HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C: Region 2050
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Region 2050
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006 Agenda Item Number: C
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Allen Lowe
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5113
ISSUE STATEMENT
The Region 2050 process has resulted in development of the Southern Willamette Valley Regional
Growth Management Strategy, hereafter referred to as the Strategy. At this work session, the council
will discuss whether or not to endorse the Strategy. In endorsing the Strategy, the City of Eugene agrees
to “use the goals and objectives and Regional Growth Concept, including the coordinated population
allocations, as a tool to guide growth and development.” Endorsement also implies that the City will
implement those actions that the City Council determines to be “appropriate to the needs and desires” of
the community.
BACKGROUND
Region 2050 is a collaborative regional planning effort for the southern Willamette Valley. The
planning process began in the summer of 1999 with the adoption of resolutions by the Lane County
Board of Commissioners and the City Councils of Coburg, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Eugene, Junction
City, Lowell, Oakridge, Springfield, Veneta, and Westfir, endorsing the concept of a regional growth
management strategy. Since that time, elected officials from each of these jurisdictions, along with a
Lane Transit District Board member and staff from the Governor’s Office have engaged in an extended
discussion about the future of this region. Each of these jurisdictions (excluding the State and LTD) has
appointed elected officials to serve on the Region 2050 Regional Policy Advisory Board, a body formed
to guide the Region 2050 process. Mayor Piercy and Councilor Kelly have served as representatives of
the Eugene City Council; former Mayor Torrey also served on the board.
The Strategy is presented as a tool to help participating jurisdictions manage their own growth while
identifying and addressing regional growth issues that cannot be effectively resolved by any single
jurisdiction. The Strategy provides a framework for inter-jurisdictional cooperation on regional issues
related to seven quality-of-life categories including: land use and development patterns; housing; the
economy; transportation; natural resources; open space and the environment; community facilities and
services; and education. The Strategy is based on a visioning process that established regional goals and
objectives, and a Regional Growth Concept that provides a graphic depiction of assumptions that have
been made about future land use mixes, development densities, and potential future growth areas. Both
the visioning process and the Regional Growth Concept were developed from information derived from
an extensive citizen involvement process carried out over a six-year period that involved citizens from
all affected communities, including those in unincorporated portions of Lane County.
Note: The Executive Summary of the Southern Willamette Valley Regional Growth Management
.
Strategy is included in this staff report as Attachment A The Strategy and related technical documents
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060814\S060814C.doc
can be viewed in their entirety online at: http://www.region2050.org/strategy.html. The complete
Strategy document and Technical Report will be placed in a binder in the Council Office.
Initially, the planning process proceeded within the framework of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS)
program, a state-sanctioned program that promotes flexibility and creativity in addressing regional
planning issues. The state statutes that created the RPS process (ORS 197.652-658) empower local
governments to apply unique solutions to regional problems in ways that might otherwise run afoul of
state administrative rules. The RPS statutes require all of the jurisdictions affected by a regional
planning process to participate in that process. In March of this year, however, the cities of Springfield
and Cottage Grove took action to withdraw from further participation in the Region 2050 process. The
withdrawal of the two cities from the Region 2050 process necessitated that the process be retooled to
conform to existing adopted statutes. Accordingly, the Region 2050 Policy Board sought confirmation
from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) that the desired
outcomes and actions proposed in the Draft Strategy were achievable under existing administrative rules
and state law. In late April, DLCD confirmed that all of the identified outcomes and actions, with three
exceptions, could be accomplished under existing state law and administrative rules. For more
information on this important communication between the Policy Board and DLCD, refer to Appendix
B on page 47 of the Strategy document.
At the April 10 City Council work session on Region 2050, councilors asked several questions related to
the viability of the regional planning process that could no longer be framed as a Regional Problem-
Solving effort. The Eugene City Attorney’s Office provided a memorandum on Planning for Growth
Outside of “Regional Problem Solving Statutes” that addresses this issue (see Attachment B).
Among the many issues raised by consideration of endorsement are the following:
Issue - Proposed Coordinated Population Allocations
: Oregon statutes require coordination of
population forecasts on a county-wide basis. The county’s “coordinating body” (in this case Lane
Council of Governments) is required to “…establish and maintain a population forecast for the entire
area within its boundary for use in maintaining and updating comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate
the forecast with local governments within its boundary.” (ORS 195.036). The Lane County
Coordinated Population Projections were last adopted in February 2005 for the period 2005 through
2030. These projections are based on historic trends. The Strategy and Regional Growth Concept call
for adoption of a new coordinated population allocation that allocates the region’s future population
differently than the 2005 population projection, even though the total population for the region would
remain about the same.
The Regional Growth Concept contains population targets that are significantly different than previous
population projections based on historic trends. This is especially the case in Eugene where about
50,000 fewer people would live over the next 50 years than past trends would project. Historic trends
indicate that Eugene’s average annual growth rate within the urban growth boundary (UGB) would be
about 1.2 % over the next 25 years, slightly higher than the 1.0 % annual average recorded from 1970 to
1995 and somewhat less than the 1.59% recorded from 1990 to 2005. The Proposed Coordinated
Population Allocations (see Attachment D) project a 2055 Eugene UGB population of about 226,300
people, or about 56,000 more than currently reside within the Eugene UGB. The projection assumes a
0.6% annual average growth rate, a significantly slower rate of growth than historic trends would
indicate.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060814\S060814C.doc
The Proposed Coordinated Population Allocations reflect the rapid growth of several of Eugene’s
neighboring cities and the visioning processes completed by several of those cities in recent years.
Over the past 15 years, the rate of population growth in Creswell (4%), Veneta (3%), Coburg (2.5%) and
Junction City (2%) has outpaced the growth of Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and the State as a
whole. As indicated in the Strategy, “The land use actions of one jurisdiction affect other jurisdictions
in the region but there is no mechanism to address the impacts because current state and local planning
takes place within individual UGBs…” And, “currently growth in many of the small cities is outpacing
growth in the two metropolitan areas and there is no mechanism to ensure that buffers are maintained
between communities in the future. Continuation of this trend without consideration of the impacts and
planning for the necessary infrastructure will have regional impacts on natural resources, transportation,
housing affordability, and the regional economy….” The Proposed Coordinated Population Allocations
and Growth Management Concept attempt to “…direct growth into areas where it would have minimal
environmental impacts and still meet the development objectives of the participating local
communities.” The mechanisms for achieving this shift in projected growth rates would be determined
by the Eugene City Council; initial steps would likely include a Metro Plan amendment process to
incorporate the coordinated population allocation, among other changes.
Issue – Densification:
The Strategy and the Regional Growth Concept are consistent with adopted
local planning efforts, such as the Eugene Growth Management Study that calls for densification within
the city prior to expansion of city boundaries. The Regional Growth Concept assumes an increase in the
net density of Eugene’s residential development from the current level of 6.0 units per net acre to 7.6
units per net acre. When adopted in 1982, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
assumed a “target” density of 6.0 dwelling units per net acre. Eugene’s net residential densities have
risen steadily from 5.1 du/a in 1977; passing 5.7 du/a in 1992, and achieving the Metro Plan target in
2006.
Issue – Urban Reserves
: Even with the assumed increases in development densities and full build-out
of all 38 potential mixed-use centers identified in TransPlan, it is clear that UGB expansion is inevitable
.
for the City of Eugene at some point in the future. Eugene’s current UGB contains almost 28,600 acres
The Regional Growth Concept, and the Land Capacity Model used to develop that concept indicate a
2055 need for about 31,600 acres, an increase of almost 3000 acres (see Attachment F). By comparison,
that model indicates a need for an additional 5,600 acres within the UGB if historic growth trends are
assumed.
As described in the Strategy and the memo from the City Attorney’s Office, a Eugene UGB expansion
plan could be drafted such that UGB expansions are initiated upon the achievement of a specified
residential density target within the current UGB.
Issue - Implementation Resources
: Just as implementation of Eugene’s adopted Growth Management
Policies has required local policy makers to rethink how resources should be reallocated to achieve
intended outcomes, implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy will also require an additional
reallocation to implement local actions. The Strategy suggests several funding approaches to support this
program in future years. Implementation of the Strategy, beyond the actual endorsement, is voluntary
and would be left entirely to local jurisdictions.
If the council votes to endorse, staff will incorporate information on resources and actions needed to
implement the Regional Growth Management Strategy and will return to the council for further direction
as part of the fall PDD work program discussion.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060814\S060814C.doc
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Eugene’s adopted Growth Management Policies have a direct bearing on this item.
In 1999, the City Council adopted a resolution supporting the concept of a coordinated growth
management strategy for the southern Willamette Valley region. The Strategy (2006) differs from
adopted plans, such as the Metro Plan, partly because its scope addresses a larger planning area, longer
planning period, and larger projected populations.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council has the following options:
1.Endorse the Southern Willamette Valley Regional Growth Management Strategy;
2.Endorse the Strategy with changes; or
3.Decline to endorse the Strategy.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the council endorse the Southern Willamette Valley Regional
Growth Management Strategy which, through its endorsement, commits the City of Eugene to use the
goals and objectives and Regional Growth Concept embodied in the Strategies document, including the
coordinated population allocations, as a tool to guide growth and development.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to endorse the Southern Willamette Valley Regional Growth Management Strategy, dated August
31, 2006. By this endorsement, the City of Eugene agrees to use the goals and objectives and Regional
Growth Concept embodied in the Strategies document, including the coordinated population allocations,
as a tool to guide growth and development.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Southern Willamette Valley Regional Growth Management Strategy Executive Summary, August
31, 2006
B. May 30, 2006, Memo from City Attorney’s Office regarding legal issues related to Region 2050
project.
C. Regional Growth Concept Map
D. Proposed Coordinated Population Allocations, May 2006
E. Population and Housing Densities, 2055 Regional Growth Concept and Existing Conditions
F. Acres in Current UGBs and 2055 UGBs with Potential Future Growth Areas in Regional Growth
Concept
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Allen Lowe
Telephone: 682-5113
Staff E-Mail: allen.d.lowe@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060814\S060814C.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Executive Summary
Over the next 50 years, the Southern Willamette Valley is expected to add more than
150,000 people. This Regional Growth Management Strategy (Strategy) provides a tool
to help the region's communities grow in a way that will meet their needs for housing,
jobs, schools, transportation, water, and other public facilities, while protecting natural
resources and the environment. The Strategy, and the collaborative process used to
develop it, recognize the regional nature of growth and the inter-connectedness of the
communities within the region.
In the summer of 1999, the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the city councils
of COburg, Creswell, Cottage Grove, Eugene, Junction City, Lowell, Oakridge,
Springfield, Veneta, and Westfir passed formal resolutions endorsing the concept of a
RegionafGrowth Management Strate~y and directing Lane Council of Governments to
develop the project and seek funding. The project became known as "Region 2050."
From 1999 through 2006, the Regional Technical Advisory Committee or llRTAC" and
the Regional Policy Advisory Board worked collaboratively to identify and agree on key
issues and a vision and actions to address those issues.
In June 2006, the Policy Advisory Board released this Strategy for review and comment
by local communities and state agencies. The Strategy provides guidelines to help the
participating jurisdictions manage growth. Full documentation for the actions proposed
in this Strategy is contained in a companion document, "Regional Growth Management
Strategy Technical Report" (Technical Report).
Regional Growth Management Strategy
This Strategy contains a Regional Growth Concept that directs growth into areas where
it would have minimal environmental impacts and still meet the development objectives
of the participating local communities. It also sets out a vision in the form of regional
goals and objectives and proposes implementation actions in the seven "quality of life"
categories discussed below.
Goal: "Improve and sustain the region's quality of life by building regional consensus
among publiC and private interests on goals, objectives, and actions in seven inter-
dependent quality of life categories:
1. Land Use and Development Patterns
2. Housing
3. Economy
4. Transportation
5. Natural Resources, Open Space and the Environment
6. Community Facilities and Services
7. Education"
1 The Cities of Cottage Grove and Springfield decided to withdraw from the regional effort in 2006. This
Strategy and the supporting documE1ntation assume the status quo for these jurisdictions (e.g., a future
that is based on a continuation of historic trends), in the same manner as other non-participating Lane
County cities (Florence and Dunes City) are addressed.
Actions: Endorse the Strategy by motion, affirming the jurisdiction's or agency's
agreement to: use the regional goals and objectives and Regional Growth Concept,
including the coordinated population allocation, as a tool to guide growth and
development; take those optional implementation actions that are appropriate to meet
local needs and objectives; and to continue to meet and work cooperatively with the
other regional partners to monItor Strategy Implementation and to reviSIt the Strategy in
the future. The Strategy recommends an on-going monitoring program and annual
"State of the Region" report.
Land Use and Development Patterns
Goal: "Promote land use and development patterns that sustain and improve quality of
life in the Southern Willamette Valley, maintain each community's identity, facilitate
economic development, and conserve and manage natural resources."
Actions: The "Regional Growth Concepf' and optional actions proposed to implement this
-goal (e.g., proposed Coordinated Population AJlocations2 for each UGB and the rural
area, Urban Reserves, density standards, rural development actions) allocate population
and employment in the region consistent with the visions of the individual communities
and the capacity of the land to accommodate the desired level, type, and pace of growth.3-
The Regional Growth Concept directs growth into areas where it will have the least envi-
ronmental impacts while continuing to meet development needs and promote economic
development. Endorsement of the Strategy recognizes that the land use element will
not be effective in meeting the regional goals if the infrastructure (water, wastewater, and
transportation) is not adequate to serve growth.
Housing
Goal: "Seek to ensure that each community has an adequate variety of housing types to
meet the needs of residents."
Actions: Key optional actions include: to use the data from the Regional Housing Needs
Analysis as the basis for changing the designation of residential land within the UGB;4
and to use land banking, particularly within newly designated urban reserves, to acquire
and sell to developers land for affordable housing. The regional housing needs analysis
2 Coordinated population allocations are required by state law, with or without a strategy. The Regional
Growth Management Strategy is the method these local governments are using to reach agreement on
allocations that match the needs and desires of their communities. The action, delegated to the LCOG
Board by the Lane County Board of Commissioners, to adopt the coordinated population allocations is not
a land use decision. A city must adopt its allocation into its comprehensive plan in order to use the allo-
cation for its local planning decisions, and this is a separate action by each city made independently of
the other participating cities. .
3 The Regional Land Capacity Model was used to calculate the housing units and employees that could
be accommodated in each UGB and Potential Future Growth Area, based on agreed-upon assumptions
for development types and physical constraints.
4 State law allows cities to base determinations on housing needs on regional data; in this way, the types
of housing planned in each UGB can be customized to the community and the housing desired. For ex-
ample, a community that sees itself as more urban, may want to provide for apartments rather than sin-
gle-family detached housing.
11
examines the issue of affordable housing in the region in the year 2025. It can be used
to identify housing needs within UGBs as part of residential buildable lands analyses.
Economy
Goal: "Promote a diverse regional economy in the Southern Willamette Valley that fa-
cilitates access to quality employment. goods. and services throughout the region, while
recognizing the unique advantages of each community."
Actions: .The action proposed to meet this goal, for cities that desire to implement it, is
to incorporate the regional data base into the comprehensive plan and to use the data
and findings from the Strategy to make decisions about the location and types of com-
mercial and industrial land within the UGBs. The Regional Economic Opportunities
Analysis conducted by ECO Northwest determined that the types and location of em-
ployment land designed in the Regional Growth Concept are appropriate to meet the
region's employment needs, at least in the next 20 years. Other recommended actions
from the Regional Economic Opportunities Analysis are presented in Chapter V.
Transportation
Goal: "Develop and maintain transportation systems in the region while improving
transportation choice and air and water quality."
Actions: Endorsement of the Strategy recognizes that the land use element will not be
effective in meeting the regional goals if transportation improvements and regional
commuter services are not adequate to serve growth. One of the key actions to imple-
ment this goal is to amend Transportation System Plans, as needed and appropriate, to
address new population and employment allocations and other needs and issues identi-
fied in the Strategy. Other actions are: to use the Strategy to guide investments in, and
planning for, transportation infrastructure, including regional commuter services and al-
ternative transportation facilities; to fully implement 20-year transportation plans; and to
work cooperatively at the. regional level and with state and federal transportation agen-
cies to address the issue of how to pay for the anticipated transportation infrastructure
in the region over the next 20 years and beyond.
N~tural Resources, Open Space, and the Environment
Goal: "Protect, restore, manage, and enhance important natural resources and open
spaces, and maintain high quality air, water, and land resources in the Southern WiI-
.Iamette Valley."
Actions: The Regional Growth Concept is a "conservation scenario," in that it directs
growth into areas where it will have the least impact on environmental resources. The
use of the Concept as a guide to development, over time, is a key implementation strat-
egy. In terms of mitigating unavoidable impacts, a key action is to research the tool of
"conservation banking" in which land areas could be developed as banks for wildlife
habitat; and the bank in each area would represent a mixture of habitats that would pro-
vide options for restoring or replacing specific habitat. The strategy would be to identify
III
tracts of land large enough to hold multiple types of h~bitat with multiple species. An-
other key tool to minimize impacts is clustering rural development.
Community Faculties and Services
Goal: "Develop a regional approach to facilitate the efficient provision of infrastructure
and community services in the Southern WilJamette Valley in conformance with the de-
sires of each utility and district."
Actions: The actions include working cooperatively at the regional level to ensure that
efficient delivery of water and wastewater facilities and services is maintained as growth
occurs over time; and to use the Strategy as a tool for guiding investments at the state
and federal levels in infrastructure improvements and permitting.
Education
Goal: "Develop a regional strategy to improve and maintain access to high quality edu-
cational services throughout the region."
Actions: Key actions include amending comprehensive plans to allow more residential
development in rural school districts, including use of the Regional Problem SolVing
process, where desired; working collaboratively with all local governments and school
districts in the region to actively pursue increased state funding for rural schools; and
working collaboratively with school districts to examine alternatives, such as district
boundary adjustments and mergers
IV
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF EUGENE
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEP ARTME:NT
To:
Susan Muir
Kurt Yeiter
Date: May 30, 2006
Subject:
Planning for Growth Outside of 'Regional Problem Solving' Statutes
Until recently, the Region 2050 project was expected to proceed pursuant to a Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) program. RPS programs are a part of a statutory scheme set out under
ORS ,197.652-197.658. A major benefit of proceeding under a RPS program. is the flexibility it
allows. It enables a region to address a regional issue (such as planning for growth) in such a
way that, onthe whole, is consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals, but that may cause some
of the participating jurisdictions, if viewed independently, to be out of compliance with the
Statewide Planning Goals. The RPS statutes specifically allow for state acknowledgment of a
local comprehensive plan amendment that is developed pursuant to the RPS statutes, even if the
.amendment, taken alone, does not comply with a Statewide Planning Goal or an administrative
role that implements the Goal. ORS 197.656(2). With respect to accommodating growth
pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal to (Housing) for example, under a RPS program, a
shortcoming in one of the participating jurisdiction's residential land supply could potentially be
'made up for' by the surplus residential land supply of another participating jurisdiction:
Similarly; under a RPS program, it may be possible to expand a participating jurisdiction's UGB
in a location that would otherwise be prohibited by Goal 14 (Urbanization) if the location of the
proposed UGB expansion is the most sensible location ITom a regional perspective.
One of the key planning issues to be addressed in the Region 2050 project is the region's
plan for accommodating its increasing population. Now that the Region 2050 project is no
longer able to proceed pursuant to the RPS statutes, the flexibility specifically allowed by RPS is
lost and each participating jurisdiction. will need to independently comply with the Statewide
Planning Goals and their implementing administrative rules. You have asked for a summary of
the statutes and rules that concern the City's obligation to plan for growth and in what
circumstances those statutes and roles include options or flexibility.
Le2aI Framework for Accommodatin2 Growth
State statutes require a city with a population of 25,000 or more to periodically
demonstrate that its comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within its UGB to
accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. ORS 197.296(2).1 Statutes and
administrative rules provide liinited detail as to how jurisdictions are to determine their housing
1 The demonstration is required at periodic review and at any other legislative review of the Metro Plan that
concerns the UGB. ORS 197.296(2).
Susan Muir
Kurt Yeiter
May 30, 2006
Page 2
needs and their existing supply for purposes of making such a demonstration. The lack of
specifics may provide for some flexibility for local governments in making those determinations.
Generally, the housing need analysis is limited to the area within the.jurisdiction's UGB
and must be based on data that has been collected since the last periodic review or five years,
:whichever is greater. However, ORS 197.296(5)(c) specifically allows a local government to use
data from a wider geographical area or from a longer time period if the analysis will provide
"more accurate, complete and reliable data relating to trends affecting housing need." This
statute may allow the City the flexibility to use the analysis from the Region 2050 project as a
basis for determinitlg the level of Eugene's need for residential land. 2 .
If a city determines that the housing need is greater than its housing capacity, ORS
197.296(6) requires that the City either:
(1) Expand Its UGB;
(2) Adopt new land use measures tluit "demonstrably increase the likelihood -that
residential development win occur at densities sufficient to accommodate" the
housing need without a UGB expansion; or .
(3) AdClpt a combination of the actions described in (1) and (2).
These options are discussed below.
Since the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene share a DGB, they must coordinate
to ensure that their actions, taken together, strike the necessary balance between need and supply
for the area. In.tbe past, the two jurisdictions have taken a different approach to providing for
projected growth and have worked together to ensure that the collective actions (e.g., iOO11
opportunities. higher densities, UGB expansions) meet the projected demand.
UGB Expansion
A UGB expansion to accommodate Eugene's expected growth would need to be
processed as a Metro Plan amendment approved by Eugene and Lane County. Depending on the
location of the proposed expansion and/or the expansion~ s regional impact, it may also need
Springfield's approval. EC 9.7720; 9.7730(1).
ORS 197.298 specifies the priority ofland to be included within a DGB; the location of a
UGB expansion must be consistent with the statute's priorities.3 Further, Statewide Planning
2 In determining its projected housing needs under GoaitO a city may use any method for arriving at a
population forecast, so long as the method provides an adequate factual base for the forecast Assuming the
methods used in the Region 2050prqject are defensible, the City may (but does not have to) choose to adopt the
Region 2050 population forecasts for Eugene as part of the City's next GoallO Residential Lands Study.
3 Under ORS ] 97.298, first priority is given to land that is designated 'urban reserve land.' Second priority
is given to -land adjacent to a tJGB. that is identified in the comprehensive plan as an exception area or nomesource
land or certain resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas. TIrird priority is given to land
designated as 'rnarginalland.' Fourth priority is given to land designated in the comprehensive plan for agriculture
Susan Muir
Kurt Yeiter
May 30, 2t)06
Page 3
Goal 14 requires that, in considering a UGB expansion, local governments must evaluate
alternative locations consistent with the priorities set out at ORS 197.298 and, in doing so,
consider the following four factors:
(1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;
(2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;
(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and
(4) Compatibility of th.epl'QPosed urban uses with. nearby agricultural "and forest
activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.
You specifically aSked whether the City co:uld adopt a local plan that pre-sets the location
of specific UGB expansions and the order in which each UGB expansion is expected to occur.
Under this scenario, theprocess for considering one ofthe UGB expansions would automatically
be initiated when a pre-set residential density benchmark is reached within the UGB. While such
a. plan is, to our knowledge, unprecedented, we believe it could be crafted in such a way to
comply with tbegoals, statutes and administrative mles.4 However, the practical aspects of such
a plan would need to be carefully considered". For example, monitoring the residential density in
a multi-jurisdictional area may be cost prohibitive.
Measures to Increase the LikeUhood that Residential Development will Occur at Densities
SlIfficient to Accommodate the HOllsine Need
Instead of, or in addition to a UGB expansion, the City could accommodate growth
through actions or measures designed to increase the likelihood of higher density residential
development. The statutes include the following examples:
(a) Increases in the permitted density on existing residentia1land;
(b) Financial incentives for higher density housing;
(c) Provisions pennitting additional density beyond that generally allowed in the
zoning district in exchange for amenities and features provided by the
developer;
(d) Removal or easing of approval standards or procedures;
(e) Minimum density ranges;
(f) Redevelopment and infill strategies;
(g) Authorization of housing types not previously allowed by the plan or
regulations;
or forestry, or both. The statute provides that "l1igher priority shall be given to land of lower capability" and that
land oflower priority may be included. in a UGB if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate for one or more
of the following reasons: "(a) SpeCific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher
priority lands; (b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to
topographical or other physical constraints; or (c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth
boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority
lands."
4 Considering the priorities in ORS 197 .298 (see previous footnote), the proposed plan may best be carried
out in conjunction with the readoption of urban reserve areas.
Susan Muir
Kurt Yeiter
May 30, 2006
Page 4
(h) Adoption of an average n~sidentia1 density standard; and
(i) Rezoning or redesignation of nonresidential land.
ORS 197.296(9). There are n,either adniinistrative rules nor court cases that clarify how any of
these nine actions might be implemented. .
If Eugene and Springfield agree, the measures described above could be adopted. as
UGB~wide' regulations to accommodate growth. This could be accomplished through
amendment of the Metro Plan by the two cities and would also require County approval or the
UGB-wide approach could be accomplished by both jurisdictions adopting the same measures as
part of their land use codes. .
If, as the cities have done in the past, the two jurisdictions consider the <need' on a UGB-
wide basis, but approach the supply issue in different ways, the City of Eugene could adopt the
types of regulations listed above as a land use code amendment, adopted independently of
Springfield or the County, so long as Eugene and Springfield's actions, taken together, provide
sufficient supply within the UGB.
Exceptions
The Statewide Planning Goals include a process for taking exceptions to specific
provisions in the Goals. Through the exceptions process, it may be possible for the City to gain
back some of the flexibility that it would have had under the RPS program. With respect to
accommodation of growth, for example, the City may adopt a plan that does not provide for
enough of a certain type of 'needed housing' if the City can show that:
(a) The needed housing type is being provided for elsewhere in the region in
sufficient numbers to meet regional needs;
(b) Sufficient buildable land has been allocated within the local jurisdiction for
other types of housing which can meet the need for shelter at the particular
price ranges and rent levels that would have been met by the excluded housing
type; and
(c) The decision to substitute other housing types for the excluded needed housing
type furthers the policies and objectives of the local comprehensive plan, and
has been coordinated. with other affected units of government.
OAR 660-008-0035.
Other exceptions are possible. We would be happy to discuss specific questions
with respect to the applicability of the exceptions process.
Susan Mull-
Kurt Yeiter
May 30, 2006
Page 5
Conclusion
The statutes and rules that concern the City's obligation to plan for growth include
specific areas of fleXibility, as opposed to the overall flexibility allowed under the RPS program.
Further, there is a formal process that allows a city to seek an exception to certain requirements
ofllie Statewide Planning Goals.
With respect to planning for growth, the Region 2050 project may provide the City with
data and analysis that could be useful if the City chooses to take iuivantage of the limited
flexibility allowed' under the statutes or to seek an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 10 or
14. Please call me if you would like to discuss specific proposals or questions beyond those
addressed herein.
EN] :abm
HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C.-
CITY ATTORNEYS
kbuw.._' IV iYII01V'l.tJ
EmDy Nfjme U .
(.0
o
o
N
~
CO
:::\E
(/)
r:::
o
..
CO
(.)
o
<2:
r:::
o
..
CO
::::J
a.
o
ll.
"'C
Q)
....
CO
r:::
"'C
'-
o
o
(.)
"'C
Q)
(/)
o
a.
o
'-
ll.
18alal
~:;~
......,.....
....
i~N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o N,-('I')C"')("')lt)V"""<OV<O 'lIlttOM
C\l 'I"""" ,- 'II"""" N ~
ll::JJ
Clo
~~
cfl.?ft?ft.?ft.cfl?f!.cfl'#.?f!.cf!.
U')(X)"'~~'I""""0)~~'l'"""C'?
~c:i6T"""N"-NT"""MMM
.....
,;,
o
o
.....It)
C1>1t)
ClO
C .....
M
.r::
U
~~~~~~~~~~~g;
o VC"")COCO,.....O>O>MT'""OV
N M v"'d"(O,-
ONCOLOcom,....C\lt'--C\lCO
O.~~~~~~~~~ro~
ci cD ri N cD Lri' ..0 M~ ri <O~
ZOLOLO T'"" .,.....,....
,;,
o
o
.....It)
C1>.....
ClO
C.....
M
.r::
U
NC"1o)"""ONLO"""O)(J)t'-
LOO':lLOLOLO.......<OMMNtO
ci ri~N~~~~~~~~,....
ZVNN
ONCO
.....U).-
:g~:J~
O"d"N'I""""
NC")C\l,-
U)COVNN..........CO
MM.....OCO.....COV
COMN..........MU).....
ricDo~~r..:c5
<r-C\l,.... ,-C\.I
......
......
NO)C"')LOO>,....C\lro,....O<o
~~~~~~~~c;O;~
ri c5 N ri t.O cO ~ V~ cD cO
MC\.I,- '-'11"""""'" 'l""""T"""
MN.-
11I0
C :g
.2 .....
-;
U
.S! C!,
C(It)CO
C ;g N
:8N~
.!!!
~ ~~~
cf~~~~
"CO.-OO
J!!NMNT"""
M
C
'5 co~
OlnOOCO
oMori
u~g~
"C
CI>
III 0
o CO
g-:;~
a:~~,....
COCOU)OCONVCOt"lV
OCOMOOOOvc>>LOLO<O
,....LOCOo>,....(j)O)tCNCD
Lri'r..:riV~r..:c:5M~V~f'...a
o ""''''''T""" ......,....
N.-
LON L{)T"""O)CO L()C"')
MO..:;;ttCOO)O)N
COt"lCOU)CONU)CO
riv~Ll'iciririui
...... ,....,..- '11"""""'"
O>lOMC\l,....LOCOOOT"""
It)MNOCXJC\lMMCO
0>0::><0 NO)(J)L{)
cDriC"')a~c5ri ~ri
en ,.....,.....,.... ,.... T'""
c.ov LOO 0 Q,.... CO,.... cn
t"lVMOCOOV.....COM
NCOCOvU)COCOU)NU)
gc;ri~a~a)N~~
C\lC"'>O'),....or--o,......cnvt'--
V NC\lO,....OLO NO)
~ ~~~~ari~~~~aci~V
Or--cnc:o,....,.... ,-
.....N.-
CI>
~i
w
OOOOOL()L()O
O)C\Ir---."""'LOVMN
:g.oO~~~~~O>
0('1")"""'(0
.....N.-
o
III 0
:l Co
III 0.....
c:;;
CI> M
U:;
ui g-O
::lQ.g:
.-
MvO>o>
Q,....CO<o
LOLOO')m
~g~
N.-
....
.....
M
ai
V
.....
.tj
~
.....
N
....
.....
'II;
~I'
III
lXl
Cl
::l
.?:- g
G 'Sl
6 8,ro~&!fl
uQ)~Q3~ ffi
~~8~~J~
al 8 ~ ~ :2 I~ I~
COO)OOCON"""'N
a:iri.o riN
OOU)MOCOCOU).....O>CO
COO'>oq-<OLOt'--cnCOQ ,.....
",,-Vo)f'..cn LO"""'C\lLON
c:itON~ r--:ri-.;[ MN
0>t"lU)
III
~
::l
Q)
>
"0 e
Q)~ CD
ffi g>CJ)0>a;
eg>.~:ig>~
Q)wU).gE~
::2: uuu
OLOO
CO 0> t"l
..... 0> M
MM
t-:,~*~
,- ..',,~ ~ ~
~ ~. .- .-
MLOO~
.....U)N
......COlt)
oriN
'l'N
V
ClC)N.-
0.-0>
N"-N
tNN
V
~~~
'l'
~
ai
ClC).-
.~
.... CO M
vcoco
.....MO
...... a:i N
......-
M
.;M.
voo
.... 0 0
.....NO
lffr-:N
It) .-
M
'11
.....00
ClC)00
ococo
...: LO y-R
(').-
(')
.
I/)U)O
.... co M
~ci~
10
.....
'"
~cf!.
Nco
co 0>
.-
U)O
t"l.....
O>v
.0
M co
coo
vv
N~ N~
N
0.....
v.....
......-
alN
U)v
.....N
cO -r-R
~
M
ai
It)
.....
V.-
t"l CO
t"l0
cD"
~
....
o
.....
.....
~
:l
8 ~
>- CI> ..
::::c <(
u~ .r::
gJ III 'i
c ~ lXl 0
8ogt';
N~i~
I.; ClC) .4\.C .....
1m Ii!! ~ ....
~
....
....
~
::r
It)
ClC)
M
ClC)
en'
ClC)
....
~
.
o
M
.....
.....
.....
,..:
.....
10010
o ClC) ClC)
.....vU)
NWai
o
00
o
a:i
V
V
....
....
10
ai
.....
v
::;
....
....
::;
.....
.....
10
N
en
M
v
....
en
.j
.....
(')
.....
00
'l'
i.
M
o
....
.....
cD
.....
.....
Ot"l
Mv
NU)
III
M
e
<(
_.r:: c
~'i2
.J.. 0
- .. CIl
aiffiCl
~Klii
g~~
... ".
g
:
"..:
;,
h
~:g
U)cen
.....-000
'l/loo
...... 'I"""
~~,~
C}I~N
It) 10.....
vM.....
1'[~4t
w. H.
~~;;;~
10.....0000
I... ).j a:i ,..: 10
g I~: It) ~ ~
Iwoo~:g~
Ol'lU)
ai~' 00
It)(')OO
'l'v
.....COO
ooM.....
.....I/)v
aioci
It)..........
VV
OOl/lO
vlt).....
It)..,.....
aicDN
It) 0 It)
'l'v
~I~ !:l
0010.....
aiM.j
It)enM
(')v
0..........
.........It)
~~~
10.........
Mv
~.....~
........0
....OcD
10.....(')
M M
~~.~
rilDN
100.....
(')M
M
v
o
N
10
~(
~l~
c ;Mil c
515
Ucu
CI> .2 CI>
c Cl c
j&!j
~33
Cl&{:.{:.
~
en
ci
tHt
C::f[i;
"'
N
Q) 0
Ecri~
-gCDS
ro ~ ro
&5-5~
Cl ro C
=> ~ 0
"0.2"0
~.?:-~
~.~~
"0 > C
C .c .Q
o ~ ~
~Q)Q)
c{g!9~
~~(j)L.
~~~J
~~~~
g ~ 11. a.
UQ)>-E
...... r; U .n 'Cij
:g c~~:;;
.0 .~.:;. ~ .gj
&l e~[l!ai
"O~a.-=
c 0 rtJ Q)
cuS*Cii
::: "0 E ~
III Q) "" ro
~.~ ~ {g
;~6LO
;~~~
.J:.roSN
'5gJg--g
",""conco
gJl~g
-g~~~
::aroll"i
.c""EV
C1>~""~
g>> 5. Lf} en
M 0 ~ .in
.r:: a. (/) .2:-
U 1ll11. ~
.s~~<(
1:) ..c 0 .~
.!!!, ~ N !5
.gecnc
III Cl iil 8
e8ffiw
ruo<">'O
~~ 0 ~
~ffi:J~
" Q) 0
~(j)'<:Q)
M11lEco
.5 ~ e U5
E .... Q)
:;~~:5
c.ecoE
C1>CDcoQ)
~-g~Q;
IIlro€~
g rtJ ::J ~
:; ffl8 .Q
CJ:Ja>~
,g ~ ffi .0'
~ ~ == ~
.2 6 ~.Q
:!;:a::ro
a c ~ ~
o 6 ro 0
c.uoo;;:
$~~'g
.5 ~ 8 <3
"CroOQ)
o::iNc
00:: . ro
U 0 ~-l
ll:8li'5L;)
Q)"-50
~ai2~
..~ro~
~o6a.06
o~'c,~"d'"
z ~ N ~
<;':
.....
v
10
en
....
....
en
....
~
M
.....
"C"'iii
.! .....
III en
~ g
o It)
~
v
00
N
00
v
....
....
~
....
.....
v
00
M
C!.
....
It)
v
'l'
It)
v
ci
(')
'l'
en
It)
....
ai
o
v
:g
00
M
M
M
o
It)
en
ri
.....
M
.....
....
en
N
00
.....
l~
~
C
:l
o
U
CI>
C
M
-l
<(
W
o
ATTACHMENT D
c~~ ~~~
-62(1) (5CJ2
roC'C.s=. ro~.~
S~:~ '~~~C1>
8~~ &!~~
o"'O\.,. LOOCOO
2.~~ ~~ro-g
Cl)lOO N~"'O~
"E~o Q)L..~.n
Q)N_ :5co-"'O
E""O o","OQ)
c:~c co~ro
Q50CC .~o"O"S
~N"~ ~8~~
Cl 000 c75 ~ ~ .~ u
'0 co > CI)
'~il fii~~
8.c ~ E ~ ~ &
Q)c2 ~Q.)c-<n
ffi ~:s ---' (9 ~ ~ ~ .~
~~~ :gE~E~"5
:5 .0 :5 ~ ~ .S: ~ .~ ~
E ~ ! ~ ~ .~ Kl :ffi 6;
ai'~a5 ~nB:E5.~
g.~~ -;~:;::~8.~
"OQ)C -g~~IIin.CI)
~~8 ~~g-~~~
Q; 1ll .!!1 tl 0 a. ~ 6 E
~ ~ U)8 ::2: ~ .8 u ~
rnQ)~ cn.~2.S::5~
OOc.N :c16Q)"'~11l
CD E ~ a.E"Oc e~
::>'u;.Ee,joro <9
a.>-c c:uC5.!Q ..c:
~ al .Q ~ :2 "0 E ~ ~ ~
(5uco1iiucc-oe
C :; .~ .~.:3 .Q ai '0, CD
~~ g-E '-roc.~&Cti
~ ~ c.", ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ LO .a
OQ) c'-en LOOl
() ~ .~ -g 0 ~ rd ~ ~ CD
"O"'ilro"OO::Q)2 a::
ffiffiog~~:5-r--.:~
":5uc; ro= C Ot"l(/)
~ .N.oC05~-
O~~roCO"O+=-::JQ5
cQ)OQ)O"'OQ)e-~-g
.Q :5 ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ Q) :E
t5 0 E ,S: ~ ~ 2 .0 :E >-
5~~~g>Q)ro~g13
:5~~~ro~=ro~
~~ Q) ~~ 5 >-.9~8
() () ~u.S:'o>c Q) 0
cnO-.c-Q):):lcn"O
~~c~~a::o"OUffi
=> Q)Q)a._uQ)ro-l
Cl6E~E~Q)~~Q)
ai~ g..9~~ ffi ~.-:5
<">"3Q)"'O"'O"O-l"'O~.s
~g-a>E~ffi~~=5~
..Qa..~:Ja5cn2t5oCJ)
LL"'OQ)~L...COQ)Q).o:J
.9~-g CC;<D:5 ~ro ~
- ~ E -g Q; ~ .8 Q) ~ ,Q
~:O>.ro~Q)"O~oo..
go13Q5~~Q);'~E
~ <3 ~ -g ~ _ ~ .0 .~ ~
.2U) ro::2: g'ro.2Qi Q) Kl
<(LOU >,'C oro~ 0 Q)
c~-g15~';;rJoE.c
,Q J, co ~ '- c ~ .5Q rJ 0
(;5('l')-J co.E.Q c Q) >."'0
"3 ~ ~ u cn co ,9 cn "'0 c
a. --ocurom:JC'O
6:~ccgg"3t3en~
u en o~.:3 ~ co n..~.~ 0
2 rs E ~ .Q 5 g.~ -= a
.~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ g' ~ -g ~
~ ~ 5 0 c ~'c . co ~
o .+::'Ogg..ro~~~
OU)gQ)roa.EQ).DQ)
U 8 ~ ~ "S '0 Q) .~ lB n.
g N 2 .c g- 2 ~ ~ .~ Z'
O~O.~Q. ~~r--.--=C
NN Q) CU).-f-M.... Q)
-g ~rJ:8:B~~~ ~ K
ro ro tl ro N 0 Q) :l Q) 0
L02Q)"SJ:,c..>c..>~roQ5
~~-=g-~~5~Ra;
NLL.~ a.Nf-U::2: =>"0
ATTACHMENT E
Population and Housing Densities, 2055 Regional.Growth Concept
and Existing Conditions, May 30, 2006
Regional Growth Concept, 2055
Existing
Conditions
Area
Location
Housing
Units
Res.
Acres
Net Land Net 2005
D 'ty Capacity Popu-
enS! Population Density lation
Eugene ..,/' "I> +;.~ l:JGB', . .\~; "97,453 .~'~"'.17;:431
. .... .vb lli. % Futu~r'J~8'916 ~*,0W11074
.: 'lli . A ~ . "';0 ~''fotal .~;106:369 ~;; 18,505
Springfield UGB 38,054 7,473
Total 38,054 7,473
Existing l:JGB'.' J~JlA"":; 167.d
Future Growth Areas l~'i\'" .;"188 .M!
. 1,682 W'illl.rl 355 7"':" ~:4;71' . . 3,835 ;i ..4;8 .1,070
Existing l:JGB 7,166 1,458 6.1 15,249
Future Growth Areas 0 0 NA 0
Total 7,166 1,458 6.1 16,338 5.0 9,550
,;;:,:1~".1';/~ ~~~~~~~:;;;:;:" ,1:;:~: '"J, 166 1C.. ~:~, ~;;;:;;:~-=:.
I~~ r\m ~~~. .~;8',892 '$1;798 ~ %6.21':t. 20,274 . .........:.14;845
Junction City Existing l:JGB 3,821 748 6.4 8,712
Future Growth Areas 1,312 360 4.6 2,991
Total 5,133 1,108 5.8 11,703
~!~,~::;:.'.> EXisting:l:JG~(. .1,285 71":;;.22,578 h,
~ Future..Gro~[':.;'.958~21 %% q2,184 :.:~;J$~8'\ ..!:~.,
I;". Total. , 0;ffi.:.\2,243~09 ..' ....ul." W 4,762 .....3.6 J +920
Oakridge Existing l:JGB 4,640 725 8.0 10,579
Future Growth Areas 2,981 962 3.9 6,798
Total 7,621 1,686 5.6 17,377 3.5 3,780
1~~a:~d',",~~~:~:::~~~:::I- ,~~
I~~ & u :; ~ ;iB~ ". .9;021 i,w .. ;~1~989~\UN;'5.7 '. 20,567 ~
Westfir Existing l:JGB 328 96 4.3 748 2.5 330
Go"shen~ _. ~l;,i.<.: Future Growth Areas I ;'.:'[:.:968 !.~..,.176 ~ 6.9. .. '2,206 ? '230
~leasantHill ,,<Ji Future Growth Areas :.:.2;842 !,i.% & JC624 i .5.7 t. .. 6,480 '[.[':,:;.0;4 543
Rural 9,378 49,894 0.2 21,382 0.4 53,689
I""....
A,;..M"
. /;"':;';::0~;.
Cottage Gro\ie
::.~ ,'7.4 G~:~~~:;~~ ...)~
il[n 7.6 ~ 226,~PO 170;120
6.7 80,979
6.7 80,979 6.4 65,070
,290 :~q?v
6.3
6,035
Net Density is the average number of dwelling units per constrained acre. Effective net densities were
reduced because constrained acres reduce capacity (i.e., the number of housing units) but are included
in the density calculations. Land Capacity Population is the estimated population based on a
dwelling unit vacancy rate of 5% and a household size of 2.24 in Eugene and Springfield and 2.4 in all
other areas. Dwelling units were calculated using the Land Capacity Model. Existing Conditions Net
Density is the average net density based on build-out of constrained land with existing comprehensive
plan designations.
Acres in Current UGBs and 2055 UGBs with Potential Future
Growth Areas in Regional Growth Concept, May 2006
Regional Growth Concept
2005 Additional
UGB 2055 UGB Acres From % Increase
2005
UGBs
Eugene 28,595 31,591 2,996 10%
Springfield* 12,132 12,132 NA NA
Coburg 562 834 272 48%
Cottage Grow 2,306 2,549 243 11%
Creswell 1,122 3,102 1,980 176%
Junction City 1,757 2,695 938 53%
Lowell 443 701 258 58%
Oakridge 1,245 2,560 1,315 106%
Veneta 1,418 2,609 1,191 84%
Westfir 176 176 0 0%
Growth Centers
Goshen 423
Pleasant Hill 733
Total
UGBslGrowth
Ce nters 49,756 60,105 10,349 21o/c
w~ ,. UGB only.
ATTACHMENT F