May 25, 1999

SODAVILLE 1999 PERIODIC REVIEW EVALUATION

RESPONSES TO EVALUATION QUESTIONS

There are three standards which must be addressed through periodic review. These are listed below:

Standard 1.

There has been a substantial change in circumstances including but not limited to the conditions, findings or assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan or land use regulations were based, so that the comprehensive plan or land use regulations do not comply with the statewide planning goals.

Standard 2.

That implementation decisions or the effects of implementation decisions, including the application of acknowledged plan and land use regulation provisions are inconsistent with the goals.

Standard 3.

That there are issues of regional or statewide significance, intergovernmental coordination or state agency plans or programs affecting land use which must be addressed in order to bring comprehensive plans and land use regulations into compliance with provisions of the goals.

LCDC’s Periodic Review notice for Sodaville includes a set of evaluation questions which are intended to assist the city in identifying issues which should be addressed under periodic review. The evaluation is to be completed by July 31, 1999.

The questions are listed below followed by staff's preliminary reactions. We need to make an effort to address them more fully over the next two months.

1. Have there been changes in the basic information or assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based? Do these changes suggest a need to update the comprehensive plan? If yes, explain.

The major change in Sodaville has been the installation of a community water system. This was contemplated in the plan, but the impacts of the system may not be recognized.

The plan also has a tone to it which seems to be unrealistic. The plan addresses many issues and looks for solutions which often seem to be more far-reaching than is actually the case. In a way it is a dilemma as Sodaville has developed more rapidly than may have been contemplated when the plan was prepared. On the other hand, the overall direction of the city seems to be fairly clear, and the city largely deals with very practical matters of managing development - present and future.

2. What needs does the community have? Examples: construction of a new fire station, more land for residential development, protecting something of importance to the community. Do your comprehensive plan and land use regulations effectively address this need?

The city needs to think about major community improvements which are needed that are not addressed in the plan. The major contemplated need may be to Provide a Sewer system for the city. Perhaps this should be addressed in a general way to Provide direction for the future. The other ongoing need is to continue to develop the necessary system in order to effectively cope with development. Also, does drainage need to be addressed in some way. The recent closure of the elementary school, and problems and opportunities which result from this, may need to be addressed.

3. Are there problems or opportunities involving zoning or development in your community which you want to address, but have had difficulty doing so? If so, what are these problems or opportunities?

The city has taken major steps to update its zoning and subdivision ordinances and to improve its enforcement. It remains to be seen if the enforcement system as developed will be effective. As mentioned under question 2 above, what should the city put together as a way to effectively manage development for a city with a population of around 300 with very limited staff and resources.

4. Has there been, or is there an activity (e.g. a new development, a major public project or a change in government regulations affecting a major industry) which you believe needs to be reflected in your comprehensive plan? If so, how?

Of course, the major change which has occurred is the installation of a water system. This was contemplated in the plan. That system has spawned considerable new residential development and the City is learning how to cope with this development. The major need is to more effectively utilize tools to manage new development so that all of it will be a credit to the community.

5. Is there anything in the comprehensive plan or land use ordinances which you need to change or would like to change? If so, what would you change, and why?

The ordinances themselves seem to be in fairly good shape, except for changes which may result from a more deliberate and careful review and amendments to the comprehensive plan. The plan itself seems to address a lot of lofty ideals which seem to be irrelevant to a community which is immersed in the practical aspects of development management.

6. What new information (e. g., population, water availability, etc.) is available that you have yet to include in your plan?

The major needs are to include data pertaining to the water system and to review completed developments to determine if that development achieves what is intended in managing future growth. The county’s new GIS system should be very helpful in providing an improved information base for city planning.

7. How have local citizens participated in evaluating the comprehensive plan and land regulations? Did you follow your city’s involvement program?

The level of community participation in plan and ordinance development is limited largely to the City Council and to a few citizens who perceive that their immediate concerns may be affected. Basic public notice requirements have been met, but a more active citizen involvement program has not been used.

8. Does the city’s urban growth boundary have enough land for the next twenty years?

A preliminary conclusion to a current evaluation of buildable lands within the city indicates that the growth boundary (city limits) is adequate to accommodate growth. There are two or three areas adjacent to the city which have some development which could accommodated with an urban growth boundary expansion. These are already “committed” areas.

(a) How does the Actual Population of your community compare with the Projected Population estimated in your acknowledged comprehensive plan?

(b) Does your city have a 20 year population forecast which is coordinated with a county-wide forecast for the county as a whole and all of the cities in your county? Is the county-wide forecast coordinated with any regional forecasts )from PSU, BPA, State of Oregon, federal or other source)?

Linn County has developed a year 2020 population projection for Sodaville and the other 12 cities within the county. The current buildable lands evaluation takes that Projection into consideration. This information needs to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan. The county forecast has not yet been fully approved by Linn County but it appears to meet the necessary test as mentioned in question (b) above.

(c) Has there been a change in your community’s assessment of the types of industrial and commercial businesses which are most likely to develop in your area? Does your community have buildable sites which are suitable for these types of uses?

It appears that Sodaville will have very limited commercial and industrial development. The plan seems to contemplate development opportunities fairly well as what likely will occur is home grown business or industry. Considerable community discussion about the future of business and industry is needed as part of Plan update.

(d) Does your plan contain an accurate inventory of suitable industrial and commercial sites?

(e) Is there a twenty year supply of buildable industrial and commercial land within your community’s urban growth boundary?

The plan recognizes the very limited possibility of traditional commercial and industrial development. Any change to accommodate future development would best be handled through developing guidelines to review development proposals rather than to designate specific sites. Opportunity for either commercial or industrial growth is limited by the hillside location of the City and by its close proximity to Lebanon. Specifically, a 20 year supply of land has not been evaluated, but it is unlikely that such an exercise is needed.

(f) Are buildable residential lands being utilized (at/faster than/slower than) projected rates? Gross amount of residential lands developed from (last periodic review to present periodic review):

The City has not gone through periodic review before. The City is currently going through a buildable lands analysis. In general development has occurred at fairly close to the contemplated pace but it will still be necessary to develop information which will verify this.

(g) Does your community have a current inventory of buildable lands? (If so, we recommend that you submit it as an attachment to this evaluation.)

An inventory is being completed and will be attached to this evaluation.

(h) If a shortage exists in any of the residential categories above, did a failure for new development to meet planned mix or densities cause or contribute to the shortage? Which of the following measures would be appropriate in your community to increase the likelihood that planned residential densities will be achieved? (Check as many as are appropriate.)

_____ increase permitted density on residential land (No, density standards presently in use reflect the lack of a sewage disposal system and the relatively steep terrain in much of town.)

_____ financial incentives for higher density (No, the nature and location of the community, the lack of a sewer system indicate that the future will be a continuation of current trends in the local housing supply.)

_____ provisions permitting higher density in exchange for amenities and features provided by the developer (No, this feature has recently been removed from the ordinance as in this type of community there is a problem involved in adequately monitoring development, the use of community drainfields which would be required have resulted in significant long-term problems, and there is a tendency for developers to take advantage of the incentives to the disadvantage of community residents.

_____ removal or easing of approval standards or procedures (No, the reverse is true. The city is in constant need of upgrading its standards and procedures.)

_____ minimum density ranges (No, a constant density range which takes lack of a sewer system and steep topography into consideration is more appropriate.)

YES redevelopment and infill strategies (Yes, the city is working to promote infill where appropriate and safeguards are needed to make infill work effectively.)

_____ authorization of additional housing types (Not necessary. Likely future development will concentrate on manufactured homes and traditional stick-built housing.)

_____ adoption of an average residential density standard (Perhaps, this could build in some flexibility where there is considerable variety in topography and where septic suitability is also variable.)

_____ adoption of “adequate public facilities” standards (Irrelevant)

_____ adoption of a “focused investment” facilities plan (Not applicable to a city of this size and character.)

(i) are there sites within the existing UGB which are suitable for the use or density designated in the comprehensive plan and zoning? If so, would a change in designation of these sites help to meet future land needs?

The City Limits is the UGB. All properties appear to be appropriately designated at this time.

(j) Have conditions and markets changed so that new development opportunities exist such as redevelopment, higher residential densities, new industries with a higher ratio of employees per acre, or new types of development such as mixed use?

There appears to be no changes such as those represented in this list which are applicable to Sodaville.

(k) Are there opportunities to accommodate some additional housing in developed areas through accessory dwellings, granny flats, flag lots, partitioning of over-sized lots, or by providing full or upgraded public facilities?

There may some opportunity here. The major need would be to provide a sewer system but such an improvement is a number of years away even if there were to be substantial demonstrated community support and funding. Little improvements such as accessory dwellings and flag lots could be provided with some safeguards built in.

(l) Is it likely that an amendment to the UGB is needed to provide a 20 year supply of land?

At this point an amendment does not appear to be necessary. However, that circumstance could very well change in a few years. Development needs to be monitored carefully to assure that an adequate supply of buildable land is maintained.

(m) If a UGB amendment is anticipated, to any of the following conditions exist outside of the current UGB which will constrain the expansion of the UGB?

_____ existing development (unlikely to be a problem)

_____ farm lands (some marginal farm land but nothing of great significance)

_____ forest lands (like farm land, forest land is there but nothing of an intensive nature is close to the city)

_____ other natural resources (No)

_____ natural hazards and development suitability problems (Steep slope is a problem as are possible landslide hazards. There is some flood plain in areas to the east of town.)

_____ serviceability (This is likely a problem which would require careful evaluation. The City’s water supply system would have to be carefully reviewed to determine if it can be expanded. Of course, the lack of a sewer system is also an issue.)

9. Have there been issues or problems of coordination with the county or special districts for the area within your urban growth boundary? Is your UGB management agreement adequate or does it need updating?

As the city limits is the current UGB, coordination issues have been minimal. It is likely that the UGB management agreement is in need of updating.

10. Local governments must comply with the requirements of the new Goal 5 rule (OAR 660-023) in their periodic review work program, unless exempted by the DLCD director. If you believe your jurisdiction should be exempted from meeting the Goal 5 rule in periodic review, please address in your periodic review evaluation the factors in OAR 660-023-0250(7) for the requirement for receiving an exemption. Please contact our DLCD periodic review team leader if you need assistance in deciding whether how may qualify for or how to obtain such an exemption.

Riparian issues will not apply to Sodaville. Perhaps minimal work related to wetlands will be needed. It is also possible that sensitive groundwater areas may be applicable. The city would need to determine if any effort to preserve historic resources is needed. Protection of mineral and aggregate resources is not applicable to Sodaville.