HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20545COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 20545
COUNCIL BILL 5130
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TO ENABLE THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CITY SPECIFIC URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARIES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
DOCUMENTS; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADOPTED: November 24, 2014
SIGNED: November 25, 2014
PASSED: 8:0
REJECTED:
OPPOSED:
ABSENT:
EFFECTIVE:
Section 4.
Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this ordinance shall become effective upon the date
that the last governing body (Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council, or
Lane County Board of Commissioners) adopts an ordinance approving the same
amendments as those set out in Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this Ordinance, or 30
days from the date of passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor,
whichever is later.
ORDINANCE NO. 20545
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN TO ENABLE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CITY
SPECIFIC URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING DOCUMENTS; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
A.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (“Metro Plan”) was
jointly adopted by the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, and Lane County in 1972.
B.
In 2007, the Oregon Legislature adopted House Bill 3337 (now ORS 197.304),
which resulted in the need for the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield to adopt separate
Urban Growth Boundaries (“UGB”) in lieu of the common UGB they had previously shared.
C.
In 2013, Lane County, the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield jointly
adopted amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan, revising the rules governing which of the
three governing bodies are required to participate in different types of Metro Plan amendments.
D.
The cities anticipate eventually adopting individual city-specific comprehensive
plans.
E.
On September 17, 2014, the Eugene City Council approved a motion to initiate
additional amendments to the Metro Plan to enable the cities’ desired incremental shift from the
Metro Plan to city-specific comprehensive plans.
F.
Following an October 23, 2014 joint public hearing with the Springfield and Lane
County Planning Commissions, the Eugene Planning Commission voted to recommend to the
Eugene City Council amendments to the Metro Plan. The amended Metro Plan text is shown in
legislative format attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance.
G.
The City Council is not re-adopting or updating the Metro Plan, but rather is
amending specific textual provisions to enable the desired shift to city-specific comprehensive
plans.
H.
On November 10, 2014, the City Council conducted a joint public hearing with
the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners concerning the Metro
Plan amendments, 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.
I.
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 B, and which are adopted in support of this
Ordinance.
Ordinance - Page 1 of 2
Draft 9/29/14
METRO PLAN
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
2004 Update
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County
For information about the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan(Metro Plan),
contact the following planning agencies:
City of EugeneCity of Springfield
Eugene Planning Division Development and ServicesPublic Works
Department
thth
99 West 10 Avenue, Suite 240 225 5Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401 Springfield, Oregon 97477
1-541-682-5481 1-541-726-37593
Lane County Lane Council of Governments
Land Management Division 859 Willamette Street, Suite 500
th
125 East 8 Avenue3050 NorthDelta HighwayEugene,
Oregon 97401-2910
Eugene, Oregon 9740811-541-682-4283
1-541-682-4061
Metro Plan Replacement Pages Current Through: December 31, 2010
Draft 9/29/14
For Metro Plan Replacement Pages that contain on-going updates to the Metro Plan, contact
Lane Council of Governments or visit the web site at www.lcog.org/metro.
Draft 9/29/14
Table of Contents
ChapterPage
Preface
............................................................................................................................................. i
I.Introduction
..................................................................................................................... I-1
Background ....................................................................................................................... I-1
Purpose .............................................................................................................................. I-1
Population Forecast…………………………………………………………………….
Planning Functions……………………………………………………………………..
Metro Plan Contents ......................................................................................................... I-2
Use of the Metro Plan ....................................................................................................... I-3
Relationship to Other Plans, Policies, and Reports........................................................... I-5
General Assumptions and Findings .................................................................................. I-7
II.Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy Framework
.............. II-A-1
A. Fundamental Principles ................................................................................... II-A-1
B. Metropolitan Goals ..........................................................................................II-B-1
C. Growth Management Goals, Findings, and Policies ........................................II-C-1
D.Jurisdictional Responsibility ........................................................................... II-D-1
E.Urban and Urbanizable Land ........................................................................... II-E-1
F. River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings, and Policies ............................. II-F-1
G.Metro PlanDiagram ....................................................................................... II-G-1
III.Specific Elements
..................................................................................................... III-A-1
A. Residential Land Use and Housing Element ................................................. III-A-1
B.Economic Element ......................................................................................... III-B-1
C. Environmental Resources Element ................................................................ III-C-1
D.Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element ...... III-D-1
E. Environmental Design Element ..................................................................... III-E-1
F. Transportation Element ................................................................................... III-F-1
G.Public Facilities and Services Element .......................................................... III-G-1
H.Parks and Recreation Facilities Element ........................................................ III-H-1
I.Historic Preservation Element .........................................................................III-I-1
J.Energy Element ............................................................................................... III-J-1
K. Citizen Involvement Element ........................................................................ III-K-1
IV.Metro PlanReview, Amendment, and Refinement
................................................... IV-1
V. Glossary
......................................................................................................................... V-1
Draft 9/29/14
Draft 9/29/14
Preface
Adoption History
In 1980, Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County adopted updated versions of the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The Metro Planreplaced the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area 1990 General Plan (1990 Plan), which was adopted in
1972.
The Eugene City Council and the Springfield City Council adopted identical versions of the
Metro Plan in 1980:
Eugene City Council, Ordinance No. 18686, July 28, 1980
Springfield City Council, Ordinance No. 4555, August 4, 1980
The Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted a different version of the Metro Plan in
1980:
Original adoption, Ordinance No. 9-80, adopted August 27, 1980
Amended adoption, Ordinance No. 9-80-A, adopted October 14, 1980
The two versions of the Metro Plan and supporting documents were forwarded to the Oregon
Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) with a request for acknowledgment
of compliance with the 15 applicable statewide planning goals. In reports dated June 25-26,
1981, and September 24-25, 1981, and adopted by LCDC on August 6 (amended version of June
25-26 report) and September 24, 1981, respectively, LCDC outlined the requirements necessary
to bring the August 1980 versions of the Metro Plan into conformance with state standards.
From September 1980 to February 1982, Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County cooperated, with
coordination and technical assistance from the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), to amend
the August 1980 versions of the Metro Plan. The three general purpose governments used the
Elected Officials Coordinating Committee (two elected representatives each as voting members
and one ex-officio Planning Commission member from each government) to work out informal
compromises and provide policy direction to staff.
In response to LCDC’s requirements, 10 working papers were prepared and draft Metro Plan
amendments were released for public review.
After a joint public hearing by the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County Planning Commissions
on November 17, 1981, and joint public hearings by the Eugene City Council, Springfield City
Council, and Lane County Board of Commissioners on December 15, 1981, and January 12,
1982 (Goal 5), the three governing bodies informally agreed to a set of the amendmentsin this
documentto constitute the first version of the identicalMetro Plan adopted by Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County.
i
Draft 9/29/14
Following the January 12, 1982, joint meeting, each governing body adopted the mutually agreed
upon amendments contained in this document:
Lane County, Ordinance No. 856, adopted February 3, 1982
City of Eugene, Ordinance No. 18927, adopted February 8, 1982
City of Springfield, Ordinance No. 5024, adopted March 1, 1982
In February 1982, the City of Eugene began work on the Willow Creek Special Area Study
(Study). The Study resulted in proposed amendments to the Metro PlanDiagram. With tTheose
amendments, as approved by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, are incorporated into this
document. Based on the adoption of these amendments, the three governments had a common
version of the Metro Plan.
After completing other LCDC required work specific to each jurisdiction, the amended Metro
Plan and supporting documents were resubmitted to LCDC with a second request for
acknowledgment with the 15 applicable goals. After conducting a hearing in Salem on August
19, 1982, the LCDC granted acknowledgment for the portion of the Metro Plan within the urban
growth boundary.
h the Metro Plan was acknowledged by LCDC in August, the rural portions of the Metro
Althoug
Plan were segmented and continued in order to correct deficiencies under Goals 2, 4, 5, and 15.
The appropriate corrections were made and on September 13, 1985, LCDC acknowledged the
rural portion of the Metro Plan.
Metro PlanUpdates
The 1990 Plan stated that a review should be conducted between major five-year updates by the
Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee (MAPAC), planning commissions, and
governing bodies. In September 1984, a work program for a two and one-half year mid-period
review for the Metro Plan was adopted by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). In
accordance with the Post Acknowledgment plan review procedures of ORS 197.610-650,
proposed amendments to the Metro Planwere transmitted to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) on October 21, 1985. DLCD presented the
metropolitan area with a Post Acknowledgment Review Report on the proposed amendments on
December 9, 1985. Governing bodies of Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene took final
unanimous action on the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan on June 11, May 5, and April
23, 1986, respectively. The amendmentswere enacted through are contained in this document:
Lane County, Ordinance No. 709
City of Eugene, Ordinance No. 19382
City of Springfield, Ordinance No. 5329
ii
Draft 9/29/14
Periodic Review
Pursuant to ORS 197.610-650, local governments are required to update their comprehensive
plans and land use regulations through the Periodic Review process in order to bring plans into
compliance with new state law and administrative rules and to ensure that the plans address
changing local conditions. The DLCD initiated the first Periodic Review of the Metro Plan and
land use regulations on June 28, 1985. The second Periodic Review process was initiated in May
1995. This Metro Plan is also subject to citizen- and government-initiated amendments which
are incorporated into the document via Metro Plan replacement pages.This Metro Plan and
replacement pages are available at LCOG and www.lcog.org.
The Eugene City Council, the Springfield City Council, and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners adopted identical Periodic Review amendments to the Metro Plan in 2004:
Eugene City Council, Ordinance No. 20319, April 21, 2004
Springfield City Council, Ordinance No. 6087,May 17, 2004
Lane County Board of Commissioners, Ordinance No. PA 1197, June 2, 2004
Oregon Revised Statute 197.304(2007)
Historically, many provisions in the Metro Planwere based on a premise that Eugene and
Springfield would continue to have a regional metropolitan urban growth boundary
(“metropolitan UGB”) that includes both cities and adjacent “urbanizable” areas of Lane County.
However, ORS 197.304, adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 2007, requires Eugene and
Springfield to divide the metropolitan UGB into two city-specific UGBs. Each city is also
required to demonstrate that its separate UGBincludes sufficient land to accommodate its 20-
year need for residential landconsistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10 (Housing) and Goal 14
(Urbanization). These statutory mandates implicitlyrequireeach city to also adopt a separate
20-year population forecast. ORS 197.304 allows the cities to take these separate actions
“[n]otwithstanding . . . acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary.”
The ORS 197.304 mandates arebeing carried out by the two cities and Lane County through a
seriesof incremental actions over time rather than through a Metro Plan Update process. Some
of the land use planning that has historically been included in the Metro Plan will, instead, be
included in the cities’ separate, city-specific comprehensive plans. This does not diminish the
1
fact that the cities and the county remain committed to regional problem-solving.
The three jurisdictions anticipate that the implementation of ORS 197.304 will result in a
regional land use planning program that continues to utilize the Metro Plan and regional
functional plans for land use planning responsibilities that remain regional in nature. City-
specific plans will be used to address those planning responsibilities that the cities address
independently of each other.
1
In addition to the continued collaboration through someregional land use plans, such as the regional transportation
systemplan and the regional public facilities and services plan, the three jurisdictions are committedto working
collaboratively in other ways and through other initiatives, such as the Regional Prosperity Economic Development
Planjointly approvedin February, 2010.
iii
Draft 9/29/14
Each city is taking a different approach to, and is on a different time line for,establishing its own
UGB, 20-year land supply and city-specific comprehensive land use plans. As this incremental
shift occurs, the Metro Planwill be amended several times to reflectthe evolving extent to
which it continues to apply to each jurisdiction.During this transition, the three jurisdictions
will also continue to work together on any other Metro Planamendmentsneeded to carry out
planning responsibilities that continue to be addressed on a regional basis.
ORS 197.304 allows the cities to adopt local plans that supplant the regional nature of the Metro
Plan“[n]notwithstanding . . . acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary.” As
these local plans are adopted, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County wish to maintain the Metro
Planas a guide that willdirect readers to applicable local plan(s) when Metro Plan provisions no
longer apply to one or more of the jurisdictions. Therefore, whenEugene or Springfield adopts a
city-specific plan to independently address a planning responsibility that was previously
addressed on a regional basis in the Metro Plan,that citywill also amendthe Metro Plan to
2
specify which particular provisions of the Metro Planwill cease to applywithinthat city.
Unless the Metro Plan provides otherwise, such Metro Plan provisions will continue to apply
within the other city.If the other city later adopts its owncity-specific plan intended to supplant
the same Metro Plan provisions, it may take one of two actions. That citywill either amend the
Metro Plan to specify that the particular provisions also cease to apply within that city or,if the
provisions do not apply to rural or urbanizable areas within the Metro Plan boundary, to simply
delete those particular Metro Plan provisions.
To better enable the jurisdictions to amend the Metro Planas required by ORS 197.304, the
procedures for amending the Metro Plan, provided in Chapter IV, were revised in 2013.The
Eugene City Council, the Springfield City Council, and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners adopted identical amendments to Chapter IV ofthe Metro Plan on November 18,
2013:
Eugene City Council, Ordinance No. 6304
Springfield City Council, Ordinance No. 20519
Lane County Board of Commissioners, Ordinance No. PA 1300
As more specifically explained in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan, one city with co-adoption by
2
Lane County may amend the Metro Planto specify whichparticular Metro Plan provisions no
longer apply within the unincorporated (urbanizable) portions of its UGB. The other city is not
required to co-adopt such a Metro Planamendment.SeeChapter IV.
iv
Draft 9/29/14
Chapter I
Introduction
Background
The 2004 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan(Metro Plan) is the third update
of the 1990 Plan. The 1990 Plan, adopted in 1972, provided that a major update of the
comprehensive plan should be initiated every five years. This reflects the fact that
comprehensive plans must be adaptable to the changing needs and circumstances of the
community if they are to retain their validity and usefulness.
Therefore, this Metro Plan is not an entirely new product, but rather has evolved from and
reflects needed changes to the original 1990 Plan.
The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) in 1982 for the area inside the urban growth boundary (UGB). The remaining area was
acknowledged in September 1985. The Metro Plan was updated in 1987 and in 2004 through
periodic review.
As explained in the Preface and below, the Metro Plan will continue to evolve.
Purpose
The Metro Planwas created to isserve asthe sole official long-range comprehensive plan (public
policy document) of metropolitan Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield. As
Eugene and Springfield carry out their obligations under ORS 197.304, including the
establishment of separate UGBs and land supplies for their individual populations, more
comprehensive planning istaking place on a city-specific basis, through city-specific plans
adopted by each jurisdiction. Its policies and land use designations apply only within the area
under the jurisdiction of the Metro Plan as described in Chapter II-D. The Metro Planwill
continue to include some of the regional land use planning that is collaboratively addressed by
Lane County, Eugene and Springfield. It will also refer its readers to jointly adopted functional
land use plans and Eugene and Springfieldcity-specific comprehensive land use planning
documents. sets forth general planning policies and land use allocations and serves as the basis
for the coordinated development of programs concerning the use and conservation of physical
resources, furtherance of assets, and development or redevelopment of the metropolitan area.
The Metro Planiswas intended to designate a sufficient amount of urbanizable land to
accommodate the need for further urban expansionwithin the shared metropolitan UGB, taking
into account the growth policy of the area to accommodate a population of 286,000 within the
metropolitan UGB by the year 2015.The Metro Planalso was intended to identifiesythe major
3
public facilities required to meet the land use needs designated within thethat metropolitanUGB.
3
The population projection range for the Residential Land Use and Housing Element in Chapter III-A is 291,700 to
311,100. The expected population for the year 2015 is 301,400. This projection is for the Metropolitan Study
I-1
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
Population Forecast
In order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under ORS 197.304 (2007)
Or Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adoptedthe
following forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas:
203020312032203320342035
Eugene –City Only194,314195,964197,614199,264200,914202,565
Metro Urban Area West of I-517,46917,27417,07916,88416,68916,494
Total211,783213,238214,693216,148217,603219,059
Springfield –City Only74,81475,53476,25476,97477,69378,413
Metro Urban Area East of I-56,7946,7186,6426,5676,4916,415
Total81,60882,25282,89683,54184,18484,828
These figures effectively provide coordinated projections for each city and the respective metro
urban area east or west of I-5 for years ending 2030 through 2035, enabling them to meet state
requirements concerning the beginning and ending years of the 20-year planning period.
Planning Functions
More specifically, the Metro Plan provides the overall framework for the following planning
functions. The Metro Planwas created to serve as the document that:
1.Guides all governments and agencies in the metropolitan area in developing and
implementing their own activities which relate to the public planning process.
2.Establishes the policy basis for a general, coordinated, long-range approach among
affected agencies for the provision of the facilities and services needed in the
metropolitan area.
3.Makes planning information available to assist citizens to better understand the basis for
public and private planning decisions and encourages their participation in the planning
process.
Area, a census tract area much larger than the UGB. The projection was used as the basis for deriving the
population figure of 286,000 for the metropolitan UGB for the year 2015 for the residential lands analysis
performed in the 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study.The 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study no
longer applies to the City of Springfield as a result of Springfield Ordinance No. 6268 (2011)and Lane County
Ordinance No. PA 1274 (2011).
I-2
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
4.Provides the public with general guidelines for individual planning decisions. Reference
to supplemental planning documents of a more localized scope, including neighborhood
refinement plans, is advisable when applying the Metro Planto specific parcels of land or
individual tax lots.
5.Assists citizens in measuring the progress of the community and its officials in achieving
the Metro Plan’s goals and objectives.
6.Provides continuity in the planning process over an extended period of time.
7.Establishes a means for consistent and coordinated planning decisions by all public
agencies and across jurisdictional lines.
8.Serves as a general planning framework to be augmented, as needed, by more detailed
planning programs to meet the specific needs of the various local governments.
9.Provides a basis for public decisions for specific issues when it is clear determined that
the Metro Plan, serves as the sole planning document on the issue and that it without
refinement, contains a sufficient level of information and policy direction.
10.Recognizes the social and economic effects of physical planning policies and decisions.
11.Identifies the major transportation, wastewater, stormwater, and water projects needed to
serve afuture UGB populations of 286,000.
Contents
Metro Plan
As indicated in the Purpose section, the Metro Plan provides the overall policy framework for
planning in this community. The five chapters are: Introduction; Fundamental Principles; Metro
PlanElements; Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements; and Glossary.
Fundamental Principles
Chapter II sets forth the basic concepts of the Metro Plan, including geographical growth
management and a UGB. It is intended to tie the specific elements in Chapter III together into a
comprehensive public policy document.
Components of Chapter II, Fundamental Principles, are: Metropolitan Goals; Growth
Management Goals, Findings, and Policies; Eugene and Springfield Jurisdictional
Responsibility; Urban and Urbanizable Land; River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings, and
Policies; and Metro PlanDiagram.
Elements
Metro Plan
I-3
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
Chapter III is composed of specific elements, including an introductory text, applicable goals
4
from Chapter II, and findings, objectives, and policies.The specific elements are: Residential
Land Use and Housing; Economic; Environmental Resources; Willamette River Greenway,
River Corridors, and Waterways; Environmental Design; Transportation; Public Facilities and
Services; Parks and Recreation Facilities; Historic Preservation; Energy; and Citizen
Involvement.
Review, Amendments, and Refinements
Metro Plan
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.
Glossary
Chapter V, the Glossary, includes terms used in the Metro Planthat might otherwise be unclear
or misinterpreted.
Appendices
The following information is available at Lane Council of Governments (LCOG):
Appendix A Public Facility Plan Project Lists and Maps for Water, Stormwater, Wastewater,
Electricity, and Transportation [These lists and maps are located in Chapter II of
the 2001 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services
Plan and 2001 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(TransPlan)]
Appendix B List of Refinement and Functional Plans and Map of Refinement Plan Boundaries
Appendix C List of Exceptions and Maps of Site-Specific Exception Area Boundaries
Appendix D Auxiliary Maps showing the following:
Fire station locations
Urban growth boundary
Greenway boundary
Schools
Parks
Use of the
Metro Plan
The Metro Plan is a policy document intended to provide the three jurisdictions and other
agencies and districts with a coordinated guide for change over a long period of time.
Throughout the Metro Plan,there may be statements indicating that certain provisions are
inapplicable to a jurisdictionbecause that jurisdiction has replaced those Metro Plan provisions
with local plan provisions. The major components of this policy document are: the written text,
4
Metro Plan
Through updates to the , the objectives and policies are being combined. Eventually, each element will
contain only findings and policies.
I-4
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
which includes goals, objectives, findings, and policies; the Metro Plan Diagram; and other
supporting materials. These terms are defined below:
A goal is a broad statement of philosophy of the jurisdictions to which the goal
applies. A goalthat describes the hopes of the people of the community for the future
of the community. A goal may never be completely attainable, but is used as a point
to strive for.
An objective is an attainable target that the jurisdictions to which the objective
applies community attemptsto reach in striving to meet a goal. An objective may
also be considered as an intermediate point that will help fulfill the overall goal.
A finding is a factual statement resulting from investigation, analysis, or observation
regarding the jurisdictions to which the finding applies.
An assumption is a position, projection, or conclusion considered to be reasonable.
Assumptions differ from findings in that they are not known facts.
A policy is a statement adopted as part of the Metro Plan to provide a consistent
course of action for the jurisdictions to which the policy applies, moving the
community toward attainment of its goals.
The Metro Plan Diagram is a graphic depiction of: (a) the broad allocation of
projected land use needsin the metropolitan area; and (b) goals, objectives, and
policies embodied in the text of the MetroPlan. The Metro PlanDiagram depicts
land use designations, the metropolitan cities’ urban growth boundaryies, the Metro
Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary), and major transportation corridors.
The revised goals, objectives, and policies contained in this Metro Planare not presented in any
particular order of importance. The respective jurisdictions recognize that there are apparent
conflicts and inconsistencies between and among some goals and policies. When making
decisions based on the Metro Plan, not all of the goals and policies can be met to the same
degree in every instance. Use of the Metro Plan requires a balancing of its various components
on a case-by-case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and policies most
pertinent to the issue at hand.
The policies in the Metro Planvary in their scope and implications. Some call for immediate
action; others call for lengthy study aimed at developing more specific policies later on; and still
others suggest or take the form of policy statements. The common theme of all the policies is
acceptance of them as suitable approaches toward problem-solving and goal realization. Other
valid approaches may exist and may at any time be included in the Metro Plan through plan
amendment procedures. Adoption of the Metro Plan does not necessarily commit the
jurisdictions to immediately carry out each policy to the letter, but does put them on record as
having recognized the validity of the policies and the decisions or actions they imply. The
jurisdictions can then begin to carry out the policies to the best of their ability, given sufficient
time and resources.
I-5
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
In addition, it is important to recognize that the written text of the Metro Plantakes precedence
over the Metro PlanDiagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. The Metro Plan
Diagram is a generalized map which is intended to graphically reflect the broad goals, objectives,
and policies. As such, it cannot be used independently from or take precedence over the written
portion of the Metro Plan.
The degree to which the Metro Planprovides sufficient detail to meet the needs of each
jurisdiction will have to be determined by the respective jurisdictions;.and wWhere conflicts
exist among the Metro Plan,local comprehensive plans, refinement plans, and existing zoning,
each jurisdiction will have to establish its own schedule for bringing the zoning and refinement
plans into conformance with the Metro Planor the applicable local comprehensive plan.
It is recognized that the needs, priorities, and resources vary with each jurisdiction and that the
methods and timing used to implement the Metro Planor to conduct city-specific comprehensive
planning will also vary.
Relationship to Other Plans, Policies, and Reports
The Metro Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document for regional land use planning, but
it is not the only such document. As indicated in the Purpose section, above, the region also
utilizesthe Metro Plan is a framework plan, and it is important that it be supplemented by more
detailed refinement plans, programs, and policies. Due to budget limits and other
responsibilities, all such plans, programs, and policies cannot be pursued simultaneously.
Normally, however, those of a metropolitan-wide scale should receive priority status.
Refinements to the Metro Plan can include: (a) city-wide comprehensive policy
documentsplans, such as the 1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies; (b) functional plans
and policies addressing single subjects throughout the area, including the such as the 2001
Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan)and
2001 TransPlanthe regional transportation system plan; and (c) neighborhood plans or special
area studies that addressthose issues that are unique to a specific geographical area. In all cases,
the Metro Plan is the guiding documentfor regional comprehensive land use planning and city-
specific plans may be adopted for local comprehensive land use planning,.and rRefinement
plans and policies must be consistent with applicable provisions in the Metro Planor the
applicable local comprehensive plan. Should inconsistencies occur, theapplicable
comprehensive planMetro Planis the prevailing policy document. The process for reviewing
and adopting refinement plans is outlined in Chapter IV.
The following Metro Plan appendices are available at Lane Council of Governments (LCOG):
Appendix A Public Facility Plan Project Lists and Maps for Water, Stormwater, Wastewater,
Electricity, and Transportation [These lists and maps are located in Chapter II of
the 2001 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services
Plan and 2001 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(TransPlan)]
I-6
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
Appendix B List of Refinement and Functional Plans and Map of Refinement Plan Boundaries
Appendix C List of Exceptions and Maps of Site-Specific Exception Area Boundaries
Appendix D Auxiliary Maps showing the following:
Fire station locations
Urban growth boundary
Greenway boundary
Schools
Parks
Relationship to Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
The Plan Boundary shown on the Metro Plan Diagram in Chapter II is adjacent to the boundaries
of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan that surround the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. There is no overlap between the boundaries of the Metro Plan and the Lane
County Rural Comprehensive Plan. Lane Code Chapter 16 is applied in the area between the
UGB and the Plan Boundary to implement the Metro Plan.
Adjustments to boundaries may occur in the future so that areas previously a part of one plan are
covered under another plan. These adjustments may occur using the MetroPlanreview and
amendment procedures described in Chapter IV.
Relationship to Statewide Planning Goals
As required by state law, tThe Metro Plan has been developed in accordance with the statewide
planning goals adopted by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC). These goals provide the standards and set the framework for the planning programs of
all governmental agencies and bodies in the metropolitan area. Through Tthe Metro Planand
the jurisdictions’ own land use plans, the cities and county addresses each of the applicable
LCDC goals (as well as local goals)and contains objectives and policies that comply with the
LCDC goals. In response to the statutorily mandated adoption of separate urban growth
boundaries for Eugene and Springfield, each city will independently address some of the
statewide planning goalsin their city-specific plans. For example, each city will provide the type
and quantity of land needed to support its own population as required by Statewide Planning
Goals 9 (Employment), 10 (Housing) and 14 (Urbanization).
Relationship to the Technical Supplement and Working Papers
The Metro Plan is based on work programs approved by the Metropolitan Policy Committee
(MPC) and by the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County after review and
hearings by the respective planning commissions (and MAPAC for the 1982 Metro Plan). Based
on these work programs, inventories, reviews, and analyses of a number of Metro Planelements
are conducted. These include population projections, land use and housing (supply and demand),
public facilities and services, and natural assets and constraints.
I-7
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
5
A set of working papers was developed for the 1982 Metro Planthat describes the relevant
issues and factors concerning each subject, and from these analyses, findings were drawn. These
findings, in turn, formed an important share of the basis for the goals, objectives, and policies in
this plan. In addition, several new or expanded elements were developed from working papers,
partly to comply with LCDC Goals.
The 1978 Technical Supplement, a product of the working papers and the various reports
prepared during preparation of the first MetroPlandiagram, is available under separate cover. It
was written for use by those who wish more information on the technical aspects of the Metro
Plan and its preparation. It can also be of assistance for in-depth analysis of metropolitan
planning issues.
The working papers and Technical Supplement have been amended through updates of individual
elements in Chapter III. During major updates, working papers and the Technical Supplement
are reviewed and updated as part of a comprehensive work program. Applicable working papers
and the Technical Supplementare referenced by ordinance when subsequent Metro Plan
amendments are adopted. As new information is obtained, draft working papers may be
prepared in advance of proposed amendments to integrate the new information into the Metro
Plan data base. A current list of working papers is maintained by LCOG.
General Assumptions and Findings
The following general assumptions and findings relate to the entire Metro Plan. They are
included in the Introduction because of their general application.
General Assumptions
6
1. A population of 286,000 is expected to reside within the metropolitan UGB by the year
2015. This is a 29 percent increase from the estimated 2000 census population of
222,500. Since this Metro Plan is designed to accommodate the expected population
rather than remain static until 2015, it can be adjusted periodically as changes in
population trends are detected.
2. Based on recent trends, the rate of population growth and the rate of in-migration are
projected to decrease.
3. In addition to population growth, increasing household formation rates (i.e., decreasing
average household size) will increase the demand for housing.
5
The working papers are on file for public use in the Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene planning offices, and at
LCOG.
6
These General Assumptionsno longerapply within Springfield’s UGB (east of Interstate 5) as a result of
Springfield’sestablishment of its separate UGB and 20-yearsupply of residential land.Springfield Ordinance No.
6268 (June 20, 2011); Lane County Ordinance No.PA 1274 (July 6, 2011).
I-8
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
4. In addition to population growth, increasing labor force participation rates will increase
the resident labor force, thereby increasing the demand for employment opportunities.
5. The metropolitan area will experience continuing growth of the local economy.
6. Based on projections of recent population and economic trends, there will be sufficient
land within the urban growth boundary, depicted on the Metro PlanDiagram in Chapter
II, to ensure reasonable choices in the market place for urban needs to serve a
metropolitan UGB area population of 286,000, provided periodic updates of the Metro
Plan are conducted and the area designated for urbanization on the Metro PlanDiagram
is updated to assure that the supply remains responsive to demand.
7. Public policies controlling the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area’s growth pattern
will continue to be effective. For example, compact urban growth will continue to
enhance the opportunity to preserve important natural assets, such as rural open space and
agricultural land.
8.Additional urban development will take place within incorporated cities.
General Findings
1. Orderly metropolitan growth cannot be accomplished without coordination of public
investments. Such coordination can be enhanced through use of the Public Facilities and
Services Plan and scheduling of priorities.
2. When urban growth is allowed to occur without consideration for the physical
characteristics of the land, it creates problems that are then difficult to solve.
3 The development and implementation of planning policies have social and economic
impacts.
4.Financial and taxing inequities are generated when urban development is allowed to
occur in unincorporated areas on the periphery of Springfield and Eugene because many
residents of such developments are at least partially dependent on streets, parks, and other
non-direct fee facilities and services provided by those cities and financed from their
revenues.
I-9
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
Chapter II
Fundamental Principles and
Growth Management Policy Framework
This chapter contains Fundamental Principles that reflect the overall themes of the MetroPlan.
The chapter also contains: Metropolitan Goals; Growth Management Goals, Findings, and
Policies; Eugene and Springfield Jurisdictional Responsibility; Urban and Urbanizable Land;
River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings and Policies; and MetroPlanDiagram.
As explained in the Metro PlanPreface and Chapter I, Eugene,Springfield and Lane County are
taking incremental steps totransition from a single “metropolitan UGB” to two separate UGBs,
“the Eugene UGB” and “the Springfield UGB.” The general references to “the UGB” within this
Chapter II shall be interpreted as applying to any UGB within the Metro Plan area, unless the
text specifically refers to the metropolitan UGB, the Springfield UGB or the Eugene UGB.
When both the Springfield UGB and the Eugene UGB have been established, the metropolitan
UGB will cease to exist.
A.Fundamental Principles
There are seven principles that are fundamental to the entire Metro Plan. They are implicitly
included in the various individual Metro Plan components. These Fundamental Principles are:
1.The Metro Planis a long-range policy document providing the framework within which
more detailed refinement plans are prepared. This concept is discussed in more detail in
the Introduction (Chapter I).
2. To be meaningful, the Metro Planrequires cooperation by all general purpose, special
district, and special function agencies in the community. This reflects its comprehensive
nature encompassing physical land use, social, and economic implications for the
metropolitan area. Examples where cooperation is essential include planning and
implementation of a transportation system,and development of a metropolitan-wide
energy plan, metropolitan-wide analysis and resolution of certain housing issues, and
planning for areas outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) and within the Plan
Boundary.
1
3.The Metro Plan and most of its elements are oriented to and require that urban
development occur in a compact configuration within the metropolitan UGB.
Elaboration of this principle is treated in the other sections of this chapter, and in the
Public Facilities and Services Element in Chapter III.
1
Metro
As a result of actions taken by all three jurisdictions in 2013, there are no lands outside the UGB within the
Plan
boundaryon the east side of Interstate 5. Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1281 (June , 2013); Springfield
Ordinance No.6288 (March, 2013), Eugene Ordinance No.20511 (May, 2013).
II-A-1
Draft 9/29/14
4. Comprehensive plans identify and establish the plan-zoning consistency concept and
recognize the importance of timing concerning implementation techniques.
Implementation techniques, including zoning, shall generally be consistent with the
precepts established in the Metro Plan, which is the broad policy document for the
metropolitan area and in the applicable city-specific comprehensive plan. The
consistency test shall continuously be applied to implementation measures and public
actions taken to rectify inconsistencies when the general direction provided by the Metro
Planor the city-specific comprehensive plan is modified. A variety of potential solutions
to consistency problems exist, including modification to the Metro Plan, the city-specific
comprehensive plan or alteration to the implementation techniques themselves.
5. The zoning process shall be monitored and adjusted to meet current urban land use
demands through the planning period for all land use categories.
6.The Metro Plan is based on the premise that Eugene and Springfield, the two existing
cities, are the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development
within the UGB.
7.The Metro Planwas developed to meet the supporting facilities and services necessary to
serve a population of 286,000 within the metropolitan UGB by the year 2015.
II-A-2
Draft 9/29/14
B.Metropolitan Goals
The following Metropolitan Goals are listed under the applicable section in this chapter or in
Chapter III (Metro PlanElements) and Chapter IV (Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and
Refinements).
Growth Management
1. Use urban, urbanizable, and rural lands efficiently.
2. Encourage orderly and efficient conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response
to urban needs, taking into account metropolitan and statewide goals.
3. Protect rural lands best suited for non-urban uses from incompatible urban encroachment.
Residential Land Use and Housing
1. Provide viable residential communities so all residents can choose sound, affordable
housing that meets individual needs.
Economic
1. Broaden, improve, and diversify the metropolitan economy while maintaining or
enhancing the environment.
Environmental Resources
1.Protect valuable natural resources and encourage their wise management and proper use and
reuse, reflecting their special natural assets.
2. Maintain a variety of open spaces within and on the fringe of the developing area.
3. Protect life and property from the effects of natural hazards.
4. Provide a healthy and attractive environment, including clean air and water, for the metropolitan
population.
Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways
1. Protect, conserve, and enhance the natural, scenic, environmental, and economic qualities
of river and waterway corridors.
Environmental Design
1. Secure a safe, clean, and comfortable environment which is satisfying to the mind and
senses.
II-B-1
Draft 9/29/14
2. Encourage the development of the natural, social, and economic environment in a manner
that is harmonious with our natural setting and maintains and enhances our quality of life.
3. Create and preserve desirable and distinctive qualities in local and neighborhood areas.
Transportation
1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in modes
of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the automobile and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.
2.Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area’s quality of life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
Balanced
Accessible
Efficient
Safe
Interconnected
Environmentally responsible
Supportive of responsible and sustainable development
Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts and
Economically viable and financially stable
Public Facilities and Services
1. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and environmentally
responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and sequential
growth.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
1.Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities to serve the diverse needs of the
community’s citizens.
Historic Preservation
1. Preserve and restore reminders of our origin and historic development as links between
past, present, and future generations.
II-B-2
Draft 9/29/14
Energy
1.Maximize the conservation and efficient utilization of all types of energy.
2.Develop environmentally acceptable energy resource alternatives.
Citizen Involvement
1. Continue to develop, maintain, and refine programs and procedures that maximize the
opportunity for meaningful, ongoing citizen involvement in the community’s planning
and planning implementation processes consistent with mandatory statewide planning
standards.
Metro PlanReview, Amendments, and Refinements
1. Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes
of the community.
II-B-3
Draft 9/29/14
II-B-4
Draft 9/29/14
C. Growth Management Goals, Findings, and Policies
To effectively control the potential for urban sprawl and scattered urbanization, compact growth
within and theurban growth boundary (UGB)areis, and will remain, the primary growth
management techniques for directing geographic patterns of urbanization in the metropolitan
community. In general, this means the filling in of vacant and underutilized lands, as well as
redevelopment inside the UGB.
Outward expansion of the UGB will occur only when the home city and Lane County determine
such expansion itis proven necessary according to state law and applicable the policies set forth
in this MetroPlan, particularly in this elementand city-specific comprehensive plan provisions.
Goals
1.Use urban, urbanizable, and rural lands efficiently.
2.Encourage orderly and efficient conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response
to urban needs, taking into account metropolitan and statewide goals.
3.Protect rural lands best suited for non-urban uses from incompatible urban encroachment.
Findings and Policies
Findings
1.Many metropolitan areas within the United States that have not implemented geographic
growth management techniques suffer from scattered or leapfrog urban growth that
leaves vacant and underutilized land in its path and encourages isolated residential
developments far from metropolitan centers. Until adoption of the 1990 Plan’s urban
service area concept, portions of this metropolitan area were characterized by these
phenomena.
2.Beneficial results of compact urban growth include:
a.Use of most vacant leftover parcels where utilities assessed to abutting property
owners are already in place.
b.Protection of productive forest lands, agricultural lands, and open space from
premature urban development.
c.More efficient use of limited fuel energy resources and greater use of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities due to less miles of streets and less auto dependence than
otherwise would be required.
II-C-1
Draft 9/29/14
d.Decreased acreage of leapfrogged vacant land, thus resulting in more efficient and
less costly provision and use of utilities, roads, and public services such as fire
protection.
e.Greater urban public transit efficiency by providing a higher level of service for a
given investment in transit equipment and the like.
3.The disadvantages of a too-compact UGB can be a disproportionately greater increase in
the value of vacant land within the Eugene-Springfield area, which would contribute to
higher housing prices. Factors other than size and location of the UGB and city limits
affect land and housing costs. These include site characteristics, interest rates, state and
federal tax laws, existing public service availability, and future public facility costs.
4.Periodic evaluation of land use needs compared to land supply provides a basis for
orderly and non-excessive conversion of rural land to urbanizable land and provides a
basis for public action to adjust the supply upward in response to the rate of consumption.
5.Prior to the late 1960s, Eugene and Springfield had no growth management policy and,
therefore, growth patterns were generally dictated by natural physical characteristics.
6.Mandatory statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) require that all communitiesin the state establish UGBs to identify
and separate urbanizable land from rural land.
7.Between 1970 and 1983, Springfield’s population increased about 4 percent and
Eugene’s about 2.5 percent a year, but unincorporated portions of the metropolitan area
experienced a population decline. About 17 percent of the total increase in the
population was related to annexations. This indicates that growth is occurring in cities,
which is consistent with the compact urban growth concept, and limitations on urban
scatteration into unincorporated areas, as first embodied in the 1990 Plan.
8.In addition to Finding 7 above, evidence that the metropolitan UGB iswasan effective
growth management tool includeds the following:
a.Consistent reduction over time of vacant land within the metropolitan UGB.
b.Reduction of vacant residential zoned land in Springfield and Eugene.
c.Greater value of vacant land within Springfield and Eugene than similar land
outside incorporated areas but within the metropolitan UGB .
d.Increase since 1970 of the proportionate share of residential building permits
issued within city limits.
9.Reduction in the use of zoning provisions and regulatory processes that favor single-
family detached dwellings on standard size parcels would increase the opportunity to
II-C-2
Draft 9/29/14
realize higher net residential densities than are presently occurring, particularly in newly
developing areas.
10.A variety of public services are provided by Lane County and special service districts to
unincorporated portions of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
11.In 1986, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield entered into Urban Transition Agreements
with Lane County which transferred from the County to the Cities administration for
building and land use within the urbanizable portion of the UGB.
Objectives
1.Continue to minimize urban scatteration and sprawl by encouraging compact growth and
sequential development.
2.Insure that land supply is kept in proper relationship to land use needs.
3.Conserve those lands needed to efficiently accommodate expected urban growth.
4.Protect rural land and open space from premature urbanization.
5.When necessary to meet urban needs, utilize the least productive agricultural lands for
needed expansion, in accordance with state statutes, Statewide Planning Goal 14, and the
Land Conservation and Development Commission’s administrative rules.
6.Encourage new and maintain existing rural land uses where productive or beneficial
outside the urban growth boundary.
7.Shape and plan for a compact urban growth form to provide for growth while preserving
the special character of the metropolitan area.
8.Encourage development of suitable vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelopable land
where services are available, thus capitalizing on public expenditures already made for
these services.
9.Protect life and property from natural hazards and natural disasters.
10.Allow smaller outlying communities the opportunity to plan for their own futures without
being engulfed by unlimited outward expansion of the metropolitan area.
11.Identify methods of establishing an urban transition program which will eventually
reduce service delivery inefficiencies by providing for the provision of key urban services
only by cities.
II-C-3
Draft 9/29/14
Policies
1.The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as an essential
means to achieve compact urban growth. The provision of all urban services shall be
concentrated inside the UGB.
2.The Metropolitan UGB was mapped and described toshall lie along the outside edge of
existing and planned rights-of-way that form a portion of the UGB so that the full right-
of-way is within the UGB.
3.Control of location, timing, and financing of the major public investments that directly
influence the growth form of the metropolitan area shall be planned and coordinated on a
metropolitan-wide basis.
4.Lane County shall discourage urban development in urbanizable and rural areas and
encourage compact development of outlying communities.
5.To maintain the existing physical autonomy of the smaller outlying communities, urban
development on agricultural and rural lands beyond the UGB shall be restricted and
based on at least the following criteria:
a.Preservation and conservation of natural resources
b.Conformity with the policies and provisions of the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan that borders the metropolitan area
c.Conformance with applicable mandatory statewide planning goals.
6.Outlying communities close to Springfield and Eugene shall be encouraged to develop
plans and programs in support of compact urban development.
7.Conversion of rural and rural agricultural land to urbanizable land through Metro Plan
amendments expanding the UGB shall be consistent with mandatory statewide planning
goals.
8.Land within the UGB may be converted from urbanizable to urban only through
annexation to a city when it is found that:
a.A minimum level of key urban facilities andservices can be provided to the area
in an orderly and efficient manner.
b.There will be a logical area and time within which to deliver urban services and
facilities. Conversion of urbanizable land to urban shall also be consistent with
the Metro Plan.
II-C-4
Draft 9/29/14
9.A full range of key urban facilities and services shall be provided to urban areas
according to demonstrated need and budgetary priorities.
10.Annexation to a city through normal processes shall continue to be the highest priority.
11.The tax differential concept, as provided for in ORS 222.111 (2), shall be one mechanism
that can be employed in urban transition areas.
12.When the following criteria are met, either Springfield or Eugene may annex land which
is not contiguous to its boundaries.
a.The area to be annexed will be provided an urban service(s) which is (are) desired
immediately by residents/property owners.
b.The area to be annexed can be serviced (with minimum level of key urban facilities
and services as directed in the Metro Plan) in a timely and cost-efficient manner and
is a logical extension of the city’s service delivery system.
c. The annexation proposal is accompanied by support within the area proposed for
annexation from the owners of at least half the land area in the affected territory.
13.12.Police, fire and emergency medical services may be provided through extraterritorial
extension with a signed annexation agreement or initiation of a transition plan and upon
concurrence by the serving jurisdiction.
14.13.Both Eugene and Springfield shall examine potential assessment deferral programs for
low-income households.
15.14.Creation of new special service districts or zones of benefit within the Plan Boundary of
the Metro Plan shall be considered only when all of the following criteria are satisfied:
a.There is no other method of delivering public services which are required to
mitigate against extreme health hazard or public safety conditions.
b.The three metropolitan area general purpose governments concur with the
proposal to form the service district or zone of benefit.
c.The district or zone of benefit is an interim service delivery method, and there are
legal assurances, such as annexation agreements, to ensure that annexation to the
appropriate city occurs within the planning period.
d.The servicing city is not capable of providing the full range of urban facilities and
services in the short term, although it is recognized that urban facilities and
services will be provided by a city consistent with adopted public facilities plans
and capital improvement programs.
II-C-5
Draft 9/29/14
e.The district or zone of benefit will contract with the appropriate city for interim
service delivery until annexed to the appropriate city.
16.15.Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and provided with the
required minimum level of urban facilities and services. While the time frame for
annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land transitions from urbanizable to
urban.
17.16.Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, Eugene Water & Electric
Board (EWEB) and Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall be the water and electrical
service providers within the UGB.
18.17.As annexations to cities occur over time, existing special service districts within the UGB
shall be dissolved. The cities should consider developing intergovernmental agreements,
which address transition issues raised by annexation, with affected special service
districts.
19.18.The realignment (possible consolidation or merger) of fringe special service districts shall
be examined to:
a.Promote urban service transition to cities within the UGB.
b.Provide continued and comprehensive rural level services to property and people
outside the UGB.
c.Provide more efficient service delivery and more efficient governmental structure
for serving the immediate urban fringe.
20.19.Annexation of territory to existing service districts within the UGB shall occur only when
the following criteria are met:
a.Immediate annexation to a city is not possible because the required minimum
level of key urban facilities and services cannot be provided in a timely manner
(within five years, as outlined in an adopted capital improvements program);
b.Except for areas that have no fire protection, affected property owners have
signed consent to annex agreements with the applicable city consistent with
Oregon annexation law.
Such annexations shall be considered as interim service delivery solutions until ultimate
annexation to a city occurs.
21.20.When unincorporated territory within the UGB is provided with any new urban service,
that service shall be provided by the following method (in priority order).
a.Annexation to a city;
II-C-6
Draft 9/29/14
b.Contractual annexation agreements with a city;
c.Annexation to an existing district (under conditions described previously in Policy
#2019); or
d.Creation of a new service district (under conditions described previously in Policy
#1514).
22.21.Cities shall not extend water or wastewater service outside city limits to serve a residence
or business without first obtaining a valid annexation petition, a consent to annex
agreement, or when a health hazard annexation is required.
23.22.Regulatory and fiscal incentives that direct the geographic allocation of growth and
density according to adopted plans and policies shall be examined and, when practical,
adopted.
24.23.To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text
and on the Metro PlanDiagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential
construction, but not necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling
units per gross acre over the 1995-2015 planning period addressed in the 1999
Residential Lands and Housing Study.
2
25.24.When conducting metropolitan planning studies, particularly the Public Facilities and
Services Plan, consider the orderly provision and financing of public services and the
overall impact on population and geographical growth in the metropolitan area. Where
appropriate, future planning studies should include specific analysis of the growth
impacts suggested by that particular study for the metropolitan area.
26.25.Based upon direction provided in Policies 4, 8, and 234 of this section, any development
taking place in an urbanizable area shall be designed to the development standards of the
city which would be responsible for eventually providing a minimum level of key urban
services to the area. Unless the following conditions are met, the minimum lot size for
campus industrial designated areas shall be 50 acres and the minimum lot size for all
other designations shall be 10 acres. Creation of new parcels in the urbanizable area will
comply with the following standards:
a.The approval of a conceptual plan for ultimate development at urban densities in
accord with applicable plans and policies.
b.Proposed land uses and densities conform to applicable plans and policies.
2
This policy no longer applies to the City of Springfield. For the City of Springfield, the 1995-2015 planning
periodfor the accommodation of the metropolitan area’s residential landneed and the 1999 Residential Lands and
Housing Studythat addressed that planning period havebeen supplanted by the 2010-2030 planning period
addressed in the 2011 “Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element.”Springfield
Ordinance No. 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA1274.
II-C-7
Draft 9/29/14
c.The owner of the property has signed an agreement with the adjacent city which
provides:
(1)The owner and his or her successors in interest are obligated to support
annexation proceedings should the city, at its option, initiate annexation.
(2)The owner and his or her successors in interest agree not to challenge any
annexation of the subject property.
(3)The owner and his or her successors in interest will acquire city approval
for any subsequent new use, change of use, or substantial intensification of
use of the property. The city will not withhold appropriate approval of the
use arbitrarily if it is in compliance with applicable plans, policies, and
standards, as interpreted by the city, as well as the conceptual plan
approved under subsection a above.
27.26.Any lot under five acres in size to be created in an urbanizable area will require utilizing
the following additional standards:
a.The property will be owned by a governmental agency or public utility.
b.A majority of parcels located within 100 feet of the property are smaller than five
acres.
c.No more than three parcels are being created.
28.27.The siting of all residences on urbanizable lots served by on-site sewage disposal systems
shall be reviewed by Lane County to ensure the efficient future conversion of these lots
to urban densities according to Metro Plan assumptions and minimum density
requirements.
29.28.The approval of on-site sewage disposal systems for rural and urbanizable area uses and
developments shall be the responsibility of Lane County, subject to: (a) applicable state
law; (b) the criteria for thecreation of new lots in Policies 265, 276above; (c) the
requirement for the siting of residences in Policy 287 above; (d) requirements of Policy
3029; and (e) the requirements for special heavy industrial designated areas.
30.29.In order to encourage economic diversification, on-site sewage disposal systems shall be
allowed for industrial development and for commercial development allowed within
Campus Industrial designated areas in conjunction with annexation to a city, when
extension of the public wastewater system is imminent or is identified as part of an
approved capital improvement program.
31.30.Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to involve affected local
governments and other urban service providers in development of future, applicable
II-C-8
Draft 9/29/14
MetroPlan revisions, including amendments and updates.
32.31.If expansion of the UGB is contemplated, all other options should be considered and
eliminated before consideration of expanding the UGB in the area west of Highway 99
and north of Royal Avenue.
Note:For other related policy discussion, see the Public Facilities and Services Element in
Chapter III-G.
II-C-9
Draft 9/29/14
D. Jurisdictional Responsibility
The division of responsibility for metropolitan planning between the two cities is the Interstate 5
Highway. Chapter IV provides that all three jurisdictions would need to approve a UGB or
Metro Plan boundary change that crosses Interstate 5. For purposes of other amendments and
implementation of the Metro Plan, Lane County jurisdiction is between the urban growth
boundary (UGB) and Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary); and the county has joint
responsibility with Eugene between the city limits and UGBtheMetro PlanBoundary (Plan
Boundary)west of the Interstate 5 Highway and with Springfield between the city limits and
UGBthe Plan Boundary east of the Interstate 5 Highway. State law (1981) provides a
mechanism for creation of a new city in the River Road and Santa Clara area. Refer to Metro
Plan Chapter IV and intergovernmental agreements to resolve specific issues of jurisdiction.
ORS 197.304 requires Eugene and Springfield to establish separate UGBs “consistent with the
jurisdictional area of responsibility specified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan.”
II-D-1
Draft 9/29/14
E.Urban and Urbanizable Land
This section addresses the need to allow for the orderly and economic extension of public
services, the need to provide an orderly conversion of urbanizable to urban land, and the need to
provide flexibility for market forces to operate in order to maintain affordable housing choices.
For the definitions of urban and urbanizable lands, as well as rural lands and the urban growth
boundary (UGB) as used in this section, refer to the Metro PlanGlossary.
The undeveloped (urbanizable) area within the metropolitan UGB, separating urban and
urbanizable land from rural land, washas beencarefully calculated to include an adequate supply
to meet demand for a projected population of 286,000 through the end of the planning period
(2015). When the metropolitan UGB was established for the 1995-2015 planning period, Lane
County, Eugene and Springfield realized, Hhowever, that unless the community consciously
decidesd to limit future expansions of the UGB, one of several ways to accommodate growth,
that boundary willwould need to be expanded in future plan updates. The jurisdictions
anticipatedso that before 2015,the metropolitan UGB would it will include more urbanizable
area reflecting future metro-wide population and employment needs of populations beyond those
in 2015. than that now depicted on the Metro PlanDiagram.Accordingly, pPeriodic updates of
land use needs and revision of the metropolitan UGB to reflect extensions of the planning period
were expected towill ensure that adequate surplus urbanizable land iswasalways available.
With the transition mandated in 2007 by ORS 197.304, the shared metropolitan UGB will be
replaced with two separate UGBs (the Eugene UGB and the Springfield UGB).This changed
the land use work programs for the three jurisdictions. Evaluation of the sufficiency of the 2015
metropolitan UGB was replaced with an in-depth analysis of each city’s independent needs and
the supplies of land that exist with respect to the separate areas of jurisdictional responsibility.
That process began with the three jurisdictions’ adoption of city-specific population forecasts in
Chapter I of the Metro Plan. In 2011, the City of Springfield, with co-adoption by Lane County,
amended the Metro Plan to establish its own UGB consistent with ORS 197.304.
3
The three jurisdictions continue to agree that the key to addressing the needs stated at the
beginning of this section is not so much the establishment of a UGB, but maintaining an
adequate and reasonable supply of available undeveloped land at any point in time. The
“adequate” and “reasonable” tests are the key to the related phasing and surplus land issues.
In order to maintain an “adequate” supply of available surplus land to allow development to
occur, annexation must take place in advance of demand in order to allow for the provision of
public capital improvements, such as wastewater trunk lines, arterial streets, and water trunk
lines. Most capital improvement programs are “middle-range” type plans geared three to six
years into the future. The time between annexation and the point of finished construction usually
involves several steps:
3
Springfield Ordinance No. 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA1274.
II-E-1
Draft 9/29/14
1. The actual annexation and rezoning of the land(with accompanying public hearing
processes, including Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission approval).
2. Filing and approval of a subdivision or planned unit development (with accompanying
public hearing processes).
3. Extension of public capital improvements (in accordance with programming and funding
availability).
4. Construction of the private development (including local extension of streets, sidewalks,
wastewater, water, electricity, and construction of dwelling units or businesses).
The time period between initiating annexation and sale of a home or opening of a business varies
but can easily take from two to six years.
Large-scale and timely annexations of undeveloped and underdeveloped areas should be
encouraged to enhance the opportunity for compact urban growth, an efficient land use pattern,
and a well-planned supporting arterial street system.
The approach is to allow the cities to develop annexation programs which will ensure a six- to
ten-year surplus of land. Such a range will allow the maintenance of an adequate surplus of land
at any point in time. The six- to ten-year surplus is suggested as a reasonable range which will
not only allow for the conversion of urbanizable to urban land through annexation but will allow
the cities the opportunity and flexibility to plan for and provide urban facilities and services on a
large scale. The six-year minimum will allow the cities and other providers of urban services to
develop coordinated capital improvement programs in accordance with the applicable
comprehensive planMetro Plan. Such coordinated capital improvement programs can and
should be closely related to implementation of annexation plans.
Comprehensive plansThe Metro Plan will be updated before undeveloped surplus urban lands
are exhausted.
The six- to ten-year low density residential land surplus should be based on the amount of
development over the previous six to ten years. For other land use categories, annexation
programs should be based on past trends, Metro Plan assumptions, and Metro Plan Goals,
particularly those goals dealing with promotion of economic development and diversity.
Improved monitoring techniques made possible by the Regional Land Information Database of
Lane County (RLID) formerly referred to as the Geographic Information System (GIS) should
allow such monitoring to occur. The monitoring information should be provided on a
jurisdictional basis and on the metropolitan level.
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall cooperatively monitor and periodically report on
development trends and land supply for all categories of residential, commercial, and industrial
land. This system shall include consideration of proper zoning, coordinated capital
improvements programming, annexation, and other factors necessary to maintain availability of
II-E-2
Draft 9/29/14
sufficient land to ensure that the supply is responsive to demand in keeping with the
Fundamental Principles of the Metro Plan.
In summary, the cities should continually monitor the conversion of urbanizable land to urban
and pursue active annexation programs based on local policies and applicable provisions of this
Metro Plan including, for example:
1. Orderly economic provision of public facilities and services (maintenance and
development of capital improvement programs).
2.Availability of sufficient land to ensure a supply responsive to demand.
3. Compact urban growth.
4. Cooperation with other utilities and providers of urban services to ensure coordination
with their respective capital improvement programs.
II-E-3
Draft 9/29/14
F.River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings, Objectives, and
Policies
The River Road and Santa Clara portions of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area are
important components of the metropolitan community. Both River Road and Santa Clara have:
Unique and distinctive neighborhood identities
Experienced considerable private investment in the past years
Experienced considerable public investments; e.g., transmission facilities by the
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) and educational facilities by public school
systems
A sound housing stock
In Santa Clara, relatively large parcels of vacant land exist which, with adequate urban services,
can be developed at increased densities; in River Road, relatively large developed lots exist
which could be further developed by their owners.
The future of both the River Road and Santa Clara areas will play a critical role in the growth of
the metropolitan area. For some years, officials of Lane County and Eugene have cooperatively
discussed methods of delivering services to these neighborhoods.
These discussions have continually focused on two sides of a single, critical issue:
How can the short-range costs and benefits to the residents and other service providers be
balanced against, and what are the long-range costs and benefits to the residents and the
entire metropolitan area of logical growth and increased densities?
Inflation has drastically increased the need to balance these two potentially divergent objectives.
The effects of continued inflation can be mitigated by identifying and implementing a solution to
the servicing issue.
A unique set of circumstances has occurred which lends direction to resolution of the service
delivery questions for both River Road and Santa Clara.
1.As part of the acknowledgement process for the Metro Plan, the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) directed that a servicing plan be developed for both
River Road and Santa Clara and that Eugene provide those services.
2.Discussions between Eugene officials and state and county representatives of the River
Road and Santa Clara area have led to reconsideration of Eugene’s policy to provide
services to these neighborhoods only after annexation to the City of Eugene of both areas
has occurred.
3.Preliminary review of Eugene’s comprehensive capital improvement program suggested
a full range of services could not be provided immediately even if the areas were annexed
at one time.
II-F-1
Draft 9/29/14
Based on these three conditions, a situation evolved which led to a set of findings, objectives,
and policies for inclusion in the Metro Planand ultimately will lead to delivery of urban services
to the River Road and Santa Clara areas in cooperation with the residents of these
neighborhoods. That situation is as follows.
The City of Eugene constructed and owns the main wastewater system that serves the River
Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods. Eugene has altered its policies pertaining to the service
delivery to both River Road and Santa Clara to allow incremental annexation. Annexation must,
however, be consistent with state law and other applicable local policies (e.g., the ability of the
city to deliver key urban facilities and services in a timely manner). Eugene will pursue
annexation only in accordance with applicable state laws and will not use these mechanisms to
circumvent the process. In every case, Eugene will make every reasonable attempt to provide for
annexation only on a voluntary basis and in accord with previous individual property annexation
agreements. The City, in conjunction with Lane County and the citizens of both River Road and
Santa Clara, developed a River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan which is responsive to
the basic service infrastructure which is either in place or contemplated for these areas. An
integral part of the implementation phase of the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Planis
a financing mechanism which takes into account the financial abilities of residents/property
owners and the City of Eugene to pay for service delivery in that area.
The following findings, objectives, and policies reflect the situation that evolved.
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1.Land supply in the River Road and Santa Clara areas is of metropolitan-wide
significance.
2.In order to achieve urban densities, urban services, including public wastewater service,
must be provided.
3.For a long period of time, officials of Lane County and Eugene have made great efforts to
resolve the service delivery problems for both River Road and Santa Clara.
4.The history and pattern of development in River Road and Santa Clara have resulted in
the creation of two unique metropolitan neighborhoods.
5.The most cost-effective method of service delivery is through annexation.
6.An urban facilities plan is the best method of providing a framework for capital
improvements programming in the River Road and Santa Clara areas.
7.Because of the substantial public investments already made in both neighborhoods, it is
most cost-efficient to achieve urban densities in River Road and Santa Clara prior to
II-F-2
Draft 9/29/14
accommodating new development needs in totally undeveloped areas.
8.The 1970 CH2M Hill Sewerage System Study, River Road-Santa Clara publication
demonstrates the feasibility of providing wastewater service to the River Roadand Santa
Clara area in a manner consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Waste
Treatment Alternatives Report (208 Facilities Plan) and the Metro Plan.
9.The CH2M Hill publication defined study boundaries and made population projections
which are different than those contained in the Metro Plan; modifications to these factors
is occurring as part of the required system design work prior to construction.
10.The detailed design work which will occur as part of development of the system will
allow discussion of various system concepts with the residents and property owners of
the River Road and Santa Clara areas.
11.The River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Planhas been completed.
12.Based on the River Road/Santa Clara Groundwater Study, Final Technical Report,
February, 1980 by Sweet, Edwards, and Associates, Inc., the Oregon Environmental
Quality Commission (EQC) found on April 18, 1980, that:
a.The River Road-Santa Clara shallow aquifer is generally contaminated with fecal
coliform organisms in excess of drinking water and body contact standards.
b.Existing nitrate-nitrogen concentrations within the area exceed the planning target
on the average.
c.About 73 percent of the nitrate-nitrogen pollutants (and, by analogy, a similar
share of the fecal coliform contaminations) result from septic tank effluent.
Septic tank pollutants can migrate rapidly to the groundwater from drainfields via
macropore travel.
13.The EQC concluded that a public health hazard exists based on fecal coliform data for
people using the aquifer for domestic (drinking) or irrigation and that a health hazard
similarly exists in several areas based on nitrate-nitrogen levels.
14.To remedy the groundwater pollution problem, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) awarded Eugene a grant to build a wastewater system to replace the individual
septic systems in use throughout River Road and Santa Clara according to a prescribed
time frame.
15.Efforts toward incremental and voluntary annexation of River Road and Santa Clara
properties to Eugene and connection to the wastewater system according to the EPA’s
time frame have not been successful.
II-F-3
Draft 9/29/14
Objectives
1.Ensure the availability of land in River Road and Santa Clara for urban levels of
development.
2.Capitalize on existing public expectations by providing further public services which will
allow the River Road and Santa Clara areas to achieve urban densities.
3.Deliver a full range of urban services to the River Road and Santa Clara areas through
annexation.
4.Consider the unique situation of the residents of River Road and Santa Clara by providing
financing mechanisms which will take into account the financial ability of the residents to
pay for service delivery and the City of Eugene’s ability to provide these services.
5.Guide capital improvements in the River Road and Santa Clara areas through the River
Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities plan developed cooperatively by Lane County, the
City of Eugene, and the residents and property owners of the two areas.
6.Eliminate groundwater pollution from individual septic tank disposal systems in River
Road and Santa Clara.
Policies
1.Eugene shall develop methods of financing improvements in the River Road and Santa
Clara areas which are responsive to the unique situation of residents and property owners,
as well as the City of Eugene.
2.Eugene will plan, design, construct, and maintain ownership of the entire wastewater
system that services the River Road and Santa Clara areas. This will involve
extraterritorial extension which will be supported by Lane County before the Lane
County Local Government Boundary Commission and all other applicable bodies.
3.Annexation of the River Road and Santa Clara areas will occur only through strict
application of state laws and local policies (e.g., ability to extend key urban facilities and
services in a timely manner). In each case, Eugene will make every reasonable attempt to
provide for annexation only on a voluntary basis and according to prior individual
property annexation agreements.
4.The City of Eugene shall provide urban services to the River Road and Santa Clara
neighborhoods upon annexation. In the meantime, to reduce the groundwater pollution
problem, Eugene will extend wastewater service to developed properties.
5.Using the CH2M Hill report as a foundation, efforts to prepare more detailed engineering
studies which will provide the basis for a capital improvement program to sewer the
River Road and Santa Clara areas in a manner consistent with the above policy direction
II-F-4
Draft 9/29/14
shall proceed.
6.No particular section of the Metro Plan shall be interpreted as prohibiting the process of
incorporation of a new city in River Road and Santa Clara in accordance with ORS 199
and 221. This means that:
a.As a comprehensive planning document, no particular section of the Metro Plan
shall be used in isolation to evaluate different courses of action.
b.The phrase “process of incorporation” refers to the specific steps of incorporation
outlined in ORS 199 and 221.
c.This policy does not negate the requirement of public wastewater service as a
minimum level of key urban facilities and services. Any institutional solution to
providing urban services in the River Road and Santa Clara areas must provide
public wastewater service to address LCDC requirements and to protect public
health and safety in resolving groundwater pollution problems. Public wastewater
service is also required to achieve higher than septic tank level of urban
residential densities and to utilize efficiently valuable metropolitan-scale
buildable land.
II-F-5
Draft 9/29/14
G.Metro Plan Diagram
The Metro PlanDiagram is a generalized map and graphic expression of the goals, objectives,
and recommendations expressed found elsewhere in the applicable provisions of theMetro Plan
and city-specific plans. Rather than an accurate representation of actual size and shape, the
arrangement of existing and, to an even greater degree, projected land uses illustrated on the
Metro Plan Diagram, is based on the various elements and principles embodied in the Metro
Planand city-specific plans.Likewise, statements in this section that prescribe specific courses
of action regarding the community’s future should be regarded as policies.
Projections indicated a population of approximately 286,000 iswasexpected to reside in the
metropolitan area around the year 2015. The allocation of living, working, and recreational areas
and supporting public facilities that were shown on the Metro PlanDiagram when the 2004
Metro Plan Update was conducted in this section and on the Public Facilities Maps in Appendix
A generally respondedto that metro-wide projection. After Springfield and Eugene have
(pursuant to ORS 197.304 (2007)) establishedtheir separate city-specific UGBs and designated
land supplies for theirnew 20-year planning horizons, the TheMetro PlanDiagram will be
bifurcated. The area shown east of Interstate 5 will represents the land use needs and supporting
facilities necessary to serve Springfield’s future population. The area shown west of Interstate 5
within the UGB will represent the land use needs and supporting facilities necessary to serve
Eugene’s future population.a certain number of people rather than a point in time. The process
used to allocate land uses in the Metro Plan Diagram, fully documented in the Technical
Supplement, can be repeated for any population. Until both cities, with co-adoption by Lane
County, have taken action to establish their independent UGBs and land supplies, the Metro Plan
Diagram willserve different purposes for the two cities.
4
Finally, the Metro PlanDiagram is drawn at a metropolitan scale, necessitating supplementary
planning on a local level. The original Metro Plan Diagram adopted in the 1982 Metro Plan and
subsequently amended was not tax lot-specific, although exception areas were site specific, with
exact designation boundaries shown in supporting working papers. The use of the Regional
Land Information Database (RLID) data for long-range planning studies led to the decision to
base the Metro PlanDiagram on RLID data, as described below. The Metro PlanDiagram and
text provide the overall framework within which more detailed planning occurs on the local
level. When local plans include densities or land use allocations significant on a metropolitan
scale, their adoption requires analysis of metropolitan implications, followed by amendments to
the Metro Plan, when necessary. Standards for identifying factors of metropolitan significance
need to be defined and agreed to by Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene.
In practice, the Metro Plan amendment process described in Chapter IVof referrals between the
three bodieswill also determine ensure that issues of metropolitan significance are addressed
cooperatively by all three jurisdictionson a case-by-case basis.
4
As part of theadoption of the City of Springfield’s city-specific UGB (through Springfield Ordinance No. 6268
and Lane County Ordinance No. PA1274in 2011, the Metro Plan Diagram was amended so that the area west of
Interstate 5 is no longer included in Springfield’s UGB.
II-G-1
Draft 9/29/14
Major Influences
The Metro PlanDiagram reflects the influence of many sources. Particularly noteworthy are the
following:
1. The Land Conservation and Development Commission’s (LCDC) Statewide Planning
Goals, as published in April 1977, and subsequently amended.
2.The 1990Plan, predecessor of this documentthe Metro Plan; particularly the concept of
compact urban growth.
3. Adopted neighborhood refinement and city-specific community plans.
4. Adopted special purpose and functional plans.
5.Information generated through preparation of working papers (1978 and 1981) used in
the earlyupdate process. Those papers are on file in the planning departments of Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County, as well as the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG).
Their most significant provisions are contained in the Technical Supplement of the Metro
Plan, printed and available under separate cover. Subjects examined include public
services and facilities; environmental assets and constraints, including agricultural land,
the economy, housing, and residential land use, and energy, all in terms of existing
conditions and projected demand.
Land Use Designations
Land use designations shown in the Metro PlanDiagram are depicted at a metropolitan scale.
Used with the text and local plans and policies, they provide direction for decisions pertaining to
appropriate reuse (redevelopment), urbanization of vacant parcels, and additional use of
underdeveloped parcels. Since its initial adoption in 1982, the Metro Plan Diagram designations
have been transitioning to a parcel-specific diagram. As part of this transition, the boundaries of
Plan designation areas within in the metropolitan aUGB are determined on a case-by-case basis,
where no parcel-specific designation has been adopted.
Certain land uses are not individually of metropolitan-wide significance in terms of size or
location because of their special nature or limited extent. Therefore, it is not advisable to
account for most of them on the Metro Plan Diagram. The Diagram’s depiction of land use
designations is not intended to invalidate local zoning or land uses which are not sufficiently
intensive or large enough to be included on the Metro Plan Diagram.
The Plan designation of parcels in the Metro Plan Diagram is parcel-specific in the following
cases:
1.Parcels shown on the Metro Plan Diagram within a clearly identified Plan
designation, i.e., parcels that do not border more than one Plan designation;
II-G-2
Draft 9/29/14
2.Lands outside the UGB within the Metro Plan boundary;
5
3.Parcels with parcel-specific designations adopted through the citizen-initiated
Plan amendment process;
4.Parcels shown on a parcel-specific refinement plan map that has beenadopted as
an amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram.
There is a need for continued evaluation and evolution to a parcel-specific diagram. The Metro
Plan designation descriptions below, Metro Plan policies, adopted buildable lands inventory
analyses, refinement plans, and local codes provide guidance to local jurisdictions in determining
the appropriate Plan designation of parcels that border more than one Plan designationwithin the
metropolitan UGB.
5
As a result of actions taken by all three jurisdictions in 2013,there are no lands outside the UGB within the Metro
Planboundaryon the east side of Interstate 5. Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1281 (June, 2013); Springfield
Ordinance No.6288 (March, 2013), Eugene Ordinance No.20511 (May, 2013).
II-G-3
Draft 9/29/14
Residential
This category is expressed in gross acre density ranges. Using gross acres, approximately 32
percent of the area is available for auxiliary uses, such as streets, elementary and junior high
schools, neighborhood parks, other public facilities, neighborhood commercial services, and
churches not actually shown on the Metro PlanDiagram. Such auxiliary uses shall be allowed
within residential designations if compatible with refinement plans, zoning ordinances, and other
local controls for allowed uses in residential neighborhoods. The division into low, medium, and
high densities is consistent with that depicted on the Metro Plan Diagram. In other words:
Low density residential—Through 10 units per gross acre
Medium density residential—Over 10 through 20 units per gross acre
High density residential—Over 20 units per gross acre
These ranges do not prescribe particular structure types, such as single-family detached, duplex,
mobile home, or multiple-family. That distinction, if necessary, is left to local plans and zoning
ordinances.
While all medium and high density allocations shown on the Metro Plan Diagram may not be
needed during the planning period, their protection for these uses is important because available
sites meeting pertinent location standards are limited.
As of January 1, 1977, density of all existing residential development within the 1990 Plan
projected urban service area was about 3.64 dwelling units per gross acre. For newdwelling
units constructed during 1986 to 1994, the net density was 7.05 dwelling units per acre in the
UGB based on the RLID data. The estimated overall residential net density for all residential
development has climbed from 5.69 dwelling units per are in 1986 to 5.81 dwelling units per
acre in 1994. This Metro Plan, including the Metro PlanDiagram, calls for an overall average
of about six dwelling units per gross acre for new construction through 2015, the planning
period. By realizing this goal, the community will benefit from more efficient energy use;
preservation of the maximum amount of productive agricultural land; use of vacant leftover
parcels where utilities are already in place; and more efficient, less costly provision of utilities
and services to new areas. This higher overall average density can only be achieved if the cities
explore, and when feasible, in light of housing costs and needs, adopt new procedures and
standards including those needed to implement the policies in the Residential Land Use and
Housing Element.
The UGBswill be modified, as necessary, to ensure an on-going, adequate, available land supply
to meet needs. See also Urban and Urbanizable Land in this section.
II-G-4
Draft 9/29/14
Commercial
This designation on the Metro Plan Diagram includes only the first two categories:
Major Retail Centers
Such centers normally have at least 25 retail stores, one or more of which is a major anchor
department store, having at least 100,000 square feet of total floor space. They sometimes also
include complimentary uses, such as general offices and medium and high density housing.
Presently there are two such developed centers in the metropolitan area: the Eugene central
business district and Valley River Center.
Community Commercial Centers
This category includes more commercial activities than neighborhood commercial but less than
major retail centers. Such areas usually develop around a small department store and
supermarket. The development occupies at least five acres and normally not more than 40 acres.
This category contains such general activities as retail stores; personal services; financial,
insurance, and real estate offices; private recreational facilities, such as movie theaters; and
tourist-related facilities, such as motels. When this category is shown next to medium- or high-
density residential, the two can be integrated into a single overall complex, local regulations
permitting.
Existing strip commercial is in the Community Commercial Centers plan designation when it is
of sufficient size to be of more than local significance. Development and location standards for
(additional) strip commercial, as well as neighborhood commercial uses, are discussed below.
Neighborhood Commercial Facilities
(not shown on Metro PlanDiagram)
Oriented to the day-to-day needs of the neighborhood served, these facilities are usually centered
on a supermarket as the principal tenant. They are also characterized by convenience goods
outlets (small grocery, variety, and hardware stores); personal services (medical and dental
offices, barber shops); laundromats; dry cleaners (not plants); and taverns and small restaurants.
The determination of the appropriateness of specific sites and uses or additional standards is left
to the local jurisdiction. Minimum location standards and site criteria include:
1. Within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support population. For
a full-service neighborhood commercial center at the high end of the size criteria, an
adequate support population would be about 4,000 persons (existing or anticipated)
within an area conveniently accessible to the site. For smaller sites or more limited
services, a smaller support population or service area may be sufficient.
2.Adequate area to accommodate off-street parking and loading needs and landscaping,
particularly between the center and adjacent residential property, as well as along street
frontages next door to outdoor parking areas.
II-G-5
Draft 9/29/14
3. Sufficient frontage to ensure safe and efficient automobile, pedestrian and bicycle access
without conflict with moving traffic at intersections and along adjacent streets.
4. The site shall be no more than five acres, including existing commercial development.
The exact size shall depend on the numbers of establishments associated with the center
and the population to be served.
Neighborhood commercial facilities may include community commercial centers when the latter
meets applicable location and site criteria as listed above, even though community commercial
centers are generally larger than five acres in size.
In certain circumstances, convenience grocery stores or similar retail operations play an
important role in providing services to existing neighborhoods. These types of operations which
currently exist can be recognized and allowed to continue through such actions as rezoning.
Strip or Street-Oriented Commercial Facilities
Largely oriented to automobile traffic, the need for this type of facility has diminished with the
increasing popularity of neighborhood, community, and regional shopping centers with self-
contained off-street parking facilities. Strip commercial areas are characterized by commercial
zoning, or at least, commercial uses along major arterials; i.e., portions of River Road and West
th
11 Avenue, part of Willamette Street, Highway 99N, Franklin Boulevard in Eugene, Main
Street in Springfield, and others. Such uses often create congestion in adjacent travel lanes, are
generally incompatible with abutting non-commercial uses, and are not as vital to the community
as previously because of the existence of retail, office, and service complexes with off-street
parking facilities. They should be limited to existing locations and transformed into more
desirable commercial patterns, if possible.
To mitigate negative external characteristics, unless it is not in the interest of the public, efforts
should be made in connection with existing strip commercial areas to:
1.Landscape perimeters, especially when adjacent to residential properties.
2.Direct lights and signs away from residential areas.
3. Control and consolidate points of access and off-street parking to minimize safety
hazards and congestion in connection with adjacent streets.
Industrial
This designation includes the following, only the first four being shown on the Metro Plan
Diagram:
II-G-6
Draft 9/29/14
Heavy Industrial
This designation generally accommodates industries that process large volumes of raw materials
into refined products and/or that have significant external impacts. Examples of heavy industry
include: lumber and wood products manufacturing; paper, chemicals and primary metal
manufacturing; large-scale storage of hazardous materials; power plants; and railroad yards.
Such industries often are energy-intensive, and resource-intensive. Heavy industrial
transportation needs often include truck and rail. This designation may also accommodate light
and medium industrial uses and supporting offices, local regulations permitting.
Light Medium Industrial
This designation accommodates a variety of industries, including those involved in the secondary
processing of materials into components, the assembly of components into finished products,
transportation, communication and utilities, wholesaling, and warehousing. The external impact
from these uses is generally less than Heavy Industrial, and transportation needs are often met by
truck. Activities are generally located indoors, although there may be some outdoor storage.
This designation may also accommodate supporting offices and light industrial uses, local
regulations permitting.
Campus Industrial
The primary objective of this designation is to provide opportunities for diversification of the
local economy through siting of light industrial firms in a campus-like setting. The activities of
such firms are enclosed within attractive exteriors and have minimal environmental impacts,
such as noise, pollution, and vibration, on other users and on surrounding areas. Large-scale
light industrial uses, including regional distribution centers and research and development
complexes, are the primary focus of this designation. Provision should also be made for small-
and medium-scale industrial uses within the context of industrial and business parks which will
maintain the campus-like setting with minimal environmental impacts. Complementary uses
such as corporate office headquarters and supporting commercial establishments serving primary
uses may also be sited on a limited basis.
Conceptual development planning, performance standards, or site review processes shall be
applied to ensure adequate circulation, functional coordination among uses on each site, a high
quality environmental setting, and compatibility with adjacent areas. A 50-acre minimum lot
size shall be applied to ownerships of 50 or more acres to protect undeveloped sites from
piecemeal development until a site development plan has been approved by the responsible city.
Special Heavy Industrial
These areas are designated to accommodate relocation of existing heavy industrial uses inside
the urban growth boundary (UGB) that do not have sufficient room for expansion and to
accommodate a limited range of other heavy industries in order to broaden the manufacturing
base of the metropolitan economy and to take advantage of the natural resources of this region.
These areas are also designated to accommodate new uses likely to benefit from local advantage
II-G-7
Draft 9/29/14
for processing, preparing, and storing raw materials, such as timber, agriculture, aggregate, or
by-products or waste products from other manufacturing processes.
Land divisions in these areas shall be controlled to protect large parcels (40-acre minimum parcel
size). Because city services are not available to these areas in the short-term, terms may be
allowed to provide on-site the necessary minimum level of key urban facilities and services
subject to standards applied by Lane County and subject to applicable state, federal, and local
environmental standards.
This designation accommodates industrial developments that need large parcels, particularly
those with rail access. Although a primary purpose of this designation is to provide sites for
heavy industries, any industry which meets the applicable siting criteria may make use of this
designation.
Two areas are designated Special Heavy Industrial. Listed below are the names of the two areas
and applicable land division standards, use limitations, and annexation and servicing provisions.
Natron Site (south of Springfield)
Wastewater service is not available to this area in the short-term; therefore, industrial
firms may be allowed to provide self-contained sewage disposal facilities subject to local,
state, and federal environmental standards. Annexation to the city shall be required as a
condition of development approval. Land divisions in this area shall be a minimum of 40
acres until annexation to Springfield has been assured. While industrial park
development will be encouraged on this site, opportunity for the siting of industries that
require large lots, such as 20 acres or more, will be reserved through the conceptual
development planning and site review process.
North of Awbrey Lane (north of Eugene)
The minimum level of key urban facilities and services is available or can be readily
available to this area. Annexation shall be assured prior to development. Lane County
and the City of Eugene shall cooperate to apply the appropriate industrial zoning
specifying the minimum parcel size and setting forth performance standards.
This site was added to the industrial land inventory to provide a large (200+ acre) site for
a special heavy industrial park. The minimum parcel size for lots in the industrial park
shall be 40 acres. Prior to subdivision, it shall be demonstrated that the comprehensive
development plan ensures compatibility among planned uses within the park as well as
with adjacent properties and that access to both the Union Pacific and Burlington
Northern railroads has been extended into the area or that a surety sufficient to secure
such extension has been posted with the city.
The comprehensive development plan shall include the layout of lots, railroad right-of-
way, streets, utilities and performance and site development standards. It shall also
consider the provisions of a “public team track.” The comprehensive development plan
II-G-8
Draft 9/29/14
shall be designedto protect and enhance the site for special heavy industrial users
requiring a campus-like setting and rail access. Uses in this area shall be limited to
industries which are rail dependent or require a minimum site of 100 acres.
Small-Scale Light Industry
(not shown on Metro PlanDiagram)
This category is characterized by industrial uses that emit no smoke, noise, glare, heat, dust,
objectionable odors, or vibrations beyond property boundaries; pursue their activities within
buildings; and do not generate a large amount of vehicular trips for employees, customers, or
freight movements. Depending on the local situation, in some instances such industrial uses
may be incorporated into mixed use areas. To enhance compatibility with adjacent non-
industrial areas, local governments should apply development standards to specific proposals.
Such standards should address building height, setbacks, adequate off-street parking areas,
landscaping, and safe and efficient access. The determination of the appropriateness of specific
sites and uses or additional development standards is left to the local jurisdictions. Minimum
locational standards and site criteria include:
1.Access to arterial streets, normally without use of residential streets.
2. Up to five acres, with sufficient parking areas and frontage to accommodate structures,
parking areas, and access in character with adjacent non-industrial properties.
Nodal Development Area (Node)
Areas identified as nodal development areas in TransPlanare considered to have potential for
this type of land use pattern. Other areas, not proposed for nodal development in TransPlan,
may be determined to have potential for nodal development.
Nodal development is a mixed-use pedestrian-friendly land use pattern that seeks to increase
concentrations of population and employment in well-defined areas with good transit service, a
mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private improvements designed to be
pedestrian and transit oriented.
Fundamental characteristics of nodal development require:
Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit use,
walking and bicycling;
A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally ¼ mile) of anywhere in the
node;
Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance;
Public spaces, such as parks, public and private open space, and public facilities, that
can be reached without driving; and
A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density of
at least 12 units per net acre.
II-G-9
Draft 9/29/14
Willamette River Greenway
The Willamette River Greenway Boundary is shown on the Metro Plan Diagram as an overlay.
Refer to Chapter III-D for information, findings, and policies related to the Greenway.
Public and Semi-Public
This designation contains three categories:
Government
(includes major office complexes and facilities and lodges)
Education
(includes high schools and colleges)
Parks and Open Space
This designation includes existing publicly owned metropolitan and regional scale parks and
publicly and privately owned golf courses and cemeteries in recognition of their role as visual
open space. This designation also includes other privately owned lands in response to Metro
Plan policies, such as the South Hills ridgeline, the Amazon corridor, the “Q” Street Ditch, and
buffers separating sand and gravel designations from residential lands.
Where park and open space is designated on privately owned agricultural land, those lands shall
be protected for agricultural use in accordance with Metro Planpolicies.
Where park and open space is designated on forest lands inside the UGB, other values have
primary importance over commercial forest values and those park and open space areas shall be
protected for those primary values.
Where park and open space is designated on forest lands outside the UGB, commercial forest
values shall be considered as one of many primary values.
In addition to those not shown at a neighborhood scale but automatically included in the gross
allocation of residential acres, there is a need for public facilities and open space at a non-local
level, such as regional/metropolitan parks. Several are shown on the Metro PlanDiagram.
Those not yet in public ownership are based on environmental constraints, such as excessive
slopes or assets, such as unique vegetation associations. They should be preserved, if possible,
through public acquisition or tax relief programs. If that is not possible, development should be
required to respond to their unique conditions through clustering in areas of least value as open
space, locating circulation and access points in a manner that will result in minimal disturbance
of natural conditions and other similar measures particularly sensitive to such sites.
Agriculture
These lands outside the UGB include: Class I through IV agricultural soils, other soils in
agricultural use, and other lands in proximity to Class I through IV soils or agricultural uses on
II-G-10
Draft 9/29/14
Class V through VIII soils. Designated agricultural lands are protected to preserve agricultural
resource values.
Sand and Gravel
This category includes existing and future aggregate processing and extraction areas. Aggregate
extraction and processing is allowed in designated areas subject to Metro Plan policies,
applicable state and federal regulations, and local regulations. For new extraction areas,
reclamation plans required by the State of Oregon and Lane County provide a valuable means of
assuring that environmental considerations, such as re-vegetation, are addressed. It is important
to monitor the demand for aggregate to ensure an adequate supply of this vital non-renewable
resource is available to meet metropolitan needs.
Rural Residential, Rural Commercial, and Rural Industrial
The prefix rural refers to the location of these designations on rural portions of the Metro Plan
outside the UGB.The actual uses may or may not be rural in nature. These rural designations
6
reflect existing patterns of development or commitment to rural lifestyle and have been carefully
documented and described with appropriate findings as exceptions to agricultural or forest
resource goals. Development on vacant or underdeveloped rural residential, rural commercial, or
rural industrial designated parcels is permissible when rural level services are approved and
when such development is done in accordance with other applicable policies.
The rural industrial uses in adopted exception areas are light-medium industrial in nature.
Application of Lane County’s M-2, Light Industrial zoning district, is appropriate to implement
the Metro Plan’s Rural Industrial designation.
Commercial or industrial development shall take place within the UGB, unless such
development:
Is necessary for the continuation of existing commercial or industrial operations,
including plant or site expansion;
Will be located in an adopted exception area; and
Can be adequately served with rural level services (defined in Policy G.27 in Chapter
III-G).
The minimum lot size for rural residential areas shall be five acres.
Exceptions
All new exceptions to, or expansion of, adopted exceptions onto rural resource lands or
residential, commercial, industrial, or government non-resource Metro PlanDiagram
designations or uses outside the UGB require application of Metro Planamendment procedures
6
As a result of actions taken by all three jurisdictions in 2013, there are no lands outside the UGB within the Metro
Planboundaryon the east side of Interstate 5. Lane County OrdinanceNo. PA 1281 (June, 2013); Springfield
Ordinance No.6288 (March 2013), Eugene Ordinance No.20511 (May, 2013).
II-G-11
Draft 9/29/14
in Chapter IV. Those new or expanded exceptions must meet requirements of statewide planning
goals and administrative rules and must comply with applicable Metro Plan policies.
Background information on all adopted exception areas is detailed in the Exceptions Working
Paper and its Addendum.
Within adopted exception areas, uses and densities must be consistent with zoning and Metro
Plan designations and policies. Changes to use, density, or zone which are not consistent with
the Metro Planrequire a Metro Plan amendment following the process in Chapter IV. Such
amendments must be accompanied by an explanation of the reason for the amendment (proposed
use, intensity, size, timing, available and proposed service and facility improvements) and must
be in compliance with other applicable Metro Plan policies and the following criteria:
Compatibility with existing development pattern and density;
Adequacy of on-site sewage disposal suitability or community sewerage;
Domestic water supply availability;
Adequate access;
Availability of rural-level services (refer to Policy G.27 in Chapter III-G);
Lack of natural hazards; and
Compatibility with resource lands adjacent to the exception area.
The list of exceptions and site-specific maps, which are amendments to the Metro Plan, are
contained in Appendix C.
Airport Reserve
Lands which may be acquired by Eugene at some future time in connection with the Eugene
Airport, and for which an exception to statewide planning goals must be taken, if the zoning is
changed from Exclusive Farm Use/Commercial Airport Safety Combining (E-40/GAS zone).
University/Research
This category represents property which is located in proximity to the University of Oregon
campus. It is primarily intended to accommodate light industrial, research and development, and
office uses related to activities, research, and programs of the University of Oregon. The
designation also allows for mixed use development, including a limited range of retail and
service uses and multiple-family dwellings. Commercial activities in this category are intended
to serve the day-to-day needs of employees working in and near university/research areas.
Activities, such as general retail and office, will continue to be located in other appropriately
designated areas.
Development of land in this category can play a critical role in the diversification of the
metropolitan area’s economy by providing an opportunity to develop industrial activities which
support and utilize programs of the University of Oregon.
Forest Lands
II-G-12
Draft 9/29/14
These lands designated outside the UGB include soils with potential forest productivity and
lands with existing forest cover. Designated forest lands are protected to preserve multiple forest
resource values, including commercial timber harvest, livestock grazing, scenic resources,
watershed and soil protection, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities.
Mixed Uses
This category represents areas where more than one use might be appropriate, usually as
determined by refinement plans on a local level. (For example, the Whiteaker Refinement Plan
includes several areas where a mix of compatible uses, based in part on existing development,
are designated.) In the absence of a refinement plan, the underlying plan designation shall
determine the predominant land use.
Natural Resource
This designation applies to privately and publicly owned lands where development and
conflicting uses shall be prohibited to protect natural resource values. These lands shall be
protected and managed for the primary benefit of values, such as fish and wildlife habitat, soil
conservation, watershed conservation, scenic resources, passive recreational opportunities,
vegetative cover, and open space. Where agricultural or forest practices have been identified as a
conflicting use incompatible with protection of the primary values of the identified natural
resource, those practices shall be prohibited.
Local governments shall apply appropriate implementation measures to protect these areas and to
direct development toward “buildable” lands adjacent to natural resource areas (planned unit
development application is a suitable technique for balancing conservation of natural resources
and need for housing).
Urban Growth Boundary
This line Urban growth boundaries separates urban and urbanizable lands from rural lands. For
the metropolitan UGB, Tthe expected UGB population iswas 286,000 by the year 2015. The
location of the metropolitan UGB resultsed from environmental, social, and economic analysis in
terms of supply and demand, which is basic to this entire Metro Plan. Accordingly, LCDC Goal
14’s establishment of UGB criteria was employed with the following results (for more detail, see
the Technical Supplement):
Factor 1.“Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth
requirements consistent with LCDC goals;”
Population projections, employment projections, and housing projections were
prepared representing the best available technical information about long-range
urban growth in the metropolitan area. These projections were translated into
total land use needs. The Metro Plan Diagram was then constructed to
accommodate projected residential growth, assuming new residential construction
II-G-13
Draft 9/29/14
over the planning period would, on an overall metropolitan-wide basis, average
approximately six dwelling units per gross acre.
Factor 2. “Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability;”
The population and employment projections were translated into need for
residential, commercial, and industrial land in response to local and statewide
goals, objectives, and policies. Extreme care has been taken to consider the
demand (projections) when analyzing the land supply in an effort to provide
adequate housing and employment opportunities.
Translation of the identified natural assets and constraints intolimitations and
prohibitions to development, in most instances, was done to preserve the livability
of the metropolitan area. These prohibitions and limitations were considered as
refinements to the vacant land supply.
Factor 3. “Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;”
The UGB is based partly on the cost of providing urban services to the
metropolitan area (for example, ridgelines and other topographic features were
considered). The Metro PlanDiagram reflects the concept of compact urban
growth, sequential development, and opportunities for the least costly provision of
public services and facilities.
Factor 4. “Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban
area;”
Again, the Metro PlanDiagram reflects compact urban growth which, in turn,
should achieve maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the
existing urban area.
Factor 5. “Environmental, energy, economic, and social consequences;”
The Metro PlanDiagram represents a balancing of all environmental, energy,
economic, and social impacts, as addressed by LCDC goals and the Metro Plan
text. For example, decidedly lower residential densities and a much larger land
supply may result in lower land costs, but energy savings may very well be
sacrificed through need for longer transportation routes and accompanying fuel
consumption.
Factor 6.“Retention of agricultural land, as defined, with Class I being the highest priority
for retention and Class VI the lowest priority;”
The compact urban growth and sequential development principles embodied in
the Metro Plantext and Metro PlanDiagram allow for retention of the most
productive agricultural lands when balanced with other planning goals.
II-G-14
Draft 9/29/14
Factor 7.“Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities.”
Again, the Metro Plan Diagram adheres to the compact urban growth form and
sequential development. The separation between urban and urbanizable lands and
rural lands formed by the UGB creates a sharp distinction between ultimate urban
uses and agricultural uses on rural lands.
While urban development may create problems from an agricultural production
standpoint, the compact urban growth form is, in many ways, compatible with
nearby agricultural activities.
First, as urban densities increase, the close proximity of productive agricultural
areas provides the potential to access larger markets for their products, thereby
increasing their economic return. Second, close proximity can reduce
transportation costs for agricultural products grown near metropolitan population
concentrations, enabling local farmers to remain or become competitive with
more distant markets. Third, retention of productive agricultural lands
immediately adjacent to urban development can provide possible social and
psychological benefits to urban residents. Fourth, the compact urban growth form
and sequential development avoids the problem of leapfrogging and the problem
of surrounding an area of agricultural development with urban areas.
Since the most productive agricultural lands are typified by Class I agricultural
soils located in the floodway fringes, the boundary of the floodway fringe often
serves as the location of the UGB. When the floodway fringe follows a natural
bench or when a road creates a dike which defines the floodway fringe, the
boundary between urban uses and agricultural uses may be abrupt. In other
instances, the transition from urban to rural is not as easily definable on the
ground.
Recognizing inevitable problems for agricultural production and retention of
small isolated pockets of agricultural land that are or would be surrounded by
urban uses was not considered a high priority in drawing the UGB.
On the east side of Interstate 5, the location of the UGB is either tax lot-specific (coterminous
with tax lot boundaries) or specifically identified by a metes and bounds description. On the
7
west side of I-5, Tthe UGB is tax lot-specific where it is coterminous with city limits, where it
has been determined through the annexation process, and where it falls on the outside edge of
existing or planned rights-of-way. In other places on the west side of I-5, the UGB is determined
7
The location of the Springfield UGB is set out on the table entitled “List of tax lots which are adjacent to and
inside, or split by the UGB” and the document entitled “Summary of Methodology Utilized to Refine the Location
of the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary.” The table and methodology document were added to the Metro Plan
in 2011as part of the adoption of the City of Springfield’s city-specific UGB (through Springfield Ordinance No.
6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA1274in 2011.
II-G-15
Draft 9/29/14
on a case-by-case basis through interpretation of the Metro PlanPlan Boundaries Map in this
Metro Planand the following factors (see Metro Plan Plan Boundaries Map Key):
Protection of Agricultural Lands
Protection of Forest Lands
Ridgeline (Drainage Basin)
Orderly and Economic Public Services
Floodway Fringe
Protection of Wetlands
Protection of Sand and Gravel Resources
Airport Protection
Existing Development and Services (City Limits)
Meet Economic Goals
Meet Housing Goals
Metro Plan Plan Boundary
The Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary) defines that area shown on theMetro Plan
Diagram that includes Springfield, Eugene, and unincorporated urban, urbanizable, rural, and
agricultural lands exclusive of areas encompassed in the Lane County Rural Comprehensive
Plan. With modification to the boundary of the adjacent Lane County Rural Comprehensive
Plan, tThe Plan Boundary will representsthe interface between the area encompassed in the
Metro Plan and areas subject to the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan. At some future
date, these boundaries may require further adjustment, reflecting increasing need for urban land
in the metropolitan area. The county and the two cities should recognize this possibility in their
respective planning programs.
II-G-16
Draft 9/29/14
Insert Metro Plan Diagram
Insert Metro PlanBoundaries Map
II-G-17
Draft 9/29/14
Urban Growth Boundary Location Description Keyed to
Plan Boundaries Map
Metro Plan
For an up-to-date information regarding map showing the areas west of Interstate 5 where the
UGB is tax lot-specific.(i.e., where the UGB and city limits are the same, through annexations
or to the outside edge of existing rights-of-way), contact the Lane Council of Governments
(LCOG). Copies are on file at LCOG and the planning offices of the City of Eugene ,
Springfield, andor Lane County. As explained in Chapter II-G, the metropolitan UGB was
developed considering the seven factors that were then set out in LCDC Statewide Planning Goal
14: Urbanization. The following matrix outlines key factors that will be considered to determine
the location of the metropolitan UGB west of Interstate 5 Highway where it is not tax lot-
specific.
Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary Map Key
Metro Plan
Map
Key
A-B
8
B-C
C-D
D-E
E-F
F-G
G-H
H-I
I-J
J-K
K-L
L-M
M-N
N-O
O-P
P-Q
Q-R
R-S
S-T
8
UGB segments C-Pare now specifically identified on the table entitled “List of tax lots which are adjacent to and
inside, or split by the UGB” and the document entitled “Summary of Methodology Utilized to Refine the Location
of the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary.” The table and methodology documentwere added to the Metro Plan in
2011 as part of the adoption of the City of Springfield’s city-specific UGB (through Springfield Ordinance No. 6268
and Lane County Ordinance No. PA1274in 2011.
II-G-18
Draft 9/29/14
T-U
U-V
V-W
W-X
X-Y
Y-Z
Z-A
II-G-19
Draft 9/29/14
Chapter III
Specific Elements
A. Metropolitan Residential Land Use and Housing Element
The Metro PlanResidential Land Use and Housing Element addresses the housing needs of
current and future residents of the entire Eugene-Springfieldmetropolitan area through 2015.In
2011, the City of Springfield and Lane County adopted aResidential Land Use and Housing
Element that addresses Springfield’s city-specific residential land needs through 2030.This
1
Springfield-specific action was based on the mandates set out in ORS 197.304, described in more
detail in the Metro Plan Preface and Chapter 1. In adopting its city-specific update in 2011,
Springfield made it clear that the regional housing goals and policiesin this Metropolitan
Residential Land Use and Housing Element would continue to apply to Springfield. However,
the findingsin this Metro Plan element no longer apply on the east side of Interstate 5. The
entirety of thiselement will continue to apply on the west side of Interstate 5 until such time as
the City of Eugene adopts its Residential Land Use and Housing Element, addressingits city-
specific residential land needs.
Land in residential use occupies the largest share of land within the metropolitan areaurban
growth boundary (UGB). The existing housing stock and residential land supply and its
relationship to other land uses and infrastructure are critical to the future needs of all residents.
This element addresses Statewide Planning Goal 10: Housing, “To provide for the housing
needs of the citizens of the state.” Housing demand originates with the basic need for shelter but
continues into the realm of creating communities. The policies contained in this element are
based on an analysis of the metropolitan area’s land supply and housing demand, existing
housing problems, and the demographic characteristics of the expected future population.
Factors that were reviewed to develop a projection of the 2015 metropolitan future housing
demand were: projected number of metroarea households; household income, age, size, and
type; and special housing needs. The background material for this analysis is contained in two
documents, the 1999 Supply and Demand Technical Analysis and the 1999 Site Inventory
Document.
2
The policiesin this Metro Planelement provide direction for the local jurisdictions in preparing
zoning and development regulations to address future housing needs. Each jurisdiction will be
responsible to implement the policies contained in the Metro PlanResidential Land Use and
Housing Element. At the time of the annual monitoring report, information on progress made to
1
See the “Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element”adopted bySpringfield
Ordinance No. 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1274.
2
The background material for the City of Springfield’s 2030Residential Land and Housing Element Needs Analysis
is contained in its “Technical Supplement: Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis”adopted by
Springfield Ordinance No. 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1274 and the findingsthat accompanied those
ordinances.
III-A-1
Draft 9/29/14
realize this policy direction will be made available. As local jurisdictions implement this
element of the Metro Plan, they will analyze the suitability of residential designations in terms of
density and location and, based on this analysis, may propose changes to the Metro Plan
Diagram.
Goal
Provide viable residential communities so all residents can choose sound, affordable housing that
meets individual needs.
Findingsand Policies
3
The findings and policies in this element are organized by the following seven topics related to
housing and residential land:
Residential Land Supply and Demand
Residential Density
Housing Type and Tenure
Design and Mixed Use
Existing Housing Supply and Neighborhoods
Affordable, Special Need, and Fair Housing
Coordination
Residential Land Supply and Demand
Findings
1. By 2015, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan UGB is projected to reach a population of
286,000 This is a 29 percent increase from the estimated 2000 census population of
222,500.
2. Average household size has been declining both nationally and locally due to a variety of
factors. This trend will result in the need for more dwelling units to house population
growth.
3. Based on the 2015 projected population and average household size, there is a need for
between 40,000 and 49,000 new housing units in the Eugene-Springfield UGB between
1992 and 2015.
4.There is sufficient buildable residential land within the existing UGB to meet the future
housing needs of the projected population. In fact, the 1992 residential buildable land
3
The findings in this element, which relate to the metropolitan land supply and demand considering a 2015
population forecast, are no longer relevant onthe east side of Interstate 5, which now relies on the “Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element” based on Springfield’s 2030 population forecast. See
Springfield Ordinance No. 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1274.
III-A-2
Draft 9/29/14
supply exceeds the 1992-2015 residential land demand in all residential categories.
Assuming land is consumed evenly over the period, by 1999, there will be at least a 20-
year supply of residential land remaining inside the UGB.
5. Undeveloped residential land is considered unbuildable and removed from the supply if it
is within 230 KV powerline easements, the floodway, protected wetlands or wetland
mitigation sites in Eugene, wetlands larger than 0.25 acres in Springfield or buffers
around Class A and B streams and ponds. The remaining buildable residential land is
located primarily on the outer edge of the UGB and some of the buildable residential land
has development constraints such as slopes, floodplain, hydric soils and wetlands.
Development potential is reduced in Springfield on floodplain areas and in Eugene on
remaining potential wetlands due to moderate constraints that can support a less intense
level of development.
6.Anticipated federal regulations affecting fish habitats in the Pacific Northwest and new
applications for regulating under-designated, saturated, hydric soils by Oregon’s Division
of State Lands, as well as other factors, make a definitive calculation of the buildable
land supply difficult. The adopted buildable land supply inventory represents the local
jurisdiction’s best assessment of the amount of buildable land that will be available
within the UGB until the year 2015.
III-A-3
Draft 9/29/14
Supply and Demand Analysis in Acres
LowMediumHigh
DensityDensityDensityTotal
SUPPLY
Total Net Buildable Acres for Housing4,7808281955,802
Flat Buildable Acres3,1597771924,129
15-25Percent Sloped Land913411955
Eugene605391645
Springfield30721310
Steep Sloped (>25 percent) Buildable
Acres70891718
Eugene34120343
Springfield36761374
DEMAND
Low-High Range Residential Demand
Remaining After Subtracting Demand Met
by Buildable Lots3,298-4,225523-641120-1473,941-5,013
Land Demand for Housing Displaced by
Redevelopment270027
Total Expected Residential Land
Demand –1992-20153,8405891354,564
Low-High Range Residential Land
Demand –1992-20153,325-4,252523-641120-1473,968-5,040
Difference between Total Buildable
Supply and Expected Residential Land
Demand in Acres*940239601,238
Notes: Totals may differ due to rounding. Assumptions are estimates based on available data.
* Housing is not allocated to commercial and mixed use designated land due to Oregon Administrative Rules, although it is known that some
housing will be built on commercial and mixed use land.
III-A-4
Draft 9/29/14
Supply and Demand Analysis in Units
LowMediumHigh
DensityDensityDensityTotal
SUPPLY
Total Units on Buildable Acres 28,68113,0786,76048,519
Units on Flat Buildable Acres21,79712,4326,72040,949
Units on 15-25 Percent Sloped Land5,403632396,074
Eugene (same density as flat)4,175624354,834
Springfield (@ 4 DU/acre)1,228841,240
Units on Steep (>25 percent) Sloped 1,4821411,497
Buildable Acres
Eugene (@ 3 DU/acre)1,023601,029
Springfield (@ 1.25 DU/acre)45981468
DEMAND
Low-High Range Residential Demand
Remaining After Subtracting Demand Met 22,873-8,384-4,200-35,457-
by Buildable Lots & Infill29,04210,2705,14544,457
Unit Demand for Housing Displaced by
Redevelopment14900149
Total Expected Residential Unit
Demand –1992-201526,4499,4324,72540,606
Low-High Range Residential Unit 23,022-8,384-4,200-35,606-
Demand –1992-201529,19110,2705,14544,606
Difference between Total Buildable
Supply and Expected Residential land
Demand in Units*2,2323,6462,0357,913
Note: Totals may differ due to rounding. Assumptions are estimates based on available data.
*Housing is not allocated to commercial and mixed use designated land due to Oregon Administrative Rules although it is knownthat some
housing will be built on commercial and mixed use land.
7. In 1995, approximately 28 percent of the buildable residential land supply did not have
public services, primarily wastewater. Of this total, 1,136 acres or 12 percent will not be
served for ten or more years; 521 acres (5.5 percent) will be served in five to ten years;
476 acres (5 percent) in three to four years, and 520 acres (5.5 percent) in one to two
years.
8. In the aggregate, non-residential land uses consume approximately 32 percent of
buildable residential land. These non-residential uses include churches, day care centers,
parks, streets, schools, and neighborhood commercial.
9.Some of the residential land demand will be met through redevelopment and infill.
Residential infill is occurring primarily in areas with larger, single-family lots that have
surplus vacant land or passed-over small vacant parcels. Redevelopment is occurring
primarily in the downtown Eugene and West University areas, where less intensive land
III-A-5
Draft 9/29/14
uses, such as parking lots and single-family dwellings are being replaced with higher
density, multi-family development.
10.Since the last Periodic Review of the Metro Plan in 1987, there have been only two
minor expansions of the UGB for residentially designated land. Each expansion was less
than one acre in size.
11. The UGB defines the extent of urban building and service expansion over the planning
period. There are geographic and resource constraints that will limit expansion of the
UGB in the future. At such time that expansion is warranted, it will be necessary to cross
a river, develop agricultural land, or cross over a ridge where the provision of public
services and facilitieswill be expensive.
12. Since adoption of the Metro Plan, the supply of residential lands has been reduced as a
result of compliance with federal, state, and local regulations to protect wetlands, critical
habitat of endangered/threatened species, and other similar natural resources. This trend
is likely to continue in order to meet future Statewide Planning Goal 5 and stormwater
quality protection requirements.
13.Springfield charges a system development charge for stormwater, wastewater, and
transportation. Willamalane Park and Recreation District charges a system development
charge for parks. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) charges for water. Eugene charges for
stormwater, wastewater, parks, and transportation. Eugene Water & Electric Board
(EWEB) charges for water. These charges could be increased in some cases. Currently,
state law does not include local systems development charges for fire and emergency
medical service facilities and schools. Depending on market conditions, residents of
newly constructed housing also pay for services and facilities they receive through local
assessment districts, connection charges, direct investment in public infrastructure, and
property taxes.
Policies
A.1 Encourage the consolidation of residentially zoned parcels to facilitate more options for
development and redevelopment of such parcels.
A.2 Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned consistent with the Metro
Plan and applicable plans and policies; however, existing agricultural zoning may be
continued within the area between the city limits and the UGB until rezoned for urban
uses.
A.3 Provide an adequate supply of buildable residential land within the UGB for the 20-year
planning period at the time of Periodic Review.
A.4Use annexation, provision of adequate public facilities and services, rezoning,
redevelopment, and infill to meet the 20-year projected housing demand.
III-A-6
Draft 9/29/14
A.5 Develop a monitoring system that measures land consumption, land values, housing type,
size, and density. Reports should be made to the community on an annual basis.
A.6 Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall encourage a community dialogue, when the
annual monitoring report on land supply and housing development is made public, to
address future Periodic Review requirements that relate to meeting the residential land
supply needs of the metropolitan area.
A.7 Endeavor to provide key urban services and facilities required to maintain a five-year
supply of serviced, buildable residential land.
A.8Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of extending
public services and infrastructure. The cities shall examine ways to provide subsidies or
incentives for providing infrastructure that support affordable housing and/or higher
density housing.
Residential Density
Findings
14. Housing costs are increasing more rapidly than household income. With rising land and
housing costs, the market has been and will continue to look at density as a way to keep
housing costs down.
15. Recently approved subdivisions are achieving lot sizes on flat land averaging 7,400
square feet in Eugene and 7,800 square feet in Springfield. Comparing the net densityof
4
all Eugene-Springfield metropolitan single family-detached units in 1986 and 1994
indicates that in 1986 the net density was 4.12 units per acre which equates to a 10,573
square foot lot while in 1994, the net density was 4.18 units per acre or a 10,410 square
foot lot. These trends indicate that development in low-density is achieving assumed
density expectations.
16. Although single-family detached lot sizes are decreasing, the Metro Plantargeted
residential densities for all new development are not being achieved at this time. The
Metro Plan assumes a net density of 8.57 units per acre (note: translation from 6 units per
gross acre) for new development over the planning period. For new dwelling units
5
constructed during 1986 to 1994, the net density was 7.05 units per acre based on the
Regional Land Information Database of Lane County (RLID). The estimated average
overall residential net density for all residential development has climbed from 5.69 units
per acre in 1986 to 5.81 units per acre in 1994.
4
Density (Net): The number of dwelling units per each acre of land, excluding areas devoted to dedicated streets,
neighborhood parks sidewalks, and other public facilities.
5
Density (Gross): The number of dwelling units per each acre of land, including areas devoted to dedicated streets,
neighborhood parks, sidewalks, and other public facilities.
III-A-7
Draft 9/29/14
17. Both Springfield and Eugene have adopted smaller minimum lot size requirements to
allow increased density in low-density residentially designated areas. Even so, density in
low-density residentially designated areas does not routinely achieve the higher range of
low-density zoning (near 10 units/gross acre) due to the current market and the area
requirements for other site improvements such as streets.
18. Offering incentives (e.g., reduced parking requirements, tax abatements) for increased
density has not been completely successful in this metro area. In areas where some
increase in density is proposed, there can be neighborhood opposition.
Policies
A.9 Establish density ranges in local zoning and development regulations that are consistent
with the broad density categories of this plan.
Low density: Through 10 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate up to
14.28 units per net acre depending on each jurisdictions implementation measures
and land use and development codes)
Medium density: Over 10 through 20 dwelling units per gross acre (could
translate to over 14.28 units per net acre through 28.56 units per net acre
depending on each jurisdictions implementation measures and land use and
development codes)
High density: Over 20 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate to over 28.56
units per net acre depending on each jurisdiction’s implementation measures and
land use and development codes)
A.10 Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure,
improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves rural resource
lands outside the UGB.
A.11 Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial
services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient
nodes.
A.12 Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision of adequate
infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities.
A.13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more
opportunities for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while
considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future
neighborhoods.
A. 14 Review local zoning and development regulations periodically to remove barriers to
higher density housing and to make provision for a full range of housing options.
III-A-8
Draft 9/29/14
A.15 Develop a wider range of zoning options such as new zoning districts, to fully utilize
existing Metro Plandensity ranges.
A. 16 Allow for the development of zoning districts which allow overlap of the established
Metro Plan density ranges to promote housing choice and result in either maintaining or
increasing housing density in those districts. Under no circumstances, shall housing
densities be allowed below existing Metro Plandensity ranges.
Housing Type and Tenure
Findings
19.Based on 1990 Census data for the Eugene area, there is a relationship between
household income, size of household, age of household head, and housing choices people
make regarding type and tenure. The trends established are as follows: lower income
and increasingly moderate-income, primarily young and single-person households tend to
be renters. Ownership increases as income and family size increase. Older households
predominately remain in owner-occupied, single-family housing, but as the age of the
head of household reaches 65, ownership rates begin to decline.
20. Based on the ECO Northwest/Leland Study, What is the Market Demand for Residential
Real Estate in Eugene/Springfield? (October 1996) a larger share of the future population
will be composed of smaller, older, and less affluent households. This will alter housing
market demand in many ways over the next 20 years. Married couple families with
children will no longer be the predominate household type of the residential market.
Singles, childless couples, divorcees, and single parents will be a much larger proportion
of the market than in the past. To meet the needs of these households, more choices in
housing types (both for sale and for rent) than currently exist will be necessary.
21. Based on Lane County assessment data, in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a shift to
larger, single-family detached homes, even through the average number of persons per
household has been declining.
22. Between 1989 and 1998, 45 percent of all new housing was single-family detached
including manufactured units on lots. As of 1998, about 59 percent of all dwelling units
were single-family detached. This represents a decrease in the share of single-family
detached from 61 percent in 1989.
Policies
A.17 Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost, and
location.
A.18 Encourage a mix of structure types and densities within residential designations by
reviewing and, if necessary, amending local zoning and development regulations.
III-A-9
Draft 9/29/14
A.19 Encourage residential developments in or near downtown core areas in both cities.
A.20 Encourage home ownership of all housing types, particularly for low-income households.
A.21 Allow manufactured dwelling parks as an outright use in low-density residential zones if
the local jurisdiction’s prescribed standards are met.
Design and Mixed Use
6
Findings
23.Mixed-use development (residential with commercial or office) has the potential to
reduce impacts on the transportation system by minimizing or eliminating automobile
trips.
24. Mixed use may be seen as a threat to predominantly residential development. Standards
on siting and use and design review are seen as ways to mitigate negative impacts.
25.In-home business and telecommuting are becoming more common. The market for
combining home and office uses will continue to increase.
26.While people generally are open to the concept of higher density, they are still concerned
about how density will affect their neighborhood in terms of design, increased traffic, and
activity. With higher densities, people need more local parks and open space.
27.The metropolitan area enjoys a wide variety of open spaces, natural areas, and livable
neighborhoods. As density increases, design and landscaping standards and guidelines
maybe necessary to maintain community livability and aesthetics, as well as making
density more acceptable.
Policies
A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing
neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations.
A.23 Reduce impacts of higher density residential and mixed-use development on surrounding
uses by considering site, landscape, and architectural design standards or guidelines in
local zoning and development regulations.
A.24 Consider adopting or modifying local zoning and development regulations to provide a
discretionary design review process or clear and objective design standards, in order to
address issues of compatibility, aesthetics, open space, and other community concerns.
6
Mixed use: A building, project or area of development that contains at least two different land uses such as
housing, retail, and office uses
III-A-10
Draft 9/29/14
Existing Housing Supply and Neighborhoods
Findings
28. Accommodating residential growth within the current UGB encourages in-fill,
rehabilitation, and redevelopment of the existing housing stock and neighborhoods.
29. As the age of the housing stock reaches 25 years, the need for rehabilitation,
weatherization, and major system upgrades increases. Approximately 59 percent of the
single-family housing stock was built prior to 1969.
30. More renters than owners live in sub-standard housing conditions. Based on the 1995
Eugene/Springfield Consolidated Plan, about 16 percent of all occupied rental units of
the metropolitan housing stock are considered to be in sub-standard condition.
31. Local government has had and will continue to have a role in preserving the aging
housing stock. Preserving the housing stock has numerous benefits to the community
because much of the older housing stock represents affordable housing. In addition,
upgrading the aging housing stock provides benefits that help stabilize older
neighborhoods in need of revitalization.
Policies
A.25 Conserve the metropolitan area’s supply of existing affordable housing and increase the
stability and quality of older residential neighborhoods, through measures such as
revitalization; code enforcement; appropriate zoning; rehabilitation programs; relocation
of existing structures; traffic calming; parking requirements; or public safety
considerations. These actions should support planned densities in these areas.
A.26 Pursue strategies that encourage rehabilitation of existing housing and neighborhoods.
Affordable, Special Need, and Fair Housing
78
Finding
32. Substantial and continued federal funding reductions for housing assistance are
increasing the burden on local governments. The high cost of housing for low-income
7
Affordable housing: Housing priced so that a household at or below median income pays no more than 30 percent
of its total gross income on housing and utilities. [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD)
figure for 1997 annual median income for a family of three in Lane County is $33,900; 30 percent = $847/month.]
8
Special need housing: Housing for special needs populations. These populations represent some unique sets of
housing problems and are usually at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace due to circumstances beyond
their control. These subgroups include, but are not limited to, the elderly, persons with disabilities, homeless
individuals and families, at-risk youth, large families, farm workers, and persons being released from correctional
institutions.
III-A-11
Draft 9/29/14
families directly correlates with an increasing demand for other support services such as
food supplement programs and utility assistance. The high cost of housing results in
homelessness for some households. Homelessness directly and indirectly negatively
impacts public health, public safety, and public education systems in multiple,
measurable ways.
33.The next 20 years are expected to see increased need for apartments and single family
housing for low and very low income households. Based on the 1990 Census,
910
approximately 20 percent of all households are currently classified as very low-income.
34. There is a shortage of unconstrained medium and high density zoned sites, for sale, that
are flat and serviced with utilities. This is particularly true in Eugene. Low income
projects frequently must use density bonuses or other land use incentives that require
additional land use processes such as public hearings, which exposes the project to longer
timelines and appeals.
35.Based on the 1995 Eugene/Springfield Consolidated Plan, in Eugene and Springfield, 35
percent of households experience housing problems (defined by HUD as overcrowded,
substandard, or the household is paying over 30 percent of its income for housing and
utilities). The predominate housing problem is that households are paying more than they
can afford for housing.
36. The de-institutionalization of people with disabilities, including chronic mental illness,
has continued since the 1980’s and adds to the number of homeless, poorly housed, and
those needing local support services and special need housing.
37. Based on the annual one-night Lane County shelter/homeless counts, the number of
homeless people is increasing and a third of the homeless are children.
38. Demographics point to an increasing proportion of the population over 65 years of age in
the future. This will require more housing that can accommodate the special needs of this
group.
39. Construction of housing with special accommodations or retrofitting existing housing
drives up the occupancy costs for the tenant. Tenants with special needs typically have
low incomes and are less able to pay increased rents.
40. Existing land use regulations do not easily accommodate the establishment of alternative
and innovative housing strategies, such as group recovery houses and homeless shelters.
9
Low income housing: Housing priced so thata household at or below 80 percent of median income pays no more
than 30 percent of its total gross household income on housing and utilities. (HUD’s figure for 1997 annual 80
percent of median for a family of three in Lane County is $27,150; 30 percent = $678/month.)
10
Very low income housing: Housing priced so that a household at or below 50 percent of median income pays no
more than 30 percent of its total gross household income on housing and utilities. (HUD’s figure for 1997 annual 50
percent of median of a family of three in Lane County is $16,950; 30 percent = $423/month.)
III-A-12
Draft 9/29/14
41.Existing emergency shelters do not have the capability to serve the entire homeless
population. This results in people illegally inhabiting residential neighborhoods and non-
residentially zoned areas. The challenges facing homeless people are increased when
they are forced far out of the urban areas where resources, training, treatments, and job
opportunities are less available.
42.Practices of some cultures, such as Latino and Asian households, conflict with existing
public policies that limit a household to five unrelated adults, and private rental practices
that limit occupancy to two people per bedroom.
43. Fair housing issues typically impact renters more often than homebuyers and
discrimination tends to increase when the vacancy rate decreases.
Policies
A.27 Seek to maintain and increase public and private assistance for low- and very low-income
households that are unable to pay for shelter on the open market.
A.28 Seek to maintain and increase the supply of rental housing and increase home ownership
options for low- and very low-income households by providing economic and other
incentives, such as density bonuses, to developers that agree to provide needed below-
market and service-enhanced housing in the community.
A.29 Consider public purposes such as low- and very low-income housing when evaluating
UGB expansions.
A.30 Balance the need to provide a sufficient amount of land to accommodate affordable
housing with the community’s goals to maintain a compact urban form.
A.31 Consider the unique housing problems experienced by special needs populations,
including the homeless, through review of local zoning and development regulations,
other codes and public safety regulations to accommodate these special needs.
A.32 Encourage the development of affordable housing for special needs populations that may
include service delivery enhancements on-site.
A.33 Consider local zoning and development regulations impact on the cost of housing.
A.34 Protect all persons from housing discrimination.
Coordination
Findings
44. All three general purpose governments in the metropolitan area implement housing
programs and coordinate their housing planning and implementation activities.
III-A-13
Draft 9/29/14
45. In the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area, public, private non-profit and private for
profit developers work closely with the cities to develop low-income housing.
Policies
A.35 Coordinate local residential land use and housing planning with other elements of this
plan, including public facilities and services, and other local plans, to ensure consistency
among policies.
A.36 Coordinate public, private, and consumer sectors of the area’s housing market, including
public-private partnerships, to promote housing for low- and very low- income
households and to increase housing density and types.
A.37 Consider the suggested implementation measures in the Residential Lands and Housing
Study and other measures in order to implement the policy directives of the Residential
Land Use and Housing Element of the Metro Plan.
III-A-14
B.Economic Element
In recent years, there has been a strong structural shift in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area’s economy. This shift is characterized by four trends: (a) a decline in the lumber and wood
products industry as a source of employment; (b) limited increase in employment in other
manufacturing activities; (c) diversification of the non-manufacturing segments of the local
economy, primarily in trade, services, finance, insurance, and real estate; and (d) the
development of this metropolitan area as a regional trade and service center serving southern and
eastern Oregon.
The decline in lumber and wood products and diversification of the non-manufacturing sectors
are consistent with changes that are occurring in other portions of the state and throughout the
nation as a result of rising real incomes and higher productivity of labor in manufacturing. The
increase in employment in other manufacturing activities in this area has lagged behind other
portions of the state, particularly the Portland area, and many other places in the nation.
Given the projected growth in this area’s economy, it is essential that an adequate supply
(quantitatively and qualitatively) of commercial and industrial land be available. An adequate
supply of land includes not only sites sufficient in size to accommodate the needs of the
commercial or industrial operations (including expansion), but also includes sites which are
attractive from the standpoint of esthetics, transportation costs, labor costs, availability of skilled
labor, natural resource availability, proximity to markets, and anticipated growth of local
markets.
In striving toward the Land Conservation and Development Commission’s (LCDC) Statewide
Planning Goal 9: Economic Development, “To provide adequate opportunities throughout the
state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s
citizens,” the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area must take advantage of and encourage the
further diversification of this area’s economic activities and role as a regional center.
This diversification and growth can improve the opportunities for presently underutilized human
resources and generally raise the standard of living for metropolitan area residents.
Implicit in the goals and objectives that follow is the premise that the economic health of the area
is integrally related to the quality of life for residents. Improved welfare of the residents of the
metropolitan area, measured by increases in employment opportunities and reductions in
unemployment, increases in real incomes, and improved environmental quality are the ultimate
goals of all economic efforts. Economic growth or industrial expansion is acceptable when it is
consistent with these goals and objectives.
Goal
Broaden, improve, and diversify the metropolitan economy while maintaining or enhancing the
environment.
Draft 9/29/14
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1.The structure of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area economy is undergoing a shift
away from lumber and wood products manufacturing (and other heavy industrial
activities) and towards a more diverse economic base characterized by growth in light
manufacturing activities and the non-manufacturing activities of trade, commercial and
professional services, finance, insurance, and real estate.
2.The lumber and wood products sector is the metropolitan area’s dominant manufacturing
activity; and in this respect, Lane County’s forest is the area’s most important natural
resource utilized as a factor of production.
3.Major institutions in the metropolitan area including the University of Oregon and Sacred
Heart Hospital, have had a stabilizing influence on the local economy.
4.The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area is developing as a regional center for
activities, such as tourism, distribution, and financial services, serving the southwestern and
central Oregon area.
5.Based on data from the 2000 U.S. Census, the per capita income in 1999 for the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area was lower than for Oregon as a whole and the Portland
metropolitan area.
6.In 2000, the unemployment rate in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area was
comparable to Oregon and higher than the national rate.
7.Historically, heavy-manufacturing industries, including primary metals, chemicals and
paper, have been characterized by high levels of pollution or energy consumption.
Changes in technology and environmental regulations have reduced the potential
environmental impacts of these industries. Heavy manufacturing industries provide
benefits, such as relatively high wage scales and the potential for generating secondary
manufacturing activities.
8. Both expansion of existing businesses through use of local capital and entrepreneurial
skills and the attraction of new employers offer realistic opportunities for economic
development.
9. The healthful environment of the metropolitan area can help attract industrial
development, hold workers, and attract convention- and tourist-related economic
activities. The concern for clean air and water is high priority with area residents.
2
III-B-
Draft 9/29/14
10.The provision of adequate public facilities and services is necessary for economic
development.
11. There are presently inefficiently used resources in the metropolitan area, including land,
labor, and secondary waste products.
12. Major employment areas include the Eugene and Springfield central business districts,
the University of Oregon area, Sacred Heart Hospital, the west Eugene industrial area, the
north (Gateway) and south Springfield industrial areas, the Highway 99N industrial area,
Country Club Road, Chad Drive, and the Mohawk-Northgate area.
13. The metropolitan economy is made up of a number of interrelated and important
elements, one of which is construction and construction-related activities. Construction,
for example, is essential for all sectors of the economy, as well as for the provision of an
adequate supply of affordable housing.
14. The mixture of commercial and office uses with industrial uses can reduce or enhance the
utility of industrial areas for industrial purposes, depending upon circumstances.
Uncontrolled mixing creates problems of compatibility and traffic congestion, and may
limit the area available for industrial development. Limited mixing, subject to clear and
objective criteria designed to minimize or eliminate incompatibility, traffic problems, and
which preserve the area for its primary purpose, can make an industrial area more
pleasant, convenient, economical, and attractive as a place to work or locate.
15. Campus industrial firms prefer city services.
16.Campus industrial firms have varied site location requirements, prefer alternative sites to
choose from, and usually benefit from location of other special light industrial firms
within the community and within the same industrial development.
Objectives
1.Improve the level, stability, and distribution of per-capita income for metropolitan
residents.
2.Reduce unemployment in the resident labor force, especially chronic long-term
unemployment.
3.Encourage local residents to develop skills and other educational attributes that would
enable them to obtain existing jobs.
4.Promote industrial and commercial development with local capital, entrepreneurial skills,
and experience of the resident labor force, as well as with new light manufacturing
companies from outside the metropolitan area.
3
III-B-
Draft 9/29/14
5.Supply an adequate amount of land within the urban growth boundary to accommodate:
(a) the diversifying manufacturing sector (especially low polluting, energy-efficient
manufacturing uses): and (b) the expansion of the metropolitan area as a regional
distribution, trade, and service center.
6.Maintain strong central business districts to provide for office-based commercial,
governmental, and specialized or large-scale retail activities.
7.Ensure compatibility between industrial lands and adjacent areas.
8.Reserve enough remaining large parcels for special developments requiring large lots.
9.Increase the potential for convention- and tourist-related economic activities.
10.Provide the necessary public facilities and services to allow economic development.
11.Attempt to find ways to more effectively use inefficiently used resources such as land,
labor, and secondary waste products.
12.Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses subject to clear,
objective criteria which: (a) do not materially reduce the suitability of industrial, office,
or commercial areas for their primary use; (b) assure compatibility; and (c) consider the
potential for increased traffic congestion.
Policies
B.1 Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially those providing
above average wage and salary levels, an increased variety of job opportunities, a rise in
the standard of living, and utilization of our existing comparative advantage in the level
of education and skill of the resident labor force.
B.2 Encourage economic development, which utilizes local and imported capital,
entrepreneurial skills, and the resident labor force.
B.3 Encourage local residents to develop job skills and other educational attributes that will
enable them to fill existing job opportunities.
B.4 Encourage the continuance of career preparation and employment orientation for
metropolitan area residents by the community’s educational institutions, labor unions,
businesses, and industry.
B.5 Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion.
B.6 Increase the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and commercial uses
correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and availability with the projections
4
III-B-
Draft 9/29/14
of demand.
B.7 Encourage industrial park development, including areas for warehousing and distributive
industries and research and development activities.
B.8 Encourage the improvement of the appearance of existing industrial areas, as well as their
ability to serve the needs of existing and potential light industrial development.
B.9 Encourage the expansion of existing and the location of new manufacturing activities,
which are characterized by low levels of pollution and efficient energy use.
B.10 Encourage opportunities for a variety of heavy industrial development in Oregon’s
second largest metropolitan area.
B.11 Encourage economic activities, which strengthen the metropolitan area’s position as a
regional distribution, trade, health, and service center.
B.12 Discourage future Metro Plan amendments that would change development-ready
industrial lands (sites defined as short-term in the metropolitan Industrial Lands Special
Study, 1991) to non-industrial designations.
B.13 Continue to encourage the development of convention and tourist-related facilities.
B.14 Continue efforts to keep the Eugene and Springfield central business districts as vital
centers of the metropolitan area.
B.15 Encourage compatibility between industrially zoned lands and adjacent areas in local
planning programs.
B.16 Utilize processes and local controls, which encourage retention of large parcels or
consolidation of small parcels of industrially or commercially zoned land to facilitate
their use or reuse in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion.
B.17 Improve land availability for industries dependent on rail access.
B.18 Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access to
industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by
implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan(TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan.
B.19 Local jurisdictions will encourage the allocation of funds to improve transportation
access to key industrial sites or areas through capital budgets and priorities.
B.20 Encourage research and development of products and markets resulting in more efficient
use of underutilized, renewable, and nonrenewable resources, including wood waste,
5
III-B-
Draft 9/29/14
recyclable materials, and solar energy.
B.21 Reserve several areas within the UGB for large-scale, campus-type, light manufacturing
uses. (See Metro Plan Diagram for locations so designated.)
B.22 Review local ordinances and revise them to promote greater flexibility for promoting
appropriate commercial development in residential neighborhoods.
B.23 Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under procedures
which clearly define the conditions under which such uses shall be permitted and which:
(a) preserve the suitability of the affected areas for their primary uses; (b) assure
compatibility; and (c) consider the potential for increased traffic congestion.
B.24 Continue to evaluate other sites in and around Springfield and Eugene for potential light-
medium industrial and special light industrial uses, as well as potential residential uses.
B.25 Pursue an aggressive annexation program and servicing of designated industrial lands in
order to have a sufficient supply of “development ready” land.
B.26 In order to provide locational choice and to attract new campus industrial firms to the
metropolitan area, Eugene and Springfield shall place as a high priority service extension,
annexation, and proper zoning of all designated special light industrial sites.
B.27 Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall improve monitoring of economic
development and trends and shall cooperate in studying and protecting other potential
industrial lands outside the urban boundary.
B.28 Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing services and
goods to a particular neighborhood.
B.29 Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing neighborhood commercial
facilities as surrounding residential densities increase or as the characteristics of the
support population change.
B.30 Industrial land uses abutting the large aggregate extraction ponds north of High Banks
Road in Springfield shall demonstrate that they require the location next to water to
facilitate the manufacture of testing of products made on-site.
6
III-B-
Draft 9/29/14
C. Environmental Resources Element
The Environmental Resources Element addresses the natural assets and hazards in the metropolitan area.
The assets include agricultural land, clean air and water, forest land, sand and gravel deposits, scenic
areas, vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat. The hazards include problems associated with floods,
soils, and geology. The policies of this element emphasize reducing urban impacts on wetlands
throughout the metropolitan area and planning for the natural assets and constraints on undeveloped lands
on the urban fringe.
Numerous local efforts reflect a positive attitude by the community toward the natural environment. For
example, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has a long history of commitment to local programs
directed toward problems of air and water quality. Examples of regional parks that provide significant
public open space areas for metropolitan residents include Eugene’s Skinner Butte, Spencer Butte, Alton
Baker, and Hendrick’s Parks and Whilamut Natural Area; Lane County’s Howard Buford Recreation
Area (Mt. Pisgah); and Willamalane Park and Recreation District’s Clearwater Park, Eastgate Woodlands,
and Dorris Ranch. Eugene has focused special planning efforts toward controlling development and
maintaining the scenic and environmental assets in the South Hills of the city. A tax levy passed by
Eugene voters is resulting in additions to the park and open space system in the metropolitan area. Lane
County, Springfield, and Eugene all contribute to the local success of the Willamette River Greenway
(Greenway) program.
The natural environment adds to the livability of the metropolitan area. Local awareness and appreciation
for nature and the need to provide a physically and psychologically healthy urban environment are
reasons for promoting a compatible mix of nature and city. Urban areas provide a diversity of economic,
social, and cultural opportunities. It is equally important to provide diversity in the natural environment
of the city. With proper planning, it is possible to allow intense urban development on suitable land and
still retain valuable islandsand corridors of open space. Open space may reflect a sensitive natural area,
such as the floodway fringe, that is protected from development. Open space can also be a park, a golf
course, a cemetery, a body of water, or an area left undeveloped within a private commercial or
residential development. Agricultural and forested lands on the fringe of the urban area, in addition to
their primary use, provide secondary scenic and open space values.
Air and water resources are especially vital in an urban area. Internal and external factors contribute to
problems associated with air quality and water quality and quantity, but techniques are available to help
reduce these problems and make the environment more livable.
The compact urban growth form concentrates urban development and activities, thus protecting valuable
resource lands on the urban fringe. But concentrating development increases pressures for development
within the urban growth boundary (UGB), making planning for open space and resource protection a
critical concern within that boundary.11
Planning can ensure the coexistence of city and nature; one
example is the Greenway.
The Environmental Resources Element provides broad direction for maintaining and improving our
natural urban environment. Other elements in the Metro Planthat provide more detail with particular
11
Metro Plan
As explained in the Preface and Chapter I, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County are taking
incremental steps to transition from a single “metropolitan UGB” to two separate UGBs, “the Eugene UGB” and
“the Springfield UGB.” The general references to “the UGB” within this Environmental Resources Element of the
Metro PlanMetro Plan
shall be interpreted as applying to any UGB within the area, unless the text specifically
refers to the metropolitan UGB, the Springfield UGB or the Eugene UGB.
III-C-1
Draft 9/29/14
aspects of the natural environment: Greenway, River Corridors and Waterways; Environmental Design;
Public Facilities and Services; and Parks and Recreation Facilities. The emphasis in the Environmental
Resources Element is the protection of waterways as a valuable and irreplaceable component of the
overall natural resource system important to the metropolitan area. Waterways are also addressed in the
“Greenway and Public Facilities and Services elements.” While some overlap repetition is unavoidable,
the Greenway element emphasizes the intrinsic value of the Willamette River waterway for enjoyment
and active and passive use by residents of the area. The public facilities element deals with components
of the natural resource system in the context of the water and stormwater systems. The public facilities
element includes findings and policies related to waterways, groundwater, drinking water protection, the
Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
The inventories conducted as the basis for this element and the goals and policies contained herein
address Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and interpret those goals in the context of the needs
and circumstances of the metropolitan area.
Lane County and the Cities of Springfield and Eugene completed the Goal 5 requirements for wetlands,
riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat for the area between the UGB and the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
(Plan Boundary). The three local governments jointly adopted Metro Plan text and policy amendments to
the Environmental Resources Element to implement the Goal 5 requirements in 2004. Lane County
adopted amendments to the riparian protection ordinance (Class I Stream Riparian Protection regulations,
Lane Code Chapter 16.253) to implement Goal 5 in the area outside the UGB and inside the Plan
Boundary in 2004. In 2004, Springfield and Eugene were undertaking work to comply with Goal 5
requirements for wetlands, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat within their respective urban growth
boundaries for adoption by the applicable jurisdictional land use authorities.
This element of the Metro Planorganizes the findings and policies into categories related to Statewide
Planning Goals 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Agricultural Lands (Goal 3)
Forest Lands (Goal 4)
Riparian Corridors, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitat (Goal 5)
Mineral and Aggregate Resources (Goal 5)
Open Space (Goal 5)
Noise (Goal 6)
Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality (Goal 6)
Natural Hazards (Goal 7)
Goals
1.Protect valuable natural resources and encourage their wise management, use, and proper reuse.
2. Maintain a variety of open spaces within and on the fringe of the developing area.
3. Protect life and property from the effects of natural hazards.
4. Provide a healthy and attractive environment, including clean air and water, for the metropolitan
population.
Findings and Policies
III-C-2
Draft 9/29/14
Agricultural Lands (Goal 3)
Findings
1. The statewide goal definition for agriculture is based upon: (a) U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) agricultural soil
capability classification system for Class I through IV soils, (b) other agricultural uses on
Class V through VIII soils, and (c) proximity of other lands to (a) and (b). The majority
of land in the metropolitan area is located on agricultural soils rated Classes I through IV,
and much of this area is developed with urban uses. The hillside soils are generally
Classes VI through VIII soils, and some are suited for grazing and other agricultural uses.
2. The most productive agricultural lands in the metropolitan area are located on Class I
through IV soils on bottomlands along the McKenzie River and the Middle Fork of the
Willamette River.
3. Where urban and agricultural lands abut, farm use management problems are frequently
created.
Policies
C.1 Where agricultural land is being considered for inclusion in future amendments to the
UGB, least productive agricultural land shall be considered first. Factors other than
agricultural soil ratings shall be considered when determining the productivity of
agricultural land. Relevant factors include suitability for grazing, climatic conditions,
existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation, ownership patterns, land use
patterns, proximity to agricultural soils or current farm uses, other adjacent land uses,
agricultural history, technological and energy inputs required, accepted farming practices,
and farm market conditions.
C.2 Designated agricultural lands shall be protected for agricultural uses through zoning for
exclusive farm use or equivalent acceptable zoning and through application of other
protective measures.
C.3 During the next Metro Plan update, a study should be initiated to examine ways of
buffering and protecting agricultural lands on the urban fringe from the effects of urban
development. The study should also evaluate approaches to use in order to maintain
physical separation between the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area and smaller
outlying communities.
C.4 In addition to any of the above policies, these policies apply to agricultural lands within
the Plan Boundary of the Metro Plan but outside the UGB. Lands within the UGB with
agricultural soils or that are used for agricultural purposes are not entitled to protection
under these policies.
III-C-3
Draft 9/29/14
a.Encourage agricultural activities by preserving and maintaining agricultural lands
through the use of an exclusive agricultural zone which is consistent with ORS 215 and
OAR 660 Division 033.
b. In Agricultural Rent Zones 1 and 2 preference will be given to Goal 3. In Rent Zone 3,
unless commercial agricultural enterprises exist, preference will be given to Goal 4.
c.Reserve the use of the best agricultural soils exclusively for agricultural purposes.
d.To ensure that zoning districts applied to agricultural lands encourage valid agricultural
practices in a realistic manner emphasis shall be placed on minimum parcel sizes which
are based upon a countywide inventory and which are adequate for the continuation of
commercial agriculture. As minimum parcel sizes decrease to accommodate more
specialized commercial agricultural activities, the burden of proof upon the applicant
shall increase in order to substantiate the proposed agricultural activity and restrictions
shall increase in order to obtain a residence on the commercial farm unit. Deviation from
minimum parcel sizes of the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU/RCP) land for the creation of a
parcel not smaller than 20 acres may be allowed when at least 19 acres of the parcel
being created are currently managed or planned to be managed by a farm management
plan for a farm operation consisting of one or more of the following: berries, grapes, or
horticultural specialties.
e. Use planning and implementation techniques that reflect appropriate uses and treatment
for each type of land.
f. Encourage irrigation, drainage and flood control projects that benefit agricultural use with
minimum environmental degradation in accordance with existing state and federal
regulations.
g.Some agricultural land is not suitable or available for agricultural use by nature of being built
upon, committed to or needed for nonagricultural uses, by using applicable
comprehensive plan policies and the exceptions process of Goal 2, Part II.
h.Provide maximum protection to agricultural activities by minimizing activities,
particularly residential, that conflict with such use. Whenever possible, planning goals,
policies, and regulations should be interpreted in favor of agricultural activities.
i.Agricultural lands shall be identified as high value farm lands and farm lands in other soil
classes in accordance with OAR 660 Division 033.
j.Such minimum lot sizes or land division criteria as are used in EFU/RCP zones shall be
appropriate for the continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise in the
region. The commercial agricultural minimum field or parcel sizes and corresponding
farming regions identified in the Addendum to Working Paper: Agricultural Landsshall
be used to determine the appropriate division requirements for lands zoned EFU/RCP.
k. Conversion of rural agricultural land to urbanizable land shall follow the process and
criteria set forth in Goals 3 and 14.
l. Regard non-agricultural uses within or adjacent to agricultural lands as being subject to
the normal and accepted agricultural practices of that locality.
III-C-4
Draft 9/29/14
m. No policy shall be construed to exclude permitted and specially permitted non-farm uses,
as defined in ORS 215.213 and OAR 660 Division 033, from the EFU/RCP zones.
Implementing ordinances shall provide for such uses, consistent with the statutory and
OAR 660 Division 033 requirements. Special permits for commercial uses in
conjunction with farm use shall have the same effect as making the use an outright
permitted use on the affected parcel.
n.Land may be designated as marginal land if it complies with the requirements of ORS
197.247 (1991 Edition).
o. Lane County recognizes ORS 215.253 shall apply on land-zoned EFU and Marginal
Lands.
p.Recreational activities in the Park and Recreation (PR/RCP) zone district within
agricultural areas that are outside lands for which a built or committedexception to a
statewide planning goal has been taken shall be limited to those uses consistent with
Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4.
Forest Lands (Goal 4)
Findings
4.Forest lands are those lands acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) as forest lands as of the date of adoption of the 1993 amendments to Goal
4. When a plan amendment involving forest lands is proposed, forest land shall include lands
which are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby lands which are
necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other forested lands that maintain soil, air,
water, and fish and wildlife resources.
5.Forest lands provide multiple values in the metropolitan area including: scenic resources;
watershed and soil protection, recreational opportunities; fish and wildlife habitat; commercial
timber harvest; livestock grazing; and other urban uses, such as buffering. Within the UGB, and
particularly within cities, timber harvest has less value to the general public than do other values.
Policies
C.5 Metropolitan goals relating to scenic quality, water quality, vegetation and wildlife, open
space, and recreational potential shall be given a higher priority than timber harvest
within the UGB.
C.6 The Oregon Forest Practices Act shall control commercial forest practices when
commercial forest uses are the primary or one of two or more primary uses identified on
forest lands outside the UGB. When other policies of the MetroPlanestablish a greater
importance for uses other than commercial forests, Lane County shall protect those other
values by applying appropriate implementation measures.
III-C-5
Draft 9/29/14
C.7 In addition to any of the above policies, these policies apply to forest lands within the Plan
Boundary of the Metro Plan but outside the UGB:
a.Conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and protect the state’s forest
economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the
continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land
consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and
to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
Forest land shall include lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including
adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and
other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources.
b. Forest lands will be separated into two zoning categories, Non-impacted and Impacted,
and these categories shall be defined and mapped by the general characteristics specified
in the Non-impacted Forest Land (F-1/RCP) and Impacted Forest Land (F-2/RCP) zones
general characteristics.
c.Forest lands that satisfy the requirements of ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition), may be
designated as Marginal Lands. Uses and land divisions allowed on Marginal Lands shall
be those allowed by ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition).
d.Forest operations, practices and auxiliary uses shall be allowed on forest lands and shall
be subject only to such regulation of uses as are found in the Oregon Forest Practices
Act, ORS 527.722.
e. Prohibit residences on F-1/RCP zone lands except for the maintenance, repair, or
replacement of existing residences.
f.Dwellings shall be allowed in the F-2/RCP zoning district as provided in Lane Code
16.211.
g.The minimum land division size for the F-1/RCPzone and the F-2/RCP zone shall
comply with Lane Code 16.210 and 16.211.
h.New structures must comply with the Siting and Fire Safety Standardsof Lane Code
16.210 and 16.211.
i.Recreational activities in the Park and Recreation (PR/RCP) zone district within resource
areas that are outside lands for which a built or committed exception to a statewide
planning goal has been taken shall be limited to those uses consistent with Statewide
Planning Goals 3 and 4.
j.The effects of a projected shortfall in timber supplies within the near future are of
considerable concern to Lane County. Lane County supports efforts by state and federal
agencies in developing plans that will address the situation. Lane County intends to be an
active, committed participant in such plan development.
k. Encourage the consolidation of forest land ownership in order to form larger, more viable
forest resource units.
III-C-6
Draft 9/29/14
l. Encourage the conversion of under productive forest lands through silvicultural practices
and reforestation efforts.
m.Encourage the development of assistance programs, tax laws, educational programs, and
research that will assist small woodland owners with the management of their forest land.
n.Lane County recognizes that the Oregon Forest Practices Act shall be the only
mechanism regulating the growing and harvesting of forest tree species on commercial
forest lands unless Goal 5 resource sites have been recognized and identified as being
more important through an analysis of the environmental, social, economic, and energy
(ESEE) consequences and conflict resolution as per Goal 5. No other findings,
assumptions, goal policy, or other planning regulation shall be construed as additional
regulation of forest management activities.
o.Lands designated within the Metro Planas forest land shall be zoned F-1/RCP or F-
2/RCP. A decision to apply one of the above zones or both of the above zones in a split
zone fashion will be based upon a conclusion that characteristics of the land correspond
more closely to the characteristics of the proposed zoning than the characteristics of the
other forest zone. The zoning characteristics referred to are specified below in
subsections (1) and (2). This conclusion shall be supported by a statement of reasons
explaining why the facts support the conclusion.
(1) Non-impacted Forest Land (F-1/RCP) zone characteristics:
(a)Predominantly ownerships not developed with residences or non-forest
uses.
(b) Predominantly contiguous ownerships of 80 acres or larger in size.
(c)Predominantly ownerships contiguous to other lands utilized for
commercial forest or commercial farm uses.
(d) Accessed by arterial roads or roads intended primarily for forest
management.
(e)Primarily under commercial forest management.
(2) Impacted Forest Land (F-2/RCP) zone characteristics:
(a) Predominantly ownerships developed with residences or non-forest uses.
(b) Predominantly ownerships 80 acres or less in size.
(c)Ownerships generally contiguous to tracts containing less than 80 acres
and residences and/or adjacent to developed or committed areas for
which an exception has been taken in the Metro Plan.
(d) Provided with a level of public facilities and services, and roads intended
primarily for direct services to rural residences.
III-C-7
Draft 9/29/14
Riparian Corridors, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitat (Goal 5)
Findings
6.Data from the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (acquired in 2000) and interviews with
specialists resulted in the identification of sites with species of concern, or endangered and
threatened (as recognized on existing and proposed state and federal lists) plant and wildlife
species whose normal or historic range includes the metropolitan area.
7.Natural resources may be identified within the metropolitan area after acknowledgment of the
Metro Plan. Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires that these resources, if determined to be
significant, be subject to a conflict resolution process.
8. Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 5 requirements for riparian
corridors for the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary. The inventory consisted of data
from the Oregon Department of Forestry stream classification maps, U.S. Geological Service 7.5
minute quadrangle maps, Statewide Wetlands Inventory maps, and aerial photographs. The
boundaries of significant riparian corridors were determined using the standard setback distance
from all fish-bearing lakes and streams shown on the inventory as follows: 75 feet upland from
the top of each bank along all streams with average annual stream flow greater than 1000 cubic
feet per second; and 50 feet upland from the top of each bank along all streams with average
annual stream flow less than 1000 cubic feet per second.
9. Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 5 requirements for wetlands for
the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary. The inventory consisted of data from the
Statewide Wetlands Inventory.
10. Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 5 requirements for wildlife
habitat for the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary. The inventory consisted of data
from the Oregon Natural Heritage Program and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
which included: threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species habitat information;
sensitive bird site inventories; and wildlife species of concern and/or habitats of concern
identified and mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Goal 5 wetland and
riparian corridor requirements for the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary adequately
address fish habitat. Consequently, for purposes of applying Goal 5 requirements to this portion
of the metro area, wildlife does not include fish habitat. Significant wildlife habitat includes only
those sites where one or more of the following conditions exist: the habitat has been documented
to perform a life support function for wildlife species listed by the federal government as a
threatened or endangered species or by the State of Oregon as a threatened, endangered, or
sensitive wildlife species; the habitat has documented occurrences of more than incidental use by
a threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species; the habitat has been documented as a
sensitive bird nesting, roosting, or watering resource site for osprey or great blue herons; the
habitat has been documented to be essential in achieving policies or population objectives
specified in a wildlife species management plan adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Commission; or the area is identified and mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
as habitat for a wildlife species of concern.
11. Springfield and Eugene are required to complete Goal 5 requirements for wetlands, riparian
corridors, and wildlife habitat within their respective urban growth boundaries for adoption by the
applicable jurisdictional land use authorities.
III-C-8
Draft 9/29/14
Policies
C.8 Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development on
hillsides and in water bodies, and restrict development in wetlands in order to prevent erosion and
protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values, vegetation, and
wildlife values of those areas.
C.9Each city shall complete a separate study to meet its requirements under the Goal 5 Rule for
wetlands, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat within the UGB. Lane County and the
respective city jointly will adopt the inventory and protection measures for the area outside the
city limits and inside the UGB.
C.10 Local governments shall encourage further study (by specialists) of endangered and threatened
plant and wildlife species in the metropolitan area.
C.11 Local governments shall protect endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species, as
recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after notice and opportunity for public input.
C12 Property owners may pursue efforts to protect natural vegetation and wildlife habitat
areas on their land to conserve these areas, e.g., through conservation easements, public
acquisition, donation, land trusts, etc.; and local governments are encouraged to assist in
these efforts.
C.13 Wetland, riparian corridor, or wildlife habitat sites inside the UGB identified after adoption of the
applicable Goal 5 inventory of significant sites, that have not been previously considered for
inclusion in the inventory, shall be addressed in the following manner:
a. The jurisdiction within which the natural resource is located shall study the site according
to the requirements in the Goal 5 administrative rule.
b. Upon the completion of the study, the affected jurisdiction shall determine whether the
identified natural resource is significant according to the adopted significance criteria of
the affected jurisdiction.
c.If the newly identified site is determinedsignificant, the affected jurisdiction shall
complete the Goal 5 requirements for the site, which includes adoption of protection
measures for sites identified for protection.
d. The affected jurisdiction will notify affected property owners and interested parties
throughout the process.
C.14 These policies apply to the Confluence Heronry on the Willamette River.
a. The heronry shall be protected by a Natural Resourcedesignation on the Metro Plan
Diagram, protective zoning, and the application of restrictions identified below.
b. The operational buffer shall extend 1,000 feet from the southerly nesting tree.
Operational restrictions shall be in effect for the area contained within the 1,000-foot
buffer between February 1 and July 15. These restrictions shall include: no tree felling,
III-C-9
Draft 9/29/14
no aggregate extraction, and no operation of any mechanized equipment or motorized
vehicle for recreation use or for the purpose of farm and forest activities. Upon on-site
verification from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife that fledging is completed,
the period of operational restrictions may be shortened.
c.Permits from the state and county are an appropriate mechanism for addressing details of
sand and gravel operations. Specifically, flood hazard concerns and associated erosion
potential will have to be addressed.
d. Protection of riparian habitat on the periphery of the island shall be achieved by
maintaining an adequate Willamette River Greenway vegetative fringe in order to address
erosion, scenic, andwildlife habitat concerns.
e. Park use on the island should be discouraged by the state.
f. Controls on sand and gravel extraction should be developed between the operator and the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife through the mining permit procedures in order
to protect the heronry resource.
g.Property owners and the state shall be encouraged to exchange land to place the
Confluence Island Heronry and buffer in perpetual ownership by the public. The state
may then protect and manage the heronry resource with compensation to the property
owners.
C.15 The Statewide Wetland Inventory as shown on the map titled Goal 5 Wetlands for the area inside
the Metro Plan Boundary and outside the UGB, dated January 2004, adopted and incorporated
here, shall be used to identify wetlands for purposes of notifying the Division of State Lands
concerning applications for development permits or other land use decisions affecting Goal 5
wetlands in the area outside the UGB and inside the Plan Boundary. The map is on file at the
Lane County Land Management Division.
C.16 The map titled Goal 5 Significant Wildlife Habitat for the area inside the Metro Plan Boundary
and outside the UGB, dated January 2004, adopted and incorporated here, shall be used to
identify significant wildlife habitat for purposes of notifying the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife concerning applications for development permits or other land use decisions affecting
significant wildlife habitat on the Goal 5 inventory for areas outside the UGB and inside the Plan
Boundary. The map is on file at the Lane County Land Management Division.
C.17 The map titled Goal 5 Significant Riparian Corridors for the area inside the Metro Plan
Boundary and outside the UGB, dated January 2004, adopted and incorporated here, shall be used
to identify significant riparian corridors for purposes of applying Goal 5 riparian protection
provisions in Lane Code Chapter 16 for areas outside the UGB and inside the Plan Boundary.
The map is on file at the Lane County Land Management Division.
III-C-10
Draft 9/29/14
Mineral and Aggregate Resources (Goal 5)
Findings
12. Total land designated and zoned for sand and gravel extraction in the metropolitan area
and immediately adjacent sub-areas appears adequate for demand through the planning
period.
13. Sand and gravel deposits are an important natural resource necessary for construction in
the metropolitan area. Nevertheless, the extraction of sand and gravel can conflict with
other open space and recreation values associated with water resources, vegetation,
wildlife habitat, and scenic quality. Proper rehabilitation and reuse of abandoned sand
and gravel sites results in the return of valuable land for urban uses, including open
space.
14. Lane County addressed the Goal 5 requirements in effect at the time of Metro Plan
designation, zoning or permitting for mineral and aggregate operations outside the UGB
including potential conflicts with inventoried wetlands, riparian corridors, and wildlife
habitat. The permitting process of the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
(DOGAMI) will require necessary and adequate protections for inventoried wetlands,
riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat for these existing operations. Future Metro Plan
amendment, rezoning, or permitting processes for new mineral and aggregate operations
not already authorized or permitted will be subject to applicable requirements of Goal 5
and DOGAMI regulations.
Policy
C.18 Sand and gravel sites identified as significant by the Metro Plan shall be protected in
accordance with the requirements of the Goal 5 Rule.
Open Space (Goal 5)
Findings
15. While development and in-filling have decreased the amount of open space (and
associated vegetation and wildlife habitat) within the urban service area, the compact
urban growth form has protected open space on the urban fringe and in rural areas within
the Plan Boundary.
16. Compact urban growth results in pressure on open space within the current UGB.
Programs for preserving quality open space within the projected UGB become more
important as the area grows.
17. Open space provides many benefits in an urban area, including: retention of habitat for
wildlife; filtration of polluted water, absorption of storm runoff flow; protection of scenic
quality; provision of recreation opportunities; reduction of atmospheric temperatures, and
personal well-being.
III-C-11
Draft 9/29/14
18. Urban agriculture, in other words, backyard and community gardens, and interim use of
vacant and underdeveloped parcels, provides economic, social, and environmental
benefits to the community.
Policies
C.19 Agricultural production shall be considered an acceptable interim and temporary use on
urbanizable land and on vacant and underdeveloped urban land where no conflicts with
adjacent urban uses exist.
C.20 Continued local programs supporting community gardens on public land and programs
promoting urban agriculture on private land shall be encouraged. Urban agriculture
includes gardens in backyards and interim use of vacant and underdeveloped parcels.
C.21 When planning for and regulating development, local governments shall consider the
need for protection of open spaces, including those characterized by significant
vegetation and wildlife. Means of protecting open space include but are not limited to
outright acquisition, conservation easements, planned unit development ordinances,
streamside protection ordinances, open space tax deferrals, donations to the public, and
performance zoning.
Noise (Goal 6)
Findings
19. Noise sources of a nuisance nature (such as barking dogs, lawn mowers, loud parties,
noisy mufflers, and squealing tires) are best addressed through nuisance ordinances rather
than land use policies.
20. Major sources of noise in the metropolitan area are airplanes, highway traffic, and some
industrial and commercial activities.
21. The Eugene Airport Noise Exposure Analysis, April 2000, was found to be in
compliance with state airport noise standards by the State of Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.
22. Federal Highway Administration noise standards apply whenever federal funds are used
in the construction or reconstruction of a highway. A noise study is required if the
construction will add a through-lane of traffic or significantly alter either the horizontal
or vertical alignment of the highway. The significance of a change in alignment has to do
with the effect that the alignment change has on noise levels. State funded Oregon
Department of Transportation projects are generally developed in conformance with the
federal noise standards.
III-C-12
Draft 9/29/14
Policies
C.22 Design of new street, highway, and transit facilities shall consider noise mitigation
measures where appropriate.
C.23 Design and construction of new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of existing
and future streets and highways with potential to exceed general highway noise levels
shall include consideration of mitigating measures, such as acoustical building
modifications, noise barriers, and acoustical site planning. The application of these
mitigating measures must be balanced with other design considerations and housing
costs.
C.24 Local governments shall continue to monitor, to plan for, and to enforce applicable noise
standards and shall cooperate in meeting applicable federal and state noise standards.
Air, Water and Land Resources Quality (Goal 6)
Findings
23.The high value placed on clean air and water by local residents is reflected in local
commitments to plans and programs directed toward reducing air and water pollution.
24.The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has a strong potential for elevated levels of air
pollution due to the surrounding mountains, which provide a barrier to ventilation and
contribute to periodic episodes of stable atmospheric conditions. These conditions
effectively limit dilution and dispersion of air pollutants, resulting in the build-up of
concentrations near the ground.
25. Some pollutants affecting metropolitan air and water quality originate outside the
metropolitan area.
26. Based on monitoring work performed by the Lane Regional Air Pollution Agency
(LRAPA), the Lane Council of Government (LCOG) and LRAPA submitted
documentation demonstrating that the area meets the carbon monoxide standards since a
violation of the eight-hour standard has not occurred since 1980. In 1988, LRAPA and
LCOG formally requested redesignation of the area as an attainment area for carbon
monoxide. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) forwarded the
reclassification request to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional
Office in Seattle. In January 1994, EPA redesignated the Eugene-Springfield area to
attainment status for carbon monoxide. The area is currently in a 20-year maintenance
period. Since redesignation, there have been no violations of the carbon monoxide
standards.
LRAPA has developed a plan for meeting the new standards for fine particulates (the
PM10 standard). The LRAPA Board has approved the plan. The PM10 plan boundary is
III-C-13
Draft 9/29/14
coterminous withMetro PlanUGBas it existed on the date the PM10 standard was
adopted. A majority of the unpaved streets identified as high priorities to address PM10
problems have now been paved. The PM10 plan approved by the LRAPA Board
concluded that no transportation-related control measures were necessary for compliance
with the PM10 Standard. LRAPA is currently in the process of seeking redesignation to
attainment status for PM10.
27. Section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act requires state and local air pollution control agencies to
adopt federally approved control strategies to minimize air pollution. The resulting body of
regulations is known as a State Implementation Plan(SIP). SIPs generally establish limits or
work practice standards to minimize emissions of air pollutants or their precursors. SIPs also
include special control strategies for those areas not meeting National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (non-attainment areas). Most of the regulations developed by LRAPA for controlling
the emissions of air pollutants in Lane County are included in the Oregon SIP. The original SIP
was adopted in the early 1970s in response to the 1970 federal Clean Air Act. It is amended
periodically to respond to current issues.
28. Reduction of open space, removal of vegetative cover, and development that increases
the amount of impervious surfaces (paved streets, roofs, parking lots) contribute
significantly to increases in the peak volume (quantity) of urban storm runoff entering
stormwater system and natural drainageways.
29. Water pollution in the metropolitan area results from both “point sources” (municipal and
industrial wastewater discharges) and “non-point sources” (pollutants such as oil, dust,
and debris which are carried into streams by storm runoff). Water pollution is most acute
in streams that have low water flow conditions during the summer months (such streams
include Amazon Creek and the “Q” Street ditch).
30.Offsetting measures can reduce the negative effects of urban development on water
quality and quantity problems. Examples include on-site retention of stormwater,
inclusion of landscaped “buffer strips” adjacent to new developments and conservation
and improvement of streamside vegetation along water courses.
31.The Willamette and McKenzie Rivers run through many jurisdictions, necessitating
cooperative water management planning and consideration for downstream effects of
actions taken by a single jurisdiction.
32.The Eugene-Springfield area is currently in compliance with national standards for
carbon monoxide. The region will continue to be in compliance with the carbon
monoxide standard in the future. Vehicle fleet turnover and stricter emission controls on
newer vehicles are factors that will contribute to lower emissions in the future.
Policies
C.25 Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts when planning
for urbanization, flood control, urban storm runoff, recreation, and water quality along
the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers.
III-C-14
Draft 9/29/14
C.26 Local governments shall continue to monitor, to plan for, and to enforce applicable air
and water quality standards and shall cooperate in meeting applicable federal, state, and
local air and water quality standards.
C.27 Local governments shall continue to cooperate in developing and implementing programs
necessary to meet air quality standards. This effort should include but not be limited to:
a.Review of all major public capital expenditure projects for potential air quality
impacts.
b. Integration of air quality concerns into the comprehensive land use plan.
c.Active participation in developing and implementing additional controls, as
needed.
C.28 Local governments shall encourage changes to state and federal air quality regulations
relating to development of fine particulate standards and related monitoring techniques.
C.29 Prior to the completion of the next Metro Plan update, the air, water, and land resource
quality of the metropolitan area will be reassessed.
Natural Hazards (Goal 7)
Findings
33. Due to the general nature of soils and geologic mapping, site specific analysis is often
necessary to determine the presence of geologic hazards and the severity of soil problems
which are constraints to development. Such geologic hazards exist when certain
combinations of slope, soil conditions, and moisture conditions render land unstable.
34. Unless special precautions are taken, development within the floodway fringe (that
portion of the floodplain having a one percent per year chance of occurrence, also known
as a 100-year flood) is subject to hazards to life and property from flooding.
35. Many portions of the floodway fringe contain natural assets, such as significant
vegetation, wildlife and scenic areas, and productive agricultural lands and are thus,
valuable for open space and recreation. On the other hand, because of their central
location, some floodway fringe areas within the urban service area are important lands for
urban development.
Policies
C.30 Except as otherwise allowed according to Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) regulations, development shall be prohibited in floodways if it could result in an
increased flood level. The floodway is the channel of a river or other water course and
III-C-15
Draft 9/29/14
the adjacent land area that must be reserved to discharge a one-percent-chance flood in
any given year.
C.31 When development is allowed to occur in the floodway or floodway fringe, local
regulations shall control such development in order to minimize the potential danger to
life and property. Within the UGB, development should result in in-filling of partially
developed land. Outside the UGB, areas affected by the floodway and floodway fringe
shall be protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values, their open
space and recreational potential, and their value to water resources.
C.32 Local governments shall require site-specific soil surveys and geologic studies where
potential problems exist. When problems are identified, local governments shall require
special design considerations and construction measures be taken to offset the soil and
geologic constraints present, to protect life and property, public investments, and
environmentally-sensitive areas.
C.33 Eugene shall maintain and improve hillside development regulations.
III-C-16
Draft 9/29/14
D. Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways
Element
The Willamette River has long been recognized in the Eugene-Springfield area as a valuable
natural asset. A number of policy documents and programs adopted by local jurisdictions have
reinforced the community concern to preserve and protect metropolitan river corridors.
On December 6, 1975, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted
Statewide Planning Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway. The goal sets forth the overall
framework within which state and local governments carry out protection and maintenance of the
Willamette River Greenway.
The goal requires Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County to adopt Greenway boundaries, to
specify uses permitted within those boundaries, and indicate areas of potential acquisition along
the Greenway. In making these determinations, local jurisdictions must gather information and
inventory the nature and extent of all natural resources associated with the Willamette River
Greenway. Local jurisdictions are also mandated to adopt provisions, by ordinance, requiring a
compatibility review permit for any intensification, change of use, or development within
Greenway boundaries. The jurisdictional area of the Metro Plan (i.e., Metro Plan Boundary)
was found to be in compliance with Goal 15 on September 12, 1982.
In the metropolitan area, a large portion of land within the Greenway is in public ownership or
public parks such as Mount Pisgah, Skinner’s Butte, Alton Baker, and Island Park. Future
proposed park acquisitions, such as the Goodpasture Island gravel ponds, will further expand the
opportunity for public access and enjoyment of the river area. The three jurisdictions cooperated
in the development of a bicycle-pedestrian trail system that extends along theGreenway from
south of Springfield to north of Eugene and into the River Road area. This system includes five
bike bridges across the river.
Land along the Greenway in private ownership is in a variety of uses, some of which appear to
provide greater opportunity than others for public access and enjoyment. Residential uses along
the Greenway can provide the residents with access to the river area. Certain commercial uses,
such as restaurants, can allow customers visual enjoyment of the Greenway. Other uses, such as
the many industrial uses, would appear to provide little if any opportunity for access or
enjoyment of the Greenway. This is evidenced by much of the existing industrial development
along the Willamette River in the Glenwood area.
Finally, in rural agricultural areas, isolated access points can work to the detriment of the
Greenway program. In these areas, trespass and vandalism can cause a detraction in the general
Greenway environment and create problems for private landowners.
The Greenway boundaries, as adopted by the three jurisdictions, have been digitized in the
Regional Land Information Database (RLID) and are shown as an overlay on Plan Diagram.
Future acquisition areas and uses allowed within the Greenway remain the primary responsibility
of the local jurisdictions. This element, however, provides the basis for a coordinated effort by
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County.
III-D-1
Draft 9/29/14
The statewide Greenway goal specifically applies to the Willamette River. In the Eugene-
Springfield area, portions of the McKenzie River share equal importance as a natural resource
worthy of conservation and protection. Additionally, the metropolitan network of waterways and
associated creeks and drainageways are important features in the metropolitan area, with
potential as part of an areawide waterways system. For that reason, while this element must
specifically cover the Willamette River Greenway, it is important to consider the McKenzie
River, where it is situated within the area of the Metro Plan and the inland system of waterway
corridors connecting various parts of Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County to one another.
Goal
To protect, conserve, and enhance the natural, scenic, environmental, and economic qualities of
river and waterway corridors.
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1.The Willamette and McKenzie Rivers are recognized as valuable natural assets to the
entire community.
2. In addition to the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers, a number of waterways are important
environmental features in the metropolitan area. These include, for example, the
Springfield Millrace, Amazon Creek, Fern Ridge Reservoir, and the Eugene Millrace.
3. Recently, the community has begun to realize the potential of inland waterway corridors
to contribute to the livability of the area.
4. In addition to its significance to agriculture, flood control, and fish and wildlife, Fern
Ridge Reservoir continues to grow in importance as a recreational water facility.
5.Statewide Planning Goal 15 mandates local governments to establish the Greenway
boundaries, allowed uses within the Greenway and potential acquisition areas.
6. Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County have received final Greenway boundary approval
by the LCDC.
7.The jurisdictional area of the Metro Plan was found to be in compliance with Goal 15 on
September 12, 1982.
III-D-2
Draft 9/29/14
8. The following permits are required by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County to
implement Statewide Planning Goal 15 within their respective areas of jurisdiction as
defined in Chapter II-D:
a.The City of Eugene requires Greenway Permits for any activity in the
Willamette Greenway involving intensification of use, change in use, or
development.
b.The City of Springfield requires a Discretionary Use Permit for any
change or intensification of use, or construction that has a significant
visual impact in the Willamette Greenway Overlay District, which is
combined with a “Greenway Setback Line.”
c.Lane County requires a Greenway Development Permit for intensification
or change of use or development allowed in applicable zones, including
public improvements and including partitions and subdivisions as defined
in LC 13.020 for lands within the boundaries of the Willamette River
Greenway.
9.Local jurisdictions retain the primary responsibility for implementation of the Willamette
River Greenway goal.
10. The metropolitan area’s river and waterway corridors require protection to maintain and
enhance natural, scenic, environmental, and economic qualities of these waterways.
11. The three jurisdictions have cooperatively developed a public park system and bicycle-
pedestrian trails along the Willamette River Greenway.
12.Residential and commercial development along the Willamette River Greenway provides
greater opportunity for public access and enjoyment of the river area than does industrial
development.
13. Rural agricultural areas along river and waterway corridors can be damaged by isolated
public access points because of vandalism and/or trespass on private lands.
14. Experience in other communities indicates that carefully planned and designed residential
and commercial development at designated locations along inland water corridors can be
compatible with adjacent areas and the corridors themselves.
15. The current unpleasant and unsightly condition of many inland waterway systems results
from neglect and uncoordinated waterway planning.
Objectives
1. Encourage use of river and waterway corridors to fulfill open space, recreation, and
resource protection needs.
III-D-3
Draft 9/29/14
2. Ensure that development occurring within river and waterway corridors is responsive to
and provides protection of these valuable natural assets.
3. Encourage, where appropriate and in keeping with Greenway goals, development that
respects the quality of rivers and waterways and provides a variety of opportunities for
enjoyment of those resources by the public.
4. Encourage coordinated water planning and the development of the area’s waterways,
where appropriate, as part of the area’s open space and park system.
Policies
D.1 Periodically, local governments shall review Greenway boundaries, uses, and potential
acquisition areas to ensure continued compliance with state and local Greenway goals.
D.2 Land use regulations and acquisition programs along river corridors and waterways shall
take into account all the concerns and needs of the community, including recreation,
resource, and wildlife protection; enhancement of river corridor and waterway
environments; potential for supporting non-automobile transportation; opportunities for
residential development; and other compatible uses.
D.3 Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to cooperate in expanding water-
related parks and other facilities, where appropriate, that allow access to and enjoyment
of river and waterway corridors.
D.4 Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene shall continue to participate in efforts to determine
the feasibility of an urban canal that would connect Eugene’s historic Millrace to
Amazon Creek. Likewise, Springfield’s efforts to improve the scenic quality of its
Millrace should be encouraged.
D.5New development that locates along river corridors and waterways shall be limited to
uses that are compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities of those
water features.
D.6New industrial development that locates along the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers shall
enhance natural, scenic, and environmental qualities.
D.7Potential public access points in rural agricultural areas shall be carefully reviewed to
ensure preservation of the Willamette River Greenway environment, with special
emphasis on problems of vandalism and trespass.
D.8Within the framework of mandatory statewide planning goals, local Willamette River
Greenway plans shall allow a variety of means for public enjoyment of the river,
including public acquisition areas, residential areas, and commercial areas.
III-D-4
Draft 9/29/14
9 Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the
Willamette River Greenway.
D.10 Aggregate extraction may be permitted when compatible with purposes of Statewide
Planning Goal 15. Local governments shall continue, through land use planning and
special regulations, to control aggregate extraction to minimize adverse effects of
extraction on water quality, fish and wildlife, vegetation, bank stabilization, stream flow,
scenic quality, noise, and safety.
D.11 The taking of an exception shall be required if a non-water-dependent transportation
facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback.
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved
for Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for purposes of removing and
replacing the decommissioned 1-5 Bridge, the temporary detour bridge and the Canoe
Canal bridge with two new parallel bridges (one southbound and one northbound) within
the 1-5 right-of-way crossing the Willamette River and Canoe Canal and within the
Willamette River Greenway Setback Line. The exception authorizes construction and
later removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition of the decommissioned
1-5 Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour bridges; construction of
the two replacement bridges; reconstruction of the roadway approaches to the bridges (1-
5 and ramps); rehabilitation of the project area; and completion of any required
mitigation of project impacts. In association with these tasks, the exception further
authorizes within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line the addition and removal
of fill within ODOT right-of-way and the removal of fill within a temporary slope
easement east of 1-5. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rule
(OAR) 660-004-0022(6) Willamette Greenway and the exception requirements of OAR
660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II (c) for a “reasons” exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-
004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy D.11,
Chapter III, Section D.
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved by the
cities of Eugene and Springfield and by Lane County authorizing construction of a bike
path viaduct beneath the I-5 bridges, along the south bank of the Willamette River. The
exception authorizes construction of the bike path viaduct including the fill and removal
of fill necessary to build the structure. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-004-0022 (6) Willamette Greenway and the exception
requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II (c) for a “reasons” exception.
Pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, this exception is hereby adopted as an amendment to the
Metro Plan text, Policy D.11, Chapter III, Section D.
III-D-5
Replaced December 31, 2009
Draft 9/29/14
E.Environmental Design Element
The Environmental Design Element is concerned with that broad process which molds the
various components of the urban area into a distinctive, livable form that promotes a high quality
of life.
The Metro Plan must go beyond making the urban area more efficient and better organized to
also ensure that the area is a pleasant, attractive, and desirable place for people to live, work, and
play. The Environmental Design Element is concerned with how people perceive and interact
with their surroundings. Perceptions of livability greatly differ between individuals; so,
generalizations concerning this element need to be carefully drawn. Many different indicators of
livability have been identified, such as the numbers of local educational, medical, and
recreational facilities, and natural environmental conditions. Not all these indicators are directly
concerned with environmental design, showing that the concept of livability is influenced by all
elements of the Metro Plan. This element focuses on some of the features of the natural and
built environment that affect the quality of life.
The metropolitan area is changing in ways that are far-reaching and diverse. Decisions that
concern change have an effect on the form of the area. If we are to maintain a livable urban
environment and realize the full potential of our desirable and distinctive qualities, daily
decisions that concern change must be guided by environmental design principles, such as site
planning, in combination with other planning policies.
Based on concerns related to energy conservation, environmental preservation, transportation,
and other issues, increased density is desirable. This increases the need for effective, detailed
environmental design in order to ensure a high quality of life and a high degree of livability in an
increasingly dense urban environment.
This area is noted for the high degree of livability enjoyed by its residents. Environmental
design is a process that helps to maintain and enhance these positive attributes.
Goals
1. Secure a safe, clean, and comfortable environment which is satisfying to the mind and
senses.
2. Encourage the development of the natural, social, and economic environment in a manner
that is harmonious with our natural setting and maintains and enhances our quality of life.
3. Create and preserve desirable and distinctive qualities in local and neighborhood areas.
III-E-1
Draft 9/29/14
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1. Present and continued emphasis on compact growth increases the need for attention to
detailed, specific environmental design components, such as site planning and
landscaping of development.
2.Decisions are constantly being made which affect the form and design of the
metropolitan area.
3. The location and design of public and private facilities play an important role in giving
distinctive identity and character to an area. For example, an area’s character may be
developed through association with a particular park, a land form, a public building, an
area of older homes, vegetation, or a distinctive type of subdivision design.
4. Natural land features, waterways, and native vegetation provide distinctive and easily
identifiable components to the metropolitan area environment.
5.The metropolitan area presently offers a variety of naturally distinctive topographic
features, waterways, and vegetation that are both visually and personally accessible to
residents.
6.Ridgelines and water areas provide the greatest concentration of scenic sites in the
metropolitan area.
7. Landscaping with trees and other vegetation provides a pleasant, distinctive, and
permanent atmosphere for the metropolitan area.
8. The use of buffer strips and other design features can minimize the negative
environmental impact of certain uses, such as roadways and parking areas, while
protecting adjacent land uses.
9.Local residents are concerned about the livability and aesthetic quality of residential
development that changes the character of their neighborhoods.
10. Compatibility, visual quality, and safety are important elements to preserve and promote
in mixed-use area.
Objectives
1. Provide the facilities and services needed to maintain our quality of life. Examples include
educational, housing, medical, public transportation, and recreational facilities.
2.Encourage a greater diversity of living experiences and environments.
III-E-2
Draft 9/29/14
3. Establish or maintain a sense of identity and character for local and neighborhood areas.
4. Shape development to suit natural conditions as much as possible.
5. Enhance views and public use of river corridors, drainageways, and prominent topographic
features, such as ridgelines and buttes, within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Plan,
when consistent with other planning policies.
6. Coordinate development to achieve compatibility in mixed-use areas (with and without
refinement plans) through the adoption and administration of design standards.
Policies
E.1 In order to promote the greatest possible degree of diversity, a broad variety of
commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be encouraged when consistent
with other planning policies.
E.2 Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainage-ways shall be protected and
retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those
natural features. This policy does not preclude increasing their conveyance capacity in an
environmentally responsible manner.
E.3The planting of street trees shall be strongly encouraged, especially for all new
developments and redeveloping areas (where feasible) and new streets and reconstruction
of major arterials within the UGB.
E.4Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and
enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of
identity.
E.5 Carefully develop sites that provide visual diversity to the urban area and optimize their
visual and personal accessibility to residents.
E.6Local jurisdictions shall carefully evaluate their development regulations to ensure that
they address environmental design considerations, such as, but not limited to, safety,
crime prevention, aesthetics, and compatibility with existing and anticipated adjacent
uses (particularly considering high and medium density development locating adjacent to
low density residential).
E.7 The development of urban design elements as part of local and refinement plans shall be
encouraged.
E.8Site planning standards developed by local jurisdictions shall allow for flexibility in
design that will achieve site planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to
design problems.
III-E-3
Draft 9/29/14
E.9 Refinement plans shall be developed to address compatibility of land uses, safety, crime
prevention, and visual impact along arterial and collector streets, within mixed-use areas.
During the interim period before the adoption of a refinement plan, these considerations
shall be addressed by cities in approving land use applications in mixed use areas by
requiring conditions of approval where necessary.
III-E-4
Draft 9/29/14
F.Transportation Element
The Transportation Element addresses surface and air transportation in the metropolitan area.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the basis
for the surface transportation portions of this element and the Eugene Airport Master Plan
provides the basis for the air transportation portions.
TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning in the metropolitan area for a 20-year
period and serves the transportation planning needs of the projected population of 296,500 in the
12
TransPlan Study Area.TransPlan establishes the framework upon which all public agencies
can make consistent and coordinated transportation planning decisions. Goals and policies in
TransPlan are contained in this Transportation Element and are part of the adopted Metro Plan.
TransPlan project lists and project maps are also adopted as part of the Metro Plan.
This element complies with Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation, “To provide and
encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system.” Three types of
transportation planning strategies are reflected in the goals and policies in this element:
transportation demand management (TDM), land use, and system improvements. TDM
strategies focus on reducing demands placed on the transportation system, and thus system costs,
by providing incentives to redistribute or eliminate vehicle trips and by encouraging alternative
modes. Land use strategies focus on encouraging development patterns that reduce the need for
automobiles, reduce trip lengths, and support the use of alternative modes. System
improvements focus on increasing efficiency and adding capacity or new facilities to the existing
highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems.
Together, these strategies form a balanced policy framework for meeting local and state
transportation goals to: increase urban public transit rider-ship; reduce reliance on the
automobile; substitute automobile trips with alternative modes, such as walking and biking; and
reduce automobile energy consumption and transportation costs.
Not all Transportation Element policies will apply to a specific transportation-related decision.
When conformance with adopted policy is required, policies in this and other Metro Plan
elements will be examined to determine which policies are relevant and can be applied. When
policies support varying positions, decision makers will seek a balance of all applicable policies.
Goals are timeless, but some policies will expire as they are implemented.
Goals
1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in modes
of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the automobile and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.
11
The TransPlan Study Area is an area used for transportation modeling purposes. The 296,500 projected population
for this area includes the estimated 2015 population of 286,000 for the UGB plus an additional 10,500 projected
population for the Transportation Analysis Zones that extend beyond the UGB.
III-F-1
Draft 9/29/14
2.Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area’s quality of life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
Balanced,
Accessible,
Efficient,
Safe,
Interconnected,
Environmentally responsible,
Supportive of responsible and sustainable development,
Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts, and
Economically viable and financially stable.
Findings and Policies
The findings and policies in this element are organized by the following four topics related to
transportation:
Land Use
Transportation Demand Management
Transportation System Improvements
System-Wide
Roadways
Transit
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Goods Movement
Other Modes
Finance
Land Use
Findings
1.The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) (1992)statesthat Oregon’s land use
development patterns have tended to separate residential areas from employment and
commercial centers, requiring people to drive almost everywhere they go; that the results
have been increased congestion, air pollution, and sprawl in the metropolitan areas and
diminished livability; that these auto-dependent land use patterns limit mobility and
transportation choices; and that reliance on the automobile has led to increased
congestion, travel distances, and travel times.
2. Studies annotated in the Land Use Measures Task Force Report Bibliography have found
that land use development patterns have an impact on transportation choices; that
separation of land uses and low-density residential and commercial development over
III-F-2
Draft 9/29/14
large areas makes the distance between destinations too far apart for convenient travel by
means other than a car; and that people who live in neighborhoods with grid pattern
streets, nearby employment and shopping opportunities, and continuous access to
sidewalks and convenient pedestrian crossings tend to make more walking and transit
trips.
3.The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) (January 1999) states that focusing growth on more
compact development patterns can benefit transportation by: reducing local trips and
travel on state highways; shortening the length of many vehicle trips; providing more
opportunities to walk, bicycle, or use available transit services; increasing opportunities
to develop transit, and reducing the number of vehicle trips to shop and do business.
4.OTP policies emphasize reducing reliance on the automobile and call for transportation
systems that support mixed-land uses, compact cities, and connections among various
transportation modes to make walking, bicycling, and the use of public transit easier.
The OTP provides that the state will encourage and give preference to projects and grant
proposals that support compact or infill development or mixed use projects. The OTP
also contains actions to promote the design and development of infrastructure and land
use patterns that encourage alternatives to the single-occupant automobile.
5. The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) [OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c) and (d) and
(5)] encourages plans to provide for mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development, based
on information that documents the benefits of such development and the Land
Conservation and Development Commission’s (LCDC) policy interest in encouraging
such development to reduce reliance on the automobile. The rule [OAR 660-012-
0045(4)(a) and (e)] requires local governments to adopt land use regulations that allow
transit-oriented developments on lands along transit routes and require major
developments to provide either a transit stop on site or connection to a transit stop when
the transit operator requires such an improvement. The rule [OAR 660-012-0045(3)] also
requires local governments to adopt land use regulations that provide for safe and
convenient pedestrian and bicycle access within new developments and from these
developments to adjacent residential areas and transit stops and to neighborhood activity
centers.
6.A 24-member Citizen Task Force (Task Force), representing a broad range of interests in
the Eugene-Springfield area, created, evaluated, and refined the nodal development land
use strategy over a seven-month period as part of the update of TransPlan.The Task
Force intended the strategy to encourage development patterns that will support a multi-
modal transportation system.
7. Nodal development is consistent with the policy direction of Policy 1B of the OHP to
coordinate land use and transportation decisions to efficiently use public infrastructure
investments to:
Maintain the mobility and safety of the highway system;
Foster compact development patterns in communities;
III-F-3
Draft 9/29/14
Encourage the availability and use of transportation alternatives; and
Enhance livability and economic competitiveness.
8. Nodal development is consistent with the Special Transportation Area designation
defined in the draft OHP. The designation is intended to guide planning and management
decisions for state highway segments inside nodal development areas.
9. Nodal development supports the fundamental principles, goals, and policies of the
adopted Metro Plan to achieve compact urban growth, increase residential densities, and
encourage mixed-use developments in designated areas. The Land Use Measures
Strategies Document found that nodal development also supports increased use of
alternative modes of transportation and increased opportunities for people to live near
their jobs and to make shorter trips for a variety of purposes.
10.Based on an analysis of the Regional Travel Forecasting Model results, an overall
outcome of nodal development implementation will be that the percentage of person trips
under one mile can be increased to approximately 16.1 percent of all trips; and, on a
regional basis, that trip lengths will be slightly shorter in 2015 than under existing
conditions, due, in part, to reduced trip lengths within nodal development areas.
11.Based on an analysis of the Regional Travel Forecasting Model results, investments in
non-auto modes, particularly Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and implementation of nodal
development strategies will improve transportation choices by helping to increase the
percentage of non-auto trips from 14.4 percent to 17.0 percent by the year 2015.
Increases in the percentage of households and workers with access to ten-minute transit
service will result in a 49 percent increase in the percent of trips taken by bus.
12.The Market Demand Study for Nodal Development (ECONorthwest and Leland
Consulting Group, 1996) recommended that the public strategy for nodal development
should be flexible and opportunistic and include use of financial incentives, targeted
infrastructure investments, public-private partnerships, and an inviting administrative
atmosphere.
13. During the public review of the nodal development strategy, many comments were
received that identified the need for incentives for developers, builders, property owners,
and neighborhoods to ensure that nodal developments would be built consistent with
design guidelines. The type of support and incentives suggested ranged from public
investments in infrastructure totechnical assistance and economic incentives.
Policies
F.1Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern.
13
13
See Glossary for the definition of nodal development.
III-F-4
Draft 9/29/14
F.2 Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through
information, technical assistance, or incentives.
F.3 Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including higher
intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit
stations; medium- and high-density residential development within ¼ mile of transit
stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and
development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by
existing or planned transit.
F.4 Require improvements that encourage transit,bicycles, and pedestrians in new
commercial, public, mixed use, and multi-unit residential development.
F.5 Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development,
designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to protect
designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completion of
nodal plans and implementing ordinances.
Transportation Demand Management
Findings
st
14.TDM addresses federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century (TEA 21) and
state TPR requirements to reduce reliance on the automobile, thus helping to postpone the
need for expensive capital improvements. The need for TDM stems from an increasing
demand for and a constrained supply of road capacity, created by the combined effects of
an accelerated rate of population growth (41 percent projected increase from 1995 to
2015) and increasing highway construction costs; for example, the City of Eugene
increased the transportation systems development charge by a total of 15 percent to
account for inflation from 1993-1996.
15.The Regional Travel Forecasting Model estimates that average daily traffic on most
major streets is growing by 2-3 percent per year. Based on 1994 Commuter Pack Survey
results, half of the local residents find roads are congested at various times of the day;
and the vast majority finds roads are congested during morning and evening rush hours.
16.The COMSIS TDM Strategy Evaluation Model, used in August 1997 to evaluate the
impact of TDM strategies, found that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips are
reduced up to 3 percent by voluntary strategies (e.g., employer-paid bus pass program)
and up to 10 percent by mandatory strategies (e.g., mandatory employer support); that
requiring employers to increase the cost of employee parking is far more effective than
reducing employee transit costs; and that a strong package of voluntary strategies has a
greater impact on VMT and vehicle trips that a weak package of mandatory strategies.
17. Transit system ridership has increased 53 percent since the first group pass program was
implemented in 1987 (with University of Oregon students and employees).
III-F-5
Draft 9/29/14
18.The OHP recognizes that TDM strategies can be implemented to reduce trips and impacts
to major transportation facilities, such as freeway interchanges, postponing the need for
investments in capacity-increasing projects.
19.An Evaluation of Pricing Policies for Addressing Transportation Problems
(ECONorthwest, July 1995) found that implementation of congestion pricing in the
Eugene-Springfield area would be premature because the level of public acceptance is
low and the costs of implementation are substantial; and that parking pricing is the only
TDM pricing strategy that would be cost-effective during the 20-year planning period.
Policies
F.6 Expand existing TDM programs and develop new TDM programs. Establish TDM
bench marks and if the bench marks are not achieved, mandatory programs may be
established.
F.7Increase the use of motor vehicle parking management strategies in selected areas
throughout the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
F.8Implement TDM strategies to manage demand at congested locations.
Transportation System Improvements: System-Wide
Findings
20. The number of vehicles, VMT, and use of the automobile are all increasing while use of
alternatives is decreasing. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of vehicles in Lane
County increased by 83 percent, while the number of households increased by 62 percent.
Between 1980 and 1990, VMT grew at a rate seven times that of the population growth.
The Regional Travel Forecasting Model projects that, by the year 2015, without
implementation of proposed TransPlan projects, non-commercial VMT will increase 52
percent while the percentage who bike will drop from 3.7 percent to 3.3 percent, walk
from 8.9 percent to 7.9 percent, and the percentage who bus will increase only slightly
from 1.8 percent to 1.9 percent.
21.The OHP recognizes that access management strategies can be implemented to reduce
trips and impacts to major transportation facilities, such as freeway interchanges, and that
communities with compact urban designs that incorporate a transportation network of
arterials and collectors will reduce traffic impacts on state highways, postponing the need
for investments in capacity-increasing projects.
22.OHP policy supports investment in facilities that improve intermodal linkages as a cost-
effective means to increase the efficient use of the existing transportation system.
III-F-6
Draft 9/29/14
23.Current literature and research speaks to the relationship between street design and travel
behavior, finding that neighborhood impacts, such as through-traffic and speeding on
neighborhood streets, are affected by street design. For example, research by Richard
Dowling and Steven Colman reported in the article, Effects Of Increased Highway
Capacity: Results of a Household Travel Behavior Survey (1998) found that drivers’
number one preferred response to congestion was to find a faster route if the current one
becomes congested; and Calthorpe and Duany/Platter-Zybecks and Anton Nelleson have
found that the layout and design of buildings and streets will influence user behavior and
that streets can be designed to reduce travel speeds and reduce cut-through trips.
Policies
F.9 Adopt by reference, as part of the Metro Plan, the 20-Year Capital Investment Actions
project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted
as policy.
F.10 Protect and manage existing and future transportation infrastructure.
F.11 Develop or promote intermodal linkages for connectivity and ease of transfer among all
transportation modes.
F.12 Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and easements of regional
significance, that are identified for future transportation-related uses.
F.13 Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
Transportation System Improvements: Roadways
Findings
24.The Regional Travel Forecasting Model forecasted increased traffic congestion on
roadways over the next 20 years, ranging from almost two to over four times the existing
congestion levels.
25.Level of service (LOS) standards are a nationally accepted means for measuring the
performance of roadway facilities. LOS analysis methods are standardized through the
Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual.
26. The OHP establishes performance standards for all state highways in Oregon. OAR 660-
012-0015 requires coordination of transportation system plans with the state.
Policies
F.14 Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians,
and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system
improvements.
III-F-7
Draft 9/29/14
F.15 Motor vehicle level of service policy:
a.Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintain acceptable and reliable
performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be used for:
(1)Identifying capacity deficiencies onthe roadway system.
(2) Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations,
pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-012-0060).
(3) Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use
regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
b.Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service
under peak hour traffic conditions: LOS E within Eugene’s Central Area
Transportation Study (CATS) area, and LOS D elsewhere.
c.Performance standards from the OHP shall be applied on state facilities in the
Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
In some cases, the level of service on a facility may be substandard. The local
government jurisdiction may find that transportation system improvements to bring
performance up to standard within the planning horizon may not be feasible, and safety
will not be compromised, and broader community goals would be better served by
allowing a substandard level of service. The limitation on the feasibility of a
transportation system improvement may arise from severe constraints, including but not
limited to environmental conditions, lack of public agency financial resources, or land
use constraint factors. It is not the intent of TSI Roadway Policy #2: Motor Vehicle
Level of Service to require deferral of development in such cases. The intent is to defer
motor vehicle capacity increasing transportation system improvements until existing
constraints can be overcome or develop an alternative mix of strategies (such as: land
use measures, TDM, short-term safety improvements) to address the problem.
F.16 Promote or develop a regional roadway system that meets combined needs for travel
through, within, and outside the region.
F.17 Manage the roadway system to preserve safety and operational efficiency by adopting
regulations to manage access to roadways and applying these regulations to decisions
related to approving new or modified access to the roadway system.
III-F-8
Draft 9/29/14
Transportation System Improvements: Transit
Findings
27. The 1990 Census reported that about 10 percent of all households in the Eugene-
Springfield area did not own a vehicle.
28. Transit services are particularly important to the transportation disadvantaged population:
persons who are limited in meeting their travel needs because of age, income, location,
physical or mental disability, or other reasons. The Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requires fixed-route systems like Lane Transit District’s (LTD) to provide a
comparable level of service to the elderly and persons with disabilities who are unable to
successfully use the local bus service. LTD’s Americans with Disabilities Act
Paratransit Plan, 1994-1995 Update (January 18, 1995) was found to be in full
compliance with the ADA by the Federal Transit Administration.
29. The role of urban public transit in meeting trip needs has increased within the
metropolitan area since 1970. In 1971, there were 2,260 LTD passenger trips on a
weekday and, in 1995, ridership had increased to 20,000 per day, or 1.8 percent of all
metropolitan trips. The Regional Travel Forecasting Modelforecasts transit use to
increase to 2.7 percent of trips by 2015 with proposed TransPlan projects and policy
implementation.
30.The Urban Rail Feasibility Study Eugene/Springfield Area (July 1995) concluded that
projected 2015 ridership for an urban rail system was too low to be competitive with
other cities seeking federal rail transit funding; and that BRT could significantly improve
transit service for substantially less capital investment and lower operational costs than
urban rail.
31.OHP policy supports investment in Park-and-Ride facilities as a cost-effective means to
increase the efficient use of the existing transportation system.
Policies
F.18 Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system’s accessibility, attractiveness,
and convenience for allusers, including the transportation disadvantaged population.
F.19 Establish a BRT system composed of frequent, fast transit service along major corridors
and neighborhood feeder service that connects with the corridor service and with activity
centers, if the system is shown to increase transit mode split along BRT corridors, if local
governments demonstrate support, and if financing for the system is feasible.
F.20 Implement traffic management strategies and other actions, where appropriate and
practical, that give priority to transit and other high occupancy vehicles.
F.21 Expand the Park-and-Ride system within the metropolitan area and nearby communities.
III-F-9
Draft 9/29/14
Transportation System Improvements: Bicycle
Findings
32. In 1995, there were 126 miles of bikeways in the metropolitan area. Implementation of
proposed TransPlan projects would approximately double the lane miles for bicycles.
33. Over the past 20 years, Eugene and Springfield have built an extensive bikeway system.
The focus over the next 20 years is on the construction of “Priority Bikeway Projects”
which consist of those projects that are along an essential core route on which the overall
system depends, fill in a critical gap in the existing bicycle system, or overcome a barrier
where no other nearby existing or programmed bikeway alternatives exist, or
significantly improve bicycle users safety in a given corridor.
34.OAR 660-012-0045(3) requires local governments to adopt land use regulations to
requirebikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets and to
connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity centers and major
destinations.
Policies
F.22 Construct and improve the region’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support
facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion.
F.23 Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets.
F.24 Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity
centers and major destinations.
F.25 Give funding priority (ideally within the first 3 to 5 years after adoption of TransPlan,
subject to available funding) to stand-alone bikeway projects that are included in the
definition of “Priority Bikeway Miles” and that increase the use of alternative modes.
Transportation System Improvements: Pedestrian
Findings
35.OAR 660-012-0045(3) requires local governments to adopt land use regulations to
provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and
designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking; a continuous
pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points; and
sidewalks along urban arterial and collector roadways, except freeways.
III-F-10
Draft 9/29/14
Policies
F.26 Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is
designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking.
F.27 Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between
destination points.
F.28 Construct sidewalks along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except freeways.
Transportation System Improvements: Goods Movement
Findings
36. The OTP recognizes that goods movement of all types makes a significant contribution to
the region’s economy and wealth and contributes to residents’ quality of life. OTP Policy
3A promotes a balanced freight transportation system that takes advantage of the inherent
efficiencies of each mode.
37.There are no maritime port or navigation facilities in the metropolitan area.
38. Goods movement is directly supported by system-wide and roadway transportation
system improvements.
Policies
F.29 Support reasonable and reliable travel times for freight/goods movement in the Eugene-
Springfield region.
Transportation System Improvements: Other Modes
Findings
39. The Eugene Airport is located outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) to protect it
from incompatible development as well as to reduce airport-related impacts on
development within the UGB. The area of the airport designated government and
education on theMetro PlanDiagram receives municipal water, wastewater, fire, and
police services.
40.The Pacific Northwest High Speed Rail Southern Terminus Study(Wilbur Smith
Associates, 1995) found that rail-related infrastructure improvements needed along the
corridor include improved signals, grade crossings, track, and depots. These
improvements are important to the success of high speed rail because Eugene-Springfield
is the southern terminus to the high speed rail corridor.
III-F-11
Draft 9/29/14
41. OTP Policy 1F provides for a transportation system with connectivity among modes
within and between urban areas, with ease of transfer among modes and between local
and state transportation systems.
Policies
F.30 Support public investment in the Eugene Airport as a regional facility and provide land
use controls that limit incompatible development within the airport environs. Continue to
use the Eugene Airport Master Planas the guide for improvements of facilities and
services at the airport.
F.31 Support provision of rail-related infrastructure improvements as part of the Cascadia
High Speed Rail Corridor project.
F.32 Support improvements to the passenger rail station and inter-city bus terminals that
enhance usability and convenience.
Finance
Findings
42. Transportation costs are rising while revenues are shrinking and this trend is expected to
continue. The 1999 OHP estimated total 20-year highway needs of about $29 billion, but
projected revenues of only about $14 billion.
43.TransPlan estimates that operations, maintenance, and preservation (OM&P) of the
metropolitan transportation system will cost $1.2 billion in 1997 dollars to maintain at
current levels to the year 2020. Revenues for OM&P, including a regularly increasing
state gas tax and federal forest receipts at current non-guaranteed levels after the
guarantee expires, are estimated at $988 million, leaving a conservative estimated
shortfall of about $212 million over the 20-year period before the implementation of
fiscal constraint strategies.
44. The projects proposed in TransPlandemonstrate that nearly all of the region’s travel over
the next 20 years will rely on existing streets, highways, and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, emphasizing the importance of preservation and maintenance of these facilities.
45.Historically, the State Highway Trust Fund (SHTF) and federal forest receipts, significant
sources of transportation revenues, have funded OM&P of the regional transportation
system. Currently, SHTF revenues are not increasing with inflation and federal forest
receipts are declining.
46.According to estimates prepared for the TransPlan Finance Committee, about 130 miles
of roads (about 15 percent of the system) are currently in need of either resurfacing or
reconstruction with an estimated cost of $61 million in 1995 dollars.
III-F-12
Draft 9/29/14
47.Funding allocations of state cigarette tax revenues designated for special need transit
services are guided by the Special Transportation Fund Advisory Committee as per ORS
391.800 to 391.830 and OAR 732-005, 732-010, and 732-020 governing the Special
Transportation Fund Program.
48. Currently, systems development charge (SDC) methodologies charge new development
only for the city’s portion of the arterial-collector system; metropolitan area state and
county facilities are excluded from the calculation of SDC rates; and assessments only
partially fund projects that are improving existing facilities to urban standards.
49. Focus groups convened during the TransPlan update process expressed the preference for
mixed-use development to be encouraged and facilitated rather than required. Offering
financial incentives and other support for nodal development is consistent with focus
groups responses.
50. Under the TEA 21, 10 percent of Surface Transportation Program funds allocated to the
state must be used for transportation enhancement activities, including construction of
facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, but a local match is required. State funding for
bikeways is primarily limited to Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) highway
funds, which are used mainly for adding bicycle lanes to existing and new streets, but
may be used for other bicycle projects in the right-of-way. Local jurisdictions may also
fund bikeways through the local road construction and maintenance budget and from
general funds, park district funds, special bond levies, and SDCs. Regarding transit,
TransPlan anticipates that discretionary federal grant funds will pay for up to 80 percent
of the capital cost of the BRT system, based on trends in federal funding for LTD capital
projects over the last ten years.
Policies
F.33Support development of a stable and flexible transportation finance system that provides
adequate resources for transportation needs identified in TransPlan.
F.34 Operate and maintain transportation facilities in a way that reduces the need for more
expensive future repair.
F.35 Set priorities for investment of ODOT and federal revenues programmed in the region’s
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to address safety and major capacity
problems on the region’s transportation system.
F.36 Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on the transportation system.
F.37 Consider and include among short-term project priorities, those facilities and
improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly nodal development, and
increased use of alternative modes.
III-F-13
Draft 9/29/14
F.38 The City of Eugene will maintain transportation performance and improve safety by
improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity to the
transportation system under Eugene’s jurisdiction. (Eugene-specific finance policy)
III-F-14
Draft 9/29/14
G.Public Facilities and Services Element
This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of urban
facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan
Boundary).
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location and
density of future development. The public’s investment in, and scheduling of, public facilities
and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the population of the
Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development patterns change over time, the demand
for urban services also increases and changes. These changes require that service providers, both
public and private, plan for the provision of services in a coordinated manner, using consistent
assumptions and projections for population and land use.
The policies in this element complement Metro PlanChapter II-A, Fundamental Principles, and
Chapter II-C, Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of compact urban growth
prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future urban water and wastewater
services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth boundary (UGB). This policy
14
direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services, “To plan
and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve
as a framework for urban and rural development.” On urban lands, new development must be
served by at least the minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time development
is completed and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and facilities. On rural lands
within the Plan Boundary, development must be served by rural levels of service. Users of
facilities and services in rural areas are spread out geographically, resulting in a higher per-user
cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue base to support a higher level of
service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed outside the urban growth
boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve development within the UGB.
Urban facilities and services within the UGB are provided by the City of Eugene, the City of
Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), the Springfield Utility
Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), electric
cooperatives, and special service districts. Special service districts provide schools and bus
service, and, in some areas outside the cities, they provide water, electric, fire service or parks
and recreation service. This element provides guidelines for special service districts in line with
the compact urban development fundamental principle of the Metro Plan.
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Public Facilities and Services Plan(Public Facilities and Services Plan), adopted as a
refinement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services Plan provides guidance for
public facilities and services, including planned water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical
14
Metro Plan
As explained in the Preface and Chapter I, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County are taking
incremental steps to transition from a single “metropolitan UGB” to two separate UGBs, “the Eugene UGB” and
“the Springfield UGB.” The general references to “the UGB” within this Public Facilities and Services Element of
Metro PlanMetro Plan
the shall be interpreted as applying to any UGB within the area, unless the text specifically
refers to the metropolitan UGB, the Springfield UGB or the Eugene UGB.
III-G-1
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
facilities. As required by Goal 11, the Public Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows
15
the general locationof the water, wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land
16
within the UGB.The Public Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for
electrical facilities, although not required to by law.
The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part ofthe
Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project phasing and costs,
and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the Metro Planand are
controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and budget processes of individual
service providers.
The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program decision-
making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be coordinated with the
planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and services to ensure the efficient
use and expansion of these facilities.
Goals
1. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and environmentally
responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and sequential
growth.
Findings and Policies
The findings and policies in this element are organized by the following four topics related to the
provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range of urban facilities
and services, may be found under any of these topics, although the first topic, Services to
Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary, is further broken down into sub-categories.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary
Planning and Coordination
Water
Stormwater
Wastewater Treatment
Electricity
Schools
Solid Waste Treatment
Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
15
Public Facilities and Services Plan
The exact location of the projects shown on the planned facilities maps is
determined through local processes.
16
Goal 11 also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In this metropolitan area,
Eugene-Springfield Transportation
transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the
System Plan (Trans Plan)
.
III-G-2
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
Financing
III-G-3
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and Coordination
Findings
1. Urban expansion within the UGB is accomplished through in-fill, redevelopment, and
annexation of territory which can be served with a minimum level of key urban services
and facilities. This permits new development to use existing facilities and services, or
those which can be easily extended, minimizing the public cost of extending urban
facilities and services.
2. In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public Facilities and
Services Planidentifies jurisdictional responsibility for the provision of water,
wastewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas and existing and planned
water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, and contains planned facilities maps for
these services. Electric system information and improvements are included in the Public
Facilities and Services Plan, although not required by state law. Local facility master
plans and refinement plans provide more specific project information.
3. Urban services within the metropolitan UGB are provided by the City of Eugene, the City
of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the MWMC, electric cooperatives, and
special service districts.
4.The Public Facilities and Services Planfinds that almost all areas within the city limits
of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5 years) with
water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to this are stormwater
service to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast Springfield and full water
service at some higher elevations in Eugene’s South Hills. Service to these areas will be
available in the long-term. Service to all areas within city limits are either in a capital
improvement plan or can be extended with development.
5.With the improvements specified in the Public Facilities and Services Planproject lists,
all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield UGB can be served with water,
wastewater, stormwater, and electric service at the time those areas are developed. In
general, areas outside city limits serviceable in the long-term are located near the UGB
and in urban reserves, primarily in River Road, Santa Clara, west Eugene’s Willow Creek
area, south Springfield, and the Thurston and Jasper-Natron areas in east Springfield.
6.OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan project
lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown in the keys of
planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a and 3 in the Public Facilities and ServicesPlan.
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and special
service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that define how
planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire, parks, open space and
recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be provided within the UGB.
III-G-4
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
8. Large institutional uses, such as universities and hospitals, present complex planning
problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility expansion plans, and
continuing housing and parking needs.
9. Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public facilities and
services.
10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a majority of nodal development
areas proposed in TransPlanare serviceable now or in the short-term. The City of
Eugene’s adopted Growth Management Policy #15 states, “Target publicly-financed
infrastructure extensions to support development for higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses,
and nodal development.”
Policies
G.1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an orderly
and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in Chapter II-C,
relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
G.2Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide the
general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in the
metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, capital improvement
plans and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project implementation.
G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public Facilities
and Services Planfor water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility projects or
significant changes to project location, from that described in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a and 3, requires amending the Pubic
Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan, except for the following:
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do not
significantly impact the project’s general description, location, sizing, capacity, or
other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are made
pursuant to final engineering on a project; or
c. Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to findings of
an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement conducted
under regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the national
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or State of Oregon agency
project development regulations consistent with that act and its regulations; or
d.Public facility projects included in the PFSP to serve land designated Urban
Reserve prior to the removal of the Urban Reserve designation, which projects
III-G-5
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
shall be removed from the PFSP at the time of the next Periodic Review of the
Metro Plan.
G.4The cities and Lane County shall coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special service
districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the opportunity to review and
comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public improvement projects
or changes thereto that may affect one another’s area of responsibility.
G.5 The cities shall continue joint planning coordination with major institutions, such as
universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local facilities and
services.
G.6Efforts shall be made to reduce the number of unnecessary special service districts and to
revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result in a
duplication of effort or overlap of service. When possible, these efforts shall be pursued
in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions.
G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services to areas targeted
by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal development.
G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan area to
develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address regional public
facility needs.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater
Findings
11. Springfield and Eugene rely on a combination of regional and local services for the
provision of wastewater services. Within each City. the local jurisdiction provides
collection of wastewater through a system of sanitary sewers and pumping systems.
These collection facilities connect to a regional system of similar sewer collection
facilities owned and operated by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
("MWMC"), an entity formed under an intergovernmental agreement created pursuant to
ORS 190. Together these collection facilities (which exclude private laterals which
convey wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial connections)
constitute the primary collection system.
12.The primary collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities system owned
and operated by MWMC. This system consists of an interconnected Water Pollution
Control Facility ("WPCF'). a biosolids facility, and a beneficial reuse facility.
Policies
G.9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of projected
growth inside the UGB that are capable of complying with regulatory requirements
III-G-6
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
governing beneficial reuse or discharge of effluent and beneficial reuse or disposal of
residuals.
Services toDevelopment Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Water
Findings
13. Springfield relies on groundwater for its sole source of water. EWEB water source is the
McKenzie River and EWEB is developing groundwater sources. The identification of
projects on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities map does not confer
rights to a groundwater source.
14. Known and potential groundwater pollution exists in the metropolitan area. Known and
potential sources of groundwater pollution include septic tank wastes,. industrial,
commercial, and residential runoff; leakage from sanitary sewer pipes; leaking from
sanitary landfills; agricultural non-point sources (spraying and animal wastes); chemical
and petroleum spills, and natural contaminants (arsenic).
15. Beneficial uses of groundwater in the metropolitan area include domestic and municipal
water supplies, industrial supplies, and domestic and commercial irrigation. The value
and frequency of these uses varies among incorporated, urbanizable, and rural areas.
Policies
G.10 Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, EWEB and SUB, shall
ultimately be the water service providers within the UGB.
G.11 Continue to take positive steps to protect groundwater supplies. The cities, county, and
other service providers shall manage land use and public facilities for groundwater-
related benefits through the implementation of the Springfield Drinking Water Protection
Plan and other wellhead protection plans. Management practices instituted to protect
groundwater shall be coordinated among the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and
Lane County.
G.12 Ensure that water main extensions within the UGB include adequate consideration of fire
flows.
G.13 SUB, EWEB, and Rainbow Water District, the water providers that currently control a
water source, shall examine the need for a metropolitan-wide water master program,
recognizing that a metropolitan-wide system willrequire establishing standards, as well
as coordinated source and delivery systems.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stormwater
Findings
III-G-7
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
16.Historically, stormwater systems in Eugene and Springfield were designed primarily to
control floods. The 1987 re-authorization of the federal Clean Water Act required, for
the first time, local communities to reduce stormwater pollution within their municipal
storm drainage systems. These requirements applied initially to the City of Eugene and
subsequent amendments to the Act extended these requirements to Springfield and Lane
County.
17.Administration and enforcement of the Clean Water Act stormwater provisions occur at
the state level, through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting requirements. Applicable jurisdictions are required to obtain an NPDES
stormwater permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and
prepare a water quality plan outlining the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be taken
over a five-year permit period for reducing stormwater pollutants to “the maximum
extent practicable.”
18.Stormwater quality improvement facilities are most efficient and effective at intercepting
and removing pollutants when they are close to the source of the pollutants and treat
relatively small volumes of runoff.
19.The Clean Water Act requires states to assess the quality of their surface waters every
three years, and to list those waters which do not meet adopted water quality standards.
The Willamette River and other water bodies have been listed as not meeting the
standards for temperature and bacteria. This will require the development of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these pollutants, and an allocation to point and non-
point sources.
20.The listing of Spring Chinook Salmon as a threatened species in the Upper Willamette
River requires the application of Endangered Species Act (ESA) provisions to the
salmon’s habitat in the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. The decline in the Chinook
Salmon has been attributed to such factors as destruction of habitat through
channelization and revetment of river banks, non-point source pollution, alterations of
natural hydrograph by increased impervious surfaces in the basin, and degradation of
natural functions of riparian lands due to removal or alteration of indigenous vegetation.
21. There are many advantages to keeping channels open, including, at a minimum, natural
biofiltration of stormwater pollutants; greater ability to attenuate effects of peak
stormwater flows; retention of wetland, habitat, and open space functions; and reduced
capital costs for stormwater facilities.
22. An increase in impervious surfaces, without mitigation, results in higher flows during
peak storm events, less opportunity for recharging of the aquifer, and a decrease in water
quality.
23.Stormwater systems tend to be gravity-based systems that follow the slope of the land
rather than political boundaries. In many cases, the natural drainageways such as streams
serve as an integral part of the stormwater conveyance system.
III-G-8
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
24. In general, there are no programs for stormwater maintenance outside the Eugene and
Springfield city limits, except for the Lane County roads program. State law limits
county road funds for stormwater projects to those located within the public right-of-way.
25. Filling in designated floodplain areas can increase flood elevations above the elevations
predicted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) models, because the
FEMA models are typically based only on the extent of development at the time the
modeling was conducted and do not take into account the ultimate buildout of the
drainage area. This poses risks to other properties in or adjacent to floodplains and can
change the hydrograph of the river.
Policies
G.14 Improve surface and ground water quality and quantity in the metropolitan area by
developing regulations or instituting programs for stormwater to:
a.Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals can
employ to help correct water quality and quantity problems;
b. Improve management of industrial and commercial operations to reduce negative
water quality and quantity impacts;
c. Regulate site planning for new development and construction to better manage
pre- and post-construction storm runoff, including erosion, velocity, pollutant
loading, and drainage;
d. Increase storage and retention and natural filtration of storm runoff to lower and
delay peak storm flows and to settle out pollutants prior to discharge into
regulated waterways;
e. Require on-site controls and development standards, as practical, to reduce off-
site impacts from stormwater runoff;
f.Use natural and simple mechanical treatment systems to provide treatment for
potentially contaminated runoff waters;
g.Reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems;
h. Regulate use and require containment and/or pretreatment of toxic substances;
i.Include containment measures in site review standards to minimize the effects of
chemical and petroleum spills; and
j. Consider impacts to ground water quality in the design and location of dry wells.
III-G-9
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
G.15 Implement changes to stormwater facilities and management practices to reduce the
presence of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the
requirements of the ESA.
G.16 Consider wellhead protection areas and surface water supplies when planning stormwater
facilities.
G.17Manage or enhance waterways and open stormwater systems to reduce water quality
impacts from runoff and to improve stormwater conveyance.
G.18 Include measures in local land development regulations that minimize the amount of
impervious surface in new development in a manner that reduces stormwater pollution,
reduces the negative affects from increases in runoff, and is compatible with Metro Plan
policies.
G.19 The cities and Lane County shall adopt a strategy for the unincorporated area of the UGB
to: reduce the negative effects of filling in floodplains and prevent the filling of natural
drainage channels except as necessary to ensure public operations and maintenance of
these channels in a manner that preserves and/or enhances floodwater conveyance
capacity and biological function.
G.20 Maintain flood storage capacity within the floodplain, to the maximum extent practical,
through measures that may include reducing impervious surface in the floodplain and
adjacent areas.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Electricity
Finding
26.According to local municipal utilities, efficient electrical service is often accomplished
through mutual back-up agreements and inter-connected systems are more efficient than
isolated systems.
Policies
G.21The electric service providers will agree which provider will serve areas about to be
annexed and inform the cities who the service provider will be and how the transition of
services, if any, will occur.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Schools
Finding
27. ORS 195.110 requires cities and counties to include, as an element of their
comprehensive plan, a school facility plan for high growth districts prepared by the
district in cooperation with the city or county; and for the city or county to initiate the
III-G-10
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
planning activity. The law defines high growth districts as those that have an enrollment
of over 5,000 students and an increase in enrollment of six percent or more during the
three most recent school years. At present, there are no high growth school districts in the
UGB.
28. ORS 197.296(4)(a) states that when the UGB is amended to provide needed housing, “As
part of this process, the amendment shall include sufficient land reasonably necessary to
accommodate the siting of new public school facilities. The need and inclusion of lands
for new public school facilities shall be a coordinated process between the affected public
school districts and the local government that has the authority to approve the urban
growth boundary.”
29. Enrollment projections for the five public school districts in the metropolitan area and the
University of Oregon and Lane Community College (LCC) are not consistent. Bethel
School District and the University of Oregon expect increases while Springfield and
Eugene School Districts and LCC are experiencing nearly flat or declining enrollments.
Enrollment is increasing fastest in the elementaryand high school attendance areas near
new development.
30. Short-term fluctuations in school attendance are addressed through the use of adjusted
attendance area boundaries, double shifting, use of portable classrooms, and busing.
School funding from the state is based on student enrollment for school districts in the
State of Oregon. This funding pattern affects the willingness of districts to allow out-of-
district transfers and to adjust district boundaries. Adjustments in district boundaries may
be feasible where there is no net loss or gain in student enrollments between districts.
31. Creating or retaining small, neighborhood schools reduces the need for busing and
provides more opportunity for students to walk or bike to school. Quality smaller schools
may allow more parents to stay in established neighborhoods and to avoid moving out to
new subdivisions on the urban fringe or to bedroom communities. However, growth
patterns do not always respect school district boundaries. For example, natural cycles of
growth and neighborhood maturation result in uneven geographic growth patterns in the
metropolitan area, causing a disparity between the location of some schools and school
children. This results in some fringe area schools exceeding capacity, while some central
city schools are under capacity.
32.Long-range enrollment forecasts determine the need to either build new schools, expand
existing facilities, or close existing schools. Funding restrictions imposed by state law
and some provisions in local codes may discourage the retention and redevelopment of
neighborhood schools. Limits imposed by state law on the use of bond funds for
operations and maintenance make the construction of new, lower maintenance buildings
preferable to remodeling existing school buildings. In addition, if existing schools were
expanded, some school sites may not meet current local parking and other code
requirements.
III-G-11
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
33.Combining educational facilities with local park and recreation facilities provides
financial benefits to the schools while enhancing benefits to the community. The
Meadow View School and adjacent City of Eugene community park is an example of
shared facilities.
Policies
G.22 The cities shall initiate a process with school districts within the UGB for coordinating
land use and school planning activities. The cities and school districts shall examine the
following in their coordination efforts:
a.The need for new public school facilities and sufficient land to site them;
b.How open enrollment policies affect school location;
c.The impact of school building height and site size on the buildable land supply;
d.The use of school facilities for non-school activities and appropriate
reimbursement for this use;
e.The impact of building and land use codes on the development and
redevelopment of school facilities;
f.Systems development charge adjustments related to neighborhood schools; and,
g.The possibility of adjusting boundaries, when practical and when total
enrollment will not be affected, where a single, otherwise internally cohesive
area is divided into more than one school district.
G.23 Support financial and other efforts to keep neighborhood schools open and to retain
schools sites in public ownership following school closure.
G.24 Support the retention of University of Oregon and LCC facilities in central city areas to
increase opportunities for public transit and housing and to retain these schools’
attractiveness to students and faculty.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Solid Waste
Finding
34. Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires that, “To meet current and long-range needs, a
provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be included
in each plan.”
Policies
III-G-12
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
G.25 The Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan, as updated, shall serve as the guide for
the location of solid waste sites, including sites for inert waste, to serve the metropolitan
area. Industries that make significant use of the resources recovered from the Glenwood
solid waste transfer facility should be encouraged to locate in that vicinity.
Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Findings
35. Providing key urban services, such as water, to areas outside the UGB increases pressure
for urban development in rural areas. This can encourage premature development outside
the UGB at rural densities, increasing the cost of public facilities and services to all users
of the systems.
36. Land application of biosolids, treated wastewater, or cannery waste on agricultural sites
outside the UGB for beneficial reuse of treated wastewater byproducts generated within
the UGB is more efficient and environmentally beneficial than land filling or other means
of disposal.
37. Lane County land use data show that, outside the UGB, land uses consist of:
a. Those which are primarily intended for resource management; and
b. Those where development has occurred and are committed to rural development
as established through the exceptions process specified in Statewide Planning
Goal 2.
Policies
G.26 Wastewater and water service shall not be provided outside the UGB except to the
following areas, and the cities may require consent to annex agreements as a prerequisite
to providing these services in any instance:
a. The area of the Eugene Airport designated Government and Education on the
Metro PlanDiagram, the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, the Regional
Wastewater Biosolids Management Facility, and agricultural sites used for land
application of biosolids and cannery byproducts. These sites serve the entire
metropolitan area.
b. An existing development outside the UGB when it has been determined that it
poses an immediate threat of public health or safety to the citizens within the
Eugene-Springfield UGB that can only be remedied by extension of the service.
In addition, under prior obligations, water service shall be provided to land within the
dissolved water districts of Hillcrest, College Crest, Bethel, and Oakway.
III-G-13
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
G.27 Plan for the following levels of service for rural designations outside the UGB within the
Plan Boundary:
a.Agriculture, Forest Land, Sand and Gravel, and Parks and Open Space. No
minimum level of service is established.
b.Rural Residential, Rural Commercial, Rural Industrial, and Government and
Education. On-site sewage disposal, individual water systems, rural level of fire
and police protection, electric and communication service, schools, and
reasonable access to solid waste disposal facility.
Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Findings
38. In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, urban water,
wastewater, and stormwater facilities may be located on agricultural land and urban water
and wastewater facilities may be located on forest land outside the UGB when the
facilities exclusively serve land within the UGB, pursuant to OAR 660-006 and 660-033.
39.In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, water, and
wastewater facilities are allowed in the public right-of-way of public roads and highways.
40.The Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities maps show the location of
some planned public facilities outside the UGB and Plan Boundary, exclusively to serve
land within the UGB. The ultimate construction of these facilities will require close
coordination with and permitting by Lane County and possible Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
41. Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0090 require state and local jurisdictions to
identify and protect riparian corridors.
42.In accordance with OAR 660-033-0090, 660-033-0130(2), and 660-033-0120, building
schools on high value farm land outside the UGB is prohibited. Statewide planning goals
prohibit locating school buildings on farm or forest land within three miles outside the
urban growth boundary.
Policies
G.28 Consistent with local regulations, locate new urban water, wastewater, and stormwater
facilities on farm land and urban water and wastewater facilities on forest land outside the
UGB only when the facilities exclusively serve land inside the UGB and there is no
reasonable alternative.
G.29Locate urban water and wastewater facilities in the public right-of-way of public roads
and highways outside the UGB, as needed to serve land within the UGB.
III-G-14
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
G.30 Facility providers shall coordinate with Lane County and other local jurisdictions and
obtain the necessary county land use approvals to amend the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan, or the Metro Plan, as needed and consistent with state law, to
appropriately designate land for urban facilities located outside the UGB or the Plan
Boundary.
G.31 The cities shall coordinate with Lane County on responsibility and authority to address
stormwater-related issues outside the Plan Boundary, including outfalls outside the
Springfield portion of the UGB.
G.32Measures to protect, enhance, or alter Class F Streams outside the UGB, within the Plan
Boundary shall, at a minimum, be consistent with Lane County’s riparian standards.
G.33 New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside the UGB.
Financing
Findings
43. ORS 197.712(2)(e) states that the project timing and financing provisions of public
facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions.
44. ORS 223.297 and ORS 223.229(1) do not permit the collection of local systems
development charges (SDCs) for fire and emergency medical service facilities and
schools, limiting revenue options for these services. Past attempts to change this law
have been unsuccessful.
45. Service providers in the metropolitan area use SDCs to help fund the following facilities:
Springfield: stormwater, wastewater, and transportation;
Willamalane Park and Recreation District: parks;
SUB, Rainbow Water District: water;
Eugene: stormwater, wastewater, parks, and transportation; and,
EWEB: water.
46.Oregon and California timber receipt revenues, a federally-funded source of county road
funds, have declined over the years and their continued decline is expected.
47.Regular maintenance reduces long term infrastructure costs by preventing the need for
frequent replacement and rehabilitation. ORS 223.297 to 223.314 do not allow use of
SDCs to fund operations and maintenance.
48.The assessment rates of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County are each different,
creating inequitable financing of some infrastructure improvements in the metropolitan
area.
III-G-15
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
Policies
G.34 Changes to Public Facilities and Services Plan project phasing schedules or anticipated
costs and financing shall be made in accordance with budgeting and capital improvement
program procedures of the affected jurisdiction(s).
G.35 Service providers will update capital improvement programming (planning,
programming, and budgeting for service extension) regularly for those portions of the
UGB where the full range of key urban services and facilities is not available.
G.36 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of extending
urban services and facilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a development will
fulfill goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan and other applicable plans
determined by the local jurisdiction to be of particular importance or concern.
G.37 Continue to implement a system of user charges, SDCs, and other public financing tools,
where appropriate, to fund operations, maintenance, and improvement or replacement of
obsolete facilities or system expansion.
G.38 Explore other funding mechanisms at the local level to finance operations and
maintenance of public facilities.
G.39 Set wastewater and stormwater fees at a level commensurate with the level of impact on,
or use of, the wastewater or stormwater service.
G.40 The cities and Lane County will continue to cooperate in developing assessment practices
for inter-jurisdictional projects that provide for equitable treatment of properties,
regardless of jurisdiction.
III-G-16
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
III-G-17
Replaced October 31, 2008
Draft 9/29/14
H.Parks and Recreation Facilities Element
A parks and recreation program with sufficient diversity to meet the needs of the citizenry is an
essential ingredient to enhancing the livability of a community. The Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area has a long history of supporting parks and recreation programs, and this plan
further strengthens that commitment. The main types of parks and recreational facilities that
have been developed are:
Regional-Metropolitan Parks
Regional-metropolitan parks serve the entire metropolitan population, as well as the surrounding
population and provide a variety of recreational opportunities including water areas, trails, picnic
areas, recreational facilities, and natural areas (e.g., Alton Baker Park).
Community Parks
Community parks serve surrounding metropolitan residents with a variety of specialized
recreational facilities and programs, such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and community
centers (e.g., Amazon Park and Willamalane Park).
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood parks serve the various neighborhoods within the metropolitan area.
Neighborhood parks may include courts and fields for active recreation.
Play Lots
Play lots serve residents of surrounding subdivisions and are normally within walking distance of
their users’ homes.
Community Centers
Community centers are usually located within community parks. They emphasize recreational
activities such as swimming, tennis, art, music, etc.
Special Recreational Facilities
Special recreational facilities include, for example, public and private golf courses, tennis courts,
and swimming pools.
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).
III-H-1
Draft 9/29/14
Among these agencies and districts, a wide variety of parks and recreation programs,
encompassing those previously mentioned, are provided for the residents they serve.
In addition, the park and recreation agencies and the metropolitan school districts have combined
their resources and coordinated efforts to provide open space and parks and recreation facilities
in conjunction with the schools.
Also, in recent years, private recreational facilities, such as swimming pools and tennis and
racquetball courts, have been developed. Several private golf courses have been in operation in
the community for a number of years.
Goal
Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities to serve the diverse needs of the community’s
citizens.
Findings and Policies
Findings
1. Increases in leisure time, income, transportation energy costs, and projected population
growth indicate that there will continue to be a significant demand for a diversity of park
and recreational opportunities in the metropolitan area.
2.Regardless of what standard is used, it is becoming increasingly difficult for local park
agencies to meet the demands and needs of the community for parks and recreation
facilities. The major problems include:
a. Areas developing without parks and recreation facilities available for the
residents.
b.Competition for limited available financial resources between the need to
purchase park land to meet future demands (before the land is no longer available)
and the need to develop existing park land to meet current demand.
c. Competition for limited financial resources to provide the diversity of parks and
recreational programs demanded by the community’s citizens.
d. Land suitable and available for parks and recreation facilities often competes with
other land use activities and needs in the metropolitan area.
3.The level of service for parks and recreation facilities in the metropolitan area was last
evaluated in 1989. At that time, regional figures were compared to standards of the
National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). When compared to NRPA standards,
there was a gap between community needs for parks and open space and the available
supply of parkland. In 2003, the City of Eugene and Willamalane Park & Recreation
III-H-2
Draft 9/29/14
District are preparing Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plans. These
plans will update the regional parkland inventory and make comparisons to regional
standards, which will provide a more detailed analysis of regional park supply and
demand.
4. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities is made more difficult by the lack of a
detailed metropolitan-wide parks and recreation analysis and plan that incorporates a
methodology reflecting demand characteristics of this local area. Such an analysis and
plan would serve a number of essential functions, including:
a. The development of a complete inventory of parks and recreation facilities, the
development of local standards for use by the local governing bodies in
determining the type and level of parks and facilities that are needed, the
development of demand effectiveness measurements, and the development of
capital improvements programming and other implementation strategies.
b. Indication of how much land is needed for each type of park (regional,
community, neighborhood, etc.), and indication of what types of activities should
be provided in each park (e.g., active recreational opportunities such as ball fields,
tennis courts, and playgrounds vs. passive recreational opportunities such as
hiking trails).
c.Indication of how the resources of the local and state park agencies can be
coordinated and maximized in order for each agency to provide the level and type
of recreational opportunities for which it is best suited.
d. Indication of where the advance purchase of park land should occur in
anticipation of future demand.
5.Private recreational facilities supplement and help meet the demand for a variety of
recreational opportunities.
6. The Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted the Howard Buford Recreation Area
Master Planas a refinement to the Metro Plan on June 15, 1994 (Ordinance No. PA
1056).
Objectives
1.Coordinate regional-metropolitan parks planning and development among local and state
agencies.
2.Ensure that regional-metropolitan parks planning provides a balanced variety of park and
recreational opportunities.
III-H-3
Draft 9/29/14
3.Develop local standards, measures, and implementation techniques to determine the level
and types of local park and recreation facilities necessary to serve the needs of the
residents of each jurisdiction.
4.Develop park sites and recreation facilities in the manner best suited to serve the diverse
interests of local residents and in areas of greatest need.
5.Close the gap between the current supply of park and recreation facilities and the
projected demand.
6.Expand opportunities for the development of private recreational facilities.
Policies
H.1 Develop a system of regional-metropolitan recreational activity areas based on a facilities
plan for the metropolitan area that includes acquisition, development, and management
programs. The Metro Plan and system should include reservoir and hill parks, the
Willamette River Greenway, and other river corridors.
H.2 Local parks and recreation plans and analyses shall be prepared by each jurisdiction and
coordinated on a metropolitan level. The park standards adopted by the applicable city
and incorporated into the city’s development code shall be used in local development
processes.
H.3 Accelerate the acquisition of park land in projected growth areas by establishing
guidelines determining where and when developers will be required to dedicate land for
park and recreation facilities, or money in lieu thereof, to serve their developments.
H.4Encourage the development of private recreational facilities.
H.5Develop mechanisms and processes by which residents of an area to be served by a
neighborhood park, neighborhood center, or play lot can participate in the design,
development, and maintenance of the facility.
H.6 All metropolitan area parks and recreation programs and districts shall cooperate to the
greatest possible extent in the acquisition of public and private funds to support their
operations.
H.7 The City of Eugene shall cooperate with the University of Oregon in the resolution of any
loss of recreational facilities associated with development in the Riverfront Park.
III-H-4
Draft 9/29/14
I.Historic Preservation Element
The metropolitan area has experienced, and it appears will continue to experience, growth and
change. On the other hand, public interest and commitment to historic preservation has been
increasing, at least partly due to recognition that historic structures, sites, and areas which
provide a tangible physical connection with the past are a nonrenewable resource. This link with
previous times provides a sense of permanence, continuity, and perspective to our lives, as well
as a context within which change occurs. Historic structures can enrich our lives by offering
architectural diversity to the visual environment and provide tangible links to the future.
Goal
Preserve and restore reminders of our origin and historic development as links between past,
present, and future generations.
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1.Programs and publications that identify sites, structures, objects, and cultural areas and
activities of historic significance serve as a visual and educational experience for the
public.
2.Structures and sites of historic significance contribute to an area’s ability to attract
tourism.
3.The metropolitan area has an important heritage of historic sites, structures, and objects
worthy of preservation.
4.When positive measures are not taken, visible evidence of ties to the past and reminders
of our heritage disappear.
5.Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene are implementing programs of historic
preservation and awareness.
6.There remain many sections of the metropolitan area in which no surveying has been
done to locate historic and archaeological sites.
7.Historic preservation programs generally allow continued and changing occupancy of
historic structures and sites.
8.Beginning with the Antiquities Act of 1906 and through the present time, both the federal
and Oregon state governments have expressed an interest in and enacted laws providing
for the protection and preservation of sites, structures, objects, and areas of historic
significance.
III-I-1
Draft 9/29/14
9.Depending on the nature and condition of an individual structure, rehabilitation, rather
than replacement, may be less costly per square foot, more labor-intensive, and less
energy-consuming, thereby resulting in net savings.
Objectives
1.Develop and expand public awareness of the metropolitan area’s origin, development,
and history.
2.Encourage preservation and restoration of sites, structures, objects and areas of cultural,
historic, or archaeological significance for the enjoyment and knowledge of present and
future generations.
Policies
I.1 Adopt and implement historic preservation policies, regulations, and incentive programs
that encourage the inventory, preservation, and restoration of structures; landmarks; sites;
and areas of cultural, historic, or archaeological significance, consistent with overall
policies.
I.2 Institute and support projects and programs that increase citizen and visitor awareness of
the area’s history and encourage citizen participation in and support of programs
designed to recognize and memorialize the area’s history.
I.3 Explore the feasibility of a metropolitan non-profit historic preservation development
organization to bring together public and private funding sources.
I.4Periodically review state and federal programs intended to assist in preservation of
historic and archaeological sites for possible use in connection with local implementation
programs.
I.5 Monitor and evaluate the effect of these actions on other adopted policies and the
metropolitan area as a whole.
I.6 Local governments shall pursue grants from all available sources to assist with the
identification and evaluation of historically significant sites.
III-I-2
Draft 9/29/14
J.Energy Element
The 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 use of energy is essential for the development and operation of the urban area. Many vital
processes, such as commercial and industrial activities; transportation of goods; and the lighting,
heating, and cooling of buildings depend on energy supplies for their operation. In addition, our
daily lives are greatly influenced by the consumption of energy for a vast number of purposes,
such as automobile and home appliance use.
As the cost of energy supplies increases and the availability of new energy sources decreases, we
will continue to experience a greater need for conserving and efficiently using existing supplies.
Many energy supplies are nonrenewable in that they are only produced once, as in the case of
metals, or take hundreds of thousands of years to be produced, as in the case of petroleum and
other fossil fuels. It is especially important to efficiently use and conserve energy sources in
order that future generations will not unnecessarily suffer by their shortage or absence.
Conservation makes possible the use of energy sources to serve greater numbers of people and
also reduces the immediate need for the development of new centralized facilities, such as those
required for the large-scale generation of electricity.
While a number of specific decisions relating to energy can be made using the energy policies in
this element, it is notwritten at the level of detail that would be required for it to serve as a
comprehensive energy plan for the metropolitan area. Examples given in this element are used
to illustrate statements and are not meant to be inclusive. Other specific examples that reflect the
same statement can also be applied by the reader.
As developments and data relating to energy production and conservation are rapidly changing,
the findings, objectives, and policies of the Energy Element should be frequently monitored to
ensure their relevancy.
Goals
1.Maximize the conservation and efficient utilization of all types of energy.
2.Develop environmentally acceptable energy resource alternatives.
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1.Energy conservation measures canserve as an energy source by making limited energy
supplies serve greater numbers of users.
III-J-1
Draft 9/29/14
2. Many energy supply and demand factors which influence the metropolitan area are
beyond local control. An example is the petroleum supply decisions made by
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations.
3. Energy savings can be obtained by utilizing forms of energy other than electricity or
fossil fuels for space heating.
4.Recent trends and analysis indicate that the relative cost of non-renewable energy
supplies, such as petroleum, and the relative cost of the majority of the electric power
received by the metropolitan area, will increase in the future.
5. Wood fiber presently provides a significant amount of energy to the metropolitan area.
The continued utilization of this alternative energy source will be influenced by the
economic and resource conditions affecting the lumber industry and by the air quality
conditions and regulations affecting the metropolitan area.
6.Municipal waste can serve as an indirect energy source through the energy savings
resulting from the recycling of nonrenewable resources such as metals and glass
containers.
7. Solar energy can provide a significant amount of the energy used for the metropolitan
area hotwater heating and can provide cost-effective supplementary space heating when
used in basic, simple, passive systems.
8. An electrical generation facility which is powered by part of an industrial process
(cogeneration) is presently operating in the metropolitan area. Additional opportunities
for cogeneration facilities exist in the region.
9.Waste heat from metropolitan area industrial processes can be used for space heating of
nearby buildings.
Objectives
1.Utilize cost-effective energy conservation techniques, as determined by methods which
consider initial operating, replacement, and decommissioning costs of facilities--in other
words, life cycle costs.
2.Maintain options for the potential use of energy conservation methods, such as increased
building weatherization and some forms of public transit, that are not cost-effective at the
present time.
3.Minimize negative environmental effects associated with energy production and use and
encourage the utilization of energy sources having the least negative environmental
impact.
III-J-2
Draft 9/29/14
4.Encourage the utilization of renewable energy sources in order to conserve nonrenewable
energy resources.
5.Promote the recovery and reuse of nonrenewable resources, such as metals, as an energy
conservation measure.
6.Facilitate the permanent use of solar energy and other decentralized energy sources to
displace centralized energy supplies and diversify energy production.
7.Continue and intensify efforts to allocate land uses in a manner that creates a compact
growth form for the metropolitan area.
8.Promote policies that minimize the energy consumed for heating, cooling, lighting,
appliance use, and other processes in commercial, industrial, and residential buildings.
9.Encourage the maximum amount of energy conservation associated with automobile use.
10.Encourage industrial activities that use energy in the most efficient and productive
manner.
11.Encourage the minimization of energy consumption in determining the placement,
density, and design of all types of urban land uses.
12.Continue and support energy conservation efforts that are being undertaken by the public
and private sector.
13.Continue and support efforts to increase public awareness of energy conservation issues
and of methods to effectively utilize solar energy and other renewable energy supplies.
Policies
J.1 It is recommended that the coordinated development of a detailed metropolitan energy
management plan or plans be undertaken, recognizing existing related energy documents,
with the active participation of local jurisdictions in order to address local energy issues
in greater depth than can be attempted in a metropolitan general plan. The products of
this additional process would be considered as part of all metropolitan area planning
policies in shaping the development of the region and should be continually monitored
and reviewed to ensure their continued relevancy. Most of the energy data needed for
this planning effort can be best be collected and stored by a unified energy data bank that
would, at a minimum, serve the entire metropolitan area.
This effort should at least:
a. Establish the current demand and projected energy demand for the various sectors
of the economy in the metropolitan area.
III-J-3
Draft 9/29/14
b.Inventory the current supply sources of energy for the metro area and include
projected sources, renewable and nonrenewable, centralized and decentralized,
and the price projections for each source.
c. Coordinate the development of a uniform reporting system to be used by the
various energy suppliers in the metropolitan area in order to generate an ongoing,
accurate data base for energy planning.
d.Examine the potential economic impacts to metro area residents resulting from
projected energy demand, supply, and price.
e. Determine the impact of current land use policies and actions on energy use and
reaffirm or point out adjustments to land use policies, regulations, and activities,
as necessary, to reflect these considerations.
f. Research revisions to regulations which would have a positive effect on the use of
renewable, decentralized energy sources, such as solar energy.
g.Research land use patterns which would facilitate the use of centralized, small-
scale energy generation and storage in residential, commercial, industrial, and
mixed use applications.
h.Specify implementation processes.
J.2 Carefully control, through the use of operating techniques and other methods, energy-
related actions, such as automobile use, in order to minimize adverse air quality impacts.
Trade-offs between air quality and energy actions shall be made with the best possible
understanding of how one process affects the other.
J.3 Land allocation and development patterns shall permit the highest possible current and
future utilization of solar energy for space heating and cooling, in balance with the
requirements of other planning policies.
J.4 Encourage development that takes advantage of natural conditions, such as microclimate,
and utilizes renewable energy supplies, such as solar energy, to minimize non-renewable
and overall energy consumption.
J.5 Resource recovery facilities may serve as a valuable energy source. Their operation and
refinement should be investigated by all metropolitan area jurisdictions. Source
separation of recyclable materials from waste should be encouragedas a separate, related
energy conservation measure.
J.6 Local jurisdictions and utilities shall examine methods of expanding existing residential,
commercial, and industrial energy conservation programs. One potential method would
be offering advice concerning the use of solar water heating systems.
III-J-4
Draft 9/29/14
J.7 Encourage medium- and high-density residential uses when balanced with other planning
policies in order to maximize the efficient utilization of all forms of energy. The greatest
energy savings can be made in the areas of space heating and cooling and transportation.
For example, the highest relative densities of residential development shall be
concentrated to the greatest extent possible in areas that are or can be well served by mass
transit, paratransit, and foot and bicycle paths.
J.8 Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated to the greatest
extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel distances, optimize
reuse of waste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy generation.
J.9 Encourage industrial activities that use the smallest relative amounts of non-renewable
energy.
J.10 Support efforts to develop industries that have a relatively high potential for utilizing
renewable energy sources or waste heat.
J.11 Encourage the use and development of cogenerative and decentralized energy supplies
for commercial and industrial purposes in an environmentally beneficial manner.
J.12 When practical, the government sector should take the lead in demonstrating and
implementing:
a. Cost-effective use of renewable and decentralized energy sources, such as solar
space and water heating systems.
b. Selection and efficient use of energy-saving vehicles.
J.13 Continue and encourage cooperation and communication between citizenry, utilities, and
local, state, and federal governmental entities concerning energy-related issues, especially
as they pertain to service area boundaries and economic development.
J.14 Continue to encourage efforts at the state level to promote energy conservation, such as
in the statewide building code.
J.15 Continued coordination of information and programs concerning energy conservation
shall be a high priority for affected local governments.
J.16 The Energy Element should be re-evaluated during the Metro Plan update in light of the
program activities for local governments that were laid out in the Northwest Conservation
and Electric Power Plan.
III-J-5
Draft 9/29/14
K.Citizen Involvement Element
Active, on-going, and meaningful citizen involvement is an essential ingredient to the
development and implementation of any successful planning program. Citizens in the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area have participated in and articulated their concerns on planning
activities and decisions as individuals and through various private interest groups, community
and neighborhood organizations, and citizen advisory committees.
A citizens advisory committee was established for the 1990 Plan and was an integral part of that
plan’s development. The adopted 1990 Planincluded a recommendation that a permanent
citizens advisory committee be established. That recommendation was implemented by the three
governing bodies when the Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee (MAPAC) was
established. (MAPAC consisted of 21 members, seven from each jurisdiction.) MAPAC’s
responsibilities included monitoring the use and implementation of the Metro Plan, serving as
the Lane Council of Government (LCOG) advisory committee on natural resources, and
reviewing and commenting on planning issues of metropolitan-wide significance. MAPAC’s
responsibilities for conducting a citizen involvement program for the Metro Planwere
transferred to the Joint Planning Commission Committee (JPCC) in 1990. The JPCC is made up
of two planning commissioners from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County.
In recent years, citizen advisory committees have also been established to provide the citizen’s
perspective on a wide variety of specific planning issues (e.g., transportation, Greenway, solid
waste management).
This emphasis on citizen participation has been recognized at the state level where the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted citizen involvement as a
mandatory statewide planning goal. Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, in accordance with
LCDC’s Statewide Planning Goal 1: Citizen Involvement, have each appointed committees for
citizen involvement whose responsibilities include developing, monitoring, and evaluating the
citizen involvement programs in their respective jurisdictions and recommending programs and
techniques which will increase citizen participation.
For the purposes of future updates of the Metro Plan, the three governing bodies designated
JPCC as the citizens committee for coordinating and soliciting citizen input on the update
process. The functions of JPCC also include the monitoring of the citizen involvement process
regarding amendments to and the implementation of the Metro Plan.
Goal
Continue to develop, maintain, and refine programs and procedures that maximize the
opportunity for meaningful, ongoing citizen involvement in the community’s planning and
planning implementation processes consistent with mandatory statewide planning standards.
III-J-6
Draft 9/29/14
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1.The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has a history of encouraging and recognizing
citizen involvement as an essential element in its planning program.
2.Citizen advisory committees have been established to provide the citizen’s perspective on
a variety of metropolitan-wide planning and related issues.
3.Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene each use either their local planning commission or
a committee for citizen involvement in monitoring citizen involvement in the planning
process.
4.JPCC has been designated as the citizen organization for developing and conducting a
citizen involvement program for the Metro Plan, including update processes.
5.The governing bodies have furthered their efforts at citizen involvement through the
development and support of community neighborhood organizations, community
surveys, citizen involvement advisory committees, and various media techniques for
citizen involvement and education.
6.How effective the Metro Plan will be depends to a large extent upon how much support
is provided by the metropolitan area residents in seeing that the Metro Planis
implemented.
7.Successful Metro Plan development and implementation is dependent on a joint effort of
citizens, public and semi-public agencies, and elected officials.
8.Benefits of an ongoing metropolitan area planning advisory committee to provide citizen
perspective include an accumulation of knowledge and experience in the planning
process.
9.In 1984, an ongoing metropolitan policy committee, the Metropolitan Planning
Committee, was formed to provide policy direction for the Metro Plan 2-1/2-Year Mid-
Period Review. It was comprised of two elected officials and one Planning
Commissioner each from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, and one representative
of the metropolitan citizen committee participates as a non-voting member.
10.In 1987, the Metropolitan Planning Committee was replaced by the Metropolitan Policy
Committee (MPC). The MPC is comprised of two elected officials each from Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County. The chief administrative officers of the three jurisdictions
serve as non-voting, ex-officio members of the MPC. When the MPC is considering
metropolitan transportation matters, the two members of the Lane Transit District (LTD)
Board shall serve as voting members and the General Manager of LTD and the Director
III-J-7
Draft 9/29/14
of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) shall also serve as non-voting, ex-
officio members of MPC.
Objectives
1.Promote and strengthen communication and coordination among various citizens
organizations; business, industrial, and other groups in the community; and between these
groups and government.
2.Insure adequate opportunities and provide adequate support for citizen involvement in
metropolitan planning and related issues.
3.Insure that the roles and responsibilities of the various citizen advisory committees
remain effective and responsive vehicles for citizen involvement.
4.Maintain a permanent citizens advisory committee to monitor the adequacy of citizen
involvement in metropolitan-wide planning processes.
Policies
K.1 Maintain an ongoing citizen advisory committee to the governing bodies of Springfield,
Eugene, and Lane County to monitor the adequacy of citizen involvement in the update,
review, and amendments to the Metro Plan.
K.2 Maintain and adequately fund a variety of programs and procedures for encouraging and
providing opportunities for citizen involvement in metropolitan area planning issues.
Such programs should provide for widespread citizen involvement, effective
communication, access to technical information, and feedback mechanisms from
policymakers. These programs shall be coordinated with local citizen involvement
programs and shall be prepared on the metropolitan level by the JPCC, a committee
composed of two representatives from each of the three metropolitan planning
commissions.
K.3 Improve and maintain local mechanisms that provide the opportunity for residents and
property owners in existing residential areas to participate in the implementation of
policies in the Metro Planthat may affect the character of those areas.
K.4 Maintain an ongoing metropolitan region policy committee, known as the MPC, to
provide policy direction on major Metro Plan updates, Metro Plan amendments, and
special studies. MPC shall resolve land use issues and other disagreements at the elected
official level among the two cities and the county and fulfill other intergovernmental
functions as required by the three metropolitan governments.
K.5 In addition to its citizen involvement responsibilities, JPCC shall provide guidance for
intergovernmental studies and projects and shall provide a forum at the Planning Commission
III-J-8
Draft 9/29/14
level for resolving intergovernmental planning issues, including proposed Metro Plan
amendments.
III-J-9
Draft 9/29/14
Chapter IV
Review, Amendments, and Refinements
Metro Plan
The Metro Planis 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 Planis 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
community. Likewise, the Metro Planmay be augmented and implemented by more detailed
plans and regulatory measures.
Goal
Ensure that the Metro Planis responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the
community.
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1.If the Metro Planis 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 Planupdates, changes to the Metro Planmay occur through Periodic
Review and amendments initiated by the governing bodies and citizens.
3.Refinements to the Metro Planmay 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
1. Maintain a schedule for monitoring, reviewing, and amending the Metro Planso 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
IV-1
Draft 9/29/14
1.A special review, and if appropriate, Metro Planamendment, shall be initiated if changes
in the basic assumptions of the Metro Planoccur. 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.
3. A proposed amendment to the Metro Planshall 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 PlanDiagram for
land inside the city limits.
b.Type I Text Amendments include:
i.Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to land inside the
1
city limits of the home city;
ii.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 Plandesignations and the amendment of
existing Metro Plandesignation 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 I-5, and Springfield is the home city for amendments east of I-5:
a.Type II Diagram Amendments include:
i.Amendments to the Metro PlanDiagram for the area between a city limit
and the Plan Boundary;
ii.A UGB or Metro PlanBoundary amendment east or west of I-5 that is not
described as a Type III amendment.
b.Type II Text Amendments include:
1
This includes an amendment to Metro Plan to specify that a particular provision does not apply within the city
limits, as may be the case as Eugene and Springfield consider a regional planning program that includes the
adoption of city-specific comprehensive plans to address some of the land use issues that have historically been
addressed in the Metro Plan.
IV-2
Draft 9/29/14
i.Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to Lane County and
2
one of the cities;
ii.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:
a. Type III Diagram Amendments include:
i.Amendments of the Common UGB along I-5; and
ii.A UGB or Metro PlanBoundary change that crosses I-5.
b.Type III Text Amendments include:
i.Amendments that change a Fundamental Principle as set forth in Chapter
II A. of the Metro Plan;
ii.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 Planamendments 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.
c. A Type III amendment may be initiated by any one of the three governing bodies
at any time.
2
This includes an amendment to Metro Plan to specify that a particular provision does not apply within the UGB
on one side of I-5, or within the Metro Plan boundary on one side of I-5, as may be the case as Eugene and
Springfield consider a regional planning program that includes the adoption of city-specific comprehensive plans to
address some of the land use issues that have historically been addressed in the Metro Plan.
IV-3
Draft 9/29/14
d.Only a governing body may initiate the adoption of a city-specific comprehensive
plan, a refinement plan, afunctional plan, aspecial area study or the initiation of
aPeriodic Review or Metro Planupdate.
e.Metro Planupdates 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 Planatany time.
8.The approval process for Metro Planamendments shall be as follows:
a.The initiating governing body of any Type I, II, or III Metro Planamendment 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
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.
f.Adopted or denied Metro Planamendments 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.
IV-4
Draft 9/29/14
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 jointly-adopted, regionally-applicable refinement and functional plans must be
consistent with the Metro Plan.Until a city has adopted a city-specific comprehensive
plan that explicitly supplants the relevant portion of the Metro Plan, that city’s refinement
and functional plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan. After a city has adopted a
city-specific comprehensive plan that explicitly supplants the relevant portion of the
Metro Plan, that city’s refinement and functional plans must be consistent with its city-
specific comprehensive plan (instead of the Metro Plan). In any case, and should
inconsistencies occurbetween,the Metro Planapplicable comprehensive plan and a
refinement or functional plan, the applicable comprehensive planis the prevailing policy
document.
11.Local implementing ordinances shall provide a process for zoning lands in conformance
with the Metro Plan.
12.The amendment process described in this Chapter IV does not apply to the adoption of
amendments of city-specific comprehensive plans, but any Metro Planamendments that
are being considered in conjunction with a city-specific plan adoptionor amendment
shall follow the procedures described in this Chapter.
IV-5
Draft 9/29/14
Chapter V
Glossary
The purpose of the Glossary is to define commonly used terms in the Metro Plan.
1.Affordable housing: Housing priced so that a household at or below median income pays
no more than 30 percent of its total gross income on housing and utilities. (The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) figure for 1997 annual median
income for a family of three in Lane County is $33,900; 30 percent = $847/month.)
2.Annexation: An extension of the boundaries of a city or special district. Annexations are
governed by Oregon Revised Statutes. In the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area,
annexations currently require approval by the Lane County Local Government Boundary
Commission.
3.Assumption: A position, projection, or conclusion considered to be reasonable.
Assumptions differ from findings in that they are not known facts.
4.Best Management Practices (BMPs): Management practices or techniques used to guide
design and construction of new improvements to minimize or prevent adverse
environmental impacts. Often organized as a list from which those practices most suited
to a specific site can be chosen to halt or offset anticipated problems.
5.Buildable residential lands: Land in urban and urbanizable areas that is suitable,
available, and necessary for residential uses, as more particularly defined in OAR 660,
Division 8 and in adopted buildable lands inventories. Buildable land includes both
vacant land and developed land likely to be redeveloped. Lands defined as unbuildable
within the metropolitan urban growth boundary (UGB) are those within the floodway,
land within easement of 230 KV power lines, land within 75 feet of Class A streams or
ponds, land within 50 feet of Class B streams or ponds, protected wetlands and wetland
mitigation sites in Eugene, and wetlands larger than 0.25 acres in Springfield. Publicly
owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. Buildable land
includes property not currently sewered but scheduled to be sewered within the 20-year
planning period.
6.Class F Streams (currently Class I Streams in Lane Code): “Streams that have fish use,
including fish use streams that have domestic water use,” as defined in OAR 629 to 635.
7.Compact Urban Growth: The filling in of vacant and underutilitzed lands in the UGB, as
well as redevelopment inside the UGB.
8.Density: The average number of families, persons, or housing units per unit of land.
Density is usually expressed as dwelling units per acre.
V-1
Draft 9/29/14
9.Density bonus: A mechanism used in incentive-based zoning that allows a developer to
build at higher densities in return for providing more open space, building affordable
housing, or some other public amenity.
10.Density (gross): The number of dwelling units per each acre of land, including areas
devoted to dedicated streets, neighborhood parks, sidewalks, and other public facilities.
11.Density (net): The number of dwelling units per each acre of land in residential use,
excluding from the acreage dedicated streets, neighborhood parks, sidewalks, and public
facilities.
12.Development: The construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration,
relocation, or enlargement of any structure; any excavation, landfill, or land disturbance;
and any human-made use or extension of land use.
13.Drinking water protection (source water protection): Implementing strategies within a
drinking water protection area to minimize the potential impact of contaminant sources
on the quality of water used as a drinking water source by a public water system.
14.Extension of urban facilities: Construction of the facilities necessary for future service
provision.
15.Fair housing: Refers to the prevention of discrimination against protected classes of
people. Protected classes, as defined by the federal government, refer to race, color,
religion, national origin, or sex. Protected classes are disproportionately comprised of
very low-income populations.
16.Finding: Factual statement resulting from investigations, analysis, or observation.
17.Floodplain: The area adjoining a river, stream, or watercourse that is subject to 100-year
flooding. A 100-year flood has a one-percent chance of occurring in any one year as a
result of periods of higher-than-normal rainfall or stream flows, high winds, rapid
snowmelt, natural stream blockages, tsunamis, or combinations thereof.
18.Floodway: The normal stream channel and that adjoining area of the floodplain needed
to convey the waters of a 100-year flood.
19.Goal: Broad statement of philosophy that describes the hopes of a community for its
future. A goal may never be completely attainable but is used as a point towards which
to strive.
20.Groundwater: Water that occurs beneath the land surface in the zone(s) of saturation.
21.Impervious surface: Surfaces which prevent water from soaking into the ground.
Concrete, asphalt, and rooftops are the most common urban impervious surfaces.
V-2
Draft 9/29/14
22.In-fill: Development consisting of either construction on one or more lots in an area that
is mostly developed or new construction between existing structures. Development of
this type can conserve land and reduce sprawl.
23.Infrastructure: The facilities and services that support the functions and activities of a
community, including roads, street lights, wastewater lines, storm drainage, power lines,
and water lines.
24.Key urban facilities and services:
Minimum level: Wastewater service, stormwater service, transportation, solid waste
management, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, city-
wide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication
facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis (in other words, not necessarily
within walking distance of all students served).
Full range: The minimum level of key urban facilities and services plus urban public
transit, natural gas, street lighting, libraries, local parks, local recreation facilities and
services, and health services.
25.Low-income housing: Housing priced so that a household at or below 80 percent of
median income pays no more than 30 percent of its total gross household income on
housing and utilities. (HUD’s figure for 1997 annual 80 percent of median income for a
family of three in Lane County is $27,150; 30 percent = $687/month.)
26.Manufactured dwelling: A structure constructed at an assembly plant and moved to a
space in a manufactured dwelling park or a lot. The structure has sleeping, cooking, and
plumbing facilities and is intended for residential purposes.
27.Manufactured dwelling park: Any place where four or more manufactured dwellings are
located within 500 feet of one another on a lot, tract, or parcel of land under the same
ownership, the primary purpose of which is to rent or lease space.
28.Metro Plan Plan Boundary: Defines that area shown on the Metro PlanDiagram that
includes Springfield, Eugene, and unincorporated urban, urbanizable, rural, and
agricultural lands exclusive of areas encompassed in the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Assumes boundaries between the area of the Metro Plan
and the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan will coincide.)
29.Metro PlanDiagram: A graphic depiction in the Metro Planof: (a) the Metro Plan
Boundary (Plan Boundary); (b) urban growth boundaries; and(ac) the land uses planned
for the metropolitan area, as described in Metro Plan Chapter II-G.; and (b) the goals and
policies embodied in the text and elements of the Metro Plan. Information includes land
use designations and the UGB.
V-3
Draft 9/29/14
30.Metropolitan area: Generally, an area that includes and surrounds a city or group of
cities. The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area is the area within the Metro PlanPlan
Boundary (Plan Boundary).
31.Mixed use: A building, project or area of development that contains at least two different
land uses such as housing, retail, and office uses.
32.Mode: The transportation system used to make a trip, such as automobile, transit,
pedestrian, bicycle, or paratransit.
33.Nodal development (node): Nodal development is a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly land
use pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and employment in well-
defined areas with good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and
public and private improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented.
Fundamental characteristics of nodal development require:
Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit
use, walking and bicycling;
A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally ¼ mile) of
anywhere in the node);
Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance;
Public spaces, such as parks, public and private open space, and public
facilities, that can be reached without driving; and
A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net
density of at least 12 units per net acre.
Nodal developments will vary in the amount, type, and orientation of commercial, civic,
and employment uses; target commercial floor area ratios; size of building; and the
amount and types of residential uses.
34.Objective: An attainable target that the community attempts to reach in striving to meet
a goal. An objective may also be considered as an intermediate point that will help fulfill
the overall goal.
35.Paratransit: The various types of ride sharing programs such as carpooling, vanpooling,
taxi service, and subscription bus service.
36.Policy: A statement adopted as part of the Metro Plan or other plans to provide a specific
course of action moving the community toward attainment of its goals.
37.Public facility projects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of the Metro
Plan are defined as follows:
a.Water: Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution systems.
Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or larger for
V-4
Draft 9/29/14
Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and 24 inches or larger for Eugene Water &
Electric Board (EWEB).
b.Wastewater: Pump stations and wastewater lines 24 inches or larger.
c.Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36 inches or
larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality projects; and waterways
and open systems.
d.Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Planare described in the project
lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities maps in
Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public Facilities and Services
Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan).
38.Redevelopable land: Land on which development has already occurred, but on which,
due to present or expected market forces, there is a strong likelihood that existing
development will be converted to or replaced by a new and/or more intensive use. This
land might have one or more of the following characteristics: low improved value to land
value ratio; poor physical condition of the improvement; low improved value; large size;
and/or higher zoning potential.
39.Redevelopment: Rebuilding or adaptive reuse of land that has been previously built
upon.It may promote the economic development of an area that has been run-down or is
no longer needed for its previous use, such as industrial land that is redeveloped as
residential.
40.Refinement plan: A detailed examination of the service needs and land use issues of a
specific area, topic, or public facility. Refinement plans of the Metro Plancan include
specific neighborhood plans, special area plans, or functional plans [such as the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan(TransPlan)] that address a specific
Metro Planelement or sub-element on a city-wide or regional basis.
41.Refinement planning process: Refinement plans are developed through a process which
includes at least the following elements: a predetermined citizen involvement process,
preestablished policy direction in locally adopted planning documents, and a planning
commission and elected official process. In some cases, these processes would have to
be expanded to include review and involvement by citizens and appointed and elected
officials.
42.Riparian: The land bordering a stream or river; also pertaining to the vegetation typical
of those borders (grasses, shrubs, and trees such as reed canary grass, spiraea, willows,
ash, and cottonwoods).
43.Rural lands: Those lands that are outside the UGB. Rural lands are agricultural, forest,
or open space lands; or other lands suitable for sparse settlement, small farms, or acreage
V-5
Draft 9/29/14
homesites with limited public services, and which are not suitable, necessary or intended
for urban use.
44.Service enhancements: Services and amenities provided (or delivered) to lower income
tenants based on individual needs on-site in order to promote empowerment toward self-
sufficiency.
45.Single-family detached: A free-standing dwelling unit that does not share any walls or
the roof with another dwelling unit.
46.Special need housing: Housing for special needs populations. These populations
represent some unique sets of housing problems and are usually at a competitive
disadvantage in the marketplace due to circumstances beyond their control. These
subgroups include, but are not limited to: the elderly, persons with disabilities, homeless
individuals and families, at-risk youth, large families, farm workers, and persons being
released from correctional institutions.
47.Special service district: Any unit of local government, other than a city, county, and
association of local governments performing land use planning functions under ORS
195.025 authorized and regulated by statute, or metropolitan service district formed under
ORS 268. Special service districts include but are not limited to the following: domestic
water districts; domestic water associations and water cooperatives; irrigation districts;
regional air quality control authorities; rural fire protection districts; school districts;
mass transit districts; sanitary districts; and park and recreation districts.
48.System development charge (SDC): A reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, or a
combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital
improvement, connection to the capital improvement, or issuance of a development
permit or building permit.
49.Tax differential: Tax differential is a provision in Oregon city annexation law which
provides an opportunity to phase in the city’s tax rate over a period not to exceed 10
years. The proposal is specified at the time of annexation and cannot be modified
thereafter.
50.Underdeveloped land: The vacant or redevelopable portion of land not having the
highest and best use allowed by zoning.
51.Underutilized human resources: Persons who are: (a) unemployed; (b) employed part-
time but want to work full-time; or (c) in positions that do not fully utilize their skills.
52.Undeveloped land: Land that is vacant or used for agricultural purposes.
V-6
Draft 9/29/14
53.Urban growth boundary (UGB): A site-specific line, delineated on a map or by written
description, that separates urban and urbanizable lands from rural lands.
a.Eugene UGB: The UGB that separates Eugene’s urban and urbanizable lands
from the urban and urbanizable lands in Springfield along Interstate 5 and from
rural lands in Lane County to the north, west, and south.
b.Springfield UGB: The UGB that separates the urban and urbanizable lands in
Springfield from the urban and urbanizable lands in Eugene along Interstate 5 and
from rural lands in Lane County to the north, east, and south.
c.Metropolitan UGB: The UGB that encompasses both Eugene and Springfield
with no division along Interstate 5, separating the urban and urbanizable lands in
both cities from rural lands in Lane County. The Metropolitan UGB will continue
to exist until both Eugene and Springfield have adopted, and have in effect, their
own separate UGBs (Eugene UGB and Springfield UGB).
54.Urban lands: Lands located within an incorporated city.
55.Urban water and wastewater service provision: The physical connection to the water or
wastewater system.
56.Urbanizable land: Urbanizable lands are those unincorporated lands between the city
limits and the UGB.
57.Very low income housing: Housing priced so that a household at or below 50 percent of
median income pays no more than 30 percent of its total gross household income on
housing and utilities. (HUD’s figure for 1997 annual 50 percent of median income of a
family of three in Lane County is $16,950; 30 percent = $423/month.)
58.Zoning: A measure or regulation enacted primarily by local governments in which the
community is divided into districts or zones within which permitted and special uses are
allowed. Zoning regulations govern lot size, building bulk, placement, and other
development standards. A zoning ordinance typically consists of two parts: a text and a
map.
V-7
StaffFindings
MetroPlanEnablingAmendments
November10,2014
Applicants:LocalFileNumbers:
CityofSpringfieldSpringfieldFileNo.TYP41400005
CityofEugeneEugeneFileNo.MA1402
LaneCountyLaneCountyFileNo.PA1313
Request:ProcedureType:
ToamendChaptersIVoftheEugeneSpringfieldTypeIIIMetroPlanAmendment
MetropolitanAreaGeneralPlan(MetroPlan)toallowfor
thegradualreplacementoftheMetroPlanwithcity
specificcomprehensiveplans.
I.ExecutiveSummary
TextAmendments
ORS197.304(HB3337)requiredtheestablishmentofseparateUrbanGrowthBoundaries(UGBs)for
EugeneandSpringfieldandwastheimpetusforinitiatingworkontheSpringfieldComprehensivePlan
andtheEnvisionEugeneplanninginitiatives.Astheseplanningeffortsarereadiedforadoption,
amendmentstovarioussectionsofChaptersIthroughVoftheMetroPlanarenecessarytoallowforthe
gradualreplacementofthePlanwithseparateEugeneandSpringfieldcomprehensiveplans.
TheamendmentstoMetroPlanChapterIVwhichwerereviewedandapprovedlastyearsetthestage
forimplementationofORS197.304byallowingjurisdictionstheautonomytomakecityspecific
planningdecisions.TheMetroPlanEnablingAmendmentsareabroadreviewandadjustmentofthe
entireMetroPlandocumenttofurtherenablethegradualreplacementoftheMetroPlanwithcity
specificpoliciesfromtheSpringfieldComprehensivePlanandEnvisionEugene.Theproposed
amendmentswillallowanorderlytransitiontoanewplanningframeworkwithinwhichEugene,
SpringfieldandLaneCountywillcontinuetoplancollaborativelyinmanyareaswhileretainingthe
autonomytoadoptcityspecificpoliciesthatreflecteachĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͛Ɛvisionandsensibilities.
Theproposedamendmentsareprimarilytextamendmentswhichincludechangestoeverychapterof
theMetroPlan.However,therevisionsthroughoutthePlanarelimitedtothosethatfitwithinatleast
oneofthefollowingcategories:
1.Revisionstoensurethateachcitycan,independentlyoftheother,establishcityspecificplans
andestablishthatsuchplanssupplantspecificportionsoftheMetroPlanforthatcity;
2.Revisionstoupdateandaddexplanationsofthepast,currentandfuturestatusoftheMetroPlan,
includinganexplanationofthestagesofchangeanticipatedasthecitiesconductindependent
planningfortheirseparateƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͛needs.
3.Revisionstochangeorremovetextthatcannolongerbeappliedduetoachangeinthelawand
thatcouldnot(evenarguably)raiseapolicyconcern.Thisincludesthedeletionoftextrelatingto
thenowdefunctLaneCountyBoundaryCommission.
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page1
MetroPlanDiagramandPlanBoundaryAmendments
IncludedintheproposedamendmentsisaminorbutimportantupdateoftheMetroPlanDiagram.The
MetroPlanDiagramisagraphicrepresentationoftheMetroPlanshowingtheMetroPlanBoundary,
theUrbanGrowthBoundaryandthelandusesplannedforthemetropolitanarea.ThepassageofORS
197.304mandatedtheestablishmentofseparateurbangrowthboundariesforEugeneandSpringfield.
AMetroPlanDiagramamendmentisproposedtoshowa͞DĞƚƌŽƉŽůŝƚĂŶUrbanGrowthŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ͟that
encompassesbothEugeneandSpringfieldwithnodivisionalongInterstate5separating,separatingthe
urbanandurbanizablelandsinbothcitiesfromrurallandsinLaneCounty.TheMetroPlanDiagramwill
showtheadoptedSpringfieldUGBandeventuallytheEugeneUGB.TheMetropolitanUGBwillcontinue
toexistuntilbothEugeneandSpringfieldhaveadopted,andhaveineffect,theirownseparateUGBs.
TheMetroPlanBoundaryMapdefinesthatareashownontheMetroPlanDiagramthatincludes
Springfield,Eugene,andunincorporatedurban,urbanizable,rural,andagriculturallandsexclusiveof
areasencompassedintheLaneCountyRuralComprehensivePlan.Thosechangesproposedforthe
MetroPlanDiagramarealsoproposedfortheMetroPlanBoundaryMap.
ConclusionandRecommendationofStaff
ThisreportincludesfindingsdemonstratingconformancewiththecriteriaforapprovingMetroPlan
amendmentsfoundinEugeneCode9.7730(3),SpringfieldDevelopmentCodeSection5.14135(C)and
LaneCodeSection12.225(2)(a&b).Thesecriteriastate:
͞ϭ͘TheamendmentshallbeconsistentwiththerelevantStatewideplanninggoalsadoptedbythe
LandConservationandDevelopmentCommission;and
2.AdoptionoftheamendmentshallnotmaketheMetroPlaninternallyŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ͘͟
Basedonthefindingsofstaffwithrespecttotheapprovalcriteriacitedabove,stafffindstheproposed
textamendmentstotheMetroPlantobeconsistentwiththesecriteriaandrecommendapprovalofthe
amendment.
II.ProceduralRequirements
ProceduralrequirementsforprocessingMetroPlanamendmentsaredescribedinMetroPlanChapter
IV.TheamendmentproceduresfoundinChapterIVareimplementedthrougheachũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ͛Ɛlocal
landusecodes.Sections9.7700through9.7750oftheEugeneCode,Sections5.2115,5.4135and5.4
140oftheSpringfieldDevelopmentCodeandLaneCodeSections12.220through12.225and12.240
containtheamendmentproceduresandpoliciesfoundinChapterIVoftheMetroPlan.
InNovember2013,MetroPlanChapterIVwasamendedinresponsetoORS197.304.Thechangesto
thelocallandusecodeswhichimplementChapterIVarebeingprocessedconcurrentlywiththeMetro
PlanEnablingAmendments.CitationsofthecurrentlocallandusecodesastheyapplytoMetroPlan
amendmentswouldnotbeaccurategiventheChapterIVchanges.Forthepurposeofthisreport,
referencestotheMetroPlanChapterIV,asamendedin2013willbemadetoshowconsistencywiththe
requiredproceduresandcriteriaforapprovalofMetroPlanamendments.
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page2
Findings:
Finding#1.Section5.14115oftheSpringfieldDevelopmentCode(SDC),EugeneCode(EC)9.7700,
andLaneCode12.205definevariousclassificationsofamendmentstotheMetroPlan.Theamended
ChapterIV,Policy6.(B)(ii)statesthat͞ŶŽŶsitespecificamendmentsthatapplytoallthreeũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͟
areTypeIIIamendments.TheproposedMetroPlanEnablingAmendmentsarenonsitespecifictext
amendmentswhichmeetthedescriptionofaTypeIIIamendment.
Finding#2.EC9.7715,SDCSection5.14120andLaneCode12.210statesthatamendmentstothe
MetroPlanmaybeinitiatedbyanyofthethreegoverningbodies.TheamendedMetroPlanChapterIV,
Policy7(c)states:͞TypeIIIamendmentmaybeinitiatedbyanyoneofthethreegoverningbodiesat
anyƚŝŵĞ͘͟TheproposedMetroPlanEnablingAmendmentswereinitiatedbyamotionofthe
SpringfieldCityCouncilonSeptember15,2014.TheEugeneCouncilinitiatedtheamendmenton
September17,2014.
Finding#3.A͞EŽƚŝĐĞofProposedChangetoaPlanorImplementingZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͟wasfiledwiththe
OregonDepartmentofLandConservationandDevelopmentonSeptember18,2014,35daysinadvance
ofthefirstevidentiaryhearing.
Finding#4.SDC5.14135,EC9.7730andLC12.225statesthattobecomeeffective,anonsitespecific
MetroPlanamendment͞ƐŚĂůůbeapprovedbyallthreegoverningďŽĚŝĞƐ͘͟TheamendedMetroPlan
ChapterIV,Policy6statesthat͞TypeIIIAmendmentrequiresapprovalbyallthreegoverningďŽĚŝĞƐ͘͟
Finding#5.ApublichearingontheproposedamendmentswasheldbeforetheJointPlanning
CommissionsofEugene,SpringfieldandLaneCountyonOctober23,2014.EachCommission
recommendedthattheirelectedofficialsapprovetheproposedtextamendmentstotheMetroPlanbut
thattheproposedamendmentstotheMetroPlanDiagramandPlanBoundaryMapberemovedfrom
consideration.
Finding#6.AletterfromtheLawOfficeofBillKlooswasreceived,assertingthattherewasan
inaccuracyinthebasemapusedtopreparethemapamendments.ThisletterisincludedasAttachment
CtotheStaffReportfortheJointElectedOfficials.
Finding#7.Attherequestofstaff,thePlanningCommissionswererequestedtoremovethe
proposedmapamendmentsfromconsideration.TheCommissions,asmentionedinFinding#5
recommendedapprovaloftheMetroPlantextamendmentsbutrecommendedthatthemapsbe
removedfromconsideration.
Finding#8.ApublichearingontheproposedamendmentsisscheduledtocomebeforetheJoint
ElectedOfficialsofEugene,SpringfieldandLaneCountyonNovember10,2014.
Finding#9.SDCSection5.2115(B),EC9.7745(3),LC12.025(2)andLC12.040(2)requirethat
proposedlanduseactionsbeadvertisedinanewspaperofgeneralcirculation,providinginformation
aboutthelegislativeactionandthetime,placeandlocationofthehearing.
Finding#10.NoticeofthepublichearingsconcerningthismatterwaspublishedonSeptember30,
2014intheRegisterGuard,advertisinghearingbeforetheJointPlanningCommissionsonOctober23,
2014.AsecondnoticewaspublishedintheRegisterGuardonOctober23,2014advertisingthe
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page3
November10,2014publichearingwiththeEugeneandSpringfieldCityCouncilsandtheLaneCounty
BoardofCommissioners.ThecontentofthenoticesfollowedthedirectiongiveninSDCSection5.2115
B,EC9.7735(3),LC12.025(2)andLC12.040(2).
Finding#11.InformationconcerningtheproposedamendmentstotheMetroPlanEnabling
AmendmentsandthedatesofthepublichearingswerepostedontheCityofSpringfieldandtheCityof
Eugenewebsites.Thesewebsitesroutinelyincludeinformationaboutupcomingandcontinuing
planningmatters.Agendanoticeandoragendapacketsareroutinelyprovided(primarilybyemailed)
tomanyinterestedpartieswhohaveaskedforsuchnotificationbyEugene,SpringfieldandLaneCounty.
Thosenotifiedincludelocalmediaoutletsandnewspapers,localutilities,schooldistrictsandpartner
agencies,localstaterepresentatives,theEugeneandSpringfieldChambersofCommerce,theLane
HomebuildersAssociation,aswellasvariousneighborhoodgroupsandleaders.
Conclusion:
TheproceduralrequirementsdescribedinSDCSections5.2115,5.4135and5.4140,EC9.7745andEC
9.7735(3)andLC12.210throughLC12.245havebeenfollowed.Noticerequirementsestablishedby
DLCDforamendingtheDevelopmentCodehavealsobeenfollowed.
III.DecisionCriteriaandFindings
SDCSection5.14135,EC9.7730andLC12.225describethecriteriatobeusedinapprovingan
amendmenttotheMetroPlan.Inreachingadecision,thePlanningCommissionsandtheCityCouncils
andCountyCommissionersmustadoptfindingswhichdemonstratethattheproposalmeetscertain
approvalcriteria.Thesecriteriaandfindingsareshownbelow.
Criterion#1͞dŚĞamendmentmustbeconsistentwiththerelevantstatewideplanninggoals
adoptedbytheLandConservationandDevelopmentŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͘͟
Findings:
Goal1ʹCitizenInvolvement.Goal1callsfor"theopportunityforcitizenstobeinvolvedinallphases
oftheplanningprocess."
Finding#12.ApublichearingontheproposedamendmentswasheldbeforetheJointPlanning
CommissionsofEugene,SpringfieldandLaneCountyonOctober23,2014.EachCommission
recommendedthattheirelectedofficialsapprovetheproposedtextamendmentstotheMetroPlanbut
thattheproposedamendmentstotheMetroPlanDiagramandPlanBoundaryMapberemovedfrom
consideration.
Finding#13.AletterfromtheLawOfficeofBillKlooswasreceived,assertingthattherewasan
inaccuracyinthebasemapusedtopreparethemapamendments.ThisletterisincludedasAttachment
CtotheStaffReportfortheJointElectedOfficials.
Finding#14.Attherequestofstaff,thePlanningCommissionswererequestedtoremovethe
proposedmapamendmentsfromconsideration.TheCommissions,asmentionedinFinding#12
recommendedapprovaloftheMetroPlantextamendmentsbutrecommendedthatthemapsbe
removedfromconsideration.
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page4
Finding#15.ApublichearingontheproposedamendmentsisscheduledtocomebeforetheJoint
ElectedOfficialsofEugene,SpringfieldandLaneCountyonNovember10,2014.
Finding#16.NoticeofthepublichearingsconcerningthismatterwaspublishedonSeptember30,
2013intheRegisterGuard,advertisinghearingbeforetheJointPlanningCommissionsonOctober23,
2014.AsecondnoticewaspublishedintheRegisterGuardonOctober23,2014advertisingthe
November10,2013publichearingwiththeEugeneandSpringfieldCityCouncilsandtheLaneCounty
BoardofCommissioners.ThecontentofthenoticesfollowedthedirectiongiveninSDCSection5.2115
B,EC9.7735(3),LC12.025(2)andLC12.040(2).
Finding#17.InformationconcerningtheproposedMetroPlanEnablingAmendmentsandthedatesof
thepublichearingswerepostedontheCityofSpringfieldandtheCityofEugenewebsites.Theseweb
sitesroutinelyincludeinformationaboutupcomingandcontinuingplanningmatters.Agendanotice
andoragendapacketsareroutinelyprovided(primarilybyemail)tomanyinterestedpartieswhohave
askedforsuchnotificationbyEugene,SpringfieldandLaneCounty.Thosenotifiedincludelocalmedia
outletsandnewspapers,localutilities,schooldistrictsandpartneragencies,localstaterepresentatives,
theEugeneandSpringfieldChambersofCommerce,theLaneHomebuildersAssociation,aswellas
variousneighborhoodgroupsandleaders.
Goal2ʹLandUsePlanning.Goal2outlinesthebasicproceduresofOregon'sstatewideplanning
program.Itsaysthatlandusedecisionsaretobemadeinaccordancewithacomprehensiveplan,and
thatsuitable"implementationordinances"toputtheplan'spoliciesintoeffectmustbeadopted.
Finding#18.Goal2requiresthatactionsrelatedtolandusebeconsistentwithacknowledged
comprehensiveplansofcitiesandcounties.TheEugeneSpringfieldMetropolitanAreaGeneralPlan
(MetroPlan)istheacknowledgedcomprehensiveplanthatguideslanduseplanninginSpringfield,
EugeneandLaneCounty.
Finding#19.ORS197.304,adoptedbytheOregonLegislaturein2007,requiresEugeneand
SpringfieldtodividethemetropolitanUGBintotwocityspecificUGBs.Eachcityisalsorequiredto
demonstratethatitsseparateUGBincludessufficientlandtoaccommodateits20yearneedfor
residentiallandconsistentwithStatewidePlanningGoal10(Housing)andGoal14(Urbanization).
(Urbanization).Thesestatutorymandatesimplicitlyrequireeachcitytoalsoadoptaseparate20year
populationforecast.ORS197.304allowsthecitiestotaketheseseparateactions͞ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ.
..acknowledgedcomprehensiveplanprovisionstotheĐŽŶƚƌĂƌLJ͘͟
Finding#20.TheORS197.304mandatesarebeingcarriedoutbythetwocitiesandLaneCounty
throughaseriesofincrementalactionsovertimeratherthanthroughaMetroPlanUpdateprocess.
SomeofthelanduseplanningthathashistoricallybeenincludedintheMetroPlanwill,instead,be
includedintheĐŝƚŝĞƐ͛separate,cityspecificcomprehensiveplans.Thisdoesnotdiminishthefactthat
1
thecitiesandthecountyremaincommittedtoregionalproblemsolving.
1
Inadditiontothecontinuedcollaborationthroughsomeregionallanduseplans,suchastheregional
transportationsystemplanandtheregionalpublicfacilitiesandservicesplan,thethreejurisdictionsare
committedtoworkingcollaborativelyinotherwaysandthroughotherinitiatives,suchastheRegionalProsperity
provedinFebruary,2010.
EconomicDevelopmentPlanjointlyap
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page5
Finding#21.ThethreejurisdictionsanticipatethattheimplementationofORS197.304willresultina
regionallanduseplanningprogramthatcontinuestoutilizetheMetroPlanandregionalfunctional
plansforlanduseplanningresponsibilitiesthatremainregionalinnature.Cityspecificplanswillbe
usedtoaddressthoseplanningresponsibilitiesthatthecitiesaddressindependentlyofeachother.
Finding#22.Eachcityistakingadifferentapproachto,andisonadifferenttimelinefor,establishing
itsownUGB,20yearlandsupplyandcityspecificcomprehensivelanduseplans.Asthisincremental
shiftoccurs,theMetroPlanwillbeamendedseveraltimestoreflecttheevolvingextenttowhichit
continuestoapplytoeachjurisdiction.Duringthistransition,thethreejurisdictionswillalsocontinue
toworktogetheronanyotherMetroPlanamendmentsneededtocarryoutplanningresponsibilities
thatcontinuetobeaddressedonaregionalbasis.
Finding#23.ORS197.304allowsthecitiestoadoptlocalplansthatsupplanttheregionalnatureof
theMetroPlan͞ŶŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ...acknowledgedcomprehensiveplanprovisionstotheĐŽŶƚƌĂƌLJ͘͟
Astheselocalplansareadopted,Eugene,SpringfieldandLaneCountywishtomaintaintheMetroPlan
asaguidethatwilldirectreaderstoapplicablelocalplan(s)whenMetroPlanprovisionsnolonger
applytooneormoreofthejurisdictions.Therefore,whenEugeneorSpringfieldadoptsacityspecific
plantoindependentlyaddressaplanningresponsibilitythatwaspreviouslyaddressedonaregional
basisintheMetroPlan,thatcitywillalsoamendtheMetroPlantospecifywhichparticularprovisions
2
oftheMetroPlanwillceasetoapplywithinthatcity.
Finding#24.UnlesstheMetroPlanprovidesotherwise,suchMetroPlanprovisionswillcontinueto
applywithintheothercity.Iftheothercitylateradoptsitsowncityspecificplanintendedtosupplant
thesameMetroPlanprovisions,itmaytakeoneoftwoactions.ThatcitywilleitheramendtheMetro
Plantospecifythattheparticularprovisionsalsoceasetoapplywithinthatcityor,iftheprovisionsdo
notapplytoruralorurbanizableareaswithintheMetroPlanboundary,tosimplydeletethoseparticular
MetroPlanprovisions.
Finding#25.TobetterenablethejurisdictionstoamendtheMetroPlanasrequiredbyORS197.304,
theproceduresforamendingtheMetroPlan,providedinChapterIV,wererevisedin2013.TheEugene
CityCouncil,theSpringfieldCityCouncil,andtheLaneCountyBoardofCommissionersadoptedidentical
amendmentstoChapterIVoftheMetroPlanonNovember18,2013(EugeneCityCouncil,Ordinance
No.6304;SpringfieldCityCouncil,OrdinanceNo.20519;andLaneCountyBoardofCommissioners,
OrdinanceNo.PA1300).
Finding#26.TheproposedamendmentsincludechangestoeverychapteroftheMetroPlan.
However,therevisionsthroughoutthePlanarelimitedtothosethatfitwithinatleastoneofthe
followingcategories:
1.Revisionstoensurethateachcitycan,independentlyoftheother,establishcityspecificplans
andestablishthatsuchplanssupplantspecificportionsoftheMetroPlanforthatcity;
2
AsmorespecificallyexplainedinChapterIVoftheMetroPlan,onecitywithcoadoptionbyLaneCountymay
amendtheMetroPlantospecifywhichparticularMetroPlanprovisionsnolongerapplywithintheunincorporated
(urbanizable)portionsofitsUGB.TheothercityisnotrequiredtocoadoptsuchaMetroPlanamendment.See
ChapterIV.
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page6
2.Revisionstoupdateandaddexplanationsofthepast,currentandfuturestatusoftheMetroPlan,
includinganexplanationofthestagesofchangeanticipatedasthecitiesconductindependent
planningfortheirseparateƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͛needs.
3.Revisionstochangeorremovetextthatcannolongerbeappliedduetoachangeinthelawand
thatcouldnot(evenarguably)raiseapolicyconcern.Thisincludesthedeletionoftextrelatingto
thenowdefunctLaneCountyBoundaryCommission.
Goal3ʹAgriculturalLand.Goal3defines"agriculturallands."Itthenrequirescountiestoinventory
suchlandsandto"preserveandmaintain"themthroughfarmzoning.
Finding#27.Thisgoalgenerallydoesnotapplywithinadopted,acknowledgedurbangrowth
boundaries.TheMetroPlanDiagramdescribesanAgriculturedesignation(MetroPlanIIG9).The
amendmentsdonotchangeMetroPlanpoliciesconcerningtheAgriculturedesignation.The
amendmentsdonotchangethepoliciesorstandardsregulating ƵŐĞŶĞ͛ƐAgriculturalZone(EC9.2000)
orLaneŽƵŶƚLJ͛ƐExclusiveFarmUseZone(LC16.212)withintheMetroPlanBoundary.TheCityof
Springfielddoesnothaveanagriculturalzoningdistrict.
Finding#28.TheMetroPlanEnvironmentalResourcesElementincludespoliciesaddressingtheuse
andpreservationofagriculturallands(MetroPlanIIIC3).Theproposedamendmentsdonotchange
thesepolicies.
Goal4ʹForestLand.Thisgoaldefinesforestlandsandrequirescountiestoinventorythemand
adoptpoliciesandordinancesthatwill"conserveforestlandsforforestuses."
Finding#29.Thisgoaldoesnotgenerallyapplywithinadopted,acknowledgedurbangrowth
boundaries.TheMetroPlanDiagramdescribesaForestLandsdesignation.Theproposedamendments
donotchangeMetroPlanpoliciesconcerningtheForestlandsdesignation.NeitherSpringfieldnor
Eugenehasaforestzoningdistrict.LaneCountyhasImpactedandNonImpactedForestZones(LC
16.211,LC16.211).TheproposedamendmentsdonotchangetheCountypoliciesorstandards
governingthesedistricts.
Finding#30.TheEnvironmentalResourcesElementincludespoliciesaddressingtheuseand
preservationofforestlands(MetroPlanIIIC5).TheproposedChapterIVamendmentsdonotchange
thesepolicies.
Goal5ʹOpenSpaces,ScenicandHistoricAreas,andNaturalResources.Goal5coversmorethana
dozennaturalandculturalresourcessuchaswildlifehabitatsandwetlands.Itestablishesaprocess
foreachresourcetobeinventoriedandevaluated.
Finding#31.TheMetroPlanEnvironmentalResourcesandHistoricPreservationElementscontain
policies(MetroPlanpgs.IIIC3,IIII2)addressingGoal5resourceprotection.EugeneandSpringfield
havepoliciesregulatingtheinventoryandprotectionofGoal5resourcesintheirrespective
developmentcodes.TheproposedChapterIVamendmentsdonotchangetheresourcepoliciesor
protectionsfoundintheMetroPlanorintheEugeneandSpringfielddevelopmentcodes.
Finding#32.OAR6600230250(3)narrowstheapplicabilityofStatewidePlanningGoal5to
comprehensiveplanamendments(PAPA):
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page7
(3)LocalgovernmentsarenotrequiredtoapplyGoal5inconsiderationofaPAPAunlessthePAPA
affectsaGoal5resource.Forpurposesofthissection,aPAPAwouldaffectaGoal5resourceonlyif:
(a)ThePAPAcreatesoramendsaresourcelistoraportionofanacknowledgedplanorlanduse
regulationadoptedinordertoprotectasignificantGoal5resourceortoaddressspecific
requirementsofGoal5;
(b)ThePAPAallowsnewusesthatcouldbeconflictinguseswithaparticularsignificantGoal5
resourcesiteonanacknowledgedresourcelist;or
(c)ThePAPAamendsanacknowledgedUGBandfactualinformationissubmitteddemonstrating
thataresourcesite,ortheimpactareasofsuchasite,isincludedintheamendedUGBarea.
Subsections(a)through(c)abovearenotapplicabletothisrequestastheproposedamendmentsdonot
createoramendalistofGoal5resources,donotamendaplanorcodeprovisionadoptedinorderto
protectasignificantGoal5resourceortoaddressspecificrequirementsofGoal5,donotallownew
usesthatconflictwithGoal5anddonotamendtheacknowledgedUrbanGrowthBoundary.Basedon
OAR6600230250,Goal5isnotapplicabletotheproposedamendments.
Goal6ʹAir,WaterandLandResourcesQuality.Thisgoalrequireslocalcomprehensiveplansand
implementingmeasurestobeconsistentwithstateandfederalregulationsonmatterssuchas
groundwaterpollution.
Finding#33.TheMetroPlanEnvironmentalResourcesElement(MetroPlanpg.IIIC14)contains
policesaddressingair,waterandlandresourcesquality.Ingeneral,theproposedamendmentswillnot
alterthemetropolitanĂƌĞĂ͛Ɛair,waterqualityorlandresourcepolicies.ThePolicy26isclarifiedto
notetheboundaryfor>ZW͛Ɛplanformeetingthenewstandardsforfineparticles(PM10)is
coterminouswiththeMetroPlanUGB͞ĂƐitexistedonthedatethePM10standardwasĂĚŽƉƚĞĚ͘͟
Finding#34.EugeneandSpringfieldhaveregulatorystandardsthatprotectair,waterandland
resourcesintheirrespectivedevelopmentcodes.Theproposedamendmentsdonotchangethese
standards.
Goal7ʹAreasSubjecttoNaturalDisastersandHazards.Goal7dealswithdevelopmentinplaces
subjecttonaturalhazardssuchasfloodsorlandslides.Itrequiresthatjurisdictionsapply"appropriate
safeguards"(floodplainzoning,forexample)whenplanningfordevelopmentthere.
Finding#35.TheMetroPlanEnvironmentalResourcesElementcontainspoliciesaddressingnatural
hazards(MetroPlanpg.IIIC15).Theproposedamendmentsdonotchangethesepolicies.Allknown
siteswithinEugeneandSpringfieldthataresubjecttothesehazards(floodplain,erosion,landslides,
earthquakes,andweakfoundationsoils)areinventoriedthroughavarietyofsources.Theproposed
MetroPlantextamendmentdoesnotremoveorexemptcompliancewithCodestandardsthatapplyto
developmentwithinthesehazardareas.
Goal8ʹRecreationalNeeds.Thisgoalcallsforeachcommunitytoevaluateitsareasandfacilitiesfor
recreationanddevelopplanstodealwiththeprojecteddemandforthem.
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page8
Finding#36.TheMetroPlanParkandRecreationFacilitiesElementcontainspoliciesaddressing
recreationalneeds(MetroPlanpg.IIIH4).Theproposedamendmentsdonotchangethesepolicies.
Finding#37.Parksandrecreationfacilitiesandprogramsareadministeredbyparkandrecreation
agenciesinEugeneandLaneCountyandbytwoparkandrecreationdistricts(RiverRoadParkand
RecreationDistrictandWillamalaneParkandRecreationDistrict).Willamalaneservesthegreater
Springfieldarea.RiverRoadservestheRiverRoadneighborhoodintheNorthEugene.These
amendmentsdonotaffecteitherĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛprovisionsforrecreationareas,facilitiesorrecreational
opportunities.
Goal9ʹEconomicDevelopment.Goal9callsfordiversificationandimprovementoftheeconomy.It
askscommunitiestoinventorycommercialandindustriallands,projectfutureneedsforsuchlands,
andplanandzoneenoughlandtomeetthoseneeds.
Finding#38.TheMetroPlanEconomicElementcontainspolicies(MetroPlanpg.IIIB4)addressing
economicdevelopment.Eugene,SpringfieldandLaneCountyadoptedtheMetropolitanIndustrial
LandsInventoryReportandMetropolitanIndustrialLandsPolicyReportin1993.Thesereportsprovided
thejurisdictionswithadatabaseandpolicyrecommendationsneededtoplanforanadequateand
appropriatesupplyofindustrialland.Theproposedamendmentdoesnotchangethesepolicies.
Finding#39.TheAdministrativeRuleforStatewidePlanningGoal9(OAR660,Division9)requires
citiestoevaluatethesupplyanddemandofcommerciallandrelativetocommunityeconomic
objectives.TheEugeneCommercialLandStudy(October1992)wasadoptedbytheCityofEugeneasa
refinementoftheMetroPlan,andcomplieswiththerequirementsofGoal9anditsAdministrativeRule.
TheSpringfieldCommercialLandsStudywasadoptedinFebruary2000asapolicydocumenttoguide
theprovisionofcommerciallandwithininitsplanningjurisdiction.Theamendmentsdonotimpactthe
supplyofindustrialorcommerciallands.Therefore,theamendmentsareconsistentwithStatewide
PlanningGoal9.
Goal10ʹHousing.Thisgoalspecifiesthateachcitymustplanforandaccommodateneededhousing
types,suchasmultifamilyandmanufacturedhousing.
Finding#40.TheMetroPlanResidentialLandUseandHousingElementaddressesthehousingneeds
ofcurrentandfutureresidentsofthemetropolitanarea.TheElementincludesaprojectionofhousing
needbasedonacoordinatedpopulationprojectionandpolices(MetroPlanpg.IIIA7)aimedat
meetingthecalculatedneed.Theproposedamendmentswillnotreduceavailablehousingcapacityand
willnotimpactneededhousing.
Finding#41.In2011,theCityofSpringfieldandLaneCountyadoptedaResidentialLandUseand
3
HousingElementthataddresses^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ͛Ɛcityspecificresidentiallandneedsthrough2030.This
SpringfieldspecificactionwasbasedonthemandatessetoutinORS197.304.Inadoptingitscity
specificupdatein2011,Springfieldmadeitclearthattheregionalhousinggoalsandpoliciesinthis
MetropolitanResidentialLandUseandHousingElementwouldcontinuetoapplytoSpringfield.
However,thefindingsinthisMetroPlanelementnolongerapplyontheeastsideofInterstate5.The
entiretyofthiselementwillcontinuetoapplyonthewestsideofInterstate5untilsuchtimeastheCity
3
Seethe͞^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ2030RefinementPlanResidentialLandUseandHousing ůĞŵĞŶƚ͟adoptedbySpringfield
OrdinanceNo.6268andLaneCountyOrdinanceNo.PA1274.
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page9
ofEugeneadoptsitsResidentialLandUseandHousingElement,addressingitscityspecificresidential
landneeds.
Finding#42.LaneCountyhasadoptedacoordinatedpopulationprojectionfortheEugeneand
Springfieldthroughtheyear2030.Projectionsofneededhousingarebasedinpartofthisprojection.
Goal10requiresthatcommunitiesplanforandmaintainaninventoryofbuildableresidentiallandfor
neededhousingunits.Theproposedamendmentsdonotimpactthesupplyoravailabilityofresidential
landsincludedinthedocumentedsupplyof͞ďƵŝůĚĂďůĞůĂŶĚ͟thatisavailableforresidential
developmentasinventoriedintheacknowledged1999ResidentialLandsStudy.Therefore,the
amendmentsareconsistentwithStatewidePlanningGoal10.
Goal11ʹPublicFacilitiesandServices.Goal11callsforefficientplanningofpublicservicessuchas
sewers,water,lawenforcement,andfireprotection.
Finding#43.TheEugeneSpringfieldMetropolitanPublicServicesandFacilitiesPlan(PFSP)isa
refinementplanoftheMetroPlanthatguidestheprovisionofpublicinfrastructure,includingwater,
sewer,stormwatermanagement,andelectricity.TheproposedamendmentsdonotaffecteitherĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ
provisionofpublicfacilitiesandservices.
Goal12ʹTransportation.Thegoalaimstoprovide"asafe,convenientandeconomictransportation
system."
TheSpringfieldTransportationSystemPlanwasadoptedinMarch2014.Eugenecontinuestorelyon
Transplan(2002)pendingcompletionofitsownlocaltransportationsystemplan(expectedinlate
2014).TheseplansarefunctionalplansoftheMetroPlan.Theyprovidepoliciesaddressing
transportationfacilitiesandpoliciesfortheEugeneSpringfieldMetropolitanArea.TheTransportation
PlanningRule(OAR6600120060)containsthefollowingrequirement:
(1)Ifanamendmenttoafunctionalplan,anacknowledgedcomprehensiveplan,oralanduseregulation
(includingazoningmap)wouldsignificantlyaffectanexistingorplannedtransportationfacility,thenthe
localgovernmentmustputinplacemeasuresasprovidedinsection(2)ofthisrule,unlessthe
amendmentisallowedundersection(3),(9)or(10)ofthisrule.Aplanorlanduseregulation
amendmentsignificantlyaffectsatransportationfacilityifitwould:
(a)Changethefunctionalclassificationofanexistingorplannedtransportationfacility(exclusiveof
correctionofmaperrorsinanadoptedplan);
(b)Changestandardsimplementingafunctionalclassificationsystem;or
(c)Resultinanyoftheeffectslistedinparagraphs(A)through(C)ofthissubsectionbasedonprojected
conditionsmeasuredattheendoftheplanningperiodidentifiedintheadoptedTSP.Aspartof
evaluatingprojectedconditions,theamountoftrafficprojectedtobegeneratedwithintheareaofthe
amendmentmaybereducediftheamendmentincludesanenforceable,ongoingrequirementthatwould
demonstrablylimittrafficgeneration,including,butnotlimitedto,transportationdemandmanagement.
Thisreductionmaydiminishorcompletelyeliminatethesignificanteffectoftheamendment.
Theproposedamendmentsdonotchangethefunctionalclassificationofanexistingorplanned
transportationfacility,donotchangethestandardsimplementingafunctionalclassification,donot
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page10
allowtypesorlevelsoflanduseswhichwouldresultinlevelsoftraveloraccesswithareinconsistent
withthefunctionalclassificationofatransportationfacilityandwillnotreducetheperformance
standardsofafacilitybelowtheminimalacceptablelevelidentifiedintheeithertheSpringfield
TransportationSystemPlanorTransPlan(Eugene).Thelevelofdevelopmentcurrentlypermitted
throughexistingcodeandzoningregulationswillremainthesameasaresultofthisamendment.
Therefore,theamendmentsareconsistentwithStatewidePlanningGoal12.
Goal13ʹEnergyConservation.Goal13declaresthat"landandusesdevelopedonthelandshallbe
managedandcontrolledsoastomaximizetheconservationofallformsofenergy,baseduponsound
economicprinciples."
Finding#44.TheMetroPlanEnergyElementdealswiththeconservationandefficientuseofenergyin
themetropolitanareaandismeanttoprovidealongrangeguidetoenergyrelateddecisions
concerningphysicaldevelopmentandlanduses.Itcontainspolicies(MetroPlanpg.IIIJ3)which
supportGoal13.TheproposedMetroPlanamendmentsdonotchangethesepoliciesandwillnothave
adirectimpactoneffortstoconserveenergy.
Goal14ʹUrbanization.Thisgoalrequirescitiestoestimatefuturegrowthandneedsforlandand
thenplanandzoneenoughlandtomeetthoseneeds.
Finding#45.MetroPlanChapterIIcontainsgrowthmanagementandurbanizationsections(Sections
IICandIIE).ChapterII,SectionͶ'ŽĂůƐ͕͞&ƵŶĚĂŵĞŶƚĂůPrinciplesandGrowthManagementWŽůŝĐLJ͟
identifiestheMetroWůĂŶ͛Ɛgoalsforgrowthmanagement:
1.Useurban,urbanizable,andrurallandsefficiently.
2.Encourageorderlyandefficientconversionoflandfromruraltourbanusesinresponsetourban
needs,takingintoaccountmetropolitanandstatewidegoals.
ment
3.Protectrurallandsbestsuitedfornonurbanusesfromincompatibleurbanencroach.
Theproposedamendmentsdonotchangethesegoals.
Finding#46.ChapterII,SectionEaddressestheneedtoprovideanadequatelandsupplytomeet
futureneeds.Withthetransitionmandatedin2007byORS197.304,thesharedmetropolitanUGBwill
bereplacedwithtwoseparateUGBs(theEugeneUGBandtheSpringfieldUGB).Thischangedtheland
useworkprogramsforthethreejurisdictions.Evaluationofthesufficiencyofthe2015metropolitan
UGBwasreplacedwithanindepthanalysisofeachĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛindependentneedsandthesuppliesofland
thatexistwithrespecttotheseparateareasofjurisdictionalresponsibility.Thatprocessbeganwiththe
threeũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͛adoptionofcityspecificpopulationforecastsinChapterIoftheMetroPlan.In2011,
theCityofSpringfield,withcoadoptionbyLaneCounty,amendedtheMetroPlantoestablishitsown
UGBconsistentwithORS197.304.3.
Finding#47.AspartofEnvisionEugeneandthestateregulationsforurbangrowthboundaryplanning,
thecityisidentifyingseveralwaystoaccommodatetheprojectedpopulationgrowthoverthenext20
years.Theyinclude:
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page11
1.Usingexistingbuildablelandcapacity(e.g.vacantandpartiallyvacantland)insidetheurbangrowth
boundary(UGB),
2.CreatingnewcapacityinsidetheexistingUGBbyimplementingnewstrategiesandactionsto
accommodatemorehomesandjobs(e.g.efficiencystrategies,landuseredesignations),and
3.CreatingnewcapacitybyexpandingtheUGBfortheremaininglandneed.
In2012,theMarch2012EnvisionEugeneDraftRecommendationpresentedthedraftlandneedfor
housing,jobs,parksandschoolstoaccommodatethisgrowthoverthenext20years,includinghow
muchofthelandneedwouldbeaccommodatedthrougheachofthesethreeways.Someofthese
estimates,suchastheamountofjobsandhomesaccommodatedonexistingbuildableland,werebased
onlandusedatafrom20012008.
Finding#48.AsmentionedinFinding#36,in2011,theCityofSpringfieldandLaneCountyadopteda
ResidentialLandUseandHousingElementfortheSpringfieldComprehensivePlanthataddresses
4
^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ͛Ɛcityspecificresidentiallandneedsthrough2030.In2013,Springfieldcompletedthedraft
EconomicElementfortheSpringfieldComprehensivePlan.TheEconomicElementidentifiesthegoals,
objectives,policies,implementationactionsandfindingsSpringfield,incooperationwithLaneCounty
aredevelopingtoprovideanadequatelandsupplyforeconomicdevelopmentandemploymentgrowth
incompliancewithStatewidePlanningGoal9,EconomicDevelopment.
Finding#49.MetroPlanChapterIIcontainsgrowthmanagementandurbanizationsections(Sections
IICandIIE).TheproposedamendmentsupdatetheMetroPlanwithrespecttoannexations.These
include:
SectionIIC,Policy12discussesannexationoflandwhichisnotcontiguoustoacity.The
existingPolicy12setscriteriafortheannexationofnoncontiguousland.ORS222.111(1)
statesthat͞ƚŚĞboundariesofanycitymaybeextendedbytheannexationofterritorythatis
notwithinacityandthatiscontiguoustothecityorseparatedfromitonlybyapublicrightof
wayorastream,bay,lakeorotherbodyofǁĂƚĞƌ͘͟Statestatutesdonotallowfornon
contiguousannexation.Policy12isthereforebeingdeletedandthenumberingofthe
remainingpoliciesisamendedtoreflectthat(pagesIIC5throughIIC9).
SectionIIEdeletesareferencetotheLaneCountyLocalGovernmentBoundaryCommission
whichwasabolishedin2007.TheformerCommissionprocessedannexationrequests.These
arenowprocessedbythecities.
Finding#50.NoothersubstantivechangesweremadetothepoliciesinChapterIISectionsCandD.
ThefewchangeswhichareproposedarerelatedtothemandatefromORS197.304toreplacethe
sharedmetropolitanUGBwithseparateEugeneandSpringfieldUGBs.
Goal15ʹWillametteRiverGreenway.Goal15setsforthproceduresforadministeringthe300miles
ofgreenwaythatprotectstheWillametteRiver.
4
Seethe͞^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ2030RefinementPlanResidentialLandUseandHousing ůĞŵĞŶƚ͟adoptedbySpringfield
OrdinanceNo.6268andLaneCountyOrdinanceNo.PA1274.
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page12
Finding#51.TheMetroPlanWillametteRiverGreenway,RiverCorridorsandWaterwaysElement
(SectionIIID)includespoliciesforadministeringtheWillametteRivercorridorasitpassesthroughthe
EugeneSpringfieldarea.Theproposedamendmentsdonotchangethesepolicies.
Goals16through19ʹEstuarineResources,CoastalShorelands,BeachesandDunes,andOcean
Resources.
Finding#52.Therearenocoastal,ocean,estuarine,orbeachandduneresourceswithintheEugeneor
SpringfieldUrbanGrowthBoundariesortheMetroPlanBoundary.Thesegoalsdonotapplytothis
proposal.
Conclusion:
TheproposedamendmentstotheMetroPlanareconsistentwiththestatewideplanning
goalsadoptedbytheLandConservationandDevelopmentCommission.
Criterion#2.͞ĚŽƉƚŝŽŶoftheamendmentmustnotmaketheMetroPlaninternally
ŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ͘͟
Findings:
Finding#53.TheMetroPlanEnablingAmendmentsmakechangestoeverychapteroftheMetroPlan
tosomedegreetoenablethegradualtransitionfromasharedmetropolitanUGBwithasingle
comprehensiveplantoaplanningframeworkwithtwoseparateUGBs(theEugeneUGBandthe
SpringfieldUGB).Asthetransitionoccurs,theMetroPlanwillbeamendedseveraltimestoreflectthe
evolvingextenttowhichitcontinuestoapplytoeachjurisdiction.
Finding#54.TherevisionsproposedthroughoutthePlanarelimitedtothosethatfitwithinatleast
oneofthefollowingcategories:
1.Revisionstoensurethateachcitycan,independentlyoftheother,establishcityspecificplansand
establishthatsuchplanssupplantspecificportionsoftheMetroPlanforthatcity;
2.Revisionstoupdateandaddexplanationsofthepast,currentandfuturestatusoftheMetroPlan,
includinganexplanationofthestagesofchangeanticipatedasthecitiesconductindependentplanning
fortheirseparateƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͛needs.
3.Revisionstochangeorremovetextthatcannolongerbeappliedduetoachangeinthelawand
thatcouldnot(evenarguably)raiseapolicyconcern.Thisincludesthedeletionoftextrelatingtothe
nowdefunctLaneCountyBoundaryCommission.
Finding#55.Theproposedamendmentswerepreparedwiththeaidofaconsultingattorneywhois
familiarwiththeMetroPlanandwiththemandateposedbythepassageofORS197.304.The
amendmentsthatweredevelopedhavebeenreviewedbystaffandbyattorneysforEugene,Springfield
andLaneCounty.ItistheopinionofstaffandcounselthattheproposedamendmentsleavetheMetro
Planinternallyconsistent.
Conclusion:
TheproposedMetroPlantextamendmentsdonotmaketheMetroPlaninternally
inconsistent.
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page13
V.ConclusionandRecommendationofStaff
BasedonthefindingsofstaffwithrespecttothecriteriadefinedinSection5.14135CoftheSpringfield
DevelopmentCodeandEC9.7730(3)LaneCode12.225(2)forapprovingaMetroPlanamendment;staff
findtheproposedMetroPlanEnablingAmendmentstobeconsistentwiththesecriteriaand
recommendapprovaloftheamendment.
MetroPlanEnablingŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐͶ^ƚĂĨĨFindings
{00142030;1}
November10,2014Page14