Post on 29-Jan-2016
RVCOGAdvisory Committee Meeting
Discussion on Draft Interpretation of The Urban Reserve Rule Location FactorsAnd Analysis of RPS Growth Areas
February 28, 2006
RPS Assigned Basecase Assumptions
• URA Population based on RPS projections
• Base year population from July 2005 PSU
• Use the proposed mix of uses (Same Densities)
• Use the needs identified – Commercial, Industrial, Residential
• Use standardized buildable lands constraints
• Use Urban Reserve Rule priority of lands
Population Modeling
• New 2005 PSU Estimates have only minor differences from 2000 base year estimate.
• Document modeling differences between Base Case population forecast, and population forecasts for other modeling (Housing Needs, Economic Opportunities Analysis, TPAU)
Issues nearly resolved
• Consistent spatial and numerical data
• Consistent area-wide methodology and GIS data
• Fixed set of proposed growth areas
• Consistent buildable lands criteria
• Base Case Urban Reserve
Base Case Approach
• Use GIS Analysis to rank all lands
• Develop “base case” urban reserves from ranked land
• Compare with RPS areas and forecast need
• Identify Conflicts
Base Map
Distance from Roads
¼ Mile Increments
Closer to Roads = Higher Priority
Farther out from Roads = Lower Priority Code Description Value
1 Within 1/ 2 Mile "10"2 Within 3/ 4 Miles "9"3 Within 1 Mile "8"4 Within 1 1/ 4 Mile "7"5 Within 1 1/ 2 Mile "6"6 Within 1 3/ 4 Mile "5"7 Within 2 Miles "4"8 Within 2 1/ 4 Miles "2"9 Within 2 1/ 2 "1"
10- 11 Greater than 2 1/ 2 Miles "0"
Distance from UGB
¼ Mile Increments
Closer to UGB = Higher Priority
Farther out from UGB = Lower Priority Code Description Value
0 Within 1/ 4 Mile "10"1 Within 1/ 2 Mile "9"2 Within 3/ 4 Miles "8"3 Within 1 Mile "7"4 Within 1 1/ 4 Mile "6"5 Within 1 1/ 2 Mile "5"6 Within 1 3/ 4 Mile "4"7 Within 2 Miles "2"8 Within 2 1/ 4 Miles "1"9 Within 2 1/ 2 "0"
10 -19 Greater than 2 1/ 2 Miles "0"
EFU & Exception Lands
Exception Lands = Most desirable
EFU = Low priority for inclusion
Code Description Value 1 EFU Lands "1"
99 Exception Lands "10"999 Exceltion Lands (Urban Residential) "10"
Slopes
Lower % Grade = More Desirable
Higher the % Grade = Less Desirable
Code Description Value5 0-5% Grade "10"
10 6-10% Grade "7"15 11-15% Grade "5"20 16-20% Grade "2"25 21-25% Grade "0"26 26% Grade or higher "0"
Soils
Richer the Soil = Less desirable
Poorer the Soil = More desirable
Code Description Value0 No Value "1"1 Class 1 "1"3 Class 3 "3"4 Class 4 "4"6 Class 6 "8"7 Class 7 "9"8 Class 8 "10"
Overlay all factors
Combine all data and rank by total score.
The higher the value the more desirable for inclusion into urban reserves
Convert to parcels and rank by total score to delineate new urban reserve areas
Analysis of RPS and Base Case Growth Areas
• Standardized Buildable Lands Assumptions Applied - Removals– Floodway– Wetlands with 25’ Buffer– Streams – buffered 50’ and 25’ depending on class– Open Space Shapefile (Provided)– Public Lands Shapefile (Provided)– Exception land reduced 20% in capacity to account for existing
homes– TAC Recommendation: Developed sites than 1 du/ac - eliminate
• Compared buildable lands with defined land needs
Base Case – 1636 acres
RPS – 2382 acres
Overlap – 921 acres
Central PointArea
Comparison
Current UGB (Acres) 2875Residential Capacity inside UGB (population) 2791Base Pop 2005 from PSU 15640Pop 2x Allocation 31665Population "New Residents" 21335Forecast in Excess of UGB Capacity 18544Gross Res Density of Growth Areas (supplied by RPS members) 6Res Land Need (acres) 1236Land Expected for Jobs 390Total Land Need for Jobs and Housing 1626Gross Area in RPS Growth Areas 2382
Legend
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
Central Point
Location of RLRC Lands
Central Point
Parcels coded byRank
Green - yellow =Values - 25-50 More desirable
Orange to red =Values - 0-24Less desirable
Eagle Point
Area ComparisonBase Case – 873 acres
RPS – 1350 acres
Overlap – 319 acres
Current UGB (Acres) 1946Residential Capacity inside UGB (population) 6488Base Pop 2005 from PSU 7586Pop 2x Allocation 20744Population "New Residents" 13362Forecast in Excess of UGB Capacity 6874Gross Res Density of Growth Areas (supplied by RPS members) 6.5Res Land Need (acres) 375Land Expected for Jobs 491Total Land Need for Jobs and Housing 866Gross Area in RPS Growth Areas 1350
Legend
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
Eagle Point
Location of RLRC Lands
Eagle Point
Parcels coded byRank
Green - yellow =Values - 25-50 More desirable
Orange to red =Values - 0-24Less desirable
Jacksonville
Area ComparisonBase Case – 594 acres
RPS – 518 acres
Overlap – 368 acres
Legend
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
Current UGB (Acres) 1219Residential Capacity inside UGB (population) 642Base Pop 2005 from PSU 2488Pop 2x Allocation 4208Population "New Residents" 2013Forecast in Excess of UGB Capacity 1371Gross Res Density of Growth Areas (supplied by RPS members) 1.2Res Land Need (acres) 539Land Expected for Jobs 55Total Land Need for Jobs and Housing 594Gross Area in RPS Growth Areas 518
The 470 acres of land to the south of Jacksonville has not been included in RPS growth area capacity. This issue will be resolved when further analysis on the amount of buidlable acreage can be determined.
Jacksonville
Location of RLRC Lands
Jacksonville
Parcels coded byRank
Green - yellow =Values - 25-50 More desirable
Orange to red =Values - 0-24Less desirable
Medford
Area ComparisonBase Case – 2833 acres
RPS – 4579 acres
Overlap – 1645 acres
Current UGB (Acres) 18071Residential Capacity inside UGB (population) 51629Base Pop 2005 from PSU 70855Pop 2x Allocation 111068Population "New Residents" 90425Forecast in Excess of UGB Capacity 38796Gross Res Density of Growth Areas (supplied by RPS members) 8Res Land Need (acres) 2108Land Expected for Jobs 723Total Land Need for Jobs and Housing 2831Gross Area in RPS Growth Areas 4579
Legend
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
Medford
Location of RLRC Lands
Medford
Parcels coded byRank
Green - yellow =Values - 25-50 More desirable
Orange to red =Values - 0-24Less desirable
PhoenixArea
Comparison
Base Case – 575
RPS – 600
Overlap – 59
Current UGB (Acres) 1091Residential Capacity inside UGB (population) 2547Base Pop 2005 from PSU 4662Pop 2x Allocation 8129Population "New Residents" 4520Forecast in Excess of UGB Capacity 1973Gross Res Density of Growth Areas (supplied by RPS members) 6Res Land Need (acres) 143Land Expected for Jobs 423Total Land Need for Jobs and Housing 566Gross Area in RPS Growth Areas 600
At the request of Jackson County, Phoenix has agreed to include 266 acres of highly urbanizedrural land (labeled PH-3) between Medford and Phoenix as part of its proposed urban reserve. Because this area is fully built out, there is no assigned residential capacity. Legend
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
PH-3
Phoenix
Location of RLRC Lands
Phoenix
Parcels coded byRank Green - yellow =Values - 25-50 More desirable
Orange to red =Values - 0-24Less desirable
Talent
Area Comparison
Base Case – 149 acres
RPS – 233 acres
Overlap – 115 acres
Current UGB (Acres) 1121Residential Capacity inside UGB (population) 2840Base Pop 2005 from PSU 6255Pop 2x Allocation 12517Population "New Residents" 4557Forecast in Excess of UGB Capacity 1717Gross Res Density of Growth Areas (supplied by RPS members) 5.5Res Land Need (acres) 140Land Expected for Jobs 5Total Land Need for Jobs and Housing 145Gross Area in RPS Growth Areas 233
Legend
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
Talent
Location of RLRC Lands
Talent
Parcels coded byRank
Green - yellow =Values - 25-50 More desirable
Orange to red =Values - 0-24Less desirable
Base Case Urban Reserve Areas
RPS proposed Reserve Areas
Issues nearly resolved
• Consistent spatial and numerical data
• Consistent area-wide methodology and GIS data
• Fixed set of proposed growth areas
• Consistent buildable lands criteria
• Base Case Urban Reserve
Remaining Issues
• Document population modeling differences
• Review capacity estimates for RPA areas• Finalize Land Need calculation
• Document criteria for RPS urban reserves
• Match need and area in RPS urban reserves comparing proposed, base case, and other modeling efforts