HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-199 Findings - RPS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Ashland,Jackson County,Oregon
September 4,2012
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2012-00573,A REQUEST FOR )
A LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT TO ADOPT A NEW"CHAPTER XIV— )
REGIONAL PLAN"ELEMENT TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN TO INCORPORATE APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE ) FINDINGS,
GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING ) CONCLUSIONS&
PLAN AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE REVISED POPULATION ) ORDERS
ALLOCATIONS FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND. )
APPLICANT: City of Ashland )
RECITALS:
1) The application is a proposed Legislative Amendment to adopt a new "Chapter XIV - Regional
Plan" element to the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (the RPS Plan) and to acknowledge revised
population allocations for the City of Ashland. Jackson County adopted the RPS Plan which identifies
urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region's population on November 23, 2011, and
subsequently adopted modifications to the RPS Plan on June 27, 2012 based on preliminary comments
from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Before the RPS Plan can take
effect, each of the six participating cities in the region (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central
Point and Eagle Point) must adopt the applicable portions of the plan into their comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances and the entire package must be acknowledged in the matter of periodic review
by LCDC. The adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan element proposed incorporates those portions
of the RPS Plan applicable to Ashland as a signatory participant with no identified urban reserves.
2) A Legislative Amendment is defined in the Ashland Municipal Code(AMC) Section 18.08.345 and
is subject to the requirements for a Legislative Amendment described in AMC 18.108.170 as follows:
SECTION 18.08.345 Legislative amendment.
An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning
map, comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including the street dedication map described in section
18.82.050,for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships.
SECTION 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments.
A. It may he necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other
legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in
circumstances and conditions.A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the
Council.
PA#2012-00573 RPS Element
September 4,2012
Page I
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property
owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment
at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend
to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department
thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application
shall be accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After
receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the
amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed
amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days
prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the
Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except
the Commission may permit a new application if in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a
change of circumstances warrant it.
3) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice as required in AMC 18.108.170.D.,
scheduled a public hearing on June 12, 2012, at which time the matter was continued to a time and date
certain. At the continuation of the hearing on June 26, 2012, testimony was received and exhibits were
presented. Following the closing of the public hearing, the Planning Commission held deliberations and
unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed new Comprehensive Plan element
"XN—Regional Plan." The findings for this recommendation were adopted by the Planning Commission
at their regular meeting on July 10, 2012,and forwarded to the City Council.
4) The City Council, following proper public notice as required in AMC 18.108.170.D., scheduled a
public hearing on July 17, 2012, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented.
Following the closing of the public hearing, the City Council approved first reading of the ordinance to
adopt the proposed new element and directed staff to schedule second reading of the ordinance.
5) The City Council, following proper public notice as required in AMC 18.108.170.D., scheduled
second reading of the ordinance on August 7, 2012. Following the second reading of the ordinance by title
only the City Council approved second reading of the ordinance, adopting both Ordinance #3069 and the
proposed new Comprehensive Plan element "XN — Regional Plan' and acknowledging the revised
population allocations by Jackson County to the City of Ashland.
Now,therefore,the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1.EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
PA#2012-00573 RPS Element
September 4,2012
Page 2
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a"P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes,Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2.CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
recommendation based on the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff report, public
hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The City Council acknowledges that the Jackson County Board of Commissioners has
adopted the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (the RPS Plan) and
associated findings with Ordinance #2011-14 which address the broader Regional Problem Solving
planning process in terms of its compliance with local regulations, state statutes, Oregon
Administrative Rules, and statewide planning goals.
2.3 The City Council finds that the proposal for a Legislative Amendment to adopt a new
"Chapter XfV - Regional Plan" element to the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan
(RPS Plan) and to acknowledge revised population allocations for the City of Ashland meets all
applicable criteria for the approval of Legislative Amendment as described in Chapter 18.108.170.
As a Legislative Amendment, adoption of a new element is a legislative act solely within the
authority of the Council, and the Council accordingly approves the proposed Legislative
Amendment to adopt the new"Chapter XIV—Regional Plan"Comprehensive Plan element.
2.4 The City Council finds that participation in the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) regional
planning process is in keeping with adopted Comprehensive Plan policies. The Comprehensive
Plan includes Policy 10.09.02.11 which directs that the city "[ajdvocate regional land-use patterns
that support multi-modal transportation." Policy 10.09.02.030 calls for the city to "[cjoordinate
City transportation planning with county, regional, state and federal plans." Policy 10.19.02.13
directs that the city "[pjarticipate and show leadership in interacting with counties, cities and
other special governments in Southern Oregon to develop regional public transportation services
to reduce the frequency and length of vehicle trips."
2.5 The City Council finds that the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) provided for the
establishment of Regional Problem Solving (RPS) programs in counties and regions throughout
the state to provide a framework directed toward resolving land use problems in a region. The
City of Ashland entered into a "Collaborative Regional Problem Solving" process in 2000 with
Jackson County; the Rogue Valley Council of Governments; the cities of Central Point, Eagle
Point, Medford, Phoenix and Talent; and a number of local, state and regional agencies to create
PA#2012-00573 RPS Element
September 4,2012
Page 3
a plan identifying lands suitable for long-term urban growth sufficient to accommodate a
doubling of the region's population while addressing problems posed by the lack of a mechanism
for coordinated regional growth planning, the loss of valuable farm and forest land caused by
urban expansion, and the loss of community identity as expansion beyond cities' existing urban
growth boundaries jeopardizes the clear separation between communities.
Lands selected to accommodate future urban growth within the region are designated in the RPS
Plan as urban reserve areas. In December of 2003, the Ashland City Council determined in
Resolution #2003-037 that with more efficient land use strategies, the lands already within
Ashland's city limits and urban growth boundary could accommodate the city's anticipated
growth during the plan period without expansion. As such, Ashland is the only city participating
in the RPS process that has not identified urban reserves.
Ashland's acknowledged Buildable Lands Inventory adopted in November of 2011 identifies
greater than a 20-year supply of residential lands based on current Comprehensive Plan
designations. The acknowledged Economic Opportunity Analysis adopted in August of 2010
identifies a 20-year supply of employment lands, noting that while there is an approximately 5.9
acre deficit in land need over the planning horizon, it can be met through redevelopment or
through development that does not require new employment lands. Subsequent to the decision to
accommodate anticipated growth over the RPS planning horizon through more efficient land use
rather than expansion of the city's boundaries, the city initiated a master planning process for the
Croman Mill site, one of the largest undeveloped properties zoned for employment in the city,
and adopted the Croman Mill District Plan in August 2010 which included new zoning
regulations, district-specific street and design standards, and a redevelopment plan for the
district. This plan sets the stage for a mixed employment district to accommodate targeted
employment sectors including specialty manufacturing, small food-processing companies, and
headquarter and technology offices with parcel sizes to vary from 20,000 square feet up to ten
acres, as envisioned in the Economic Opportunity Analysis. The city has similarly initiated a
master planning effort for the Normal Avenue neighborhood, one of the largest undeveloped
properties in the Urban Growth Boundary slated for residential development, in order to pursue
more efficient land use and transportation planning than if that area were to develop in a
piecemeal fashion through the annexation and development of individual properties without
broader consideration of the area in its full context. Initial meetings with Normal Avenue
neighborhood stakeholders are now underway. The city will continue to identify and pursue
opportunities for more efficient land use and transportation planning.
In September of 2008, the City Council acknowledged general agreement with the RPS process
and adopted Resolution #2008-032 supporting the RPS planning process and the general
sequencing envisioned through the Jackson County comprehensive plan amendment process.
The City of Ashland signed the formal Participants Agreement in December of 2009.
2.6 The City Council finds that in review of the draft RPS Plan in 2010, both the Planning
Commission and Council had identified six key areas of concern which they wished to see better
PA 42012-00573 RPS Element
September 4,2012
Page 4
addressed prior to adoption of the RPS Plan. These included: 1) Accurate population
allocations; 2) Efficient land use and transportation planning; 3) Limiting urban levels of
development within Ashland's "urban fringe'; 4) Not requiring jurisdictional transfer of county
roads from Jackson County to individual cities as a requirement of RPS Plan adoption; 5)
Protecting high value farmland; and 6) Setting a timeline to develop regional housing strategies.
The Council finds that with regard to accurate population allocations, concurrent with adoption
of the RPS Plan, Jackson County reopened its Population Element and adjusted the population
allocations for the City of Ashland as had previously been requested. The County chose to re-
allocate population from unincorporated areas of the County itself, rather than taking population
from other cities in the region, thereby avoiding making changes in other cities' population
allocations or land needs which might have posed substantial risk to the RPS Plan at this stage.
With this re-allocation, Ashland is allocated a year 2060 population of 31,633 which is generally
in keeping with historical growth patterns and current Comprehensive Plan projections.
During the course of the public hearing on adoption of the proposed element and acknowledgement
of the county's reallocation of population to the City of Ashland, the issue was raised during public
testimony that in the 2010 census, Ashland was shown to have lost 1,410 persons which
represented an approximately seven percent decrease in population, and it was questioned whether
planning for continued growth at the rates considered with the reallocation was appropriate given
that during the decade preceding the census, growth rates were actually much closer to those
depicted in the county's Population Element and the draft RPS Plan prior to reallocation. The City
Council finds that the decennial census figures often reflect adjustments as they provide a
verification of the annual certified population estimates by Portland State University. The Council
further finds that Division 24 of OAR 660 dealing with Population Forecasts makes clear that
forecasts "must be developed using commonly accepted practices and standards for population
forecasting used by professional practitioners in the field of demography or economics and must be
based on current, reliable and objective sources and verifiable factual information.... The forecast
must take into account long-term demographic trends as well as recent events that have a
reasonable likelihood of changing historical trends. The population forecast is an estimate which,
although based on the best available information and methodology, should not be held to an
unreasonably high level of precision." The Council finds that Ashland's population forecasts have
been based upon the annual certified estimates provided by the Portland State University Population
Research Center and upon decennial census data, both of which are found to be current, reliable and
objective sources also used by the county and other cities participating in the RPS Plan. The
Council finds that while there was a notable decrease in population reflected in the 2010 census
data, there are no specific recent events to which this decrease can be specifically attributed which
would suggest a long-term change in the documented historical trends. Based on Portland State
University's certified estimates for population growth from 2010 to 2011, the growth rate
rebounded to approximately 0.8 percent which is consistent with the historic trend and the rates
reflected in the county's reallocation. The Council finds that the reallocation of population by
Jackson County to the City of Ashland in conjunction with their adoption of the RPS Plan reflects a
growth rate which is generally consistent both with historical growth trends observed in tracking the
PA#2012-00573 RPS Element
September 4,2012
Page 5
City of Ashland's population data back to the early 1970's and with the projection of growth rates
currently envisioned in Ashland's Comprehensive Plan.
The Council finds that with regard to efficient land use and transportation planning, Chapter 2,
Figure 2.10 and Chapter 5, Section 2.5 of the county-adopted RPS Plan include density
commitments from all participating cities which were arrived at to address density concerns
previously expressed over the densities shown in the draft RPS Plan, to provide densities more
likely to support a successful regional transit system, and comply with the state's current
Division'24 "Safe Harbor" density requirements for urban growth boundary expansions. For the
first 25 years of the planning horizon, these density commitments involve densities of between
6.5 and 6.9 dwelling units per acre both in existing Urban Growth Boundaries and in proposed
Urban Reserve Areas, including a commitment by the City of Ashland to a 6.6 units per acre
density within its existing Urban Growth Boundary. Density commitments for those cities
identifying urban reserves would be increased by the participating cities for the remainder of the
planning period to between 7.5 and 7.9 dwelling units per acre. As now adopted by Jackson
County, the RPS Plan envisions an approximate 25 percent increase in density over the first 25
years of the planning period, and a 15 percent increase over the second 25 years. On the whole,
this approach results in an average increase for the region from the current 5.48 units per acre to
an approximately 7.1 units per acre, which is just above the seven units per acre density typically
identified as needed to support a successful transit system. The Council notes that in review of
land use actions in Ashland for the past five years, new developments have been approved at an
average density of approximately 7.46 dwelling units per acre.
The Council finds that Chapter 5, Section 2.6 of the county-adopted RPS Plan includes
commitments by all participating cities including Ashland to meet the benchmarks in the 2009.
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is administered through the Metropolitan Planning
Organization, for the percentage of new dwelling units and new employment created in mixed-
use, pedestrian friendly areas or transit-oriented developments (TODs). These percentages are
listed under Alternative Measures #5 and #6 in the RTP, and require that 49 percent of new
dwelling units and 44 percent of new employment be located in mixed-use, pedestrian friendly
areas or TODs by 2020 with the objective of demonstrating progress towards creating mixed use,
pedestrian friendly developments in the region.
The Council finds that Chapter 5, Sections 2.7 and 2.8 of the county-adopted RPS Plan also call
for the development of conceptual transportation plans for urban reserve areas to identify and
protect regionally significant transportation corridors and provide for a multi-modal regional
transportation network with connections within and between the participant cities, and for
conceptual land use plans which consider targeted densities, land use distribution, and necessary
transportation infrastructure as well as efforts to concentrate development in mixed use,
pedestrian friendly areas.
The Council finds that the commitments to increased densities; mixed use, pedestrian friendly
development; and coordinated conceptual land use and transportation planning have moved the
PA#2012-00573 RPS Element
September 4,2012
Page 6
plan in a direction consistent with that requested in the previous resolutions of the City of
Ashland.
The Council finds that with regard to concerns over the impacts of more urban levels of
development within a mile of Ashland's urban growth boundary, the county-adopted RPS
Plan retains the requested ten-acre minimum lot size limitations on development in Ashland's
urban fringe in Chapter 5, Section 2.15.
The Council finds that with regard to concerns over Jackson County potentially requiring that
cities assume jurisdiction over current county roads as a condition of participation in the regional
planning process, Jackson County has opted to instead address jurisdiction over these facilities
with the cities individually as part of negotiating joint management agreements rather than
requiring jurisdictional transfer as a condition of RPS Plan adoption.
The Council finds that with regard to protecting high value farm lands through their removal
from urban reserves or through the development of a Farmland Conservation Program as
recommended by the land use advocacy group Rogue Advocates, the county-adopted RPS Plan
instead includes in Chapter 5, Section 2.20 the creation of an Agricultural Task Force to develop
a program for assessing the impacts of development upon the agricultural economy of Jackson
County arising from the loss of agricultural lands, and upon the ability to continue irrigating
agricultural land with Urban Growth Boundary amendments. The Agricultural Task Force is to
identify potential mitigation measures to offset these impacts, and the RPS Plan notes that
appropriate mitigation measures shall be applied to Urban Growth Boundary amendment
proposals. The Council further finds that with the proposed removal of urban reserve areas in
Phoenix (PH-2) and Talent (TA-2) approximately 110 acres of high value farmland previously
identified for development in the draft RPS Plan have now been removed from urban reserves.
The Council finds that with regard to the City of Ashland's previous request that the RPS Plan
identify a timeline for the creation of regional housing strategies which would encourage a range
of housing types across the region in recognition of the fact that diverse and affordable housing
options close to work, school and shopping are essential to managing growth, supporting
economic development, providing schools and public services, and reducing the environmental
and social impacts of growth, Chapter 5, Section 2.12 of the County-adopted RPS Plan requires
that the participating jurisdictions create regional housing strategies that strongly encourage a
range of housing types throughout the region within five years of RPS Plan adoption.
2.7 The City Council finds that Ashland is unique among the six participating cities as the
only jurisdiction not to identify urban reserves, and that the proposed new Comprehensive Plan
element is similarly unique in that where other cities are adopting new regulations and maps of
their urban reserves, Ashland is effectively acknowledging its participation in the RPS process
through adoption of policies that in large part will not come into play unless and until urban
reserves are identified by the City of Ashland. The new Comprehensive Plan element thus serves
primarily as a placeholder to acknowledge the City of Ashland's signatory participation in the
PA 42012-00573 RPS Element
September 4,2012
Page 7
RPS Plan and to provide a framework if the city should choose to pursue the creation of urban
reserves at some point in the future.
2.8 The City Council finds that the City of Ashland's participation in the regional planning
process to date has helped develop on-going positive working relationships between the staff
members and policy makers of the various participating jurisdictions which will hopefully
continue into the future in the spirit of on-going regional cooperation and the recognition that
livability within the region in the face of continued growth and development will benefit from
coordinated regional planning.
2.9 The City Council finds that while some concern remains with the RPS Plan's focus
largely on the identification of future growth areas, including some identified as high value
farmlands, the City of Ashland's participation in the regional problem solving process to date has
proven to be on the whole beneficial in allowing Ashland to both participate and show leadership
in on-going discussions of coordinated regional planning for growth in a manner consistent with
adopted Comprehensive Plan policies, and that participation has helped move the RPS Plan as
adopted by Jackson County to more deeply consider integrated land use and transportation
planning, densities necessary to support a thriving regional transit system, regional housing
strategies, and further consideration of farm land conservation. The Council further finds that the
County-adopted RPS Plan provides the initial framework for continued regional planning efforts
over the next five decades, with the City of Ashland as a full participant.
SECTION 3.DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council of the City of Ashland
hereby approves Planning Action #2012-00573 and adopts the new "Chapter XIV — Regional Plan"
element into the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ashland.
September 4,.2012
n trombe Mayor Date
PA 92012-00573 RPS Element
September 4,2012
Page 8