RVCOG Advisory Committee Meeting Discussion on Draft Interpretation of The Urban Reserve Rule...

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


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


Jacksonville


RPS – 518 acres


Legend

Base Case

RPS Growth Areas

Overlap


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


Medford


RPS – 4579 acres



Legend

Base Case

RPS Growth Areas

Overlap

Medford


PhoenixArea

Comparison

Base Case – 575

RPS – 600

Overlap – 59


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


Phoenix

Parcels coded byRank Green - yellow =Values - 25-50 More desirable


Talent

Area Comparison

Base Case – 149 acres

RPS – 233 acres



Legend

Base Case

RPS Growth Areas

Overlap

Talent


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

RVCOG Advisory Committee Meeting Discussion on Draft Interpretation of The Urban Reserve Rule...

Documents

Transcript of RVCOG Advisory Committee Meeting Discussion on Draft Interpretation of The Urban Reserve Rule...