Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1029 Special Meeting Packet CITY OF ASHLAND ImDortant: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Except for public hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public participation. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 29, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 5:30 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Further Discussion of RPS Report IV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). U HiNelL MLEI INtiS ARL IlROADC\ST LIVE UN Cf I\NNEL ') VISIII IlL CITY OF ASIIIANJ)'S WLll SlIl::\I WWW.:\SIIL:\NJ)'(IIUiS CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Re~ional Problem Solvin~ October 16, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Community Development E-Mail: Administration Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: David Stalheim stalheid@ashland.or.us Statement: Discussion regarding the Regional Problem Solving process and adoption of the Regional Plan Staff Recommendation: None Background: The following is information related to the impact of the Regional Problem Solving process and the adoption of the Regional Plan. This information is specific only to the allocation of future population to the city and the city's previous decision to not set aside any urban reserves. The Regional Problem Solving process has three problems that it is meant to address: I. Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth Planning 2. Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Expansion 3. Loss of Community Identity Parties to the planning process would need to agree to the following: I. Agree to abide by the Plan 2. Agree to maintain consistency with the plan, and when necessary and appropriate, to either adjust the comprehensive plan, codes and regulations, or pursue amendments to the Regional Plan Implementation techniques for regional growth planning include: I. Periodic Review of the Regional Plan is in 10 years, with 2012 as first year ofreview 2. No process for review of population allocation provided in plan; county allocation is now ratified by state 3. Should there be more than one city requesting an allocation of the unallocated population, then the Signatories shall consider the requests simultaneously and on their merits 4. Cities that choose to expand their UGBs into land not designated as urban reserve will be required to go through the RPS plan amendment process 5. Requests for change considered during ten-year review unless special circumstances dictate otherwise 6. Urban Reserves provide for doubling of the population 7. Parties need to adopt agricultural buffering standards 8. Critical Open Space Area Preservation (optional) 9. Urban Reserves provide for community separation Page I of3 CC Regional Problem Solving ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND 10. Agreement to population and employment distribution in plan Planning staffs largest concern about the Regional Problem Solving process has to do with population allocation and the decision of the city to not set aside urban reserves for the next 50 years. We are not clear whether the City Council understood this policy decision when it made the previous decision in 2003. In 2003, the City made a decision to notify the RPS process that the city did not intend to propose Urban Reserves. This decision was made based on an assumed population allocation of 4,425 people. The question is whether the City understood that this population for 50 years was reflected a significantly lower growth rate than the city has experienced in the past. . Planning Commission voted in November 2003 to not add Urban Reserves . Housing Commission discussed but took no action . City Council voted in December 2003 (Resolution 2003-37) to not add Urban Reserves Ashland's population grew by 1.35% annually from 14,943 residents in 1980 to nearly 20,880 in 2005. In contrast, the population allocation for Ashland in the Regional Problem Solving process and in Jackson County's population allocation is only 0.32% annual growth. If the city wants to slow growth to this rate, then based on the population allocations in the Regional Problem Solving process and in Jackson County's population element, the city of Ashland does not need to add urban reserves based on the current Buildable Lands Inventory. If the city wants to grow at a normal projected growth rate of approximately 1 % annually over the next 50 years, then the city needs to rethink whether it needs urban reserves. The issue of population and urban reserves came to light when reviewing the recent Economic Opportunities Analysis. In that analysis, employment growth was at a faster rate than population growth. As a result, people questioned whether we were simply importing jobs but not residents, and how does that improve the local economy. Digging into the population numbers revealed memos from ECONorthwest dated June 12,2006 and June 21, 2006. The June 12th memo allocated 5,177 people to Ashland by 2026, or an annual growth rate of slightly over 1 %. The June 21, 2006 memo changed that allocation to only 1,439 people. The balance of the numbers were distributed to other urban areas in Jackson County. The city did not comment on the change on June 21 st, and the County adopted those population numbers in February of2007. The issue of population allocation and this Regional Problem Solving process do not necessarily need to be refined at this time, but can be put off for a wider city visioning process and comprehensive plan update. The reason is that the Stakeholder's Agreement provides for two options that allow for more discussion and flexibility: I. The process allows for minor amendments to the Regional Plan that add 50 acres or less to urban reserves. This affords Ashland the opportunity to consider small amendments. It should be noted, however, that in 2003, some of the small additions that were considered were actually Page 2 01'3 CC Regional Problem Solving ~.t. 1 CITY OF ASHLAND 90 acres in size. It would be beneficial to have the agreement allow up to 100 acres to provide the city with more flexibility. 2. The process calls for Periodic Review every 10 years, staring in 2012. 2012 is less than 5 years away. The city's process for review and update of the comprehensive plan could likely take that long to complete. Thus, the city could be in a good position to go back to the Regional Problem Solving process, if it chose, and ask for population and urban reserve amendments. Related City Policies: City Comprehensive Plan Council Options: The Council has many options. The options relative to the population and urban reserve process are: 1. Accept as proposed. 2. Request that the Agreement allow up to 100 acres as a minor amendment. 3. Request that the population allocation be reviewed prior to adoption. 4. Refuse to participate in the Regional Problem Solving process. Potential Motions: None provided Attachments: See pdf file Page 3 of3 CC Regional Problem Solving ~.l' RPS Attachments regon Department of Land Conservation and Development 6:kS Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, O!11gon 97301-2524 Phone: (503) 37$-0050 Pirst FlooriCosml Fax: (503) 375-6033 Second HooriDirl.'Ctor', Ofiice: (503) 378-5518 Web Address: httpJ Iwww,oregl1n.gov/LeD Th-endore R Kult)ngo~kji CQ\,\!fnt)r December 15, 2005 Kate J aekson Chairperson, RPS Polley Committee 359 Kearney Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ~ Subject: Clarification ofDLCDpositiol1 on compliance with administrative !'Illes in rogional problem solving Dear l\'ls. Jackson: It was a pleasure to meet with YOll and the other members of the Greater Belir Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project at the Medlbrd meeling of the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Thank YOll again for making YOllrselves available to the department and the commission, and for your infonnativc prcsentation at thc commission meeting. The Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee has asked the department 10 elmify its pOSItion on several questions relating to the project. We arc pkased to do so and offcr these positions as a full participum in this collaborative regional problem solving project. While the departmcnt bas taken carc to address the questions presented, it should be noted this letter represents the position of the department, and has not been reviewed or adopted by the Commission. What is the DLeD position 011 using a doubling of the population? The Policy Committee has asked for the department's position on the Use of a doubling of the present population as the basis ILlr proposed urban reserves. '!1lC projeet intcnds to use this tlgurc for the futUre regional population, rather than the 30- to 50-year projected population required by OAR 660-02 J -0030( I). (That rule requires that an urban reserve he h"""l on 10 tn 3G years growth beyond the 20 y",,,r UGH, which cqu"jcs to a 30- to 5D-year planning horizon,) It has been our understanding thus far that a doubling oftho population is approximately tho same as a 50-year projection for the project area, The department supports the use of a doubling of tho population with the uuderstanding thaI it does not substantially exeeed a 50-year projection. Ifthe doubling ofthe population should substantially exceed a 50-year plamling horizOIJ the Project will need to adjust thc projectiolJ or make findings that explain thc mtionale for a deviation from the rule. Findings demonstrating the approximate equivalence of these projections willnced to be bascd on the county's coordinated population projections. The department earlier found the 40,000 population difference shown in the tlrst "Our Region" dral1 base case between '.r,; - Kate ,rackson RPS Policy Committee -2- December 15, Z005 a "doubling" and the 50"year- projection to be unsupportable, but now understand the projection was in error. The department and county have discussed the possibility 01' a technical assistance grant to assist in amending the county's coordinated population projections. This is a critical product for the project, because the coordinated population projection from the eounty must be used for the projcct's planning work. 'Vhal level of detaj\ is required for findings addressing the Goul]4 location factors'! The project must provide findings that are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the statewide planning goals.' This is true for Goal 14. There is no particular "level of detail" required lor findings under any rule- Rather, findings must gcnerally be sufficiently detailed for the project participants, and ultimately the commission, to determine that the plan eonl'onns"on the whole" with the goals. In addition, since the level of detail wilt be delelmined in part by testimony at local hearings, the project would be we!! advised to provide findings addressing specilk concerll5 raised in those hearings. While there is no specific "level of detail" for findings needed to demonstratc compliance with Goal 14 lor an urban reserve area, thc project should assume that the lcvel is comparahle to that rcquired to demonstrate compliance with Goal 14 in establishing an urban growth boundary. By way of background, the Urban Reserve Rule was adopted to implement Goal 14 with the specific intent to direct growth to exception areas mther than to farm and forest land. The rule was proposed in 1991 in response to concerns raised to the commission and legislature indicating thai, for many urban areas: . Devclopment patterns in cxception areas on the urban lTinge would make them very difficult to mbani;"e efficiently, CUld · Faml and forest lands will bc looked to in the luture for UGB expansion if exception arcas cannot be urbanized.2 In con~idering whether to adopt an urban reservc rule to address these concerns, the commission detemlined that "i f urban reserve areas are established in order to guide mban area expan~ion, lands in the reserve area should be llsed first when the UGH is amended. The pweess for identifyin.g urban reserve areas should there/ore parallel the process guiding UGB a.mendment.'" In describing the final draft urban rc~crv'e rule in a report to the commission in April 1992, the department stated that "lhe rule is ba~ed on thc hicrarchy proposed by lhe legislature. and establishes priorities \vherehy exceptions and nonreSOllrcc 1and.~ must be considered for inclusion in urban reserve areas prior to resource lands, and whereby less I ORS i 97 "056(2)[c) prOVides that nthe implementlng plan .md iWid u:,;c rcg~Jliitio1l5 adopted under the RPS statute must "coufcirm, (:>J1 the \\'hole, '.vith the purpu:icsef the ~lm~'.Aid(;. planmng goals," This quoted li1ngu;~g{' is the same a:-; the slallo.Hory meaning givcI110 "complinn(:(: with tht: gnals" under ORS J97.7cl7 2 DLCD SmtrRcport, December 1, t99t, Pages t Jnd 2 J DLCD Staff Report, December 1, t 991, Page (, KAte Jackson RPS Policy Committ.e -3- necember 15, 2UU5 productive resource lands must be considered before more productive land. This hierarchy is consistent with the intent of the Goal 14 fllctors for UGB amendments!" The commission recently updated Goal 14, and the amendments become effective April 28, 2006. These will be the standard for any implementation of the pmject adopted alter that date. While Goal 14 does not discuss urban reserves, the urban reserve rule is intended as an implementing meamre to manage urhan growth consistent with Goal 14, With or without RPS, finding:; must be adequate to demonstrate compliance with Goal 14 (sec footnote I, above). The general guidimce for making I1ndings within RPS is that thc greater the deviation from the rule that is proposed, the greater the burden will be to justify that the decision conforms to the goal. For example, if the project selects lower priority land instead of higher priority areas for designation of an urhan reserve area, such as p<lssing over an exception area and selecting farmland instead, the projeet findings will need to provide a satisfactory explanation why the exccption land was not included. Notc that thc Urban Reserve Arca Rule already provides opportunities to deviate n-om strict adherence to the priorities under OAR 660-021-0030(4).5 That bcing the case, in order to support the designation of urban reserve arcas that do not comply with the I1lle, the project must explain not only why the priorities were not followed, hut also why the relief provided in the mle was inlldequate to solve the problem. [fthe project includes designation of urban reserve areas that do not fully comply with the administrative mle, the lindings must estahlish a relationship between the location of the urban reserve area and regionlll gOllls and the problem that goal was intended to address6 In summary, the surest course lor the project would be to comply with provisions of the Urhan Reserve Arca Rule (that is, follow the priorities for designation of urban reserve areas found ill the rule) wherever possible to ensure that the final product complies with Goal 14. If deviations from the rule are found to be appropriate (and the department recognizes this may be the case), the project will need to include adopled lindings explaining how the designalion nevertheless complies with Goal 14. 4 DLeD Staff Rcpnrt, Apr;ll?, 1992, Page 3 ~ (4) Lmld of ltnver priodty under Scctmn (3J of this n:lc In.'iY be included if 1.1-nu of higher pnm]lY is fuund to be inadetll1uh: to accommodate [he amount of land tstinlutcd in scclIon {I) {If [his rule for one or mot',: of the followingrcasnn$: (;1) Future urban Jicrviccs could !lot rcason.ahly be provid.;::d to the higher priority an:a due: to topogmphicnJ or other physlciJl constraints; or (b) tvtaximum eHicicllC),' of land uses nrtlhin t-l. propo~,~d urban ro::,"cr\.'L" -are,a r~qttircs irtclu~':ion Qflo'''''er priority lands in order toinc1ude Or to proVIde services- to higher priurity Jandlio, (i ()RS 197,656(2) fnl1ow'ing the procedures ~ct fonh m thIS subsection, the commlS;SIOI1 molY ackno\vledgc anlcmi:m~ms to {;umprehcnsive plan:; ~Dd land use regtlliHlons, or new land usc' reguhllions., rh,lt do nor Funy comply \vlth th{~ ndcsofthc commission that lmplcmem The sUll('widc planning goals, without raking nil exceptIon, upon il determInation 11M!: (a) The amendments or new proVJ:SlOIlS ilrc based upon agn:erni:nb f~u{,:hed by all local par1kipants, the commissinn and Dlh.:r p~rtiGipallng state agencies, in the collaborativ-t re-giunal problell1- solving process: (b') The regional prnblcm~solviog process has included agreement arnong !he partiCipants an: (A) Regional goats forrcSO]UIIOll ofcach regional problem [hut JS the subject ofth...~ process; .. * ... Kat. Jackson RPS Policy Commltt.. -4- December 15, 2005 Finally, if the participants wish to pursue a solution that includes urban reserve areas that do not comply with the goal, an exception to Goal 14 is always un option for the project. 1110 November 8,2005 version of "RPS Approach to Urban Reserve Rule" from RVCOG indicates that a comprehensive response to the Goal 14 location factors will take place at the time of individual UGB expansions. This approach appears to be based on an understanding, taken from the dl.'jlartment's carlier stated position that goal exceptions are not required in order to establish urban reserves, that less detail is needed in order to establish urban reserves under the Goal 14 location factors. That is, it appears the project understood DLeD to have provided a "relaxed" interpretation of the law to reach the conclusion ntl exception is necessary for establishment of urban reserve,~ Oil farm and forest land. This is nOlthe department's position, and not what we intcndeclto communicate. Our position on exeeptions was derived from a clear reading ofthe RPS statute and Urhan Reserve Rule; we did not intend more than that. Moreover, the commission cannot approve the projeet without finding that it satisfies Goal 14. Findings regarding the location of urban reserve areas cannot be delayed untilllrba/l growth boundaries are amended. Findings on speeilic growth areas vs. general regionall1ndings Even where there are no deviations from a rule. the project must adopt tindings to demonstrate compliance with Goal 14. Findings may he craf\ed so as to address groups of growth are.ls in the same category (e.g., exception lands, or a particular class of fannland). However, findings must be specir,c enough to demonstrate thm the location filctors nflhe rule and Goal 14 are met for ullland included in the urban reserve. The designation of commercial base agriclllturalland as ul'b~n reserve is a situation where findings specilk to the particular parcel or tract of!and w'nlld be necessary. To assist jurisdictions witb these findings the dcpal1ment provided the project with criteria for demonslrating a "compelling nect!" for these agricultural lands as urhan reserves.' :; DLeD starr has taken the position thallhe inclusion of commcrejal base ngricuhuralland iu an urban rCl:lcrw area requires mure detailed t1nding$ demonstrating a city's compelling ne-ed to c:o.;,panJ into the land, It has been left to DLeO tu define the cmeria for such "campcUhjg nced:' We believe a demonstration 'Of compelllng need includes the folJmvmg: [' 1) A dcscripfiOI1 of the urban need [hat may be Satisfied by the us.~ of cummentilll base Iami; This description should spC:L~ir.y \vhethcr the need l~ spcdfic to the particular city or wbr:thcr thi;,' need is regional in natUre. For \:xamplc: Ii! netu ror a loz:al f(J,Jd such a.~ lhe Jack&Gnvi!le ancrial is specdlcto utle dty i:lnd pl)s-$ibly one Joc,ntion: whereas a need to provide bousmg is i'I Tl'glOf1al need that might be satisHed by re:dlstribunotl oL~oma portion of n c:ty'shou:;ing need h) ;mothcr city in the region. 0) :\n Usstssmenl OflhC' ultertiailves whkh may S:lllsfy {h~~l nt:~d; Are rhere other eilbcr !oql Dr rcgimmJ non-COnIUltT";IJI bas.c .siles: thaI Celli f\J.lfiJllhc: need'! This shuuld indudt: HS$cs:-;ment of bmd that may not h3"''''~ been included in the candidate urban rcs~rvc lands. KUlc Jaekso" RPS Pulic}' Committee -:;.. December 15,2005 DQes the letter of September 20, 2005 from Lane Shetterly lInd John Renz address all administrative rules or only OAR 660-021-00JO? OAR 660-021-0030 is only mentioned in the letter beeau~e the TAC sought to propose a "proxy" administrative rule to use in its place. TIle general direction on deviation from administrative mles in regional problem solving is provided in the next to last paragraph on page two. This direction applies broadly to any deviation from any administrative nile. We hope this clarifies these issues for the Project If you have any questions regarding our positions please contact us at (541 )858-3189. Please placc this corrcspondcnce in the record ofthis Project. Yours very truly. lGVW~ Lane Shetterly Director lolm if ~ Southern Oregon Regional Representati ve ce: Rob lIallyburlon, !vlargu..,'rite Nllbeta. DLeD John Evans, Parametrix Greg Holmes, J 000 Friend, (3) A cDnclusion that there is no praclit:i:lblc alternative 10 fulfilling the Tieed to the desigrMuon ufthc commercia] base as an urban reserve:. OLeD Memo of July R. 2005 to tbe Pmjcc.t's CammiHct~ 1 -GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY 2 REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT 3 version 10105/07 4 5 This REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is 6 entered into this of ,2007 by and between Jackson Connty, the duly 7 incorporated Oregon municipalities of Medford, Phoenix, Central Point, Jacksonville, 8 Talent, Eagle Point, Ashland, the Department of Land Conservation and Development 9 ("DLCD"), the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOr), the Oregon Department 1 0 of Housing and Community Serviccs ("ODHCS"), the Oregon Economic and I I Community Development Department ("OECDD"), the Oregon Department of 12 Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Oregon Department of Agriculture ("ODA"), the 13 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Medford Water Commission (MWC), 14 and Rogue Valley Sewer Serviccs (RVS). IS I 6 RECITALS 17 WHEREAS Jackson County and the cities of Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, Eagle 18 Point, Jacksonville, Ashland, and Talent (each a "Local Jurisdiction" and collectively, the 19 "Region") are part of the Greater Bear Creek Valley, described more particularly in the 20 Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference, that expects to see 21 a doubling of the population over the long term future; and 22 WHEREAS the increasing population in the Region will create an ongoing 23 demand for additional lands available for urban levels of development; and 24 WHEREAS that demand for urbanizable land will have to be balanced with the 25 Region's need to maintain its high quality faml and forest lands, as well as to protect its 26 natural environment; and 27 WHEREAS the Local Jurisdictions recognize that long-tcrm planning for which 28 lands in the region are most appropriate for inclusion in each municipality's urban 29 reserve areas ("DRAs") in light of the Region's social, economic, and environmental 30 needs is best determined on a regional basis; and 31 WHEREAS the Region has determined that a eollaborativcly drafted and 32 approved regional plan (the "Plan") is the preferred means of elaborating the regional 33 solutions to the identified regional problems; and 34 WHEREAS the State's Regional Problem Solving ("RPS") statutc provides a 35 special process for addressing regional land use issues that allows the Local Jurisdictions, 36 upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, to implement regional stratcgies through the 37 adoption of post-acknowledgement comprehensive plan amendments that do not fully 38 comply with the regulations (the "Regulations") adopted by the Land Conservation and 39 Development Commission ("LCDC") to implement the Statewide Planning Goals (the 40 "Goals"); and 41 WHEREAS onc of the conditions the Local Jurisdictions must satisfy in order to 42 deviate from the Rcgulations is that all the varticivants in the RPS process entcr into an 43 agreement that: identifies the problem faced by the Region; the goals that will address the 44 problem; the mechanisms for achieving those goals; and the system for monitoring the 45 implementation and effectiveness of those goals; and Discussion Draft RPS IGA 10112/2007 1 WHEREAS various entities were identified as potential stakeholders within the 2 regional planninll process. and invitations were extended to everv incomoratcd 3 iurisdiction (Jackson County, EaQle Point. Medford, Central Point. Phoenix, Talent and 4 Ashland), school district (Ashland School District #5, Central Point School District #6, 5 Jackson County School District #9, Medford School District 549C, and Phoenix-Talent 6 School District #4), and irrillation district (Eagle PoinL Medford. ROQue River. and 7 Talent In"illation Districts) in the study area. plus the Medford Water Commission. the 8 Metrooolitan Planning Organization. ROl!ue River Valley Sewer Services. ROl!ue Valley 9 Transportation District. and the appropriate slate agencies (DLCD. ODOT. ODA. 10 ODHCS, OECDD, and DEm: and 11 WHEREAS different entities exercised different levels ofoartieipation and 12 responsibility within the planning process. "participants" (as the term is employed in 13 ORS 197.656(2)(b)) in the RPS process refers to those iurisdictions and agencies that 14 choose to commit to the implementation urthc regional solutions developed to address 15 the identified regional problems by signing this Agreement: and 16 WHEREAS this Agreement constitutes the signatories' satisfaction of this 17 requirementofORS 197.656. 18 NOW THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, for purposes of ensuring the 19 timely implementation of the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and complying with the 20 requirements ofORS 197.656, do hereby agree to thc following: 21 22 23 AGREEMENT 24 I. Recitals 25 The recitals set f'orth above are true and correct and are incorDorated herein bv 26 this reference. 27 28 II. General Al!reement 29 Siznatories to this Aereement consent to abide bv the Plan develoved under 30 Rezional Problem Solvine adovted bv varticiuatine iurisdictions. and 31 acknowledzed hv the State of Orezon. Sienatories aeree to maintain internal 32 consistencv with the Plan on an oneoinz basis. and when necessarv and 33 auvrovriate, to either adiust their comvrehensive ulans and related volicies. 34 codes. and rew/ations, or to uursue amendments to the Plan. 35 36 Ill. Statement of Problems to Be Addressed tORS 197.656] 37 The parties to the Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS process (the "Project") 38 identified three problems to be addressed by the Project: 39 40 PROBLEM # I: Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth 41 Planning 42 The region will continue to be subjected in the future to growth pressures that will 43 require the active collaboration of jurisdictions within the Greater Bear Creek 44 Valley. A mechanism is needed that accomplishes this without infringing on Discussion Draft RPS IGA 2 10/12/2007 I individual jurisdictional authority and/or autonomy. This Problem # 1 shall be 2 referred to hereinafter as "Coordinated Growth Management." 3 4 PROBLEM # 2: Loss of Valuable Farm aud Forest Land Caused by Urbau 5 Expansion 6 As our communities have expanded incrementally, there has been a tendency to 7 convert important farm and forest lands to urban uses while bypassing lands with 8 significantly less value as resource lands. This has been exacerbated by the 9 region's special characteristics and historic settlement patterns, which can cause 10 some state regulations governing urban growth to have unintended consequcnces, 11 some of them contrary to the intent of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. This 12 Problcm #2 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preservation of Valuable 13 Resource Lands." 14 15 PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity 16 Urban growth boundary expansions have contributed to a decreasing separation 17 between some of the communities in the study area, which jeopardizes important 18 aspects of these jurisdictions' sense of community and identity. This Problem #3 19 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "'Preservation of Community Identity." 20 21 IV. Project Goals [ORS 197.656(2)(A)] 22 The parties to this Agreement have adopted the following goals with respect to 23 the Problems: 24 25 GOAL #1: Manage future regional growth for the greater public good. 26 27 GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important 28 economic, cultural, and livability benefits. 29 30 GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, 31 and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each community 32 within the Region. 33 34 V. Optional Techniques for Implementation [ORS 197.656(2)(B)] 35 (where "ootional techniaues for imolementation" refers to Plan-soecific strategies 36 and mechanisms to imolcment the regional solutions that arc in comoliancc with 37 the statewide goals and statutes. but which Olav not strictlv adhere to Oregon 38 Administrative Rules) 39 A. PROBLEM #1: Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth 40 Planning 41 GOAL #1: Manage Future Regional Growth for the Greater Public Good 42 Imolementation Technioues 43 (1) Coordinated Periodic Review 44 Signatory jurisdictions may emlaee in a coordinated schedule of regular 45 Periodic Reviews following the adoption of the Plan. This regionally 46 coordinated Periodic Review will begin in 2012, will take place every 10 Discussion Draft RPS IGA 3 10112/2007 1 years, and will coincide with the ten-year regular review of the Plan. This 2 coordinated Periodic Review will provide an opportunity to take advantage of 3 an economy of scale in generating technical information, and to incorporate a 4 regional perspective in the Periodic Review process, but it does not mandate a 5 simultaneous or linked process among jurisdictions. 6 (2) Ten-year RPS Review 7 Signatory jurisdictions will abide by the review process described in Section 8 VI of this Agreement. The review process complies with the monitoring 9 requirement in the RPS statute, and affords participating jurisdictions 10 flexibility in responding to changing regional and local circumstances by 11 establishing a process and venue for amending the Plan. 12 (3) Coordinated Popnlation Allocation 13 Jackson County's allocation of future population growth, a state-mandated 14 responsibility of the County, will reflect the proportional allocation of future 15 population within the Plan and its future amendments consistent with statute. 16 (4) Greater Coordination with the MPO 17 As a proven mechanism of regional collaborative planning in the study area, 18 the MPO, as the federally designated transportation planning entity, will plan 19 and coordinate the regionally significant transportation strategies critical to 20 the success of the Plan. Of special focus will be the development of 21 mechanisms to preserve rights-of-way for major transportation infrastructure, 22 and a means of creating supplemental funding for regionally significant 23 transportation projects. 24 25 B. PROBLEM # 2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by 26 Urban Expansion 27 GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important 28 economic, cultural, and livability benefits. 29 Imnlementation Techniaues 30 (1) Long Range Urban Reserves 31 The establishment of Urban Reserves sufficient to serve a doubling of the 32 region's urban population will allow long-term production decisions to be 33 made on agrieulturalland not included in urban reserves. 34 (2) Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards 35 Signatory jurisdictions will adopt the Plan's set of agricultural buffering 36 standards as a means of mitigating negative impacts arising from the 37 rural/urban interface. 38 (3) Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation 39 The CO SA strategies outlined in Appendix ??? of the Plan are available as an 40 option to jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently 41 preserving the community buffers identified within the Plan. These CO SA 42 strategies are not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or 43 expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit. 44 45 C. PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity Discussion Draft RPS IGA 4 10/1212007 I GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique 2 features, and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each 3 community within the Region. 4 ImDlementation Techniaues 5 (I) Communitv Buffers 6 The establishment of Urban Reserves outside of recommended areas of 7 critical open space provides for a basic level of preservation for the Region's 8 important areas of community separation. 9 (2) Allocating to Comparative Advantages 10 The Region agrees to the distribution in the Plan of the calculated need of 11 residential and employment lands necessary to support a reeional doubling of 12 the population. This distribution, which depends on a number of factors that 13 relate to the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each of the cities, will 14 allow each community to develop its own balance of viability and 15 individuality within the larger regional matrix. 16 (3) Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation 17 The CO SA strategies outlined in Appendix ??? of the Plan are available as an 18 option to jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently 19 preserving the community buffers identified within the Plan. These CO SA 20 strategies are not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or 21 expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit. 22 VI. Measurable Performance Indicators tORS 197.656(2)(C)] 23 The following are measurable performance indicators for the Plan: 24 I) Each participating jurisdiction will have fully incorporated the Plan into 25 their comprehensive plans and imvlementine- ordinances hv uvdatinf! or 26 adovtine the f'ollowinf! as avolicable: 27 a) Transportation System Plans 28 b) agricultural buffering standards 29 c) target residential densities 30 d) general and specific conditions to the Agreement 31 e) urban reserves 32 j) imvlementine ordinances 33 g) Urban Reserve Manaeement Af!reements (URMAs) 34 35 2) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, the region'sjurisdictions 36 will participate in a process of coordinated periodic review. 37 38 3) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, all Signatories (0 this 39 Agreement will participate in the regular RPS review process. 40 41 4) Urban reserves identified in the Plan are the lands used for UGB expansions 42 by participating cities. 43 44 5) Future urbanization in the urban reserves is generally consistent in densities 45 and land uses with those proposed in the Plan. 46 Discussion Draft RPS IGA 5 1011212007 I 6) The county's population element is updated per statute to be consistent with 2 the gradual implementation of the Plan. 3 4 5 7) Each particioatinl! city will develop a conceotual plan for its urban reserve 6 in sufficient detail to allow the citv to determine the sizinl! and location of 7 rCl!ionally sil!nificant transportation infrastructure. This information should 8 be determined early enough in the planning and devclomnent cycle that the 9 identified regionally significant transportation corridors can be protected by 10 ayailable strategies and funding. 11 12 VII. Incentives and Disincentives to Achieving Goals [ORS 13 I97.656(2)(D)] 14 Incentives 15 1) Continued regional cooperation through theJ..Q-year review process and 16 coordinated periodic review may improve the Region's ability to respond to 17 challenges and opportunities more effectiyely than it docs presently. 18 2) Multi-jurisdictional adherence to the Plan may provide the region with a 19 competitive advantage, increase the attractiveness of the region to long-term 20 investment, and improve southern Oregon's profile in the state. 21 3) The transportation projects of jurisdictions adhering to the Plan will have 22 priority within the MPO for transportation funding. 23 4) The Plan offers compelling regional justifications and state agency support for 24 Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center that would not have been 25 available to an individual city proposal. 26 5) Adhcrence to the Plan will permit iurisdictions to implement the flexibility 27 provided by the concept orthe "Regional Community". in which cities. in the 28 role of "regional ncillhborhoods". enioy a wide latitude in their particular mix. 29 concentration. and intensity ofland uses. as long as the sum of the regional 30 parts contributes to a yiable balance ofland uses that is functional and 31 attractive to residents and emoloyers. 32 33 Disincentives 34 1) Cities that choose to expand their UGBs into land not designated as urban 35 reserve will be required to go through the RPS plan amendment process vrior 36 to or concurrent with anv other Drocess. 37 2) A failure to adhere to the Plan may damage the region's competitive 38 advantage, the attractiveness of the region to long-term investment, and 39 southern Oregon's profile in the state. 40 3) The transportation projects of jurisdictions not adhering to the Plan will not 41 have priority in MPO transportation funding. 42 4) Jurisdictions not adhering to the Plan may face issues over failing to observe 43 their comprehensive plans, or may find it difficult to make modifications to 44 thcir comprehensive plans that deviate from thc Plan. 45 5) A failure to adhere to the Plan will compromise the region's ability to 46 implement the conccpt of the "Rcgional Community". and will not provide the Discussion Draft RPS IGA 6 1011212007 Deleted: <#>Each participating city will develop a conceptual plan for its urhan reserve areas with sufficient anticipation (before any or all of the lands making up that urhan reserve are annexed) to allow for the identification and protectionofsignilicanttransportation corridors. (NOTE: Policy Committee needs to look at this further, perhaps specillc wording in UGBMA or URMA isneeded).~ ( Deleted: 5 [ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 1 Deleted: <#>lurisdictions not adhering to the Plan may I1nd their ability to collaborate on other regional issues eomrromised.~ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 1 cities with as wide a latitude in their desired individual mix. concentration. 2 and intensitv of land uses. 3 4 VIII. Progress Monitoring System & Amendment Process [ORS 5 197.656(2)(E) and (F)] 6 Progress monitoring and amendment will be accomplished through a Technical 7 Advisory Committee and Policy Committee: 8 (a) Technical Advisorv Committee 9 Provide staff when needed to a Technical Advisory Committee (T AC). 10 The TAC will be composed of planners and senior-level stafffrom II signatory jurisdictions and agencies, and each signatory will have one vote, 12 irrespective of the number of participating representatives. 13 Recommendations will be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple 14 majority plus one) of attending signatory jurisdictions and agencies. 15 (b) Policv Committee 16 The Policy Committee will be composed of elected officials or executive 17 staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies. Each signatory 18 jurisdiction will designate a voting and alternate voting member, and each 19 signatory jurisdiction will have one vote. Recommendations will be made 20 by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending 21 jurisdictions. State agencies, the MPO, the Medford Water Commission, 22 and Rogue Valley Sewer Services, while Signatories, will not be voting 23 members of the Policy Committee. 24 (c) Provide, make available, or support the obtaining of, sufficient funding to 25 finance the monitoring, compliance, and amendment processes outlined 26 below. 27 28 Monitoring 29 Signatories will maintain a monitoring system to ensure compliance with the Plan 30 and future amendments. Specific standards against which performance will be 31 judged are listed in Section VI of this agreement and in the Plan. The regular 32 monitoring system will consist of reports submitted by the signatory Cities and 33 County every ten years, starting in 2012. The reports will include descriptions of 34 their jurisdiction's activities pertinent to the Plan for the preceding ten-year period, 35 analysis as to whether and how well those activities meet performance standards 36 in Section IV and in the Plan, and a projection of activities for the next ten-year 37 period. The Technical Advisory Committee will meet to review these reports 38 and to review progress on elements contained within the Plan. A report of this 39 review will be made to the Policy Committee. 40 41 A source of funding for the review process will be identified by consensus among 42 signatory jurisdictions. It will commence with the submission of reports on 43 January 3151 of the review year. Final Policv Committee recommendation will 44 follow hv Julv 31". Reports by the cities and county will be forwarded to the 45 participating jurisdictions, to the participating state agencies, and to the Land 46 Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Discussion Draft RPS IGA 7 10112/2007 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Plan Amendments On a regular basis. every 10 years starting in 2012. all Si!!natorics to this Agreement will oarticioate in a regular RPS review orocess. Anv oroDosed amendments to the adopted Plan will adhere to the following guidelines: 1) Minor Amendment A min_QL.~rncndment is defined as anv_r~(HJest for amendment that: a) docs not directlv impact a general or specific condition (see Section X); b) does not oropose a change of more than 50 acres to a city's oril::!inal urban reserve prooosal: or c) does not propose more than a 50-acre exoansion of the UGB into nOI1- urban reserve rural land. In the case of Ashland. which did not establish urban reserves during the orocess. a proposal to establish an urban reserve or exoand its UGB of not morc than 50 acres could be considered a minor amendment. The proposing jurisdiction must clearly identify the nature orthe minor amendment. and specify whether the minor amendment would reauire any other participant city to amend its comprehensive plan. Should another city have to amend its comprehensive plan as a result of the proposed change. that citv is a partv to the minor amendment. Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres during the planning horizon. it may not use the minor amendment process for further alterations to its urban reserves or exoansions of its UGB into non-urban reserves. Upon a oreliminarv detenninatiQJLlrr-Jackson County that a proposed amendment is minor. signatory jurisdictions will be infonned of the orooosed minor amendment and of the county's preliminary detcm1inatiol1. Should a majoritv of signatory jurisdictions fail to oppose that preliminary determination within 60 davs. the County and the proposing jurjsdiction can QLQ.cce~with the amendment without additional process arising from thi~ Agreement. Signatory jurisdictions shall be forwarded the final outcome of each minor amendment process within 30 davs of its comoletion. A successful amendment will be ineoroorated into the regional plan at the regular 1 O-vear review or during an out-of-cycle major review process: in the interim the county's outcome of the minor review will become an apO(~!:!.gj~_-9.f the regional plan referenced in each citv's comprehensive plan. The public process for a minor amendment to the Plan will be eauivalent to the mandated public process for a similar comprehensive plan amendment. 2) Major Amendment A maior amendment is defined as any reauest for amendment that imnacts a general or snecific condition (see Section X below), or alters more than 50 acres of a city's total urban reserves established under the olano A proposed plan amendment preliminarilv recommended bv the Countv as minor. but Discussion Draft RPS IGA 8 10112/2007 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1\ 12 13 \4 \5 16 17 \8 19 20 2\ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 which a majority of sicnatOl)' iurisdictions considers maior. will be treated as a maior amendment. (a) The governing body requesting an amendment to the Plan shall submit a written notice to.,signatory jurisdictions and agencies. The affected jurisdiction shall be responsible for identifying funding to cover costs incurred by the request that are outside those included in the regular tcn (b) -year review. Should multiple cities be involved in a single request for change, a lead will be selected by the affected jurisdictions; (b) requests for changes will be considered during the regular ten-year review period, unless special circumstances, as describednelow under "Out-or-Cvcle Plan Amendments", dictate otherwise; (c) notice will be forwarded to all signatory jurisdictions and agencies with a detailed description of the proposed change; (d) staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and will meet as a Technical Advisory Committee and generate a recommendation by at least a supermajority of those present (simple majority plus one) to the Policy Committee; (e) decision-makers from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and interested parties will mcct as a Policy Committee and consider the proposal and the Technical Advisory Committee recommendation. Non-participating jurisdictions will be considered to have waived party status, and by their non-participation will waive the right to appeaL Issues not raised by participating jurisdictions cannot be used as a basis for future appeaL Attending jurisdictions will constitute a quorum; (f) the Policy Committee will generate a recommendation by at least a supermajority of those prescnt (simple majority plus one) to the jurisdiction concerning the proposal; and (g) the jurisdiction, if proceeding, will then observe required state and local processes to gain approval for its proposed action. The public oroccss for a maior amendmcnt to the Plan will be e(luivaJcnt to the mandated public process for a similar comprehensive plan amendment. with the addition of a public hearing during the Policv Committee process. (NOTE FOR DISCUSSION: The attorneys suggested an altcrnative voting mechanism for Policy Committee review. in which the six maior state al.!encies in the process IDLCD, ODOr, DEO, OECDD, OHCS, and ODA) have voting status. The votc would still be a suoermaioritv. Should all thc voting entities be prcsent for a vote. the supcrmaioritv would be 9 out of 14. although the supermaioritv necessarv for a particular yote would depend on the number of state agencies and iurisdictions Dresent. The maior change would be in the result of the vote. which would be a decision binding on all oarticipants. rather than a recommendation as it stands now. The attorneys. and subsequently the Executive Subcommittee. saw enoul.!h potential benefits to the alternative to brin!! it to the Policy Committee's attention.) Discussion Draft RPS IGA 9 1 0/12/2007 ( Deleted: to Deleted: above Deleted: Jurisdictional Compliance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IX. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Ix. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Out-or-Cycle Plan Amendments Bv consensus within the si2:natorv iurisdictions oCtile need for flexibility within the Regional Plan between the lO-ycars review periods. an out-oC-cvcle process for maior and minor Plan amendments is necessary. 1) Minor Amendment Minor amendments. as described above under "Plan Amendments" arc oermitted between regular 1 O-year reviews. The process for minor Plan amendments would follow the same orocess as that laid out in the "Minor Amendment subsection of the "Plan Amendment" section above. 2) Maior Amendment Major Plan amendments can be considered at intervals of less than ten years should Jqckson County. at the reauest ora signatory to tbe Plan. find that circumstances nrevail which have a sil!nificant effect on the public health. safety. or general welfare of the region or one of its communities. The process for Plan amendments would follow the same process as that laid out in the "Maior Amendment" subsection of the "Plan Amendment" section ~~ove. Adherence to the Plan Adherence by iurisdictions to the Plan will be addressed by the existing state and local mechanisms of ensuring iurisdictional comoliance with acknowledged comprehensive olans. Newlv Incorporated City Should White City or some other area of Jackson County within the_~rea of the Plan incorporate while the Plan is in effect. and should the newly incomorated city desire to become a signatory to the Ae:reement. increased population will be added to the regional target population adcQuate to accommodate the proicctcd population growth orthe newly incorporated city for the remainder orthe Plan's olannine: horizon. Conditions to Agreement General Conditions The Signatories agree that the Plan shall comply with the following general conditions, which apply to all jurisdictions signatory to thc plan: 1. Agricultural Buffering Where appropriate, cities shall apply the agricultural buffering guidelines developed through the Regional Problem Solving process. 2. Transoortation The Plan shall include policics to: a. Identify a general network of locally owned regionally significant north-south and east-west arterials and associated projects to provide mobility throughout the region. Discussion Draft RPS IGA 10 10/12/2007 [ Deleted: I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 b. Designate and protect corridors}or locally-owned regionally significant arterials and associated projects within the IvIPO to ensure adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use, and minimize right of way costs. c. .Establish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding to mitigate impacts arising from future growth. These policies shall be implemented by ordinance upon the adoption of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Plan and the local adoption of the PRS Plan through individual city and county Comprehensive Plan amendments. Specific Conditions Specific conditions apply to specific jurisdictions and urban reserve areas. The Signatories agree that the Plan shall comply with the following general conditions: TA-I The area shall be zoned for public uses that are designed to not conflict with adjoining agricultural operations. The portion ofTA-4 east of the railroad shall be restricted to industrial uses. Prior to the expansion of the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary into CPI-B, ODOT, Jackson County, and Central Point shall adopt an Interchange Area Management Plan for the Seven Oaks interchange area. This area shall only be used for green way and parks. The city and county shall require a lot line adjustment for Assessors Parcels 381 W05-2600 and 381 W06-100 so that parcel lines coincide with the urban reserve boundary prior to Medford's adoption of this urban reserve area. This area shall be restricted to light industrial uses. Prior to the expansion o[the Eagle Point Urban Growth Boundary into EP-lA. ODOr. Jackson Countv. and Eagle Point shall adopt an access management plan for the area of transportation concern. This area shall be developed in confonnanee with the specific area refinement plan as originally approved, or subsequently amended, by the Policy Committee. TA-4 CP-IB CP-4D MD-6 EP-IA JK-IO XI. Termination of Participation (NOTE FOR DISCUSSION: The attorneys called for an "exit clause" that would establish the process for a jurisdiction to remove itself [rom the Plan before the end of the planning period, as well as the consequences for doing so. Before suggesting language, the attorneys called on the Policy Committee to provide direction. At a recent Executive Subcommittee meeting, the following were mentioned as issues the Policy Committee could consider: -- The remaining jurisdictions should be held harmless. -- In general, it shouldn't be easy [or a jurisdiction to remove itself from the Plan~ Discussion Draft RPS IGA 11 10112/2007 I so the bar should be set fairly high. 2 -- The exiting jurisdiction should probably suffer some consequence to its 3 proposed urban reserves, such as a need to rejustify them using the normal state 4 process. 5 6 XII. Amendments to the Agreement 7 Amendments to the Agreement can be made at any time by consensus of the 8 Signatories. 9 10 XIII. Termination of the Agreement 11 This agreement will terminate when one or more of the following occur(s): 12 1) A supennajority of Signatories agree that the Agreement is terminated; 13 2) The doubled regional population is reached; 14 3) 50 years have passed since the Agreement was signed. 15 16 The termination of the Agreement for the reasons above would have no effect on 17 ill.1Y...remaining urban reserves. 18 19 X!!!. Applicability 20 Signatories to this agreement agree that necessary amendments to their 21 comprehensive plans will occur as required by the Plan, and that the Plan is in 22 effect for each iurisdiction at the time that its implementing comprehensive plan 23 amendments and land use regulations are in place. 24 25 Once the plan is implemented by the appropriate comprehensive plan 26 amendments and land use regulations, failure to adhere to the Plan will expose the 27 offending jurisdiction to the usualJegal and legislative repercussions from non- 28 comoliance with ackno\Y-L~_(:tfomRrehcnsi~e olans. 29 30 31 Chairman. Mayor, City of Ashland 32 Jackson County Board of Commissioners 33 34 35 36 Mayor, City of Talent Mayor, City of Phoenix 37 38 39 40 Mayor, City of Medford Mayor, City of Jacksonville 4\ 42 43 44 45 Mayor, City of Central Point Mayor, City of Eagle Point 46 Discussion Draft RPS IGA 12 10/12/2007 Deleted: refusal Deleted: any and all I 2 3 4 Director, Oregon Department of Land 5 Conservation and Development 6 7 8 9 10 Director, Oregon Department of 11 Environmental Quality 12 13 14 15 16 Director, Oregon Department of 17 Agriculture 18 19 20 21 22 Chair, Medford Water Commission 23 24 25 26 27 Chair, Rogue Valley Metropolitan 28 Planning Organization Discussion Draft RPS IGA Director, Oregon Department of Transportation Director, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department Director, Oregon Housing and Community Development Department Chair, Rogue Valley Sewer Services 13 10/12/2007 0 "' 0"' ~ .... "' "" ~ <0.... ""' <0 ~ ;; ........ N ~"" "'.... "" " ;: <0 .... ~ N N "" " N " '" N .... '" "" "' " '" .... ;: N '" '" 0 " .... '" N ... '" '" "'N N " '" ~ '" '" ~ ...... '" ~ ~ ...~ "!. ~ ",'" .. ~N'" ... '" '" 0 . ,,;" "l' "''''''' "'''' "''''''' .0 ...,...,..., ...,..., ...,...,..., " '" ~ ~ .~ .~ ..., ..., h' ~~ -' '" " J!l {g '} ... '" '" N "' N 1;; .S <I> -'" Iii c. E E o o ~ co .... o f- OJ c C C ::J 0::: ~ "0 .S '" i!' <I> i!' o <( (Jl Q) .... U <( Q) C: Q) (Jl Q) 0::: c CO ..0 .... ::> -0 Q) (Jl o 0. o .... a... OJ c 'S;: o (/) E Q) ..0 o .... a... CO c o OJ Q) 0::: .. "C o U z. u o '" -' '" 0; ~ 1i .S '" <0 .... N ~<O "' " N " 0.... ~ ;: ""' <;; ~ ~" <O~ ""~ '" "" ~~ "" "" "" "' "' ~ ~ " '" <0 '" "" ~ "''''' ~ ~ "" '" "'''' '" '" '" '" '" '" .... ~ ...... N "'. ~ .. <( 0 ~ N "'... "l' .0 a. a. a. a. " ww WW '" C ~- '0 - ~ C).- a. ~ 0 .!! Wa. C) <I> -'" Iii c. E E o o "0 .S '" i!' '" l'! o <( Gl "C o U ,., - u '" '" t:. <O'iC't::' "''''''' "'-"-:t:.. ~ "- 0 0 0 ~ 0 ;: z.~ '0 -", '" 0. ",", " 0", <0 C ~ E <0 .... 0.0 0"' "' '" > fro- Gl "0 o~ '" .... "' ~~ N 1-- "5 0 ....'" N _0 N :-::::;0 """' ~~ ~ .0 "'~ '" ... '" "'''' "'... '" '" "... N ... '" Gl "'.. ~N '" '" '" '70 xx xx ::I::I:'"i' a. a. a. a. fl.D...g '" X x '" '" Gl ~ 0 0 .<: .<: a. a. 0; ~ ~ C; z>. '" .... "" 0 '" N N "' 0 <;; "' 0 <0 N .... '" N ~ <0 N 0'" "" ~N N '" '" '" ... .... "' "' <0 <0 0 .... 0'" .... <0 "" " '" '" N "" ~'" ... '" en", '" "'... '" '" ~ ... N'" ... "'''' '" " '" '" ... N ~ ~ <( .. <IlU <Il 0 <Il- N '" ... '" '" <0.8 "';''7 , . . , ~.g a. a. a. a. a. a. a. UU U UU UUU '" ..- C ~ ~ '0 1: '0 a. tla. ~ ~ 0; ~ 0; ~ o '" -' a: "' '" <0 ~ ... '" "" '" N "" " "' "' N N '" .... "' N N "" ... 0 N en <0 ;: ~ '" ~ '" "' '" en '" C; ... ... ~ N N ~ N "'- ~ N '" ... "' ",.l!l '" 0 <(<( <( .(<( o."l' >>.0 1-1- I- 1-1- <Il ~ '" C C ~ ~ .. .. l- I- ~ ~ h' .... ~ r;)R'N' N"'''' ---:::,. en CD '" N. S ~ '" "' "' 19 ~ N E .... '" E '" 0 0 "" -0 N .S "'. ~ '" '" ~ i!' 0 "" '" ... .. '" ~ ... " .,; <( '" ~ " .!; 6 S::;: "C ~ ~ '" Rl '? - 0 :I: ~ 0.. -'" .... '" '" "' ... <0 " <0 N "" <0 "" '" <0 '" 0 N ~ N ;:: ~ "" "0 " ... N "' '" '" "' "' ... "" .8- "0" "' N " <0 " "" ~"" Gl"" ~ N " ::;;0 >>~ "" -"" 0 "" "" .0 ~ "0"' 0 '" '" "" "' ~ ~N ~ ~"" ~ 0 "" 0 ... >>0; "' 0 " "0", N ~ ~'<t OJ N "" NN "' '" 0 <0 ... <0 "'"" "'''' <0 "" " ~ .... ~N "' -tN ~N ,,~ '" "'0 c. . N 0 ~ '" '" '" ... "'...... N N '" N ...'" en '" "' ... ...,,'" " '" "' ~ ...... '" '" en N ....~ ~ ~ "''' ~ "":1J:i ~ E '" OJ ~ N "'... '" '" ... ... ... '" '" o..B . , , , . , , , , ~~.Q 00 00 00 00 00 ::;:::;: ::;:::;: ::;:::;: ::;:::;: ::;:::;: :E:!:~ "O~ ~ "E ~ c . ,g o (l)....; c: _ tIl "'.- "0 "0-"'<::.0 Q) ro'~ E ~ :E a. 8 ::;: ] E + 5 . u ~ + + E ~ E .S 8 '" " '" .,; ~ '" ... en <Ii ""'N ~M~(Q cOtD.,fe ~ ll)g~iO O'l ("')_ N 0'1 (1')C'\lWe E~ tnM~tO E"" co co t--_ ~ a..t ""'~ "' "" ~ o~~~:: ~ ..,;.....- o ~ <( '" Z If) ~ w ~ flO- U (Jl (Jl C W W Z C z :3 J: ~ J: + + .~ ~ .S + E .., E .S 8 en '" "0", 0.5 N ~ <( ell N Z~~ w () (Jl (Jl C W W Z C Z <( ..J ;: o ..J '" .,,'" .5 ~ ~ E'" E"! 0'" u~ '" '" '" .,; E;:: EN 8M .. i!! " "'<( !! ~ u 0 ~~ '" o Ci ." ~ ." ~ Gl Z >> Ii 0.<Il <( " Cl '" "'=>=> ." ~ '" ..J .. i!! u <( '" '" i!! '" u 0 <( ~ "'~ ~~ ~ a. " 0. c:a <C "C ::J C) 0::: CI>(I)~::J ." ." ~ ~ Gl '" Z ..J O'lCO""""'It ~C;~M .,f v- as "'" ..J <( I- _ o "(j ....00::: ~ ~ '" " Ii ~ '" ""'N Ol'-CIOT"" v{1')l"-M cO <6"; III ~~ lOO 10 an m~~"It C"i' C'\; cD O'l ... .... '" "" '" '" ;:i;l ~I "' "" ~ ;;~-~~ M ..;~ OlCOt--CO ~o5:;co '<t- ..t cO It) ..J <( I- _ 0'0 ....;0:: Gl ~ '" ~ Ii ~ '" . . ~ '0 ~ " w 0 -g9> ~ .~ .!! ~ DO" ro" " c '3 \'I) -g2 ~ c 11I- E ~ c rn ~ m 0 c CO Q l/l- ro~ b 5 ~TI .. . u w ro 0 ~o .~ c u . . ~ " 0_ J1~ ro .2 0."5 II ;!:: G)'tl u ~ ~ .- a.>> f/l~ ai 5 ~E o E "0 0 ~ u -", ~~ ro.c ~~ -~ .- ~u; Q..!: ~ ~ u ~ ~ .2~~ g 13 ~ ~EE ~~g cJ::.o .- c ~ u.- c. i5,giij ~.g E ro-=:-g E ~ + 0" _ c 0 ro + C"2 - +- OJ) :mroE 555 ~ :g ~ 0 ~ ~ II II II E iii -0 E E .: 8 C\.I 0> 'I"'"" 'I"'"" <0 <0 I'- 'I"'"" <O~ I'- co. ">t 0> 0> 'I"'"" -q- ~ -q ~ 0> ~ ~ ~ M co -q 0> ~ 'I"'"" M ~ I'- ~ ~ ">t ~ N 0> ~ C\.I C\.I ~ C\.I C\.I~ cO 0> LO CD ~ CO 0 N - r-- N - .... . >- CD r-- ~ LO CD LO LO r-- 0 r-- LO "! '" ..- "! ~ "' :: LO ~ .,.; r-- N N LO U ~ nl Co nl U u:; 0> CD N LO CD N '" CD - ..- ~ LO ~ r-- ::s LO N ~ N '" 0 "'C ::s !Xl :;;: r-- co N r-- N N ~ "! r-- ~ ~ ~ r-- ..- N N "'. ~ >- ~ !Xl ~ c 0 :;:; LO r-- "' LO CD "' LO ..- CD nl CD CD LO N r-- LO N ..- U LO. r-- 0> "'- 0 co <l: C r-- N ..- '" 0> CD '" CD CO 0 ..- '" N CD N 0> CO r-- 0 r-- :;:; M M 00 nl '" ::s Co 0 ~ 0> "' N '" "' N ..- "' c.. CD CO CD CO r-- CD CO r-- CD N. N ~ N CO. "'C CD Q) Uj 0 Co 0 ... c.. ill en en > <( '" 0 c.. c: .0 W a> 0 ro 0:: ~ '" '" Z:- Z:- '" Z:- <( => ~ ~ '" ..J a> -0; '" -0; <( -0; .", :I: a> ui <( 0.. c: .<:; c: c: .<:; :s c: .<:; W C t3 a> 0 a> a> I- a> i= .. 0. '" 0. 0. Cl ;: <( ~ 0 0. 0; 0 0. ui 0 0. ~ a> Z c: ro '" 0 ro a> 0 W B B 0.. B B a> -0' B <( -0; ~ a> '" I- .!!i ~ ~ ~ ~ .::c ~ ~ r- a> .::c ro LL 0 0.. 0.. .. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0:: Cl '" a> E _S .<:; a> :0 c.. a> a> a> a> .<:; a> a> Z ;;: W OJ '" ::; OJ OJ OJ OJ ~ OJ OJ 0 I- ~ 4= ro .!)l I- ro ro '" ro ro ro ro a> <( 0 '" -CO => Z:- 0; 0; <9 0; 0; 0 0; 0; i= ~ Ci c: 0 U Ci <( c 0 OJ > > > => > > > > 0; is z <( <( c <( <( <( <( <( <( ..J c: c: c: :::l 0 0; - N M ::! ;S - ;S - - Z 0 ~ ~ N ~ N ,s ~ N c.. I- <( I- :::l ~ ~ ~ 0 (,) III c.. ~ ;;C N ;;C m U M - ~ ..- CD. r-- LO ~ - - 0 0> '" ..-. N r-- 0 r-- CD CO CO '" CO ..- ~ 0 N N ~ LO CD 0> LO '" N. "! CD CD ..- 0 ..- LO CD 0> ~ CD ..- u) "" 0 0 0 0> 0> ..- "-. N N r-- 0 r-- CD ..- N "! CD CD CD u) ~ ~ 0 LO LO CD LO 0 0> CO ~ M 0 M r-- r-- N LO r-- N CO '" r--. LO. ~ r-- r-- => (/) u;- 0.. " LO '" 0 c: 0; 0 a> ~ 0 0 ~ 0 I- 0 c: E 0 0 ::; ~ ] '" Z:- <9 " U 0. => 0 0.. a> '" ro '" '-- '#.;Z[ CO ~ ~ ""- <0 "- <0 r-- M .,. '#. ~ ~ ,... N '" N '#. ~ N '" r-- C; '#. ~ CO <0 CO '" '#. 8 ~ "' co .. '#. 8 ~ <0 '" '" '" (ft ::g N '" N .. ~ <0 '#. ~ '" o. r-- N :I: I- ~ o 0:: <9 0"- o w (/) o 0.. o 0:: 0.. .~ <( E o u: c: o ~ o .Q <;: c: .Q g. ~~ "-'" o.~ o 0 o..~ 0;"- :.;:::0 E~ o o r-- o ~ LO N "-. ..- o ~ '" M co ..- co o ~ '" <9 => '" ~ o. N ~ .E .i'J :; '" ~ '" " '" c: a> o o o o N '" c: ro .i'J ~ CD '" '" '" N '" co N "" 0> Z:- Tj co '" '" '" ~ .E =>- (/) " 0..-8 ~:= 0" 0.0 N c: <D.Q "'- ".!)l - " g 0. -- 0 ",0. a>= :';:::CIJ .0 <D .em '" i'? ~ a> a>.o .0 E E " E c: c:Z:- o c: :.;:::::1 ro 0 :;U o.c: 00 c.", a>-'" '" 0 ro ro "" . . . Summary of Commenting Entity Recommendations (1124/07) updated -, R = Recommended C = Conditionally Recommended Proposed Agreements and Conditions Results Urban Reserves (assumes agreement with ODOT, ODA, and DEQ general conditions) EP .1 ODOT and city need to come to agreement on special transportation issues R(Final) EP-3 R(Final) EP -4 R Final) - CP-3 R Final) i CP-5 . R Final) CP - 68 R (Final) MO -1 R (Final) MD-3 R(Finall MD-5 transportation impacts especially important R(Final) - MO -7south R (Final) MO-8 R (Final) MO-9 R(Final) MO-P R(Fin~ JK-2 R Final JK-3 R (Final) JK-4 R Final) JK-5 R Final) - JK -6 R Final) JK -8 R Final) PH -1 R Fina~!_ PH-3 R Final) PH -5 R(Finall PH .10 R (Final) TA-1 Only school or park use R (Fina~ TA-3 R (Final) TA -5 R (Final) EP-2 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C CP -18 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C CP -1C R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C CP-28 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C CP - 40 for parks/greenway use only; R pending final decision on commercial ag land C CP - 6A R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C MO-2 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C MO-4 special consideration urged as heritage area; R pending final decision on C commercial agricultural land MO-6 lot line adjustment necessary; R pending final decision on commercial C agricultural land -~.- MO - 7north R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C MO - 7mid R pending final decis.i,on on commercial agricultural land C JK -1 R pending final decision on ,c,ommercial agricultural land C will make no significant deviation from Master Plan, R pending final decision '- JK -10 C on commercial aqriculturalland PH-2 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C PH - ge R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C TA-2 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C TA-4 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C 26 R's, 17 C's "' heodon,' K Kuhngoski, GOVt'rnor Department of Land Conservation and Development Southern Oregon Field Office 155 '~orth First Street Centwl Point, Oreg~)ll 97.502 Phone: (541) 858-3189 Fax: (541) HS8<1l:.\.2 Web Address; http;//www.lcd.statt._or.us Apn14,2007 Greater Bear Creek Vallcy Regional Problem Solving Polley Committee P. O. Box 3275 Central Point, Oregon 97502 ~ Subject: The State of Oregon's Comments and Position on the findings in support of urbanizatiol1 of commercial farm land and other matters Ladies and Gentlemen: The Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee nas asked the participating State of Oregon agencies to comment on lh~ cities' proposals and findings for the inclusion of commercially slgmficant agricultural land in proposed urban reserves. The agencies that parhcipated in reviewmg the commercially signiticant agricultural lands arc the Oregon Ocpartrncnt of EnVlrDnmental Qllahty (DEQ), the Department of Housing and Community Services (OHCS). The Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD), The Oregon Transportation Department (ODOT), the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).Thcsc comments represent the position of the State of Oregon relative to the cities' CUITent findings regarding inclusion of commercially significant agricultural lands and a few other matters regardmg the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. General Comments on the cities' commercial agricultural land findings In most cases the reviewing agencies found that the citles' findings were l11adcquate to establish <) convincing nced for the future urbanization of the commercially significant agriculturaJland under consideration. We found there was an overall lack of detallcd analYSIS, most notably the absence of any real alternatives analysis and identification of specdic needs that could only be satisfied by inclusion of the spcclfic commercially significant agricultural area. Beyond the substantive issues of the individual jurisdictions findings, the agencies found the review of each city's findings difficult to understand without the larger context of where these individual propo!;als fit within the regional plan. For example, how individual jurisdictional land needs fit into the regional need was not discussed. Neitner was there a discussion of an alternatives analysis on a regional level. There was no discussion of the population allocations for each city and the land area necessary to accommodate this population. This is an inherent weakness in requesting state input at this point in the plan, something that became obvious only during the review process itself. Although it is impossible to determine at thIS point what the outcome of a subsequent state agency review would be should the findings he unified under a consistent furmat, improved technically, and placed within the more complete context of a regional plan, there is no doubt the review process would benefit from sllch an improvement. State of Oregon Comments March 2007 Finally. many of the cities' findings concerned the need to develop a roadway through ngncul1uralland. rhc state did not tind the need for a roadway across resource land to be rC,'15on for mclusion of the land in an urban reserve. It appeared that some cities were deSignating some urban reserves in the mistaken bchcf that such a deSignation would avoid the requirements o( ORS 215.283(3) for an exception to Goals 3 or 4. This statutory requirement for an exception to Goal 3 or 4 for new ro~dway across resource land cannot he avoided by the region::\1 problem solving process. The requirement remains until the land is within the urban growth boundary. The exceptions process includes 3n altematives analysis and the requirement to select the alternative \vith the least Impact to resource land. Comments on specific candidate urban reserves with commercial agricultural land Talent TA~l: The slate supports the inclusion of this growth area as a fulLlTe urban reserve subject to the condition that an agricultural buffer be installed on the property at the time it IS brought into the urban growth boundary (UGB) and that the use of the property be restricted to public uses that do not conllieL with adjulIling agricultural opcrtltions. The reason the agencies support the indusion of this property stems from the Caet that it is already committed to public use (soccer fields "nct school di,>trict bus bam) and that the school dislrict may want to build a school site on the property in the future. TA-2: The state supports thiS area as a future urban reserve. It appears to be a logical extension of the UGB and one that will have the least impact on other agricultural land. Other alternatives for Talent's future growth would have greater impact on agricultural land. T A-4: The state Sl.IppOl1s this area as a future mhan reserve. The city justifies this area as a future site for industrial use. Therefore, its inclusion ill the regional plan lllllst be base 011 it being restricted to industrial use. PH-2 and PH-9: The city has not provided sufficient eVidence to justify the urbanization of these commercially SIgnificant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not at this time support inclusion of these areas as future urban reserves. The primary reaSon given by the cJty for inclusion of these areas is for a roadway to connect to the industrial areas to the north. LocJtlon and approval of a roadway, should one actually be needed, is better served hy an exception to Goul 3. This process will require a well documented need and an alternative analysis that requires selection of the altemative that least effecls ugricullural land. 1\11)-2: The city has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanizntion of these commercially Significant lands. Therefore, the state docs not at this tIme support inclUSion of the commercially stgnificanl agricultural land portion (formerly R~28 and Rp33) of MD-2. This area buffers the agriculluralland to the northeast and is not needed for roadway connectIOn bC1Wct'n MD-2 and MD-3. This connection can be made by a route south into the present UGI3 and thell east intoMD-3. The future McLaughlin right-of-\vay south to Coker Butte Road \-vill require a GOlJI3 exception \\-'hether a portion of the route is within an urban reserve or not. i\U)-4: The state SUpp011S inclUSIOn ofMD-4 as a future urban reserve because it is surrounded by developed urban lands withlll the Medford UGH. Slate of Oregon Comments March 2007 2 1\:ID.6: The city hns not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanization of these commercially significant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does no\ 3t this tIme suppOI1 the inclusion of the commercially significant agncultural land portion of MD-6. We suggest the boundary of MD-6 be drawn straight across the nOl1hern boundary of the commercially significant agricultural land so as not to include this area. i\lD-71l: While ,"ve helieve this area will eventually become part of the city of Medford. the City has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanization of these commercially slgmticant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not support its inclusion at this tunc. This area has been proposed as future commercial development. ft would be less impact to the agncultural lands lo the south if its eventual development were to be for industrial uses. l\'fD-7mid: The city has not provided sufficient evidence to Justify the urbanization of these commercially signitkant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not at this time support Inclusion of this area as a future urban reserve. The city's reasons for inclusion appear to be the extension of existing city streets to South Stage Road; the readily available utility extension from utilities existing in the city and extension of the cXlsting residential development in the adjacent city. Vole b~llcve the city has available less Important agricultural land as alternatives th.\t can meet the residential need. JK~l: The state supports inclusion of the existing pear orchard portion of thiS area but does not support inclusion of the land to the north currently llsed for an apiary business and horse pasture. The inclll~ion of these appears to be for a roadway alignment that can be better accomplished with an exception to Goal 3. The orchard portion of the area serVl;S the city's need for nat sires for commercial and industrial development. JK-IO: The city has not provided sufficient eVidence to justify the urbanization of these commercially significant agricultural lands. Therefore, the stare does n01 at this tlme support inclusion of thiS area as a future urban reserve. The city's concept for this area is interesting but the city has not demonstrated a clear need for thlS land. Approximately half of the area IS a productive pear orchard whieh should remi.lin in agriculture. The iJttlc league fields, and MID stabilization ponds comprise a grandfathered use and a vital piece of agncultural infrastructure neither of which need to he in a clty. CP-4l>: The city has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanization of thcse commercially significant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state docs not at this time support inclusion of this area as a future urban reserve. \Vhile the land is county owned land mcluded to form a part of a chelTY stem between Tolo and Central Point, Its inclusion creates the potentIal for a local roadway that would impact Interchange 35. We exclude this land to protect the interchangc capacity. The cherry stem can be accomplished by including the frontage road and.it)r 1-5 alignmt:nt III the city's future UGB. CP-2B: The state supports inchlsion of this area in a future urban reservc. We suggest that Central POint also include the exception hmds just north of the eastern portwn of this area. CP~lC: The city has not provided sufficient cVldence to justify the urbanIzation of these commercially sib'Tlificant agricultural lands. Thercfon::, the state does not support the inclUSIon or this area. It appears to be desired to produce a ninely degree alignment for Scemc Avenue. CP-l C includes much more land than is necessary to achieve th1S alignment and the alignment i:lnd the requislt~ alignment can be achieved with a G031 3 t'xccptton. State of Oregon Comments March 2007 3 CP~6A: Tht' city has not provided suft1cient eVIdence 10 justify the llr'banlzation of these commercially significant agricultural lands. Therefore, the slate does not at this time SUPP0l1 the mcluslOll of the commercially sigrnficant agncultunll lands in CP-6A. This is high quality commercial agricultural land that should not be urbal11zcd without a careful review of altematJve~ and a justification of land need. The city has other options ror its residential growth. We suggest the city consider expanding fUl1her into the exceptions lands along Old Stage Road or expanding CP .28 further north between Gebhard and Tahle rock Roadg. We believe the city has not ruled out other options to address their land need. 1'010: The state supports inclusion of the Central Pomt proposal for Tolo subject to conditions to protect the capacity of interchange 35. .rhese conditions may include: the area must be restricted to industrial uses whlch take their access from Blackwell Road at least one-half mile away from I- S lntcrclmngc 35; a local road network must be developcd both east and west of Blackwell; and possible expansIOn of the area to include more properly on the ~ast sIde or Blackwell. Fmther work IS needed to assure consensus on possible conditions. EP-2: Th~ city has not provided sufficient evidence to justIfy thc urbanization of these eommerclally slbmificant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state docs Ilot support inclusion of the commercially signiticant agricultural lands portion of EP-2. Should roadways be needed through this land they can be accomplished with a Goal 3 exception For additional residential lanu the cIty could go further east ofEP-3. At this time, III total the state has not supported lor inclusion III the regIOnal plan urban reserves some 923 acres (9.4%) of commercial agricultural land out of 9,794 acres proposed [or urban reserves. This leaves the area included in the plan still within the needs calculated by I':CONorthwest's land needs simulator model. The land needs simulator may report a lower land need If Jacksonville's density of 1.2 dwellings/acre is revised IIp,,,,'ard to an urban density of" 5.5 dwelhngsiacre. Central Point may not have sufficient candidate urban reserves to aucommodatc their allocated population. It is unclear to the state reviewers 110\1,' much land is necessary 10 accommodate their allocation or what proportion of this amount of hmd could be available in the alternative .:lreas the state has suggested. Options 1'0)" completing the plan .^.s \vc see it the regional planning proJCct has three options for proceeding with il plan. All of the options would include a step where the draft plan IS sent to LCDC for comment. The first option is to write the plan based on the lands on which we do have complete consensus. This is the fastest and least expensive route to a plan that LCDC can acknowledge. As a second opt10n, the Policy Com111ittec could direct the consultants to write a plan using the growth arcas the cities have proposed, mcluding thosc not supported by the state. ,",Ve do nol helieve such a plan will he viewed favorably by LCDC and It is possible that LCDC is prevented from at;knowledgmg n plan that docs not have the support of all the participants.. Because we believe LCDC will not accept such a plan this course of action will add about six months to the plannll1g process ,md additional expense to the cities. State of Oregon Comments March 2007 4 Or the cities that did not get support for all of the commercial agricultural land could look to some other lands to make up the difference lost by lack of state support. This would add some time to the planning process and may add costs If the plan cou1d not be written before the June 30,2007 deadline on the DLCD graot that IS Hmding the plan. The state agencies who deliberated on the commercially significant agricultural lands do not suppose these comments are the final position from the state. \Vc do not wish to reconsider using new findings from each city. Rather to move the process forward we suggest the Policy Committee direct the consultant to dratt a plan under one of the above options or combination of them. It could be that the consultant might produce findings that would be more eon vine 109 on some of the growth areas, though we doubt that would be true for all of the areas. Please place these comments in the record of proceedings for the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. Some of us will be present at the Apnl 10, 2007 Policy Committee meeting to answer your questions. sinc/fL /~ _ _ JOhn'le:z7 Southern Oregon RegIOnal Representative for DI.CD for: Darcy Strahan RegIOnal Advisor to the Dlrector, OBCD Larry Holzgang Business Development anker, OECDD Terry Harbour ODOT Region 3 Planmng Manager Jim Johnson Land Use and Planning Coordinator for ODA John Becker DEQ Air Quahty Manager, Medford State of Oregon Comments March 2007 5 City of Jacksonville 110 E. Main Street, P. O. Box 7 Jacksonville, OR 97530 August 22nd, 2007 Re: Regional Problem Solving Benefits and Costs Dear Policy Committee members, As we prepare to release a draft Regional Plan for public comment, the Jacksonville City Council has requested that I convey their concerns regarding the present state of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process. The Council has serious concerns about the lack of benefits to be derived from the Plan as currently being discussed, First, on the regional level, other than the designation of Urban Reserves, which move certain properties to the head of the line when Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendments are proposed (and could be accomplished without RPS), what is the regional benefit ofRPS? We realize that, in theory, such designations could benefit long-range infrastructure planning, but, unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that the Plan includes nothing more than a vague promise of corridor protection for such facilities. Additionally, the early goal of RPS to provide additional protections for identified non- growth areas has been all but abandoned on the regional level. Second, on the local level, Jacksonville is having a difficult time finding any benefits to offset the additional cost burden that will result from continued participation in RPS, Aside from the out-of-pocket and in-kind staff time expenses affiliated with getting the Plan adopted, along with the ensuing Comprehensive Plan amendments, there are on- going maintenance costs and a significant additional burden when any governing body proposes an inteIjurisdictional adjustment. After RPS, there will be an additional layer of findings at a minimum, along with the potential for an extended multi-jurisdictional amendment process if some future proposal did not conform precisely with the Plan. When Jacksonville started RPS, it saw the promise of a process that would allow for local flexibility in planning that would be freed from the arcane restrictions of State rules, In that light, the city set forth a number of objectives to be pursued through RPS, An Equal Opportunity Provider I) First and foremost, the preservation of Jacksonville's historic context and character; which includes the preservation and enhancement of Jacksonville's farming foreground and wooded backdrop. 2) Formal recognition of Jacksonville "village pattern" of growth, which will result in lower densities than found elsewhere in the Rogue Valley. 3) The diversification of the City's economy. 4) The protection and completion of key transportation connections. 5) Future growth only in available serviceable areas. (A subset of this was ensuring that water could be provided to existing County parcels near the City's waterlines in the northwest quadrant through the Urban Reserve designation). 6) Formal recognition that, once the City's other livability factors have been satisfied, Jacksonville's further urbanization will cease. Verv few, ifany, of these objectives have been accomplished in the draft Plan. While there is a Policy Committee proposal to includc JK-I, JK-3, and JK-IO as Urban Reserves, the State has taken the position that JK-IO and portions of JK-I should not go forward as Urban Reserves. Should the State persist with that position, thcrc is little in the RPS draft, in terms of growth and economic diversi fication priorities, that could not be attained under existing Goal 14 UGB amendment provisions.. JK 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 all would be priority lands anyway and, with the Medford Water Commission's decision to continue to confine water provision to UGBs, there is no benefit to be derived from an Urban Reserve designation through RPS. As to other priorities, after the failure of numerous proposals such as the Special Protection designations and the adoption of each jurisdiction's livability proposals, the draft Plan contains no formal recognition of Jacksonville's historic context, its 'village pattern' with the accompanying lessening density, or its ultimate build-out and finalization of urbanization. Nor are there any implementing measures to accommodate these objectives. Given such a failure to achieve its objectives, what would be the reason for Jacksonvi11e to continue to participate in a process that offers costs, but very littlc in terms of benefits? Thank you for your consideration of these questions; the city is eager to hear your responses. Sincerely, Bill Leep, Jacksonville Councilor & RPS representative cc: City Council Planning Commission An Equal Opportunity Provider Regonese Dffhorpe ASSOCIATES Urball & ReR;ollal PlallllillR Memorandum TO: RPS Team FROM: Fregonese Calthorpe Associates SUBJECT: The Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS Assessment of Urban Reserve Lands DATE: February 22, 2006 Through the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process, The Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS and its member jurisdictions have been working toward the development of urban reserve lands. Although, member jurisdictions have each already determmed the location of possible urban reserve lands, which will be referred to herein as the "RPS growth areas," The RPS and its member jurisdictions requested a study using an objeetive model based on the Urban Reserve Rule to determine the best location for urban reserve lands based on an assessment ofland needs using population and density forecasts. Urban reserve areas delineated using the objective model is referred to as the "base case." This memo analyzes the findings from this request to determme whether any conflicts or similarities existed between the base case and RPS growth areas. This memo provides: I. A brief examination of the process used to determine 'base case' urban reserve areas for the RPS region. The base case urban reserve areas are compared to the RPS proposed growth areas with major findings highlighted. 2. An assessment of the RPS and base case urban reserve lands within each individual city. 3. A technical appendix outlining the GIS modeling process discusses the technical analysis used to create the base case model. Determining the Ba..e Case A GIS based model was developed to create an objective model to rank all the lands outside of the eXIsting Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) in each of the RPS member jurisdictions that will see an increase in population. Several assumptions helped to establish the foundation of the base case urban reserve area model. 1 Model assumptions: . Population forecast provided by RVCOG (See Table I below) . Mix of uses and densities consistent with those proposed by the RPS member jurisdictions . Residential and employment needs identified by the RPS jurisdictions . Standardized buildable land constraints . Urban Reserve Rule prioritization of lands Table 1 - Population allocation by build out capacity Eagle Central Point Medford PoInt J-vlll. Phoenix Talent 1 CANDIDATE GROWTH !'.REM IIA\ Total Growth Area Acre. 1350 4.579 2.382 518 600 233 1 Non~ 1261 7 I 441 1 76 2\, 69 732 767 77 49 157 3\ Available For Ras. Use 375 2108 1200 445 143 140 12\ BUILD-OUT POTENTW. IA\ Within Citv Limits in' Persons 531< 38 560 1815 625 1392 1704 11\ Avera"" Proi. Den.... 6.5 4 5.5 1.66 6 5.9 12) A""""'" Pmi. noh 2.82 2.3 2.5 212 2.32 2.25 18\ Within UGB in" P9f'SOOS 1173 13069 976 17 1155 1136 pmi. Oanltitv A< A '.' 2 A .4 2 Aver"". Proi. ooh 262 2.3 2.5 2.12 2.32 2.25 1r.\Within lA' -00-\ 4 7 1 1371 1 7 1717 1 P n .5 6 1. .50 2) Averaae Proi. 0Dh 2.62 2.3 2.5 212 2.30 2.25 31 POPULATION "TARGET" Total ~New Residents6 13362 90 425 21335 2013 4520 4557 Base P utatlon Total lC:itvl.imlhl U IUGB 2000 census 7722 7585 137 73,960 70 855 3105 16.2671 15640 I 627 2.490 2490 o 5.154 4""0 494 6291 6>55 36 The assumptions were incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS) model that ranked all parcels within the RPS region that met the specified criteria. (The details regarding the ranked lands inventory methodology are included in a technical appendix at the end of this document.) Once all of the parcels in the model were ranked, an assessment of unconstrained buildable lands was conducted. This included removing lands where natural and physical constraints existed. The parameters used to determine buildable lands included: . Lands within the 1 DO-year flood plain . Lands within a 25 ft buffer of wetlands . Lands within 25 or 50 ft of streams (depending on class) . Open Space . Public Lands . Exception lands with housing reduced 20% in capacity to account for existing homes . Parcels of less than I acre were eliminated from bUIldable land 2 This assessment was designed to account for natural constraints as well as parcels that already included improvements and those considered too small for inclusion in to the urban reserves. As such, the calculations used to determine the amount ofland inside urban reserve areas do not include these areas. In addition to these parameters, two additional criteria were added at the request of two jurisdictions. First, the City of Phoenix requested that areas noted as '3a' and '3b' be included in the base case boundaries but that the acreage not be included in the buildable acres. The reason for this is the area is currently urbanized and is fully built out, but is not included in the current UGB. The second request came from the City of Central Point. This request included the removal of several parcels within the hase case boundaries. Parcels that were less than one acre were already excluded from the count of buildable acreage based upon the above criteria. Additional parcels requested by Central Point that were greater than one acre were not counted in the total sum of buildable acres for the areas in which the parcels fell inside of the base case boundaries. Specifically, II acres ofland were excluded from the base case totals to account for this request. Medford deserves a special mention. Medford's residential was calculated on a gores density. It's estimated density of8 units per acre gross is fairly high by state standards, higher than Metro Portland (about 7.5 units per acre gross, or 10 net). Medford made its calculations on residential development alone, and separately included land needs for public facilities such as schools, parks, churches, and private institutions such as clubs. In developing a reconciliation of land need estimates, Medford should formally document the land needs for public uses that are usually included in a gross density assumption. Finally, based on an analysis of land needs, the base case was developed by selecting lands that had the highest ranking, and whenever possible were coincident with the existing RPS boundaries. In many cases the lands selected for inclusion by RPS were not the highest-ranking lands. As such these lands were not elected for inclusion into the base case. Rather lands that were ranked higher were selected. Major findings After determining the base case urban reserve areas using the ranked lands inventory method, the base case was then compared to the RPS growth areas. The major findings include: . More land within RPS growth areas then need by all cities except for JacksonvIlle . Differences in the spatial location of RPS and base case boundaries . Process used to prioritize RPS growth areas was different from the priority areas set forth by the Urban Reserve Rule The chart on the following page shows both the base case and RPS growth areas in acres and illustrates how the RPS growth areas exceed the base case in all cities but Jacksonville. This indicates that RPS growth areas established by the RPS member jurisdictions appropriated more land for urban reserves when compared to the base case. 3 Figure I - Urban reserve area buildable acres base case and RPS compared Phoenix .~ 1'233 149 Talent Medford _j3----~4579 Jacksonville .551984 Eagle Point ~ 1350 CcntrnlPoint - 2382 _1636 DI RPSGro\Vth Areas . Base Ca'>C o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Buildable acres For the cities of Medford, Eagle Point, and Central Point, the amount of acreage included in the RPS growth areas exceeds the amount of land by 42-62% of what the base case estimate deemed necessary to accommodate future growth. For the cities of Phoenix. Talent, and Jacksonville the proposed RPS growth areas arc relatively close to the base case in terms of acreage. While there is some overlap between the base case and proposed RPS growth areas, the differences are more evident than the similarities. This means that system by which the RPS growth areas were designated prioritized land differently than the base case modeling process. In many instances parcels selected for inclusion within the RPS growth areas different than those selected using the base case modeling process. For example, parcels at a distance of three miles from the existing UGS were selected for inclusion within RPS growth areas while other parcels a half-mile from the UGS were not. Only in the case of Jacksonville arc the base case and RPS growth areas relatively consistent in terms of both size and location. In Jacksonville, 368 acres overlap between the base case and RPS growth areas. This means that Jacksonville's proposed growth areas are much closer to the base case than any other jurisdiction in terms of both total acreage and location. However, the projections for future growth inside of Jacksonville increased by approximately 550 people since the RPS growth boundaries were 4 determined. As such, Jacksonville is the only jurisdiction with less land within its proposed growth areas. Central Point and Medford also have significant areas of overlap, but the amount of land allocated in the RPS growth areas is substantially larger than tbe base case. The next section discusses the findings for each city in detail. These findings are followed by a technical appendix, which outlines in detail, the process used to create the urban reserves model. Central Point SUPPLY Base Case RPS Growth Areas Overlap Acres 1636 2382 921 NEED Jobs Housing Total Acres 390 1236 1626 Legend ",,~';;;;;;rn "j~miiiii" Qverla p Base Case l!Mfcrd RPS Growth Areas Population The RPS forecast for the City of Central Point includes 21,335 residents. A small proportion of these new residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary. However, approximately 18,500 new residents will locate in Central Point outside of the existing UGB and must be accommodated in urban reserve areas. Land Area Required/or Hal/sing and Employment Using the gross denSity of 6 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Central Point would need to add 1,236 acres for future residential growth, and 390 acres for future jobs. This means that at least 1,626 acres need to be included in tbe urban reserve areas. 5 Differences and Similarities The RPS growth area for Central Point includes 2,382 acres and the base case includes 1,636 acres ofland. This results in a difference of746 acres between the proposed RPS growth areas and the base case. Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked method, 921 acres overlap. This means that approximately half the land area included in the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas. However, this also means that over half of the land area included in the base case and in the RPS growth areas are not consistent with each other. Ea Ie Point SUPPLY Acres Base Case 873 RPS Growth Areas 1350 Overlap 319 NEED Jobs Housing Total Acres 491 375 866 Legend ;rnmmmm Overlap Base Case RPS Growth Areas Population The RPS forecast for the City of Eagle Point includes 13,362 residents. Half of these new residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary. However, approximately 6,900 new residents must be accommodated in urban reserve areas. Land Area Requiredfor Housing and Employment Using the gross density of 6.5 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Eagle Point would need to add 375 acres for future residential growth, and 491 acres for future jobs. This means that at least 866 acres needs to be included in the urban reserve areas. 6 Differences and Similarities The RPS growth area for Eagle Point includes 1,350 acres and the base case includes 873 acres ofland. This results in a difference of 477 acres between the proposed RPS growth areas and the base case. Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked method, only 319 acres overlap. This means that less than half of the land area included in the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas. Conversely, over half of the land included in the base case and in the RPS growth areas are not consistent with each other. Jacksonville SUPPLY Base Case RPS Growth Areas Overlap Acres 594 518 368 NEED J1C k:wnnU. Jobs Housing Total Acres 55 539 594 Legend !;m~i Overla p Base Case RPS Growth Areas Population The RPS forecast for the City of Jacksonville includes 2,013 residents. This is an increase of nearly 550 residents than previous estimates. Less than half of these new residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary. The remainder, approximately 1,400 new residents must be accommodated in urban reserve areas. 7 Land Area Required/or Housing and Employment Using the gross density of 1.2 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Jacksonville woold need to add 539 acres for future residential growth, and only 55 acres for future jobs. This means that at least 594 acres need to be included in the urban reserve areas. Differences and Similarities The RPS growth area for Jacksonvi lie includes 518 acres and the base case includes 594 acres of land. This results in a difference of -76 acres between the proposed RPS growth areas and the base case. This negative difference is due to the change in the projection of future residents. Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked method, 368 acres overlap. This means that more than half of the land area included in the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas. Medford ~, CIll1:tn.l Pcrnt SUPPLY Acres Base Case 2833 RPS Growth Areas 4579 Overlap 1645 NEED Acres Jobs 723 H Dusing 2108 '.\.adford Total 2831 ';'~~"~l- :~.~' :-:::.'" , '". """'. ,~.. . :.' " '1'''''4, .~~. :' ~,. fZ~&\ ,~; ~ .~ f:1 I" .' . ~''"'. >h:~~:~ . ",' -:;;L~~_:: .. ':>:~, Legend ~1!~mli\l~ Overla p Base Case RPS Growth Areas Population The RPS forecast for the City of Medford includes 90,425 new residents. More than half of these new residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary. However, approximately 39,000 new residents will locate in Medford outside of the existing UGB and must be accommodated in urban reserve areas. 8 Land Area Requiredfor Housing and Employment Using the gross density of 8 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Medford would need to add 2, I 08 acres for future residential growth, and 723 acres for future jobs. This means that at least 2,83 I acres need to be included in the urban reserve areas. Differences and Similarities The RPS growth area for Medford includes 4,579 acres and the base case includes 2,833 acres of land. This results in a difference of 1,746 acres between the proposed RPS growth areas and the base case. Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked method, 1,645 acres overlap. This means that more than half the land area included in the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas. Talent SUPPLY .<lfi!l&f', ..ii/'~:;~;;~- " Base Case RPS Growth Areas Overlap Acres 149 233 115 !,:--,.,~.. NEED Tal~:1t Jobs Housing Total Acres 5 140 145 ~~~m~~ Overlap Base Case RPS Growth Areas Population The RPS forecast for the City of Talent includes 4,577 new residents. More than half of these new residents will be accommodated within tbe existing urban growth boundary. However, approximately 1,700 new residents will locate in Talent outside of the existing UGB and must be accommodated in urban rescrvc arcas. 9 Land Area Requiredfor Housing and Employment Using the gross density of 5.5 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Talent would need to add 140 acres for future residential growth, and only 5 acres for future jobs. This means that at least 145 acres need to be included in the urban reserve areas. Differences and Similarities The RPS growth area for Talent includes 233 acres and the base case includes 149 acres ofJand. This results in a difference of84 acres between the proposed RPS growth areas and the base case. Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked method, 115 acres overlap. This means that most of the land area included in the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas. Phoenix SUPPLY 1Iedio~d Acres 575 600 59 Base Case RPS Growth Areas Overlap NEED Jobs Housing Total Acres 423 143 566 P1:::.<a= Legend rm"l!IlIIll --H~H:illiill Overla p Base Case . RPS Growth Areas Population The RPS forecast for the City of Phoenix includes 4,520 residents. Nearly half of these new residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary. However, approximately 2,000 new residents will locate in Phoenix outside of the existing UGB and must be accommodated in urban reserve areas. 10 Land Area Required for Housing and Employment Using the gross density of 6 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Phoenix would need to add 143 acres for future residential growth, and 423 acres for future jobs. This means that at least 566 acres need to be included in the urban reserve areas. Differences and Similarities The RPS growth area for Phoenix includes 600 acres and the base case includes 575 acres ofland. This results in a small difference of25 acres between the proposed RPS growth areas and the hase case. Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked method, only 59 acres overlap. This means that only a small proportion of the land area included in the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas. 11 Technical Appendix The following describes the criteria and methodology employed to determine urban reserve lands for the RPS region. I. Criteria 1. Amount ofland must be able to accommodate a doubling of the existing population. 2. Inclusion of lands is based upon location factors sct forth in goal 14 of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. The criteria prioritize land within y,; mile of the existing UGS and include lands up to 2 y, miles. 3. Priority was given to exception lands within 2 V, miles from the UGB. 4. Lands considered as Exclusive Farm Use was given the lowest priority. EFU lands are added to Urban Reserves if it is within 2 V, miles from the UGS, and within y, miles from an existing road. 5. Priority is given to lands within 2 y, miles from the UBG and within 2 y, miles from an existing road, 6. Priority is given to lands that are below 20% grade with the highest priorty given to lands that are at 5% grade. 7. Priority is given to lands with less rich soils. II. Methodology A Geographic Information System (GIS) model was developed based on the above criteria to determine the most suitable lands that should be included as Urban Reserves. 1. Data The following lists the datasets, and their sources used to create the Urban Reserve model: . Urban Growth Boundaries tor all jurisdictions included in the RPS Region o Source: RVCOG . Roads that fall within 3.5 miles of the UGB for all jurisdictions included in the RPS Region (does not include roads within the UGS) o Source: RVCOG . Soils for the RPS Region o Source: USGS . EfulExceptlOn Lands for the RPS Region o Source: FCA . RLRC Lands for RPS Region o Source: RVCOG 12 . Slope for RPS Region o Source: USGS 11. Methods . Convert in$? the Data UGB Lands that were considered the most important are those that are closest to the UGB. This model looks only at land within 5 miles of the existing UGB in quarter mile increments. A five-mile buffer was applied to the UGB shape file and separated into 20-quarter mile (132011) increments. Each quarter mile increment includes a starting (from) and ending (to) value. For example, the starting (from) value for land that is V, mile distance from the UGB is 1320 and the ending (to) value is 2640. The data was then converted into a raster dataset and summarized by the starting (from) value. The data was then reclassified to a 0-19 scale to simplify the analysis process. The following table provides a sample of this converSIOn: From___.:r".___. . J~cc::la~s._. 'Within 1/4 Mile 0 'Within 1/2 Mile 1320. ,Within 3/4 Miles 2640' Within 1 Mile 3960: :Within I 114 Mile 5280 'Within I 1/2 Mile 66001 ; Within 1 314 Mile, 7920l 'Within 2 Mile'--____>.__J.2.4Q._ Within 2 114 Miles 10560 iWithin 2112 118&0' 1320, 2640' 3960 5280 6600. 7920' 9240 10560 -~.__.__..-~ 11880 13200 o 4 5 6 13 ROADS This model only looks at roads that fall within 3.5 miles outside of the UGB. The roads that meet this criterion were selected from the source data set. A 3-mile buffer was applied to every road and separated into l2-quarter mile increments. The data was then converted to a raster dataset and summarized by the starting (from) value. The data was then reclassified to a I-II scale to simplify the analysis process. However, since priority is given to lands within Y, mile of an existing road network, the reclassification lumped \'4 and y, into one category. The table provides a summary of the reclassification scheme: lWithin 1/4 Mile Within 1/2 Mile ,Within 3/4 Miles ~ithin)J>1il"-__ :Within I 1/4 Mile Within I 1/2 Mile ,Within 1 3/4 Mile :Within 2 Miles ,,,,,ithin 2114 Miles Within 2 1/2 From To 0: 1320: 2640, 3960 5280 ReClass 7920.. 9240: 10560 11880 1320 l' 2640 I: 3960 2, 5280 3: --_._----~ 6600, 4. 5, 6 7: 8 9: 9240 10560 11880 . ..._..._.__m.... 13200 EfU and Exception Lands The EFUIException lands were converted to a raster data set and summarized based on the object 10 number. SOILS The soils dataset was converted to a raster and summarized based on the attribute "NONIRRCL" which provides the soil class based on USGS standards. SLOPES The slopes dataset did not require any conversion. In raster format the values provided slope grade in increments of 5% up to 25% and classified anything beyond 25% as 26%. . Assienine Values Based on Criteria Each dataset was converted into a common raster format and combined to show only the lands where all five datasets overlapped. Next, each of the attributes for the individual layers were reclassified and assigned a value based on the priorities set forth to determine Urban Reserves. Values range from 0-10 with 10 being the most favorable condition for inclusion into Urban Reserves. The following outlines the specific values assigned to each layer. 14 UGB Land within \I. mile of the UGB was given the highest priority for inclusion into urban reserves. Land that fell outside of2 \I, miles was given the lowest priority. The following tables illustrates the values assigned to eaeh attribute in the UGB layer: Code Description Value OWithin 1/4 Mile "10" IWithin 1/2 Mile "9" 2Within 3/4 Miles "8" 3 Within 1 Mile "TI 4Within I 1/4 Mile "6" 5Within I 1/2 Mile '''5'' 6Within I 3/4 Mile "4" 7 Within 2 Miles "2" 8 Within 2 1/4 Miles "I" 9Within 2 112 "0" 10 -190reater than 2 1/2 Miles "0" Roads Land within \I, mile of any road was given the highest pnority. Land beyond 2 \I, miles was given the lowest priority. The following tables illustrates the values assigned to each attribute in the Roads layer: G~4~.Pe-s<:~iption Value IWithin 1/2 Mile "10" 2Within 3/4 Miles "9" JWithin 1 Mile "8" 4 Within I 114 Mile "7" 5Within 1 1/2 Mile "6" 6Within I 3/4 Mile "5" 7Within 2 Miles "4" 8 Within 2 114 Miles "2" 9Within 21/2 "1" 110- II Greater than 2 1/2 Miles "0" EFU and Exception Lands Exception lands were given the highest priority for inclusion into Urban Reserves. Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) lands were given the lowest priority. The following table illustrates the values assigned to each attribute in this layer: Code Description Value I.EFU Lands "0" 99:Exception Lands "10" 999.Urban Rcsidcntial (Exccption Lands) "10" 15 Soils Class 1 soils are considered the best soil for farm use. As such, land where soil was classified as 3 or below are considered low priority for inclusion into Urban Reserves. Soils classified above 3 were considered higher priority for Urban Reserves. The following table illustrates the values assigned to each attribute in this layer: \=_~~~_ IJ~~qipti()I1_._____.__ .. u_..._..__.Y~lue OiNo Value :111" ---j- tClass I ,"I" 3!Class 3 i"3" !-_..__l__________ _._________-j-___.___----; 4lClass 4 ;"4" 6Class 6 TClass 7 ,119" RClass 8 "10" Slope Steep slopes can be both costly and difficult to develop. As such, slopes with a higher grade were given lowest priority and those with a lower grade, specifically less than 10% were given the highest priority. The following table illustrates the values assigned to each attribute in this layer: G9de De:scriptio(]. Value 50-5% Grade "10" 106-10% Grade "7" 1511-15% Grade "5" 20'16-20% Grade "2" 25'21-25% Grade "0" 2626% Grade or higher "0" . Creatinll the Campasite Map and Rankinll Land The composite map shows only the areas where all five layers overlapped and is symbolized according to the total value score for each individual cell. Each cell in every layer reccived a value as described above. The values of each cell were then added up to provide a total rank score for each cell. Those that had the highest values (45-50) are considered the most desirable for inclusion in the Urban Reserves. Those with the lowest values are considered to be the least desirable for inclusion into urban reserves. Once the composite map was completed, as assessment ofland needs for each of the jurisdictions was completed using data provided by RPS. A calculation of total land need provided the basis for determining the amount ofland to include in the base case. The base case boundaries were determined by relying on the scoring method to select the best lands available for inclusion into the urban reserves using this methodology. 16 ~ .' "~. " " ~L"~ ' \ t' ~""_;;i" " f'1. . " .. _ -L - . / - ~-- ~1~j::.~;~f1"- \PIl "Z) ~\/) - L ~-J~_.- .Lt.! ~ v I / I L / _~ ~ ". ;;::010 " ..."....., .~ '" ~"...; .. ."LJ . - ":!. . - . . ....'.-- ....-.. ~ --'- ~ ~ []DD=O~ "II ~ t' S ~ i Q. ~ it ... ... . I ! ! :- ~ s;: Ig, n i: f !~'~,li I . . n " " ~ [ f ~ . , '. ~ . ~ 1 . j ! ~z c ~-u C'o Ql- ::Icon ;0::1 _" Cb go< '" -0 co-u_ <'-)> 11l Ql", ::I ::r () ~. Dr Ql ::I ::I ::I (Q a. 90)> a.al !!!.Ql 11l '" ~ 19 REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING 16 CJ Proposed Urban Ii!: Reserves @ ~ Ii!: RLRC areas IWI E2ZI Urban Parkland @ .11.... "," "." UGB & V\lhile City UCB ..... [-=:-J City Boundary '.l!I 9.13.07 .......... 00:' Buffer Areas .-. . .. ... .ADMA Regional ~r.11I!ot