HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20519__. CCCC' - - _
COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 20519
COUNCIL BILL NO. 5101
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE -
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER IV;
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADOPTED: November 18, 2013
SIGNED: November 20, 2013
PASSED: 8:0
REJECTED:
OPPOSED:
ABSENT:
EFFECTIVE: Pursuant to Section 4 of the Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 20519
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE - SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER IV; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
A. On March 18, 2013, the Springfield City Council approved a motion to initiate
amendments to Chapter IV of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) to reflect the establishment of separate Urban Growth Boundaries for Eugene and
Springfield stemming from the enactment of ORS 197.304, also known as HB 3337.
B. Chapter IV of the Metro Plan sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro
Plan, which for Eugene are implemented by provisions of Sections 9.7700 through 9.7750 of the
Eugene Code.
C. Following an October 15, 2013 joint public hearing with the Springfield and Lane
County Planning Commissions, the Eugene Planning Commission voted to recommend
amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan to the Eugene City Council.
D. The City Council conducted a joint public hearing on this amendment on
November 4, 2013, with the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners, and is now ready to take action based on the above recommendations and
evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented
at the joint elected officials public hearing.
E. Substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the proposal
meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, Eugene Code and applicable state and local law as
described in the findings attached as Exhibit A, and which are adopted in support of this
Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . Chapter IV of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is
amended to read as follows:
Chapter IV
Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements
The Metro Plan is the long -range public policy document which establishes the broad framework
upon which Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions. While
the Metro Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document, it may require update or
amendment in response to changes in the law or circumstances of importance to the
Ordinance - Page 1 of 6
community. Likewise, the Metro Plan may be augmented and implemented by more detailed
plans and regulatory measures.
Goal
Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the
community.
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
If the Metro Plan is to maintain its effectiveness as a policy guide, it must be adaptable
to the changing laws and the needs and circumstances of the community.
2. Between Metro Plan updates, changes to the Metro Plan may occur through Periodic
Review and amendments initiated by the governing bodies and citizens.
3. Refinements to the Metro Plan may be necessary in certain geographical portions of the
community where there is a great deal of development pressure or for certain special
purposes.
4. Refinement plans augment and assist in the implementation of the Metro Plan.
5. Enactment of ORS 197.304 required each city to separately establish its own Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) and demonstrate that it has sufficient buildable lands to
accommodate its estimated housing needs for twenty years.
Objectives
Maintain a schedule for monitoring, reviewing, and amending the Metro Plan so it will
remain current and valid.
2. Maintain a current land use and parcel information base for monitoring and updating the
Metro Plan.
3. Prepare refinement and functional plans that supplement the Metro Plan.
Policies
A special review, and if appropriate, Metro Plan amendment, shall be initiated if changes
in the basic assumptions of the Metro Plan occur. An example would be a change in
public demand for certain housing types that in turn may affect the overall inventory of
residential land.
2. The regional land information database shall be maintained on a regular basis.
Ordinance - Page 2 of 6
3. A proposed amendment to the Metro Plan shall be classified as a Type I, Type II or Type
III amendment depending upon the number of governing bodies required to approve the
decision.
4. A Type I amendment requires approval by the home city.
a. Type I Diagram Amendments include amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for
land inside the city limits.
b. Type I Text Amendments include:
Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to land inside the
city limits of the home city;
Site specific amendments that apply only to land inside the city limits of
the home city;
iii. Amendments to a regional transportation system plan, or a regional public
facilities plan, when only participation by the home city is required by the
amendment provisions of those plans;
iv. The creation of new Metro Plan designations and the amendment of
existing Metro Plan designation descriptions that apply only within the city
limits of the home city.
5. A Type II Amendment requires approval by two governing bodies. The governing bodies
in a Type II are the home city and Lane County. Eugene is the home city for
amendments west of 1 -5, and Springfield is the home city for amendments east of 1 -5:
a. Type II Diagram Amendments include:
Amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for the area between a city limit
and the Plan Boundary;
A UGB or Metro Plan Boundary amendment east or west of 1 -5 that is not
described as a Type III amendment.
b. Type I I Text Amendments include:
Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to Lane County and
one of the cities;
Amendments that have a site specific application between a city limit of
the home city and the Plan Boundary;
iii. Amendments to a jointly adopted regional transportation system plan, or a
regional public facilities plan, when only participation by Lane County and
one of the cities is required by the amendment provisions of those plans.
6. A Type III Amendment requires approval by all three governing bodies:
Ordinance - Page 3 of 6
a. Type III Diagram Amendments include:
Amendments of the Common UGB along 1 -5; and
ii. A UGB or Metro Plan Boundary change that crosses 1 -5.
b. Type III Text Amendments include:
Amendments that change a Fundamental Principle as set forth in Chapter
II A. of the Metro Plan;
Non site specific amendments that apply to all three jurisdictions;
iii. Amendments to a regional transportation system plan, or a regional public
facilities plan, when the participation of all three governing bodies is
required by the amendment provisions of those plans.
7. Initiation of Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. A Type I amendment may be initiated by the home city at any time. A property
owner may initiate an amendment for property they own at any time. Owner
initiated amendments are subject to the limitations for such amendments set out
in the development code of the home city.
b. A Type II amendment may be initiated by the home city or county at any time. A
property owner may initiate an amendment for property they own at any time.
Owner initiated amendments are subject to the limitations for such amendments
set out in the development codes of the home city and Lane County.
A Type III amendment may be initiated by any one of the three governing bodies
at any time.
d. Only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan, a special
area study or Periodic Review or Metro Plan update.
e. Metro Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state
required Periodic Review of the Metro Plan, although any governing body may
initiate an update of the Metro Plan at any time.
8. The approval process for Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. The initiating governing body of any Type I, 11, or III Metro Plan amendment shall
notify all governing bodies of the intended amendment and the Type of
amendment proposed. If any governing body disagrees with the Type of the
proposed amendment that governing body may refer the matter to the processes
provided in 8(d) or (e) as appropriate.
b. When more than one governing body participates in the decision, the Planning
Commissions of the bodies shall conduct a joint public hearing and forward that
record and their recommendations to their respective elected officials. The
Ordinance - Page 4 of 6
elected officials shall also conduct a joint public hearing prior to making a final
decision.
C. If all participating governing bodies reach a consensus to approve a proposed
amendment, substantively identical ordinances effecting the changes shall be
adopted. When an amendment is not approved, it may not be re- initiated, except
by one of the three governing bodies, for one year.
d. A Type II amendment for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the
Chair of the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Mayor of the home
city for further examination of the issue(s) in dispute and recommendation back
to the governing bodies.
e. A Type III amendment for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the
Chair of the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Mayors of Eugene
and Springfield for further examination of the issue(s) in dispute and
recommendation back to the governing bodies.
Adopted or denied Metro Plan amendments may be appealed to the Oregon
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) according to applicable state law.
g. The three governing bodies shall develop jointly and adopt Metro Plan
amendment application procedures.
h. A different process, time line, or both, than the processes and timelines specified
in 8.b. through 8.g. above may be established by the governing bodies of
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County for any government initiated Metro Plan
amendment.
9. In addition to the update of the Metro Plan, refinement studies may be
undertaken for individual geographical areas and special purpose or functional
elements, as determined appropriate by each governing body.
10. All refinement and functional plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan and should
inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan is the prevailing policy document.
11. Local implementing ordinances shall provide a process for zoning lands in conformance
with the Metro Plan.
Section 2 . The findings set forth in attached Exhibit A are adopted as findings in
support of this Ordinance.
Section 3 . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4 . Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene
Charter of 2002, this ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of passage by the
City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date that the Springfield City Council and
Ordinance - Page 5 of 6
the Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted substantially identical ordinances
containing provisions as described in Section 1 of this Ordinance, whichever is later.
Passed by the City Council this
18 day of November, 2013.
City Recorder
Approved by the Mayor this
�Z-y day of November, 2013.
Y
Mayor
Ordinance - Page 6 of 6
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments
Staff Report and Findings
October 15, 2013
Applicants:
City of Springfield (initiated the amendment)
City of Eugene
Lane County
Local File Numbers:
Springfield File No. TYP411 -0001
Eugene File No. MA 13 -3
Lane County File No. 509 -PA13 -05171
Request:
ProcedureType:
To amend Chapter IV of the Eugene - Springfield
Type I Metro Plan Amendment
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to reflect the
establishment of separate Urban Growth Boundaries as
required by Oregon Revised Statute 197.304
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Proposed Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments.
Attachment 2: Chart Comparing Current and Proposed Standards for Metro Plan Chapter IV.
I. Executive Summary
The goal of Metro Plan Chapter IV (titled Metro Plan Review, Amendments and Refinements) is to
"ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the
community." ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) required the establishment of separate Urban Growth Boundaries
(UGBs) for Eugene and Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and the
Envision Eugene planning initiatives. As these planning efforts are readied for adoption, amendments to
Chapter IV are necessary to make the Metro Plan consistent with the statute and to clarify which
governing bodies will participate in decision making. The amendments to Chapter IV are intended to
support a framework for needed planning collaboration among the jurisdictions while respecting the
autonomy of each.
The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are summarized below.
Three types of Metro Plan amendments are established by the number of jurisdictions required
to approve the proposed amendment: Type I amendments require the participation of all three
jurisdictions; Type II requires the participation of the home city and Lane County; and Type III
amendments may be enacted by the home city alone. The current policy defines only two types
of amendments: Types I and H.
Currently, all three governing bodies must approve a site specific UGB or Metro Plan Boundary
adjustments that cross the Willamette or McKenzie Rivers or that cross over a ridge into a new
basin. The proposed amendments would instead require all three governing bodies approve
only the amendments of the common UGB along 1 -5 and for UGB or Metro Plan Boundary
amendments that cross 1 -5.The proposed amendments remove references to Metro Plan
amendments with "regional impact." Removal of the regional impact language does not impact
similar language that is found in Chapter VI of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities Plan) which provides for multi - jurisdictional review
of public facility projects which have a significant impact on water, stormwater, wastewater and
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 1
electrical facilities serving more than one jurisdiction. Amendments to other functional plans
and refinement plans will be subject to the amended Chapter IV processes unless those
documents specify a different amendment process like that found in the Public Facilities Plan.
When governing bodies do not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the current policy
sends the matter to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The proposed amendments
would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and one or
both of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield, depending on how many governing bodies are
participating in the decision for further examination. The purpose of this proposed change to
Ch. IV is to provide a conflict resolution mechanism that is flexible enough to apply to different
types of situations and specifically involves the appropriate decision makers.
The proposed amendments do not change the goal of Chapter IV, which is to ensure that the Metro Plan
is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the community. The proposed
amendments refine the amendment process to reflect the existence of separate UGBs.
Conclusion and Recommendation of Staff
This report includes findings demonstrating conformance with the criteria for approving Metro Plan
amendments found in Eugene Code 9.7730(3). Eugene Code 9.7730(3) states:
"1. The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent."
The same criteria for approving a Metro Plan amendment are found in Section 5.14- 135(C) of the
Springfield Development Code and Section 12.225(2) (a &b) of the Lane Code. Based on the findings of
staff with respect to the approval criteria cited above, staff find the proposed text amendments to
Chapter IV the Metro Plan to be consistent with these criteria and recommend approval of the
amendment.
II. Procedural Requirements
Procedural requirements for Metro Plan amendments are described in Chapter IV. The amendment
procedures are reflected in each jurisdiction's local land use codes. Sections 5.2 -115, 5.4 -135 and 5.4-
140 of the Springfield Development Code, and sections 9.7700 through 9.7750 of the Eugene Code, and
Lane Code Chapter 12.220 through 12.225 and 12.240 contain the amendment procedures and policies
found in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan.
Findings:
Finding #1. Section 5.14 -115 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC), Eugene Code (EC) 9.7700,
and Lane Code 12.205 includes definitions of two types of amendments to the Metro Plan. Section 5.14-
115 (B.) and EC 9.7700(1) describes a Type I amendment as one which includes changes to the urban
growth boundary or the jurisdictional boundary of the plan, requires a goal exception not related to a
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 2
UGB expansion, or is a non -site specific amendment of the Plan text. This proposal is a non -site specific
text amendment to the Metro Plan. By the definition found in SDC Section 5.14 -115, EC 9.7700(1) and
Lane Code 12.205, this proposal is a Type I amendment.
Finding #2. SDC Section 5.14 -120 (1) states that a Type I non -site specific text amendment to the
Metro Plan may be initiated by any of the three governing bodies. This Metro Plan amendment was
initiated by a motion of the Springfield City Council on March 18, 2013.
Finding #3. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was filed with the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development on August 30, 2013.
Finding #4. SDC 5.14 -135, EC 9.7730(1) (b) and LC 12.225 (1) (a) (i) states that to become effective, "a
non -site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment shall be approved by all three governing bodies."
Finding #5. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Planning Commissions of Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County on October 15, 2013.
Finding #6. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene, Springfield
and Lane County on November 4, 2013.
Finding #7. SDC Section 5.2 -115 (B), EC 9.7745(3), LC 12.025(2) and LC 12.040(2) require that
proposed land use actions be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation, providing information
about the legislative action and the time, place and location of the hearing.
Finding #8. Notice of the public hearings concerning this matter was published in the Register Guard,
advertising the hearing before the Joint Planning Commissions on October 15, 2013. A second notice
was published in the Register Guard advertising the hearing before the Joint Elected Officials on
November 4, 2013. The content of the Joint Planning Commission notice followed the direction given in
SDC Section 5.2 -115 B, EC 9.7745(3), LC 12.025(2) and LC 12.040(2).
Finding #9. Information concerning the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan Chapter IV and the
dates of the public hearings were posted on the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene websites.
Conclusion:
The procedural requirements described in SDC Sections 5.2 -115, 5.4 -135 and 5.4 -140, EC 9.7745 and EC
9.7735(3) and LC 12.210 through LC 12.245 have been followed. Notice requirements established by
DLCD for amending the Development Code have also been followed.
III. Decision Criteria and Findings
SDC Section 5.14 -135 C, EC 9.7730(3) and LC 12.225 (2) describe the criteria to be used in approving an
amendment to the Metro Plan. In reaching a decision, the Planning Commissions and the City Councils
and County Commissioners must adopt findings which demonstrate that the proposal meets certain
approval criteria. These criteria and findings are shown below.
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 3
Criterion #1 "The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission."
Findings:
Goal 1— Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 calls for "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
of the planning process."
Finding #10. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Planning Commissions of Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County on October 15, 2013.
Finding #11. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene, Springfield
and Lane County on November 4, 2013.
Finding #12. Notice of the public hearings concerning this matter was published in the Register Guard,
advertising both the hearing before the Joint Planning Commissions on October 15, 2013, and the Joint
Elected Officials on November 4, 2013. The content of the notice followed the direction given in SDC
Section 5.2 -115 B, EC 9.7735(3), LC 12.025(2) and LC 12.040(2).
Goal 2 — Land Use Planning. Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's statewide planning
program. It says that land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and
that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the plan's policies into effect must be adopted.
Finding #13. Goal 2 requires that actions related to land use be consistent with acknowledged
comprehensive plans of cities and counties. The Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) is the acknowledged comprehensive plan that guides land use planning in Springfield,
Eugene and Lane County.
Finding #14. The goal of Chapter IV of the Metro Plan is to "Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to
the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes."
Finding #15. ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) requires the establishment of separate Urban Growth Boundaries
(UGBs) for Eugene and Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and the
Envision Eugene planning initiatives. As these planning efforts are readied for adoption, amendments to
Chapter IV are needed to clarify which governing bodies will participate in decision making given the
establishment of separate UGBs. The amendments to Chapter IV are intended to support a framework
for needed planning collaboration among the jurisdictions while respecting the autonomy of each.
Finding #16. The proposed changes preserve the Metro Plan as the acknowledged comprehensive
plan for the Eugene - Springfield area. The amendments Chapter IV implement changes stemming from
ORS 197.304. The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are summarized below.
• Three types of Metro Plan amendments are established by the amendments: Type I which
requires the participation of all three jurisdictions; Type II which requires the participation of the
home city and Lane County; and Type III amendments which may be enacted by the home city
alone. The current policy defines only two types of amendments: Types I and II.
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 4
• Currently, all three governing bodies must approve a'site specific UGB or Metro Plan Boundary
adjustments that cross the Willamette or McKenzie Rivers or that cross over a ridge into a new
basin. The proposed amendments would instead require all three governing bodies approve
amendments of the common UGB along 1 -5 and for UGB or Metro Plan Boundary changes that
cross 1 -5.
The proposed amendments remove references to Metro Plan amendments with "regional
impact." Removal of the regional impact language does not change similar language that is
found in Chapter VI of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services
Plan (PFSP) which provides for multi - jurisdictional review of public facility projects which have a
significant impact on water, stormwater, wastewater and electrical facilities serving more than
one jurisdiction. Amendments to other functional plans and refinement plans will be subject to
the amended Chapter IV processes unless those documents specify a different amendment
process like that found in the Public Facilities Plan.
When governing bodies do not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the current policy
sends the matter to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The proposed amendments
would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and one or
both of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield, depending on how many governing bodies are
participating in the decision.
The proposed amendments do not change the goal of Chapter IV, which is to ensure that the Metro Plan
is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the community. The proposed
amendments refine the amendment process to reflect the existence of separate UGBs.
Goal — Agricultural Land. Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands." It then requires counties to inventory
such lands and to "preserve and maintain" them through farm zoning.
Finding #17. This goal generally does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth
boundaries. The Metro Plan Diagram describes an Agriculture designation (Metro Plan II -G -9). The
amendments do not change Metro Plan policies concerning the Agriculture designation. The
amendments do not change the policies or standards regulating Eugene's Agricultural Zone (EC 9.2000)
or Lane County's Exclusive Farm Use Zone (LC 16.212) within the Metro Plan Boundary. The City of
Springfield does not have an agricultural zoning district.
Finding #18. The Environmental Resources Element includes policies addressing the use and
preservation of agricultural lands (Metro Plan III -C -3). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not
change these policies.
Goal 4 — Forest Land. This goal defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory them and
adopt policies and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest uses."
Finding #19. This goal does not generally apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth
boundaries. The Metro Plan Diagram describes a Forest Lands designation. The proposed amendments
do not change Metro Plan policies concerning the Forest lands designation. Neither Springfield nor
Eugene has a forest zoning district. Lane County has Impacted and Non - Impacted Forest Zones (LC
16.211, LC 16.211). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change the County policies or
standards governing these districts.
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 5
Finding #20. The Environmental Resources Element includes policies addressing the use and
preservation of forest lands (Metro Plan III -C -5). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change
these policies.
Goal 5 — Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. Goal 5 covers more than a
dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and wetlands. It establishes a process
for each resource to be inventoried and evaluated.
Finding #21. The Metro Plan Environmental Resources and Historic Preservation Elements contain
policies (Metro Plan pgs. III-C-3,111-1-2) addressing Goal 5 resource protection. Eugene and Springfield
have policies regulating the inventory and protection of Goal 5 resources in their respective
development codes. The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change the resource policies or
protections found in the Metro Plan or in the Eugene and Springfield development codes.
Finding #22. OAR 660 - 023 -0250 (3) narrows the applicability of Statewide Planning Goal 5 to
comprehensive plan amendments (PAPA):
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 inconsideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA
affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use
regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5
resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating
that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area.
Subsections (a) through (c) above are not applicable to this request as the proposed Chapter IV
amendments do not create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision
adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5,
do not allow new uses that conflict with Goal 5 and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth
Boundary. Based on OAR 660 - 023 -0250, Goal 5 is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 6 — Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. This goal requires local comprehensive plans and
implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as
groundwater pollution.
Finding #23. The Metro Plan Environmental Resources Element (Metro Plan pg. III -C -14) contains
polices addressing air, water and land resources quality. The proposed amendment to Chapter IV will
not alter the metropolitan area's air, water quality or land resource policies. Eugene and Springfield
have regulatory standards that protect air, water and land resources in their respective development
codes. The proposed amendments do not change these standards.
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 6
Goal 7 —Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. Goal 7 deals with development in places
subject to natural hazards such as floods or landslides. It requires that jurisdictions apply "appropriate
safeguards" (floodplain zoning, for example) when planning for development there.
Finding #24. The Metro Plan Environmental Resources Element contains policies addressing natural
hazards (Metro Plan pg. III- C -15). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change these policies.
All known sites within Eugene and Springfield that are subject to these hazards ( floodplain, erosion,
landslides, earthquakes, and weak foundation soils) are inventoried through a variety of sources. The
proposed Metro Plan text amendment does not remove or exempt compliance with Code standards
that apply to development within these hazard areas.
Goal 8 — Recreational Needs. This goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas and facilities for
recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for them.
Finding #25. The Metro Plan Park and Recreation Facilities Element contains policies addressing
recreational needs (Metro Plan pg. III -H -4). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change these
policies.
Finding #26. Parks and recreation facilities and programs are administered by park and recreation
agencies in Eugene and Lane County and by two park and recreation districts (River Road Park and
Recreation District and Willamalane Park and Recreation District). Willamalane serves the greater
Springfield area. River Road serves the River Road neighborhood in the North Eugene. These
amendments do not affect either city's provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational
opportunities.
Goal 9 — Economic Development. Goal 9 calls for diversification and improvement of the economy. It
asks communities to inventory commercial and industrial lands, project future needs for such lands,
and plan and zone enough land to meet those needs.
Finding #27. The Metro Plan Economic Element contains policies (Metro Plan pg. III -13 -4) addressing
economic development. Eugene, Springfield and Lane County adopted the Metropolitan Industrial
Lands Inventory Report and Metropolitan Industrial Lands Policy Report in 1993. These reports provided
the jurisdictions with a database and policy recommendations needed to plan for an adequate and
appropriate supply of industrial land. The proposed Chapter IV amendment does not change these
policies.
Finding #28. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires
cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic
objectives. The Eugene Commercial Land Study (October 1992) was adopted by the City of Eugene as a
refinement of the Metro Plan, and complies with the requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule.
The Springfield Commercial Lands Study was adopted in February 2000 as a policy document to guide
the provision of commercial land within in its planning jurisdiction. The amendments do not impact the
supply of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 — Housing. This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate needed housing
types, such as multifamily and manufactured housing.
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 7
Finding #29. The Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element addresses the housing needs
of current and future residents of the metropolitan area. The Element includes a projection of housing
need based on a coordinated population projection and polices (Metro Plan pg. III -A -7) aimed at
meeting the calculated need. The proposed Chapter IV amendments will not reduce available housing
capacity and will not impact needed housing.
Lane County has adopted a coordinated population projection for the Eugene and Springfield through
the year 2030. Projections of needed housing are based in part of this projection. Goal 10 requires that
communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units.
The proposed amendments do not impact the supply or availability of residential lands included in the
documented supply of "buildable land" that is available for residential development as inventoried in
the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 11— Public Facilities and Services. Goal 11 calls for efficient planning of public services such as
sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire protection.
Finding #30. The Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Public Services and Facilities Plan (PFSP) is a
refinement plan of the Metro Plan that guides the provision of public infrastructure, including water,
sewer, storm water management, and electricity. The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not affect
either city's provision of public facilities and services.
Goal 12 — Transportation. The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system."
TransPlan (2002) is Eugene - Springfield's local Transportation System Plan and is a functional plan of the
Metro Plan. TransPlan provides policies addressing transportation facilities and policies for the Eugene -
Springfield Metropolitan Area. The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660 - 012 -0060) contains the
following requirement:
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation
(including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the
local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan),
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected
conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the
amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management.
This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 8
The proposed amendments do not change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility, do not change the standards implementing a functional classification, do not
allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access with are inconsistent
with the functional classification of a transportation facility and will not reduce the performance
standards of a facility below the minimal acceptable level identified in the TSP. The level of
development currently permitted through existing code and zoning regulations will remain the same as
a result of this amendment. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal
12.
Goal 13 — Energy Conservation. Goal 13 declares that "land and uses developed on the land shall be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles."
Finding #31. The Metro Plan Energy Element deals with the conservation and efficient use of energy in
the metropolitan area and is meant to provide a long -range guide to energy - related decisions
concerning physical development and land uses. The Element contains policies (Metro Plan pg. III -J-3)
which support Goal 13. The proposed Metro Plan Chapter IV text amendments do not change these
policies and will not have a direct impact on efforts to conserve energy.
Goal 14 —Urbanization. This goal requires cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and
then plan and zone enough land to meet those needs.
Finding #32. The Metro Plan "Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy" contains
growth management and urbanization sections (Sections C and E, pgs. II -C -3 and II -E -1). The proposed
Chapter IV amendments do not change the policies contained in these sections.
Goal 15 — Willamette River Greenway. Goal 15 sets forth procedures for administering the 300 miles
of greenway that protects the Willamette River.
Finding #33. The Metro Plan Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors and Waterways Element
includes policies for administering the Willamette River corridor as it passes through the Eugene -
Springfield area. The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change these policies.
Goals 16 through 19 — Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources.
Finding #34. There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources within the Eugene or
Springfield Urban Growth Boundaries or the Metro Plan Boundary. These goals do not apply to this
proposal.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are consistent with the
statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 9
Criterion #2. "Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent."
Findings:
Finding #35. The Introduction to the Metro Plan (Metro Plan pg. 1 -3) states that "Chapter IV of the
Metro Plan establishes the procedures for ensuring that the Metro Plan retains its applicability to
changing circumstances in the community. It includes procedures and time schedules for reviewing and
updating the Metro Plan, provides procedures for amending it and resolving conflicts, and recognizes
that refinement will be necessary where conflicts exist."
Finding #36. Metro Plan Chapter II, "Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy
Framework, lists various Metropolitan Goals. The goal for Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and
Refinements states: "Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and
attitudes of the community (Metro Plan pg. II -13-3).
Finding #37. The proposed amendments support the goal of Chapter IV, which is to ensure that the
Metro Plan is responsive to change in the community. The proposed amendments to Chapter IV modify
the procedures by which amendments to the Metro Plan are processed.
Conclusion: The proposed Metro Plan text amendments do not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
V. Conclusion and Recommendation of Staff
Based on the findings of staff with respect to the criteria defined in Section 5.14 -135 C of the Springfield
Development Code and EC 9.7730(3) Lane Code 12.225 (2) for approving a Metro Plan amendment; staff
find the proposed text amendment to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan to be consistent with these criteria
and recommend approval of the amendment.
VI. Attachments
Attachment 1: Proposed Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments.
Attachment 2: Chart Comparing Current and Proposed Standards for Metro Plan Chapter IV.
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411 -00001 Exhibit A
October 15, 2013 Page 10