Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1029 Documents Submitted at the Meeting Summary of 1000 Friends of Oregon Concerns about the Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving (RPS) "Draft Plan"! Presented to the Ashland City Council October 29,2007 Bi!! Picture: 1000 Friends of Oregon supports regionally coordinated planning as the most sensible way to address complex issues associated with population growth We support the Project Goals adopted by the RPS project. We cannot support the "Draft Plan" as it is currently written. RPS. Urban Reserves. and Urban Growth Boundaries Key elements of the RPS Statute and how it is being applied in this process. See attached sections of the Statutes and Rules. Some Statistics: According to the Draft Report, the current plan includes about 9,200 acres of proposed Urban Reserve Areas. Of this total: · About 7,125, or approximately 77 percent, are currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use or other resource designation. · About 1,640, or approximately 18 percent, were determined by the RLRC to be critical to "the region's commercial agricultural" base ofland. Si!!nificant Issues: I. Significant parts of the Draft Plan are based on erroneous legal interpretations. 2. Although some land has been "justified" as necessary on a regional basis, the required regional alternatives analyses have not been conducted. 3. Overall land needs are overstated. The Project's own model shows an excess of as much as 1,400 acres. Using assumptions that are consistent with other Oregon jurisdictions and market forces would reduce the number needed even further: l This is a summary of some of the concerns presented in public testimony at the RPS public hearing October 10, 2007. This summary is not part of the record of that proceeding. Other Issues: Transportation planning for the Project is incomplete and violates state law. The level of citizen involvement at the regional level has been inadequate. Basic questions of regional significance have not been asked or answered. Among these: Are the population projections really good for the region? Are they even realistic? How will the region assure the people get to where the growth is planned? Is there enough of the right kinds ofland for employment purposes? Where is affordable housing? How will it happen? What about transportation options other than building morelbigger roads? Who is going to pay for all of this? How? Issues For Ashland to Consider: As of the last time we heard from them, the State Agencies (who must all sign on for the agreement to be valid) did not support the plan. Their issues have been responded to, but we don't know if they have been addressed. Some of the unanswered questions discussed above will have an impact on Ashland. The primary benefit to Ashland of this plan is that the rest of the region will be following one more or less coordinated plan for meeting future urban needs. There will be ongoing costs associated with the plan in the future. Among them will be the cost of monitoring, reviewing compliance, and amending plans as called for in the Stakeholder's Agreement. Under the current plan there will be significant costs associated with transportation that the region will bear as a whole. Most of the infrastructure expenditures will be spent in the north part of the valley. This will require contributions from Ashland and may impact funds Ashland is able to get for its own improvement and maintenance. The "Stakeholders Agreement," which the city will have to sign on to, is a legally binding land use decision that will have an impact on how Ashland can or cannot grow for decades to come. The city should consider the legal ramifications of signing such a document. COLLABORATIVE REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING 197.652 Establishing regional problem-solving programs. Programs of the collaborative regional problem-solving process described in ORS 197.654 and 197.656 shall be established in counties or regions geographically distributed throughout the state. [1996 c.6 ~3; 1997 c.365 ~ I] 197.654 Regional problem solving; coordination. (I) Local governments and those special districts that provide urban services may enter into a collaborative regional problem-solving process. A collaborative regional problem-solving process is a planning process directed toward resolution ofland use problems in a region. The process must offer an opportunity to participate with appropriate state agencies and all local governments within the region affected by the problems that are the subject of the problem-solving process. The process must include: (a) An opportunity for involvement by other stakeholders with an interest in the problem; and (b) Efforts among the collaborators to agree on goals, objectives and measures of success for steps undertaken to implement the process as set forth in ORS 197.656. (2) As used in ORS 197.652 to 197.658, "region" means an area of one or more counties, together with the cities within the county, counties, or affected portion of the county. [1996 c.6 ~4] 197.656 Commission acknowledgment of comprehensive plans not in compliance with goals; participation by state agencies; commission review of implementing regulations and plan amendments; use of resource lands. (I) Upon invitation by the local governments in a region, the Land Conservation and Development Commission and other state agencies may participate with the local governments in a collaborative regional problem-solving process. (2) Following the procedures set forth in this subsection, the commission may acknowledge amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations, or new land use regulations, that do not fully comply with the rules of the commission that implement the statewide planning goals, without taking an exception, upon a determination that: (a) The amendments or new provisions are based upon agreements reached by all local participants, the commission and other participating state agencies, in the collaborative regional problem-solving process; (b) The regional problem-solving process has included agreement among the participants on: (A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem that is the subject of the process; (B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the subject ofthe process; (C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of the process; (D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation ofthe techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals; (E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and (F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are not achieving the goals; and ( c) The agreement reached by regional problem-solving process participants and the implementing plan amendments and land use regulations conform, on the whole, with the purposes of the statewide planning goals. (3) A local government that amends an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or adopts a new land use regulation in order to implement an agreement reached in a regional problem-solving process shall submit the amendment or new regulation to the commission in the manner set forth in ORS 197.628 to 197.650 for periodic review or set forth in ORS 197.251 for acknowledgment. (4) The commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction for review of amendments or new regulations described in subsection (3) of this section. A participant or stakeholder in the collaborative regional problem-solving process shall not raise an issue before the commission on review that was not raised at the local level. (5) If the commission denies an amendment or new regulation submitted pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, the commission shall issue a written statement describing the reasons for the denial and suggesting alternative methods for accomplishing the goals on a timely basis. (6) If, in order to resolve regional land use problems, the participants in a collaborative regional problem-solving process decide to devote agricultural land or forestland, as defined in the statewide planning goals, to uses not authorized by those goals, the participants shall choose land that is notJlIlU flf!tl;:) rt"gl~,ntdti'NlIl5Ic!\',,1 a~~_ "'----illlRlI~ or take an exception to those goals pursuant to ORS 197.732. To identify land that is not part of the region's commercial agricultural or forestland base, the participants shall consider the recommendation of a committee of persons appointed by the affected county, with expertise in appropriate fields, including but not limited to farmers, ranchers, foresters and soils scientists and representatives of the State Department of Agriculture, the State Department of Forestry and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. (7) The Governor shall require all appropriate state agencies to participate in the collaborative regional problem-solving process. [1996 c.6 95; 2001 c.672 911] 197.658 Modifying local work plan. In addition to the provisions ofORS 197.644, the Land Conservation and Development Commission may modify an approved work program when a local government has agreed to participate in a collaborative regional problem-solving process pursuant to ORS 197.654 and 197.656. [1996 c.6 96] URBAN RESERVES 660-021-0010 Definitions For purposes of this division, the definitions contained in ORS 197.015 and the Statewide Planning Goals (OAR Chapter 660, Division 015) apply. In addition, the following definitions apply: (I) "Urban Reserve Area": Lands outside of an urban growth boundary identified as highest priority for inclusion in the urban growth boundary when the boundary is expanded in accordance with Goal 14. (2) "Resource Land": Land subject to the Statewide Planning Goals listed in OAR 660- 004-0010(1)(a) through (t), except subsection (c). (3) "Nonresource Land": Land not subject to the Statewide Planning Goals listed in OAR 660-004-001O(1)(a) through (t) except subsection (c). Nothing in this definition is meant to imply that other goals do not apply to nonresource land. (4) "Exception Areas": Rural lands for which an exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4, as defined in OAR 660-004-0005(1), have been acknowledged. (5) "Developable Land": Land that is not severely constrained by natural hazards, nor designated or zoned to protect natural resources, and that is either entirely vacant or has a portion of its area unoccupied by structures or roads. (6) "Adjacent Land": Abutting land. (7) "Nearby Land": Land that lies wholly or partially within a quarter mile of an urban growth boundary. 660-021-0020 Authority to Establish Urban Reserve Areas Cities and counties cooperatively, and the Metropolitan Service District for the Portland Metropolitan area urban growth boundary, may designate urban reserve areas under the requirements of this rule, in coordination with special districts listed in OAR 660-021- 0050(2) and other affected local governments, including neighboring cities within two miles of the urban growth boundary. Where urban reserve areas are adopted or amended, they shall be shown on all applicable comprehensive plan and zoning maps, and plan policies and land use regulations shall be adopted to guide the management of these areas in accordance with the requirements of this division. 660-021-0030 Determination of Urban Reserve Areas (1) Urban reserve areas shall include an amount of land estimated to be at least a IO-year supply and no more than a 30-year supply of developable land beyond the 20-year time frame used to establish the urban growth boundary. Local governments designating urban reserves shall adopt findings specifying the particular number of years over which designated urban reserves are intended to provide a supply of land. (2) Inclusion ofland within an urban reserve area shall be based upon the locational factors of Goal 14 and a demonstration that there are no reasonable alternatives that will require less, or have less effect upon, resource land. Cities and counties cooperatively, and the Metropolitan Service District for the Portland Metropolitan Area Urban Growth Boundary, shall first study lands adjacent to, or nearby, the urban growth boundary for suitability for inclusion within urban reserve areas, as measured by the factors and criteria set forth in this section. Local governments shall then designate for inclusion within urban reserve areas that suitable lands which satisfies the priorities in section (3) of this rule. (3) Land found suitable for an urban reserve may be included within an urban reserve area only according to the following priorities: (a) First priority goes to land adjacent to, or nearby, an urban growth boundary and identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land. First priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless these are high value crop areas as defined in Goal 8 or prime or unique agricultural lands as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture; (b) Ifland of higher priority is inadequate to accommodate the amount ofland estimated in section (I) of this rule, second priority goes to land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247; (c) If land of higher priority is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in section (1) of this rule, third priority goes to land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use. (4) Land oflower priority under section (3) of this rule may be included ifland of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in section (I) of this rule for one or more of the following reasons: (a) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority area due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (b) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban reserve area requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands. (5) Findings and conclusions concerning the results of the above consideration shall be adopted by the affected jurisdictions Statute on priority of lands into ugb J 197.298 Priority ofland to be included within urban growth boundary. (1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary except under the following priorities: (a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action plan. (b) Ifland under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount ofland needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710. (c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount ofland needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition). (d) Ifland under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. (2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use. (3) Land oflower priority under subsection (I) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary ifland of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons: (a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; (b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands. [1995 c.547 95; 1999 c.59 956] J Ashland City Council meeting Public comment Steve Rehn, AICP 285 Liberty St. Ashland, OR 552-0688 SteveRe h n@ieffnet.org To: Ashland City Council Re: October 29, 2007 - Agenda Item III: Regional Problem Solving Council Members - I am an Ashland resident, and I have been directly involved with the Bear Creek RPS project both as a comprehensive planner for Medford and as a long-range transportation planner for the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. I have already submitted comments to you on this subject, but I would like to encapsulate my views here. The communities of the Bear Creek Valley are seriously in need of a regional vision and a system for coordinating development and infrastructure. Our cities are already deeply inter-dependent, a quality that is certain to increase as our regional population continues to grow. So the RPS planning initiative was a hopeful opportunity for the region to layout shared values, hammer out a strategy for gracefully accommodating growth, and make the necessary commitments to bring it about. Instead, the process has produced a Regional Plan to facilitate sprawl. Studies commissioned for the purpose of validating the "Plan" have repeatedly alluded to problems with laying claim to so much territory for future urbanization. The Fregonese/Calthorpe study in your agenda packet recommended a much more moderate urban expansion, using a land needs model based on Smart Growth criteria. The Housing Needs Analysis recommended a higher residential density, which equates to a smaller urban reserve. The transportation analysis (available Oct. 30) shows that massive levels of spending on roads would be necessary to avoid the traffic gridlock resulting from the spread-out pattern of development countenanced by the Draft Plan. This is only a sampling of the many fiduciary and quality-of-Iife issues that will be affected by the way our region chooses to accommodate its future population. Sprawl is also inimical to: 1 of 3 Ashland City Council meeting Public comment · Attractive and vital town centers; · Non-automobile transportation options; · Aging-in-place strategies; · Affordable housing; · Housing choice; · Air quality; · Wildfire safety. With regard to the transportation analysis, it is crucial that you understand some important points if and when you get a chance to see it. Transportation outcomes were forecast for a number of possible scenarios (all of which included the entire proposed urban reserve), which posited different land development patterns and levels of transportation investment. None of these is explicitly adopted in the proposed Regional Plan, except that it supports some aspects of the "Regional Attractor" land development scenario. The Regional Attractor scenario would create the worst traffic congestion of all the land use scenarios, according to the Travel Demand Model forecast. The Draft Plan promotes no particular road or transit strategy. It includes no strategy for coordinating a pattern of development that would ultimately form an integrated network of destinations, connected by a variety of routes and transportation modes. The Plan includes no analysis of its impact on the cost of the transportation facilities it would make necessary, nor does it includes a genuine strategy for funding these facilities. The optional funding mechanisms listed in the Plan (but never mentioned in the implementation section or the Stakeholder Agreement) would raise less than $150 million over 50 years - about one twentieth of the likely cost to local governments. As an implementation "incentive," the Draft Regional Plan argues that adoption of the Plan will qualify cities for priority transportation funding from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which distributes state and federal transportation funds throughout the region. This is a disturbingly deceptive claim. Existence of a Regional Plan in no way affects the total amount of funding available to the MPO. It may be that the MPO could adopt a policy that prioritizes transportation projects in the Urban Reserve. But such a policy would simply divert spending from areas that are already urbanized, and would almost 2 of 3 Ashland City Council meeting Public comment certainly compare poorly in the cost/benefit criteria the MPO uses to prioritize projects. The issues discussed here cannot simply be passed off to the Plan's signatories. They are coordination issues. For instance, suppose local jurisdictions made the commitment to fund a major expansion to the transit network, such as the "High Capacity Public Transit" scenario modeled in the Transportation Analysis. The effort would be wasted without a coordinated network of transit-friendly destinations, such as the "Nodal Development" scenario, which provides for a network of transit-friendly destinations. FTA feasibility guidelines suggest that local-level transit service (e.g. 3D-minute bus service) requires destinations with residential densities of at least 7 dwelling units per acre. Region-level service (e.g. Bus Rapid Transit or commuter rail) requires at least 15 dwelling units per acre. This cannot be achieved with an ad hoc, locally autonomous planning approach. In its current form, the Draft Regional Plan is not really a strategy for coordinating regional growth - it is an agreement on how to parcel out the "spoils" of growth, i.e. territory. Adopting this Plan would commit the region for the next fifty years to sprawling development, nightmare traffic, higher levels of public spending, and many other ills. It does not promise to benefit Ashland or the region. Sincerely, Steve Rehn 3 of 3 .\-4 CO(JJ\t ",' J',t. . n\C~\ <,,,-I i'>.J,.""". - ~ 'I.T , James R. McWillla~\4,-,- Senior Claims Consultant (541) 682-4518 (866) 567-3656 (fax) jmcwi/liBmS@ccisetvices.com . - III Z 1.&.1 <I' V <:::-.p . ~..... -1.vCE S~~ C/O Lane COG 99 E. Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 ~ ~ @ ~ 0 (D ~-!1'\' W OCT 3 0 2007 I!) October 30, 2007 By Louis Movitz P.O. Box 400 Ashland, OR 97520 NAME OF INSURED: FILE NUMBER: DATE OF ACCIDENT: City of Ashland 45304 8/25/07 Dear Mr. Movitz: We have completed our investigation of your claim against the City of Ashland. The facts reveal that the fire that damaged your residence was started by a nine year old juvenile, who confessed to the crime. It is our position that your loss was caused by the intervening criminal act of a third party not by the City. It is also our position that the City was in reasonable compliance with the "weed abatement ordinance" given the particular nature of this City property. It is further our position, that it is pure speculation that compliance to the degree you profess would have prevented or significantly reduced the fire intensity and therefore damages. Regardless, this compliance issue was not the proximate cause of your loss. The evidence leads us to believe that our insured is not liable for your damages. Under the circumstances, we must respectfully deny your claim. If you have any questions about our decision, please call me. Sincerely, James R. McWilliams, CPCU Senior Claims Consultant Cc: Sharlene Stephens Jun 18 04 10:30a Craie:; Stone 5417790114 p.2 CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Consultants in Urnan Planning <-lnll Development 708 Cardley Avenue. Medford, Oregon 97504-6124 Telephone: (541) 779-0569. Fax: (541) 779-0114. E-mail: cstone(a)cstoneassociates.com December 26, 2003 MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL City of Ashland, Oregon clo City Planning Director, John McLaughlin 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 ~~@~~rn~~\1 W OCT 2 9 2007 WI I By : RE: REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING Designation of Future Growth Areas Dear Mayor and Council: We have been engaged by partners Madeline Hill and Larry Medinger to provide a detailed explanation of the Collaborative Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process as the same applies to the inclusion of lands as Future Growth Areas (FGA). My clients explained that they've offered to dedicate a substantial amount ofland they own to the city for affordable housing, if the land Can be included in Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and annexed.' The value of donated land can be used to underwrite the cost of housing and help supply it at a cost that is more affordable. My clients offer appears very generous, although this office has made no effort to evaluate its relative advantages or any disadvantages in connection with this proposal. Instead, we have been asked to explain the important advantages and potential disadvantages ofidentitying this land as an FGA through the RPS process and the balance of this letter concerns this issue. The following are attached: . Appendix 1: One page summary of locational factors to include land in a UGB . Appendix 2: Relevant provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) which govern UGB amendments . Appendix 3: Collaborative Regional Problem Solving statute Collaborative Regional Problem Solving (RPS) The attached ORS 197.652 through 197.658 establish and govern RPS. See, Appendix 3. Briefly, RPS is a process enacted into law and partially funded by the state legislature to I As I understand, the land (Tax Lot 600, 39-IE-03) consists of about fifteen acres, located adjacent to Mountain Meadows, a retirement project my clients own. I further understand tbat the Ashland Community Land Trust handles the ownership of land and the delivery of housing, at prices and terms which Ashland bas deemed affordable. My clients have explained their proposal earlier in oral and written forms and it won't be explained fwther here. This property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) although its soils and history suggest it bas limited value for the production of farm crops and livestock. Jun 18 04 10:30a Craig Stone 5417790114 p.3 Craig A, Stone & Associates. Ltd. Mayor and City COWlciI Deoember 26. 2003 address predetermined problems or issues of regional import. The statute provides that LCDC may acknowledge comprehensive plan and land use regulations that don't fully comply with . the rules of LCDC (and without taking a goal exception) if adopted in accordance with the RPS statute.2 See, Appendix 2 - ORS 197.656(2). To date, a substantial part ofRPS has been the identification of Future Growth Areas (FGA) - areas identified by the participating cities as desirable urban growth areas over a fifty year planning horizon. Once enacted through the RPS process (and acknowledged by LCDC) the FGA's will become what other land use statutes and administrative rules refer to as, "Urban Reserve Lands." In other words, the RPS process permits participating cities to identify land over a 50 year period that it expects to urbanize and to do so outside the administrative rules which typically govern these decisions. These are key elements, critical to understanding the importance ofRPS if the city is (or might in the future be) interested in my clients offer ofland for affordable housing. Priority for Including Laud in a UGB The land use system which govems the inclusion of land in a UGB, includes a priority scheme in ORS and OAR. These provide similar but importantly different priority rating systems which are summarized in attached Appendix I. If the subject property were identified as an FGA (Urban Reserve Area) its future inclusion in Ashland's UGB would be governed only by ORS 197.298 but not OAR 660-21-030 (because this administrative rule will be waived by the RPS process). Pursuant to ORS 197.298, land can be taken into Ashland's UGB ifit is within an Urban Reserve Area and by virtue of it being identified as an FGA through RPS, it would be an Urban Reserve Area. However, if the subject property is not identified as an FGA and the city later wants to include the property in its UGB, the amendment process will be subject to both ORS 197.298 and OAR 660-21-030. As such, OAR 660-21-030 would require any UGB amendment to include, as a first priority, acknowledged exception areas adjacent to UGB and resource lands that are surrounded by exception areas. Exception lands are those areas not planned/zoned for farm or forest use; there are exception lands adjacent to Ashland and located not further than one- quarter mile distant. A city is expected to exhaust the supply of Priority I lands before it can proceed to farm and forest resource lands. If resource lands are to be taken for urbanization, they must be included in order of resource capability, with the worst lands taken first and the best lands last. Because the subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) it cannot be taken for urbanization until after all exception areas have been taken. This means that if the city determines that the offer my clients have made is desirable, it will be unable to be included in the UGB until all exception lands located adjacent and within one-quarter mile of the city's UGB have been included (in the UGB). That is not to say that the ORS 197.298 (and OAR 660-21-030) do not have mechanisms to overcome the priority schemes, and in fact these mechanisms are identical. They require alternative showings that: 2 The RPS statute requires that new plan and ordinance provisions (and the ways they are addressed) are agreed upon by participating local governments and do conform to the purpose of the statewide planning goals. Page 2 00 .Jun ItJ uq. lU: ::JUa Craig: Stone 5417780114 p.4 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Mayor and Cily Council Decembc:r26,200J . Specific land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; . Future urban services cannot reasonably be provided to higher priority lands due to physical constraints; or . Maximum efficiency of land within a proposed UGB requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands However, the leading case on the subject of establishing Urban Reserve Areas, involved METRO's attempt to gain an exception to the statute and rule. Despite substantial efforts by METRO to document the exception, the court ultimately denied METRO's request in a way which caused METRO to take a different direction. This author is unaware of any local government which has attempted to justify an exception (to ORS 197.298 and OAR 660-21- 030) for the purpose of varying the priority schemes ofUGB land inclusion. In point of fact, the RPS process, if carried out in the way now anticipated, makes the taking of such an exception wholly unnecessary and helps ensure that this land can be used for urban housing. Leaving the land without FGA status, will make its use for urban housing more difficult and tenuous. If the city desires this land for future urban housing and wants to entertain my clients offer of donation, it should identify this property as a FGA through the RPS process. Very truly yours, CRAlG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. CAS/m C:\WS\HILL t.l:l:HNGER\lET 1A.DOC Enclosures: Appendix]: One page summary of locational factors to include land in a UGB Appendix 2: Relevant provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) which govern UGB amendments Appendix 3: Collaborative Regional Problem Solving statute ce. Madeline Hill Larry Medinger File Page3of3 Jun 18 04 10:31a Craig Stone 5417790114 p.5 APPENDIX I OurRegion STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DETERMINING URBANIZATION PATTERNS Craig A. Stone & Associates. ltd. URBAN RESERVE AREAS OAR 660-21-030 Purpose of Urban Reserve is to establish a 10 to 30 year supply of developable land beyond the time farm used to establish the UGB.' Priority for including land In Urban Reserve: . First Priority: Acknowledged exception areas adjacent' to UGB and resource lands (except high- value fanntand') surrounded by exception areas. - SeeoRs Priority: MargiRal LaRds 4 - Thirs PFior;ly: Seeo.dl>f}' Lands4 . Fourth Priority: Farm or Forest lands based on resource capability Land oflower priority can be included ifland of higher priority cannot accommodate the estimated amount of land needed based on one or more of the following reasons: . Specific land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated ou higher priority lands; . Future urban services cannot reasonably be provided to higher priority lands due to physical constraints; or . Maximum efficiency ofJand within a proposed UGB requires inclusion ofJower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGES ORS 197.298 Purpose of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is to provide for an orderly transition from rural to urban land use.' Priority for including land in UGB: . First Priority: Land within an Urban Reserve Area . Second Priority: Acknowledged exception areas adjacent' to UGB and resource lands (except high- value fannt.nd') surrounded by exception areas. . Third Priori~': Marginal Lands4 . Fonrth Priority: Farm or Forest lands based on resource capability Land of lower priority can be included ifland of higher priority cannot accommodate the estimated amount of land needed based on one or more of the following reasons: . Specific land needs caunot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; . Future urban services cannot reasonably be provided to higher priority lands due to physical constraints; or . Maximum efficiency of land within a proposed UGB requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands Footnotes: 'Urban Reserve is optional for all cities in Jackson County except for the City of Medford. 'The teon "adjacent" is defined in OAR 660-21-010(6) as: "Lands either abutting or at least partially within a quarter of a mile of an urban growth boundary." 3 In addition to ORS 197.298, Urban Growth Boundary changes are subject to the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, ORS 197.732(1)(c) and OAR 660-04 4 Secondary and Marginal Lands do not apply in Jackson County. 'High-v.lue fanntand as defmed in ORS 215.710 includes irrigated and nonirrigated prime, unique, and Class 1 and 2 soils, fruit orchards, vineyards and land supporting other specific types of agricultural crops based on aerial photographs dated November 4, 1993. Jun 18 04 10:31a Craig Stone 5417790114 p.6 APPENDIX 2 UGB AMENDMENT STANDARDS AND CRITERIA GOAL 14: URBANIZATION To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to nrban land nse. Urban growth boundaries sball be established to identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and cbange of the boundaries sball be based npon considerations of the following factors: (I) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range nrban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; (2) Need for honsing, employment opportunities, and livability; (3) Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services; (4) Maximum efficiency ofJand nses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area; (5) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; (6) Retention of agricultnral land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for reteution and Class VI the lowest priority; and, (7) Compatibility of the proposed nrban nses with nearby agricultnral activities. The results of the above considerations shall be included in the comprehensive plan. In the case of a change of a boundary, a governing body proposing such change in the boundary separating urbanizable lands from rnral land, sball follow the procednres and requirements as set forth in the Land Use Planning goal (Goal 2) for goal exceptions. Any nrban growth boundary established prior to January I, 1975, which includes rural lands that bave not been built upon shall be reviewed by the governing body, utilizing the same factors applicable to the establishment or change of nrban growth boundaries. Establishment and cbange of the boundaries sball be a cooperative process between a city and the county or counties that snrround it. Land within the boundaries separating urbanizable land from rural land shall be considered available over time for nrban uses. Conversion of nrbanizable land to urban uses shall be based on consideration of: 1. Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services; 2. Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to insure choices in the market place; 3. LCDC goals or the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and, 4. Encouragement of development within nrban areas before conversion ofnrbanizable areas. 197.296. Amendment of comprehensive plan to include sufficient buildable lands within urban growth boundary; analysis and determination of residential bousing patterns. (I)(a) The provisions of this section apply to local goverrnnent comprehensive plans for lands: (A) Within any nrban growth boundary for a city with a population of25,000 or more; (B) Within any nrban growth boWIdary for a city with a population of less than 25,000 with a rate of growth that exceeded the average rate of growth for the state for three of the last five years; and (q For which a functional plan is prepared by a metropolitan service district WIder ORS 268.390 (2). Page I Jun 18 04 10:31a Craig Stone 5417790114 F.7 (b) Notwithstanding parngraph (a) of this subsection, the Land Conservation and Development Conunission may waive the requirements of that paragraph. (2) At periodic review or any other legislative review of the urban growth boundary, comprehensive plans or functional plans shall provide sufficient buildable lands within urban growth boundaries established pursuant to statewide planning goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. (3) As part of its next periodic review pursuant to ORS 197.628 to 197.650 following September 9, ] 995, or any other legislative review of the urban growth boundary, a local govenunent shall: (a) Inventory the supply of buildable lands within the urban growth boundary; (b) Determine the actual density and the actual average mix of housing types of residential development that have occurred within the urban growth boundary since the last periodic review or five years, whichever is greater; and (c) Conduct an analysis of housing need by type and density range, in accordance with ORS 197.303 and statewide planning goals and rules relating to housing, to determine the amount of land needed for each needed housing type for the next 20 years. (4) If the determination required by subsection (3) of this section indicates that the urban growth boundary does not contain sufficient buildable lands to accommodate bousing needs for 20 years at the actual developed density that bas occurred since the last periodic review, the local govenunent shall take one of the following actions: (a) Amend its urban growth boundary to include sufficient buildable lands to acconnnodate housing needs for 20 years at the actual developed density during the period since the last periodic review or within the last five years, whichever is greater. As part of this process, the amendment shall include sufficient hmd reasonably necessary to accommodate the siting of new public school facilities. The need and inclusion of lands for new public school facilities shall be a coordinated process between the affected public school districts and the local govenunent that has the authority to approve the urban growth boundary; (b) Amend its comprehensive plan, functional plan or land use regulations to include new measures that demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at densities sufficient to accommodate housing needs for 20 years without expansion of the urban growth boundary. A local govenunent or metropolitan service district that takes this action shall monitor and record the level of development activity and development density by housing type following the date of the adoption of the new measures; or (c) Adopt a combination of the actions described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection. (5) Using the analysis conducted under subsection (3)(c) of this section, the local govenunent shall detemtine the overall average density and overall mix of housing types at which residential development of needed housing types must occur in order to meet housing needs over' the next 20 years. If that density is greater than the actual density of development detemtined under subsection (3)(b) of this section, or if that mix is different from the actual mix of housing types detemtined under subseetion (3)(b) of this section, the local government, as part ofits periodic review, shall adopt measures that demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at the housing types and density and at the mix of housing types required to meet housing needs over the next 20 years. (6) A local government that takes any actions under subsection (4) or (5) of this section shall demonstrate that the comprehensive plan and land use regulations comply with goals and rules adopted by the conunission and implement ORS 197.295 to 197.314. Page 2 Jun 18 04 10:31a Craig Stone 5417790114 p.8 (7) In establishing that actions and measures adopted under subsections (4) and (5) of this section demonstrably increase the likelihood of higher density residential development, the local government shall at a minimum ensure that land zoned for needed housing is in locations appropriate for the housing types identified under subsection (3) of this section and is zoned at density ranges that are likely to be achieved by the housing market using the analysis in subsection (3) of this section. Actions or measures, or both, may include but are not limited to: (a) Increases in the permitted density on existing residential land; (b) Financial incentives for higher density housing; (c) Provisions permitting additional density beyond that generally allowed in the zoning district in exchange for amenities and features provided by the developer; (d) Removal or easing of approval standards or procedures; (eJ Minimum density ranges; (I) Redevelopment and infill strategies; (g) Authorization of housing types not previously allowed by the plan or regulations; and (h) Adoption of an average residential density standard. 197.298. Priority ofland to be included in urban growth boundary. (I) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary except under the following priorities: (a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action plan. (b) If land under paragraph (aJ of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nomesource land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high-value farrnland as described in ORS 215.710. (c J If land under paragraphs (a) and (b J of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition). (dJ If land under paragraphs (aJ to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. (2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use. (3) Land of lower priority under subsection (I) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (I) oflhis section for one or more of the following reasons: Page 3 Jun 18 04 10:32a Craig Stone 5417790114 1".9 (a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; (b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands. 197.303. "Needed hnusing" defined. (I) As used in ORS 197.307, until the beginning of the fustperiodic review ofa local govemmeuts acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing" means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels. On and after the beginning of the fust periodic review of a local governments acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing" also means: (a) Housing that includes, but is not limited to, attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both oWner and renter occupancy; (b) Government assisted housing; (c) Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to 197.490; and Cd) Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions. (2) Subsection (I)(a) and (d) of this section sball not apply to: Ca) A city with a population ofless than 2,500. (b) A county with a population ofless than 15,000. (3) A local government may take an exception to subsection (I) of this section in the same manner that an exception may be taken under the goals. 197.307(3) When a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, needed housing, including housing for seasonal and year-round farmworkers, sball be pennilled in one or more zonmg districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans as overlay zones with sufficient buildable land to satisfY that need. ORS Sec. 197.307, 197.307. Effect of need for certain 197.712(e) A city or county shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. The public facility plan sball include rough CClSt estimates for public projects needed to provide sewer, water and transportation for the land uses contemplated in the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Project timing and financing provisions of public facility plans sball not be considered land use decisions. Under this section, an urban growth bonndary is established when acknowledged. Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1,706 P2d 949 (1985) Page 4 Jun 18 04 10:32a Craig Stone 5417790114 p.l0 APPENDIX 3 COLLABORA TIVE REGIONAL PROBLEM SOL VING 197.652 Establisbing regional problem-solving programs. Programs of the collaborative regional problem-solving process descnbed in ORS 197.654 and 197.656 shall be established in counties or regions geographically distributed throughout the state. [1996 c.6 S3; 1997 c.365 Sl] 197.654 Regional problem solving; coordinalion. (I) Local governments and those speciaJ districts that provide urban services may enter into a collaborative regional problem-solving process. A collaborative regional problem-solving process is a planning process directed toward resolulion of land use problems in a region. The process must offer an opportunity to participate with appropriate state agencies and all local governments within the region affected by the problems that are the subject of the problem-solving process. The process must include: (a) An opportunity for involvement by other stakeholders with an interest in the problem; and (b) Efforts among the collaboralors 10 agree on goals, objectives and measures of success for steps undertaken to implement the process as set forth in ORS 197.656. (2) As used in ORS 197.652 to 197.658, "region" means an area of one or more counties, together with the cities within the county, counties, or affected portion of the county. [1996 c.6~] ] 97.656 Commission may acknowledge regional plans nnt in compliance with goals; participation by state agencies; commission review of implementing regulations and plan amendments; use of resource lands. (J) Upon invitation by the local govenunents in a region, the Land Conservation and Development Conunission and other state agencies may participate with the local governments in a collaborative regional problem-solving process. (2) Following the procedures set fnrth in this subsection, the conunission may acknowledge amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations, or new land use regulations, that do not fully comply with the rules of the conunission that implement the statewide planning goals, without taking an exception, upon a determination that: (a) The amendments or new provisions are based upon agreements reached by all local participants, the commission and other participating state agencies, in the collaborative regional problem-solving process; (b) The regional problem-solving process has included agreement among the participants on: (A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem that is the subject of the process; (B) Optional tecluriques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of the process; (C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of the process; (D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals; (E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and Jun 1804 10:33a Craig Stone 5417790114 p.11 (F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are not achieving the goals; and (c) The agreement reached by regional problem-solving process participants and the implementing plan amendments and land use regulations conform, on the Whole, with the purposes of the statewide planning goals. (3) A local government that amends an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or adopts a new land use regulation in order to implement an agreement reached in a regional problem-solving process shall submit the amendment or new regulation to the commission in the manner set forth in ORS 197.628 to 197.650 for periodic review or set forth in ORS 197.251 for acknowledgment. (4) The commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction for review of amendments or new regulations described in subsection (3) of this section. A participant or stakeholder in the collaborative regional problem-solving process shall not raise an issue before the conunission on review that was not raised at the local level. (5) If the commission denies an amendment or new regulation submitted pursuant 10 subsection (3) of this section, the commission shall issue a written statement descnbing the reasons for the denial and suggesting alternative methods for accomplishing the goals on a timely basis. (6) If, in order to resolve regional land use problems, the participants in a collaborative regional problem- solving process decide to devote agricultural land or forestland, as defined in the statewide planning goals, to uses not authorized by those goals, the participants shall choose land that is not part of the region's commercial agricultural or forestland base, or take an exception to those goals pursuant to ORS 197.732. To identifY land that is not part of the region's commercial agricultural or forestland base, the participants shall consider the recommendation of a committee of persons appointed by the affected county, with expertise in appropriate fields, including but not limited to farmers, ranchers, foresters and soils scientists and representatives of the State Department of Agriculture, the State Department of Forestry and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. (7) The Governor shall require all appropriate state agencies to participate in the collaborative regional problem-solving process. [1996 c.6 ~5; 2001 c.672 ~Il] 197.658 Modifying local work plan. In addition to the provisions of ORS 197.644, the Land Conservation and Development Commission may modifY an approved work program when a local government has agreed to participate in a collaborative regional problem-solving process pursuant to ORS 197.654 and 197.656.11996 c.6 ~6] ,lland - Agendas and Minutes ", '-' 111 \J I ~ rv " '" ') ~ \~~ ) .~ >~ y ( - .s:: 'J ragt.) V1 0 Nolte remarked that this is the fourth agreement, for a term of five years. He noted the Parks Commission has approved this agreement, and the School District has informally approved. Nolte added the citizens of Ashland should be congratulated for their efforts. Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve the Intergovernmencal Agreement with the Ashland School District for School Activities Levy, 2003-2007. DISCUSSION: Councilor Laws reminded the public that the State does not have adequate funds for schools, and noted the supplemental income tax coming up in the next election. Councilor Morrison noted that within the levy there is money provided for general public activities as well. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor DeBoer recognized Jim Nagel as award recipient for the Oregon Governor's Council on Physical Fitness & Sports, Fitness Leadership Award - l'-'1ayor's Certificate. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting an Investment Resolution for U.S. Bank to meet the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act. " City Recorder Barbara Christensen stated the City does investments with US Bank, who has requested that the City assist in updating our files to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act. Councilor Hearn asked if this had anything to do with the Patriot Act. City Attorney Paul Nolte stated the Bank Secrecy Act existed long before the Patriot An, and was designed initially for tracing drug dealer funds. Not only do the banks have to report this, but so do other entities that deal in large cash sums. Nolte further clarified this does not impinge on anyones civil rights and is not reiated to the Patriot Act. Councilor MorrisonfJackson m/s to approve Resolution #2003-38. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Jackson, Amarotico, Morrison, Hartzell, Hearn, YES. ~1otion Passed. QReading by title only of "A Resolution regarding the Recommendation of Future Growth Areas for the City of Ashland as part of 'NOW x 2,' the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Process." John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development explained the City has been involved in the 'Now x 2' planning process for several months, holding 3 formal joint study sessions, and was addressed by the Planning and Housing Cor,lmissions in the last month for formal recommendations to the Council. McLaughlin explained 'Now x 2' is the regional planning project that is looking at what the Bear Creek Valley will look like with double the population, including where development should occur. All of the communities in the valley have been involved in Icoking at areas that would be most appropriate for future development. McLaughlin explained there are 4 prime areas that are being proposed for Ashland. Two have been proposed as part of the planning process and reviewed by the region, they are called Ashland 1 and Ashland 2. ADl is approximately 90 acres located near Tolman Creek Road and Siskiyou Blvd, and AD2 is approximately 90 acres as well, located along East Main Street. Two smaller areas have been http://v/ww.ash]2nd.or.us/Ag~"!:d:lsR ~'-:1l1t~ .asp? A\11D= 1 t1 Q'; 6/14/~QQ, shland - Agendas and Minutes ragc"tu.l 0 proposed by private property owners. The first, proposed by Dr. Young, is 5 acres near Interstate 5 at Mountain Avenue, and the other is 15 acres proposed by Madeline Hill and Larry Medinger, located behind Mountain Meadows and adjacent to Interstate 5. The Planning Commission has recommended by a 6-1 vote to not include any future growth areas. The Housing Commission has not made a formal recommendation. McLaughlin stated two resolutions have been presented for the Council tonight. The first lists the potential areas, and the Council could choose which one, or any combination they deemed appropriate. The second resolution states that no future growth areas will be adopted at this time. Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 995/ Stated housing is a major issue in Ashiand and would like for the Council to identify AD2 as a potential growth area. Roth noted the other pieces of land that have been proposed, and encouraged the Council to not take the no action alternative, and to consider the other alternatives. Madeline HiII/828 Boulder Creek lane/ Remarked that the piece of land she is supporting has nothing to .:b with Mountain Meadows. Hill questior.ed if one of the proposed land owners offered to give their land to the City as a gift, wouid they be able to move forward. McLaughlin clarified that this would be handled as an amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary, which would require Council approval. Hill noted that there are viable options, and wanted to ensure that the Council was not shutting the door on this issue. Mayor DeBoer clarified that if the Council decides to move forward with the no options resolution, this does not preclude them from annexing a piece of land, noting that any City can move their UGB if they follow the proper procedures. McLaughlin added that if the City decided to modify its UGB, the regional body would be involved in the decision, not just the City of Ashland. McLaughlin added the region would have to concur on this decision, and the application process may not always be open, and the City may have to wait for this opportunity. Councilor Jackson added it makes more sense to go the other way, and identify pieces and include them in the process. Jackson stated communities are sending out initial lists and will have the opportunity during the next stages of the 'Now x 2' process to have an additional level of review. Councilor Hartzell comment~d on the complicated process, and asked for clarification from John McLaughlin. McLaughlin clarified that Madline Hill was asking about near term options (within the next 2 years), which would follow the same process as they have today. McLaughlin stated they are still in the initial steps of this project, and there are many more steps to take before anything becomes final. McLaughlin stated they are looking at two separate issues. One being to address immediate affordable housing needs, and other as the long term urban form of the community. Councilor Hartzell stated she does not feel they have adequately discussed the question of annexing in order to address the affordable housing needs. Hartzell inquired about the Hill Property, and asked if there is a set "buffer" from the highway located in the camp plan. http:/h/ww.ashbnd.or.u~IAs",.,r1RsR "ol,ho ~~f'? A \HT)= 1 ,1~h 6/14/1004 .shland - Agendas and Minutes Page 5 of8 McLaughlin stated there are policies dealing with buffering residential neighborhoods from noise sources, including 1-5 and the railroad. Councilor Hartzell also asked about the streets that are stubbed out and asked about development on the other side of Bear Creek. McLaughlin stated there is land available in this area and did not want to preclude anyones opportunity, and this allowed for options for in future. Hartzell asked if there was development in this area, would it require crossing the creek. McLaughlin explained in an ideal situation Ashland would not have included the area across Bear Creek as part of the City limits of Ashland. He further clarified that they have produce1 the best neighborhood as they can, and stated they should not keep adding to that area and crossing the creek. McLaughlin added that the Fire Department has raised concerns over the event of a flood, and the isolation of the area. Councilor Laws stated he does not feel it makes a big difference which way they proceed with this issue, and that the outcome will eventually be the same either way. He feels it is awkward for the Council to be discussing ways to beat the system, after they have already agreed to take part in this regional program. Laws noted that many of the residents of Ashland are opposed to doubling the size of the City, and there are many cities that want to more than double their sizes, and feels they should continue to develop Ashland in a conservative manner. Laws stated his preference is that they do not do anything now, to stick with what they have, and when and if the present UGB gets filled up or there are types of land that they need, to look at it again tr.2<1. Councilor Morrison asked what was the time frame for this project. McLaughlin stated this is based on what the region will look like when the current population is doubled, and he cannot say exactly how long it will be before this happer;s. Morrison also asked if the City currently has an official policy for infill, or is it just a current practice of the City. McLaughlin explained it is a combination of all of the policies. There is no one policy that states infill in the way they are proceeding, but a main guideline they follow is "the City will maintain a compact, urban form". Annexation policies are based on need, and policies push the use of vacant land within the City limits before expanding outward. Councilor Morrison asked if it was reasonable to expect that the City will continue to grow. McLaughlin said the only thing that would change this would be a iimitation of a major public facility, primarily water. Councilor Laws commented that there are several other occurrences that could halt growth, including: devising and enforcing an immigration policy, if the internal population fell into negative growth, and noted a plague or atomic war. Councilor Morrison stated he can not decide if it is a benefit or negative action to put the county on notice of where Ashland plans to expand, even if they don't intend to grow in that area immediately. McLaughlin stated that some of the results of recommending a growth area could include a high restriction placed on the land for rural use. Lot sizes will be very large or may restrict partitioning until they are brought into the City. McLaughlin noted there is currently a 10 acre minimum lot size within a mile of Ashland's UGB, so some of the protection 'Now x 2' might set is already in place, however there are other parts that may also be affected. .httE:/h-/ww .as~_!~H'~d~o~~_~_sl'~I;?~n ?s P p_~~~_t_~ .asp? AMID= I 19.h 6/]4/201)4 ohland - Agendas and Minutes Page 6 of8 Morrison asked if they made a decision, are they committed to annexing the defined areas into the growth boundary. McLaughlin stated he imagines that they will have the flexibility to change their mind later down the road. Morrison also asked if they do not define an area tonight, would the City be able to do so in the future without facing consequences. McLaughlin stated he does not believe this would create a significant financial impact for the City. Morrison asked McLaughlin if this has been a valuable process for the City and worth continuing to take part in this process for regional problem solving. McLaughlin stated it is very important for the City to stay a part of this process and to bring Ashland's priorities and differences to the table. Councilor Hearn stated he agrees with Councilor Laws' view of focusing on infill and a slow incremental approach. Hearn stated that he supports the Planning Commissions recommendation. \ \ \\ Councilor Hearn/Laws m/s to support Option 2 recommending thilt no ... .1 '..y potential growth areas be adopted at this time, and consider infil! and increasing density in the future development areas within the UGB, and review overall community form and development specific to Ashland. DISCUSSION: Laws pointed out if they identify a piece of iand, it changes the value and raises the expectations of the owners of the land. Hartzell stated the City is surrendering some of its authority into this precess, and suggests acting prudently so that they have some flexibility to respond to the Hill Property. Hartzell stated she is working hard at looking at affordable housing, and advocates bringing the Hill Property into this process for possible use as affordable housing. Mayor DeBoer stated there is a lot of land within Ashland that is able to be developed and noted the City is limited in resources, especially water. DeBoer stated he would not annex any land unless the City had complete ownership and could use it specifically for affordable housing. Councilor Jackson suggests bringing in the Hill and Young properties because of the owners willingness to use their properties for multi-family affordable housing. Jackson noted the importance of continuing to find land for the use of affordable housing. Councilor Laws stated it was his understanding that it would take several years (possibly 6) before the new process would go into effect, and during these 6 years the City would be able to use their present process. In the mean time, if anyone wishes to offer the City free land for affordable housing, Laws suggests that the Council considers it. Councilor Hartzell asked for further clarification on the number of years until the process is completed. McLaughlin stated it would be at least 2 years to complete the next phase, and he projects it will be several more years before the regional body and procedures are established. McLaughlin stated that through this process, they are estimating at least 10 years before looking at expanding the UGB. If the Council feels that annexing property to develop affordable housing is a high priority, they should be using a different process. Councilor Jackson stated that any property that is identified now will go through the , " " Ashland - Agendas and Minutes Page 7 of 8 review process including a needs analysis, and that process is going forward right now. If an area is not identified, the need will not be asses!. Jackson feels it is important for the City, as a participant in this process, to be considered a real participant by identifying potential growth areas. Councilor Morrison stated it appears the Young and Hill properties are being looked to remedy immediate affordabie housing needs, and does not feel they need to be identified for the 'Now x 2' project. Morrison aiso noted that it is imperative for the City to continue to participate in this planning process. Councilor Amarotico stated he does not feel there is any reason to expand the Urban Growth Boundary, and feels that affordable housing should be addressed within the current City limits. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Morrison, Amarotico, Lawsi YES. Hartzell, Jackson; NO. Motion Passed 4-2. 9TH_!;_R BUSINE!iS FROM COUNCIL_M!;MBERS Mayor DeBoer noted there are openings on the Housing & Traffic Safety Commissions, and mentioned a possibie opening on the Budget Committee. Councilor Hartzell commented on the negative article in the Daily Tidings regarding Siskiyou Blvd, and noted that the cones will be going away. Grimaldi added the article made it seem as though the project had been halted, and ciarified that this simply was not the case. Grimaldi stated the City is wrapping up the project with the exception of the final layer of asphalt, which will be completed in March or April. \;: Councilor Hartzell noted that RVTV will be down for the month of December, but before they do so they will be taping a show on the Forest Interface which will air after RVTV comes back up. Councilor Jackson stated she had attended the Oregon Business Plan Committee, which is an economic development committee, and encouraged citizens to visit their website: oregonbusinessplan.org Councilor Jackson also stated that one of the Tree Commission's goals is to define the tasks that an Urban Forester Position would provide, and stated the Public Arts Commission is working on their first annual report, which will contain a proposed budget they will be bringing to Council. A_~~9!JRN~tI;ItT Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor End of Document - Back to Top --_.~----"--------"~_.. .......-..-.--..-.-.-...-.- ~ Printer friendly version HiProject A __~_!:'. L~_~:"~'!.L"'''-'__!'_,::J,:,J_~=_~ .__....._!': ~~~=~_d .,.._,_D--=-=-c~-=-----.!:LL!..-L.!.:!:" August 22, 2003 To: Mayor Alan DeBoer, Ashland City COUl!,;' ~nd Planning Commission Re: Followup to 4/22/03 Council/Planning Commission Study Session on Regional Problem Solving (NOW x2) During your joint study session in April concerning Ashland's growth, we proposed the City consider a IS acre property (39-IE-03, Tax Lot 600) for inclusion in Ashland's urban growth boundary (UGB) reserve to accommodate future growth needs. This puts our verbal suggestion into a formal written request that the property be included in the regional plan and in any future City UGB expansion. The property meets the City's expressed goals as well as the goals laid out in RYCOG's regional planning publication dated 12/06/02: . maintain lands in agriculture for agricultural uses, . preserve open space, . maintain buffers to protect community/city identities, . develop areas which can readily receive urban services, . reduce traffic congestion, and . avoid areas near the Ashland watershed. The property proposed for inclusion also mee" ,he concerns raised by City Planner John McLaughlin during the April work session. It . is southwest of 1-5, not across it, . is not in the Ashland watershed, thus poses no forest fire danger, . will not impact Talent, or the maintenance of separate identities for Ashland and Talent, . is relatively close to downtown Ashland. Suitable Location and Size: You can't get any closer to the AsWand City Limits than this IS acre parcel because it rests right on the City Limit's boundary line. It's of manageable size, just two blocks from an arterial street (North Mountain Avenue) and only 1.3 miles from the Ashland Plaza on the southwest side of Interstate-5. The parcel is three blocks from the Bear Creek Greenway and less than 1,000 feet from the city's North Mountain Avenue Park. It's immediately adjacent to an established compact urban development, and its small size makes it the appropriate size for planning and accommodating residential units when the City expands its UGB (see attached maps). This parcel is not in an "area of separation" and can be easily urbanized. City services (water, sewer, electric, natural gas, AFN, cable, and phone lines) are already installed underground right to the property line, and three paved streets connect directly to the property, separated only by one foot wide City "street plugs". The property IS highly suitablt: for future residential growth. Neerl: The IS acre piece proposed for urban growth reserve inclusion could accommodate needed affordable housing options through such vehicles as the AsWand Community Land Trust (ACLT) and/or an employer assisted housing program, among others. We are proposing that a major portion of future development on this acreage be devoted to affordable housing. The portion on Kitchen Creek would be placed in open space use (trails and gardens). We share a personal and professional passion for affordable housing. For example, Madeline was a founding Board member of ACLT, was a member of the City's Housing Commission for many years, offered her professional real estate services for free to facilitate many affordable housing transactions in the Clear Creek subdivision, and was honored by Advocates for Severely Handicapped by naming their home on Walker Avenue that now provides permanent affordable housing for 10 severely retarded adults "The Madeline Hill House". Larry currently serves as a Board member on the State Housing Council, and has been an active participant since 1989 on various versions of what is now known as the City's Housing Commission. He was a member of the City's Planning Commission for 5 years and has been a developer working with the city's various affordable housing programs for several years. We look forward to working with City staff, the Housing Commission, the Ashland Community Land Trust Board, and other public and private housing groups so that an appropriate portion of the housing on this parcel will remain affordable for many generations of Ashland families long into the future. Additional Considerations: Two other considerations are addressed for your information. I. Protection of Agricultural Land. The property is currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) but it does not qualify as agricultural land. Included is a Soils Evaluation Report (4 pages) prepared by George J. Badura, a professional soil scientist (see Attachment I). Mr. Badura's on-site evaluation breaks the property into six (6) units, only one of which (Unit 4) contains class III and IV soils and is 1.17 acres in size. The only other Unit which comes close to EFU classification is Unit 5 which contains 2.93 acres. The other units contain Class VI soils and are not farmable due to terrain and rock. Also attached is a one page summary of reports from the Oregon Soil Survey (USDA), backed up with 8 pages of data from the Natural Resources Conservation S,TVices plus a map prepared by that agency. The data shows that the property has slopes ranging from 3% to 15%, and topsoil with an estimated depth of six inches which is full of pebbles and cobbles. Between IS - 35% of the soil is clay (see Attachment 2). The property is on Talent Irrigation but has not been used for agriculture in recent years, and historically may have been used for grazing. Finally, Nepenthe Road, an undeveloped public road located on the south side of the property, provides access to two other properties and buffers the adjacent land which is located largely on Bear Creek and is in agricultural use. 2. Transportation Impact. The intense use in the Mountain Meadows development represents "smart growth". The Mountain Meadows Owners' Association and Skylark Assisted Living provide and coordinate bus trips to Medford and into downtown Ashland for plays, concerts, and shopping, thus reducing transportation impacts on the Valley. Once the bridge is built across Bear Creek at Hersey, a bus line is proposed to run along North Mountain Avenue just two blocks from this property. Thank you for giving this proposal your serious consideration. We are requesting that you include this parcel in your recommendations to the regional planning committees for review and adoption. You can rely on us to produce what we promise. ~~~ rfIi;v( Madeline and Hunter Hill & Larry Medinger 828 Boulder Creek Lane Ashland, OR 97520 Email: hunter@mind.net Attachments: Maps Soils Analysis Report from George J. Badura Oregon Soil Survey Report (USDA) Cc: Michael Cavallaro, Ex. Director, RVCOG L.-..-J' . ._(....~ '^ ASHLA.ND .~ ' ';.. ," ,;;' 100.4 , " I f