TO: Marion County Board of Commissioners
THROUGH: Marion County Public Works Dept./Jim Sears
FROM: Marion County Planning Division/Sterling Anderson, Les Sasaki
SUBJECT: Marion County Urban Growth Management Project Framework and Implementation Strategy - Legislative Amendment (LA) 02-4, Amending the Urbanization Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan
DATE: November 27, 2002
The Marion County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on August 28, 2002, on the proposed Marion County Urban Growth Management Framework and Implementation Strategy amendment to the Urbanization Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. Various cities and interested persons testified and/or submitted written statements expressing concerns over the proposed Framework purpose, content or specific language. The Board closed the public hearing and directed staff to meet with and/or work with the cities that had provided testimony at the hearing in an effort to address their concerns and issues, and provide a Framework plan that could be supported by the cities.
Staff met with the cities of Stayton, Woodburn, Silverton, Salem, Aumsville, and Donald. In addition, staff communicated with the cities of Aurora and Keizer regarding their issues and concerns contained in letters that are part of the record. The discussions with the cities resulted in suggestions or recommendations to staff on possible changes to the Framework plan to address their concerns and understand how the Framework would be used by the County in evaluating urban growth issues, specifically, growth boundary expansion proposals. Staff considered the various recommended changes provided by the cities along with the oral and written testimony from the hearing, and revised the Framework language to address the concerns within the context and intent of the Framework. The Framework is a coordination strategy between the County and cities from a County planning policy perspective, with the purpose of providing the cities a guide to assist in making decisions regarding urban growth and growth boundary expansion proposals. Suggested changes were not incorporated into the revised Framework if they were not consistent with the purpose of the Urbanization Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
The following is a summary of proposed revisions to the Framework in response to the concerns and issues raised by the cities and interested persons in the hearing process and from post-hearing meetings with the various cities. The revised Framework has been provided to the cities and interested parties.
A. The general language in the Framework was revised to emphasize or focus on the coordination responsibilities and roles of the County and cities in addressing specific urban growth issues.
B. Language was added to the Framework to clarify the purpose of the Framework and that cities are not required to adopt the Framework but may choose to better coordinate their planning efforts with the County by utilizing the guidelines within the Framework.
C. The long-range population forecasts and estimated land needs figures (Table 1) were clarified as to what they represent, how they can be used, monitored, revised, and updated as part of the Framework and in conjunction with the planning efforts being conducted by the cities.
D. The term “standards” used in the Framework were changed to “coordination guidelines” to be consistent with the purpose of the Framework as a coordination strategy to guide cities and not as imposing requirements on the cities. A definition for “coordination guidelines” was added that defines them as “flexible directions or measures that may be utilized to address specific policy statements.”
E. The land efficiency standard was kept as a standard rather than changed to a guideline since it is a key measure in analyzing land needs and in protecting the County’s resource lands. Language was added to clarify application of the land efficiency standard by the County.
F. The goals within the Framework were identified as being the guiding principles formulated by consensus through the public involvement process of the growth management project upon which the Framework is based.
G. The policies and guidelines of the Framework regarding Transportation, Environment, Economic Development and Housing were revised to focus on coordination and providing a starting point for cities, recognizing that there may be several ways to approach and solve a particular issue.
H. The “shall” language in the policies and guidelines were changed to “should” to be consistent with the coordination and guidance focus of the Framework. Where the guidelines address State requirements (e.g. environmental standards) the “shall” language was retained.
I. Language on Framework implementation and monitoring of development along with the use of information generated by the cities as part of their plan updates was added.
J. The process for reviewing and revising the Framework and IGAs/compacts was clarified.
K. Language was added to clarify the distinction between the Framework which is the foundation of the growth management strategy and the individual intergovernmental agreements (IGAs)/compacts which will be utilized to implement the Framework and address specific issues which will be different for each city. The IGAs/compacts are the next step in the process.
L. A policy was added requiring an updated intergovernmental agreement between the County and a city consistent with the Framework, prior to approval of an urban growth boundary expansion.
OTHER FRAMEWORK ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION
Table 1 of the Framework is the “Growth Management Framework 2050 Population Forecast and Land Needs Estimate” for the cities within the County. The forecasts are intended to be a long-range planning tool for cities to use in beginning to address various planning and development issues that go beyond the 20-year planning horizon of city comprehensive plans. The forecasts are not intended to be static numbers but would be updated/revised based on the review of actual development patterns within the Framework planning period. Nevertheless, some cities have asked for higher forecast numbers than those within the Framework. An alternative forecast option which bases the forecast on the percentage share of each cities population growth over the past decade was provided with the staff report for the public hearing. Staff is not recommending any changes to the Framework forecasts for the cities as they are long-range planning tools and may be modified within the concept of subarea planning for groups of cities within the County.
The Board approve the revised Marion County Urban Growth Management Framework as an amendment to the Urbanization Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration and adoption by the Board containing the necessary plan amendments.
A. Marion County Urban Growth Management Revised Framework – November 18, 2002 Draft