My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Commissioners Meeting Materials (6/13/17) (3)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
Board of Commissioners Meeting Materials (6/13/17) (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:48:01 PM
Creation date
6/19/2017 10:10:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
UGB ADOPTION PACKAGE
Document Type
Staff Report
Document_Date
6/13/2017
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
250
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Overall environmental consequences from expanding onto this site for industrial use would be slightly <br />negative to neutral. <br />Energy: While the addition of industrial employment near residential areas may decrease energy use <br />from commuter traffic, a given employer is just as likely to draw employees from other parts of the <br />region. Overall energy consequences from expanding onto this site for industrial use would be neutral. <br />Economic: A UGB expansion to include Site P4.6h to serve the City's need for industrial employment land <br />is not likely to actually result in a site that is truly available for economic development during the <br />planning period. Site P4.6h is separated from the current UGB by residential and agricultural land. For <br />Site P4.6h to be developed for the needed urban industrial use, it would first need to be annexed into <br />the city limits. The City would be legally prohibited from annexing Site P4.6h until the site is contiguous <br />with the city limits, either through annexation of the intervening residential or agricultural land (which <br />would not serve an identified need for the City), or an (arguably unreasonable) "cherry stem" <br />annexation of Crow Road. Given that it is highly unlikely that Site P4.6h would be annexable during the <br />planning period, expanding the UGB to include it for industrial employment would create "phantom" <br />capacity, failing to meet the goals of the expansion. Additionally, the cost of extending urban services to <br />this area for the few available candidate sites is disproportionate to the benefit. Overall economic <br />consequences of expanding the UGB onto this site for industrial use would be negative. <br />Social: Expanding the UGB for industrial use in this location would have slight potentially negative social <br />consequences for residents exposed to traffic and other impacts of such uses adjacent to their homes. <br />Overall social consequences from expanding onto this site for industrial use would be neutral. <br />Summary: Due to the economic challenges of developing this site during the planning period, as well as <br />other environmental, energy, economic and social concerns, Site P4.6h is discarded from further <br />consideration. <br />(e) Dismiss Candidate Land if its Inclusion in the UGB to Address the <br />Identified Industrial Land Deficit would be Incompatible with <br />Nearby Agricultural or Forest Activities Occurring on Farm or Forest <br />Land Outside the UGB <br />As explained above, Sites P4.6e, P4.6f, P4.6g, and P4.6h are separated from the existing UGB by <br />productive agricultural land that is not suitable for the City's industrial land needs. Expanding the UGB to <br />include any of these sites would require the City to also bring that intervening agricultural land into the <br />UGB (or extend the city limits in an arguably unreasonable "cherry stem"), making it urbanizable land. In <br />that way, inclusion of Sites P4.6e, P4.6f, P4.6g, and P4.6h in the UGB to address the identified industrial <br />land deficit would be incompatible with the nearby agricultural activities now occurring on land outside <br />the UGB. Even if there was not a sufficient bases for dismissing Sites P4.6e, P4.6f, P4.6g, and P4.6h <br />based on the ESEE consequences discussed above, they are dismissed from further consideration for this <br />reason. <br />Appendix B to Findings May 2017 Page 92 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.