The webpage for the ISA and ESA components of
the urban growth boundary amendment project
Latest update: 8 September 2017
Every city in Oregon has a boundary line enclosing lands that are eligible for urban development. These urban growth boundaries (UGBs) separate urbanizable land from rural land and are intended to provide a 20-year supply of buildable land to accommodate growth.
Medford is working on an amendment to its UGB to comply with the supply requirement. In order to identify the 20-year demand, the City adopted an updated Economic and Housing Elements for its Comprehensive Plan; these demonstrate the estimated demand for commercial, industrial, and residential land over the next two decades. In 2007 the City conducted a Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), which shows land in the UGB that is vacant and land that is underutilized or ready for redevelopment. Taken together, these studies indicate that Medford does not have a full 20-year land supply. Phase 1 concerned increasing the development capacity within the current boundaries. Phase 2 concerns expansion of the boundary.
Phase 1 was completed in December 2014. You can scroll down this page to see the history on that.
Phase 2 is still in process. The latest updates follow immediately below.
Phase 2: External Study Area Boundary Amendment
The City Council adopted Ordinance 2017-102. The ordinance was adopted in order to align the City and County's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and record of proceedings. The next step is for the City to prepare and submit our application to the Department of Land Conservation and Development.
The Jackson County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance 2017-11.
The Jackson County Board of Commissioners are holding a continued hearing on the Urban Growth Boundary project this afternoon at 1:30 p.m. The City has submitted supplemental findings for the record.
Memo from Matt Brinkley, Planning Director (dated 6/19/2017)
Memo from Matt Brinkley, Planning Director (revised 6/20/2017)
Letter from Jeff Condit, Special Legal Counsel for the project
Letter from Chris Olivier, GIS Coordinator
The Board voted 3-0 in favor of the City's application. The first reading of the Ordinance will be on July 19th and the second reading will be on August 2nd.
Jackson County Planning Commission voted 2-1 to forward a favorable recommendation of the project to the Board of County Commissioners. A hearing date with the Board has not yet been scheduled.
The County staff report regarding the Urban Growth Boundary expansion proposal is provided on the County's website. The maps within the document are shown in black and white. Color versions of the maps in the report can be found here.
The Jackson County Planning Commission hearing scheduled for Thursday, January 26th will be continued to February 9th at 9 am.
Expansion boundary map that will be attached to the adoption ordinance. << MAP
The City received a Notice of Complete Application letter from the Jackson County Development Services Department regarding the UGB amendment. The application was deemed complete by the County. The first hearing before the County Planning Commission is scheduled for January 26, 2017 at 9:00 am in the Jackson County Courthouse at 10 S. Oakdale.
City staff submitted the application to the County for the UGB amendment on Wednesday.
The cover ordinance, for those interested, is here.
City Council approved the ordinance amending the Urban Growth Boundary by a 6-to-0 vote. There was a minor amendment to the findings suggested by Mr. Zarosinski (see page 22). The final Council Report containing the amendments and findings is here. The map of the amendment is the link just above here.
Staff will be preparing the package to submit to Jackson County for approval.
Council will consider an ordinance adopting the map, text amendments, and supporting findings at their noon meeting on 18 August.
The decision on the UGBA has been moved to the 8/18 meeting instead of 7/07.
Finding review is still ongoing, so the decision on the UGBA has been moved to the 7/07 meeting instead of 6/16.
Additional review of the findings has resulted in another extension. The decision on the UGBA ordinance has been moved to the 6/16 meeting instead of 6/02.
The Council would like more time to review the revised findings, so the decision on the UGBA ordinance has been moved to the 6/02 meeting instead of 5/19.
The Council held a study session on 4/28 to review the draft amendments and findings. The Council did not express concerns about the material, so staff will prepare an ordinance for the Council to consider at its regular meeting on 5/19.
The Council will hold a study session on April 28 to review the draft findings. After that they will consider an ordinance confirming their expansion selection at a regular meeting. Findings are a necessary component of the ordinance because they substantiate the decision being made. Council is tentatively scheduled to consider the ordinance at its May 5 meeting.
The Council chose Option 4 for the urban growth boundary expansion at its regular meeting last night. Staff will work on finalizing the findings and maps and return to Council with an ordinance to adopt the whole package, which will likely be in May. After that the City will submit the UGB Amendment to Jackson County for its approval. Once we have their buy-in, the final approval will come from the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Council asked staff to render the map submitted in Exhibit QQQQQ (Jan. 21) in the same format used for staff's options 1–3 in Supplemental findings memo no. 6 (note that there have been small changes made to the format to enhance clarity; options 1–3 have been updated to the same format and hyperlinked here as well).
The City Council held a study session today to review staff's three options for restoring the residential acres (see "Supplemental findings memo no. 6" under the entry for Feb. 18). After asking a few questions the Council directed staff to return with the options at a regular meeting on March 17. They could begin deliberations at that meeting.
Exhibit XXXXX Pfeiffer (in response to Exhibit VVVVV)
Exhibit WWWWW Pfeiffer (in response to Exhibit TTTTT)
Exhibit VVVVV 1000 Friends
Supplemental findings memo no. 6 has been prepared for the Feb. 25 study session. It includes the restored acres for residential in three distribution options.
Exhibit UUUUU PRI
Exhibit TTTTT LeBombard/DLCD
The City Council will hold a study session at noon on Feb. 25 to look at staff's proposal for restoring the land need figures to their original amounts:
Exhibit RRRRR Stone
Replacement page for Exhibit QQQQQ
Exhibit SSSSS Carpenter
Testimony received today.
Exhibit QQQQQ Woerner (This proposes a revised distribution of land)
The Council last night requested expansion options that restore approximately 150 acres that were recommended to be removed by the Planning Commission based on testimony from 1000 Friends of Oregon. They expressed interest in distributing the acres to MD-4 (Hillcrest Orchards) and to the western portion of MD-3, if possible.
The options will be presented to Council at its earliest available study session, which isn't until 2-25-2016.
Testimony received late yesterday
Exhibit OOOOO Stark Hammack
Exhibit PPPPP Pfeiffer
The Council hearing continues tonight.
Supplemental findings memo no. 5: Response to Exhibit LLLLL
Exhibit MMMMM Kupillas
Exhibit NNNNN Hornecker Cowling
The Council hearing continues tonight.
Exhibit LLLLL Pfeiffer
Exhibit IIIII Hornecker Cowling
Exhibit JJJJJ Pfeiffer
Exhibit KKKKK Stark
Exhibit GGGGG Knox
Exhibit HHHHH Hearn
The City Council held a study session on 10/22 to discuss how to make some of the promises they heard during testimony binding on the properties, especially if those promises influenced the decision to include an area. The Council is likely to want formal agreements from landowners, such as those in Exhibit P (scroll down to find it). Staff hopes to update the Council on who has stepped forward with such agreements at their meeting on 11/12.
Testimony submitted since 10/20:
Exhibit FFFFF Mahar
A draft of the Local Wetland Inventory report is available for public review and comment for the next two weeks. The final report will be submitted at the end of November to the Department of State Lands for their review and approval. The last day to submit comments will be on Monday, November 16, 2015. (Please send to email@example.com)
The Council made no decisions on the allocation of the 43 acres, but are interested in continuing the discussion about securing promises made during testimony.
More testimony submitted on 10/15 and after.
Exhibit CCCCC Pfeiffer
Exhibit DDDDD Montero
Exhibit EEEEE Kell
Supplemental Findings memo no. 4 - distribution of 43 acres
Testimony submitted on 10/15:
Exhibit ZZZZ Brooks
Exhibit AAAAA Stevens
Exhibit BBBBB Hathaway
Testimony submitted on 10/14:
Exhibit UUUU Hashimoto
Exhibit VVVV Canon
Exhibit WWWW Allan
Exhibit XXXX Hansen
Exhibit YYYY Montero
Staff will return to Council on Oct. 15 with a few options on where to distribute the 43 acres that have been added to the "unbuildable" classification.
There will be a study session on Oct. 22 (check City calendar for time and place) to discuss how the City can ensure that the representations made during testimony (trails, workforce housing, land dedications, etc) will be carried out.
Testimony submitted on 10/1:
Exhibit RRRR Pfeiffer
Exhibit SSSS Woerner
Exhibit TTTT Hansen
Staff will provide an update to the Council at tonight's meeting on the unbuildable lands determination.
A supplement to the staff report and new written testimony:
Supplemental findings memo no. 3—unbuildable lands determination
Exhibit QQQQ Harris
The Council began questioning Public Works, Fire, and Planning staff. Council directed staff to come to an agreement with DLCD staff on land categorization (see Exhibit MMMM) so that no more has to be removed from consideration. Council also directed staff to return with recommendations on how to ensure that the features and amenities that petitioners for inclusion spoke of in their testimony would actually be delivered. Staff will return with an update on Oct. 1 and a fuller report on Oct. 15.
New written testimony
Exhibit OOOO Maize
Exhibit PPPP Pfeiffer
New written testimony
Exhibit MMMM LeBombard, DLCD
Exhibit NNNN Stringer
The Council will resume discussion this coming Thursday, Sept. 17, at 7:00 pm. If you are interested in the map of the proposed expansion, it remains unchanged from the Planning Commission's recommendation. Once the Council begins deliberations they may begin considering changes to the proposal.
Two supplements to the staff report and new written testimony:
Supplemental Findings memo no. 1—selection process
Supplemental Findings memo no. 2—summaries and responses
Exhibit JJJJ Broadway
Exhibit KKKK Hadrian
Exhibit LLLL Sjothun, Parks & Recreation
New written testimony.
Exhibit IIII Mahar
Oregon Department of Transportation submitted a revised letter (see Exhibit AAAA).
Exhibit HHHH Morehouse, ODOT
The City Council took further testimony last night and closed the hearing, although they left the record open indefinitely. The Council will resume discussion at their regular meeting on 9/17/2015.
The following materials were submitted yesterday at or before the hearing.
Before the hearing
Exhibit YYY Stevens
Exhibit ZZZ Holmes, 1000 Friends of Oregon
Exhibit AAAA Morehouse, ODOT
At the hearing
Exhibit BBBB Hansen
Exhibit CCCC Hays
Exhibit DDDD Stocker
Exhibit EEEE Bartholomew
Exhibit FFFF Harland
Exhibit GGGG Ayala
Table of acreage figures in current expansion proposal, broken down by urban reserve subarea (MD-1, MD-2, etc). These figures correspond to the map available below under July 28 entry.
The Council hearing again had more than three hours of testimony. At the end of the evening the hearing was continued to Thursday, 8/20/2015, at 7:00 pm, where the Council will continue to take testimony on the expansion proposal.
If you're looking for the map of the expansion proposal that Council is considering, scroll down to the Jul 28 entry below.
Materials submitted at the 8/13 hearing.
Exhibit AAA Watson
Exhibit BBB Mahar
Exhibit CCC Lulich
Exhibit DDD Lane
Exhibit EEE Hall
Exhibit FFF Jones
Exhibit GGG Hansen
Exhibit HHH Stone
Exhibit III Hansen
Exhibit JJJ Broadway
Exhibit KKK Ayala
Exhibit LLL Ayala
Exhibit MMM White
Exhibit NNN Dobson
Exhibit OOO Brooks
Exhibit PPP Hight
Exhibit QQQ Woerner
Exhibit RRR Brooks (for Mahar)
Exhibit SSS Freel
Exhibit TTT Caldwell
Exhibit UUU Hanson
Exhibit VVV Hanson
Exhibit WWW Schroeder (actually rec'd via e-mail late in the day)
Exhibit XXX Knox
The Council held a hearing on 8/6/2015 and took more than three hours of testimony. The hearing was continued to Thursday, 8/13/2015, at 7:00 pm, where they will continue to take testimony on the expansion proposal.
Materials submitted since first City Council hearing on 8/6/2015.
Exhibit TT Houghton
Exhibit UU Fischer
Exhibit VV Hathaway (this was displayed in larger format at 8/6/2015 hearing; this smaller version rec'd on 8/12)
Exhibit WW LeBombard (DLCD)
Exhibit XX Bennett
Exhibit YY Chamberland
Exhibit ZZ Desmond
Materials submitted at the first City Council hearing on 8/6/2015
Exhibit HH Cofield
Exhibit II Kell
Exhibit JJ Montero
Exhibit KK LaNier/Parducci
Exhibit LL Savage
Exhibit MM Savage
Exhibit NN Woerner
Exhibit OOa Woerner
Exhibit OOb Woerner
Exhibit OOc Woerner
Exhibit PP Mahar
Exhibit QQ Jones
Exhibit RR Stocker
Exhibit SS Brooks
Materials submitted after publication of the commission report (after July 21) and before the first City Council hearing on 8/6/2015.
Exhibit Q Ex Parte
Exhibit R Hearn
Exhibit S Starlite Group
Exhibit T Bartlett
Exhibit U Knox
Exhibit V Mahar Exhibit V Maps
Exhibit W Hansen Exhibit W Map
Exhibit X Vincent
Exhibit Y Carpenter
Exhibit Z Harland
Exhibit AA Broadway
Exhibit BB Montero
Exhibit CC Savage
Exhibit DD Desmond
Exhibit EE Caldwell and Hight
Exhibit FF Root
Exhibit GG Stark
City Council hearing dates and process
Recommended UGB amendment (Planning Commission recommendation)
Here is the complete Commission Report that will be in the City Council's agenda packet for its August 6 hearing, which will be published next week. This report contains the Planning Commission's recommended amendments to the urban growth boundary and parts of the Comprehensive Plan, plus written testimony received through 7/21.
Commission Report dated 7/22/2015
Submitted testimony included with Commission Report
Exhibit E White
Exhibit F Hamlin
Exhibit G Knox, C.
Exhibit H Carlton
Exhibit I Jacskon County
Exhibit J Starlite Lane
Exhibit K RVS
Exhibit L RV Manor
Exhibit M Stevens
Exhibit N Sjothun
Exhibit O Matthews
Exhibit P Stevens
Wetlands Project Update:
A second informational meeting regarding the Local Wetland Inventory Project was held at the Carnegie Library. Draft maps of the field work conducted by SWCA Environmental Consultants were displayed for comments and input. The maps are provided below.
Materials for June 11, 2015 meeting (Planning Commission Recommendation)
The Planning Commission continued its deliberation regarding the proposed UGB amendment at its May 14, 2015 meeting. At that meeting the Commission passed a motion, 4 to 3, directing staff to modify the recommendation (as listed below), to prepare findings for recommendation to Council, and return with the revised recommendation and findings for approval at the June 11, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. The recommendation was to be changed as follows:
- Remove approximately 175 buildable acres from MD-4 as shown in staff's Alternative 1.
- Remove most of the approximately 175 buildable acres from MD-3 as shown in staff's Alternative 2, but retain approximately 30 acres in the southwest corner of MD-3.
- Add an approximately 180 acre (includes buildable and non-buildable land) portion of MD-5 located between Cherry Lane and Barnett Road and east of the existing UGB.
The Planning Commission will continue its deliberation regarding the UGB expansion at the May 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. The applicable portions of the agenda packet for that meeting are linked below.
May 14, 2015 PC meeting agenda packet
Staff compiled all of the written testimony submitted at the hearing and all of the written testimony submitted after the hearing through March 26, 2015 and provided these materials to the Commission at the April 6, 2015 study session.
Staff also provided a table to help track challenges to the land need figures, a table showing acreage figures for each of the urban reserve subareas, a table and a map to help track the requests for inclusion that were received at the hearing, and a memo to better explain how transportation was scored based on a memo from Kittelson and Associates.
At the study session, the Commission directed staff to provide recommendations regarding where to remove roughly 175 acres from staff's recommendation, based on challenges received. The Commission directed staff to bring this matter, with the requested recommendations, back to the Commission at the May 14, 2015 public hearing.
The materials from the April 6, 2015 study session are provided below:
April 6, 2015 study session
At their regularly scheduled meeting, March 12, 2015, the Planning Commission considered City File number CP-14-114 (UGBA Phase 2: ESA Boundary Amendment). The Planning Commission heard a presentation of the staff report and then opened the public hearing to take testimony. There were dozens of people in attendance and more than 40 people chose to speak. The proceedings lasted approximately four and a half hours.
The Commission closed the hearing but the record was kept open for the next 14 days - through March 26, 2015. Anybody wishing to submit written comment to the Planning Department is welcome to do so up until the March 26 deadline.
The Planning Commission voted to meet with staff at a study session, to be held April 6, 2015, to further discuss the proposal prior to making a recommendation to City Council on the matter. The study session will be open to the public but the public will not be permitted to provide testimony at the meeting. Location and time will be posted on this page once it is set. At the study session the Commission is expected to determine when this matter will be brought back to a Planning Commission meeting for further consideration. Once that date is set that information will be posted here as well.
Slide Show from Staff Presentation at PC Hearing
Testimony Submitted after Publication of the Agenda Packet for PC
Testimony Submitted at the PC Hearing
Testimony Submitted after the PC Hearing
Minutes from March 12, 2015 PC Hearing
Wetlands: There are several things that need to be done prior to annexing any of the areas added to the urban growth boundary through this process. Some of these things, such as master plans, will be the responsibility of the individual property owners to complete. Other items, such as a revised Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Local Wetland Inventory (LWI), the City will complete. The City has been working on a revised TSP for over a year but the final work cannot be completed until the boundary location has been determined.
The City has hired SWCA Environmental Consultants to conduct an LWI for the urban reserve. An informational meeting regarding the LWI work will be held Wednesday, March 18, 2015, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., in the Carnegie Building at 413 W. Main Street. More information can be found on the attached notice below. SWCA will need to access the properties containing wetlands in order to field verify the existence of wetlands and to more accurately map the extent of the wetlands. More information about the process will be presented at the informational meeting. The City is seeking consent from property owners to allow SWCA to access the necessary properties in order to complete their work. A copy of the consent form is attached to the link below.
Informational Meeting Notice and Permission to Access Form
The Planning Commission will take public testimony and consider staff's recommendation regarding the proposed urban growth boundary amendment at their March 12, 2015 meeting. A copy of the agenda packet (including the staff report for the urban growth boundary amendment) can be found at the link below:
Staff Report - PC Agenda for March 12, 2015 meeting
The Planning Department has completed its work of ranking the External Study Areas (ESAs) and producing a recommendation based on that analysis. The Planning Department's recommendation will be presented to the Planning Commission at the March 12, 2015 hearing. At that time the Planning Commission will also be receiving testimony from the public regarding the recommendation. The Urban Growth Boundary Amendment (UGBA) accomplished through Phase 2 of the project will be made up of three parts: 1) amending the Urban Growth Boundary and assigning General Land Use Plan (GLUP) map designations to the areas added to the UGB; 2) amending the Medford Street Functional Classification Plan of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the expansion areas; and 3) amending some portions of the Urbanization and GLUP Elements of the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the UGB amendment.
The proposed UGB expansion area includes a total of 3,948 acres of land, of which 402 acres are either already developed or unbuildable, resulting in a total of 3,546 usable acres: 1,877 acres for Prescott and Chrissy parks and 1,669 acres for future development. The developable acres consist of 1,032 acres for residential development and 637 acres for employment uses.
Each of the three components of the UGBA as recommended by the Planning Department is shown in the attachments below:
1) Boundary Amendment and Assigned GLUP Designations
2) Revised Street Functional Classification Plan Map
3) Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
The process of amending Medford's UGB began in the late 1990s with the start of the Regional problem Solving (RPS) process. RPS was a joint effort between six local municipalities, Jackson County, and the State of Oregon to determine future land need for the region and to determine the most appropriate locations for future growth. From RPS the City adopted the Regional Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Regional Plan Element specifies where Medford's future growth will occur by identifying the Urban Reserve (UR). The UR areas, totaling approximately 4,400 acres, are meant to provide a 50-year land supply for the City.
In order to determine the land need for the next twenty years the City relies on the Buildable Lands Inventory (adopted in February 2008), the Population Element (adopted November 2007), the Economic Element (adopted December 2008), and the Housing Element (adopted December 2010) of the Comprehensive Plan. The Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) determined the amount of land available within the existing UGB. This total supply of land was adjusted to account for the effect of the PALs (from UGBA Phase 1, assuming they are adopted as recommended by the Planning Commission). The Population Element was taken along with the Housing and Economic Elements to determine the total land demand for the 20-year period. The supply was then subtracted from the demand to determine the total land deficit by individual land type over the 20-year period. It has been determined that the City needs approximately 1,600 additional acres to meet the land need. The UGB must be expanded by this total deficit amount in order to meet the land need for the 20-year period.
Because there are over 4,400 acres of land available within the Urban Reserve, and the City only needs to add roughly 1,600 acres, the Planning Department used a coarse filter process, considering proximity and parcelization, to narrow the focus for further analysis from the available 50-year supply. The areas that passed through the coarse filter became known as External Study Areas (ESAs). Data were collected for the ESAs for serviceability for water, sewer, and transportation. The scores from each of the five factors (proximity, parcelization, water, sewer, and transportation) will be used to guide the Planning Department's recommendation concerning the location of the expanded Urban Growth Boundary. The Planning Department will select areas from the ESAs to fill the land need by type, and in total, for the 20-year period.
Staff Presentation to City Council Explaining Process
All Urban Reserve
External Study Areas (ESAs)
Memos Used to Create Ranking Maps:
Map for water score
Water Score Data
Sewer Score Data from Medford Sewer
Sewer Score Data from RVSS
Memo for Transportation Score
Phase 1: Internal Study Area/Proposed Amendment Location (ISAs/PALs) General Land Use Plan Amendment
The ordinance adopting the General Land Use Plan map changes:
Ordinance no. 2014-154
Ordinance no. 2014-154, Exhibit A (same as "Final Report" below)
Ordinance no. 2014-154, Exhibit B (same as "SAL map" below)
Phase 1 is complete. The City Council adopted a modified version of the Planning Commission recommendation at its 12/04 hearing. The notable changes were the elimination of PALs 810 and 950, and the change from UH to UM for PALs 212b and 213. The revised ordinance is in the works and will be posted soon.
With the PALs no longer proposals, the adopted GLUP changes are termed "selected amendment locations" (SALs) in the attached documents.
Final Report (to be attached to Ordinance no. 2014-154)
SAL map (to be attached to Ordinance no. 2014-154)
The City Council hearing on the PALs will be on 12/04 at 7:00 PM. The staff report for the PALs is excerpted from the Council agenda packet following.
PAL staff report (excerpt from 12/04/2014 City Council agenda packet)
The City Council has decided to hold a hearing on the proposed amendment locations (PALs; formerly known as internal study areas, or ISAs). The PALs constitute some 550 acres inside the current urban growth boundary.
The City Council hearing will be held on Thursday, 4 December 2014, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers on the third floor of City Hall, 411 West 8th Street.
(scroll down this page to see a table explaining the GLUP designations you'll see on this map)
The revised staff report—which collects all the findings and conclusions developed over the course of the hearings—will be on the "consent calendar" of the Planning Commission agenda for this Thursday, 24 April 2014. Consent calendar items are typically final orders or recommendations and usually are not discussed individually; rather they are formally adopted as a group.
In this case the revised staff report constitutes the Planning Commission's formal recommendation to the Council on the PALs.
CP-13-032 Revised staff report, 2014-04-17
The Planning Commission voted 8–0 to approve the "proposed amendment locations" recommended by staff, with a small reduction to PAL 640b so it would not back onto the lots on Windward Drive, and the addition of several inclusion requests. Until staff makes a final map, the following will serve to show the Planning Commission's recommendations:
PAL recommendations by PC, 2014-03-13
Note that the Internal Study Areas (ISAs) are defunct now that this step has been completed. They were a useful planning tool that served their purpose, but are no longer needed.
The Commission's recommendation will not go to the City Council until the Commission has also prepared a recommendation on boundary expansion areas as well. That means it won't likely be until late this year—at the earliest—that the Council will take up this recommendation for consideration.
As promised in the February 14 update, Planning Department staff has developed a recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider at its 3/13 meeting. In order to differentiate these recommended areas from the internal study areas (ISAs), they have been termed "proposed amendment locations" (PALs). The supplemental staff report and associated maps follow:
Staff report, supplemental
Map: Proposed Amendment Locations, staff recommendation, 2014-03-03
Map: PAL map showing GLUP context
Map: ISA scoring
The Planning Commission held its last hearing last night on the ISA project. They will begin deliberations at their March 13 meeting, where the planning department will present its recommended version of the amendment areas. Remember: more than 800 acres were analyzed, but only about 80 acres of UM (medium-density residential) and 90 acres of UH (high-density residential) are needed. We also analyzed about 250 acres for potential conversion to CM (commercial), but the need is more than 700, so it would be ideal to get as much converted as is feasible.
The following is written testimony that was received from Feb. 7 through the end of the workday on Feb. 13, and written testimony received at the hearing:
Written testimony (4) received after the 2-13 meeting packet was prepared
Written testimony (5) received at the hearing
The Planning Commission will hold its next hearing on Feb. 13 starting at 5:30 in the Council Chambers on the third floor of City Hall, 411 West 8th Street. The following is written testimony that was received from Jan. 24 through yesterday, Feb. 6:
Written testimony (3)
The Planning Commission held its first ISA hearing last night and received testimony from nearly 50 individuals. The next hearing will be held on 13 February 2014. The goal is to concentrate discussion on the ISAs south of Jackson Street, but that doesn't bar anyone from speaking on any ISA.
The following items supplement the staff report and attachments posted under the Jan. 16 heading.
Written testimony (1) received after publication of the staff report
Written testimony (2) received at the hearing
The complete agenda packet for the Jan. 23 meeting is available on the Planning Commission's agenda page, but because it's such a large agenda, the staff report and attachments for just the ISA agenda item are available here:
CP-13-032 staff report, part 1
CP-13-032 staff report, part 2
CP-13-032 staff report, part 3
Murphy Road. There has been a lot of talk lately about this street, but despite the rumors there is no plan to extend Murphy Road through the Rogue Valley Country Club. Actually, the concept exists only as a suggestion in a technical memo from a transportation consultant. One of many recommendations in that memo is that if the Country Club property were to ever redevelop, an extension of Murphy Road northward would help improve north-south transportation connectivity.
That memo was included in the staff report on the ISA project because its primary purpose was to examine the impacts of the ISAs on the City's transportation system. The City is not considering amendments to its Transportation System Plan at this stage, so the Murphy Road suggestion has not been evaluated or recommended by staff, and is not up for consideration at this time.
Staff mailed out notices (view one here) to the property owners in the ISAs and to property owners within 200 feet of the ISAs to notify them of the hearings scheduled for 1/23/2014 and 2/13/2014. The City would like to concentrate on the internal study areas NORTH of Jackson Street at the 1/23 hearing and on the areas SOUTH of Jackson Street at the 2/13 hearing (see links to maps below). The City encourages those who wish to testify to appear on the night that is appropriate to the area they wish to testify on.
This is a legislative action to change the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) designation of several areas in the City. The GLUP designation of a piece of property is the basis for its zoning. The Planning Commission will take testimony and consider its recommendation to the City Council, which will make the final decision on which ISAs or portions of ISAs to adopt. The file number for this action is CP-13-032.
10/9: The Council authorized the Planning Commission to begin the hearings process on the internal study areas (ISAs; see below. See Resolution no. 2013-127, 9/5/2013, for authorization details).
COMPONENTS OF A UGB AMENDMENT PROCESS
There are two major components in the process. One is an analysis of areas inside the current UGB for opportunities and constraints for handling the expected growth. The other is an analysis of areas outside the UGB to assess their suitability for inclusion.
- Internal Study Areas (ISAs; now the proposed amendment locations, or PALs, after the Planning Commission made its recommendation on 2014-03-13). The first component involves land-use plan map designation changes. For example, the city might look at an area that is vacant or ready to redevelop that could be changed from low-density housing to medium-density housing. Then, when that land develops, it will take up more of the projected housing demand than it would have done if the zoning were unchanged. Likewise, changing from industrial designation (of which there is a projected surplus) to a commercial designation (for which there is a projected need) will help take care of part of that need. Planning staff referred to these changes generically as "internal study areas" (ISAs).
The General Land Use Plan (GLUP) designations that are used in the map are explained in the following table. The General Land Use Plan map is part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; it provides the underlying land-use pattern for the zoning designations.
||Corresponding Zoning Designations
||Example Uses and
I-L Light Industrial
| airport-related uses
C-N Neighborhood Commercial
C-C Community Commercial
C-R Regional Commercial
C-H Heavy Commercial
|Retail stores, repair shops, restaurants, filling stations, banks, personal services, hotels, etc.
SC Service Commercial
C-S/P Service Commercial & Professional Office
|Professional and medical offices, hospitals, some retail allowed
|CC City Center
||No specific zoning
||Allows any kind of zoning designation
|UR Urban Low-density residential
||SFR-2, SFR-4, SFR-6, SFR-10
|2–10 dwelling units per acre (depending on zoning)
|UM Urban Medium-density residential
|10–15 dwelling units per acre
|UH Urban High-density residential
|20–30 dwelling units per acre
|GI General Industrial
||I-L Light Industrial
I-G General Industrial
|Traded-sector manufacturing, fabrication, warehousing; some banking and restaurant allowed
|HI Heavy Industrial
||I-G General Industrial
I-H Heavy Industrial
|Traded-sector manufacturing, fabrication, warehousing; some banking and restaurant allowed
|PS Parks & Schools
||No corresponding zoning
||Parks and schools
- External Study Areas (ESAs). The second component involves extending the boundary itself. There is a system for doing this laid out in State Statutes and Rules that puts highest priority on the urban reserve, which the City obtained through the State's acknowledgement of the Regional Plan (through the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process), followed by “exception” or nonresource lands, then marginal agricultural and forest resource lands, and—at the lowest priority—good agricultural and forest resource lands. “Exception” lands, generally, are those under County zoning that are commercial, industrial, or residential because they have been granted exceptions from the Statewide Planning Goals related to protecting agricultural and forest lands.
- The City will be selecting a number of areas from the urban reserve to study for the effects of urbanization on streets and other utilities. The amount of land chosen will exceed the city's 20-year need so the analysis to give decision makers enough information to eliminate the excess.
MEDFORD'S PATHWAY TO AMENDING ITS UGB
What law requires:
How Medford is doing it:
STEP 1: OAR 660-024-0050 (1)
“When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must inventory land inside the UGB to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to accommodate 20-year needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040.
Buildable Lands Inventory (2008)
“For residential land, the buildable land inventory must include vacant and redevelopable land, and be conducted in accordance with OAR 660-007-0045 or 660-008-0010, whichever is applicable, and ORS 197.296 for local governments subject to that statute.
Housing Element (adopted by the City; not yet acknowledged [approved] by the State Land Conservation & Development Commission)
“For employment land, the inventory must include suitable vacant and developed land designated for industrial or other employment use, and must be conducted in accordance with OAR 660-009-0015(3).”
Economic Element (2009)
STEP 2: OAR 660-024-0050 (4)
“If the inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the UGB is inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20-year needs determined under OAR 660-024-0040, the local government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency, either by increasing the development capacity of land already inside the city or by expanding the UGB, or both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable.
The City will be pursuing both tracks: internal changes to increase “development capacity” and expansion of the boundary. See the following two descriptions for more details.
“Prior to expanding the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB.
A set of “Internal Study Areas” (ISAs) was evaluated to determine places in the city that can be changed to accommodate the land need. Staff analyzed areas that are being considered for capacity increases for impacts on infrastructure and livability. There were general meetings/open houses for early public input. As of 3/13/2014, the Planning Commission made a recommendation on a subset of the ISAs, known as PALs.
“Changes to the UGB must be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with OAR 660-024-0060.”
A set of candidate expansion areas will be evaluated for impacts on public facilities.
STEP 3: OAR 660-024-0050 (5)
“When land is added to the UGB, the local government must assign appropriate urban plan designations to the added land, consistent with the need determination.
Since the city is trying to meet the needs for different types of land (commercial, residential, industrial), General Land Use Plan designations will be proposed so staff can quantitatively show how Medford is meeting those needs.
“The local government must also apply appropriate zoning to the added land consistent with the plan designation, or may maintain the land as urbanizable land either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by applying other interim zoning that maintains the land’s potential for planned urban development until the land is rezoned for the planned urban uses.
By common practice, the current County zoning will remain on all land included in the urban growth boundary until those lots and parcels annex into the city limits.
“The requirements of ORS 197.296 regarding planning and zoning also apply when local governments specified in that statute add land to the UGB.”
COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS INVOLVED IN THE UGB AMENDMENT PROJECT
Planning Commission (PC)
Joint Transportation Subcommittee (acting as Citizens Advisory Committee) and Technical Advisory Committee (ad hoc) to evaluate material produced for the traffic impact analysis being funded by a Transportation and Growth Management grant from the State of Oregon.
Draft technical memoranda from traffic analysis can be found on a website set up by the traffic consultant, Kittelson and Associates: medfordtsp.com.
WHO YOU CAN TALK TO
Questions about the UGB Amendment Project may be directed to the project manager, Carla Paladino, Principal Planner, at the following address and phone number.
City of Medford Planning Department
200 South Ivy Street
Medford, Oregon 97501