflow
near Town Centers, in some
instances
Option 2b: Fair Policies + Parking Management
PROS CONS
Ease of
Implementation
- Paid on-street parking, unbundling
and flexible commuter benefit
program would be complex and
challenging to implement
Cost of
Implementation
- Requires new regulations and
compliance monitoring
Paid parking would have budget
impacts and require additional staff
resources to implement
Level of
Flexibility for
Businesses
- Continuation of regulatory barriers
for new businesses
Flexible commute program would
create new impacts on existing
businesses
Level of
Flexibility for
Development
- No additional flexibility for
development
Page 7 of 8
Impact on
Development
Costs
- No likely reduction in development
costs
Impact on
Parking
Regulations
- Paid parking for at least 10% of
street parking
No reduction or elimination of
regulatory barriers – would result in
the highest possible parking
requirements
Impact on
Existing
Developments
- Paid on-street parking, unbundling
and flexible commuter benefit
program would impact existing
development
Other Parking reductions for providing
sustainable infrastructure or
accessible dwelling units
Based on outdated parking
requirements that do not reflect
current market demand or
conditions
Option 3: Reduced Red Tape
PROS CONS
Ease of
Implementation
- The most difficult option to explain
and understand
Increases staff workload
Cost of
Implementation
- The most complex option
Requires new regulations and
compliance monitoring
Level of
Flexibility for
Businesses
Some flexibility for new businesses
Level of
Flexibility for
Development
Some flexibility for development in
Town Centers
Page 8 of 8
Impact on
Development
Costs
Likely to reduce the cost of
development – including housing
development – within Town
Centers
Impact on
Parking
Regulations
Parking only required in locations
that are further from transit or less
walkable
Reduces regulatory barriers
Regulations depend on use and
location / proximity
Differing impacts in different parts
of the city
Impact on
Existing
Developments
- Unbundling and paid on-street
parking would impact existing
development
Other Parking reductions for providing
sustainable infrastructure or
accessible dwelling units
Could result in parking overflow
near Town Centers, in some
circumstances
ATTACHMENTS
A. DLCD Staff Report and Attachments – CFEC Rulemaking Adoption, 10/19/2023
B. CFEC Project Schedule and Public Engagement Plan, 11/14/2023
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
October 19, 2023
To: Land Conservation and Development Commission
From: Brenda Ortigoza Bateman, Ph.D., Director
Matt Crall, Planning Services Division Manager
Bill Holmstrom, Land Use and Transportation Planning Coordinator
Subject: Agenda Item 10, November 2-3, 2023, LCDC Meeting
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rulemaking Adoption
Agenda Item Summary
Purpose. The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC
or commission) will consider adoption of rule amendments for the Climate-Friendly and
Equitable Communities program. The commission held a hearing on July 28 to take
testimony about draft rules and held the comment period open for written testimony
through September 17, 2023. Staff recommend that the commission adopt the
amendments in Attachment A, which reflect that testimony and work of the rulemaking
advisory committee. This staff report contains an update on the ongoing work in the
Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities program, a review of the rulemaking
process, and an overview of the recommended rule amendments.
Objective. The commission adopts rule amendments.
For further information about this report, please contact Bill Holmstrom, Land Use and
Transportation Planning Coordinator at 971-375-5975 or
bill.holmstrom@dlcd.oregon.gov.
Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program Update
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD or department) and the
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) continue to support cities and counties
through the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities program . Staff are developing
guidance, delivering technical assistance, and distributing funds to cities and counties.
Staff also continue to work with local governments who request alternative dates or
exemptions, as allowed in the rules. Staff have included a detailed update in Attachment
B.
PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 1 OF 71
Agenda Item 10
November 2-3, 2023 – LCDC Meeting
Page 2 of 10
Corrections and Clarifications Rulemaking Process
The commission initiated the corrections and clarifications rulemaking in April 2023. The
adopted rulemaking charge is included as Attachment C. At this same commission
meeting, commissioners adopted a limited set of temporary amendments to Oregon
Administrative Rules chapter 660, division 12, commonly known as the Transportation
Planning Rules or TPR. These temporary rules are in effect through November 7, 2023.
After the commission initiated the rulemaking, Director Bateman appointed a 20 -person
rulemaking advisory committee based on direction from the commission. The
rulemaking advisory committee met four times to review and discuss draft amendments
to the rules. The rulemaking advisory committee reviewed a draft fiscal impact
statement for the draft rule amendments.
The department also convened a technical advisory committee at the request of several
cities and counties. The technical advisory committee was open to the members of the
rulemaking advisory committee and staff from all affected cities and counties. The
technical advisory committee met three times.
The commission held a hearing on draft amendments at its meeting July 28, and
accepted written testimony through September 17. The written testimony is included as
Exhibits 9-21. A summary of the written testimony is included in Attachment D. To be
fair to all interested parties, the commission and department have not accepted any
testimony nor discussed the draft rules with any outside parties after the close of the
public comment period.
This rulemaking process is limited to the scope of the commission’s April 2023
rulemaking charge. Staff continue to keep a list of other issues that could be considered
in a future rulemaking process. This includes changes to OAR 660-012-0210, as
described below in this staff report.
The department will update housing planning rules in 2024 as part of the Oregon
Housing Needs Analysis process. That process will include a review of other
administrative rules, including the TPR, to identify any amendments needed for
consistency with updated housing rules. Department staff working on housing,
transportation, and climate change have been coordinating closely to ensure the
Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities program increases housing. A summary of
how these programs work together to expand housing choices in Oregon is included in
Attachment E.
Recommended Rule Amendments
The recommended rule amendments are in Attachment A, along with explanations for
amendments in each rule or section. A rule-by-rule summary of changes in the division
PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 2 OF 71
Agenda Item 10
November 2-3, 2023 – LCDC Meeting
Page 3 of 10
is included in Attachment F. These amendments respond to each of the elements of the
adopted rulemaking charge in Attachment C, including:
1. Minor clarification and correction amendments; and
2. Further refinement of the temporary amendments adopted in April.
The recommended rule amendments also include changes not explicitly listed in the
charge, but within the corrections and clarifications scope of the rulemaking. Some of
these changes came from suggestions, questions, or concerns from members of the
advisory committees.
Significant issues raised in testimony or discussed in advisory committee meetings are
described below. This includes a set of options for the commission to consider in rule
0630 related to bicycle parking for residential development.
a. Rule 0005: Definitions
This rule defines terms that are used in the division. See pages 1-7 of Attachment A.
“Accessible” and “accessible dwelling unit”
Members of the rulemaking advisory committee suggested a broader and more
accurate description of accessibility, as codified in ORS 447.210 through 447.280. The
recommended amendments include federal requirements and state requirements for
accessibility that exceed federal standards.
“Metro region 2040 center”
The recommended amendments include a new definition that is used consistently
throughout the division to be clear about which rules apply to town centers, regional
centers, and the central city identified in Title 6 of Metro’s Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan. At the request of the City of Portland, the central city, generally the
area of Portland’s downtown, south waterfront, and near eastside , is included within the
definition of “Metro Region 2040 Center.”
“Multi-unit housing”
The recommended amendments include a new definition that is used consistently
throughout the division.
“Separated or protected bicycle facilities”
Advisory committee members suggested changes to this definition to clarify which
facility designs would qualify. Pedestrian and bicycle staff at ODOT also suggested
changes to be consist with how ODOT uses terms in plans and guidelines. The
recommended amendments incorporate many of these suggestions.
PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 3 OF 71
Agenda Item 10
November 2-3, 2023 – LCDC Meeting
Page 4 of 10
b. Rule 0012: Effective Dates and Transition
This rule sets effective dates for certain parts of the division to allow for an orderly
transition from previous requirements to updated ones as shown on pages 7-9 of
Attachment A.
The recommended amendments to subsection (4)(d) would clarify the process for cities
and counties in Metro to adopt town and regional center boundaries. The amendments
improve consistency with Metro’s implementation process for its 2040 Growth Concept
and clarify that the requirements apply to areas that have been planned for urban uses
by either a city or a county in the region. The amendment also uses the n ewly defined
term “Metro Region 2040 Centers” to refer to areas with boundaries adopted by cities
and counties.
c. Rule 0210: Transportation Modeling and Analysis
This rule sets requirements for how cities and counties use transportation modelling to
make land use decisions in the context of meeting climate goals as shown on page 15
of Attachment A.
The rulemaking charge included changing the effective date of this rule from 2024 to
when a city or county adopts a transportation system plan or TSP. There was significant
discussion of this rule at rulemaking advisory committee meetings, technical advisory
committee meetings, and a separate meeting with interested parties focused on just this
rule. Despite that discussion and multiple drafts of the rule, there was no consensus on
corrections or clarifications that could address the concerns. As a result, the
recommended amendments postpone the effective date of this rule until 2027 to allow
time for a collaborative rulemaking process for substantial revisions that go beyond
corrections and clarifications.
d. Rule 0320: Land Use Requirements in Climate-Friendly Areas
This rule sets requirements for cities and counties to adopt land u se regulations for
climate-friendly areas as shown on pages 20-22 of Attachment A.
Members of the rulemaking advisory committee commented that the minimum floor area
ratio (FAR) requirement of 2.0 did not provide sufficient flexibility for cities and counties
that used the “outcome-oriented option” for climate-friendly area development
regulations in section (9). Additionally, commenters noted that this FAR requirement
would conflict with the minimum zoned building capacity requirement of at least 60,000
square feet per net acre in subsection (9)(a). To address these concerns, the
recommended amendments reduce the minimum FAR option from 2.0 to 1.0, which is
more consistent with the minimum residential density option and with other parts of the
rule.
PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 4 OF 71
Agenda Item 10
November 2-3, 2023 – LCDC Meeting
Page 5 of 10
The Oregon Realtors and City of Springfield submitted written comments on the
September 8, 2023 draft. In response, staff recommend further changes to sections (1),
(2), and (3), which are included on pages 20-21 of Attachment A. The amendment to
section (1) provides clarity regarding reduced development expectations when utilizing
the “outcome-oriented” approach described in section (9). The amendment to section
(2) does not allow cities and counties to require ground floor commercial and office uses
if a multi-unit residential building contains regulated affordable housing units. This
change will facilitate funding for affordable housing development, which typically would
not support non-residential development. Lastly, the amendments to section (3) provide
consistency with the modified “outcome-oriented” approach described in Section (9),
which no longer contains requirements for jobs per net acre.
e. Rule 0325: Transportation Review in Climate-Friendly Areas
This rule sets requirements for how cities and counties review changes to land uses in
new, expanded, or existing climate-friendly areas or Metro Region 2040 centers as
shown on pages 23-24 of Attachment A.
Staff recommend rearranging sections of this rule to clarify how the rule applies to
adopting a climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040 Center and how it applies to
reviewing plan or land use regulations within existing climate -friendly areas or Metro
Region 2040 Centers. The recommended amendments clarify what actions local
governments must take in each circumstance. Section (6) gives cities and counties
options for how to review plan amendments that cross the boundary and thus affect an
area that is both inside and outside a climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040
Center.
f. Rule 0350: Urban Growth Boundaries
This rule provides additional clarity for how to plan for the transportation system with
urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions.
Advisory committee members and written testimony expressed concerns that this rule
could make future UGB expansions more difficult, particularly expansions needed to
supply land for housing, because the rule requires the city to have an updated TSP prior
to a UGB expansion. The recommended amendment postpones the effective date of
this requirement until 2029 as shown on subsection (5)(f) of rule 0012, on page 9 of
Attachment A. By that time, most or all affected cities and counties will have updated
their TSP to meet the requirements in the rules.
The recommended amendments do not include any amendments to rule 0350 because
the postponement is in rule 0012. Therefore, rule 0350 is not included in Attachment A.
PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 5 OF 71
Agenda Item 10
November 2-3, 2023 – LCDC Meeting
Page 6 of 10
g. Rules 0430 through 0445: Parking Reform
These rules are the core parking reforms, reducing costly parking mandates for equity
uses (rule 0430), climate-friendly areas (rule 0435), and near transit (rule 0440). Rule
0445 provides two options for parking reform if a city or county decides to not repeal
parking mandates city-wide or county-wide as shown on pages 30-32 of Attachment A.
Staff recommend amendments to clarify these rules and other parking provisions based
on feedback from cities and counties. Specifically, advisory committee members
expressed concern that implementing rule 0440 could be confusing when the transit
provider adjusts bus frequencies. The recommended amendments add an option to
allow cities and counties to adopt a static map of areas near frequent transit and use
that map for a year before updating it. Advisory committee members also expressed
concerns about the feasibility of the reform options under rule 0445. The recommended
amendments make those options easier to implement.
Some testimony raised equity concerns about these provisions; however, other
testimony from equity organizations, affordable housing providers, and a disability
consultant supported parking reforms. Additionally, experience from communities
around Oregon and the United States that have reformed parking and a review of the
academic literature show that parking reform generally improves equity.
h. Rule 0630: Bicycle Parking
This rule sets requirements for cities and counties to adopt development regulations
that require bicycle parking as shown on pages 35-36 of Attachment A.
Staff recommend rearranging this rule to clarify which types of uses require bicycle
parking, and what standards cities and counties must use. The recommended rules no
longer contain a requirement for a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces
calculated based on required off-street motor vehicle parking spaces.
This rule requires cities and counties to require at least one bicycle parking space per
residential unit in multi-unit and mixed-use residential developments. The rulemaking
advisory committee had significant discussion about this requirement, and written
testimony also addressed this issue. Testimony noted that this can be a substantial
expense for housing developers in some cases, and that relatively few trips are taken
by bicycle. The requirement would, however, prepare for a future in which many more
trips are taken by bicycle to reduce climate pollution.
The recommended amendments would add flexibility to allow cities and counties to
reduce the parking requirement for a specific development application (a variance) or
for a type of residential use (for example a care facility). Because of the significant
PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 6 OF 71
Agenda Item 10
November 2-3, 2023 – LCDC Meeting
Page 7 of 10
controversy on this issue, Attachment A also includes two other options on pages 35-36
that the commission could select.
• Option A: One space per unit
This is what the commission adopted in 2022.
• Option B: One space per unit with flexibility for reductions or exemptions
The department recommends this option.
• Option C: One half space per unit
Cities and counties could choose to set a higher ratio, but they could not reduce
below this ratio.
i. Rule 0830: Enhanced Review of Select Roadway Projects
This rule requires cities and counties to carefully review alternatives if they propose
certain projects that would significantly increase street or highway capacity as shown on
pages 39-42 of Attachment A.
The advisory committees spent significant time discussing this rule, specifically
concerns about projects in existing plans. The rule does not apply when a city or county
starts construction for a project in its existing TSP. The rule would apply if a city or
county proposes to add a project its TSP and to the process for updating a TSP.
Subsection (1)(c) requires the city or county to review projects on the prior TSP before
projects are carried forward to the new TSP. Advisory committee members expressed
concern that this review would be inappropriate for projects that are in ready for
construction at the time of the TSP update, or that were included in a general obligation
bond levy approved by voters.
Staff recommend adding a list of four exceptions to subsection (1)(c) so that some
projects would not need to be reviewed during the TSP update. For projects that do not
fall into one of the exceptions, the city or county would have options during a TSP
update:
• Choose to not carry the project forward into the updated plan;
• Change the proposed project so that it no longer meets the criteria in (1)(a) or
meets an exception in (1)(b) and thus is not subject to the rule ; or
• Review alternatives as required in the rule.
Even with exceptions added to (1)(c), some advisory committee members and written
testimony objected to the requirement to review projects in existing plans. Other
members supported fewer and narrower exceptions. The recommended amendments
represent a reasonable middle ground: avoiding excessive review of projects already
underway, while ensuring that projects are carefully reviewed before adding street and
highway capacity.
PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 7 OF 71
Agenda Item 10
November 2-3, 2023 – LCDC Meeting
Page 8 of 10
Assessment of Administrative Rule Requirements
Oregon Revised Statute 197.040(1)(b) directs the Land Conservation and Development
Commission to design its administrative requirements to:
(A) Allow for the diverse administrative and planning capabilities of local
governments;
(B) Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the state
and encourage regional approaches to resolving land -use problems;
(C) Assess what economic and property interests will be, or are likely to be,
affected by the proposed rule;
(D) Assess the likely degree of economic impact on identified property and
economic interests; and
(E) Assess whether alternative actions are available that would achieve the
underlying lawful governmental objective and would have a lesser economic
impact.
The recommended amendments fulfill these requirements as described below.
(A) Allow for the diverse administrative and planning capabilities of local
governments
The recommended amendments make a variety of corrections and clarifications,
including changes to provide more flexibility and certainty to affected local governments.
The amended rules only apply to local governments within metropolitan areas.
(B) Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the
state and encourage regional approaches to resolving land-use problems
The recommended amendments provide additional flexibility to cities and counties to set
different schedules for meeting key deadlines in the existing rules. The recommended
amendments provide additional flexibility to determine how to best meet key
requirements locally. The amended rules only apply to local governments within
metropolitan areas.
(C) Assess what economic and property interests will be, or are likely to be,
affected by the proposed rule
The recommended amendments are corrections and clarifications to adopted rules. The
amendments bring more clarity and certainty to local governments. The department has
not identified economic or property interests expected to be affected by the
recommended amendments.
PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 8 OF 71