Docstoc

Oregon Department of Oregon Department of Land Conservation Land

Document Sample
Oregon Department of Oregon Department of Land Conservation Land Powered By Docstoc
					Oregon Department of
Land Conservation
and Development


2011-13 Budget Presentation

Richard Whitman, Director
Jim Rue, Deputy Director




        Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   0
                 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                         Presentation Outline

       Content                                                                    Pages
       Program Priorities                                                              2
       2011-13 Current Service Level                                                10
       Agency Reduction Options                                                     14
       Governor’s Balanced Budget                                                   20
       NR Subcommittee Supplemental Questions                                       33
       Agency Performance Overview                                                  43

       Listing of Appendices                                                        93




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources    1
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                             Program Priorities:
                               What We Do
        Oregon’s land use program conserves farm & forest lands for
                  agricultural & forest products industries
       Most lands in farm or forest use in 1987 remain in those uses 20 years later.
            In contrast, recent studies show 30,000 acres of forest lands lost to
       conversion in Washington every year.* Oregon is still the leading producer of
         timber in the lower U.S., and jobs in forest products are still the leading
         "traded sector" industry in much of the state.*( Washington DNR, 2007)




        Source: Oregon Forest Facts and Figures 2011.          Source: Oregon Board of Forestry. Federal
        Oregon Forest Research Institute.                      Forestlands Advisory Committee. Nov. 2007
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources                       2
          Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                        Program Priorities:
                           What We Do
         Oregon’s land use                           The Costs of Growth
         program assures that
         cities provide lands for                                                  Low              Moderate
                                                                                   Density          Density
         housing and
         employment, while                                                         2.1 du/ac        5.5 du/ac
                                                     Costs of local roads per      $7,420           $2,607
         avoiding sprawl &                           du
         lowering the cost of
         growth.
         According to the Brookings                  Other infrast. costs per      $10,954          $5,206
         Institution, the U.S. grew by               du
         17 percent from 1982 to
         1997, while Oregon grew by
         20 percent. During the same                 Total costs
         time, the amount of urbanized                                             $18,374          $7,813
                                                     (1999 $)
         land in the nation increased
         by 47 percent while in Oregon
         it expanded by only three
         percent.
                                                     Source: Center for Energy and Environment, Analyzing
                                                     Growth Scenarios for the Twin Cities, 1999




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources                        3
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                        Program Priorities:
                           What We Do
            • LCDC is a seven-member commission
              from around the state that sets broad
              land use policy for cities and counties

            • When new issues or problems arise
              with the land use system, LCDC works
              with diverse interests to resolve them,
              often (but not always) by rule

            • LCDC also oversees major urban
              growth boundary changes and urban
              reserve designations
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   4
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                        Program Priorities:
                           What We Do
            • DLCD is a relatively small agency
              (about 55 permanent staff), including
              10 field staff in 6 regional offices

            • Staff work with cities and counties on
              a daily basis, providing technical and
              financial assistance for land use
              planning projects

            • Staff review around 1,350 plan
              amendments every year, as well as
              periodic review efforts
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   5
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
          Program Priorities: Seven Key
         Outcomes We Expect To Achieve
            1. Complete important adjustments to the
               land use program, including the
               Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and
               Goal 9 (Economic Development)

            2. Streamline UGB amendments

            3. Begin implementing the Big Look Task
               Force initiative on resource land remapping
               and non-resource lands

            4. Review between 15 and 25 significant UGB
               and/or Urban Reserve proposals
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   6
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
         Program Priorities: Seven Key
        Outcomes We Expect To Achieve
            5.       Continue work with communities that
                     want to begin preparing for the effects of
                     climate change

            6.       Improve planning resources for local
                     governments, the private sector and
                     citizens (functional center for local
                     planning materials)

            7.       Assist communities with key planning
                     projects, particularly for economic
                     development, with field staff and carefully
                     targeted grant funds

Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   7
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
         Program Priorities: What We No
               Longer Accomplish
             1.     We will prioritize review of plan amendments, and
                    significantly reduce the number that we review and
                    advise on (we now receive over 1,350/yr and
                    comment on about 400)

             2.     We will further slow the pace of periodic review (until
                    grant/staff resources return)

             3.     We will continue to limit formal enforcement actions
                    to a very low level

             4.     We likely will curtail rulemakings addressing area-
                    specific problems

             5.     We will have very limited resources to help counties
                    and claimants carrying out Measure 49
                    authorizations
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   8
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                   Program Priorities: Details

         • See Appendix J for Program
           Prioritization Worksheet.
         • Detailed Cross References (DCRs)
               – Planning/Administration (Director’s Office and
                 Operations Services)
               – Community Services Division
               – Planning Services Division
               – Ocean and Coastal Services Division
               – Measure 49 Development Services

         • Budget structures are fully integrated –
           no single core program can be
           disconnected without broad effect
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   9
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             2011-13 Current Service Level

                                                          2009-11
                                                                               2011-13 Current
                                    2007-09             Legislatively
                                                                                Service Level
                                                         Approved

            General Fund               $19,057,084            $16,793,066             $13,050,378


            Other Funds                   $686,757             $2,093,138               $882,414


            Federal Funds               $5,259,499             $6,598,675              $5,839,675


            All Funds                  $25,003,340            $25,484,879             $19,772,467


            Positions                             95                     95                    61


            FTE                               85.02                   80.64                  59.10


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources         10
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
              2011-13 Current Service Level
       •     2009-11 Legislatively Approved Budget
              – 95 positions, 80.64 FTE
              – $25.4 million Total Funds
       •     Phase-outs:
              – Measure 49 implementation (GF & OF)
              – FEMA Map Modernization program
       •     Other adjustments to essential packages:
              – Standard reductions to inflation and state government service
                charges, vacancy factor, etc. as required by Department of
                Administrative Services and the Governor.
              – Revenue Shortfall: Addresses insufficient funds transfer from
                Oregon Department of Transportation to continue current
                service level.
       •     2011-13 Current Service Level
              – See Appendix L for details.
              – 61 positions, 59.10 FTE
              – $19.8 million Total Funds

Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   11
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
           Current Service Level: Agency
                   Budget History
                             DLCD: HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF TOTAL FTE
                                      (Excluding Measure 37/49)




             91-93                                                        48.50

             93-95                                                        48.50

             95-97                                                             50.16

             97-99                                                                         61.00

             99-01                                                                              64.00

             01-03                                                                       60.01
             03-05                                                             50.89

             05-07                                                                      58.46
             07-09                                                                       59.72

             09-11                                                                     57.52

            11-13*                                                                 54.80

                  0.00      10.00      20.00      30.00      40.00      50.00          60.00       70.00


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources                     12
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
           Current Service Level: Agency
                   Budget History
                           DLCD: HISTORY OF FTE FUNDED BY GENERAL FUND
                                      EXCLUDING MEASURE 49 *

                                                                                    $3.1 M, 41.50
                                                                                    FTE
                   99-01
                                                                           $3.6 M, 38.00 FTE


                   01-03
                                                            $3.5 M, 33.00 FTE


                   03-05

                                                                       $3.8 M, 36.10
                                                                       FTE
                   05-07
                                                                         $4.4 M, 37.10 FTE

                   07-09
                                                                  $4.7 M, 34.60 FTE

                   09-11
                                                                    $5.1 M, 35.10
                                                                    FTE
                  11-13*


                        0.00          10.00         20.00             30.00                    40.00   50.00


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources                        13
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Reduction Options
                                     Major Budget Issues

            •    Diminishing local government resources
            •    Dependence on General Fund
            •    Significant system fixes underway (TPR, Goal 9,
                 resource lands updates)
            •    Key statutory duties (UGB and urban reserve review,
                 periodic review) require some staffing changes (UGB
                 review team lead)
            •    Measure 49 phase-out, however some ongoing legal
                 expenses
            •    Increasing demand for planning assistance from
                 smaller communities
            •    Preparing for the effects of climate change
            •    Working with ODOT and Metro to reduce GHG
                 emissions

Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   14
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
         Agency Reduction Options
        • General Fund
              – (66% of Total Funds for 09-11)
        • Federal Funds
              – (26% of Total Funds for 09-11)
              – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
                floodplain management work
              – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                (NOAA) for coastal planning and management

        • Other Funds
              – (8% of Total Funds for 09-11)
              – 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   15
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Reduction Options
                                              See Appendix 0:
                        HB 3182 (10%) & 25% Reduction Proposals

            Criteria for developing reduction proposals:
                  •    Preserve capacity to complete UGB and urban reserve reviews
                       in a timely fashion
                  •    Maintain other statutory responsibilities at minimal levels,
                       including:
                         •   Plan amendment review and periodic review
                         •   Financial and technical assistance to local planning
                             departments
                  •    Maintain critical capacity to resolve major land use issues (TPR
                       and employment lands work)
                  •    Minimize effects on field staff and capacity to provide direct
                       technical assistance to communities


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   16
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
           Agency Reduction Options
                                  SUMMARY OF 10%
                              as proposed at Agency Request

       •     Reduction in Measure 49 staffing

       •     Reduction in planning program and administrative staffing
             and accompanying supplies & services

       •     Reduction in grants to local jurisdictions




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   17
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
           Agency Reduction Options
                                  SUMMARY OF 25%
                              as proposed at Agency Request


       •     Reduction in Measure 49 staffing

       •     Reduction in planning program and administrative staffing

       •     Reduction in planning specialists, regional
             representatives, communications specialist, rules
             coordination and accompanying supplies and services

       •     Significant reduction in grants to local jurisdictions

       •     12 total positions eliminated.

Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   18
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Reduction Options
            Impacts if full 25% reduction is taken:

                   • Local government assistance significantly
                     impacted.

                   • Legislature would have to amend statutory
                     requirements for DLCD review or eliminate agency
                     review of some land use decisions.

                   • Significant restructure of agency operations likely
                     required.



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   19
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                 GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                       BUDGET
                                                       2009-11                   2011-13
                                 2007-09             Legislatively             Governor’s
                                                      Approved                  Balanced

         General Fund              $19,057,084             $16,793,066              11,440,378


         Other Funds                   $686,757             $2,093,138               1,363,210


         Federal Funds               $5,259,499             $6,598,675               5,860,289


         All Funds                 $25,003,340             $25,484,879              18,663,877


         Positions                             95                     95                     58


         FTE                               85.02                  80.64                 55.80



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources         20
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                   GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                         BUDGET
       2011-13 Governor’s Balanced Budget includes a
         total 12% reduction compared against
         modified current service level:

       •     Permanent Reductions in General Fund Planning Program –
              • Six permanent FTE eliminated
              • GBB took a reduction of $0.9 million
              • GBB GF funding level at $9.7 million


       •     Permanent Reductions in General Fund Grants Program
              • Impact to periodic review program, local and regional
                planning projects
              • Potential delays in economic recovery for Oregon
                communities
              • GBB took a reduction of $0.6 million
              • GBB GF funding level at $1.6 million




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   21
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                 GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                       BUDGET
            Planning Program Reductions – in detail
                          •   Directors Office-2 staff
                          •   Measure 49 Services-3 staff
                          •   Operations Services- 1 staff
                          •   ARB 25% proposal implemented in part.
                          •   GBB reflects 32.5% decrease compared against
                              2009-11 Legislatively Approved Budget if Measure
                              49 included.
                          •   GBB reflects 10.4% decrease compared against
                              2009-11 Legislatively Approved Budget if Measure
                              49 not included.
                          •   GBB includes a realignment of two positions from
                              Measure 49 and Community Services to create a
                              UGB/UR lead reviewer, and a position to oversee
                              development of the agency’s planning resource
                              systems.
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   22
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                   BUDGET
            Grant Program Reductions – in detail


                          •   Top priority for assistance grants to help cities and
                              counties plan for industrial and employment uses,
                              including how to provide the services needed for
                              those uses to locate and grow.


                          •   GBB reflects 26% decrease compared against
                              2009-11 Legislatively Approved Budget.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   23
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                   GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                         BUDGET
        Policy Package 070: Revenue Shortfall
        (0.35) FTE – Other Funds: $(78,983)
            This package reduces Other Funds reflecting revenue shortfall
            from Oregon Department of Transportation for the Joint
            ODOT/DLCD Transportation and Growth Management
            Program (TGM). Current service level funding is not available.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   24
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                 GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                       BUDGET
       Policy Package 101: Greenhouse Gas
         Emissions
       1.00 LD FTE – Other Funds: $178,702
           Request addresses a task adopted by the 2009 Legislature for
           DLCD and LCDC working together with Metro and the cities and
           counties in the Metro area to continue work on greenhouse gas
           emissions efforts. This request continues efforts begun under
           HB 2001 by developing how land use and transportation
           scenarios will be developed and selected by Metro and other
           local governments and how the selected scenarios will be
           implemented. Package proposes limited duration funding.



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   25
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                 GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                       BUDGET

        Policy Package 102: Soils Analyses
        0.36 FTE – Other Fund: $426,264
            This package establishes a new fee and authorizes
            accompanying Other Fund limitation. Package addresses
            House Bill 3647 (2010) which was sponsored by the Committee
            on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Communities. The
            measure directs the department to establish a program for third
            party expert soils reports used to classify land as farm or non-
            farm land. Landowners seeking a zoning change would pay the
            fee for the expert analyses (DLCD pass-through).




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   26
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                 GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                       BUDGET
            Policy Package 102: Soils Analyses (cont)

            •    The soil analysis fee is not a new cost for landowners
                 (currently pay for their own expert)
            •    LCDC rulemaking needed to establish process, including
                 payment procedures.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   27
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                 GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                       BUDGET
       Policy Package 106: Risk Map
       1.00 LD FTE – Federal Funds: $272,557

           This package authorizes limited duration expenditure of secured
           Federal Funds to complete and expand upon the work started
           under the Map Modernization program, supported by the
           Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This
           package allows the department to continue its obligations under
           FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk Map).




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   28
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                 GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                       BUDGET
            Policy Package 106: Risk Map (cont.)

            The department’s role in working with the Federal Emergency
               Management Agency in Risk Map activities is to:

            •    Assist local jurisdictions in implementing the National Flood
                 Insurance Program (NFIP), a FEMA program for protecting
                 life and property from flood hazards.

            •    Work with federal, state and local governments to improve
                 natural hazard data and mapping. We develop digital data
                 for local governments, working with DOGAMI and FEMA.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   29
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                 GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                       BUDGET
            Policy Package 108: Measure 49
            0.00 FTE – LD General Funds: $50,000
                 This placeholder package provides limited duration funding
                 of remaining Attorney General costs related to litigation
                 under Measure 49. An additional $387,000 is included in the
                 Governor’s Balanced Budget for this item.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   30
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                       GOVERNOR’S BALANCED
                             BUDGET
        Legislative Proposals (No Additional Funding in GBB)


        •      HB 2129: Improve Post-Acknowledgment Plan Amendment
               Notice Procedures


        •      HB 2130: Streamline State Review of Urban Growth Boundary
               (UGB) Amendments and Periodic Review


        •      HB 2131: Clarify Statutes Regarding Needed Housing


        •      HB 2132: Adjust Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Pilot
               Program


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   31
            Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
          WAYS AND MEANS CO-CHAIRS
           SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS

            Core Functions that will be
             carried out with available funds:

                              See slides 6 and 7
                            (seven key outcomes)




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   32
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
            1.       Fund shift or fee increase:

                     DLCD does not have a fund shift or fee increase
                     included in the 2011-13 Governors Balanced
                     Budget. DLCD does not historically derive
                     significant revenues from fees.



                     DLCD does have a new fee established in POP
                     102. POP 102 implements House Bill 3647 (2010).
                     The fee pays for third-party experts to carry out
                     soils analyses for applications to rezone farm land.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   33
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
            2. Similar or related work with other agencies:

                 a. For the most part, LCDC and DLCD do not directly
                 regulate development. Instead, they set planning
                 guidelines for local government. For the past ten
                 years, the agency generally has moved toward a
                 system that establishes broad outcomes, leaving the
                 details of how those outcomes are achieved to local
                 government. This work will continue during 11-13.

                 b. DLCD works closely with ODOT and OBDD to
                 assure that there is an ample supply of well-served
                 land for employment opportunities. The agencies
                 meet monthly, and their directors and chairs meet
                 quarterly.



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   34
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
            2.       Similar or related work with other agencies
                     (continued):

                     c. DLCD also works closely with ODF to conserve
                     forest lands for timber production and other forest
                     uses, and with ODA to conserve farm lands for
                     agricultural uses. DLCD and ODF are cooperating
                     on forest conversion issues on a number of fronts

                     d. LCDC and LUBA share responsibility for review
                     of land use decisions. The large, legislative
                     decisions typically come to LCDC (reflecting its less
                     legalistic and broader policy focus). When
                     unintended issues arise through LUBA’s review of
                     land use decisions, LCDC is responsible for
                     addressing them. The current issues with the TPR
                     are an example of this relationship.


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   35
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
            3.       DLCD efficiencies and streamlining:
                     a. DLCD  and the Oregon Department of Agriculture
                     (ODA) are sharing certain administrative services. ODA
                     is provides payroll assistance to DLCD. DLCD is
                     providing IT & limited HR assistance to ODA.

                     b. The agency asked line staff to recommend cost-saving
                     measures. A number of suggestions from this effort were
                     implemented, including reduced travel, increased use of
                     telephone conferencing and Skype, elimination of
                     subscriptions, and an office closure.

                     c. LEAN processes have been initiated through the
                     departments’ Continuous Improvement Process (CIP).
                     The department has evaluated its periodic review
                     processes with internal and external stakeholders.
                     Additional detail on this event is found on slide 37.



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   36
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
            3. Efficiencies and streamlining (continued):

                 d. Three of four agency legislative proposals are to reduce
                 complexity and streamline requirements for local
                 governments. HB 2129 and HB 2130 propose streamlining
                 of PAPA, UGB, and periodic review processes. HB 2131
                 clarifies ambiguities in existing housing statutes.

                 e. Internal auditing practices are supplemented by
                 collaboration with other agencies and limited duration
                 contracts.

                 f. Ways of increasing the efficiency of document
                 management and potentially providing improved services to
                 local governments and the public are being evaluated
                 through a facilitated process with internal and external
                 stakeholders. A roadmap to determine efficiencies in
                 information management and implementation will be
                 completed within the next two months.

Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   37
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
                (3)(c) LEAN: detail

                The department initiated a pilot project and streamlining initiative in
                the last year called Continuous Improvement Process (CIP). DLCD
                used Lean tools to evaluate internal periodic review processes.
                Results from the evaluation include:

                         • Improve consistency in PR.

                         • Improve ability to track progress of cases.

                         • Provide better communication and transparency of
                           process.

                         • Improve quality of work product.

                         • Provide for better staff teamwork.

                         • Improve customer understanding and satisfaction.



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   38
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
            (3)(e) Internal auditing: detail
                 DLCD is not required to have an internal auditor. DLCD collaborate with other
                 agencies to perform these services.

                 In May 2008, DLCD contracted with a consultant for review of functions and
                 controls related to the financial management of the department. The
                 consultant found the internal controls: well designed, provide effective
                 instruction to agency staff, and are well documented. Compliance with
                 statewide policies and procedures was noted. Some agency policies were
                 noted as being out-of-date. Since that time, the department has repealed
                 applicable out-of-date policies.

                 The department continues it commitment to strong internal controls. Each
                 payment for service or product is reviewed by a second set of eyes before
                 release for payment occurs in the state financial system. Each payment
                 receives prior authorization before initial processing occurs. Each financial
                 report issued by the budget analyst is accompanied by detailed payment
                 information to division managers.

                 The department also continues evaluating its financial management through
                 collaboration with other agencies. For example: DLCD participates on DAS
                 sponsored SPOTS card workgroups evaluating the processes for purchasing
                 with the SPOTS card.



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources         39
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
            4.        2009-11 Allotment reduction impact: $1.2 M
                      Reductions to General Fund Operations Program of a total $1,108,335.
                      Reductions to General Fund Grant Program of a total $175,606.

                  Reductions include:
                  •        Management service and executive service continuing pay freeze.
                  •        Management service and executive service required to take two
                           state Mandatory Unpaid Furlough Time Off (MUFTO) days in addition
                           to statewide MUFTO requirement.
                  •        Delay in hiring Planner 3 vacancy.
                  •        Layoff of limited duration Measure 49 staff.
                  •        Reductions in supplies and services including: instituting travel
                           restrictions throughout department and for Land Conservation and
                           Development Commission;
                  •        Reduction in Department of Justice expenses of approximately ten
                           percent; reduced personal services agreements associated with
                           Measure 49.
                  •        Layoff one permanent professional and one permanent
                           administrative position. Temporary reassignment of two professional
                           staff to Other Funds funded positions.



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources      40
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
           5.       Collective bargaining agreement:
                    DLCD employees are part of the American Federation of
                    State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSMCE)
                    Council 75. DLCD management team members have a
                    management representative serve with the Department of
                    Administrative Services at local table negotiations.

           6.       Vacancy report:
                    Appendix U.
                    Describes the current vacancies. Department has few
                    vacancies. Some vacancies were held to address
                    allotment reductions.

           7.       PERS retiree report:
                    Appendix V.
                       Report illustrates limited use of two returning
                       retirees—Doug White and Gail Churchill to train new
                       employees. There is no anticipation for continuance
                       in 2011-13.

Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   41
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                NATURAL RESOURCES
            SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL
                    QUESTIONS
            8.       Management to Staff Ration report:
                     Appendix W.
                     Describes the management to staff ratio. In 2009-11
                     management to staff ratio was 1:8. In 2011-13 the ratio is
                     1:10 as a result of changes in total staffing levels.

            9.       Contracts and Interagency Agreements (IGAs):
                     Appendix X.
                     DLCD contracts and (IGAs) are executed for specific
                     short term needs on a biennial basis. Many agreements
                     pertain to partnerships with the university systems. All
                     contracts and agreements closely follow the Oregon
                     Procurement rules requiring the “Best Buy” decision
                     process. For example: three quotes are received for
                     purchases over $500 are required.



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   42
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview

       • Land Conservation and Development
         Commission (SB 100)
             • Seven volunteer members from around
               the state
             • 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   43
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
          Agency Performance Overview




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   45
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        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   46
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
       Agency Performance Overview

                     Long-Term Strategic Goals

         1.      Promote Sustainable, Vibrant Communities
         2.      Secure Oregon’s Legacy
         3.      Engage Citizens and Stakeholders in
                 Continued Improvement of Oregon’s Land
                 Use Planning Program
         4.      Provide Timely and Dynamic Leadership
         5.      Deliver Resources and Services that are
                 Efficient, Outcome-Based and Professional


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   47
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview

                         Long-Term Strategic Goals
        1.      Promote Sustainable, Vibrant Communities:
                Integrate land use, transportation and public facilities
                planning. Assure that communities are providing land
                and facilities needed for employment and housing.

                  -       Economic Development is Top Priority for Technical
                          Assistance
                  -       Approximately 20 Economic Opportunity Analyses
                          funded in 2009-2011
                  -       ERT Coordination
                  -       Coastal grants support community development


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   48
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   49
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview
                         Long-Term Strategic Goals

       2.      Secure Oregon’s Legacy: Conserve coastal, farm
               forest, riparian and other resource lands. Promote a
               sense of place in the built and natural environments.
               Protect unique and threatened resources by guiding
               development to less sensitive areas.

                         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                 50
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview

                              Long-Term Strategic Goals
        3.      Engage citizens & stakeholders in continued
                improvement of Oregon’s Land Use Planning
                Program: Support regional perspectives and
                strengths; Ensure equitable application of regulatory
                programs; Develop strong, collaborative partnerships
                with citizens and communities.
                  -       Local Officials Advisory Committee reactivated
                  -       Support for AOC Farmland Task Force
                  -       UGB Safe Harbor Rules Tailored to Differing
                          Communities
                  -       Ongoing Work with ODOT, OBDD, and ERT
                  -       Citizen’s Involvement Advisory Committee
                  -       Implement Measure 49
                  -       Ocean Energy Planning


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   51
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview

                    Long-Term Strategic Goals
       4.      Provide Timely and Dynamic Leadership:
               Develop and coordinate strategic initiatives
               with other state agencies and local
               governments. Seek solutions that address
               immediate and long-range challenges
               including climate change, in collaboration with
               local governments, community and academic
               partners.
                -        Metro Urban and Rural Reserves
                -        Bear Creek RPS
                -        Preparing for the Effects of Climate Change
                -        Working with Metro and ODOT to Reduce GHG
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   52
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
       Agency Performance Overview

                         Long-Term Strategic Goals
        5.      Deliver Resources and Services that are Efficient,
                Outcome-Based and Professional: Provide local
                governments with services and resources to support
                their comprehensive planning process.

                  -       Over 1,400 PAPA and Periodic Reviews
                  -       15 to 25 UGB and Urban Reserve Decisions Expected
                  -       Planning for Statewide and Coastal Natural Hazards
                  -       Technical Assistance and Grant Awards to over 200
                          local jurisdictions




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   53
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
       Agency Performance Overview

            Shorter-Term Strategic Initiatives
       1.      Transportation Planning Rule Improvements
       2.      Land Supply/Regional Economic
               Development Planning
       3.      UGB/Urban Reserve Review Improvements
       4.      Complete Ocean Alternative Energy
               Planning
       5.      Begin Farm and Forest Lands Remapping
               Pilot
       6.      Information Management Services to Local
               Governments and the Public
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   54
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview

                        Shorter-Term Strategic Initiatives

            1.       Transportation Planning Rule
                     Improvements
            •        Assure that important employment opportunities are
                     not blocked by TPR mitigation requirements
            •        Preserve freight mobility
            •        Assure that desired forms of efficient urban
                     development are not discouraged through
                     application of the TPR
            •        Explore other, longer-term ideas for aligning
                     transportation and land use planning and financing


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   55
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview

                        Shorter-Term Strategic Initiatives

        2.         Land Supply/Regional Economic
                   Development Planning

        •          Improve the capacity of local and state governments to
                   evaluate the infrastructure required for future
                   development, along with methods for financing public
                   facilities and infrastructure.

        •          Develop new tools for managing urban growth to
                   promote timely and efficient development.

        •          Promote area-wide approaches to planning for
                   employment lands.


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   56
            Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview
                        Shorter-Term Strategic Initiatives

        3.         UGB/Urban Reserve Improvements

        •          Population forecasting and coordination
        •          Employment land need simplification
        •          Clarification of Urban Reserve requirements




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   57
            Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
           Agency Performance Overview
                   Short-Term Strategic Initiatives

       4.        Complete Ocean Alternative Energy
                 Planning

       •         Complete mapping of important ocean areas for
                 fisheries and other important values
       •         Adopt TSP provisions
       •         Incorporate into federally-approved coastal
                 management program so that it is used to site projects
                 requiring a FERC license




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   58
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
           Agency Performance Overview
                      Shorter-Term Strategic Initiatives

       5.        Begin Farm and Forest Lands Remapping
                 Pilot
       •         Identify a county to being scoping area(s) for potential
                 remapping
       •         Develop criteria for area-wide review
       •         Develop criteria for uses of nonresource lands
       •         Adopt rules
       •         Review and approve county proposal
       •         Review and improve system for other counties, and
                 work with local governments to identify resources to
                 complete the work


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   59
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview
                                        Short-Term Strategic Initiatives

        6.         Information Management and DLCD Services to
                   Local Governments and the Public

        •          Increase the department’s capacity to create, store and
                   analyze key data and records of local and state land use
                   program including land use plans, regulations and maps
        •          Create new methods, including web-based tools, to make
                   this information available to local governments, citizens and
                   stakeholders to be informed about, understand and more
                   readily participate in all aspects of the department’s mission
        •          Develop performance-based systems to measure key
                   outcomes, allowing more flexibility in the statewide land use
                   program, including sensitivity to regional and local
                   differences




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   60
            Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
        Agency Performance Overview

                       Key Performance
                          Measures
              Annual Performance Progress Report &
                      Management Report

                               (Also See Appendix R and S)




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   61
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                            Overview of KPMs
       Program: Measures performance related to sustainable
          economic development and resource land protection.
               •   Land Supply (KPM# 1, 2, 4, 8, 9)
               •   Public Facilities (KPM# 3, 5, 6)
               •   Conservation (KPM# 10, 11, 12)

       •     Agency: Measures performance related to helping
             communities plan for their futures
               •   Periodic Review and Plan Amendments
                   (KPM# 13, 14, 16, 18)
               •   Customer Service (KPM# 7, 15, 17, 19, 20)

       Recommended for Deletion:
               •   9—Natural Resource Inventories, 13—Periodic Review
                   Remands, 14—Timely Comments, 19— Measure 49



Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   62
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                 Program: Land Supply
         • Five KPMs addressing
           adequate supply of land for
           growth
               – Related to land for jobs and
                 housing
               – Addresses constrained lands
               – Measures 1, 2, 8 and 9 reflect
                 local plan updates, not state
                 actions


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   63
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                    Program: Land Supply
        KPM 1       EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY – Percent of                          Measure
                    cities that have an adequate supply of land for              since: 2002
                    industrial and other employment needs to
                    implement their local economic development
                    plan.


                                                                               Management Comment


                                                                               This measure tracks the
                                                                               number of cities over 2,500 in
                                                                               population that evaluate and
                                                                               update their employment land
                                                                               supply over a 10-year period.
                                                                               The measure does not track
                                                                               the adequacy of the quantity
                                                                               or quality of employment
                                                                               lands. The department is
                                                                               developing a more direct
                                                                               measure of the adequacy of
                                                                               the amount and development-
                                                                               readiness of employment
                                                                               lands, and will propose
                                                                               significant changes to this
                                                                               performance measure when an
                                                                               alternate measure is ready to
                                                                               implement.


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources               64
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                    Program: Land Supply
        KPM 2       HOUSING LAND SUPPLY – Percent of urban                        Measure
                    areas that have a sufficient supply of buildable              since: 2002
                    residential land to meet housing needs.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources        65
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                    Program: Land Supply
         KPM 4         CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL SITES –                            Measure since:
                       Number of new industrial sites certified                2003
                       as “project-ready” added each fiscal
                       year.


                                                                                Management Comment

                                                                                This performance measure is
                                                                                shared with Business Oregon and
                                                                                ERT. DLCD's role is to provide
                                                                                technical assistance to local
                                                                                governments, Business Oregon
                                                                                and ERT on land use issues.
                                                                                Business Oregon, DLCD and
                                                                                ODOT have enhanced their
                                                                                efforts in regard to this program,
                                                                                and expect progress if resources
                                                                                continue to be available.
                                                                                Although only one site qualified
                                                                                for the 2009-10 fiscal year, three
                                                                                sites qualified within calendar
                                                                                year 2010. Recent information
                                                                                indicates that additional sites are
                                                                                coming online in the first half of
                                                                                2011.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources                    66
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                    Program: Land Supply
       KPM 8      COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING – Percent                            Measure
                  of estuarine areas designated as “development                   since: 2002
                  management units” in 2000 that retain that
                  designation.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources        67
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                    Program: Land Supply
         KPM 9       NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORIES –                                  Measure
                     Percent of urban areas that have updated                         since: 2002
                     buildable land inventories to account for
                     natural resource and hazard areas



                                                                         Management Comment

                                                                         This KPM is recommended for deletion. It
                                                                         focuses on annual process rather than long-
                                                                         term outcomes. Much of what is intended
                                                                         for this KPM is tracked in KPM #2,
                                                                         Housing Land Supply. Additionally, the
                                                                         target for this KPM is confusing due to
                                                                         measuring local jurisdiction activities that
                                                                         pertain to two different state land use
                                                                         planning goals--Goal 5, Natural Resources,
                                                                         Scenic and Historic Areas and Open
                                                                         Spaces; and Goal 7, Areas Subject to
                                                                         Natural Hazards. The department does
                                                                         assist local jurisdictions with natural
                                                                         hazards planning and mapping, but this
                                                                         KPM is not the best or most accurate way
                                                                         to measure that activity




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources                       68
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
               Program: Public Facilities

            • Three KPMs addressing planning for
              urban public facilities and services
                   – Related to sewer and water, transit-
                     supportive land use, and transportation
                     funding
                   – Measures local actions, not state actions
            • Met all targets




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   69
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
               Program: Public Facilities
        KPM 3      PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS – Percent of cities                    Measure
                   that have updated the local plan to include                    since: 2002
                   reasonable cost estimates and funding plans for
                   sewer and water systems.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources       70
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
               Program: Public Facilities
       KPM 5      TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE – Percent of                        Measure
                  urban areas with a population greater than 25,000               since: 2002
                  that have adopted transit-supportive land use
                  regulations.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources        71
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
               Program: Public Facilities
       KPM 6      TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES – Percent of                          Measure
                  urban areas that have updated the local plan to                 since: 2002
                  include reasonable cost estimates and funding
                  plans for transportation facilities.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources        72
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                   Program: Conservation

            • Three KPMs addressing conservation
              of farm and forest resources
            • Met or exceeded two of three targets
            • Also see department’s Farm/Forest
              Report
            • Department is undertaking new data
              sharing with Department of Forestry




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   73
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                  Program: Conservation
      KPM 10       FARM LAND – Percent of farm land outside                       Measure
                   urban growth boundaries zoned for exclusive                    since: 2002
                   farm use in 1987 that retains that zoning.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources        74
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                  Program: Conservation
      KPM 11       FOREST LAND – Percent of forest land                        Measure
                   outside urban growth boundaries zoned in 1987               since: 2002
                   for forest or mixed farm/forest use that remains
                   zoned for those uses.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources       75
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                   Program: Conservation
            KPM         URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY                                  Measure since:
            12          EXPANSION – Percent of land added                      2002
                        to urban growth boundaries that is not
                        farm or forest land.



                                                                      Management Comment


                                                                      The target had been exceeded for the
                                                                      prior three years. Outcomes for this
                                                                      performance measure can be highly
                                                                      variable depending on the location of
                                                                      the urban growth boundary under
                                                                      consideration for expansion.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources                   76
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                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   77
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                Agency: Periodic Review
                 and Plan Amendments
       KPM 13       PERIODIC REVIEW REMANDS – Percent of                          Measure
                    periodic review work tasks that are returned to               since: 2003
                    local jurisdictions for further action.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources        78
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                Agency: Periodic Review
                 and Plan Amendments
        KPM 14            TIMELY COMMENTS – Percent of                            Measure since:
                          DLCD concerns or recommendations                        2003
                          regarding local plan amendments that
                          are provided to local governments
                          within the statutory deadlines for such
                          comments.



                                                                               Management Comment
                                                                               This performance measure is
                                                                               recommended for elimination. It
                                                                               measures activity that is already
                                                                               statutorily required (responses to
                                                                               plan amendments within a certain
                                                                               amount of time). This KPM has
                                                                               been met the 100% target 5 of the
                                                                                last 6 years.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources                      79
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                Agency: Periodic Review
                 and Plan Amendments
      KPM 16       LAND USE APPEALS – Percentage of agency                        Measure
                   appeals of local land use decisions that were                  since: 2003
                   upheld by LUBA and the Courts.

                                                                                     DLCD notes
                                                                                     LUBA referred
                                                                                     W/M question to
                                                                                     DLCD regarding
                                                                                     % of Periodic
                                                                                     Review
                                                                                     Appealed to
                                                                                     LUBA. The
                                                                                     percentage of
                                                                                     Periodic Review
                                                                                     Appealed is 0%:

                                                                                     For FY
                                                                                     2009 &
                                                                                     2010,
                                                                                     DLCD filed
                                                                                     three LUBA
                                                                                     appeals,
                                                                                     none of
                                                                                     which
                                                                                     involved
                                                                                     periodic
                                                                                     review.
Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources         80
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                Agency: Periodic Review
                 and Plan Amendments
       KPM 18       TASK REVIEW – Percent of periodic review                      Measure
                    work tasks under review at DLCD for no longer                 since: 2003
                    than four months.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources       81
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             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   82
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             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   83
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
               Agency: Customer Service

       Services:
                                                           •    Financial reporting and
       •     Technical assistance                               accountability
       •     Planning grants                               •    Vested rights determinations
       •     Data collection & reporting                   •    Government to Government
                                                                relations
       •     Archival library of planning
                                                           •    Economic development planning
             documents
                                                           •    Natural resource protection
       •     Training and outreach for                     •    Transportation and land use
             local governments                                  coordination
       •     LCDC regional tours and                       •    Housing needs analyses
             discussion                                    •    Natural hazards inventories
       •     Planners Network meetings                     •    Cultural, historic and natural
                                                                resource inventories
       •     State agency coordination                     •    Citizen involvement
       •     Land use proposal review                      •    Recreational needs analysis
       •     Periodic Review coordination                  •    Agricultural protection
                                                           •    Forest protection
                                                           •    Strategic planning


Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources        84
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             Agency: Customer Service
        KPM 7        Percentage of local participants who rank DLCD               Measure
                     involvement in the ERT process as good to                    since:
                     excellent.                                                   2006



        •Focuses on customers at the local and state government level




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources      85
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             Agency: Customer Service
       KPM 15       GRANT AWARDS – Percent of local grants                        Measure
                    awarded to local governments within two months                since: 2003
                    after receiving application.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources       86
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             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   87
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
         Agency: Customer Service

            • KPM No. 17: Customer Service




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   88
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             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 (claims filed after Jan. 1, 2007)
       • 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   89
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
         Agency: Customer Service
         KPM No. 19: Measure 49



                                                                   Management Comment

                                                                   This performance measure is recommended for
                                                                   elimination. It focuses only on new Measure 49
                                                                   claims, based on regulations After January 1,
                                                                   2007.For all categories of Measure 49 claims,
                                                                   the department has issued a summary M49
                                                                   Report.




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources                     90
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             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   91
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
             Agency: Customer Service

                     KPM No. 20: Best Practices




Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources   92
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
                                  Appendices
            A.       Program Overview
            B.       2009-11 Biennial Report
            C.       Strategic Plan
            D.       Farm/Forest Report
            E.       Transportation (TGM) Report
            F.       Measure 49 Report
            G.       Climate Change Adaptation Report
            H.       Government to Government Report
            I.       Sustainability Plan
            J.       Prioritization List
            K.       2011-13 Budget Crosswalk
            L.       Current Service Level (CSL)
            M.       State Government Service Charges
            N.       Prior Budget Notes
            O.       HB 3182 Reductions & 25% Plan
            P.       Local Jurisdiction Grants (General Fund)
            Q.       Coastal Grants (Federal Fund)
            R.       Major Program Changes in the Past 10 Years
            S.       2010 Annual Performance Progress Report
            T.       2010 APPR Management Report
            U.       NR Committee Request: Vacant positions, current list
            V.       NR Committee Request: PERS retiree/rehire
            W.       NR Committee Request: Prioritization list: Management to line staff ratios
            X.       Committee Request: Contracts & Interagency Agreements (IGAs)

Budget Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources            93
         Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (March 2011)
DLCD - 1                                                                      APPENDIX A




                                                            ORGANIZATION
Who We Are
           The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is a
           small state agency. We work in close partnership with local governments, state
           development agencies (Transportation and Business Oregon), and natural
           resource agencies (Agriculture, Forestry, Water Resources, State Lands,
           Environmental Quality and Fish and Wildlife). The Land Conservation and
           Development Commission provides the policy direction for the statewide land use
           system, and reviews certain major local land use decisions (other land use
           decisions are reviewed by a separate agency - the Land Use Board of Appeals).
           We are organized into four divisions for the 2011-13 biennium:

                  • Ocean and Coastal Services - oversees Oregon’s federally delegated
                  coastal program, providing grants and technical assistance to coastal
                  communities.
                  • Planning Services - reviews over 1,350 local plan amendments per year
                  and provides technical expertise in urban, rural and transportation/growth
                  management areas.
                  • Community Services - administers grants programs to local
                  governments and provides technical assistance from four regional offices
                  around the state.
                  • Administration - provides support for LCDC, policy development and
                  operations.

           We help communities across the state plan for their future. Cities, counties and
           special districts are the “front line” of the statewide program. We recognize that
           each city and county has unique values and aspirations, and that it is our job to
           help them, within the broad direction provided by state policy. The core functions
           of the program are management of urban growth and conservation of rural lands,
           which are carried out throughout the statewide planning goals and city and county
           comprehensive plans. Helping cities and counties address these functions in the
           context of a wide range of state and local interests, requires that we be problem
           solvers. The department’s mission reflects this active role for our department.


DLCD’s Mission
           To help communities and citizens plan for, protect and improve the
           built and natural systems that provide a high quality of life. In
           partnership with citizens and local governments, we foster sustainable
           and vibrant communities and protect our natural resources legacy.



                                                                                            1
DLCD - 2                                                                            APPENDIX A


                  .

Oregon’s Statewide Land Use Program
           Oregon’s land use planning program is an innovative response to the pressures of
           development and urban growth on the state’s communities and landscape. The
           essential framework for the program was established by the legislature in the early
           1970’s under the leadership of Governor McCall. Thirty-five years later the
           framework remains, but with changes reflecting changing values, needs and
           conditions.

A Summary of Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals

           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
           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.

                                                                                                    2
DLCD - 3                                                                           APPENDIX A


           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.

           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.




                                                                                                 3
DLCD - 4                                                                          APPENDIX A




                                                                      ORGANIZATION
The Land Conservation and Development Commission
                        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.


Most of LCDC’s seven
volunteer members are now
                                               John VanLandingham, Chair
or were formerly officials
                                                         Attorney, Eugene
of cities
or counties across
Oregon.

                                             Greg Macpherson,
                                             Attorney, Lake Oswego




                                                                       Barton
                                                                     Eberwein
                                                                   Construction
                                                                     Executive
                                                                      Portland
LCDC sets agency policy,
develops regulations, and
oversees the management
and operations of the                        Marilyn Worrix
agency.                                      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


                                                                                                  4
DLCD - 5                                                                                 APPENDIX A



DLCD’s Organization

                        In 2009-11, The Department of Land Conservation and Development has
Many department         five divisions:
staff are based in
Salem, in the north         • Community Services Division
wing of the                 • Planning Services Division
Agriculture                 • Ocean-Coastal Services Division
Building. DLCD              • Measure 49 Development Services Division
has a Portland field
office with                 • Operations Services Division
six employees.
DLCD also has           Each division has a manager who reports to the director and deputy
field offices in        director. Policy analysis, legislative liaison functions, rules coordination,
Newport (3
employees), Bend
                        LCDC support and communications are in the director’s office.
(3), Springfield (1),
and La Grande (1).

                                                       Director’s Office



                           Community        Planning        Ocean-         Measure 49      Operations
                            Services        Services        Coastal          Dev.           Services
                            Division        Division        Services        Services        Division
                                                            Division        Division




                                                                                                        5
DLCD - 6                                                                  APPENDIX A



                                                                   SERVICES

   Communities of Interest We Serve
                Oregon’s statewide planning program addresses a wide array of issues
                and interests. Each community in the state is in effect a client with
                unique needs. DLCD implements its program responsibilities and
                services 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 197.160), which advises local governments and LCDC on how
                to improve citizen participation.

                Working with Oregon Communities
                Oregon’s statewide planning program is most effective when
                communities, regions and state agencies work cooperatively to plan for
                and invest in successful, sustainable futures. The fate of Oregon’s future
                rests in large part on the successful implementation of thoughtful local
                planning. In order to help Oregon communities make the best possible
                decisions about their futures, DLCD works to make real-time
                information and state-of-the-art planning practices available in the
                regions of the state and from its Salem office. Assistance in provided
                through many forums: regular communications and technical assistance
                to local governments, network planners’ meetings; grants; periodic
                review; and plan amendment review. For specifics on each of these
                areas, please review the department’s 2009-11 Biennial Report.

                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.




                                                                                          6
DLCD - 7                                                                 APPENDIX A



           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.

           Department staff also participate regularly on the following:
                • Technical advisory committees for local planning projects;
                • Regional Economic Revitalization Teams (ERT);
                • Area Commissions on Transportation (ACT);
                • Regional investment panels for economic and community
                  development; and
                • Other local government discussions.

           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.




                                                                                     7
DLCD - 8                                                                  APPENDIX A


  Services and Programs
                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 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.


                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.

                                                                                        8
DLCD - 9                                                           APPENDIX A


           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
           197.628 – 197.636)

           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 2009-11
           bienniums, local governments are expected to file over 1,350 plan
           amendments. 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 2009-11 biennium, the
           department appealed three locally adopted plan amendments. (ORS
           197.610 - 197.625)

           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
           197.180).

           Landowner Notification
           Ballot Measure 56 (1998) requires notification to property owners
           when a regulation is adopted or amended that may affect the use 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.




                                                                                   9
DLCD - 10


                                                                                  APPENDIX A

                GOVERNOR’S BALANCED BUDGET AND
                               REVENUE SOURCES

  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 Adopted Budget for the 2009-
  11 biennium and the Governor’s Balanced Budget for 2011-13.




                GOVERNOR’S BALANCED BUDGET
                                                                                      2011‐13 
                                                      2009‐11 Legislatively 
                                                                                    Governor’s 
                                                        Adopted Budget 
                                                                                  Balanced Budget 
  General Fund                                                    $16,793,066           $11,440,378 
  Lottery Fund (Debt Service)                                              ‐0‐                   ‐0‐ 
  Other Funds                                                         863,649             1,363,210 
  Federal Funds                                                     6,598,675             5,860,289 
  Other Funds (non‐limited)                                                ‐0‐                   ‐0‐ 
  Federal Funds (non‐limited)                                              ‐0‐                   ‐0‐ 
  Total Funds                                                     $24,255,390           $18,663,877 
  Full‐Time Equivalent (FTE)                                            74.74                  55.80 




                                                                                                10
DLCD - 11


                                                                                             APPENDIX A


                                   2011‐13 GBB Significant Changes 

  Reductions in Staffing:  ‐ $0.9 million GF (6 positions) 
   Reductions include: 
   Director’s Office – two staff 
   Measure 49 Services – three staff 
   Operations Services – one staff 
  Reductions in Grant Funds:  ‐ $0.6 million GF 
  Reduces grant funding for local government technical and planning assistance by approximately 30%.  
  The top priority for assistance grants is to help cities and counties plan for industrial and other 
  employment uses, including how to provide the services needed for those uses to locate and grow. 
  Decreased funding levels would continue into the 2013‐15 biennium unless policy option packages were 
  legislatively‐approved. 
  Policy Packages 
  070:  ‐$78,983 OF (‐0.35 FTE) (funding added back in Pkg 090) 
  Reduces Other Funds reflecting revenue shortfall from Oregon Dept. of Transportation for Transportation 
  & Growth Management Program. 
  101:  +$178,702 OF (+1.00 FTE LD) 
  Increases Other Funds reflecting completion of HB 2001 (2009) with ODOT and Metro and local 
  governments in the Metro area to continue work on greenhouse gas emissions reduction from 
  transportation. Package proposes limited duration funding from the Oregon Department of 
  Transportation. 
  102: +$426,264 OF (+0.36 FTE) 
  Increases Other Funds reflecting implementation of HB 3647 (2010), which establishes a process for 
  objective third‐party review of soils reports used to classify land as farm or non‐farm land.  Program is 
  fee‐based. Landowners seeking a zoning change would pay a fee for the analysis. 
  106: +272,557 FF (+1.00 FTE LD) 
  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has instituted an ongoing program: Risk Mapping 
  and Assessment (RiskMap). Program provides resources for local communities to identify natural 
  hazards. 
  108:  +$50,000 GF placeholder (0 FTE) (additional $219,000 included in GBB) 
  Limited duration funding of remaining Attorney General costs related to litigation under Measure 49. 
   




                                                                                                           11
 DLCD - 12                                           Appendix B


2009-11 Biennial Report
                        to the

76th Legislative Assembly




 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
                      February 2011
     DLCD - 13                                                                                        Appendix B




    I. Message from Director Whitman




    With three full years into the director’s position, this report is my opportunity to introduce readers
    to the many accomplishments and abilities of this small and dynamic department. From the start,
    the planning program was a partnership between the state, cities and counties, with regular input
    from concerned citizens. Our department helps communities across the state plan for their future.
    That is why I continue to travel extensively through out the state and rely on the daily work of the
    department’s regional representatives and other staff to keep in close contact with the diverse needs,
    desires and experiences of people in all corners of Oregon. This report reflects the participation of
    those many partners, and the progress, outcomes and issues of the land use program statewide.

    The 2009-11 biennium has been a time of thought-provoking and wide-ranging issues. We were
    able to finish the substantial work required by Ballot Measures 37 and 49, on time and on budget.
    Working at the request of Governor Kulongoski, the department assisted the Land Conservation and
    Development Commission (LCDC) in preparing for legislative creation of the state’s first Area of
    State Critical Concern (ACSC) for the Metolius River Basin. Elsewhere, Portland Metro urban and
    rural reserves have largely been completed, helping bring certainty for farmers and other business
    owners who are making investments in Oregon’s future, and allowing communities to plan for the
    most efficient forms of urbanization.

    In the past year, the department has worked with other agencies to begin preparing for climate
    change. Other sustainability-related efforts include greenhouse gas reduction in the six Metropolitan
    Planning Organization areas of the state and Ocean Alternative Energy Planning. The department
    is also implementing new market-based methods for conserving commercial forestlands through a
    Transfer of Development Rights program.

    While work on the big-picture policy issues absorbed some resources, the main focus of the agency
    has been on its core mission. This core work included periodic reviews of comprehensive plans (11),
    plan amendment reviews (over 1,350), urban growth boundary decisions (ten), $2.8 million in grant
    awards to over 200 cities and counties and technical assistance to local jurisdictions. This bread-
    and-butter work is vitally important to cities and counties in meeting their needs for growth and
    livability.

    While many of the activities described have been successfully concluded, others continue into the
    next biennium, with a heightened focus on the economy. The department’s role continues to be one
    of problem-solving, and serving as a bridge between local community and desires and overarching
    policy and values. 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 the economy, while
    preserving the quality of life that makes Oregon such a special place to live.
2                                                                      2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
    DLCD - 14                                                                      Appendix B



                                    Contents
    I. Message from Director Whitman                2

    I. Department Overview             4
        Oregon’s Statewide Land Use Program         6

        Major Policy Initiatives and Results 7


    II. Program Achievements by Goal and Program                       12
        Strategic Goal: Promote Sustainable Vibrant Communities        13

        Strategic Goal: Secure Oregon’s Legacy      18

        Strategic Goal: Engage Citizens and Stakeholders in Continued
        Improvements of Oregon’s Land Use Planning Program          28

        Strategic Goal: Provide Timely and Dynamic Leadership          30

        Strategic Goal: Deliver Resources and Services that are Efficient,
        Outcome-based and Professional       34


    IV. Looking to the Future          39

    V. Supplementary Information              41




3                                                        2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
        DLCD - 15                                                                                       Appendix B
    I. Department Overview
    Who We Are
    The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is a small state agency.
    We work in close partnership with local governments, state development agencies (Transportation
    and Business Oregon), and natural resource agencies (Agriculture, Forestry, Water Resources, State
    Lands, Environmental Quality and Fish and Wildlife). The Land Conservation and Development
    Commission provides the policy direction for the statewide land use system, and reviews certain
    major local land use decisions (other land use decisions are reviewed by a seperate agency - the Land
    Use Board of Appeals). We are organized into four divisions:

    •    Ocean and Coastal Services - oversees Oregon’s federally delegated coastal program, providing
         grants and technical assistance to coastal communities.
    •    Planning Services - reviews over 1,300 local plan amendments per year and provides technical
         expertise in urban, rural and transportation/growth management areas.
    •    Community Services - administers grants programs to local governments and provides
         technical assistance from four regional offices around the state.
    •    Administration - provides support for LCDC, policy development and operations.


                                                                                    “The program’s success
                                                                                     The
                                                                                    “Th rogram’ uccess
                                                                                    is due to the working
    What We Do                                                                                              e
                                                                                    partnership between state
    We help communities across the state plan for their future. Cities,             and local governments
    counties and special districts are the “front line” of the statewide            and to citizen
    program. We recognize that each city and county has unique values               participation.” - Renew
    and aspirations, and that it is our job to help them, within the broad          America (National
    direction provided by state policy. The core functions of the program are       Conservation Program
    management of urban growth and conservation of rural lands, which are
    carried out throughout the statewide planning goals and city and county
    comprehensive plans. Helping cities and counties address these functions
    in the context of a wide range of state and local interests, requires that we
    be problem solvers. The department’s mission reflects this active role for
    our department.




                     “To help communities and citizens plan for, protect and improve
                    the built and natural systems that provide a high quality of life.
                    In partnership with citizens and local governments, we foster
                    sustainable and vibrant communities and protect our natural
                    resources legacy.”




4                                                                        2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
     DLCD - 16                                                                              Appendix B
    What We Have Accomplished - A partial summary of accomplishments and out-
    comes for the 2009-11 biennium
    $2.1 million                           Completed                           Assisted in
    general fund                           phase I of the                      Vernonia
    grants awarded                         Territorial Sea                     recovery efforts
    as technical                           Plan - Text                         through the
    assistance                             and policies                        Director’s
    grants to local                        for alternative                     Office, TGM
    governments for                        (wave) energy                       Rapid Response,
    comprehensive                                                              hazards
    plan updates                                                               mapping and
                                                                               Community
                                                                               Services Staff


                        Recommended                            Reviewed over
                        creation of                            1,350 Plan
                        Metolius Area of                       Amendments
                        Critical Concern                       submitted
                        to legislature                         by local
                        (approved)                             governments



    Acres added to                         % of farm land                      $750,000 in
    UGBs = 22,071                          zoned EFU in                        Oregon Coastal
    approved or                            1987 that retains                   Management
    pending for 2000-                      that zoning                         Program
    2010                                   today = 99.87%                      (federal) grants
                                                                               awarded


                        Expected                               Completed
                        Completion of                          M49 claims
                        the Bear Creek                         processing =
                        Valley (Jackson                        4,407 Final
                        County) Regional                       Orders issued
                        Problem Solving
                        Project



    Waivers issued                                                             $5 million in
    for new dwellings                                                          TGM grants co-
    under M49 =                                                                awarded with
    6,131                                                                      ODOT
    New parcels =
    3,878

5                                                                 2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
     DLCD - 17                                                                                          Appendix B
    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 and includes a current or former elected official of a city
    and a county, as required by statute.

    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 2010, LCDC was comprised of:


                                                     John VanLandingham, Chair
                                                     (Tillamook)



                      Marilyn Worrix                                                      Greg Macpherson
                      (McMinnville)                                                       (Lake Oswego)




                      Barton Eberwein
                                                                                          Tim Josi
                      (Portland)
                                                                                          (Tillamook)




                     Christine Pellett                                                   Hanley Jenkins
                     (Central Point                                                      (Union)




    The Commission meets every six weeks. In the 2009-11 biennium, LCDC held meetings around
    the state, in Madras, Brookings, Hillsboro, Springfield, Bend, Lincoln City and John Day, as well
    as in 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.

    The Commission approves a biennial policy agenda, which sets both the policy and much of the
    programmatic agenda for the agency. Portions of this agenda are reflected throughout this report
    with regard to rulemaking, major policy or program initiatives, such as climate change and the
    Territorial Sea Plan, and relations with local governments and key constituencies.


6                                                                        2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
     DLCD - 18                                                                                         Appendix B
    Local Governments

    Oregon’s land use program is designed to serve all citizens of the state. It does this by creating
    a framework for each city and county to engage its residents in planning for their particular
    aspirations. The most immediate clients or consumers of the program are, therefore, Oregon cities
    and counties.

    The Oregon land use program supports the work of the 242 cities and 36 counties in the state. It
    does this through a small staff of regional representatives and program specialists, and through
    several financial assistance programs to assist local planning efforts. Under state law, the program
    focuses some of its resources on larger cities (generally those over 10,000 in population); however
    technical assistance is provided to all cities and counties.

    Services, grants and communications with local governments are portrayed throughout this report.
    Organizational links with cities and counties also assist the state and local relationship, and include
    the department’s Local Official’s Advisory Committee (LOAC).

    Summary of 2009-11 DLCD Grants to Local Governments

    Grant assistance to local governments, in addition to technical assistance, has been a key operating
    arm of the program since the inception of the statewide planning program.

            General Fund Grants                   TGM Grants               Oregon Coastal Management
                (budgeted)                (co-awarded but not budgeted      Program (budgeted federal
                                             nor managed by DLCD)                    funds)

                  $2,100,000                      $5,000,000                          $750,000
         (150 cities, counties, special                                     (37 cities, counties, special
                   districts)                                                         districts)


    Major Policy Initiatives and Results
    1.        Implementation of Ballot Measures 37 and 49
              (successful completion of this program to compensate long-term property owners in
              rural areas for the application of state regulation)

    In November 2000, 53 percent of Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 7, amending Oregon’s
    Constitution to require compensation for land use regulations that restrict the use and reduce
    the value of private property. Although that ballot measure was subsequently struck down by the
    Oregon Supreme Court, in November 2004, Oregonians approved Measure 37, a statutory measure
    that required payment or “waiver” of land use regulations. Measure 37 contained virtually no detail
    regarding how it was to be administered, except that property owners were entitled to payment
    unless the government acted to waive regulations within 180 days of a demand presenting state and
    local government with an enormous administrative challenge and fiscal risk (particularly in the face
    of legislative inaction). Close to 7,000 Measure 37 claims were filed with state and local governments



7                                                                        2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
     DLCD - 19                                                                                      Appendix B
    each requiring review to determine what the owners were entitled to do with the property when they
    acquired it. Remarkably, the state and local governments were able to review claims within the 180-
    day deadline, and avoid incurring liability.

    In November 2007, the voters approved Measure 49, amending Measure 37 to substitute more
    limited relief for property owners, in the form of authorizations for a limited number of dwellings
    on rural lands. The state now has completed review of the 4,700 Measure 49 claims. Although a
    small number of additional claims remain to be reviewed in late 2010 and early 2011, the work to
    resolve the long-standing dispute over the lack of fairness in Oregon’s land use system has reached
    a milestone. In contrast to 2002, when there were substantial questions about the survival of the
    statewide land use program, the system is now on relatively stable footing with Oregonians and local
    governments.

    The following table shows new dwellings and parcels authorized by Measure 49, by County. (For
    more information see the department’s “Final Measure 49 Report”)
                County             New Dwellings     Average New Dwellings Per Claim         New Parcels
    Baker                   112                    1.7                                 54
    Benton                  90                     1.6                                 53
    Clackamas               1145                   1.7                                 802
    Clatsop                 51                     1.8                                 33
    Columbia                87                     1.9                                 60
    Coos                    180                    1.9                                 103
    Crook                   42                     2.1                                 26
    Curry                   96                     2.0                                 46
    Deschutes               135                    1.6                                 96
    Douglas                 201                    1.7                                 142
    Grant                   5                      1.7                                 5
    Hood River              5                      1.7                                 5
    Jackson                 434                    1.7                                 298
    Jefferson               182                    2.2                                 111
    Josephine               132                    1.8                                 98
    Klamath                 193                    2.1                                 76
    Lake                    1                      1.0                                 1
    Lane                    450                    2.0                                 279
    Lincoln                 109                    1.8                                 49
    Linn                    327                    1.8                                 214
    Malheur                 17                     1.5                                 10
    Marion                  356                    1.7                                 221
    Multnomah               79                     1.7                                 36
    Polk                    305                    1.8                                 184
    Tillamook               70                     2.0                                 41
    Umatilla                55                     2.2                                 30
    Union                   27                     1.5                                 19
    Wallowa                 61                     2.2                                 37
    Wasco                   44                     1.7                                 21
    Washington              593                    1.7                                 383
    Yamhill                 389                    1.7                                 238
    State Total             6,131                  1.8                                 3,878
8                                                                     2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 20                                                                                    Appendix B
    2.     30-Year Review of Oregon’s Land Use System
           (completion of an independent review of the statewide land use system)
    Senate Bill 82 (2005) launched a four-year “Big Look” review of Oregon’s land use program by an
    independent task force. The task force found that Oregon’s land use program has been successful
    on conserving farm and forest lands and in avoiding sprawl. The task force recommended modest
    changes to the program, which were enacted by the 2009 Legislative Assembly in House Bill 2229.
    Much work remains to implement the task force recommendations, although the agency has begun
    some aspects of the work using existing resources (for example, review of mis-zoned rural lands).

    3.      Protecting the Metolius
            (removing threats from large scale development from an iconic river basin)
    In 2007, two seperate development companies proposed constructing over 6,000 second homes
    and lodging units in and near the Metolius River Basin. In response, Governor Kulongoski asked
    the agency to consider using a tool created by Governor Tom McCall in the original state land use
    system-designation of an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). After holding multiple hearings in
    the Metolius area, and many meetings with affected local governments, the commission proposed an
    ACSC and associated management plan to the 2009 legislature. Although the plan was controversial,
    it preserved both development
    opportunities for the landowners
    and protected the unique landscape
    and resources of the Metolius for all
    Oregonians. The agency worked closely
    with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
    Springs Reservation, local governments,
    state agencies and the U.S. Forest Service
    to evaluate the long-term carrying capacity
    of the basin and its resources as the basis
    for the management plan. (For more
    information see the department’s “Final
    Metolius Basin Area of Critical Concern”
    report Submitted to the Oregon Legislature
                                                  Metolius River at Wizard Falls
    April 2, 2009)
    4.      Portland Metro Urban and Rural Reserves
            (a landmark decision to identify and protect both development and resource areas
            for 50 years)
    LCDC first authorized the use of urban reserves as a tool for planning for urban growth in the early
    1990’s. Metro made an initial, unsuccessful attempt to designate urban reserves in the late 1990’s.
    Following this effort, Metro, the Portland-area counties and the agency developed a more balanced
    approach to identify which areas will remain rural in the long-term and which are more suited for
    urbanization. The purpose of this effort is to provide the certainty for rural landowners needed to
    encourage long-term investments in agriculture and forest operations, while allowing communities
    to plan for the most efficient forms of urbanization. Lessons from this Metro reserves process will
    help inform efforts to improve the urban reserve planning process for other regions of the state.

    In early 2010, Metro and the three area counties adopted intergovernmental agreements representing
    a regional consensus on urban and rural reserve designations. Although the reserve designations are
    still being finalized, the fact that the region has arrived at a consensus vision for long-term growth
    management is in itself a significant accomplishment. The agency played an important supporting
    role to the region, and coordinated eight other state agency participants in the regional planning
    effort.
9                                                                         2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 21                                                                                       Appendix B
     5.       Jackson County Regional Plan
              (facilitation of a mutli-jurisdiction process in southern Oregon to designate urban
              reserves - the priority areas for the future growth of this important region)
     Jackson County and six cities in the Rogue Valley have been working on their own regional planning
     effort, known as the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project. This effort, which
     is expected to be completed in early 2011, will designate urban reserves in this area of southern
     Oregon, opening the way for long-term protection of important agricultural areas and long-term
     planning for transportation and other key infrastructure for the region. The agency has, again played
     a key role in facilitating the regional effort and in coordinating the state agency involvement.

     6.      Economic Development Planning
             (collaboration with key local government focusing on job growth)
     In the past two years, DLCD has funded close to 20 economic development planning efforts that
     help local communities make sure they have the land and services needed to support business
     development and retention. Under Goal 9 of the land use program, communities are required to
     plan for their future economic development. This means that each community evaluates what its
     relative strengths are for employment growth (through an economic opportunities analysis (EOA),
     and adjusts its land use plans to ensured that it has sufficient land and adequate public facilities to
     serve that future development.

     Through the state’s certified “shovel-ready” industrial site program, industrial lands are “pre-
     certified” as having necessary state and local permits for development, allowing state and local
     economic development staff to market the sites aggressively. Oregon has certified 56 sites in 24
     counties, of which 19 have been sold or partially sold, leading to 2,500 jobs. Importantly, the
     program has served to focus efforts of DLCD, Business Oregon and the Oregon Department of
     Transportation in working together to create new economic development opportunities in locations
     around the state. The agencies now meet regularly at the senior staff, director and commission levels.

     7.      Ocean Alternative Energy Planning
             (alternative energy planning and fisheries protection)
     In March 2008, Governor Kulongoski directed the department to work with a variety of stakeholders
     and other agencies to prepare a plan for development of ocean wave energy resources and to adopt
     that plan by the end of 2009 as an amendment to the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan. The agency led a
     successful effort to complete Phase 1 of this plan, the policy and process element, in November 2009.

     The agency is currently working with other state agencies, local fishermen, organizations, coastal
     communities and non-governmental organizations to prepare Phase 2 of the plan. Phase 2,
     which is the spatial planning element that will identify areas important to fisheries that should be
     protected, ecological areas that should be off limits and areas where energy development may be
     permitted. That work is expected to be completed by the end of 2011. The Federal Energy Regulatory
     Commission has agreed, via an intergovernmental agreement with the State of Oregon, that it will
     consider provisions of this plan in making decisions about licensing ocean energy.




10                                                                        2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 22                                                                                         Appendix B
     8.  Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation
          (invigorating the department’s ongoing contribution to sustainability)

          •   Greenhouse Gas Reduction
              Legislative direction to reduce greenhouse gas reduction began in 2007, with House Bill
              3543, which set a state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75 percent by the year
              2050. Additional direction was given in 2009 (Senate Bill 2001, applying primarily to the
              Portland metropolitan area) and 2010 (Senate Bill 1059, applying to five other metropolitan
              areas in the state). DLCD and ODOT share planning and development responsibilities along
              with local governments in the metropolitan areas. The department has provided enhanced
              staffing to assist LCDC to adopt a target in early 2011 for the Portland metropolitan area for
              the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles for the year 2035. Additional
              activity, including rulemaking, will be required of the department in the 2011-13 biennium.

          •   Climate Change Adaptation
              The 2007 Legislature directed the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI) to
              assess the state of climate change science as it pertains to Oregon at least once per biennium.
              In January 2009, LCDC began to consider the role of the land use program in adapting to the
              effects of climate change. In July 2009, LCDC adopted an interim strategy for climate change,
              which included elements for both mitigating the drivers of climate change and adapting to
              the effects of climate variability and change. In October 2009, Governor Kulongoski asked
              the department, about 20 other agencies and entities in the Oregon University System to
              develop a climate adaptation plan for Oregon. In consultation with a team of state agency
              directors, DLCD staff facilitated a process to develop a framework for climate change
              adaptation planning, which was completed and released in December 2010. The Framework
              and a Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations are available on the department’s
              website at http://www.lcd.state.or.us. (see The Oregon Climate Change Adaption Framework—
              Dec. 2010)

     9.     Forest Land Conversion and Transfer of Development Rights
            (seeking non-regulatory solutions to conversion of forest lands)
     Although Oregon’s land use program is effective in preventing sprawl, it still allows a low level of
     dispersed residential use, even on timber lands. Research by the U.S. Forest Service shows that
     even sparse residential development effectively converts surrounding lands from active timber
     management to very large lot residential uses over time (as a result of management conflicts and
     changes in land values).

     In cooperation with the Department of Forestry, DLCD has researched the scope and effects of
     conversion of commercial forest lands and the limit of what regulatory tools can do in this regard.
     This activity during 2009-11, has shown the need to integrate new market-based solutions in to the
     land use program, such as transfer of development rights (TDRs) and easements for working forests
     to conserve these lands in active timber management. In 2009, the legislature passed several bills that
     allow the agency to begin this work, and the department has begun implementing provisions of that
     legislation seeking participation in TDR pilot projects.




11                                                                       2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
     2009-11 Biennial Report
     DLCD - 23                                                           Appendix B



     II. Program Achievements by Goal and Program
                                 to the
     The remaining activities and outcomes described in this 2009-11

76th Legislative Assembly
     biennial report are arranged according to the department’s five
      trategic goals.
     strategic goals

          • Promote Sustainible Vibrant
            Communities
          • Secure Oregon’s Legacy
          • Engage Citizens and Stakeholders
            in Continued Improvements of
            Oregon’s Land Use Planning
            Program
          • Provide Timely and Dynamic
            Leadership
          • Deliver Resources and Services
            that are Efficient, Outcome-based
            and Professional
      Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
                           February 2011



12                                             2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 24                                                                                         Appendix B

      Strategic Goal: Promote Sustainable Vibrant Communities
      •   Encourage economic development
      •   Integrate land use transportation and public facilities planning
      •   Provide housing choices




     Economic Development
     Economic Development
     Accomplishments                                     In addition, DLCD staff provides technical
     Oregon’s planning program supports the state’s      assistance to local governments to help
     economy by ensuring that local governments          them identify and analyze their economic
     have an adequate land supply, infrastructure        development opportunities and develop
     and services to meet a variety of economic          strategies for attracting the identified industries.
     opportunities. Statewide Planning Goal 9            Through grants and technical assistance, DLCD
     (Economic Development) is at the center of the      helps communities throughout the state become
     state land use program’s policy on economic         better prepared to attract jobs.
     development.
                                                         A major revision to the 2005 Employment Land
     The goal calls for local governments to provide     Planning Guidebook was initiated in early 2010,
     “an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes,     with the first review draft available in November.
     types, locations and service levels for a variety   This guidebook revision project included
     of industrial and commercial uses.” Goal 9          approximately 40 volunteer professionals
     encourages local governments to identify            from around the state, including a mix of city
     sites needed for industrial and commercial          and county planning directors, economic
     development to meet both long-term (up to 50        development professionals, consultants from
     years) and short-term needs.                        a variety of practice specialties, even a banker.
                                                         The revision will provide methods to implement
     Economic development is the highest priority for    economic development policies that are easier,
     available Technical Assistance grants awarded       cheaper, faster and more relevant. The current
     by DLCD. The grant program is guided by a           draft will be updated to include the impact of
     Grants Allocation Plan, which is recommended        certain recent court decisions, as well as any
     by a standing Grants Advisory Committee and         legislative direction from the 2011 session, then
     adopted by LCDC. The allocation plan has listed     published online for use by local governments.
     “economic development” as the top priority          The new guidebook is designed in a format that
     for three consecutive biennia. These grants         is easy to keep up-to-date, and is written in plain
     are used by cities and counties to update their     language, or as close as possible given the subject
     comprehensive land use plans to address needed      matter.
     land for employment under Goal 9.

13                                                                      2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 25                                                                                                     Appendix B
     Although not expected to be complete until June            employment land needs. One of the
     of 2011, four significant economic development             significant features of this project is that
     planning projects are described below. In                  it will include the creation of a model
     addition, two significant projects completed late          employment land zoning and development
     in the 2007-09 biennium but not reported are               code. This model code will eventually be
     mentioned.                                                 packaged with guidance and made available
                                                                to small cities statewide.
     •   Cities and counties in central Oregon are in
         the midst of completing a large-lot industrial    •    At the end of the 2009-11 biennium, two
         site Regional Economic Opportunities                   projects identified economic development
         Analysis (REOA) project. This project is               opportunities in wine country, one with
         intended to create a new way to identify,              Yamhill County, the other in Milton-
         entitle and serve competitive industrial sites         Freewater in Umatilla County. Both studies
         throughout Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson              looked at the planning challenges and
         counties. This project is funded with                  potential solutions to capturing the potential
         $40,000 in DLCD Technical Assistance grant             of ag-related economic activity in nearby
         funding.                                               cities.

     •   The cities of Salem, Keizer and Turner            Partnering with Other State Agencies
         along with Polk and Marion Counties               During 2009-11, DLCD partnered with the
         are conducting a Regional Economic                Economic Revitalization Team (ERT). ERT
         Opportunities Analysis (REOA) funded with         was established by the 2003 legislature (House
         $100,000 in DLCD Periodic Review grant            Bill 2011) to focus state agencies on working
         funding. This is the first planning project       together at the local level to increase economic
         to use the ideas in the new guidebook,            opportunity and bring industrial sites to “shovel-
         most notably the concept of high value            ready” status. ERT works with state agencies and
         employment land, to better ensure that local      local governments to:
         governments provide sites that are desirable      • Streamline permitting for business and
         to the market.                                         industry;
                                                           • Increase opportunities to link and leverage
     •   Cities in Linn and Benton counties are using           public and private investments; and
         a $75,000 DLCD Technical Assistance grant,        • Provide greater local access to state resources
         along with resources from the Governor’s               and assistance.
         Strategic Reserve Fund, to resolve wetlands
         issues on industrial land inside UGBs.           Tim Sullivan of John Burns Real Estate Consulting (Irvine,
         With assistance from the local Council           California) agreed. He said building permits for single-family homes in
                                                          the metro area exceeded 10,000 annually every year but one between
         of Governments, the region is preparing          1993 and 2005. By contrast, single-family building permits fell far below
         to submit a Regional General Permit              4,000 in 2009 and 2010.
         application to the federal government, based
         on work under this grant. When complete,         “It could be far worse in Oregon”, Sullivan added, “if not for the state’s
         significant predictability will be available     strict land-use laws. Oregon avoided Las Vegas style overbuilding
                                                          because of the land use laws frequently assailed by the Home Builders
         to site developers faced with regulatory         po
                                                          political wing.”
         wetlands on key industrial sites.
                                                          “It’s because of your urban growth boundary,” Sullivan said. “You’re the
     •   The City of Toledo is using DLCD grant           antithesis of Phoenix, where you can build anything, anywhere at any
         funding to conduct a local Economic              time.” (Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland, annual
         Opportunities Analysis to examine its            fo
                                                          forecast breakfast (2010), as reported in the Oregonian)

14                                                                            2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 26                                                                                        Appendix B
     The Oregon Transportation and Growth
     Management Program (TGM)
     Through the Oregon Transportation and Growth
     Management Program (TGM), DLCD teams up
     with the Oregon Department of Transportation
     (ODOT) and local governments to improve
     transportation options while enhancing the
     livability and economic vitality of Oregon’s
     communities.

     Recognizing that transportation decisions affect
     land use patterns, and that land use policies
     affect transportation choices, TGM encourages
     the integration of transportation and land use
     planning. The program does this by providing
     grants (administered by ODOT) and technical
     services managed by DLCD. The three                  city recently broke ground on the new school at
     community assistance services offered by this        the site selected.
     non-regulatory program are Quick Response,
     Code Assistance, and Outreach.                       Code Assistance
                                                          Through Code Assistance, DLCD helps cities to
     Community Assistance                                 align their zoning and development codes with
     Quick Response                                       local goals for enhanced mobility and livability.
     Through Quick Response, DLCD helped                  Too often, these old codes work at cross
     Newport develop a long-term vision for a             purposes with these goals. Among the Code
     transportation network intended to connect           Assistance projects completed during the 2009-
     several major destinations: the Marine               2011 biennium are:
     Operations Center of the National Oceanic            • in Eugene designed to encourage greater use
     and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA), the                of public transit and less reliance on single-
     Hatfield Marine Science Center, the Oregon               occupancy vehicles around the city’s Walnut
     Coast Aquarium and the Port of Newport. Two              Station transit area;
     projects recommended in the plan – a new             • design standards in Carlton aimed
     roundabout and pedestrian path – are already             at protecting the downtown’s unique,
     under construction. The TGM-funded plan puts             pedestrian-friendly character; and
     the city in a better position to take advantage of   • residential design standards in Milwaukie
     economic development opportunities resulting             that will remove procedural barriers to the
     from NOAA’s decision to locate its new Marine            types of growth the city wants and that will
     Operations Center in Newport.                            ensure compatibility between new infill and
                                                              existing development.
     DLCD’s Quick Response service also worked
     with Vernonia to identify an appropriate site for
     a new high school. The city’s old high school
     had been destroyed by a severe flood in 2007.
     During the site selection process, DLCD helped
     the city balance the need to find a site on higher
     ground with the importance of giving students
     the opportunity to walk and bike to school. The
15                                                                      2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 27                                                                                          Appendix B
     Outreach                                              administered by DLCD has already provided
     Through Outreach, DLCD supported                      direct, on-site assistance to 16 jurisdictions
     local workshops on such topics as safe                during the 2009-11 biennium while supporting
     routes to school, downtown revitalization             nine educational events designed to give local
     and transportation-efficient community                officials and citizens an opportunity to exchange
     design. Workshops took place in Junction              ideas with their peers in other communities and
     City, Troutdale and other cities. Meanwhile,          to obtain advice from national experts on critical
     educational conferences supported by Outreach         issues.
     were held in Bend, Medford, Eugene and
     Albany. These events enabled local officials          In short, through TGM’s community assistance,
     and civic leaders to hear from experts on             DLCD helps local governments in Oregon
     climate change, transportation policy and             provide better ways to better places. (For more
     main streets reviatlization. The Outreach             information see the Oregon Transportation and
     service also completed a new handbook, Cool           Growth Management 2009-2011 Annual Report)
     Planning, which will serve as a resource for local
     governments seeking to reduce their carbon            Transportation Planning Rule
     footprints while making it easier, and less           The TGM program also helps local governments
     expensive, for people to get around.                  meet the requirements of the Transportation
                                                           Planning Rule (TPR), which is codified in
     Ideas and plans “seeded” by these community           Division 12 of Oregon Administrative Rules
     assistance often put local governments in a           Chapter 660. The TPR encourages the availability
     better position to take advantage of funding          of a variety of transportation choices and a
     opportunities when they come along. This was          key objective of the TPR is to reduce vehicle
     the case in Irrigon, where the city obtained          miles traveled (VMT) throughout the state. A
     federal American Recovery and Reinvestment            measurement of the change in VMT can be
     Act (ARRA) funds to build streetscape and other       found in The Oregon Shines Benchmarks report
     improvements recommended by TGM during                (2009). Measurement of VMT is benchmark #71,
     a previous biennium. “I want you to know how          and modest progress has been shown between
     much we appreciate the Code Assistance work           1998 and 2007.
     In Canby, where Quick Response has helped the
     city identify new uses for old railroad properties,
     you did for us,” writes Jerry Breazeale, city
     manager of Irrigon. Long-Range Planner
     Mathilda Deas, AICP, says: “TGM has been an
     amazing building block for our community.
     The program has enabled us to demonstrate
     that we have thought things through, and it has
     helped us to get things done that we couldn’t
     have accomplished in-house.” Regarding an
     Outreach-sponsored event, Nathan Broom, a
     transportation options planner with the Rogue
     Valley Transit District, writes: “Thank you for
     making our Walk + Bike Summit possible. It
     was a strong event that drew officials from ten
     jurisdictions as well as business, nonprofit, and
     tourism representatives from Southern Oregon.”

     More projects are in the works at this
     writing, but the TGM community assistance
16                                                                      2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 28                                                                                                  Appendix B
     2009 Oregon Shines Benchmark: #71 Reduce Miles Traveled


     What it measures       This benchmark measures the per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) annually in
                            Benton, Clackamas, Deschutes, Lane, Jackson, Marion, Multnomah, Washington
                            and Polk counties for local, non-commercial trips. Decreasing VMT is encouraged
                            in order to promote efficient development patterns, decrease commuting time, road
                            maintenance and resource consumption, while increasing air and water quality and
                            open space.

     Why it is impor-       Contributes to Oregon Shines Goal 3, Healthy, Sustainable Surroundings (Commu-
     tant                   nity Development)

     About the targets      Targets are based on an old data series which showed a 10-year upward trend. The
                            current data adjusts for trucks and through traffic and is now consistent with the
                            Transportation Planning Rule. Targets will be revised in the future to reflect the re-
                            vised data series.

     Updated: 12/13/2008
     Module 1: OREGON’S PROGRESS                                                    Making Progress?
     71. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)                                                     Yes

     Why this answer       The 2007 data suggest a continued decline in vehicle miles traveled per capita in metro
                           areas.

           1998 7090                                                                                 Worse
           1999 7130
           2000 7060
           2001 7020
           2002 7040
                                                                                                     Better
          2003* 7040
           2004 6940
           2005 6930
           2006 6930
           2007 6810
           2010 6977
          Target




                           Green - Actual                                   Yellow - Estimate




17                                                                             2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
         DLCD - 29                                                                                                                         Appendix B
     Strategic Goal: Secure Oregon’s Legacy
     •    Conserve coastal farm, forest, riparian and other resource lands
     •    Promote a sense of place in the built and natural environments
     •    Protect unique and threatened resources by guiding development to less sensitive areas




     Farm Forest Program                                   adopt exclusive farm use (EFU) and forest
     In many ways, Oregon’s efforts to protect its         zoning to sustain them. State statutes and
     farm and forest lands base have comprised             LCDC rules (Chapter 660, divisions 6 and 33)
     the heart of the state’s innovative land use          establish standards for dwellings, uses and
     planning program. The state’s accomplishments         land divisions in EFU, forest and mixed farm-
     in protecting its working landscapes compare          forest zones. These standards are designed
     favorably with other states in the nation, and        to limit incompatible development and land
     even with other nations.                              fragmentation and to ensure that newly created
                                                           farm and forest parcels remain commercially
     Farm and Forest Land Vital to Economy                 viable for farm and forest use. Strong resource
     Oregon’s agricultural and forest industries           land protections keep farm and forest land
     remain primary contributors to the state’s            affordable for farmers and forest landowners,
     economy, directly and indirectly generating close     and discourage conflicting uses.
     to 20 percent of the state’s economic output ($12
     billion by farming and $13 billion by forestry in
     2007). Commercial farming and forestry require
     large supplies of land. However, both industries
                                                                                    Total Oregon Land Base 61.8 million acres
     are seriously affected by the loss of land to other                                       UGBs, 781,836, 1%
     uses, by the fragmentation of the resource land                      Rural Development,
                                                                             890,116, 1%
     base, and by conflicts and complaints from              Farm/Forest,                              Other Rural,
                                                                                                       105,000, 0%
                                                            2,300,000, 4%
     nearby landowners who are not engaged in                        Forest, 8,200,000,
                                                                            13%                                                  Public
     farm and forest activities. That is why sustaining                                                                          Farm
     these valuable resource lands is so important to                                                                            Forest
                                                                                                           Public, 34,100,000,   Farm/Forest
     Oregon’s economic strength and stability.                                                                     56%           Rural Development
                                                                  Farm, 15,500,000,                                              Other Rural
                                                                        25%
                                                                                                                                 UGBs
     Strong Farm and Forest Land                                        Private                      Public
                                                                        27.7 million                 34.1 million
     Protections                                                        acres                        acres
     Statewide Planning Goals 3 (Agricultural
     Lands) and 4 (Forest Lands) define agricultural
     and forest lands and require counties to


18                                                                                        2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 30                                                                                              Appendix B
     About half of Oregon’s non-federal land base, or            providing DLCD with annual reports on
     15.5 million acres, is currently zoned EFU, while           dwellings, uses and land divisions occurring in
     over 10 million acres are zoned for forest or               farm and forest zones. The reporting system,
     mixed farm-forest use. Farm and forest property             along with plan amendment data, provide the
     assessment is available for land in farm or forest          information needed to regularly review and
     use and is automatic in EFU zones. Farm land -              evaluate existing policy and make appropriate
     Percent of farm land outside urban growth boundaries        adjustments in the program.
     zoned for exclusive farm use in 1987 that retains that
     zoning. (DLCD Key Performance Measure)                      Dwelling and Land Development
                                                                 In 2008 – 2009, counties approved a total of
                                                                 1,261 new dwellings in EFU zones and 628
                                                                 new dwellings in forest and mixed farm-forest
                                                                 zones. Of these 1,889 new dwellings in resource
                                                                 zones, 633 were replacement dwellings. These
                                                                 numbers are lower than previous years, most
                                                                 likely reflecting the current economic downturn.
                                                                 Nearly 1,000 other uses, many of them accessory
                                                                 or farm-related structures, were also approved.
                                                                 Nearly 500 land divisions in EFU, forest and
     Forest land - Percent of forest land outside urban growth   mixed farm-forest zones were approved in
     boundaries zoned in 1987 for forest or mixed farm/          2008 – 2009, numbers that are also down from
     forest use that remains zoned for those uses. (DLCD Key     previous years.
     Performance Measure)
                                                                 Rezonings
                                                                 Each year, farm and forest lands are rezoned
                                                                 by counties to other uses, usually through the
                                                                 “exceptions” process. In 2008 and 2009, more
                                                                 than 6,000 acres of farm and forest lands were
                                                                 rezoned to non-resource uses. About one-
                                                                 quarter of this acreage was added to UGBs, while
                                                                 three-quarters of the acreage rezoned occurred
                                                                 in rural areas.

                                                                 Technical Assistance
     The 2007 Census of Agriculture shows that
                                                                 In addition to producing the biennial Farm and
     between 1978 and 2007, the rate of conversion
                                                                 Forest Report, DLCD staff reviews and offers
     of farmland to other uses in Oregon was only
                                                                 technical assistance on plan amendments that
     about one-third what it was for the nation as a
                                                                 involve rezonings away from farm or forest use,
     whole. A 2009 U.S. Forest Service publication
                                                                 as well as amendments to EFU and forest zoning
     reported that, without Oregon’s farm and forest
                                                                 code provisions. An ongoing concern is that
     land protection program, an estimated 1.2
                                                                 farm and forest lands are often viewed as prime
     million acres of forest and farmland in western
                                                                 sites for rural homes. Another growing problem
     Oregon alone would have been converted to
                                                                 is the sale of large timber holdings for non-forest
     more developed uses. These facts underscore the
                                                                 purposes, which is threatening to fragment the
     effectiveness of Oregon’s farm and forest lands
                                                                 commercial forest land base, create additional
     protection program over the last three decades.
                                                                 conflicts for forest management and increase
                                                                 potential fire hazards.
     Monitoring Development on Farm and Forest
     Lands: Conversion as an Emerging Issue
     County planning departments have been
19                                                                              2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 31                                                                                                          Appendix B
     State Trends in Farm and Forest Land                                    being lost to comercial farm use within farm
     Conversion                                                              zones as well as being rezoned out of farm zones.
     The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) has                                                Forest Land Conversion to Other Uses
     tracked land use change in Oregon from 1974 to                                                         1984 - 2009

     2009, in a series of periodic reports. The reports
     identify several land use classes in farm and                                                            East, 3,000, 2%    Metro, 21,000,
                                                                                                                                     17%
                                                                                          Central, 31,000,
     forest lands that reflect land cover and density                                          26%


     of existing structures (mostly dwellings). These                                                                                   Coast, 18,000,
                                                                                                                                            15%
     data on changes in land use represent a more
     accurate, timely and direct measure of land
                                                                                               South, 30,000,                     Valley, 18,000,
     conversion from farm and forest use to other                                                  25%                                 15%


     uses than do changes to planning or zoning and
     greatly compliment DLCD date, above.
                                                                             The 121,000 acres of forest land that transitioned
     Oregon Department of Forestry data shows that,                          out of forest classifications during the study
     in the 25-year period between 1984 and 2009,                            period is approximately twelve times the acreage
     approximately 147,000 acres of farm and range                           (12,000) that was rezoned from forest to other
     land transitioned from land use classes more                            rural and urban zones in a similar time frame.
     conducive to commercial farm or forest practices                        ODF research shows that lands with low density
     into more developed land classes. Almost half                           residential uses typically are not managed for
     of all farm land conversion occurred in central                         timber production. The greater proportion of
     Oregon, while nearly one-quarter took place in                          forest land is being converted to residential uses
     the Metro area and one-quarter in the valley.                           within forest zones and is a significant concern
                                                                             to the department than is true for farmland loss
     Similarly, in this time frame, 121,000 acres of                         within farm zones.
     forest and mixed farm-forest land transitioned
     out of these classes and into more developed                                    Farm & Forest Land Rezonings Verses
                                                                                           Conversion 1984 - 2009
     classes, about one-quarter of this conversion
     occurring in southern Oregon and one-quarter                                                                 1
                                                                                     000,061
     in central Oregon, with the remainder of                                        000,041                                      2
     conversion split fairly evenly among the Metro                                  000,021
                                                                                     000,001
     area, valley and coast.                                                          000,08
                                                                                      000,06
                       Farmland Conversion to Other Uses                              000,04              1
                                 1984 - 2009                                          000,02                                                 snoisrevnoC
                                                                                                                             2
                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                        sgninozeR
                                                                                                      1
                           East, 14,000,                                                                                 2
                                10%                 Metro, 30,000,
                                                         20%



                                                          Coast, 2,000, 1%   An important caveat to these comparisons,
                                                                             is that the ODF definitions of conversion of
             Central, 61,000,
                   42%                                   Valley, 34,000,     farm and forest land conversion reflect lower
                                                               23%
                                                                             development densities than typically follow
                                           South, 6,000, 4%
                                                                             rezonings to rural or urban uses. That is, land
                                                                             is no longer considered in commercial farm
     The 147,000 acres of farm land that transitioned                        or forest use by ODF when development
     out of farm classifications during the study                            densities exceed one dwelling per 80 acres, while
     period is approximately four times the acreage                          rezonings from farm or forest zones typically
     (34,856) that was rezoned from farm to other                            result in development densities of one dwelling
     rural and urban zones in a similar time frame.                          per ten acres or higher.
     This means that a significant amount of land is
20                                                                                               2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 32                                                                                          Appendix B
     ODF data suggest two conclusions: a) that              biennium.
     there continues to be significant flexibility
     within farm-forest zones to accommodate                Several cities—Port Orford, Klamath Falls,
     dwellings, and b) that the cumulative increase         Monmouth, Tangent and Sisters- have adopted
     in numbers of dwellings within resource zones          or are in the process of adopting plan and
     raises concerns about de facto conversion of           code provisions to implement local protection
     these lands to allow low-density residential use,      measures in response to pollutant load limits
     particularly for forest lands, where low-desntiy       assigned to them by DEQ, or to reduce impacts
     residential uses signal an end to active timber        on a federally listed fish species. Some of these
     management.                                            measures are designed to preserve the water
                                                            quality functions of riparian areas while others
     Looking Toward Tomorrow                                willreduce the quantity of urban stormwater
     Oregon’s farm and forest land protection               entering streams.
     program has steadily evolved over the years
     to respond to new data, changing conditions,
     regional differences and the needs of agriculture      Success Story:
     and forestry. DLCD sponsored a bill in the 2009        DLCD responded to farmers, farm groups
     legislative session (House Bill 2228) that led to      and counties in eastern Oregon who feared a
     the adoption of a pilot Transfer of Development        major transmission line from Boardman to
     Rights program that offers landowners and local        Hemingway, Idaho would harm high value
     jurisdictions new incentives to permanently            crop land and farmland in Treasure and Baker
     protect forest land. A second legislative bill         Valleys. A letter from the department was
     (Senate Bill 763) authorizes all local jurisdictions   instrumental in getting the line re-routed away
     in Oregon to use Transfer of Development               from the most fertile farmland according to
     Rights programs to protect a variety of working,       Malheur County’s planning director.
     resource and cultural landscapes. (For more
     information see the Department’s “2008-2010
     Farm Forest Report” currently available online)        Ocean and Coastal Services
                                                            The department houses the Oregon Coastal
     Natural Resource Protection Program                    Management Program (OCMP), which
     Local jurisdictions throughout the state have          works with local governments, state and
     made modifications to their comprehensive              federal agencies, and stakeholders to protect
     plans and land use codes to reduce potential           the treasures of the Oregon coast, while
     impacts from development on natural                    helping to develop vibrant, sustainable coastal
     resources. Bandon and Medford established              communities.
     new protection for riparian areas. One adopted
     its first inventory and protection program.
     Consistent with 1996 rule amendments, the
     other amended its inventory to recognize new
     data on the fish bearing status of its streams,
     extending protection measures to additional
     stream reaches. Eleven cities—Gearhart and
     Newport (Coastal Program grant); Florence
     (EPA grant); Adair Village, Monroe, Scio, Mill
     City, Harrisburg, Creswell, Cottage Grove,
     Lowell (includes riparian inventory, EPA Grant)-
     -are working on local wetland inventories or
     combined wetland and riparian inventories that           Boat Dock
     are scheduled to be completed by the end of the          Photo by Jay Charland

21                                                                             2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 33                                                                                     Appendix B
     Estuaries, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes    The OCMP assists local governments with:
     and ocean resources are of primary interest to     • On-Site Advice and Assistance - During
     the OCMP. But the department’s Ocean and              2009-2011, three OCMP staff members
     Coastal division staff work closely with coastal      worked from a coastal services center in
     cities and counties to plan for economic and          Newport to assist cities and counties on
     community development and to stay safe from           a daily basis with overall planning advice
     coastal hazards. The OCMP works closely with          and coastal hazards and shore lands issues.
     other state agencies, too, as network partners        The staff were also involved in a number of
     with legal authorities and programs for coastal       Oregon Solutions projects that help resolve
     resources.                                            land use issues at the local level.

     Oregon’s coastal program is based on the           •   Financial Assistance - During the 2009-11
     work of the Oregon Coastal Conservation and            biennium, the OCMP Grants Administrator
     Development Commission created by the 1971             managed more than $750,000 in grant
     Oregon Legislature. In 1977 the OCMP received          awards to 37 local governments (city, county
     federal approval under the federal Coastal Zone        and special districts) from federal funds
     Management Act. This approval is important             including:
     because:
     1. Oregon, through the OCMP, has the                   •   $680,000 in Coastal Zone Planning
         authority to review federal agency actions             Assistance Grants: All jurisdictions
         and approvals that affect Oregon’s coastal             receive a minimum grant of $3,000.
         zone to make sure that they are “consistent”           Grants enable local governments to
         with Oregon’s state laws, statewide planning           maintain core planning services, review
         goals, and local government comprehensive              development proposals, prepare plan
         plans and ordinances.                                  changes, update ordinances and do other
                                                                planning work.
     2. The department receives federal funds from
        the National Oceanic and Atmospheric                •   $140,500 in Technical Assistance
        Administration (NOAA) to support coastal                Grants: Grants range from about $3,000
        management. During the 2009-11 biennium,                to as much as $20,000. Cities and
        the department received over $4.5 million               counties use these funds to conduct
        dollars to implement the OCMP.                          special projects related to economic
                                                                development, coastal hazards, GIS and
     During 2009-11, the OCMP focused on three                  information technologies and wetland
     program initiatives:                                       inventories.

     Helping Oregon’s Coastal Communities               •   Education and Information - The OCMP
     Oregon’s coastal communities face challenges           provides information and training for local
     found nowhere else in the state. In addition           planning staff, including:
     to land use and economic development issues
     common statewide, coastal local governments            •   Local planner conferences: The OCMP
     must also protect estuarine resources, ocean               held six local planner conferences and
     shores, dunes and other coastal resources. Many            participated in and provided information
     coastal communities are on the front lines for             during these sessions. Jurisdictions often
     ocean shoreline erosion, ocean flooding, severe            use conferences to provide information
     storms, tsunamis and the effects of climate                on current issues in coastal planning,
     change. A highly seasonal economy, rugged                  coastal hazard assessments, alternative
     geography and limited transportation options               energy development, and other topics.
     add to these challenges.
22                                                                    2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
         DLCD - 34                                                                                        Appendix B


     Success Story:
     Due to its beautiful location, burgeoning artist community, unique civic character and strategic
     investment, the City of Astoria is a growing and vital community. Astoria’s waterfront has become
     a magnet for new in-fill and redevelopment projects and proposals in recent years. While these
     developments have helped transform Astoria’s economy, the pace of change has caused concern that
     the community’s unique character could be compromised. To address these concerns, the City of
     Astoria launched an ambitious effort to engage the community in establishing a vision for the future
     development of Astoria’s historic waterfront area. This planning effort was supported by a Technical
     Assistance Grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development’s Coastal Division

     The resulting Astoria Riverfront Vision Plan represents the culmination of a nearly two-year
     community-wide effort to create a comprehensive riverfront vision, intended to ensure equitable
     riverfront growth by balancing development in the area with the desire to preserve Astoria’s quality
     of life and connection to its unique history. The plan was developed from spring 2008 through
     summer 2009, during which time hundreds of Astorians participated in steering committee
     meetings, stakeholder interviews and surveys, four community-wide forums, three open houses and
     additional community meetings. After a series of public hearings, the final plan was adopted by the
     Astoria City Council in December, 2009. With a strong foundation in a broad-based community
     consensus, the Astoria Riverfront Vision Plan now provides city leaders with a blueprint for public
     and private investments and development decisions over the coming years.

     The city received national recognition for this effort when they were selected by NOAA as a 2010
     recipient of the Walter B. Jones Memorial Award for excellence in local government.


           •   GIS Technical Assistance: An OCMP                     found at: http://www.coastalatlas.net.
               GIS specialist provided 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
               maintains the Oregon Coastal Atlas, a
               website that provides a wide range of
               mapped data and information about
               the Oregon coast. Although this site is
               accessible to the public, it is frequently
               used as a source of information by local
               government planners and officials. A
               principal function of the Atlas is to serve
                                                             Photo by Jay Charland
               data from other state agencies, such as
               the Department of Human Services data
               and the Department of Geology and
               Mineral Industries. The Atlas contains
               more than 3,500 data bases and can be
23                                                                            2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
         DLCD - 35                                                                                       Appendix B
     Addressing Emerging Coastal Issues                         for siting energy facilities.
     The OCMP devoted considerable staff resources
     and expertise to working with the Governor’s               Phase 2, determining which areas may
     office, the Department of Justice and other state          be available for ocean energy, will likely
     agencies to address five emerging issues:                  be completed in late 2011. The OCMP
                                                                continues to work closely with coastal
     •    Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities - One high-          communities, commercial and recreational
          profile proposed LNG facility (Bradwood               fishermen, the energy industry, other
          Landing, Columbia River) is suspended                 agencies and stakeholders to gather critical
          while two others remain active and locally            information about ocean fisheries and other
          controversial. Because of the OCMP’s                  uses, as well as ecological data. Community
          “federal consistency” review authority, the           workshops to assess the information are
          department was closely involved with the              scheduled for 2011.
          state review of all three, and worked with
          the applicants and local governments, the    •        Marine Reserves - OCMP staff played
          public, nongovernmental organizations,                an important role in assisting the Oregon
          federal agencies such as the Federal Energy           Department of Fish and Wildlife’s work
          Regulatory Commission, and others to                  with community groups to designate marine
          identify and resolve issues.                          reserves. The OCMP provided data, GIS
                                                                services (i.e. maps and analyses) and website
     •    Coastal Shoreline Hazards - A major focus             expertise to enable ODFW to provide
          of the OCMP was to assist local governments           information to the public and community
          in addressing coastal erosion, ocean flooding         groups via http://www.oregonocean.info.
          and other hazards. OCMP staff worked
          closely with the City of Bandon to adopt          •   West Coast Governor’s Agreement on
          regulations to protect development from               Ocean Health - The OCMP worked closely
          ocean flooding, assisted Tillamook County             with the Governor’s Office to provide policy,
          and residents in Neskowin to address                  planning and technical assistance to support
          problems of ocean shore erosion and storm             the West Coast Governors Agreement
          damage, and supported the City of Newport             (WCGA). In summer 2010, the OCMP
          in its efforts to adopt updated regulations for       applied on behalf of the WCGA, for federal
          areas subject to erosion and damage along             funds from NOAA to enable the Action
          the ocean shore.                                      Coordination Teams to carry out tasks
                                                                identified in Action Plans. In early winter
     •    Ocean Wave Energy Development -                       2010, the OCMP assisted the WCGA to
          The OCMP led an unprecedented effort                  develop a substantial grant application to
          to develop a coast-wide plan for ocean                NOAA for funds to enable the WCGA to
          alternative energy development (aka                   develop the technical and administrative
          wave energy) in response to a Governor’s              infrastructure necessary to support future
          Executive Order of March 2008. Working                marine spatial planning along the West
          with several dozen stakeholders, the                  Coast as called for in the July 2010 National
          department completed Phase 2 in                       Ocean Policy.
          November 2009, when the LCDC adopted
          an amendment to the Oregon Territorial
          Sea Plan with, policies, procedures, and
          standards




24                                                                         2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
         DLCD - 36                                                                                       Appendix B
     Conserving Coastal Resources                         Natural Hazards Program
     The OCMP carried out several program                 DLCD’s Natural Hazards Program coordinates
     activities to assist in conserving the unique and    the the state’s participation in the National
     valuable resources of the Oregon coast:              Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), through
                                                          an agreement with the Federal Emergency
     •    The Coastal and Estuarine Lands                 Management Agency (FEMA). Oregon has 260
          Conservation Program (CELCP) - Created          cities and counties that are subject to flooding.
          by Congress, CELCP provides competitive         All but one floodprone city participates in the
          grants to states and local governments to       NFIP, making flood insurance available to
          acquire and conserve special coastal areas.     nearly all residents and businesses located in the
          The OCMP administers this program for           floodprone areas in the state of Oregon.
          Oregon. During the biennium, the OCMP
          assisted the Oregon Parks and Recreation        The NFIP has three basic components: flood
          Department to apply for funds to acquire        hazard mapping; flood insurance; and regulation
          several coastal properties.                     of areas of special flood hazard (areas with a 1
                                                          percent annual chance of flooding). The Natural
     •    Public Access - Oregon places great             Hazards Program contributes to each of these
          emphasis on public access to coastal            components.
          beaches, shorelands, and waters. The OCMP
          completed an inventory of the more than         Since 2005, the Natural Hazards Program has
          1200 public access sites along the Oregon       received federal grants to support FEMA’s
          coast.                                          Map Modernization Program. One hundred
                                                          sixty five (165) Oregon cities and counties,
     •    Community Conservation Assistance - The         mostly in western Oregon, will receive digital
          OCMP provide small grants to a number           flood insurance rate maps by the end of 2011
          of coastal organizations to support local       from FEMA. Over half of these communities
          conservation efforts. Recipients included       (90) received digital maps during the 2009-11
          the Haystack Rock Awareness Program in          biennium. FEMA grant funds were used by
          Cannon Beach which is celebrating its 25th      DLCD to:
          year of education and on-site interpretation
          as a proactive means of protecting Haystack     •   Review draft maps and prepare maps
          Rock, one of the icons of the Oregon coast.         showing where flood hazard zones changed;
          The Port Orford Ocean Resource Team
          received funds to support the annual Port       •   Assist cities and counties with map
          Orford Water Festival, a well-attended              adoptionand flood hazard ordinance
          community event that promotes stewardship           amendments as necessary to remain in good
          of coastal watersheds and ocean resources.          standing with the NFIP;

     •    LiDAR Acquisition - The OCMP provided           •   Provide technical assistance to ensure cities
          some of its federal funds to the Oregon             and counties are able to efficiently use digital
          Department of Geology and Mineral                   flood insurance rate maps in their planning
          Industries to help acquire detailed LiDAR           programs; and
          (a special kind of radar image) data for the
          Oregon coast. The OCMP is now providing         •   Support community outreach and education
          this extremely accurate data as maps to local       related to revised mapping.
          governments to aid planning for coastal
          hazards, landslides, and flooding.



25                                                                       2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 37                                                                    Appendix B
     The Natural Hazards Program entered into
     an interagency agreement with Oregon State
     University to make the digital flood maps and
     accompanying flood studies available to the
     public via the “Oregon Explorer” website. Older
     maps also will be available. http://oregonstate.
     edu/inr/.

     Digital maps are refined using annual grants
     provided by FEMA’s RiskMAP Initiative.
     RiskMap aims to develop tools to better assess
     and communicate exposure to natural hazards,
     as well as to provide more accurate Flood
     Insurance Rate Maps. The Natural Hazards
     Program works closely with the Department
     of Mining and Mineral Industries and the
     University of Oregon Partnership for Diseaster
     Resilience to achieve RiskMap objectives.

     The Natural Hazards Program provides technical
     assistance and resources to Oregon’s NFIP-
     participating communities. The Natural Hazard
     Program helps with Oregon’s NFIP communities
     to ensure they understand and comply with
     NFIP minimum requirements. The program
     also trains and answers technical questions from
     local planners, surveyors, building officials and
     real estate agencts on NFIP regulations and
     insurance requirements.

     Finally, the Natural Hazards Program works
     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. During
     the 2009-11 biennium the Natural Hazards
     Program participated in two Oregon Solutions
     Projects in Tillamook County and the City of
     Milton-Freewater, aimed at identifying projects
     to reduce the risk of flooding. The Natural
     Hazards Program continues to work with the
     City of Vernonia to recover and rebuild from
     devastating floods of 2007.




26                                                       2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
                                      Appendix B
DLCD - 38
       27   2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
         DLCD - 39                                                                                    Appendix B
     Strategic Goal: Engage Citizens and Stakeholders in Continued
                     Improvements of Oregon’s Land Use Planning
                     Program
     •    Support regional perspectives and strengths
     •    Ensure equitable application of regulatory programs
     •    Develop strong, collaborative partnerships with citizens and communities

     Citizen Involvement Advisory                         describes how the public can participate in
     Committee (CIAC)                                     each phase of the planning process. Local
     Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 197 established       governments must periodically evaluate their
     the Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee           efforts to involve citizens, and, if necessary,
     (CIAC) to advise LCDC and local governments          update their programs. These requirements are
     on matters pertaining to citizen involvement         established in Statewide Planning Goal 1: Citizen
     in land use planning. CIAC is an advisory            Involvement.
     body only; it has no authority over any local
     government or state agency. The committee            Committee members:
     does not set policy or review local land             • Ann Glaze, Chair (Dallas)
     use plans (except for Citizen Involvement            • Don Green, Co-vice Chair (Ashland)
     Programs) or make decisions. The CIAC has            • Mollie Eder, Co-vice Chair (Powell Butte)
     eight members, one from each of Oregon’s five        • Pat Zimmerman (Scappoose)
     congressional districts and three chosen at large.   • Chris White (Portland)
     CIAC members are unpaid volunteers and are           • Gregory McClarren (Redmond)
     appointed to four-year terms by LCDC. The            • Debra Martzahn (Lincoln City)
     committee meets bi-monthly in Salem.                 • Roberta Donovan (Nyssa)

     During the 2009-11 biennium, the CIAC:               Local Officials Advisory Committee
                                                          (LOAC)
     •    Assisted a number of communities                Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 197 established
          in developing and improving Citizen             the Local Officials Advisory Committee (LOAC)
          Involvement Programs;                           to advise LCDC and the department on matters
                                                          involving local governments.
     •    Surveyed local web sites regarding citizen
          involvement;                                    The LOAC is made up of seven members
                                                          representing cities, counties and Metro. They
     •    Continued the “Star Awards” program to          are appointed by LCDC in consultation with the
          recognize outstanding programs to involve       League of Oregon Cities and the Association of
          citizens in local land use decisions;           Oregon Counties.

     •    Participated in LCDC policy workgroups;         LOAC is specifically charged by statute with
          and                                             the responsibility to review and advise LCDC
                                                          on proposed goal amendments. After a period
     •    Began development of Citizen Involvement        of dormancy, the LOAC reinitiated its work in
          training programs for local citizens and        2010.
          officials.
                                                          Committee members:
     Citizen participation is a hallmark of Oregon’s      • George Endicott, Mayor, City of Redmond
     planning program. Each city and county plan          • Dick Gordon, City Councilor, Medford
     includes a citizen involvement program that
28                                                                      2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 40                                                            Appendix B
     • Keith Mays, Mayor, City of Sherwood
     • Larry Givens, County Commissioner,
       Umatilla County
     • Charlotte Lehan, County Commissioner,
       Clackamas County
     • Kathryn Harrington, Metro Councilor
     • Nikki Whitty, County Commissioner, Coos
       County




29                                               2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
         DLCD - 41                                                                                       Appendix B
     Strategic Goal: Provide Timely and Dynamic Leadership
     •    Develop and coordinate strategic initiatives with other state agencies and local governments
     •    Seek solutions that address immediate and long-range challenges including climate change, in
          collaboration with local governments, community and academic partners
     LCDC Biennial Agenda                                       House Bill 3225 (2009). The commission
     Each biennium the Land Conservation and                    also adopted permanent rules and rule
     Development Commission (LCDC) adopts a                     amendments to Measure 49 rules during
     policy agenda upon recommendation from the                 its regular meeting on July 22-23, 2010 to
     department and with input from the public. This            implement Senate Bill 1049 (2010).
     policy agenda drives much of the work of the
     department, and sets the scope, direction and          •   Amending Uses on Farm Land
     tenor of the department’s work plan. Several               for Consistency with Legislation:
     items from the 2009-11 agenda have been listed             “Housekeeping” amendments to LCDC’s
     earlier in this report under “Major Policy Items.”         farmland rules to make the rules consistent
     Other items follow here:                                   with recently amended statutory provisions
                                                                in House Bill 3099 regarding farm uses.
     •    Rulemaking in response to a Land Use
          Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision                      Status: This rulemaking is complete. In
          regarding RLUIPA: In response to recent               January 2010 the commission adopted
          LUBA and related court decisions applying             conforming amendments to farmland rules
          the federal Religious Land Use and                    in response to statutory changes enacted by
          Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the           House Bill 3099.
          commission directed the department to work
          with an appointed workgroup to consider           •   Coastal Zone Management Act Federal
          amendments to the subject farmland                    Consistency: Update LCDC rules (OAR 660,
          administrative rules (OAR 660, division               division 35) that implement the “consistency
          33) regarding uses allowed on EFU zoned               requirements” of the Federal Coastal Zone
          lands within three miles of an Urban Growth           Management Act, to address changes to
          Boundary.                                             NOAA’s federal consistency rules and other
                                                                changes since the last update (1988).
          Status: The rule was adopted by DLCD
          in June, 2010. The rule revisions limit               Status: The commission formally initiated
          the design capacity of structures for uses            the process to revise the commission’s
          involving assemblies of people limited to 100.        Federal Consistency rules (OAR 660,
          The rules apply to “assembly” uses identified         division 35) at its meeting on January 21,
          in the LUBA decision including schools,               2010. Since that time, DLCD staff met with
          churches, parks facilities that are not master-       the state Citizen Involvement Advisory
          planned, golf courses, certain community              Committee (CIAC) to discuss the content of
          centers and living history museums.                   the rules and rule adoption process. The staff
                                                                has developed draft language for legal review.
     •    Measure 49 Rulemaking Required by 2009                DLCD continues to work with legal counsel
          Legislation: Adopt procedural amendments              at Oregon DOJ and with staff at the NOAA
          to LCDC’s Measure 49 implementing rules to            Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
          carry out adjustments to the claims process           Management (OCRM) to refine the language
          enacted by 2009 House Bill 3225.                      to ensure the proposed rules are consistent
                                                                with state and federal law. The department
          Status: The commission adopted permanent              intends to begin the formal rulemaking
          amendments to Measure 49 rules (OAR 660,              process during the spring of 2011?
30        division 41) in January 2010 to implement
                                                                          2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 42                                                                                       Appendix B
     • Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)               •   Urban Policy Forum: Conduct a public
       Pilot Program Rules: Adopt procedural                  “policy forum” (or a series), including local
       rules for DLCD’s Transfer of Development               governments and other stakeholders, to
       Rights Pilot Project authorized under House            consider the following topics and determine
       Bill 2228.                                             consensus and future direction: Coordinated
                                                              population forecasts; Public facilities
         Status: LCDC adopted TDR Pilot Program               finance and planning issues; Urban growth
         rules at its January 2010 meeting, and               management process and policy issues,
         agreed to allow the department to extend             especially concerning UGBs and urban
         its deadline for acceptance of pilot project         reserves.
         applications to November 30, 2011.
                                                              Status: In November and December 2010,
     •   Willamette Greenway Plan: LCDC has                   senior department staff met with Portland
         initiated an administrative rulemaking action        State University and the Natural Policy
         to consider an amendment to the Willamette           Consensus Center to explore potential
         River Greenway Plan boundary and OAR                 university participation in this effort, and
         chapter 660, division 20 in response to a            to review a draft white paper on population
         request by the city of Portland.                     forecasting that is being prepared by the
                                                              department. The department has tentatively
         Status: In January 2011, the department will         targeted late spring of 2011 for the forum
         propose to LCDC that, since the rulemaking           regarding population forecasting.
         affects a limited geographical area, that a
         hearings office conduct a hearing within the     •   Transportation Planning Rule Revisions:
         affected area, consistent with ORS 183.335(3)        The department received requests for
         (b).                                                 rulemaking to revise the Transportation
                                                              Planning Rule (TPR) from several cities
     •   Climate Change Adaptation: The 2007                  (Ashland, Beaverton, Bend, Corvallis,
         legislature directed the Oregon Climate              Eugene, Lake Oswego, Madras, Metro,
         Change Research Institute (OCCRI) to                 Newberg, Portland, Redmond and Tigard)
         assess the state of climate change science           and organizations (League of Oregon
         as it pertains to Oregon at least once per           Cities, Oregon City Planning Directors
         biennium. In July 2009, LCDC adopted an              Association and the Central Oregon Cities
         interim strategy for climate change, which           Organization). The cities and organizations
         included elements for both mitigating the            are concerned that provisions of the TPR
         drivers of climate change and adapting to the        that apply to certain plan amendments
         effects of climate variability and change. In        and zone changes may be creating barriers
         October 2009, Governor Kulongoski asked              to economic development and to efficient
         the department, about 20 other agencies and          urban development. Problems occur when
         entities in the Oregon University System to          the proposal would increase motor vehicle
         develop a state-level climate adaptation plan.       traffic on a state highway and improvements
                                                              would be needed to meet ODOT’s mobility
         Status: In consultation with a team of state         standards. In this situation the local
         agency directors, DLCD staff facilitated a           government must identify how needed
         process to develop a framework for climate           improvements will be funded before a plan
         change adaptation planning. The Framework            amendment can be approved.
         was completed and released in December
         2010. (For more information see the multi-
         agency “The Oregon Climate Change
         Adaption Framework-Dec 2010”)
31                                                                      2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
         DLCD - 43                                                                                        Appendix B
          Status: ODOT has adopted administrative               allowing such facilities on the construction
          rules to carry out the provisions for House           facility site, or offsite.
          Bill 3379 to establish a process for OTC to
          authorize alternate funding for extensions        •   General “Housekeeping” Rulemaking,
          to meeting funding requirements in the                Including Farm and Forest Rules:
          TPR for economic development. LCDC and                LCDC typically conducts at least one
          Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC)                “housekeeping rulemaking” per biennium
          have established a joint sub-committee that           to clean up or clarify various rules. This
          will make a recommendation in April 2011,             housekeeping rulemaking proposes
          about rulemaking to amend the TPR and the             clarification, streamlining and updating
          Oregon Highway Plan.                                  needed for division 6, Forest Lands and
                                                                division 33 Agricultural Lands: For uses
     •     Metro Urban and Rural Reserve Rule                   authorized in forest zones, changes necessary
           Adjustments: In January 2010, and again in           for clarification and consistency of the
           April 2010, LCDC directed staff to convene           Definitions and Inventory sections with
           stakeholders and consider amendments to              Oregon Department of Forestry standards
           Chapter 660, division 24 rules in response           for identifying forest land; clarification
           to concerns regarding restrictions on                on some uses allowed in forest zones
           future amendments to plans and land use              (outdoor gatherings, commercial power
           regulations in urban and rural reserves.             generating facilities, youth camps); minor
                                                                clarification of some land division and
           Status: LCDC adopted minor rule                      dwelling standards. For users identified in
           amendments to the Metro urban and rural              agricultural zones proposed changes include
           reserve rules at its April 2010 meeting, and         moving parts of the Definitions section to
           additional amendments at its December 2010           the Identifying Agricultural Land section
           meeting.                                             and amending the latter to incorporate new
                                                                language for compliance with House Bill
     •     Division 33 Rulemaking with Regard to                3647 (soils bill).
           Energy Worker Housing: Several counties
           in central and eastern Oregon reported               Status: The rules were adopted by LCDC at
           an influx of workers associated with wind            its January 2011 meeting.
           energy projects, and also reported a shortage
           of housing accommodations for such               •   Division 33 Agricultural Land
           workers. The counties requested rule-making          Requirements and Solar Energy: This
           to allow temporary recreational vehicle              rulemaking, requested by counties and
           (RV) campgrounds in exclusive farm use               interests in central and eastern Oregon,
           (EFU) zones under Chapter 660, division              proposes to modify energy facility rules for
           33 in order to accommodate workers on                solar energy as was done two years ago for
           wind energy projects during the coming               wind energy. Issues may include footprint,
           construction season.                                 water usage and land disturbance. The
                                                                current 12 and 20-acre thresholds that apply
           Status: LCDC approved temporary rules                to commercial energy generating facilities on
           in July 2010, with a focus on expanding              farmland, require an exception to be taken
           temporary campground opportunities                   for virtually all such facilities. This threshold
           for utility workers. In October 2010 the             will be analyzed for revision relative to siting
           commission approved permanent rules in               a use that is coming more into use and that
           Chapter 660, division 33 that established            has a legitimate role to play in rural areas.
           temporary housing facilities as an incidental
           use to an energy or transmission facility, and
32                                                                         2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
         DLCD - 44                                                                                      Appendix B
          Status: Rulemaking began in September            Transportation and the Oregon Economic and
          2010, with a rules advisory committee.           Community Development Department. State
          Several rules advisory committee meetings        agency coordination also occurred through
          were held in central Oregon in the fall,         the Governor’s Economic Revitalization Team
          and the work continues into the winter of        (ERT), which brought together 26 state and
          2010/2011.                                       regional agencies on a regular basis to coordinate
                                                           economic development programs and activities
     •     Irrigation Reservoirs on Farm Land:             in all regions of the state.
           The department received a request from
           the Oregon Board of Agriculture for
           consideration of a rule clarifying when
           reservoirs are allowed on lands zoned for
           exclusive farm use. Reservoirs are allowed as
           a farm use when located on property that is
           being irrigated, but are not clearly allowed
           on EFU lands that are not irrigated from the
           reservoir.

           Status: This rulemaking began in October
           2010, and continues into 2011 with the
           creation of a rules advisory committee.

     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 (SAC) Agreements
     approved by LCDC . The department proposed
     legislation that was enacted in 2009, to
     streamline the SAC process.

     During the 2009-2011 biennium, the department
     initiated and participated in regular senior staff
     meetings with the Oregon Department of




33                                                                      2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
         DLCD - 45                                                                                     Appendix B
     Strategic Goal: Deliver Resources and Services that are Efficient,
                     Outcome-based and Professional
     •    Provide local government with services and resources to support their comprehensive planning
          process
     •    Communicate with the public in a timely and transparent manner
     •    Focus on communications, staff training and administrative systems to ensure continued
          improvement of customer service
     Working with Oregon Communities                       •   Excellence in Local Government Planning:
     Oregon’s statewide planning program is most               City of Astoria
     effective when communities, regions and state         •   Problem Solving: City of Newport
     agencies work cooperatively to plan for and           •   Habitat Protection: City of Cannon Beach/
     invest in successful, sustainable futures. The            Friends of Haystack Rock
     fate of Oregon’s future rests in large part on the    •   Urban Vitality: City of Waldport
     successful implementation of thoughtful local         •   Waterfront Revitalization: City of Florence
     planning. In order to help Oregon communities         •   Public Access: City of Brookings
     make the best possible decisions about their          •   Information Technology: Curry County
     futures, DLCD works to make real-time                 •   Local Government (two awards): City of
     information and state-of-the-art planning                 Lincoln City and Tillamook County
     practices available in the regions of the state and   •   Elected Official: James Auborn, Mayor, City
     from its Salem office.                                    of Port Orford
                                                           •   Professional Service: Diane Morris, City of
     Communications and Technical                              Brookings
                                                           •   Non-Profit: Oregon Coastal Zone
     Assistance
                                                               Management Association (OCZMA)
     DLCD staff provides technical assistance to
                                                           •   Award of Special Merit: Against All Odds:
     local governments through formal and informal
                                                               Port of Newport
     communication.
                                                           Department staff also participate regularly on
     During the past biennium, the department
                                                           the following:
     conducted six planners network meetings
                                                           • Technical advisory committees for local
     around the state (Medford, Springfield,
                                                               planning projects;
     Monmouth, Hillsboro, Bend and Baker City)
                                                           • Regional Economic Revitalization Teams
     and four coastal planners network meetings
                                                               (ERT);
     (Yachats, Rockaway, Bandon and Florence).
                                                           • Area Commissions on Transportation
     Planners network meetings serve as a forum
                                                               (ACT);
     for local governments to exchange information
                                                           • Regional investment panels for economic
     and develop stronger working relationships.
                                                               and community development; and
     The department will continue to host network
                                                           • Other local government discussions.
     meetings during the 2009-11 biennium.
                                                           Informally, DLCD staff also responds to
     Awards and Recognition First Time Event
                                                           inquiries regarding statewide planning goals,
     The Coastal Program hosted a Coastal Awards
                                                           rules, laws, and general planning, development
     dinner at a Coastal Planners Conference in
                                                           and conservation practices. Questions frequently
     October 2010, and made first-ever awards to
                                                           come to the department by phone, e-mail and
     anumber of coastal jurisdictions, individuals and
                                                           at various meetings. The nature of this technical
     organizations. The winners of the 2010 Coastal
                                                           assistance varies depending on the request and
     Planners Awards were:
                                                           needs of the local jurisdiction, and ranges from
                                                           short exchanges regarding planning procedures
34                                                                       2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 46                                                                                      Appendix B
     to substantive engagements on planning policy,      was able to fund in whole or in part 44 planning
     development proposals, or plan amendments.          projects statewide. Adding the 135 Planning
                                                         Assistance grants to small communities,
     Grants to Local Governments                         DLCD was able to provide assistance to 179
     In addition to technical expertise, DLCD offers     communities – nearly two thirds of our local
     several grant programs to provide targeted          partners across the state.
     grants to local governments. The Transportation
     and Growth Management program is dedicated          Keeping Plans Up to Date
     to improving the integration of land use and        In order for the statewide planning program to
     transportation planning across the state (please    function effectively, local comprehensive plans
     see “Integrating                                    must be updated in keeping with changing
     Land Use and Transportation planning,” page         markets and developing landscapes. Local
     xx). The Coastal Zone Management Program            governments typically identify needed updates
     offers resources to coastal communities.            and amend their plans through the Post-
                                                         Acknowledgment Plan Amendment (PAPA)
     The general fund Technical Assistance grant         process.
     program provides resources to help local
     governments with comprehensive planning             Periodic Review
     activities, with regional planning analysis, and    Urban development, population growth,
     with Periodic Review. During this biennium:         economic and market forces and other changes
     • Oregon communities have utilized about            in the landscape can render comprehensive
         $1.6 million in technical assistance grant      plans obsolete over time. As community visions
         funds on comprehensive plan update              are realized, plans must be updated to continue
         projects ranging from regional wetlands         to meet the needs of the local government,
         identification to housing needs analyses to     its citizens, and its property owners. Oregon
         regional planning for large-scale industrial    statutes require many cities to periodically
         development;                                    review their plans to ensure they continue to
                                                         accommodate needed land and infrastructure
     •   Nearly $1 million went to cities and counties   for economic development and housing. Certain
         for Periodic Review programs, providing         statutory and rule provisions are implemented
         opportunities for large scale plan updates;     through Periodic Review as well. During this
         and                                             biennium, the department worked with eleven
                                                         cities to complete portions of periodic review
     •   An additional $135,000 was awarded to cities    work programs.
         under 2,500 population and to counties
         under 15,000 population. Those funds are        Plan Amendment Review
         typically used to support general planning      A local government can amend its
         and permitting activities in Oregon’s smaller   comprehensive plan to address local needs
         communities. Thanks in part to DLCD’s           outside the Periodic Review process through
         partners, including the League of Oregon        the Post-Acknowledgment Plan Amendment
         Cities and the Association of Oregon            (PAPA) process. These typically smaller
         Counties, the department significantly          amendments may be initiated by a city or county,
         stepped up its efforts to alert local           or by a property owner, who wishes to change
         governments to the opportunity. As a result     the allowed use(s) of land.
         DLCD provided assistance to 107 small
         communities this biennium a 22 percent          DLCD’s role in the PAPA process includes
         increase from the previous biennium.            reviewing and advising local government on
                                                         proposals and providing notice of the proposal
     In total, the Technical Assistance grant program
35                                                                     2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 47                                                                                     Appendix B
     to the public. Department staff is frequently      Continuous Process Improvement
     asked to provide technical assistance as well.     The Department of Land Conservation and
     Oregon’s larger communities, including cities      Development management and staff regularly
     with populations greater than 10,000 are also      engage in actions to update, streamline and
     required to review and update their plans          improve department and program policies,
     through the process of Periodic Review.            rules and procedures. In 2009, the department
                                                        began to implement a formal and department
     For any proposed PAPA, the appropriate local       wide effort to review department activities.
     government is required to send notice of           The department used a 5 day event featuring a
     proposed amendments to DLCD. As previously         powerful set of process improvement tools. The
     stated, DLCD’s primary role is to review           5 day event called Kaizen which was first applied
     the proposal and provide guidance where            to periodic review and urban growth boundary
     appropriate. During the first 18 months of the     decisions. Kaizen is Japanese for “take apart and
     biennium, DLCD has received just under 1,000       make good” includes tools designed to:

     PAPA Notices                                       •   Empower staff to design and implement
     The department expects to receive over                 better, smarter, faster processes advancing
     1,350 plan amendments before the end of                the mission of the department;
     the biennium. Of these plan amendments,
     the department will have responded to              •   Eliminate redundancies between programs
     approximately one-third of them, providing             and streamline processes in a relatively short
     assistance and feedback to the communities             timeframe;
     making changes.
                                                        •   Create a culture of continual improvement
     Appeals of Land Use Decisions                          freeing staff to develop solutions focusing on
     The department works closely with local                high-value work products;
     communities throughout the planning and
     ordinance adoption process. Staff provides         •   Minimize waste and save dollars through
     guidance on local land use proposals and, in           streamlined processes and procedures;
     the overwhelming majority of cases, the local      •   Increase transparency;
     government and the department work together
     to address any legal and technical challenges.     •   Enable staff to spend quality time on value
     In cases where the local government makes              added activities and eliminate non-value
     a decision the department believes violates            added activities.
     a statewide planning goal, the department,
     with LCDC approval, may choose to appeal           The department’s first applciation of Kaizen
     that local decision to the Land Use Board of       related to periodic review and urban growth
     Appeals (LUBA) for clarification of the decision   boundary decisions. Some outcomes from the
     or to confirm state policy. As of November 20,     event included:
     2008, 342 local decisions have been appealed to
     LUBA statewide. Of the 342 decisions appealed
     statewide, eight (2.3 percent) were initiated by
     DLCD.




36                                                                    2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 48                                                                                          Appendix B
     Key Performance Measures


     The department’s key performance measures for 2010 are submitted to the legislature with the
     Annual Performance Progress Report (APPR). The measures are legislatively approved, and reflect a
     wide range of activity performed by the department and local governments. KPMs are one method
     of capturing the direction, energy and outcomes of the land use program. Seen in the context of this
     Biennial Report and the full APPR report these numbers take on a richer meaning.



     KPM      Performance Measure                                                       Target   Results
     #
     1        Employment Land - Percent of cities that have updated their local         79       39
              plan to assure an adequate supply of employment land for industrial
              and other employment uses
     2        Housing Land Supply - Percent of cities that have updated their lo-       70       65
              cal plan to assure an adequate supply of buildable residential land to
              meet housing needs
     3        Public Facilities Plan - percent of cities that have updated the local    44       42
              plan to include reasonable cost estimates and funding plans for sewer
              and water systems
     4        Certified industrial Sites - Number of sites certified as project-ready   6        1
              added each year
     5        Transit Supportive Land Use - Percent of urban areas with a popula-       85       86
              tion of greater than 25,000 that have adopted transit supportive land
              use regulations
     6        Transportation Facilities - Percent of urban areas that have updated      69       87
              the local plan to include reasonable coast estimates and funding plans
              for transportation facilities
     7        ERT - Percent of local participants who rank DLCD involvement in          66       65
              the ERT process as good-to-excellent
     8        Coastal Development Zoning - Percent of estuarine areas designated        100      100
              as “development management units” in 2000, that retain that designa-
              tion
     9        Natural Resource Areas - Percent of urban areas that have updated         6        3
              buildable lands inventories to acount for natrual resource and haz-
              ardous areas
     10       Farm Land - Percent of farm land outside UGBs zoned for EFU in            99.92    99.89
              1987 that retain that zoning
     11       Forest Land - Percent of forest land outside UGBs zoned in 1987 for       99.94    99.92
              forest use that remains zoned for those uses
     12       UGB Expansion - Percent of land added to UBGs that is not farm or         55       20
              forest land
     13       Periodic Review Remands - Percent of periodic review work tasks           <15      11
              that are returned to local jurisdictions for further action


37                                                                     2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
     DLCD - 49                                                                                   Appendix B
     KPM   Performance Measure                                                      Target Results
     #
     14    Timely Comments - Percent of DLCD concerns or recommendations            100    100
           regarding local plan amendments that are provided to local govern-
           ments within the statutory dealdine for such comments
     15    Grant Awards - Percent of local grants awarded to local governments      90     94
           within two months of receiving an application
     16    Land Use Appeals - Percent of agency appeal of local land use deci-      100    100
           sions that were upheld by LUBA and the courts
     17    Customer Service - Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with   83     71
           the agency’s services as good or excellent
     18    Task Review - Percent of periodic review work tasks under review at      95     100
           DLCD for no longer than four months
     19    Measure 49 - Percent of (new) Measure 49 claims assigned to the          100    100
           agency that are processed within 180 days
     20    Best Practices - percent of Best Practices met by the board (LCDC)       100    100




38                                                                 2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 50                                                                                        Appendix B
     IV. Looking to the Future
     The budget situation facing the 2011 legislative      Areas to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
     session looks to be as daunting as any in recent      from Autos
     memory: Nonetheless, as the state seeks to right      The 2009 and 2010 legislatures gave the agency
     itself economically, and prepare for renewed          and ODOT important responsibilities to begin
     growth and vitality, land use issues are likely to    planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
     be central to strategies adopted by the legislature   from automobiles. By the end of the current
     and the governor. The following list of short-        biennium, the department will have met one
     term and long-term issues, some mentioned             directive from HB 2001 (2009)—to set a target
     previously in this report, are among those the        for the Portland Metropolitan area for the
     department believes merit consideration and           reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from
     discussion:                                           light vehicles for the year 2035. For the 2011-13
                                                           biennium, HB 2001 tasks the department with
     Helping Communities Begin to Adapt to the             helping the Portland Metro area to develop at
     Effects of Climate Change                             least two land use scenarios that portray how the
     Through the Oregon Climate Change Research            Metro region could meet these targets
     Institute (OCCRI), we are beginning to obtain
     data that indicate how temperature and                Improve efficiency and transparency of review
     precipitation are projected to affect particular      of UGB expansions
     areas of the state. These climatic changes            LCDC made major strides in this regard with
     may drive effects to our natural and human            two rounds of rulemaking concerning the
     environments in terms of water supply, energy         standards and process for review of UGBs in
     use, fire, flooding, land slides, crops, timber and   the past five years. However it has been 20
     crop management, road location and public             years since the fundamental statutory and goal
     health.                                               provisions for UGB management were adopted.
                                                           At present, UGB amendments often take too
     Developing and communicating data for Oregon          long to complete, and are too expensive for the
     communities and helping them to begin to plan         system to be clearly understood by citizens and
     to adapt their built environments over time are       sustainable for the long term.
     major challenges for Oregon and the nation.
     The department has completed facilitation of          Improve how state and local governments plan
     a multi-agency task force that has resulted in        and pay for infrastructure
     issuance of an Oregon Climate Change Adaption         Oregon’s public finance system is fundamentally
     Framework. The department has also signed a           broken. Short of constitutional amendments,
     Cooperative Agreement with Oregon Sea Grant           state and local governments need to explore
     to work together to assist coastal communities        new ways of planning for, and paying for, the
     plan for the effects of climate change.               infrastructure needed to meet the demands of
                                                           a growing population, and make communities
     Economic Development Planning                         attractive, sustainable places to live and work.
     The department will continue to collaborate           The agency is beginning an effort along with
     with key state agencies to focus on job growth        local governments to address these issues in
     and industrial site availability. New methods         2011.
     that support the state’s economy by assisting that
     local governments to provide an adequate land         Forest Land Conversion
     supply, finance infrastructure and services to        The department continues to implement the
     meet economic opportunities must be found.            Transfer of Development Rights Program and

     Continue Work with ODOT and Larger Urban
39                                                                       2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 51                                                                      Appendix B
     work with others, including the Department of
     Forestry, to find non-regulatory methods for
     moving development rights off of commercial
     timber lands.

     Complete ocean alternative energy planning
     Oregon is at the forefront of planning for ocean
     renewable energy resources (wave and tidal).
     The agency, through the Coastal Management
     Program, is leading the state’s efforts to develop
     a comprehensive plan for siting new ocean
     energy projects within the territorial sea. While
     the initial planning work is expected to be
     completed in the first half of 2011, additional
     tasks will remain to assure that the plans are fully
     integrated into Oregon’ coastal program and
     appropriately considered by the Federal Energy
     Regulatory Commission.

     Natural hazards mapping and risk avoidance
     The agency has been awarded a Continuing
     Technical Partner grant by the Federal
     Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
     to develop the state strategy for identifying,
     assessing and communicating information about
     natural hazards. The five-year project is called
     RiskMap (mapping assessment and planning,
     and combines floodplain hazard mapping, risk
     assessment tools and mitigation planning into
     one-seamless program. Mapping hazards and
     sharing information with agencies and local
     jurisdictions will be of increasing importance in
     relation to the pace of climate change.




40                                                          2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 52                                                                   Appendix B
     V. Supplementary Information

     Funding for Oregon’s Planning
     Program
     DLCD revenues derive from three funding
     sources. Federal funds are budgeted primarily in
     the coastal division. DLCD does not administer
     permit programs and therefore does not generate
     any revenue from permit fees. The department is
     among the smallest of state agencies.


     2009-11 Legislatively Adopted Budget



      General Funds               $16,793,066
      Other Funds                 $863,649
      Federal Funds               $6,598,675
      All Funds                   $24,255,390
      Full Time Employees         74.81




41                                                      2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 53                                                                                       Appendix B
     DLCD Divisions and Offices
     Organization                                         resources, labor relations, budget, accounting,
     DLCD is organized into four divisions:               purchasing, payroll, safety, space and facility
                                                          management, mail distribution, information
     The Community Services Division, Darren              systems, landowner notification, agency
     Nichols, Manager--is composed of regional            policy and procedure development, inventory
     representatives who assist local governments         and property control, and reception; and the
     in the implementation of the statewide land          Director’s Office, Richard Whitman, Director,
     use planning program by providing technical          provides support for the Land Conservation and
     and educational assistance to local government       Development Commission, overall direction
     planners and officials, the general public, and      for the department, and budget and policy
     interest groups. The division also provides          development.
     financial assistance to urban and rural
     communities.                                         Location
                                                          The department is based in Salem, but has field
     The Planning Services Division, Rob                  staff in other areas of the state:
     Hallyburton, Manager--provides specialized
     technical assistance and policy consultation to      Salem (Main Office)
     DLCD’s regional representatives serving local        DLCD
     governments and citizens. The division includes      635 Capitol St., NE, Suite 150, Salem, OR 97301-
     the Transportation and Growth Management             2540
     Program (TGM) and specialists in urban               (503) 373-0050 x255 darren.nichols@state.or.us
     development, farm and forest land protection,        http://www.oregon.gov/LCD
     mineral and aggregate resources, economic
     development, natural resource management, and        Portland
     floodplain management.                               DLCD
                                                          800 NE Oregon St., # 18, Suite 1145, Portland,
     The Ocean and Coastal Services Division,             OR 97232
     Bob Bailey, Manager--works with coastal cities,      (971) 673-0965 anne.debbaut@state.or.us
     counties, and state and federal agencies to          (971) 673-0963 jennifer.donnelly@state.or.us
     administer Oregon’s federally approved Coastal
     Management Program, which emphasizes                 Willamette Valley/Southern Oregon
     conservation of estuaries, shorelands, beaches       DLCD Willamette Valley/Southern Oregon
     and dunes, and ocean resources. The division         regional office
     provides financial and planning assistance to        (971) 239-9453 ed.w.moore@state.or.us
     local governments, implements a coastal hazards
     and assessment program, supports the Oregon          Newport
     Ocean Policy Advisory Council, maintains an          DLCD
     online Oregon Coastal Atlas, and has authority       810 S.W. Alder Street, Unit B, Newport, OR
     under federal law to review federal programs and     97365
     activities for consistency with Oregon’s federally   South Coast: (541) 574-1584 dave.perry@state.
     approved coastal program standards.                  or.us
                                                          North Coast: (541) 574-1095 matt.spangler@
     Administration—which includes the Operations         state.or.us
     Services Division, Teddy Leland, Manager--
     provides services in the following areas: human



42                                                                      2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 54                                                                  Appendix B
     Bend
     Department of Land Conservation and
     Development
     888 N.W. Hill Street, Suite 2, Bend, OR 97701
     (541) 318-2899 karen.swirsky@state.or.us
     (541) 318-2890 jon.jinings@state.or.us

     La Grande
     Department of Land Conservation and
     Development
     105 Fir St., Suite 210, La Grande, OR 97850
     (541) 663-1393 grant.s.young@state.or.us

     Copies of this report can be obtained by:

     MAIL:
     Department of Land Conservation and
     Development
     Attn: Communications Officer
     635 Capitol St. NE, Ste. 150
     Salem, OR 97301-2540

     EMAIL:
     Casaria.r.tuttle@state.or.us

     PHONE:
     (503) 373-0050 ext. 322

     VIA THE WEB
     http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/publications.shtml

     Questions about this report can be directed to:

     MAIL:
     Department of Land Conservation and
     Development
     Attn: Michael Morrissey
     635 Capitol St. NE, Ste. 150
     Salem, OR 97301-2540

     EMAIL:
     Michael.morrissey@state.or.us

     PHONE: (503) 373- 0050 ext. 320




43                                                     2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
      DLCD - 55                                                                                 Appendix B
     A Summary of Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals
     1. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal 1                 5. OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND
     calls for “the opportunity for citizens to    HISTORIC AREAS AND NATURAL
     be involved in all phases of the planning     RESOURCES Goal 5 covers more than
     process.” It requires each city and county    a dozen natural and cultural resources
     to have a citizen involvement program         such as wildlife habitats and wetlands. It
     containing six components specified in        establishes a process for each resource to
     the goal. It also requires local              be inventoried and evaluated. If a
     governments to have a committee for           resource or site is found to be
     citizen involvement (CCI) to monitor          significant, a local government has three
     and encourage public participation in         policy choices: preserve the resource,
     planning.                                     allow proposed uses that conflict with it,
                                                   or strike some sort of a balance between
     2. LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2                   the resource and the uses that would
     outlines the basic procedures of Oregon’s     conflict with it.
     statewide planning program. It says that
     land use decisions are to be made in          6. AIR, WATER AND LAND
     accordance with a comprehensive plan,         RESOURCES QUALITY Goal 6 This goal
     and that suitable “implementation             requires local comprehensive plans and
     ordinances” to put the plan’s policies into   implementing measures to be consistent
     effect must be adopted. It requires that      with state and federal regulations on
     plans be based on “factual information”;      matters such as groundwater pollution.
     that local plans and ordinances be
     coordinated with those of other               7. AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL
     jurisdictions and agencies; and that plans    DISASTERS AND HAZARDS Goal 7
     be reviewed periodically and amended          deals with development in places subject
     as needed. Goal 2 also contains               to natural hazards such as floods or
     standards for taking exceptions to            landslides. It requires that jurisdictions
     statewide goals. An exception may be          apply “appropriate safeguards”
     taken when a statewide goal cannot or         (floodplain zoning, for example) when
     should not be applied to a particular area    planning for development there.
     or situation.
                                                   8. RECREATION NEEDS Goal 8 This goal calls
     3. AGRICULTURAL LANDS Goal 3                  for each community to evaluate its areas
     defines “agricultural lands.” It then         and facilities for recreation and develop
     requires counties to inventory such lands     plans to deal with the projected demand
     and to “preserve and maintain” them           for them. It also sets forth detailed
     through farm zoning. Details on the uses      standards for expedited siting of
     allowed in farm zones are found in ORS        destination resorts.
     Chapter 215 and in Oregon
     Administrative Rules, Chapter 660,            9. ECONOMY OF THE STATE Goal 9
     Division 33.                                  calls for diversification and
                                                   improvement of the economy. It asks
     4. FOREST LANDS Goal 4                        communities to inventory commercial
     This goal defines                             and industrial lands, project future needs
     forest lands and requires counties to         for such lands, and plan and zone
     inventory them and adopt policies and         enough land to meet those needs.
     ordinances that will “conserve forest
     lands for forest uses.”
44                                                                 2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
       DLCD - 56                                                                                Appendix B
     10. HOUSING Goal 10 This goal specifies that   15. WILLAMETTE GREENWAY Goal 15
     each                                           sets forth procedures for administering
     city must plan for and accommodate             the 300 miles of greenway that protects
     needed housing types, such as                  the Willamette River.
     multifamily and manufactured housing.
     It requires each city to inventory its         16. ESTUARINE RESOURCES Goal 16 This goal
     buildable residential lands, project future    requires local governments to classify
     needs for such lands, and plan and zone        Oregon’s 22 major estuaries in four
     enough buildable land to meet those            categories:, natural, conservation,
     needs. It also prohibits local plans from      shallow-draft development, and
     discriminating against needed housing          deep-draft development. It then
     types.                                         describes types of land uses and
                                                    activities that are permissible in those
     11. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND                      “management units.”
     SERVICES Goal 11 calls for efficient
     planning of public services such as            17. COASTAL SHORELANDS Goal 17 The goal
     sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire       defines a planning area bounded by the
     protection. The goal’s central concept is      ocean beaches on the west and the coast
     that public services should to be planned      highway (State Route 101 ) on the east.
     in accordance with a community’s needs         It specifies how certain types of land and
     and capacities rather than be forced to        resources there are to be managed: major
     respond to development as it occurs.           marshes, for example, are to be
                                                    protected. Sites best suited for unique
     12. TRANSPORTATION Goal 12 The goal            coastal land uses (port facilities, for
     aims to                                        example) are reserved for
     provide “a safe, convenient and                “water-dependent” or “water related”
     economic transportation system.” It asks       uses.
     for communities to address the needs of
     the “transportation disadvantaged.”            18. BEACHES AND DUNES Goal 18 sets
                                                    planning standards for development on
     13. ENERGY Goal 13 declares that “land         various types of dunes. It prohibits
     and uses developed on the land shall be        residential development on beaches and
     managed and controlled so as to                active foredunes, but allows some other
     maximize the conservation of all forms         types of development if they meet key
     of energy, based upon sound economic           criteria. The goal also deals with dune
     principles.”                                   grading, groundwater drawdown in dunal
                                                    aquifers, and the breaching of foredunes.
     14. URBANIZATION Goal 14 This goal
     requires                                       19. OCEAN RESOURCES Goal 19 aims
     cities to estimate future growth and           “to conserve the long-term values,
     needs for land and then plan and zone          benefits, and natural resources of the
     enough land to meet those needs. It calls      nearshore ocean and the continental
     for each city to establish an “urban           shelf.” It deals with matters such as
     growth boundary” (UGB) to “identify            dumping of dredge spoils and
     and separate urbanizable land from rural       discharging of waste products into the
     land.” It specifies seven factors that must    open sea. Goal 19’s main requirements
     be considered in drawing up a UGB. It          are for state agencies rather than cities
     also lists four criteria to be applied when    and counties.
     undeveloped land within a UGB is to be
     converted to urban uses.
45                                                                    2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report
                                    DLCD - 57
46



                               Grant distribution and technical assistance are key components of the department’s support for local jurisdictions. Approximately $2,850,000 in
                               grant funds were awarded to cities, counties and special districts in the 2009-11 biennium as indicated on the map below.



                                                                Jurisdictions Receiving DLCD Grants, 2009-2011
                                                   ^^ #
                                                                ^ ^                                 ^     Cities
                                                   ^
                                                   ^ CLATSOP COLUMBIA                               # Districts
                                                  ^             ^                                  NAME   Counties
                                                                                                                                 ^^         ^^
                                                  ^^^                                     ^^                      ^               ^
                                                  ^              ^^
                                                                          MULTNOMAH ^                   ^                              ^
                                                   ^
                                                   ^                      ^^          HOOD      ^       ^                              UMATILLA                             ^            WALLOWA
                                                             WASHINGTON ^ ^                                                                                                              ^^
                                                     ^           ^    ^ ^
                                                                                      RIVER
                                                                                                 ^      ^                              ^                                    ^
                                                  TILLAMOOK     ^ ^ ^  ^
                                                                       ^^                                     GILLIAM
                                                                                                                          MORROW
                                                                                                                                                                                          ^
                                                                ^                                                                                                      UNION ^
                                                          YAMHILL^ ^^ ^ CLACKAMAS                   SHERMAN
                                                                                                                  ^                                                          ^
                                                               ^ ^                          WASCO ^                                   ^
                                                          ^                                                           ^
                                                ^                     ^^                               ^         ^
                                                          POLK
                                                           ^      #^
                                                                   ^
                                                                     MARION
                                                                                                        ^                                                                    ^              ^
                                               ^                                                                        ^                                                                   ^
                                                 ^                       ^^ ^ ^
                                                               ^# ^
                                                                                                                                                                                 BAKER
                                              ^^                 ^               ^           JEFFERSON            WHEELER

                                                LINCOLN         ^ ^ LINN                        ^                  ^
                                              ^                                                ^                             ^
                                                                                                                                   GRANT

                                             ^         BENTON   ^^                                                                  ^^^
                                                               ^                         ^           ^
                                                                 ^
                                             ^                  # LANE                                       CROOK

                                             ^                       ^                  DESCHUTES
                                                                 ^        ^
                                             ^
                                            ^          ^ ^  ^                             ^
2009-11 DLCD Biennial Report




                                                                                                                                    ^
                                           ^
                                           ^
                                                                     DOUGLAS
                                                                ^
                                    ^ ^ COOS                                                                                                                                      MALHEUR
                                      ^                                                                                                             HARNEY

                                       ^                    ^^
                                   ^                       ^                                          KLAMATH             LAKE
                                                                                                                             ^
                                         CURRY                                     ^
                                     ^                              ^^
                                                    JOSEPHINE            #
                                                                         JACKSON
                                                      ^                                                         ^
                                       ^
                                                                                                           ^
                                   Oregon                                                                                                             0           25   50                   100

                                                                                                                                                                                                        .




                                                                                                                                                                                                            Appendix B
                                                                     Cities: ODOT                                                                Miles
                                   Department of Land                State & county boundaries: BLM             Excludes TGM grants   Kilometers
                                   Conservation & Development        20101230 - rd:Grants0911                                                   0            50        100                        200
DLCD - 58                                                                                 Appendix C




               Oregon Department of Land
               Conservation and Development
Mission:
To help communities and citizens plan for, protect and improve the built
and natural systems that provide a high quality of life. In partnership with
citizens and local governments, we foster sustainable and vibrant
communities and protect our natural resources legacy.

Guiding Principles:
         Provide a healthy environment;
         Sustain a prosperous economy;
         Ensure a desirable quality of life; and
         Provide fairness and equity to all Oregonians.

Strategic Goals:
   Secure Oregon’s Legacy
         Conserve coastal, farm, forest, riparian and other resource lands.
         Promote a sense of place in the built and natural environments.
         Protect unique and threatened resources by guiding development to less sensitive
           areas.

   Promote Sustainable, Vibrant Communities
         Integrate land use, transportation and public facilities planning.
         Provide for housing choices.
         Encourage economic development.

   Engage Citizens and Stakeholders in Continued Improvements of
   Oregon’s Land Use Planning Program
         Support regional perspectives and strengths.
         Ensure equitable application of regulatory programs.
         Develop strong, collaborative partnerships with citizens and communities.

   Provide Timely and Dynamic Leadership
         Develop and coordinate strategic initiatives with other state agencies and local
           governments.
         Seek solutions that address immediate and long-range challenges including
           climate change, in collaboration with local governments, community and academic
           partners.

   Deliver Resources and Services that are Efficient, Outcome-Based and
   Professional
         Provide local government with services and resources to support their
           comprehensive planning process.
         Communicate with the public in a timely and transparent manner.
         Focus on communications, staff training and administrative systems to ensure
           continued improvement of customer service.
DLCD - 59                                                                                      Appendix D



             2008-09 FARM & FOREST REPORT
             January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009


                                      Introduction
  State law (ORS 197.065) requires the Oregon Land Conservation and Development
  Commission (LCDC) to submit a report to the Legislature “analyzing applications
  approved and denied” for certain land uses in exclusive farm use (EFU) and forest zones
  and “such other matters pertaining to protection of agricultural or forest land as the
  commission deems appropriate.” The Department of Land Conservation and
  Development (DLCD) receives a description of each local land use decision in EFU and
  forest zones as part of a submittal of decisions made for the reporting period from each
  county.

  County Reporting of Land Use                    counties. This information is used to
  Decisions                                       continually assess the effectiveness of
                                                  farm and forest zones to implement
  This report summarizes the information          Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4 and to
  provided by the counties for the two-           focus staff resources to assist counties
  year period from January 1, 2008                and the public where needed.
  through December 31, 2009. For each of
  the two years, tables A through Z               This report also includes data on county
  include information on dwelling and             land use decisions in farm and forest
  land division approvals as well as other        zones that are based on waivers to state
  approved uses on farm and forest land.          and local land use regulations under
  In addition, these tables report on the         Ballot Measure 37, as subsequently
  acreage rezoned out of farm and forest          modified by Ballot Measure 49. These
  uses to urban and rural uses in this time       waivers and approvals were based on the
  period. Table Z is new and reports on           standards for dwellings and land
  rezonings out of farm and forest use by         divisions that were in effect at the time
  county. For 2009, two additional new            that applicants acquired their properties.
  tables are included. Table Z-1 shows
  actual land conversion, by county, of           Traditionally, the Farm and Forest
  farm and forest land to other uses over a       Reports have focused only on local land
  25-year period, while Table Z-2                 use decisions made by Oregon counties.
  identifies Measure 37/49 authorizations.        However, this report has been expanded
                                                  to provide additional information on
  The department uses the collected               other matters pertaining to the protection
  information to monitor the type, extent         of farm and forest land, using data from
  and location of development,                    the U.S. Census of Agriculture and the
  parcelization, rezoning and land                Oregon Department of Forestry, as well
  conversion occurring on farm and forest         as information on growing trends
  land statewide and in individual                affecting farm and forest land.
DLCD - 60                                                                                         Appendix D



            Oregon’s Agricultural Land Protection Program
  The preservation of agricultural land is one of the primary objectives of Oregon’s
  statewide planning program. Oregon has determined that it is in the state’s interest to
  protect the land resource foundation of one of its leading industries – agriculture.

  Oregon Agriculture                               “Agricultural Lands.” This goal requires
                                                   the identification of agricultural land, the
  Roughly 27 percent of Oregon’s land              use of EFU zones under statute (ORS
  base – 17.1 million acres – is in non-           Chapter 215), and the review of farm
  federal agricultural use, according to the       and non-farm uses according to statute
  2007 Census of Agriculture. In 2007 the          and administrative rule (OAR 660,
  total direct and indirect contribution to        Division 33) provisions. The goal,
  Oregon’s economy by the agriculture              statute and administrative rule also
  and food processing industry was more            incorporate statutory minimum lot sizes
  than $12 billion dollars ($4.3 billion in        and standards for all land divisions.
  farm/ranch products; $2 billion from
  value-added processing; $3.4 billion in          Three policy statements set forth
  purchased goods and services and $2.3            Oregon’s “Agricultural Land Use
  billion generated in wages and salaries).        Policy.” The first was established by the
  This is 10% of Oregon’s gross state              legislature in 1973 and is codified at
  product, and the agricultural sector is          ORS 215.243. There are four basic
  directly responsible for over nine percent       elements to this policy:
  of all Oregon jobs. Agriculture is a key
  traded sector industry in Oregon, ranking        1. Agricultural land is a vital natural and
  third in the value of exported products.            economic asset for all the people of
                                                      this State;
  Oregon is one of the most agriculturally-        2. Preservation of a maximum amount of
  diverse states in the nation, boasting the          agricultural land in large blocks, is
  production of more than 225 different               necessary to maintain the agricultural
  commodities, and leading in the                     economy of the State;
  production of 14 crops. A full 85 percent        3. Expansion of urban development in
  of the state’s farms are family or                  rural areas is a public concern because
  individual farms.                                   of conflicts between farm and urban
                                                      activities;
  Agricultural Land Use Policy                     4. Incentives and privileges are justified
                                                      to owners of land in exclusive farm
  Oregon’s agricultural lands protection              use zones because such zoning
  program is based on several elements                substantially limits alternatives to the
  composed of statutory and                           use of rural lands.
  administrative rules provisions, the
  agricultural lands goal, and opinions and        In 1993, the Oregon Legislature added
  interpretations from the Land Use Board          two more important elements to this
  of Appeals (LUBA) and the courts.                policy (ORS 215.700). These are to:
  These elements are tied together in a
  program by Statewide Planning Goal 3,            1. Provide certain owners of less
DLCD - 61                                                                                 Appendix D



     productive land an opportunity to         EFU zoning has been instrumental in
     build a dwelling on their land; and       maintaining working farms in Oregon.
  2. Limit the future division of and the      U.S. Census of Agriculture data show
     siting of dwellings on the state’s more   that between 1978 and 2007, the rate of
     productive resource land.                 loss of both large (500+ acres) and mid-
                                               sized (50-499 acres) farms in Oregon
  Goal 3 reinforces these policies as          was less than one-third the rate of loss
  follows:                                     for the nation as a whole. According to
                                               an OSU study, what agricultural loss is
    Agricultural lands shall be preserved      occurring is primarily in non-EFU zoned
    and maintained for farm use,               areas that are planned for development.
    consistent with existing and future
    needs for agricultural products, forest
    and open space and the state’s
    agricultural land use policy expressed
    in ORS 215.243 and 215.700.

  These policy statements set forth the
  state’s interest in the preservation of
  agricultural lands and the means for their
  protection (EFU zoning), and establish
  that incentives and privileges (i.e., tax
  and other benefits) are justified because
  of the limits placed on the use of these
  lands.

  Exclusive Farm Use Zones                      The rate of loss of farms in
                                                Oregon is less than one-third the
  In Oregon, agricultural lands are
                                                rate for the nation as a whole.
  conserved for agricultural uses and
  certain non-farm uses that are
  compatible with farming through the
  application of EFU zones. At present,
  about 15.5 million acres (56% of private
  lands in Oregon) are included in EFU
  zones. The EFU zone was developed by
  the Oregon legislature in 1961 along
  with the farm tax assessment program.
  Farm use is encouraged and protected
  within the zone, while also allowing a
  variety of non-farm related uses that
  have evolved over the years. Large
  minimum lot standards and rigorous
  dwelling approval standards limit the
  conversion of farmland to other uses.
DLCD - 62                                                                                      Appendix D



  Recent Statutory and Rule                       • HB 3153: (2009) Authorizes owners of
  Changes                                         high-value farmland to provide input
                                                  into siting major transmission lines
  In the last few years, several changes          through their property.
  were made to statutes and rules for lands
  in farm and forest zones, as follows:           Rule Changes to OAR 660, Division 33
                                                  • Section 0130 (37) (2009): Creates a
  Statutory Changes to ORS chapter                streamlined process for the review of
  215 and Elsewhere                               commercial wind generating facilities.
  • HB 763 (2009): Authorizes inter-              • Section 0130 (2010): Amends language
  municipal transfer of development rights        to implement the provisions of HB 3099.
  programs.                                       • Section 0130 (2) (2010): Amends
  • HB 2229 (2009): Provides a path for           language to limit the occupancy of
  counties to review farm and forest              certain structures in EFU zones, for
  mapping, and designate “non-resource”           consistency with a recent RLUIPA
  lands.                                          ruling.
  • HB 3099 (2009): Deletes or changes            • Section 0130 (16, 17, 22 and 37)
  the review standards for several uses in        (2010): Allows for temporary workforce
  EFU zones.                                      housing for workers constructing utilities
  • SB 1036 (2010): Reauthorizes guest            or commercial power generating
  ranches on EFU land in eastern Oregon.          facilities.
  • SB 1055 (2010): Permits wineries to           • Division 27 (2010): Clarifies
  conduct events and activities that              limitations on uses in rural reserves.
  generate no more than 25 percent of             • Section 0130 (proposed 2010): Creates
  gross retail sales of wine on the               a streamlined process for the review of
  premises.                                       commercial solar generating facilities.
  • HB 3647: (2010) Authorizes DLCD to            • Section 0130 (proposed 2010):
  arrange for professional soils scientists       Clarifies review process for irrigation
  to evaluate lands.                              reservoirs on EFU land.




                                              4
DLCD - 63                                                                                        Appendix D



                               Trends in Agriculture
  The conservation of Oregon’s working farm landscape through EFU zoning over the last
  30 years has created unanticipated benefits for communities and the state, as well as some
  challenges. Besides protecting the farmland base against conversion pressures
  experienced by other states, farmland protection has facilitated the rise of the viticulture
  and winery industries, agri-tourism opportunities, local food systems and renewable
  energy production.

  Viticulture                                      these facilities located in EFU zones that
                                                   raise questions about their scale and
  Over the last 30 years there has been            impact on nearby farm operations.
  substantial growth in the viticultural           Counties currently have concerns about
  industry in Oregon. Vineyards now                how to review such uses, and some
  number 856; while there are 395                  farmers want assurances that these uses
  wineries in the state (Oregon Agripedia          will not create unreasonable conflicts for
  2009, ODA). A significant number of              their operations.
  vineyards have been sited on capability
  class III-VI soils, ratings that are             Agri-Tourism
  particularly conducive to growing
  grapes. Some of this land was claimed to         There also has been a growing trend and
  be non-farm land in the past. Had the            interest in recent years in a wide variety
  Goal 3 definition of agricultural land           of types of agri-tourism as well as other
  adopted in 1975 not included “other              non-farm related events and activities on
  lands suitable for” agricultural use, much       farmland. Agri-tourism activities can
  of this class V land would likely have           provide an important supplementary
  been developed for other uses.                   stream of income that helps to keep
                                                   farmers on the land, and people
                                                   connected to their food sources.
                                                   However, there are questions about the
                                                   degree to which such uses need to be in
                                                   conjunction with and/or subordinate to
                                                   farm use. A wide variety of uses are
                                                   currently occurring in EFU zones,
                                                   including weddings and ATV racing
                                                   events. These uses can create conflicts
                                                   for neighbors and farm operations. In
                                                   addition, businesses in cities and UGBs
                                                   argue that some of these uses divert
                                                   existing business from urban areas and
  At the same time, the success of Oregon
                                                   into farm areas. These issues may
  vineyards and wineries has led to a
                                                   require legislation or rulemaking to
  proliferation of activities, events and
                                                   resolve.
  food service at growing numbers of
DLCD - 64                                                                                   Appendix D



  Local Food Systems                            Renewable Energy
  There is growing interest nationwide in       In the last decade, more than 2,000
  the development of local and regional         megawatts of wind energy generation
  food systems that help ensure the             capacity have been installed in Oregon
  public’s access to healthy, local,            in farm zones. The state now ranks
  sustainable food sources. Oregon’s            fourth in the nation in installed wind
  urban growth boundaries facilitate ready      energy capability, with additional
  access to u-picks, community supported        facilities now in the permitting process.
  agriculture and farm stands close in to       Part of the attraction of wind energy to
  cities. Exclusive farm use zoning has         the state are the large open farm
  kept the price of farmland more               landscapes free from conflicting uses
  affordable to new farmers than it             that are made possible by EFU zoning.
  otherwise would be. Farmers markets           Now that Oregon is beginning to attract
  and community gardens are more                large commercial solar arrays, the open
  popular than ever, while communities          farm landscapes may provide similarly
  are taking steps to facilitate the use of     suitable opportunities for this renewable
  unused public spaces, schoolgrounds and       energy source.
  sidewalk strips for edible landscapes. All
  these efforts help connect people to their
  food sources, whether inside or outside
  urban growth boundaries.

  Some local food system proponents
  favor small farms, and for this reason
  support the creation of smaller farm
  minimum lot sizes than exist now.
  However, research shows that smaller
  minimum lot sizes are more likely to
  result in rural residential uses or hobby     The rise in renewable energy production
  farms. There are numerous small farms         on farmland, together with new major
  in Oregon. According to the U.S.              transmission line corridors to bring
  Census of Agriculture, 23,688 or 61           energy to market, has raised questions
  percent of Oregon’s existing farms are        and concerns about potential impacts to
  between one and 49 acres in size. In          farm operations, wildlife habitat, scenic
  addition, there are many thousands of         viewsheds and tourism. Other concerns
  acres of small parcels in rural residential   have been raised about the need for a
  zones that could be made available for        state energy policy and more proactive
  small farm use, without the need to           state and regional roles in the siting of
  further parcelize land in exclusive farm      major transmission line corridors and
  use zones.                                    energy facilities that may have regional
                                                impacts.
DLCD - 65                                                                                                                                     Appendix D



                                                                      Reported County Data
  The data in this report are for all local land use decisions on farmland, whether in EFU or
  mixed farm-forest zones.

  Dwellings                                                                                    test, a test that involves prior approval of
                                                                                               the department director. In 2008 and
  In EFU zones, dwellings are allowed in                                                       2009, more than two-thirds of all
  seven different circumstances and                                                            primary farm dwelling approvals were
  include primary farm dwellings,                                                              based on one of the income tests, while
  accessory farm dwellings, relative farm                                                      most of the remainder were based on the
  help dwellings, non-farm dwellings, lot-                                                     parcel size test.
  of-record dwellings, replacement
  dwellings and temporary hardship                                                             In 2008 and 2009, more than two-thirds
  dwellings. Counties approved 771                                                             of all farm dwelling approvals were on
  dwellings in EFU zones in 2008 and 550                                                       parcels of 80 or more acres (Table B). If
  dwellings in 2009, numbers that are                                                          tract size were considered, these
  lower than for previous years. It is likely                                                  percentages would be higher as in some
  that the low numbers reflect the current                                                     cases farm dwellings are approved on
  economic recession, and depressed                                                            smaller parcels that are part of larger
  housing starts nationally.                                                                   tracts.

                           Dwellings Approved in Farm Zones
                                      1997 - 2009
                                                                                               Other Farm-Related Dwellings. Farm-
   1,400
                                                                                               related dwellings include accessory farm
   1,200                                                                                       dwellings (for year-round or seasonal
   1,000                                                                                       farm workers) approved under ORS
    800                                                                                        215.283(1)(e) and family farm help
    600
                                                                                               dwellings under ORS 215.283(1)(d)
    400
                                                                                               (Table C). Accessory farm dwellings
    200
                                                                                               must be sited on a farm operation that
      0
             1
           1997
           2009
                   2
                  1998    3
                         1999    4
                                2000    5
                                       2001    6
                                              2002    7
                                                     2003   8
                                                            2004   2005 10
                                                                   9     2006 11
                                                                               2007 12
                                                                                     2008 13   earns the same gross income required for
                                                                                               a primary farm dwelling ($80,000 or
  Primary Farm Dwellings. The total                                                            $40,000). Accessory farm dwelling
  number of primary farm dwellings                                                             approvals occasionally involve more
  approved statewide was 74 in 2008 and                                                        than one dwelling unit. These numbers
  59 in 2009 (Table A), numbers that are                                                       fluctuate each year. In 2008, counties
  lower than in previous years. There are                                                      approved 59 accessory farm dwelling
  four ways in which primary farm                                                              units, while in 2009, the figure was 31.
  dwellings may be approved. In most                                                           A little over half the approvals in both
  years, approvals have been fairly evenly                                                     years were for parcels of 80 acres or
  split between those based on an income                                                       more (Table G).
  standard and those approved on parcels
  of 160 acres or greater. Typically, only a                                                   The number of dwellings approved for
  couple of primary farm dwellings are                                                         family members whose assistance is
  approved each year based on the                                                              needed on the farm was 36 in 2008, and
  potential gross farm sales (capability)
DLCD - 66                                                                                                        Appendix D



  20 in 2009, numbers that are down from                         About two-thirds of all non-farm
  previous years. (Table C).                                     dwelling approvals occurred on parcels
                                                                 of 20 acres or less in both years. Large
                    Dwelling Types in Farm Zones                 parcel (over 40 acres) approvals of non-
                              2008 - 2009
                                                                 farm dwellings nearly always take place
                                                                 in eastern or southern Oregon counties
                                        Farm, 133                (Table F). Just over one-third of all non-
                                              Accessory Farm,
                                                    90
                                                                 farm dwellings approved in the reporting
        Replacement, 480                       Family Help, 56   period were for newly-created parcels.
                                                Hardship, 118


                                             Lot-of-Record, 82


                            Non-Farm, 302




  Dwellings Not Related to Farming.
  These include those dwellings approved
  under the non-farm standards of ORS
  215.284, lot-of-record dwellings
  approved under ORS 215.705,
  temporary hardship dwellings allowed
  under ORS 215.283(2)(k) and
  replacement dwellings allowed under
  ORS 215.283(1)(m) (Table D). In 2008
                                                                 Lot-of-Record dwellings may be
  and 2009, dwellings that were not
                                                                 approved on parcels that have been in
  related to farm use accounted for more
                                                                 the same ownership since 1985 and, with
  than three-quarters of all approved
                                                                 some exceptions, are not on high-value
  dwellings in farm zones.
                                                                 farmland. In 2008, 50 such dwellings
                                                                 were approved, and in 2009, 32 were
  Non-Farm dwellings may be approved
                                                                 approved. Nearly all of these approvals
  where they are on parcels or portions of
                                                                 were on non-high value farmland. These
  parcels that are unsuitable for farm use.
                                                                 numbers, especially those for 2009, are
  There were 184 non-farm dwelling
                                                                 lower than for previous years, as might
  approvals in 2008 and 118 in 2009,
                                                                 be expected as existing lots-of-record are
  numbers that are significantly down
                                                                 slowly built out. Lot-or-record approvals
  from previous years. About one-third of
                                                                 are spread fairly evenly across the state
  all approvals in both years took place in
                                                                 and are for parcels of all sizes that reflect
  Deschutes or Douglas Counties, with
                                                                 existing lot configurations.
  Crook and Lake Counties also showing
  relatively high numbers of approvals.
                                                                 A Temporary hardship dwelling is
  This distribution continues the trend
                                                                 usually a manufactured home placed on
  begun in 1993 by HB 3661 that shifted
                                                                 a parcel temporarily for reasons of a
  the number of non-farm dwelling
                                                                 specific hardship (usually medical) and
  approvals away from the Willamette
                                                                 must be removed at the end of the
  Valley to eastern and southern Oregon in
                                                                 hardship. A temporary hardship dwelling
  an effort to recognize Oregon’s regional
                                                                 may be sited in conjunction with any
  differences.
                                                                 existing dwelling, regardless of whether
DLCD - 67                                                                                                                                                       Appendix D



  it is farm or non-farm. This is one type                              The cumulative number of dwelling
  of dwelling that occurs in the Willamette                             approvals in farm zones in this 12-year
  Valley as readily as it does in other parts                           time span is reflected in the following
  of the state. The number of approved                                  graph:
  temporary hardship dwellings was 57 for                                               Cumulative Growth in Dwellings in Farm Zones
                                                                                                       1997 - 2009
  2008 and 61 for 2009 (Table D),
                                                                        12,000
  numbers that are down from previous
                                                                        10,000
  years.
                                                                         8,000



  A Replacement dwelling is a new home                                   6,000


  that replaces an older dwelling on a                                   4,000


  parcel. There were 251 approvals in                                    2,000


  2008 and 229 in 2009, nearly one-                                         0
                                                                                  1      2      3      4     5      2002 7
                                                                                                                    6         2004 92005 10
                                                                                                                         2003 8           2006 11200712200813
  quarter of which took place in Douglas                                         1997   1998   1999   2000   2001



  County (Table D). These numbers are
  consistent with numbers in previous                                   Other Uses
  years. Established dwellings that are
  replaced must be removed, demolished                                  The Legislature has recognized that
  or converted within three months of                                   some farm-related as well as non-farm
  completion of the replacement dwelling.                               uses are appropriate in farming areas,
                                                                        such as farm-related commercial
  Historic Dwelling Approvals. Between                                  activities, utilities necessary for public
  1997 and 2009, a cumulative total of                                  service, home occupations and some
  11,156 dwellings of all types were                                    types of dwellings. In 1963, the first
  approved in farm zones across the state,                              statutory EFU zone included just six
  as shown in the chart below. About one-                               non-farm uses; today over 50 uses are
  third were replacement dwellings and                                  allowed in an EFU zone.
  another quarter were non-farm
  dwellings.                                                            In this biennial report, several uses that
                 Dwelling Types in Farm Zones                           were reported on in the past are no
                          1997 - 2009
                                                                        longer tracked, while several other uses
                                          Farm, 1,080                   are now being tracked. In 2008-09, the
                                               Accessory Farm,

         Replacement,
                                                    479                 most commonly-approved uses other
                                                Family Help, 625
            3,890
                                                                        than dwellings were farm-related
                                                  Hardship, 1,190
                                                                        buildings, accessory uses, utility
                                                Lot-of-Record,
                                                     968

                        Non-Farm, 2,924




    Issue: Removal of dwellings to be replaced. One concern is whether dwellings being
    replaced are in fact being demolished, moved or converted to non-residential uses
    within the required timeframe. The department has begun to request this information
    from counties as part of annual reporting of local land use decisions, and will report
    on it in the next biennial report. This is also a concern in forest areas.




                                                                    9
DLCD - 68                                                                                       Appendix D



  facilities, home occupations and                 counting the remainders from the parent
  telecommunication facilities, in that            tracts (Table J). The 2009 number is
  order. Total numbers of these uses were          significantly lower than in past years.
  414 in 2008 and 331 in 2009, numbers             Nearly all of the farm divisions were for
  that are up over previous years primarily        new parcels of at least 80 acres,
  because of the new reporting categories          reflecting the statutory minimum lot size
  (Table M). Approved uses that are rising         for most farmland divisions, while a few
  in number include telecommunication              were for counties that have approved
  facilities, utility facilities and               “go-below” parcel minimums (Table K).
  commercial wind energy facilities.               A large majority of new farm parcels
                                                   occurred in eastern Oregon; the county
  Non-farm uses are subject to local land          with the highest number of new farm
  use approval and must demonstrate that           parcels in the two-year period was
  they will not force a significant change         Harney County, followed by Umatilla
  in or significantly increase the cost of         County.
  accepted farm or forest practices on
  surrounding lands devoted to farm or             Non-Farm Divisions. In 2008, 95 new
  forest uses (ORS 215.296). Allowing              non-farm parcels were created, while in
  some non-farm uses and dwellings is a            2009, 83 new non-farm parcels were
  safety valve that recognizes that within         created, not counting the remainders
  farm zones there are small areas that can        from the parent tracts (Table J). These
  accommodate a rural use or dwelling              numbers are down significantly from
  without affecting an area’s overall farm         past years. A full 44% of the new non-
  character. Small lots with such non-farm         farm parcels created were in Deschutes
  uses and dwellings do not qualify for            and Douglas Counties.
  farm use tax assessment.
                                                   About half of all new non-farm parcels
  Land Divisions                                   in the reporting period were five acres or
                                                   smaller in size, while just under one-
  As is true for dwellings, the number of          third were between six and 20 acres; the
  land divisions and new parcels, both             rest were 21 acres and over in size
  farm and non-farm, is down for the two-          (Table L). Because in eastern Oregon the
  year reporting period, most likely due to        only way to create new non-farm parcels
  the current economic recession.                  from parent tracts that are less than the
                                                   minimum lot size is to find that both the
  Farm Divisions. In 2008, 106 new farm            new parcel and the remainder are non-
  parcels were created, while in 2009, 56          farm parcels, relatively large non-farm
  new farm parcels were created, not               parcels often result.


    Issue: Farm and ranchland divisions. There are concerns about the slow break-up of
    large farm and ranch properties that can make it increasingly difficult to generate
    reasonable economic returns from agriculture on these properties. Increasingly, the
    department is seeing post-acknowledgment plan amendments for rezoning of
    properties as “nonresource” lands, in part based on claims that they are non-viable as
    commercial farm or ranch operations due to their relatively small size.
DLCD - 69                                                                                     Appendix D



               Oregon’s Forest Land Protection Program
  The conservation of forest land is one of the primary objectives of Oregon’s statewide
  planning program. Oregon has determined that it is in the state’s interest to protect the
  land resource foundation of one of its largest industries - forestry.

  Oregon is the nation’s #1 producer of softwood lumber and the forest products sector is
  Oregon’s second largest industry. Forestry services and wood products manufacturing
  together generate almost $13 billion annually in sales or about 11 percent of the state’s
  economic output. Forestry products and services employ over 85,000 people directly in
  Oregon and are critical to Oregon’s rural communities. Annual wage income adds up to
  $3.5 billion.

  Oregon’s forest lands protection program is based on several elements composed of
  statutory and administrative rule provisions, the forest lands goal, and LUBA/Court
  opinions and interpretations. These elements are held together in a program by Statewide
  Planning Goal 4, “Forest Lands.” This goal requires the identification and zoning of
  forest lands and requires counties to review forest and non-forest uses according to
  statutory (ORS 215.700 to 215.755) and administrative rule (OAR 660, division 6)
  provisions. The goal and administrative rule also incorporate statutory minimum lot sizes
  and standards for all land divisions (ORS 215.780).

  Forest and Mixed Farm/Forest
  Zones                                             Forest zoning has been instrumental in
                                                    maintaining working forests in Oregon.
  In Oregon, forest lands are protected             The Oregon Department of Forestry
  from conversion to rural or urban uses or         reports that western Washington’s
  other conflicting non-forest uses by the          annual loss of wildland forest between
  use of forest and mixed farm/forest               1994 and 2005 was 10 times that of
  zoning. At present, about 8.2 million             Oregon.
  acres (30%) of private land in Oregon
  are included in forest zones under
  Statewide Planning Goal 4. An
  additional 2.2 million acres (7.9%) of
  private land is included in mixed
  farm/forest zones under OAR 660-006-
  0050.

  Forest uses are encouraged and protected
  within forest and mixed farm-forest
  zones, while these zones also allow a
  variety of non-forest related uses. Large
  minimum lot standards and rigorous
  dwelling approval standards are intended
  to limit the conversion of forest land to
  non-forest uses.
DLCD - 70                                                                                       Appendix D



                                Trends in Forest Use
  The protection of Oregon’s working forest landscape through forest zoning had
  unanticipated benefits for landowners, rural communities and the state, as well as some
  challenges that need to be addressed. Besides protecting the forest land base against
  conversion pressures experienced by other states, forest land protection has provided new
  recreation and tourism opportunities, yielded significant carbon sequestration, positioned
  landowners to gain credit for continued carbon sequestration and other environmental
  benefits forest land provides, and facilitated opportunities in harnessing energy from
  woody biomass.

  Forest Land Conversion
                                                  In 2010 the Board of Forestry adopted a
  Global competition, environmental               “no net loss” policy regarding non-
  controls and rising forest management           federal Wildland Forest (forest land with
  costs over the past three decades are           fewer than five structures per square
  creating serious challenges to the              mile). While Oregon’s large minimum
  continued economic viability of                 lot sizes for forest land divisions and
  Oregon’s working forests. Large areas of        dwellings have significantly reduced the
  industrial forest land have changed             potential fragmentation and conversion
  hands in recent years and there is              of the forest land base compared to
  growing pressure to divide and convert          conversion rates in other states, it is not
  forest land to other, developed, land           enough in itself to stem the continued
  uses, as forest landowners seek current         loss of working forests. There will
  as well as long-term returns. Many mills        always be buyers for 160-acre lots for
  across the state have closed.                   dwellings who do not wish to manage
                                                  the land as a working forest.
  Growing numbers of dwellings in
  forested areas have increased conflicts         For this reason, the Department has
  for forest management and have                  created a transfer of development rights
  increased fire hazard. As less federal and      pilot program (HB 2228, 2009
  industrial forest land is available to          Legislative session) as an incentive for
  harvest, more privately-owned woodlots          forest landowners to transfer the right to
  are being harvested, creating special           develop forest land to other, more
  challenges and impacts associated with          appropriate locations. Other potential
  harvesting smaller properties at lower          streams of income that can help to
  elevations in closer proximity to settled       maintain the forest land base are
  populations.                                    described below.

                                                  Recreation and Tourism
                                                  Both public and private forest lands have
                                                  long provided a variety of recreational
                                                  opportunities for the public, and interest
                                                  in outdoor activities continues to grow
                                                  across the state. Recreation and tourism
DLCD - 71                                                                                    Appendix D



  in and around forest areas provides           Without the program, 1.2 million
  personal and societal benefits as well as     acres of farm & forest land in western
  generates significant economic activity.      Oregon would have been converted
  A 2009 study for Travel Oregon and the        & 1.7 million tons of carbon storage
  Department of Fish and Wildlife found         lost.
  that in 2008, fishing, hunting, wildlife
  viewing, and shellfish harvesting
  participation and related expenditures       restoration or enhancement of riparian,
  generated $2.5 billion for Oregon’s          in-stream or other habitats, wetlands,
  regions and counties. Many locations         and so on, landowners should be able to
  within Oregon, including those near          realize small streams of income for these
  forests, serve as appealing day and          benefits.
  overnight destinations for both Oregon
  residents and out-of-state visitors who
  participate in outdoor activities. Forest
  zones allow a variety of recreation and
  tourism pursuits appropriate to a forest
  environment. Recreation and tourism
  opportunities in and near forest areas can
  be expected to continue to grow in the
  future.

  Carbon Sequestration and
  Ecosystem Markets
  Oregon’s forests make an enormous
  contribution to carbon sequestration that
  will likely be increasingly tapped for       Renewable Energy
  ecosystem crediting purposes, providing
  a small stream of revenue for forest         Currently, much of the slash remaining
  landowners. In 2009, the Pacific             from forest harvests is burned at the site
  Northwest Research Station reported          and any potential energy lost. There is
  that, without Oregon’s farm and forest       growing interest in capturing energy
  land protection program, an estimated        from forest biomass both through on-site
  1.2 million acres of forest and              pyrolysis and from the development of
  agricultural land in western Oregon          biofuel processing facilities. In addition,
  would have been converted to more            according to the Oregon Forest
  developed uses and that by maintaining       Resources Institute, about 15 percent of
  these lands, the gains in carbon storage     Oregon’s forest land has the potential to
  are equivalent to avoiding 1.7 million       provide useful woody biomass through
  tons of carbon dioxide emissions             thinning. All of these sources of
  annually.                                    renewable energy represent potential
                                               opportunities for forest landowners to
  As ecosystem markets develop for other       realize a supplemental stream of income
  environmental benefits, such as              while harnessing a new renewable
                                               energy source.
DLCD - 72                                                                                                                               Appendix D



                                                                   Reported County Data
  The data in this report are for all local land use decisions on forest land, either in forest
  zones or mixed farm-forest zones.

  Dwellings                                                                                Large-Lot Dwellings – Regional
                                                                                           approval standards for dwellings on
  In forest zones, dwellings are allowed in                                                ownerships of different sizes are
  five different circumstances and include                                                 provided for in ORS 215.740. In western
  large-lot dwellings, lot-of record                                                       Oregon, large-tract dwellings must be on
  dwellings, template dwellings,                                                           ownerships of at least 160 contiguous or
  replacement dwellings and temporary                                                      200 non-contiguous acres. In eastern
  hardship dwellings. The total number of                                                  Oregon, they must be on ownerships of
  dwellings approved in forest and mixed                                                   240 or more contiguous or 320 or more
  farm/forest zones in 2008 was 353 and                                                    non-contiguous acres. In 2008, 19 large-
  in 2009 it was 275, numbers that are                                                     tract forest dwellings were approved and
  lower than for previous years. It is likely                                              in 2009, 32 such dwellings were
  that the low numbers reflect the current                                                 approved, a significant increase over
  economic recession and low numbers for                                                   previous years (Table N). The approvals
  new housing starts nationally.                                                           are spread fairly evenly among the
                                                                                           counties. Large-tract dwellings made up
                          Dwellings Approved in Forest Zones
                                     1997 - 2009
                                                                                           eight percent of all dwelling approvals in
   600
                                                                                           forest zones in the two years combined.
   500
                                                                                           Lot-of-record Dwellings – “Lot-of-
   400
                                                                                           record” dwellings may be approved on
   300
                                                                                           parcels that have been in the same
   200
                                                                                           ownership since 1985 and have a low
   100
                                                                                           capability for growing merchantable tree
     0                                                                                     species. In 2008, 27 such dwellings were
           1
          1997   2
                 1998   3
                        1999   4
                               2000   5
                                      2001   6
                                             2002   7
                                                    2003   8
                                                           2004   9
                                                                  2005 10   2007 12
                                                                       2006 11   2008 13
         2009
                                                                                           approved and in 2009, 11 were approved
                                                                                           (Table N). These numbers, especially
  A little over one-half of approvals in the                                               those for 2009, are lower than for
  reporting period were for template                                                       previous years, as might be expected as
  dwellings, while one-quarter were for                                                    existing lots-of-record are slowly built
  replacement dwellings.                                                                   out. Lot-of-record approvals are spread
                                                                                           fairly evenly across the state and are for
                               Dwelling Types in Forest Zones
                                        2008 - 2009                                        parcels of all sizes that reflect existing
                  Replacement,
                                                                                           lot configurations (Table P). Lot-of-
                      153
                                                                                           record dwellings made up just six
                                                                                           percent of all dwelling approvals in
                                                                                           forest zones in the two years combined.
                                                                      Template, 332
             Hardship, 54


             Lot-of-Record,
                   38

                    Large Tract, 51
DLCD - 73                                                                                        Appendix D



  Template Dwellings – “Template”                   private industrial timber ownerships,
  dwellings may be approved where there             where they could have the potential to
  is a certain amount of existing                   pose conflicts with adjacent forest
  development and parcelization within a            operations (Table Q). Just under one-
  160-acre “template” centered on the               quarter of template and lot-of-record
  parcel. In 2008, 197 template dwellings           dwellings approved in both years were
  were approved, while in 2009 the                  adjacent to U.S. Forest Service, BLM,
  number of approvals dropped to 135                state or private industrial forest land.
  (Table N). As with lots-of-record, the
  number of template dwelling approvals             Temporary Hardship Dwellings – A
  is expected to slowly drop as qualifying          temporary hardship dwelling is usually a
  parcels are slowly built out. About 85            manufactured home placed on a parcel
  percent of the dwellings that were                temporarily for reasons of a specific
  approved for both years were on the               hardship (usually medical) and must be
  most productive forest soils. About two-          removed at the end of the hardship. A
  thirds of both years’ approvals were for          temporary hardship dwelling may be
  parcels smaller than 21 acres (Table O).          sited in conjunction with any existing
  The highest level of activity was in the          dwelling, regardless of whether it is farm
  Willamette Valley and the county with             or non-farm related. In 2008, 22
  the highest number of approvals for both          temporary hardship dwellings were
  years was Lane County (77). Template              approved, while in 2009 the number was
  dwellings made up just over half of all           32, numbers that are consistent with
  dwelling approvals in forest zones in the         previous years (Table R). These
  two years combined.                               approvals are occurring primarily in
                                                    western Oregon. Temporary hardship
  Adjacent Land Ownership – The                     dwellings made up nine percent of all
  department has reviewed template and              dwelling approvals in forest zones in the
  lot-of-record dwelling approvals to learn          two years combined.
  whether they are adjacent to public or

    Issue: Multiple template dwellings per tract. Statutory language permits one template
    dwelling per qualifying “tract.” Because “tract” is not tied to a specific date of
    creation, multiple parcels that comprise single tracts are being sold or otherwise
    conveyed to others and approved for template dwellings. This issue could be resolved
    by tying “tract” to a specific date of creation.

    Issue: Rezonings for template dwellings. It can be easier to gain template dwelling
    approval than non-farm dwelling approval in the Valley, leading to the rezoning of
    land from farm zones to forest zones with sometimes inadequate justification. This
    effectively permits the expansion of the original footprint of land areas that potentially
    qualify for template dwellings. These expanded footprints expose growing areas of
    designated Wildland Forest to unanticipated template dwelling development. For this
    reason, department staff has recommended that designated Rural Reserves not be
    permitted to be subject to zone change while in reserve status. Department staff is also
    carefully reviewing proposed rezonings in the Valley from farm to forest for adequate
    justification.
DLCD - 74                                                                                                                                                   Appendix D



  Replacement Dwellings – A                                                    Cumulative Growth in Dwellings in Forest Zones
                                                                                               1997 - 2009
  replacement dwelling is a new home that                       6000
  replaces an older dwelling on a parcel. In
                                                                5000
  2008, 88 replacement dwellings were
                                                                4000
  approved, while in 2009 the number was
                                                                3000
  65, figures that are lower than for
  previous years (Table R). Replacement                         2000



  dwellings made up one-quarter of all                          1000


  dwelling approvals in forest zones in the                        0
                                                                        1997
                                                                         1     1998
                                                                                2     1999
                                                                                       3     2000
                                                                                              4     2001
                                                                                                    5      2002
                                                                                                           6      2003
                                                                                                                  7      2004
                                                                                                                         8      2005 10
                                                                                                                                9           2007 12
                                                                                                                                      2006 11     2008 13

  two years combined. Established                                      2009



  dwellings that are replaced must be
  removed, demolished or converted                              Other Uses
  within three months of completion of the                      In addition to a range of traditional
  replacement dwelling.                                         forest-related uses, the commission has
                                                                recognized that some non-forest uses are
  Historic Dwelling Approvals. Between                          acceptable in forest areas, such as utility
  1997 and 2009, 5,644 dwellings of all                         distribution facilities, home occupations
  types were approved in forest zones                           and some types of dwellings. These uses
  across the state, as shown in the chart                       are set forth in OAR 660-006-0025; all
  below. A little over one-half were                            together, nearly 50 uses are allowed in
  template dwellings, while just under                          forest and mixed farm/forest zones. In
  one-quarter were replacement dwellings.                       this biennial report, several uses that
                                                                were reported on in the past are no
                   Dwellings Types in Forest Zones
                             1997 - 2009
                                                                longer tracked, while several other uses
                                                                are now being tracked. The most
                                                                commonly-approved uses in 2008 and
               Replacement,
                  1,208                                         2009, other than dwellings, were farm-
                                                                related buildings, accessory uses,
          Hardship, 428
                                                                telecommunication facilities and mineral
          Lot-of-Record,
                                              Template, 3,193
                                                                and aggregate uses, in that order. Total
               554                                              numbers of these uses were 140 in 2008
             Large Tract, 261
                                                                and 110 in 2009, numbers that are up
                                                                over previous reporting years primarily
  The cumulative number of dwelling                             because of the new reporting categories
  approvals in forest zones in this period is                   (Table W).
  reflected in the following graph:
DLCD - 75                                                                                         Appendix D



  Land Divisions                                      and in 2009, 23 new non-forest parcels
                                                      were created, numbers that are down
  Forest Land Divisions. In 2008, 45 new              over previous years. The great majority
  forest parcels were created, while 23               of these parcels were 10 acres or smaller
  new forest parcels were created in 2009,            in size, consistent with statutory
  a number that is lower than for previous            requirements (Table V).
  years (Table T). Forest land divisions
  occurred fairly evenly across the state,
  with the highest numbers in Wallowa
  and Jackson Counties. Nearly all of the
  new forest land divisions were for new
  parcels of at least 80 acres, reflecting the
  statutory minimum lot size for forest
  land divisions (Table U).

  Non-forest Land Divisions. Non-forest
  land divisions are allowed in only a few
  circumstances, including the creation of
  a parcel or parcels to separate one or
  more existing dwellings on a property
  (ORS 215.780 (2)(b) and (e)). In 2008,
  15 new non-forest parcels were created,

    Issue: Forest land fragmentation. Because subdivisions are not prohibited in forest
    zones as they are in farm zones, large forest properties may be subdivided into
    multiple large lots at a time and there is no upper limit on the number of new forest
    parcels that may be subdivided off a parent tract in a calendar year. While the large
    minimum parcel size in forest zones reduces the potential for such land fragmentation,
    the ability to subdivide without limit facilitates the continued break-up and sell-off of
    forest land for non-forest purposes. This issue could be resolved through statutory
    changes that prohibit subdivisions on forest-zoned lands.




                                                 17
DLCD - 76                                                                                       Appendix D



                   Changes in Designation & Land Use
  There are several ways in which designated agricultural and forest lands can be 1) re-
  inventoried as higher- or lower-quality land, 2) replanned and/or rezoned for other uses or
  3) identified as qualified for waivers of resource zone requirements. Each option involves
  a specific process for identification of appropriate lands as described below.

  High-Value Farmland Mapping
  Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-
  033-0080(2) requires counties to submit
  maps of high-value farmland along with
  any other amendments necessary to
  implement the requirements of Goal 3
  and Division 33. High-value farmland
  maps were required to be submitted no
  later than the time of the first periodic
  review after December 31, 1994. All
  counties received a free copy of the
  Rural Lands Database in 2001, which              Marginal Lands
  includes digital Geographic Information
  (GIS) data for high-value farmland soils.        Only Lane and Washington counties
  Thus, counties with GIS systems can              have designated marginal land and
  easily print maps of their high-value            continue to have the authority to do so.
  farmland based on soil type, but not the         ORS 215.307 allows the siting of
  lands “growing specified perennials” in          dwellings on existing lots on land
  counties outside the Willamette Valley           designated as marginal, and requires
  or those lands in coastal counties used in       these two counties to use the EFU
  conjunction with a dairy operation on            requirements of ORS 215.213 on non
  January 1, 1993 (see ORS 215.710(2)              high-value farmland rather than those in
  and (4)).                                        ORS 215.283 for approving farm
                                                   dwellings and other uses in their EFU
  At this time, the department is only             zones. The use lists for the two sections
  aware that five counties have identified         are almost the same. Data for actions on
  their high-value farmland. Hood River,           EFU-zoned land in counties with
  Linn, Umatilla and Yamhill Counties              marginal lands are tallied and
  have identified and mapped their high-           summarized with that for all other
  value farmland. Marion County has                counties in this report; marginal lands
  designated all the land within its EFU           dwelling approvals are counted as non-
  zone as high-value farmland and does             farm dwellings. In 2008-09, Washington
  not make such determinations case-by-            County reported that it added 79 acres to
  case as part of land use decisions.              its marginal lands base, while Lane
                                                   County reported that it added no acres to
                                                   its marginal lands base.
DLCD - 77                                                                                      Appendix D



  Ballot Measures 37 and 49                        were for land in rural residential zones.
  Claims                                           These figures represent three to four
                                                   times as many dwelling approvals as
  In November 2007, Oregon voters                  typically occur within farm and forest
  approved Measure 49, which modified              zones in a two-year period and about
  Measure 37 and authorized the                    nine times as many land divisions as
  department to evaluate existing Measure          typically occur in farm and forest zones
  37 claims submitted to the state on or           in the same time period.
  before June 28, 2007. DLCD received
  approximately 4,600 Measure 49                   Rezonings
  Election Returns and completed review
  of these elections by the June 30, 2010          Rezonings to Urban Uses. Tables X, Y
  statutory deadline.                              and Z summarize adopted plan and zone
                                                   amendments to EFU, forest and mixed
  House Bill 3225 (2009) modified                  farm-forest zones for the two-year
  Measure 49, allowing previously                  planning period. Land in mixed farm-
  ineligible claimants to pursue relief            forest zones is considered together with
  under Measure 49. The department                 land in forest zones. These data provide
  received approximately 225 additional            an important historic picture of
  elections as a result of House Bill 3225,        rezonings to accommodate planned
  which were reviewed prior to December            development in urban and rural areas.
  31, 2010. Finally, Senate Bill 1049              Table X provides information on urban
  (2010) further modified the requirements         growth boundary (UGB) amendments
  of Measure 49 to allow approximately             adopted during this time period. During
  600 additional claims to become eligible         2008 and 2009, there were 13 UGB
  for supplemental review under Measure            amendments that brought 1,754 acres
  49. The department must finish                   into UGBs. Of this, 1,635 acres, or 93
  processing these claims by June 30,              percent, were zoned for farm use and
  2011. Once DLCD authorizes a specific            four acres, or less than one percent, was
  number of homesites, the property owner          zoned for forest use.
  may then obtain necessary local permits.
                                                   Over the 21-year period from 1988
  Table Z-2 shows the number of Measure            through 2009, 46,680 acres of land were
  49 approvals to date by county for home          added to UGBs statewide, 35 percent
  site authorizations, new dwellings and           (16,467 acres) originating from farm
  new parcels. A total of 8,671 home site          zones and one percent (3,140 acres)
  authorizations have been made,                   from forest zones. As UGBs continue to
  involving 6,123 new dwellings and                expand, particularly onto high-value
  3,871 new parcels. While the great               farmland and productive forest land in
  majority of approvals were for land in           the Willamette Valley, fewer non-
  farm and forest zones, a small number            resource lands will be available to bring

    Issue: Thousands of M49 dwelling approvals. The introduction of new non-farm and
    non-forest parcels and dwellings into working farm and forest landscapes is of
    significant concern. At least one county is exploring a local transfer of development
    rights program that would enable willing landowners to transfer their rights to develop
    to other, more appropriate locations.
DLCD - 78                                                                                                                     Appendix D



                                               Land Rezoned to Urban Uses
                                                      1988 - 2009


                18000

                16000

                14000

                12000

                10000                                                                                       Forest
      Acres




                                                                                                            Farm
                  8000                                                                                      Other

                  6000

                  4000

                  2000

                      0
                          1988                                                                2009

  into the boundaries, and more farm and                           be supported by an exception to Goal 3
  forest land will come under pressure to                          or 4, except where lands can be
  include in UGBs. The bar graph above                             demonstrated to be “nonresource” lands
  illustrates the annual rezoning of farm,                         not subject to Goals 3 or 4.
  forest and other land to urban uses in this
  time period.                                                     In 2008 and 2009, 532 acres of EFU
                                                                   land were rezoned to forest, while 536
  Rezonings to Rural and Resource                                  acres of forest land were rezoned to
  Uses. Table Y provides data on changes                           EFU. In many cases, these rezonings are
  from farm and forest plan designations                           intended to facilitate development that is
  and/or zoning to rural land uses. In 2008,                       allowed in one resource zone, but not
  1,100 acres of EFU land and 220 acres                            another. For instance, it is easier to get
  of forest land were rezoned for rural                            template dwelling approval than non-
  development, while in 20009, 777 acres                           farm dwelling approval in the Valley,
  of EFU land and 2,507 acres of forest                            prompting rezonings to forest use in this
  land were rezoned for rural                                      area, while it can be easier to get non-
  development. Rezonings are required to                           farm dwelling approvals over template

                      Farmland Rezoned to Other Uses                            Forest Land Rezoned to Other Uses
                                                                                           1988 - 2009
                               1988 - 2009
            20,000
                          18,389
            18,000                                                  10,000    9,455
                                      16,467                                                                         8,964
            16,000                                                   9,000

                                                                     8,000
            14,000
                                                                     7,000
            12,000
    Acres




                                                                     6,000
            10,000
                                                                     5,000
              8,000
                                                        5,984        4,000
              6,000                                                                              3,140
                                                                     3,000
              4,000
                                                                     2,000
              2,000
                                                                     1,000
                 0
                                                                        0
                          To Rural    To Urban         To Forest
                                                                             To Rural           To Urban            To Farm
DLCD - 79                                                                                     Appendix D



  dwelling approvals outside the Valley.         Typically, soil scientists contracted by
                                                 landowners provide counties with new
  Table Z identifies rezonings by county.        data. However, counties often do not
  As there are only two years of data            know which sources of data to rely on.
  available, it is not yet clear if there is a   For this reason, the legislature passed
  pattern to rezonings among counties.           HB 3647 in 2010 that authorizes the
                                                 department to arrange for professional
  Historic Rezonings. Over a 20-year             soils classifiers experienced in field
  timeframe, 18,389 acres of EFU land            work to evaluate farmland that is
  and 9,455 acres of forest land have been       claimed to be “nonresource.” While
  rezoned for rural development, totaling        some counties have provisions in their
  27,844 acres. Add the 19,607 acres of          comprehensive plans that guide the
  farm and forest land included in UGBs          identification of nonresource lands,
  over a similar time period, and the            others do not. Some counties consider
  cumulative total of land rezoned out of        Goal 5 values in selecting appropriate
  farm and forest use is 47,451 acres.           minimum lot sizes for nonresource
  While about 40 percent of this acreage         designated lands, while others do not.
  was incorporated into UGBs, almost 60          Below is a list of the eight counties with
  percent of it was designated for rural         acreage planned and zoned as
  development uses.                              “nonresource.”

  Nonresource Lands. Nonresource land            County                    Acres Designated
  designations are a subset of lands                                         Non-Resource
                                                 Clatsop                              2,351
  rezoned from farm and forest to rural
                                                 Crook                               23,000
  and urban development. In 2008-09,             Douglas                              3,470
  about half of all such farm and forest         Jackson                                342
  land rezonings were based on claims that       Josephine                           15,570
  the land involved was not “agricultural”       Klamath                             36,742
  or “forest” land as defined by Statewide       Linn                                    29
  Goals 3 and 4.                                 Lane                                   495
                                                 Wasco                                7,047
                                                 Total                               86,204
  The table to the right identifies eight
  counties that have identified
  “nonresource” lands over the years that        Nonresource lands were addressed by
  have been planned and zoned for other          the legislature in 2009, when it adopted
  rural uses and are no longer subject to        House Bill 2229. This bill outlined a
  the provisions of Goals 3 and 4.               clearer path for counties to take in
                                                 designating nonresource lands on a
  Lands that are identified as nonresource       legislative, rather than case-by-case
  are not required to be supported by an         basis. The department plans to begin
  exception to either of these goals.            rulemaking in 2011 to detail a process
  However, appropriate data documenting          for implementing HB 2229.
  the nonresource nature of the land must
  be provided as part of a post-
  acknowledgment plan amendment.
DLCD - 80                                                                                   Appendix D



    Issue: Sustainable resource protection. In the long run, the continued inclusion of
    more of the state’s most productive farm and forest land in UGBs risks undermining
    the state’s agricultural and forest economies and other social and environmental
    values. The Portland Metro area urban and rural reserves effort is one means of
    balancing competing urbanization and resource uses over the long term.

    Issue: Identifying nonresource lands. Concerns have been raised about how
    nonresource lands are identified by counties, their location and extent and about the
    appropriate level of rural development.
DLCD - 81                                                                                    Appendix D



  Changes in Land Use                          exclusive farm use and forest zones,
                                               standards that were intended by ODF to
  Every few years, the Oregon Department       reflect those used by DLCD.
  of Forestry (ODF) publishes Forest,
  Farms & People: Land Use Change on
  Non-Federal Land in Oregon, which
  uses digital imagery based on 37,003
  points across the state to calculate
  changes in land cover over time of a
  variety of land use classes. This data is
  valuable because it measures actual
  changes in land use, not just changes to
  plan or zone designations. Changes to
  plan and zone designations are not
  always followed by changes to land use,
  or changes to land use may follow only
  years later. For this reason, data on
  changes in land use represent a more         For instance, when the density of
  accurate, timely and direct measure of       development in wildland forest and
  land conversion from farm and forest         wildrange areas increases to more than
  uses to other uses than do changes to        one dwelling per 160 acres, the land is
  planning or zoning. This data provides       reclassified to another land use class that
  another means to evaluate the                reflects its new density. Usually, this
  effectiveness of Oregon’s farm and           will be one of the other three resource
  forest land protection efforts.              zones. When the density of development
                                               in the other three resource zones exceeds
  The ODF has tracked land use change in       one dwelling per 80 acres, the land is
  Oregon from 1974 to 2009 in a series of      reclassified by ODF as low-density
  periodic reports. The reports identify       residential, urban or other.
  several land use classes, among them:
  wildland forest, wildland range,             ODF data on land use change capture
  intensive agriculture, mixed                 not only converted farm and forest land
  forest/agriculture and mixed                 that may have followed rezonings, but
  range/agriculture. These land use classes    also the land that is converted within
  reflect both land cover and density of       farm and forest zones. While DLCD data
                                               reports the number of approvals of
  existing structures, which consist           dwellings, other uses and land divisions
  primarily of dwellings. Wildland forest      in these zones, these data do not capture
  and wildland range are those forest and      the acreage converted within the zones.
  range lands with densities of fewer than
  five structures per square mile, while the   Table Z-1 identifies changes in farm and
  other three resource categories reflect      forest land cover between 1984 and
  resource land with densities of fewer        2009, using ODF data. These data reflect
  than nine structures per square mile.        values for non-Federal lands only. 1984
  These densities roughly reflect the          was used because it compares closely to
  densities of permitted farm dwellings        the 1988 and 1989 dates that were used
  and large track forest dwellings in          by DLCD to track plan and zone
DLCD - 82                                                                                                                                              Appendix D



  changes from farm and forest zones, and                                                    Forest Land Conversion to Other Uses
                                                                                                         1984 - 2009
  because all county comprehensive plans
  were acknowledged by the end of 1984.
                                                                                                        East, 3,000, 2%     Metro, 21,000,
  Data are rounded to the nearest 500                                                Central, 31,000,
                                                                                                                                17%


  acres.                                                                                  26%


                                                                                                                                    Coast, 18,000,
                                                                                                                                        15%
  State Trends in Farm and Forest
  Land Conversion. ODF data show that,
                                                                                          South, 30,000,                      Valley, 18,000,
  in the 25-year period between 1984 and                                                      25%                                  15%


  2009, approximately 147,000 acres of
  land used for farming or range moved to
  more developed land classes (mostly low
  density residential). Almost half of all
  this conversion occurred in Central
  Oregon, while nearly one-quarter took
  place in the Portland Metro area and
  another quarter in the Willamette Valley.
                  Farmland Conversion to Other Uses
                            1984 - 2009


                      East, 14,000,
                          10%                  Metro, 30,000,
                                                   20%



                                                    Coast, 2,000, 1%



         Central, 61,000,
              42%                                  Valley, 34,000,
                                                        23%                 The 121,000 acres of forest land that
                                      South, 6,000, 4%                      moved from forest use during the study
                                                                            period is approximately twelve times the
  Similarly, in this time frame, 121,000                                    acreage (12,000) that was rezoned from
  acres of land used for forest and farm-                                   forest to other rural and urban zones in a
  forest uses moved from these classes to                                   similar time frame. ODF research shows
  more developed classes, with about one-                                   that lands with low-density residential
  quarter of this conversion occurring in                                   uses typically are not managed for
  Southern Oregon and one-quarter in                                        timber production. The greater
  Central Oregon. The remainder of                                          proportion of forest land being converted
  conversion split fairly evenly among the                                  to residential uses within forest zones is
  Metro area, Valley and Coast.                                             a significant concern for the department.

                                                                                  Farm & Fore st Land Rez onings Ve rse s
  The 147,000 acres of land that moved                                                  Conve rsion 1984 - 2009
  from ODF’s farm use classification
  during the study period is approximately                                         150,000
                                                                                                           147,000

  four times the acreage (34,856) that was                                                                                121,000

  rezoned from farm to other rural and                                             100,000

  urban zones in a similar time frame. In
  short, a significant amount of land is                                            50,000
                                                                                                    34,856

  experiencing low-density residential                                                       0
                                                                                                                     12,595
                                                                                                                                        Conver sions

                                                                                                                                    Rezonings
  development.                                                                                      1
                                                                                             Farm                    2
                                                                                                               Fo res t



                                                                       24
DLCD - 83                                                                                          Appendix D




  There is an important caveat to these              County Trends in Farm and Forest
  comparisons, and that is that the ODF              Land Conversion. Several counties
  definitions of conversion of farm and              stand out as experiencing particularly
  forest land reflect much lower                     high levels of low density residential
  development densities than typically               development of farm and forest land
  follow rezonings to rural or urban uses.           classes. These include Deschutes
  Land is no longer considered in forest             County, which lost 10 percent of its
  use by ODF when development densities              farmland base and 11 percent of its
  exceed one dwelling per 80 acres, while            forest land base to low-density
  rezonings from forest zones typically              development in the 25-year time period.
  result in development densities of one             The Portland Metro counties were
  dwelling per 10 acres.                             similarly affected, Multnomah,
                                                     Washington and Clackamas Counties
  The ODF data suggest two conclusions:              losing 28, 11 and seven percent,
  (a) that there continues to be significant         respectively, of their farmland bases, and
  flexibility within resource zones to               between three and four percent of each
  accommodate dwellings; and (b) that the            of their forest land bases. Much of the
  cumulative increase in numbers of                  conversion in these counties was due to
  dwellings within resource zones raises             the outward expansion of urban growth
  concerns about de facto conversion of              boundaries. Other counties experiencing
  these lands to low density residential use         significant conversion trends include
  – particularly for forest lands where low          Jackson, which lost seven percent of its
  density residential uses signal an end to          farmland base and Coos and Lane
  active timber management.                          Counties, which each lost five percent of
                                                     their farmland bases.

                                        Conclusion
  In conclusion, Oregon’s farm and forest land protection program has provided a
  significant level of protection to the state’s working landscapes over the last three
  decades, generating important support for state and local economies and providing
  additional recreational, environmental and cultural benefits for Oregonians. Over the
  years, and in response to changing conditions, new trends and regional variation, the
  department and legislature have continued to fine-tune the program to make it as
  effective as possible, while being sensitive to landowner interests and county resources.
  In this spirit, this report identifies several areas of concern that the department would like
  to pursue in the next biennium, through legislation, rulemaking and technical assistance
  to counties.
       DLCD - 84                                                                                                               Appendix D

                                       New Dwellings Approved in Farm Zones


TYPE OF             1997    1998      1999     2000    2001    2002    2003    2004     2005    2006       2007   2008   2009 TOTALS
DWELLING                                                                                                                       (% of Net)
Primary Farm
ORS 215.283(1)(f)   98      68        88       77      81      76      93      88       84      105        89     74     59    1,080 (10%)

Accessory Farm
ORS 215.283(1)(f)   57      35        53       36      29      27      30      20       23      24         55     59     31    479 (4%)

Family Farm Help
ORS 215.283(1)(e)   78      77        59       43      38      48      34      53       49      35         55     36     20    625 (6%)

Temporary
Hardship            131     126       105      105     115     104     80      73       89      74         70     57     61    1,190 (11%)
ORS 215.283(2)(L)
Lot-of-Record
ORS 215.705         129     131       94       80      78      89      53      64       51      53         64     50     32    968 (9%)
Non-Farm
ORS 215.284         340     205       208      227     203     279     258     202      218     236        246    184    118   2,924 (26%)
Net New Dwellings   833     642       607      568     544     623     548     500      514     527        579    460    321   7,266
Replacement
ORS 215.283(1)(s)   419     361       354      307     276     333     305     294      233     301        227    251    229   3,890 (35%)

TOTAL
DWELLINGS           1252    1003      961      875     820     956     853     794      747     828        806    711    550   11,156
APPROVED IN
FARM ZONES

                                  Prepared by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
                                                 Using data submitted by Oregon’s 36 counties.

       NOTE: For 2001 only, the numbers shown are a 12 month average (16 month total  16 x 12 = 2001)
                                                               26
       DLCD - 85                                                                                                                             Appendix D


                                             New Dwellings Approved in Forest Zones


TYPE OF             1997      1998      1999      2000     2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007    2008   2009    TOTALS
DWELLING                                                                                                                                      (% of Net)
Forest Template
ORS 215.750         276       264       277       281      237       218       232       278       275       273       250     197    135     3,193 (57%)

Large Lot
ORS 215.740         13        13        16        19       21        15        28         31       16        16        22      19     32       261 (5%)

Lot-of-Record
ORS 215.720         52        78        46        41       47        33        43        55        41        34        46      27     11       554 (10%)

Temporary
Hardship            45*       40        52        37       35        41        24        19        29        20        32      22     32       428 (8%)
ORS 215.755(2)
Net New             386       395       391       378      340       307       327       383       361       343       350     265    210      4,436
Dwellings
Replacement
ORS 215.755(1)      95        90        85        81       91        93        97        98        114       121       90      88     65       1,208 (21%)

TOTAL
DWELLINGS           481       485       476       459      431       400       424       481       475       464       440     353    275      5,644
APPROVED IN
FOREST
ZONES

                                     Prepared by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
                                                    Using data submitted by Oregon’s 36 counties.
       NOTES: For 2001 only, the numbers shown are a 12 month average (16 month total  16 x 12 = 2001)
               The 1997 number is an average for the approvals of temporary hardship dwellings from 1994 to 2002 because the
               actual number approved in 1997 is not available.

                                                                             27
DLCD - 86                                                                         Appendix D
                                PRIMARY FARM                                2008 Table A
                             DWELLING APPROVALS


                 Income /    Income / Non   Size / Non
       County   High Value    High Value    High Value   Capability   Totals
 Baker                            1                                     1
 Benton             2                                                   2
 Clackamas          3                                                   3
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos               1                                                   1
 Crook                                           4                      4
 Curry
 Deschutes                                       2           1          3
 Douglas            2                            3                      5
 Gilliam                          1                                     1
 Grant              1             2                                     3
 Harney                           7                                     7
 Hood River
 Jackson                                         3                      3
 Jefferson                                       2                      2
 Josephine
 Klamath                          3                          2          5
 Lake                             2                                     2
 Lane               1                                                   1
 Lincoln                          1                                     1
 Linn
 Malheur
 Marion             1                                                   1
 Morrow                           1                                     1
 Multnomah
 Polk               1                                                   1
 Sherman
 Tillamook                                                   1          1
 Umatilla           1             1              1                      3
 Union                                           2                      2
 Wallowa                          2                                     2
 Wasco                            1                                     1
 Washington         9             1                                    10
 Wheeler                          5                                     5
 Yamhill            3                                                   3
       Totals      25            28              17          4         74


                                 Previous Years Totals
       2007        24            16              40          9          89
       2006        24            16              49         16         105
       2005        22             1              60          2          85
DLCD - 87                                                                                  Appendix D
                                PRIMARY FARM                                         2008 Table B
                           DWELLINGS BY PARCEL SIZE

                                               Parcel Sizes by Acreage
                Size Not                                                              160 &
       County   Reported     0 to 10    11 to 20    21 to 40   41 to 79   80 & 159    Over    Totals
 Baker                                                                                  1       1
 Benton                                                1                                1       2
 Clackamas         1           1           1                                                    3
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos                                                                                   1       1
 Crook                                                                       3          1       4
 Curry
 Deschutes         1                                                         1          1       3
 Douglas                                                          2                     3       5
 Gilliam                                                                                1       1
 Grant                                                 1                                2       3
 Harney                                                                                 7       7
 Hood River
 Jackson                                                                                3       3
 Jefferson                                                        2                             2
 Josephine
 Klamath                                               1                     2          2       5
 Lake                                                                                   2       2
 Lane                                                                        1                  1
 Lincoln                                                                                1       1
 Linn
 Malheur
 Marion                                    1                                                    1
 Morrow                                                                                 1       1
 Multnomah
 Polk                                                                        1                  1
 Sherman
 Tillamook                                             1                                        1
 Umatilla                                              1          1                    1        3
 Union                                                                                 2        2
 Wallowa                                                                               2        2
 Wasco                                                                                 1        1
 Washington                    4           1           1          2          1         1       10
 Wheeler           2                                                                   3        5
 Yamhill                                               1                     2                  3
       Totals      4           5           3           7          7         11         37      74


                                       Previous Years Totals
       2007        1            6           4         10         14         54                  89
       2006        0           10           8         11         20         56                 105
       2005        2            8           3          7          6         59                  85
DLCD - 88                                                               Appendix D
                      FARM HELP DWELLING APPROVALS                2008 Table C


                                   Dwelling Approvals

             County    Accessory    Units     Relative   Totals
       Baker               1         1                     1
       Benton                                    5         5
       Clackamas          4          4                     4
       Clatsop
       Columbia
       Coos               2          4           2         6
       Crook              4          4                     4
       Curry
       Deschutes          1          1           1         2
       Douglas            1          1           8         9
       Gilliam
       Grant               1          1                    1
       Harney              7          7                    7
       Hood River         13         13          2        15
       Jackson             2          2          2         4
       Jefferson           2          2                    2
       Josephine                                 1         1
       Klamath            1          1           1         2
       Lake               2          2           1         3
       Lane                                      3         3
       Lincoln
       Linn               4          4           1         5
       Malheur                                   1         1
       Marion             3          3           1         4
       Morrow             2          2                     2
       Multnomah
       Polk               2          2           1         3
       Sherman
       Tillamook          1          1                     1
       Umatilla           1          1           1         2
       Union                                     2         2
       Wallowa            1           1                    1
       Wasco
       Washington
       Wheeler             1          1                    1
       Yamhill             1          1          3         4
             Totals       57         59         36        95


                           Previous Years Totals
             2007         55         55          55       337
             2006         25         25          35       361
             2005         25         25          49       310
DLCD - 89                                                                    Appendix D
                NON FARM / LOT-OF-RECORD / TEMPORARY /                 2008 Table D
                  REPLACEMENT DWELLING APPROVALS

                         Lot of Record
                Not High               High              Temporary
       County    Value   Perimeter     Value    Non-Farm Hardship    Replace   Totals
 Baker              4                               3                  10       17
 Benton                                                     1           2        3
 Clackamas                    1                     2       6                    9
 Clatsop                                            1       1           2        4
 Columbia
 Coos                                                        2         10       12
 Crook             1                                18                  6       25
 Curry                                               2                           2
 Deschutes                                          35       2         2        39
 Douglas           3                                26       8         51       88
 Gilliam                                                                2        2
 Grant             1                                1                   9       11
 Harney            2                                11       1                  14
 Hood River        2                    1            1       4         12       20
 Jackson           8                                 9       1                  18
 Jefferson                              1            1                  7        9
 Josephine                                           2                           2
 Klamath                                             5                  7       12
 Lake                                               21                          21
 Lane                                                4       3          3       10
 Lincoln           1                                 2                           3
 Linn              2                                        5          1         8
 Malheur           5                    1           8       2          15       31
 Marion                                 3           1       11         15       30
 Morrow                                             6                   3        9
 Multnomah                                                              1        1
 Polk                                                                  32       32
 Sherman
 Tillamook                                                             13        13
 Umatilla          3                                9                  10        22
 Union             4                                         1          8        13
 Wallowa           3                                3                   4        10
 Wasco             1                                                              1
 Washington        1                                8        4         23        36
 Wheeler                                            5                   3         8
 Yamhill            1                   1                    5                    7
       Totals      42         1         7          184      57        251       542


                                  Previous Years Totals
       2007        57         5          6         246      70        207       384
       2006        46         3          4         236      74        301       363
       2005        39         0         12         218      89        236       358
DLCD - 90                                                                               Appendix D
                       FARM LOT-OF-RECORD DWELLINGS                               2008 Table E
                              BY PARCEL SIZE

                                        Parcel Sizes by Acreage
                Size Not                                                           80 &
       County   Reported   0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40   41 to 79    Over   Totals
 Baker                       1                     1           1          1                 4
 Benton
 Clackamas                   1                                                              1
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook                       1                                                              1
 Curry
 Deschutes
 Douglas                     1          1                      1                            3
 Gilliam
 Grant                                                                    1                 1
 Harney                                                                   2                 2
 Hood River                  1          2                                                   3
 Jackson           1         1                     1           1          3         1       8
 Jefferson                                                                1                 1
 Josephine
 Klamath
 Lake
 Lane
 Lincoln                                                                  1                 1
 Linn                        2                                                              2
 Malheur                     2                                            2         2       6
 Marion                      1                     1           1                            3
 Morrow
 Multnomah
 Polk
 Sherman
 Tillamook
 Umatilla                    1                     1           1                            3
 Union                       1          1                                 2                 4
 Wallowa                     1                                            2                 3
 Wasco                                                                    1                 1
 Washington                  1                                                              1
 Wheeler
 Yamhill                                           2                                         2
       Totals      1        15          4          6           5         16         3       50


                                    Previous Years Totals
       2007        1        15           9          4         16         13          6      64
       2006        0         9          10         10          6          6         11      53
       2005       11         3           2          6         16         11          2      51
DLCD - 91                                                                               Appendix D
                           NON-FARM DWELLINGS                                     2008 Table F
                             BY PARCEL SIZE

                                             Parcel Sizes by Acreage
                Size Not                                                           80 &
       County   Reported   0 to 5     6 to 10    11 to 20   21 to 40   41 to 79    Over   Totals
 Baker              2                                          1                            3
 Benton
 Clackamas                   1                      1                                       2
 Clatsop                                                       1                            1
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook             1         2          13          1                               1      18
 Curry             1                                                                1       2
 Deschutes         1        11          2          14          4          2         1      35
 Douglas                    20          3           1                     1         1      26
 Gilliam
 Grant                                  1                                                   1
 Harney                                 1           2          4          2         2      11
 Hood River                  1                                                              1
 Jackson           1         4                      2          2                            9
 Jefferson                                                                1                 1
 Josephine                                          1          1                            2
 Klamath                                            5                                       5
 Lake                        3          6           7          3          1         1      21
 Lane                                               2          2                            4
 Lincoln                     2                                                              2
 Linn
 Malheur                     2                      1          2          2         1       8
 Marion                                                                   1                 1
 Morrow                      2                      3                     1                 6
 Multnomah
 Polk
 Sherman
 Tillamook
 Umatilla                    6          2           1                                       9
 Union
 Wallowa                                                                  3                 3
 Wasco
 Washington                  4          3           1                                       8
 Wheeler           2                                           2          1                 5
 Yamhill
       Totals      8        58          31         42         22         15         8      184


                                    Previous Years Totals
       2007       22        67          51         25         33         31         17     246
       2006        9        44          43         44         48         17         31     236
       2005       20        67          44         47         27         13          0     218
DLCD - 92                                                                                 Appendix D
                       ACCESSORY FARM DWELLINGS                                     2008 Table G
                            BY PARCEL SIZE

                                       Parcel Sizes by Acreage
                Size Not                                                             160 &
       County   Reported   0 to 10    11 to 20   21 to 40    41 to 79   80 to 159    Over    Totals
 Baker                                                                                 1       1
 Benton
 Clackamas                                                       2         1           1       4
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos                                                                                  4       4
 Crook                                                                     2           2       4
 Curry
 Deschutes                                           1                                         1
 Douglas                                                                               1       1
 Gilliam
 Grant                                                                                 1        1
 Harney                                                                    1           6        7
 Hood River                  1            5          3           2         2                   13
 Jackson                                  1          1                                          2
 Jefferson                                                                 2                    2
 Josephine
 Klamath                                                                   1                   1
 Lake                                                                      1           1       2
 Lane
 Lincoln
 Linn                                                                      2           2       4
 Malheur
 Marion                                              2                                 1       3
 Morrow                      1                                                         1       2
 Multnomah
 Polk                                                            1         1                   2
 Sherman
 Tillamook                                           1                                         1
 Umatilla                                                        1                             1
 Union
 Wallowa                                             1                                         1
 Wasco
 Washington
 Wheeler           1                                                                           1
 Yamhill                                                                    1                  1
       Totals      1         2            6          9           6         14          21      59


                                     Previous Years Totals
       2007        1         14           5          8           3         24          0       55
       2006        0          4           3          3           5          9          0       24
       2005        2          1           3          5           3         10          0       24
      DLCD - 93                                                                      Appendix D
                         DWELLING APPROVALS ON FARM LAND                       2008 Table H
                                  TOTALS BY YEAR

                 Primary Farm                 Lot of Record            Non - Farm Dwellings
   County    2004 2005 2006 2007 2008   2004 2005 2006 2007 2008   2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Baker               5    3    3   1      10   2      9     3 4            8      9    2      3
Benton                            2       2   3      2               2           3
Clackamas     8          2    3   3      4    7      3     2 1      2     1      3           2
Clatsop                                                    2              2     1    3      1
Columbia                 1                                           1
Coos                    2    2    1                     2           1
Crook        11    5    10   1    4      5    3    1         1      30   19     25   34     18
Curry         1              3                                                               2
Deschutes     3         2         3      3    3    3    1           37   33     57   45     35
Douglas       7    7    3    5    5      2    2    3    3    3      18   31     18   54     26
Gilliam                      1    1                     1
Grant         1    1          2   3      2    2         2    1      2     3       2          1
Harney        5    6    8    10   7      2         10   6    2      4     5      13   17    11
Hood River         5    3                1    1    2    3    3                        11    1
Jackson       2    5    3    3    3      4    6    5    2    8      6    17      20   18    9
Jefferson     7    6    1    4    2      1              9    1                         3    1
Josephine                                1                          3     1            1    2
Klamath       6         17   13   5           3                    30    10      13    5    5
Lake          2   14    8         2                                28    40      31         21
Lane          1    2              1      1         1                2    3       1    1     4
Lincoln                           1      1                   1            1            1     2
Linn          1    1    1    1           3    1         2    2      5     4       1    3
Malheur       9    3    1    9           4    1    1    3    6      7    12      14   11    8
Marion        2    1    4    2    1      1    4    2         3      6     1       7    4    1
Morrow             2    1    1    1                     1           1     2      2    3     6
Multnomah     1    1                          2         3
Polk          1    5    3    7    1      2    1         2                 3      1
Sherman       1                                                                        2
Tillamook                    1     1                                                   1
Umatilla      5    1         5     3     3    2    3    5    3      6     6      2     4    9
Union         3    4    4    2     2     4    3         2    4      1     2            6
Wallowa       2          2   3     2     5    3    3    4    3            2      2     3    3
Wasco         2    6    2    2     1     1    1    1         1      3     3      3     3
Washington    2    5    11   3    10          1         3    1      2     3      1     5    8
Wheeler                            5                     1          2     5      5     4    5
Yamhill       5         13    3    3     2          4    2    2     2     2      2     2
    Totals   88   85   105   89   74    64   51    53   64   50    201   219    236   246   184
DLCD - 94                                                                         Appendix D
                             FARM AND NON-FARM                              2008 Table I
                           LAND DIVISION APPROVALS

               Resulting Farm Parcels            Resulting Non-Farm Parcels
      County   2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
 Baker                 7     12   10  2   2         11     1     2    4
 Benton          1     2           3  1        1                 4    5
 Clackamas             2           2
 Clatsop                                  1                      1    3
 Columbia
 Coos                                                     2                 13
 Crook          12   23     11    10     5     7    21    22     4    13    27     3
 Curry           4                                   1                       1    1
 Deschutes      17   13      6           1    2     43    24    15    22    28    21
 Douglas        21   19     27     8     5    8     16     8    31    40    43    22
 Gilliam         2           9     2          3      2           1     2           4
 Grant          17    8     19     4    10    6     10     6     7     3    14     1
 Harney          7    6     36     4    13    25     5     4           5    11     3
 Hood River
 Jackson                           1           2                       2     5    1
 Jefferson      10    4            1    14           1                 3
 Josephine                   1                                  2
 Klamath              6      2     7     7     8    1     14    7     10     3    3
 Lake           17    8      7     3           2    15    20    28    24          5
 Lane                        4                                   1     3          4
 Lincoln
 Linn           7     5      7     3     7     3     3     1     3           6    1
 Malheur        1                  1           1     1                 9
 Marion         1     1      3     3     2           1     1     1     1     4    1
 Morrow         6     5      7     3     4     2     7     1           8     3    6
 Multnomah                                     1                       1     1
 Polk           11   3      9     7     6     4     1           3     11    10
 Sherman         1   10     4     1           2     1      4           3     5
 Tillamook                                    1                                   2
 Umatilla       3    8      13     6    7     10    1     6     6     7     13    7
 Union               4      5      5    8     3                       5     3     2
 Wallowa        17   7      4      2    2     5     10    4     2     7     1     3
 Wasco          5    5      5      7    2            1    5     1     6      2    1
 Washington                 1      2                      2     1
 Wheeler                    2      2     8     4                2     6     3     4
 Yamhill        4                  4     2     4
      Totals   164   146    194   101   106   106   142   135   116   198   208   95
DLCD - 95                                                                         Appendix D
                             FARM and NON-FARM                              2008 Table J
                            LAND DIVISION ACTIONS

                         Farm Divisions                  Non Farm Divisions
                Decisions Decisions      New      Decisions Decisions     New
       County   Approved Denied         Parcels   Approved Denied        Parcels
 Baker               2                    2
 Benton
 Clackamas
 Clatsop            1                     1
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook              6                     7            2                    3
 Curry                                                 1                    1
 Deschutes           2                     2          16                   21
 Douglas             6                     8          14                   22
 Gilliam             2                     3           3                    4
 Grant               4         1           6           1                    1
 Harney             16                    25           2                    3
 Hood River
 Jackson            1                     2           1                     1
 Jefferson
 Josephine
 Klamath            6                     8           2                     3
 Lake               2                     2           3                     5
 Lane                                                 3                     4
 Lincoln
 Linn               2                     3           1                     1
 Malheur            1                     1
 Marion                                               1                     1
 Morrow             2                     2           5                     6
 Multnomah          1                     1
 Polk               3                     4
 Sherman            2                     2
 Tillamook          1                      1          2                     2
 Umatilla           8                     10          5                     7
 Union              3                     3           2                     2
 Wallowa            4                     5           2                     3
 Wasco                                                1                     1
 Washington
 Wheeler             3                    4           4                     4
 Yamhill             3                    4
       Totals       81         1         106          71        0          95


                                    Previous Years Totals
       2007         77         0         106         142        11        208
       2006         84         1         101         148         6        198
       2005         76         0         188          72         0        116
DLCD - 96                                                                                    Appendix D
                           NEW FARM PARCELS BY SIZE                                    2008 Table K


                                                  Parcel Size by Acreage
                Size Not                                                                160 &
       County   Reported    0 to 10    11 to 20     21 to 40   41 to 79    80 to 159    Over    Totals
 Baker                                                                         2                  2
 Benton
 Clackamas
 Clatsop                                                                      1                   1
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook                                                            1           2           4       7
 Curry
 Deschutes                                             1          1                              2
 Douglas                                                                      8                  8
 Gilliam                                                                                   3     3
 Grant                                                                        1            5     6
 Harney                                                                       2           23     25
 Hood River
 Jackson           1                                              1                               2
 Jefferson
 Josephine
 Klamath                                                                      3           5       8
 Lake                                                                                     2       2
 Lane
 Lincoln
 Linn                                                                                     3       3
 Malheur                                                                                  1       1
 Marion
 Morrow                                                                                   2      2
 Multnomah                                 1                                                     1
 Polk                                                                         4                  4
 Sherman                                                                      1           1      2
 Tillamook                    1                                                                  1
 Umatilla                                                         1           2           7      10
 Union                                                                                    3      3
 Wallowa                                                                                  5      5
 Wasco
 Washington
 Wheeler                                                                       1          3       4
 Yamhill                                   1                      1            2                  4
       Totals      1          1            2           1          5           29          67     106


                                      Previous Years Totals
       2007        0          0            1          4          5           96           0      100
       2006        0          1            0          0          1           98           0      101
       2005        5          1            4          3          17          158          0      188
DLCD - 97                                                                              Appendix D
                           NEW NON-FARM PARCELS                                  2008 Table L
                                  BY SIZE

                                         Parcel Size by Acreage
                Size Not                                                41 and
       County   Reported    0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40    Over    Totals
 Baker
 Benton
 Clackamas
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook                                   2                      1                   3
 Curry                                                          1                   1
 Deschutes                    9          2          6           4                  21
 Douglas                     20          1          1                              22
 Gilliam                      1                     1           1         1        4
 Grant                                              1                              1
 Harney                       2                                           1        3
 Hood River
 Jackson                                            1                              1
 Jefferson
 Josephine
 Klamath                      1                     2                              3
 Lake                         1          2                                2        5
 Lane                                                           3         1        4
 Lincoln
 Linn                         1                                                    1
 Malheur
 Marion                                  1                                         1
 Morrow                       2                     4                              6
 Multnomah
 Polk
 Sherman
 Tillamook                    2                                                    2
 Umatilla                     5          1                                1        7
 Union                        2                                                    2
 Wallowa                                 2          1                              3
 Wasco                                                          1                  1
 Washington
 Wheeler                      1                     2           1                  4
 Yamhill
       Totals      0         47          11        19          12         6        95


                                     Previous Years Totals
       2007        0         131         28         22         13        14       208
       2006        0          90         52         26         18        12       198
       2005        0          59         30         10          6        11       116
DLCD - 98                                                                  Appendix D
                    OTHER USES APPROVED ON LAND ZONED               2008 Table M
                               FOR FARM USE


                                            Number of Approvals
                  Use                  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
 Accessory Use                          25   30   34    21    38 91   68
 Airstrip                                6   3    2     6      3 7     2
 Bed and Breakfast                       7   3    2     4              2
 Church                                  3        3     7      1 3     2
 Commercial Activity w/ Farm Use         3    8    7    10    14 17    8
 Commercial Power Generating**                                         1
 Destination Resort                                                    1
 Dog Kennel                              2   4    8     6      4 2     5
 Farm Processing Facility**                                            8
 Farm Related Building**                                              92
 Farm Stand                              6   5    5     2      3 1     4
 Golf Course                             3        1                    1
 Guest Ranch                                                   2 1     1
 Home Occupation                        14   24   18    18    19 18   27
 Mineral & Aggregate                    20   21    8    10     6 12   19
 Other Use                               2                            55
 Private Park                           16   12   5     2      2 2     7
 Public Park**                                                         3
 Roads and Improvements                 11    9   12     8    17 10   13
 School                                  1        1     1      1       2
 Telecommunication Facility*                                  14 13   22
 Transmission Towers over 200 Ft                                       3
 Utility Facility                        1   34   22    30    25 17   50
 Wind Energy Facility (Commercial)**                                  11
 Winery                                 14   7    6     6      5 9    7
                 Totals                134 160 134 131 154 203 414


 New categories in 2006*, 2008**
DLCD - 99                                                                                     Appendix D
                                 DWELLING APPROVALS                                     2008 Table N
                                   ON FOREST LAND


                Low      Medium       High      Public    Sixty Plus Template   Large     Lot of   Grand
  County     Production Production Production   Road        Acres     Totals    Tract     Record   Totals
Baker                                                                            1                  1
Benton                                1           1                    1         1          3       5
Clackamas                   1         16                     1         17                   2       19
Clatsop                                           1                     1                            1
Columbia                              16                               16                   1       17
Coos                                  14                               14        1                  15
Crook
Curry            2                     5          4          2          7        1                  8
Deschutes                   1          1          2                     2        1                  3
Douglas          1          4          6          6          2         11                   4       15
Gilliam
Grant                                                                            1          1        2
Harney
Hood River                                                                       5                   5
Jackson          3                    12         13          1         17                   5       22
Jefferson                                                                        2                  2
Josephine                   2          6          5                     8                            8
Klamath                                           6          1          7                   1       8
Lake
Lane             2          3         36         40          4         44        1          4       49
Lincoln                                7          7                    7                    2        9
Linn             2          4          3                                9                   2       11
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah                              4                                4                            4
Polk             1          2          8          1          1         13                           13
Sherman
Tillamook                              3          1                     3                            3
Umatilla                                                                         1                   1
Union                                  1                                1        2          2        5
Wallowa          2                                2                     2        1                   3
Wasco
Washington                             2                                2                            2
Wheeler
Yamhill          1                     10         5                     11        1                 12
    Totals      14         17         151        94          12        197       19         27      243


                                  Previous Years Totals
   2007         13         10        175         40          12        250       22         46      318
   2006         22         15        184         41          11        273       16         34      323
   2005         16         17        191         27          24        275       16         41      332
DLCD - 100                                                                             Appendix D
               FOREST TEMPLATE DWELLINGS BY PARCEL SIZE                          2008 Table O


                                       Parcel Size by Acreage
               Size Not                                                          80 &
      County   Reported   0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40   41 to 79   Over   Totals
Baker
Benton                      1                                                              1
Clackamas                   3          2          5           4          2        1       17
Clatsop                                                       1                            1
Columbia                    8          3          4           1                           16
Coos                        3          5          3           2          1                14
Crook
Curry                                  2          1           1          1        2        7
Deschutes                   1          1                                                   2
Douglas                     2          4          4           1                           11
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River
Jackson           1         9          1          2           1          2        1       17
Jefferson
Josephine                   1                     4           2          1                8
Klamath                                           3           2          2                7
Lake
Lane              1        10          7         11          10          5                44
Lincoln                     3                     3                      1                 7
Linn                        3          3         1            2                            9
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah                   2          1                                 1                4
Polk              1         1          2          7           1          1                13
Sherman
Tillamook                   2                     1                                       3
Umatilla
Union                                                         1                           1
Wallowa                                           2                                       2
Wasco
Washington                  2                                                             2
Wheeler
Yamhill                     3           1         4           3                           11
      Totals      3        54          32        55          32         17        4      197


                                   Previous Years Totals
      2007         0       76          45         57         46         18         8     250
      2006         0       74          54         66         44         26         9     273
      2005        22       64          49         55         47         24        13     274
    DLCD - 101                                                                             Appendix D
1                         LOT-OF-RECORD FOREST DWELLINGS                             2008 Table P
                                   BY PARCEL SIZE

                                           Parcel Size by Acreage
                   Size Not                                                          80 &
          County   Reported   0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40   41 to 79   Over   Totals
    Baker
    Benton                                            1                      2                3
    Clackamas         2                                                                       2
    Clatsop
    Columbia                               1                                                  1
    Coos
    Crook
    Curry
    Deschutes
    Douglas           1                    1                                 2                4
    Gilliam
    Grant                                                                             1       1
    Harney
    Hood River
    Jackson                                2          2                               1       5
    Jefferson
    Josephine
    Klamath                                1                                                  1
    Lake
    Lane                        2          1                      1                           4
    Lincoln                     1                     1                                       2
    Linn                        1                                 1                           2
    Malheur
    Marion
    Morrow
    Multnomah
    Polk
    Sherman
    Tillamook
    Umatilla
    Union                       1          1                                                  2
    Wallowa
    Wasco
    Washington
    Wheeler
    Yamhill
          Totals      3         5          7          4           2          4        2      27


                                       Previous Years Totals
          2007        0         7          10         13          6          7        3      46
          2006        0         9           7          6          7          1        4      34
          2005        1         6          10          9         12          2        1      41
DLCD - 102                                                                  Appendix D
                          FOREST OWNERSHIPS                           2008 Table Q
                    ADJACENT TO DWELLING APPROVALS

                                        Adjacent Ownerships
              Total Template
                 and Lot of                                            Private
    County    Record Dwellings   USFS          BLM            State   Industrial
Baker
Benton               4                                         1          3
Clackamas           19
Clatsop              1
Columbia            17
Coos                14
Crook
Curry                7
Deschutes            2            1
Douglas             15                           2
Gilliam
Grant                1
Harney
Hood River
Jackson             22            1              12            1          2
Jefferson
Josephine            8                           4
Klamath              8
Lake
Lane                48            1                                       4
Lincoln              9                           2                        2
Linn                11                                                    3
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah            4
Polk                13
Sherman
Tillamook            3                                         1          1
Umatilla
Union                3
Wallowa              2
Wasco
Washington           2                                                    1
Wheeler
Yamhill              11
     Totals         224           3              20            3         16


                                    Previous Years Totals
    2007            296           7              5             3         24
    2006            307           5             10             0         22
    2005            315           3             15             2         31
DLCD - 103                                                           Appendix D
                                FOREST                         2008 Table R
                  HARDSHIP AND REPLACEMENT DWELLING
                              APPROVALS

                             Temporary           Replacement
                County        Hardship            Dwellings
        Baker                                         1
        Benton
        Clackamas                5
        Clatsop
        Columbia                 1                      1
        Coos                     1                     16
        Crook
        Curry                                           1
        Deschutes                                       2
        Douglas                                        28
        Gilliam
        Grant                                          2
        Harney
        Hood River
        Jackson                  8                     5
        Jefferson                                      1
        Josephine
        Klamath                                        5
        Lake
        Lane                                           10
        Lincoln
        Linn                     3
        Malheur
        Marion
        Morrow
        Multnomah                                      3
        Polk                                           3
        Sherman
        Tillamook                                      1
        Umatilla
        Union                                          1
        Wallowa
        Wasco
        Washington                                     8
        Wheeler
        Yamhill                  4
                 Totals         22                     88


                                     Previous Years Totals
                2007            32                     90
                2006            20                    121
                2005            29                    114
DLCD - 104                                                                      Appendix D
                     DWELLING APPROVALS ON FOREST LAND                    2008 Table S
                               TOTALS BY YEAR

                       New Permanent Dwellings (Excludes Replacement and Hardship)

    County    1998    1999   2000   2001   2002    2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008
Baker                   1      5      2                                          3      1
Benton          4       2      5      2      4       3      1      2      3      1      5
Clackamas      51      50     41     50     16      30     51     30     35     34     19
Clatsop         2       6      5      6      5       4      7      4      4      9      1
Columbia       18      33     35     32     40      16     12     24     25     16     17
Coos           16      10     14     17     15      23     31     19     14     33     15
Crook           1                                    1      1      1
Curry           4       2      5     14      9      13     40     18      7      6      8
Deschutes       8       9     13      6      3       1      2      3      5      6      3
Douglas         7       2      6     10      5       7      4     15     39     23     15
Gilliam                                                     1
Grant          9        6     6      10      4      8              4      1      5     2
Harney
Hood River      2       7      7      8      4       2      1      1      2      3      5
Jackson        37      78     45     57     42      52     52     40     32     24     22
Jefferson                                                                               2
Josephine      17      13     12     28     14      18     22     29     8      18      8
Klamath        22      14      9     20      9      15     15     16     10      9      8
Lake
Lane           38      45     48     67     39      40     24     38     33     17     49
Lincoln        10      12      7     15     12       8     11     14     11     11      9
Linn           12      12      7      8      5      11     14     10     11     23     11
Malheur
Marion         17       5     6      8      2       7      5       3     5      3
Morrow          2       4     3      1      1       1      1             4      6
Multnomah       8       4     2      1      8       1             5      3      1      4
Polk           29       2     22     20     12      13     15     16     20     28     13
Sherman
Tillamook      3        2     3       5      1      3      4       3      2     5      3
Umatilla                              2      1      1              2      1      6     1
Union          1        5     4       3      2      9      7       3      6     2      5
Wallowa                 2     5       3      3      1      4       2      5     1      3
Wasco                                 1                                         1
Washington     12      10     4       6      8      8      23     13     19     12     2
Wheeler                               1
Yamhill        25       3     22      4      2      7      13     16      18     12    12
     Totals   355      339   341     407    266    303    361    331     323    318   243
DLCD - 105                                                                          Appendix D
                           FOREST AND NON-FOREST                              2008 Table T
                            LAND DIVISION ACTIONS

                       Forest Divisions                Non Forest Divisions
               Decisions Decisions     New      Decisions Decisions     New
      County   Approved Denied        Parcels   Approved Denied        Parcels
Baker
Benton             1                     2           1                    1
Clackamas          3                     3           1                    1
Clatsop
Columbia                                             1                    1
Coos                                                 3                    5
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas            2                     2
Gilliam
Grant              1                     1
Harney
Hood River                                           1                    1
Jackson            3                     5           1                    2
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath            3                     5
Lake               1                     2
Lane               2                     3           3                    2
Lincoln                                              2                    2
Linn
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk               2                     2
Sherman
Tillamook
Umatilla
Union              4                     6
Wallowa            8                    11
Wasco
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill            2                     3
      Totals      32          0         45          13        0          15


                                    Previous Years Totals
     2007         24          2          32         45        7          60
     2006         32          0         49          43        1          54
     2005         30          0         50          10        0          21
DLCD - 106                                                                          Appendix D
                            NEW FOREST PARCELS                                2008 Table U
                                  BY SIZE

                                           Parcel Size by Acreage
               Size Not                                                       160 &
      County   Reported   0 to 10   11 to 20   21 to 40   41 to 79 80 & 159   Over    Totals
Baker
Benton                                                                          2       2
Clackamas                   1                                         2                 3
Clatsop
Columbia
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas                                                               2                 2
Gilliam
Grant                                                                           1       1
Harney
Hood River
Jackson                                                               3         2       5
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath                                                               1         4       5
Lake                                                                            2       2
Lane                        1          2                                                3
Lincoln
Linn
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk                                                        1         1                 2
Sherman
Tillamook
Umatilla
Union                                                                          6       6
Wallowa                                                                        11      11
Wasco
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill                                1                              2                 3
      Totals      0         2          3          0         1        11        28      45



      2007        0          1         3          3         1        24         0      32
      2006        0          0         0          2         2        45         0      49
      2005        0         11         5          6         3        25         0      50
DLCD - 107                                                                            Appendix D
                          NEW NON-FOREST PARCELS                                2008 Table V
                                  BY SIZE

                                        Parcel Size by Acreage
               Size Not                                                41 and
      County   Reported    0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40    Over    Totals
Baker
Benton                       1                                                    1
Clackamas                    1                                                    1
Clatsop
Columbia                                                                 1        1
Coos                         4                                 1                  5
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River                                         1                              1
Jackson                                                        2                  2
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
Lane                         2                                                    2
Lincoln                      2                                                    2
Linn
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk
Sherman
Tillamook
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
Wasco
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill
      Totals      0         10          0          1           3         1       15


                                    Previous Years Totals
      2007        0         41          10         5           1         3       60
      2006        0         37           4         4           6         3       54
      2005        0         12           5         2           0         2       21
DLCD - 108                                                                        Appendix D
                                  OTHER USES
                            APPROVED ON LAND ZONED                        2008 Table W
                                FOR FOREST USE

                                                    Number of Approvals
                     Use                 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Accessory Use                             11   16    9    8    22     33 11
Bed and Breakfast                          1                             1
Church                                                   1
Commercial Activity with Forest                                 1      4  3
Dog Kennel                                                      1     5
Commercial Power Generating Facility**
Destination Resort
Farm Exempt Building                           2    1    9    14     6
Farm Related Building**                                                     17
Farm Use                                       1         9    2     13
Fishing and Hunting Accommodations
Forest Processing Facility
Home Occupation                           1    2    7    6    7     4       12
Mineral & Aggregate                       4    6    12   2    9     9       7
Natural Gas Facility                                           1    1
NonComforming Use                         2    1    9         14    1
Other Uses                                                                  44
Private Park                              2    5    6    2    2     4        3
Public Facility                                          1    4     10
Public Park**                                                               1
Roads and Improvements                    2    2    1    3    7     8       8
Telecommunication Facility*                                   18    12      18
School                                    1         1    2
Transmission Tower Over 200 Feet
Utility Facility                         15   19    21   25    10    1       13
Youth Camp                                1          1    2    2             2
                   Totals                40   54    68   70   114   111     140

New Categories in 2006*, 2008**
 DLCD - 109                                                                Appendix D
                            PLAN AMENDMENT DATA                      2008 Table X

                      Farm and Forest Land moved into
                  Urban Growth Boundaries by Calendar Year
Year     Number    Acres        Use From Agriculture           Use From Forest
1988       12        516          150 acres                  68 acres
1989       25       1,445         259 acres                 100 acres
1990        9       2,737       1,734 acres                  17 acres
1991       21       1,480         177 acres                  70 acres
1992       15        970          297 acres                 120 acres
1993       22       2,277       1,390 acres                 448 acres
1994       20       1,747         201 acres                  20 acres
1995       15        624          219 acres                 143 acres
1996       19       3,816       2,466 acres                  16 acres
1997       12        668          508 acres                  40 acres
1998       21       2,726         493 acres                   2 acres
1999       10        927          587 acres                  72 acres
2000        3         17            0 acres                   0 acres
2001        4         21           11 acres (52.3%)           0 acres
2002       55      17,545       3,281 acres (19.0%)       1,659 acres (9.5%)
2003       10        385          124 acres (26.0%)          85 acres (18.0%)
2004        7       3,391       2,090 acres (65.0%)         176 acres (5.0%)
2005        8        111           70 acres (63.0%)           8 acres (7.0%)
2006       15       3,231         670 acres (20.0%)          27 acres (7.0%)
2007       19        292          105 acres (20.0%)          65 acres (22.0%)
2008        6        972          949 acres (98.0%)           0 acres (0.0%)
Totals     328     45,898     15,781 from Ag. (34.0%)   3,136 from Forest (1.0%)
       DLCD - 110                                                                                         Appendix D
                                ACRES REPLANNED AND/OR REZONED                                   2008 Table Y
                           FROM ONE RURAL ZONE TO ANOTHER RURAL ZONE
                                    BY TYPE OF ZONE AND YEAR

  From Agriculture       To EFU     To Forest   To Commercial To Industrial* To Residential   SubTotal*    TOTALS
     1989 - 1996          907         177            69             68            331           468         1,552
        1997                           13            27                           511           538          551
        1998            935,000       168             5            219            293           517        935,685
        1999             2,181        271            19            547            795          1,361        3,813
        2000              233         542            11             60           1,739         1,810        2,585
        2001              148          67            11             31            283           325          540
        2002               10         202            18             69            147           234          446
        2003               77          90            21             2             283           306          473
        2004               52         269            25           1,681           220          1,926        2,247
        2005               21         988           479            772            414          1,665        2,674
        2006              777         311            31            539           1,468         2,038        3,126
        2007             2,020       1,115            2            342           1,704         2,048        5,183
        2008                           73            79            10            1,011        1,100         1,173
       Totals           941,426      4,286          797           4,340          9,199        14,336       960,048


   From Forestry         To EFU     To Forest   To Commercial To Industrial* To Residential   SubTotal*    TOTALS
     1989 - 1996         8,136      36,264           16            208           3,072         3,296       47,696
        1997              353        600                           39             270           309         1,262
        1998               8                                        5             138           143          151
        1999              20                                                       80            80          100
        2000                                                        23            132           155          155
        2001                                                                      232           232          232
        2002              109                                                     113           113          222
        2003              113                                                     520           520          633
        2004               50                                       82             95           177          227
        2005               44         50                            31            101           132          226
        2006                         163                            3             292           295          458
        2007                          90              2             5            1,269         1,276        1,366
        2008              131        509              3            212             5            220          860
       Totals            8,964      37,676           21            608           6,319         6,948       53,588


Shaded Area: rezoned resource to development zones
*Mineral and Aggregate designations are counted as Industrial
DLCD - 111                                                                     Appendix D
                               FARM AND FOREST LAND                      2008 Table Z
                              REZONED TO OTHER USES

                    Exclusive Farm Use                 Forest & Farm-Forest
                                                                                    Total
               To       To        To     Sub      To     To       To      Sub       Rural/
    County    Forest   Rural     Urban   Total   EFU    Rural    Urban    Total     Urban
 Baker                  86                86                                         86
 Benton
 Clackamas
 Clatsop                                                 112                  112    112
 Columbia
 Coos          73                                         3                    3      3
 Crook                  381              381                                         381
 Curry
 Deschutes
 Douglas                259              259                                         259
 Gilliam
 Grant                             4      4                                           4
 Harney
 Hood River
 Jackson
 Jefferson
 Josephine              158              158                                         158
 Klamath                 77               77                                          77
 Lake
 Lane                                            111
 Lincoln
 Linn
 Malheur                 57       239    296                                         296
 Marion                            44     44                                          44
 Morrow
 Multnomah
 Polk
 Sherman
 Tillamook               2                2               5                    5      7
 Umatilla                         662    662                                         662
 Union                                                   100                  100    100
 Wallowa
 Wasco
 Washington
 Wheeler                  3                 3                                          3
 Yamhill                 77                77     20                                  77
 Totals        73      1,100      949    2,049   131     220       0          220   2,269
DLCD - 112                                                                         Appendix D
                              PRIMARY FARM                                   2009 Table A
                           DWELLING APPROVALS


                 Income / Income / Non    Size / Non
       County   High Value High Value     High Value   Capability   Totals
 Baker                         1                                      1
 Benton
 Clackamas          2                                                 2
 Clatsop                        2                                     2
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook                          1              2           2          5
 Curry
 Deschutes                                     1                      1
 Douglas                        2                          1          3
 Gilliam
 Grant
 Harney                         7                                     7
 Hood River
 Jackson            3           1              1                      5
 Jefferson          1                          2                      3
 Josephine
 Klamath
 Lake
 Lane
 Lincoln
 Linn
 Malheur                        2              2                      4
 Marion             3                                                 3
 Morrow                         1                                     1
 Multnomah
 Polk                                          1           1          2
 Sherman                        1                                     1
 Tillamook          1                                                 1
 Umatilla           1           1              1                      3
 Union              2                                                 2
 Wallowa                        2                                     2
 Wasco                          3              1                      4
 Washington         1                                                 1
 Wheeler                                       2                      2
 Yamhill            3                          1                      4
       Totals      17          24             14           4         59


                            Previous Years Totals
       2008        24          28             17          5           74
       2007        24          16             40          9           89
       2006        24          16             49          16         105
DLCD - 113                                                                                  Appendix D
                                PRIMARY FARM                                          2009 Table B
                           DWELLINGS BY PARCEL SIZE

                                               Parcel Sizes by Acreage
                Size Not                                                               160 &
       County   Reported     0 to 10    11 to 20    21 to 40   41 to 79   80 to 159    Over    Totals
 Baker                                                                                   1       1
 Benton
 Clackamas                                             1          1                              2
 Clatsop                                               1          1                              2
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook             3                                              1                     1        5
 Curry
 Deschutes                                                                              1        1
 Douglas                                                                     1          2        3
 Gilliam
 Grant                                                                                  7        7
 Harney
 Hood River
 Jackson           2           1                       1                                1        5
 Jefferson                                                        2          1                   3
 Josephine
 Klamath
 Lake
 Lane
 Lincoln
 Linn
 Malheur                                                          2                     2        4
 Marion                                                           2                     1        3
 Morrow                                                                                 1        1
 Multnomah
 Polk                                                             1          1                   2
 Sherman                                                                                1        1
 Tillamook                                 1                                                     1
 Umatilla                                              1                     1          1        3
 Union                                                                                  2        2
 Wallowa                                                                                2        2
 Wasco                         1                       1          1                     1        4
 Washington                                            1                                         1
 Wheeler                                                                     1           1       2
 Yamhill                                                          2          1           1       4
       Totals      5           2           1           6         13          6          26      59


                                       Previous Years Totals
       2008        4            5           3          7          8          11         35       74
       2007        1            6           4         10         14          54         0        89
       2006        0           10           8         11         20          56         0       105
       2005        2            8           3          7          6          59          0       85
DLCD - 114                                                              Appendix D
                      FARM HELP DWELLING APPROVALS                2009 Table C


                                   Dwelling Approvals

             County    Accessory    Units     Relative   Totals
       Baker               2         2                     2
       Benton
       Clackamas          1          1           1         2
       Clatsop
       Columbia
       Coos                                      1         1
       Crook              1          1                     1
       Curry
       Deschutes                                 1         1
       Douglas                                   3         3
       Gilliam            1          1                     1
       Grant
       Harney             1          1                     1
       Hood River         4          4                     4
       Jackson            1          1           1         2
       Jefferson
       Josephine          1          1                     1
       Klamath                                   6         6
       Lake               6          6                     6
       Lane                                      3         3
       Lincoln
       Linn               1          1           1         2
       Malheur            3          3                     3
       Marion
       Morrow
       Multnomah
       Polk                                      1         1
       Sherman
       Tillamook          1          3                     3
       Umatilla                                  1         1
       Union                                     1         1
       Wallowa
       Wasco               1          1                    1
       Washington          2          2                    2
       Wheeler             2          2                    2
       Yamhill             1          1                    1
             Totals       29         31         20        51


                           Previous Years Totals
             2008         57         59          36        95
             2007         55         55          55       337
             2006         25         25          35       361
DLCD - 115                                                                   Appendix D
                NON FARM / LOT-OF-RECORD / TEMPORARY /                 2009 Table D
                  REPLACEMENT DWELLING APPROVALS

                         Lot of Record
                Not High               High              Temporary
       County    Value   Perimeter     Value    Non-Farm Hardship    Replace   Totals
 Baker              3                                                   9       12
 Benton             1                                        2          1        4
 Clackamas          1                                        2                   3
 Clatsop            3                                                            3
 Columbia
 Coos                                                        1          3       4
 Crook             2                                12                  9       23
 Curry
 Deschutes                                          28       5         1        34
 Douglas           3                                18       3         59       83
 Gilliam                                                                1        1
 Grant             1                                2                   9       12
 Harney            1                                4                            5
 Hood River                                         1        1         15       17
 Jackson           4                                6        5                  15
 Jefferson         1                                2        3          3        9
 Josephine                                          1                            1
 Klamath           1                                 2                  5        8
 Lake                                               10       3                  13
 Lane                                                7       1          1        9
 Lincoln           1                                                             1
 Linn                                               1        4         1         6
 Malheur           2                                5                  13       20
 Marion                                             1        9          9       19
 Morrow                                             2                   2        4
 Multnomah                                                              5        5
 Polk              3                                        10         12       25
 Sherman
 Tillamook         1                                1                  4          6
 Umatilla                                           7                  12        19
 Union             1                                1        1         9         12
 Wallowa                                            1                   1         2
 Wasco             1                                2        1          7        11
 Washington        1                                1        4         12        18
 Wheeler           1                                2                             3
 Yamhill                                            1        6         26        33
       Totals      32         0         0          118      61        229       440


                                  Previous Years Totals
       2008        42         1          7         184      57        251       542
       2007        57         5          6         246      70        227       384
       2006        46         3          4         236      74        301       363
DLCD - 116                                                                              Appendix D
                       FARM LOT-OF-RECORD DWELLINGS                               2009 Table E
                              BY PARCEL SIZE

                                        Parcel Sizes by Acreage
                Size Not                                                           80 &
       County   Reported   0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40   41 to 79    Over   Totals
 Baker                                             1           1                     1      3
 Benton                                                                   1                 1
 Clackamas                              1                                                   1
 Clatsop                     2                     1                                        3
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook             2                                                                        2
 Curry
 Deschutes
 Douglas                                                       1          2                 3
 Gilliam
 Grant                                             1                                        1
 Harney                                                                   1                 1
 Hood River
 Jackson                     3          1                                                   4
 Jefferson         1                                                                        1
 Josephine
 Klamath                                                                  1                 1
 Lake
 Lane
 Lincoln                     1                                                              1
 Linn
 Malheur                     1                                 1                            2
 Marion
 Morrow
 Multnomah
 Polk              1                                           1                    1       3
 Sherman
 Tillamook                   1                                                              1
 Umatilla
 Union                                                                    1                 1
 Wallowa
 Wasco                                                                    1                 1
 Washington        1                                                                        1
 Wheeler                                                                  1                 1
 Yamhill
       Totals      5         8          2          3           4          8         2       32


                                    Previous Years Totals
       2008        1        15           4          6          5         16          3      50
       2007        1        15           9          4         16         13          6      64
       2006        0         9          10         10          6          6         11      53
DLCD - 117                                                                              Appendix D
                           NON-FARM DWELLINGS                                     2009 Table F
                             BY PARCEL SIZE

                                             Parcel Sizes by Acreage
                Size Not                                                           80 &
       County   Reported   0 to 5     6 to 10    11 to 20   21 to 40   41 to 79    Over   Totals
 Baker
 Benton
 Clackamas
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook             12                                                                      12
 Curry
 Deschutes                  6           7           4          8          1         2      28
 Douglas                    16          2                                                  18
 Gilliam
 Grant                                  2                                                   2
 Harney                      1                      2          1                            4
 Hood River                  1                                                              1
 Jackson                     2          1                      2                    1       6
 Jefferson                                                     2                            2
 Josephine                                                                          1       1
 Klamath                     1                                            1                 2
 Lake                        2          2           2          3                    1      10
 Lane                        3          3                      1                            7
 Lincoln
 Linn                        1                                                              1
 Malheur                     2                      2                               1       5
 Marion                                                                   1                 1
 Morrow                                                                   2                 2
 Multnomah
 Polk
 Sherman
 Tillamook                                                     1                            1
 Umatilla          2         3          1                                           1       7
 Union                       1                                                              1
 Wallowa                                                       1                            1
 Wasco                                  1           1                                       2
 Washington                  1                                                              1
 Wheeler                                            1                               1       2
 Yamhill                     1                                                              1
       Totals     14        41          19         12         19          5         8      118


                                    Previous Years Totals
       2008        8        58          31         42         22         15          8     184
       2007       22        67          51         25         33         31         17     246
       2006        9        44          43         44         48         17         31     236
DLCD - 118                                                                                Appendix D
                       ACCESSORY FARM DWELLINGS                                     2009 Table G
                            BY PARCEL SIZE

                                       Parcel Sizes by Acreage
                Size Not                                                             160 &
       County   Reported   0 to 10    11 to 20   21 to 40    41 to 79   80 to 159    Over    Totals
 Baker                                                                                 2       2
 Benton
 Clackamas                                                       1                             1
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook
 Curry             1                                                                           1
 Deschutes
 Douglas
 Gilliam           1                                                                           1
 Grant
 Harney                                                                                1       1
 Hood River                  1                       2                     1                   4
 Jackson           1                                                                           1
 Jefferson
 Josephine                                                                 1                   1
 Klamath
 Lake                                                                                  6       6
 Lane
 Lincoln
 Linn                                                                                  1       1
 Malheur                                                         2                     1       3
 Marion
 Morrow
 Multnomah
 Polk
 Sherman
 Tillamook                                                                 3                   3
 Umatilla
 Union
 Wallowa
 Wasco                                               1                                         1
 Washington                                          1                     1                   2
 Wheeler                                                                               2       2
 Yamhill                                             1                                         1
       Totals      3         0            0          5           3         6           13      31


                                     Previous Years Totals
       2008        1          2           6          9           6         14          21      59
       2007        1         14           5          8           3         24          0       55
       2006        0          4           3          3           5          9          0       24
      DLCD - 119                                                                     Appendix D
                          DWELLING APPROVALS ON FARM LAND                      2009 Table H
                                   TOTALS BY YEAR

                 Primary Farm                Lot of Record          Non - Farm Dwellings
   County    2005 2006 2007 2008 2009   2005 2006 2007 2008 2009   2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Baker         5     3    3    1   1      2    9      3     4 3      8     9     2     3
Benton                        2          3    2              1            3
Clackamas           2    3    3   2      7    3      2     1 1      1     3           2
Clatsop                           2                  2       3      2     1     3     1
Columbia            1
Coos                2    2    1                    2
Crook         5    10    1    4   5      3    1         1    2     19    25      34   18    12
Curry                    3                                                            2
Deschutes           2         3   1      3    3    1               33    57      45   35    28
Douglas       7     3    5    5   3      2    3    3    3    3     31    18      54   26    18
Gilliam                  1    1                    1
Grant         1           2   3          2         2    1    1      3     2            1    2
Harney        6     8    10   7    7         10    6    2    1      5    13      17   11    4
Hood River    5     3                    1   2     3    3                        11   1     1
Jackson       5     3    3    3    5     6    5    2    8    4     17    20      18   9     6
Jefferson     6     1    4    2    3               9    1    1                   3    1     2
Josephine                                                          1              1   2     1
Klamath            17    13   5          3                   1     10    13       5    5    2
Lake         14    8          2                                    40    31           21    10
Lane         2                1               1                    3     1       1    4     7
Lincoln                       1                         1    1      1             1    2
Linn          1     1    1               1         2    2          4     1       3          1
Malheur       3     1    9         4     1    1    3    6    2     12    14      11   8     5
Marion        1     4    2    1    3     4    2         3           1     7       4   1     1
Morrow        2     1    1    1    1               1               2     2       3    6     2
Multnomah     1                          2         3
Polk          5     3    7    1     2    1         2         3      3     1
Sherman                             1                                            2
Tillamook                1     1    1                        1                   1           1
Umatilla      1          5     3    3    2    3    5    3           6    2       4    9      7
Union         4    4     2     2    2    3         2    4    1      2            6           1
Wallowa            2     3     2    2    3    3    4    3           2     2      3    3      1
Wasco         6    2     2     1    4    1    1         1    1      3     3      3           2
Washington    5    11    3    10    1    1          3   1    1      3     1      5    8      1
Wheeler                        5    2               1        1      5     5      4    5      2
Yamhill             13    3    3    4         4     2    2          2     2      2           1
    Totals   85    105   89   74   59   51   53    64   50   32    219   236    246   184   118
DLCD - 120                                                                          Appendix D
                               FARM AND NON-FARM                              2009 Table I
                             LAND DIVISION APPROVALS

                  Resulting Farm Parcels            Resulting Non-Farm Parcels
    County   2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Baker               7     12    10    2  2   1         11     1     2    4
Benton         1    2            3    1      1    1                 4    5      1
Clackamas           2            2                                             1
Clatsop                                  1                          1    3
Columbia
Coos                                                        2                   13
Crook        12    23    11     10   5     7     1    21    22    4     13      27    3   1
Curry         4                                       1                          1    1
Deschutes    17    13     6          1      2    1    43    24    15    22      28   21   16
Douglas      21    19    27     8    5     8     4    16    8     31    40      43   22   18
Gilliam       2           9     2           3    2     2           1     2            4
Grant        17    8     19     4    10     6    1    10    6      7     3      14    1
Harney        7    6     36     4    13    25    6     5    4            5      11    3
Hood River
Jackson                         1          1     1                      2       5    1    4
Jefferson    10    4            1    14          3    1                 3
Josephine                1                       1                2
Klamath            6     2      7    7     8     1    1     14    7     10      3    3    1
Lake         17    8     7      3          2     2    15    20    28    24           5    3
Lane                     4                                        1      3           4    3
Lincoln
Linn          7    5     7      3    7     3          3     1     3             6    1    1
Malheur       1                 1          1          1                  9                2
Marion        1    1     3      3    2           2    1     1     1      1       4   1
Morrow        6    5     7      3    4     2     5    7     1            8       3   6    6
Multnomah                                  1                             1       1
Polk         11    3     9      7    6     4     3    1           3     11      10        3
Sherman       1    10    4      1           2    2    1      4           3       5         1
Tillamook                                  1                                         2     1
Umatilla      3    8     13     6    7     10    6    1     6     6     7       13   7    11
Union              4     5      5    8     4     2                      5       3    2
Wallowa      17    7     4      2    2     5     1    10    4     2     7       1    3    4
Wasco        5     5     5      7    2           5     1    5     1     6       2    1    2
Washington               1      2                           2     1
Wheeler                  2      2     8     4    4                2     6       3    4    4
Yamhill       4                 4     2     4    1
    Totals   164   146   194   101   106   106   56   142   135   116   198    208   95   83
DLCD - 121                                                                        Appendix D
                             FARM and NON-FARM                              2009 Table J
                            LAND DIVISION ACTIONS

                         Farm Divisions                  Non Farm Divisions
                Decisions Decisions      New      Decisions Decisions     New
       County   Approved Denied         Parcels   Approved Denied        Parcels
 Baker               1                    1
 Benton              1                    1           1                     1
 Clackamas                                            1                     1
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook              1                     1           1                     1
 Curry
 Deschutes          1                     1           12                   16
 Douglas            4                     4           10                   18
 Gilliam            2                     2
 Grant              1                     1
 Harney             4                     6
 Hood River
 Jackson            1                     1           3                     4
 Jefferson          2                     3
 Josephine          1                     1
 Klamath            1                     1           1                     1
 Lake               2          2          2           3         1           3
 Lane                                                 2                     3
 Lincoln
 Linn                                                 1                     1
 Malheur                                              2                     2
 Marion             2                     2
 Morrow             4                     5           4                     6
 Multnomah
 Polk               2                     3           2                    3
 Sherman            1                     2           1                    1
 Tillamook                                            1                     1
 Umatilla           4                     6           8                    11
 Union              2                     2
 Wallowa            1                     1           4                     4
 Wasco              4                     5           1                     2
 Washington
 Wheeler             3                     4          4                     4
 Yamhill             1         1           1
       Totals       46         3          56          62        1          83


                                    Previous Years Totals
       2008         82         1         106          71         0         95
       2007         77         0         106         142        11        208
       2006         84         1         101         148         6        198
DLCD - 122                                                                                 Appendix D
                           NEW FARM PARCELS BY SIZE                                  2009 Table K


                                               Parcel Size by Acreage
                Size Not                                                              160 &
       County   Reported    0 to 10    11 to 20   21 to 40    41 to 79   80 to 159    Over    Totals
 Baker                                                                       1                  1
 Benton                                                                      1                  1
 Clackamas
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook                                                                      1                   1
 Curry
 Deschutes                                                                  1                   1
 Douglas                                                                    2           2       4
 Gilliam                                                                    1           1       2
 Grant                                                           1                              1
 Harney                                                                     1           5       6
 Hood River
 Jackson                                                                                1       1
 Jefferson                                                                              3       3
 Josephine                                                                  1                   1
 Klamath                                                                    1                   1
 Lake                                                                       1           1       2
 Lane
 Lincoln
 Linn
 Malheur
 Marion                                                                     1           1       2
 Morrow                                                                     1           4       5
 Multnomah
 Polk                                                                       3                   3
 Sherman                                                                                2       2
 Tillamook
 Umatilla                                                                   4           2       6
 Union                                                                                  2       2
 Wallowa                                                                                1       1
 Wasco                                                                                  5       5
 Washington
 Wheeler                                                                    1           3      4
 Yamhill                                                                                1      1
       Totals      0          0            0          0          1          21          34     56


                                      Previous Years Totals
       2008        1          1            2          1          5          29          67     106
       2007        0          0            1          4          5          96          0      100
       2006        0          1            0          0          1          98          0      101
DLCD - 123                                                                             Appendix D
                           NEW NON-FARM PARCELS                                  2009 Table L
                                  BY SIZE

                                         Parcel Size by Acreage
                Size Not                                                41 and
       County   Reported    0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40    Over    Totals
 Baker
 Benton                                             1                              1
 Clackamas                               1                                         1
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook                                                                    1        1
 Curry
 Deschutes                    5          4          3           4                  16
 Douglas                     16          2                                         18
 Gilliam
 Grant
 Harney
 Hood River
 Jackson                      4                                                    4
 Jefferson
 Josephine
 Klamath                      1                                                    1
 Lake                         3                                                    3
 Lane                         3                                                    3
 Lincoln
 Linn                         1                                                    1
 Malheur                      1                     1                              2
 Marion
 Morrow                       2          3          1                              6
 Multnomah
 Polk                         1                                 2                   3
 Sherman                      1                                                     1
 Tillamook                    1                                                     1
 Umatilla                     6          1          2           1         1        11
 Union
 Wallowa                      2                     1           1                  4
 Wasco                                              2                              2
 Washington
 Wheeler                                            2           1         1        4
 Yamhill
       Totals      0         47          11        13           9         3        83


                                     Previous Years Totals
       2008        0          47         11         19         12         6        95
       2007        0         131         28         22         13        14       208
       2006        0          90         52         26         18        12       198
DLCD - 124                                                                        Appendix D
                    OTHER USES APPROVED ON LAND ZONED                      2009 Table M
                               FOR FARM USE


                                                 Number of Approvals
                  Use                  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007        2008    2009
 Accessory Use                          25   30   34   21    38    91        68      35
 Airstrip                                6   3    2    6     3      7        2       1
 Bed and Breakfast                       7   3    2    4                     2       6
 Church                                  3        3    7     1      3        2       2
 Commercial Activity w/ Farm Use         3    8    7   10    14    17         8      14
 Commercial Power Generating**                                                1      8
 Destination Resort                                                           1
 Dog Kennel                             2    4     8     6     4     2       5       1
 Farm Processing Facility**                                                   8      5
 Farm Related Building**                                                     92     108
 Farm Stand                             6    5     5     2     3     1       4       8
 Golf Course                            3          1                         1
 Guest Ranch                                                   2     1        1       2
 Home Occupation                       14    24    18    18    19    18      27      20
 Mineral & Aggregate                   20    21     8    10     6    12      19      19
 Other Use                                                                   55      24
 Private Park                          16    12    5     2     2     2       7        5
 Public Park**                                                                3
 Roads and Improvements                11     9    12    8     17    10      13       5
 School                                1           1     1     1              2      1
 Telecommunication Facility*                                   14    13      22      23
 Transmission Towers over 200 Ft                                              3
 Utility Facility                       1    34    22    30    25    17      50      30
 Wind Energy Facility (Commercial)**                                         11      6
 Winery                                14     7    6     6     5     9        7      8
                 Totals                245   277   134   131   154   203     414    331

 New categories in 2006*, 2008**
DLCD - 125                                                                                    Appendix D
                                 DWELLING APPROVALS                                     2009 Table N
                                   ON FOREST LAND


                Low      Medium       High      Public    Sixty Plus Template   Large     Lot of   Grand
  County     Production Production Production   Road        Acres     Totals    Tract     Record   Totals
Baker
Benton                      1          2          2                     3                            3
Clackamas        1          1         11          1          1         13        1          1       15
Clatsop                                                      1          1                   6        7
Columbia                              13         10                    13                           13
Coos                                  4          1                      4                            4
Crook
Curry                                                                            7                   7
Deschutes                              2          2                     2        1                   3
Douglas          2                     5          7                     7        4                  11
Gilliam
Grant                                                                            1                   1
Harney
Hood River                             3          2          1          3                   1        4
Jackson          2          3          4          8          1          9        6          1       16
Jefferson
Josephine                   1          2          3                     3                            3
Klamath          2                     1          1          2          3        2                   5
Lake
Lane             1          2         30         31                    33                           33
Lincoln                                1          1          1          2                   1        3
Linn                        1          2          1                     3                            3
Malheur
Marion
Morrow                                1           1                     1        1                   2
Multnomah                              3          3                     3                            3
Polk                                  10          7          2         10        2                  12
Sherman
Tillamook                              2                                2                            2
Umatilla
Union                                  1          1                     1        1                   2
Wallowa                                                                          2                   2
Wasco
Washington                             6          5                     6                   1        7
Wheeler
Yamhill                                13        12           1         13        4                 17
    Totals       8          9         116        99          10        135       32         11      178


                                  Previous Years Totals
   2008         14         17        151         94          12        197       19         27      243
   2007         13         10        175         40          12        250       22         46      318
   2006         22         15        184         41          11        273       16         34      323
DLCD - 126                                                                             Appendix D
               FOREST TEMPLATE DWELLINGS BY PARCEL SIZE                          2009 Table O


                                       Parcel Size by Acreage
               Size Not                                                          80 &
      County   Reported   0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40   41 to 79   Over   Totals
Baker
Benton                                 2                      1                            3
Clackamas                              1          5           3          3        1       13
Clatsop                                1                                                   1
Columbia                    3          3          6           1                           13
Coos                        1          2                                          1        4
Crook
Curry
Deschutes                              1                      1                           2
Douglas                     2          2          1           1                   1       7
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River                  2          1                                                  3
Jackson                     2          2          1           2          1        1       9
Jefferson
Josephine                              1          1           1                           3
Klamath                                                                  2        1       3
Lake
Lane                        6          15         4           2          4        2       33
Lincoln                                           1                               1        2
Linn                                   1          1           1                           3
Malheur
Marion
Morrow                      1                                                              1
Multnomah                   1                                 2                            3
Polk                        3          1          2           2          2                10
Sherman
Tillamook                                                     2                           2
Umatilla
Union                                  1                                                  1
Wallowa
Wasco
Washington                             2          1           1          2                6
Wheeler
Yamhill                                 1         6           4          2                13
      Totals      0        21          37        29          24         16        8      135


                                   Previous Years Totals
      2008        3        54          32         55         32         17        4      197
      2007        0        76          45         57         46         18        8      250
      2006        0        74          54         66         44         26        9      273
DLCD - 127                                                                             Appendix D
                      LOT-OF-RECORD FOREST DWELLINGS                             2009 Table P
                               BY PARCEL SIZE

                                       Parcel Size by Acreage
               Size Not                                                          80 &
      County   Reported   0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40   41 to 79   Over   Totals
Baker
Benton
Clackamas                                                     1                           1
Clatsop                     3                     2           1                           6
Columbia
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River                                                               1                1
Jackson                                1                                                  1
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
Lane
Lincoln                                1                                                  1
Linn
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk
Sherman
Tillamook
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
Wasco
Washington                             1                                                  1
Wheeler
Yamhill
      Totals      0         3          3          2           2          1        0      11


                                   Previous Years Totals
      2008        3         5           7          4          2          4        2      27
      2007        0         7          10         13          6          7        3      46
      2006        0         9           7          6          7          1        4      34
DLCD - 128                                                                  Appendix D
                          FOREST OWNERSHIPS                           2009 Table Q
                    ADJACENT TO DWELLING APPROVALS

                                        Adjacent Ownerships
              Total Template
                 and Lot of                                            Private
    County    Record Dwellings   USFS          BLM            State   Industrial
Baker
Benton               3                                                    1
Clackamas           14
Clatsop              7                                         1          4
Columbia            13                                                    3
Coos                 4
Crook
Curry
Deschutes            2                           1
Douglas              7                           1                        1
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River           4
Jackson             10                           5                        2
Jefferson
Josephine            3                           2
Klamath              3            1
Lake
Lane                33            4                                       2
Lincoln              3                                                    2
Linn                 3
Malheur
Marion
Morrow              1
Multnomah            3                                                    1
Polk                10
Sherman
Tillamook            2            1                                       2
Umatilla
Union                1
Wallowa
Wasco
Washington           7                                                    1
Wheeler
Yamhill              13
     Totals         146           6              9             1         19


                                    Previous Years Totals
    2008            224           3             20             3         16
    2007            296           7              5             3         24
    2006            307           5             10             0         22
DLCD - 129                                                           Appendix D
                                FOREST                         2009 Table R
                  HARDSHIP AND REPLACEMENT DWELLING
                              APPROVALS

                             Temporary           Replacement
                County        Hardship            Dwellings
        Baker
        Benton                   1
        Clackamas                5
        Clatsop                  1                     4
        Columbia                 2                     7
        Coos                     1                     2
        Crook
        Curry
        Deschutes                                       2
        Douglas                  4                     13
        Gilliam
        Grant                                          1
        Harney
        Hood River                                     3
        Jackson                  3                     3
        Jefferson
        Josephine
        Klamath                                        3
        Lake
        Lane                     4                     4
        Lincoln
        Linn                     4
        Malheur
        Marion                   1                     1
        Morrow                                         1
        Multnomah                2                     1
        Polk                     2                     3
        Sherman
        Tillamook                1                     1
        Umatilla                                       2
        Union                                          2
        Wallowa                                        2
        Wasco
        Washington                                     8
        Wheeler
        Yamhill                  1                      2
                 Totals         32                     65


                                     Previous Years Totals
                2008            22                     88
                2007            32                     90
                2006            20                    121
DLCD - 130                                                                      Appendix D
                     DWELLING APPROVALS ON FOREST LAND                    2009 Table S
                               TOTALS BY YEAR

                       New Permanent Dwellings (Excludes Replacement and Hardship)

    County    1999    2000   2001   2002   2003    2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009
Baker           1       5      2                                          3      1
Benton          2       5      2      4      3       1      2      3      1      5      3
Clackamas      50      41     50     16     30      51     30     35     34     19     15
Clatsop         6       5      6      5      4       7      4      4      9      1      7
Columbia       33      35     32     40     16      12     24     25     16     17     13
Coos           10      14     17     15     23      31     19     14     33     15     4
Crook                                        1       1      1
Curry          2        5     14      9     13      40     18      7      6      8      7
Deschutes      9       13      6      3      1       2      3      5      6      3      3
Douglas        2        6     10      5      7       4     15     39     23     15     11
Gilliam                                              1
Grant          6        6     10      4      8             4       1      5      2     1
Harney
Hood River      7       7      8      4      2       1      1      2      3      5      4
Jackson        78      45     57     42     52      52     40     32     24     22     16
Jefferson                                                                        2
Josephine      13      12     28     14     18      22     29     8      18      8     3
Klamath        14       9     20      9     15      15     16     10      9      8     5
Lake
Lane           45      48     67     39     40      24     38     33     17     49     33
Lincoln        12       7     15     12      8      11     14     11     11      9      3
Linn           12       7      8      5     11      14     10     11     23     11      3
Malheur
Marion         5       6      8      2      7       5      3      5      3
Morrow         4       3      1      1      1       1             4      6             2
Multnomah      4       2      1      8      1              5      3      1      4      3
Polk           2       22     20     12     13      15     16     20     28     13     12
Sherman
Tillamook      2        3     5       1      3      4      3       2     5       3     2
Umatilla                      2       1      1             2       1     6       1
Union          5        4     3       2      9      7      3       6     2       5     2
Wallowa        2        5     3       3      1      4      2       5     1       3     2
Wasco                         1                                          1
Washington     10       4     6       8      8      23     13     19     12      2     7
Wheeler                       1
Yamhill        3        22    4       2      7      13     16     18      12     12    17
     Totals   339      341   407     266    303    361    331    323     318    243   178
DLCD - 131                                                                          Appendix D
                           FOREST AND NON-FOREST                              2009 Table T
                            LAND DIVISION ACTIONS

                       Forest Divisions                Non Forest Divisions
               Decisions Decisions     New      Decisions Decisions     New
      County   Approved Denied        Parcels   Approved Denied        Parcels
Baker
Benton             1                     1
Clackamas          1                     2           4                    5
Clatsop                                              2                    3
Columbia                                             2                    2
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes          1                     2
Douglas            5                     5           2                    3
Gilliam
Grant              1                     1
Harney
Hood River
Jackson            2                     3
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath            2                     2
Lake
Lane                                                 2                    3
Lincoln                                              1                    1
Linn                                                 1                    1
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk               2                     2
Sherman
Tillamook                                            3                    4
Umatilla
Union              2                     3
Wallowa            1                     1
Wasco                                                1                    1
Washington         1                     1
Wheeler
Yamhill
      Totals      19          0         23          18        0          23


                                    Previous Years Totals
     2008         32          0          45         13        0          15
     2007         24          2          32         45        7          60
     2006         32          0         49          43        1          54
DLCD - 132                                                                          Appendix D
                            NEW FOREST PARCELS                                2009 Table U
                                  BY SIZE

                                           Parcel Size by Acreage
               Size Not                                                       160 &
      County   Reported   0 to 10   11 to 20   21 to 40   41 to 79 80 & 159   Over    Totals
Baker
Benton                                                                          1       1
Clackamas                                                                       2       2
Clatsop
Columbia
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes                                                             1         1       2
Douglas                                                               1         4       5
Gilliam
Grant                                                                 1                 1
Harney
Hood River
Jackson                                                               1         2       3
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath                     1                                                   1       2
Lake
Lane
Lincoln
Linn
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk                                                                  1         1       2
Sherman
Tillamook
Umatilla
Union                                                                           3       3
Wallowa                                                                         1       1
Wasco
Washington                                                            1                 1
Wheeler
Yamhill
      Totals      0         1          0          0         0         6        16      23



      2008        0         2          3          0         1        11        28      45
      2007        0         1          3          3         1        24         0      32
      2006        0         0          0          2         2        45         0      49
DLCD - 133                                                                            Appendix D
                          NEW NON-FOREST PARCELS                                2009 Table V
                                  BY SIZE

                                        Parcel Size by Acreage
               Size Not                                                41 and
      County   Reported    0 to 5     6 to 10   11 to 20    21 to 40    Over    Totals
Baker
Benton
Clackamas                    4                                 1                  5
Clatsop                      3                                                    3
Columbia                     1          1                                         2
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas                      1          1                      1                  3
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River
Jackson
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
Lane                         3                                                    3
Lincoln                      1                                                    1
Linn                         1                                                    1
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk
Sherman
Tillamook                    3          1                                         4
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
Wasco                                   1                                         1
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill
      Totals      0         17          4          0           2         0       23


                                    Previous Years Totals
      2008        0         10           0         1           3         1       15
      2007        0         41          10         5           1         3       60
      2006        0         37           4         4           6         3       54
DLCD - 134                                                                       Appendix D
                                  OTHER USES
                            APPROVED ON LAND ZONED                       2009 Table W
                                FOR FOREST USE

                                                    Number of Approvals
                     Use                 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Accessory Use                             11   16    9    8    22     33 11  19
Bed and Breakfast                          1                             1
Church                                                   1
Commercial Activity with Forest                                 1      4  3
Dog Kennel                                                      1     5
Commercial Power Generating Facility**                                       2
Destination Resort
Farm Exempt Building                           2    1    9    14     6
Farm Related Building**                                                     17      24
Farm Use                                       1         9    2     13
Fishing and Hunting Accommodations                                                  3
Forest Processing Facility
Home Occupation                           1    2    7    6    7     4       12      8
Mineral & Aggregate                       4    6    12   2    9     9        7      18
Natural Gas Facility                                           1    1
NonComforming Use                         2    1    9         14    1
Other Uses                                                                  44      9
Private Park                              2    5    6    2    2     4        3      3
Public Facility                                          1    4     10
Public Park**                                                               1       2
Roads and Improvements                    2    2    1    3    7     8       8       1
Telecommunication Facility*                                   18    12      18      12
School                                    1         1    2
Transmission Tower Over 200 Feet
Utility Facility                         15   19    21   25    10    1       13     9
Youth Camp                                1         1    2     2             2
                    Totals               40   54    68   70   114   111     140    110

New Categories in 2006*, 2008**
DLCD - 135                                                               Appendix D
                       PLAN AMENDMENT DATA                         2009 Table X

                   Farm and Forest Land moved into
               Urban Growth Boundaries by Calendar Year

    Year     Number   Acres      Use From Agriculture         Use From Forest
     1988      12       516       150 acres                  68 acres
     1989      25      1,445      259 acres                 100 acres
     1990       9      2,737    1,734 acres                  17 acres
     1991      21      1,480      177 acres                  70 acres
     1992      15       970       297 acres                 120 acres
     1993      22      2,277    1,390 acres                 448 acres
     1994      20      1,747      201 acres                  20 acres
     1995      15       624       219 acres                 143 acres
     1996      19      3,816    2,466 acres                  16 acres
     1997      12       668       508 acres                  40 acres
     1998      21      2,726      493 acres                   2 acres
     1999      10       927       587 acres                  72 acres
     2000       3        17         0 acres                   0 acres
     2001       4        21        11 acres (52.3%)           0 acres
     2002      55     17,545    3,281 acres (19.0%)       1,659 acres (9.5%)
     2003      10       385       124 acres (26.0%)          85 acres (18.0%)
     2004       7      3,391    2,090 acres (65.0%)         176 acres (5.0%)
     2005       8       111        70 acres (63.0%)           8 acres (7.0%)
     2006      15      3,231      670 acres (20.0%)          27 acres (7.0%)
     2007      19       292       105 acres (20.0%)          65 acres (22.0%)
     2008       6       972       949 acres (98.0%)           0 acres (0.0%)
     2009       7       782       686 acres (88.0%)           4 acres (10.0%)
    Totals     335    46,680   16,467 from Ag. (35.0%)   3,140 from Forest (1.0%)
      DLCD - 136                                                                                          Appendix D
                               ACRES REPLANNED AND/OR REZONED                                   2009 Table Y
                          FROM ONE RURAL ZONE TO ANOTHER RURAL ZONE
                                   BY TYPE OF ZONE AND YEAR

  From Agriculture       To EFU     To Forest   To Commercial To Industrial* To Residential   SubTotal*     TOTALS
     1989 - 1996          7,256       1,416          552           544           2,648         3,744         12,416
       1997                             13            27                          511           538           551
       1998             935,000        168            5            219            293           517         935,685
       1999              2,181         271           19            547            795         1,361          3,813
       2000               233          542            11            60          1,739         1,810          2,585
       2001               148           67            11            31            283           325           540
       2002                10          202            18            69            147           234           446
       2003                77           90            21             2            283           306           473
       2004                52          269            25          1,681           220         1,926          2,247
       2005                21          988           479           772            414         1,665          2,674
       2006               777          311            31           539          1,468         2,038          3,126
       2007              2,020        1,115           2            342          1,704         2,048          5,183
       2008                             73            79            10          1,011         1,100          1,173
       2009               53           459             6           375            396           777          1,289
       Totals           947,828       5,984         1,286         5,191         11,912        18,389        972,201


   From Forestry         To EFU     To Forest   To Commercial To Industrial* To Residential   SubTotal*     TOTALS
     1989 - 1996          8,136      36,254          16            208           3,072         3,296        47,686
       1997                353        600                           39            270           309          1,262
       1998                 8                                        5            138           143           151
       1999                 20                                                     80            80           100
       2000                                                         23            132           155           155
       2001                                                                       232           232           232
       2002                109                                                    113           113           222
       2003                113                                                    520           520           633
       2004                 50                                      82             95           177           227
        2005                44         50                           31            101           132           226
        2006                          163                            3            292           295           458
        2007                           90             2              5           1,269         1,276         1,366
       2008                131        509             3            212              5           220           860
        2009                           27                           56           2,451         2,507         2,534
       Totals             8,964      37,693          21            664           8,770         9,455        56,112


Shaded Area: rezoned resource to development zones
*Mineral and Aggregate designations are counted as Industrial
DLCD - 137                                                                      Appendix D
                                FARM AND FOREST LAND                      2009 Table Z
                               REZONED TO OTHER USES

                     Exclusive Farm Use                 Forest & Farm-Forest
                                                                                     Total
               To        To        To     Sub      To     To       To      Sub       Rural/
    County    Forest    Rural     Urban   Total   EFU    Rural    Urban    Total     Urban
 Baker
 Benton                   34               34                                          34
 Clackamas                6                 6                                           6
 Clatsop                  5                5               17                  17      22
 Columbia                                                  28                  28      28
 Coos                                                      36                  36      36
 Crook                   275              275                                         275
 Curry
 Deschutes                                                          4           4      4
 Douglas
 Gilliam
 Grant
 Harney
 Hood River
 Jackson                                                  342                  342    342
 Jefferson                92               92                                          92
 Josephine
 Klamath                  14               14            2,010             2,010     2,024
 Lake
 Lane
 Lincoln       30
 Linn                    216              216              43                  43     259
 Malheur                           68      68                                          68
 Marion                   6                 6                                           6
 Morrow                   49               49                                          49
 Multnomah
 Polk                              353    353                                         353
 Sherman
 Tillamook
 Umatilla                 80               80                                         80
 Union
 Wallowa                           244    244                                         244
 Wasco                                                     8                    8      8
 Washington    429
 Wheeler
 Yamhill                            21      21             23                23        44
 Totals        459       777       686    1,463    0     2,507      4      2,511     3,974
DLCD - 138                                                                           Appendix D
                   CHANGES IN FARM AND FOREST LAND COVER                     2009 Table Z-1


                                Farm and Range                        Forest & Farm-Forest
                                               Converted                              Converted
       County           1984*      2009*          Acres        1984*        2009*       Acres
 Baker                    748        748       <500 (0%)         122         122      <500 (0%)
 Benton                   112        111        1000 (1%)        211         209      2000 (1%)
 Clackamas                123        115        8000 (7%)        313         304      9000 (3%)
 Clatsop                   15         15       <500 (0%)         486         484      2000 (0%)
 Columbia                  44         44       <500 (0%)         343         342      1000 (0%)
 Coos                      42         40        2000 (5%)        675         669      6000 (1%)
 Crook                    785        768       17000 (2%)        106         106      <500 (0%)
 Curry                     14         14       <500 (0%)         319         317      2000 (1%)
 Deschutes                249        224      25000 (10%)         98          87     11000 (11%)
 Douglas                  116        115        1000 (1%)       1,380       1,367    13000 (1%)
 Gilliam                  622        622       <500 (0%)           -           -           -
 Grant                    845        845       <500 (0%)         313         313      <500 (0%)
 Harney                  1,660      1,659       1000 (0%)         30          30      <500 (0%)
 Hood River                28         28       <500 (0%)          81          80      1000 (1%)
 Jackson                   75         70        5000 (7%)        733         724      9000 (1%)
 Jefferson                576        573        3000 (1%)        230         227      3000 (1%)
 Josephine                 17         17       <500 (0%)         247         239      8000 (3%)
 Klamath                  693        677       16000 (2%)        745         730     16000 (3%)
 Lake                     894        894       <500 (0%)         376         376      <500 (0%)
 Lane                     153        145        8000 (5%)        870         861      8000 (1%)
 Lincoln                    2          2       <500 (0%)         398         393      5000 (1%)
 Linn                     360        358        2000 (1%)        503         502      1000 (0%)
 Malheur                 1,489      1,488       1000 (0%)          5           5      <500 (0%)
 Marion                   299        286       13000 (4%)        170         168      2000 (1%)
 Morrow                   950        948        2000 (0%)         90          87      3000 (3%)
 Multnomah                 25         18       7000 (28%)         64          62      2000 (3%)
 Polk                     172        168        4000 (2%)        237         236      1000 (0%)
 Sherman                  473        473       <500 (0%)           -           -           -
 Tillamook                 32         32       <500 (0%)         516         514      2000 (0%)
 Umatilla                1,324      1,318       6000 (0%)        261         261      <500 (0%)
 Union                    416        414        2000 (0%)        282         282      <500 (0%)
 Wallowa                  503        503        2000 (0%)        331         331      <500 (0%)
 Wasco                    904        904       <500 (0%)         285         285      <500 (0%)
 Washington               134        119      15000 (11%)        256         246     10000 (4%)
 Wheeler                  553        553       <500 (0%)         199         199      <500 (0%)
 Yamhill                  184        178        6000 (3%)        197         193      4000 (2%)
 Totals                15,631.00 15,486.00      147,000+      11,472.00 11,351.00     121,000+
 *by Thousand acres              Source: Oregon Department of Forestry

 Note: Data applies to Non-Federal lands only
DLCD - 139                                                                 Appendix D
                              MEASURE 37- 49                       2009 Table Z-2
                              AUTHORIZATION


                     Home Site
           County   Authorizations   New Dwellings   New Parcels
     Baker               145              112            54
     Benton              125               90            53
     Clackamas          1,687            1,145          802
     Clatsop              74               51            33
     Columbia            123               87            60
     Coos                246              180           103
     Crook                57               42            26
     Curry               123               96            46
     Deschutes           210              135            96
     Douglas             306              201           142
     Gilliam               0                0             0
     Grant                 9                5             5
     Harney                0                0             0
     Hood River          287              163           112
     Jackson             650              434           298
     Jefferson           215              182           111
     Josephine           183              132            98
     Klamath             234              193            76
     Lake                  3                1             1
     Lane                627              447           277
     Lincoln             142              109            49
     Linn                463              327           214
     Malheur              25               17            10
     Marion              503              355           220
     Morrow               0                0             0
     Multnomah           105               79            36
     Polk                424              305           184
     Sherman               0                0             0
     Tillamook            90               70            41
     Umatilla             68               55            30
     Union                41               27            19
     Wallowa              76               61            37
     Wasco                59               44            21
     Washington          820              589           379
     Wheeler               0                0             0
     Yamhill             551              389           238
           Totals       8,671            6,123         3,871
             Appendix E
DLCD - 140
                                                                                              Appendix E
   DLCD - 141


                                      TGM MISSION
  The Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM) supports community efforts
  to expand transportation choices for people. 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.




                                    A PARTNERSHIP
TGM is a partnership between the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department
of Land Conservation and Development. TGM is funded primarily by federal funds provided by the
Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation.


                        TGM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
     Erik Kvarsten                                    Jim Rue
     League of Oregon Cities                          Dept. of Land Conservation & Development
     Jon Chandler                                     Art Schlack
     Oregon Home Builders Assn.                       Association of Oregon Counties
     Barbara Fraser                                   Randy Tucker
     Oregon Dept. of Transportation                   Metro
     Kelly Ross                                       Rob Zako
     Special Districts Assn. of Oregon                1000 Friends of Oregon




                                       Contact Information
                          Transportation and Growth Management Program
                               Oregon Department of Transportation
                                         555 13th Street N.E.
                                        Salem, Oregon 97301
                                    www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM
                                                                                             Appendix E
DLCD - 142



                            MESSAGE FROM TGM
                        PROGRAM AGENCY DIRECTORS



      As we mark the 18th anniversary of Oregon’s innovative Transportation and
      Growth Management Program (TGM), we find much to celebrate.
      For example:
      • A plan facilitated by TGM will help Newport take advantage of economic
        and job opportunities made available by the National Oceanic and
        Atmospheric Administration’s decision to locate its new Marine Operations
        Center in that city. The plan sets forth a long-term vision for a transportation
        network that will connect major destinations on Newport’s South Beach
        Peninsula. The city has already begun construction on Phase One
        improvements, which include a roundabout and pedestrian path.
      • New sidewalks and bike lanes leading to schools, as often recommended in
        TGM-funded plans, were built in Roseburg, Heppner, and Marion County,
        making it safer for students in those communities to walk and bike to school.
      • Several cities found that TGM-funded plans put them in a stronger position
        to secure construction grants that will enable them to build priority
        projects. For example, Columbia County is now moving forward with the
        development of a new transit center in St. Helens.
      In these and other communities, TGM continues to help Oregonians improve their
      transportation options and enjoy the economic benefits that go with well-planned,
      well-balanced transportation systems.
      In this biennial report, we provide an update on TGM and discuss ways in
      which Oregon’s cities and towns are using this program to advance important
      local objectives.




  Richard Whitman, Director,                           Matthew Garrett, Director,
  Oregon Department of Land Conservation               Oregon Department of Transportation
  and Development
                                                                                                         Appendix E
        DLCD - 143
    2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT


         WHAT DOES TGM DO?                                   use patterns and transportation networks. Through
                                                             planning grants and technical assistance, TGM works
    TGM was created in 1993 to support local efforts         with local governments to do exactly that.
    to improve transportation options, boost economic
    vitality, and enhance the livability of communities      Planning Grants
    throughout Oregon. As a non-regulatory program           The lion’s share of TGM’s budget – $5 million per
    in which participation is voluntary, TGM                 biennium, or about 80 percent of the total – goes
    collaborates with local governments.                     into planning grants for local governments. While
                                                             all TGM grants promote transportation objectives,
    The TGM Approach                                         most grants support other community goals as
    Around the country, transportation and land              well. Some popular ones:
    use decisions are often made in isolation from
                                                             Economic growth and development
    each other. TGM takes a different approach. The
    program recognizes that land use decisions affect        • Safe routes to school
    transportation options – and that transportation         • Access to jobs, education, and services
    decisions influence land-use patterns. Thus TGM           • Main street and downtown revitalization
    promotes the integration of transportation and
    land use planning.                                       Many TGM grants involve the updating of
                                                             Transportation System Plans (TSPs), through
    TGM also supports compact, cohesive, and well-           which communities identify key elements of local
    designed development that enables people to get          transportation networks and establish priorities for
    around easily and improves their quality of life.        funding specific projects. Other plans supported
    The program encourages local governments to              by TGM include those for:
    take advantage of assets they already have, such
    as walkable downtowns, main streets, and existing        • multi-modal street systems – i.e., systems that
    urban infrastructure.                                      improve mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians
                                                               as well as for motorists
    TGM supports sustainable transportation systems
    as key to the wise use of public investments. Given      • bicycle and pedestrian networks
    the economic pressures facing state and local            • transit services and transit-oriented
    governments today, it seems more important than            development around transit stations
    ever to wring every possible efficiency out of our land




                                                                                (Credit: Lane Transit District)
                                                  Transit in Eugene
4                                OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                                                                                  Appendix E
   DLCD - 144                                                                    2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT

• infrastructure to accommodate planned growth
  and development
• commercial corridors and gateways
As a rule, TGM grants require outreach to the
public as well as to individuals with limited
transportation options.

Direct Community Assistance
TGM also offers four technical assistance
services:
• Quick Response: TGM works with
  communities to improve the design, quality,
  and transportation efficiency of imminent local
  development projects.
• Code Assistance: TGM helps communities
  promote smart development through code
  updates and the removal of regulatory barriers
  to better transportation choices.
• Outreach: TGM supports local workshops,
  lectures, conferences and publications to
  educate public officials and the general public
  about creative, but practical, transportation and
  community design concepts.
• Transportation System Plan Assessments:
  TGM helps local governments improve their
  TSPs so they can take advantage of economic                  A streetscape amenity in Canby
  development opportunities and compete
  successfully for construction funds to get              PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
  desired projects built.
                                                            AROUND OREGON
About 20 percent – or $1.25 million per biennium
– of TGM’s budget goes into community                 During the 2009-2011 biennium, TGM provided
assistance services for local governments.            support for 83 projects throughout the state. A
                                                      complete list of 2009-2011 TGM projects appears
                                                      on page 10, but examples of projects are described
                                                      below along with the context in which they are
                                                      being carried out.

                                                      Economic Development
                                                      Many TGM projects take place in the context
                                                      of local efforts to create new jobs and stimulate
                                                      economic growth. McMinnville and Canby, for
                                                      example, are both using TGM to plan for new
                                                      infill development.
                                                      TGM is supporting McMinnville’s effort to
                                                      redevelop an underused 60-acre site near
                                                      downtown. Through the Northeast Gateway
                           OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM                               5
                                                                                                         Appendix E
        DLCD - 145
    2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT

    Plan, the city hopes to coordinate transit and         enable people to drive less and take shorter trips.
    infrastructure improvements for this area and          This means people can use the money they save
    create an attractive, inviting environment             on gasoline to meet other needs. Providing
    for people. The city also aims to capitalize           transportation options also:
    on economic and residential development                • removes short local trips from major arterials
    opportunities in and around this neighborhood.           and highways, thereby enabling freight and
    Meanwhile, Canby has implemented a number of             longer-distance auto trips to move more
    recommendations in TGM plans, including:                 efficiently; and
    • installation of new street trees and streetscape     • means dollars can remain in the local economy
      amenities designed to make the downtown                instead of being sent to out-of-state oil
      more inviting and pedestrian-friendly;                 companies or foreign countries.
    • renovation of building facades; and                  Local street networks in need of construction
    • downtown location of a new cinema, which             or improvements are typically identified in
      is expected to strengthen the city center’s          Transportation System Plans or TSP updates.
      economic vitality and stimulate new investment       Streets thus identified stand a better chance of
      in nearby properties.                                being funded and built. Cities that launched
                                                           such updates with TGM assistance during the
    Canby now plans to build on these actions by           2009-2011 biennium include Ashland, Hubbard,
    improving the gateway leading into its downtown.       Medford, Nyssa, and Vernonia.
    “TGM has been an amazing building block for            Bicycle and pedestrian plans are important
    our community,” says Mathilda Deas, AICP,              elements of TSPs. Eugene and Madras began work
    Canby’s long-range planner. Deas believes the          on such plans during this biennium, while the
    TGM-supported plans have helped the city obtain        Roseburg City Council unanimously adopted its
    funds to build or otherwise carry out a number of      bicycle plan.
    projects. “If you don’t have a good, well thought
    through plan, people won’t be comfortable giving       Since many trips are short trips – 41 percent of
    you grants. TGM has enabled us to demonstrate          all person trips in the U.S. are three miles or less,
    that we have considered things carefully, and the      according to the Federal Highway Administration
    program has helped us to get things done that we       – improvements to bicycle and pedestrian
    couldn’t have accomplished in-house.”                  networks hold great potential for reducing traffic
                                                           on congested state highways.
    Economic Savings, More
    Transportation Choices
    In today’s weak economy, many Oregon families
    are struggling to pay for gasoline, car insurance,
    and other transportation costs, which often
    consume 20 percent or more of a household’s
    entire budget.
    To alleviate transportation-related financial
    pressures on Oregonians, TGM helps local
    governments plan street, bicycle, and pedestrian
    networks that accommodate such no-cost/low-
    cost travel options as walking and bicycling.
    By promoting compact communities and multi-
    modal streets that yield more direct routes to
    everyday destinations – e.g., schools, stores, and
    parks – TGM and its local government partners                            Bike commuters

6                               OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                                                                                  Appendix E
   DLCD - 146                                                                    2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT

This point came across at the Walk + Bike
Summit held in Medford. The Fall 2010 Summit
was co-sponsored by the Rogue Valley Transit
District (RVTD) and Jackson County with TGM
support. “Thank you for making our summit
possible,” writes Nathan Broom, transportation
options planner with the RVTD. “It was a strong
event that drew officials from ten jurisdictions
as well as business, nonprofit, and tourism
representatives from Southern Oregon.”

Safer Routes for People with Limited
Transportation Options
Many Oregon communities remain plagued by
missing sidewalks, dangerous road crossings, and
other safety hazards. Addressing these problems is
critical to the independence of those who cannot
drive, such as young people, the disabled, many             Walking to school on new sidewalks in
senior citizens, and lower-income persons who                          Marion County
cannot afford cars.                                   In Vernonia, TGM’s Quick Response service
To the benefit of children and younger teen-           worked with the city to identify an appropriate
agers, this biennium saw the implementation of        site for a new high school after the severe 2007
recommendations made in several TGM-funded            flood destroyed the old high school. TGM helped
plans for safe routes to school. For example:         the city balance the need to find a site on higher
                                                      ground with the importance of giving students the
• Roseburg completed new bike lanes and               opportunity to walk and bike to school. The city
  sidewalks near Joseph Lane Middle School;           recently broke ground on the new school at the
• Heppner built new sidewalks leading to              site selected.
  Heppner Elementary School; and
• Marion County finished new sidewalks
  around Scott Elementary School and Houck
  Middle School.
Other steps taken by Marion County pursuant to
a TGM-funded plan included the construction of
ramps and sidewalks that meet Americans with
Disabilities Act standards near Yoshikai
and Haysville Elementary Schools. Philomath
and Salem, meanwhile, initiated bicycle-
pedestrian plans that will include safe-routes-to-
school components.

                                                             Student transportation costs the state
                                                                    $174 million annually
                                                      When one considers the high cost of student
                                                      transportation – the State of Oregon spent
                                                      $174 million for this purpose during the 2008-
                                                      2009 school year alone – these steps to enable

                           OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM                               7
                                                                                                       Appendix E
        DLCD - 147
    2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT

    more students to walk and bike to school offer         Completion of a Community-Wide Transit Plan
    potentially significant financial dividends as well      has enabled Columbia County to move forward
    as more transportation options. They help young        with the development of a multi-modal transit
    people develop more active lifestyles that can         center in St. Helens. The new center will include
    ward off such health problems as obesity and Type      a park-and-ride facility and transit administration
    2 diabetes. And they can relieve morning traffic        office. The TGM-funded plan was instrumental
    congestion – an important goal, given that parents     in the county’s success in obtaining a $2 million
    driving their children to school account for as        grant from Oregon’s ConnectOregon II program.
    much as 25 percent of morning traffic, according        Columbia County’s award-winning planning
    to several studies.                                    project also helped local stakeholders identify
    These and similar planning efforts around the state    transit schedule and route improvements to better
    will also benefit senior citizens who cannot drive,     serve the residents of Scappoose, St. Helens,
    or who would prefer not to do so, and lower-income     Columbia City, Rainier, and Clatskanie.
    people who struggle to pay for transportation.

    Codes That Support Community Goals
    One challenge facing many local governments is
    a mismatch between community goals and local
    zoning and development codes. Simply put, many
    codes inadvertently prohibit what residents say
    they want. TGM works with local governments to
    bring codes into harmony with the community’s
    vision for its future.
    Walkability, for example, is an asset many               Sketch for new Columbia County transit center
    communities seek to create, but which codes often      In the Lane County and Salem-Keizer transit
    impede through outdated parking requirements,          service areas, TGM is supporting the development
    inappropriate block sizes, and other provisions.       of transit master plans intended to improve bus
    In Pendleton, a TGM-funded plan prompted the           connections in these regions. In Eugene, the city
    city to amend its subdivision regulations so people    adopted a form-based code to allow higher-density
    would not be forced to travel far out of their         development around Walnut Station, a transit stop
    way to carry out what should be quick, simple          on the Bus Rapid Transit line connecting Eugene
    errands, like buying a quart of milk or picking up     and Springfield. Such development is expected to
    a newspaper.                                           encourage greater transit use and more efficient
                                                           transit services.
    Canby, too, amended its code to bring about
    more walkable block sizes, while also requiring        Cool Planning Handbook
    coordination between the school district and
    the city to ensure better pedestrian and bicycle       As the state legislature and other state bodies
    connections in new subdivisions.                       consider Oregon’s efforts to reduce greenhouse
                                                           gas emissions associated with climate change,
    Transit for Small Towns and                            TGM completed a new publication, Cool
    Metropolitan Areas                                     Planning: Local Strategies to Slow Climate
                                                           Change. The handbook is intended to help
    Transit services that provide access to jobs,          communities reduce transportation-related
    education, and services are critical to small towns    greenhouse gas emissions through land use and
    and larger cities alike.                               transportation planning. Among other things, the
                                                           handbook:



8                               OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                                                                                   Appendix E
   DLCD - 148                                                                    2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT

• describes school siting practices that reduce       Summing Up
  students’ need to be driven or bused to school;     In short, TGM continues to work with Oregon’s
• explains the impact of zoning, parking, and         cities, towns and counties to make it easier
  other land use policies on travel behavior; and     for people to get around. In the process of
• identifies community design concepts that            doing so, the program helps local governments
  shorten distances between local destinations        accommodate economic growth and leverage
  and thereby help to cut carbon emissions.           other funds, maximizes taxpayer investments in
                                                      transportation facilities, and enhances the quality
An Easier, More Streamlined Process                   of life for Oregonians.
Besides supporting local planning efforts during
the 2009-2011 biennium, TGM made several
administrative improvements aimed at making
it easier for local governments to apply for and
obtain grant funds. Among these improvements:
• annual, instead of biennial, grant rounds;
• more help to local governments in preparing
  grant applications,
• assistance in identifying issues to be analyzed
  through planning grants, and
• a faster timeline for launching grant projects.
TGM anticipates awarding new transportation
planning grants to local governments in June 2011.




                                    A pedestrian friendly streetscape



                           OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM                               9
                                                                                                                                                                          Appendix E
         DLCD - 149
     2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT


                 2009-2011 GRANTS AND COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE
                        PROJECTS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS BY ODOT REGION

                        Clatsop
                                       Columbia

                                                                                                                                                                Wallowa
                                      Washington
                                                    Multnomah
                        Tillamook                                          Hood                               Gilliam
                                                                           River                                        Morrow            Umatilla




                               Yamhill


                               Polk
                                                                    1
                                                               Clackamas
                                                                                     Wasco
                                                                                             Sherman
                                                                                                                                                     Union



                                                   Marion                                                       Wheeler                                      Baker
                                                                                                                                          Grant
                    Lincoln                           Linn                    Jefferson


                              Benton


                                                    2                                                         Crook

                                                             Lane
                                                                             Deschutes

                                                                                                                                                     5
                 Coos



                                            Douglas
                                                                                             4                                   Harney
                                                                                                                                                             Malheur




                                                                                                       Lake




         Curry
                   Josephine
                                         3                                 Klamath



                                             Jackson




     2009 Grant Projects – Region One
     Clackamas County                              Estacada Downtown Revitalization Plan ........................................$137,896
     Clackamas County                              Park Avenue Light Rail Station Area .............................................$199,068
     Forest Grove                                  Transit-Oriented Development Plan ...............................................$117,000
     Gresham                                       Safe Routes to School Project ......................................................... $32,040
     Hillsboro                                     Tualatin Valley Highway Corridor .................................................$245,714
     Hood River                                    Transportation System Plan Update................................................$149,100
     Metro & Tigard                                Tigard High Capacity Transit Corridor...........................................$233,947
     Portland                                      Outer Powell Blvd. Right-of Way Corridor ....................................$337,045
     St. Helens                                    Transportation System Plan Update..................................................$95,100
     Tigard                                        Greenway Trail Master Plan .............................................................$99,700
     Vernonia                                      Transportation System Plan Update................................................$103,100
     Washington County                             Implementation of Transportation Plan ..........................................$110,000
                                                   Total Region One 2009 grants ..................................................$1,859,710



10                                                    OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                                                                                                       Appendix E
   DLCD - 150                                                                                   2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT

2010 Grant Projects (Individual Award amounts under negotiation) – Region One
Canby                   Corridor Gateway Plan
Clackamas County        Regional Center Area Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection
Happy Valley            Rock Creek Comprehensive Plan Update/Town Center
Metro                   Southwest Corridor Refinement Plan
Oregon City             Transportation System Plan Update
Portland                Cully Boulevard Main Street Planning
Wilsonville             Transportation System Plan Update
Wood Village            Transportation System Plan Update and Assessment
                        Total Region One 2010 grant allocation ...........................                 $1,042,200

2009-2011 Community Assistance Projects – Region One
Canby                   Code Assistance, Subdivision Code Update ....................................$44,588
Canby                   Quick Response, Railroad Properties ...............................................$44,200
Clackamas County        Code Assistance, Station Area Form-Based Code ............................$37,200
Gaston                  Quick Response, Cottonwood Corridor ............................................$51,900
Gresham                 Outreach, Workshops........................................................................$15,948
Hillsboro               Code Assistance, Downtown Code Revisions .................................. $7,100
Milwaukie               Code Assistance, Code Assessment..................................................$11,020
Milwaukie               Code Assistance, Code Update .........................................................$50,000
Molalla                 Quick Response, Rezone ..................................................................$42,300
Oregon City             Quick Response, Downtown Circulation ..........................................$12,813
Portland                Quick Response, Springwater Station Area Concept .......................$30,700
Tigard                  Code Assistance, Downtown Code Revisions ....................................$3,200
Troutdale               Outreach, Main Street Revitalization Workshop ................................$7,716
Troutdale               Outreach, Density & Design Workshop .............................................$6,272
                        Total Community Assistance 2009-2011 .....................................$364,957

2009 Grant Projects – Region Two
Dundee                  Southeast Dundee Riverfront Master ..............................................$147,530
Eugene                  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ............................................................$143,000
Florence                TSP, Transit Plan and CIP Updates ................................................$143,200
Lane Transit District   Develop Long Range Transit Plan ..................................................$138,500
Philomath               Transportation System Plan Updates ................................................$67,056
Salem Public Works      Updates of the TSP Bicycle & Pedestrian Elements ......................$242,000
Woodburn                Highway 99E Corridor Plan............................................................$223,855
                        Total Region Two 2009 grants .................................................$1,105,141



                          OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM                                                11
                                                                                                                                    Appendix E
         DLCD - 151
     2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT

     2010 Grant Projects (Individual Award amounts under negotiation) – Region Two
     Albany                      South Albany Area Plan
     Hubbard                     Transportation System Plan Update
     Independence                UGB Concept Plan
     Lincoln City                Bike and Pedestrian Plan
     McMinnville                 Northeast Gateway Project
     Salem Area Mass
        Transit District         Transportation System Plan
     Salem Community             Parking Management Plan
        Development
     Silverton                   West-Side Land Use and Transportation Plan
     Waldport                    Yaquina John Point Land Use and Transportation Plan
                                 Total Region Two 2010 grant allocation .....................................$812,800

     2009-2011 Community Assistance Projects – Region Two
     Carlton                     Code Assistance, Code Assessment....................................................$1,570
     Carlton                     Code Assistance, Code Update ........................................................ $59,760
     Dallas                      Code Assistance, Code Update ...........................................................$8,450
     Eugene                      Code Assistance, Station Area Form-Based Code ........................... $21,800
     Eugene & Lane               Quick Response, West Eugene EmX Extension
       Transit District          Design Options................................................................................. $28,600
     Junction City               Outreach, Workshop ........................................................................ $27,261
     Lowell                      Code Assistance, Downtown Code Assessment .................................$5,200
     Newport                     Quick Response, South Beach Peninsula..........................................$51,850
     Tillamook County            Quick Response, Pacific Ave & Cape Kiwanda Drive .................... $49,900
     Veneta                      Code Assistance, Code Update Phase 2 ............................................. $4,230
                                 Total Community Assistance 2009-2011...................................... $258,621

     2009 Grant Projects – Region Three
     Ashland                     Transportation System Plan Update................................................$175,000
     Medford                     UGB Expansion and Transportation System Plan Update .............$172,490
     Rogue Valley
      Transit District           RVTD District Boundary Assessment ............................................ $75,936
                                 Total Region Three 2009 grants ................................................$ 423,426




12                                 OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                                                                                                      Appendix E
   DLCD - 152                                                                                  2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT

2010 Grant Projects (Individual Award amounts under negotiation) – Region Three
Central Point        Pine Street Four-Lane to Three-Lane Conversion
Grants Pass          Neighborhood Centers
                     Total Region Three 2010 grant allocation ..................................$307,400

2009-2011 Community Assistance Projects – Region Three
Myrtle Point         Code Assistance, Code Assessment................................................. $13,300
                     Total Community Assistance 2009-2011 ...................................... $13,300

2009 Grant Projects – Region Four
Central Oregon       Public Transportation & Infrastructure
 Intergovernmental   Investment Strategic Plan ...............................................................$191,000
                     Total Region Four 2009 Grants ...................................................$191,000

2010 Grant Projects (Individual Award amounts under negotiation) – Region Four
Bend MPO             Transit Corridor Plan & Transit Oriented Development
Madras               Transportation System Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Update
                     Total Region Four 2010 grant allocation ....................................$172,200

2009-2011 Community Assistance Projects – Region Four
Metolius             Outreach, Workshop .........................................................................$17,582
Sisters              Quick Response, Forest Service Property .........................................$62,600
                     Total Community Assistance 2009-2011 .......................................$80,182

2009 Grant Projects – Region Five
Nyssa                Transportation System Plan Update..................................................$74,200
Pendleton            Downtown Plan...............................................................................$167,799
Vale                 Transportation System Plan Update..................................................$78,400
                     Total Region Five 2009 grants .....................................................$320,399

2010 Grant Projects (Individual Award amounts under negotiation) – Region Five
La Grande            Transportation System Plan Amendment
Pendleton            Transportation Impact Analysis Pilot Project ................................................
                     Total Region Five 2010 grant allocation .....................................$165,400




                       OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM                                                  13
                                                                                                                                 Appendix E
         DLCD - 153
     2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT

     2009-2011 Community Assistance Projects – Region 5
     Boardman                    Code Assistance, IAMP Implementation ............................................$8,400
     Nyssa                       Code Assistance, Code Assessment Phase 1 .................................... $9,200
     Ukiah                       Code Assistance, Code Update .........................................................$49,850
     Weston                      Outreach, Workshop .........................................................................$18,446
                                 Total Community Assistance 2009-2011 .......................................$85,896

     2009-2011 Community Assistance Projects – Statewide
     Statewide                   Outreach: Cool Planning Handbook .................................................$35,089
                                 Code Assistance: Model Code Update .............................................$45,742
                                 Total Community Assistance Statewide...............................               $80,831




14                                 OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                                                                    Appendix E
DLCD - 154                                                         2009-2011 BIENNIAL REPORT




             OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM                               15
                                                                                   Appendix E
DLCD - 155




                      TGM Program Co-Managers

               Rob Hallyburton                   Robert Maestre
             Planning Services Division          Transportation Development Division
      Land Conservation & Development            Oregon Department of Transportation
                  Salem, Oregon 97301            555 13th Street, N.E.
                635 Capitol Street, N.E.         Salem, Oregon 97301
                          503.373.0050           503.986.4165




                               www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM


                                      January 2011


                  TGM: Better Ways to Better Places
  DLCD - 156                                        Appendix F




        Ballot Measures
    37 (2004) and 49 (2007)
     Outcomes and Effects
                      January 2011




Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development




                                                         1
DLCD - 157                                                            Appendix F




                                Outline:

I. Introduction

II. Outcomes and Effects of Measures 37 (2004) and 49 (2007)

     A. Measure 37 and the Transition to Measure 49

     B. Authorizations, Parcels and Dwellings

       1. Characteristics of M49 Elections and Authorizations

       2. Development Allowed Under Measure 49

       3. Measure 37 Development Potential and Measure 49
          Authorized Development Comparison for Select Counties

       4. Additional maps of New Dwellings Authorized by Measure 49

     C. Claims Denied Under Measure 49

     D. Litigation

III. Historical Background: Measures 37 & Measure 49

     A. Measure 37

     B. Measure 49

     C. HB 3225

IV. Ombudsman

V.    New Claims

VI. SB 1049

VII. What’s Next?




                                                                        2
DLCD - 158                                                                           Appendix F



I. Introduction
A major source of friction in Oregon's land use system has been the treatment of rural
landowners who acquired their property with expectations that they could someday
develop it. These expectations were limited over time by the state land use program and
its focus on conserving farm and forest lands, and limiting the spread of urban
development. Measures 37 (2004) and 49 (2007) have addressed this continuing discord
by allowing property owners (who could develop their land for additional residential uses
at the time they acquired their property) limited residential development rights –
balancing fairness goals with the desire for continued protection of farming and forestry
and prevention of sprawl.

The completion of work to implement Measures 37 and 49 represents a significant
milestone in Oregon’s land use program – resolving the longstanding concerns about
fairness and equity that stretch back to the adoption of the land use program in 1973.
Over the past three years, the Department of Land Conservation & Development has
completed the review of almost 5,000 claims to verify ownership and qualification for
relief under Measures 37 and 49. The department completed this work on time, on
budget, and consistent with projections about the numbers of residential dwellings that
would be authorized. This report summarizes the impacts and outcomes known to-date
from the implementation of Measure 37 and 49.


II. Outcomes and Effects of Measures 37 and 49
A. Measure 37 and the Transition to Measure 49

The effect that Measure 37 had on the land use program cannot be overstated. The
measure itself was brief at 1 ½ pages, and contained many ambiguities. State and local
government were faced with carrying out a voter-approved mandate with no clear
procedures and virtually no legislative guidance. The potential consequences of a misstep
were enormous in terms of liability – the measure gave property owners the ability to
collect monetary compensation unless government acted within 180 days of the filing of a
claim, and the total amount of claims exceeded $17 billion.




                                                                                          3
DLCD - 159                                                                                            Appendix F




Table 1: Original Measure 37 claims filed and Measure 49 elections, final orders and authorizations

              Original Original M49
                                      M49 Final    M49 Final Order   M49 Final
 County      Measure    Elections
                                    Orders Issued* Authorizations* Order Denials*
             37 Claims  Received*
Baker                139                 80                89                      66                  23
Benton                127                80                69                      56                  13
Clackamas           1047               810               807                     660                  147
Clatsop                98                60                 47                     29                  18
Columbia             136                  77               65                      47                  18
Coos                 239                125               124                      95                  29
Crook                  62                 33               32                      20                  12
Curry                104                  64               59                      47                  12
Deschutes            170                 111             106                       85                  21
Douglas              246                168               152                    120                   32
Gilliam                 1                  1                 1                       0                  1
Grant                  21                  7                 5                       3                  2
Harney                  2                  0                 0                       0                  0
Hood River           221                148               148                     114                  34
Jackson              448               336               309                     253                   56
Jefferson            130                  91              134                      84                  50
Josephine            187                 117               111                     75                  36
Klamath               155              100                125                      90                  35
Lake                    2                  1                 1                       1                  0
Lane                 382               295               274                     226                   48
Lincoln              209                  78                73                     61                  12
Linn                 395                277               217                     178                  39
Malheur                31                 19                15                      11                  4
Marion               464                327              280                     207                   73
Morrow                  1                  0                 0                       0                  0
Multnomah             116                 64               60                      46                  14
Polk                 304               223               226                      167                  59
Sherman                 1                  0                 0                       0                  0
Tillamook              88                 49                57                     35                  22
Umatilla               57                30                30                      25                   5
Union                  47                 33               25                      18                   7
Wallowa                52                 36               36                      28                   8
Wasco                  43                 26               29                      26                   3
Washington           691                477               431                    349                   82
Wheeler                 2                  2                 1                       0                  1
Yamhill              439                318              269                     225                   44
State                                                                                                 957
                                   4664                4407                    3447
Total        6857
* Includes HB 3225 claims but not SB 1049 claims. Numbers are not comparable between all columns. The
figures for Measure 37 claims and Measure 49 elections include all claims filed by claimants without
adjustment for duplicate claims for the same property. Figures for final orders reflect splitting and
combining of claims as required by Measure 49. Many claimants submitted multiple claims for the same
property under Measure 37; these claims were combined into a single claim under Measure 49. In addition,



                                                                                                        4
DLCD - 160                                                                                         Appendix F


many claimants submitted separate Measure 37 claims for multiple contiguous tax lots. These claims were
combined under Measure 49.

Over 7,000 M37 claims were filed with state and county governments. Of the state claims,
over 98% were designated for review by DLCD. The estimated value of compensation
identified by claimants was in excess of $17 billion, and although a government had the
choice to pay compensation or waive regulation for valid claims, if a government did not
complete processing of a claim within 180 days, the claimant could demand payment of
the compensation.

By the time Measure 49 became effective, the state had met the 180-day deadline for
about one half of all claims submitted. Measure 49 significantly amended Measure 37. As
directed, DLCD quickly revamped its procedures to notify Measure 37 claimants of their
ability to continue to seek compensation under the new provisions of Measure 49.


B. Authorizations, Parcels and Dwellings.

Measure 49 has provided compensation to thousands of primarily rural landowners
across the state. Claimants are predominantly elderly, and mainly own land zoned for
farm use. Sixty-six percent of claims were filed by people who had owned their property
since 1975 or earlier and 71% of claims are currently in farm or farm/forest zoning. Many
claimants stated an intent to divide property or add dwellings to supplement income for
retirement or otherwise benefit family members. Measure 49 created some additional
benefits to claimants not contained in Measure 37 including extending claimant rights to
surviving spouses, allowing claimants to transfer homebuilding rights upon sale or
transfer of the property, and authorizing future claims based on (future) regulation that
restricts residential use of property or farm or forest practices. The scope and distribution
of home site development authorized by Measure 49 and a comparison to Measure 37
development potential follow.

1. Characteristics of Measure 49 Elections and Authorizations

Of the 6857 claims filed with the state under Measure 37, 4664 were submitted, or
“elected” for supplemental review under Measure 49 (see Table 1). After splitting and
combining claims due to property configurations and eliminating invalid claims, the
number of claims receiving final orders under Measure 49 and HB3225 was 4407. Of
these valid claims, 3447 received home site authorizations and 957 were denied for a
statewide approval rate of 78%.

Figures 1a and 1b show the numbers of elected claims that received authorizations and
denials for each county. Although the highest numbers of home site authorizations were
concentrated in the Willamette Valley, claimants from 31 counties across the state
received authorizations for home sites. Only two counties with claimants that elected
review of their claims under Measure 49 did not receive any authorizations to develop
home sites: Gilliam County with one claim and Wheeler County with two. Two of these
denied claims were eligible to elect under the Measure 49 amendments HB 3225 or SB
1049.


                                                                                                          5
DLCD - 161   Appendix F




               6
DLCD - 162                                                                               Appendix F


Figure 1a*: Measure 49 Authorizations and Denials: Counties with more than 100 claims.




Figure 1b*: Measure 49 Authorizations and Denials: Counties with less than 100 claims.




* Note the scales of graphs a and b differ.


                                                                                           7
DLCD - 163                                                                           Appendix F



Measure 49 claims were almost exclusively located on farm and forestlands (see Figure 2).
Statewide, 90% of authorized claims were for property located on lands zoned for farm or
forest use. Sixty percent of authorized claims were located on exclusive farm use zones,
18% on forest use and 12% on split or mixed-farm/forest zones. Ten percent of claims
were on lands zoned rural residential.




Figure 2: Measure 49 Authorized Claims by Land Use Zone


                                Rural Residential
  Split Farm - Forest                 10%                 Other
          1%                                              <1%

    Mixed
 Farm/Forest
    11%




                                                                              Farm
        Forest                                                                60%
         18%




Figure 3: Number of New Dwellings Authorized by Measure 49 by Land Use Zone


                                  Rural Residential
   Split Farm - Forest                  628                  Other
            54
                                                              41


     Mixed
  Farm/Forest
      680
                                                                              Farm
                                                                              3523



      Forest
       1205




                                                                                        8
DLCD - 164                                                                                Appendix F




Figure 4: Measure 49 Authorized Claims by Property Acquisition Date

                                                              Interim Goals Prime
                                                                   Farm Lands
                         Pre-                                          2%
                   Acknowledgment
                         23%




                                                                              Post-
                                                                         Acknowledgment
                                                                               9%

                 Pre-1975
                   66%


The majority (66%) of authorized claims were for properties acquired in the so-called
“pre-1975” period, before the state land use goals became effective in January of 1975 (see
Figure 4). During that period regulations applying to property, if any, were predominantly
enacted by counties. Fully 95% of “pre-1975” claims received home site authorizations. In
addition, at least 1% of pre-1975 claims were determined to be “vested.” This number will
increase as more vested determinations are made. Another 23% of claims were authorized
for properties acquired in the “pre-acknowledgement” period when most county
comprehensive plans had not been completed and when the state land use goals applied
directly. Approximately 80% of claims for properties acquired in the pre-acknowledgment
period received home site authorizations. Only 9% of claims were for properties acquired
in the “post-acknowledgement” period, when state approval (acknowledgement) of
comprehensive plans had taken place, but additional statutes or rules restricting land use
had been enacted. Approximately 50% of these claims received home site authorizations.
The “interim goals prime farmlands” period, a subset of the “pre-1975” period, accounted
for 2% of authorized claims.


2. Development Allowed Under Measure 49

Statewide, there were 8681 total “home sites” authorized under Measure 49 and HB 3225
(see Table 2). A “home site authorization” is an authorization to allow dwellings or parcels
or a combination of both in a greater density than permitted under the property’s current
zoning. Authorizations can result in new dwellings and parcels or in the legalization of
existing unauthorized dwellings or parcels. The number of home sites authorized per
claim ranged from 1 to 10 and averaged 2.5. The number of new parcels authorized
statewide was 3878 with an average of 1.1 per claim. The number of new dwellings
authorized statewide was 6131 and averaged 1.8 per claim.




                                                                                            9
DLCD - 165                                                                        Appendix F



Measure 49 authorized 6131 new dwellings across the state as of December 16, 2010. Most
dwellings were authorized under Section 6 of Measure 49, which allowed up to 3 home
sites for a Measure 49 election. More new dwellings will be authorized as the SB 1049
claims are processed. As Figures 4a and 4b illustrate, Measure 49 authorized more than
100 new dwellings for each of seventeen counties. These counties range across much of
the state from Baker, Jefferson, Deschutes, and Klamath in the east, Jackson, Josephine
and Douglas in the southwest, Coos and Lincoln along the coast, most of the Willamette
Valley and Hood River in the north. Four counties received authorizations for more than
400 new dwellings: Clackamas, Washington, Lane and Jackson Counties. Clackamas
County’s sum of 1145 new dwellings is almost double the next highest, Washington
County, with 593.




                                                                                     10
DLCD - 166                                                         Appendix F


Table 2: Measure 49 Authorization Statistics by County
                                          AVERAGE
                       NEW                    NEW          NEW
  COUNTY
                    DWELLINGS           DWELLINGS        PARCELS
                                         PER CLAIM
 Baker            112                    1.7             54
 Benton           90                     1.6             53
 Clackamas        1145                   1.7             802
 Clatsop            51                   1.8               33
 Columbia         87                     1.9             60
 Coos             180                    1.9             103
 Crook            42                     2.1             26
 Curry            96                     2.0             46
 Deschutes        135                    1.6             96
 Douglas          201                    1.7             142
 Grant            5                      1.7             5
 Hood River       163                    1.4             112
 Jackson          434                    1.7             298
 Jefferson        182                    2.2             111
 Josephine        132                    1.8             98
 Klamath          193                    2.1             76
 Lake             1                      1.0             1
 Lane             450                    2.0             279
 Lincoln          109                    1.8             49
 Linn             327                    1.8             214
 Malheur          17                     1.5             10
 Marion           356                    1.7             221
 Multnomah        79                     1.7             36
 Polk             305                    1.8             184
 Tillamook        70                     2.0             41
 Umatilla         55                     2.2             30
 Union            27                     1.5             19
 Wallowa          61                     2.2             37
 Wasco            44                     1.7             21
 Washington       593                    1.7             383
 Yamhill          389                    1.7             238
 State Total      6131                   1.8             3878




                                                                    11
DLCD - 167                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Appendix F


Figure 5a: New Dwellings Authorized by Measure 49 – Counties with more than 100 Claims

                     1200
                                   1145


                     1000



                      800
   # New Dwellings




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      593
                      600

                                                                                                                 434                                                                              450
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       389
                      400                                                                                                                                                                                                 356
                                                                                                                                                                                                               327                     305

                                                            180                         201                                       182                                            193
                      200                                                                         163
                                                                         135                                                                               132


                           0                                                                                                                               Josephine
                                                                                                                                     Jefferson




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Polk
                                                            Coos




                                                                                                                    Jackson
                                                                                        Douglas
                                                                         Deschutes




                                                                                                                                                                                                  Lane




                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Marion




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Yamhill
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Linn
                                                                                                   Hood River
                                       Clackamas




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Washington
                                                                                                                                                                                 Klamath




Figure 5b: New Dwellings Authorized by Measure 49 – Counties with fewer than 100 Claims
                     120
                               112                                                                                                               109

                     100                                                                          96
                                                   90                       87
                                                                                                                                                                                     79
# New Dwellings




                     80
                                                                                                                                                                                                   70
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     61
                     60                                                                                                                                                                                        55
                                                               51
                                                                                        42                                                                                                                                                        44
                     40
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          27
                                                                                                                                                                       17
                     20
                                                                                                                5
                                                                                                                              1
                       0
                                                                                                  Curry




                                                                                                                                                                       Malheur
                                                                                                                Grant




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Wasco
                                                   Benton
                               Baker




                                                                                                                                                                                                   Tillamook
                                                               Clatsop




                                                                                         Crook




                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Union
                                                                                                                              Lake




                                                                                                                                                                                                               Umatilla
                                                                                                                                                 Lincoln




                                                                                                                                                                                      Multnomah




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Wallowa
                                                                             Columbia




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 12
DLCD - 168                                                                             Appendix F




The 6,131 new dwellings authorized under Measure 49 represent about six to ten times
the number of new dwellings authorized through "regular" means on farm and forest
lands in Oregon in a one-year period. The Measure 49 authorizations will be carried out
over a long period, likely ten to twenty years. In short, the Measures represent a
significant increase in the supply of authorized rural homes in Oregon, but one that is not
altogether inconsistent with the purposes of the state's land use program to maintain
working forest and farm operations.




                                                                                         13
DLCD - 169                                                                             Appendix F



The maps in the following section illustrate the distribution of new dwellings for a sample
of seven counties with the greatest numbers authorized by Measure 49. Although the
density of new dwellings is predictably greater near urban growth boundaries and
highways, the maps also show that the dwellings authorized are spread across all private
ownerships.


3. Measure 37 Development Potential and Measure 49
   Authorized Development Comparison for Select Counties

Measure 49 authorized home sites for thousands of rural landowners across Oregon.
Relative to the potential for development under Measure 37, the primary effect of
Measure 49 was to prevent large-scale subdivision, commercial and industrial
developments in prime farm lands, forest lands, and wilderness areas.

In fact, it is not possible to know for certain what the development effects of Measure 37
would have been, had Measure 49 not been passed. This is because approximately half of
the 6,857 claims submitted to the state under Measure 37 were not fully processed when
Measure 49 became effective. Nor is it clear that all Measure 37 claimants intended to
fully develop their property to the extent their claims indicated. However, one can get a
conservative view of the difference in the effect of the two measures by analyzing those
Measure 37 claims that received home site authorizations under Measure 49. This group
consists of 4407 valid claims, or “elections.” A valid Measure 49 claim is one that met the
minimum requirements for filing a Measure 49 election, did not have a “vested”
determination for Measure 37 development, and was not located mostly or entirely within
an Urban Growth Boundary or a city. This group of claims includes elections made under
the original Measure 49 criteria as well as elections that were processed under HB 3225. It
does not include elections being processed under SB 1049.

To compare the development potential under Measure 37 to the actual development
authorized under Measure 49, this report focuses on “new dwellings.” Under Measure 49,
the specific numbers of new dwellings were explicitly “authorized” in final orders. Under
Measure 37, development waivers were not consistently explicit; therefore the comparison
is not perfect.

County-Specific M37-M49 Discussion

The following eight maps display the potential numbers of new dwellings under Measures
37 and 49 for four counties: Clackamas, Washington, Jackson and Hood River. These
counties were selected because the numbers of new dwellings potentially developable
under Measure 37 and the number authorized under Measure 49 are the most significant,
either as total numbers (i.e. Clackamas, Washington and Jackson) or as a percentage of a
county’s private land base (i.e. Hood River).



    a. Clackamas County—First in number of claims.


                                                                                         14
DLCD - 170                                                                          Appendix F




At least 77% of Clackamas County’s Measure 37 claims were submitted for election under
Measure 49. Clackamas County’s 807 valid Measure 49 elections reveal a fragmented land
base, with properties ranging from less than 1 acre to a maximum of 904 acres. The
median claim property size is approximately 20 acres, the smallest of the four study
counties. The majority of Clackamas County claim properties are distributed throughout
the outskirts of suburban communities and the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (see Map,
Clackamas County: New Dwellings Authorized by Measure 49). Because so many
Clackamas County Measure 37 claims were elected for Measure 49, virtually the only
difference between Measures 37 and 49 outcomes is the size and density of the clusters of
new dwellings. Under Measure 49, the state authorized 1145 new dwellings, the highest
number of any county in the state. This same group of claims requested or received
waivers for 14,451 new dwellings under Measure 37. The average number of new
dwellings authorized per valid claim under Measure 49 is 1.7; under Measure 37 the
average number of new dwellings requested, or for which waivers were issued, for these
same claims was 18.

There is no single landowner in Clackamas County that dominated the development
scenario under Measure 37. This is in contrast to other areas, such as neighboring
Washington County (see below). Clackamas County has far more claimants, generally
requesting more development than their neighboring counties. Under Measure 37,
Clackamas County was slated for a wide range of development from single dwellings to a
2100-lot subdivision. Of Measure 37 claims going forward under Measure 49, 180 claims
were for subdivisions of 20 or more dwellings; five were for subdivisions of more than
200 dwellings.

Of the four study counties, Clackamas County was second for the highest proportion of
claimants requesting ten or more new dwellings under Measure 37, with 41%. Of the
remaining claimants, 31% requested or received waivers for 4-9 new dwellings and 29%
for 1-3 under Measure 37. This equates to a median of seven new dwellings requested per
claim under Measure 37, the second highest, again, after Hood River County. While 70%
of Clackamas County claimants filed Measure 37 claims for subdivisions (four or more
home sites), only 2% of those were for subdivisions of 100 or more home sites (compared
to Washington with 4%, Hood River with 20% and Jackson with 6%).




                                                                                       15
             Appendix F
DLCD - 171    16
             Appendix F
DLCD - 172    17
DLCD - 173                                                                            Appendix F



b. Washington County—Large subdivisions avoided

Almost 70% of Washington County’s Measure 37 claims were submitted for election
under Measure 49. This was the lowest election rate of the four study counties, largely due
to a single claimant with well over 100 Measure 37 claims. Measure 49 limited any one
claimant to no more than 20 home sites – reducing the claims from this claimant to a
small subset of what had initially been sought under Measure 37. Washington County’s
431 valid Measure 49 elections are characterized by a wide range of property sizes, from
less than 1 acre to 8916 acres. The median claim property size is approximately 30 acres.
In terms of number of claims, the majority of claim properties are distributed throughout
the outskirts of suburban communities and the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (see Map,
Washington County: New Dwellings Authorized by Measure 49). A major difference
between Measures 37 and 49 outcomes is clearly visible in the size and density of the
clusters of new dwellings. Under Measure 49, the state authorized 593 new dwellings in
the county. This same group of claims requested or received waivers for 5,409 new
dwellings under Measure 37. The average number of new dwellings authorized per claim
under Measure 49 is 1.7; under Measure 37 the average number of new dwellings
requested, or for which waivers were issued, for these same claims was 13.

However, a bigger Measure 49 story in Washington County may be the avoidance of
sprawling rural residential subdivisions in the western hills, evident on the accompanying
Measure 37 map. A single timber company with large, contiguous landholdings (over 200
parcels) in the western forests of Washington County had multiple claims, each for
hundreds of new home sites under Measure 37. Due to the restrictions written into
Measure 49, namely allowing up to three home sites (ten under Section 7) on contiguous
tracts of land under a single ownership, and the limit on the total number of home sites,
these Measure 37 rural-residential subdivisions were reduced to a handful of 3-lot
partitions under Measure 49. For example, the clusters of dwellings near the western
county boundary below Highway 6 on the Measure 37 map were a proposed development
for 121 home sites under Measure 37. The corresponding parcel on the Measure 49 map
shows just three dwellings. Another subdivision for over 450 dwellings was to be located
in the forestlands west of Forest Grove, now also reduced to three dwellings. The Measure
37 map also shows another 500+-lot subdivision that did not translate into any Measure
49 dwellings, because the landowner was restricted by a provision of Measure 49
restricting total, statewide, home site authorizations to 20 per claimant. The Measure 37
map for Washington County is the only one in this report that also shows Measure 37
claims that received waivers or were pending, that did not get elected under Measure 49.
The number of dwellings requested in these claims has not been determined.

Compared to the three other counties in this snapshot analysis, the majority of
Washington County claimants requested modest levels of development under Measure 37,
thus the restrictions on the number of home sites authorized under Measure 49 did not
have as great an impact on these claimants. For example, 45% of Measure 49 claimants in
Washington County requested or received waivers for 1-3 new dwellings under Measure
37. This is the highest percentage of modest claims of the four study counties. Of the
remaining Washington County Measure 49 claimants, 28% requested or received waivers
for 4-9 new dwellings and 27% for ten or more new dwellings under Measure 37. Only 4%


                                                                                        18
DLCD - 174                                                                         Appendix F



of Washington County Measure 49 claimants had requested subdivision of 100 or more
home sites. This distribution equates to a median of four new dwellings requested per
claim under Measure 37, the lowest of the four study counties. Yet, due to the large
number of landowners in Washington County, it has the second highest number of new
dwellings authorized under Measure 49.




                                                                                        19
             Appendix F
DLCD - 175    20
             Appendix F
DLCD - 176    21
DLCD - 177                                                                          Appendix F



c. Hood River County—Upper valley and orchard lands

Approximately 67% of Hood River County’s Measure 37 claims were submitted for
election under Measure 49. The median claim size of these 148 claims is 26 acres and the
largest claim property elected under Measure 49 totals 364 acres. There were several
claims under Measure 37 with larger tracts, but these did not become Measure 49
elections. Although there is a slight concentration of claims in the rural communities
nearest the City of Hood River, most Measure 49 claim properties are spread throughout
the farming region of the Hood River valley and south along Highway 35 to the boundary
of Mount Hood National Forest.

Unlike Washington and Clackamas Counties, Hood River County is not located near a
major metropolitan area and the associated intense pressures driving residential
development. Yet, before Measure 49 was passed, Hood River County appeared to be on
its way to having one-third of its private land base divided up into Measure 37, urban-
density subdivisions. The map of Measure 37 claims (representing only claims that were
elected under Measure 49) follows the farms featured along the famous Hood River Fruit
Loop. In contrast to Washington County, Hood River County has far fewer claims, yet it
almost doubled the number of new dwellings requested under Measure 37. For Measure
37 claims subsequently elected under Measure 49, claimants requested or received
waivers for 8,746 new dwellings, or an average of 60 per claim, the highest of the four
study counties. Under Measure 49, the scale of development was vastly reduced, with
claimants receiving authorizations for a total of 163 new dwellings, or 1.4 per claim.

Relative to the other three counties in this study, the majority of Hood River County
claimants requested the most significant levels of development under Measure 37, thus
the restrictions on the number of home sites authorized under Measure 49 could be the
most noticeable for this county. For example, 55% of Measure 49 claimants in Hood River
County requested or received waivers for ten or more new dwellings under Measure 37.
More than 20% of claimants requested 100 or more new dwellings, far more than any of
the comparison counties. However, it is not known how many of these claims would have
been developed to their full potential under Measure 37. Of the remaining Hood River
County Measure 49 claims, 25% requested or received waivers for 4-9 new dwellings. This
equates to a median of ten new dwellings requested per claim under Measure 37. As with
all of the counties, the median is smaller than the average number of new dwellings
requested under Measure 37. However, this difference is greatest in Hood River County,
illustrating the intense levels of development requested by claimants in the upper 50th
percentile.




                                                                                       22
DLCD - 178   Appendix F




              23
DLCD - 179   Appendix F




              24
DLCD - 180                                                                             Appendix F



    d. Jackson County – Development in the south

Approximately 75% of Jackson County’s Measure 37 claims were submitted for election
under Measure 49. The median claim size of the 309 valid claims is 33 acres, the largest of
the four study counties, and the largest claim property elected under Measure 49 is 7,432
acres. As with all of the counties in this study, there were several claims under Measure 37
with larger tracts, but these did not become Measure 49 elections. Although there is some
concentration along the I-5 corridor, the majority of Jackson County Measure 49 claim
properties are widely distributed across both farm and forestlands. Of the four study
counties, Jackson County has the most far-flung and remote Measure 49 claims.

Under Measure 49, the state authorized 434 new dwellings in Jackson County. This same
group of claims requested or received waivers for 9,818 new dwellings under Measure 37.
The average number of new dwellings authorized per claim under Measure 49 is 1.7;
under Measure 37 the average number of new dwellings requested or for which waivers
were issued, for these same claims was 31, the second highest per claim after Hood River
County. Jackson County is similar to both Clackamas and Hood River Counties in that a
primary difference in development on the landscape between Measures 37 and 49 is the
size and density of the clusters of new dwellings. However, like Washington County, there
were several large Measure 37 claims that were not elected under Measure 49 and,
therefore, are not represented on the map of potential development under Measure 37.
Several claimants of large-scale claims did not elect under Measure 49 because they could
already get up to three new home sites under current land use regulations. The map does
illustrate three, large, fairly remote sites east of Ashland that were slated for urban
densities of development under Measure 37. Under Measure 49, these potential
developments were scaled back to 1-3 new dwellings per claim.

Of the Measure 37 claims that were elected under Measure 49, 31% were for ten or more
new dwellings; 37% were for 4-9 new dwellings; and 32% were for 1-3 new dwellings. Like
Hood River County, Jackson County’s upper 50th percentile of Measure 37 claims were
skewed towards extremely large subdivisions, hence the average of 31 home sites per
claim compared to a median of only 5. Therefore, judging by medians, the majority of
Jackson County claimants who elected their claims under Measure 49 were fairly
comparable to Washington County claimants, moderate in their Measure 37 development
requests. However, 6% of these Jackson County claimants filed claims for subdivisions of
100 or more home sites, including one claim for 3000 new home sites. More significantly,
many of the largest Measure 37 claims were not elected for review under Measure 49.




                                                                                         25
DLCD - 181   Appendix F




              26
DLCD - 182   Appendix F




              27
                                                                                    Appendix F
             4. Maps of Additional Counties with Highest Numbers of New Dwellings
             Authorized by Measure 49
DLCD - 183                                                                           28
DLCD - 184   Appendix F




              29
             Appendix F
DLCD - 185    30
DLCD - 186                                                                               Appendix F



C. Claims Denied under Measure 49

While the claim approval rate under Measure 49 was approximately 78%, the rate of claim
denials was not insignificant. Most of the claims denied under Measure 49 fell into a few
broad categories:

       a. At the time the claimant acquired the property he/she was not lawfully
          permitted to establish the number of home sites sought under Measure 49

To receive compensation under Measure 49, a claimant had to be lawfully permitted to
establish the requested number of home sites on the date the claimant acquired the
property. In other words, Measure 49 addresses regulatory limits placed on property
after the owner acquires it. When an owner buys property already subject to regulations,
there is no surprise and no fairness issue.

In a large proportion of the claims denied, the claimant was not lawfully permitted to
establish the requested dwellings on the property when he or she acquired it. Related to
this category, many claimants believed that their family acquisition date would be
considered rather than the date they acquired the property. However, Measure 49 made
compensation dependent on the claimant’s acquisition date. The fact that a claimant's
family member acquired the property at an earlier date did not affect a claimant’s
eligibility for relief under Measure 49.

       b. The claimant was not an owner of the property

To qualify for relief under Measure 49, a claimant had to be a current owner of the
property. Under Measure 37, the discussion focused on whether a claimant had “an
interest” in the property. Measure 49 narrowed the scope of those who qualified for relief,
limiting it to those who are current owners of property. Under Measure 49 sellers under a
land sale contract, holders of life estate interests and trustees of revocable trusts were not
considered owners of property (conversely – purchasers under a contract, and trustees of
an irrevocable trust are considered as owners). Additionally, claimants who transferred
property to a business entity, such as to a "family" LLC or partnership are not owners for
purposes of Measure 49 (and were not treated as owners under Measure 37).

       c. The claimant transferred and reacquired the claim property

Measure 49 states that if a claimant transferred property to a different owner and then
reacquired the property, the claimant’s acquisition date becomes the date the claimant
reacquired the property. Some claimants transferred property to a third party, for varying
amounts of time, and then reacquired the property at a later date. Because such an action
changed a claimant’s acquisition date to the later date, Measure 49 saw some claimants
denied relief based on the zoning of the property on the later acquisition date.

       d. No regulations prohibit the requested home sites




                                                                                            31
DLCD - 187                                                                                               Appendix F



A smaller number of claims were denied under Measure 49 because the claimant was not
currently prohibited from establishing the requested number of home sites. While the
claimant may have been prohibited from establishing a larger Measure 37 request,
because claimants were limited to a maximum request of three home sites under Measure
49, a number of claims were denied because the claimant could establish the requested
home sites under current law.
Figure 6: Reasons for denials of elections (elections meeting the minimum criteria for processing, not
vested, and not located within a city or UGB).


                                                    No appraisal
                                                 (conditional claim)   Claimant not an owner of the
                  No regulations prohibit                9%                      property
                  requested homesites                                              11%
                           6%
Lack of consent from all
        owners
          1%


      Inadequate appraisal
        (conditional claim)
                1%




                                                                         Requested homesites not
                                                                       lawfully permitted on date of
                                                                                 acquisition
                                                                                    72%




D. Litigation under Measure 49

The state was involved in 416 lawsuits as a result of Measure 37. Under Measure 49, the
number of lawsuits dropped substantially to 80. Most of the lawsuits involve challenges
based on the issues described above, and particularly what it means to be “lawfully
permitted” to establish a specific number of home sites on a given acquisition date.
Litigation is ongoing and new cases continue to be filed. However, most constitutional
challenges to Measure 49 now have been resolved – with the courts upholding the
authority of the legislature and the voters to amend Measure 37. A limited number of
interpretation issues remain unresolved.

In addition to litigation, vesting determinations by counties are ongoing. Claimants with a
common law vested right to complete and continue the use described in a Measure 37
waiver may continue that use. Many claimants applied for vested rights determinations
with the counties soon after Measure 49 took effect. However, there was no requirement
to do so, and claimants continue to seek such determinations.



                                                                                                          32
DLCD - 188   Appendix F




              33
DLCD - 189                                                                             Appendix F



III. Historical Background: Measures 37 & 49
A. Measures 7 and 37

In November 2000, 53% of Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 7, amending Oregon's
Constitution to require compensation for land use regulations that restrict the use and
reduce the value of private property. Although that ballot measure was subsequently
struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court, in November 2004 Oregonians approved
Measure 37, a statutory measure that required payment or "waiver" of land use
regulations. Measure 37 contained virtually no detail regarding how it was to be
administered, except that property owners were entitled to payment unless government
acted to waive regulations within 180 days of a demand -- presenting state and local
government with an enormous administrative challenge and fiscal risk (particularly in the
face of legislative inaction). Close to 7,000 Measure 37 claims were filed with state and
local government, each requiring review to determine what the owners were entitled to do
with the property when they acquired it. Remarkably, the state and local governments
were able to review claims within the 180-day deadline, and avoid incurring liability.

B. Measure 49

Ballot Measure 49 (2007) amended Ballot Measure 37 (2004) to provide clear, but more
limited relief to property owners affected by land use regulations adopted after they
acquired their property. Ballot Measure 37 was designed to relieve property owners from
land use restrictions enacted after they acquired their property or to pay them for the lost
value of their land. Measure 49 authorized eligible claimants to establish up to three home
sites on their property (Section 6 claims) without having to prove a loss of value to their
property due to development restrictions passed by local and state government after the
claimants acquired the property.

Measure 49 also authorized eligible claimants to establish up to ten home sites (Section 7
claims) if the claimant is able to demonstrate that land use regulations reduced the value
of the property by an amount equivalent to the value the claimant would now receive by
being able to develop additional homes. In order to apply for more than three home sites,
claimants must submit an appraisal that shows the fair market value of the property one
year before the enactment of the land use regulation that was the basis for the claim, and
the fair market value of each home site approval to which the claimant is entitled. The
claimant must be able to document 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.

Measure 49 also allows landowners the ability to seek compensation for any new (after
January 1, 2007) land use regulation enacted at the state or local level that restricts
residential uses of real property.


C. HB 3225



                                                                                          34
DLCD - 190                                                                                     Appendix F



HB 3225 (2009) Provided a process for approximately 400 Measure 49 claims to
proceed that would have otherwise been precluded from going forward, including:
claimants that did not comply with requirement that claim be filed with the public entity
that enacted the regulation; claimants with a majority of property located outside an
urban growth boundary and entirely outside or entirely inside the boundaries of city, and;
claimants that filed a claim only with the state but not with both the county and state. HB
3225 directed the department to issue final orders under Measure 49 on or before June
30, 2010. The department was required to investigate certain improperly filed claims and
report to the legislature in January of 2010. A fee of $175 for the processing of certain
claims was required, and the department was authorized to prioritize processing of up to
100 claims that demonstrate a hardship.

IV.        Ombudsman
The Compensation and Conservation Ombudsman (CCO or “ombudsman”) position was
created through Measure 49 as part of the legislature’s reforms to Measure 37. The
statutory charge of the ombudsman is to ensure completeness of new Measure 49 claims,
and facilitate resolution of issues involving new and previously filed claims. The
ombudsman position is appointed by the Governor and housed at the Department of Land
Conservation and Development.

Generally, the ombudsman is a resource for claimants to: better understand the Measure
49 process, identify problem issues with their claims, and receive guidance on providing
additional evidence to support their claims. The ombudsman often acts as liaison with
local governments to assist claimants in documenting the development that was
permitted when they acquired their property. When claimants are not eligible for relief
under Measure 49, the ombudsman reviews current regulations in order to direct
claimants to other options they may have for developing their properties. Additionally, the
ombudsman evaluates situations where recent land use regulations potentially implicate
Measure 49 relief.

“I am writing to you to simply see if you can offer any information regarding uniformity of
this type of situation in other counties across the state…You were of great assistance to me
during the M49 waiver process and then during the partition when [the] County was
requiring that we do certain things during the process that I did not feel coincided w/the
M49 waiver (such as having to pay for and apply for a CUP permit in order to build a
home on a parcel created under M49.”

                                                         (letter to ombudsman asking for
                                                          additional assistance)


Over time, the ombudsman has received up to ten new claimant contacts per week
(through phone, email, walk-in, and referral from DLCD, DOJ, counties and advocacy
groups). These typically fell into two categories. The first involved questions on the
process or status of a specific claim that did not require significant research. These
usually received immediate responses and little follow up. The second category involved


                                                                                                35
DLCD - 191                                                                            Appendix F



requests for assistance by claimants who had received Preliminary Evaluations denying
their claims, or claimants who know they had complicated claims and were acting
preemptively. These required in-depth research, follow up, and tracking, and were
treated as formal inquiries. Approximately one-third of the ombudsman’s claimant
contacts result in formal ombudsman inquiries, and eventually 187 ombudsman files were
opened.


The ombudsman reported regularly to the legislature and to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission. The ombudsman position was created to give claimants an
opportunity to receive assistance in filing a Measure 49 claim, or trouble-shoot an
undesirable outcome with someone who was perceived to be a neutral party. All feedback
to-date indicates that this has been a successful component of the M49 program.

V. New Claims
Measure 49 elections based on Measure 37 claims have now been resolved, and no new
such claims may be made. New Measure 49 claims can only be made for new land use
regulations enacted after January 1, 2007 that limit residential development or a farm or
forest practice, and only to the extent that the claim demonstrates that the new
regulation(s) reduced the value of the property. No new valid claims have been filed with
the department.

VI. Senate Bill 1049
Governor Kulongoski signed SB 1049 into law on February 25, 2010. It amends Ballot
Measure 49, and has three main purposes:

       (a) To provide limited "compensation" (in the form of authorization for a home) for
           Measure 37 claimants who sought approval under Measure 49 to build up to ten
           homes, but who failed to prove that the value of their property was reduced by
           land use regulations (estimated to be approximately 88 claims);

       (b) To provide limited "compensation" (in the form of authorization for a home) for
           Measure 37 claimants who filed claims only with a county (approximately 600
           claims); and

       (c) To provide more consistent relief for approximately 700 Measure 37
       claimants who acquired their property between 1975 and the date their county's
       land use regulations were approved by the state (pre-acknowledgement claims).

The deadline for making a claim under SB 1049 passed in October 2010, and
approximately 68 claims have been received by the department. The legislatively-
designated deadline for completing these claims is June 30, 2011

VII.   What’s next?




                                                                                        36
DLCD - 192                                                                             Appendix F



Measure 49 is embedded in Oregon’s land use program, with both backward-leading and
forward-leading paths. The backward-leading path, almost complete, set up a claim-based
resolution allowing over 4,600 claims to be filed for limited residential development.
Under this process over 6,100 new dwellings and 3,800 new parcels have been authorized
by the state. Actual development will occur over a long period of time, as owners decide
when it is best to carry out their authorizations.

The forward-leading path will largely be determined by state and local jurisdictions as
they consider any new regulations that limit residential, or farm or forest uses, and that
reduce property values. If a property owner believes that a new regulation (enacted after
January 1, 2007) restricts a residential use (or a farm or forest practice) and reduces the
fair market value of their property, then the property owner may, under Measure 49,
receive relief in the form of compensation for that loss, or receive a waiver from the new
regulation allowing them to use the property free of the regulation to the extent needed to
avoid a loss of fair market values.

The forward-leading aspects of Measure 49 already have influenced some efforts to
consider regulatory changes by the legislature, and by state agencies. As time goes on, the
balancing required by Measure 49 will continue to influence state and local policies and
bring equity concerns to the forefront of policymaking.




                                                                                         37
DLCD - 193                            Appendix G




        The Oregon Climate
         Change Adaptation
             Framework
        Summary of Key Findings and
            Recommendations
DLCD - 194   Appendix G
DLCD - 195                                                                                     Appendix G
                             Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework


     The Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework
     Climate variability and change have already begun to affect Oregon, including Oregon’s
     marine environments, forestlands, agriculture, and transportation infrastructure. Over the
     next few decades, indicators show that Oregon’s natural resources, infrastructure, and
     people will likely face more severe impacts from climate change.
     Oregon’s climate is marked by variability, and that variability alone has caused or
     contributed to significant ecosystem and economic damage to infrastructure through
     floods, landslides and forest fires. In addition to the effects of normal variability in
     Oregon’s climate, significant changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, and other
     climate factors like ocean conditions are expected to increasingly affect Oregon’s
     communities, natural resources, and economy. As with the effects of climate variability,
     long-term changes in climate conditions have the potential to result in very costly
     conditions and outcomes. Natural hazards, water supply problems, drought, habitat
     changes and loss of ecosystem services will all affect Oregon’s citizens, communities,
     and economy. But fortunately, many of the potential costs and consequences of climate
     change may be anticipated and planned for. As such, it is both prudent and important to
     develop measures, programs and approaches to reduce the costs of climate variability and
     change on Oregon.
     In October 2009, Governor Kulongoski asked the directors of several state agencies,
     universities, research institutions and extension services to develop a climate change
     adaptation plan. Among other things, the plan would provide a framework for state
     agencies to identify authorities, actions, research, and resources needed to increase
     Oregon’s capacity to address the likely effects of a changing climate.
     Given the broad range of expected changes to Oregon’s climate in the coming decades,
     the breadth of state-level responsibilities, authorities, and programs that will likely need
     to respond to the effects of future climate conditions, and limited time, it has only been
     possible to begin the development of a climate change adaptation strategy for Oregon.
     This report constitutes a framework for the continued development of strategies and plans
     to address future climate conditions. This Climate Change Adaptation Framework
     provides context, identifies risks, lays out short-term priorities, and provides momentum
     and direction for Oregon to prepare for future climate change.
     The framework has been developed in parallel with the Oregon Climate Assessment
     Report (OCAR) by the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI). The OCAR
     and this framework are intended to complement each other. The OCAR identifies the
     most likely impacts from climate change, which will help the state prioritize resources to
     prepare for and adapt to a changing and variable climate. The OCCRI assisted in the
     development of this Framework.
     This Framework lays out expected climate-related risks, the basic adaptive capacity to
     deal with those risks, short-term priority actions, and several steps that will evolve into a
     long-term process to improve Oregon’s capacity to adapt to variable and changing
     climate conditions. It will be necessary to continue to develop adaptation strategies and
     plans, in particular at the regional and local level. Finally, more effort needs to be made
     to identify resource management and economic opportunities that climate change might


     December 2010                                                                                   1
DLCD - 196                                                                                  Appendix G



present for Oregon. This Framework positions Oregon to take effective early steps to
avoid some of the most costly potential consequences of climate change.




2                                                                           December 2010
DLCD - 197                                                                                     Appendix G
                             Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework



     The Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework
     Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations
                                                                [Return to Table of Contents]
     There is abundant evidence that Oregon is already experiencing the effects of climate
     change. The Oregon Climate Assessment Report documents these effects and describes
     the more pronounced changes that are expected to occur in the coming decades. Climate
     change will affect all Oregonians, all Oregon communities, our natural resources, and our
     businesses.
     At the same time that climate change is beginning to affect us, state, local and private
     resources to begin to prepare for these changes are under historic stress. This interim
     report by the state recognizes these fiscal realities, and (as a result) focuses on providing
     decision-makers with information about what things are most important to do (or avoid
     doing) in an era of very limited resources. Only actions that involve little or no cost are
     proposed at this time, even though we also recognize that investments now may yield
     very substantial long-term benefits
     This introduction to the Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework summarizes the
     key findings and recommendations of the participants in this initial effort to review the
     emerging science on climate change and evaluate what our priorities should be at a state-
     wide level in terms of preparing people, communities and resources for the coming
     changes. Among the key recommendations is that we broaden this work to include
     private sector interests along with our federal, tribal, and local counterparts. A major
     determinant of what new actions to recommend is our initial assessment of costs and
     benefits.

     History and Purpose
     In early 2008 the Governor’s Climate Change Integration Group (CCIG), made up of
     state, federal, and local government representatives, industry leaders, and nonprofit
     organizations, produced Oregon’s Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change.
     The CCIG’s framework presented the broad scope of needed work related to climate
     change in four elements: preparation and adaptation; mitigation; education and outreach;
     and research. At the time, Oregon had already made some progress in mitigation, and had
     begun to invest in research. Since then, there has been some further progress in mitigation
     and research, and some initial efforts related to preparation and adaptation.
     In October 2009, Governor Kulongoski asked state agencies and partners in Oregon’s
     University System to develop an initial framework for determining what the most
     important risks are to the state related to climate change, and initial recommendations for
     how to begin preparing for those risks. This Framework is the result of that initiative. The
     Climate Change Adaptation Framework is the first step in a long-term process to identify
     key risks and measures to reduce Oregon’s vulnerability to the effects of climate
     variability and change. This framework presents a broad-scale qualitative assessment of
     risks to people, infrastructure, communities and natural resources that are expected to
     result from the effects of variable and changing climate conditions. More importantly,
     this framework identifies several concrete actions the state should consider taking to
     begin to prepare for and adapt to the effects of climate variability and change.

     December 2010                                                                                   3
DLCD - 198                                                                                      Appendix G



The purposes of this framework are to
       Identify likely future climate conditions that pose major risks for Oregonians.
       Assess the capacity of state programs to effectively address climate-related risks
        to people, communities, infrastructure, and natural resources.
       Identify short-term and low- or no-cost priority actions to prepare for those risks.
       Provide context and initial direction for additional coordination and planning for
        future climate conditions.
In developing this framework, Oregon has begun to address several of the CCIG’s
recommendations, including the following:
       Determine how climate change will affect Oregon’s diverse regions.
       Assist Oregon institutions and individuals in responding to climate change.
       Transform our planning processes to deal with climate change.
       Incorporate the public health implications of climate change.
       Continue to develop and refine a climate change research agenda for Oregon.
This framework is only an initial step; it by no mean completes the work needed to fully
implement these recommendations. Considerable work will be needed, especially in
collaboration with Oregonians, local governments, Native American tribal governments,
and federal agencies, to fully address climate risks to Oregon.

Scoping Climate Risks
In late 2009, an interagency work group was convened to develop this framework. The
work group’s first two tasks were to identify likely changes in Oregon’s climate
conditions and the likely consequences of those changes over the next 40 to 50 years. The
work group identified several dozen likely changes in four areas: built and developed
systems, ecosystems, public health and safety, and Oregon’s economy. In consultation
with the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI) and state agencies, the
workgroup ultimately combined the likely changes in Oregon into eleven categories that
are likely to occur over the next four to five decades. In this framework, these likely
changes are defined as climate risks.
As the work group refined the inventory of risks, characterizing the risks to economic
systems became more and more difficult. More to the point, very little information is
available on the likely economic effects of climate change in Oregon. Risks to Oregon’s
economy that were identified by the work group were really risks to other systems
restated in very general economic terms. In other words, climate-related risks to Oregon’s
economy reflected the economic consequences of risks to natural systems, built and
developed systems, and public health and safety. In the end, while this framework
attempted to include the economic effects of future climate conditions within its scope,
there is little information available to do so with confidence at this point in time. Further
collaboration with economists and organizations outside government is necessary to
improve the assessment of the possible or likely economic consequences of climate
change on Oregonians and the state at a whole.




4                                                                               December 2010
DLCD - 199                                                                                   Appendix G
                            Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework


     The eleven climate risks listed below and in the table later in this Summary of Key
     Findings and Recommendations constitute the substantive foundation for the adaptation
     framework. Climate risks have varying degrees of likelihood; that is, not all the identified
     climate risks are equally likely to occur in Oregon. The risks are listed according to
     likelihood levels; the three levels of Very likely, Likely, and More likely than not
     correspond roughly to 90 percent, 66 percent, and 60 percent confidence levels,
     respectively. In planning for future climate conditions, it will be important to recognize
     variability and uncertainty in climate risks.

     Potential Consequences of Climate Risks
     The work group compiled a survey of likely consequences for each climate risk. Some of
     the consequences are summarized below. The summaries are by no means exhaustive, but
     rather are intended to help identify state responsibilities and programs that will likely
     need to prepare for and adapt to the effects of climate change.
     Risks that are Very likely to occur
     Risk 1. Increase in average annual air temperatures and likelihood of extreme heat
     events.
        Overall, increased average air temperatures will result in increased water
        temperatures and reduced flows in streams, which over the long term will cause shifts
        in aquatic habitats, species, and communities. There is serious risk that increased
        average air temperatures will affect water temperatures and aquatic habitats to the
        extent that important core populations of salmonids will go extinct.
        Heat waves will result in increased deaths and illness among vulnerable human
        populations. The elderly, infants, chronically ill, low income communities, and
        outdoor workers are the main groups threatened by heat waves. Higher temperatures
        increase the threat of human illness from both waterborne diseases and vector borne
        illnesses. In addition, heat waves, drought and changes in hydrology will contribute to
        an increase in the threat of wildfire, which will result in increased exposure of
        vulnerable populations to smoke. (See risk 8).
     Risk 2. Changes in hydrology and water supply; reduced snowpack and water
     availability in some basins; changes in water quality and timing of water availability
        Changes in hydrologic patterns in some Oregon basins will affect supplies of water
        for all uses, and will contribute to increased water quality problems. Reduced
        availability of water will affect junior irrigators, change water supply planning in
        many basins, and affect the quality and availability of water for some public drinking
        water systems. Proposals for surface water storage may increase.
        Changes in the timing and quality of available water will affect aquatic, wetland, and
        riparian ecosystems and species, especially species that need adequate water in stream
        to survive and populations that are already identified as threatened or endangered.
        Hydrologic changes will exacerbate temperature-related water quality problems.
        Water users suffering the most adverse consequences will be irrigators. Irrigated
        agriculture is a primary economic driver in Oregon, so without careful planning for
        the consequences of climate change, the Oregon economy may suffer significantly.

     December 2010                                                                              5
DLCD - 200                                                                                       Appendix G



    Changes in hydrology have the potential to significantly affect agricultural
    productivity until crops suited to new hydrologic conditions are developed.
Risks that are Likely to occur
Risk 3. Increase in wildfire frequency and intensity
    Increased temperatures, the potential for reduced precipitation in summer months, and
    accumulation of fuels in forests due to insect and disease damage (particularly in
    eastside forests) present high risk for catastrophic fires. An increase in frequency and
    intensity of wildfire will damage larger areas, and likely cause greater ecosystem and
    habitat damage. Larger and more frequent wildfires will increase human health risks
    due to exposure to smoke.
    Increased risk of wildfire will result in increased potential for economic damage at
    the urban-wildland interface. Wildfires destroy property, infrastructure, commercial
    timber, recreational opportunities, and ecosystem services. Some buildings and
    infrastructure subject to increased fire risk may not be adequately insured against
    losses due to fire. Increased fire danger will increase the cost to prevent, prepare for,
    and respond to wildfires.
Risk 4. Increase in ocean temperatures, with potential for changes in ocean
chemistry and increased ocean acidification
    Ocean acidification will have a negative effect on some marine species and could
    result in dramatic changes in marine and estuarine ecosystems. Changes in
    temperature and upwelling may be positive for some species and negative for others
    off of Oregon. If there are large increases in hypoxia, there is a potential for
    significant restructuring of the ecological communities on the ocean floor off of
    Oregon. Population variation of many marine species is likely to increase due to
    direct biological effects of climate change and indirect cascading ecological effects.
Risk 5. Increased incidence of drought
    Longer and drier growing seasons and drought will result in increased demand on
    ground water resources and increased consumption of water for irrigation, which will
    have potential consequences for natural systems. Droughts affect wetlands, stream
    systems, and aquatic habitats. Drought will result in drier forests and increase
    likelihood of wildfire.
    Droughts will cause significant economic damage to the agriculture industry through
    reduced yields and quality of some crops. Droughts can increase irrigation-related
    water consumption, and thus increase irrigation costs. Drought conditions can also
    have a significant effect on the supply of drinking water.
Risk 6. Increased coastal erosion and risk of inundation from increasing sea levels
and increasing wave heights and storm surges
    Increased wave heights, storm surges, and sea levels can lead to loss of natural
    buffering functions of beaches, tidal wetlands, and dunes. Accelerating shoreline
    erosion has been documented, and is resulting in increased applications for shore
    protective structures. Shoreline alterations typically reduce the ability of beaches,
    tidal wetlands, and dunes to adjust to new conditions.

6                                                                                December 2010
DLCD - 201                                                                                   Appendix G
                           Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework


        Increasing sea levels, wave heights and storm surges will increase coastal erosion and
        likely increase damage to private property and infrastructure situated on coastal
        shorelands. Coastal erosion and the common response to reduce shoreland erosion
        can lead to long-term loss of natural buffering functions of beaches and dunes.
        Applications for shoreline alteration permits to protect property and infrastructure are
        increasing, but in the long term they reduce the ability of shore systems to adjust to
        new conditions.
     Risk 7. Changes in abundance and geographical distributions of plant species and
     habitats for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
        Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes will result in a gradual migration of
        some species and habitats north and to higher elevations. Species that cannot migrate
        or shift their range quickly enough to respond to climate change, or that have specific
        life-history needs that cannot be met through migration, will likely experience a
        decline in population numbers, potentially leading to extinction.
        Changes in temperatures and hydrology will affect aquatic, wetland, and riparian
        ecosystems and species, especially species or population units that are already
        identified as threatened or endangered.
        Risk of damage by insect and plant pests, which can result in significant damage to
        native species and communities, will increase with warmer temperatures. Alterations
        to the species composition of native ecosystems will likely result in a decline in
        important ecosystem services, including water quality and quantity, carbon storage,
        soil stabilization, flood control, and nutrient cycling.
     Risk 8. Increase in diseases, invasive species and insect, animal and plant pests
        Invasive species can negatively impact native plants, fish, and wildlife in agricultural
        ecosystems by displacing native species, changing habitat characteristics, consuming
        significant amounts of water, and changing fire regimes. Invasive species are already
        very costly to Oregon’s forests, grasslands, and wetlands, and agricultural economy.
        Spread of infectious diseases in the United States and in the Pacific Northwest is
        occurring, with increased vulnerability of human populations to existing and
        emerging conditions. The West Nile Virus, Hanta Virus and Cryptococcus Gattii have
        all emerged recently in the Pacific Northwest.
     Risk 9. Loss of wetland ecosystems and services
        Wetlands play key roles in major ecological processes and provide a number of
        essential ecosystem services, such as flood reduction, groundwater recharge, pollution
        control, recreational opportunities, and fish and wildlife habitat, including for
        endangered species. Only about 38 percent of the wetlands that were in Oregon at the
        start of European settlement remain as wetlands today, because of conversions for
        various other land uses. As such, increases in air temperature and changes in
        hydrology will exacerbate impacts to already degraded and fragmented wetland
        ecosystems. The consequences for losing wetland ecosystems and their associated
        services will potentially affect all of Oregon’s systems—natural, built and developed
        systems, public health and safety, and Oregon’s economy.


     December 2010                                                                             7
DLCD - 202                                                                                       Appendix G



    Examples of the effects of a loss or reduction in wetland ecosystem services include
    increased flood damage to residences, commercial buildings, bridges, culverts, and
    roadways; increased need for new and expanded drinking water treatment facilities;
    and increased need for water storage facilities for flood control and to meet seasonal
    water demand.
    The loss of wetland ecosystems and services will have indirect consequences on a
    range of economic activities. Loss of coastal wetlands that provide habitats can
    eventually reduce the value of Oregon’s commercial and recreation fishing industries.
    Loss of seasonal wetlands and coastal wetlands will impact waterfowl and shorebird
    populations and may reduce the revenue generated from hunting, birding, and other
    recreation activities. Loss of wetlands that provide flood protection may result in
    higher damage costs as a result of increased flood related damages. Loss of wetlands
    that purify water may result in the need for expanded or additional drinking water
    treatment facilities. Loss of wetlands that provide water storage may result in the need
    for the construction of expanded and additional infrastructure to prevent flooding and
    to meet summer time water demands.
Risks that are More likely than not to occur
Risk 10. Increased frequency of extreme precipitation events and incidence and
magnitude of damaging floods
    Extreme precipitation events have the potential to cause localized flooding due partly
    to inadequate capacity of storm drain systems. Extreme events can damage or cause
    failure of dam spillways. Increased incidence and magnitude of flood events will
    increase damage to property and infrastructure, and will increase the vulnerability of
    areas that already experience repeated flooding. Areas thought to be outside the
    floodplain may now experience flooding. Many of these areas have improvements
    that are not insured against flood damage, and thus floods will probably result in
    catastrophic property damage and losses. Finally, increased flooding will increase
    flood-related transportation system disruptions, thereby affecting the distribution of
    water, food, and essential services.
Risk 11. Increased incidence of landslides
    Increased landslides will cause increased damage to property and infrastructure, and
    will disrupt transportation and the distribution of water, food, and essential services.
    Widespread damaging landslides that accompany intense rainstorms (such as
    “pineapple express” winter storms) and related floods occur during most winters.
    Particularly high-consequence events occur about every decade; recent examples
    include those in February 1996, November 2006 and December 2007.

Selecting Short-Term Priority Actions
Once the work group finalized its inventory of climate risks, the next tasks were 1) to
assess the basic state agency capacities to address the identified risks; and 2) to compile a
list of immediate or short-term actions that are needed to improve Oregon’s capacity to
address the risks. This effort was primarily an initial scoping exercise. Over the course of
about two months in early 2010, the work group listed about 120 mostly short-term
actions that are needed to effectively address the identified risks. Finally, resource

8                                                                                December 2010
DLCD - 203                                                                                     Appendix G
                             Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework


     considerations made it paramount to limit the list of needed actions to a few relatively
     low-cost actions. All the identified actions are listed in summary form under each risk in
     section 2 of the framework.
     Clearly, given the state general fund budget situation that has developed since early 2010,
     new resources are not likely to be available to implement any more than only a few of the
     needed actions, if any. It thus became necessary to identify a limited set of top priority,
     short-term, low-cost actions from the list. In consultation with agency directors, the work
     group prioritized needed actions according to the estimated costs and benefits of each one
     relative to all the other actions. In selecting priority actions, the workgroup based its
     assessment on a very general idea of the relative magnitude of the costs and benefits for
     each of the actions. In attempting to narrow its focus on low cost, high benefit actions,
     the work group assigned high, medium, and low cost and benefit values to each action,
     relative to the costs and benefits of the other actions, using the following guidelines in the
     evaluation:
     Costs
         Costs to the state: The approximate personnel cost to implement the action.
         Costs to private landowners and businesses: Costs to private parties and
           businesses of implementing the action.
         Costs to the public and to particular communities: All other costs to the public,
           including infrastructure costs and costs to local governments.
     Benefits
         Higher priority actions respond to higher likelihood of risks.
         Avoided costs: Reduced losses and damage from climate conditions that will be
            achieved in a 30-40 year timeframe if the actions are implemented now.
         Higher priority actions address the effects of more than one risk.
     Finally, after compiling the information on risks, needed actions, and the relative costs
     and benefits of a set of “first cut” needed actions, the agency directors overseeing
     development of the framework made a final selection of short-term priority actions,
     which are central to the framework, for implementation in the 2011-2013 biennium.
     More time and considerably more detailed information about the costs and likely benefits
     of needed actions are needed to improve the process of identifying priority actions. The
     work group’s inventory of gaps and actions is by no means exhaustive, nor is it intended
     to be the last word in identifying climate change adaptation priorities. This framework
     represents a starting point and initial assessment of state capacity to deal with present and
     future climate risks.
     The table on the following pages lists the short-term priority actions needed to improve
     Oregon’s capacity to address the identified climate risks.




     December 2010                                                                                9
DLCD - 204                                                                                      Appendix G




     Climate Risks and
         Short-Term Priority Actions
 Very likely to occur
 1.    Increase in average annual air temperatures and likelihood of extreme heat
       events
         Enhance and sustain public health system capacity to prepare for and respond to
         heat waves and smoke emergencies, and improve delivery of information on
         heat events and cooling centers, especially for isolated and vulnerable
         populations.
 2.    Changes in hydrology and water supply; reduced snowpack and water
       availability in some basins; changes in water quality and timing of water
       availability
         Maintain the capacity to provide assistance to landowners to restore wetlands,
         uplands and riparian zones to increase the capacity for natural water storage.
         Improve real-time forecasting of water delivery and basin yields to improve
         management of stored water.
         Improve capacity to provide technical assistance and incentives to increase
         storage capacity and to improve conservation, reuse, and water use efficiency
         among all consumptive water uses.
 Likely to occur
 3.    Increase in wildfire frequency and intensity
         Include wildfires in planning to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards.
         Restore fire-adapted ecosystems to withstand natural recurring wildfires.
         Develop short- and medium-term climate change adaptation strategies for
         forests and other fire-prone habitats, and improve development standards to
         reduce exposure to fire risk at the urban-wildland interface.
         Improve the capabilities of public health agencies to plan for and respond to the
         public health and safety risks of wildfire emergencies.
 4.    Increase in ocean temperatures, with potential for changes in ocean
       chemistry and increased ocean acidification
         Increase research on the impacts of changes in ocean temperature and chemistry
         on estuarine and near-shore marine habitats and resources, including
         commercial and recreational fisheries.
 5.    Increased incidence of drought
         Improve capacity to provide technical assistance and incentives to increase
         storage capacity and to improve conservation, reuse, and water use efficiency
         among all consumptive water uses.


10                                                                              December 2010
DLCD - 205                                                                                        Appendix G
                               Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework



      6.       Increased coastal erosion and risk of inundation from increasing sea levels
               and increasing wave heights and storm surges
                Inventory and map coastal shorelands that are at risk of erosion or inundation, or
                are barriers to shoreline migration, and develop long-term state and local
                adaptation strategies for shorelands.
      7.       Changes in the abundance and geographical distributions of plant species
               and habitats for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
                Identify ways to manage ecosystems that will improve their resilience to
                changes in climate conditions.
      8.       Increase in diseases, invasive species, and insect, animal and plant pests
                Increase monitoring, detection and control measures for pest insects and plant
                and wildlife diseases.
                Increase surveillance and monitoring for climate-sensitive infectious diseases to
                humans.
                Increase outreach and community education about disease and invasive species
                prevention measures.
                Seek new means of securing resources to detect and combat diseases and
                invasive species.
      9.       Loss of wetland ecosystems and services
                Support implementation of priority actions for Risks 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10 related to
                hydrologic changes, drought, coastal erosion and inundation, habitats, and
                flooding.
      More likely to occur than not
      10. Increased frequency of extreme precipitation events and incidence and
          magnitude of damaging floods
                Inventory past flood conditions and define and map future flood conditions.
                Improve capability to rapidly assess and repair damaged transportation
                infrastructure, in order to ensure rapid reopening of transportation corridors.
      11. Increased incidence of landslides
                Develop public education and outreach on landslide risks and how to adapt to
                landslide risks.
     Existing Adaptive Capacity
     The state and local communities are not without resources already to begin to adapt to the
     effects of climate change. Important elements of Oregon’s basic capacity to adapt to the
     effects of future climate conditions include the following:
              Oregon has a strong capacity at present to respond to wildfires.




     December 2010                                                                                11
DLCD - 206                                                                                        Appendix G



        Oregon is making investments to restore and protect ecosystem services like
         habitats, riparian structure, and wetlands, which will reduce or mitigate the effects
         of future climate conditions on people, communities and infrastructure.
        Oregon’s wetland and waterway regulatory program protects important ecosystem
         services that will become increasingly important in a changing climate.
        There is some capacity at the state and local level to respond to emergency events
         like floods, fires, and windstorms to reduce damage and loss of life.
        Local land use plans are required to identify significant natural resources—
         including wetlands and riparian areas—that help reduce or mitigate the effects of
         future climate conditions on people, communities and infrastructure.
        Local land use plans are required to identify natural hazards that are subject to
         climate change, like flood, landslides, and coastal erosion.
      Oregon has an extensive network of state and county public health officials and
       authorities.
The current and future ability to successfully adapt to climate risks will rely in part on
maintaining these and other program capabilities at the state level.

Implementing the Framework
Implementing the short-term priority actions will get Oregon started on a long-term path
to improve community resilience across the state. Implementing the priority actions will
begin the process of factoring information on climate risks into a broad suite of decisions
at the federal, tribal, state and local level that affect land use, infrastructure, and natural
resources over the next 30 to 40 years. But if implementation of the framework is limited
to just the priority actions, several important issues will remain unaddressed. The
framework includes a series of recommendations related to these issues, which
themselves are not tied exclusively to any one risk.
1. Identify Research Needed for Management
   Just like all planning efforts, the anticipated future conditions that form the
   foundation for the framework involve some uncertainty. Further planning for climate
   change should involve continued identification of needed research to help ensure that
   measures being considered are the most appropriate measures. In particular, research
   is needed on the potential economic costs and benefits of alternative adaptation
   strategies.
Recommendation for Research
    Compile an inventory of research needed to improve the effectiveness of
     adaptation measures at the state and local levels.
2. Monitoring for Management
   Monitoring is an underappreciated element of effective resource management.
   Oregon agencies draw on information from many sources, and may monitor a variety
   of conditions, to improve agency efficiencies and the management of resources. The
   foundation of information for managing natural resources and state infrastructure
   could be improved, however, and such improvements will almost invariably improve
   Oregon’s ability to respond to the effects of future climate conditions.

12                                                                                December 2010
DLCD - 207                                                                                    Appendix G
                             Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework


     Recommendation for Monitoring
         Compile an inventory and maps of current surveillance (for diseases) and
          monitoring (for environmental conditions) efforts, and assess the feasibility of
          integrating different monitoring efforts into a statewide monitoring system.
     3.    Agency Program Assessments
          State agencies already have some important capacities to prepare for, respond, and
          adapt to the effects of future climate conditions. However, the challenge that climate
          variability and change present to Oregon agencies is that conditions are changing
          faster than has generally been experienced before. Therefore, it is important that
          agency policy, program, and permit choices in the future incorporate information
          about likely future climate conditions, so as to avoid policies that might have clear
          climate-related future costs.
     Recommendation for Agency Program Assessments
         State agencies should undertake an initial broad-scale assessment to identify
          policy and program elements that could result in decisions that place people,
          resources or infrastructure at risk.
     4. Integrating Economic Information into Adaptation Planning
        Development of this framework has been somewhat hampered by the absence of
        reliable information about either 1) the economic costs of projected changes to
        Oregon’s climate, especially over time; and 2) the likely cost to effectively respond to
        such changes, especially at the local level. The framework had to be developed on the
        basis of the estimated magnitude of costs—of both the effects of climate conditions
        and actions to address those effects—relative to other effects and actions. It is
        necessary to improve the economic foundation for future adaptation planning.
     Recommendation for Economic Information
         Agencies should work with economists and climate adaptation specialists and
          existing groups or institutes with expertise in economics to compile a white paper
          to frame the economic questions, analyses, and data that can be used to improve
          the effectiveness of planning for climate variability and change.
     5. Mainstreaming Adaptation
        Climate variability and change will affect all of the agencies that developed this
        framework and nearly every sector of Oregon’s economy in the coming decades.
        Mounting and maintaining an effective response effort within state government will
        require ongoing coordination and collaboration between agencies. Given the
        continuing long-term challenge, climate preparation and adaptation needs to be
        ‘mainstreamed’ into agency programs and operations.
     Recommendation for Mainstreaming Adaptation
         The agency directors’ group and the interagency work group that have developed
          the framework should be formalized. The directors, as a steering group, should
          provide oversight for the coordinated implementation of the short-term priority
          actions and the implementation recommendations outlined here.



     December 2010                                                                             13
DLCD - 208                                                                                     Appendix G



6. Intergovernmental Coordination
   Building resilience to the effects of climate change will require coordination among
   all levels of government, and should include non-government entities as well. The
   most effective adaptation strategies will be implemented at the local or regional level,
   but may well be a function of state or federal initiatives. The private and non-profit
   sectors will also be actively engaged at the local, statewide, and national scale in
   building resilience in areas such as the economy and social welfare. Activities at all
   levels will need to be coordinated to assure cost effectiveness and to avoid working at
   cross-purposes.
Recommendation for Intergovernmental Coordination
   Oregon state agencies should consult with federal agencies, Native American
     tribal governments, representatives of local governments, and the private and
     nonprofit sectors to identify ways to coordinate the implementation of climate
     adaptation initiatives.
7. Integrating Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies
   There is very little in the way of credible scientific challenge to the conclusion that
   much of the change in climate at the global scale is being driven by increased carbon
   dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. One of the priority overarching
   actions of an adaptation framework should be to renew the commitment to reducing
   the generation of greenhouse gasses. Implementation and future revisions of the
   Framework should involve collaboration with the bodies that have principal
   responsibilities for implementing Oregon’s Roadmap to 2020 developed by the
   Oregon Global Warming Commission.
Recommendation for Integrating Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies
    Over the next year, state agencies and the OGWC should assess existing emission
     reduction strategies to determine how best to incorporate climate change
     preparedness considerations.
8. Communications and Outreach
   Given the breadth of Oregon’s exposure to the effects of climate variability and
   change, the somewhat unpredictable nature of some climate-related events, and the
   potential to make decisions that increase vulnerability to various effects of climate
   change, it is critical to increase communications and outreach with the public about
   preparing for climate change. Communication and outreach efforts to inform
   Oregonians about the likely effects of future climate conditions should include
   information on how individuals and communities can reduce exposure to climate-
   related risks, and on how individuals can become involved in community-level efforts
   to prepare for climate change.
Recommendation for Communications and Outreach
    State agencies and the OGWC should collaborate on ways to improve messaging
     and outreach to the public related to preparing for climate change.
These next steps are designed to build the long-term infrastructure within Oregon state
government needed to address climate impacts that will continue to affect Oregonians in


14                                                                             December 2010
DLCD - 209                                                                                  Appendix G
                            Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework


     the coming decades. These next steps, in conjunction with the short-term priority actions,
     represent the beginning of Oregon’s effort to build resilience into every element of
     Oregon’s economy and the natural and governance systems that sustain it.

     The Framework Report
     The Climate Change Adaptation Framework report contains more information than can
     be presented in this brief Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations. Please refer
     to the framework report for additional detail on
                The need to plan for variable and changing climate conditions.
                A summary of the scientific research related to each risk.
                Information on the time scale for the risk.
                Additional likely consequences of the risk.
                Agency actions that address the risk.
                Additional needed actions.
                Details on implementing the priority actions.
     The Framework is an important first step in a collaborative state-level effort to address
     the challenges of preparing for and adapting to variable and changing climate conditions
     in Oregon. It lays the groundwork for expanded collaboration and coordination at all
     levels of government, and with citizens and the private and nonprofit sectors.




     December 2010                                                                           15
DLCD - 210   Appendix G
DLCD - 211                                                                                 Appendix G



     Adaptation Framework: Participating Agencies
                                                 Agency Directors
                      Agency                                             Work Group
                                                      Team
    Department of Agriculture                   Katy Coba            Stephanie Page
    Department of Energy                        Bob Repine           Bill Drumheller
    Department of Environmental Quality         Dick Pedersen        Annette Liebe
    Department of Fish and Wildlife             Roy Elicker          Holly Michael
                                                                     Sara O’Brien (contract)
                                                                     Dave Fox
    Department of Forestry                      Marvin Brown         Andrew Yost
    Department of Geology and Mineral           Vicki McConnell      Don Lewis
    Industries
    Department of Human Services                Mel Kohn             Michael Heumann
    Public Health Division
    Department of Land Conservation and         Richard Whitman      Bob Rindy
    Development                                 Jim Rue              Jeff Weber
    Parks and Recreation Department             Tim Wood             Jim Morgan
    Department of State Lands                   Louise Solliday      Anna Buckley
    Department of Transportation                Matthew Garrett      Margi Lifsey
                                                                     Elizabeth Hormann
    Water Resources Department                  Phil Ward            Barry Norris
    Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board          Tom Byler            Greg Sieglitz
    Oregon Climate Change Research Institute    Phil Mote            Kathie Dello
    Climate Leadership Initiative               Bob Doppelt          Roger Hamilton
                                                                     Steve Adams
    Oregon Sea Grant                            Dr. Stephen Brandt   Pat Corcoran
    Oregon State University Extension Service   Scott Reed
    Oregon State University Institute for       Lisa Gaines          Bobby Mauger
    Natural Resources
    Global Warming Commission                   Angus Duncan
    Office of the Governor                      Mike Carrier         Ivo Trummer
                                                                     Christine Valentine
    Business Oregon                             Tim McCabe
     V.1.0 11.30.10
                                                                                         APPENDIX H
DLCD - 212


         Oregon
         Theodore R. Kulongoski, 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

December 17, 2010


TO:             Karen Quigley, Director to Legislative Commission on
                Indian Services

FROM:           Richard Whitman, Director
                Michael Morrissey, Rural Policy Analyst

RE:             2010 Government-to-Government Report


We are pleased to transmit this report in response to legislative direction ORS 182.162-182.168
(SB 770). The report describes activities and tribal contacts of the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) for 2010, as required by statute.

Major Highlights for 2010

    The department’s reorganized Government to Government team continues to function as
     planned and is fully participating in cluster group meetings and other tribal related
     activities. The agency director met with the Legislative Commission on Indian Services
     in late March, 2010, and is hoping to follow up with a meeting with several tribes as soon
     as can be arranged.

    The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) held roundtable
     discussions during regularly scheduled meetings in Salem/Keizer, Lincoln City, and John
     Day to hear from local governments and Tribal representatives.

    DLCD approved a grant to the City of The Dalles to work with tribal governments to
     fund a cultural resource study on lands adjacent to the city and within the Columbia River
     Gorge National Scenic Area (NSA). The work is underway and expected to be completed
     by February 2010. The results of the study will help decision makers determine how best
     to integrate cultural resource protection into the evaluation process for proposed urban
     area boundary amendments to the NSA.

Department Relations with Indian Tribes

Oregon statutes (ORS 182.162-182.168, SB 770) require that state agencies that work with Tribal
governments submit annual reports describing their relationship in response to six factors. Each
of the factors is listed below, along with DLCD’s response:
DLCD - 213
Karen Quiqley                                                                          Page 2 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


(a)       The policy the state agency adopted under ORS 182.164.
          ORS 182.164 directs DLCD to develop and implement a policy that:
         Identifies agency staff responsible for developing and implementing agency programs
          that affect the Tribes;
         Establishes a process to identify agency programs that affect Tribes;
         Promotes communication between DLCD and Tribes;
         Promotes positive government-to-government relations; and
         Establishes a method of notifying agency staff of the statutory provisions and agency
          policy.

DLCD Response to Subsection (a)

The department’s policy has evolved since Executive Order EO-96-30 directing that state agency
heads “shall be accountable to the Governor’s office for adopting a departmental State/Tribal
Government statement…” The Executive Order directed departments to develop an “interest
statement,” and present it to Tribal governments and state agencies at the September 23, 1997,
conference on Government-to-Government relations. After several interim steps, in 2007 the
department formally established agency “Policy on Government-to-Government Relations with
Oregon Tribes 07-02”. The purpose section of that policy states:

        “The purpose of this policy is to establish, improve and maintain partnerships with
Oregon's Indian Tribal governments, while seeking to better understand each other, and work
cooperatively to identify and address mutual goals and concerns arising from state land use
policy that affects Tribal interests. To the extent possible, work to have the growth management
and resource conservation objectives of both the State and the Tribes compatible with one
another. Improve upon or design solutions and programs to help reach these objectives.”

The policy section of the 07-02 document reads:

          It is the policy of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to:

     Facilitate better relations between the Tribes and state and local government.

     Establish a notification process to better coordinate and inform Tribes, and state
      and local governments about development projects under consideration, and about
      long-term economic and community land use objectives. Determine what projects
      and land use policy issues are of interest to the Tribes and keep them informed.

     Continue "Government-to-Government" relations on land use matters at the
      regional level between state agency contacts in the field (or region), local
      government planning department staff and Tribal administrators within the region,
      including Regional Partnerships and Regional Economic Revitalization Teams.
DLCD - 214
Karen Quiqley                                                                           Page 3 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


     Work with Tribal governments to share information that supports development and
      maintenance of resource management plans, development policies and Tribal
      zoning ordinances applicable to lands held in trust. In the interests of state, local
      and Tribal governments, encourage Tribal land use policies and zoning to be
      similar and compatible with Oregon’s land use planning system, including policies
      for preserving Oregon’s best agricultural lands.

     Continue to assist local governments and the Tribes in natural and cultural
      resource site protection programs under the statewide planning goals.

     Be accountable for a land use program that is coordinated and consistent with the
      efforts under the Governor's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, and keep the
      Tribes informed of such actions that may affect Tribal interests.

     Work with Tribal governments and stakeholders to find ways to continue
      government-to-government relations with fewer resources.

     In conjunction with the work plans of the Natural Resources Work Group and
      Cultural Resources Cluster Group, continue to work with Tribal governments to
      assess what implications state and local waivers issued under ORS 197.352 will
      have on Tribal interests, particularly with respect to natural and cultural resources
      and sites.

     Involve Tribal Governments, through a Working Group and Economic Development
      Cluster, in the development of a work plan to address the process by which sewer
      service may be extended to tribal lands located adjacent to urban growth
      boundaries or unincorporated communities.

In addition to the provisions of this policy aimed specifically at relations with Oregon’s Tribal
governments, the Department has reflected its overall communication policy with local
governments, to include the Tribes, within DLCD Policy No. 06-01, Local and Tribal
Government Communication Policy.

Accomplishments made by the Department in response to this policy, and since the Executive
Order (EO-96-30) was established in 1996, are found in the Annual Reports presented each year
to the Governor and Legislative Commission on Indian Services.

Please refer to the agency’s Annual Reports, located on our website, under Relations with Tribes
to learn more about the establishment of the agency’s policy under government-to-government
relations that was formed under Executive Order 96-30 and ORS 182.164.

(b)      The name of individuals in the state agency who are responsible for development and
         implementing programs of the state agency that affect Tribes.
DLCD - 215
Karen Quiqley                                                                          Page 4 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


DLCD Response to Subsection (b)

DLCD’s Director Richard Whitman is the primary (key) contact responsible for overall relations,
and for development and implementing of agency programs that affect Tribes. Michael
Morrissey, a policy analyst in the director’s office, is the alternate contact for the director. The
primary and alternate contacts along with five others assigned to the clusters or working groups,
form the agency team on government-to-government relations.

Primary Contact on Government-to-Government Relations:
                       Richard Whitman, Director
                       635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
                       Salem, Oregon 97301-2540
                       Phone: (503) 373-0050, ext. 280
                       FAX: (503) 378-5518
                       E-mail: richard.whitman@state.or.us
                       Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.or.us

Alternate Contact on Government-to-Government Relations:
                       Michael Morrissey, Rural Policy Analyst
                       635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
                       Salem, Oregon 97301-2540
                       Phone: (503) 373-0050, ext. 320
                       FAX: (503) 378-5518
                       E-mail: michael.morrissey@state.or.us
                       Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.or.us

Primary Contact to Natural Resources Working Group:
                       Katherine Daniels, Farm and Forest Specialist
                       635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
                       Salem, Oregon 97301-2540
                       Phone: (503) 373-0050, ext. 329
                       FAX: (503) 378-5518
                       E-mail: katherine.daniels@state.or.us
                       Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.or.us

Alternate Contact to Natural Resources Working Group:
                       Amanda Punton, Natural Resources Specialist
                       800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 1145
                       Portland, Oregon 97232
                       Phone: (971) 673-0961
                       FAX: (971) 673-0911
                       E-mail: amanda.punton@state.or.us
                       Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.or.us

Primary Contact to Cultural Resources Cluster Group:
                       Michael Morrissey, Rural Policy Analyst
                       (contact information above)
DLCD - 216
Karen Quiqley                                                                           Page 5 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


Alternate Contact to Cultural Resources Cluster Group:
                         Gary Fish, Land Use/Transportation Planner
                         635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
                         Salem, Oregon 97301-2540
                         Phone: (503) 373-0050, ext. 254
                         FAX: (503) 378-5518
                         E-mail: gary.fish@state.or.us
                         Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.or.us

Primary Contact to Economic and Community Development Cluster Group:
                         Thomas Hogue, Economic Development Planning Specialist
                         635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
                         Salem, Oregon 97301-2540
                         Phone: (503) 373-0050, ext. 323
                         FAX: (503) 378-5518
                         E-mail: thomas.hogue@state.or.us
                         Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.or.us

Alternate Contact to Economic and Community Development Cluster Group:
                         Jon Jinings, Community Services Specialist
                         888 NW Hill Street, Suite 2
                         Bend, Oregon 97701
                         Phone: (541) 318-2890
                         FAX: (541) 318-8361
                         E-mail: jon.jinings@state.or.us
                         Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.or.us

Additional DLCD staff members responsible for developing and implementing programs that
may be of interest to the Tribes are listed below. They are available by dialing (503) 373-0050,
then the extension, or the number indicated.

Bob Rindy, Sr. Policy Analyst and Legislative Liaison, extension 229
Bob Cortright, Transportation & Growth Management, extension 241
Chris Shirley, Natural Hazards & Floodplains, extension 250
Steve Lucker, Floodplain Map Modernization, extension 295
Juna Hickner, Coastal Program and Federal Consistency, extension 253
Gloria Gardner, Urban Growth Management, extension 282
Lisa Howard, Executive Assistant to Director and LCDC, extension 271
Regional Representatives: See agency website for regional assignments.

The agency’s primary and alternate contacts are responsible for assuring that the agency is kept
apprised of activities that may be of interest to the Tribes, to provide appropriate Tribal contacts,
and ensure that the Tribes are informed of agency activities. The agency recognizes that
maintaining good communication is a benefit to the Tribes and to the State of Oregon.

Oregon local governments (cities and counties) are responsible for carrying out the statewide
land use planning program through locally-adopted comprehensive plans and zoning codes that
are approved by the state. Tribal reservations and trust lands are not subject to state and local
land use laws, but these laws occasionally affect the use of Tribal lands. Under ORS 182.162-
DLCD - 217
Karen Quiqley                                                                        Page 6 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


182.168, DLCD promotes government-to-government relations between the Tribes and Oregon’s
local governments.

(c)    The process the state agency established to identify the programs of the state agency
       that affect Tribes.

DLCD Response to Subsection (c)

DLCD informs the Tribes of agency programs that affect the Tribes primarily through agency
participation in three of the cluster or working groups established in 1996 under Executive
Order 96-30. The agency actively participates in the Natural Resources Working Group, Cultural
Resources Cluster Group, and Economic and Community Development Cluster Group, each of
which contains representatives from other state agencies, and from the several Tribes. These
groups provide a forum for two-way communication and government-to-government relations.
As directed by the agency’s primary and alternate contacts, the contacts assigned to the clusters
provide periodic updates to the Tribes on agency program activities, while the Tribes inform
contacts of relevant Tribal programs, and agency programs affecting the Tribes.

DLCD may also meet with individual Tribes to address specific issues as they arise in regions
around the state. These department efforts have proven very successful, given the diverse
interests of the Tribes, and the complexity of land use issues that affect the Tribes’ unique
interests. DLCD also maintains an agency web site, which includes a section on government-
to-government relations. That site is available to keep Tribal governments and other Oregonians
informed of agency activities.

DLCD participation in the cluster and working group meetings is reflected in the following list
of meetings:

Natural Resources Working Group: The agency participated in the August 4, 2010 meeting in
Salem.

Cultural Resources Cluster Group: The agency participated in meetings on March 3& 4, 2010
at Tryon Creek State Park, the September 23 & 24 meeting at Smith Rocks State Park, and the
December 1 & 2 meeting at Champoeg State Park.

Economic and Community Development Cluster Group: The agency participated in meetings
on June 24 in Lincoln City and September 30 in Coos Bay. In addition, department staff
participated in a July 28 Willamette Valley, Mid-Coast Economic Revitalization Team meeting
at the Grand Ronde Tribal Governance Center.

Other Government-to-Government Meetings: On May 14, 2010, several agency staff,
including the agency director, attended the training sessions available at the Tribal Government
Day at the Capitol. The director also attended a meeting of the Legislative Commission on Indian
Services on March 30, 2010 to brief the Commission on the mission activities of the department
DLCD - 218
Karen Quiqley                                                                          Page 7 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


and to answer questions from Commission members. Some issues discussed included: a co-
management relationship with regard to land use, partnerships with local governments, rural
lands issues, fee-to-trust lands, and communication of department activities.

(d)      The effort of the state agency to promote communication between the state agency and
         the Tribes, and government-to-government relations between the state and Tribes.

DLCD Response to Subsection (d)

Including the Tribes in stakeholder meetings and activities, and moving towards written
agreements with Tribes when possible, is a significant step for promoting two-way
communication and government-to-government relations. As explained in greater detail below,
the agency’s designated contacts and others have participated in three of the cluster groups or
working groups, as well as with the Tribes directly. Previous land use discussions with the
Legislative Commission on Indian Services have also promoted good communications and
government-to-government relations between DLCD and the Tribes. DLCD is committed to
continue those efforts.

Roundtables: Contributing to meeting its government to government policy objectives, DLCD
schedules a roundtable discussion with local and Tribal governments each time the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) conducts a meeting outside of Salem.
Tribal participation is also welcomed at the Commission’s regular meetings in Salem, although
those meetings typically do not include a roundtable discussion. The purpose of the roundtable is
to provide an opportunity for local governments and Tribes to hear and participate in discussions
on issues of mutual importance. In 2010, three out-of-town LCDC meetings included roundtables
that allowed for local governments and Tribes. Although the Commission welcomes
participation from all the Tribes, advance notice of a roundtable is mailed to the Tribes located in
or near the region where each LCDC meeting is held.

Development challenges and opportunities, local planning issues, economic development, and
statewide planning for climate change were frequent topics of discussion at the following 2010
roundtables:

     January 20, 2010 in Salem/Keizer; mailed invitations included the Confederated Tribes of
      Grand Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz.

     April 21, 2010 in Lincoln City; mailed invitations included the Confederated Tribes of Grand
      Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Siletz and the Coquille Indian Tribe.

     June 2, 2010 in John Day; mailed invitations included the Burns Paiute Tribe and the
      Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs.

An important training was provided to the department at an all-staff meeting in March 2010,
when Eric Quaempts, Natural Resources Director for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
DLCD - 219
Karen Quiqley                                                                            Page 8 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


Indian Reservation, delivered a presentation. The presentation described a land management
strategy focused on protecting tribal “first foods” and the role the first foods play in the beliefs
and rituals of the Tribes. The presentation was well received by the staff who had many
questions and positive comments after the presentation.

The agency is committed to conducting its regular meetings around the state as often as possible,
and will continue to invite the Tribes to participate in the roundtables, as well as
the meetings themselves.

Web-based communication: DLCD’s web site (http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/), under the link
“Relations with Tribes,” continues to provide information on the agency
government-to-government program, contacts, DLCD’s interest statement, annual reports, and
links with other Tribal web sites. When notified, DLCD updates its contact list to reflect changes
in Tribal administration and Tribal councils. Contact lists are also improved through the
state/Tribal cluster groups.

(e)    A description of the training required by statute. (ORS 182.166(1) pertains to
       training(s) offered by the Department of Administrative Services at least once a year.)

DLCD Response to Subsection (e)

On May 14, 2010, several agency staff, including the back-up to key contact, attended the
training sessions available at the Tribal Government Day at the Capitol. In addition the
department attended a related training on May 13 focusing on “Tribal Governments: The Role of
Tribal Values, Traditions and Relations with Other Governments.”

Throughout this report, agency participation in clusters and working groups is described. These
meetings are an important source of training for department staff in a wide range of subjects of
concern to the tribes. Frequently, information gained in this manner is shared with other
members of the department, as appropriate.

(f)    The method the state agency established for notifying employees of the state agency of
       the provisions of ORS 182.162 to 182.168 and the policy the state agency adopts under
       ORS 182.164.

DLCD Response to Subsection (f)

The agency policy under these statutes is Number 07-02, Policy on Government-to-Government
Relations with Oregon Tribes, and the strategic plan. The policy, effective on May 14, 2007, is
based largely on the existing government-to-government program and on the policy “interest
statement” established on September 23, 1997 under Executive Order 96-30. Policy 07-02 is
stated below under “Department Statement.”

When new staff that may work with a Tribe is hired, the agency’s primary and alternate contacts
DLCD - 220
Karen Quiqley                                                                          Page 9 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


arrange for staff’s attendance at annual training, brief them on cluster activities, and provide an
overview of the statutory requirements for working with Tribal governments on agency
activities. In 2008, the agency’s Operation Services Division began to include the key contact in
their staff meetings to inform the division of their responsibilities under the agency’s
government-to-government policy and statutes. This effort has continued with the primary and
alternate contacts.

Programmatic Issues of Ongoing Interest

The department continues to offer growth management and natural resource conservation
services to all the Tribes and is working with some of the Tribes in several areas. These include
the Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP), Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council
(OPAC), flood plain management services, rulemaking, local government plan amendments, and
periodic review. All of these activities are in addition to the work the department’s primary and
alternate contacts do with three of the cluster groups formed by state agencies under
ORS 182.162-182.168.

Goal 5: A key issue identified by the Tribes is the need for the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) to better protect cultural resources during the land
development process. See DLCD’s 2003 Report for further discussion of Goal 5.

DLCD’s Community Services Division awarded a grant to the City of The Dalles to work with
tribal governments to fund a cultural resource study on lands adjacent to the city and within the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (NSA). Work has begun on the study and is
expected to be complete by February, 2011. The results of the study will help decision makers
determine how best to integrate cultural resource protection into the evaluation process for
proposed urban area boundary amendments to the NSA.

Other technical assistance grants went to: the City of Siletz for a comprehensive plan update. The
Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians also contributed to this activity and participated on the
project advisory committee; the city of Toledo for an Economic Opportunity Analysis, where
again, a CTSI member participated on the project advisory committee.

Re-use of the Umatilla Army Depot: The department has participated in a multi-party study
group investigating options and opportunities for re-use of the Umatilla Depot. Tribal members
are also participating in this group and options being explored include those that would directly
or indirectly support tribal interests.

Fee-to-Trust: Although the actual number of fee-to-trust transfers has been smaller than in
previous years, DLCD’s Ocean and Coastal Service Division and agency contacts remain
involved in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) fee-to-trust process. BIA routinely sends the
Governor notification of pending fee-to-trust transfers. BIA’s notice of the consistency of these
transfers with the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program is sent directly to the department.
In coordination with the Governor’s office, DLCD works cooperatively with the Tribes, BIA,
DLCD - 221
Karen Quiqley                                                                          Page 10 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


and affected local governments in addressing the state’s interests in these transfers. DLCD also
works with “coastal” Tribes (Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Confederated Tribes of
Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, and the Coquille Indian Tribe) to assure coastal
program consistency, including the proper coordination of land use issues. The department’s
coordination with the Tribes usually occurs through a combination of meetings, phone calls, e-
mails, and written correspondence.

Coastal: Our Ocean and Coastal Services Division invites tribal government representatives
from the three coastal Tribes to participate in periodic meetings held at the coast with local
jurisdictions and other coastal program partners. Several of these meetings have occurred since
the submittal of DLCD’s last Government-to-Government annual report. The division also
reviews federal energy projects on the coast to ensure consistency with Oregon’s Coastal Zone
Management Program. These projects often involve the Tribes, including the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission (CRITFC). Our Ocean and Coastal Division is developing an
inventory of dikes and levees in the coastal zone and has been in contact with the Coquille Indian
Tribes and is making plans to work with all three coastal tribes as this inventory work
commences.

The department also serves as staff to the Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC). The
membership of OPAC is defined by Legislation and includes one seat for the “coastal” Indian
Tribes. DLCD works to ensure that a Tribal representative is designated for that seat and that any
Tribal issues raised, in the OPAC setting, are addressed.

Tribal Appointments to Department Committees: In 2008, LCDC initiated rulemaking to
address wind farm development on agricultural lands. Representation from the Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation was included in the Wind Farm Working Group. In
2009 there was no tribal participation on the Urban Growth Boundary Work Group and the
Housing Working Group, although the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
were active participants in the creation of the Methodius Area of Critical State Concern. In 2010,
several rulemakings have gone forward without rulemaking committees, including two Measure
49 related rulemakings, Willamette Greenway, workforce housing for energy facilities, and
transfer of development rights. Three rule makings in 2010, have (or will, in the case of reservoir
rulemaking) included invitations for tribal participation: RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act), solar facilities on farmland, and irrigation reservoirs.

Issues and Concerns

DLCD’s involvement to date in Tribal affairs has resulted in many questions and discussions
about ways to address various issues and concerns.

   Difficulties with trying to fit Tribal projects and planning into the state-local planning
    framework which does not include a clearly defined role for Tribal governments;
DLCD - 222
Karen Quiqley                                                                          Page 11 of 11
Legislative Commission on Indian Services
December 17, 2010


   Limited ability to address local-Tribal coordination problems in general and certain issues
    important to local interests such as loss of property taxes, payments for local services, fear of
    loss of control over trust properties, and impacts on local land use planning; and

   Limited financial and/or other resources to support Tribal land use planning and natural
    resource identification and planning efforts.

   It is not clear whether counties, especially county planning director’s, have a clear
    understanding of the nature and scope of tribal sovereignty for Oregon’s nine federally
    recognized tribes, or the department’s government to government program. The department
    will make it a priority during the next year to seek opportunities to discuss this with counties.

As noted, some issues and concerns regarding the department’s government-to-government
coordination and relations remain to be fully addressed. With the formation of a new agency
Team on government-to-government relations concerns are being addressed. The department
will strive to address these issues and concerns, and improve service once again in the coming
year.

Conclusion

DLCD’s ability to meet with the Tribes and follow-up in a timely manner has increased with the
establishment of a team of seven staff members to work on government-to-government relations,
including the agency director as the primary contact. Training of staff remains an important
activity. The department looks forward to cooperation with the tribes in the coming year, and to a
positive working relationship with the Commission on Indian Services.
                                                                              APPENDIX I
DLCD - 223




  2011-2013 Sustainability Plan
  Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
  July 6, 2010


  Introduction
  The Oregon Sustainability Board approved DLCD’s original Sustainability plan in
  April, 2004. The plan described actions the department would take to comply with
  the Governor’s Executive Order on Sustainability. Specifically, the plan identified
  on-going department activities to support the State’s sustainability program.

  The department’s 2011-13 Sustainability Plan and 2009-11 Progress Report
  follow. The plan centers around three principal goals for sustainability:
          1. Support sustainable development
          2. Secure Oregon’s natural resource legacy, and
          3. Employ sustainable practices in daily operations.


  The Oregon Legislature defines ‘sustainability’ as: “…using, developing and
  protecting resources in a manner that enables people to meet current needs and
  provides that future generations can also meet future needs, from the joint
  perspective of environmental, economic and community objectives.” (ORS
  184.421)

  In addition, the Oregon Sustainability Board has identified four major areas of
  sustainability work in Oregon:
      1. Water management;
      2. Ecosystem management/biodiversity;
      3. Climate change/greenhouse gases; and
      4. Sustainable economic development.



  Sustainability and Oregon’s Statewide Land Use Program
  The Oregon Legislature intended Oregon’s land use planning program “…to
  assure the highest possible level of livability in Oregon…” The statewide planning
  program is one of Oregon’s signature commitments to livability and sustainability.
  As a framework for land use planning, it has the potential to be a national, if not
  global, model for sustaining Oregon’s economy, environment, and communities
  by conserving Oregon’s natural resources for future generations while enabling
  communities to develop to meet the needs of a growing population.


                                                    2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                 Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                 Page 1 of 10
                                                                                APPENDIX I
DLCD - 224



  The statewide planning program does not define or set standards for sustainable
  development. Yet the overarching stewardship principles of the program provide
  the template for Oregon and its communities to plan for and approve sustainable
  development. The mission of the department is: “To help communities and
  citizens plan for, protect and improve the built and natural systems that provide a
  high quality of life. In partnership with citizens and local governments, we foster
  sustainable and vibrant communities and protect our natural resources legacy.”

  LCDC and DLCD believe their efforts to protect and maintain the resource base
  of Oregon’s farm, forest, and natural resource-based economies are proving
  successful. More work is needed, however, to apply the benefits of the statewide
  planning program to specific issues, such as restoring habitats to support
  sustainable populations of salmon in watersheds throughout the state. The
  department is at the forefront of innovative local and regional planning for new
  development that reduces urban sprawl, connects transportation to land use, and
  promotes livable, sustainable communities. Oregon, through the department’s
  work, is also a national leader in efforts to sustain ocean and coastal resources
  that are vital to the state’s economy and environment.

  In 2009 the department recommended a package of climate change actions to
  LCDC that were prompted by citizen interest, action by the legislature and
  communication from the Governor. As a result, the department is undertaking
  several policy and program initiatives in the areas of climate change adaptation,
  mitigation and public education. These activities are reflected in this sustainability
  plan.

  The 2011-13 Sustainability Plan of the department continues to translate the
  basic mission of the statewide planning program created by the 1973 Legislature
  into the context of the Governor’s Executive Orders on Sustainability (2003,
  2006). And, with a new focus on issues of climate change, the plan more fully
  addresses the priorities of the Oregon Sustainability Board.

  The plan focuses on external program functions that can create conditions for
  sustainable development and resource protection throughout Oregon. In addition,
  the department previously adopted internal policies consistent with the
  Sustainability Act and Governor’s Executive Order and will continue to work with
  the DAS to enhance internal practices.

  The department plans to submit policy option packages in the 2011-13 budget
  that will contribute to program elements of its sustainability plan. The packages
  address growing concerns regarding sustainability of Oregon communities by
  improving communities’ ability to recognize and plan for natural hazards,
  including climate change related flooding, and to help mitigate the progress of
  climate change through reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.



                                                      2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                   Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                   Page 2 of 10
                                                                                APPENDIX I
DLCD - 225




  DLCD Sustainability Goals for 2011-13
  The department has three principal goals for sustainability:

        Support Sustainable Development
         Carry out program activities that support local and state efforts to plan for
         sustainable economic and community development.

        Secure Oregon’s Natural Resource Legacy
         Work with local, state, tribal and federal partners to sustain farm, forest,
         coastal and other natural resources for the present and for future
         generations.

        Employ Sustainable Practices in Daily Operations
         Work with the DAS to develop internal policies to make agency operations
         more sustainable.

  For each goal, the plan describes actions to be implemented over the next
  biennium. These actions are:

        Program development and implementation;
        Financial assistance to local governments; and
        Technical assistance.


  SUSTAINABILITY GOAL 1
  Support Sustainable Development

  Program Development
  During the 2011-13 biennium the department will work with local, state and
  federal program partners to assist in the development and implementation of
  local comprehensive plans and ordinances to support sustainable development.
  The department will employ several program tools by which to support, if not
  promote, sustainable development.
        The Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM) is a
         partnership between DLCD and the ODOT. TGM promotes the integration
         of local land use planning and transportation through financial and
         technical support to local governments. DLCD will continue to fund local
         planning efforts that result in urban development and enable the use of
         transit and alternative modes of transportation. The TGM program is
         nationally recognized for successfully helping communities meet
         development, safety, and livability goals within a broader vision for land


                                                      2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                   Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                   Page 3 of 10
                                                                               APPENDIX I
DLCD - 226



         use and transportation systems.
         http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/index.shtml
        The department, together with the Oregon Department of Transportation
         has been given specific responsibilities with regard to climate change
         mitigation in 2009 legislation (HB 2001 and SB 1059. The goal of this
         legislation is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles in the
         Portland metropolitan area and other urban areas in the state. Support for
         the ongoing implementation of HB 2001 is the subject of the department’s
         policy option package 101.
        The economic development planning program works with a variety of state
         and local partners to assist local economic development planning efforts to
         address a sustainable economy. DLCD and Business Oregon collaborate
         on technical and planning assistance to local governments to improve the
         linkage between land use planning and economic development planning.
         The department is currently in the midst of a major update to its economic
         development guidebook, working with a variety of state and local partners.
         See also
         http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/ECODEV/economic_opportunities_analysis.sh
         tml.
        The Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP) assists coastal cities
         and counties to plan for and manage development in the context of long-
         term conservation and stewardship of unique coastal resources and
         features. In addition, OCMP works with state agencies and local
         governments to:
                o Promote sustainable development by identifying and quantifying
                    coastal hazards, particularly along the dynamic ocean shore,
                o Maintaining water quality by reducing the effects of stormwater
                    runoff,
                o Restoring and sustaining Oregon’s estuarine habitats that are
                    essential to sustaining salmon, shellfish, shorebirds, and other
                    organisms, and
                o Maintain lands in coastal ports needed for water-related and
                    water-dependent uses.
     The OCMP is also working through the Oregon Solutions process, with the
     Office of the Governor and other state and federal agencies to support the
     development of ocean wave energy on the coast. See also
     http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/index.shtml.
        Farm & forest lands program is the state’s primary planning vehicle to
         protect the lands that are important for the state’s farm and forest
         economies, which is crucial to the long-term economic sustainability of the
         state. The department assists the efforts of local governments (particularly
         counties), the Oregon departments of Agriculture and Forestry, and others
         to ensure that land use decisions meet the requirements of Statewide
         Planning Goals 3 and 4. The department does not regulate or prescribe

                                                     2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                  Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                  Page 4 of 10
                                                                             APPENDIX I
DLCD - 227



         forest or farm practices. See also
         http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/urbanrural.shtml#Rural_Issues.
        Natural Hazards Program works closely with local governments and FEMA
         to update local floodplain development standards and maps to better
         address avoidance and mitigation of flood damage and loss. The
         department also assists local and tribal governments in planning for
         removal of structures and relocation of businesses from known hazard
         areas. Natural hazards, including flooding, are a component of the
         department’s climate change adaption strategy. Two of the policy option
         packages seek support for hazards mapping related to climate change:
         POPs 103 and 106. See also http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/HAZ/index.shtml

  Grants
  The department assists local governments in working toward sustainable
  development through awards of grant funds from several sources including:
        Federal CZM grants to coastal cities and counties for core planning
     functions, special planning or technical projects, stormwater management,
     and small-scale construction or acquisition projects to support public access
     to coastal waters;
        TGM funds to local governments to support plans and project designs that
     promote and support sustainable development by adopting policies to support
     compact development, promote mixed uses, and provide transportation
     options; and
       Technical assistance funds to local governments to support planning for
     sustainable communities.
  One policy option package seeks to retain the vitality of the grants program: POP
  104.

  Technical assistance
  Technical assistance is a core department function. The department assists local
  communities with planning for efficient urban development that creates a
  sustainable fiscal economic base for cities and counties; planning to meet long-
  term needs for land for housing development that avoids sprawl and provides
  sustainable housing and economic development; and planning for public
  facilities, including transportation, needed to meet community aspirations. DLCD
  has 11 regional representatives and several agency specialists that work with
  particular cities and counties and regional governments on a daily basis to
  address a wide range of planning and development issues related to sustainable
  community development, including:

        Transportation planning to provide for a variety of transportation
     alternatives to meet community needs, improve safety, and reduce reliance
     on automobiles;


                                                   2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                Page 5 of 10
                                                                                 APPENDIX I
DLCD - 228



        Best management practices that promote sustainable development (e.g.,
     reducing storm water runoff, protecting solar access, reducing energy use,
     retaining native vegetation, and minimizing demands on water);
      Protecting natural resources essential to restoring salmonid habitat and
     sustaining salmonid populations;
      Open space, greenways, parks, and other amenities for local and regional
     recreational uses; and
      Complex regional-scale land use issues related to industrial land supply,
     transportation, and other public infrastructure needs.

  Program Partners
  To affect positive solutions to land use and economic development issues,
  department staff works with a wide variety of local governments, state and
  federal agencies, Tribes, and other entities including ERT, special districts,
  League of Oregon Cities, Association of Oregon Counties, Oregon’s universities,
  and the National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State University.


  SUSTAINABILITY GOAL 2
  Secure Oregon’s Natural Resource Legacy

  Program development
  The department will continue to work closely with local governments and a
  number of state, Tribal, and federal natural resource agencies to conserve
  Oregon’s resource lands and to protect Oregon's natural resources, which are
  the foundation of the state’s livability, economy, and way of life. In particular, the
  department focuses on three key areas:

        The land base of Oregon’s agricultural and forest industries. For
     more than two decades, Oregon has maintained a strong policy to protect
     farm and forest land. The policy for farm land was adopted by the state
     legislature in 1973. It calls for the "preservation of a maximum amount of the
     limited supply of agricultural land" (ORS 215.243 ). The department measures
     success at protecting farm and forest lands through annual reports to the
     legislature. A recent initiative for the department that will continue into the
     2011-13 biennium is implementation of a Transfer of Development Rights
     (TDR) program. The TDR program is currently focused on protections of
     commercial forestlands in the state from encroachment of residential
     development;

       The habitats and ecosystem conditions essential to Coho and other
     salmonids. The department supports The Oregon Plan for Salmon and
     Watersheds by participating on the Governor’s Core Team and assisting city
     and county governments to improve local land use plans and ordinances to
     implement Goal 5 (Natural Resources), and other statewide goals in order to
     avoid or reduce the impacts of development, such as streets and roads, on
                                                 2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                    Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                    Page 6 of 10
                                                                             APPENDIX I
DLCD - 229



     riparian corridors, wetlands, and other ecosystem features that are essential
     to Coho salmon; and
       Estuaries, beaches and dunes, coastal shorelands, and other coastal
     resources that create the unique character of the Oregon Coast and are the
     basis for much of the economy of coastal communities.
  In addition, because Oregon is a geologically and meteorologically dynamic
  landscape, the department works closely with several state and federal agencies
  and local governments to improve information about natural hazards so that local
  plans and regulations will avoid or reduce the risk to new development in these
  environments. This activity is especially crucial along the ocean shore where
  natural processes that create and maintain the aesthetic resources and
  environmental quality of the beach also can create hazards to development.
  The OCMP will also review all state and federal permits or actions that affect
  coastal natural resources to ensure compliance with the statewide planning goals
  and consistency with Oregon’s federally-approved Coastal Management
  Program.
  The OCMP is also taking a leadership role in developing ocean wave energy by
  assisting the Governor’s Office and other state and federal agencies to create a
  regulatory regime that will streamline implementation of energy research and
  development projects without compromising the state’s interests in sound
  management of all economic and environmental interests in the state’s Territorial
  Sea.

  Grants
  The department’s General Fund budget assists in funding a limited number of
  local and regional natural resource assessments including wetland and other
  resource inventories and analysis. Where possible, the department uses General
  Fund grant resources to leverage additional investment from the federal
  government and other agencies. In the coastal zone, the department also uses
  federal CZM funds to:
      Assist local governments to update inventories of wetlands, riparian
     zones, steep slopes and other resource areas, and to adopt plan and
     ordinance provisions to protect them;
      Assist several state agencies via intergovernmental agreements to
     inventory and assess ocean shore, offshore, and beach resources and
     develop improved measures to protect them; and
      Within the limits of Congressional appropriations, assist local governments
     in applying for special funds under the Coastal and Estuarine Lands
     Conservation Program to acquire key coastal or estuarine lands.

  Technical Assistance
  Because statewide and local efforts to sustain Oregon’s natural resources
  require robust information, the department will continue to work with program
                                                   2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                Page 7 of 10
                                                                             APPENDIX I
DLCD - 230



  partners, including the Oregon Natural Heritage Program and the Oregon
  Department of Fish and Wildlife, to use GIS, the Oregon Coastal Atlas, and other
  information tools to develop and provide data about land uses and natural
  resources such as estuaries, wetlands, and forest lands. The department will
  continue to provide funding and technical assistance to local governments for
  work to develop local conservation and restoration programs for resources under
  Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 5, 6 and 15.

  Program Partners
  The department will work with all relevant state and federal natural resource
  agencies, local and Tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, and
  citizens to sustain Oregon’s natural resource legacy. A focus for the department
  that will continue into the 2011-2013 biennium is to strengthen non-regulatory
  approaches to preserve commercial forest lands through development of the
  department’s TDR program. The Department of Forestry is a key partner in this
  endeavor.


  SUSTAINABILITY GOAL 3
  Employ Sustainable Practices in Daily Operations

  The department will continue to work with the DAS to identify and implement
  sustainable operational practices. The department anticipates integrating best
  practices with regard to recycling of paper and other office materials, upgrading
  of electronic equipment and end-of-life disposal, promoting car-pooling and
  bicycling, encouraging employees to use public transit for commuting, supporting
  employee telecommuting and teleconferencing, and reducing operational energy
  demands by acquiring energy efficient equipment.




                                                   2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                Page 8 of 10
                                                                              APPENDIX I
DLCD - 231



                    2009–2011 DLCD Sustainability Plan
                           Progress Statement

  DLCD carried out a number of program activities to implement its 2009-11
  Sustainability Plan. Many of the department’s activities relate to improvements in
  a wide variety of land use planning processes at the local government level that
  can support opportunities for sustainable development and community
  sustainability.


  Sustainability Goal 1: Support Sustainable Development
  Since the 2009-11 Sustainability Plan was adopted, the department has:
        Begun major program initiatives in the areas of climate change mitigation
     and adaptation. Climate change mitigation will focus on assisting local
     communities reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The department
     (particularly TGM) will partner with ODOT. The department has a coordinating
     role with other state agencies with regard to climate change adaptation
     planning, and will contribute hazards mapping as one element of the plan.
       Issued technical assistance grants to cities and counties statewide to
     support planning for sustainable community development;
       Awarded grants through TGM to 48 communities throughout the state to
     help better integrate land use and transportation planning to foster
     sustainable transportation choices. Community assistance projects were
     conducted with an additional 35 communities;
       Awarded federal CZM grant funds to 37 coastal local governments to carry
     out a number of long-range planning activities that will support sustainable
     community development;
       Worked with other agencies, including the DOGAMI, to identify and
     assess geologic hazards; and
        Assisted local governments to develop and apply comprehensive plan
     policies and ordinances that avoid, reduce, or mitigate the risk posed by
     hazards to new and existing development in order to protect and preserve life
     and property.


  Sustainability Goal 2: Secure Oregon’s Natural Resources Legacy
  The department carried out the policies of Oregon’s statewide planning program
  to protect working farm and forest lands and to ensure that these vital industries
  can be sustained. Activities to protect farm and forest resources include
  development of the TDR program, participation in study of ancillary uses on
  farmland, and rulemaking relating to the siting of energy generation and
  transmission facilities.


                                                    2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                 Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                 Page 9 of 10
                                                                               APPENDIX I
DLCD - 232



  The OCMP implemented State Planning Goal 19 (Ocean Resources) through the
  activities of the Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC). Goal 19
  mandates ocean resource conservation in order to provide “long-term ecological,
  economic and social values and benefits to future generations” — in other words,
  a sustainable ocean. Issues now under consideration by OPAC include
  designation of marine reserves, possible designation of a national marine
  sanctuary, and development of a regulatory regime for ocean wave energy
  generation. The OCMP has completed some of the objectives of a revised
  Territorial Sea Plan to include an element concerning alternative energy
  resources. Text amendments to the plan have been completed and staff is
  working to acquire spatial information and the technology to analyze it, which will
  be important to fisheries, habitat and ecological values.

  The department has begun to implement the TDR program, following the 2009
  legislative session. This program seeks to strengthen protection for commercial
  forestlands by transferring allowable (primarily residential) development from
  those lands to other sites.


  Sustainability Goal 3: Adopt Internal Sustainability Practices
  The department has made a concentrated effort to integrate sustainable
  practices and products into day-to-day operations. The department implemented
  procedures to reduce the use of paper by providing information in electronic
  forms and encouraging submittal of electronic documents. This activity has been
  supported by purchasing new copiers with scanning capacity. The department
  has purchased and deployed new flat-screen computer monitors that use less
  electricity and has relocated several staff in other regions of the state to improve
  agency performance and services. A member of the director’s office participates
  in DAS’s Sustainability coordinator’s meetings and shares information in a timely
  manner on sustainability practices with the department’s Operations Services
  Division.




                                                     2011 - 2013 Sustainability Plan
                                                  Department of Land Conservation and Development
                                                                                 Page 10 of 10
                   DLCD - 233
PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION FOR 2011-13                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              APPENDIX J

Department of Land Conservation and Development
2011-13 Biennium-GBB                                                                                                                                                                                                Agency Number:            66000
Agencywide Summary
                                                                                    Agency-Wide Priorities for 2011-13 Biennium
  1        2          3             4                              5                      6            7        8               9        10         11       12         13            14          15        16         17          18          19               20                               21                                                          22

                                                                                                     Primary                                                                                                                                  Legal
  Priority                                                                           Identify Key   Purpose
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     New or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Req.
 (ranked with      Agency    Program or                                                                                                                                              TOTAL                          Enhanced   Included as                                   Explain What is Mandatory (for C, FM, and FO      Comments on Proposed Changes to CSL included in Agency
                   Initials Activity Initials
                                                Program Unit/Activity Description    Performance    Program-    GF              LF       OF        NL-OF      FF       NL-FF                      Pos.      FTE     Program     Reduction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Code         Legal Citation
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Only)                                                Request
highest priority                                                                      Measure(s)     Activity                                                                        FUNDS                                                  (C, D, FM,
     first)                                                                                                                                                                                                           (Y/N)    Option (Y/N)
                                                                                                      Code                                                                                                                                    FO, S)

        Prgm/
Agcy
         Div

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            POP 102: Soils Analyses--GBB modified
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            $(12,353) GF $426,264 OF 0.36 FTE
                                                                                    660-01 through                                                                                                                                                       ORS Chapter 197                                                    Request addresses task adopted by the 2010 Legislature (HB
  1        0       DLCD 001-60 Admin Planning & Administration                                     6            3,244,508            0   456,197         0   464,303            $    4,165,008      14      13.88      Y            Y           S
                                                                                    660-20                                                                                                                                                                 and 215.503                                                      3647) for department to manage a process ensuring objective
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            third party reviews and assure accuracy of soils reports.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Request is entirely fee based.



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         197.274, 197.319
                                                                                    660-01 through                                                                                                                                                        et seq., 197.610
  1        1       DLCD 001-62 CSD              Community Services Division                        6            3,012,264            0                   0   347,768            $    3,360,032      15      15.00      N            Y           S
                                                                                    660-20                                                                                                                                                                et seq., 197.626
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          et seq., 197.717


  1        2       DLCD 001-61                  Planning Services Division          660-01 through 6                2,388,701        0   907,013         0   617,878           0 $    3,913,592        15   13.34      Y            Y           S        ORS Chapter 197                                                    POP 070: Revenue shortfall--Approved @ GBB
                        Planning                                                    660-20                                                                                                                                                                  and 215                                                         $(20) GF $(78,983) OF (0.35) FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Request reflects an Other Fund revenue shortfall and small adjustment
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            to General Fund driven by prorated other payroll expenses. Portions of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            several DLCD Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            positions will be reduced to respond to insufficient funds transferred
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            from ODOT to continue current service level funding of DLCD TGM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            positions. Companion Package 107 requests establishment of funds to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            restore FTE and current service level funding.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            POP 101: Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Approved & modified @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            $178,702 OF 1 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Request addresses a task adopted by the 2009 Legislature for DLCD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            and LCDC working together with Metro and the cities and counties in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            the Metro area to continue work on greenhouse gas emissions efforts.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            This request continues efforts begun under HB 2001 by developing how
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            land use and transportation scenarios will be developed and selected b
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Metro and other local governments and how the selected scenarios will
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            be implemented. Package proposes limited duration funding.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            POP 103: FEMA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            $174,982 GF 1 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Request addresses need for providing a sustained level of funding for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            broader inventorying and assessment of development risks and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            hazards. Ongoing community assistance grants from FEMA have not
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            kept up with inflation and no longer adequately cover the cost of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            implementing NFIP. Request proposes professional position to work on
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            NFIP administration as well as hazards planning efforts.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            POP 105: Infrastructure Specialist
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            $188,340 GF 1 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Request addresses need for technical assistance from the state for the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            planning and financing of local infrastructure. Professional position
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            would provide technical assistance to local government on infrastructur
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            financing tools and local public facility planning.




          2011-13                                                                                                                                                      Agency-Wide                                                                                                                                                                                     107BF23
                   DLCD - 234
Department of Land Conservation and Development
2011-13 Biennium-GBB                                                                                                                                                                                            Agency Number:            66000
Agencywide Summary
                                                                                    Agency-Wide Priorities for 2011-13 Biennium
  1        2          3             4                          5                          6             7        8             9        10        11         12         13            14         15     16         17          18          19               20                              21                                                          22

                                                                                                      Primary                                                                                                                             Legal
  Priority                                                                           Identify Key    Purpose
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 New or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Req.
 (ranked with      Agency    Program or                                                                                                                                              TOTAL                      Enhanced   Included as                                  Explain What is Mandatory (for C, FM, and FO      Comments on Proposed Changes to CSL included in Agency
                   Initials Activity Initials
                                                Program Unit/Activity Description    Performance     Program-    GF            LF       OF       NL-OF       FF        NL-FF                     Pos.   FTE     Program     Reduction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Code         Legal Citation
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Only)                                                Request
highest priority                                                                      Measure(s)      Activity                                                                       FUNDS                                              (C, D, FM,
     first)                                                                                                                                                                                                       (Y/N)    Option (Y/N)
                                                                                                       Code                                                                                                                               FO, S)

        Prgm/
Agcy
         Div
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       POP 103: FEMA--Denied @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       $174,982 GF 1 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Request addressed need for providing a sustained level of funding for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       broader inventorying and assessment of development risks and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       hazards. Ongoing community assistance grants from FEMA have not
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       kept up with inflation and no longer adequately cover the cost of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       implementing NFIP. Request proposes professional position to work on
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       NFIP administration as well as hazards planning efforts.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       POP 105: Infrastructure Specialist--Denied @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       $188,340 GF 1 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Request addresses need for technical assistance from the state for the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       planning and financing of local infrastructure. Professional position
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       would provide technical assistance to local government on infrastructur
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       financing tools and local public facility planning.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       POP 106: RiskMap--Modified @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       $272,557 FF 1 FTE Limited Duration
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Request proposed making permanent a limited duration position
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       established in 2009-11 Legislatively Adopted Budget. The Federal
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program call Map
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Modernization is concluding. FEMA has instituted an ongoing program:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Risk Mapping and Assessment (RiskMap). New program is intended to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       complete and expand upon work started under Map Modernization.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Focus will broaden to include all natural hazards not just floods.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       POP 107: TGM Restoration--Denied @ GBB as a POP, but added
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       back in Pkg 090
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       $78,983 GF 0.35 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Request is companion package to POP 070. Request continues
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM) at its current
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       service level and restores funding and FTE reduced in POP 070.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ORS Chapter
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      197, 196.405 et
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       seq., 15 CFR
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Part 923: 16 USC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Sec 1456; 44
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     CFR Subchapter
                                                                                    660-01 through
  1        3       DLCD 001-63 Coast Ocean/Coastal Division                                                           51,169        0        0         0   4,430,340         0   $   4,481,509     12   11.58      N            Y          S, F      B; 42 USC 4001
                                                                                    660-20
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      et seq and ORS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Chapter 196, 16
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     USC Sec 1456 &
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         contractual
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      agreement with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Fed govt




          2011-13                                                                                                                                                      Agency-Wide                                                                                                                                                                                107BF23
                   DLCD - 235
Department of Land Conservation and Development
2011-13 Biennium-GBB                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Agency Number:              66000
Agencywide Summary
                                                                                         Agency-Wide Priorities for 2011-13 Biennium
  1        2          3             4                             5                            6              7               8               9           10          11            12         13             14         15         16          17           18          19               20                              21                                                        22

                                                                                                           Primary                                                                                                                                                      Legal
  Priority                                                                                Identify Key    Purpose
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              New or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Req.
 (ranked with      Agency    Program or                                                                                                                                                                      TOTAL                           Enhanced    Included as                                  Explain What is Mandatory (for C, FM, and FO     Comments on Proposed Changes to CSL included in Agency
                   Initials Activity Initials
                                                Program Unit/Activity Description         Performance     Program-           GF              LF          OF         NL-OF           FF        NL-FF                      Pos.      FTE       Program      Reduction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Code         Legal Citation
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Only)                                               Request
highest priority                                                                           Measure(s)      Activity                                                                                          FUNDS                                                    (C, D, FM,
     first)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    (Y/N)     Option (Y/N)
                                                                                                            Code                                                                                                                                                        FO, S)

        Prgm/
Agcy
         Div


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     POP 108: M49 Attorney General Costs--Approved @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     $50,000 GF
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Request preliminarily proposes continuance of limited duration
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     funding for Attorney General costs related to litigations under
                                                                                         660-01 through                                                                                                                                                                              ORS Chapter
  1        4       DLCD 001-64 M49              Measure 49 Development Services Divisi                                        1,086,834            0           0              0          0           0   $   1,086,834        2      2.00        Y            Y           S                                                                          the Measure 49 program. DLCD and the Department of
                                                                                         660-20                                                                                                                                                                                         197
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Justice are refining this very preliminary estimate and the total
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     is likely to increase. Additional funds may be needed and will
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     be determined during remaining budget development
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     processes.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     POP 104: Grants to Local Governments--DENIED @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     $2,648,067 GF
                                                                                         660-1 through                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Request proposes increasing state planning grant funding for
  2        1       DLCD 003-02 Grant General Fund Grants                                                  6                   1,656,902            0           0              0          0           0   $   1,656,902        0      0.00        Y            Y           S        ORS Chapter 197
                                                                                         660-20                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      cities and counties. Request enable department to continue
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     working with Oregon communities to achieve local aspirations
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     within the context of broader state interests.

                                                                                                                             11,440,378        -       1,363,210         -        5,860,289      -       $ 18,663,877    58.00      55.80


                                                                                                                      7. Primary Purpose Program/Activity Exists                                                           19. Legal Requirement Code
                                                                                                                                      1   Civil Justice                                                                     C     Constitutional
                                                                                                                                      2   Community Development                                                             D     Debt Service
                                                                                                                                      3   Consumer Protection                                                              FM     Federal - Mandatory
                                                                                                                                      4   Administrative Function                                                          FO     Federal - Optional (once you choose to participate, certain requirements exist)
                                                                                                                                      5   Criminal Justice                                                                  S     Statutory
                                                                                                                                      6   Economic Development
                                                                                                                                      7   Education & Skill Development
                                                                                                                                      8   Emergency Services
                                                                                                                                      9   Environmental Protection
                                                                                                                                     10   Public Health
        Prioritize each program activity for the Agency as a whole                                                                   11   Recreation, Heritage, or Cultural
                                                                                                                                     12   Social Support



       Document criteria used to prioritize activities:
       **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 within each 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.




          2011-13                                                                                                                                                                             Agency-Wide                                                                                                                                                                                    107BF23
    DLCD - 236
          PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION FOR 2011-13                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              APPENDIX J

          Agency Name: Department of Land Conservation and Development
          2011-13 Biennium-GBB                                                                                                                                                                                          Agency Number:         66000
          Planning
                                                                                              Program/Division Priorities for 2011-13 Biennium
            1       2         3              4                               5                       6             7       8            9         10        11      12        13          14          15        16         17         18        19             20                     21            22
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Legal
                                                                                                                Primary
            Priority                                                                            Identify Key   Purpose
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         New or                 Req.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Explain What is
           (ranked with    Agency      Program or                                                                                                                                        TOTAL                          Enhanced Included as   Code
                                                          Program Unit/Activity Description     Performance    Program-    GF           LF        OF       NL-OF    FF       NL-FF                    Pos.      FTE                                       Legal Citation    Mandatory (for C, FM, and Comments on Proposed Changes to CSL included in Agency Request
          highest priority Initials   Activity Initials
                                                                                                 Measure(s)     Activity                                                                 FUNDS                          Program   Reduction    (C, D,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   FO Only)
               first)                                                                                                                                                                                                     (Y/N)  Option (Y/N) FM, FO,
                                                                                                                 Code
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 S)
                  Prgm/
          Agcy
                   Div

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    POP 102: Soils Analyses--GBB modified
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    $(12,353) GF $426,264 OF 0.36 FTE
                                                                                              660-01 through                                                                                                                                             ORS Chapter
            1        0     DLCD 001-60 Admin              Planning & Administration                            6           3,244,508             456,197           464,303           $   4,165,008      14      13.88      Y          Y          S                                                  Request addresses task adopted by the 2010 Legislature (HB 3647) for
                                                                                              660-20                                                                                                                                                    197 and 215.503
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    department to manage a process ensuring objective third party reviews and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    assure accuracy of soils reports. Request is entirely fee based.



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        197.274, 197.319
                                                                                              660-01 through                                                                                                                                             et seq., 197.610
            1        1     DLCD 001-62 CSD                Community Services Division                          6           3,012,264                               347,768           $   3,360,032      15      15.00      N          Y          S
                                                                                              660-20                                                                                                                                                     et seq., 197.626
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         et seq., 197.717

            1       2      DLCD 001-61                    Planning Services Division          660-01 through   6            2,388,701            907,013           617,878           $    3,913,592        15   13.34      Y          Y          S        ORS Chapter                               POP 070: Revenue shortfall--Approved @ GBB
                                Planning                                                      660-20                                                                                                                                                      197 and 215                               $(20) GF $(78,983) OF (0.35) FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Request reflects an Other Fund revenue shortfall and small adjustment to General Fund
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    driven by prorated other payroll expenses. Portions of several DLCD Transportation and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Growth Management (TGM) Program positions will be reduced to respond to insufficient
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    funds transferred from ODOT to continue current service level funding of DLCD TGM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    positions. Companion Package 107 requests establishment of funds to restore FTE and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    current service level funding.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    POP 101: Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Approved & modified @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    $178,702 OF 1 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Request addresses a task adopted by the 2009 Legislature for DLCD and LCDC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    working together with Metro and the cities and counties in the Metro area to continue
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    work on greenhouse gas emissions efforts. This request continues efforts begun under
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    HB 2001 by developing how land use and transportation scenarios will be developed an
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    selected by Metro and other local governments and how the selected scenarios will be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    implemented. Package proposes limited duration funding.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    POP 103: FEMA--Denied @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    $174,982 GF 1 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Request addressed need for providing a sustained level of funding for administration of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and broader inventorying and assessment
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    of development risks and hazards. Ongoing community assistance grants from FEMA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    have not kept up with inflation and no longer adequately cover the cost of implementing
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    NFIP. Request proposes professional position to work on NFIP administration as well as
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    hazards planning efforts.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    POP 105: Infrastructure Specialist--Denied @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    $188,340 GF 1 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Request addresses need for technical assistance from the state for the planning and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    financing of local infrastructure. Professional position would provide technical assistance
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    to local government on infrastructure financing tools and local public facility planning.




2011-13                                                                                                                                                                      Program 1                                                                                                                                                                                                            107BF23
    DLCD - 237
          Agency Name: Department of Land Conservation and Development
          2011-13 Biennium-GBB                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Agency Number:             66000
          Planning
                                                                                                  Program/Division Priorities for 2011-13 Biennium
            1       2         3              4                              5                            6            7                8                9          10           11        12         13          14         15         16          17           18         19             20                    21           22
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Legal
                                                                                                                    Primary
            Priority                                                                                Identify Key   Purpose
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                New or                 Req.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Explain What is
           (ranked with    Agency      Program or                                                                                                                                                               TOTAL                          Enhanced Included as   Code
                                                          Program Unit/Activity Description         Performance    Program-           GF               LF          OF         NL-OF        FF       NL-FF                   Pos.      FTE                                           Legal Citation   Mandatory (for C, FM, and Comments on Proposed Changes to CSL included in Agency Request
          highest priority Initials   Activity Initials
                                                                                                     Measure(s)     Activity                                                                                    FUNDS                          Program   Reduction    (C, D,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            FO Only)
               first)                                                                                                                                                                                                                            (Y/N)  Option (Y/N) FM, FO,
                                                                                                                     Code
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        S)
                  Prgm/
          Agcy
                   Div
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             POP 106: RiskMap--Modified @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             $272,557 FF 1 FTE Limited Duration
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Request proposed making permanent a limited duration position established in 2009-11
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Legislatively Adopted Budget. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             program call Map Modernization is concluding. FEMA has instituted an ongoing
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             program: Risk Mapping and Assessment (RiskMap). New program is intended to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             complete and expand upon work started under Map Modernization. Focus will broaden
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             include all natural hazards not just floods.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             POP 107: TGM Restoration--Denied @ GBB as a POP, but added back in Pkg 090
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             $78,983 GF 0.35 FTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Request is companion package to POP 070. Request continues Transportation and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Growth Management Program (TGM) at its current service level and restores funding
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             and FTE reduced in POP 070.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ORS Chapter
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   197, 196.405 et
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    seq., 15 CFR
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Part 923: 16 USC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Sec 1456; 44
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  CFR Subchapter
                                                                                                  660-01 through
            1        3     DLCD 001-63 Coast              Ocean/Coastal Division                                                           51,169                                       4,430,340           $   4,481,509     12       11.58       N             Y         S, F   B; 42 USC 4001
                                                                                                  660-20
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   et seq and ORS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Chapter 196, 16
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  USC Sec 1456 &
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      contractual
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   agreement with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Fed govt


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             POP 108: M49 Attorney General Costs--Approved @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             $50,000 GF
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Request preliminarily proposes continuance of limited duration funding for
                                                                                                  660-01 through                                                                                                                                                                    ORS Chapter
            1        4     DLCD 001-64 M49                Measure 49 Development Services Divis                                        1,086,834                                                            $   1,086,834        2      2.00        Y            Y          S                                                Attorney General costs related to litigations under the Measure 49 program.
                                                                                                  660-20                                                                                                                                                                               197
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             DLCD and the Department of Justice are refining this very preliminary
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             estimate and the total is likely to increase. Additional funds may be needed
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             and will be determined during remaining budget development processes.

                                                                                                                                       9,783,476         -      1,363,210          -    5,860,289      -    $ 17,006,975      58       55.80

                                                                                                                               7. Primary Purpose Program/Activity Exists                                                     19. Legal Requirement Code
                                                                                                                                                1   Civil Justice                                                              C     Constitutional
                                                                                                                                                2   Community Development                                                      D     Debt Service
                                                                                                                                                3   Consumer Protection                                                       FM     Federal - Mandatory
                                                                                                                                                4   Administrative Function                                                   FO     Federal - Optional (once you choose to participate, certain requirements exist)
                                                                                                                                                5   Criminal Justice                                                           S     Statutory
                                                                                                                                                6   Economic Development
                                                                                                                                                7   Education & Skill Development
                                                                                                                                                8   Emergency Services
                                                                                                                                                9   Environmental Protection
                 Within each Program/Division area, prioritize each Budget Program Unit (Activities)                                           10   Public Health
                         by detail budget level in ORBITS                                                                                      11   Recreation, Heritage, or Cultural
                                                                                                                                               12   Social Support
                 Document criteria used to prioritize activities:

             **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.




2011-13                                                                                                                                                                                             Program 1                                                                                                                                                                                                       107BF23
    DLCD - 238
          Agency Name: Department of Land Conservation and Development
          2011-13 Biennium-GBB                                                                                                                                                                  Agency Number:         66000
          Planning
                                                                                              Program/Division Priorities for 2011-13 Biennium
            1       2         3              4                           5                          6            7        8            9         10    11     12    13      14     15     16       17         18        19           20                    21            22
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Legal
                                                                                                               Primary
            Priority                                                                           Identify Key   Purpose
                                                                                                                                                                                                 New or                 Req.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Explain What is
           (ranked with    Agency      Program or                                                                                                                          TOTAL                Enhanced Included as   Code
                                                          Program Unit/Activity Description    Performance    Program-    GF          LF         OF   NL-OF   FF   NL-FF           Pos.   FTE                                   Legal Citation   Mandatory (for C, FM, and Comments on Proposed Changes to CSL included in Agency Request
          highest priority Initials   Activity Initials
                                                                                                Measure(s)     Activity                                                    FUNDS                Program   Reduction    (C, D,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        FO Only)
               first)                                                                                                                                                                             (Y/N)  Option (Y/N) FM, FO,
                                                                                                                Code
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         S)
                  Prgm/
          Agcy
                   Div




2011-13                                                                                                                                                            Program 1                                                                                                                                                                107BF23
       DLCD - 239
 PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION FOR 2011-13                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      APPENDIX J

Agency Name: Department of Land Conservation and Development
2011-13 Biennium-GBB                                                                                                                                                                                                      Agency Number:              66000
Grants
                                                                                       Program/Division Priorities for 2011-13 Biennium
   1        2          3              4                             5                          6            7              8              9         10          11        12      13         14        15         16          17           18          19               20                             21                     22

                                                                                                         Primary                                                                                                                                      Legal
   Priority                                                                              Identify Key   Purpose
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            New or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Req.
  (ranked with      Agency      Program or                                                                                                                                                 TOTAL                           Enhanced    Included as                                  Explain What is Mandatory (for C, FM, and FO Comments on Proposed Changes to CSL
                    Initials   Activity Initials
                                                   Program Unit/Activity Description     Performance    Program-          GF             LF         OF       NL-OF        FF     NL-FF                 Pos.      FTE       Program      Reduction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Code         Legal Citation
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Only)                     included in Agency Request
 highest priority                                                                         Measure(s)     Activity                                                                          FUNDS                                                    (C, D, FM,
      first)                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (Y/N)     Option (Y/N)
                                                                                                          Code                                                                                                                                        FO, S)


         Prgm/
 Agcy
          Div

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              POP 104: Grants to Local Governments--
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              DENIED @ GBB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              $2,648,067 GF
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Request proposes increasing state planning
                                                                                       660-1 through
   2        1       DLCD       003-02 Grant        General Fund Grants                                  6                 1,656,902                                                      $ 1,656,902        0      0.00        Y            Y           S        ORS Chapter 197                                              grant funding for cities and counties.
                                                                                       660-20
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Request enable department to continue
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              working with Oregon communities to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              achieve local aspirations within the context
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              of broader state interests.

                                                                                                                          1,656,902        -           -          -        -        -    $ 1,656,902        0      0.00


                                                                                                                    7. Primary Purpose Program/Activity Exists                                           19. Legal Requirement Code
                                                                                                                                  1   Civil Justice                                                       C     Constitutional
                                                                                                                                  2   Community Development                                               D     Debt Service
                                                                                                                                  3   Consumer Protection                                                FM     Federal - Mandatory
                                                                                                                                  4   Administrative Function                                            FO     Federal - Optional (once you choose to participate, certain requirements exist)
                                                                                                                                  5   Criminal Justice                                                    S     Statutory
                                                                                                                                  6   Economic Development
                                                                                                                                  7   Education & Skill Development
                                                                                                                                  8   Emergency Services
                                                                                                                                  9   Environmental Protection
         Within each Program/Division area, prioritize each Budget Program Unit (Activities)                                     10   Public Health
                 by detail budget level in ORBITS                                                                                11   Recreation, Heritage, or Cultural
                                                                                                                                 12   Social Support
         Document criteria used to prioritize activities:
        **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.




2011-13                                                                                                                                                                        Program 2                                                                                                                                                                      107BF23
             Appendix K
DLCD - 240
             Appendix K
DLCD - 241
             Appendix L
DLCD - 242
             Appendix L
DLCD - 243
             Appendix L
DLCD - 244
             Appendix L
DLCD - 245
             Appendix L
DLCD - 246
             Appendix L
DLCD - 247
             Appendix L
DLCD - 248
             Appendix L
DLCD - 249
             Appendix L
DLCD - 250
             Appendix L
DLCD - 251
             Appendix L
DLCD - 252
             Appendix L
DLCD - 253
                                                                    APPENDIX M

DLCD - 254



                   Governor's Recommended Budget
          Agency 660 Dept. of Land Conservation & Development
                   Charges by Other Agencies (detail)
                                 2011-13

DAS Service Charges: Total Funds
Director's Office                                                 8,601
Budget & Management                                              11,832
Human Resource Management Division & R                           39,159
Oregon Government Ethics Commission                               1,160
E-Government                                                     18,046
IT Investment and Planning                                        5,928
Geospatial Enterprise Office                                      4,288
Enterprise Security Office                                        6,050
Oregon State Library & Law Library                               16,106
State Procurement Office & OMWESB                                11,365
Shuttle Mail                                                     18,284
Statewide Facilites Coordination                                  3,688
Mall Plaza Debt Service                                           1,333
State Records Center & Archives                                  11,238
State Controller's Division                                      28,721
Audits Division                                                  24,423
Legislative Information Notification Update S                       908
TOTAL                                                           211,130

GBB Adjustments:                                                  7,586

DAS Service Charges, 2009-11 GRB:                               203,544
                                                                                          APPENDIX N
DLCD - 255


       Oregon
       Theodore R. Kulongoski, 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



  December 14, 2009

  The Honorable Peter Courtney, Co-Chair
  The Honorable Peter Buckley, Co-Chair
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means
  900 Court Street NE
  H-178 State Capitol
  Salem, OR 97301-4048

  Dear Co-Chairs:

  This letter provides a report to the Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means required by
  a budget note adopted during the 2009 legislative session by the Joint Ways and Means
  Committee. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) requests the
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means acknowledge receipt of this report.

  Nature of the Request
  In approving the department’s 2009-2011 budget, a subcommittee of the Joint Ways and
  Means committee noted that the agency’s practice has been to approve a policy and
  rulemaking agenda at the beginning of each biennium. The Land Conservation and
  Development Commission (LCDC) bases the agenda on legislative direction, local
  government and other stakeholder input, and other commission/program priorities in light
  of available budget and other resources. Since those resources are finite, the process
  always leaves some items on a “waiting list” for future biennia. “To address these
  concerns and to make sure the Legislature clearly understands what the commission
  plans to undertake during 2009-11,” the subcommittee approved the following budget
  note:

  “The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall report on the
  commission’s policy agenda to a legislative committee no later than March 1, 2010.
  Depending on timing and interim activities, this report could be received by either a Joint
  Committee on Ways and Means or the Emergency Board.” The budget note further states
  that “The report should cover the status of existing programs and all agency-related
  legislation from the 2009 session. Status reporting should include agency work plans,
  resources allocated, and potential impacts on local governments.”

  In addition to the information provided in this letter regarding the commission’s policy
  agenda and related work plans, the department is prepared to answer any questions about the
  agency work plans, resources and impacts on local governments at the next meeting of the
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means.
                                                                                            APPENDIX N
DLCD - 256
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means                                                Page 2 of 9
  December 14, 2009


   Agency Action

   LCDC is required by statute (ORS 197.040) to adopt, amend and revise statewide
   planning goals, land use policies and administrative rules as “necessary to carry out”
   Oregon’s statewide land use planning program under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197.
   The commission’s practice has been to approve a policy and rulemaking agenda at the
   beginning of each biennium. To develop its policy agenda, LCDC considers recent
   legislation and other program priorities of the commission and the department, available
   budget and personnel resources, and input (including public testimony) from local
   governments and interested citizens. The department presented the commission with an
   array of policy issues that need resolution through rulemaking or through other
   department efforts (such as work groups, grants or forums) or through legislative
   proposals. Because available budget and personnel resources are finite, the commission’s
   decision on its policy agenda necessarily left many of these potential policy projects off
   the final agenda. However, generally, these ideas are maintained for consideration at a
   future biennium or funding opportunity.

   DLCD began consideration of its 2009-11 policy agenda in April of 2009, and continued
   this consideration until its approval in August 2009. This effort included public hearings,
   a series of informal meetings with local governments, stakeholders and other interests,
   and public testimony at two commission hearings. As described above, the department’s
   and LCDC’s efforts leading up to the adoption of the agenda included consideration of a
   broad list of suggestions for projects that would update, streamline and improve state land
   use policies and rules, resolve issues, or test new ideas for land use policy. In August
   2009, LCDC approved its Policy Agenda (see attachment A). LCDC also indicated its
   intent to revisit the policy agenda in the spring of 2010, at which time it will receive a
   status report and may consider additional projects if staff resources are available.

   LCDC’s policy agenda is grouped into three general categories: (A) Projects Required by
   the Legislature, the Governor or the Courts; (B) Additional High Priority Policy and
   Rulemaking Projects, and (C) Projects to be Pursued only if DLCD Resources are
   Available. The expectation is that few if any items in category (C) will be undertaken in
   the 2009-11 biennium. For this report, a description of each project is provided, as well as
   a summary of the status of the work on the task. A description of staff resources devoted
   to the task and potential impacts to local governments are also noted.

   The department estimates that on average, projects leading to adoption of new or
   amended administrative rules require from one to three months staff time for “simple
   rulemaking” (or similar efforts) and up to six months of staff time for more complex
   rulemaking or other issues. 2009 Policy Agenda tasks A5, 6, 7 and 9 and B3 require(d)
   “simple rulemaking” and relatively few staff resources. Policy Agenda tasks A1, 2, 3, 4
   and 8 and B1 and 2 require(d) either complex rulemaking or similar levels of effort
   (rulemaking is not always the work product involved). Additional costs include attorney
   general time, other supplies and services, and costs for public hearings, printing and
                                                                                              APPENDIX N
DLCD - 257
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means                                                  Page 3 of 9
  December 14, 2009

   public notices. For the policy projects described in this report, DLCD’s current budget
   and staffing are sufficient to cover estimated costs.

               Status of Work Scheduled in LCDC’s 2009-2011 Policy Agenda

   A.      Projects Required by the Legislature, the Governor or the Courts

        1. In response to a recent court decision holding that an LCDC rule was invalid as
           applied to a particular land use application under the federal “Religious Land Use
           and Institutionalized Persons Act” (RLUIPA), consider (with an appointed work
           group) amendments to LCDC’s farmland rules (OAR 660, division 33) regarding
           uses that involve the “assembly of people.”

           STATUS: This project began October 1, 2009, with LCDC’s appointment of a
           work group to assist the department and attempt to reach a consensus on new
           rules in response to the court. The work group has met twice (November 9 and
           December 3) and is currently developing and reviewing proposed amendments to
           rules. The next work group meeting is scheduled for January 14, 2010. The group
           is making progress, and at the time of this report, consideration and adoption of
           rule amendments is anticipated to occur at the April 22, 2010, LCDC meeting.
           Agency resources allocated for this effort include a percentage of a DLCD policy
           analyst and a percentage of DLCD’s farm/forest specialist.

           Potential impacts on local governments are likely to be minimal. Counties
           probably will be required to revise certain local land use code requirements and
           apply the amended code to certain “assembly” uses, but the changes are expected
           to clarify requirements and reduce the number of land use appeals that would
           otherwise occur.

        2. Revise the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan to include an element concerning
           alternative energy resources in the territorial sea, as ordered by a Governor’s
           Executive Order (Order No. 08-07).

           STATUS: Recommended text amendments to the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan
           were adopted by LCDC October 2009. The recommended amendments resulted
           from a broad consensus of both the Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Committee
           (OPAC) and the Territorial Sea Plan Advisory Committee (TSPAC) appointed by
           LCDC to assist the department in the development of the plan. Future map
           amendments associated with this plan are also underway and scheduled for LCDC
           adoption in late 2010. Agency resources allocated for this effort include a
           percentage of DLCD’s Marine Affairs Coordinator.

           Potential impacts on local governments: Amendments to the Territorial Sea Plan
           are not expected to result in fiscal impact to local governments as they do not
           have land use jurisdiction in the Territorial Sea. Costs for state agencies should be
           reduced as the rules clarify siting requirements for alternative energy facilities.
                                                                                          APPENDIX N
DLCD - 258
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means                                              Page 4 of 9
  December 14, 2009


      3. With the Oregon Department of Transportation, staff the Metropolitan Planning
         Organization (MPO) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Task Force to prepare legislative
         recommendations as required by (2009) House Bill 2186. The Task Force report
         is due January 2010, and work may continue through 2010.

         STATUS: HB 2186 established the Metropolitan Planning Organization
         Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MPOGHG) Task Force and directs it to provide
         recommendations to the 2010 Legislative Session for legislation requiring the
         state’s metropolitan areas to undertake “scenario planning” to meet state GHG
         emission reduction goals. The Task Force has met four times and has completed a
         draft report and recommendations. A final report is due to be completed by the
         end of the calendar year. LCDC Chair VanLandingham serves as co vice-chair of
         the Task Force. Other agency resources allocated for this effort include a
         percentage of DLCD’s Transportation Planning Coordinator.

         Potential impacts on local governments: The recommendations of the task force will
         not themselves impact local governments; however, resulting legislation may have
         impacts on MPOs and cities within MPO areas. The Task Force recommends
         additional work by metropolitan planning organizations, including scenario planning
         for greenhouse gas emission reductions, which would result in recommendations for
         changes to local transportation and land use plans and ordinances.

      4. As required by (2009) House Bill 2001, adopt greenhouse gas emission
         “reduction goals” for purposes of Portland Metro Area “scenario planning” for
         land use and transportation measures designed to meet the reduction goals.

         STATUS: HB 2001 directs the commission to adopt rules setting GHG emission
         reduction targets for Metro in June 2011. The commission’s rulemaking is to be
         informed by recommendations from ODOT, DEQ and DOE submitted by March
         2011. ODOT is directed to provide funding to support this work. The department
         has met twice with ODOT and Metro staff (at the time of this report) to develop a
         work plan and a schedule to complete this work, and has met once with other
         agencies. Further work is anticipated following completion of the MPOGHG Task
         Force report (under HB 2186, described above) in January. DLCD resources
         currently allocated for this effort include a percentage of DLCD’s Transportation
         Planning Coordinator. Additional resources likely will be needed as the
         rulemaking process gets underway.

         Potential impacts on local governments: Metro will be required to develop at least
         two land use and transportation scenarios that demonstrate how the region can meet
         the 2035 greenhouse gas reduction target set by LCDC rule. In addition, HB 2001
         directs that LCDC, adopt rules and a schedule for local governments to amend plans
         and ordinances to carry out the scenario selected by Metro, and additional local
         impacts will result from this phase of work.
                                                                                          APPENDIX N
DLCD - 259
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means                                             Page 5 of 9
  December 14, 2009

      5. As required by (2009) House Bill 3286, adopt the Metolius Area of Critical State
         Concern Management Plan by administrative rule, including minor amendments
         to the plan that had been proposed to the 2009 legislature by LCDC.

         STATUS: A public hearing regarding the management plan rules was held in
         Camp Sherman on December 3, 2009. LCDC has scheduled an additional public
         hearing to consider testimony and to adopt the management plan, by rule, at its
         January 21, 2010, meeting. The proposed rules are specified in the legislation
         itself. Resources allocated for this effort include a percentage of a DLCD policy
         analyst.

         Potential impacts on local governments: The new rules will not have impacts on
         local governments that are in addition to the local impacts that resulted from the
         2009 legislation that approved the management plan. These impacts were described
         in fiscal statements presented to the legislature at the time that legislation was
         adopted.

      6. Adopt procedural amendments to LCDC’s Measure 49 Implementing Rules in
         order to carry out adjustments to the Measure 49 claims process enacted by 2009
         House Bill 3225.

         STATUS: Temporary rules were adopted by LCDC on July 17, 2009. LCDC has
         scheduled adoption of permanent rules at its January 21, 2010 meeting. Agency
         resources allocated for this effort include a percentage of a DLCD policy analyst
         and a percentage of the agency’s Measure 49 Division Manager.

         Potential impacts on local governments: There will be no impacts to local
         government as a result of these rules.

      7. Adopt “housekeeping” amendments to LCDC’s farmland rules to make the rules
         consistent with recently amended statutory provisions in (2009) House Bill 3099
         regarding farm uses.

         STATUS: This task is complete – LCDC adopted these rules on November 5,
         2009. Agency resources allocated for this effort included a percentage of a DLCD
         policy analyst and a percentage of DLCD’s Farm/Forest specialist.

         Potential impacts on local governments: The new rules will not have any affects
         on local governments that are different than or in addition to the impacts from the
         2009 legislation that promulgated the rules. The changes to statewide regulations
         resulting from this legislation are minor, and the legislation provided a
         streamlined method for counties to change local codes in response to this law.

      8. Update LCDC rules (OAR 660, division 35) that implement the “consistency
         requirements” of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, to address changes
                                                                                                APPENDIX N
DLCD - 260
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means                                                    Page 6 of 9
  December 14, 2009

           to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) federal
           consistency rules and other changes since the last update (1988) of division 35.

           STATUS: LCDC will initiate this project at its January 2010 meeting. The
           project is projected to be complete by September 2010. Agency resources
           allocated for this effort include a percentage of DLCD’s Marine Affairs
           Coordinator.

           Potential impacts on local governments: It is anticipated that this will cause no
           fiscal or other impacts on local governments.

        9. Adopt procedural rules for DLCD’s Transfer of Development Rights Pilot Project
           authorized under (2009) House Bill 2228.

           STATUS: LCDC has scheduled adoption of these procedural rules at its
           January 21, 2010 meeting. The department has begun working with stakeholder
           groups, including county planning directors and forest land owners, to identify
           candidate areas for the three pilot projects authorized by this legislation. The
           agency will begin receiving applications for pilot projects about February, 2010.
           Agency resources allocated for this effort include a percentage of a DLCD policy
           analyst and a percentage of DLCD’s Farm/Forest Specialist.

           Potential impacts on local governments: Up to three local governments will incur
           costs associated with initiating a pilot project and adopting plan and zone
           amendments to implement the project. Monitoring and reporting will also result in
           some costs to local governments. which cannot be determined at this point. Since
           participation in this program is voluntary, those local government costs will be
           incurred voluntarily, and generally local governments and land owners would
           participate with the expectation that they can absorb the costs and that there will be
           positive gains to landowners and/or the local governments as a result of this effort.

   B.      Additional High Priority Policy and Rulemaking Projects for this Biennium
           Scheduling for these projects is dependent on staff and other department
           resources. The commission’s expectation is these projects will begin this
           biennium and that some, but not all, will be completed during the 2009-2011
           biennium.

        1. Begin to assist communities in preparing for the effects of climate change, in
           coordination with other state agencies and organizations. This project will include
           work toward a state-level Climate Change Adaptation Framework Plan, in
           coordination with state agencies and other organizations, through a high-level
           work group consisting of directors and/or key staff of several state agencies
           administering program areas that concern people, communities or resources
           vulnerable to long-term climate change impacts. This policy agenda work task
           also includes work toward statewide climate change mitigation planning,
                                                                                               APPENDIX N
DLCD - 261
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means                                                   Page 7 of 9
  December 14, 2009

         described under items A3 and 4 of this report (above) and required by (2009)
         legislation – HB 2001 and HB 2186.

         STATUS: The governor held an initial coordination meeting with state agencies
         on October 6, 2009. A follow-up meeting of state agencies was held in November,
         and additional meetings are scheduled for December and January, and thereafter
         on a regular basis to coordinate work. Agency resources allocated for this effort
         include a percentage of the DLCD deputy director, a percentage of a DLCD
         policy analyst, and a percentage of a DLCD coastal policy specialist.

         Potential impacts on local governments: Since this work is intended to provide
         recommendations for funding and policy next biennium, it is not expected to
         impact local governments during the current biennium. This project would not
         affect local governments until and unless specific climate adaptation policies and
         actions are adopted by the legislature or agencies.

      2. Conduct a public “policy forum” (or a series of meetings), which would include a
         broad group of stakeholders and possibly legislators, to consider the following
         topics and determine consensus and future direction:
                Consider public facility finance and planning issues facing local
                 governments, including those raised by the Big Look Task Force and the
                 Revenue Restructuring Task Force, as well as by local governments, and
                 consider potential land use strategies, policy amendments and legislative
                 proposals to address these concerns.
                Explore changes to streamline and update statewide policy regarding
                 urban growth management, including the “priority of lands” statutes,
                 urban reserve requirements, population forecasting requirements, housing
                 and economic development land use goals, governance and related topics.

         STATUS: The department anticipates this project will begin in the spring of
         2010. The department has begun consulting key stakeholders and is considering
         various methods for conducting the “policy forum.” Once underway, it is
         anticipated that recommendations emerging from the forum will include
         legislative proposals as well as LCDC rulemaking. At this time, it is not known
         whether any recommendations will be ready in time for the 2011 legislative
         session. Agency resources allocated for this effort include a percentage of a
         DLCD policy analyst. Additional DLCD staff resources may be required once the
         forum is scheduled and underway.

         Potential impacts on local governments: This project will not result in any rules or
         laws that affect local governments this biennium. The agency will seek some time
         commitment from local governments that choose to participate in the policy
         forum. To the extent that this forum generates ideas and proposals to improve or
         streamline local planning, the project is expected to have positive impacts on local
         governments over the long term.
                                                                                                APPENDIX N
DLCD - 262
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means                                                    Page 8 of 9
  December 14, 2009


        3. Work with ODOT and the OTC to review implementation of the Transportation
           Planning Rule (TPR), including OTC work on alternative mobility standards,
           STIP criteria and the requirements of (2009) House Bill 3379.

           STATUS: HB 3379 directs ODOT to adopt rules that allow local governments to
           request exemptions or extensions to meet funding obligations resulting from
           application of Section 0060 of LCDC’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The
           commission has directed the department to monitor ODOT’s rulemaking to assess
           whether changes to LCDC’s TPR might also be appropriate (at this point, it is too
           soon to determine whether TPR changes are suggested). Department staff has met
           once with ODOT staff to discuss this rulemaking, which ODOT has not yet
           initiated. It is likely that ODOT will convene an advisory committee to assist in
           its rulemaking. Agency resources allocated for this effort include a percentage of
           DLCD’s Transportation Planning Coordinator.

           Potential impacts on local governments: Until ODOT rulemaking is underway,
           possible effects on local governments cannot be predicted.

   C.       Projects to be Pursued Only if Resources are Available
           It is expected that few, if any, of these items will be undertaken in the 2009-11
            biennium.

        1. Continue consideration of potential policy actions suggested by LCDC’s 2008
           Affordable Housing Work Group, including possible rulemaking and/or
           legislative proposals.

        2. Consider and, if necessary, adopt rules regarding “nonresource land,” especially
           as may be necessary to guide implementation of farm and forest resource land
           rezoning authorized for individual counties under (2009) House Bill 2229. Study
           and, if necessary, clarify the “forest lands” definition in Goal 4, and address
           possible rule inconsistencies (in OAR 660, division 6) related to that definition.

        3. As authorized by (2009) House Bill 2230, amend rules under OAR 660, divisions
           30 and 31, and take other actions necessary to update and streamline State Agency
           Coordination requirements and procedures.

        4. Reconvene a “farm stands work group” to consider concerns about farm stand
           sales of wine products.

        5. Analyze criteria for zoning of farmland and, if necessary, recommend changes to
           those criteria.

        6. Revise agency procedures, as necessary, to implement the Environmental Justice
           Task Force requirements enacted in 2007 Senate Bill 420.
                                                                                               APPENDIX N
DLCD - 263
  Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means                                                   Page 9 of 9
  December 14, 2009

       STATUS: Except for Item 6, none of the projects above have been initiated and at the
       time of this report it is not clear which, if any, will be initiated this biennium.
       Participation in ongoing activities under Item 6 (Environmental Justice Task Force) is
       occurring, but it is not yet clear whether additional activities or policy changes will be
       recommended for this biennium. LCDC will meet in March 2010 to review its policy
       agenda and the status of projects underway. Based on this review, including a review
       of staff resources, and with consideration of time remaining in the biennium, the
       commission may direct staff to work on additional projects on the list above.

   Action Requested
   The department requests acknowledgment of the report and attachments.

   Legislation Affected
   It is not expected that legislation under consideration will be affected by this report.


   Thank you for your consideration of this report. If there are any additional questions
   concerning the agency’s work plan, we will be happy to respond.


   Sincerely,



   Richard Whitman,
   Director

   Attachment: Summary of LCDC’s 2009 Policy Agenda
         DLCD - 264                                                                                                          APPENDIX O


                               10/25% REDUCTIONS OPTIONS (ORS 291.216)

ACTIVITY OR PROGRAM            DESCRIBE REDUCTION                                     AMOUNT AND FUND TYPE        RANK AND JUSTIFICATION


(WHICH PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY     (DESCRIBE THE EFFECTS OF THIS REDUCTION.               (GF, LF, OF, FF. IDENTIFY   (RANK THE ACTIVITIES OR
WILL NOT BE UNDERTAKEN)        INCLUDE POSITIONS AND FTE IN 2011-13 AND               REVENUE SOURCE FOR OF,      PROGRAMS NOT UNDERTAKEN
                               2013-15)                                               FF)                         IN ORDER OF LOWEST COST
                                                                                                                  FOR BENEFIT OBTAINED)
5% Reduction in General
Funds
1. Eliminate some Measure      Eliminate Measure 49 permanent funding for:            $534,922 GF                 1
   49 Development Services     2 positions, 2.41 FTE in 2011-13 with
                               accompanying supplies and services. Reductions
   Division permanent          would decrease the ability of the department to help
   positions.                  counties and claimants implement Measure 49
                               authorizations. Reduction will decrease permanent
                               positions for 2013-15.
2. Reduce GF grants to local   Reduce special payment funding levels to local         $ 117,597 GF                2
   governments   by     five   jurisdictions by 5%. Decrease in funding impacts
                               department ability to provide technical assistance
   percent.                    and outreach. At this funding level, the department
                               likely would not fund two or more local planning
                               projects that would have otherwise been funded.
                               Decreased funding levels would continue into the
                               2013-15 biennium.
10% Reduction in General
Funds
3. Eliminate additional        Eliminate Measure 49 permanent funding for:            $ 321,079 GF                3
   Measure 49 Development      1 position, .59 FTE and accompanying supplies and
                               services. Reductions would decrease the ability of
   Services Division and       the department to help counties and claimants
   Community Services          implement Measure 49 authorizations.
   Division permanent
   positions.                  Eliminate Community Services Division permanent
                               funding for 1 position, 1.00 FTE with accompanying
                               supplies and services. Reductions would further
                               limit the department's oversight of local plan
                               amendments and periodic review work tasks.
      DLCD - 265

                               Elimination of permanent funding for 2011-13 and
                               2013-15 will impact department’s ability to provide
                               technical land use planning assistance to local
                               jurisdictions.
4. Reduce GF grants to local   Reduce special payment funding levels to local          $ 331,440 GF   4
   governments.                jurisdictions by an additional 14%. This level of
                               decrease in funding significantly impacts support to
                               cities and counties – potentially eliminating five to
                               ten local projects that would otherwise have been
                               carried out. Many of these projects are focused on
                               assuring that communities are prepared to take
                               advantage of opportunities for employment growth.
                               Decreased funding levels would continue into the
                               2013-15 biennium.
15% Reduction in General
Funds
5. Eliminate additional FTE    Reduce 0.80 FTE of permanent position in                $ 349,029 GF   5
   in Community Services       Director’s Office with accompanying supplies and
                               services.
   Division and Director’s
   Office.                     Reduce 0.88 FTE of Community Services Division
                               permanent funding for 1 position with
                               accompanying supplies and services.

                               Elimination of permanent funding for 2011-13 and
                               2013-15 will significantly limit the department’s
                               ability to communicate with the public concerning
                               land use choices faced by state and local
                               governments. The reductions also would
                               significantly curtail technical land use planning
                               assistance to local jurisdictions and statewide
                               partners.
6. Reduce GF grants to local   Reduce special payment funding levels to local          $ 303,490 GF   6
   governments.                jurisdictions by an additional 13%. Combined with
                               prior reductions, this is approximately 32% of
                               available funding. This level of decrease in funding
                               likely would require the department either to end
                               periodic review for most communities, or to continue
                               periodic review but stop funding of most other
                               technical assistance grants for larger projects. As
                               noted above, many of these projects are focused on
                               assuring that communities are prepared to take
                               advantage of opportunities for employment growth.
      DLCD - 266

                              Decreased funding levels would continue into the
                              2013-15 biennium. Significant statewide effect in
                              stopping or slowing long-range land use planning
                              efforts in communities reliant on state resources—
                              leading to long term reductions in economic
                              development and increases in development costs.

                              Decreased funding levels would continue into the
                              2013-15 biennium unless policy option packages
                              were legislatively approved and supplemented the
                              modified essential service level budget for this
                              program.
25% Reduction in General
Funds
7. Eliminate additional FTE   Directors’ Office: Reduce 0.40 FTE of permanent           $ 349,029 GF   7
   in Community Services      position. Reduce additional 0.80 FTE of another
                              permanent position.
   Division, Planning
   Services Division,         Planning Services Division: Reduce 0.50 FTE of
   Operations Services        permanent position.
   Division, and Director’s
   Office.                    Operations Services Division: Reduce 0.80 FTE of
                              permanent position.

                              Community Services Division: Reduce remaining
                              0.12 FTE permanent funding for 1 position. Reduce
                              additional 0.50 FTE permanent funding for one
                              position. Eliminate one position/one FTE.

                              Reduction includes a limited amount of supplies and
                              services.

                              Elimination and reduction at this level will
                              significantly impact the department’s ability to assist
                              local governments in their planning efforts and
                              ability of department to carry out policy-making
                              directed by the legislature and the Land
                              Conservation and Development Commission.
                              Statutory requirements likely would have to be
                              amended to lengthen timelines for DLCD review or
                              eliminate agency review of some land use
                              decisions. Significant restructuring of agency
                              operations also likely to be required.
       DLCD - 267


                                  These reductions in permanent funding for 2011-13
                                  would be carried forward into 2013-15 and continue
                                  to have significant impact on the department’s land
                                  use planning efforts as identified above.
8. Reduce GF grants to local      Reduce special payment funding levels to local         $ 598,996 GF   8
   governments.                   jurisdictions by an additional 25%. Decrease in
                                  funding significantly impacts department ability to
                                  provide technical assistance and outreach to all
                                  jurisdictions. Reduction proposal at this level is
                                  approximately 57% of available funding. Impact
                                  would be that General Fund grants would be limited
                                  to periodic review, with very few (if any) Planning
                                  Assistance grants made. Significant statewide effect
                                  in stopping or slowing long-range land use planning
                                  efforts in communities reliant on state resources—
                                  leading to long term reductions in economic
                                  development and increases in development costs.

                                  Decreased funding levels would continue into the
                                  2013-15 biennium unless policy option packages
                                  were legislatively approved and supplemented the
                                  modified essential service level budget for this
                                  program.
5% Reduction in Federal
  Funds
9. Reduce FF grants to local Reduce special payment funding levels to local              $291,984 FF    9
   governments.              jurisdictions. Decrease in funding significantly
                                  impacts department ability to provide technical
                                  assistance and outreach to all jurisdictions.
                                  Decreased funding will significantly impact coast
                                  local jurisdiction capacity to accomplish land use
                                  planning activities.

                                  Decreased funding levels would continue into the
                                  2013-15 biennium unless policy option packages
                                  were legislatively approved and supplemented the
                                  modified essential service level budget for this
                                  program.
10% Reduction in Federal
  Funds
       DLCD - 268

10. Reduce FF grants to local Reduce special payment funding levels to local             $291,984 FF   10
  governments.                jurisdictions. Reduction proposal at this level is 53%
                                   of available funding. Decrease in funding
                                   significantly impacts department ability to provide
                                   technical assistance and outreach to coastal
                                   jurisdictions. Decreased funding will significantly
                                   impact coast local jurisdiction capacity to
                                   accomplish land use planning activities.

                                   Decreased funding levels would continue into the
                                   2013-15 biennium unless policy option packages
                                   were legislatively approved and supplemented the
                                   modified essential service level budget for this
                                   program.
5% Reduction         in   Other
  Funds
11. Reduce FTE in                  Eliminate 0.33 FTE in joint ODOT/DLCD                 $44,121 OF    11
   Transportation and              Transportation and Growth Management Program.
                                   Department does not have other fund revenues
   Growth Management               capable of supporting a reduction beyond this
   Program (TGM) and               proposal. Other funded reimburseable TGM
   associated supplies and         Program is the only location for an Other Fund
   services.                       reduction at modified essential budget level.

10% Reduction in Other
  Funds
12. Reduce FTE in                  Eliminate additional 0.33 FTE in joint ODOT/DLCD      $44,120 OF    12
   Transportation and              Transportation and Growth Management Program.
                                   Department does not have other fund revenues
   Growth Management               capable of supporting a reduction beyond this
   Program (TGM) and               proposal. Other funded reimburseable TGM
   associated supplies and         Program is the only location for an Other Fund
   services.                       reduction at modified essential budget level.
DLCD - 269                                                                                  APPENDIX P
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
                General Fund Grants for the 2009-11 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     Gates              $1,000     Riddle              $1,000
   Adams             $1,000     Gearhart           $1,000     Rivergrove          $1,000
   Amity             $1,000     Gervais            $1,000     Rockaway Beach      $1,000
   Antelope          $1,000     Glendale           $1,000     Rogue River         $1,000
   Arlington         $1,000     Gold Beach         $1,000     Rufus               $1,000
   Aurora            $1,000     Gold Hill          $1,000     Scio                $1,000
   Banks             $1,000     Haines             $1,000     Scotts Mills        $1,000
   Bay City          $1,000     Halfway            $1,000     Shaniko             $1,000
   Bonanza           $1,000     Halsey             $1,000     Siletz              $1,000
   Brownsville       $1,000     Hines              $1,000     Sisters             $1,000
   Butte Falls       $1,000     Idanha             $1,000     Spray               $1,000
   Cannon Beach      $1,000     Imbler             $1,000     St. Paul            $1,000
   Canyon City       $1,000     John Day           $1,000     Tangent             $1,000
   Canyonville       $1,000     Joseph             $1,000     Turner              $1,000
   Carlton           $1,000     Lakeside           $1,000     Ukiah               $1,000
   Cascade Locks     $1,000     La Pine            $1,000     Union (City)        $1,000
   Cave Junction     $1,000     Lonerock           $1,000     Vernonia            $1,000
   Clatskanie        $1,000     Lostine           $1,000      Waldport            $1,000
   Coburg            $1,000     Lowell            $1,000      Wasco (City)        $1,000
   Condon            $1,000     Lyons              $1,000     Waterloo            $1,000
   Cove              $1,000     Manzanita          $1,000     Westfir             $1,000
   Culver            $1,000     Maupin             $1,000     Weston              $1,000
   Dayton            $1,000     Maywood Park       $1,000     Wheeler (City)      $1,000
   Dayville          $1,000     Merrill            $1,000     Willamina           $1,000
   Depoe Bay         $1,000     Metolius           $1,000     Yachats             $1,000
   Detroit           $1,000     Millersburg        $1,000     Yamhill (City)     $1,000
   Donald            $1,000     Mitchell           $1,000     Yoncalla           $1,000
   Drain             $1,000     Monroe             $1,000
   Dufur             $1,000     Moro               $1,000
   Dunes City        $1,000     Mosier             $1,000           County       Amount
   Durham            $1,000     Mt. Vernon         $1,000     Gilliam County      $3,500
   Echo              $1,000     Nehalem            $1,000     Grant County        $3,500
   Elgin             $1,000     North Plains       $1,000     Harney County       $3,500
   Elkton            $1,000     Paisley            $1,000     Lake County         $3,500
   Enterprise        $1,000     Pilot Rock         $1,000     Morrow County       $3,500
   Falls City        $1,000     Port Orford        $1,000     Sherman County      $3,500
   Fossil            $1,000     Powers             $1,000     Wallowa County      $3,500
   Garibaldi         $1,000     Rainier            $1,000     Wheeler County      $3,500
   Gaston            $1,000     Richland           $1,000
DLCD - 270                                                                                     APPENDIX P
           Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
                General Fund Grants for the 2009-11 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
    Benton County                    $15,000         Pendleton Goal 9 & 10     $75,000
    Hermiston                        $100,000        Portland                  $83,000
    Junction City                    $56,300         Prineville                $40,000
    Lake Oswego                      $74,000         The Dalles                $150,00
    MWVCOG – Salem-Keizer EOA        $129,500        Tigard                    $35,000
    MWVCOG-Keizer RLA                $60,000         Troutdale                  $75,000
    Pendleton Goal 5 & 7             $25,000



Dispute Resolution assists local governments in providing collaborative dispute resolution
services related to land use disputes.
The local governments receiving funds: PSU-Oregon Census Program $20,000


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
       Aumsville              $29,750        City of Silverton           $30,000
       Cottage Grove          $30,000        City of Wilsonville         $48,562
       Crook County           $35,000        City of Wood Village        $8,787
       Deschutes County       $75,500
       Happy Valley           $50,000
       Hood River             $40,000
       Jefferson County       $36,700
       John Day               $7,000
       La Pine                $80,000
       LCOG                   $50,000
       City of Newberg        $30,000
       City of Newport        $30,000
       Oregon Cascade         $75,000
        West COG (Wetland)
       Oregon Cascade         $40,000
        West COG (Toledo)
       RVCOG                  $60,000
       City of Roseburg       $49,174
   DLCD - 271                                                                               APPENDIX Q
                    ALLOCATION OF COASTAL GRANTS (2009-2011)

                                                       Technical Assistance
Description                  Basic Planning Grants           Grants             Total

Astoria                                      $20,000                  $10,000     $30,000
Bandon                                       $10,000                   $2,000     $12,000
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                   $2,500     $72,500
Coos Bay                                     $32,000                       $0     $32,000
Coos County                                  $72,000                  $13,000     $85,000
Coquille                                     $10,000                       $0     $10,000
Curry County                                 $59,000                       $0     $59,000
Depoe Bay                                     $6,000                   $5,000     $11,000
Douglas County                               $20,000                  $12,964     $32,964
Dunes City                                    $6,000                   $3,800      $9,800
Florence                                     $16,000                  $18,621     $34,621
Garibaldi                                     $6,000                       $0      $6,000
Gearhart                                      $8,000                  $10,800     $18,800
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                   $5,000     $11,000
Nehalem                                       $6,000                       $0      $6,000
Newport                                      $20,000                  $27,500     $47,500
North Bend                                   $20,000                  $19,120     $39,120
Port Orford                                   $8,000                  $33,000     $41,000
Port of Garibaldi                                 $0                  $10,000     $10,000
Reedsport                                    $10,000                  $20,000     $30,000
Rockaway Beach                                $6,000                       $0      $6,000
Seaside                                      $12,000                       $0     $12,000
Siletz                                            $0                       $0          $0
Tillamook                                    $10,000                       $0     $10,000
Tillamook County                             $56,000                  $19,161     $75,161
Toledo                                        $8,000                       $0      $8,000
Waldport                                      $8,000                       $0      $8,000
Warrenton                                    $12,000                       $0     $12,000
Wheeler                                       $6,000                   $3,000      $9,000
Yachats                                       $6,000                       $0      $6,000
Total                                      $680,000                 $215,466    $895,466

ALLOCATION OF COASTAL CONTRACTS (2009-2011)
Port of Coos Bay                    $7,500
DOGAMI                             $10,739
OWEB                                $5,938
Ecotrust                           $35,400
OCZMA                              $25,000
ODFW (Reef research)               $30,000
OPRD (Parks Master Plans)          $23,000
SSNERR (Estuary workshop)           $5,000

Total                                      $142,577
                                                                                       Appendix R
DLCD - 272



          DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION
                 AND DEVELOPMENT
                 Major Program Changes
                  in the Past 10 Years
                       2001-2010
The past decade has brought significant changes and challenges to Oregon’s statewide planning
program. Key changes are summarized here in reverse chronological order:

    2010: Implementation of Ballot Measures 37 (2004) and 49 (2007)
The department finished review of 4,700 Measure 49 claims, including those generated by HB
3225 and SB 1049. 6131, new dwellings have been authorized through the issuance of Final
Orders and landowners are beginning to approach counties for the issuance of permits. The
department finished its work on time and on budget.

     2010: Preparing for Climate Change and Providing Tools to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
      Emissions
The department led an effort to assess climate risks to Oregon and identify priorities to begin
preparing for the effects of higher temperatures. The Oregon Climate Change Adaption
Framework was issued in December 2010. DLCD and ODOT are working with metropolitan
areas to identify how they could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, following
up on direction in Senate Bill 2001 (2009) and Senate Bill 1059 (2011).

    2010: Portland Metro Urban and Rural Reserves
Metro and the three Portland areas counties completed a landmark effort (Washington County
pending) identifying where the region will and will not grow for the next 50 years

     2009: Ocean Alternative Energy Planning
In response to direction from Governor Kulongoski, the department worked with a variety of
stakeholders and other agencies to prepare a plan for development of ocean wave energy
resources, and to adopt that plan as an amendment to the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan. Phase 1 of
the plan was completed in November 2009. Phase 2 is still in progress and expected to be
complete by the end of 2011.

     2009: 30-Year Review of the Statewide Planning Program
The four-year “Big Look” review of Oregon’s land use program completed its work and
recommendations. The task force found that Oregon’s land use program had been successful at
conserving farm and forest lands and avoiding sprawl. HB 2229 enacted in 2009 follows up on
the report by allowing the department to work with counties to review mis-zoned rural lands.

    2008: Implementation of Measure 49
In February of 2008, the legislature authorized funding to complete implementation of Measure
49 by December of 2010. LCDC adopted rules to streamline procedures, and the department put
systems in place to review claims.


                                                                                                1
DLCD - 273                                                                                Appendix R




    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, 2007.

    2006: 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.

    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.




                                                                                                      2
DLCD - 274
                                                                                       Appendix R



    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.

     2001-03: Budget Cuts
Budget shortfalls curtailed agency operations, reduced grant availability, forced some personnel
to be laid off and prompted reorganization.

    2001-03: 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.




                                                                                                   3
DLCD - 275
                                                                                     Appendix S




             LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
             Annual Performance Progress Report (APPR) for Fiscal Year (2010-2011)

                           Proposed KPMs for Biennium (2011-2013)
                                   Original Submission Date: 2011

                                       Finalize Date: 1/31/11
       DLCD - 276


2010-2011
                                                          2010-2011 Approved Key Performance Measures (KPMs)
 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.

   2        HOUSING LAND SUPPLY – Percent of cities that have an adequate supply of buildable residential land to meet housing needs.


   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.

   4        CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL SITES – Number of industrial sites certified as “project-ready” added each fiscal year.


   5        TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE – Percent of urban areas with a population greater than 25,000 that have adopted transit supportive land use
            regulations.

   6        TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES – Percent of urban areas that have updated the local plan to include reasonable cost estimates and funding plans
            for transportation facilities.

   7        ERT – Percentage of local participants who rank DLCD involvement in the ERT process as good to excellent.


   8        COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING– Percent of estuarine areas designated as “development management units” in 2000 that retain that
            designation.

   9        NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES – Percent of urban areas that have updated buildable land inventories to account for natural resource and
            hazard areas.

  10        FARM LAND – Percent of farm land outside urban growth boundaries zoned for exclusive farm use in 1987 that retains that zoning.


  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.

  12        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.
       DLCD - 277


2010-2011
                                                          2010-2011 Approved Key Performance Measures (KPMs)
 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.

  15        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.


  17        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.

  18        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.
          DLCD - 278



  New                                              Proposed Key Performance Measures (KPMs) for Biennium 2011-2013
 Delete

             Title: #9-- NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES – Percent of urban areas that have updated buildable land inventories to account for natural
DELETE       resource and hazard areas. Rationale: This KPM focuses on annual process rather than long-term outcomes. Much of what is intended for this KPM is
             tracked in KPM #2, Housing Land Supply. Additionally, the target for this KPM is confusing due to measuring local jurisdiction activities that pertain to
             two different statewide planning goals—Goal 5, Natural Resources and Goal 7, Natural Hazards. The department will continue to assist with hazards
                   i

DELETE      Title: #13--PERIODIC REVIEW REMANDS – Percent of periodic review work tasks that are returned to local jurisdictions for further action.
            Rationale: Only two periodic review tasks were remanded by the department out of 18 submitted by local jurisdictions. Also, due to many variables,
            it is not clear whether this KPM reflects a rational standard. As the department has not received negative feedback regarding this activity, it is felt that
            this KPM is not doing a good job of reflecting the department’s priority objectives.

DELETE      Title:  #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.
            Rationale: This KPM measures activity that is already statutorily required (responses to local plan amendments within a certain period of time), and
            outcomes have been almost (five out of the last six years) fully successful.

DELETE      Title: # 19--MEASURE 49 - Percentage of Measure 49 claims assigned to the agency that are processed within 180 days.
            Rationale: This performance measure focuses only on new M49 claims based on regulation adopted after January 1, 2007. No valid new claims for
            regulations applied after January 1, 2007 have been received by the department, and very few if any are anticipated. For all categories of M49 claims the
            department will issue a summary report in early 2011.
          DLCD - 279



                              Proposed Key Performance Measures Targets for Biennium 2011-2013                                                      2012      2013

Title:       EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY – Percent of cities that have an adequate supply of land for industrial and other employment needs to             75.00     75.00
implement their local economic development plan.

Title:       HOUSING LAND SUPPLY – Percent of cities that have an adequate supply of buildable residential land to meet housing needs.                90.00     90.00


Title:        PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS – Percent of cities that have updated the local plan to include reasonable cost estimates and funding plans     70.00     70.00
for sewer and water systems.

Title:        TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES – Percent of urban areas that have updated the local plan to include reasonable cost estimates and            88.00     91.00
funding plans for transportation facilities.

Title:       FARM LAND – Percent of farm land outside urban growth boundaries zoned for exclusive farm use in 1987 that retains that zoning.          99.88     99.87


Title:        FOREST LAND – Percent of forest land outside urban growth boundaries zoned in 1987 for forest or mixed farm/forest use that remains     99.93     99.93
zoned for those uses.
              DLCD - 280

   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:     Michael Morrissey                                                                                                    Contact Phone:   503-373-0050

   Alternate:   Teddy Leland                                                                                                         Alternate Phone: 503-373-0050




                                    Green                Yellow                Red                      Exception
                                 = Target to -5%   = Target -6% to -15%   = Target > -15%   Can not calculate status (zero entered
                                                                                                for either Actual or Target)


   1. SCOPE OF REPORT

   This is the final report of the department's progress on performance measures for 2009-2010. Data for the majority, but not all, of the Key Performance
   Measures are based on the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Agency Programs/Services Addressed By Key Performance Measures. The department helps communities
   around the state plan for their future to assure a high quality of life. Department programs (planning, coastal, community services, transportation and growth
   management, policy development) and services (technical assistance and grants assistance to local governments; regulatory review of plan amendment, urban
   growth boundary decisions and periodic reviews; outreach, education and public information; policy planning;



1/31/2011                                                                                                                                                 Page 6 of 67
            DLCD - 281
   hazards planning and agency collaboration) often address multiple goals and objectives. One way to link programs and services with key performance
   measures is through the framework of the department’s six strategic goals: Promote sustainable, vibrant communities: A major responsibility of the department
   is to assist cities and counties, through technical and grants assistance for example, in planning their lands and public services to support economic
   development and the provision of needed housing. The department assists local governments, in coordination with ODOT and the Economic Revitalization
   Team (ERT), to: o identify and plan for developable industrial lands that are project-ready with suitable infrastructure, access, zoning and location (KPM #4);
   o plan and zone an adequate supply of buildable land for housing and employment in urban areas, supported by public facilities and services. (KPMs 1, 2 and
   3);o plan and improve transportation systems that support planned land uses, revitalize and maintain vibrant downtowns and main streets; (KPMs 5 and 6);o
   retain important coastal-water dependent industrial and commercial sites (KPM #8).Secure Oregon’s Legacy: Preservation of coastal, farm, forest and riparian
   resource lands remains a core goal of the statewide land use program that helps support rural economies, as well as protect environmental values and unique
   and threatened sites. (KPMs 10, 11 and 12)Deliver Services that are efficient, outcome-based and professional: Oregon’s local governments are the
   department’s partners in implementing the state wide land use program. The department’s services assist local communities to foresee and prepare for growth,
   development and resource protection, balancing community values, generated through public participation, with state policy. The department seeks to
   streamline and simplify services in line with the objectives just mentioned. To accomplish these objectives, services must be timely (KPMs 14 and 15),
   efficient (KPMs #13, 18 and 19), professional (KPM 20) and open to customer review (KPMs 7 and 17). Provide timely and dynamic leadership: The
   department helps set and adjust state policy over time, so that it works from both a statewide perspective and a local perspective. This involves critical
   communication with policy makers, judgment and problem solving skills with interests at all levels. (KPM # 16).Engage citizens and stakeholders in continued
   improvements of Oregon’s land use planning program: Citizen participation is a hallmark of Oregon’s planning program. Opportunities for outreach,
   communication and engagement with individuals, organizations and communities exist through participation of department field staff, public hearings,
   advisory committees and active collaboration and feedback. (KPMs 7, 17 and 20)Agency Programs/Services, If Any, Not Addressed by Key Performance
   Measures Modernize Information Technology (IT) and Delivery: The department continues to implement its Information Resources Management Strategic
   Plan to enhance and modernize information technology and databases. For example, we have made modest gains in creating a functional GIS capacity. Overall,
   we are not at the level we want to be to accurately measure the performance of core program functions in terms of department activities, and in some cases, on-
   the ground outcomes across the state. For example, a higher level of accuracy could be gained with the opportunity for local jurisdictions to enter certain data
   directly from their locations, rather than send us their information on paper, which we then enter into data bases. This kind of change in operation would take
   resource not available to us at present. No DAS Key Performance Measure applies to the department’s IT services. 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.




   2. THE OREGON CONTEXT

   The agency works closely with local governments to carry out Oregon's Statewide Planning Program. DLCD plays a key role in assisting local governments,
   citizens and the business community with development of land use decisions that encourage: job growth; affordable housing, efficient urban development
   linked to transportation systems, conservation of commercial agricultural and forest lands and protection of natural resources. In Oregon, state and local
   governments share responsibility for achieving these outcomes. DLCD's strategic planning goals are indirectly linked to the


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                           Page 7 of 67
            DLCD - 282
   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. Under Oregon's Statewide Planning Program, the
   state sets broad goals and requirements for land use planning, and cities and counties (278) adopt comprehensive land use plans that are based on these
   statewide goals and requirements. The 19 Statewide Planning Goals are not the same as the state’s benchmarks, but are strongly linked in many respects.
   Oregon's Statewide Planning Program is one of many programs that contribute to 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 economy in Oregon is influenced by a supportive property tax system, investments
   made by the federal and state governments, and investments by certain industries that use those crops.



   3. PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

   This performance report provides data for fiscal year 2009/2010. In general, DLCD's performance measures indicate positive outcomes for the program.
   Sixteen of the twenty measures effectively meet or exceed the goal. In the four instances where this is not the case, #1 Employment Land Supply, #4 Certified
   Industrial Sites, #9 Natural Resource Inventories and #12 UGB Expansion, the contexts for performance are widely divergent, and each needs to be considered
   according to its own factors. The department’s management team has considered methods to increase the effectiveness of performance measures collectively,
   and also improvements that could be made to individual measures. With regard to the package of measures, the department is recommending that four
   measures be discontinued in 2011-13, because of changes in the program, or because the measures are no longer considered accurate and reliable relative to
   core functions of the agency. This recommendation is considered elsewhere in the APPR.



   4. CHALLENGES

   Oregon's Statewide Planning Program faces some challenges. One of these is the reduced financial capacity of most local governments to maintain up-to-date
   and high-quality land use plans that prepare cities and counties for the future, and that support the 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 combined with mandatory
   requirements to maintain and update local plans is likely to lead to long-term problems for smaller jurisdictions. Without adequate capacity (including grant
   resources) to assist local government planning, the plans of smaller cities and counties 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. During the current biennium, the department has begun to realign its key performance measures with an update of the agency's goals
   and objectives. The agency clearly desires to better articulate the desired outcomes of the planning program through more direct measures, such as vehicle
   miles traveled, urban growth boundary efficiency and costs and the results of local programs to protect natural resources, However, the resources do not yet
   exist to more fully accomplish


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                              Page 8 of 67
             DLCD - 283
   this objective.

   5. RESOURCES AND EFFICIENCY

   The department's 2009-11 Legislatively Adopted Budget for its three fund types is $24,255,390 million. Performance Measures 14, 15, 18, and 19 concern
   efficiency measures for the department with regard to DLCD programs.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                       Page 9 of 67
            DLCD - 284

 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 employment                        2002
              needs to implement their local economic development plan.
 Goal                  Economic development: Promote sustainable, vibrant communities.

 Oregon Context        OBM 4: Job Growth

 Data Source           DLCD tracking of periodic review approval orders and post-acknowledgment plan amendments.

  Owner                Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 ext 239



                                                               EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY




                                                               Data is represented by percent


   1. OUR STRATEGY

   This measure tracks the percentage of cities with a population over 2,500 that completed a comprehensive update to their land use plans in the last ten years
   regarding their supply of land for employment-related uses. Under state law, cities are required to maintain a 20-year supply of land


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                            Page 10 of 67
            DLCD - 285

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                              II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   suitable and available for employment uses. This measure was adopted when all cities were required to periodically review and update their plans. In 2007,
   the legislature removed this requirement for most cities – leaving it in place only for cities with a population of over 10,000. The department provides
   technical and financial assistance to local governments for evaluations of the supply of industrial and other employment lands, but generally only for cities
   over 10,000.

   2. ABOUT THE TARGETS

   Under the statewide land use program, all cities are expected to provide an adequate supply of suitable sites for employment purposes, but only cities with a
   population over 10,000 are required to periodically update their land supply. This measure tracks the number of cities over 2,500 that evaluate and update
   their employment land supply over a ten year period – the measure does not track the total number of cities that currently have, or don’t have, an adequate
   employment land supply. The target is set relative to cities with a population over 2,500 (104 cities as of 2009) because cities under that size are granted
   various exemptions from the statewide planning program. The 2010 target of 79% indicates an expectation that a large number of jurisdictions over 2,500 can
   and will meet this objective over time. However, the target does not reflect that, since 2007, cities under 10,000 (or 80% of Oregon cities) are not required to
   update their land supply under periodic review.


   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The target has not been met for this reporting period, though results have improved somewhat since the 2009 reporting period. Results for 2009 and 2010 fall
   short because, beginning in 2009, actual reported results reflected a higher standard of what local actions qualify as a comprehensive evaluation and update
   than was done in prior years. Thus, more accurate data account for much of the apparent drop in progress this reporting period. In addition, the fact that
   periodic review was suspended for all cities between 2003 and 2007 continues to color results. Results may also reflect the drop in local government revenue
   and resources necessary to evaluate local land supply.


   4. HOW WE COMPARE

   There is no other equivalent public or private industry standard to evaluate the sufficiency of employment lands within urban growth boundaries.

   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS

   Legislation in 2007 eliminated the requirement for cities with a population less than 10,000 outside Metropolitan Planning Organization boundaries to
   periodically review and update the comprehensive plan. This may also have lowered the priority for grant funding to those cities. Furthermore, the periodic
   and technical assistance grant program was reduced during the second half of the biennium due to state budget constraints. The results also reflect the drop in
   local government revenue and resources available to evaluate and adjust local land supplies.

1/31/2011                                                                                                                                             Page 11 of 67
            DLCD - 286

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                            II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS


   6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

   For cities no longer subject to periodic review, DLCD needs better methods to track local efforts to provide an adequate supply of employment lands.


   7. ABOUT THE DATA

   The reporting cycle is Oregon’s fiscal year. Progress under this measure is counted if, during the past 10 years, a city completes and the department approves
   a periodic review task to evaluate the adequacy of its industrial and other employment lands and add such lands to its UGB if needed. Progress is also counted
   if, during the past ten years, a city completes a major plan update relating to the local employment land supply, such as adopting an economic opportunities
   analysis that evaluates employment land needs and availability in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 9.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                           Page 12 of 67
            DLCD - 287

 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 needs.                  2002


 Goal                  Economic development: Promote sustainable vibrant communities.

 Oregon Context        OBM 74: Affordable housing

 Data Source           DLCD tracking of periodic review approval orders.

  Owner                Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 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 plans in order to provide
   a 20-year supply of buildable residential land within the city's urban growth boundary (UGB). Planning and zoning a sufficient amount of


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                            Page 13 of 67
             DLCD - 288

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                                   II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   land, based on an up-to-date housing needs analysis, helps assure that enough land is available for construction of new housing at various price ranges and
   rent levels in these communities. An increasing percentage of lower- and middle- income households pay more for housing costs than is considered
   reasonable. This emphasizes the importance of the department's work with state agencies and local governments to assure an adequate supply of residential
   land in UGBs. 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 include 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 years required for cities in
   periodic review to complete the relevant work tasks. The targets generally assume that local plans are good for ten years. Cities within the Portland
   Metropolitan Service District boundaries are exceptions to this framework. State statute requires Metro to review and update the residential land supply
   within its UGB every five years. The department is counting all Metro jurisdictions in compliance with their buildable land inventories until 2011 when
   Metro will complete its UGB analysis. This key performance measure has been in effect since 2002. During that time, the number of cities providing evidence
   of having adopted plans for an adequate supply of buildable residential land has increased, even surpassing targets set for this measure during recent years. As
   some cities reach the end of the ten-year time period for which the plans are assumed to be viable, the target for this measure is beginning to decrease, in
   recognition that many cities will begin to revisit analyses of their buildable land supply.



   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The target for this performance measure has decreased, as mentioned above, and the results are about 7% below the target. This is likely due, in large measure, to the
   lack of planning resources required for cities to perform the necessary tasks related to buildable land supply.


   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 varying conclusions on the effects of the residential land supply within a UGB on housing
   costs and affordability.


   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS



1/31/2011                                                                                                                                                  Page 14 of 67
            DLCD - 289

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                               II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   Factors supporting a positive outcome 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 to a positive outcome 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., generally those with populations less than 10,000) undertake the planning necessary to provide an adequate supply of residential land; and 3)
   Historically, 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.


   6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

   1) Continue tracking this measure using the current data source and methodology. 2) In order to encourage more local governments to update their land
   supply, the department will need additional funds for grants to local governments that would support residential buildable land 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 have two sources: periodic review work program products and post-acknowledgment plan amendments
   for cities with populations over 2,500. For periodic reviews, the department counts approved city findings of adequacy of residential land, approved
   residential land needs tasks, approved work program completions, and approved urban growth boundary (UGB) evaluation or amendment tasks. Post-
   acknowledgement plan amendments need not be acknowledged to be counted as qualifying for KPM#2; the city need only provide a written adoption notice
   to the department. Strengths of the data: It includes the larger urban areas in Oregon, where most of the state’s population resides. 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. Searches are overbroad,
   and the reporter must review a large amount of data to cull out a small percentage of relevant data. 2) The data omits the 139 incorporated cities in Oregon
   with populations less than 2,500, a number of which are within the orbit of the larger metropolitan areas.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                              Page 15 of 67
             DLCD - 290

 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                  Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities.

 Oregon Context        OBM: 4 Job Growth and OBM 74: Affordable Housing

 Data Source           DLCD tracking of periodic review approval orders.

  Owner                Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 ext 239



                                                                 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS




                                                                Data is represented by percent


   1. OUR STRATEGY

   Planning for the timely provision of public facilities is a prerequisite for urban development, affordable housing, and market-ready industrial sites. This
   measure tracks the percentage of cities with a population over 2,500 that have completed an update of their local plans for water and sewer


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                              Page 16 of 67
             DLCD - 291

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                                 II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   system facilities needed to serve future land development with the urban growth boundary (UGB), including cost estimates and funding plans.

   2. ABOUT THE TARGETS

   The higher the percentage reported under this measure, the better the performance. The targets include 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 years in which cities in
   periodic review will complete the relevant work tasks. The targets assume that local plans are good for 10 years. A legislative moratorium on periodic review
   began July 1, 2003 and ended June 30, 2007. Completions of periodic review work tasks started after July 1, 2007 are included in the yearly targets since that
   time .State statute requires Metro to review and update the residential land supply within its UGB every five years. The department is counting all Metro
   jurisdictions in compliance with their buildable land inventories until 2011 when Metro will complete its UGB analysis.



   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   Performance was one percentage point below the target (42/43) for FY 2009, and two percentage points below the target (42/44) for FY 2010. This is the 5th
   year that results have increased for this KPM.

   4. HOW WE COMPARE

   The department is not aware of other public or private industry standard that evaluates progress toward updating comprehensive plans for urban sewer and
   water facilities.

   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS

   Factors leading to a positive outcome 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 do 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 to a positive
   outcome 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;
   and 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.



1/31/2011                                                                                                                                                Page 17 of 67
             DLCD - 292

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                                II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

   1) Revise the methodology for future years in order to better capture the cities that update their public facility plans. 2) Pursue additional funds for department
   grants to local governments to prepare or update public facilities plans.

   7. ABOUT THE DATA

   The reporting cycle is Oregon's fiscal year. The data have two sources: periodic review work programs, and post-acknowledgment plan amendments for cities
   with populations over 2,500. For periodic reviews, the department counts approved public facility plan tasks. For post-acknowledgment plan amendments, the
   department counts notices received for adopted public facilities plans. Cities are counted as having met this performance measure if they complete both water
   and sewer plans with the previous 10-year period. In addition to relying on periodic review and post-acknowledgement plan amendment information in the
   department’s data base, for FY 2010 we surveyed cities directly about the completeness of their public facilities plans and effective dates. City website
   comprehensive plan information and other relevant planning documents were also checked against our information in our database. Strengths of the data: It
   includes the larger urban areas in Oregon where most of the state's population resides. 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 a KPM. Searches are overbroad, and the reporter then 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, a number
   of which are within the orbit of larger metropolitan areas and are experiencing growth. 3) The data do not include all cities with over 2,500 people that have
   updated their public facilities plans.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                               Page 18 of 67
            DLCD - 293

 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.                         2003

 Goal                 Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities.

 Oregon Context       OBM: 4 Job Growth

 Data Source          Department records.

  Owner               Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 ext 239



                                                            CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL SITES




                                                            Data is represented by number


   1. OUR STRATEGY

   Maintaining the supply of project-ready industrial sites is a shared responsibility, with the Oregon Business Development Department (OBDD, formerly the
   Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD)) as the lead agency. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), other
   state agencies that participate in the Economic Revitalization Team (ERT), and local governments are partners in this

1/31/2011                                                                                                                                      Page 19 of 67
            DLCD - 294

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                               II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   effort. DLCD provides technical assistance to local governments regarding zoning ordinances, and also assists OBDD and ERT with land use related
   aspects of this effort.

   2. ABOUT THE TARGETS

   Targets were set in consultation with OBDD and the ERT office at the onset of the program before a track record on this program had been established. In
   general, certifying project-ready sites has become more complex and more costly over time as the "easy" sites are certified and developed. The total acreage
   available for potential sites also has turned out to be smaller than originally projected. It was assumed that the initial years of this program would see the
   greatest number of sites added. The legislatively approved target was reduced from twelve to six for the 2010 fiscal year, in recognition of the significant
   number of sites already certified under the program and the increasing shortage of unencumbered sites available to certify.



   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The target was not met for this year. Three sites were certified, during calendar year 2010, although only one can be counted for the 2009-10 fiscal year.
   However some of the state’s most prominent employment successes for FY2010 have occurred on certified sites in Prineville, Fairview, Salem, Hillsboro and
   Portland. Sixty five sites have been certified through 2009. Information on Oregon's certified industrials sites is available at
   http://www.oregonprospector.com.


   4. HOW WE COMPARE

   Only a few states have certification programs, and Oregon's program is unique. Oregon’s program is generally seen as a model for this type of industrial
   development strategy.

   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS

   As this program matures, it will likely become more and more difficult to certify industrial sites. In addition, with the curtailment of periodic review in the
   land use program, cities will devote their own resources to certification only if they and the property owner perceive a substantial benefit from the program.



   6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE



1/31/2011                                                                                                                                              Page 20 of 67
            DLCD - 295

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                             II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   The Department of Land Conservation and Development and Business Oregon need to work together with local governments and property owners to
   stimulate more interest in this program. Business Oregon is proposing changes in this program that would raise its profile and bring new resources to bear on
   developing new candidate sites for certification. As the supply of “shovel-ready” sites becomes more mature, the agencies also are exploring a second
   category of “development-ready” sites that will require more effort to get to construction, but that can be a longer-term source of lands for employment uses.



   7. ABOUT THE DATA

   The fiscal year (July 1June 30) reporting data were derived from lists published by the OBDD.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                            Page 21 of 67
            DLCD - 296

 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 transit                 2002
              supportive land use regulations.
 Goal                 Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities.

 Oregon Context       OBM 4: Job Growth and OBM 70: Commuting

 Data Source          Periodic review work task orders and post acknowledgment plan amendments.

  Owner               Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 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. Transit-supportive land use regulations are necessary to allow development at densities


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                      Page 22 of 67
            DLCD - 297

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                             II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   adequate to support transit service and to ensure that 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 and enhance the efficiency of
   public transportation systems. Government partners include local governments, transit districts, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
   through the Transportation and Growth Management program. Other 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 within the past ten years. Accomplishment of higher percentages is desirable.

   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The targets have been achieved because local governments continue to adopt transit-supportive land development regulations. The general trend shows
   gradual improvement as many local jurisdictions adopt transit supportive standards. The department has been focusing effort on the remaining jurisdictions,
   especially in areas designated for a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), such as Salem-Keizer, Eugene-Springfield and Medford. Eugene recently
   completed land use and transportation planning for the area around the Franklin Station on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.



   4. HOW WE COMPARE

   There are no directly comparable public or private industry standards for this measure.

   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS

   Factors that have improved results in recent years include increased concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and increased concern about “peak oil” that
   could lead to higher fuel prices. Factors that continue to make progress difficult include the complexity and controversy often associated with planning for
   transit supportive land uses, limited 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


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                            Page 23 of 67
            DLCD - 298

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                           II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS


   The department, including the joint ODOT-DLCD Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, will continue providing technical assistance and
   grants to assist local governments. 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 cities that have made only partial progress to date. The TGM program will provide
   general planning grants and targeted technical assistance for code updates.

   7. ABOUT THE DATA

   Data are reported as of June 30, 2010. Data are based on the numbers of Transportation System Plans and implementing ordinances that have been adopted by
   cities and counties and acknowledged by DLCD (through periodic review or the plan amendment process).




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                         Page 24 of 67
            DLCD - 299

 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 estimates              2002
              and funding plans for transportation facilities.
 Goal                 Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities.

 Oregon Context       OBM 4: Job Growth and OBM 72: Road Condition

 Data Source          Periodic review approval orders.

  Owner               Planning Services Division, Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 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 TSPs address streets and highways, mass


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                       Page 25 of 67
            DLCD - 300

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                              II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   transit for large cities, and air and rail facilities, and are intended to assist local and state efforts to improve transportation facilities. These plans 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. Government partners include local
   governments, transit districts and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) through the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program.
   Other 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 rate that comprehensive plans and transportation system plans have been adopted and acknowledged. A higher
   number is desirable indicating that more cities have met the requirement.

   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The targets have been achieved and progress continues. Local governments are adopting TSPs that include cost estimates and funding plans. The general
   trend between 2000 and 2007 shows continued progress, although the adoption rate slowed gradually between 2004 and 2006. 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 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.

   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS

   The slower rate of completion since 2007 is to be expected since there are fewer cities that have not already adopted their TSP Factors affecting the results
   include the complexity associated with planning for transportation systems and supportive land uses, the availability of 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



1/31/2011                                                                                                                                            Page 26 of 67
            DLCD - 301

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                             II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   Periodic review, plan amendment review, TGM grants, and technical assistance grants are the major activities that support of this measure. Cities with a
   population under 10,000 are no longer required to undergo periodic review. For these cities, more emphasis needs to be placed on grant programs, especially
   the TGM program. 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 are reported as of June 30, 2010 and are based on analysis of periodic review, and plan amendments outside periodic review. In some cases a city may
   have adopted a TSP without notifying the department, or the adoption may not have been coded properly, so it is possible that additional cities have meet the
   requirement to prepare a TSP.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                            Page 27 of 67
            DLCD - 302

 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.                           2006

 Goal                 Economic development: Promote economic development and quality communities.

 Oregon Context       DLCD Mission.

 Data Source          Customer service survey results provided by economic revitalization team (ERT).

  Owner               Richard Whitman, 503-373-0050 ext 271



                                                                             ERT




                                                            Data is represented by percent


   1. OUR STRATEGY

   The Governor’s Economic Revitalization Team (ERT) includes, in their 2010 Oregon Joint Customer Satisfaction Report for the Progress Board, questions
   measuring customer satisfaction for four partner agencies (DLCD, PUC, ERT, WRD). The survey measures customer’s perception of ERT projects with
   regard to timeliness, helpfulness, accuracy, knowledge and expertise and availability of information. Each agency participating in ERT

1/31/2011                                                                                                                                     Page 28 of 67
            DLCD - 303

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                             II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   projects is also rated on “overall quality of service.” The desired outcome is a high percentage of responses rating DLCD involvement in the ERT process as
   “good” or “excellent”, related to quality of service.

   2. ABOUT THE TARGETS

   The source of information for this performance measure is a 2010 survey sponsored by the Department of Administrative Services' Budget and Management
   Division, in which ERT also participated. This survey is conducted every other year. DLCD’s KPM target, related to the 2008 and 2010 surveys, is 66%



   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The 2010 survey result for reporting purposes is 65 percent, slightly lower than the 2008 survey result of 70%.

   4. HOW WE COMPARE

   DLCD's 2010 result of 65 placed us third, behind the top scoring ERT at 92 and ODOT at 73. Based on a single question in the survey rating the perceptions
   of a single agency, it is difficult to draw detailed conclusions from the data.

   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS

   ERT projects are the most difficult and complex to assess, often as a result of the need to coordinate competing program goals and regulations across several
   agencies. 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 may impact
   survey results and conclusions drawn from those results. The wording of the questions has been changed, and may yet need further refinement.



   6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

   The results need to be used to refine the methodology and establish a target for the next survey. There have been changes in how the biennial survey is
   conducted that may make it impossible to include these ERT sub-agency survey questions.

   7. ABOUT THE DATA


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                           Page 29 of 67
            DLCD - 304

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                       II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS


   The data are reported as summary data from the 2010 Oregon Economic Revitalization Team Oregon Joint Customer Satisfaction Study (biennial).




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                    Page 30 of 67
            DLCD - 305

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                             II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

  KPM #8      COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING– Percent of estuarine areas designated as “development management units” in 2000 that                          2002
              retain that designation.
 Goal                  Promote sustainable, vibrant communities

 Oregon Context        OBM 4: Job Growth

 Data Source           DLCD databases on periodic review, post acknowledgement plan amendments and permit consistency review.

  Owner                Bob Bailey, 503-373-0050 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 areas within shallow-draft and deep-draft development estuaries, and are generally


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                           Page 31 of 67
            DLCD - 306

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                             II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   associated with and intended for water-dependent or water-related industrial and commercial uses, including supporting navigational areas, port facilities and
   other navigation infrastructure. These areas, and the investments made within them, are limited and can not easily be recreated or relocated. There are no
   substitute or alternative areas that can easily be developed for these purposes if the current areas are converted to other uses. Recent examples of new water
   dependent uses requiring location in development management units are Liquefied Natural Gas Import terminals and supporting navigation infrastructure.



   2. ABOUT THE TARGETS

   The target is 100 percent. There should be no net loss in the amount of acreage or location of estuarine development management units. There is some
   potential for increased acreage due to plan amendments to authorize unanticipated navigational areas and increased economic development activities in new
   locations that support water-dependent uses.

   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The acreage of estuarine areas designated for development has been stable over the monitoring period for this performance measure. The foundation for
   estuary planning together with the locally recognized importance of development management unit designations creates an incentive to retain the economic
   development potential provided through these management units.

   4. HOW WE COMPARE

   Oregon performs extremely well in comparison to other coastal states in the manner that we manage and protect the limited estuarine areas that are available
   for water-dependent and water-related development. In many states, there is not a land use/estuarine management component that is equivalent. The balance
   between conservation and development that maintains diversity among Oregon’s estuaries is relatively unique as is the partnership between the state and local
   government.


   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS

   There are no external factors affecting the results of this measure. The data are confirmed by department records and ongoing monitoring of actions affecting
   Oregon estuaries.

   6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE



1/31/2011                                                                                                                                            Page 32 of 67
            DLCD - 307

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                            II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   No change is recommended in response to the data. The department will continue to work with local government and the ports to ensure a stable inventory of
   estuarine areas designated for development in order to assure a sufficient supply of water-dependent and water-related commercial and industrial land,
   including areas required for supporting navigation infrastructure.

   7. ABOUT THE DATA

   This reporting cycle is from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. Zone changes for these areas require either a major plan amendment or a goal exception. The
   data are derived from our review of the statutorily required plan amendment and goal exception submittals from local governments. Specific uses within
   estuaries also require local, state and federal permits. The department routinely reviews those types of permitted activities. The department must review and
   issue a federal consistency determination for activities that require a federal permit or actions conducted by a federal agency.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                          Page 33 of 67
            DLCD - 308

 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 for                       2002
              natural resource and hazard areas.
 Goal                 Secure Oregon’s Legacy

 Oregon Context       OBM 4:Job Growth, OBM 67:Emergency Preparedness, OBM 74:Affordable Housing, OBM 77:Wetlands Preservation, OBM 87:
                      Native Fish and Wildlife
 Data Source          DLCD tracking of periodic review approval orders.

  Owner               Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 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 plans and the statewide planning goals, local plans must account for building
   constraints due to natural resources and natural hazards. Many urban area land use plans were adopted without adequate inventories of

1/31/2011                                                                                                                                         Page 34 of 67
            DLCD - 309

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                              II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   natural resource and hazard areas. As buildable land inventories are updated, they typically include improved inventories of natural resources and hazards –
   such inventories are necessary to provide a solid basis for 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 an acknowledged
   post-acknowledgment plan amendment relating to buildable lands serves as evidence that the local government’s buildable land inventories account for
   natural resource and hazard areas.

   2. ABOUT THE TARGETS

   This target counts incremental progress; it does not represent the total number of cities that have adequately inventoried land supply. This target counts those
   cities with population greater than 2,500 (of which there are 103 statewide) that, during the 2010 fiscal year, have either received approval for completing 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 FY2009/10 target of 6%
   represents an expectation that approximately 7-8 cities during the fiscal year would update their buildable lands inventories, and that these updates would
   account for the constraints on residential development potential due to the presence of sensitive natural resources or natural hazards.



   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   Performance did not meet the target. The target was 6% and the result was 3%. This result indicates that cities are making progress more slowly than desired
   in comprehensively assessing the impact of natural resource and hazard constraints on their urban land supplies. This KPM is set up to give an annual
   accounting of buildable lands inventories that successfully address natural resource and natural hazard areas. If the measure instead assessed and reported on a
   rolling 10-year basis, like many of the other KPMs, the results would be that 66% of such cities have completed the desired work



   4. HOW WE COMPARE

   The department is not aware of any related public or private measurement standards regarding the effects of natural resource or hazards constraints on the
   long-term supply of buildable lands.

   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                             Page 35 of 67
             DLCD - 310

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                                 II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   This measure was originally crafted when periodic review was required of all cities and was the primary method for updating buildable lands inventories.
   Subsequent legislative changes to periodic review have substantially reduced the number of jurisdictions subject to periodic review, and have also required
   that other types of local planning work not associated with natural resource or hazards inventories be given higher priority by jurisdictions still subject to
   periodic review. Also, as a result of budget shortfalls and legislation rolling back local periodic review, state grant funding for natural resource inventories has
   been substantially reduced. Natural hazards inventories are more likely to be up-to-date than natural resource inventories because they receive funding from
   the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but this measure does not separate hazard inventories from natural resource inventories. If a city inventories
   only one type of development constraint, such as hazards, but not other constraints such as natural resources, the city’s effort during the reporting period does
   not count toward this measure. This measure omits 139 incorporated cities in Oregon with populations less than 2,500.As mentioned, targets and results of
   this measure are not tracked cumulatively, but rather on an individual fiscal year basis.



   6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

   Provide funding or other incentives for local governments to update buildable land inventories and to inventory development constraints due to the presence
   of natural resources and natural hazards. This measure should also be changed to track compliance over a total 10-year period, as is done for buildable land
   inventories, rather than on a single year basis.

   7. ABOUT THE DATA

   The reporting period is Oregon's fiscal year. Data sources are the department’s periodic review approvals checklist and the plan amendment database.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                                Page 36 of 67
            DLCD - 311

 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                  Secure Oregon’s Legacy.

 Oregon Context        OBM 4: Job Growth, OBM 81: Agricultural Lands

 Data Source           DLCD's rural lands GIS database, plan amendment, and farm/forest databases.

  Owner                Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 ext 239



                                                                           FARMLAND




                                                               Data is represented by percent


   1. OUR STRATEGY

   One of the goals of Oregon's planning program (Statewide Planning Goal 3) is to conserve agricultural land for farm uses, consistent with legislative policies
   in ORS 215.243 and 215.700. The Department of Land Conservation and Development seeks to achieve this goal through acknowledgment


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                            Page 37 of 67
            DLCD - 312

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                              II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   of local comprehensive land use plans and exclusive farm use zoning. 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 1987. The less farmland rezoned for rural or urban
   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
   agriculture.

   2. ABOUT THE TARGETS

   The targets 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 or non- resource land designations can be 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 calendar year 2009 show that the state's land use program continues to work well to maintain agricultural lands for commercial farm use. In
   2009, a net of 2,122 acres of EFU land were rezoned: 1,045 acres for rural development, 618 acres for urban uses, and 459 acres for other (forest) resource
   use. Because of a high level of rezonings from EFU to non-farm uses in 2007, the percent of acreage in EFU zones in 2007 and subsequent years is slightly
   short of the target for these years. From a base of 16.1 million acres of EFU-zoned land in 1987, a total of 18,419 acres have been rezoned to other urban and
   rural uses in the 22-year period through 2009.


   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 significantly higher rate than the rest of the nation. Between 1978 and 2007, the rate of loss of large (500+ acres) and mid-sized (50-
   499 acres) farms in Oregon was less than one third that of the rate 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.
   Such applications are subject to LCDC goals, rules and state land 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
   not register on the farmland performance graph. This measure offers only a partial assessment of the type or level of development and land division activity
   that occurs within EFU zones, as is does not track the cumulative impact of EFU zoning over time, nor does


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                             Page 38 of 67
            DLCD - 313

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                            II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   it distinguish between high value 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.

   6. 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 49.

   7. ABOUT THE DATA

   The data come from information submitted by local governments to the Department for each calendar year, as required by ORS 197.065 and 197.610. Local
   governments have the opportunity to review and respond to draft compiled data in the annual Farm Report before it is finalized.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                           Page 39 of 67
            DLCD - 314

 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 that                2002
          remains zoned for those uses.
 Goal                 Secure Oregon’s Legacy.

 Oregon Context       OBM 4: Job Growth, OBM 81: Forest Land

 Data Source          DLCD’s rural lands GIS database and plan amendment database.

  Owner               Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 ext 239



                                                                        FORESTLAND




                                                             Data is represented by percent


   1. OUR STRATEGY

   This Key Performance Measure tracks the percentage of forestland 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 1987. The less forest land rezoned for urban and rural development relative to the amount zoned


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                        Page 40 of 67
            DLCD - 315

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                              II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   forest or mixed farm-forest in 1987, the greater the indication that local plans and ordinances are working to protect forestland for commercial and other
   forest uses.

   2. ABOUT THE TARGETS

   The targets acknowledge that while the land use program is intended to protect forestland 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 or non-resource land designations can be justified. This
   factor is built into the target, which provides for a small amount of yearly rezoning of forest and mixed farm-forest land.

   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The results for calendar year 2009 show that the state's land use program continues to work well to maintain forestlands for commercial and other forest uses.
   In 2009, a net of 2,052 acres of forest and mixed farm-forest lands were rezoned: 2,048 acres to rural development and 4 acres to urban uses. Because of a
   high level of rezonings from forest to non-forest uses in 2007 and 2009, the percentage of acreage in forest zones in 2007 and subsequent years is slightly
   short of the targets for these years. In 2009, 99.92% of land zoned forest in 1987 was still zoned forest or mixed farm-forest (target is 99.94%). From a 1987
   base of nearly 11.8 million acres of forest and mixed farm-forest zoned land, a net total of 9,034 acres have been rezoned from forest and farm-forest to other
   rural and urban uses in the 22-year period through 2009.


   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 forestland occurs through local government decisions, in response to applications by property owners, to change forest or farm-forest zoning.
   The approval of such applications is governed 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 not register on the Forest Land KPM graph. This measure offers only a partial assessment of 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.


   6. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                             Page 41 of 67
            DLCD - 316

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                           II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS


   Continue current efforts toward meeting this target, but consider refining the performance measure or adding new measures to allow more detailed evaluation
   of Goal 4.

   7. ABOUT THE DATA

   The data come from information submitted by local governments to the department for each calendar year, as required by ORS 197.065 and 197.610. Local
   governments have the opportunity to review and respond to draft compiled data in the biennial Forest Report before it is finalized.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                         Page 42 of 67
            DLCD - 317

 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 forest                              2002
          land.
 Goal                 Secure Oregon's Legacy.

 Oregon Context       OBM 81: Agricultural Lands, OBM 82: Forest Land

 Data Source          Plan amendment and periodic review database.

  Owner               Rob Hallyburton, 503-373-0050 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


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                        Page 43 of 67
             DLCD - 318

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                               II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   urban land use. Land included in a UGB must be selected consistent with priorities set forth in ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 intended to conserve farm and
   forest land as much as possible. Those priorities require that farm or forest lands are the last priority for UGB expansions.

   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 the 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 2009, 20% of the 782 acres added (160 acres) to UGBs statewide was land that had been zoned for nonresource uses, and 80% of the acreage added (622
   acres) was land previously zoned for farm or forest uses. Therefore, the target was not met.

   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, but reevaluate or refine the target based on the relative availability of non-resource zoned lands available for inclusion in UGBs.
   Continue to encourage cities to consider all surrounding rural residential land for UGB expansion, even where difficulties exist.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                              Page 44 of 67
            DLCD - 319

 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 197.065 and 197.610. Local
   governments have the opportunity to review and respond to draft compiled data in the biannual Farm and Forest Reports before they are finalized.




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                     Page 45 of 67
            DLCD - 320

 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                 Improve Collaboration.

 Oregon Context       DLCD Mission

 Data Source          Department records.

  Owner               Darren Nichols, 503-373-0050 ext 255



                                                              PERIODIC REVIEW REMANDS




                                                              Data is represented by percent


   1. OUR STRATEGY

   DLCD works with a limited number of cities and counties to periodically update local land use plans. The purpose of periodic review is to ensure that
   comprehensive plans are consistent with statewide land use goals and reflect the current vision and priorities of communities. This measure relies


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                          Page 46 of 67
            DLCD - 321

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                            II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   on DLCD and LCDC's authority to review and approve land use plan changes submitted for periodic review approval.

   2. ABOUT THE TARGETS

   The target is premised on the percentage of periodic review work task submittals that do not satisfy applicable state requirements being at or below 15%. A
   lower percentage is desirable.

   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The department met the target, with a result of 11%. The target for 2009-10 is for the department to return less than 15 % of submitted work tasks to local
   jurisdictions. Six jurisdictions submitted nine work tasks. Those for Benton County, Florence, Junction City (3), McMinnville and Salem (2) were approved.
   One work task was partially approved and partially remanded (Yamhill County). Therefore, the result for this KPM is that 11% of submitted work tasks were
   returned for further work.


   4. HOW WE COMPARE

   There are no public or private standards to compare with this measure.

   5. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS

   The target predicts few remands, which was the case again this year, with one remand issued by the department. A legislative moratorium was imposed on
   initiation of periodic reviews from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2007, and the number of work tasks submitted in future years could rise.

   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 2010 data is for all periodic review approval decisions made by DLCD or LCDC for the fiscal year from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. There are
   four possible outcomes for each submittal: approval, remand, partial approval and partial remand, or referral to LCDC for a decision. The


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                           Page 47 of 67
            DLCD - 322

 LAND CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT                                                                            II. KEY MEASURE ANALYSIS

   data is typically derived by dividing the total number of decisions (Nine for the reporting period) by the number of remands (there was one remand this
   reporting period).




1/31/2011                                                                                                                                           Page 48 of 67
            DLCD - 323

 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 provided to                   2003
          local governments within the statutory deadlines for such comments.
 Goal                Improve collaboration and deliver the highest level of customer service possible.

 Oregon Context      DLCD Mission

 Data Source         Department records.

  Owner              Darren Nichols, 503-373-0050 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.


1/31/2011                                                                                                                                  Page 49 of 67
             DLCD - 324

 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 government. Local jurisdictions are required to submit plan amendments to the department at least 45 days prior to the
   local government's first evidentiary hearing, but do not always meet this deadline.

   3. HOW WE ARE DOING

   The department met the target this year, which is the fifth time in the last six years the department has done so, at the 100% level.

   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. Plan amendments can cover issues as different as economic
   and industrial development to natural resource protection or transportation planning. In some cases, the proposal as submitted is not complete, or is changed
   or supplemented over time, further complicating review for the department and others. 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 continues to emphasize the importance of providing constructive comments within the required statutory time lines. DLCD distributed a plan
   amendment processing schedule as a means of clarifying and streamlining the process.

   7. ABOUT THE DATA

   The department maintains a database that tracks plan amendments notices and. The 2010 data are for comments made by DLCD during the fiscal year from
   July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.



1/31/2011                                                                                                                                            Page 50 of 67
            DLCD - 325

 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.                     2003

 Goal                Improve Collaboration and Deliver the highest level of customer service possible.

 Oregon Context      DLCD Mission

 Data Source         Department records.

  Owner              Darren Nichols, 503-373-0050 ext 255



                                                                    GRANT AWARDS




                                                            Data is represented by percent


   1. OU