HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - June 2, 2009
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
June 2, 2009 - 6:00 p.m.
Next Planning Commission
Resolution No. 765
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Pat Beck, Mike Oliver, Justin Hurley and Tim
Schmeusser
Pgs. 1 - 3
Pgs. 4 - 5
Pgs. 6 - 7
Pgs. 8 - 64
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES -Review and approval of March 3, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
A. File No. 07038. A public meeting to consider an Extension request of Site Plan
approval for North Valley Center. Applicant: Bank of the Cascades
B. File No. 09025(11. Economic Element
C. File No. 09025(21. Housing Element
D. File No. 09025(31. Urbanization Element -Introduction and Schedule
VII. DISCUSSION
A. Senate Bill on extension
B. Co-location on Oregon State Police cell tower
C. The Crossing -Tommy Malot
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 2009
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Justin Hurley,
Pat Beck, Tim Schmeusser and Brett Funk were present.
Also in attendance were: Matt Samitore, Interim Community Development
Director; Don Burt, Planning Manager; Dave Jacob, Community Planner; Connie
Clune, Community Planner; and Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
There were several items of correspondence distributed with regard to item A on
the agenda.
IV. MINUTES
Justin Hurley made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 3, 2009
Planning Commission meeting. Pat Beck seconded the motion. ROLL CALL:
Piland, yes; Oliver, abstained; Hurley, yes; Beck, yes; Schmeusser, yes; Funk,
yes. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
There were no public appearances.
VI. BUSINESS
A. File No. 09004(11. A public hearing to consider Determination of Similar
Use in accordance with Section 17.60.140 of the City of Central Point
Municipal Code. A Determination of Similar Use occurs when the
Planning Commission considers whether a proposed use that is not listed
as a permitted use in the zoning ordinance is "similar" to a use that is
listed in the zoning ordinance. The purpose of this hearing is to decide if
Membership Warehouse Clubs are a similar use to those uses currently
allowed within the M-1 Industrial Zoning District. Applicant: City of
Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 2009
Page 2
There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Justin Hurley stated that
he had had a conversation with John Renz, Dept. of Land Conservation & Development,
and the planning staffs of the cities of Albany, Bend, Hillsboro, Medford, Salem, Tigard,
and Wilsonville.
Connie Moczygemba, Chairman, acknowledged receipt of correspondence from David
Pyles, Development Review Planner, ODOT; Cory Crebbin, Public Works Director, City
of Medford; and John W. Hoke, Interim Planning Director, City of Medford.
Planning. Manager Don Burt presented a power point presentation to commissioners in
order to establish the similarity of membership warehouse clubs to other uses permitted
in the M-1 zoning district. Mr. Burt reviewed the procedural requirements that staff is
using to establish similarity, the municipal code sections that provide the basis for a
decision, defining what a membership warehouse club is, and the unique characteristics
that a membership warehouse club has.
Mr. Burt proceeded to discuss the similarity tests used to establish similarity of the
proposed use to other permitted uses in the M-1 district:
1. Not listed in any zoning district;
2. Similar/closely related to and compatible with listed uses;
3. Not anticipated or known to exist on the effective date of the ordinance;
4. Treated under local, state and federal law the same as listed uses;
5. Consistent with the purpose of the zoning district; and
6. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and policies.
For each of the similarity tests listed above, Mr. Burt explained how a membership
warehouse club was qualified to meet the tests. Information on conditional use permit
criteria was also presented and reviewed with commissioners as staff believes that
allowing the use as a conditional use would give staff and commissioners the ability more
adequately regulate conditions of approval for a proposed application, should one be
made.
Following the presentation, Mr. Burt explained that notice of this meeting had been
published in the newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 100 feet of any
properties zoned M-1. Anyone who submits a letter or comes forward to speak on the
issue would have standing in this matter and would be eligible to file an appeal to the
City Council.
The public hearing was then opened.
Mark Bartholemew, Attorney at Law, came forward and stated that he represented a
property owner on Table Rock Road. Mr. Bartholomew stated that his client was in favor
of the proposal to include membership warehouse clubs in the M-1 zoning district. He
did, however, express concern over abutting property owners having to shoulder future
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 2009
Page 3
costs of road improvements and requested that any proposed development be required to
prepare a traffic impact analysis.
David Pyles, ODOT, came forward and reviewed and explained the conditions set forth
in his letter of March 3, 2009.
Several residents who had received notices of public hearing in the mail came forward to
speak. One of them supported membership warehouse clubs in the M-1 district, another
was curious to know if her business would be affected, another stated that he had not
received a notice and wanted to sign in for the record, and another was concerned about
buffering. All questions and concerns were answered.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Don Burt stated that staff was agreeable to working with ODOT on clarifying and making
the requested modifications to the Central Point Municipal Code. Any changes to code
should be good for all projects that will be required to have a traffic study.
Chuck Piland asked Matt Samitore if he thought staff could work with ODOT and Matt
responded that staff had no problems with a condition of approval to work with agencies
to be compliant with their concerns and addressing the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR).
Chuck Piland made a motion to approve Resolution 764 allowing
Membership Warehouse Clubs as a conditional use in the M-1 zoning district
and directing staff to work with affected agencies to address traffic concerns,
based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in
the staff report. Pat Beck seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Piland, yes;
Oliver, yes; Hurley, no; Beck, yes; Schmeusser, yes; and Funk, yes. Motion
passed.
Planning Commissioners took a short break at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
7:35 p.m.
VII. DISCUSSION
Exit 35lnterchanQe Access Management Plan
Don Burt, Planning Manager, introduced John McDonald, Long Range Planner with the
Oregon Department of Transportation, who was in attendance to present a power point
presentation for the Planning Commission with regard to Exit 35 and to discuss
development in the area surrounding this exit. A copy of Mr. McDonald's presentation is
attached to these minutes marked Exhibit "B". Mr. McDonald added that in the future,
they will conduct open houses to explain concepts, development and analysis. An
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 2009
Page 4
Interchange Access Management Plan will guide development later on to ensure that
whatever land uses are allowed won't overwhelm the interchange.
A similar plan is being discussed for Exit 33.
Rogue Va[lev I-S Corridor Plan
Dave Jacob, Community Planner, stated that ODOT will be assessing safety and capacity
issues along the I-5 corridor from Exit 11 to Exit 33. The Plan is intended to provide
strategies and improvements to the corridor. The City of Central Point has been invited
to participate in the process and will provide updates to commissioners from time-to-
time.
Wilson Road UGB Expansion Plan Update
Community Planner Connie Clune advised that the proposed CP-2B urban reserve area
had been selected to be a pilot project area for planning through a grant obtained by the
Rogue Valley Council of Governments. A group of people attended a workshop held on
March 2, 2009 in Council Chambers and worked on a variety of examples to be used for
circulation in the area. The maps will be refined and presented with a final
recommendation at some point in the future.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Brett Funk seconded the
motion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the March 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting were
approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of ,
2009.
Planning Commission Chair
1`IORTH VALLEY GENTER
SITE PLAN EXTENSION
Planning Department
STAFF REPORT
Tom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director/
Assistant City Administrator
STAFF REPORT
June 2, 2009
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 07038
Consideration of a request for extension of a site plan application for development of a mixed use
commercial shopping facility known as the North Valley Center. The subject property is located on East
Pine Street (Biddle Road) in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district and identified on
the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W O1C, Tax Lot 802. Applicant: Bank of the Cascades.
STAFF SOURCE:
Connie Clune, Community Planner
BACKGROUND:
By Resolution No. 723 dated Apri13, 2007, the Planning Commission approved a site plan for
development of a 4.87 acre shopping facility. On Apri13, 2008 the Applicant requested and received a
one year extension of the original site plan approval. On March 31, 2009 Bank of the Cascades received
the property in lieu of foreclosure, and as such, is requesting the extension of the site plan to determine
the most appropriate action. If granted, the revised expiration date would be April 1, 2010. On April 3,
2009, the applicant requested an additional one year extension of the site plan. The Planning
Commission may extend the site plan approval for an additional period of one year as provided by
CPMC Section 17.72.070.
Preceding the original approval of the site plan application, the Applicant applied for and received a
tentative five (S) lot subdivision plan for the project (File No. 07030). The tentative plan has since
expired. Any future proposals for subdividing the property will require a new tentative plan application.
ISSUES:
The request to extend the one year expiration date for the site plan application is the second such
request. Section 17.72.070 is silent on the number of extensions allowed. Staff has prepared
modifications to the code, however, these changes have been held in abeyance pending the outcome of
state legislation regulating time extensions on planning actions..
FINDINGS:
The request for a one year extension was received in a timely manner. The bank's receipt of the
property in lieu of foreclosure is referenced as justification for the extension. Conditions affecting the
original approval of the site plan have not changed. The application conforms to the Transportation
System Plan, and Comprehensive Plan policies have not been modified. CPMC requirements related to
Page 1 of 2
extensions and tentative approvals may be reviewed and revised but will not have an impact on the
current request.
ATTACHMENTS:
"A" -Request for extension letter dated Apri13, 2009.
ACTION:
Consideration of the request for a one (1) year extension.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the request for a one (1) year
Page 2 of 2
~ANK OF TH6
CASCADES
Apri13, 2009
Connie Clone, Community Plwmer
City of Central Point Flaaning Department
140 South Third Street
Central Pohit, OR 97502
H. r` ~ 4~~9
Subject: North Valley Center (File No. 7038) -Extension of Site Flan Approval Request
Dear Ms. Clone:
As the owner of the subject property which received Site Pla<i Approval from the City of Cenhal
Point as File No. 7038, we request that an additional one-year extension of the approval be
grauted for the above-referenced file.
The Bank literally just received this property into our portfolio tivough foreclosure or deed in
lieu this week and we are proceeding as quicldy as possible through due diligence to determine
any outstaziding issues, including the current status of pla<uung acid approvals. The graziting of
this extension will allow us much needed time as we determine the most appropriate course of
action.
If you have a~iy questions, or if there is any additional iufonnation that 1 can provide, please do
not hesitate to call. I can be reached at 541.330.7541 or via email at bbergler@botacom
Thanks you very much for your assista~ree.
Shicerely,
r~
Prank I. Wheeler
Executive Vice President
(~ cc: Jim Maize
Maize & Associates
v
,. ,
MORTGAGE CENTER I 1070 N.W. BONG STREET, SUITE 100 BEND, OREGON 97701-2045
P:641/385-9933 F:541/3B6.993fi / w,nv.bat4[om NABDAC: CACB
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
STAFF REPORT
STAFF REPORT
June 2, 2009
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 09
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan -
STAFF SOURCE:
_ Community Developmen_t_
Tom Humphrey
Community Development Director
Dave Jacob, Community Planner
BACKGROUND:
It's been over twenty years since the City has updated its Economic Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the need to update the Economic Element, any consideration
of expansion of the City's urban growth boundary will require updating the Economic Element.
The purpose of the Economic Element is to demonstrate compliance with Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) Statewide Planning Goa19, Economy of the State, which
calls for diversification and improvement of the state's economy. Goal 9 requires Comprehensive
Plans to consider certain economic issues and incorporate policies designed to address those
issues. Goa19 requires that Comprehensive Plans include:
• An analysis of economic patterns, potentialities, strengths, and deficiencies as they relate to
local, regional, state and national trends;
• An inventory of buildable lands for commercial and industrial growth;
• Policies concerning the economic development opportunities in the community; and
• Regulations limiting uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses to
those which are compatible with proposed uses.
The specific requirements to be addressed in the preparation of an economic element are set
forth in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR), Division 9, Economic Development. Those
requirements are:
1. Economic Opportunities Analysis
a. Review national, state, regional, and local economic employment trends;
b. Identify sites;
c. Inventory of industrial and other employment lands;
d. Assessment of Community Economic Development Potential; and
e. Economic Development Visioning.
2. Industrial and Other Employment Development Policies
a. Economic Development Objectives;
b. Commitment to Provide a Competitive Short-Term Supply of Land;
c. Commitment to Provide Adequate Sites and Facilities.
3. Designation of Lands for Industrial and Other Employment Uses
a. Identification of Needed Sites;
b. Total Land Supply;
c. Short-Term Supply of Land;
d. Institutional Uses;
e. Compatibility;
f. Availability; and
g. Uses with Special Siting Characteristics.
Throughout this coming summer and fall the Planning Commission will be reviewing information
on each of the above items. The tentative schedule for review of the Economic Element is:
June meeting: Introduction
July Meeting: Economic Opportunities Analysis, Part A
August Meeting: Economic Opportunities Analysis, Part B
September Meeting: Development Policies, Part A
October Meeting: Development Policies, Part B
November Meeting: Designation of Lands
FINDINGS:
There are no findings.
ISSUES:
For information and discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS:
No Attachments
ACTION:
No action required, discussion only.
5
HOUSING ELEMENT
STAFF REPORT
STAFF REPORT
June 2, 2009
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 09025(2), Housing Element
Tom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan -Housing Element, Goals and Policies
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt, AICP, EDFP
Planning Manager
BACKGROUND:
It's been over twenty years since the City has updated the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Aside
from time, there are two additional driving forces behind updating the Housing Element; the Regional Plan,
and the need to expand the City's urban growth boundary.
As with most comprehensive plan elements, Statewide Planning Goals require their preparation. In the case of
the Housing Element, it is Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing. It is the purpose of Goal 10 to assure that the
housing needs of the citizens of the State are met. Goal 10 provides guidelines for the development of a
Housing Element. The requirements for a Housing Element are set forth in Goal 10, and include:
Needs Analysis. Housing elements of a comprehensive plan should, at a minimum, include:
a. A comparison of the distribution of the existing population by income with the distribution of
available housing units by cost;
b. A determination of vacancy rates, both overall and at varying rent ranges and cost levels;
c. A determination of expected housing demand at varying rent ranges and cost levels;
d. Allowance for a variety of densities and types of residences in each community; and
e. An inventory of sound housing in urban areas including units capable of being rehabilitated.
2. Urban Growth Boundary. Plans should be developed in a manner that insures the provision of
appropriate types and amounts of land within urban growth boundaries. Such land should be necessary
and suitable for housing that meets the housing needs of households of all income levels.
3. Public Facilities Analysis. Plans should provide for the appropriate type, location and phasing of
public facilities and services sufficient to support housing development in areas preseritly developed or
undergoing development or redevelopment.
4. Environmental Planning. Plans providing for housing needs should consider as a major determinant
the carrying capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning area. The land conservation
and development actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of such
resources.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Division 8, Interpretation of Housi~ Goal 10 provides additional
instructions regarding the preparation of a housing element.
Housing Element -Staff Report
June 2, 2009
Page 2
As noted above, the preparation of the Housing Element will be coordinated with the Regional
Plan/Urbanization Element process. The overall density standards for the City's future urban growth areas are
driven by the Regional Plan. As an example, the current average residential density within the City's existing
UGB is 5.4 dwelling units per gross acre. In the future, the expanded UGB will be required to develop at an
average density of 6 - 7.26 dwelling units per gross acre.
The following is a tentative schedule for the Planning Commission's review of the Housing Element:
June meeting: Introduction
July Meeting: Needs Analysis
August Meeting: Urban Growth Boundary
September Meeting: Public Facilities Analysis
October Meeting: Environmental Planning
January Meeting: Consideration of Draft Housing Element (Public Hearing)
During the Planning Commission's review, the staff will also be coordinating review of the Housing Element
with the Citizens Advisory Committee. The final Housing Element will be forwarded to the City Council with
a recommendation by both the Planning Commission and the Citizens Advisory Committee. This is expected
to occur March 2010.
FINDINGS:
There are no findings.
ISSUES:
information and discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS:
No Attachments
ACTION:
No action required; discussion only.
RECOMMENDATION:
REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
UPDATE
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 09025(:
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan -
STAFF SOURCE:
STAFF REPORT
June 2, 2009
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
Don Burt, AICP, EDFP
Planning Manager
BACKGROUND:
As a requirement of the Regional Plan adoption, it will be necessary for each participating city to amend the
Urbanization Element of their comprehensive plans, along with any supporting elements and documents. It is
anticipated that the formal review process for the draft Regional Plan will begin sometime this summer,
pending approval by the County and LCDC of the Participants Agreement. Regardless of the scheduling for
the Regional Plan, it is timely and necessary for the City to consider updating its Urbanization Element.
The development and maintenance of an urbanization element is a requirement of Statewide Planning Goal 14,
Urbanization, wherein it is required that a sufficient land inventory be maintained to support the growth needs
of a community for a minimum 20 year planning horizon. The City's current Urbanization Element was last
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1984. As can be expected, over the
course of the past twenty-five years the City has grown and is in need of additional land in all land use
categories.
As noted above, preparation of the Urbanization Element will be coordinated with review of the draft Regional
Plan, which is scheduled to commence this summer. On June 3, 2009 the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning
Commission will be attending an organizational meeting with the planning representatives from other
participating cities. The purpose of that meeting will be to discuss the process for receiving and acting on the
draft Regional Plan.
The purpose of the Regional Plan is to coordinate growth among participating jurisdictions over the next
approximate 50 years through the creation of coordinated regional policies, urban reserve areas (URA), and
implementation strategies. It is in the Urbanization Element that the goals, policies, and urban reserve areas of
the Regional Plan will be incorporated by each participating city.
The following is a tentative schedule for the Planning Commission's review of the Housing Element:
June meeting: Introduction
September Meeting: Need and Urban Reserve Areas, Part A
October Meeting: Need and Urban Reserve Areas, Part B
September Meeting: Policies and Implementation
October Meeting: Forward Recommendation to City Council
8
During the Planning Commission's review, the staff will also be coordinating review of the Urbanization
Element with the Citizens Advisory Committee. The final Urbanization Element and recommendation on the
draft Regional Plan will be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation by both the Planning
Commission and the Citizens Advisory Committee. This is expected to occur in October 2009.
FINDINGS:
There are no findings at this time.
ISSUES:
During review of the Urbanization Element, the City will need to recognize and coordinate efforts to adopt the
Regional Plan, as well as establishing a basis for expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. This is likely to
occur in two sequential steps, with the Urban Growth Boundary related amendments following the final
adoption of the Regional Plan. As an example, the first action of the City would be to amend the Urbanization
Element as necessary to adopt the Regional Plan (New Urbanization Element), and then to amend the New
Urbanization Amendment to include findings and policies for expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. This
sequence is necessary in that the New Urbanization Element, through the Regional Plan, establishes basic
parameters to be used in expanding urban growth boundaries. Attached are sections from the draft Regional
Plan that will apply to Central Point, unless modified.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A -Draft Regional Plan (Central Point)". For a full copy of the draft Regional Plan go to:
http•//www rvcoe.ore/mn.asp~pe=rps main pie
ACTION:
action required. Discussion
RECOMMENDATION:
Executive Summa
PROJECT BACKGROUND
During the past few decades, Jackson County's growth rates have rivaled those seen during the
gold rush of the 1880s. Although the most recent trends have shown some slowdown in that
growth, the region's population is still expected to double over the next half-century. As has
occurred over more than 100 years, the majority of the county's new population will settle in the
Greater Bear Creek Valley, which has a number of unique physical and social characteristics that
have served to amplify the impacts of its recent growth:
• The geography of the region compresses the majority of the county's population into a
narrow ribbon of land bracketing the Bear Creek Valley. Some of the Valley's
communities are actually contiguous (Central Point Medford), or very nearly so (Eagle
Point White City-Medford-Phoenix). As the population grows, rural and urban uses
compete for land in an increasingly tighter box.
• The presence of I-5 has further accentuated the concentration of population along the
valley floor. Along the 15-mile stretch of highway from Ashland to Central Point there
are five incorporated cities that are bisected by or border the interstate.
• Historic settlement patterns created population centers in the midst of the Bear Creek
Valley's best agricultural lands. As these population centers expanded over the last
century, productive resource land was steadily converted to urban uses.
• Numerous exception lands (residential areas in rural areas) exist throughout the Valley's
agricultural areas, many of them close to, and sometimes contiguous with, cities. Their
presence has had the effect of pulling growth out onto productive farmland.
• The region has become a destination of choice for retirees, primarily from western states,
and especially from California. This is a demographic group that makes economic
choices free of the constraints experienced by working families, leading to distortions of
the local economy, especially in the demand for large single-family homes on larger lots,
and considerable growth in lower-paying service sector jobs.
Draft
July 2008
10
2 Raglonal Problem Solving -The Background
• There is a dramatic difference in the value of urban land in the region as compared to the
value of resource land. The resulting speculation around urban areas has created
development pressures which may or may not fit community plans for the future.
While the county and individual cities in the Greater Bear Creek Valley have been able to meet
the challenges of the last several decades and successfully accommodate growth within their own
boundaries, they also acknowledge that the cumulative regional effects of that growth have
created issues that are better dealt with through cooperation, collaboration, and a degree of
shared process. The mechanism of Regional Problem Solving, established by the Oregon
Legislature to address difficult regional land use issues through creative means, provided the
region with an opportunity to do just that. It was an attractive mechanism to the region because
it provided the opportunity to establish a high level of structured cooperation on regional
planning with state agencies, it offered the potential for flexibility from certain Oregon
Administrative Rules which were seen to beill-fitted to the local circumstances for very region-
specificreasons, and it provided funding for the planning process.
Early in 2000 the region was awarded a grant under Regional Problem Solving on the strength of
three main factors:
• The jurisdictions of the greater Bear Creek Valley had shown an ability to cooperate amongst
themselves on issues of regional importance, especially in transportation and air and water
quality;
• The region had shown significant progress on its own with several early efforts at aspects of
regional planning (OurRegion and the Multijurisdictional Committee on Urban Resewes);
and
• The problems identified for resolution through RPS were important and compelling:
Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth Planning -The region
proposed that it would continue to be subjected in the future to land use issues that
would require the active collaboration of jurisdictions, and that a process needed to be
established that would facilitate that collaboration.
Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Exnansion -The region
identified the loss of farmland as a significant issue in the recent past, and a threat to
the quality of life and economy in the future if it could not be mitigated.
Loss of Community Identity -The region identified the decreasing rural land
separation between some of the communities as jeopardizing important aspects of these
jurisdictions' sense of community and identity.
Once the region was awarded Regional Problem Solving status, the problem statements above
were addressed with a set of three corresponding goals:
Manage Future Regional Growth for the Greater Public Good -including policies
calling for the use of intergovernmental agreements and amendments to comprehensive
Draft July 200a
11
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project- Planning Report 3
plans to implement the Regional Plan, increased residential densities across the region,
the identification of major infrastructure corridors, a more efficient network of public
streets, and a balance of jobs and housing on the local and regional levels;
Conserve Resource and Onen Snace Lands for their Important Economic. Cultural, and
Livability Benefits -including policies calling for a shared vision of maintaining a
commercially viable agricultural land base, uniform standards of agricultural buffering,
and the long-term preservation of regionally significant open space; and
Recoenize and Emphasize the Individual Identity. Unique Features. and Relative
Competitive Advantages and Disadvantages of each Community within the Reeion -
includingpolicies calling for mechanisms to enhance individual community identity,
increase flexibility in the- extent of future boundary expansions, permit an unequal
distribution of certain land uses among jurisdictions, and the development of individual
definitions of each community based on its unique identity and vision of future urban
form.
PROJECT PROCESS
The RPS project was structured around the work of four committees: the Policy Committee,
composed primarily of elected officials from the participating jurisdictions, was the final
decision-maker; the Technical Advisory Committee (TAG), populated by high level staff from
both jurisdictions and agencies, provided technical recommendations; the Resource Lands
Review Committee (BERG), made up of agricultural and forestry experts, provided
recommendations on the value of resource lands being considered for urban use; and the Citizen
Involvement Committee (pCIC), a geographically representative group of interested citizens,
provided guidance on open space and growth issues.
The process of arriving at a set of urban reserves for the region's cities was designed to be an
iterative process as well as a balancing act between the need to conserve the region's agricultural
capability, open space, and individual community identity, and the responsibility of planning to
meet the demands for growth. The major factors used by participants in deciding where future
growth would be placed, and where it would be avoided, were as follows:
The pCIC's Recommended Community Buffers
The major responsibility of the pCIC was the recommendation of areas between communities
that would best serve to preserve the individuality of neighboring communities by remaining in
rural uses. Of the pCIC's community buffering recommendations for rural buffers, only one has
proven impossible to implement as was originally conceived (the area between Medford and
Phoenix). Every other community buffer was successfully incorporated into the cities' long
range growth plans by avoiding the inclusion of any significant areas of urban reserve lands
within them.
Draft ~ ~ July 2008
4 Regional Problem Solving -The Background
The RLRC's Commercial Agricultural Base Recommendations
The major focus of the RLRC was on the RPS statute's requirement of expert advice on potential
conversions of resource land to urban uses. This process was divided into two phases; an initial
phase, which was used to provide early guidance to cities from a larger perspective; and a second
phase, which provided an in-depth analysis of every proposed urban reserve that included
agricultural land. Ultimately, between 50% and 60% of the areas originally recommended by the
RLRC as part of the commercial agricultural base were reconsidered and eventually eliminated
by cities from their proposals as a result of their recommended agricultural status. Of the
remaining 22 urban reserves with full or partial RLRC recommendations attached at the time of
major deliberations in 2007, state agencies ultimately disapproved of seven of them, in full or in
part, as urban reserves, making the case that they were more important to the region remaining as
agricultural land than converting to urban uses. Ultimately, the final set of proposed urban
reserves had a lower percentage of resource land than did the non-urban lands as a whole within
the study area-74% resource and 26%non-resource land in urban reserves, versus 84%
resource and 16%non-resource land in the larger rural portion of the study area.
The Community's Strategic Vision and Definition of Self
The latitude for cities to be "different" from each other, as long as there is a regional balance
pennitting the Rogue Valley to function as well or better than traditional planning would allow,
was a powerful draw for cities when initially considering their participation in regional problem
solving. It led to the concept of participating cities as "regional neighborhoods" making up the
larger "regional community", as well as a set of "critical elements of community identity"
drafted by each jurisdiction. This influenced not only the set of proposed land uses within the
urban reserves, but also the selection of the urban reserves themselves. Some major examples
are the establishment of two regional centers of job creation, the variety of density targets and
growth percentages across cities, and the decision to use future transportation funding to
facilitate the targeted distribution of land uses across the region.
Citizen Input on Future Growth
Participants were in agreement from the beginning of the process that public involvement was
critical to its long-term success. In the first years of the process, formal public input was provided
by the two citizen committees, the pCIC and the RLRC. Once the foundational contributions of
these two committees were made, jurisdictions began work on fashioning proposals for urban
reserve areas. At this point, jurisdictions began independently involving citizens in planning
activities. All of the local jurisdictions developed local citizen involvement strategies to ensure
significant opportunities to provide feedback and contribute to the decision making process, using
a series of public meetings, surveys, presentations, and mailers. The public meetings were
interspersed with formal planning commission or city council meetings to consider the input.
Outreach activities were also developed to actively solicit citizen input and include it for
consideration. Finally, in addition to the efforts conducted by the cities individually, the RPS
Draft 13 July 20°8
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Protect- Planning Report 5
Policy Committee and Technical Advisory Committee members held a series of public meetings
and hearings to provide a detailed update on the process and encourage additional citizen
involvement. As the culmination of these efforts of cooperative public input, the process held two
major public hearings on the plan, one in White City, and the other in Talent. Both hearings were
extensively noticed as public hearings, and both written and oral testimony was taken and
eventually responded to in written form.
Although no two cities provided exactly the same opportunities for public involvement at exactly
the same time and in exactly the same format, the public's role across the region was extensive
and influential. In addition to the larger public's influence in the development of cities' strategic
vision and in the cities' review of proposed urban reserves, individuals were also influential in
recommending specific parcels to cities for consideration or for rejection.
Regional Population Allocation
An early decision made by the process was in determining its planning horizon. Although there
was solid consensus within the region that its population is very likely to double within the next
45 to 55 years, participants were uncomfortable with any projection over that long a time period
being reliable enough to be useful for any but the most general purposes. Because the valley's
leaders saw the ability to do long range planning as one of the key features of the RPS process, the
project moved away from the earliest idea of planning for a set period of 50 years to adopt the
concept of planning for a doubling of the existing population. The participants reasoned that, with
this strategy, no matter when the population eventually doubles, the region would be prepared.
With this doubling of the population as its base, a collaborative, regional allocation of future
population was completed several years into the RPS process. The doubled regional population
was distributed throughout the region based on the results of the cities' extensive analysis of the
lands around their boundaries, citizen input, state agency input, and each city's progress on
defining its future role in the valley. The resulting proportional distribution of population was
approved by the Policy Committee for use during the remainder of the process, and was
instrumental in Jackson County's 2007 comprehensive plan update of its population element.
Proposed Land Uses
Cities estimated allocations of general land use designations to each proposed urban reserve area:
Residential, Industrial, Commercial, Open Space/Parks, and Institutional. These allocations
demonstrate the cities' current best guess of how these areas could serve a local and regional
need -they, and their later refinements, will be important during subsequent long-range planning
to anticipate the type of infrastructure and services that will be required to support the different
uses. A final determination of uses for urban reserves will be made at the time of UGB
expansion.
Draft ~ e July 2008
S Regional Problem Solving -The Background
State Agency Feedback
State agency input, primarily on the Policy and Technical Committees, was a constant from the
beginning of the project. Although not voting members on the Policy Committee, regional
representatives of the departments of Land Conservation and Development, Transportation,
Environmental Quality, Agriculture, Economic and Community Development, and Housing and
Community Services were all active in the process. The extent and frequency of agency
involvement in the process was decided by the individual agency; no restrictions were imposed
by local participants.
Regional Economic, Housing, and Transportation Analyses
The 12PS process was built upon an intuitive understanding of the impact that regional economic,
housing, and transportation issues would have on determining the valley's future, as well as an
appreciation of the effect different future growth scenarios could have on those regional issues.
The generation of data and information on these issues during the process is embodied in the
Regional Economic Opportunities Analysis, the Regional Housing Needs Analysis, and the
transportation modeling and analysis performed by the Department of Transportation.
Housine -The information in the housing needs assessment was critical to the development of the
residential land needs portion of the RPS Land Needs Simulator, which incorporated regionally
agreed-upon targets for such factors as density, infill, and housing mix to determine a range of
potential housing need. Final output on housing needs from the simulator points to a deficit range
of between 275 and 1,766 acres (a median deficit of 1,020 acres) in the residential land portion of
the proposed urban reserves. This indicates that the ItPS proposal of 4,224 residential acres of
urban reserve is a relatively conservative one as an estimate of the need over the planning horizon.
It is also interesting to note that even if full residential buildout of the remaining capacity in the
city limits and UGBs is assumed, the region still proposes to increase its urban population
(212,368 at buildout) by over 37% (79,608) with less than a 14% increase in residential land
(31,018 acres in cities and UGBs, 4,224 acres of residential land in urban reserves). In addition,
the 9,082 acres of proposed urban reserves represent less than 7% of the region's non-city
acreage of 137,053 acres.
Employment -The economic opportunities analysis was not only the primary source of
information for the construction of the employment portion of the RPS Land Needs Simulator,
but it was also the driving force behind the economic justification of two regional employment
centers: one in the area of the Seven Oaks interchange, and another east of I-5 between Medford
and Phoenix.
As in the housing portion of the simulator, employment need for participating jurisdictions was
detennined using consensus on a set of factors such as employment mix, percent of employment
using no new land, employees per acre, and employment net to gross factor. Taking employment
Draft July 2008
15
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Protect- Planning Report 7
as an overall category (retail, services, and industrial), the simulator shows a range of the
region's future ability to meet need from a surplus of 884 acres to a deficit of 423 acres. With the
median at a surplus of only 461 acres, the amount of land presently identified for employment is
well within a reasonable margin of error, although there do appear to be significant imbalances
between industrial land and land for retail and services. Industrial land shows a surplus of
between 1,688 and 2,476 acres, while land for retail and services employment shows deficits
between 1,592 and 2,111 acres. Nonetheless, the region has chosen to address the issue of the
imbalance- specifically the surplus of industrial lands-when the urban reserves begin to be
expanded into, as the region presently considers it important to establish a wide range of site
characteristics suitable for light industrial and professional employment.
Transportation -Transportation's role in, and impact on, growth in the Rogue Valley has become
more significant in recent years. The planning done under the RPS process has allowed the
region to focus on several major potential benefits RPS offers to the region's transportation
system, including the ability to designate and protect future major transportation corridors in
advance of their need, and forging a greater practical link between transportation and land use
planning.
Fortunately for this RPS process, the Oregon Deparhnent of Transportation's LUSDR
transportation and land use model became available at the time the process could best utilize the
information it provided, and a total of 15 combinations of land use and transportation scenarios
were modeled. Not only did the modeling show that the proposed urban reserves have no fatal
h•ansportation flaws, but it also highlighted the impact that different land use strategies had on
the ability of the present and future transportation infrastructure to manage the demands of future
population.
The results show that the more transit-friendly, mixed-use development scenario is clearly the
most effective development pattern to mitigate transportation impacts from growth. In fact, the
model shows that future widespread use of nodal development, even when paired with just the
base transportation network currently in the Regional Transportation Plan (which does not factor
in the future development of the urban reserves) is more effective at reducing transportation
impacts than the other two land use scenarios that were modeled, even when they are paired with
more robust transportation networks. The benefits of the transit-friendly, mixed-use scenario are
further compounded when they are combined with a high capacity public transit system.
Upon the conclusion of the last stage of RPS modeling in the fall of 2007, ODOT advised the
region that further modeling, predicated on a process of developing conceptual plans for the
eventual urbanization of the urban reserves, represented a significant opportunity to effectively
blend transportation and land use planning in a way never before possible in the region. While
the third stage modeling results were compelling in demonstrating the mitigating effect of nodal
development on a doubling of the current population, they also showed considerable
Draft
July 2008
`~ i V
8 Regional Problem Solving -The Background
improvements could be obtained by a significant investment in infrastructure capacity
improvements, as well as by a much more robust transit system. The challenge to the region in
the future will be to determine, by further planning and modeling around the acknowledged
urban reserves, where nodal development should become a preferred land use pattern; how
much, and where, capacity improvement will be necessary; and at what point a significantly
improved transit system becomes a full partner in the region's transportation network.
The Base Case Scenario
In early 2006, using an analysis of the lowest and highest priority lands for urbanization
according to the existing state system, a Base Case was created with a GIS model incorporating
the Urban Reserve Rule's criteria to rank every unincorporated parcel in the study area.
Although the Base Case was not used as formative input in the delineation of urban reserves, it
was useful in formulating the findings and alternatives analyses, and in determining where RPS
appeared to be deviating from the standard urban reserve priority criteria.
Regional Selection Criteria
In the final phase of the process, the Technical and Policy Committees developed a set of
evaluative criteria to screen, modify, and make a final selection of the proposed urban reserves.
These criteria, essentially an expanded version of Oregon's State Land Use Goal 14's locational
factors, were made available to participants to assist in the process of evaluating proposed urban
reserves, although their heaviest use was probably in assisting cities in preparing and
communicating their rationale behind specific proposed urban reserves.
Deliberations
In early 2007, the RPS project moved into a series of deliberations among members of the RPS
Policy Committee, state agencies (DEQ, OECD, ODOT, DLCD, OHCS, and ODA) and local
entities (Medford Water Commission, Rogue Valley Sewer Services, and Rogue Valley Transit
District). Before Policy Committee deliberations began, state agencies evaluated each proposed
urban reserve area as "recommended," "not recommended" or "recommended with conditions."
With this state agency input, along with recommendations from 1,000 Friends of Oregon and
local entities, and findings from the cities, the Policy Committee entered into deliberations.
After each of the five rounds, the RPS Policy Committee reviewed the cumulative acreage of
residential, commercial and industrial lands, as well as proposed adjustments and conditions for
approval. The Policy Committee also used this process to respond to state concerns about
commercial agricultural land within some of the proposed urban reserve areas. Final questions
about several specific proposed urban reserves remained until early summer 2008, at which time
the local members of the Policy Committee and state agencies reached consensus on the final set
of urban reserves proposed by the region.
PROJECT OUTCOMES
The following outcomes will result from the successful completion of the RPS process:
Draft July 2008
1'7
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Protect- Planning Report 9
Urban Reserves
The Regional Plan proposes a total of 9,082 acres for eventual urbanization (not including 1,877
acres of Medford-owned park land now situated outside of the city's Urban Growth Boundary,
and Phoenix's PH-3-consisting of 266 acres of developed unincorporated community-
considered for the purposes of RPS to have no buildout potential). Of that total, 4,438 acres is
proposed for residential use; 1,500 acres for industrial use; 1,033 for service and retail use; 1,279
acres for parks and open space; and 832 acres for institutional uses (see Exhibit ES-1). The city
summaries are as follows:
City # of Urban Total Residential Indus. Service / parks Inst.
Reserves Acres Retail
Eagle Point 4 1,285 536 153 212 170 214
Central Point 8 1,839 899 578 85 219 58
Medford 11 4,493 2,312 497 662 666 356
Jacksonville 6 575 365 31 8 139 32
Phoenix 5 599 137 209 57 75 121
Talent 5 291 189 32 9 10 51
Ashland chose not to select urban reserves during the process
TOTALS 39 9,082 4,438 1,500 1,033 1,279 832
Community Buffers
As mapped in yellow on Exhibit ES-1, the final recommended rural buffers include a total of
almost 8,200 acres, distributed as follows:
• Between Eagle Point and White City - 1,414 acres
• Between White City and Medford - 1,305 acres
• Between Jacksonville and Medford - 3,400 acres
• Between Phoenix and Talent - 1,376 acres
• Between Talent and Ashland - 698 acres
Although these community buffers are clearly delineated as such on project maps, their
preservation as rural lands buffering communities is accomplished through no other means than a
lack of urban reserves being located within them. The Regional Plan does not impose any
downzoning or increased regulation on these lands, although an optional mechanism for the
permanent preservation of important rural open space was developed within the RPS process-
the Critical Open Space Areas (COSA) strategy-through which land owners could voluntarily
sell conservation easements to the owners of land within the urban reserves. This COSA
mechanism is available to cities which care to employ it. Even without the use of the COSA
mechanism, however, the cities' simple avoidance of the designated community buffers when
Drefl ~ W July 2008
10 Regional Problem Solving -The Background
Exhlblt E3~1
Oran 19 duly zoos
Bear Creek Valley Regional Prabtem Solving Project- Planning Report 11
establishing their urban reserves gives the region significant long-term assurance that these areas
will continue to provide rural areas of separation between communities.
Agricultural Buffering
Stemming from the fact that trespass, vandalism, and complaints about farm operations from city
residents on the urban fringe were identified during the RP5 process as the single most important
reason that agricultural operations in proximity to urban areas lose viability, the process
developed improved standards for buffering farmland from urban development. These standards
are intended to be adopted by all participating jurisdictions.
Increased Densities
Cities will apply at least the minimum (higher land need)
densities identified in the adopted Regional Plan to their
urban reserves upon their urbanization. These minimum
densities represent, across the region, an increase over
current average densities of approximately 12%, a level
satisfying the project's guiding policy stating that the "...
region's overall housing density shall be increased to
provide for more efficient land utilization". As a means
of transitioning into these higher densities, and in
recognition of the possibility that not every urban reserve
Gross Density Scenarios
Higher Lower
Existing Land Land
Densi 1Veed Need
Eagle Point 5.50 6.40 7.74
Medford 5.50 6.50 7.87
Central Point 5.50 6.00 7.26
Jacksonville 2.72 4.00 4.84
Phoenix 6.00 6.20 7.50
Talent 5.65 6.20 7.50
Ashland 5.28 N/A N/A
will be suitable for these densities, the Plan allows cities, at their discretion, to exercise a
balanced density strategy that permits somewhat lower densities on the urban periphery (the
developing urban reserves) in exchange for a density increase in the city core.
Urban Reserve Management Agreements (URMAs)
As a means of establishing the roles and responsibilities of Jackson County and the appropriate
city in their urban reserves, URMAs will be created at the time of adoption of urban reserves.
Coordinated Population Allocations
Jackson County's future allocations of population growth
will reflect the proportional allocation of population in the
Regional Plan. A first step in this coordination was
undertaken in late 2006, at which time Jackson County
used the RPS allocation of future population to update its
population element.
Ten-Year Review Process
Participating jurisdictions will participate in a review of
progress under the Regional Plan every ten years.
Regional Plan Amendment Process
draft 2 U
RPS Allocations of Future Population
Base New
Pon• Poo• Inc.
Eagle Point 8,072 20,353 234
Medford 78,780 91,817 117
Cenhal Point 17,652 22,898 117
Jacksonville 2,635 1,748 66
Phoenix 5,339 4,950 93
Talent 6,561 5,229 80
Ashland 22,117 3,195 15
Jackson Cnty 27,180 18,776 69
TOTALS. 168,966 168,966 100
July 2008
12 Regional Problem Solving -The Background
Participating jurisdictions will have the ability to amend the adopted Regional Plan through the
process described in the Participants' Agreement. A "minor amendment" requires minimal
regional consultation, whereas a "major amendment" requires consultation sufficient to generate
a regional recommendation.
Conceptual Plans for Urban Reserves
Participating jurisdictions will coordinate with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to
develop conceptual land use plans for urban reserve areas in sufficient detail to allow the region
to size, locate, and protect regionally significant transportation corridors.
Draft "+ + July 2008
Chapter 5 Proposed Urban Reserves
The centerpiece of Oregon's land use planning program is a requirement for most new
development to be located inside urban growth boundaries (UGBs). These UGBs are planned to
provide the necessary mix of uses, residential densities, and public facilities to support urban
development.
This RPS process addresses a further refinement of Oregon's urban expansion strategy, the ability
to designate urban reserve areas (URAs). These areas are lands outside of established UGBs that
qualify as first priority in future UGB expansions. Although very few urban reserves have been
established in Oregon, the ability to designate the long-teem direction and extent of areas of future
growth in southern Oregon was a major motivating factor in gaining the participation of
jurisdictions in RPS, and remains, after eight years, one of the most important reasons they have
remained involved.
While this RPS process does not directly address future UGB expansions, the establishment of the
URAs will fundamentally change the UGB expansion process for the County and participating
cities. Most significantly:
The RPS process determines the suitability of the URAs for future urbanization by making
them the highest priority for UGB expansions. This will dramatically reduce the cost,
complexity, and time commitment of the UGB expansion process for the state and
participating jurisdictions.
The wider selection of URAs for most cities will allow more careful tailoring of their
UGB expansions.
The simpler process may allow cities to make more frequent, smaller UGB expansions.
On-the-ground realities have meant that some exception lands and low-value resource lands with
high potential for residential or employment have not been proposed as urban reserves. At the
same time, some productive agricultural lands have been included in the plan as areas for future
urban growth. Nonetheless, participants agree that this process has been extremely successful in
Drag ~ ~)
5-2 Proposed Urban Reserves
locating and reserving the most appropriate lands for future urban uses by Valley's cities, while
also preserving its most important resource lands and open space.
This chapter details the growth issues of each participating jurisdiction in the RPS process, and
the specific growth areas each proposed. The following summaries for each city explain why the
growth areas are needed, how these growth areas will address each city's need, and finally,
alternative areas that each city evaluated, but eventually dropped from consideration.
This chapter also introduces and evaluates baseline residential "targets" to assist in gauging
whether the proposed growth areas will be sufficient for each city, and whether the sum of the
proposed growth meets the region's needs within the RPS planning horizon. It will also provide
benchmarks for use in monitoring the progress of the plan during its implementation.
Draft
23
Draft
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project- Planning Report 53
~rafl 2
5-0 Proposed Urban Reserves
Rwnr rtroe4 \/ollwv Rwnlnnwl Prnhlwm Rnlvinn Prniwnf ~ Plwnnlnn RennA 5-5
Exhibit 5.3
Ur® barn F
J
1:x:.;1
o/ax 2 6
Draft
2~
5.6 Proposed Urban Reserves
Bear Creek Valley Reglonel Problem Solving Project- Planning Report 5-7
Draft
28
o~R 2 ~
5-8 Proposed Urban Reserves
5-9
°~a 3 0
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Protect- Pienning Report
ores ~ 9
5-10 Proposed Urben Reserves
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving PraJect-Planning Report 5-11
Exhlb~t 5.9
and CP-6B
~ ~. a - -~„" ~ . ~
r~.
~ ~
i
11 ) ,"
~ ~ f
I
~_ k _ _
, ;.
:,
.
r
;F,,
~~
,,~f
EFU" ,,
~r -
RR-00~ _~
rr.
.
~
~
._
~.
R
~„
f
' r '
~ ~
~ _ ~ RR ° ~' ~. ~ ' ~~'' ~~ ~ '
_ ~ 7 S~
ryb r { 4:
I ~~~i, ~~`) C~7 I~ ~ ~ ri ~P ~ ~~ /SI ~~ ~a~ 4 .
RR-5~ ~lj~~ '~/ ' ~ r / ~ 3~t JI tr~~ ~} is q r~ s ~t ,
~ n, ; , .
~W'5
~~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ " ~ ~_ ~ ,~~
R.... ~ ~~
g ~ j .~ 1 (p \ I ti
[ ~
a ~ ,..
~.
~ r r
c
(( y, ~ ~ [ v
J1• a
i ~
~ J : " ~ , ~ r°~,,
~...,
~~~~
"mRR 5 ' ~ RR ~-a ~ ( ~ fra:
-- -~, ~,RR-~;, ~ EF~I "
x ~~ ~ '' ~ `i r + ~ i
_~. ~, ~
~rax 3 2
5-12 Proposed Urben Reserves
1 Central Point
Central Point is one of the fastest growing small cities in the state. Rapid growth in the early
1990s led to the creation of the Central Point Strategic Plan, adopted in 1998. The plan establishes
a vision to preserve small town character and community values, and to enhance community life.
Effective growth management practices have led to afollow-on strategic planning process,
Central Point Forward. Through this process, the City has updated the 1998 vision, goals and
actions to implement its desired future.
The City has also created a plan to revitalize its downtown, adopted Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) policies and zoning, and has promoted land use and transportation master
planning.
Central Point intends to continue planning and building master planned communities that contain ,
a diversity of uses including parks, open spaces, civic areas and commercial uses that contribute to
the city's character. The City will also incorporate natural features into new development so they
can become living assets within their new neighborhoods.
In 2002, the City adopted Transit Oriented Development (TOD) land use classifications and
zoning standards. This provides for higher residential densities, mixed-use zoning, and more
integrated civic and open space development. The City is also working with multiple property
owners to design a new neighborhood north of Beebe Road in one of the few-remaining
residentially zoned areas in the growth boundary. Preliminary plans call for zone changes that
increase residential densities, integrate more parks and open space land and introduce limited
commercial uses. This will likely become the city's second TOD.
Of the non-residential land in Central Point, almost 20 percent is classified as vacant. Commercial
and industrial development each makes up about 5 percent of Central Point's overall land base.
The remaining 30 percent is classified as "other", which includes parks, open spaces, places of
worship and public right-of--way.
The City would like to increase its employment and industrial land base, both to balance jobs and
housing, and to provide more immediate services to a growing population. Recent building
activity suggests there is a growing local demand for commercial and industrial uses. Recent
development includes the USF Reddaway truck terminal, expansion of the LTM regional offices,
and the partial development of the Airport Orchard industrial site.
The City would also like development to continue towards the west, rather than east of the
freeway. The City has determined that development east of the freeway would not encourage a
compact urban form, and would not help the city expand their infrastmcture.
Oran
near Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Protect- Planning Report 5-13
Additionally, Interstate 5 impedes east-west movement within the city, another reason to grow
towards the west. In an effort to improve access to downtown from east of the interstate, Central
Point has set aside funds to improve Seven Oaks interchange, as well as at the Upton Road
overpass.
Proposed Central Point Urban Reserve Areas:
CP-1 B (Tolo):
Op
ce
-acres ~'=' Res. Comm. Ind. Instituttonal Parks Resource
Existin ~'~~ r~ ~~'±~'N ~ ~kc `,~c~` ~~~;~ a~~ 3 ''~~,
~
Zoning t 5aw~~rl~ sg~xr ,er~'Yq
s
*
.~~ !~rr - ` 'f"
~
€a.
Proposed
U ,
~;~~
h
~
'
~
~~~'~ ~ ~
.
.
~ o~ t
~~~ t ~~ 3 ~ ;~
~~
~~ _
`'~,
~ ~~~
~
ses ~,} , ~ ~
t -
~
This urban reserve has been through several modifications
since the time it was originally presented. The area currently
proposed is approximately 617 acres. The majority of this
area is located north of Interstate 5 and west of its junction
with Highway 99. The area is zoned for a variety of uses,
including rural residential, industrial, open space, and future
urban uses. A small pocket of land in this area extends south
of Interstate 5 to Willow Springs Road; this area includes
land owned by Erickson Air Crane, a major valley employer.
The area also contains some land zoned for Exclusive Farm
Use, 48 acres of which was recommended by the RLRC as
part of the Commercial Agricultural Base.
The Seven Oaks Interchange is a strategic transportation hub
where three separate facilities converge-the Central Oregon &
Pacific Railroad (COPR), Highway 99, and Interstate 5. The
city's comprehensive plan addresses proximity to the
interchange as an opportunity to develop transportation-
dependentuses in the area. ACity-County plan currently
proposes struck-train freight transfer site near the interchange.
Exhib(t 5.10
The initial proposal for a Tolo area urban reserve was larger than
the present one, but in response to concerns about included
commercial agricultural lands, the City responded by excluding
some of the areas recommended for preservation by the RLRC.
~~
Draft
Total Acres:517
~~~ ~ F ~{~ C~ t
p~ f 3g1 4 + A + `..
,~. .m Y +t tU ~rh~~hY ~1fg ~ ~+~~~~
5-14 Proposed Urban Reserves
Central Point lacks attractive and suitable sites for new industrial
development. The Highway 99 corridor is transitioning from
rail-dependent uses to employment uses that support transit and
pedestrian-oriented development. The Tolo area's industrially-
zonedsites could accommodate new industries and the
expansion of existing industrial uses. The City will use
agricultural buffers where urban development occurs adjacent to
productive farmland.
The 1984 Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement
(updated in 1998) between the City and Jackson County
designated lands in the vicinity of the Seven Oaks Interchange as
unique because of the transportation facilities present. The area
was designated as an Area of Mutual Planning Concern to
protect it from premature development, but available for
urbanization when it could be shown to warrant such
development.
The RPS project has proposed to locate many of the region's
new industrial urban reserves away from the two high
concentration PM10 areas, Medford and White City. Urban
reserve areas CP-1B and PH-5, two areas proposed for primarily
industrial use, are outside of these high concentration areas. As
the historic focal centers of the region's industries, Medford and
White City have the highest modeled annual PM10
concentrations within the AQMA.
Condition of Approval: Approval of CP-1B as an urban reserve
by the Policy Committee was contingent on the following
condition:
• Prior to the expansion of the Central Point Urban
Growth Boundary into the CPl-B area, ODOT,
Jackson County and Central Point shall adopt an
Interchange Area Management Plan for the Seven
Oaks interchange area.
Commercial Aericultural Resource Base Status: 48 acres of CP-
1Bwere recommended as part of the commercial agricultural
base by the RLRC. However, the decision made at the first state
agency review in March, 2007 was that the case for eventual
Oran
35
Beer Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project- Planning Report 5-15
urbanization of CP-1B was more compelling than the one for
maintaining them in agricultural use.
CP-1 C:
This urban reserve consists of about 75 acres and sits near the
northwestern corner of the Central Point city limits and UGB. It
extends from Jackson Creek to Griffin Creek, with Scenic
Avenue defining its southem edge. This area was originally
proposed by the City as the southern end of a much larger urban
reserve, previously named CP-1. The City is no longer
considering most of the land between this new area and Willow
Springs Road because the RLRC has recommended much of it
as commercial agricultural land.
The City has opted to retain CP-1C, in part, because it must
improve the railroad crossing and the intersection at Scenic
Avenue and Highway 99. The new railroad facility will need to
cross Highway 99 at a right angle, which means the road will
need to extend north from Scenic Avenue, on the east side of the
highway, before crossing Highway 99 in a perpendicular fashion.
The triangular tax lot at the northwest corner is necessary to
ensure that the geometry of the new intersection is efficient and
safe.
New infrastructure to serve this area would not require extensive
public or private funding. Currently, a 12-inch water line extends
the length of Highway 99 from the city boundary to the Erickson
Air Crane facility, at the edge of CP-1B. Another smaller water.
line and a sewer line are near CP-1C, inside the city limits.
The area contains three parcels, totaling 50 acres, which have
been recommended by RLRC as part of the Commercial
Agricultural Base. The parcel immediately east of Highway 99 is
bordered by exception land to the north, south and east. The
Exhibit 5.11
orex 3 6
TotatAcrea: 76 ~ '
ii
t
SS.yrb]f d
~SiC ~~
5-16 Proposed Urban Reserves
parcel further to the east is bordered by the city on the east, by
exception land to the south, and partially by exception land to
the west. The last parcel, to the west of the highway, is bordered
by Jackson Creek to the west and by Scenic Avenue to the south.
The urban reserve area in total contains over 20 residences.
Existing agricultural uses are not intensive ones, and the City has
agreed to implement agricultural buffering to protect adjoining
productive farmlands.
The northern portion of this urban reserve area is developed with
approximately 15 residences. New infrastructure to this site
would not require extensive public or private funding. Currently,
a 12-inch water line extends the length of Highway 99 from the
city boundary to the Erickson Air-Crane facility, along the
western edge of CP-1C. Another smaller water line and a sewer
line are near CP-1C, inside the city limits.
The City will promote a master plan for this area to ensure more
efficient urban development, incorporate natural features (i.e.
Griffin Creek) into the neighborhood design, create agricultural
buffers, and lay out an internal street network that minimizes
access onto Highway 99.
Commercial Aericultural Resource Base Status: 50 acres of CP-
1 Cwere recommended as part of the commercial agricultural
base by the RLRC. However, the decision made at the second
state agency review in December, 2007 was that the case for
eventual urbanization of CP-1C was more compelling than the
one for maintaining it in agricultural use.
Draft 3
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Protect -Planning Report 5-17
CP-2B:
This area, approximately 329 acres, is defined on the north by
Wilson Road and on the south by the Jackson County
Fairgrounds Exposition Park and portions of the Central Point
city limits. The city limits also define this area's eastern and
western boundaries. The area's zoning is a mixture of EFU land
and rural residential, and the RLRC recommended 197 acres as
part of the Commercial Agricultural Base. About 20 percent of
this area contains oak savanna, and some areas have ponded
sources of irrigation water.
This area is critical for extending storm drainage from the
exception area south of Wilson Road and from other areas closer
to Bear Creek. The City also plans to extend the east-west leg of
Upton Road further east to Gebhard Road to improve
transportation connectivity. The County Roads Department, in
cooperation with ODOT, will be reconstructing the Upton Road
bridges in the near future. This will strengthen the connection
between northeast and northwest Central Point. Public
infrastructure, in the form of sewer lines and gas lines, already
extend into CP-2B. Water lines exist in city subdivisions east of
Gebhard Road and north along Table Rock Road. These water
lines can be extended into CP-2B.
While Central Point recognizes the conflict between urban and
rural uses, it has few places to grow without encroaching into
farmland and/or open space. The interstate currently splits the
city, and it is important to maintain an urban form by closing the
loop along the city's northern boundary. City planning staff is
collaborating with the Fair Board in their master planning
efforts. The Jackson County Expo property may become a
recreational/parks centerpiece in the future, similar to Stewart
Park in Roseburg. The City also plans to protect CP-2B's
Exhibit 5-72
orax 3 ~
Total Acres: 329 :'
..` i Ala .~~ ,a
5-18 Proposed Urben Reserves
natural resources by incorporating them into a master plan, and
will also require agricultural buffers to protect nearby
agricultural lands that remain in production.
The State has also suggested that the City consider extending
this urban reserve into exception areas to the north of CP-2B. oak savanna Norm of cP•ze
Central Point has given two reasons why this is not practical or
desirable: the presence of oak savannah habitat, and large areas
of wetland. The significant areas of oak savannah habitat consist
of open grassland or grass beneath oak-dominated communities
of varying densities. This area hosts a significant example of this
ecosystem, and was recognized and catalogued as such by the
RPS Citizen Involvement Committee (pCIC). The area also
contains wetlands, which have been addressed most recently by
a Department of State Lands employee who toured the area in
spring of 2007. According to DSL, about 115 acres, or 30
percent of the site may be wetland, and a substantial portion of
this site may present wetland-development conflicts.
Commercial Agricultural Resource Base Status: 197 acres of
CP-2B were recommended as part of the commercial
agricultural base by the RLRC. However, the decision made at
the second state agency review in December, 2007 was that the
case for eventual urbanization of CP-2B was more compelling
than the one for maintaining it in agricultural use.
CP-3:
Ope
nSp
ce
acces- Res. Comm. Ind. Institutional P
~ Resource
Exishng
b~~a ZS~}f~ac ~
~` ~, W ~ t a
+ir~.
~ rt a1t~fl~~
~
~r~x
r,yc 3 -, rE r + ~.4
~~ ti~ " ~ t ~ r
;
p
Zoning `
i p
'~ y
~ s~~ k
~
'~~<
~#
' ~
~ ~ ,
4f~K,
n~ a , ,~,
. ~
Proposed
~~
5itJ~
"
~4 ~,
' r,
-h
,
Uses {s~4Y pr 1
t: r? ~ t r
This 41-acre growth area has East Pine Street, and the Central
Point city limits, as its southern boundary. The extension of
Beebe Road defines the area's northern edge. Penniger Road
bisects the southwest corner. The area is east of the Fairgrounds,
These oak stands have become
prrogrzssive[y less common in the
region over the last century, falling
initially to agriculture, and now
increasingly to development The
recommended stands are especially
important due to the fact that the
trees, not being economically valuable
nor in demand as ornamentals, are
not being replanted. Since the only
significant occurrences oflhese trees
in the future are going to be naturally
occurring in existing stands, the pCIC
is recommending that these examples
be prrserved.
RPS Phase 1 Status Repor[, page 25.
Total Acres: 41
and also has Central Point city limits defining its southern ,,
and eastern boundaries. Bear Creek and its associated floodplain ~'~~~
Draft 3
Exhibit 5.73
Beer Creek Veiley Reglonel Problem Solving Project-Planning Report 5-79
cross this area's eastern edge.
Water and sewer infrastructure is either in place or is planned for
the area. The East Pine Street Transportation Plan is
recommending improvements to the I-5 interchange and
reconfiguration of fairground access; this may dictate the type
and the amount of new commercial uses along North Penniger
Road.
The majority of this urban reserve is zoned for Exclusive Farm
Use, or open space, though the RLRC did not recommend any of
it as part of the commercial resource base.
Since the 100-year floodplain crosses this area, ideas for future
development have been limited to regional parks, open space
and tourist commercial uses. The City removed a northern
portion of approximately 70 acres, the RLRC identified as
commercial agricultural land. The portion of CP-3 that remains
is surrounded on three sides by the Central Point city limits or by
the fairgrounds.
CP-4D:
t7p
Ce
acres'<',.. Res. Comm. Ind. Institutional Parks Resource
Existing 77
t~'Y
°
~
~„ ~ £~
` fir.
~t ~`<~'A
~
'
' ~4 L{~
'~~` ~`~ ~v'
'
a
` d {33 P g'f.'
,'"+~, _~~~'~
s .$~i
~~,:-
j
`
Zoning ~
yra ~ r ~_> ft~
a
`". , s
,
~'sf~ ri
,
•,', t<
.r." ~
Proposed ~~ ~i ~~ ~~&¢ t~w~i;~`;'°~`€ ~,~
`
t l~
~~ `t` rj h {
Uses L ~~ f~ }
~1~ L! l ~ayi ~4~.~ &f ~ F.
om
1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Xi
This urban reserve is atriangular-shaped area that runs along
the northeastern side of Interstate 5. About 86 acres in size,
most of this area is zoned as Exclusive Farm Use. A small
extension at the southern end is zoned for rural residential use.
CP-4D as originally proposed was 444 acres, and extended
from the I-5 on the west to CP-2B to the east, but was reduced
to the present CP-4D after the agricultural value much of the
area became clear. The remaining land is owned by Jackson
County and is part of the Bear Creek Greenway between Bear
Creek and Interstate 5. While these parcels are zoned EFU, they
are not in agricultural production and they do not hold a soil
classification on county maps.
Exhibit 5.14
Urban Reserve CP-4D
Draft 4 U
Total Acres 88
5-20 Proposed Urben Reserves
This area also has environmental constraints. About one third of
this 86-acre urban reserve sits within the 100-year floodplain,
which cuts along eastern edge. Additionally this area contains
several wetlands. The City expects to use this area for passive
recreation, dedicated open space, or parks, especially for Bear
Creek Greenway use. Where urban areas are adjacent to
productive farmland, it is understood that agricultural buffering
will be incorporated.
The RLRC recommended this area as part of the Commercial
Agricultural Base when it was part of the original, much larger
444-acre CP-4D. This smaller piece was not revisited by the
RLRC once it had been reduced its present size; and as a result,
the RLRC designation was eventually removed by the agreement
of both the Policy Committee and the state agencies due to the
fact that the land is fairly heavily wooded, is not in agricultural
production (nor has it been within memory), and has no soil
classification on County maps.
Condition ofAnoroval: Approval of CP-4D as an urban reserve
by the Policy Committee was contingent on the following
condition:
• This area shall only be used for greenway and parks.
CP-5:
Op
ce
acres`!` Res. Comm. Ind. Institutional parks Resource
Exishng 6a%v+~`
~A li ~"~+1~~g ~j
~~ ~{ ~
~1~ ,cX~ iti ~y`~i tea`
~~'~ l4YS'./X
~
~ ~~~~k~ t itt~
~~
2X ~p rX ~~4'~~ ~.d
~ X
,i.
k
Zoning r ,~q ~ ,t~i,'}T~
a s
~F d
$
~~•~ra ``
YY
a '~r i
l~ .I
N't W 'S
'< sass ~
fr
~~
Proposed ~ r- s. ,.-
~~~~~)
e ,
.
~~z
~ . .
ii ~9~0~~~~ K rG''sy,r`~~ ~+~crr
~` ~f~' ~.£trt{
:t a
`
~
Uses ~ ~~ ;
~~ Y
,z ": ~
-4
`~ e "m
`.~ -
'~ ~'' ' ~
~
~`
.e
~,.t ~ ~
.
~ . ~
This growth area, approximately 33 acres, sits immediately west of
the city limits, east of Grant Road, and south of Scenic Avenue.
Most parcels are zoned RR-5, and there is a 10-acre parcel zoned
EFU at the southern end. The 10-acre EFU parcel was initially
recommended by the RLRC as part of the commercial resource base,
but that recommendation was removed in a subsequent re-
evaluation. The parcel contains a walnut grove, Christmas trees, and
a dwelling with accessory uses southwest of the creek. A small
Exhibit 5-15
Urban Reserve CP-5
Draft
41
Tolal Acres: 33
~' rZt
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project -Planning Report 5-21
pasture and two barns are on the other side. Because the creek
runs through the property and portions are in residential use, the
effective formable portion of the property is significantly less
than ten acres, particularly when no adjacent parcels are
available for farm use. Jackson Creek and its associated 100-
year floodplain follow Grant Road except where they cut
through the EFU parcel. These riparian areas create a significant
physical barrier from the larger tract of farmland to the west.
The properties in this urban reserve are adjacent to the city
limits, and could easily be served by the extension of public
utilities and services from the Twin Creeks development. The
area could be used for either residential development or
dedicated open space for Twin Creeks. The location of Jackson
Creek and Grant Road reinforces this area's stronger relationship
to urban development than to farm land across the creek and to
the west. A road and creek would serve as a much better dividing
line between urban and rural uses than would a property line
having no discernable difference on either side of the fence.
CP-6A:
457. "
'acres
Res.
Comm.
Ind.
Institutional Open Space
Parks
Resource
Existin
Z
i
/~~
o` 1
/
a ~
f
:
~ ~ ~ 1~'
a
~
j fa ~ i
Li
~~ u'~
~~'`
" ~~ M e
9 g.
~ SP`
on
ng ~ a'„" g
~, ~ ,-
«" I
.
Proposed ~
s~a~~
§ Y
' ' '~
' t
k~ ~g er
~~' ~
~ 3 F
~ t~ ~i° k~
~
'`~Sd' !
~ ~ ~~.
~~
'
Uses fi! w
` &. `: v"'s~4r ~ p kx S £f"'P'x` , " ,
i ,
~ ~ie~ ~ij
r ~
..
This area consists of 457 acres. The City and its residents have
supported including this area because it helps the City's goal
of developing in a centric pattern. The City envisions larger
master planned communities in the areas where several large
lots can be assembled for higher density residential
development, some open space preserved and agricultural
buffers created. Managed growth to the west will promote
efficient local resident access to the Downtown core.
The properties in this urban reserve are adjacent to the city
limits, and could easily be served by services from the 'I\vin
Creeks development or from existing collector roads, such as
Beall Lane, Taylor Road, and Scenic Avenue. The circulation
Exhibit 5.16
Draa ~ h
~"
"~`~~~~{` ~iy~~tk~?~~~~~~pry.~~t~~~~r~
~~~b~~~~i 5 lF ri A ,S ~ x~.
~ ~ ~ X`~4"~is'+- ~ s °> ~rsnt~ ~`.,~ Sit,.
5-22 Proposed Urban Reserves
plan for this area is a natural extension of the Twin Creeks
Development, and of historic east-west roads such as Taylor and
Beale. The City believes that there are more natural linkages
from the areas west of Grant Road to the Downtown and other
neighborhoods.
Water, natural gas and sewer maps indicate that other
infrastructure can be readily, efficiently, and economically
extended to CP-6A from the east and the south. Storm drainage
can be developed, treated, and effectively drained into existing
systems. The Twin Creeks Development is using passive water
treatment, which the City will impose on new development in
this area.
Approximately 2/3 of the land in this urban reserve is zoned as
Exclusive Farm Use, and has been recommended by the RLRC
as part of the Commercial Agricultural Base. The remaining 1/3
is exception lands zoned for rural residential use. Soils in this
area are class 3 with limited amounts of Class 2. Local long-term
members of the farming community have maintained that the
land is not productive, and that for years it has been used
extensively for grazing, or has been allowed to remain fallow.
Commercial Agricultural Resource Base Status: 292 acres of
CP-6A were recommended as part of the commercial
agricultural base by the RLRC. However, the decision made at
the second state agency review in December, 2007 was that the
case for eventual urbanization of CP-6Awas more compelling
than the one for maintaining it in agricultural use.
o~a 4
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Protect-Planning Report 5-23
CP-11B: Exhibit 6-77
along with Beall Lane, defines its northern boundary. Its
southern boundary is defined by Sylvia Road, its western
boundary is Old Stage Road, and the eastern boundary is
defined by the 100-year floodplain along Hanley Road. Zoning
is primarily for rural residential use, with two developed areas
that are zoned EFU. None of the lands in this urban reserve
have been recommended as commercial agricultural land by
RLRC. While this area is relatively flat, steeper slopes to the
southwest and northwest provide a buffer from other rural
lands outside of the reserve.
CP-6B was a later addition by the City to its set of proposed
urban reserves, and was added largely in response to DLCD's
request to consider the area's high concentration of exception
lands. This is a mixed area, with scattered large lot development,
and a little league field in the southeastern Cotner. The City has
also reported some septic system failures potentially affecting
aquifers in this area, which could be addressed by extending
urban services into it.
Gibbon Acres -Area of Special Planning Concern:
Both the State and Jackson County have expressed concern
about the unincorporated community of Gibbon Acres not
being proposed as an urban reserve. Central Point
acknowledges that concern, and as a condition to creating
limited Urban Reserve (UR) areas west of Grant Road, the City
has agreed to assume future jurisdictional responsibility for
Gibbon Acres west of Table Rock Road and north of Wilson
Road.
The City and County have agreed in principle to managing
Gibbon Acres as an "Area of Mutual Planning Concern"
Exhibit 5.18
~raa 4 4
This 200-acre area sits immediately south of CP-6A, which,
Total Acrea: 200
Gibbon Acres
5-24 Proposed Urben Reserves
through an Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA).
This agreement will be adopted by both jurisdictions and remain
in effect until it is determined that the area will be managed as a
new Central Point urban reserve area or as part of an
incorporated White City urban reserve or urban growth
boundary.
It is understood that Central Point is not able and consequently
not obligated to urbanize Gibbon Acres until it becomes part of
an urban reserve, and until adequate financing is identified for it
to be effectively retrofitted and/or more comprehensively
developed.
Addressing the local and regional need
According to the land need estimates developed for this plan,
Central Point needs between 852 and 1,119 acres of additional
residential land. Central Point is designating close to this
amount, 899 acres of residential land, in its urban reserve
proposal.
If Central Point's urban reserves develop closer to the higher
range of its proposed residential densities proposed (7.3 units per
acre) and redevelopment activity continues within the city,
Central Point's urban reserves will easily accommodate the bulk
of its allocated residential growth. If these areas develop closer
to the lower end of its proposed densities (6 units per acre), or if
redevelopment activity is slower, Central Point could require up
to 220 acres of additional residential land.
Central Point has also designated 929 acres for non-residential
uses in its urban reserves, 578 of which are envisioned for
industrial uses. As noted earlier, the City would like to increase
its employment and industrial land base, both to balance jobs
and housing within the city limits, and to provide more
immediate services to a growing population. Specifically, the
City would like to increase its current employment land base
from the current level of 9 to 10 acres per 1,000 residents for
commercial and industrial land, to 15 acres per 1,000 residents.
This is consistent with benchmarks in Central Point's
U ~ ~ ~-
Dreg
Beer Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Protect- Planning Report 5-25
comprehensive plan.
Recent building
activity suggests
there is a growing
local demand for
commercial and
industrial uses.
Examples of recent
development
include the USF
Reddaway truck
tenninal, expansion
of the LTM regional
offices, and the
partial development
of the new Airport
Orchard industrial
site.
Exhibit 5-09
Central Point Urban Reserves -Proposed Land Uses
Institutional
3%
Parks
12%
Commercial
$%
Alternatives Analysis
When Central Point committed itself to the RPS process it was
aware of the `give and take' that occurs in regional land use
planning and collaboration. The City has been taking steps in
recent years to promote and develop new and more efficient
planning practices that include mixed use and higher density
development. These practices are also aimed at extending
development timelines and preserving important farm land. The
City has also been trying to establish its own identity,
independent of Medford and other Rogue Valley cities.
Consequently, these goals have attracted more new residents to
the City. Central Point is committed as a community to accept a
considerable share of the region's future population growth;
however it is also faced with numerous constraints to the
expansion of its urban footprint. The city is also committed to
expanding its supply of employment lands which will allow it to
move away from its status as a bedroom community.
Residential
_ 49%
Industrial
31%
Draft 4 6
5.26 Proposed Urban Reserves
Area A Exhlblt5.20
At one point in the process,
Central Point included a
much larger urban reserve
proposal north of the city.
The eastern half of Area A
was mapped as CP-2, and
added approximately 1,000
acres to the existing CP-2B.
Much of this area is
occupied by oak savanna,
vernal pools and wet soils,
severely limiting
development. The area has
pockets of residential
development in the city to
the south and on both sides
of Wilson Road. The
significant areas of oak
savannah habitat in this area
consist of open grassland or
grass beneath an oak-
dominated ecosystem. The
area was recognized and catalogued as significant by the RPS
Citizen Involvement Committee (pCIC) several years ago. The
area also contains wetlands, which have been addressed most
recently by an employee from the Department of State Lands
who toured the area in the spring of 2007. According to DSL,
about 115 acres, or 30 percent of the site may be wetland, and a
substantial portion of this site may present wetland-development
conflicts.
The western half of Area A was the original CP-4D, almost 400
acres larger than it is now Since there is an active commercial
pear orchard managed by Bear Creek Corporation on the land
and due to the cost and difficulty in extending infrastructure, the
City eventually abandoned this area for future urban use and
reduced CP-4D to the present remnant of city and county owned
land.
Drag
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project - Planning Report 5-27
Area B
Immediately south of the City, east of CP-6B and west of the
Medford city limits is an area that was never included in the
City's mapping of urban reserve proposals. The EFU-zoned land
here is universally viewed by the region's agricultural
community as having some of the deepest and highest quality
soils in southern Oregon, and as such, it was never seriously
considered for future urbanization.
Area C
The city originally proposed only the very small CP-5 area on
the west side of the city to square off its western boundary and to
reduce its expansion west because the area contained high-value
farmland. When it became apparent that the agricultural lands to
the northeast and to the south of the city were the most
productive, and that there were no other viable options for its
Central Point's allocated population, CP-6A was proposed. It
was during this time that the City also re-evaluated its urban
form and a more logical and cost effective extension of its
infrastructure. As a further refinement, a 150 -acre parcel was
removed to reduce CP-6 to the present proposal. Although
Central Point's total proposed urban reserves will not be
sufficient to meet all of the city's needs, even at the most
ambitious density targets, the city will not propose a further
westward extension of CP-6 due to the greater value and
productivity of the lands further west.
Area D
The area was originally proposed by the city as a means of
meeting its full population allocation and to provide an
urbanizable connection with the Tolo area. Nonetheless, once it
was demonstrated that the agricultural land in this location
(especially the Seven Oaks farm), like the land in Area B and in
the western half of Area A, was highly productive, the city made
the decision to considerably reduce the original area to the
present CP-1 C, and to rely on CP-6A to provide most of the
needed residential land.
Draft
4~
Chapter 6 Plan Implementation and
Oversight
This chapter provides a narrative of the region's approach to meeting the requirements of the
RPS statute. The discussion is organized by the guiding policies under each of the project's
goals. The elaboration of these policies was not a requirement of the RPS statute, but was rather
an effort by the Policy Committee to further elaborate the region's potential approach to
addressing the three Problem Statements.
Under the RPS authorizing statute (ORS 197.656(2)(b)), aplan arising from a successful
regional problem solving process is required to provide the following:
• Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of
the process;
• Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional
problem that is the subject of the process;
• A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the
techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;
• A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and
• A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are
not achieving the goals.
The success of the plan depends not only on an adequate response to each of these statutory
requirements, but also on the formal agreement by each of the Signatories to the RPS
Participants' Agreement to abide by the corresponding regional proposals. For that reason, and
to add emphasis to that need for formal consensus, participants have chosen to fully address all
five statutory requirements in the Participants' Agreement, which must be directly ratified by
local governments and affected agencies.
Notwithstanding the fact that the RPS statute requires the region to arrive at a formal agreement
on the preferred implementation techniques, the processes to monitor progress, and a
Draft
49
6-2 Plan Implementation end Overalghl
methodology for future plan amendments, these products. are also a function of the participants'
desire to protect the legacy of eight years of planning efforts, and to acknowledge the value,
importance, and quality of the final product.
1 Implementation Techniques
Problem Statement #1 - Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth
Planning
Goal #1 -Manage Future Regional Growth for the Greater Public Good
The region was fully aware from the beginning of the project of the importance of a venue for
future coordinated growth planning that would outlive the RPS process itself. Because
participants accepted the fact that it is unlikely the plan would be able to address every growth
related issue the region is now facing, or, even less likely, anticipate how to address the issues
that have yet to arise, it was critical to focus on establishing a means of continued cooperative
planning. At the same time, they were also concerned about the extent and manner of that
coordination, providing clear direction that goals should be accomplished without undue
infringement upon individual jurisdictional authority and/or autonomy.
There are four preferred implementation strategies under Goal #l
1. Coordinated Periodic Review
Signatory jurisdictions may enter into a coordinated schedule of regular Periodic Reviews
following the adoption of the Plan. This regionally coordinated Periodic Review would
begin in 2012, would take place every 10 years, and would coincide with every other ten-
yearregular review of the Plan. This coordinated Periodic Review would provide an
opportunity to take advantage of an economy of scale in generating technical information,
and to incorporate a regional perspective in the Periodic Review process, but does not
obligate jurisdictions to a simultaneous or linked process.
2. Ten-year RPS Review
Signatory jurisdictions will abide by the review process described in Section VI of the
Participants' Agreement. The review process complies with the monitoring requirement in
the RPS statute, and affords participating jurisdictions flexibility in responding to changing
regional and local circumstances by establishing a process and venue for amending the Plan.
3. Coordinated Population Allocation
Jackson County's allocation of future population growth, aatate-mandated responsibility, will
reflect the proportional allocation of future population within the Plan and its future
amendments.
4. Greater Coordination with the MPO
As a proven mechanism of regional collaborative planning in the region, the MPO, as the
federally designated transportation planning entity, will plan and coordinate the regionally
Draft
50
Plan Implementallon and Oversight 6.3
significant transportation strategies critical to the success of the Plan. Of special focus will be
the development of mechanisms to preserve rights-of--way for major transportation
infrastructure, and a means of creating supplemental funding for regionally significant
transportation projects. It should be noted that the MPO is an independent entity with its
own decision-making body, and that this implementation strategy is outside of the ability of
the RPS process to directly influence. Indications are, however, that the MPO is working
towards the further refinement and implementation of this strategy.
Also considered, but eventually rejected, were two other potential implementation techniques:
The Establishment of a Regional Governmental Entity
Although a single decision-making entity would simplify the
establishment and enforcement of regionally consistent growth
management policies, it would be inconsistent with the politics and culture
of southern Oregon, and would de-emphasize the concept of regional
collaboration in favor of regional regulation.
Reliance on the Existing Planning and Decision-making Structure
Jurisdictions agree that they have been conforming to the existing State
and local systems around land use planning, and yet the region has
nonetheless faced significant issues related to the cumulative regional
effects of growth. While jurisdictions acknowledge that there will always
be challenges arising from growth no matter how prepared the region is,
they agree that the status quo would be less effective than the proposed
Regional Plan would be in meeting those challenges.
The preferred implementation strategies apply to the seven guiding policies under Goal #1 as
follows:
Goal #1, Policy #1 The expansion of urban areas shall be consistent with the Regional
Plan, as amended.
The ten-year review is the primary mechanism for satisfying this policy,
with coordinated periodic review of secondary importance.
Goal #1, Policy #2 The Regional Plan will be implemented by intergovernmental
agreements and amendments to the comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances of the various individual jurisdictions.
This policy is implemented as a function of the successful completion of
the planning portion of the RPS project. Should inconsistencies occur in
the individual jurisdictional comprehensive plan amendments, the ten-year
review process would provide the means of identifying and/or correcting
them.
Goal #1, Policy #3 The Region's overall urban housing density shall be increased to
Draft
~~
6.4 Plan Implementation and Oversight
provide for more efficient land utilization.
Participating cities have proposed density increases that combine for a
minimum regional total of 12% over the cun•ent regional average.
Progress in achieving this regional increase in density will be monitored
through the ten-year review process and the coordinated Periodic Review.
Goal #1, Policy #4 The Region will adhere to a uniform policy to regulate the extension
of sanitary sewer and public water facilities beyond established urban
growth boundaries.
Provision of sanitary sewer within the region is primarily
managed through a regional system, with Rogue Valley Sewer Services
(RVS) providing sewer service for many of the cities and some rural areas.
The Medford Water Commission (MWC) provides the potable water
utilized by all of the cities within the region except Ashland. MWC
directly serves customers in Medford and the unincorporated White City
community. It also treats and transports potable water to the other cities
and three water districts on a wholesale basis. The City of Ashland
provides both water and sewer services to its citizens.
The relevant RVS policy states "It is the overriding goal and objective of
the RVS to abate existing and potential sources of groundwater pollution
and hazards to the public health.... The construction of public sewers is
supported for two general purposes: 1) To alleviate possible hazards to
the public health; and 2) To accommodate new appropriate
development. "
The MWC position in this regard is "Pursuant to its authority in the
Medford Charter, its policies and service agreements, and statutory water
right law, the Medford Water Commission (MWC) treats and transports
and/or supplies potable water for most of the urban areas within the RPS
boundary, utilizing its own water rights and those required of other cities
served. MWC, in conjunction with the City of Medford, has determined
that water is an urban service, and that supplies are not adequate to serve
areas beyond planned urban boundaries. MWC policies, which similarly
apply to all cities it serves, therefore specify that water service will not be
provided to additional areas beyond established or future corporate
boundaries. The RPSAgreement does not change MWCpolicies, nor
MWC's authority to establish and/or modify water service policies
applicable to the communities it serves. "
Ashland's policies relative to extension of water and sewer services are
geared toward providing public utilities, services and facilities in an
orderly, efficient and environmentally sensitive way and in sufficient
quantity to meet present and future needs, while also discouraging urban
t)raa 5 2
Plan Implemanlatlon and Ovarslght 6.5
sprawl. Services are to be extended in a staged manner, first to areas
within the city limits and then to the area within the Urban Growth
Boundary. Properties outside the urban growth boundary maybe
connected to the Ashland sewer system only when consistent with
applicable State laws, and when such connection is determined by the City
Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be
detrimental to the City's sewage facilities.
Regionally, current policies regarding extension of sanitary sewer and
potable water beyond urban growth boundaries appear to be fairly
uniform, in part because there are a limited number of entities responsible
for policies in this regard, all of which have been participants in the RPS
process. While there were early discussions regarding possible
modifications to existing policies related to service extensions beyond
Urban Growth Boundaries (as evidenced by this guiding policy), no
changes were made in conjunction with the RPS process. Once urban
reserves are in place, the issue of extension of services will be examined
further, probably in the Urban Reserve Management Agreements between
the county and individual cities.
Goal #1, Policy #5 The Region will identify major infrastructure corridors needed in the
future and develop strategies to achieve their long-term preservation.
The strategy that outlines a major role for the MPO is the means of
implementing this policy. The corridor preservation strategies will be
developed before the coordinated comprehensive plan amendments that
implement the plan take place, and will be included in these amendments.
Goal #1, Policy #6 The Region's jurisdictions will ensure a well connected network of
public streets as a means of reducing dependence on state highways
for infra-city travel.
The strategy that outlines a major role for the MPO is a partial means of
implementing this policy. Specifically, the MPO's coordinating role in the
master planning that will take place to identify significant transportation
corridors, which will be important in addressing the need to reduce
dependence on state highways by developing a greater degree of inter- and
infra-city connectivity. The transportation modeling discussion in Chapter
4 highlights these and other transportation related strategies.
Goal #l, Policy #7 The Region will facilitate development of a healthy balance of jobs
and housing within each of the communities, and will do the same on
a regional basis to accommodate needs that cannot be met within
individual communities.
Participating cities have proposed a set of residential and employment land
uses for urban reserve proposals that meet the needs of their communities,
Oran
6.6 Plan Implementation and Oversight
and in several instances (Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center),
also propose increased employment lands to accommodate a larger
regional need. The implementation of these proposed jobs and housing
distributions will be monitored through the five-year review process, as
well as through coordinated Periodic Review.
Problem Statement #2 -Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban
Expansion
Goal # 2 -Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic,
cultural, and livability benefits
While the designation of future areas for city expansions was a prime motivator for cities to
participate in RPS, there was also a strong commitment to avoid designating urban reserves at
the expense of the area's most important resource and open space lands. Participants were well
aware of the difficulty cities in the region have had in the past of avoiding the urbanization of
productive agricultural lands, and the fact that the region's special characteristics and historic
settlement patterns have caused some state regulations governing urban growth to have
unintended consequences, some of them contrary to the intent of Oregon's Statewide Planning
Goals. This can be most easily seen in the Valley's numerous exception lands sprinkled
throughout the Valley's agricultural areas, many of them close to, and sometimes contiguous
with, cities. As has been shown by the Base Case done for this process, prior UGB expansions,
and the failed attempt to establish an urban reserve for Medford, a strict interpretation of the
priority of lands system would cause growth to be pulled onto prime resource lands due to the
presence of the Valley's pattern of exception lands.
There are four preferred implementation strategies under Goal #2:
1. Designation of Urban Reserves
Designated areas of future urban growth sufficient to accommodate a doubling of the current
population will remove development pressures from resource lands outside of urban reserve
areas, and will permit owners to make long-range decisions about investments in plantings
and infrastructure.
2. Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards
Aresearch-based, regionally consistent set of buffering standards designed to mitigate
negative impacts arising from the rural/urban interface.
3. Community Buffers (Critical Open Space)
Areas of real or perceived separation between communities that serve to preserve or
accentuate community individuality and identity. Rural Community Buffers are areas of
rural lands between cities in which urban reserves have not been located. Urban Buffers are
points of design standards along significant transportation corridors along contiguous city
boundaries. Blended Buffers are areas in which elements of Rural and Urban Buffers are
Draft
54
Plan Implementation and Oversight 6-7
combined.
4. Purchase of Conservation Easements
The rural COSA strategy outlined in Appendix IX of the plan is available as an option to
jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently preserving the
community buffers identified within the Plan. This COSA strategy is not mandatory for any
jurisdiction, and may be refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit.
Also considered, but eventually rejected, were two other potential implementation techniques:
Existing City Agricultural Buffering Requirements
None of the cities' buffering requirements are based on the most recent studies and
research, and variances are often granted without a technical analysis of the impact on the
effectiveness of the buffer. As a result, as expressed by the agriculturalists participating
in the RPS process, existing buffering standards often do not provide adequate mitigation
of the impacts of urban/rural proximity.
Existing State Protections
The local development and adoption of standards might not have been necessary if the
state had developed a set of minimum standards for agricultural buffering. Unfortunately,
even though an abrupt demarcation between rural and urban is permitted in the state
system, there are no existing buffering standards.
The preferred implementation strategies apply to the four guiding policies under Goal #2 as
follows:
Goal #2, Policy #1 The Region will establish intergovernmental agreements and
administer policies and laws that implement the shared vision of
maintaining a commercially viable land base for agriculture, forestry
and aggregate resources.
This is an example of a guiding policy that was rather too broadly worded
at the initiation of the process. In the end, this policy was only partially
addressed by both the establishment of long-range urban reserves and the
creation of regional agricultural buffering standards. Although aggregate
resources are not directly addressed by either of these strategies, in the two
instances in which aggregate resources are located within proposed urban
reserves, cities have planned urban uses for those lands only after the
resource is exhausted. In terms of forestry resources, the experts on the
RLRC determined that there were no significant forestry lands within the
region.
Goal #2, Policy #2 The. Region's jurisdictions will establish and implement uniform
standards to buffer resource lands from planned future urbanization.
This policy is directly addressed by the implementation strategy that
nma 5
6.8 Plan Implementation and Oversight
obligates participating cities to adopt the buffering standards developed
during the RPS process.
Goal #2, Policy #3 The Region will explore strategies to increase the viability and
profitability of resource lands.
This policy is addressed by the designation of long-range urban reserves
and the adoption of agricultural buffering standards (which will protect
agricultural investments located in juxtaposition to urbanizing land). The
primary mechanism of protection in the designation of urban reserves is
the opportunity they afford resource lands not included in the urban
reserves to make long-term production decisions. Well-designed
agricultural buffers mitigate the negative impacts of urbanization
encroaching on agricultural lands. In addition to these strategies, the
members of the RLRC did express the need for greater flexibility and
latitude for agricultural operations, especially, but not limited to, value-
added activities on farmland. Circumstances prevented the RLRC from
developing any specific recommendations, other than suggesting that the
County look to relaxing some local regulations to at least mirror state
requirements, which may offer a greater degree of the flexibility and
latitude called for in this policy.
Goal #2, Policy #4 The Region will explore incentives and other measures to achieve the
long-term preservation of regionally significant open space, including
lands located within the designated community buffer areas.
Although not a permanent solution, the region's designation of rural areas
of separation between cities (community buffers) were an effective tool in
assisting cities in avoiding, whenever possible, the location of urban
reserves in the critical areas of open space between cities. An easement
purchase mechanism for a more permanent preservation of these
separation areas is available as an option to jurisdictions interested in
applying it (see the COSA Strategy, Appendix IX).
Problem Statement #3 -Loss of Community Identity
Goal # 3 - Recogn/ze and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and
relative competitive advantages and disadvantages of each community within fhe
Region.
Urban growth boundary expansions have contributed to a decreasing separation between some of
the communities in the region, jeopardizing important aspects of these jurisdictions' sense of
community and identity. The Policy Committee considered it important to the livability and
comparative economic advantage the region now possesses to maintain the present integrity of
individual communities
Draft 5 ~
Plan Implementation and Oversight 6-9
There are three preferred implementation strategies under Goal #3:
1. Community Buffers (Critical Open Space)
Areas of real or perceived separation between communities that serve to preserve or
accentuate community individuality and identity. Rural Community Buffers are areas of
rural lands between cities in which urban reserves have not been located. Urban Buffers are
points of design standards along significant transportation corridors. along contiguous city
boundaries. Blended Buffers are areas in which elements of Rural and Urban Buffers are
combined.
2. Allocating to Competitive Advantages
The Plan establishes a distribution of the calculated need of residential and employment
lands necessary to support a doubling of the population across the participating cities. This
distribution, which depends on a number of factors that relate to the comparative strengths
and weaknesses of each of the cities, will allow each community to develop its own balance
of viability and individuality within the larger regional matrix.
3. Purchase of Conservation Easements
The rural COSA strategy outlined in Appendix IX of the plan is available as an option to
jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently preserving the
community buffers identified within the Plan. This COSA strategy is not mandatory for any
jurisdiction, and may be refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit.
Also considered, but eventually rejected, were two other potential implementation techniques:
The Purchase of Community Buffer Lands
No source of funds suitable for large-scale rural lands purchase was identified, nor was
there consensus on the need or• advisability of making such permanent decisions at this
point in the process of establishing a system of regional cooperation. The decision was to
defer such decisions to future residents of the region.
Additional Zoning Restrictions on Community Buffer Lands
The decision was to avoid the imposition of any restrictions on the existing ability of
rural residents with land within the recommended community buffers to develop their
land.
The preferred implementation strategies apply to the four guiding policies under Goal #3 as
follows:
Goal #3, Policy #1 The Region will facilitate and enhance the individual identity of each
community: A) by maintaining buffer areas of rural land between the
various cities, B) where communities are planned to be contiguous, by
establishing distinct design features along transportation corridors
Draft
5'7
8-10 Plen Implementation and Oversight
that demark the municipal boundaries, or C) by other appropriate
means.
Although not a permanent solution, the region's designation of rural areas
of separation between cities (community buffers) were an effective tool in
assisting cities in avoiding, whenever possible, the location of urban
reserves in the critical areas of open space between cities. A easement
purchase mechanism for a more permanent preservation of these
separation areas is available as an option to jurisdictions interested in
applying it (see the COSA Strategy, Appendix IX).
Goa #3, Policy #2 The Region will facilitate individual community flexibility in the
extent of future boundary expansions in order to enhance the
implementation of the Regional Goals and Policies.
Cities are free in the future to process their urban growth boundary
expansions as they see fit, providing the need can be justified, and as long
as their actions are consistent with the regional plan. For those cities
providing land uses that respond to a larger regional need as determined
under the "Allocating to Comparative Advantages" implementation
strategy, part of the city's needs determination would be supported by
analysis on regional need.
Goal #3, Policy #3 The Region will develop a strategy permitting an unequal distribution
of certain land uses among its jurisdictions.
As in policy #2, above, the implementation strategy permitting an
allocation according to the competitive advantages of individual cities
directly addresses this policy. In addition, there was amulti-staged,
iterative process between determining the extent and location of urban
reserves around each city based on the set of local and regional land needs
each city was attempting to meet, and analyzing the physical and
locational realities of the candidate lands around each city to determine
which needs these lands would be most suited to meet.
Goal #3, Policy #4 In order to facilitate urban growth planning and Goal 14 decisions,
the Region will encourage and coordinate the development of
individualized definitions of "livability" for each community based
upon its unique identity and vision of its future urban form and
characteristics.
Throughout the RPS process, jurisdictions were encouraged to use the
process of selecting their urban reserves and determining their mix of land
uses to enhance their individual community identities and regional roles.
Developing individualized community visions was an important way in
which to make community identity a more operational definition, one that
could influence the selection of urban reserves and a custom mix of land
Draft
Plan Implemanlatlon and Oversight 6-11
uses.
2 Performance Indicators
Ongoing monitoring of progress following the signing of the Participants' Agreement will take
place on a number of performance indicators to determine the level of compliance with this plan
or the need to refine or amend it. The measurable performance indicators listed below are those
identified as appropriate for monitoring the adopted Plan.
-On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, the Region's jurisdictions may, at
their discretion, participate in a process of coordinated periodic review.
-On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, all Signatories to this Agreement will
participate in the regular RPS review process. Jackson County shall initiate the RPS
review process by providing notice of the RPS review to each Signatory to this Agreement
and requiring that each Signatory submit aself-evaluation monitoring report addressing
compliance with the performance indicators set out in this Section to the County within 60
days after the date of the notice. Jackson County will distribute these monitoring reports to
all Signatories.
-Participating cities will incorporate the portions of the RPS Plan that are applicable to
each individual city into that city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and
will reference the Plan as an adopted element of Jackson County's comprehensive plan. To
incorporate applicable portions of the RPS Plan into their comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances, cities will adopt at least the following:
a) urban reserve areas;
b) target residential densities (for the urban reserve areas);
c) agricultul•al buffering standards (for the urban reserve areas);
d) implementing ordinances (for the urban reserve areas).
-Signatory jurisdictions will comply with the general conditions as listed in Section X of
this Agreement, and, as appropriate, the specific conditions of approval far selected urban
reserves, as described in the adopted Plan.
-Signatory jurisdictions serving or projected to serve a designated urban reserve will
adopt an Urban Reserve Management Agreement (URMA).
-Urban reserves identified in the adopted Plan are the first priority lands used for UGB
expansions by participating cities.
-Cities, when applying urban designations and zones to urban reserve land included in
UGB expansions, will achieve, on average, at least the "higher land need" residential
densities as described in the adopted RPS Plan.
-Cities, when applying urban designations and zones to urban reserve land included in a
UGB expansion, will be guided by the general distribution of land uses proposed in the
adopted RPS Plan, especially where a specific set of land uses were part of a compelling
urban-based rationale for designating RLRC land as part of a city's set of urban reserves.
Oran 5 9
6.12 Plen Implementation and Oversight
-Conceptual plans for urban reserves will be developed in sufficient detail to allow the
Region to determine the sizing and location of regionally significant transportation
infrastructure. This information should be determined early enough in the planning and
development cycle that the identified regionally significant transportation corridors can be
protected as cost-effectively as possible by available strategies and funding. Conceptual
plans for an urban reserve in the RPS Plan are not required to be completed at the time of
adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment incorporating urban reserves into a city or
county comprehensive plan.
-The county's population element is updated per statute to be consistent with the gradual
implementation of the adopted Plan.
3 Incentives and Disincentives
The state requires that participants in an RPS process delineate the factors, mechanisms, or
outcomes that constitute the most compelling reasons for participants to comply with the
regional plan over the identified planning horizon.
Participants have listed the major incentives for adhering to the plan as follows:
-Continued regional cooperation through the 10-year review process and coordinated
periodic review may improve the Region's ability to respond to challenges and opportunities
more effectively than it does presently.
-Adherence to the adopted Plan may provide the region with a competitive advantage,
increase the attractiveness of the region to long-term investment, and improve southern
Oregon's profile in the state.
-Adherence to the Plan may produce significant reductions in transportation infrast~vcture
costs by minimizing future right-of--way acquisition costs and by improving the overall
long-range coordination of transportation and land use planning.
-Adherence to the Plan will provide participating jurisdictions with population allocations
that are predictable, transparent, and based on the relative strengths of the different
participating jurisdictions.
-The adopted Plan will offer compelling regional justifications and state agency support
for Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center that may not have been available to an
individual city proposal.
-Adherence to the Plan will permit jurisdictions to implement the flexibility provided by
the concept of the "Regional Community", in which cities, in the role of "regional
neighborhoods", enjoy a wide latitude in their particular mix, concentration, and intensity of
land uses, as long as the sum of the regional parts contributes to a viable balance of land
uses that is functional and attractive to residents and employers and in compliance with
statewide goals.
Draft 6 U
Plan Implementation and Oversight 6-13
The disincentives to not adhering to the regional plan largely mirror the incentives:
-Cities that choose to expand their UGBs into land not designated as urban reserve will be
required to go through the RPS Plan minor or major amendment process prior to or
concurrent with any other process.
-The region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan may damage its competitive advantage,
the attractiveness of the region to long-term investment, and southern Oregon's profile in the
state.
-Adherence to the RPS plan may be a rating factor for MPO Transportation Funding.
Transportation projects of Jurisdictions not adhering to the adopted Plan maybe assigned a
lower priority by the MPO when considered for funding.
-Jackson County may reconsider the population allocations of jurisdictions signatory to the
Agreement not adhering to the adopted Plan.
-Jurisdictions signatory to the Agreement not adhering to the adopted Plan may face issues
over failing to observe their comprehensive plans, or may find it difficult to make
modifications to their comprehensive plans that deviate from the adopted Plan.
-The region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan will compromise its ability to
implement the concept of the "Regional Community", and will not provide the participating
cities with as wide a latitude in their desired individual mix, concentration, and intensity of
land uses.
4 Monitoring and Plan Amendments
Participating jurisdictions will maintain a monitoring system to ensure compliance with this plan
and future amendments. Specific standards against which performance will be judged are listed
in Section IV of the Participant's Agreement. The regular monitoring system will consist of
reports submitted by the participating jurisdictions every ten years, starting in 2012. The reports
will include descriptions of their jurisdiction's activities pertinent to this plan for the preceding
ten-year period, analysis as to whether and how well those activities meet performance standards
in Section IV of the Participant's Agreement, and a projection of activities for the next ten-year
period. Monitoring to ensure compliance with the adopted Plan will be a shared responsibility.
Each city will be responsible for monitoring its adherence to the portion of the adopted Plan that
is incorporated into its comprehensive plan. Jackson County, which will have the full adopted
Plan incorporated into its comprehensive plan, will be responsible for overall monitoring.
Processing amendments to the adopted Plan will be the responsibility of Jackson County, and can
only be proposed by the governing authority of a signatory jurisdiction In acknowledgement of
the collaborative process by which the adopted Plan was created, Jackson County will have
available the assistance of the signatory entities to this Agreement through a Technical Advisory
Committee and Policy Committee. Both committees serve on an as-needed basis, and both serve
in an advisory capacity to Jackson County.
Oran 61
6.14 Plan Implementation and Oversight
(a) Technical Advisory Committee
The TAC will comprise planners and senior-level staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies,
and each signatory will have one vote, irrespective of the number of participating
representatives. Recommendations to the Policy Committee or directly to Jackson County will
be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending signatory
jurisdictions and agencies.
(b) Policy Committee
The Policy Committee will comprise elected officials or executive staff from signatory
jurisdictions and agencies. Each signatory jurisdiction will designate a voting and alternate
voting member, and each signatory jurisdiction will have one vote. Recommendations to Jackson
County will be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending
jurisdictions. State agencies, the MPO, and Rogue Valley Sewer Services, while Signatories, will
not be voting members of the Policy Committee.
When an amendment to the adopted RPS Plan is proposed, Jackson County will make a
preliminary determination regarding whether the proposed amendment is a Minor Amendment or
Major Amendment, as defined below, will notify signatory jurisdictions and affected agencies
(see exhibit 6-1) of the County's preliminary determination, and will solicit input. Based on its
preliminary determination, Jackson County will review the proposed amendment according to
the procedures for Minor Amendments or Major Amendments set out below.
Proposed amendments to the adopted Plan will adhere to the following provisions:
1) MinorAmendment
A minor amendment is defined as any request for an amendment to the adopted Plan that:
a) does not conflict with the general conditions listed in Section X of the Participants'
Agreement or specific conditions of approval described in the adopted RPS Plan; and
b) does not propose an addition of more than 50 acres to a city's urban reserves
established for a city in the adopted RPS Plan or more than a 50-acre expansion of the
UGB into non-urban reserve rural land.
In the case ofAshland, which did not establish urban reserves during the development of the
Plan process, a proposal to establish an urban reserve or expand its UGB of not more than 50
acres will be considered a minor amendment.
Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for adding to its urban reserves during the term of the
Agreement, it may not use the minor amendment process for further alterations to its urban
reserves. Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for expanding its UGB into non-urban reserve
rural land during the planning horizon, it may not use the minor amendment process for further
expansions of its UGB into non-urban reserve land.
Draft L~ t)
Plan Implementetlon and Oversight 6-15
Any participant jurisdiction may initiate a minor amendment to the adopted Plan. The proposing
jurisdiction must clearly identify the nature of the minor amendment, and specify whether the
minor amendment would require any other signatory jurisdiction to amend its comprehensive
plan. Should any signatory jurisdiction other than the proposing jurisdiction and Jackson County
be required to amend their comprehensive plans as a result of the proposed minor amendment,
the affected signatory jurisdiction will be a party to the minor amendment proceeding.
Jackson County's process, and the proposing jurisdiction's process, for a minor amendment to
the Plan will be equivalent to the state and local required processes for a comprehensive plan
amendment.
Signatories and agencies shall be provided with notice of the County's and proposing
jurisdiction's final decision on each minor amendment request within five working days of the
adoption of the final decision.
2) MaiorAmendment
A major amendment is defined as any requested amendment to the adopted Plan that does not
meet the definition of a Minor Amendment.
If multiple signatory jurisdictions are involved in a single request for a major amendment, a lead
jurisdiction will be selected by the affected jurisdictions.
Notice containing a detailed description of the proposed change will be forwarded by Jackson
County to all signatories and affected agencies (see exhibit 6-1).
Staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will meet as a Technical Advisory Committee
and generate a recommendation to the Policy Committee by vote of at least a supermajority of
those present (simple majority plus one).
Decision-makers from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will meet as a Policy Committee and
consider the proposal and the Technical Advisory Committee recommendation. Attending
jurisdictions will constitute a quorum; and the Policy Committee will generate a recommendation
to Jackson County by vote of at least a supermajority of those present (simple majority plus one).
Jackson County's process, and the proposing jurisdiction's process, for a minor or major
amendment to the Plan will be equivalent to the state and local required process for a
comprehensive plan amendment, in addition to the RPS-specific provisions. Signatories and
affected agencies shall be provided with notice of the final decision on each major or minor
amendment within five working days of the adoption of the final decision.
Exhibit 8.1
Jurisdictions and Agencies to Receive Notification of Proposed Amendments to
the Adopted Plan
Jurisdiction or Agency routine as needed
City of Eagle Point X
Wren 6 ~3
6.16 Plan Implementation and Oversight
City of Central Point X
City of Medford X
City of Jacksonville X
Cit of Phoenix X
City of Talent X
City of Ashland ~ X
Oregon Department of Transportation X
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development X
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality X
Oregon Economic and Community Development Department X
Oregon Department of Agriculture X
Oregon Housing and Community Development De artment X
Rogue Valle Metropolitan Plannin Organization X
Rogue Valley Sewer Services X
Medford Water Commission X
Rogue Valley Council of Governments X
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife X
Division of State Lands X
Rogue Valley Transit District X
Ashland School District #5 X
Central Point School District #6 X
Jackson County School District #9 X
Medford School District 549C X
Phoenix-Talent School District #4 X
Eagle Point Irrigation District X
Medford Irrigation District X
Rogue Valley Irrigation District X
Talent Irrigation District X
Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District X
Draft
`.}