GROUNDWATER ISSUES
The 2008 Legislature passed Senate Bill 1069, relating to water conservation, reuse and storage
and providing funding for the Umatilla Basin to investigate a regional aquifer recovery
assessment. In 2009 (and likely in 2011), the Legislature needs to assure that these activities
continue, and that Oregon’s pursuit of water supply and storage is appropriately funded.
The State of Oregon, through the Water Resources Department, has identified approximately 15
Groundwater Limited Areas and seven Groundwater Critical Areas. These designations identify
locations with declining groundwater levels - a groundwater quantity concern. Through the
Department of Environmental Quality, concerns with groundwater quality have been identified
in three locations around the State of Oregon. Considerations of groundwater quantity and/or
quality will affect many major population centers of Oregon. In some areas, these concerns
overlap.
Recommendation:
 LPAC is authorized to support the continuation of the efforts initiated in Senate Bill 1069
(2008) and other projects that will address the need to assure a continuous supply of clean
water for all of Oregon.
 Because water quality and quantity are becoming increasingly important issues in
Oregon, funding needs to be available to both conduct studies and build projects
throughout the state to address these issues. LPAC is authorized to support water
initiatives and funding.
Alternative Recommendation:
 LPAC will watch for legislation related to groundwater quality and quantity and will
report to the Board.
 LPAC is authorized to support funding for additional studies and partnering of such
studies with the USGS.
 The Board and LPAC may support legislation that is supported by good science. LPAC
will work with organizations to determine what constitutes good science in this area.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Rising housing prices in the recent past, followed by increasing unemployment rates, have made
the issue of affordable housing a more pressing issue. Current trends have pushed affordable
housing out of the major cities into satellite communities, making the issue not just of housing,
but of transportation and climate change.
DLCD is proposing a re-examination of Goal 10 and related rules to determine their efficacy,
and determine changes that may be needed to address the issue of affordable housing. DLCD
has also proposed the following actions:




Maintaining a "placeholder". LCDC has appointed an affordable housing rulemaking
advisory work group to determine which statues, if any, require amendment to allow the
rule making currently underway to achieve the intent.
Adopting rules in the fall of 2008 to authorize a limited number of communities to
designate sites “Dedicated to affordable housing,” including manufactured dwelling parks
and mobile home parks, as a “pilot project.” The workgroup may explore streamlining of
UGB requirements regarding urban growth boundary amendments to help the pilot
communities achieve this purpose. This may necessitate statutory amendments.
Potentially proposing statutory changes if the rules require that such sites be maintained
for affordable housing for the long term.
Potentially providing for an exchange between a site added to the UGB for an area already
within the UGB, in order to provide the affordable housing site in an area that already provides
necessary transportation and other services for residents.

Recommendation:
 LPAC is authorized to support efforts at allowing pilot projects in accordance with
DLCD’s concept.
 LPAC is authorized to draft legislation or support other's legislation to remove the ban on
inclusionary zoning, as set forth in ORS 197.309. In the alternative, the Board supports
pilot programs for removing the ban.
DESTINATION RESORTS
In December of 2006 and again in October of 2008, the OAPA Board voted unanimously to
support the economic benefits of tourist-focused destination resorts in appropriate rural locations
with appropriate safeguards, while opposing what amounts to exurban communities within
commuting distance of rapidly-growing cities. The 2007 legislature considered several sitespecific bills regarding destination resorts, and modified the ratio for units for sale to overnight
lodging. The Board had concerns over the impacts of destination resorts on the case-by-case
approach attempted by in the 2007 legislative session, and expressed the need for a thorough
review of present rules and statutes followed by adoption of statewide standards.
Recommendations:
LPAC is authorized to support legislation consistent with the October 13, 2008 letter to LCDC
regarding destination resorts, including:
 Supporting the DLCD legislative concept (attached);
 Addressing issues in the DLCD legislative concept, including land use, public facilities
and environmental impacts, through rule-making that requires state agencies to
coordinate with counties to address and mitigate for identified impacts in the siting of
destination resorts;
 Adopting both statutory and rule amendments to address the siting of, and impacts from,
destination resorts in rapidly growing urban areas;
 Identifying areas of special statewide environment concern and protecting such areas
from most types of rural development, including destination resorts;
2009 Legislative Agenda
Page 2


Providing workforce housing in destination resorts; and
Adoption of administrative rules limiting the type and number of destination resorts near
defined urban clusters with combined populations of 100,000 or more.
POPULATION COORDINATION
Counties are required to adopt coordinated population projections for each city within their
jurisdiction as part of their Rural Comprehensive Plan. If a county has not adopted a coordinated
population, cities have only two options – they may either pay for their own population
projection and submit a plan amendment request to the county, or they may use the new “Safe
Harbor” method adopted under ORS 195.034(2). The county may then adopt or deny the city’s
population projection. Neither statute nor administrative rule provides a method for conflict
resolution between cities and counties over population coordination outside of the normal appeal
process.
If a city cannot get the county to agree to use its population projection, or chooses to use the Safe
Harbor, it must use the “county share” method to determine its population forecast. The “County
Share” method is an extrapolation of existing population trends. The county share method does
not account for either documented long-term demographic trends or recent events that have a
reasonable likelihood of changing historical trends as specified in section (2) of 660-024-0030.
The effect of this OAR 660-024-0030(2) Safe Harbor is to encourage the concentration of
growth in large cities, which have documented long-term growth and greater county share of
population. Also, in rural areas, the Safe Harbor does not reduce the overall number of people
projected to come to the unincorporated portion each County. By limiting the growth capacity of
cites, the projected population growth may have to be accommodated in rural areas. This result
fails to acknowledge recent rapid growth in smaller edge cities and the desire of many small
cities to grow at rates faster than their historic rate. The effect of using safe harbor in all cities
could be the under-planning of infrastructure in the small cities that will experience the growth in
any event. Forcing cities to use the safe harbor numbers actually exacerbates the problem of loss
of resource land and sprawl.
Oregon APA recognizes the need for coordinated and accurate population projections. However,
the default means of achieving projections in the absence of city-county agreement leaves an
inadequate means of dealing with increased population and its allocation among cities and
unincorporated areas. OAPA believes the Safe Harbor process for population allocation does not
meet the needs of the state. Moreover, OAPA opposes the unilateral adoption of population
figures by cities and counties.
Recommendations:

Action should take place in two phases: conflict resolution for the short term and
(decennial) problem solving for the long term.
2009 Legislative Agenda
Page 3



Support legislation to correct the population coordination Safe Harbor to enable cities to
plan for infrastructure development. That legislation would establish a conflict resolution
process with LCDC acting as mediator or, if necessary, arbitrator between cities and
counties.
Provide state funding for population coordination.
Require a coordination projection between counties and cities within 2 years of release of
decennial census numbers, with the prospect of LCDC arbitration if the counties and the
cities within them cannot agree. Metro would continue to be the population coordinator
for the Portland Metropolitan Area.
THE BIG LOOK
The Big Look Task Force (BLTF) is currently undertaking its public outreach and is expected to
provide recommendations to the legislature in 2009. Currently, the Re-engage Oregon
Committee (ROC) of OAPA is working with the Board in presenting testimony to the BLTF.
Recommendation:
 LPAC will work with ROC in tracking, making recommendations and testifying on
legislation related to the Big Look.
PERIODIC REVIEW
Because small jurisdictions are exempt from periodic review, many have not updated their
comprehensive plans or related ordinances since the first acknowledgement by LCDC.
Population projections are often outdated, as are buildable land inventories. While it is in the
best interest for all jurisdictions to update plans and codes, many jurisdictions cannot do these
updates without adequate funding from the state.
Recommendation:
With the Big Look coming out with proposals, it is doubtful that any action will be taken on
periodic review. However, LPAC will keep this issue on its watch list, and will work to support
grants and funding to local jurisdictions to digitize their plans and regulations.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
LPAC will continue its efforts to coordinate and collaborate with other organizations on issues
impacting planning, including the League of Oregon Cities and the Association of Oregon
Counties Planning Directors.
PLACEHOLDERS (To be updated by the December Board Meeting)


MARINE RESERVES AND WAVE ENERGY
GOAL 14 RULE
2009 Legislative Agenda
Page 4