Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCAgenda-4/12/04Mtg ~City Council City of Eugene 777 Pearl Street, Room 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793 (541) 682-5010 (541) 682-5414 FAX (541) 682-5045 TTY www. ci.eugene.or, us EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA April 12, 2004 5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION McNutt Room, City Hall 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Council Chamber, City Hall 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 Meeting of April 12, 2004; His Honor James D. Torrey Presiding. Councilors Bonny Bettman, President George Poling, Vice President David Kelly Scott Meisner Nancy Nathanson Gary Pap~ Jennifer Solomon Betty Taylor 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION McNutt Room, City Hall 5:30 p.m. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER 5:50 p.m.* B. ACTION: Downtown Plan Update and Related Metro Plan and Code Amendments An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Add the ND Symbol to the Eugene Downtown Plan Area; Redesignating the Federal Courthouse Site From Heavy Industrial to Eugene City Council Agenda: April 12, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\A040412P.doc Commercial; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; and An Ordinance Adopting a New Eugene Downtown Plan as a Refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 3882 and the Eugene Downtown Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.9540 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date 6:35 p.m.* C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning the Downtown Area; and Proposed Amendments to Sections 3.344, 4.871, and 4.872 of the Eugene Code, 1971 * Time approximate 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING City Council Chamber, City Hall 1. PUBLIC FORUM 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes: - February 9, 2004, Work Session - February 23, 2004, Work Session - February 23, 2004, City Council Meeting - February 25, 2004, Work Session - March 8, 2004, Work Session - March 10, 2004, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of 2004-05 Funding Allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships, and American Dream Downpayment Initiative Programs D. Approval of Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of Resolution 4789 Forming a Local Improvement District for Paving, Constructing Curbs and Gutters, Sidewalks, Median, Street Lights, Traffic Signal, Street Trees, Wastewater and Stormwater Drainage on Garden Way from Sisters View Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and the North Side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Marche Chase Drive to I-5 (Job #3502) Eugene City Council Agenda: April 12, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\A040412P.doc 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Apportionment of Assessments for Alley Improvements; Amending Section 7.175 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Ambulance Services; Amending Sections 2.606, 2.1990, 3.005, 3.862, 3.864, 3.866, and 3.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Repealing Sections 3.850, 3.852, 3.854, 3.856, and 3.858 of that Code 5. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Solid Waste, and Amending Sections 4.830, 4.835, 4.855, and 6.055 of the Eugene Code, 1971 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 7. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) To Adopt As Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chapter Ill-C: Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date Eugene City Council Agenda: April 12, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\A040412P.doc The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair- accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5010. Telecommunications device for the deaf assistance is available at 682-5045. All council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. E1 Consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene aprecia su inter6s en estos asuntos de la agenda. E1 sitio de la reuni6n tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Hay accesorios disponibles para personas con afecciones del oido, o se les puede proveer un interprete avisando con 48 horas de anticipaci6n. Tambi6n se provee el servicio de interpretes en idioma espafiol avisando con 48 horas de anticipaci6n. Para reservar estos servicios llame a la recepcionista al 682-5010. Hay aparatos de telecomunicaci6n disponibles para ayudar a personas con obstrucciones del oido permanentes al tel6fono 682-5045. Todas las reumones del consejo estan gravados en vivo en Metro Television, canal 21 de Comcast y despues en la semana se pasan de nuevo. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE COUNCIL COORDINATOR AT (541)682-5010. I~SIT US ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB AT WWVK. CI. EUGENE. OR. US Eugene City Council Agenda: April 12, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\A040412P.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Forum Meeting Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This segment allows citizens the opportunity to express opinions and provide information to the council. Testimony presented during the Public Forum should be on city-related issues and should not address items which have already been heard by a Hearings Official, or are on the present agenda as a public hearing item. SUGGESTED MOTION No action is required; this is an informational item only. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404121.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2004, Work Session, February 23, 2004, Work Session, February 23, 2004, City Council Meeting, February 25, 2004, Work Session, March 8, 2004, Work Session and March 10, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. February 9, 2004, Work Session B. February 23, 2004, Work Session C. February 23, 2004, City Council Meeting D. February 25, 2004, Work Session E. March 8, 2004, Work Session F. March 10, 2004, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 9, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap~, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Nathanson noted the recent failure of Ballot Measure 30, and asked the City Manager to prepare a report about the impact of that failure on the City's budget and the City's response. She anticipated ancillary fallout from the loss of State programs on City programs such as 9-1-1, police, parks, and the courts. She asked if the failure of the measure would lead the manager to recommend any additional budget cuts. City Manager Dennis Taylor noted the impact of the measure would be felt most by the State. He said that staff was following the issue closely because of the likely impact the loss of jail beds would have on the City, for example. He said that staff would confer with the State and County as reductions became more firm and report back to the council. Mr. Kelly requested an update on the status of the Mayor's Economic Development Task Force. Mr. Taylor indicated that meeting dates were being arranged and would be provided to the council. Ms. Bettman spoke to projected cuts at the State level for education, health and human services, and public safety, and suggested it would be difficult to quantify those at the local level. She thought the City would see increasing numbers of homeless people, for example, which would have an impact. She called for fiscal prudence and keeping funds for core services. Ms. Bettman announced an Early Education Program fundraiser would occur at South Eugene High School at February 24, at which the Capital Steps would perform for the benefit of the program. She spoke in praise of the program, which operated on a shoe-string budget and needed the support. Mr. Poling said he attended a luncheon for CASA of Lane County the previous week. During the event, the executive director requested community volunteers for the program, which works with youth victims of abuse. The program served 164 children the previous year with case management services; case managers worked with children they were assigned until they were through the court process. He said that volunteers go through training and then average about ten hours of volunteer time each month. Mr. Poling urged community members with time to contact CASA of Lane County. He said that the organization also needed donations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Meisner suggested that the local impact of Ballot Measure 30 had already been felt. He had been asked to serve on an interview panel by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to replace the single person who makes all passenger rail decisions in the state. After the interview process had been completed, Bruce Warner of ODOT indicated the position would not be filled after all. Mr. Meisner anticipated that by the end of the fiscal year, one train would be lost and the other train's funding would be threatened. Mr. Meisner noted that the council received a copy of the 2003 citizen survey in its latest meeting packet. He was discouraged by the fact the council had spent considerable time and energy in the past year on issues of animal control, a service for which the City was not responsible. He said that the first question in the survey asked respondents to rank the following City services, and that included animal control. He thought that was misleading to the public. He noted that the service received a low ranking from respondents. He hoped that was corrected in the future. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Pap~ also was concerned about the impact of the failure of Ballot Measure 30 on the City budget. He urged State legislators to solve the State budget problem. Mr. Pap~ was glad the survey was ready in time for the council's goals session. He encouraged councilors to speak to the facilitator for the session, Julia Novak. Mr. Pap~ requested council consent to move Wednesday meetings to the library. Mayor Torrey suggested that the issue be raised at the two-day goals session. City Manager Taylor endorsed the mayor's suggestion, noting that there were logistical issues involved. Ms. Taylor suggested that the McNutt Room be enlarged when the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department moved out of City Hall. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council was overlooking its goal regarding fair and equitable financing, and advocated for a discussion on the topic. Ms. Taylor continued to be concerned about the impact of development in the south hills, citing logging, overdevelopment, and erosion as specific concerns. She said there was a perception among certain groups that the Planning Division helped developers "get around regulations" but would not help residents protect their properties. Ms. Taylor also continued to be concerned about the Amazon Headwaters and said it should be part of the City's park system. She said the City sought money for protection of Amazon Creek downstream while allowing its headwaters to be polluted by logging. Ms. Taylor believed the City's tree protection ordinance was inadequate as property owners were still allowed to remove five trees from their properties each year, allowing sequential clearing with impacts on the environment. Ms. Taylor maintained that the council had neglected to discuss the possibility of having a City perform- ance auditor, which was recommended to the council by the Citizen Charter Review Committee. She averred that the council, without discussion, did not put the question of the auditor on the ballot. She said the topic would be discussed at an upcoming City Club meeting and encouraged councilors to attend and learn more. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Solomon said she had recently received several constituent contacts that the City Manager helped her dispose of satisfactorily. She found that exciting as it gave residents a good feeling about the City. Planning and Police staff had been very receptive. City Manager Taylor reminded the council of the joint elected officials meeting at the Library the following day. Mr. Meisner reported that neighbors in the vicinity of 5th Avenue and Lawrence Street recently learned that a residential facility for sex offenders was planned in the area. Neighbors were very concerned. Staff had indicated to him it was a legal use and nothing could be done. He asked how the council's siting policies and good neighbor agreement applied in this situation, noting that neighbors were told nothing about the project. He understood neighbors were to be notified. Mayor Torrey endorsed Mr. Meisner's comments, saying it was not fair to expect one area of the city to have responsibility for housing social services. Mayor Torrey expressed interest in monitoring the State budget picture between now and the special session in June 2004. He said the tax reform committee that had been established would be meeting before that time, and the co-chair had indicated it was highly unlikely the outcome of that process would be actual tax reform. He suggested the council assume that it would live with the budget that it had. It would have to prioritize expenditures as it did not have the dollars to pay for everything that everyone wanted. He anticipated the State legislature would be pressed to go after the revenues the State shared with the cities. B. WORK SESSION: Continued Discussion on Priorities for the Planning Division Work Program City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle and Planning Director Susan Muir, who were present to continue a discussion on the Planning Division's work plan which commenced on December 1, 2003. Mr. Coyle said that the materials before the council had been revised for clarity. He said staff recommended the following as top priorities: 1) the nodal program; 2) minor amendments to the Land Use Code; 3) courthouse and downtown projects; 4) Goal 5 products; and 5) emerging issues. He invited questions and comments. Mr. Pap~ noted his interest in code changes related to the siting of medical clinics. Ms. Muir noted that the item was Item 42 in the list of priorities. Mr. Pap~ indicated his interest in raising the item higher in priority. Ms. Taylor expressed interest in having a higher priority assigned to work on the tree ordinance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to affirm the Planning Di- vision Work Program in Attachment A. Mayor Torrey called for discussion regarding and amendments to the motion. Ms. Taylor thought cell towers were also an urgent issue that needed to be addressed because they were MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 3 Work Session proliferating. She asked who paid to remove the cell towers when they were no longer needed and who was liable if they were found to cause a health hazard. She thought the current ordinance needed to be updated. She felt the same way about housing standards. Many councilors and citizens were interested in the subject and she thought a discussion was past due. She had used the City's housing program when she lived in an apartment and found it very effective in ensuring that complaints were addressed. She acknowledged fiscal constraints but believed a way could be found to make such a program pay for itself. She wanted cell towers and housing standards higher on the list. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by plac- ing cell towers as a high priority. Mayor Torrey determined that Ms. Taylor was seeking to amend the top five items on the priority list by including cell towers. Mr. Kelly called for a point of order, saying the motion on the table was to adopt the entire work program. While some of the low priority items would not receive as much attention as the high-priority items, he believed the council could move items from one part of the list to another. Mayor Torrey concurred, but said he believed Ms. Taylor was attempting to move the item to the top of the list, where it would receive more effort. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Coyle that staff was asking the council to delete an item from the top priorities if it wished to add an item. City Manager Taylor said the five top priorities would more than absorb the resources set-aside. Staff would work on the other items as time and money allowed. He recommended that if the council wanted an item to be raised in priority, it delete another item from the list. Ms. Taylor suggested that some of the elements of Item 5 on the priority list could be deleted. Mr. Kelly said he would be happy to "horse-trade items" but lacked sufficient information to do so. He did not know how much staff effort was involved in the items before the staff, and recalled that he had previously requested a scope of work for the items. Mr. Kelly suggested that as motions were offered adding items to the list, they be worded to direct staff to return with a supplemental funding request if necessary. Ms. Taylor accepted Mr. Kelly's suggestion as a friendly amendment to her motion. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly. She did not know, without more information, how to evaluate the magnitude of each item, and said staff had refused to provide the council with the information. Ms. Bettman was supportive of the amendment as she did not think it would take much staff time, given the subject was already scheduled for a work session. She asked how such work sessions impacted the work program. City Manager Taylor said the work session would occur, but because of the prioritized nature of the City's various legal commitments and ongoing work, amendments to the ordinance would be difficult to accomplish. Based on an analysis of what the division was committed to now, the work program items recommended by staff were those the council had resources to accomplish in the next 18 to 24 months. Ms. Bettman suggested that if the University of Oregon had approached the City now with a project such as the Autzen Stadium expansion, the department would not have been able to have spared the staff resources because the expansion project was not on the work program. Mr. Coyle disagreed, pointing out that the cost of processing such project applications was underwritten by fees rather than by the General MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked why minor amendments to the Land Use Code were not an ongoing work program item. Mr. Coyle acknowledged that it was good planning practice, but it was an unfunded work task. He recommended that periodic updates to the code should occur. Ms. Bettman said "if they're minor, they're minor," and should not be raised to the level of a high priority. She reiterated her support for the amendment as she believed there was an "easy fix" to be achieved and the impact on the division would be minimal. Ms. Nathanson said that if councilors continued to move their favorite priorities to the top of the priority list, it would create havoc within the organization. Such additions were not without their impact on City resources. While she appreciated the suggestion for a supplemental budget request, she considered the idea of such funding out-of-context with other City funding priorities, such as public safety. She said that the funding competed for resources as well as the council and public's time. Ms. Nathanson said that the problem was not just cell towers, but other devices that were placed in the right-of-way such as telecom- munication devices. She questioned why cell towers were singled out. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Ms. Bettman that the solution could be a quick fix. She asked Ms. Muir if the solution was so simple it could be considered a minor amendment to the Land Use Code. Was it a matter of changing setbacks, and what about the other protections neighborhoods need? Ms. Muir said that was part of the difficulty in determining the resources required for each project on the list. Without more background on each item, it was unclear to her what issues existed at this point, and taking the subject through the public process helped identify the issues involved. She said staff could start by reviewing the ordinances of other communities. Ms. Nathanson pointed out the City already had protections and setbacks in its current ordinance and questioned whether such review was needed. She suggested that some minor adjustments were required. Ms. Solomon thought the council was attempting to micromanage the division. The Planning Division had presented a reasonable plan into which all councilors had input. The division had recommended that, to be strategic, the council remain flexible in prioritizing and balancing resources. She believed the work program did so, and in addition it left room to address emerging issues. Ms. Solomon did not intend to support any additions to the work program and suggested changes could be made in the future. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the council could identify its top five priorities and then examine the remainder of the list carefully to ensure the next priorities that came to the top of the list were appropriate. He believed the council had fixed the first two priorities through the budget process and thought if any changes were to be the funds involved should be reallocated. Mr. Papfi encouraged the City Manager to let the council know when staff could not accomplish all the council wished it to. Referring to the Agenda Item Summary, Mr. Meisner found it discouraging to be told that staff could not provide cost estimates or identify funding sources unless the council made that a separate work item. Mr. Meisner disagreed with the manager's statement that work on the other items would occur when time and resources allowed, pointing out that many of the items on the list, such as the Region 2050 study and the College Hill Modem Context Statement, were underway or ongoing. He asked if that meant work was being done on those efforts rather than other high priorities. Ms. Muir said that staff was essentially MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 5 Work Session working without a priority list and was "all over the list," trying to accomplish many things. Mr. Meisner questioned whether those items should be listed as be ongoing. He was unsure what "other" meant if the council could not prioritize the list at all. Ms. Muir said that many of the items on the list would be "back- burnered" while staff focused on the priority list. For example, staff would continue to attend Region 2050 meetings but did not have a large role in those meetings. Mr. Meisner asked if staff was saying that "other" items would not be done without "independent time or resources." Ms. Muir was hesitant to say yes, because if a Region 2050 meeting arose with an agenda item important to the City, staff might attend that meeting. Mr. Meisner believed that applied to everything on the list. Ms. Bettman did not understand how issues with dedicated funding could bump other items when the dedicated funding was provided in addition to the General Funds provided to the department. She wanted a list without any items with dedicated funding. Mr. Kelly agreed that the work involved on the cell tower ordinance could be minor and said he would support the amendment. Speaking to the process, Mr. Kelly said he would move to remove items from the top priority list to maintain balance. He said he had looked forward to the meeting because he wanted to help the division set its priorities, but shared the frustration expressed by Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman about the lack of information. Speaking to the concerns expressed by Ms. Solomon and Ms. Nathanson, he pointed out the work session was an opportunity for the council to set direction for the division's activities. Mr. Meisner clarified that Mr. Kelly's friendly amendment related to funding was "for a funding request if required for the development of the work program item." The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Ms. Bettman advocated for additional funding for site-specific planning for nodal development. She recalled the Budget Committee's 2003 discussion about the 29th Avenue and Willamette Street node, and the general agreement that the area had characteristics of a node and needed some site-specific planning to realize nodal development goals. She believed the division had the resources to work on site-specific planning. She said the council already knew there were problems with the overlay zone and had directed staff to rework it prior to allocating the funding for site-specific planning, so that was not relevant to the issue. Staff was now suggesting that the council begin at "square one" and redefine site-specific planning. That was not what the funding was allocated for. She said staff should be looking at nodes to find which to apply its expertise. Ms. Bettman maintained that there were willing businesses and property owners in the vicinity of 29th and Willamette who were ready to work on a site-specific plan. She was pleased with the priority assigned the item, but believed staff interpretation of the council and committee's direction was incorrect. Mr. Coyle said that over the past year, the definition of "site-specific planning" had evolved from what he considered a term of art to an exact science. He was hearing people saying they wanted to do site plans for each node. Mr. Coyle said the problems staff encountered with zoning would be magnified by that approach. He had interpreted site-specific planning as issues resolution as it related to ten or twelve different nodes. The City could engage developers and residents in a high-level discussion, but staff would not be "taking pen to paper" absent a developer. If the council wished staff to do predevelopment MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 6 Work Session site planning on nodes, it would do so, but that would not necessarily result in the nodes being built because the expertise needed to tell the City about what would and would not work would not be present, because the property owner or developer would not be there. Ms. Bettman said the community spent more than a decade discussing nodal development and had developed a definition of nodal development. She believed it was the council's intent that staff would put pen to paper and come up with a plan. Mr. Kelly believed the council had, through its discussions, delivered a consistent message that the overlay could not be applied in the abstract, but staff must consider the reality of what was on the ground and work with the property owners and residents on a plan. He believed that many of the issues in the 29th and Willamette area would be related to reducing automobile-pedestrian conflicts, and that could be done with the current property owners in the current environment. Mr. Kelly said if Mr. Coyle or the Planning Commission had new fundamental facts to share with the council about nodal planning, it should share them soon. He did not want the division to spend the money allocated by the council if it was not to be used for the purpose intended. City Manager Taylor recalled the committee allocated $250,000 for two activities, one related to nodal development and one related to the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) amendments, and staff was trying to convey that the council was not going to get eight site-specific plans for that amount. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that. He said the funding was merely to get the City started. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to raise Issue 27, housing standards, to the high-priority list, and to direct staff to bring back a fund- ing request if necessary for development of a proposal. Mr. Kelly said that the council had heard about the issue for several years and it was a high-priority recommendation of the City of Eugene-University of Oregon Joint Task Force on the West University Neighborhood. He said the City could use Corvallis program as a model. It was a self-supporting program with small fees. He did not believe that renters should be required to go to court to get heat in their homes. Mr. Meisner agreed that a model existed, and suggested that the question was who performed inspections and provided enforcement. He believed that the lead division was not likely to the Planning Division. He requested a scope of work clarifying that issue as well as information about the cost implications of the motion. Ms. Bettman expressed support for the motion. She recalled that the item had been on the council's post LUCU work program as a high priority. She agreed that good models existed. Ms. Bettman suggested that improved human habitability was more important than improved alleys, which the council had agreed to fund as a result of the joint task force's recommendations. Mr. Poling asked if the work required could be done before the beginning of the new school term. City Manager Taylor described the work that had already occurred and said staff needed clarification, given that it was his impression the joint task force recommendations largely addressed exterior conditions. He asked if the council envisioned a local statute or assistance in enforcing the State statute. He said a work session on housing standards had been scheduled to clarify such issues. He recalled that the City had at MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 7 Work Session one time had a housing code, but dropped it due to cost. Mr. Poling asked if the council was talking about housing standards as they related to living conditions, or exterior beautification. He also wanted clarification about what was intended. Ms. Nathanson said she could not support the motion as offered. If the council was already scheduled to talk about the issue, it needed to see a scope of work and have staff assess the scope of the problem, the problems that exist, how many times problems happened, and where. She questioned the impact of such a program on rents, and if renters were really willing to pay more for the service as had been asserted by some. She asked if the City had consulted the Human Rights Commission or Centro LatinoAmericano, for example, regarding that subject. Ms. Nathanson did not think the City could afford to duplicate what had been done. Ms. Taylor said the council did not have to decide what it wanted in a housing code at this time, but it could determine the item was important enough to place on the priority list. She thought the Corvallis model and former Eugene housing code could be examined as a start. She said that the State statute did not work unless people had money to go to court. Ms. Taylor thought something local was needed. Mr. Pap6 thought the intent of the motion was wonderful, but the community had requested money for other services. He cited the cattery as an example. He said the council needed to prioritize City expenditures. He expressed concern that what was being contemplated would affect several divisions and require additional resources. Mr. Pap~ needed to know more about the scope of what was envisioned before voting for the motion. Mayor Torrey indicated opposition to the motion, but said he supported holding a work session on the topic so the council could hear more about the scope of work required to implement a housing code. He said that there was no need for haste. Mayor Torrey noted he had done some investigation of housing codes and found that most were designed to thwart criminal activity. That was not the focus of those advocating for a housing code. He believed the council was moving too fast on something he had only begun to receive e-mail about in the last two weeks, and that it was not appropriate to push the item to the top of the priority list at this time. Speaking to Mayor Torrey's comments, Mr. Kelly disagreed the council was moving too fast. He said he began to receive e-mails on the topic two years ago. The joint task force took weeks of meetings to discuss the subject. Its final report addressed the Corvallis model, and that was what he wished to accomplish. By way of moving forward, Mr. Kelly withdrew his original amendment and offered another. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the high priority work program with the development and adoption of housing habitability standards similar to the Corvallis model. Mr. Kelly noted that the $10 per unit charge assessed by Corvallis was a yearly, not a monthly charge. Mayor Torrey made the determination that the motion represented a friendly amendment to the prior motion. MiNUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said the change did not elicit her support. She suggested the council was asking the wrong question. She said if the issue was enforcement, the council could spend considerable time adopting a housing code and still not be able to assist those who needed help. Ms. Nathanson suggested the real question was enforcement and the enforcement mechanism used. She asked if the City would set up a local mechanism, or offer subsidies to those who used the State statute. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to ask the City Manager to prepare a scope of work for the council to be available no later than June 1, 2004, for a council work session, so that the council can assess the in- formation and decide what to do. Mayor Torrey made the determination that the motion was an amendment to the prior amendment. Mr. Meisner was unsure he understood the distinction between the two motions. He said he would have offered further amendments to Mr. Kelly's motion because it appeared to be more focused on standards and less on enforceability. He said he had reviewed the housing codes of Portland and Salem, and would have also asked that the motion be broadened to those communities as he did not know if the Corvallis model was the best one. Mr. Kelly opposed the amendment. He acknowledged other communities had housing codes, but his motion was an attempt to limit the staff effort and resources needed. He specifically mentioned the Corvallis model in his motion because of his interest in local enforceability. He believed that requesting a scope of work was a way to push the effort off indefinitely. Ms. Nathanson said she included a date in her motion so as not to put off the item indefinitely. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's question, she said her motion called for a scope of work and a work session so the council would discuss the ramifications of the issue. Ms. Nathanson was not willing at this time to add another high-priority item to the work program without more information. She said it was not clear to her how the council could assign simultaneous top priorities to seven items. Ms. Bettman clarified with Ms. Nathanson that her motion did not add the item to the high-priority list at this time. She believed the proposed amendment put the issue on "life support," so the council could "pull the plug later" in the same manner in which the living wage ordinance was "killed." She said the council had discussed the issue before and had a model to work with. She envisioned the issue could be addressed in the minor amendments to the Land Use Code, and more money could be allocated to the issue through the supplemental budget process. She opposed the amendment. Ms. Taylor also opposed the amendment and hoped to be able to support Mr. Kelly's amendment. She suggested the council was wasting time in talking about the details, which were subject for a later time. At this time, the council was merely saying such a program should be a high priority. She said the council had discussed the issue seven years ago, and people were discouraged that nothing had happened, while the need for a housing code continued to exist. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting yes; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 9 Work Session in support of the amendment, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Nathanson returned to the subject of nodal development and said she took seriously the council's most recent communication from the Planning Commission. The issue appeared to be that, even though the City might ultimately have to do site-specific planning, the underlying ordinance did not work correctly. She said that if the council proceeded before the ordinance was revised, it was creating more work for itself and residents. Ms. Nathanson supported the position of the Planning Commission that more work on the ordinance was required. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute Item 42 (analyze the code to allow for medical facilities and make the most of hospital re- lated development opportunities) for Item 5(E) (emerging issues, civic center). Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Coyle indicated his belief that the effort for the two work items was comparable. He suggested the potential it could be folded into the minor code amendments process. Mr. Pap~ advocated for the motion, saying the council need to plan for the move of the two hospitals and ensure that other medical facilities could be accommodated nearby. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Coyle said that Item 42 addressed the issue of ancillary hospital uses that would develop around a new hospital, but not necessarily on the hospital's property. Mr. Pap~ said he wanted to know if the existing zoning was adequate for anything from a two-person doctor's office to a 30-person medical clinic and everything in between. Ms. Bettman believed if a clinic wanted to relocate near a hospital, its owners could request a zone change. Zones were in place to create predictability about the future for residents and business owners. She did not think the City should be using planning to make blanket zone changes to accommodate clinics throughout the city. Ms. Bettman said the item did not rise to the level of the item proposed to be removed, planning for a new civic center, which was a process that had already had begun and one which benefited the entire community. Mr. Kelly said he was interested in seeing how Eugene could better accommodate some proposed clinic uses. He acknowledged that a specific developer with a plan had come forward, and said if that was Mr. Papa's concern, then no wholesale zoning changes were needed. He suggested rather that the council hold a work session to see what accommodations could be made for the development in question. He did not support the switch being proposed. Ms. Nathanson thought the council had already indicated to staff it had interest in studying different combinations of how public safety services could be housed with other agencies or with City Hall in a joint use facility. She thought that item should be included in down town and court-related projects. If that was the case, she was happy to support the motion. Ms. Nathanson endorsed Mr. Coyle's suggestion that the council process the issue through the minor code amendments process. Mr. Meisner said Mr. Coyle's comments about the required scope of work led him to agree with Ms. Nathanson. He thought the description of Item 42 overstated the question. He found the idea the issue MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 10 Work Session could be addressed through the minor amendments process appealing. He was also reluctant to eliminate the civic center proposal. Mr. Coyle said that through the minor amendments process, staff could return with a proposal regarding the location of ancillary medical uses not on a hospital site. Mr. Meisner said in that case, he would not support the amendment on the floor and would trust staff to work the issue through the minor amendments process as described. Mayor Torrey indicated interest in attempting to accomplish the intent of the motion. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that there was also an issue related to timing of a particular development. He wanted to facilitate the development being proposed if possible. He asked staff not to make the process so difficult the development opportunity was lost. Mayor Torrey asked if there was anything the City could do to avoid a long and drawn out land use process. Mr. Coyle said staff would move as quickly as possible. Mr. Papd said he wanted to move ahead with a civic center but did not know where the money would come from. He thought it should be planned for but he anticipated nothing would happen for something to 18 to 24 months. Mr. Papd said he had been contacted by many doctors and clinic operators who wanted the City to find a site for the hospital so they knew where to relocate. Mr. Poling believed the community need to prepare for the future and perhaps review some of the definitions related to clinics in the Land Use Code because of emerging technologies and advancements in the medical field. Ms. Bettman said the issue was identified in the post-LUCU work program in the form of updating the zoning map. She said the City could not change zoning for clinics without impacting other kinds of zoning. She believed such piecemeal changes bestowed a benefit on one use while possibly creating liabilities for other uses. Ms. Bettman questioned prioritizing this item above housing standards. Mayor Torrey asked whether, given the discussion, the motion provided adequate direction to staff. Mr. Coyle believed the scope of the effort being requested was broader than meeting the needs of a particular development yet narrower than the scope of effort reflected in Item 42. For purposes of clarity, Mr. Pap~ withdrew his motion. Mr. Poling withdrew his second. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct staff to analyze the code to allow for medical facilities through Item 2 (minor code amend- ments). Ms. Nathanson supported the motion. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments, Ms. Nathanson said the council was not prioritizing this item above housing standards given the passage of the previous motion. Her support for the motion was based on her interest in ensuring that medical clinics and doctor's offices were able to locate near a hospital and serve residents in Eugene. Ms. Taylor did not think the issue should take priority over other urgent issues. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to add Item 41 (LUCU re- mand and Chapter 6 tree provisions) to the high-priority list. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Taylor advocated for the motion, saying the items were formerly a high council priority and now had almost disappeared. She maintained that in the meanwhile, logging was occurring where it should not be. She believed the tree provisions were more important than anything else on the list. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Coyle that the River Road/Santa Clara transition project had dedicated funding, and was included as an emerging issue to acknowledge the division's involvement. However, he believed the work and associated contract would be out of the City Manager's Office. Mr. Kelly questioned why the item was on the priority list rather than the ongoing list. Mr. Coyle said that Ms. Muir had to be involved in the item peripherally. Ms. Muir added the funding was not coming to the Planning Division but it would play a supportive role. Mr. Kelly asked the effect of taking the item off the list. Mr. Coyle said that staff would not be involved in the project. The item acknowledged the interdepartmental coordination on such projects. Mr. Kelly asked why the planning element of the project was not included in the original funding proposal. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to Item 5B (buildable lands supply) and Item 5C (special districts) to the "other list." In support of his motion, Mr. Kelly pointed out the concept of special districts had received lukewarm support from the council. He further noted a proposal to annex Springfield to the Willakenzie Fire District had recently been voted down by the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, and suggested the item could be moved and some staff time freed up. Regarding the buildable lands supply issue, Mr. Kelly said that the City was working through efforts such as nodal development to make better use of the existing land supply. He thought there was, at best, anecdotal evidence about the inadequacy of the buildable lands supply. Mr. Kelly preferred to address the LUCU remand before taking on such a new and large work task. Ms. Bettman supported the motion, saying that the buildable lands supply issue had not been discussed as a high priority by the council, and did not rise to that level. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly about the merits of Item 5C. He said discussions about a possible airport district indicated little interest among the council or staff in pursuing that concept. Mr. Meisner added that the item was stated in an overboard manner, in that the council had not discussed restricting the concept to countywide service districts only; in fact, the council frequently had discussed metropolitan service districts. Regarding Item 5B, Mr. Meisner believed the issue needed to be addressed at some point, and suggested that could be done in the context of the council's growth management policies. He did not think that Eugene had done a good job in achieving acceptable redevelopment or infill develop- ment. He recommended that staff consult the community survey in regard to the issue. Mr. Pap~ asked about the City's legal obligations as they related to the supply ofbuildable lands. Ms. Muir noted that normally, the issue would be addressed through periodic review, but it was not one of the City's periodic review tasks. She said the item was included on the emerging issues list as staff anticipated it would come up in association with other high priority items, such as the Goal 5 item; she expected citizens to question whether the natural resources inventory removed too much land from the buildable lands supply. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Muir said the City was MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 12 Work Session required to evaluate its buildable lands supply through periodic review, which occurred every ten years; the item would be addressed in the next periodic review. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to separate the items in the motion. Ms. Solomon supported the separation of the items as she considered the buildable lands issue key to the City's economic development. The motion to separate the items in the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion until the meeting of April 14, 2004, or to an earlier date if staff can adjust the council schedule. The motion to table to April 14, 2004, passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 13 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber--City Hall February 23, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, Scott Meisner. In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Bonny Bettman called the meeting to order. The council was joined by Lane Transit District (LTD) board members Hillary Wylie, Susan Ban, Dave Kleger, Pat Hocken, Virginia Lauritsen, and Gerry Gaydos. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Kelly reminded councilors and the public that the annual Day of Remembrance would be observed on February 28, 2004, to remember the denial of constitutional rights to Japanese-American citizens during World War II. He said there would be a program at 2 p.m. in the Sheldon High School auditorium, followed by an evening speaker. Mr. Kelly also acknowledged that the council, at its recent goals setting session, had unanimously agreed that its top action priority was to facilitate the siting of a hospital in the central city. Ms. Taylor stated her ongoing objection to the development of panhandle lots and the detrimental effects on a neighborhood of such development. Mr. Meisner reported that he had received calls from Santa Clara residents expressing concern with the perceived delay in the development of a neighborhood park in the Thompson Meadows area. He and Parks and Open Space staff would be speaking to the homeowners association in that area and expressed hope that park development could proceed, possibly with the temporary installation of some playground equipment or other amenities. Ms. Solomon announced that the 66th Annual Oregon Logging Conference would be occurring at the Lane County Fairgrounds, February 26 through February 29, 2004. She encouraged everyone to attend the Saturday and Sunday events. Mr. Pap6 reported that he had attended the Asian Celebration and enjoyed the event. Ms. Bettman announced that Mayor Torrey was unable to attend the work session, but would be available for the 7:30 p.m. meeting. City Manager Dennis Taylor thanked councilors for working over the weekend during the goals setting session and said the clear direction would be helpful to staff in their work. He noted that earlier in the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 1 Work Session day there had been a groundbreaking ceremony for the new Fire Station No. 1 on the comer of 13th Avenue and Willamette Street and Mayor Torrey had announced in the afternoon that Delta Airlines would begin service between Eugene and Salt Lake City on May 1, 2004. B. WORK SESSION: Joint Meeting with Lane Transit District Board of Directors Ms. Bettman introduced Hillary Wylie, chair of the LTD Board of Directors. Ms. Wylie thanked the council for its invitation to a joint meeting and opened the LTD Board meeting. She said that board members appreciated the opportunity to share information on recent transit activities and discuss transportation issues with the council. Board members introduced themselves and described the area they represented. Ms. Wylie introduced LTD General Manager Ken Hamm and explained that each board member would speak briefly on an aspect of LTD's activities and answer questions from the councilors. 1. Bus Rapid Transit Presentation Ms. Hocken said that each presentation was shaped by the areas of interest or concerns expressed by councilors during individual conversations with board members. She said that the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) presentation would include a brief update on the Franklin and Pioneer Parkway corridors and then focus on Coburg Road BRT planning activities. Ms. Hocken said that some preliminary construction activities on the Franklin Corridor had begun and consisted of undergrounding utilities and preparing trees along the route to minimize disruption to them during later construction. She said the remaining construction would begin in 2005 to coordinate with delivery of the BRT vehicles in early 2006. Ms. Hocken said that LTD had initially considered purchas- ing the vehicles from a European manufacturer; however, a North American manufacturer, New Flyer, was able to deliver a BRT vehicle with the desired features at a lower price. She said that New Flyer was a Canadian company with a manufacturing plant in the United States and she referred council members to information in their agenda packets on the new vehicles. Continuing, Ms. Hocken said that a public process with stakeholder groups had been completed for the Pioneer Parkway Corridor and preferred alignments had been identified for most of the corridor. She said the Springfield City Council would make decisions on those during the next month. She identified the close working relationship with PeaceHealth to design the corridor to meet the needs of the new hospital as one of the most exciting aspects of the project. She said that LTD was applying, as part of the United Front request, for $4 million in federal funding for the BRT vehicles and $31 million in construction funds for the Pioneer Parkway Corridor. Ms. Ban related that Coburg Road was identified as the next BRT corridor, based on a recommendation by the Eugene City Council, which was adopted by the LTD Board. She referred councilors to the Coburg Road Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Study. She said the study described the process by which a stakeholder group, composed of property owners, business owners, neighborhood residents, and representatives of the City Council, LTD Board, and Planning Commission, considered the sections of the corridor and evaluated options. She said the study was not a recommendation; it presented a number of viewpoints and MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 2 Work Session a fair analysis of the complications of a Coburg Road route. She indicated that a major factor in the initial selection of Coburg Road was that it linked the first two corridors to create a full cycle BRT system. Mr. Poling acknowledged a number of stakeholder group members who were in the audience and described the year-long process through which the group had gone. He said the process was challenging and there were a number of areas of disagreement. In particular, he said, the group discussed the physical constriction of the lower part of Coburg Road and the City's requirements for redevelopment setbacks, which would create major impacts on businesses in order to accommodate BRT. He said another concern was the impact on left-turn access to both commercial properties and neighborhoods. He expressed some disappointment that the group did not make a recommendation on the Coburg Road route or an alternative route. He said there was also some discussion of BRT "lite" on the lower end of Coburg Road that would not require a dedicated lane, but acknowledged that the council supported BRT that would have a dedicated lane for a majority of the route. Ms. Hocken stated that LTD's long-range financial plan matched resources to the timeframe during which they would be spent. She said LTD received both capital funds that required a local match and earmarked funds, and it was earmarked funds that would be used for the Franklin Corridor. She said that earmarked funds were requested for the Pioneer Parkway Corridor as well. She indicated that it was unlikely funds would also be provided for the Coburg Road Corridor and even if they were, accumulating the local match was unrealistic. She said the next funding opportunity would occur in six years and therefore construction was not contemplated until 2010, with the route in service in 2012. Ms. Wylie said construction of the Springfield Station was well underway and the shape and form of the facility were very visible. She commented that the station would be a beautiful addition to the system and a reminder of the Phase I BRT connection between downtown Eugene and downtown Springfield. Mr. Pap6 said it was his understanding that the BRT pilot corridor on Franklin Boulevard would go into service and be evaluated during a test period before any additional corridors were considered, but it now appeared that Phase II was moving forward. Ms. Hocken agreed that Mr. Pap6's perception was correct, and said the reason LTD had moved forward in Springfield was because of the opportunity presented by the Pioneer Parkway extension and road construction and the Springfield City Council's interest in having BRT be a part of the new construction and planning for the PeaceHealth facility. Mr. Pap~ asked if the Springfield corridor could stand alone. Ms. Hocken replied that it would work better with the Eugene loop, but it could work by itself so delaying the next corridor was not an impedi- ment to moving forward with the Springfield corridor. Mr. Pap6 asked if funding was available for the pilot corridor and if the BRT vehicles were a reality. Ms. Hocken replied that the pilot corridor funding was in place and that New Flyer, the BRT vehicle manufacturer, had a hybrid vehicle similar to the BRT vehicle design that was in operation in the Seattle transit system. She said the new design aspects of LTD's BRT vehicle were the left-side doors, a larger size, and a guidance system. She said the 60-foot standard articulated buses recently purchased by LTD were similar in feel to the BRT vehicle. Mr. Hamm added that New Flyer produced the standard articulated buses and also produced hybrid electric-powered vehicles and test results were so good that Seattle had just ordered 200 of the vehicles. He said the guidance system was still being tested at the University of California-Berkeley and would probably not be available when the BRT vehicles went into service, but could be added later. He said he was confident the vehicles would be ready on schedule, with a prototype available in mid-2005; however, LTD's fallback position could be use of the regular MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 3 Work Session articulated buses, with some minor design changes. He expected to conclude negotiations with New Flyer on a firm delivery price within the next two weeks. Mr. Meisner commented he did not recollect a discussion about a downtown-to-downtown pilot route that would be tested for a time before the system was expanded, but rather a 20-year development plan for a system. He said that the time required and expense just to achieve a reduced Phase ! were issues for him and asked where the system would be in 20 years. Referring to the complications of a route on Coburg Road, he asked board members to describe how that situation would be in 10 years, when route construc- tion was planned. He also asked if lack of a guidance system on the BRT vehicles meant they would not be able to use a guideway system with narrower lanes. Ms. Hocken replied that LTD was committed to a full system and was working as quickly as it could within its funding constraints. Ms. Ban added that expansion of the system was also based on opportunity, such as was presented with the Springfield corridor. She said the 20-year plan needed to start with getting a BRT route in operation to develop momentum for the rest of the system and LTD had to balance the need to keep the fixed route system operational and functioning while building an infrastructure for the future that would meaningfully address congestion problems. Mr. Meisner suggested that the LTD board integrate the concepts Ms. Ban mentioned into a re- examination of its long-range plan so the public would better understand the issues. Ms. Hocken cautioned that the council should not get the impression that LTD was going to abandon the idea of a Coburg Road corridor; rather, the board was looking to the council for advice. Mr. Kelly remarked that discussions about testing a pilot corridor were based on an initial plan for a corridor that ran from Thurston to West Eugene and did not apply to the downtown-to-downtown route, which was not sufficient to provide realistic feedback about how BRT would ultimately work. He noted that TransPlan recognized the importance of transit, but he did not think the community had decided, as underscored by the Coburg Road conflicts, whether it wanted a decent transit system that would serve transportation needs through the next several decades. He stated that as time passed, he saw less commitment to BRT from the community and LTD. Mr. Kelly observed that the Coburg Road Study omitted the major policy of an exclusive right-of-way, which was mandated at 80 percent for the system by council resolution. He said that BRT should be abandoned and other options considered if that amount of exclusive right-of-way could not be achieved. He added that the public would adapt to losing left-turn access along Coburg Road and while he understood why the stakeholder group had looked at alternative routes, BRT corridors should be major arterials. He expressed concern that the Coburg Road schedule was constantly changing and the timeline extended. Ms. Solomon suggested that a Highway 99 corridor to the airport could be considered instead of the Coburg Road Corridor. She speculated that in ten years, development in that area would make the route productive and, because Highway 99 was a State road, perhaps the State could assist with funding. She asked if the selection of Coburg Road as the next corridor could be changed. Ms. Ban said the selection of Coburg Road was made by the City Council and any change would need to be initiated by the council. Ms. Nathanson pointed out when the council was considering BRT routes, considerable data on land use patterns, current and projected population density based on land use and zoning, expected infill and MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 4 Work Session redevelopment, and anticipating ridership based on employment patterns and schools. She said that the selection of Coburg Road was based in part on an objective analysis and it would be interesting to revisit those discussions. Speaking to the BRT system in general and Coburg Road specifically, Ms. Nathanson asked if a system should be planned that would influence land use or respond to current and anticipated land use and zoning. She said the answer to that question would drive whether LTD moved ahead quickly to get something in place or wait to see how infill and redevelopment occurred. She commented that putting something in place was already complicated by contradictory requirements from the City for commercial and industrial development. She said that from her perspective as a bus rider, design elements that were most important to produce results were frequency of service, speed, appearance, and ease of use. Ms. Bettman asked how much had been spent on BRT to date and how much was being requested in federal funds. Ms. Hocken reiterated that $31 million was being requested for the Pioneer Parkway Corridor construction and $4 million for BRT vehicles for the pilot corridor. LTD Assistant General Manager Mark Pangborn, responded that major expenses for planning and design of the first BRT corridor had been approximately $3 million, including both the federal share and local funds. He said that the total cost for Phase I design, construction, and vehicles would be approximately $22 million for four miles of corridor. Ms. Bettman stated her opinion that BRT without a dedicated right-of-way was just bus transit and not worth the cost of millions of dollars. She agreed with the suggestion that the council reconsider its selection of Coburg Road and look at other routes that could offer a dedicated right-of-way and better connections to high-density neighborhoods. She felt there were other corridors Where public investment in infrastructure could stimulate private investment. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Solomon's suggestion to reconsider other corridors. He said that Coburg Road needed to be a part of the 20-year vision and stated his concern that waiting to implement that corridor would create even more difficulties. He said he supported consideration of other routes if that would establish a second corridor in Eugene more quickly and with more exclusive right-of-way than the Coburg Road option. He asked the city manager and LTD to inform the council as soon as possible about what steps could be taken to efficiently reconsider routes for a second corridor. Mr. Meisner said he would not object to the council's reprioritizing and directing LTD to consider a Highway 99 route. He expressed regret that the amount of effort that had gone into the Coburg Road corridor would no longer be useful if another route was chosen and the Coburg Road route was pushed even farther out on the BRT timeline. He noted that earlier work on a possible 6th Avenue/7th Avenue corridor had determined that the route through downtown was all but impossible and there was unanimous and universal resistance to an 11th Avenue corridor. He said he was willing to reconsider the council's priority direction to LTD and cautioned that it would be naive to assume any other route would be easy. 2. Service Planning Presentation and Downtown Transportation Issues Presentation Ms. Hocken stated that approximately 65 percent of LTD's revenues were derived from the payroll tax and because of the local economy, the amount of payroll tax revenue had been flat for the past two or three years. She said that LTD's expenses were growing at the rate of four to six percent a year and a number of cost-cutting measures had been imposed, such as laying off some administrative staff and MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 5 Work Session cutting some service routes. She anticipated that over the next three years $1.8 million in service cuts would be achieved. She said the first of those cuts LTD was currently considering represented $500,000 of that amount and the remaining cuts would be dependent on a number of factors, including a turn around in the economy, increased payroll tax revenue, and the results of union contract negotiations. She said another factor in LTD's budget was the need to provide a 20 percent local match from the payroll tax revenue in order to spend federal formula funds on capital projects. Mr. Kleger commented that although LTD was faced with the need to reduce costs, it had held services harmless to date and trimmed costs in all other areas; it was forced to cut services beginning in the fall of 2004 and implement adjustments to group pass fares. He said the dilemma was to cuts costs in ways that had the least impact on the fewest number of people and LTD was holding open houses and public hearings on the proposed cuts to obtain feedback from the public. He encouraged the council to provide input as well. Mr. Kleger offered the council good news about a recent capital expenditure. He reported that that the automatic vehicle location/automatic passenger count radio system appeared to be successful and would provide LTD with accurate information about ridership patterns by geographic location and time of day that was automatically reported by computer to a central location. He said that eventually the system would be able to provide real-time information that customers could access to identify what buses served an area and the arrival times at a specific location. Mr. Gaydos discussed the impact of the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) on LTD operations. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's assessment that frequency, timeliness, and running times were major factors in customer satisfaction. He said that when LTD built the central downtown Eugene station, it was depending on 10th Avenue being a one-way street and if that changed it would cause some operational problems. He stated that LTD would serve the federal courthouse once decisions were made about the street design and suggested that courthouse service could be part of the Breeze service package. He said once improvements in the courthouse district were designed and completed LTD would be better able to respond with a service plan. He noted that the Breeze service had been very successful and said that LTD had performed significant due diligence in its effort to obtain a "green" vehicle, but was struggling to keep the Breeze vehicles on the road. He said that the fare would continue to be 25 cents. Mr. Gaydos concluded by reminding the council that BRT and LTD were part of the community's transit system and it was not a question of LTD versus the City of Eugene or the City of Springfield. He said that LTD was trying to develop the best transportation system possible in partnership with the community. He noted earlier expressions of concern about extended timelines and expenditures and warned that shifting priorities again would cause further extensions and additional expenses. He asked for community support and partnership with LTD to move the transportation system forward. Mr. Kelly said that he would support BRT on Coburg Road if LTD could guarantee an exclusive right-of- way in keeping with the council resolution. Mr. Gaydos replied that LTD would be happy to do that if councilors could convince community members to be supportive. Mr. Kelly complimented LTD on the quality and coverage of daily service. He also noted the important community need that was filled by service to transit-dependent riders. He said the council needed to support LTD's fulfillment of community need and he was distressed by the need to cut services. He suggested that the entire model of LTD's operating revenue should be collectively rethought in the not- too-distant future if the community wanted good transit and in many cases a transit dollar would save MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 6 Work Session many road dollars. Mr. Kelly asked if the development of BRT affected bus operations and bus operation funding and if it had, in part, caused the service cuts. Ms. Hocken said that funding for BRT came from a different source than operational funding and BRT had no impact on bus operation or proposed service cuts. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the service cuts and asked if funds could be transferred from one source to another or if the Breeze could provide service to those areas where service cuts were proposed. Ms. Hocken explained that capital funds could not be used for operations and that the major cost associated with having a bus on the road was the cost of the operator, not the vehicle; therefore, using another vehicle such as the Breeze to serve an area would not reduce expenses. Ms. Taylor suggested that LTD could purchase taxis to serve areas affected by cuts in the south hills. Ms. Nathanson complimented LTD on the increase in service to special events in the community. She noted the service as becoming very popular with organizations and helped to reduce traffic and parking problems. She asked if LTD had considered working with groups of businesses such as those at Valley River Center or business parks to market the group pass program. She commented that there were no surprises in the ridership demographic statistics and asked what segment of the riding population LTD thought was most likely to be influenced by efforts to increase ridership. Referring to earlier comments about rethinking operating revenue sources, Ms. Nathanson asked if LTD had considered re-examining its mission or objectives in terms of cutting out some routes entirely in order to focus on increasing frequency, revenue, and ridership on other routes. Ms. Wylie said that LTD had been reviewing productivity during the past two years, which resulted in reducing routes that had inadequate ridership and focusing on routes with increased ridership. She said this was difficult because some of the routes that were cut represented services that some people desperately needed, but there weren't enough people to make the route productive. Ms. Hocken said one of the reasons LTD was using articulated buses was because the larger capacity buses could carry more passengers but still had the cost of only one operator, thus retaining the ability to serve high ridership routes and possibly making revenue available to serve the less popular routes. Mr. Meisner observed that making decisions about where ridership was now could be eliminating the future as building, housing, and tenancy patterns changed. Referring to earlier statements that BRT did not impact bus operations funding, he noted that the 20 percent match for federal construction funds for BRT did come from payroll tax revenues, which were also the source of funding for operations. Ms. Hocken agreed that was correct and said that the need to maintain sufficient funds for operations was a factor in delaying the Coburg Road Corridor. She added that LTD had a substantial amount of capital reserves when it went into the BRT project because it had set funds aside for many years during which payroll tax revenues were more than adequate to fund operations. Mr. Meisner said that the County and local jurisdictions were currently involved in discussions about how to equitably share Road Fund revenues, and he suggested that LTD should be involved in those discus- sions to determine how Road Funds could be shared to the benefit of all residents of Lane County. Mr. Pap6 asked if the buses providing service to University of Oregon Autzen Stadium football games realized a profit. Ms. Hocken explained that the University of Oregon set the fare charged to customers and LTD charged the University the actual cost of providing the service. She said that agreement could be MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 7 Work Session renegotiated; however, LTD felt that as a member of the community it was important to provide the service to help resolve traffic and parking problems at the stadium on game days and the current arrangement covered the cost of that service. Mr. Hamm added that as a public entity, LTD could not be in the business of making a profit or competing against private charter services and it recovered its costs for the service while maintaining a community partnership with the University. Mr. Pap6 commented on the recent newspaper article on bus service to McKenzie Bridge for a nominal fare. He questioned whether the fare could be increased incrementally. Mr. Kleger replied that it was the policy of the board that suburban service paid for itself and did not subsidize urban service, and urban service did not subsidize suburban service. He said the amount of service going to each out-of-town route was what the combined fare box revenue and payroll tax revenue from that part of the system would support. He mentioned that an earlier experiment with a zone fare system was an administrative headache and encouraged a large amount of fare cheating; the board decided at that time that the cost to administer the system was too high. Mr. Pap~ noted that there was a 20 percent match required for construction of a RideSource administrative and maintenance facility. He asked why LTD was constructing a separate facility when it was his perception that the existing LTD maintenance facility seemed more than able to accommodate RideSource. Ms. Hocken responded that RideSource was the paratransit operation that LTD was required by federal law to provide as equivalent service to those who were unable to use the fixed route system. She said current RideSource facility was in a rented and inadequate facility that was no longer available. Mr. Kleger said a grant from the State's special transportation fund was paying for at least 50 percent of the cost of the facility and the property LTD had purchased could also be used in the future as the starting point for buses serving the west side of town, thereby reducing expenses. Ms. Bettman said she wanted to see LTD adopt a new theme, such as "service first" or "bus rides are us" because that was its primary mission. Referring to a policy question regarding whether the City had a role in financing bus service or capital improvements, she stated that she had a problem with LTD's existing framework in which the board was not elected. She said the council could only provide input under the present structure, rather than direction. Ms. Bettman asked if LTD spent the payroll taxes from Eugene employers in Eugene. Diane Hellekson, LTD Director of Finance and Information Technology, explained that the businesses that paid payroll taxes supported an infrastructure system that provided community transportation. She said the revenue was not divided into pots of money by geographic location and then invested because that would not put the service where people needed it. She stated that businesses paid the tax, but the main users of the system were workers, residents, and students so the system would be out of balance if funds were used primarily to benefit those who contributed to the revenue. Ms. Bettman asked if the new automated system would allow LTD to track passenger origin and destination and compare that data to revenue collected in each jurisdiction. Mr. Kleger said there were limits to LTD's ability to use that information as Ms. Bettman had suggested because the system could not track when a specific passenger got on or off the bus. He said that LTD periodically conducted an origination/destination study that provided useful information, but those studies were very expensive. Ms. Bettman said another issue for her was that funds that could be used for operations were shifted to capital improvements. She reiterated that she thought service was of the utmost importance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked if the RideSource maintenance and administrative needs could be accommodated in the new yard the City had just purchased as part of the Public Works strategy on Roosevelt Boulevard. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that part of the facility was leased out for other purposes, but the City was always looking for ways to partner with other jurisdictions to provide better service. Ms. Wylie said that LTD had explored some joint facility use with the State for the RideSource program and was not able to work out an arrangement. She thanked the council for meeting with the LTD board and said LTD believed strongly in cooperation and coordination and that it was important to involve communities in the transit planning process. Ms. Bettman adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m: 120041central services department[city councillccO402 2 3m l.doc MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall February 23, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap6, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey explained the rules for the Public Forum. Bruce Miller, P O Box 50968, Eugene, thought the University of Oregon should urge students to attend Lane Transit District (LTD) hearings. He repeated his previous recommendation that Mayor Torrey apply to be Dean of the University of Oregon's School of Business. Mary Jo Roberts, 475 Lindale Drive, #106, Springfield, stated that she was a former City of Eugene employee and had also been an employee of Lane County at one time. She said it was no surprise that the State was facing a crisis of catastrophic proportion. She commented that, with the cuts already made to the budget, the area was seeing its best efforts to put a good medical plan in place through the Oregon Health Plan (OHP) all but disappear. She underscored the "horrible cuts" that mental health services had endured, noting that the County had formerly been able to aid the medically indigent people suffering from mental illness but now could not, and that Lane County Mental Hospital was slated to close on March 1, 2004. She stressed the importance of people helping one another. She conveyed her anger and frustration with people who bemoan the fact that there are not adequate public services nor an adequate investment in public safety and yet refuse to invest in the future through taxes or any other means. She alleged that the present system had "bankrupted our children and future generations." She expressed her sadness at the loss of at-risk services for juveniles. Ms. Roberts related that she was now a medically indigent, uninsured, unemployed Oregonian through no fault of her own. She said she had experienced six job losses in as many years, all due to downsizing. She attributed it to greed, stating that the populace had lost sight of what was truly important: taking care of our senior and disabled citizens and taking care of our children and educating them. Ben Fry, 1460 West 17th Avenue, spoke as a representative of the Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards (ECFHS), an organization that was asking the City Council to establish local enforcement of basic habitability standards already based on State law, such as the standards that address structural integrity, heating, plumbing and roofing. He asked the City Council to establish local enforcement of MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 1 Regular Meeting basic habitability standards and that the City Council set a work session on the issue prior to May 18. He encouraged the council to direct any questions to the ECFHC at 306-0630, as the organization had conducted much research on the issue. He pointed out that the system the ECFHC recommended would cost the City nothing. Chris Anglin, 915 West 20th Avenue, also supported expediting the examination of housing standards enforcement in the city of Eugene. He related a story from some years back in which he had been an agent in a small claims court action for an out-of-state landlord. The judge had ruled in favor of the renter, stating that the renter did not have to pay rent until necessary repairs were made to the dwelling. He said the landlord had given the renter a 30-day, no-cause eviction notice and re-rented the house instead of making improvements to the habitability of the dwelling. He asserted that tenants who complain were often penalized and had no other redress. He urged the council to give housing standards a high priority. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, stated that, as a small business owner, he understood the importance of a sound economy, but as a "booster of healthy neighborhoods," he understood the importance of having a livable air and watershed, and as "a taxpayer who loved his family," he understood the basic building block of one's personal health being more important than anything else. He opposed raising the interests businesses above those of the citizens. He stressed the importance of maintaining the environmental integrity of the Willamette River. He encouraged careful use of the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. Mr. Handy said more air quality-monitoring stations were needed for the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA). Mr. Handy felt the community needed to "connect the dots around shared values" around preserving the West Eugene Wetlands, the clean-up and development of the rail yard after Union Pacific leaves it, while designing transportation and land use choices that will provide connectivity with downtown while stewarding the Willamette Greenway heritage. He noted that current council goals included safe community, a healthy environment, and effective and accountable municipal government. He questioned whether the City was moving in the right direction. Janetta Overholser, 30300 Cottage Grove-Lorane Road, reiterated her concerns about the continued funding for the cattery. She stressed that the feral cat population was moving into its reproductive season. She said that the difference between feral and stray cats was not clearly defined in policy. She stated that private nonprofit agencies were doing all that they could do to spay and neuter unwanted animals. Jan Spencer, 212 Benjamin Road, announced that an "uplifting program" on neighborhoods would be presented on February 24 at 7 p.m. at Harris Hall. He said neighborhoods were a critical part of the civic life of the city. He encouraged the council to fund, as much as possible, the existing neighborhood programs. Councilor Kelly requested information on the Union Pacific rail yards. He asked staff to elaborate on the timeline for Union Pacific's vacation of the property and on the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) designation of the property. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 2 Regular Meeting City Manager Dennis Taylor stressed that articles that recently appeared in the press on the rail yard were speculative at this point. Councilor Kelly thanked Ms. Roberts for speaking "from the heart." He commented that he also worried how bad things would have to get "before we wake up and decide what kind of a state we want." Councilor Bettman commended the housing standards proponents for their persistence. She encouraged them to "keep the pressure on." Councilor Bettman also thanked Ms. Roberts for her words. She opined that the council had an opportunity to do something about the lack of school funding during the work session scheduled for February 25 as the council was expected to vote on the urban renewal district. She asserted that the urban renewal district, while not taking directly from the school system, did remove tax dollars from the County, the State, and the City's General Fund. She asked how many urban renewal districts existed statewide. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for speaking. She noted that most people were speaking about money. She agreed with Councilor Bettman, stating that the council had the opportunity to refrain from doing something "worse," i.e. voting for the urban renewal district. Councilor Taylor reiterated that a housing standards program need not cost the City any money as it could be supported by fees. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 12, 2004, Work Session - January 21, 2004, Work Session - January 26, 2004, Work Session - January 28, 2004, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly stated that he had previously submitted corrections to the minutes via email. Mayor Torrey said the corrections had been reviewed and that, without objection, they were deemed approved. Councilor Bettman said she had previously submitted corrections to the minutes via email. Mayor Torrey deemed them, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey recognized Boy Scout Troop 22 of Eugene and thanked them for attending the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study Diagram and Text; Amending Section 9.5700 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding New Sections 9.4200, 9.4205, 9.4210, 9.4215, and 9.4220 to that Code; Adopting a Sever- ability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date. Allen Lowe of the Planning Division explained that the University of Oregon had recently completed a process to update its East Campus Development Policy, an element of its long-range development plan. He said the University was seeking the necessary land use approvals, which included amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram, the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Study, and to Chapter 9 of the Eugene City Code. He stated that the Metro Plan amendment would redesignate land, now zoned high-density residential (HDR), medium-density residential (MDR), and low-density residential (LDR) to Government and Education. He stated that proposed amendments to the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study include plan policy, plan text, and land use diagram changes, expanding the area designated for institutional use in the plan and the creation of a new land-use category called limited high density residential/limited institutional. He said the proposed amendment to the Eugene Code would create a new overlay zoning category called the East Campus Overlay Zone, which would establish a height limit for uses in the identified transition area to help mitigate the impacts of institutional development on nearby residents. Mr. Lowe stated that, since February 17, letters had been received on the matters before the hearing from the following people: Sally Weston, Emily Toomey, Fred and Saundra Austin, and John Mosely, from the office of the Vice President and Provost of the University of Oregon. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Steve Gab, 1818 Villard Street, thanked the council for its service to the community. He thanked the University of Oregon for stepping up and negotiating with the neighborhood and he thanked, in particular, Kristen Taylor and Jeff Nelson for their work on behalf of the neighborhood association. He likened the situation the neighbors had faced to a frog in the boiling water that does not know when to jump out. He noted that a number of years prior, a planned unit development (PUD) had been put in a few houses away from his residence. At that time he felt a few more cars down his alley and street would not make a difference. Since then, he said, the University built its new Law School and a new Child Care Center. He conveyed his chief concern that traffic and parking mitigation had not occurred. He asserted that, while the City may believe that Agate Street has the capacity for increased traffic, the neighborhood does not. He felt this to be an opportunity for the City to be proactive and prevent the sorts of problems other neighborhoods adjacent to the campus area had experienced. Mary Ann Holser, 2620 Cresta de Ruta Drive, conveyed her thanks to the people who had worked on the mediation process. She was in general agreement with the proposed plan and its amendments. She asked that historic dwellings be preserved, calling them an asset to the City. Ms. Holser advocated for prioritization of the two recommended traffic studies. She asserted that Agate Street did not function as an arterial, causing through traffic to use adjacent streets. She felt pedestrian overpasses by the dormitories would "look beautiful" and solve the problem. She suggested funding for such a project come from a partnership of the University and the City, noting that the Public Works Department could use gas tax moneys that were unaffected by Ballot Measure 30 or other State cutbacks. Ms. Holser expressed concern that allowing the University to have a PUD on three adjacent lots could mean an ugly building. She stressed the importance of continuing the relationship between the University and the neighborhood. She suggested that the "ugly box church" in the Bean parking lot be demolished. Kristen Taylor, 1808 Orchard Street, thanked the City and University staff on behalf of the Fairmount Neighborhood. She also thanked her neighbors for the work they had put into the process. She wished to address a question asked earlier by Councilor Nathanson regarding neighborhoods adjacent to campuses. She said that she had spoken with people in Boulder, Colorado, Pasadena, California, and Portland. She said she would include web sites with her testimony, also submitted in writing. She related that the message from the three had been similar, that proactive planning and mitigation of potential impacts were imperative. Ms. Taylor stated that she and her husband had purchased their house because of its location in the historic neighborhood. She conveyed the neighborhood's concern that unmitigated traffic problems exacerbated by further development would diminish the quality of life in the neighborhood. Jeff Nelson, 2144 East 15th Avenue, co-chair of the Fairmount Neighbors, conveyed his gratitude to the City, University, and staff for the work done on the plan. He noted that the City had received a letter from the University recommending four changes to the recommendation. He related that the committee accepted the changes. He said the intention was to narrow the focus to traffic concerns. Mr. Nelson averred that traffic calming would save money in the long run by stabilizing property tax revenues, avoiding capital and maintenance costs associated with sprawl, and would increase efficiency of City services as traffic calming promoted livability, livability would attract more residents, and more residents per acre would increase efficiency. Mr. Nelson commented that the University was both a blessing and a burden to the neighborhood. He noted that the University did not pay property taxes, but brought culture and enrichment to the City. Mr. Nelson supported funding the two traffic studies, adding that any changes deemed necessary by the studies were not mandated to be put into place in the immediate future. Rich Margerum, 1889 Orchard Street, member of the East Campus Advisory Committee, thanked the City Council for its careful attention to the issues before it. He wished to address the traffic issues. He supported the implementation of traffic calming measures, noting that a study had shown that pedestrian fatalities jumped from 20 percent at 20 miles per hour to 80 percent at 40 miles per hour. Mr. Margerum said planning for traffic in the area should consider the probable development of an arena, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor, and possible impacts from nodal development in the Walnut Node. He underscored the importance of maintaining the high quality of life in a neighborhood such as the Fairmount Neighborhood. Don Dumond, 1744 Moss Street, said he and his wife had lived at the address listed since 1962. He stated that they had participated in the proceedings that led to the completion of the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study in 1982. He related that over the time they had resided at the address they had witnessed many changes, not the least of which had been a steady increase in traffic. Mr. Dumond commented that they were impressed by the evident good will on both sides and were generally happy with the outcome. Nonetheless, he averred traffic problems needed to be addressed. He felt the issues created by traffic avoidance of Agate Street created hazardous conditions. He asserted that this necessitated a study of the function of Agate Street within the context of parking and traffic. Trevor Taylor, 1808 Orchard Street, spoke to the conditional uses proposed for the buffer area owned February 23, 2004 Page 5 by the University which lay between the limited high-density residential/limited institutional use area and the surrounding neighborhood. He related that the Fairmount Neighbors had come to appreciate the City's concerns regarding the abolition of conditional use permits (CUPs) for the area and had approved the change, with one exception. He explained that the neighborhood group wished to clearly state that the intent of the limit on CLIPs was to not allow for large-scale conditional uses with lot consolidation. He conveyed the committee's suggestion that a new criterion, policy 6 (g), be added stating, as follows: "Conditional uses shall not exceed a total area of 35,000 square feet within the entire University-owned low-density area." Mr. Taylor stated that 35,000 square feet was the total square footage of seven standard housing lots. He noted the committee was open to other language that would achieve the same intent. Daniel Klute, 2021 Villard Street, supported the amendments before the council at the present meeting. He thanked all who participated in the process and asked the council to show appreciation for the collaborative process by funding the two traffic studies. Art Farley, 1667 Fairmount Boulevard, supported the Planning Commission recommendation on this issue. He affirmed that all major issues between the University and the neighborhood had been resolved. He reiterated the necessity of funding the two proposals for funding the traffic studies and potential solutions. He averred there were Metro Plan policies that spoke to protection of existing neighborhoods from impacts of changes in density. He felt the traffic measures were necessary to make the overall amendment package consistent with the plan. Mr. Farley agreed this was a major land use change within the core. He cited other major land use changes and how much money the council had committed to those and asked the City Council to consider how much less the traffic studies would cost. He asserted it was time for the City to participate as a partner in this redevelopment by providing the funding. David Wade, 1673 Villard Street, echoed Mr. Farley's comments. He called the University of Oregon the "economic engine" of Eugene as it brought 20,000 students into the area every school year. He opined that the City was indifferent to the University and took it for granted. He noted the State's defunding of higher education and said it was no longer "a guaranteed thing." He urged the City to step up and help. He stressed that the neighborhood and University had cooperated, but that the agreement was contingent upon the City's funding of the traffic study and traffic calming. He urged the City to provide the funding. Rich Linton, 1283 University of Oregon, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies, stressed the University's need for space as, at 20,000 students, the campus was experiencing record enrollment. He said the planned development would allow the University to meet its needs for space. He stated that the University was receiving more money for research, but did not have housing for such research. He related that the University saw, within the East Campus Area, 275,000 gross square feet that could be located there and, as the University grew, an additional 325,000 gross square feet could be located there. He felt it critical that the East Campus Plan be put into place so that the University of Oregon could continue to plan for its future needs and ensure a strong and vital University for years to come. Chris Ramey, 1276 University of Oregon, Director of Facilities Planning of the University of Oregon, stated that the land use application before the council had been arrived at through an 18-month process. He noted the University had planned for East Campus development for a much longer time and the University owned all of the lots in the area except for eight. Mr. Ramey lauded the comprehensive collaborative process that had transpired between the University, neighborhood group, and City. He thanked the neighbors for taking the time to help and declared it had resulted in improvements to the plan. MINUTES- February 23, 2004 Page 6 Christine Thompson, 1276 University of Oregon, representing the University of Oregon Planning Office, said the strategy proposed to create a graceful edge was the result of collaboration and creativity. She explained that the planning office had begun by looking at other university edges were treated. She observed that most of the campus perimeters examined had featured a buffer zone of high density residential land. In this way, she said the East Campus area was unlike most such areas. She stressed that the first approach taken by University Planning was to explore the possibility of having such a buffer, but it would not have preserved the character of Villard Street. She indicated on a map the transition areas and discussed the proposal. Mike Weishar, 1410 Oak Street, commented that one of the key tenets of the East Campus Development Policy was the minimization of traffic impacts in and around the Fairmount Neighborhood. He said his job as a transportation consultant was to establish a baseline study. He explained that his data indicated that traffic volumes on Villard and Agate streets had slightly increased since 1988, while traffic volumes on Orchard and Walnut Streets had decreased. He evaluated three 20-year development scenarios for the East Campus Area and the 2002 East Campus Lands Trip Generation Study and found that, in a worst- case development scenario, overall traffic levels in the area would increase by 11 percent, compared to uses generated by the current plan. Mr. Weishar averred that area streets had the capacity to absorb this increase, spread out over the 20-year development period. He related that, in response to a request from the City, he had completed the East Campus Lands Traffic Impact Study to address the requirements of the transportation planning rule. He said the study found that impacts could likely be mitigated. He stated that the City had concurred with the findings and that the University's land use applications meet the Transportation Planning Rule requirements. He noted he also evaluated the effectiveness of the residential parking zone program, instituted in accordance with the SAS, and had determined that it was effective for the streets in the program. Mr. Weishar expressed the University's agreement that the traffic studies should be funded. Terri Harding, 132 East Broadway, #536, land use consultant for the University, reiterated that the Fairmount Neighbors and the University had reached agreement on the application. She said it would be beneficial to fund the traffic studies in the Fairmount Neighborhood. She conveyed the University's position on conditional uses in the R-1 buffer area. She explained the buffer area had been established as a compromise in response to the neighborhood's early concerns over intensification of the University land. She stated it had been decided that the low-density buffer could be accommodated on University land, but that the University must be able to retain the ability to apply for a restricted number and limited type of CUPs. She appreciated that the neighborhood association had accepted the language. Ms. Harding listed the contingencies placed upon a CUP as outlined in the proposal and asked the council to approve the policy, noting it had received a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission. Jan Oliver, 1283 University of Oregon, Associate Vice President for Institutional Affairs, conveyed the University's commitment to being a "primary asset" to the community. She noted the University had been a part of the community for 125 years and intended to continue being so for at least another 125 years. She cited efforts the University had undertaken in the past to mitigate traffic and parking, adding that the University was nationally recognized for its transportation innovation. She stated that the University was in compliance with all City parking requirements. She averred the University needed to prepare for the future and that the proposed amendments were the first step. Lorraine Davis, University of Oregon, Vice President for Academic Affairs, stated that it had been MINUTES February 23, 2004 Page 7 known for a long while that the University would need to develop the East Campus area. It had initiated the purchase of properties in that area as early as the 1950s. She related that, because the University had not developed the area, it had managed its properties as residences. She said the area had developed according to the University's internal policies and the City's SAS. She listed some of the buildings that had been designed and built in that area, and said all were carefully designed and placed in accordance with established policies. She reiterated the University's promise to develop property in an orderly way and reaffirmed its commitment to continue to do so. She supported adoption of the land use amend- ments. Andrew Orahoske, 1737 Orchard Street, commended the University and the City for the collaborative process. He expressed concern that amendments to the plan could be disregarded. He stressed the importance of following through and funding the traffic studies. He asked the City to consider liability issues, in that heavier traffic could lead to an increase in personal injury litigation. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Nathanson asked staff to provide comments on potential planning for a parking structure. She felt such a structure would be more efficient than on-street parking but wondered if it would be met with opposition. Councilor Nathanson remarked that traffic calming measures often shifted traffic from one street to another. She recommended careful consideration when thinking of such measures so that a street would not experience an unintended consequence. Councilor Nathanson questioned whether pedestrian overpasses really worked. She felt it was a great idea, but not worth it if it would not be ultimately used. Regarding the traffic studies, Councilor Nathanson asked when they would be brought before the council for budgetary consideration. City Manager Taylor responded that the ordinance before the council was to adopt the work from the 18-month process and, once passed, staff would have to come before the council with a proposal for the traffic studies. He noted that the current transportation budget included no increases or changes. Councilor Nathanson commended the collaborative process and complimented the plan that had resulted from it. Councilor Kelly applauded the work of the neighborhood and the testimony provided by those in attendance. He called the cooperation of the University and the neighborhood group "stunningly successful." He asked staff to look at the policy language presented by Trevor Taylor in his testimony and clean it up, if necessary. Councilor Kelly reiterated that the cooperative effort was predicated on the pursuance of traffic mitigation. He noted that the study of Agate Street was the only item that would need to happen in the near future. He recommended allocating the money for the study from the contingency fund. Councilor Bettman conveyed her appreciation for the collaborative process and for the neighborhood support for the plan. She asked if the City would be obligated to pay for any improvements the traffic studies would call out. Mr. Nelson responded that the City did not have the resources to conduct traffic studies and implement more traffic calming elements at this point. He commented that he heard from nearly all of the 19 neighborhoods in the City that traffic mitigation was needed. He was not prepared, for the present meeting, to address this in a meaningful way. MINUTES- February 23, 2004 Page 8 Councilor Bettman expressed concern that there would not be funding available to follow through with the studies and any resulting recommendations for traffic mitigation. Councilor Pap6 expressed his thanks to the neighbors, the University, and staff for bringing the process to an agreeable conclusion. He agreed that the University was a big economic driver for the community. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Mr. Taylor said he hoped that all parties could confer and craft a written response to the lingering questions regarding possible restrictions to CUPs prior to the City Council meeting of March 8. Councilor Pap6 supported funding for the traffic study of Agate Street, but felt unsure as to how the City could fund any recommended traffic mitigation. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, to leave the record open for seven days. Councilor Taylor stated that the residents had made their conditions clear for their approval of the plan and the City did not know whether the conditions were possible. She felt residents should have more time to submit comments. Councilor Kelly asked the co-chairs of the Fairmount Neighbors if ~hey felt it appropriate to leave the record open for seven days. The co-chairs indicated they did. Councilor Bettman repeated that the plan was contingent on the traffic studies and said she could not happily make a promise that the City might be unable to follow through on. She felt that now that the citizens had a sense of funding realities, they could have further input to provide. Roll call vote; the motion to leave the record open passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Kelly asked staff to delineate the City's responsibility for traffic improvements and mitigation features. He said most likely any changes needed on Agate Street would fall on the shoulders of the City, but he thought that planned development by the University would trigger a traffic impact analysis (TIA) and, subsequent to that, the University's participation in such mitigation as required. Councilor Bettman supported the University's ability to expand and develop on the site. She supported the contingency request for the Agate Street study. Mayor Torrey called for a five minute break at 9:12 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Territories From the River Road Water District and the River Road Park and Recreation District, and From the Santa Clara Water District Mr. Taylor explained that this was a time-sensitive issue and asked Kurt Yeiter, principal planner for the Planning Division, to speak to the item. Mr. Yeiter said State law required that a public hearing be held prior to removal of properties from the tax rolls of the special districts. He stated that the 24 properties in question had already been annexed to the City. He noted that this was routinely done once a year. Febrfia-ry 237~1J04 Page 9 Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak to the issue, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson explained that the properties could not be included on the tax rolls of the City until the City Council had taken action to withdraw them from the districts. He said, with council approval, the properties would be taxed for the City as of April 1, 2004, but without council approval, the properties would be taxed by both the special districts and the City. Mayor Torrey asked if there was any council objection to taking action. Seeing none, he called for a motion. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City council adopt Council Bill 4868, an ordinance providing for withdrawal of territories from special districts. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2004 Mr. Taylor said Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services staff to the Toxics Board, would outline the recommendations regarding the fees that were subject to the hearing. Mr. Potter stated that the Toxics Board was, for the first time, forced by legislative action to implement a State fee cap of $2,000 per year per facility for the fees. He reiterated, as explained in the council packet, that the cap inevitably had the effect of substantially reducing fees for larger employees and substantially increasing fees for smaller employees in order to maintain the stability of the program. He explained this was the foundation for the recommendation that the fees be increased to $31.65 per full time equivalent (FTE), up to the State maximum of $2,000. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. John Jordan-Cascade, 1575 Larkspur Loop, stated that he had resided in the City of Eugene since 1978. He alleged that the City had let narrow business interests "run roughshod over the public interests." He stressed that the Toxics Right-to-Know Law was passed in 1996 by a majority of the voters despite the best attempts by business interests to dissuade them. He affirmed the public's fundamental right to know the identity and amounts of toxic chemicals released into workplaces, air, water, soil, and environment of the community as mandated by this law, calling the law innovative and unique. He asserted the law had been successful in serving the interests of Eugeneans and that it was the first and best right-to-know law in the nation. He opposed holding another ballot on the law, calling it an unnecessary financial burden on the public. Mr. Jordan-Cascade alleged that councilors Nathanson and Meisner had received a rating of ten percent on their votes on conservation issues from the Oregon League of Conservation Voters. He exhorted the council to let the record show by their votes whether they were on the side of public health. Ruth Wilday, 3120 Coraly Avenue, noted that she resided in a heavily industrialized area. She lauded the Toxics Right-to-Know website, calling it an "amazing" resource. She felt the Toxics Right-To-Know law was a wonderful law. She recommended basing fees on a straight her eanit~ nr per gallon amount. Fe~oixia-ry 23 7~004' Page 10 She opined there was no way to realistically assess the damage to humans caused by a spill. She voiced her support for the continued use of fees paid by businesses to support the program. Ms. Wilday registered her opposition to the State cap on fees to larger businesses. Jim Gibson, 3350 South Lambert, said he was a local businessman and participant in the program. He called the program flawed as it discriminated by only charging businesses with ten or more employees and a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of 2000 to 3000. He asserted that many businesses took raw materials and transformed them into something else, but did not have the SIC rating, and that many businesses used disproportionately large amounts of chemicals, but did not have ten or more employees. Mr. Gibson stressed that his business manufactured stormwater pollution protection devices that were installed in the catch basins in parking lots. He related that his business was on the cutting edge of filtration devices and that he worked with both the cities of Eugene and Springfield and others. He commented that he was environmentally concerned. He noted that businesses pay a hazardous substance fee and are governed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He felt this level of regulation to be adequate. He opined that the Toxics Right-to-Know fee was a "double whammy." Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, commented that he was intrigued with the idea of having more people involved in the program. He felt the concept of requiring businesses with ten or more employees to report was likely an arbitrary decision made by a committee. He thought it should be expanded to encompass smaller businesses as there would be more reporting and possibly more violations found. He noted that firefighters were killed in the process of putting out a fire in Coos Bay during 2003 and stressed the importance of knowing what sorts of toxic substances were in a building. He asserted a lack of such knowledge could lead to greater liability on the part of the City. Jan Spencer, 212 Benjamin Street, averred the discussion should be on eliminating pollution. He was troubled by all of the pollution in the area, calling it "fairly typical of industry" nationwide. He felt pollution exacted a public health cost that affected the entire society and to leave businesses unaccount- able was to subsidize business. He called it shameful that so much of the nation's economy was devoted to "cleaning up the mess" left by industry. Mr. Spencer commented that he had collected over 500 signatures to put the Toxics Right-to-Know initiative on the ballot. He opined returning it to the ballot would be a betrayal of the voters. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the opposition of the Chamber of Commerce to the fees recommended to operate the Toxics Right-to-Know program in 2004. He urged the City Council to oppose them. He said continued opposition was based on usage of a quantity-of-hazardous-substance- used funding formula, which he alleged the State law did not allow. He felt the program was taking liberties with the City Charter by charging fees to approximately 30 companies that were never part of the program and are not part of the reporting program. He averred the $2,000 cap was not a bargain to larger employers and called the fee changes a "shift from one funding inequity to another." He asserted that the original intention of the program were no longer possible. He commented that, whether the council supported the program or opposed the program, the council should consider how long it intended to sustain the program with fees that were allegedly not authorized by voters and by a formula that allegedly was not authorized by State law. He asked the council to consider whether a fee increase of 125 percent would produce a 125 percent increase in benefit. Mary O' Brien, 3525 Gilham Road. said there were two key elements of the Toxics Right-to-Know law Page 11 that Eugene citizens placed in the City's charter: 1) Hazardous substance using businesses must report their toxics releases; 2) These same businesses must cover the costs of the reporting program. She asserted that throughout the law's seven-year life nothing significant had changed in the first element. She stated that only the second element had been altered. She alleged it had been altered at the behest of a few Eugene businesses in the State Court and Legislature. She related that, in the 1980s, the State Fire Marshal had "gotten the Legislature to prevent quantity-based fees on local hazardous substance programs that duplicated the State Fire Marshal's program." She opined the court, using "bizarre logic," had applied this law to the Toxics Right-to-Know law. She averred the State Fire Marshal's law had no relationship to the local City Charter. She listed points in the State law, as outlined in a chart submitted to the council, for comparison purposes. She stressed the State program was intended to allow firefighters to know what substances a business stored in barrels on site. Ms. O'Brien related that the fee cap, which she asserted was the result of lobbying by Eugene area businesses, shifted the burden of fees from large businesses to small businesses. She explained that the resulting fee for Hynix Corporation was $1.66 per FTE while a small business would pay almost $32 per FTE. Jennifer Gleason, 2845 Kincaid Street, spoke as a member of the Toxics Board. She urged the council to accept the recommended fee schedule and adopt one of the measures Right-to-Know advocates were suggesting to rectify the situation. She stressed that the Charter clearly stated that the program must be self-supporting via fees paid by participating businesses. She regretted that the Toxics Board could not find a way to avoid a recommendation to increase fees. She said that, when originally drafted, the law created a system under which the burden to businesses would be minimal. She stated that a minority of businesses changed the way the law works so that the burden had been shifted to small businesses. She alleged this same minority came before the council "at every opportunity to complain about how unfair this law is." She shared her frustration at having to continually come before the council to defend citizens' right to know what was in their environment. She stressed that the Toxics Board was appointed by the City and had struggled to find a fair solution. She felt the proposal before the council represented the best solution possible given the newly-mandated constraints. Noting that no one was happy with the recommendation, she commented that this was the best indication that it was the result of serious compromise. She submitted further testimony in writing. Steve Johnson, 1825 Longview Drive, stated that he was a member of the Toxics Board. He urged adoption of the unanimously approved recommendation before the council. He commented that, when moving forward with the law, it was not thought that it would solve all problems with toxins in Eugene. He felt the time had come to make a proposal for a way to improve the law. He indicated, with a chart, that expanding the businesses required to report to those with less than ten employees would increase the support base for the program. He noted that businesses such as dry cleaning and auto body paint shops put toxic materials into the environment. He added that the program had reached a point where the facilitation of reporting had greatly improved. Bob O' Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, made the following points: 1) Many people worked a great deal to gather the signatures needed to put the Toxics Right-to- Know law on the ballot. He noted he had participated in the petition drive. The law was very im- portant to a lot of people. 2) He urged the council to keep the fees the way they are in the proposal. He commented that the board was a balanced body and had come forth with a good proposal. 3) He thanked the City Council for upholding the City Charter. He thanked Mayor Torrey for up- holding the law supported by the citizens of Eugene. He noted the City had sent its lobbyist to Page 12 Salem to lobby on behalf of the law. In closing, he urged the council to support the recommendation for the increase in hazardous substance user fees for 2004. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, speaking as the third citizen representative on the Toxics Board, stressed that the ordinance had been passed by a 55 percent majority. He averred that voters clearly understood that "ignorance was toxic." He opined that funding challenges faced by the Toxics Right-to- Know law were a direct result of business owners' opposition to democracy. He commented that the city councilors represent people impacted by industry. He likened the decision before the council as that of being for the "protection of the health of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens" or for the industry's "right to pollute." He asked the council to adopt the recommendation for the fee structure brought before it by the Toxics Board, reiterating that it had been forwarded by a unanimous vote. Hope Marston, PO Box 51434, 3110 University Street, proclaimed her pride in living in a community in which the citizens had passed the Toxics Right-to-Know law. She lauded the community's concern for the environment. She felt the law was about community standards and about the price that business paid for the potential harm it caused the community. She said it was up to the people on the City Council to take a leadership role and make sure the City Charter was protected. She urged the council to uphold the recommendation of the Toxics Board and keep the fee structure and spread the burden among the business community. She reiterated that the public had a right to know. Elizabeth Horvath, 1158 Mill Street, stated that she was a student of the University of Oregon and an intern with the Oregon Toxics Alliance. She read testimony from Lynn Fessenden into the record. She related Ms. Fessenden's assertion that the Toxics Right-to-Know database was facile to work with and that it contained a valuable amount of relevant and valuable information for citizens of Eugene including what chemicals were being released and whether into the air, surface water, or the City's water treatment facility, what is known about health effects of the chemicals, who was releasing them, where they were located and which industries were increasing and which were decreasing the chemicals released into the environment. She conveyed Ms. Fessenden's support for the ordinance. Mayor Torrey called for a motion to extend time. Councilor Bettman moved, seconded by Councilor Poling, to extend the meeting time by nine minutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Sandra Bishop, 591 West 10~ Avenue, spoke in support of the ordinance. She related that she had been appointed in the mid-1980s to a committee for the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on toxics. She said the Eugene Toxics Right-to-Know Program was not asking businesses to stop using chemicals or hazardous substances. She asserted that the people of Eugene deserved to know what was in the water, air, and soil. She asked the council not to weaken the reporting aspect of the program. She urged the council to take courage and know that Eugene was leading the nation in this. She suggested the program be expanded to include entities such as the University of Oregon and other large public organizations. She felt creative public/private partnerships could result in comprehensive reporting. Lisa Arkin, 29136 Gimpl Hill Road, Eugene, stated that she was a staff member for the Oregon Toxics Alliance. She related that she had received many phone calls from as far away as New York, Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts inquiring about Eugene's unique and "not redundant" model Toxics Right-to-Know law. She asserted the action of the City Council would be watched by communities across the nation as the law represented the best in toxics right-to-know laws. She commented that the law was a model for municipal policy and gave value to the notion that the air and water, both public spaces, required responsible care from all who used them. MINUTES February 23, 2004 Page 13 Ms. Arkin addressed the criticisms by the business community that the law was unfair or flawed, and stated that with the $2,000 cap, the cost incurred by a business was less than the cost incurred by a family with an asthmatic child or a child with an immunological disease. She stressed that there were health care costs associated with having toxics in the air and water. Ms. Arkin recommended that the Eugene City Council appoint a task force to explore some of the ideas presented by a number of speakers that there were better ways to fund the program, such as expanding the number of businesses that participate, looking at SIC codes and number of employees and broadening the base so that smaller businesses were not so unfairly burdened by it. In closing, Ms. Arkin said the citizens of Eugene appreciated the law, the staff who run the program, and the willingness of businesses to participate. She urged adoption of the ordinance accepting the budget as recommended by the Toxics Board. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M: 120041Central Services DepartmentlCity CouncillccO40223m2. wpd MINUTES February 23, 2004 Page 14 ATTACHMENT D MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall February 25, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap6, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Eugene Police Building and Civic Center Visioning City Manager Dennis Taylor said this was an opportunity to provide information on work done to determine the feasibility of a Eugene Police Building and Civic Center and also to report on the citizens' visioning charette that had been held. He asked Glen Svendsen, Division Manager of Central Services Facilities, to speak about it. Mayor Torrey noted that two members of the design committee were present. Mr. Svendsen introduced Eric Gunderson, who also helped in the visioning process. He explained that, as a result of City Council direction to staff, staff had worked with Mr. Gunderson and the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects to conduct a design charette in late January. He noted that the Mayor had appointed an ad hoc Civic Facilities Visioning Committee with representatives from a number of agencies and public interests. He said the first meeting of that committee had been held. Mr. Gunderson called the charette a "brief, but intense exploration of ideas" for a Eugene Civic Center. He shared the definition of a Civic Center that came out of the work of the charette, as follows: "The term Civic Center is used to describe a place where City employees go to work, where citi- zens come to conduct the business of government, obtain services, seek justice, and participate in democracy. It is a place of art, free speech, public debate, and an expression of the spirit of Eugene. It's a place for events of public ceremony, enjoyment, and a fundamental part of what makes us a community. It is its nature to be at the heart of things, with connections to commer- cial, governmental, social, spiritual, and cultural elements to our City. It's a desirable place to go which is safe and accessible to everyone." Mr. Gunderson said the charette then worked with the downtown space planning advisory team to identify rough quantities of space for the different elements of the project. He provided an overview of the charette process, noting that it had been attended by 75 people, who had been divided into ten teams. A description of the design charette and summary of findings was presented by Mr. Gunderson Mr. Svendsen reported on the first ad hoc committee meeting. He provided copies of the work program MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 1 Work Session for the committee. He noted the timeline was tight, as the committee was to present its work to the council by the first of June and that the work was to represent an integrated approach among the agencies to future Civic Center development downtown. He stated that staff would come before the council in late April with recommendations for initial financing options for the facilities. Mayor Torrey thanked Mr. Gunderson and staff members for their efforts. He related that he attended the charette and there had been "excitement and enthusiasm in the room." Mr. Kelly commented that he was impressed with the number of ideas that were presented at the charette and the work that had been done. He opined that the key element missing from the bulleted list in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) was meeting rooms for both the staff and public. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Svendsen said the Civic Center, as envisioned, would consolidate City services to the greatest extent possible. He specifically noted that the Planning and Development Department (PDD) was planned to be moved out of the Atrium Building and into such a center. Mr. Kelly felt the block bordered by 8th Avenue, Broadway Street, and High Street (the "IHOP block") had potential. He liked both the suggestions that another City building be built across 8th Avenue from the current City Hall or that it be placed on the "butterfly" lot site, located on the northwest comer of 8th Avenue and Oak Street. Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment that the idea of combining the Police Department structure and the City Hall structure had been "dismissed" by the design charette. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Svendsen said the key reason such a combination had not been considered was the changes in seismic codes. He stated that the Police Department had different seismic code requirements from other structures. Ms. Nathanson thought it out of order to consider financing options prior to receiving final recommenda- tions on the Civic Center. Mr. Svendsen responded that the initial motivation for doing so was to attain a level of understanding of the potential financing prior to undertaking the project. Ms. Nathanson advocated for keeping the discussion of financing to a general level. She reiterated that specific and detailed financing would be premature at that point. Mr. Taylor stated that the next meeting of the committee would focus specifically on opportunities for cooperation with the State, the school districts, and County, federal, and City governments. He related that the committee had been asked to talk about the range of financial options or tools that were available in the hope that there would be a convergence between what is possible and different ways the tools would be used in different scenarios. He said it was hoped that the committee would be able to come back with more refined information. Ms. Solomon asked what the Government Service Administration was going to do with the old court- house. Mayor Torrey related that the government had said it would continue to use the entire building with the possible exception of some of the courtrooms. Mr. Poling said he was impressed with the horseshoe design and that the Great Streets idea looked good to him. He supported combining City functions in the Civic Center. He felt having one central area would make it easier to conduct City business. He agreed that the police department should be separate for security reasons. He opined that, unlikely as it seemed, should someone decide to attack the Eugene City MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 2 Work Session government it would be good to have safety services in a separate facility. Mr. Poling approved of making the Civic Center a mixed-use area, adding a coffee shop and other amenities. He called it a "great vision." Mr. Meisner agreed with everything that had been said thus far. He concurred with concerns expressed by Ms. Nathanson on financing and sequencing. He supported the development of a Civic Center that could consolidate City services. He said this would free some downtown properties which could then be sold and placed back on tax rolls. Mr. Meisner was not interested in developing the "IHOP block," as it "presented more questions than answers." Mr. Meisner supported the idea of the center being a mixed-use area. He noted that the coffee and book shops in the library had been more successful than had been predicted. He thought the Police Department should be part of the complex. Mr. Meisner asked if there had been discussion on how the transition would be conducted. Mr. Taylor responded that the transition presented "intriguing issues." He thought vacated courtrooms could provide temporary housing. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Svendsen explained that it was planned that the police facility would be built first and the police would remain in the City Hall complex until it was completed. Mr. Meisner reiterated that, as the process unfolded, he hoped costs would be identified and transitions costs would be included. Ms. Bettman commended the charette, calling it a successful and inclusive process. She wanted the inclusive process to continue. She expressed disappointment that the committee had been formed and she had no knowledge of it prior to seeing the information in the council packet. She requested a list of committee members. She said she hoped it was an inclusive list and, if not, she hoped the council would have the opportunity to make it more inclusive of a broader range of the public. Ms. Bettman favored a combined facility, or if this was not possible, an associated facility. She supported the horseshoe design for the building, as it would help people and departments to mix and would create a central courtyard. Ms. Bettman recommended that staff bring a rough sense of costs before the council as it becomes known. She concurred with Mr. Meisner that transitional costs should be included. Ms. Bettman expressed apprehension at the inclusion of commercial space that would compete with other downtown businesses. She liked the traditional idea of having the Civic Center be the seat of govern- ment. Mr. Pap~ conveyed his appreciation for the process. He supported holding a work session to educate the council on financing potentialities. Mr. Pap~ said he had seen several joint county/city facilities in other cities and thought a partnership MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 3 Work Session would be beneficial for both parties. Mr. Pap~ asked if the Sears Building site had been considered. Mr. Svendsen said the site had been looked into, but there were concerns that this would displace the possibility of the Oregon Research Institute's redevelopment of the site, which was projected to bring good jobs to the downtown area. He added that the west side of the downtown area was felt to be more of a commercial area. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Gunderson said a building shared between City services and the Police Department would have to be four stories tall. Ms. Taylor asked who appointed the ad hoc committee members and who they were. Mr. Svendsen replied that the Mayor appointed the 15 committee members. Mayor Torrey said all of the committee participants were people who applied to be on committees in the City, many of whom had applied to the Police Commission and some who had applied to the Planning Commission. Mr. Svendsen added that half were public agency members such as George Russell, superintendent of the School District 4J, and a representative of the Lane County Sheriff's Office (LCSO). Ms. Taylor asserted that the recommendation of the committee should not supercede the recommendation of the charette. Ms. Taylor agreed that it was premature to discuss financing scenarios. Ms. Taylor also felt that the City should not build commercial space that could compete against other downtown businesses. Mayor Torrey called the visioning process the "right thing to be doing." He felt, given that the courthouse was going to be built, the timing was right. He noted that the United States Forest Service was rumored to be moving to the City of Springfield and would be vacating office space in the Federal Building. Regarding the membership of the ad hoc committee, Mayor Torrey related that he had thought the membership was a representative selection. He asked councilors with concerns about the membership to discuss them with him. Mr. Kelly said he would have preferred that the City Council appoint the committee. He emphasized that the committee should represent the diversity of the community. Mr. Kelly recommended surveying the public in order to get a sense of their awareness of any issues around downtown City facilities and whether there was support for a possible future bond measure. Mr. Kelly asked staff to look into the feasibility of a privatized lease-to-own facility, wherein a private developer would build the facility and the City would lease it and eventually pay for it. Ms. Taylor urged staff to refrain from placing a bond on the ballot in the fall. Ms. Taylor noted that there had been a strong interest in saving the City Hall building and upgrading it. She asked staff to address this. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 4 Work Session B. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan Adopted by Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4863, an ordinance adopting an amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan. Mr. Taylor said he hoped the council could adopt the ordinance as it had been discussed for over a year. He stated that Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, would provide any new information on the item. Mr. Weinman said this item was a final action on amendments to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan, an update begun in January 2003, at the behest of the City Council, as one of the tools to implement the Downtown Vision. He stressed that the plan precisely reflected the direction provided by the council during previous work sessions. He added that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the amendments. He noted that a requirement for an advisory committee had been incorporated into the amendments at the council's request. Mr. Weinman reported that, as per State law, all affected taxing jurisdictions were notified. Only Lane County responded. He related that staff had met with the Board of County Commissioners and, though the commisioners had no comments to the council, they did forward it to the County Economic Develop- ment Committee for its review and consideration. He noted the committee asked the council consider expansion of the district to include the County Annex block and to add projects for a public health building, a joint governmental facility-site, and a parking facility. He noted that staff was not recommend- ing the expansion at this point, but this would not preclude future expansion. He further stated that the other activities could be assisted through the plan, as proposed. Mr. Weinman stated that there had been much discussion of locating a hospital on property owned by the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). He said the portion of the property that was the focus of the discussion was not part of the district. He asserted the property could be instrumental to the redevelop- ment of the overall EWEB property and, therefore, the use of urban renewal funds to help site a hospital was worthy of the council' s consideration. He conveyed staff' s recommendation that the property be included, by amendment, in the motion under current consideration. Ms. Bettman was in favor of the inclusion of the EWEB property. Ms. Bettman conveyed her concerns that an urban renewal district would take funding away from other necessary public services. She felt it was not a wise fiscal decision, as she alleged the money would be "taken from the school districts." She asked staff to determine what impact urban renewal districts had on school funding across the State. Charles Kupper, urban renewal consultant for the City of Eugene, responded that he did not know what the percentage of funds were in incremental values across the State. He explained that, should all urban renewal districts end, the additional value would be made available to local school districts. He clarified, however, that the school funding process was such that the State backfilled the per student cost for the school districts in the case where property tax revenue was diverted into urban renewal. He added that, should the money become less encumbered, the State would not need to spend it on education; it could spend it on other projects such as bridges, etc. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pap~ noted that the council had agreed to site the hospital within the preferred area. He stated that the urban renewal district was a working tool to help do so. Mr. Weinman asked that a motion to amend the motion to remove the "Good Times lot" parcel and add others to the urban renewal district be made. He explained that the removal of the property was because the addition of properties had made the total acreage exceed the limit. Mr. Pap~,seconded by Ms. Solomon, movedto amend themotionto removetaxlot 1702211104900, andto addtaxlotnumbers 1703304408500,1702393302700, 1703322200300,1703311100100,1703311100300,1703322200400, and 1703322200401. Ms. Taylor objected to voting on such a change without engaging the public. Ms. Bettman supported the amendment to include the EWEB site. In response to a concern expressed by Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Weinman explained that the criterion for picking the "Good Times lot" parcel for removal was that it was the smallest lot. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City could choose to remove a different parcel, as the location of the parcel in question was relatively strategic. Mayor Torrey asked how long it would take to make an adjustment to the district. Mr. Weinman replied that, while it would only take several months, it involved approximately $12,000 in noticing costs. Mr. Taylor clarified that the opportunity to work with the EWEB site had only just arisen over the weekend and this was the rationale for the revised recommendation. He recommended accepting the amendment as it would make it easier to do the work that was underway. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, City Attorney Glenn Klein recommended the council act on the amendment, pose any other intended motions to amend to the body, give staff direction as to which lots the council would prefer to remove, and then postpone final action until the next meeting. Mr. Meisner said he would support the amendment as the parcel in question was only the eastern half of a parking lot. The amendment passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Taylor asserted that urban renewal districts were "much misused." She alleged that the urban renewal district was based on faulty premises, the premise that it was a blighted area and the premise that it was necessary to protect the health and welfare of the community. She opined it was too much freedom to spend the public's money without adequate supervision. She felt urban renewal had contributed to the degradation of the downtown area. Ms. Nathanson conveyed her intention to support the motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved Attachment J to amend the plan to re- place 600(a)(1) public improvements with the following amended language, and to amend the Riverfront Urban Renewal District plan to replace section 600 (6) public MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 6 Work Session parking and public transportation facilities with the following language, and to add a new section under section 600 called section (8) funding projects that reads: "Riverfront Urban Renewal District revenue shall not be spent on projects or activi- ties for which existing sources of funding are traditionally used, such as assessments, fees, systems development charges, or to pay expenses incurred by or for another ju- risdiction such as State, County, or federal government." Ms. Bettman stated that her amendment would remove the ability for urban renewal funds to be diverted to build roads. She reiterated that there were other funding sources to build roads and that the projects in the district should be prioritized over projects such as the one proposed to extend Chad Drive to Game Farm Road. Mr. Kelly expressed his support for the concept of urban renewal. He said, however, that he would rather be strategic with the use of funds. He agreed that there were other sources for road building. Mr. Meisner supported the principle behind the section that referred to curb and sidewalk improvements. He noted that, should the hospital be sited in the area, a public parking structure would have to be built. He commented that the property most often mentioned as a possibility for such a structure was the site of the old State motor pool, which was not included in the district. He felt the district may have to be redrawn to accommodate it. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Klein stated that the plan language intended to authorize road projects would have been sections 600(a)(1) and (6). He affirmed that without any language explicitly authorizing streets, it was therefore construed that there was a prohibition on using funds in that way. Mr. Pap~ shared Mr. Meisner's concern that a prohibition on using urban renewal funds for road projects could pose difficulties later on. Ms. Bettman asserted there was policy language that stated that the urban renewal district could fund any project that was in the best interest of the project. She said a discussion would have to be held in an open session in order for the urban renewal district funds to be used for road projects. She felt the urban renewal district, without this amendment, would take away the incentive for the federal or State funds to be used for road projects. Mr. Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, stated that an amendment that would eliminate a requirement for matching funds would be a substantial amendment and not a "Type 1" amendment. As such, it would not need to be noticed to every single property owner, but would be required to pass through the Planning Commission and to give notice to the other taxing districts to hold the public hearings. He said this would take approximately three months. Mayor Torrey stressed that locating a hospital on the EWEB site would raise a plethora of transportation issues. As such, he urged the council not to make it "harder on transportation." Mr. Taylor concurred with the Mayor. The motion ended in a tie, 4:4; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting in favor; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Nathanson voting in MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 7 Work Session opposition. Mayor Torrey voted against the amendment and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to postpone to March 8 and direct staff to analyze other lots that may be removed as a substitute for the "Good Times" lot. Mr. Klein noted that Ms. Bettman had another motion to amend and it would be better to address all amendments prior to moving to postpone. Ms. Nathanson withdrew her motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the ordinance to provide for electoral approval by adding the following at the end of the ordinance title: "And making section (1) of this ordinance effective only upon approval of the electors of the City and adding section (3) and (4) as follows: (3) The City Council orders a City election to be held in the City of Eugene, Oregon, on November 2, 2004, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 254 of the Ore- gon Revised Statutes for the purpose of referring to the qualified electors the question of whether section (1) of this ordinance shall become effective, and the ballots shall be counted and tabulated and the results certified as provided by law. (4) Section (1) of this ordinance shall become effective only upon approval of the electors of the City at the election held pursuant to section (3) of this ordinance. Ms. Bettman affirmed that there had been public input into the plan, but she asserted that the actual financial impacts of the plan were not explicitly explained. She supported placing it on a ballot so the voters could decide whether to spend this money on an urban renewal district. The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to postpone to March 8, 2004, and to direct staff to analyze other lots that may be removed as a substitute for the "Good Times" lot. Mr. Meisner offered a friendly amendment to change the language so that it directed to staff to analyze other lots that may be removed or added. The maker and the second of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 8 Work Session (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M.'12OO41Central Services DepartmentlCity CouncillccO40 211m l. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT E MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber--City Hall March 8, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Meisner commented that he had attended the Hult Center performance of the Moscow State Radio Symphony Orchestra and it was a wonderful concert. Ms. Nathanson echoed Mr. Meisner's comment. Mr. Kelly expressed concern to the City Manager that the City Attorney, Glenn Klein, had written an amicus brief for the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) on the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision regarding PeaceHealth. He said he felt that authorizing Mr. Klein to write the brief for the LOC was a policy decision that should be made by the council, not staff, and based on the council's opinion about whether the LUBA decision was good or bad. He stated that while the brief did not take a position on the PeaceHealth move to Springfield, it facilitated that move. He asked if not bringing the matter to the council constituted policy-making by staff. City Manager Dennis Taylor replied that it did not constitute policy-making because it was the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) that filed the brief, not the City of Eugene, except by virtue of its membership in the LOC. He said that Mr. Klein was not required to seek approval from either the City Manager or staff before performing services on behalf of the LOC as there was no conflict that would have required a waiver. He said that Mr. Klein did provide notification that he was writing the brief. Mr. Kelly reiterated that he felt the council was left out of a policy decision and should have been consulted about its position on the LUBA decision. He also asked Mr. Taylor to respond in writing to two rumors he had heard related to the West Eugene Parkway: 1) did staff receive a status memo from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) last fall, and 2) did ODOT make a formal or informal suggestion that because of traffic volume, the parkway east of Beltline would need to be a City street instead of an ODOT facility? He asked for a copy of the status memo if one had been received, and confirmation as well as an analysis of the fiscal implications for the City, if ODOT had suggested a portion of the parkway should be a City street. Ms. Bettman referred to a memorandum from the Lane County Human Rights Advisory Committee that included a statement that took a stand against domestic violence and was endorsed by the Lane County Commission on Children and Families, the Domestic Violence Council, and the Eugene Human Rights MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Commission. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved that the council take a stand against domestic violence by officially endorsing the statement "To the citizens of Lane County" that is included in the packet. Ms. Bettman said that updated statistics showed 13 domestic violence-related deaths in Lane County since September 2003. She said the statistics did not capture the impact of domestic violence on children and others. Mr. Pap5 stated he was astounded by the statistics for Lane County and would support the motion. Mr. Meisner said that typically a request for endorsement would come before the council formally on the agenda, but in the interest of time, Ms. Bettman's motion was appropriate and he would support it. Mr. Poling said that there were more issues regarding domestic violence than people realized and the problems extended beyond the combatants to children, other family members, and neighbors. He said he supported the motion. Ms. Nathanson encouraged assistance, through the Human Rights Commission or Police Department, for those who were reluctant to report a situation because they were not certain it constituted domestic violence or they feared retaliation. Ms. Bettman said the domestic violence outreach initiative was to publicize information about contacts and resources for victims or individuals who were concerned, as well as to reinforce the community position against domestic violence. Mayor Torrey suggested that the City Manager or Police Department contact the New Haven, Connecticut Police Department regarding its exceptional program to prevent domestic violence. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Pap~ reported on the annual United Front trip to Washington, DC. He said the City's primary issues were natural resources and transportation. He said that because of differences among budget requests for reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act, it was possible that there would be a continuing resolution instead of legislation this year. He said the City's three top projects for which funding was requested were the interchange at Beltline and Interstate 5 (I-5), the new federal courthouse district, and design of the new 1-5 bridge over the Willamette River. Mr. Pap6 said he had noted there was still cleanup equipment in the river and he hoped that it would be removed quickly if there was no further need. He noted that during a recent visit to Boise, Idaho he had seen its new city and county combined police and public safety facility. Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:45 p.m. Mayor Torrey reported that the US Army Corps of Engineers reduced funding for the Delta Ponds project and the congressional delegation had been asked to assist in moving the project forward. He said the last $1 million for the wetlands project had been requested from the Bureau of Land Management and he was MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 2 Work Session hopeful that the merits of the project would result in funds. He also thanked Mr. Kelly for his participa- tion in the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development meeting that afternoon and noted that any proposal to the council required the support of 75 percent of the committee. He said that committee members had been provided with copies of his State of the City address and council minutes in order to clarify expectations of the committee. B. ACTION: Approval of a Motion to Change the Date to Consider Adopting an Ordinance that Amends the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District Plan Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to amend the council motion that tabled action on amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan to March 8, 2004, and change the date to March 10, 2004. Mr. Pap6 clarified that the action was being taken at the request of Ms. Taylor, who was unable to attend the March 8, 2004, meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. C. WORK SESSION: Amendments to the Eugene Code Pertaining to the Procedures and Assessments of Public Improvements Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct staff to prepare an ordi- nance amending the Eugene Code pertaining to the procedures and assessment for public improvements to: 1. Change the method of apportioning assessments for alley improvements to a method that is based equally on property area and alley frontage; and 2. Assess all costs associated with alley improvements. City Engineer Mark Schoening gave a slide presentation on the existing assessment methodology and proposed modifications. He said the issue arose from a recommendation of the West University Neighborhood Task Force for alley improvements, which resulted in initiation of a local improvement district (LID) to improve multiple alleys in the neighborhood and a council request to investigate funding sources for the City's share and feasibility of amending the code to assess all of the improvement costs. He described the objectives for apportioning costs: simple, fair and equitable; applicable to West University Neighborhood and other areas of the City; and based upon special and peculiar benefits. He reviewed the five methods of apportioning assessments: 1. Existing method - area, frontage and land use factors 2. Existing method with modified lhnd use factors 3. Land use method 4. Alley frontage method 5. Alley frontage and property area method Mr. Schoening illustrated the results of each method for various types of properties within the West University Neighborhood. He said that staff recommended amending the method of apportioning MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 3 Work Session assessments to a method based equally upon alley frontage and property area because land use could be transitory in nature and change between the initiation of an LID and the final assessment. He said assessing all costs associated with alley improvements was recommended because of the uniqueness of alleys. He said the tentative working agenda had a public hearing scheduled for April 12, 2004, and council action on May 10, 2004. Mr. Meisner stated he agreed with the second recommendation to assess all costs. He noted that for many years Public Works had maintained a position that the alley assessment methodology needed to be amended and specifically emphasized that land use was a major factor. He said he did not understand the current recommendation that excluded land use as a factor in the apportionment method and could not support that part of Ms. Bettman's motion. He asked for an explanation in writing of why Public Work's position on a land use factor had changed. Ms. Solomon asked when the West University Neighborhood alley improvement project was planned. Mr. Schoening said the project was scheduled for the summer of 2005. He said the sooner the council acted, the sooner property owners could be given information on the anticipated cost. Ms. Taylor arrived at 6:10 p.m. Mr. Kelly complimented the clarity of the information provided in the agenda packet. He said that all five of the methods satisfied State requirements on specific benefit and the issue for the council was equity. He agreed with Mr. Meisner's comments and stated he could not support the staff recommendation regarding the apportionment methodology. He suggested an amendment to the motion that would request a method that would take into account differences between residential types. He said there needed to be more equity between single- and multi-family residential uses. He indicated support for full cost assessment to property owners and assessing across the LID, rather than by segment. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly and said the methodology should factor in the impact of different uses. He asked if there was an assumption that each square foot of alley would cost the same, regardless of the location and if the costs varied, would there be adjustments. Mr. Schoening replied that costs would likely vary within the LID; however, it would be extremely difficult to structure a construc- tion contract on an alley-by-alley basis. He said the alley improvements would be bid as one project. Mr. Papfi asked if properties that abutted an alley automatically had alley access if they had street access. Mr. Schoening said property that extended from the street to the alley would have alley access. Mr. Pap6 said that the apportionment methodology should include land use factors that were weighted based on the impact of different uses. Ms. Bettman commented that people who lived on alleys and had no alley access should not have to pay an assessment to upgrade the alley, particularly when there were mixed uses along the alley that included multi-family and commercial. She said the proposed methodology put a burden on single-family homes in an area where single-family home ownership was encouraged. She said the existing method with modified land use factors could be the fairest approach if the access issue was addressed. She asked if those properties with strip parking along the alley would lose that parking when curbs and gutters were constructed. Mr. Schoening said that alley improvements did not require curbs and gutters; alleys had an inverted crown to facilitate drainage to the middle. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor stated she was opposed to assessing people for something they did not want, particularly if all the costs were assessed. She said she liked the concept of using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for neighborhood improvements instead of assessing home owners. She said the amount of assessment could cause some people to lose their homes. Ms. Nathanson discussed the issue of access, which she said was not a factor in any of the five methods. She commented that a property owner might not have access currently because of a choice to not use the alley for a variety of reasons; however, if the lack of access was because of the poor condition of the alley and subsequent to improvements the property owner used alley access, it was not fair to have others bear the cost. She said it was not clear how to fairly factor in access. She asked if the Planning and Develop- ment Department (PDD) had analyzed how the alley assessment apportionment methods would encourage or discourage compact urban growth objectives. Mr. Schoening said he did not think PDD had conducted an analysis of impact. Ms. Nathanson asked that PDD conduct such an analysis and the information be provided to the council. Mr. Poling complimented the quality of the information provided in the agenda packet and agreed with previous speakers that the proposed method should be adjusted. Mr. Kelly asked how staff wanted to move forward in view of the unanimity on the need to modify the recommended method of apportionment. Mr. Schoening said it appeared a majority of the council supported assessment of all costs and inclusion of a land use factor in the methodology. He said he was unclear how to proceed with the issue of access because it was counter to the land use issue in that many of the larger multi-family properties did not obtain access from the alley and if costs were not assessed to all properties along the alley, the properties that were assessed would pay a significantly higher amount. Mr. Kelly said that the issue of access was equally difficult in the case of street improvements and eventually access was factored in so that a property that did not currently have access, but later chose access, would be assessed when the permit was issued. He said that identifying later alley access would be much more difficult. He asked for a memo from staff on ideas for capturing information on alley access after improvements were made. Mr. Meisner agreed that it was difficult to accommodate access in a formula. He said he would not support the first part of the motion and he wanted a land use factor in the methodology. He also agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments that the issue went beyond paving and supported her suggestion that PDD be consulted because it was a community development issue. Ms. Bettman remarked that she understood the points that were made about the difficulty of including access in the methodology, but people should have the opportunity to opt out of access. She suggested that a curb could be installed along those properties that did not want alley access. Ms. Bettman withdrew item 1 relating to changing the method of apportionment from her motion. The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Poling as the second. Referring to the memorandum from Mr. Schoening dated February 28, 2004, Ms. Nathanson noted that complexity of apportionment methods stemmed from the City Charter requirement that public improve- ment procedures and assessments could not go into effect until six months after the council's action, MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 5 Work Session precluding development of methods unique to each LID. She asked if the difficulties the council was experiencing with the apportionment methodology would be resolved and allow for easier, fairer, and more creative solutions if the underlying process was confronted. Mr. Schoening said that many municipalities used a different approach and while generally the methodology did not change from one assessment district to another, there could be an opportunity to establish a methodology unique to a project, which the Charter currently precluded. Mr. Klein added that under the charter, an ordinance establishing a procedure for assessment did not take effect for six months and the local improvement process could not commence until the six months had lapsed. He said that flexibility would need to be built in to the assessment ordinance as the charter did not state how specific the assessment ordinance had to be, it only stated the process or criteria for an assessment could not be changed; an assessment code that provided more flexibility was permissible. Mr. Pap~ asked if the code could be changed every six months. Mr. Klein said the problem was that whenever the code was changed, it did not go into effect for six months and would only apply to an LID that was created after that six-month period. He said it would be an administrative nightmare for Public Works to try to schedule projects and public outreach and inform people of what their assessment was likely to be if the code was changing every six months. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the issue of access and noted that while a particular property might not choose alley access, it still benefited from the alley in other ways, such as emergency vehicle access and trash collection. He suggested that some type of adjustment could be made for properties seeking access after improvements. Mayor Torrey asked if the dilemma was whether to assess property owners who did not use alley access and therefore had no benefit from the alley and if it was, was there a test of benefit, including ancillary benefit, that could be used for adjustments. Mr. Schoening replied that many properties did not have physical access and would require modifications to achieve access. He said that legally a property that abutted an alley could use the alley for access to the property. He said that if a property had legal access, even though access was not used, there was still a benefit to the property that was granted to it in perpetuity. Mr. Klein said that if a property owner could demonstrate that there was and could be no benefit to the property, then the council could and would be legally obligated to exclude that property from the local improvements as no special and peculiar benefit would apply. He said that the courts would defer to the council in making the determination of benefit. Mr. Kelly confirmed that a public hearing would be held when the specific LID was formed by resolution. He commented, with respect to access, that there was some benefit to properties from an improved alley being in place and a broader public safety benefit to the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman argued that the benefit would depend on the neighborhood and the nature of the alley and there were significant differences in how such a project would be perceived in other neighborhoods. She asked if the LID public hearing would be the opportunity for a property owner to appeal an assessment. Mr. Klein responded that there were several steps involVed in creating an LID and levying the assessment and at each component of the process a property owner could request an assessment not be made. Mr. Schoening said that hearings would be held before the Hearings Official. Mr. Klein continued that a property owner could also appear before the council at the last step of adopting the assessment ordinance and claim no benefit and the council could make that determination. Ms. Bettman asked if the notification to property owners of the formation of an LID explicitly stated the MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 6 Work Session option of claiming no benefit and if it did not, she asked that the information be included. Mr. Schoening said the letter was a form letter tailored to each project and property owners had come to past hearings and claimed no benefit. Ms. Nathanson said she was not in favor of changing the code every six months. She encouraged the property owner notification to use plain language to describe the LID and appeal process and explain the issues. Ms. Taylor asked how soon after the assessment was levied owners were required to pay. Mr. Schoening said owners had 10 to 15 days after council action to pay the assessment in full or sign up to finance it through the City. Ms. Taylor asked if the public hearings were held before the council. Mr. Schoening replied that the LID hearings were before the Hearings Official. Mr. Kelly raised a point of order and requested clarification on whether the council had the option of holding a hearing on a resolution. Mr. Klein replied that the council had the option of holding a public hearing before any action it took. Mr. Pap~ raised a point of order that the Municipal Charter required a public hearing before any ordinance was passed. Mr. Klein.said he would research the matter. Mayor Torrey restated the amended motion as "I move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the Eugene Code pertaining to the procedures and assessments for public improvements to assess all costs associated with alley improvements." The motion as amended passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. D. WORK SESSION: Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) Principal Civil Engineer Chris Henry reviewed previous council action and background on CATS. He said that as a result of discussions to date, he was proposing to prepare motions for the council's consideration at such time as CATS was scheduled for action. He listed the three items that would be included in the motions: 1. #8 Parking policy on page 13 of CATS did not match wording in text later in the document; the page 13 text was correct and the housekeeping change would preserve consistency in the docu- ment. 2. #3 Policy discussion related to system development charges (SDC) - delete the geographical component discussion as it no longer applied. 3. Replace reference to the Breeze shuttle through the document with "downtown shuttle service." Mr. Henry asked for feedback from the council on any other items that should be brought back in the form of motions. He noted that much of the public testimony related to the proposal to convert Willamette Street to two-way operation. He said that CATS proposed conversion from 13th Avenue to 20th Avenue and the overlay project to be completed in the summer of 2004 would only include conversion to two-way operation between 13th and 18th avenues. He said a public open house was scheduled for Thursday, April MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 7 Work Session 1, 2004, between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. at the Eugene Chamber of Commerce to address citizen concerns and interest about the overlay project and two-way conversion. He recommended that the 13th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion be retained in the CATS implementation strategies, with the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion deferred to a future study that comprehensively considered north/south arterial circulation through town. He said that such a study would require additional funding. Mr. Henry said that significant testimony was also received about the 6th Avenue realignment related to the federal courthouse and assertions were made that the realignment was within the Willamette River greenway, which was not the case. He said the realignment was south of the railroad tracks and the CATS document was consistent with other policy direction received through the Courthouse District Concept Plan, the Eugene Capital Improvement Program, the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. He said that concern was also expressed about how access management might affect the character of downtown and stated that as the City went through the administrative rule process, the application of access management strategies would be different in the downtown core area than on other arterial streets. Mr. Meisner observed that the council had recently met with the Lane Transit District Board of Directors, and he was subsequently informed that the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vehicles would not operate with a guideway system as had always been planned for BRT. He said this would require wider lanes for BRT and asked for a written response and analysis on what the impact of wider BRT lanes would be in CATS. Mr. Henry replied that the wider lane widths in an unguided system were within the standard lane widths the City used on its streets. Mr. Kelly said he shared Mr. Meisner's concern about wider BRT lanes and it could raise questions about the council's support for BRT. He said it did not appear that the Planning Commission's recommended changes were included in the document. Mr. Henry said that the commission's changes were provided as attachments. Mr. Kelly asked that they be incorporated in the final document for adoption. Mr. Kelly stated that the CATS document should contain an explicit statement that further study was required before two-way conversion of Willamette Street between 18th Avenue and 20th Avenue was considered. Mr. Henry said that such a statement could be included. Continuing, Mr. Kelly asked that staff propose amendment language that would acknowledge the fact that a trolley study was an important aspect of moving forward, consistent with language in the Downtown Plan. Mr. Henry said the Planning Commission did not recommend inclusion of such language and if it was added to the document, such a study would need to be funded. Mr. Pap~ said it was his understanding that a factor in the conversion of Willamette Street to two-way operation was the new Fire Station No. 1 at 13th Avenue and Willamette Street. He asked if there were other reasons for the conversion and what would happen to Oak Street. Mr. Henry replied that Oak Street was northbound, as would be the additional capacity on Willamette Street, and staff expected that some Oak Street traffic would divert to Willamette Street. He said there was no plan to change the one-way operations of either Oak Street or Pearl Street. Mr. Pap6 commented that there should be other ways to achieve northbound access for fire vehicles and he did not see the need for the conversion to two-way of any part of Willamette Street. He suggested that alternatives to disturbing the neighborhood, such as Oak Street, should be explored. Mr. Henry said realignment between ! 8th Avenue and 20th Avenue could be part of a broader transportation study of MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 8 Work Session north/south connectivity. He said the conversion of Willamette Street was identified in the 1993 CATS update and raised during the downtown visioning process to improve access and circulation and ease of navigation through town. Mr. Pap6 said he understood the reasons but did not agree with the concept. Ms. Bettman said the trolley study was important and one of the reasons the Planning Commission did not recommend including it in CATS was because it was presented to them with the information that an urban rail feasibility study said it was not feasible. She said the study looked at a broad northwest corridor for an urban rail BRT route or an east/west corridor and did not consider a short circulating route downtown. She supported Mr. Kelly's request that language related to the trolley study be added to the document. Ms. Bettman expressed concern with leaving in language regarding a Willamette Street conversion between 13th Avenue and 20th Avenue, even though it was the intent for the conversion to only go to 18th Avenue. She requested explicit language that would clarify that the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion was not under consideration, it would be included in a future study, and any future proposal would be the subject of a public hearing before the council or she could not support the CATS. Mr. Poling remarked that there had been strong objection during public testimony to the Willamette Street conversion between 18th Avenue and 20th Avenue and he supported requests to clarify in CATS that the conversion would not be done without further study. He thanked staff for the clarification that the street alignment in the courthouse district would not extend into the greenway. Ms. Taylor said that a highway along the river, even if it was along the railroad tracks, was still detrimen- tal to the river and she asked that a motion be prepared to eliminate that from CATS. She agreed with requests to remove the language about the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion of Willamette Street and add language related to the trolley study. She asked if Oak Street had been considered for two-way conversion. Mr. Henry said Oak Street had been considered in the analysis but was determined to be unacceptable. Ms. Taylor asked for more information on why Oak Street was deemed unacceptable. She asked if trucks from Fire Station No. 5 would be responding to calls south of 20th Avenue, instead of trucks from Fire Station No. 1. Mr. Henry explained that fire stations provided back-up for each other and a full conver- sion of Willamette Street would reduce response time. Ms. Taylor said she would not support any document that had Highway 99 along the railroad tracks and would request the language be deleted. She said that some more discussion should be had on the subject of Willamette Street and Oak Street. Ms. Solomon said it was foolish to take the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue portion of Willamette Street off the table pending a study if funding for the study was not provided. She said it was important to address the traffic problems in that area, commit the money for a study, determine how issues could be resolved, and complete the entire conversion at one time; to do less was not managing the City's traffic problems. Referring to what CATS said about the transit system, Ms. Nathanson said she joined other members of the council in their remarks about BRT and how it might be changing in relation to what the council originally expected to be implemented. She expressed concern about moving from a fixed route with guided paths, the need to acquire right-of-way, and potential disruption to current land uses. She said if MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 9 Work Session the new direction meant that BRT was less affordable because of the need for more right-of-way and a greater loss of parking, or if it meant design changes in the width of sidewalks or street trees, she wanted more information about the impacts. Mr. Kelly stated that because of the concerns raised about BRT from council members, information should come back to the council soon on the material impact on the pilot corridor of the new direction, which could be outside the bounds of the original council resolution approving the pilot corridor. He observed that there was support for the Willamette Street conversion between 13th Avenue and 18th Avenue. He asked if Public Works intended to complete that conversion during the summer because it would be more efficient to do it in conjunction with the overlay project planned for the summer of 2004. Mr. Henry said that was the case. Ms. Bettman echoed concerns about BRT. She said she had talked to some businesses along Willamette Street and they were not opposed to the conversion between 13th Avenue and 18th Avenue, but a major concern continued to be parking. She said she supported the conversion, but a significant impact on parking would erode that support. She asked that language in CATS reflect that the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion was off the table. Ms. Bettman raised the question of the possibility of redevelopment at the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) site and how that might impact some of the projects being planned in the courthouse district since redevelopment at the EWEB site was not anticipated when the courthouse district plans were put forth. Addressing the issue of north/south traffic corridors and movement of traffic and fire trucks, she noted that Civic Stadium was owned by Eugene School District 4J and on the property disposal list. She said that could present an opportunity to the City to look at that area and create the type of north/south access that was required without a negative impact on businesses or the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Meisner joined Mr. Kelly's request to the City Manager to engage in a discussion with LTD and obtain additional information regarding the impact of the direction of BRT. He also concurred with other councilors about taking the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion of Willamette Street off the table and agreed with Ms. Solomon's comment that a study of the issue should be funded. He cited examples in other cities where shopping centers or residential areas had opposed a connection to a light rail or BRT system, but pleaded to be connected once the system was in operation. Mr. Pap6 supported Ms. Bettman's suggestion to consider the Civic Stadium site as part of a study of a north/south corridor. He said he was not certain there was strong support for the 13th Avenue to 18th Avenue conversion of Willamette Street to two-way operation. He suggested removing the 13th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion from CATS, except for the issue of how traffic from Fire Station No. 1 would be handled. He also was in favor of exploring the possibility of redevelopment on the EWEB site within the context of the plan for the courthouse district. Mr. Henry said the EWEB site transportation issues were under discussion with the City's consultant team, but not something that should be included in CATS. He said a feasibility study of how the transportation system could work in that area would be done. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 10 Work Session Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m.'120041central services departmentlcity councillccO40309ml.doc MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 11 Work Session ATTACHMENT F MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall March 10, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan Adopted by Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985 Richie Wcinman of thc Planning and Development Department recalled that on February 25, 2004, thc council reviewed amendments to the Rivcrfront Urban Renewal District, and the motion on thc table was in relationship to thc added parcels. Four scenarios wcrc provided in thc packet. The motion on thc table reflected the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor indicated she would vote against the motion because the infrastructure that existed at the riverfront research district did not serve anyone. She called the proposal a tax diversion plan. Ms. Bettman said she would also oppose the motion. She said the plan was not written in a way that allowed the council to dedicate the revenue to projects of a high priority to the community. She feared that the result would be that the council would continue to fund such projects as the courthouse-related transportation projects and divert needed tax revenues from the State and school districts. Mr. Kelly said he shared many of Ms. Bettman's concerns about the plan and how the revenues would be used. However, he believed urban renewal in the area could be a positive tool for central city revitaliza- tion and redevelopment. He wanted to have the tool available to the council. He pointed to the added policy that every project other than a loan would be reviewed and approved by the council, and at that time he could evaluate each project on its merits. He said the council needed to be vigilant about such projects. Ms. Nathanson said she had wanted to ensure the council's decision was made on the best information and was pleased with the additional staff work that had been done since February 25. She supported the motion. Mr. Meisner indicated his concurrence with Mr. Kelly. He acknowledged Ms. Bettman's concerns. However, he was interested in connecting the two parts of downtown, and thought the proposal accom- plished that. He asked staff to identify what was before the council at this point. Mr. Weinman said the EWEB property was added and the area containing Good Times was removed, as reflected on Map A-1. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap~ said the council discussed the need for tools to help revitalize downtown. He thought urban renewal was such a tool. He said the council would be able to gauge the appropriateness of the projects. He believed that Ms. Bettman's comments about the taxing situation were too simplistic. At Mr. Papa's request, Mr. Weinman reviewed the details of the four scenarios before the council. Ms. Bettman thought the tax issue before the council was simple. She said the urban renewal district would pay for the courthouse-related transportation improvements if the federal government did not. She said other funding sources had not been sought. She did not think that was a fiscally responsible approach. The council had already spent money in the district for a purpose for which she thought other funding could be sought, calling it "unconscionable." Mr. Meisner asked if a new parking garage assisted with urban renewal funds could be located on the site of the State motor pool if the property was not in the district. Mr. Klein said the council would have to adopt specific findings to demonstrate such a project benefited the district. The motion passed, 6:2, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. B. WORK SESSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Re- sources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date Kurt Yeiter of the Planning and Development Department reported that the item involved several periodic review work tasks, which required the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and Diagram to be amended. He said most of the amendments were what he termed "housekeeping" in nature. Chapter III-C of the plan, regarding Natural Resources, was more extensively updated to reflect current conditions and science. He said the three jurisdictions coordinated on the draft document and the joint elected officials held a public hearing in February 2004. Springfield and Lane County were scheduled to take action at a later date. Mr. Yeiter said the council's actions would inform the deliberations of the other adopting bodies. He noted that Project Coordinator Carol Heinkel of the Lane Council of Govern- ments (LCOG) was present, as well as Eugene Senior Planner Neil Bj6rklund and Eugene Planning Director Susan Muir. Mr. Kelly disagreed with the staff characterization of the amendments as "housekeeping," saying such a characterization marginalized the role of the council. Mr. Kelly said the elected officials requested the objectives to be included in the document but they were not in the materials before the council. Ms. Heinkel called attention to the replacement pages distributed to the joint elected officials on February 10. Mr. Kelly indicated he had not received the pages. He expressed concern that the council did not have the necessary exhibits before it. He said that although it was announced the document would undergo legal review, the council had received no change pages. Mr. Kelly preferred not to take action at this time, and suggested the council act on the amendments suggested by councilors to provide direction to the other adopting jurisdictions. Ms. Bettman referred to Policy 13 on page II-C-5 of the Metro Plan. She asked staff to discuss how the MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 2 Work Session policy impacted the issue of Springfield's interest in joining a fire service district. Mr. Yeiter said the policy was not amended in response to that situation. Ms. Heinkel said the policy was reworded to make it clear how it had been interpreted in the past. Ms. Bettman referred to testimony submitted by 1,000 Friends of Oregon suggesting the Goal 3 amend- ments were inconsistent with State law. Several of the staff responses in the council packet stated that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) authorized the local approach, which made it consistent with State law. She asked if LCDC approval made the policies legal, and if legal counsel had reviewed the text in question. She asked if staff had distinguished between policies with LCDC approval and those without that approval. Mr. Bj6rklund said because the forest rules referred to applied only outside the urban growth boundary (UGB), in both cases staff had relied on Lane County staff documenta- tion and interpretation. Mr. Yeiter said some legal review had occurred, but he could not say if the City's legal counsel had reviewed the text in question. Ms. Taylor said that the council should not take action at this time. She thought the amendments represented far more than housekeeping. The testimony indicated the public had many questions about the amendments. She had several amendments to offer to the main motion. She wanted staff comment about what she believed to be well-informed and valid objections that people had voiced to the amend- ments. She said the council should listen to the experts in the community. Mr. Pap6 said he had wanted to see amendments that would have allowed Eugene to facilitate the actions that Springfield wanted to take with regard to fire districts. He was not prepared to act until he saw amendments related to that issue. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to acknowledge it is the City Council's position to keep Policy J-1 in the Metro Plan, and that this in- tent be conveyed to the other jurisdictions. Mr. Kelly said the policy called for an energy management plan to be developed, and the draft before the council deleted the policy. He thought that energy was a critical resource that was needed in the community. Given the volatility of the energy situation, he wanted to work on proactive planning. He acknowledged such a plan would require funding, but preferred to retain the policy and seek the needed funding. Mr. Meisner asked if the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) or the other utility providers were subject to the Metro Plan, and if they participated in its adoption. He questioned if the effect of the motion was to direct those providers to develop such a plan. Mr. Yeiter confirmed that EWEB and the Springfield Utility Board abided by Metro Plan policies. Mr. Meisner asked if EWEB had the opportunity to comment on or react to the motion. Mr. Yeiter said no. Mr. Meisner wanted to consult the providers. Ms. Heinkel said the recommendation that the policy be deleted was considered by staff to be a house- keeping measure. She did not think the other jurisdictions would object to its continued inclusion, and the project could be prioritized for implementation. Mr. Meisner wanted a memorandum from EWEB in regard to the motion. Ms. Bettman also wanted to retain the policy. She thought it should be a community goal. It was a responsible policy, and the community needed to look at its energy needs in a comprehensive way. She said the materials indicated the providers had met and decided not to pursue it; she maintained that action MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 3 Work Session circumvented the public process. It was not the energy providers' role to make such decisions for the elected officials and the community. She thought it was the elected officials' responsibility to make such planning decisions for the providers and the community. Ms. Solomon asked what would happen if the council passed the motion and the providers did not want to do the planning involved. Ms. Heinkel said if the policy was retained, it would be up to the jurisdictions to take the lead in effort, establish a work program, and then invite the utilities to participate. She said that there was a chance the providers might to talk about such a plan now as the last time the subject had been discussed was seven years ago. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She thought the task should be accomplished. Ms. Nathanson said energy encompassed more than electricity. The public utilities that provided electric power had elected boards and their own goals. She asked in what venue such planning could occur. Ms. Heinkel said that the utility providers, public and private, had met seven years ago in a facilitated process. There had been some interest but not enough to fund the effort at that time. She believed that it was likely LCOG would facilitate such a group to revisit the issue if a work plan was established. Ms. Nathanson suggested that policy's absence from the plan would not preclude such energy planning. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner about involving the utility providers. He suggested that those providers be given notice and allowed to comment about the motion. Mr. Kelly said ideally, it would be great if the providers took the lead on the plan. He acknowledged the public providers had elected boards, but said that they generally looked to their own domain, and it was the job of the elected officials responsible for the overall well-being of the community to see such planning was done. He agreed the providers should be consulted. He suggested that the providers might be willing to fund such an effort. If LCOG was in charge of the project, he believed the providers would be willing to provide raw data and the results of their own planning efforts. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Yeiter said that Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe was present to address Ms. Bettman's earlier questions. Mr. Howe responded that the changes to the policies referred to as inconsistent by 1,000 Friends of Oregon were not inconsistent; the elected officials had added language to the existing State- adopted rules and regulations, which were reviewed and acknowledged by the LCDC. They were existing policies in place today. The policy regarding marginal lands (C-4-0) originally referenced only exclusive farm use. That was a new policy, and the provisions for marginal land would apply to exclusive farm-use zoned lands as well as marginal lands. All the policies had been reviewed by legal counsel. Ms. Bettman asked for information about the designation of the 4J school sites. She thought the City should retain the existing designations on the site because changing them was not within the scope of periodic review, in her opinion. In regard to the Westmoreland site, it was her contention that if this was passed, the appeal of the neighborhood group would be prejudiced. Mr. Kelly asked for more information about the local work program, who adopted it, and if the council could influence it. Ms. Heinkel said that LCOG maintained an annual work program for metropolitan planning. For the last several years, the work was dictated by the State mandate for periodic review. From here on, it would be driven by local needs. She said that the items needed to be balanced and MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 4 Work Session prioritized. Mr. Kelly asked who did the balancing and prioritization, and who adopted the program. Ms. Heinkel said that the work on the program would begin with the planning directors, and she assumed the council would have input into the process. Ms. Muir said the discussion had not occurred yet, and she was not aware of the process involved. Mr. Kelly asked that staff return to the council and consult it or update it, whatever was appropriate. Ms. Taylor noted that she had prepared three amendments to the work program. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to revise Metro Plan Sec- tion III-C, Policy C 25 to read as follows: "Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts on water quality when plan- ning for urbanization, flood control, urban runoff, and recreational needs in near proximity to the Willamette and McKenzie rivers." Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of water quality and the need to address the impacts of activities proximate to the river. Ms. Solomon pointed out the motion as stated by Ms. Taylor had the result of limiting the policy to impacts on water quality only, and the issue of water quality was already addressed in the existing policy. Staff recommended no change to the policy. She did not support the motion. Ms. Bettman asked what other impacts were considered at this time. Mr. Bj6rklund said the existing, more broadly stated policy addressed biological habitat, any kinds of impact to the downstream system. If the intent was to highlight water quality, the text proposed in the motion was not what was wanted. Ms. Bettman suggested the motion be revised to read "water quality and other impacts." Mr. Bj6rklund agreed that would highlight the issue and not limit the text. Ms. Taylor accepted the revision as a friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the revision suggested by Ms. Bettman. He asked Mr. Bj6rklund to comment on the meaning of the word "along" the river as it was reflected in the existing policies. He believed that testimony suggesting the policy be changed reflected concern the policy would be inter- preted to apply only to the bank of the river. Mr. Bj6rklund said that "near proximity" was redundant and he would interpret it to main essentially the same thing as "along." Neither term was defined anywhere and neither gave real direction to the reader. Mr. Kelly did not like either term, but thought that "proximate" defined an area, where "along" could "literally be the interface." He supported the amended motion. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman accepted the deletion of"near" from the motion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Nathanson thought the language changes were creating additional confusion. "Proximate" could leave out the banks of the river itself. She thought the amendment lacked clarity and did not represent an improvement to the policy. Mr. Poling agreed with the staff analysis. He thought the existing policy was adequate. Ms. Taylor thought the discussion pointed out the need for the council to take more time. She thought that "proximate" encompassed enough for one to argue it was an improvement over the text. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed the revision was an improvement in the absence of more precise distances. She pointed out that no one had objected to the word "along." Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Poling. He said proximate could mean near the river but not including it. Mayor Torrey said he would oppose the motion in the event of a tie. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Yeiter determined from Ms. Bettman that she wanted to retain the existing designation for the Westmoreland property. Ms. Heinkel indicated the issue related to UGB amendments would be addressed through the Metropolitan Policy Committee. C. ACTION: Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Materials Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Starting July 1, 2004 Fire and EMS Management Analyst Glen Potter joined the council for the item. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4867, an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees. Mr. Poling said he would support the motion at this time to honor the voters' will in regard to the charter amendment. However, due to court rulings and legislative action, he thought the fee schedule should be referred to the Toxics Board for further action. He wanted the board to examine the charter amendment and make a recommendation preserving the intent of the voters. Mr. Papd concurred with Mr. Poling's remarks. He hoped the community had learned a lesson about what it included in the charter and what was included in an ordinance to avoid the litigation and expense that had occurred. The intent could have been included in the charter, and its implementation left to the legislative process. He believed the Toxics Board needed to make a recommendation to the council regarding how the City could be more equitable in assessing the costs of the program. Ms. Taylor said the board had already given the council its recommendation. She preferred to expand the number of businesses that were covered by the program, and to reduce the employee threshold. She said the charter amendment was proposed because the program's proponents feared that the program would be eliminated if not in the charter. Ms. Solomon did not support the fee increase. She said the program was not what the voters envisioned and it was not fair to the companies being assessed or to the voters. Ms. Bettman agreed the program was not fair to the voters, but that was due to the fact that industry sought changes to the rules from the State Legislature. The fee cap was "bad news" for 44 companies and "good news" for the 11 largest industries that were responsible for creating the cap. The charter amendment stipulated the program would be supported by users of hazardous substances, not necessarily MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 6 Work Session the reporters of hazardous substances, so that some users of such substances who fall below the quantity threshold were not reporting. She thought there was a good argument to be made that those users should also be supporting the program. That would reduce the cost to the average business by a great deal and make it more affordable. She hoped the board would look at that approach. With regard to what should be in the charter, Ms. Nathanson said the problem was putting administrative details in the charter; that made it difficult to address changes or problems that arose. She hoped further charter proposals could be implemented through existing administrative processes as had been done in other instances. Mr. Pap6 concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He said that such details should not be in the charter, pointing out that part of the amendment was found to be unconstitutional The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the Toxics Board to return to the council in time for implementation by the 2005 billing cy- cle, a proposal to address the fee inequity and concerns caused by legisla- tive actions and court decisions, while preserving the general intent of the voters in adopting the program. Mr. Poling said the fee schedule needed to be cleaned up. He wanted to avoid possible lawsuits or petitions from the citizens to remove the program from the charter. He was not opposed to the program as long as it was administered fairly and equitably. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Poling if he wanted the board to look at the charter amendment, taking into consideration legislative actions and court rulings related to the fee schedule and the inequity in the fees that resulted, and make a recommendation to the council. Mr. Poling confirmed that the review could include a recommendation for an amendment to the charter. Mr. Kelly said charter changes would result in an expensive political campaign. If he thought that such changes were necessary, he would support that. However, the testimony the council heard about ways to broaden the fee base would not require charter changes to implement. Mr. Kelly said that if examination of the charter amendment was not a part of the motion, he would be able to support it. Ms. Bettman thought the discussion, if not the actual language in the motion, made it implicit the intent was to get the program back on the ballot, and she considered that a political maneuver. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to ex- plicitly preclude putting the amendment back on the ballot. Ms. Bettman reiterated her previous remark about the intent of the motion. She thought there were ways to manage what the State legislature had done to the program. She said the Toxics Right-to-Know Program was necessary because toxics affected people personally, and people had a right to know what the chemicals in use in their community were. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's remarks about the intent of the motion, Mr. Meisner said he helped Mr. Poling to craft the motion. It was his intent that the board would take a broad look at the program, and if the board suggested a charter amendment, the voters had the choice to amend the charter or leave the charter MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 7 Work Session amendment in place. There would be no advisory ballot question suggesting "repeal, amend, or preserve." He wanted the charter amendment to work and it clearly did not. Mr. Meisner said annually the council heard from upset citizens who fear the council would exceed or violate the intent of the charter amend- ment. He wanted the intent of the amendment carried out. Mr. Kelly thought the intent of the motion could be carried out without the need to modify the charter amendment. He did not want to open up the issue further than necessary. Mr. Kelly said he felt as though the council was being played as puppets. He found it ironic that the businesses objecting to the fee schedule lobbied the legislative to institute a fee cap. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the revised fee schedule meant a 50-employee company would pay $1,500 annually. He said that was 'real money' but not in itself a real burden. He said the board should do something about the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and the State legislature should repeal the fee caps. Mr. Pap6 left the meeting at 1:22 p.m. Mr. Poling pointed out the motion referred the issue to the board and did not refer the charter amendment to the voters. The motion did not reflect any opposition to the program. He said that unless Ms. Bettman "was in my head knowing how I'm thinking," she could not know his intent. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Poling's summary of the motion. She did not want to preclude the Toxics Board from any action it thought needed. She pointed out the Toxics Board was well-balanced and she thought it appropriate to let it discuss issues such as the SIC codes. Ms. Bettman agreed the motion did not explicitly call for referring the amendment to the voters, but in his e-mail communication regarding his intent to offer the motion Mr. Poling had mentioned his interest in "cleaning the current charter amendment up a little bit," which meant taking it back to the ballot. Her motion merely precluded that. Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. Poling that among the items he envisioned the board discussing were broadening the range of business types, reducing the employee threshold, and reducing the quantity threshold. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Taylor was astounded that any councilors would oppose Ms. Bettman's amendment unless they wanted to put the charter amendment on the ballot. In response, Mr. Meisner said he did not want to tie the hands of the Toxics Board by limiting its scope of examination. The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 9 Work Session EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Meeting Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2B Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a routine item to approve City Council Tentative Working Agenda. BACKGROUND Council Action History On July 31, 2000, the City Council held a process session and discussed the Operating Agreements. Section 2, notes in part that "The City Manager shall recommend monthly to the Council which items should be placed on the Council agenda. This recommendation shall be placed on the consent calendar at the regular Council meetings (regular meetings are those meetings held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month in the Council Chamber). If the recommendation contained in the consent calendar is approved, the items shall be brought before Council on a future agenda. If there are concerns about an item, the item may be pulled from the consent calendar at the request of any councilor or the Mayor. A vote shall occur to determine if the item should be included as future Council business." Scheduling of this item is in accordance with the council operating agreements. Policy Issues There are no policy issues related to this item. Timing This item is not time-sensitive. OPTIONS The council may choose to approve, amend or not approve this tentative agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has no recommendation on this item. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the items on the Tentative Working Agenda. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122B.doc ATTACHMENTS A. Tentative Working Agenda FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122B.doc ATTACHMENT A Eugene City Council Tentative Working Agenda April 7, 2004 IAPRIL 7 WEDNESDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Process Session EPL-Bascom Room Expected Absences: A. CS/Ta¥1o, IAPRIL 12 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins B. ACTION: Downtown Plan 45 mins - PDD/Laurence C. WS: Update on Downtown Ordinance (PH: 5/12; A: 5/24) 45 mins - EPD/Lehner 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose c. Approval of 2004-05 CDBG/HOME Funding Allocations PDD/Dawson d. Resolution Forming a Local Improvement District for Garden Way PW/Klope 3. PH: Ordinance Concerning Alley Assessment Revisions (WS: 3/18; A: 5/10) PW/Schoening 4. PH: Ordinance Concerning Ambulance Services Fire/EMS/Shuler 5. PH and POSS. ACTION: Ord. Concerning Changes to Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collection PDD/Cuyler 6. ACTION: Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) (WS: 11/12; PH: 2/9) PDD/Weinman 7. ACTION: Ordinance Concerning Periodic Review of the Metro Plan PDD/Yeiter IAPRIL 14 WEDNESDAY '12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: Torrey A. WS: Priorities for the Planning and Development Department 45 mins - PDD/Coyle B. WS: Cell Tower Siting 45 mins - PDD/Co¥1o I APR- 2'1 WED.ESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. WS: Franchise Fee Audit: Comcast Cable 45 mins - CS/Berrian B. I APRIL 26 MONDAY **BUDGET COMMITTFEJ 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: Kelly A. I APRIL 28 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: Kelly A. WS: Police Building Financing 45 mins - CS/Svendsen B. WS: Ordinance RE: Refinement Plan Amendment: Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan 45 mins - PW/McNeel **=new/rescheduled item; T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session L:\CMO\CC\CCAGENDA.WPD Eugene City Council Tentative Working Agenda April 7, 2004 IMAY 3 MONDAY 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-TykesonlEPL Expected Absences: IMAY 10 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins B. WS: Public Works Accreditation 45 mins - PW/Corey C. WS: Downtown Work Plan 30 mins - PDD/Laurence 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose c. Resolution Concerning EWEB Refunding Bond CS/Hamm 3. PH: Ordinance Concerning Refinement Plan Amendment: Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan PW/McNeel 4. PH: Amendments to Ordinance Concerning Downtown Area (WS: 4/12; A: 5/24) EPD/Lehner 5. ACTION: Ordinance Concerning Alley Assessment Revisions (WS: 3/18; PH: 4/12) PW/Schoening F. ACTION: Ordinance Concerning Ambulance Services Fire/EMS/Shuler 7. ACTION (if necessarT): Ord. Concerning Changes to Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collection PDD/Cuyler I MAY 12 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Cultural Services Update 45 mins - LRCS/Jones B. Executive Session: Major Litigation/ORS 192.660(1)(h) 45 mins - CS/Taylor 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: A. Public Hearing [MAY 19 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. WS: Proposed Modifications to MWMC Regional Wastewater Systems Development Charge 45 mins - PW/McVey 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: IMAY 24 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins B. WS: Banning/Controlling Location of"Big Box" Stores 45 mins - PDD/Coyle C. WS: Housing Standards 45 mins - PDD/Miller **=new/rescheduled item; T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session L:\CMO\CC\CCAGENDA.WPD Eugene City Council Tentative Working Agenda April 7, 2004 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose c. Ratification of MWMC FY04-05 Budget and Capital Improvement Plan PW/Ruffier 3. ACTION: Ord. Concerning Refinement Plan Amendment: Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan PW/McNeel 4. ACTION: Amendments to Ordinance Concerning Downtown Area (WS: 4/12; PH: 5/10) EPD/Lehner 5. ACTION: Central Area Transportation Study PW/Henr7 I MAY 26 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: ** A. Executive Session: City Manager Evaluation/ORS 192.660(1)(i) 45 mins - CS/Chouinard B. WS: City Manager Evaluation 45 mins - CS/Chouinard 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: A. Approval of FY05 Budget I JUNE 9 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. [JUNE 14 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins ** B. WS: Salmon Habitat Conservation Regulatory Strategy 60 mins- PDD/BjOrklund 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose c. HOME Funding for Low-Income Housing Developments PDD/Dawson 3. PH: Proposed Modifications to MWMC Regional Wastewater Systems Development Charge PW/McVey [JUNE 16 WEDNESDAY J 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. WS: Civic Visioning Committee Report 90 mins - CS/Taylor [JUNE 22 TUESDAY **NEW MEETING**I 6 p.m. Joint Elected Officials Location TBA/Spfld Expected Absences: A. PH: Ordinance Concerning the Public Facilities and Service Plan PDD/Yeiter **=new/rescheduled item; T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session L:\CMO\CC\CCAGENDA.WPD Eugene City Council Tentative Working Agenda April 7, 2004 r JUNE 23 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. WS: Airport Fire and Rescue Services 45 mins - PW/Corey & Fire/EMS/Tallon ]JUNE 28 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose 3. PH & ACTION: City of Eugene: Supplemental Budget #3 CS/Murdoch 4. URA: PH & ACTION: Supplemental Budget #3 CS/Murdoch 5. PH & ACTION: FY05 Budget CS/Murdoch 6. ACTION: Proposed Modifications to MWMC Regional Wastewater Systems Development Char~le PW/McVey I JUNE 30 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. L JULY 12 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Workin~ A~lenda CS/Rose IJULY 14 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. WS: Ord. Concernin~l Amendments to Downtown Urban Renewal Plan (PH: 8/9; A: 9/13) 45 mins - PDD/Weinman IJULY 21 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. **=new/rescheduled item; T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session L:\CMO\CC\CCAGENDA.WPD Eugene City Council Tentative Working Agenda April 7, 2004 I JULY 26 MONDAY 1 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins ** B. WS: Joint Meeting with Human Rights Commission 90 mins - CS/Rikhoff 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Workin~ A~]enda CS/Rose L JULY 28 WEDNESDAY ~ 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. WS: Police Commission's Annual Report and Adoption of FY05 Work Plan 60 mins - EPD/Parisi IAUGUST 4 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. IAUGUST 9 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins B. WS: Economic Development Committee Recommendations 90 mins PDD/Coyle 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose 3. PH: Ordinance Concerning] Amendments to Downtown Urban Renewal Plan (WS: 7/14; A: 9/13) PDDNVeinman [AUGUST 11 WEDNESDAY 12 noon Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. **=new/rescheduled item; T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session L:\CMO\CC\CCAGENDA.WPD EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of 2004-05 Funding Allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships, and American Dream Downpayment Initiative Programs Meeting Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2C Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Linda Dawson ~vw. ci. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5071 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY The council is asked to approve the use of funds in three Federal programs funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 2004-05, Eugene will receive $1,666,000 plus $1,160,000 in program income from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), $1,131,900 through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and $123,612 in a new program, the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). BACKGROUND Council Action History Annually in the spring, the City Council approves funding allocations for Federal HUD gram programs for the upcoming fiscal year starting on July 1. The City has received CDBG funds since 1975. HOME funding has been received by the Eugene-Springfield Consortium since 1992, with Eugene receiving 70% of the funds and serving as the lead agency. Next year, the Eugene-Springfield Consortium will begin receiving funding through the ADDI Program. The annual funding allocations, called One-Year Action Plans, are done in the context of the five-year HUD Consolidated Plan. Next fiscal year will be the final year in the current Consolidated Plan 2000. The CDBG Advisory Committee advises the Planning and Development Department on the use of CDBG funds. The Housing Policy Board (HPB) advises the City Council on the use of HOME and ADDI funds. Policy Issues HUD regulations require a citizen participation process, including advertising and conducting a public hearing, followed by City Council action. Other Background Information The CDBG Advisory Committee conducted a public hearing on March 3, 2004. The committee recommendation includes funding all current program areas: housing development, housing rehabilitation, public services, non-profit capital projects, City capital, accessibility improvements to City facilities, and economic development. The HPB conducted a public hearing on February 25, 2004, and is forwarding a recommendation for use of HOME/ADDI funds for acquisition/new construction of rental housing, construction of homeownership units, downpayment assistance, operating funds for local L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122C.doc non-profit housing developers, and interim financing. CDBG Program - The proposal allocates $1,666,000 in new 2004-05 grant funds and $1,160,000 in estimated program income to support the program areas outlined below. Several of the following allocations reflect a new consideration, the timely expenditure of funds. HUD has recently issued sanctions to be taken against jurisdictions which do not expend their funds in a "timely" manner. · Housing Development - $400,000 in new funds will be used in conjunction with $100,000 borrowed from other housing funds to acquire three acres of the Willakenzie school site for future low-income housing development. Future CDBG funds will be used to repay the other housing funds. On April 5, 2004, the HPB conducted a public hearing on the acquisition. Five neighbors expressed their general support for low-income housing but their specific interest in securing the full 8-acre site for park use. One person spoke in favor of the acquisition for future development of affordable housing, citing the excellent schools, shopping and transportation in the neighborhood. Following the hearing, the HPB voted to support the acquisition of three acres for the housing landbank. Some HPB members acknowledged the neighbors interest in additional parkland and also acknowledged that due to the R-1 zoning, housing will be built on any portion of the site not used for park land. The I-IBP preferred that the three acres eventually be used for low-income housing rather than market rate housing. · Housing Rehabilitation - No new grant funds will be allocated next year since a substantial amount of carry-forward funds are projected. The carry-forward amount of $199,050 will be used with $450,000 in program income to provide low-interest loans through the City's Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program for improvements to residences occupied by low-income homeowners and tenants. Emergency repair loans of up to $3,500 will be provided to very low-income homeowners and grants for accessibility improvements will be made for tenants with disabilities. · Public Services Operations - $389,350 in new funds will be used to fund services as selected by the intergovernmental Human Services Commission (HSC). Next year is the second year in the HSC two-year funding cycle. The CDBG allocation is maintained in the second year. · Public Services Non-profit Capital Projects - $165,000 in new funds will be used to acquire or rehabilitate facilities for three local non-profit service providers. Womenspace will use $40,000 towards the acquisition of a new facility in the downtown core estimated to cost $800,000. The building location has not been identified. Womenspace serves battered women and their children. Looking Glass will use $78,840 to improve a large modular unit moved to the Station 7 site at 2485 Roosevelt Blvd. The modular unit will provide counseling space for homeless youth. ShelterCare will receive $36,700 to provide accessible entries and cover to the residential units at the Royal Avenue Shelter at 780 Highway 99 North. The facility serves adults with mental illness. A contingency of $9,460 has been established for these projects. · City Capital Projects: Accessibility Improvements to City Facilities - $130,530 is recommended on improvements to City facilities, including dual-level drinking fountains in numerous City parks, and restroom improvements at Skinner's Butte Park, Washington/Jefferson Park, Ascot Park, Sladden Park, Maurie Jacobs Park, and the Owen's Memorial Rose Garden. Accessibility improvements will also be done at the Sheldon Community Center and the Atrium building. Projects are prioritized through the City's ADA Transition Plan developed by the Accessibility Committee of the Human Rights Commission. Next year, $60,000 will be spent on curb ramps installed on a city-wide basis. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122C.doc · City Capital Projects: Neighborhood Park Improvements - $70,000 will be used to construct a pedestrian path adjacent to the Trainsong Neighborhood, one of Eugene's lowest income neighborhoods. This path will provide a safe place for pedestrians and bicyclers along Bethel Drive from Roosevelt Blvd. to Highway 99 North. A total of $35,000 is being allocated to install a hard surface (similar to the one installed at Scobert Park) under the play equipment at Monroe Park, located at 10th and Monroe in the Westside Neighborhood. · Economic Development - $710,000 in program income will be used to fund loans to businesses creating jobs for low-income persons through the Business Development Fund and the Emerging Business Loan Pool. Loans may also be made through this category to eliminate slums and blighted conditions. · Administration - $416,120 in new funds will be used on project implementation, fair housing activities, preparation of the Consolidated Plan 2005, the City's Central Services Allocation, the annual audit, and general program administration. This is a 1% increase over the 2003-04 allocation. HOME and ADDI Programs - The proposal allocates $1,144,174 in new HOME grant funds and $512,000 in HOME program income to the following established program areas. It also allocates $123,612 from the ADDI program. The ADDI program was signed into law on December 16, 2003. This program was created to assist the first-time homebuyer in purchasing a single-family home by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase. The funds were awarded to the Eugene-Springfield Consortium and will be administered as part of the HOME Program. Next year, the consortium with receive two fiscal years' worth of the ADDI funding. The funds will be split 70/30 between Eugene and Springfield, as is done with the HOME funds. ADDI funds must be used for downpayment assistance prior to drawing HOME funds. · Acquisition/New Construction - $972,548 in HOME funds is available for acquisitions and new construction. Eugene conducts an annual Request for Proposals to allocate these funds for new construction projects. These funds will be allocated through a process which is currently underway. Proposals were received in February and are being reviewed by the Allocations Subcommittee of the HPB. The HPB will forward a recommendation for action by the City Council in May 2004. · Downpayment Assistance - $123,612 in ADDI funds will be used in conjunction with carryover HOME funds to provide downpayment assistance through Eugene's Homebuyer Assistance Program (HAP). Up to $4,000 is provided at closing. The funds are repaid to the City upon resale of the home. There will be adequate funding to support a goal of 40 downpayment assistance loans next program year. · Interim Financing - Eugene continues to offer interim financing on affordable housing projects. This method of financing supports the affordability of local housing projects and allows Eugene to expend HOME funds in a timely manner. Interim loan program amounts totaling $512,000 are estimated for fiscal year 2004-05, primarily from the St. Vincent dePaul Santa Clara Village project. · CHDO Operating Funds - $57,209 in HOME funds (Eugene's portion) is available for operating expenses for local Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). The 5% allowed for L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122C.doc CHDOs will be allocated at the Consortium level. The combined total available is $81,727. CHDO operating funds have been allocated at the consortium level and split equally between the four active CHDOs: Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation, Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO), St. Vincent dePaul, and Mainstream Housing, Inc. The Springfield Community Development Corporation is no longer eligible for CHDO status. · Administration - $114,417 in HOME funds will be used for program administration. The Federal grant management system automatically budgets 10% of the grant amount for administration. Timing Approved One-Year Action Plans for Federal programs included in the Consolidated Plan and funded by HUD are required to be submitted by May 15 each year for implementation beginning on July 1. One- Year Action Plans for CDBG, HOME, and ADDI projects in Eugene and Springfield are submitted as one document. OPTIONS The City Council may approve or not approve this item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the One-Year Action Plan for use of Federal CDBG, HOME, and ADDI Program funds as presented. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve One-Year Action Plans for use of Federal CDBG, HOME, and ADDI Program funds. ATTACHMENTS A. CDBG-Five Year Summary of One-Year Action Plans B. Summary of HOME/ADDI Allocations C. CDBG Advisory Committee and HPB Members Lists FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Linda Dawson Telephone: 682-5071 Staff E-Mail: linda.1, dawson~ci, eugene, or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122C.doc ATTACHMENT A City of Eugene CDBG Five-Year Allocations Summary 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 HOUSING Housing Rehabilitation 173,000 195,000 0 0 0 Program Income 363, 380 395, 000 446, 000 510, 000 450, 000 Housing Development 300,000 300,000 100,000 385,400 400,000 PUBLIC SERVICES Operations 392,000 395,000 370,000 389,350 389,350 Non-profit Capital Projects 90,000 110,000 250,000 240,000 165,000 CITY CAPITAL PROJECTS Accessibility Improvements 175,000 180,000 234,000 234,000 190,530 Neighborhood Improvements 0 13,000 60,000 42,250 105,000 Neighborhood Matching Grants 21,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Business Loan Program 0 0 200,000 0 0 Program Income 584, 286 61 O, 000 5 75, 000 518, 000 71 O, 000 Micro-enterprise Training 25,000 30,000 35,000 25,000 0 ADMINISTRATION 370,000 370,000 400,000 412,000 416,120 Total Annual Grant Allocation $1,546,000 $1,603,000 $1,584,000 $1,713,000 $1,666,000 Total Estimated Program Income $947,666 $1,005,000 $1,021,000 $1,028,000 $1,160,000 Prior Years' Funding $0 $0 $75,000* $15,000'* $0 GRAND TOTAL $2,493,666 $2,608,000 $2,680,000 $2,756,000 $2,826,000 * $75,000 prior years' funds derived from: $30,000 from cancelled White Bird NP cap rehab project $10,000 unused NP cap funds from FY01-02; $35,000 from Neighborhood Matching Grant Program ** $15,000 prior year's funds derived from cancelled SVdP/Day Access Center NP cap HVAC project L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122C.doc ATTACHMENT B City of Eugene SUMMARY OF ONE-YEAR ACTION PLANS HOME Investment Partnerhips Program (HOME) New Construction/ Rehabilitation CHDO Operating Administration Downpayment Total Acquisition Community Housing Assistance Development Organizations 1995 Consolidated Plan 1995-96 $394,135 $280,000 $39,655 $79,310 $0 $793,100 1996-97 $559,815 $200,000 $44,695 $89,390 $0 $893,900 1997-98 $543,155 $100,000 $43,715 $87,430 $0 $874,300 1998-99 $700,870 $0 $47,110 $94,220 $200,000 $942,200 1999-00 $713,345 $0 $50,785 $101,570 $150,000 $1,105,710 Consolidated Plan 2000 2000-01 $812,750 $0 $50,715 $101,430 $50,000 $1,014,300 2001-02 $959,140 $0 $56,420 $112,840 $0 $1,128,400 2002-03 $862,115 $0 $56,595 $113,190 $100,000 $1,131,900 2003-04 $872,915 $0 $57,230 $114,461 $100,000 $1,144,606 2004-05 $972,548 $0 $57,209 $114,417 $0 $1,144,174 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) New Construction/ Rehabilitation CHDO Operating Administration Downpayment Total Acquisition Assistance 2003-04 n/a n/a n/a n/a $56,702 $56,702 2004-05 n/a n/a n/a n/a $66,910 $66,910 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122C.doc ATTACHMENT C COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP CDBG Advisory Committee Members: Bjo Ashwill Betsy Ford Robert Haase Pat Larson Tim Smith Dwight Souers Rita Svanks Michael Waldorf HPB Members: Lane County, Bobby Green At Large: Lea Allen City of Eugene, Gary Pape Norton Cabell City of Springfield, Dave Ralston Roxie Cuellar Bob Doppelt Pat Hadley John VanLandingham L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122C.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of Resolution 4789 Forming a Local Improvement District for Paving, Constructing Curbs and Gutters, Sidewalks, Median, Street Lights, Traffic Signal, Street Trees, Wastewater and Stormwater Drainage on Garden Way from Sisters View Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and the North Side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Marche Chase Drive to 1-5 (Job #3502) Meeting Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2D Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Paul Klope www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5246 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY The council is asked to approve the Hearings Official's Minutes, Findings and Recommendations dated April 5, 2004, and to adopt a resolution forming a Local Improvement District (LID) for paving, constructing curbs and gutters, sidewalks, median, street lights, traffic signal, street trees, wastewater and stormwater drainage on Garden Way from Sisters View Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and the north side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Marche Chase Drive to I-5. BACKGROUND Council Action History This project is identified is the FY98-FY03 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted by the council on February 26, 1997, and in the FY98 Capital Budget adopted June 23, 1997. Improvement to Garden Way is included as a project in TransPlan (adopted in 1986) and the Willakenzie Area Plan (adopted in 1992). On December 7, 1998, the City Council adopted a motion to authorize the design phase only of the Garden Way Street project and consider a City Council public hearing regarding the project. A work session was held by the council on September 11, 2002, and a joint public hearing was held with the Board of County Commissioners on September 18, 2002. At those times, the council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations of approving the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan which included the proposed design of Garden Way. The council held a work session on October 28, 2002, to discuss testimony and questions raised during the September 18, 2002, joint public hearing. On November 12, 2002, the council passed a motion to approve the proposed design, right-of-way acquisition and bidding to improve Garden Way to make a safe pedestrian- and transit-friendly facility. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122D.doc On September 8, 2003, the council adopted a resolution authorizing the use of the eminent domain process for needed right-of-way acquisition. However, all of the right-of-way needed for the project was required without the use of eminent domain. Policy Issues There are no new policy issues associated with this item. Council Goals Improvement of Garden Way addresses the Council Goal for Safe Community by improving street safety for the current and future pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular needs in this developing area of the community. Financial and/or Resource Considerations The total total cost is estimated at $3,718,113.50, and is funded from several sources in the following approximate amounts: Assessments $ 927,261.89 City of Eugene $ 2,790,851.61 The non-assessable City share for this project will be funded primarily from Transportation systems development charges (SDC), stormwater SDCs and from ODOT. Systems development funds are paid by new development to finance the non-assessable share of this type of improvement project. The non- assessable costs the City will pay for include additional width of paving, intersections, medians, bike lanes, street lights, street trees, traffic signal, and non-assessable storm drainage system costs. In addition, the City is paying for the costs of improvements built through the I-105 right-of-way and across the Q-Street channel. Of the assessable cost, $451,106.34 will be delayed street assessment and $223,200.07 will be on-hold wastewater assessments. Assessments are anticipated to be levied following the completion of construction. Following the levying of assessments, ten-year financing through the City of Eugene will be available for owners of properties being assessed for this local improvement. Other Background Information On December 3, 2003, the Lane County Board of Commissioner, by Board Order 03-12-3-8, authorized the City of Eugene to assess nine properties that are within Lane County but outside the City limits. The nine properties are: Gorman tax lot #17033312 00802 White tax lot # 17032840 01800 Wylie tax lot # 17032840 00103 tax lot # 17032840 00100 tax lot #17032840 00102 Robinson tax lot #17032840 01900 tax lot #17032840 02000 Brenaman tax lot #17032840 02200 Thompson tax lot #17032840 01101 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122D.doc Bids were opened on March 11, 2004, with Wildish Construction Co. as the apparent low bidder. The property owners were notified of the pending Local Improvement District (LID) hearing ten (10) days prior to the hearing as required by Eugene Code. The purpose of the LID formation hearing was to review the bid information, confirm whether the LID should be formed and to identify any special conditions that should be included in the resolution forming the LID. The hearing was held on March 17, 2004, with five property owners attending (see attached Hearings Official Minutes). The improvements will consist of a 44-foot wide road with two travel lanes, a center turn lane for a portion of the project with landscape medians, bicycle lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, a traffic signal, street trees, traffic calming and wastewater and storm water drainage systems. The improvements to Garden Way also address two hazardous 90-degree curves and safety issues at the intersection with Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Traffic signal modifications will also be made at the intersection of Garden Way and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Timing All necessary steps have been completed as prescribed by the Eugene Code for the initiation and formation of an LID. Delay in the formation of the LID will delay completion of the road improvement project. OPTIONS Per Section 7.166(3) of the Eugene Code, the City Council can take the following actions: 1. Approve the resolution forming the LID. 2. Substantially modify the improvement, rebidding if necessary, and then conduct a hearing on the modified improvements. 3. Delay the approval not more than 15 days. 4. Abandon the improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Minutes, Findings and Recommendations of the Hearings Official and adoption of the resolution forming the Local Improvement District as described. The bids received are comparable to projects of similar size and scope and formation of the LID will be consistent with City Council adopted policy. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the Hearings Official's Minutes, Finding and Recommendations of April 5, 2004. Move to adopt Resolution 4789 forming a Local Improvement District for paving, constructing curbs and gutters, sidewalks, median, street lights, traffic signal, street trees, wastewater and stormwater drainage on Garden Way from Sisters View Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and the North side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Marche Chase Drive to I-5. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122D.doc ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution B. Hearings Official Minutes, Findings and Recommendations C. Map FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Paul Klope Telephone: 682-5246 Staff E-Mail: paul.w.klope.~eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404122D.doc ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION FORMING A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR PAVING, CONSTRUCTING CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, MEDIAN, STREET LIGHTS, TRAFFIC SIGNAL, STREET TREES, WASTEWATER AND STORM WATER DRAINAGE ON GARDEN WAY FROM SISTERS VIEW AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD, AND THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD FROM MARCHE CHASE DRIVE TO 1-5. (JOB #3502) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. A~ter proper notice of'the hearings required by Sections 7.165 and 7.166 of'the Eugene Code, 1971 (EC), and a~ter receiving the hearings officer's report, the City Council hereby declares it is in the public interest to construct the local improvements described in Section 2 of'this Resolution and assess part of'the costs thereof'to the specially benefitted properties on Garden Way from Sisters View Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and the north side of'Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Marche Chase Drive to I-5, subject to the provisions of' Section 4 of'this Resolution. Section 2. The Council hereby orders the establishment of a local improvement district on Garden Way from Sisters View Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and the north side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Marche Chase Drive to I-5 and in that district to pave, construct or install sidewalks, curbs and gutters, median, street lights, traffic signal, street trees, wastewater, and storm water drainage and related improvements ("the Improvements'). Section 3. The costs of the Improvements shall be borne by and assessed to the properties in the district in accordance with EC 7.175 and Section 4 of this Resolution. Included in the cost shall be the overhead costs specified in EC 7.170 and whatever other special costs, such as acquisition Resolution- 1 of interests in real property, as are necessary to make the Improvements. Upon completion of the Improvements, the final costs therefor will be calculated and the owners of benefitted property shall be notified and the property assessed as provided in E.C. 7.185 to 7.240. The assessments to be levied for the Improvements are hereby characterized for purposes of the property tax limitation in Section 1 lb, Art. XI of the Oregon Constitution as assessments for a local improvement, not subject to the constitutional limitation of $10 per thousand of real market value. Notice of the intent to so characterize the assessments was sent to the affected property owners prior to the adoption of this Resolution. Section 4. Several of the properties proposed for inclusion in the local improvement district are located outside the boundaries of the City. Under provisions of state law, the concurrence of the Lane County Board of Commissioners is required for inclusion of the properties in the local improvement district. On December 3, 2002, Lane County, by Board Order 03-12-3-8, has given concurrence that the properties (Gorman, Tax Lot #17033312 00802; White, Tax Lot #17032840 01800; Wylie, Tax Lots #17032840 00103, #17032840 00100, and #17032840 00102; Robinson, Tax Lots #17032840 01900 & 02000; Chase, Tax Lot #17032840 02103; Brenaman, Tax Lot # 17032840 02200; and Thompson, Tax Lot # 17032840 01101) be included in the local improvement district. Section 5. The City Council hereby declares that the construction of the Improvements, as well as acquisition of rights-of-way or easements necessary for the construction, is for a public purpose, is necessary for the public welfare, is authorized under the laws of the State of Oregon and Charter and ordinances of the City of Eugene, and is directed by this Resolution. Section 6. The City of Eugene, Oregon expects to make expenditures from its available funds to pay for the costs of improvements to Garden Way from Sisters View Avenue to Martin Luther King J. Boulevard, and the north side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Marche Chase Drive Resolution - 2 to 1-5 (the "Project"). The City reasonably expects, and hereby declares its intent, to issue bonds or other obligations (the"Reimbursement Bonds") and to use the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures made from the City's available funds for the Project. The City expects that the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $1,019,988.08. Section 7. Improvement warrants, short-term promissory notes and other evidence of indebtedness authorized by Chapter 902, 1991 Oregon Session Laws, issued to finance the construction of the Improvements shall be indebtedness for them. When improvement warrants are issued they may be general obligation warrants or limited general obligation warrants or other similar instrument. Such indebtedness shall bear interest at a rate set by Council resolution authorizing the debt. The interest shall be paid upon redemption. Section 8. Proceeds from unbonded assessments, improvement bonds, foreclosure of liens based on the Improvements and from other budgeted funds including ad valorem taxes, if levied, to pay the debt shall be deposited in the Short Term Debt Fund until the indebtedness issued to finance the Improvements is redeemed. Proceeds so deposited may be used only to pay the indebtedness issued to finance the Improvements. Section 9. The Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Officer may sign the evidence of indebtedness herein authorized by facsimile signature with a check signing machine. The Finance Officer shall cause the seal of the City to be printed on the evidence of indebtedness when required by law or by the purchaser. Section 10. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing Resolution adopted the 12th day of April, 2004. City Recorder Resolution - 3 ATTACHMENT B FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT: PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FORMATION FOR PAVING, CONSTRUCTING CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, MEDIAN, STREET LIGHTS, TRAFFIC SIGNAL, STREET TREES, WASTEWATER AND ~ STORM WATER DRAINAGE ON GARDEN WAY FROM SISTERS VIEW AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD, AND THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD FROM MARCHE CHASE DRIVE TO I-5. (JOB #3502) BACKGROUND Garden Way is a collector street running between Harlow Road on the north to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard on the south. For many years Garden Way was a heavily used, but very old road, lying partially in the City and partially outside the City, passing through a small unannexed area. The northern half of Garden Way has been improved. The southern half, stretching from where Garden Way is crossed by 1-105 south to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard has not yet been improved. The Garden Way improvement project was identified in the FY98-FY03 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted by the Council February 26, 1997, and in the FY98 Capital Budget adopted June 23, 1997. Improvements to Garden Way is included as a project in TransPlan (adopted in 1986) and the Willakenzie Area Plan (adopted in 1992). On November 5, 1998, an informational meeting was conducted to provide property owners and interested parties with information regarding the proposed Garden Way improvement project. On November 12, 1998 a public hearing was held with a hearings official regarding initiation of design of the project, and to give property owners the opportunity to provide input to the City Council on needs and issues associated with the project. On December 7, 1998, the Eugene City Council adopted a motion to authorize the design phase only of the Garden Way Street project and consider a City Council public hearing regarding the project. A work session was held by the City Council on September 11, 2002 and a public hearing was held by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners on September 18, 2002. At those times, the Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations of approving the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan which included the proposed design of Garden Way. The Council held a work session on October 28, 2002 to discuss testimony and questions raised during the September 18, 2002 joint public heating. On November 12, 2002, the Council passed a motion to approve the proposed design, right of way acquisition and bidding to improve Garden Way to make a safe, pedestrian and transit friendly facility as adopted and identified by the Council in the FY98-FY03 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and in the FY98 Capital Budget. On September 8, 2003, the Council adopted a PROPOSED PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON GARDEN WAY AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD FORMATION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page I resolution authorizing acquisition of needed right of way through the eminent domain process for the Garden Way project. .The Lane County Board of Commissioners on December 3, 2003, by Board Order 03-12-3-8 authorized the City of Eugene to assess the nine (9) properties outside the City limits for this project. Bids were opened on March 11, 2004, with Wildish Construction Co. as the apparent low bidder. The property owners were notified of the pending Local Improvement District (LID) hearing ten (10) days prior to the heating. PROJECT The improvements will consist of a 44-foot wide road with two travel lanes, a center turn lane for a portion of the project with landscaped medians, bicycle lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, a traffic signal, street trees, traffic calming and wastewater and storm water drainage systems. The improvements to Garden Way also address two hazardous 90-degree curves and safety issues at the intersection with Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Traffic signal modifications will also be made at the intersection of Garden Way and 'Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Based on the low bid received (plus 10 percent contingency), the estimated assessment rate will be: Paving 7- foot (per front foot) $ 74.48 Paving 10-foot (per front foot) $ 106.39 Sidewalk (per square foot) $ 3.95 Wastewater (per square foot) $ 0.30 Wastewater service (per each) $ 3,650.30 Total Assessable Cost $ 927,261.89 Total City Cost $ 2,790,851.61 Total Project Cost $ 3,718,113.50 As provided in the Eugene Code, the assessable portion of the cost of creating and paving the street width is assessed to adjacent property based on the front footage of the property. Properties that are zoned for residential will be assessed for seven (7) feet of pavement width along their frontage. Properties zoned for commercial use will be assessed for ten (10) feet of pavement width. Single family residential properties that are fully developed or vacant but under ½ acre pay for a maximum of 100 feet and a minimum of 50 feet of frontage. Properties that are greater than ½ acre and are partially developed with single family residential will pay for a maximum of 100 feet of frontage at the time of assessment, with the remainder of the frontage assessment being delayed until further development occurs. Vacant properties over ½ acre are not levied an assessment with the LID. Assessment fees will be collected for these vacant PROPOSED PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON GARDEN WAY AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD FORMATION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 2 properties when they are developed in the futm-e. Of the assessable cost, $451,106.34 will be delayed street assessments, calculated according to these formulas. In addition, $223,200.07 will be on-hold wastewater assessments, collected when the subject properties connect to the City wastewater system.. Assessment financing, a 1 O-year payment plan through the City, is available to all property owners within the improvement district as identified by City Code, Chapter 7. The nonassessable costs the City will pay for include additional width of paving, intersections, medians, bike lanes, street lights, street trees, traffic signal, and non-assessable storm drainage system costs. In addition, the City is paying for the costs of improvements built through the I- 105 right of way and across the Q-Street Channel. The City costs will be paid from City Transportation Systems Development charges (SDCs) and storm water SDCs, and from Oregon Department of Transportation funds. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement in this proposed improvement has been significant since it was first proposed. During the current proposal, public involvement has reduced in number somewhat. One aspect of public involvement of importance to note is that information on low income subsidies was provided to property owners in the area. Several responses have been received, or will be received within a timely period. No decisions on eligibility ahs been made. Property owners were notified of the hearing and opportunity to'speak at least ten days before the scheduled heating. Property owners appeared at the March 17, 2004, heating and offered statements and asked questions regarding the proposed project and estimated assessments. A copy of the minutes of that public hearing is attached as Exhibit A. No remonstrances were filed. In addition to detailed questions about the process, the most common concern expressed related to the attendees' objections to having to pay a portion of the cost for the improvements. The attendees understood that the City had examined the question of an equitable balance of costs, and had recently gone through a revision to provide a balance where local property owners pay a smaller share of the costs than had previously been the case. Nevertheless, the attendees did not feel that they should be expected to pay as much as proposed, instead feeling that other users of Garden Way should be required to pay more. The distribution of costs is a difficult policy matter that has been reviewed extensively by the Council. The Council has more information regarding the relative degree of street usage, and the actual usage and benefit from other improvements related to street improvements than a small group of individuals have who are responding to a proposed assessment. The proposed assessments are consistent with the policy decisions that the Council has made, as those PROPOSED PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON GARDEN WAY AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD FORMATION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 3 decisions are embodied in the Eugene Code. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Notice of the public hearing was provided and all the property owners were given an opportunity to participate in the hearings. Appropriate notice was given of the public hearing and the availability of the proposed ordinance for LID formation, as required by the Eugene Charter and Code. Letters informing property owners of the hearing and notification to property owners of the intent of the City to characterize the assessment as an assessment, not a tax, as required by ORS 305.583(5) were mailed to the property owners. The Hearings Officer finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local improvements as set forth in ORS 310.410 because 1. ' The assessments do not exceed actual costs; 2. The assessments are imposed for a capital construction project that provides a specific benefit for a specific property or rectifies a problem caused by a specific property 3. The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion of the project; and 4. The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten (10) years. The Hearings Official also finds that the method of calculation of the area to be assessed and the estimated assessments is consistent with the language of the Eugene Code. The Hearings Official recommends that the Council act in accord with the City Engineer's recommendations, accepting the low bid and forming the local improvement district as set forth in the City Engineer's recommendations. Milo Mecham Heatings Official Dated: April 5, 2004 PROPOSED PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON GARDEN WAY AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD FORMATION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 4 Exhibit A MINUTES Local Improvement District Formation Paving, Construction, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Median Street Lights, Traffic Signal, Street Trees, Wastewater and Stormwater Drainage on Garden Way from Sisters View Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and the north side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard from Marche Chase Drive to I-5. March 17, 2004 Public Heating Heatings Official Milo Mecham convened the hearing at 6:05 p.m. He described the subject matter of the heating and procedures to be followed at the hearing. Present at the hearing representing the City of Eugene was Principal Engineer Paul Klope and Project Engineer Steve Gallop. Principal Engineer Paul Klope began the City's presentation by briefly describing the project's history. Mr. Klope explained that the project was identified in the FY 98-03 Capital Improvement Program, adopted by the Council in 1997, and the FY 98 Capital Budget adopted in June, 1997. Following that initiation, there was a series of public meetings, formal and informal, concerning the project. Mr. Klope described how this project was one of several projects under way that led, in 2001, to revisions in the City's public improvement assessment policies. The changes were briefly described and a handout on the changes was distributed. Mr. Klope then described the changes in land use policy that also affected the development of this project. The most significant change came in 2002, when the City Council held hearings and adopted a Nodal Development Plan for the Garden Way area. All of these developments culminated in the city council adopting a motion on November 12, 2002, to approve the proposed design of the improvements to Garden Way. In December 2003 the Lane County Board of Commissioners authorized assessment of properties outside the City of Eugene for the Garden Way improvement project. Mr. Klope described the nature of the project, including the street improvements and the safety features. The project will have two traffic lanes, with a center turn lane, it will have sidewalks, street trees and street lights, and the other amenities associated with a collector street. Mr. Klope described the proposed assessments. After bids were received and reviewed, Wildish Construction was determined to be the apparent low bidder. Mr. Klope discusses each component of the estimated assessments. Property owners are proposed to be assessed less than one third of the total project cost. The City will pay the cost of the excess pavement width, the intersection costs, approximately three fourths of the storm drainage costs, and other special costs that have been determined to not benefit the property owners within the district. Mr. Klope explained the Council policies concerning limiting total assessments, and deferring some assessments, based on the current use of property within the proposed district. Mr. Klope explained about the option of bonding the property owner's obligation, to allow payment of the assessment over time. Mr. Klope was asked about the interest rate for such borrowing. Mr. Klope explained that it was not bank rates, but a lower rate that was determined at the time of the assessment. Mr. Klope directed the questioner to the City's assessment financing guide. The guide contains information on who to contact so that question about interest rates could be answered in a timely and accurate manner.. An assessment financing guide sheet was distributed. Mr. Klope closed his remarks by touching briefly on the remonstrance process, whereby if sufficient property owners file written objections, the matter will be forwarded to the Council for consideration of the remonstrances. Mr. Klope having concluded his presentation, the Hearings Officer invited members of the public to speak. There were four members of the general public present. All were residents of the area. The attendees were: Lynn Chase, 158 S. Garden Way; Jerry Thompson and Vanessa Thompson, 110 S. Garden Way; and Charles Salamone, 165 N. Garden Way. The first attendee to speak was Mr. Jerry Thompson of 110 South Garden Way. Mr. Thompson began with a statement concerning his opinion that the proposed improvements were being made to accommodate the use of Garden Way by persons other than those who live along Garden Way. Mr. Thompson expressed doubts about the actual benefit to property owners. He felt that, while sidewalks were nice, they were not needed by persons living along the street. Mr. Thompson reiterated his opinion that the proposed LID was inappropriate because while the road improvements were made to benefit others, the property owners along Garden Way were still being asked to pay a large share of the cost. Mr. Thompson concluded by calling attention to the problem of sewer hook ups, which he felt were of no immediate value because houses along Garden Way could not get access to the sewers unless they annexed to the city. The next person to speak was Ms. Lynn Chase, of 158 South Garden Way. Ms. Chase complained about the cost of connecting to the sewer system and the similar problem of purchasing a new septic system. Ms. Chase indicated that her husband was out of work because of surgery, and the cost of either a new septic system or connecting to the city sewers was too great for her family. The next person to speak was Mr. Charles Salamone, 165 North Garden Way. Mr. Salamone began by questioning the idea of a benefit to the properties, He pointed out that he doubted if his house would increase in resale value because of the improvements, from which he concluded that there was no real benefit to him as a property owner. Mr. Salamone suggested that the use of the street needed to be taken into consideration, because, like the others, Mr. Salamone felt that the improvements were being made to accommodate outside traffic, and that these other interests should have to pay the cost of the improvements. Mr. Klope explained the role of System Development Charges (SDCs) in paying for improvements. Mr. Klope explained that SDCs are collected from developers and placed in a fund that is used to pay the City's share of improvements. In this way, the other users from around the City do pay for the cost of a street that is being put in to accommodate their use. Mr. Klope identified the seven and ten foot pavement widths as the local portion of the costs, similar to the cost of a local city street. Mr. Klope explained how the additional paving width was paid for from SDCs. This discussion led to questions concerning the division of costs. Mr. Klope explained that the total project was estimated to cost $3,718,113 but the local share of the total cost was $927,262. This division of costs was intended to reflect a balance of the outside users verses local users of Garden Way. There were questions about the City's delayed assessment policy. Mr. Klope explained that the delayed assessment policy was designed to reduce the burden on large lots, to avoid the assessment becoming a spur to dividing o? developing the lot. Mr. Klope explained that the policy limited the assessment to the first 100 feet of large lots, regardless of the actual frontage. A member of the audience suggested that a 100 foot threshold was too big. A 50 foot limit was suggested as being more reflective of the standard city lot size. Questions were asked about the other bids for the project. Mr. Gallop of the Engineer's Office provided information on the other bidders. The estimated costs for the assessments was requested. Mr. Klope responded by providing each element of the estimated assessment, how it was calculated, and where it would apply. The division of costs between the City and the property owners was discussed in more detail. The effect of the delayed assessments was discussed. In response to a question, Mr. Klope described the rationale behind the delayed assessment and confirmed that, if a property subject to the delayed assessment is improved, the delayed assessment will be due at the time the improvements are made. Ms. Lynn Chase announced that she had discussed the proposed assessments with many of her neighbors. Ms. Chase reported that none of her neighbors could believe how much she was being asked to pay. Several other audience members agreed. They announced that they appreciated that the Council had tried to improve the system, and to make it more fair, but that they still felt that was not fair and imposed too great a burden on the local property owners. Mr. Thompson reminded the city staff that the Garden Way area was an historic district. He expressed concern that the proposed street lights would not be consistent with the historic character of the neighborhood. Project engineer Gallop responded in detail. Comparing the relative costs and lighting ability of the type of historic lights that Mr. Thompson mentioned, Mr. Gallop explained that the City had chosen the standard lights because they provided both a cost savings and a lighting advantage. There was some questions about the proposed improvement to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Mr. Klope responded to the questions. He explained that, because of the improvements to Garden Way itself, it was possible to close the previous "off- ramp" or side street to through traffic. This street was being made into a local, limited access street. There were individual questions about bike paths, planter strip along Garden Way, the location of the sidewalks, and the impact on the fence which goes along the canal. Mr. Klope answered each of the questions. There was an extensive discussion about the waterway - canal - that runs trough the area. Mr. Klope assured the audience that the City did not intend to make any significant changes to the canal. There being no further requests to speak, the hearing was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 16, 2004 FROM: Mark Schoening, City Engineer TO: Hearings Official SUBJECT: LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FORMATION FOR PAVING, CONSTRUCTING CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, MEDIAN, STREET LIGHTS, TRAFFIC SIGNAL, STREET TREES, WASTEWATER AND STORM WATER DRAINAGE ON GARDEN WAY FROM SISTERS VIEW AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD, AND THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD FROM MARCHE CHASE DRIVE TO I-5. (JOB #3502) BACKGROUND This project was identified in the FY98-FY03 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted by the Council February 26, 1997, and in the FY98 Capital Budget adopted June 23, 1997. Improvements to Garden Way is included as a project in TransPlan (adopted in 1986) and the Willakenzie Area Plan (adopted in 1992). On November 5, 1998, an informational meeting was conducted to provide property owners and interested parties with information regarding the proposed Garden Way improvement project. On November 12, 1998 a public heating was held with a hearings official regarding initiation of design of the project, and to give property owners the opportunity to provide input to City Council on needs and issues associated with the project.. On December 7, 1998, City Council adopted a motion to authorize the design phase only of the Garden Way Street project and consider a City Council public hearing regarding the project. A work session was held by the City Council on September 11, 2002 and a public hearing was held by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners on September 18, 2002. At those times, the Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations of approving the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan which included the proposed design of Garden Way. The Council held a work session on October 28, 2002 to discuss testimony and questions raised during the September 18, 2002 joint public heating. On November 12, 2002, the Council passed a motion to approve the proposed design, right of way acquisition and bidding to improve Garden Way to make a safe, pedestrian and transit friendly facility as adopted and identified by Council in the FY98-FY03 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and in the FY98 Capital Budget. On September 8, 2003 Council adopt a resolution authorizing through the eminent domain process of needed right of way for the purposes of construction of the Garden Way project. The Lane County Board of Commissioners on December 3, 2003 by Board Order 03-12-3-8 authorized the City of Eugene to assess those properties outside the City limits for this project. Those nine (9) properties that abut the project are located in Lane County. Those lots are: Gorman tax lot # 17033312 00802 White tax lot #17032840 01800 Wylie tax lot #17032840 00103 tax lot #17032840 00100 tax lot #17032840 00102 Robinson tax lot #17032840 01900 tax lot #17032840 02000 Brenaman tax lot #17032840 02200 Thompson tax lot #17032840 01101 Bids were opened on March 11, 2004, with Wildish Construction Co. as the apparent low bidder. The property owners were notified of the pending Local Improvement District (LID) hearing ten (10) days prior to the hearing as required by Municipal Code. The LID formation hearing on March 17, 2004, is to review the bid information, confirm whether the LID should be formed and to identify any special conditions that should be included in the resolution forming the LID. CORRESPONDENCE City staff has received five phone calls from property owners wanting to attend the hearing and no written correspondence has been received as of noon, March 16, 2003. PROJECT The improvements will consist of a 44-foot wide road with two travel lanes, a center turn lane for a portion of the project with landscaped medians, bicycle lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, a traffic signal, street trees, traffic calming and wastewater and storm water drainage systems. The improvements to Garden Way also address two hazardous 90-degree curves and safety issues at the intersection with Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Traffic signal modifications will also be made at the intersection of Garden Way and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. A map showing the limits of the improvements and the properties to be assessed is attached. ASSESSMENT Based on the low bid received, the costs listed below are the estimated assessment costs plus contingenCy. Paving 7- foot (per front foot) $ 74.48 Paving 10-foot (per front foot) $ 106.39 Sidewalk (per square foot) $ 3.95 Wastewater (per square foot) $ 0.30 Wastewater service (per each) $ 3,650.30 Total Assessable Cost $ 927,261.89 Total City Cost $ 2,790,851.61 Total Project Cost $ 3,718,113.50 The non-assessable City share for this project will be funded primarily from Transportation SDC's, storm water SDC's, and from ODOT. Systems development funds are paid by new development to finance the non-assessable share of this type of improvement project. The nonassessable costs the City will pay for include additional width of paving, intersections, medians, bike lanes, street lights, street trees, traffic signal, and non-assessable storm drainage system costs. In addition, the City is paying for the costs of improvements built through the 1-105 right of way and across the Q-Street Channel. Properties that are zoned for residential will be assessed for seven (7) feet of pavement width along their frontage. Properties zoned for commercial use will be assessed for ten (10) feet of pavement width. Single family residential properties that are fully developed or vacant but under ½ acre pay for a maximum of 100 feet and a minimum of 50 feet of frontage. Properties that are greater than ½ acre and are partially developed with single family residential will pay for a maximum of 100 feet of frontage at the time of assessment, with the remainder of the frontage assessment being delayed until further development occurs. Vacant properties over ½ acre are not levied an assessment with the LID. Assessment fees will be collected for these vacant properties when they are deVeloped in the future. Of the assessable cost, $451,106.34 will be delayed street assessments and $223,200.07 will be on-hold wastewater assessments. Assessment financing, a 1 O-year payment plan through the City, is available to all property owners within the improvement district as identified by City Code, Chapter 7. LOW INCOME SUBSIDY Information regarding the subsidy program was mailed by certified mail to property owners of single family and duplex properties in the proposed LID.. Some property responses have been returned and 1 property owner has been granted an extension until April to turn the forms in. RECOMMENDATION This project is critical to the success of the Chase Garden Nodal Development Plan and is an important link in the City's transportation system. The unit prices submitted with the low bid are very competitive and based on staff review appropriate for this scale of project. Staff recommends approval of formation of the LID. A ~-03-; !8-1;~ i I "^ ~-'I' '"'ul I Ell I ~ TAX LDT 300 TAX LDT ~ ~: 17-03-E ~ ~ ., LOT ~ ~, N XiAX LOT l-lOS '~ II II/ ~ 1 ~1~ IlL ,.~= ~ .~k E:~?~?~_ II ' -- ~, ~, ,~ ~ ~~0~ ,~o~ ~ , - ~AX LOT ,.o '~II V GARDEN WAY ' ~lc w~ REALIGNMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS B SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION An initial public information session was held on November 5, 1998, to provide property owners and interested parties with information regarding the proposed project and get their input about preliminary concepts for upgrading Garden Way and to assure staffwere aware of the neighborhood's transportation needs. Following this initial meeting, a Hearings Official conducted a public heating on November 12, 1998, to give property owners the opportunity to provide input to the City Council on needs and issues associated with the project. Council reviewed the information on December 7, 1998, and authorized staff to proceed with design of the project. On December 9, 1999 staff held a design review meeting to discuss design alternatives with property owners and interested parties. This meeting focused on presenting proposals for the section between Centennial Boulevard and 1-105. Another meeting was planned to discuss options for the roadway features between I-105 and Harlow Road, however, that was canceled in order to evaluate additional options for the southern section that were suggested at the meeting. At the December 1999 meeting, staff presented variations of a realignment to improve the safety and effectiveness of the segment in the vicinity of the sharp 90-degree curves near Centennial Boulevard. Some of the property owners selected an alignment alternative from those that staff presented, but the majority of the audience suggested that staff consider realigning Garden Way through an undeveloped Simpson Property (Chase 3) west of Garden Way, between Centennial Boulevard and Commons Drive. Staff concluded the December meeting by indicating that we would evaluate the feasibility of this additional aliglunent and present that analysis at a future meeting. Over a few months following the December 1999 design review meeting with property owners and interested parties, staff evaluated variations of the Garden Way realignment through the Simpson Property and came up with four alternatives that were presented to the property owners and Simpson Housing representatives. Since that time, Simpson Housing hired planning and development consultants to analyze the alternatives and present their findings at a later date. Also, shortly after the December meeting Engineering staff and Planning staffworked together to further define the alignment through a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Study for the Chase Gardens Node. The TGM Study for chase Gardens Node was funded by a grant received from the State of Oregon. The Chase Gardens Node, which is the same as the Opportunity Area depicted in the 1992 Willakenzie Area Plan, is bounded by 1-5 on the east, 1-105 on the north, and Centennial Boulevard on the west and south (see Attachment C for the map of the Chase Garden Nodal Development Plan). The Chase Gardens Node TGM Study provides a planning guide to create a safe pedestrian and transit friendly neighborhood while considering the existing land use pattern, undeveloped land, and natural and historic resources. Development of the design of Garden Way with extensive public involvement was a key element of the study. Through a series of public workshops and stakeholder interviews between 2000 and 2002 (see Attachment D for the Citizen Involvement Activities list) for the Chase Gardens Node, alternative designs and alignments for Garden Way were created and considered. An open house was held on June 6, 2001 to provide property owners the opportunity to comment on the Nodal Development Plan and Garden Way design. The Eugene Planning Commissions held a work session on April 23, 2001 to review the nodal development and to comment on two possible alignments of the area's collector street. The Commission suggested that Garden Way should remain the main north-south collector street. A preliminary nodal development plan was presented and reviewed by the Commission on June 12, 2001. On June 18, 2001 the Eugene Planning Commission held a work session to review further analysis work related to the nodal plan. A joint public hearing was held by the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions on January 8, 2002 to consider the draft Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan. The record remained open until January 22, 2002. Staff responded to public testimony, then the record was reopened between February 20 through March 5, 2002. The Eugene Planning Commission held a work session on March 12, 2002 to review the public comments received and staff response. After this work session, the Commission confirmed its recommendation that Garden Way remain the primary north-south collector street through Chase Gardens and that the roadway be realigned to reduce or remove the sharp 90-degree curves near Centennial Boulevard. A final work session was held by the Eugene Planning Commission on April 2, 2002 recommending to the City Council approval of the Chase Gardens Nodal Development concept as contained in the draft. On May 21, 2002, the Lane County Planning Commission reviewed the Eugene Planning Commission's general direction and agreed with Eugene's recommendation. A work session was held by the Eugene City Council on September 11, .2002 and a public heating was held by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners on September 18, 2002. At those times, the Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations of approving the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan. The Council held a work session on October 28, 2002 to discuss testimony and questions raised during the September 18, 2002 joint public hearing. On November 12, 2002, City Council passed an ordinance establishing the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan. On March 19, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners ordained the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan and amended the Metro Plan and the Willakenzie Area Plan. · . Citizen Involvement Activities" Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan Event Date, · Tech Team Present. Meeting with Simpson Housing August 15, 2000 PWE, PDD Meeting with Harlow N~ighbors September 21, 2000 PDD M~ting at Unity School September 26, 2000 PWE, PDD GIS transfer of data to consultant 'October 2000 PW GIS 8~5 hfs W~b Site Set up via U of O October 2000 Satre/Staff Coordination Ociob~ 11, 2000 PWT, PWE, PDD Satre/StaffCoordination Octobea' 19, 2000 -' PWT', PWE, PDD Technical Advisory Committee #1 Ootober 23, 2000 All Meeting with Harlow Neighbors Novembin' 2, 2000 PDD, PWT Meeling With. Councilor Kelly . November 3, 2000 PDD . Meeting with Wylie Nov~mabi~r 14, 2001 PWT, PWE, PDD Neighborhood WOliahop* Now~mber 16, 2000 TAC: Historic r~view ~lnn' 2, 2000 PDD Published Council N~'wsl~l~'r Decemlxa' 3, 2000 Ndghborhood W~ * Decemt~ 13, 2000 TAC: Market Study January 4, 2001 All TAC January 8, 2001 PWT. PWE, Parks, PDD Meeting with Harlow Neighbors . J .anuary 11, 2001 PDD TAC January 19, 2001 . .PWT, PWE, PDD Neighborhood Drop-in Session * January. 23, 2001 TAC January 24, 2001 All Neighborhood Workshop * January 30, 2001 TACdKittleson February 1, 2001 PWT, PDD TAC March 7, 2001 All TAC April 3, 2001 PWT TAC ' Apdl 11, 2001 All Eugene Planning Commi~ion April 23, 2001 PWT, PDD, Parks Simpson Meeting April 23, 2001 PWT, PDD Public Open House * June 6, 2001 TAC June 7,'2001 PDD, PWT, PWE Eugene Planning Commission June 12, 2001' TAC June 13, 2001 PDD, ?WT, PWE Eugene Planning Commission June 18, 2001 PDD, PWE, PWT Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2001 PDD, PWE, PWT; Parks Meeting with Simpson Housing November 14,2001 PDD, PWE, PWT Harlow Neighbors November 14, 2001 PDD Eugene/Lane Joint Planning Commi~ion ~ January 8, 2002 PDD, PWT · (* Event preCeded by mass .mailing) ATTACHMENT C BDUNDARY SISTERS VIEW AVE. COMMONS 17-03-~8-14 17--03-28-40 TAX LOT 300 TAX LOT 3500 MAHLON AVE. Q STREET CHANNEL WES~ HO AVE. TAX AX LOT TAX LDT 800 17-03- LOT DO o 17...03_L:~8_40 1-105 '" TAX ,.T 1-105 o 17-03-L>8-40 TAX LIlT 1407 17-03-~8-41 TAX LIlT 1000 TAX LOT SSESSHENT DEN. N4DARY COMMONS DR. ~3]N LUTHER KING JR. BLVD. TAX LDTS DUTSIDE CITY ~OUNDARY r'- I GARDEN WAY mr REALIGNMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Hearing: An Ordinance Concerning Apportionment of Assessments for Alley Improvements; Amending Section 7.175 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Mark Schoening www. ci. eugette, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5243 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a public hearing to consider an ordinance that would amend the Eugene Code pertaining to the apportionment of assessments for alley improvements. The amendments to the Eugene Code would require that all costs associated with alley improvements be assessed to the benefitting properties and that assessments be calculated on a block-by-block basis. The amended code would still apportion assessments for alley improvements using land use weighting factors based upon zoning and existing use applied to property area and alley frontage, respectively. The public notification required by the Municipal Charter has been completed. In addition, all of the affected property owners in the proposed West University Neighborhood (WUN) alley local improvement district (LID)were notified of the public hearing. Action by the City Council is tentatively scheduled for May 10, 2004. BACKGROUND Council Action History The City Council held a work session on November 24, 2003, to review a report from the City Engineer covering the feasibility and estimated cost to improve the unimproved alleys, funding sources, range of estimated assessments, assessment code issues, design standards, timing and a proposed implementation plan. The City Council directed the City Manager to proceed with a project to improve the unimproved alleys in the WUN, consistent with the WUN Task Force Final Report and to pursue potential additional funding sources to replace the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Also, at this meeting staff identified issues with the current method of apportionment of costs for alley improvements and proposed future consideration by the council of amendments to the Eugene Code regarding the apportionment method. The council also requested that staff investigate the feasibility of amending the Eugene Code to assess all costs associated with alley improvements. The City Council held a work session on March 8, 2004, to discuss the Eugene Code regarding the apportionment of assessments for alley improvements. The direction that staff received was that the majority of the council wants an apportionment method that includes a land use factor and support assessing all of the costs associated with an alley improvement to the benefitting properties. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404123.wpd Policy lssues The policy issue before the council is whether to amend the Eugene Code pertaining to the apportionment of assessments for alley improvements to assess all of the costs associated with an alley improvement to the benefitting properties. Council Goals FAIR, STABLE AND ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES - A local government whose ongoing financial resources are based on a fair and equitable system of taxation and other revenue sources and are adequate to maintain and deliver municipal services. Financing of alley improvements through the formation of local improvement districts fairly and equitably allocates the cost of the improvements to the benefitting properties. Assessing all of the costs associated with alley improvements is reasonable because alleys primarily benefit the abutting property owners. Financial and/or Resource Considerations Amending the Eugene Code requiring that all costs associated with alley improvements be assessed will increase the financial burden to the benefitting properties. As an example, under the current Eugene Code for the proposed WUN alley LID it is estimated that the City's share of the total project cost of $1.6 million will be $116,000 or approximately seven percent. Because of the large number of alleys involved in this project, it is believed that the approximately seven percent City cost would be typical of alley improvement projects throughout the City. Amending the Eugene Code requiring that assessments be calculated on a block-by-block basis rather than a segment-by-segment basis will slightly simplify the assessment process while continuing to allocate the costs for each alley to the properties abutting and having direct access to the alley. Timing Per the Municipal Charter, ordinances amending the sections of the Eugene Code pertaining to the procedures and assessments for public improvements are effective six months after adoption by the council. The City Council initiated the WUN alley improvement project at its January 12, 2004, meeting. This action allowed staff to proceed with the public outreach, design and bidding of the improvements. It is anticipated that the council will adopt a resolution forming an LID for the WUN alley improvements in early April 2005. This will allow construction of the improvements to occur in the summer of 2005. Amendments to the Eugene Code must be adopted by early November 2004 to be applicable to the WUN LID. More importantly, staff has initiated a public communications plan for the WUN alley improvement project and information on individual assessments is likely to be the most frequently asked question. Therefore, the timely adoption of amendments to the Eugene Code will ensure a successful public communications plan. OPTIONS The options available to the council include: 1. Receive public testimony and proceed with adoption of an ordinance amending the apportionment of assessments for alley improvements. 2. Receive public testimony and direct staff to modify the proposed ordinance amending the apportionment of assessments for alley improvements. 3. Receive public testimony and decide not to proceed with adoption of an ordinance to amend the apportionment of assessments for alley improvements. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404123.wpd STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Option 1: Receive public testimony and proceed with adoption of an ordinance amending the apportionment of assessments for alley improvements. SUGGESTED MOTION None; this is a public hearing only. ATTACHMENTS A. An Ordinance Concerning Apportionment of Assessments for Alley Improvements FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Mark Schoening Telephone: 682-5243 Staff E-Mail: Mark. A. Schoening~ci. eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404123.wpd ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS; AMENDING SECTION 7.175 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (CB #4871) THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection (6) of Section 7.175 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended as follows: 7.175 Local Improvements - Apportionment of Assessments. (6) Alley improvement assessments. Alley improvement assessments shall be apportioned as follows: (a) The front footage of a parcel along the alley shall be ascertained and that footage shall be weighted, on the basis of existing use of the parcel under the zoning of the city, by multiplying the footage by the factor indicated for that use in the following table: Use Factor Single family dwelling or duplex 1.0 Other residential 3.0 Commercial or General Office 10.0 Industrial 10.0 Other 1.0 - 10.0 According to the most intensive use of the parcel most comparable to the use listed above as determined by the city engineer. (b) The area of each such parcel that is within 160 feet of the alley, as measured at right angles from the front footage of the parcel, shall be ascertained and that area shall be weighted on the basis of permissible use of the parcel under the zoning of the city, by multiplying the area by the factor indicated for that use in the table set forth in (6)(a) of this subsection. (c) One-half of the general costs and overhead to be assessed shall be apportioned on the basis of the weighted front footage and one-half on the basis of the weighted areas. t ......................... Y '~"'1~ ....... · ~~" '~'~'~ "~'""~ '~' ,~u ,.,,.,, ~re eh,nil I~ far a,nr, h e~t'q-iar'~ af t-h~ ,nll~t et~r~,nr,nft~l~t 1 Assessments for alley improvements shall be calculated on a Ordinance- 1 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404123-attA.doc block-by-block basis and shall include all the costs of the alley improvement, including, but not limited to: 1. Catch basins and pipings from catch basins to storm sewers for properties specially benefited by the basins; and 2. Intersections of alleys, and intersections of alleys with streets. ~ecfion 2. Th~ Oity ~oord~r, ~t th~ r~qu~t of, or with th~ oonourmno~ of th~ Oity Attorney, i~ ~uthoriz~d to ~dmini~tmtiv~ly correct ~ny r~f~r~no~ ~rror~ contained h~min or in other provi~ion~ of th~ ~u~n~ Ood~, ~?~, to th~ provi~ion~ ~m~nd~d or r~p~l~d h~min. ~ecfion ~. Motwith~t~ndin~ th~ provi~ion~ of 8~otion ~2 of th~ ~u~n~ Oh~rt~r of 2002, pursuant to 8~otion ~ of that Oh~rt~r, th~ ~m~ndm~nt~ to 8~otion ?.~ ?~ of th~ ~u~n~ Ood~, ~?~, ~ provided in thi~ Ordinance, ~h~ll b~oom~ ~ff~otiv~ ~i~ month~ from th~ d~t~ of it~ p~ by ~n ~ffirm~tiv~ vot~ of two-third~ of th~ m~mb~r~ of th~ Oity Oounoil. Mow~v~r, th~ ~m~ndm~nt to that ~otion ~h~ll not ~pply to ~n improvement ~uthoriz~d by th~ Oity Oounoil prior to th~ ~ff~otiv~ d~t~ of thi~ Ordinance. ~ssed by ~he Bi~y Bouncil ~his ~ppro~ed by ~he ~yor ~his ~ d~y o~ ,2004. ~ d~y o~ ., 2004. City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 2 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404123-attA.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Hearing: An Ordinance Concerning Ambulance Services; Amending Sections 2.606, 2.1990, 3.005, 3.862, 3.864, 3.866, and 3.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Repealing Sections 3.850, 3.852, 3.854, 3.856, and 3.858 of that Code Meeting Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 4 Department: Fire and Emergency Medical Services Staff Contact: Tom Tallon www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-7105 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This hearing provides an opportunity for the public to give testimony on proposed update language to the existing code provisions regulating the provision of ambulance services in Eugene. The changes contained herein have been researched and developed as an integral part to the Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department's multi-phased EMS Redesign Project. Staff is requesting City Council approval of the proposed modifications. The ordinance changes are designed to simplify the regulatory requirements by reducing redundant language, eliminating out-of-date references, and making the City's code more consistent with existing Oregon Revised Statutes. In addition, the proposed modifications would enhance the City's ability to regulate ambulance operators, and allow for subcontracted arrangements. BACKGROUND Council Action History The original ordinance language regulating ambulance services in Eugene was drafted in the early 1980s, as the City assumed responsibility for this vital public safety service when the long time private provider ceased operations with just eight hours notice. Since that time, minor changes have been made periodically to keep the ordinance language contemporary. Policy Issues There are no policy issues associated with this item. Council Goal Action Priority The FY03-04 Council Goal of"Safe Community," includes an action priority that calls for steps to be taken to enhance readiness for major emergencies. The creation of a public/private agreement to address the growing demand for low priority, non-emergent ambulance transport service would help to preserve available advanced life support (ALS) ambulance crews for true life-threatening emergencies more often. Also supporting this endeavor is the Council Goal of L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124.doc "Fair, Stable and Adequate Financial Resources," which speaks of the need to prioritize available revenue and resource allocation to preserve and protect infrastructure and essential assets, including operations, maintenance and preservation. Financial and/or Resource Considerations The City's FY04 Proposed Budget document refers to the ongoing operating deficit facing the Ambulance Transport Fund (#592), by discussing the current implementation of a multi-phased plan which included the creation of a single-role ambulance resource, the formation of the "combination crew" deployment strategy, and the assumption of direct responsibility for performing all tasks associated with the ambulance service's accounts receivable functions. While these modifications have realized the projected annual savings, they have not provided a complete solution to the identified financial shortfalls. This proposal represents an additional strategy for developing further service refinements and cost efficiencies within the system. Other Background Information In addition to emergent and immediate ambulance response, Eugene also operates a non- emergency, pre-scheduled transfer service that regularly picks up and delivers patients for dialysis, cancer treatment, and other routine appointments for which they are too sick to travel by other modes of transportation. The call is handled first by a single-role paramedic ambulance or, if one is not available, a dual-role firefighter/paramedic staffed medic unit. The table below shows the significant volume these low level calls currently account for in the City's system. Call Type FY01 FY02 FY03 All Transports 8,387 8,565 9,231 Pre-Scheduled 806 1,329 470* Total 9,193 9,894 9,701 Daily Average 25 27 27 * The number shown is lower than actual activity as a result of a change in the way these pre-scheduled calls are now being coded and processed. Staff believes the provision to allow the potential for sub-contracting some low priority, non- emergency transport services can be successful in helping to lower the total aggregate unit costs of providing ambulance services here. Another potential benefit could be an augmentation to the area's overall ambulance inventory, and low priority transport service delivery without additional public cost. Currently, to preserve the limited ambulance capacity within the EMS system here, Eugene engine and truck companies are routinely dispatched to perform non-emergency patient evaluations. Upon arrival, the first response fire crew rapidly assesses the patient's condition and determines the most appropriate level of intervention. For incidents that require some form of non-emergency transportation, the options now available are very limited. In certain qualifying situations, the first responders can access the local CAHOOTS program, or a local industrial medic first aid service. However, because of the limited capacity of these programs, and their restricted scope of practice, these options are often either unavailable or inappropriate, leaving the use of a paramedic ambulance as the only other viable transport method available. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124.doc The recently completed Standards of Response Coverage document offered several key recommendations for improving fire and EMS services to the community. Several are directly related to the item now before the council: OBJECTIVE 2 Build on the efficiencies created by EFD's EMS Redesign Project, Phase 1 delivery model and analyze the potential benefits of dynamic deployment strategies across the service system. Recommendations: 1. Evaluate the use of "peak activity" type units, both fire and EMS, utilized by other public safety agencies in the state and region. Many fire and EMS agencies are moving towards' the use of some kind of dynamically deployed human resource component, to augment cyclical demand gaps, while accommodating routine work assignments'. This concept may be of value in Eugene where such an analysis couM be designed to evaluate the potentia/ for enhanced dynamic deployment to provide a more cost-effective tool in meeting the incremental increases in demand. OBJECTIVE 3 Work to stabilize and secure the funding sources needed to support the continuous provision of ambulance services throughout ASA #4. Recommendations: 1. Effectively meet more of the total ambulance transport demand within ASA #4. The current deployment of ambulance resources within the greater metropolitan area is such that large portions of Eugene's established ambulance service area lie closer to transport units' operated by surrounding jurisdictions. The resulting cross- jurisdictional responses create service inefficiencies and represent significant revenue loss for Eugene. The implementation of paramedic first response capabilities on every Eugene fire engine has meant the need for the closest ambulance to respond is now limited to a small percentage of truly life-threatening emergencies. The City must work with all service partners to refine the current policy, thereby preserving needed ambulance resources within their own jurisdictions a greater percentage of the time, as well as preserving revenue. 2. Complete the EMS Redesign Project. Phase 3 of the plan called for the department to consolidate the improvements' made by the first two phases, and then to investigate and recommend a full slate of process efficiencies and new cost recovery modalities. This work includes updating ambulance ordinance language and the planned-for refurbishment of the existing membership subscription program. Implementing some of the anticipated changes will require the support of the greater City organization. Reduce service costs. The department continues to look for sustainable methods' that can be employed to systematically lower the unit costs' of providing ambulance transport services. To this end, we are evaluating different equipment, technology, L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124.doc and partnership opportunities. In order to take advantage of these, it may be necessary for the City to assist the department in procuring and developing these to optimize their payback potential. These recommendations describe the challenges facing the stability of the Ambulance Transport Fund. One of these is to implement Phase 3 of the redesign work plan. This component calls for the department to consolidate the improvements made by the first two phases, and then to investigate and recommend a full slate of process efficiencies and new cost recovery modalities. A key first step in this area is represented by the proposal now before the council to update the ordinance language regulating ambulance operations in Eugene. Timing For budgeting and statistical consistency, it would be optimal to have the proposal receive approval in time to allow the Fire & EMS Department to implement the incorporated changes at the beginning of the fiscal year. OPTIONS Staff is asking for approval to proceed with this portion of the EMS Redesign Project. The options are: 1. Direct staff to process the proposed ordinance language changes; or 2. Make no ordinance language changes at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is Option #1 above, to implement the proposed ordinance changes. SUGGESTED MOTION None; this is a public hearing only. ATTACHMENTS A. Updated Ambulance Services Ordinance FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Tom Tallon, Fire Chief Telephone: 682-7105 Staff E-Mail: Thomas. J.Tallon~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124.doc DRAFT ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING AMBULANCE SERVICES; AMENDING SECTIONS 2.606, 2.1990, 3.005, 3.862, 3.864, 3.866, AND 3.990 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND REPEALING SECTIONS 3.850, 3.852, 3.854, 3.856, AND 3.858 OF THAT CODE. (CB #4870) THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2.606 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 2.606 Ambulance Service. (1) As used in sections 2.606 and 2.608 of this chapter, "ambulance service" r ..... ~'~""-' ,., ..... ~ .... ~] the transportation of means LP' ........ ~ ~r'~rr~r,x~ ' ill, ....... ... ....~.~, .. .j.~. ~ ... .~..~.~.....~ .. ..~..~.. .~. ..~ ...~..~..~.. .. ... .~..~ ........~j an injured or disabled individual and, in connection therewith, the administration of pre-hospital and out-of-hospital medical, emergency or non-emergency care, if necessary. (2) As used in sections 2.606 and 2.608 of this chapter, "emergency care" means the performance of acts or procedures under emergency conditions in the observation, care and counsel of the ill, injured or disabled, or in the administration of care or medications as prescribed by a licensed physician, insofar as any of those acts is based upon knowledge and application of the principles of biological, physical and social science. Ordinance 1 L:\CMO~2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124-attA.doc(02/20/04) DRAFT (3) As used in section 2.606 and 2.608 of this chapter, "non- emergency care" means the performance of acts or procedures on a patient who is not expected to die, become permanently disabled or suffer permanent harm within the next 24 hours, including but not limited to observation, care and counsel of a patient and the administration of medications prescribed by a licensed physician, insofar as any of those acts are based upon knowledge and application of the principles of biological, physical and social science. (24) In the event [ .... ~'. ,~ .........,,-.r, .... ~o,ro,~,-.., ~ ....... ~o ..... ~,~,4 , ,.,,4,~. ,.~o,-,,,~. 3 '''~ *~° ,.,-,,4,~ ] by ity .................... ~ .............. or it is determined the c manager that the community is or will imminently be without ambulance service, the city manager is authorized to expend public funds from whatever source to provide ambulance service to the community until directed by the council to cease the expenditures, until the council adopts a supplemental budget under the Oregon Local Budget Law, or until 60 days, whichever is less. (5) No person shall operate an ambulance vehicle or provide ambulance services within the corporate limits of the city unless such person is designated as the ambulance service provider for the city under the Lane County Ambulance Service Area Plan, or Ordinance 2 L:\CMO~2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124-attA.doc(02/20/04) DRAFT is operating as a subcontractor to the designated service provider. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to: (a) Vehicles and ambulances exempt from ambulance licensing requirements of state law; (b) Vehicles being used to render temporary assistance to the city's designated ambulance service provider under the terms of a mutual aid agreement, or under the supervision of the city's designated service provider; or (c) Vehicles operating from a business location, office or headquarters outside the city, that are transporting a patient from outside the city to a health care facility within the city or are picking up a patient from within the city for transport outside the city, or vehicles which are passing through without destination in the city. Section 2. Section 2.1990 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is amended by adding a new Subsection (11 ) thereto, to provide: 2.1990 Penalties - Specific. (11) Violation of section 2.606 is punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000 or confinement in jail not to exceed 100 days, or both a fine and imprisonment. Section 3. Section 3.005 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is amended by deleting the Ordinance 3 L:\CMO~2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124-attA.doc(02/20/04) DRAFT caption and definitions under the "Ambulance" heading of the Uniform Business Practices definitions, and combining and amending the "First Aid Vehicle" and "Medical Transport Vehicle" definitions of the Uniform Business Practices definitions to provide: 3.005 For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases mean: UNIFORM BUSINESS PRACTICES First Aid and Medical Transport Vehicles: Ambulance services. The transportation of an ill, injured or disabled individual and, in connection therewith, the administration of pre-hospital and out-of-hospital medical, emergency or non-emergency care, if necessary. Ordinance 4 L:\CMO~2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124-attA.doc(02/20/04) DRAFT Emergency care. The performance of acts or procedures under emergency conditions in the observation, care and counsel of the ill, injured or disabled, or in the administration of care or medications as prescribed by a licensed physician, insofar as any of those acts is based upon knowledge and application of the principles of biological, physical and social science. First aid care. The performance of non-emergency care of a type not requiring consultation with a physician, on a patient whose medical condition will not require evaluation or observation during transport. First aid vehicle. Any motor vehicle for hire that is constructed, equipped or regularly provided for the [,non e,mergency] transportation in the sitting or non-recumbent position of persons, ro..m~.~,.,-, ¢.,-,,.,. ~ .... ~,.~ ....... '~oo~'~*" ~ and L~,,~.,,,,,~ ,,,,..,,,, ,,,,,~.,~ ,,,j~,.y ,,..,, ,,.~,,.,~,,...,,,%y~j oink, ,, .... ~ in connection therewith the r,.,-,, .,~,...;.;,.,-, ,~,~ o,~.,,;,-,~o ,-,~ o,. ............ J LI IgJ I ~ll Il I~ Jl I~ g~l J IV~g gl ~l I rendering of first aid care as defined in this chapter. First aid vehicle operator. Any person engaged in the operation of a first aid vehicle. First aid vehicle owner. Any person engaged in the business of providing first aid vehicle services. Non-emergency care. The performance of acts or procedures on a patient who is not expected to die, become permanently disabled or suffer permanent harm within the next 24 hours, including but not limited to observation, care and counsel of a patient and the administration of Ordinance 5 L:\CMO~2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124-attA.doc(02/20/04) DRAFT medications prescribed by a licensed physician, insofar as any of those acts are based upon knowledge and application of the principles of biological, physical and social science. Medical transport vehicle. Any motor vehicle for hire that is constructed, equipped or regularly provided for the,,r ............. ,.~,, ...,, ,..., u..., ,.~ j~ transportation in the sitting or non-recumbent position of non-ambulatory[,-] or medically impaired persons not requiring [tho] ambulance services [of .... h, ,~ .... ~ ............... j as defined in this chapter. Medical transport vehicle operator. Any person engaged in the operation of a medical transport vehicle. Medical transport vehicle owner. Any person engaged in the business of providing medical transport vehicle services. Section 4. The caption preceding Section 3.850, and Sections 3.850, 3.852, 3.854, 3.856 and 3.858 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are repealed. r, ,1~ oM~foM ,,~Mor fhi~ ~ho~for Ordinanco 6 LXCMO~004 Council A~endasXM0404~ 2XS0404~ 24-attA.doc(02/20/04) DRAFT Ordinance 7 L:\CMO~2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124-attA.doc(02/20/04) DRAFT Section 5. Sections 3.862, 3.864 and 3.866 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 3.862 First Aid and Medical Transport Vehicles - Responsibilities of Owner. Ordinance 8 L:\CMO~2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404124-attA.doc(02/20/04) DRAFT (1) No person shall operate a first aid or medical transport vehicle or business within the jurisdictional limits of the city of Eugene, including the Eugene Airport, without first registering with the city and paying the required fees. The provisions of this section shall not apply to first aid and medical transport vehicles operating from a business location, office or headquarters outside the cities of Eugene or Springfield, that are transporting a person from outside the Eugene-Springfield area to a health care facility within the city or are picking up persons from within the city for transport outside the Eugene-Springfield area, or vehicles that are passing through the city of Eugene without a destination within the city. First aid and medical transport vehicle owners shall: (a) Ensure that vehicles are clean, present a good appearance, are equipped as required herein, and maintained in a safe condition and according to manufacturer's instructions; (b) Maintain for a period of three years and make available to the city upon request: 1. Records of the supplies and equipment carried in each first aid or medical transport vehicle; 2. Complete maintenance records for each vehicle; and 3. Customer service records including the name of the customer Ordinance - 9 L:\CMO\2004 COUNCIL AGENDAS\M040412\S0404124-ATTA. DOC(06/27/03 ) DRAFT the date and time of transport, and the origin and destination of transport. First aid vehicle owners shall also indicate the nature of the injury, illness or disability, and the assistance rendered. (c) Equip each first aid and medical transport vehicle only with supplies and equipment that fully comply with state and local law; (d) Equip each medical transport vehicle with a fire extinguisher, of a 1A10BC or 2A10BC, 2 1/2 pound type, readily accessible to the driver in the area of the front seat, which shall be serviced annually and immediately after each use; (re) Not use or permit to be used a first aid or medical transport vehicle which: 1. Is equipped with rotating beacons, light bars, sirens, or any other type of emergency warning device except standard four-way hazard flashers; 2. Is equipped to provide oxygen administration. A first aid or medical transport vehicle may transport persons requiring constant oxygen administration due to chronic respiratory Ordinance- 10 L:\CMO\2004 COUNCIL AG-ENDAS\M040412\S0404124-ATTA. DOC(06/27/03 ) DRAFT conditions who use their own oxygen apparatus but who do not require [~] any observation, care or services that the vehicle is not permitted to provide under this chapter, 3. Is equipped with any type of stretcher, gurney, or cot. (gl) Employ as first aid or medical transport vehicle operators only persons who are currently certified by the State of Oregon at a minimum as an emergency medical technician B, first responder, or certified nursing assistant. (hg) Not use, cause to be used or permit any advertising, signing or other communication relating to a first aid or medical transport vehicle which contains any reference to, or which uses words, symbols or other devices which cause or are likely to cause confusion as to the identity of the vehicle as an ambulance. (ih) Comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, state and local laws and regulations, including rules promulgated by the city manager. Such rules may include, but not be limited to, the type and level of insurance required, the form of hold harmless agreement required, the maintenance and inspection of records, and other inspection or vehicle requirements. (ji) First aid vehicle owners shall retain a Iocalphysician advisorwho is Ordinance - l l L:\CMO\2004 COUNCIL AGENDAS\M040412\S0404124-ATTA. DOC(06/27/03 ) DRAFT licensed to practice medicine by the State of Oregon and make the physician advisor's name, address and telephone number available to the city upon request. (Nj') Provide the city, at the time of registration, and at least ten days prior to any change thereto, a list setting forth the fares or charges, and post a copy of the same inside the first aid or medical transport vehicle. (2) When transporting persons in wheelchairs, a first aid or medical transport vehicle owner shall: (a) Equip each first aid and medical transport vehicle with wheelchair immobilization apparatus that maintains the wheelchair in a stationary position; (b) Maintain wheelchair immobilization apparatus according to manufacturer's instructions; (c) Maintain records for a period of three years of all repairs and maintenance performed on wheelchair immobilization apparatus and make all records available to the city for inspection upon request; (d) Transport or allow transport of persons only in an upright sitting position or in a reclining position when the angle of recline is not more than 45 degrees. Ordinance- 12 L:\CMO\2004 COUNCIL AGENDAS\M040412\S0404124-ATTA. DOC(06/27/03 ) DRAFT (3) All owners shall be strictly liable for any violation of this chapter by an agent or employee. 3.864 First Aid and Medical Transport Vehicles - Responsibilities of Operator. A first aid or medical transport vehicle operator shall: (a) At a minimum, be currently certified by the State of Oregon as an emergency medical technician B, first responder, or a certified nursing assistant. (b) If transporting a person in a wheelchair, transport or allow transport of persons only in an upright sitting position or in a reclining position when the angle of recline is not more than 45 degrees. (c)Comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. (d) A first aid vehicle operator shall also carry on his or her person while on duty the name, address and telephone number of the physician advisor. 3.866 First Aid and Medical Transport Vehicle - Prohibited Activities. [Nepemen ~hi~l~ ~ ~ro~ ~h~. Dan,,ir~o ~r io li~h~ +~ r~, ,ir~ ~ fr~f~f ~, ,ri~ ,x~,,~ ~, ,~ ,,,x~,y ~ ,~,,~ ~,,y u~u,,~,,~ ~,,,,~ ~,~,,~,~ Ordinance- 13 L:~CMO~2004 CO~CIL AGENDAS~M040412~S0404124-ATTA. DOC(06/27/03 ) DRAFT I~ ~vr,~ri~r,i~r~ r~ir, r ,~; ,,, ~;,.,v,.,,,., ~,~,, ,~ ~''1 ' '"~'~ "'~'"'""'~ '-" '~"~'~1~''''~'''''' ''"'~J'-" "~'""-"'"'"'~' "'J""Y' J No person who is subject to the provisions of section 3.862 of this code shall: (a) Use a medical transport vehicle to provide ambulance services or to transport a person who requires or may require transportation in the recumbent position. (b) Use a first aid vehicle to provide ambulance services, except forfirst aid care, or to transport a person who requires or may require transportation in the recumbent position. Section 6. Section 3.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a new Subsection (5) thereto, to provide: $.990 Penalties - Specific. (5) A first violation of section 3.866 is punishable by a fine of not less than $50, nor more than $100; a second violation of section 3.866 is punishable by a fine of not less than $100, nor more than $500; a Ordinance- 14 L:\CMO\2004 COUNCIL AGENDAS\M040412\S0404124-ATTA. DOC(06/27/03 ) DRAFT third or subsequent violation of section 3.866 is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or confinement in jail not to exceed 100 days, or both a fine and imprisonment. Section 7. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, '197'1, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ~ day of ,2004 ~ day of ,2004 City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 15 L:\CMO\2004 COUNCIL AGENDAS\M040412\S0404124-ATTA. DOC(06/27/03 ) EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Hearing and Possible Action: An Ordinance Concerning Solid Waste, and Amending Sections 4.830, 4.835, 4.855, and 6.055 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Meeting Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 5 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Alex Cuyler www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-6830 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a public hearing and possible action to consider proposed revisions to Chapter 4 that would allow for the placement of garbage and recycling containers within public rights-of-way. There is also proposed housekeeping language that addresses an outdated regulation within Chapter 6 that deals with where collected solid waste must be disposed. BACKGROUND Council Action History Garbage and recycling collection has been a City-regulated service since the late 1960s. A major ordinance rewrite occurred in May 2002, which prescribed key policies relating to business licensing, types of collection services offered to residents, and provided the City Manager authority to implement specific collection standards and rates. Policy Issues The council will consider allowing certain items to be temporarily stored within the right-of-way. Council Goal Action Priority There are no council goals applicable to this item. Financial and/or Resource Considerations One of the goals of the Solid Waste and Recycling Program is to minimize the costs of solid waste and recycling collection services for the residents of Eugene. Commingled recycling and automated collection services both represent improvements in efficiency for Eugene's licensed haulers. These systems depend on easily accessible carts and containers, which these ordinance changes will provide. Other Background Information Solid waste and recycling collection in Eugene is moving toward a cart-based system that is compatible with automated collection vehicles. Automated collection is much faster than manual collection and drastically reduces worker exposure to lifting related injuries. Placement of carts within the right-of- way, and prohibiting placement on sidewalks, is integral to the success of the system yet maintains the L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404125.doc City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It requires changing ordinances which have prohibited storing materials within transportation lanes of city streets. The proposed ordinance is intended to allow carts and containers to be stored in the street for a distinct period of time prior to and after regularly scheduled collection. It will provide staff with a tool to change customer practices of leaving carts and containers on the streets for days or weeks at a time. The proposed ordinance will be backed up by an Administrative Rule change that will require licensed haulers to regularly inform their customers of cart placement standards. The rule also allows the City to ultimately enforce against customers after a series of reminders that are aimed at compliance with cart placement standards. Timing The ordinance would go into effect 30 days after City Council approval. The Administrative Rule development will be implemented after the vote on this proposal, and will result in a public input process. OPTIONS The council may approve, amend or decline to approve the proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. S[IGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt an ordinance concerning solid waste, and amending sections 4.830, 4.835, 4.855, and 6.055 of the Eugene Code, 1971. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed Ordinance FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Alex Cuyler Telephone: 682-6830 Staff E-Mail: alex.d.cuyler~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404125.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 4.830, 4.835, 4.855, 6.050, AND 6.055 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 4.830 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 4.830 Portion of Street Reserved for Vehicular Traffic. No unauthorized person shall make use of the portion of the street between the curbs reserved for vehicular traffic for any other purpose than vehicular traffic, except that: (a) [p]Pedestrians may cross the streets at crosswalks; and (b) If authorized under the City Manager's rules for priority of placement, containers supplied by licensed solid waste and recycling firms may be temporarily placed for the purpose of regularly scheduled collection service between the curbs of streets that do not have designated bicycle lanes immediately adjacent to the curb. The containers may be placed no earlier than 7:00 p.m. of the day prior to the customer's regularly scheduled collection service, shall be removed by midnight of the day of service, and shall comply with rules adopted by the City Manager pursuant to section 2.019 of this code. Section 2. Subsection (1) of Section 4.835 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 4.835 Depositinq Materials in Streets. (1) No person shall throw, place, deposit, scatter or drop gravel, rubbish, earth, asphalt or lumber on a paved street or alley unless deposited in one pile for immediate use; provided, that no such materials shall obstruct the flow of water through a ditch, drain or gutter. The temporary placement of containers supplied by solid waste and recycling firms in the manner and at the time authorized by this code and administrative rules of the City Manager shall not constitute a violation of this section. Ordinance- l L:\CMO\2004 Council AgendaskM040412\S0404125-attA. doc(12/23/03) Section 3. Subsection (6) of Section 4.855 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 4.855 Certain Uses of Streets and Sidewalks Permitted. ..... + ..... ,~ ,~,~k,-;o o,-,,~ ...... "'""' ] If authorized under the City vv,..~.;s.~..,1 ~y ~,,~t ~ ~.,~..;~.,*,t t~,.;1 ~t t~ t ~ttt t~ Manager's rules for priority of placement, containers supplied by licensed solid waste and recycling firms may be placed: (a) 0 IN, r .... ~ ~ ..... ;~ ~ ~+ .... +k~ O~ k ..... 1 n asidewaL ........... ~ ~ ............................... ,J provided the placement of the container(s) leaves at least three feet of the paved area of a sidewalk unobstructed; or [~ (b) Between the curbs of streets that do not have designated bicycle lanes immediately adjacent to the curb, no earlier than 7:00 p.m. on the day prior to the customer's regularly scheduled collection se~ice, and shall be removed no later than midnight of the day of the collection se~ice, or in such other manner or place as authorized by administrative rules adopted by the City Manager pursuant to section 2.019 of this code. Section 4. Section 6.050 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 6.050 Garbaqe and Debris - Disposition. An owner or person in charge of property shall dispose of perishable garbage before it becomes offensive promptly, but in any event at least bi-weekly; and not permit garbage to accumulate on or about the premises. All garbage shall be disposed of in a manner which does not create a nuisance and which is permitted by this chapter. Garbage may be disposed of by hauling or causing it to be hauled to [a ,-,orr, o,-,,~ ,~ .... ,~,~o;,-,,,o,,~,~ r,,, ,r,,~ ,-;*,,1 the appropriate solid waste disposal site permitted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to receive such waste. Section 5. Subsections (3) and (4) of Section 6.055 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are repealed. 6.055 Garbaqe Cans and Containers. (1) An owner or person in charge of property where garbage accumulates shall keep or cause to be kept on the premises one or more portable containers of a standard type suitable for deposit of garbage and shall deposit or cause to be deposited in the containers all garbage that Ordinance - 2 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas~V1040412\S0404125-attA. doc(12/23/03) accumulates on the premises. Paper products and wooden wastes, however, may remain outside the containers if stored in a neat and orderly manner. (2) Garbage containers shall be sturdy, watertight, not easily corrodible, rodent-and-insect-proof, and have handles at the sides and tightly fitting lids. When not being emptied or filled, the containers shall be kept tightly closed. They shall be conveniently accessible to garbage haulers. ~v~ UUI Uu~~ gui IkUII I~1~ ~1 lull gui Ilgllll II I gu~Uglk] UI I~ VV~l~l Ik kg IIIIIIkUklgl I~ Section 6. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively oorreot any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, J97J, to the provisions added, amended, or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this __ day of ,, 2004 __ day of ,2004 City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 3 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agcndas~ViO40412\SO404125-attA. doc(12/23/03 ) EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Action: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing; and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Meeting Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 6 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Richie Weinman www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5533 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is action on an ordinance concerning multiple-unit housing; and amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (Multiple Unit Housing Property Tax Exemption [MUPTE] program). BACKGROUND Council Action History In 1996, the council placed a moratorium on accepting applications for MUPTE in order to redesign the program and clarify the benefits to the community. Subsequently, Measure 47 was adopted by Oregon voters. The council ultimately debated and adopted a redesigned program in October 1996. However, due to the uncertainty around the provisions of Measure 47, the ordinance that placed a moratorium on new applications was kept in place. In January 2001, the council reinstated the MUPTE and adopted a boundary area substantially smaller than what had previously existed. (No applications have ever actually been submitted under the redesigned rules.) In February 2003, the council approved motions that directed staff to return to City Council with proposed amendments to the current Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) ordinance. In July 2003, the council approved a minimal expansion of MUPTE to include the development site at 14th and Olive and directed staff to return at a later date with additional amendments to the MUPTE program and boundary. On November 10, 2003, the council conducted a work session on the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE). The council approved conducting a public hearing on amendments including an expanded boundary. An element of the council's motion required staff to propose quality standards, and provide them at least ten days prior to the hearing. On February 9, 2004, the council conducted a public hearing on this proposal. Four of the ten people who testified requested slight modifications to the border. Two people who testified supported additional standards. All of those who testified supported the concept of the program. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc Policy Issues and Council Goals The key policy issues are whether the City wishes to provide a tax exemption as tool that encourages construction of housing in the core area, determine an eligibility area boundary for the tool and determine what, if any additional standards the council will place on housing in order to obtain the exemption. MUPTE provides an incentive for new housing and, under current rules, may also raise funds for low-income housing. There are numerous adopted policies that offer support. These are noted below. Downtown Plan Policy 14: Encourage the production and conservation of housing and residential support services in the downtown that are attractive and affordable to a diverse population. Growth Management Policy 2: Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development. Policy 3: Encourage a mix of businesses and residential uses downtown using incentives and zoning. Policy 6: Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. Policy 8: Promote construction of affordable housing. Policy 10: Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts. Downtown Vision Expand housing, recreational, and cultural opportunities downtown - Develop strategies for encouraging development of downtown housing as separate buildings or upper floors. 2003 - 2004 Council Vision and Goals Statement Sustainable Community Development - Promote a variety of additional housing in the downtown core and provide stability to downtown and neighborhoods adjacent to downtown by preserving existing housing and residential uses. - Increase the supply of low-income housing throughout the city. Financial and/or Resource Considerations The Oregon property tax system fundamentally changed as a result of measures 47 and 50. As a result, the City of Eugene and other local taxing districts now forgo revenue when a property is exempted from taxes. When approving a tax exemption request, the council must determine whether the public benefit of the housing outweighs the loss of revenue during the exemption period. This public benefit is imbedded in the character and density of the encouraged development, its impact on the core of Eugene, the contribution to compact urban growth, and the long-term gain in taxable valuation. "Public benefit" is also currently achieved from the provisions of MUPTE that provide payments to the low-income housing fund. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc The MUPTE program provides a ten-year tax exemption on the value of the new housing investment. While the housing improvement is exempted, the land beneath it continues to be taxed during the exemption period. The new housing investment, which likely represents a significant value increase over the pre-project improvements, is placed on the tax rolls at an appreciated value at the end of the exemption. Other Background Information At a work session, the council requested staff to suggest quality standards that could be added to the program. Four City staff met with three private sector architects to identify potential standards. Each of the architects has worked on designing downtown buildings. The team included Mike Sullivan and Richie Weinman of the Community Development Division, Patricia Thomas, an architect in the Planning Division, Nan Laurence, a designer in the Planning Division, Curt Wilson of WBGS Architecture and Planning, Planning Commissioner John Lawless of TBG Architects and Planners, and Sara Bergsund ofBergsund Delaney Architecture and Planning. As a result, last December the following options were placed in front of the public for comment. The neighborhood associations, Downtown Eugene Inc., and other known interested parties were notified. In January this proposal was referenced on the City's home web page and linked to: www. ci. eugene, or. us/downtown/tax exemptions. Timing Action was originally scheduled on the City Council' s February 23, 2004, agenda but was moved to April 12, 2004. OPTIONS Boundary Options: The maps in Attachment A include options for a new boundary that were identified at the public hearing. Proposed options for quality standards related to the granting of a Multiple Unit Housing Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) are noted below: Option 1: Replace the "Public Benefits" portion of the MUPTE application with one referencing seven quality standards: 1. Incorporation of sustainability features such as conservation performance measures, solar heating, natural lighting, and "green" building (techniques that use environmentally friendly materials and practices), and landscaping with native species that reduce the need for fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. 2. Responsiveness to adjacent historic structures that are on the National Historic Register or listed as a City Landmark. 3. Use of higher quality materials that contribute to longevity or durability or enhanced building design. 4. Prominent entry facing the public street. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc 5. Number of units by which the minimum density is exceeded or the percent of housing units that have three or more bedrooms, to encourage families. 6. Number of available ADA accessible units that exceed the required standard. 7. Responsiveness to neighborhood character and safety in respect to height, mass, architectural detail, landscaping and open space, "Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CEPTED)." Applicants must respond in writing as to how each of the seven quality standards relate to the proposal. Since some of the standards may not apply (such as adjacent historic structures) the applicants must demonstrate how their proposal will meet at least four of the seven quality standards. The council will consider these responses when determining whether to grant the exemption. Option 1 a: Testimony at the public hearing suggested adding two additional standards to the list that applicants would need to address. The testimony requested that these be included and applicants then must meet five of nine standards. 8. Designed for home ownership. 9. Solicitation of comments from the relevant neighborhood association. (Staff and the city attorney recommend against the suggestion that neighborhood associations must approve the project. The council can consider recommendations from the neighborhood association, but it cannot delegate to the neighborhood association the governmental power to deny an application. Moreover, neighborhood associations do not always meet regularly and, in fact, historically some have a spotty history of being "active".) Option 2: (Fariation of Option 1) Replace the "Public Benefits" portion of the MUPTE application with new language in the preamble. In that preamble stress the importance City Council places on adding higher quality housing to the core area. The seven items in Option 1 will be listed as examples of features that add to that quality. Explain that when the council considers granting a MUPTE they will be interested in considering how the development addresses these or other examples of quality. Option 2a: Add to the preamble the two standards (number 8 and 9) in Option la. Option 3: Keep the "Public Benefits" portion of the current MUPTE application as is. (Attachment C) Option 4: Do not require additional standards that exceed what is already in the Eugene Code. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION Quality Standards Staff advises that the new land use code includes multi-family housing standards that may be adequate to provide quality housing. Given the council's direction to staff related to quality standards, the draft ordinance that is provided (Attachment B) most closely aligns with Option 1. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc Staff recommends Option 2 because housing proposals will differ greatly depending on their proposed size, location, and target population. Option 2 provides the council with information to make an informed decision and it provides a framework for proposals to respond to these and other quality considerations. Additionally, because applications are submitted for MUPTE when projects are in their conceptual stage, prior to when the design is final, the project financing in place, and permits issued, it may be unfair to place specific requirements on a project. Low Income Housing Fee MUPTE is an incentive program. About fifteen years ago, the low-income housing fee was created to satisfy the council's desire to be clearer about the "public benefit" of the exemption. The fee originally represented about 10% of the tax benefit. It is currently charged to all projects, unless more than half of the units are dedicated to low-income tenants. Since the fee was instituted, all of the granted tax exemptions projects paid the fee. Staff now knows more about the economics of housing construction and recommends against the fee. Items to consider: 1) It is barely economically feasible to provide a multi-unit housing development in today's environment. Incentives are required to enable projects to break-even financially during the first ten years. Providing less than a full MUPTE incentive undermines the goal by making the incentive less useful. 2) If the City wishes to encourage higher quality projects, it is likely those projects will also be more costly. Therefore, the City should encourage higher quality through full benefit of the tax exemption incentive. Otherwise the developer may cut quality to balance their budget. 3) Mixed-income projects are unlikely, but if they occur they will almost certainly be created as an element of a more heavily subsidized low-income housing project. The low-income portion of the project will likely have to request and receive the twenty-year low-income housing property tax exemption. 4) Owners and managers of market rate projects are not typically in a position to request income information from their tenants as a condition of ongoing tenancy, making it difficult to dedicate units for low-income purposes. Such a dedication also might make it difficult for a borrower to obtain financing. Boundary Options Given the testimony at the public hearing, staff recommends adding the options "A" and "B" to the boundary as shown in Attachment B. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt the ordinance in Attachment A, a boundary as shown on Attachment B (with the two additions), and with direction to the City Manager to draft administrative rules consistent with the language in Option 2 and 2a. Note: If the council wishes to adopt Option 1 or ia, the following language may be added to Section 1, Paragraph 6(a)2: ... desigrn features that meet at least 4 [or at least 5] of the quality standards listed in subsection (2) of this section... L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed ordinance B. Map of proposed district C. "Public benefits" language in the current MUPTE application D. MUPTE history of granted exemptions E. Draft minutes from public hearing, February 9, 2004 F. Responses to questions raised at the Public Hearing and options for motions FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Richie Weinman Telephone: 682-5533 Staff E-Mail: richie.d.weinman~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING MULTIPLE-UNIT HOUSING; AND AMENDING SECTION 2.945 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsections (2) and (6)(a) of Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 2.945 Multiple-Unit Housinq - Property Tax Exemption. (2) In order to provide the incentives described in subsection (1) of this section, the provisions of ORS 307.600 to 307.691 are hereby adopted as the city's multiple- unit housing property tax exemption program for the city's core area. The city's core area shall include the area generally bounded on the,,,.,.,,r ..... * by ._..~ ~""~'~"......... ~]nodh by 1~ Avenue, then south on Lawrence Street to 7~n Avenue, then e~st to Lincoln Street, then south to 13~n Avenue, then e~st to Street, then south to 17~n Avenue, then e~st to Kinc~id Street, then no~h to the Willamette River and along the Willamette River to 4~n Avenue, then west to Pearl Street, then no~h to 3~ Avenue, then west to Lincoln Street, then nodh to Is~ Avenue, as more particularly described in the standards and guJdelJRes adopted by the city manager in the manner prescribed in section 2.01 g of this code. The staRdards aRd guideliRes shall iRclude provisioRs to relate the net fJRaRcJal beRefJt from the property tax exemption to the public benefits provided by the improvements./n addition, the standards ~nd guidelines sh~fl require ~n ~ppfic~nt to ~ddress ~s p~ of the ~ppfic~tion how e~ch of the following seven qu~fity standards ~re met by the proposal, or if a standard is not met, why not: a. Incorporation of sustainability features such as conse~ation pedorm~nce measures, soMr he~ting, n~tur~l lighting, "green" building (techniques that use environmentally friendly materials and practices), ~nd Mndsc~ping with n~tive species that reduce the need for fe~ilizers, herbicides and pesticides; b. Responsiveness to ~dj~cent historic structures that ~re on the N~tion~l Historic Register or listed as a city Mndmark; c. Use of higher qu~fity m~teri~ls that contribute to longevity, durability, or enhanced building design; d. Prominent ent~ f~cing the public street; e. Number of units by which the minimum density is exceeded or the percent of housing units having three or more bedrooms (to encourage families); f. Number of available ADA accessible units that exceed the required standard; and g. Responsiveness to neighborhood character and safety in respect to height, mass, architectural detail, landscaping and open space. (6) In approving an application, the council must find that: (a) In the case of the construction of, or the addition or conversion to multiple-unit housing: 1 .The construction, addition or conversion will be completed on or before January 1, 2006; 2.The owner has agreed to include in the construction, addition or conversion, as a part of the multiple-unit housing, design features that meet the quality standards listed in subsection (2) of this section and contained in the standards and guidelines, as well as one or more other public benefits, including but not limited to open spaces, parks and recreational facilities, common meeting rooms, child care facilities, transit amenities and transit or pedestrian design elements, or as otherwise specified in the standards and guidelines referred to above; 3.The proposed construction, addition or conversion project is, or will be at the time of completion, in conformance with all local plans and planning regulations, including special or district-wide plans developed and adopted pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196, 197, 215 and 227, that are applicable at the time the application is approved; Section 2. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, may administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added, amended, or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this day of ., 2004. ~ day of ,2004. City Recorder Mayor L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc ATTACHMENT B t}THAVE I 0THAVE ~ 14'FHAVE 15TH AVE 17TH AVE L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc ATTACHMENT C Current MUPTE Application PUBLIC BENEFITS Location - core area 75 pts Affordability. To receive a maximum benefit, the project shall dedicate over 50% of the dwelling units, on site, to Iow-income housing during the period of exemption (Iow- income housing is defined as housing which is affordable to families or persons whose income is at or below 80% of the median income of families or persons in Lane County, Oregon, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development or its successor). 50% or over of dwelling units, on site, are dedicated to Iow-income 35 pts 20% - 50% of dwelling units, on site, are dedicated to Iow-income 20 pts 10% - 20% of dwelling units, on site, are dedicated to Iow-income 10 pts OTHER PUBLIC BENEFITS. ~ provide ADA accessible (as opposed to adaptable) "ready available" units 3 pts/unit ~ build at higher than minimum R-3 density requirements (20-56 units/acre) 5 pts (For computation purposes, all eligible properties will be considered R-3) ~ build at over 20% higher than minimum R-3 density requirement 10 pts (18 or more units) L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc ATTACHMENT D MULTI-UNIT HOUSING PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM HISTORY Broadway Center Washington and Broadway 12 studio; 71 One-Bdrm; 24 Two-Bdrm; 1978 12 Studio (107 total) Lawrence Court 8th and Lawrence 50 One-Bdrm 1980 (all low-income) (approx) Washington Abbey 10th a~d Washington 90ne-Bdrm/plus loft; Five Two-Bdrm; 34 1984 One-Bdrm (48 Total) Olive Terrace 15thAve. & Olive St. 4 Studio; 12 One-Bdrm Units; 12 Two- 1989 Bdrm Units. (28-Total) Joseph Shapitka 445 W. 10th Ave. 8 Two-Bdrm Units. 1990 (8-Total) Burnell Ambrose 17 & 35 Lawrence St. 70ne-Bdrm Units. 1995 (7-Total) Nozama Apartments 525 & 541 E. 19th Ave. 12 Two-Bdrm Units; 2 Four-Bdrm Units. 1995 (14-Total) Art Carrnichael 701 & 725 E. 14th Ave. 1357 44 Two-Bdrm Units; 90ne-Bdrm Units. 1995 & 1377 Hilyard (53-Total) Phil Klingensmith/ 632 E. 15th Avenue 6 Studio; 80ne-Bdrm Units; 1996 Don McRae 16 Two-Bdrm Units. (30-Total) High Stxeet Terrace 10th Ave. & High St. 20 Studio; 26 One-Bdrm Units; 12 Two- 1996 Bdrm Units. (58-Total) Broadway Place Broadway and Charnelton 74 Studio, 72 One-Bedroom, 24 Two 1996 Bedroom (170-Total) Additional Exemptions (not MUPTE) Lincoln School 58 units Historic Exemption (15 years) Tiffany Building 28 units (maybe) Historic Exemption (15 years) Aurora Building 57 units Low-income exemption (20 years) [in construction] Additional Notable Downtown Multi-Family Housin~ Olive Plaza 1133 Olive 150 units - taxed Ya Po Ah Terrace 350 Pearl 210 units - tax exempt Parkview Terrace 255 High Street 150 units - tax exempt Eugene Hotel 222 E. Broadway 88 units - taxed Willamette Towers 1313 Lincoln 89 units -taxed - condos High Street Rowhouses High near 2nd 18 units - taxed - condos Florence Apartments 1272 Willamette 48 units - taxed L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc ATTACHMENT E Council Minutes - Public Hearing - February 9, 2003 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Taylor called Richi¢ W¢inman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, to the podium to speak to the issue. Mr. W¢inman explained that the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) was a ten-year property tax exemption for housing, new construction of five units or more designed to encourage development in the urban core. The proposal before the council sought to expand the boundary for MUPTE. He opined that without help to "level the playing field" and provide assistance, it was unlikely the City would see new multi-family housing developed in the downtown area. He said, after ten years, the City would see substantial benefit from developments built with the MUPTE incentive. Councilor Kelly noted that, on the second page of the ordinance, the section that had required that a development meet "at least four of" the design features listed in subsection (2) was not in the present draft. He stated that, for action, he thought it should be included. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Deborah Healey, 360 East 15th Avenue, reported that the executive committee of the West University Neighbors (WUN), of which she was a member, had met twice to discuss the issue. She related that the WUN did support actions that would improve housing standards in the neighborhood. She submitted two additions to the seven quality standards mentioned in option one, proposed by the WUN, as follows: 1) Approval by the appropriate neighborhood association would be required; 2) That the proposed development should be designed for home ownership. She stated that the WUN wanted to be part of the MUPTE process. She added that, should the two additions be included, the WUN would advocate for requiring that five of nine of the design features be met rather than four of seven of them. Mark Steven Baker, 360 East 15th Avenue, noted that he was a community member appointed to the joint task force. He attributed the problems the neighborhood experienced to the lack of stability caused by the transient nature of neighborhood residents due to the abundance of rentals and the fact that the population was largely made up of students. He asked the council to craft policies that would encourage some diversity of occupancy in the neighborhood in order to increase stability. Mr. Baker commented that the low level of maintenance done on properties in the neighborhood contributed to the problem. He felt that rental owners were holding property, investing as little as possible, and getting the highest rents they could based on the assumption that the property would eventually become part of the university or the hospital. Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, voiced his support of the staff recommendation. He felt that, because the projects would come before the City Council, there would be opportunities to determine the quality of the project. He did not think that the City would want to get into design contests on a neighborhood basis. Regarding the proposed boundary, he urged the council to move it so that it butted up against Washington Street allowing development to look out over the park. Russ Brink, 214 East 30th Avenue, executive director of Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DE1), called attention to the memorandum included in the council packet, which was the result of a meeting of developers who had built L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc in the downtown area, City staff, and a representative of the architect group. He encouraged the council to read the memorandum. He conveyed the organization's support for the expanded boundary and the staff recommendation for the language on design standards. He noted that staff indicated that the existing Land Use Code was adequate to provide the quality projects the City was seeking. He added that DE1 also supported the elimination of the low-income housing fee connected to MUPTE applications in the past. Mr. Brink asserted that downtown development was some of the most expensive development to pursue. Regarding the concern expressed by some that the MUPTE would represent lost tax revenue, Mr. Brink stressed that undeveloped property did not increase tax revenue, while development eventually increased the tax rolls. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the support of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce for the expanded MUPTE boundary. He called it a tool to help achieve the vision set forth by the Downtown Plan. He asserted that trying to densify the core population of the City would help revitalize the downtown area. He underscored that the City Council had the final say on a project and a prudent investor or developer would realize that there would be an expectation of quality in the application, so the extent that Option (2) provided in the preamble that the council looked for quality, it represented a directional guideline an applicant would want to pursue. Mr. Connolly asked the council to ~demonstrate commitment to the Downtown Plan Update" and approve the MUPTE ordinances before it in conjunction with Option (2). Micheal Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, supported the need to ensure that tax dollars and tax exemptions were spent to the best benefit possible. To that end, he felt the addition of the seven public benefit standards should be approved. He asserted that the City Council would be able to judge the projects using these standards as goals and provide the most benefit for the public dollars. Mr. Roberts said there was a ~real need for this exemption" to make downtown development viable and asked the council to support Option (2) in order to given the community the design standards needed and the flexibility. Hugh Prichard, 101 East Broadway Street, explained that he was a co-developer of the Broadway Place, a mixed-use development that benefitted from the MUPTE it was granted in 1996. He urged the council to expand the boundary and to keep it simple. He felt the process was a ~good, transparent" public process. He described the process, stating that the developer submitted its construction costs in a public work session and in two pro formas. Mr. Prichard said that developer was required to justify the tax relief and suggested that, as the numbers were not completely known at this point, the council go back to the two largest developments constructed to date and analyze their actual financial performance. He related that what would be found was that both Broadway Place and High Street Terrace were overly optimistic in the proformas submitted prior to development. What was thought to be a nine-percent return had become less than a four-percent return. He alleged that the project would now be losing money should it have been made to pay full property taxes. Mr. Prichard stressed that no project could withstand sustained losses and added that Broadway Place had been a success with occupancy that has run no lower than 92 percent over time, though it has the highest rents in Eugene. Mr. Prichard underscored that land in the downtown area cost as much as ten times the cost of multi-family zoned land in the suburbs. Additionally, the collective vision for development was that downtown housing should be multi-story, mixed use, steel and masonry, and with embedded parking. He stressed that this made construction costs more than double that of construction of suburban wooden dwellings. He asserted that rental rates to cover the costs were currently impossible to achieve. He encouraged the council to keep and expand MUPTE and continue to try to ~level the playing field." Martin Henner, 984 Lincoln Street, stated that he was part of a group that was seeking to build co-housing, a cooperative housing with a ~Danish flavor", in downtown Eugene. He related that his group tied down a parcel of land on the corner of 11th Avenue and Lincoln Street that appeared to be suitable for this. Noting that downtown development was very expensive, he stressed that while the council was expanding the MUPTE boundary in other directions, it was not being expanded in the area of this property. He conveyed the desire of the group to increase L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc residency in the downtown area. He asserted there was no reason not to expand the boundary to the west. He recommended extending the boundary to Lawrence Street or to Washington Street. He expressed hope that the council wanted to see more owner-occupied residences downtown and not just rental units. Elizabeth Lyon, 2123 Marlow Lane, spoke as part of the potential co-housing development. She related that she had raised her family in a single-family dwelling and they were now grown. She stated that she was an author with four books and had an editing company. She expressed her desire to be part of a co-housing development now that her children were grown, but felt her position was tenuous. She opined that both low-income and high- income people received benefits for housing in the downtown area but middle-income people like herself received none. She urged the council to help the people "in the middle" who want to contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. Jenny Gussett, 535 West 20th Avenue, testified on behalf of the co-housing group. She said she had a long-held interest in the community and in enhancing the sustainability and livability of the downtown area. She felt the co- housing development had a unique take on the fulfillment of the downtown goals as it featured multi-family, multi-generational housing and would be an opportunity to model how people could live in a community and have ownership at the same time. She added that it would encourage people to use cars less and walk more and asked that the boundary be expanded to include the site at 11th Avenue and Lincoln Street. Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute break at 8:52 p.m. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Weinman clarified that the staff recommendation was that low-income housing would no longer be counted as a public benefit by charging the fee, because it was preferable to see the project quality increase. Councilor Bettman felt the ECO Northwest study did not apply to the West University Neighborhood, as the data was different. She asserted the neighborhood was not a downtown neighborhood. She stated that she had supported the MUPTE for the downtown core, adding that she would support further incentives for that specific area. Councilor Meisner supported the MUPTE proposal as presented before the council, including its boundaries. For those who requested the boundary be extended to Lawrence Street or farther, he stressed that the discussion had been, for years, focused on the preservation of the neighborhood there. He asked if the co-housing proposal could be allowed to benefit from the MUPTE. Mr. Weinman responded that the boundary could be extended to include that property. Councilor Nathanson expressed her support for the reinvigoration of the incentive. She asked staff to look into and present information on what it would take to extend the boundary to allow the co-housing development to benefit from the MUPTE and also to include the area between 1st Avenue and 5th or 6th avenues. She said, while true that the council had been explicit about not changing the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the edge of downtown, the northern edge seemed to be of a separate development type. Mr. Weinman agreed to look into this and provide the information. Councilor Kelly said the staff response to a parcel specific inclusion in the MUPTE boundary was also of interest to him. Councilor Kelly asked staff to prepare an amendment for the adoption meeting that would include the WUN recommendations. Additionally, Councilor Kelly commented that, if the City was not expanding the boundary beyond the downtown core, he would not feel a need for the standards that had been added. He supported them because the boundary L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc had been expanded into the West University Neighborhood. He opined that, should the City be granting public funds to developers, high standards of development needed to be upheld in that area. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Mr. Weinman explained that the Ya-Po-Ah Terrace was a HUD 202 federal project and was tax-exempt because it was a Department of Housing and Urban Development project to build low-income housing. Councilor Pap6 supported the inclusion of the co-housing development project in the MUPTE boundary. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, in response to Councilor Pap6, stated that the Eugene area covered 43 square miles. Councilor Pap6 remarked that the project-by-project approval would prevent the West University Neighborhood from having a shoddy development built within its parameters with the benefit of MUPTE. He said that when counting city blocks, the MUPTE boundary seemed to encompass approximately one square mile and was not excessive. Councilor Taylor strongly believed that everyone should share the tax burden and if people are excused from taxes, it should be for a definite benefit. She supported a tax incentive for the core of the city. She opined that the Broadway Place development had not contributed to making the core of the downtown area more vibrant. She advocated for making all of the standards of quality required. She predicted that any proposed MUPTE would be submitted to the City Council in the Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor asserted that people pay property taxes wherever they live. She thought the idea that a MUPTE was an investment in tax revenue that would otherwise not be collected was erroneous. Councilor Taylor said that new housing just moves tenants from one place to another. Mr. Weinman responded that the population was growing by two percent per year and the need for housing was increasing. He reiterated that increasing the level of development increased the property tax rolls. Mayor Torrey supported the concept of home ownership and incentives that promote home ownership in all areas and in the University area in particular. He recommended ;;thinking outside the box" and allowing, for instance, the co-housing development to qualify for the MUPTE. Councilor Bettman reminded the public that taxing jurisdictions including schools now forego revenue when property is exempted from taxes for ten years. She opined that people would not support forgoing money that would pay for school and core essential services in order to support student housing in the West University neighborhood. Mr. Weinman, in response to Councilor Kelly, affirmed that the council could only approve or reject a MUPTE and could not grant a partial MUPTE. Councilor Bettman predicted that residential housing would be displaced should a developer build on a site. She asked staff to bring back an amendment to delete the expanded district south of 13th Avenue and west of Lincoln Street. Councilor Pap6 asked if an applicant could reapply should the City Council turn a MUPTE down. Mr. Weinman replied that it could. In response to a further question from Councilor Pap6, Mr. Weinman stated that the land on which a development was being built would remain on the property tax rolls during the ten-year exemption period. Mayor Torrey closed the hearing. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc ATTACHMENT F Responses to Questions Raised at the February 9, 2004 Public Hearing and Options for Motions 1) Councilor Kelly asked if the requirement that a project meet at least four of the design features should be in the ordinance Response: If this option is selected by Council it will be placed in both the administrative rules and the application. 2) Councilor Kelly asked for an amendment to be placed in front of Council that included the recommendations from the West University Neighbors. Response: This is listed as option la. 3) Two councilors asked for language that would delete or expand the district. Options are provided below: Boundary Change Options I move to amend the boundary description in subsection (2) of Section 2.945 by: Option A replacing "Lawrence" with "Washington" Option B adding after the phrase "then south to 13th Avenue," the following language: "but including a quarter-block section on the southeast corner of Lincoln Street and 11th Avenue," Option C adding the phrase "excepting therefrom Tax Lots 17-03-30-43-0010 and 17-03-30-44- 04700" after the phrase "then north to 1st Avenue" (Councilor Meisner request) Option D amending the phrase "then south to 17th Avenue" to read "then south to 15th Avenue, then east to Willamette Street, then north to 13th Avenue," (Councilor Bettman request) L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc Possible Motions for MUPTE Ordinance AlS Option 1: I move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, and include as part of the ordinance the words "and to demonstrate how the proposal will meet at least four of the following standards" immediately before the colon in the middle of Subsection 2.945(2). AlS Option la: ! move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, and to amend the new language in Subsection 2.945(2) immediately before the colon to read: "In addition, the standards and guidelines shall require an applicant to address as part of the application how each of the following nine quality standards are met by the proposal, or ifa standard is not met, why not, and to demonstrate how the proposal will meet at least five of the following standards:" and to add at the end of that subsection: "h. Designed for home ownership; and L Solicitation of comments from the relevant neighborhood association." AIS Option 2: ! move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, except that the last sentence in subsection (2) of section 2.945 concerning seven quality standards is deleted, and the new language that references the quality standards in subsection (6)(a)2. of Section 2.945 is deleted. In addition, ! move that the City Council direct the City Manager to rewrite the Standards and Guidelines to be consistent with Option 2. AIS Option 2a: ! move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, except that the last sentence in subsection (2) of section 2.945 concerning seven quality standards is deleted, and the new language that references the quality standards in subsection (6)(a)2. of Section 2.945 is deleted. In addition, ! move that the City Council direct the City Manager to rewrite the Standards and Guidelines to be consistent with Option 2a. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc AlS Option 3: I move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, except that the last sentence in subsection (2) of section 2.945 concerning seven quality standards is deleted, and the new language that references the quality standards in subsection (6)(a)2. of Section 2.945 is deleted. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404126.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Action: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date Meeting Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 7 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is the second meeting following the joint public hearing held on February 10, 2004. The proposed amendments that are part of the metropolitan area's periodic review tasks include the following: 1. Metro Plan Text Housekeeping Revisions; 2. An updated Metro Plan; and 3. Revised Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element. BACKGROUND These amendments will conclude the local requirements on several significant state-mandated Periodic Review tasks. Binders containing the record prior to the council' s public hearing are in the Council Office. The memorandum from the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) included with the council's March 10, 2004, report provides background, public testimony, and responses to testimony received during the public testimony and open record. The Lane County Board of Commissioners and Springfield City Council held work sessions subsequent to the Eugene City Council's work session. The Springfield City Council indicated willingness to adopt the amendments as proposed, and may retain Policy J-l, which supports an energy management plan, as requested by Councilor Kelly, if Eugene votes to retain it. The County Board did not take tentative action, as they had questions regarding the forest lands provisions of Metro Plan Chapter III-B. The County Board is scheduled for adoption of these amendments on May 12, 2004. All three metropolitan jurisdictions must adopt the same amendments, or the amendments are referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for mediation. Council Action History The City Council approved the periodic review work program in 1995. A joint public hearing was held on February 10, 2004. A work session was held on March 10, 2004. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404127.doc Policy lssues The amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C, pertaining to natural resource protection, are substantive. Specific issues are discussed in the LCOG memorandum that accompanied the council report for March 10, 2004. Council Goal Action Priority Updating the Metro Plan through periodic review is consistent with all City Council goals, but is especially pertinent to the following goalz Sustainable Community Development A community that retains a high quality of life anda healthy economy, effectively links landuse and transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environment. Financial and/or Resource Considerations None. Other Background Information See Attachment B. Timing These Periodic Review tasks are already past due. The State Department of Land Conservation and Development was notified that approval should happen no later than May 2004. There are no provisions for an extension. OPTIONS Options are limited because the same amendments must be approved by Springfield and Lane County. Generally, staff discourages changes that are not within the minor "housekeeping" intent of the package of amendments (outside of Chapter III-C, Natural Resources). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendments by adopting the attached ordinance. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to adopt as part of Periodic Review Metro Plan housekeeping revisions; a new Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element; a new Metro Plan Diagram; adopting savings and severability clauses; and providing an effective date. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed Ordinance, including: Exhibit Az Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions Exhibit B z Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element Exhibit Cz Metro Plan Diagram Exhibit Dz Findings L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404127.doc FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Telephone: 682-8379 Staff E-Mail: kurt.m.yeiter~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S0404127.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TO ADOPT AS PART OF PERIODIC REVIEW METRO PLAN HOUSEKEEPING REVISIONS; A NEW METRO PLAN CHAPTER III-C: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT; A NEW METRO PLAN DIAGRAM; ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for the City of Eugene are implemented by the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971. B. The current Metro Plan, adopted in 1982 and subsequently amended, is in need of modification to reflect changes in State law and local conditions, as required by Periodic Re;eiew. C. Following a joint public hearing with the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions on June 3 and June 17, 2003, the Eugene Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, draft Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the draft Metro Plan Diagram to the Eugene City Council by action taken at a public meeting held by the Eugene Planning Commission on November 3, 2003. D. The City Council has conducted a public hearing and is now ready to take action based upon the above recommendations and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing held in the matter of amending the Metro Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The revisions in the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, as set forth in Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein, are adopted as amendments to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). Section 2. The Environmental Resources Element (Chapter III-C) of the Metro Plan is removed, superseded and replaced by a new Environmental Resources Element (Chapter III-C), as set forth in Exhibit B attached and incorporated herein, which is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan. Ordinance- 1 CSDocuments and Settings\ceplkmy\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK8\l-8-04 Ord (ENJ last changes) (00070427)3.DOC Section 3. The Metro Plan Diagram is removed, superseded and replaced by the Metro Plan Diagram, as amended and set forth in Exhibit C attached and incorporated herein, which is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan. Section 4. Although not a part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the Legislative Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit D. Section 5. The prior designations repealed by this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation thereof prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 7. Notwithstanding the effective date of Ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the City of Springfield and Lane County have adopted ordinances containing concurring provisions to those adopted herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this __ day of ., 2004 __ day of ., 2004 City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 2 CSDocuments and Settings\ceplkmy\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK8\l-8-04 Ord (ENJ last changes) (00070427)3.DOC Exhibit A Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions Draft April 6, 2004 Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions This document contains proposed housekeeping changes to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to comply, in part, with state-mandated Periodic Review requirements and to make the Metro Plan format and text internally consistent and user friendly, as follows: · Format changes are proposed for all chapters; · Text is amended for clarification and corrections, to remove outdated findings and policies, and to reflect updated, adopted Metro Plan elements, such as Residential Lands and Housing; Public Facilities and Services; and Transportation. Added text is shown with a double underline; deleted text is ~track c, ut. The Environmental Resources Element, Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources is not contained in this document, but will be inserted into and become part of the Metro Plan with the adoption of the new Metro Plan Chapter III (Exhibit B to the ordinance adopting these Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions). Please refer to the new Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element (Exhibit B) which addresses Statewide Planning Goal 3: Agricultural Lands, Goal 4: Forest Lands, and Goal 5: Natural Resources and also contains the housekeeping changes described above. EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN 2004 t-987-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 Eugene City of Springfield Eugene Planning Division Development Services Department 99 West l0th Avenue, Suite 240 225 5th Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 Springfield, Oregon 97477 1-541-682-5481 1-541-726-3759 Lane County Lane Council of Governments Land Management Division 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401-3111 Eugene, Oregon 97401 1-541-682-4283 1-541-682-4061 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. Table of Contents Chapter Page Preface ............................................................................................................................................. i I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... I- 1 Background ....................................................................................................................... I- 1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................. I- 1 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 Plan Diagram ....................................................................................... 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 ..................................... See Separate Document 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 Plan Review, Amendment, and Refinement ................................................... IV-1 V. Glossary ......................................................................................................................... V- 1 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 Plan replaced 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 I 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 heating 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 the amendments in this document. 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 Plan Diagram. The~.~ · .-,~:d~ ,.-1; ..., ¥¢ittow~C~ ......agmm-.amendments, as approved by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, .............................. s, are incorporated into this document. Based on the adoption of these amendments, the three governments have-ha_......~...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 I t~I'~t~ ~.. ~owth bounda~ ................ ~ .............................................. ~..~.~.,.~.... ....... ~ ....... Yl~.and th~~~e Although the Metro Plan was acknowledged by LCDC in August, the rural portions of the Metro 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 Plan Updates The 1990 Plan stated that a review should be conducted between major five-year plan-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 Plan were 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 amendments are contained in this document: Lane County, Ordinance No. 709 City of Eugene, Ordinance No. 19382 City of Springfield, Ordinance No. 5329 Periodic Review Pursuant to ORS 197.610-650, local governments are required to update their comprehensive plans and land use re.kmlations throu..ah 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 chaneine local conditions, +~'~ T ,",r~r~ _~.4^.~. ...... : ..... v ........... v ................ ~ ...... ns. The DLCD initiated the first_Periodic Review of the Metro Plan ~d land use re~lations on June 28, 1985. ........................... t. ~e second Periodic Review process was init ated in May 1995. ~is Metro Plan is also subiect to citizen- and gove~ent-initiated amendments which jnco~orated into the document via Metro Plan replacement~es. ~is Metro Plan and replacement pages ~e available at LCOG and www.lcog.or& The Eugene City Council, the Springfield City Council, and the Lane County Board of Commissioner_s adopted identical Periodic Review amendments to the Metr; Plan in 2004; Eugene City Council, Ordinance No.; ,2004 Springfield City Council, Ordinance No., : 2004 Lane County Board of Commissioners, Ordinance No... 2004 iii Chapter I Introduction Background The 2003 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the third first update of the 1990 Plan. The 1990 Plan, adopted in 1972, provided that a major update of the ~.~p~h~i~...p~.g~.~C~enera~lan should be initiated every five years. This reflects the fact that c~preh¢~s~ep!~s..agenemtptan must be adaptable to the changing needs and circumstances of the community if th¢~:it4sar~ to retain their its.validity and usefulness. Therefore, this Metro Plan is not an entirely new product, but rather has evolved from and reflects needed changes to the ~!.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, Purpose The Metro Plan is the official long-range ~p~p[~he0si~e.general plan (public policy document) of metropolitan Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield. Its policies and land use designations apply only within the area under the jurisdiction of the Metro Plan as described in ~~:;:the;:'Ptan::Boundary::(~e~::Metro: Ptan:::~i:~gram: :map:i~:Chapteri:!i). The Metro Plan 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 Plan is intended to designate a sufficient amount ofurbanizable land to accommodate the need for further urban expansion, taking into account the growth policy of the area to accommodate a population of 286,000293;700.:.3vithin the UGB by the year 2015.~ The Metro Plan also identifies the major public facilities required to meet the land use need~ designated within the UGB. More specifically, the Metro Plan provides the overall framework for the following planning functions. The Metro Plan: 1. The population projection range for the Residential Land Use and Housing Element in Chanter III-A is 291,700 to 311,100. The expected population for the year 2015 is 301,400. Thisgro~L. ecti_o~..is £o~ri!~e Me .t/:_..o_p~..olitan_S~a~.3 ccn_sJ~s .tract area_mu~ch._larger thaja the..UGB._The~cti_on..~va~t_he basis, fo.r deri-~ing.~_..la~ti~n.figure...o£.2869)~)0 .£or..the...UGB.for..the.¥ear20 !.5 for the res/dent./a! lands analysis.gterformed i.n the_l..99~ R. esidentia!..Lands and..Hous~~ I-1 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. 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 Plan to 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 determined that the Metro Plan, without refinement, contains a sufficient level of information and'~;i'icy 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 a future UGBpopulation of 286,000SOt-;4~. Metro Plan Contents As indicated in the Purpose section, the Metro Plan provides the overall policy framework for planning in this community. The five chapters oftheGeneratPtan ~ei~ctude: Introduction; Fundamental Principles; Metro Plan Elements; andMetro Plan RevieTM, Amen(iments, and Refinements~..and..~Juri.sdietionatResponsibilit.y;andThe.?tan Glossary, ..i.s in...Chapter V.i 1-2 Fundamental Principles Chapter II sets forth thc basic concepts of the Metro Plan, including geographical growth I management and a.~.~.~,...:eompac+~e~,~e~m, ea: It is intended to tie the specific elements in Chapter III together into a comprehensive public policy document. I Components ofChapt~r:!:!,:::the 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 I Policies; and the.Metro Plan Diagram. Metro Plan Elements Chapter III is composed of specific elements, including within~ each an introductory text, applicable goals from Chapter II, and findings, objectives, and policies.2 The specific elements are:. Residential Land Use and Housing;--Eeomn,ay.E.C~n.0mif; 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. Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinement,.. 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 Plan that 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-SpringfieM 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 2 Through updates to the Metro Plan, the objectives and policies are being combined. Eventually, each element will contain only findings and policies. I-3 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. The major components of this policy document are: .the written text, which includes goals, findings, and policies; the Metro Plan Diagram; and other supporting materials. These terms are defined below: A goal is a broad statement of philosophy that describes the hopes ofthe people of the commumty for the future of the community. A goal may never be completely An objective is 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. . A finding is a factual statement resulting from investigation, analysis, or observation. · An assumption is a position, projection, or conclusion considered to be reasonable. Assumptions differ from findings in that they are not known facts. *A go~ isa ~roadstaement ofphitosophy.thm...deseribes.the hopes o.f the...peopte of the commumty-f~ the.future of the.eommum~y.-~..A~.goal mayneverbe.eompletety attainabt~but4s~use6.as a~point~ to~stvivefor~.- · A policy is a statement adopted as part of the Metro Plan to provide a consistent course of action, moving the community towards attaimnent of its goals. · The Metro Plan Diagram is a graphic depiction of: (a) the broad allocation of projected land use needs in the metropolitan area; and (b) goals, objectives, and policies embodied in the text of the Metro Plan. 8omeofthe.information shown-on Tthe Metro Plan Diagram depicts ineludes land use desi~ationsemegories, the metropolitan urban growth b(}un~ary, the Metro (Plan B;'hr~)~'"and major transportation c;'rri~);~i The revised goals, objectives, and policies contained in this Metro Plan are not presented in any particular order of importance. The respective jurisdictions recognize that there are apparent conflicts and inconsistencies between and among some goals...robjecfivesrand policies. When making decisions based on the Metro Plan, not all of the goals ~ objeet, i. ves3 .and policies can be 1-4 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 whiehfoltowin the Metro Plan vary 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 put4mo the Metro Plan through p!.~...amendment procedures. Adoption of the Me~;'"'~i~:ff~;~s 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. In addition, it is important to recognize that the written text of the Metro Plan takes precedence over the Metro Plan Diagram 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 Plan provides sufficient detail to meet the needs of each jurisdiction will have to be determined by the respective jurisdictions; and where conflicts exist among the Metro Plan, 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 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 Plan will also vary. Relationship to Other Plans,-and~Policies~.~~p9g~g~ WheretThe Metro Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document, and...but it is not the only such document. As indicated in the Purpose section, above, the Metro Pi~~ isa 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 documents, such as the 1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies; (b) functional plans and policies addressing single subjects throughout the area, such as the 2001 Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan) and 2001 TransPlanwater~ sewer~-or..transportafion.ptans; and (c) neighborhood plans or special area studies that address those issues that are unique to a specific geographical area. In all cases, the Metro Plan is the guiding document, and refinement plans and policies must be consistent with the Metro Plan. 1-5 Should inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan is the prevailing policy document. The process for reviewing and adopting refinement plans is outlined in Chapter IV. policies, Relationship to Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan The Plan Boundary shown on the Metro Plan Dia~am in Chapter II is boundaries of the Metropotitan-Area-.Generat...]~tanare adjacent to the boundaries of th~ Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan that surround the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. There is no overlap between the boundaries of the Metro Plan and t~t.~of the Lane CoUnty Rural Comprehensive Plan. Lane Code Chapter 16 is applied in the area between the UGB and the Plan Bound~ to i~plement 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 Metro Plan review and amendment procedures described in Chapter IV. Relationship to Statewide Planning Goals As required by state law, the Metro Plan has been developed in accordance with the statewide planning goals adopted by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). and"pubtishedin..Apfit .t977~..as~amendedthrough..J~une. t997: These goals provide the standards and set the framework for the planning programs of all governmental agencies and bodies in the metropolitan area. The Metro Plan addresses each of the LCDC goals (as well as local goals) and contains objectives and policies ~at...aimedm.eomptianc~ecQ.~p!y with the LCDC goals. Relationship to the Technical Supplement9g~:~ Workim, Papers~....~nd. Publie FaeilitiesPlan The Metro Plan iswas based on a work programs approved by the Metropolitan Plan 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 !982 Metro ~q~). Based on the~:.is--work programs, an inventori~sy, reviews, and anai3Jseils ;'f a"~U~;"~)f Metro Plan relevant elements arewere conducted. These included population projections, land use and housing (supply and demand), public facilities and servic~s,ufitities3 and natural assets and constraints. From.this invento~yr.review~....and..analysisrA set of.working papers3 was ere...developed for.the !:?82Metro::plan thai which-describes the relevant issues and factors concerning each subject, and from these analyses, findings were drawn. These findings, in mm, formed an important 3 The working papers are on file for public use in the Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene planning offices, and at the..LaneCouneil of. Governments LCOG 1-6 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 prepara~.p~.....p£..the ~.r~....update~of~{he Metro Plan diagram, 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 hayebeen ~ended...t~hrou~...updates.. o£indi:yidua! elements in Chapter III. may..be...amendedin..eonjlun~ioniii~i~h.;ii.Pta~iame-nd~nti.i{referii:tO Ghapter--.tV):. During a-major five-~yem, update~, working papers and the Technical Supplement are reviewed and updated as part of a comprehensive work program. Applicable working papers and the Technical Supplement are 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 i~.veitt be maintained by~the~Lane C-ouncil~f Governments LCOG. The-Pub~c-Faeiti. ties...~tan..atso se~es~as abaekground4nform~ation~doeumem support~ Met~opotitan~.Ptan:.~-The only"port~ons-of the.P~ubtie.~Faeitities~Ptan...whieh~est~abtish:pul~ie, potie~y are meorporatedin-.Metropotitan .Ptan..potieyand.in. Appendi~...A: General Ass~ urnpti~,and~Findings andAssumptions Untike"findings-assoe~d-witha~singte~speei~fie-etement ovseetion~of_the.~/ani.~tThe following general findings.and assumptions and. findings relate to the entire Metro Plan. They are listed included in the Introduction because of their general application. General Assumptions 1. A population of 286,000993..~700 is expected to reside within the metropolitan UGBarca by the year 20!..~00. This is a 2~___959 percent increase from the estimated 2000.t97.7 census population of ~22,500184~300. Since this Metro Plan is desi~d'"~;"~;'~odate ~1~'~ expected population rather than remain static until 20 !500, 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. 4. In addition to population growth, increasing labor force participation rates will increase the resident labor force, thereby increasing the demand for employment opportunities. 1-7 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 Plan Diagram in Chapter II, to ensure reasonable choices in the market place for urban needs to serve a [ metropolitan UGB area population of286,0002--93~700, provided periodic updates of the Metro Plan are conducted and the area designated for urbanization on the Metro Plan Diagram 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 -E. ~The average annual-growttrmte~in~{he metropoh'tarvar~om~3A.-.pereent--in the4"960s"to'~2,6.pereent-.between...t970.and4~975:.......Thisis, thetowest4.thas-been- since ~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. 5.~47 :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. 1-8 Chapter II Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy Framework This chapter contains Fundamental Principles that reflect the overall themes of the Metro Plan. The chapter also contains: Metr0~olitan Goals; Growth Management Goa_l_s_._F_indings, and Policies; Eugene and Springfield Jurisdictional Responsibility; Urban and Urbanizable Land; River Road and Santa ClaraGo.a!.s, Findings and Policies; and Metro Plan Dia_.m-am. A. Fundamental Principles I There are seven p_fi~nciples themes-that are bagic or fundamental to the entire Metro Plan. They are implicitly included in the various individual Metro Plan components. These Fundamental Principles are: 1. The Metro Plan is a long-range policy document providing the framework within which more detailed refinement plans are prepared. This concept is discussed in more detail in I ~ the Introduction (Chapter I). 2. To be meaningful, the Metro Plan requires 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, 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. 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 UGBa--pr-eseht~t · urban ~zr,'icz area. Elaboration of this principle is treated in the other sgections B, C, D and E of this chapter, and inthe Public Facilities and Services Eelement in Chapter III. 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. 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 Plan is modified. A variety of potential solutions to consistency problems exist, including modification to the Metro 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. II-A- 1 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 Plan was developed to meet the supporting facilities and services necessary to serve a population of 286.000~,.~,, ,~9 within the UGB bv the year 2015. ~,~n, ..... ,,,~ II-A-2 B. Metropolitan Goals While tThe followine Metrooolitan Ggoals are listed under the to"ic hue, din a lic bl se tio in this chanter ~ ;- .... ~ ,~ ........... ~,~ ...... ~-~=~ Chapter III (Metro Plan Elements) ~d C~ter IV (Metro P!~ Review, ~endments, and Refinements). , Growth 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. EeonomyEconomic ................................. 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. ........................ Protect life and property from the effects of natural hazards. 4 ............................. Provide a healthy and attractive environment~/nc!u, ding c!e~..ak.~d..~:lean '~ateg for the metropolitan population. Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways .................... Protect, conserve, and enhance the natural, scenic, environmental, and economic qualities of river and waterway corridors. II-B- 1 Environmental Design !., ............................ 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. 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 ! .............................. 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 ..... .Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities to serve the diverse needs of the community's citizens. II-B -2 Historic Preservation .!.., ........................... Preserve g!~O .r.~reminders of our origin and historic development as links between past, present, and future generations. Energy .! ............................. Maximize the conservation and efficient utilization of all types of energy. 2~ ..................... Develop environmentally acceptable energy resource alternatives. Citizen Involvement ..~., ............................. 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 Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements ..!:., .......................... Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the community-amt4s-futty-imegmted~ith sun'ounding-suba~. II-B-3 C. Growth Management Goals, Findings, and Policies To effectively control the potential for urban sprawl and scattered urbanization, compact growth and the urban ..m'owth boundary (UGB)=szrvicz area cc. nccpts are, and will remain, the primary growth management techniques for directing geographic patterns of urbanization in the community. In general, this means the filling in of vacant and underutilized lands, as well as redevelopment inside the UGB. fth ~^:~'~'~ '.~- ...... : .... .~c._^.~ ~_ ,,.~ ~ .... ryUGB will Outward expansion o e w,-J ................. n~ occur only when it is proven necessary according to the policies set forth in this Metro Plan, particularly in this element. Goals 1. Use re'ban, urbanizable, and rural lands efficiently. 2. Encourage orderly and efficient conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response! ~rban 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 d. Decreased acreage of leapfi'ogged 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 communities in 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 c~ompact_urban .m-owth urban ser,'icc area 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 UGB?et~m~area-is an effective growth management tool includes the following: a. Consistent reduction over time of vacant land within the 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 UGB projected urban ~crvicc area. d. Increase since 1970 of the proportionate share of residential building permits issued within city limits. II-C-2 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 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. iL__ In_ J~86, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield entered into Urban Transition A.m'eements with Lane County which transferred from the County to the Cities administration fo, building and land use within the urbanizable portion of the UGB. Ob{ectives 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. 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. II-C-3 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. 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 UGB shall lie along the outside edge of existing and planned fights-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 projcctcd ser,'icc bc, undm~y 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 projcctcd ~ UGB shall be consistent with mandatory statewide planning ggoal. 8. Land within the UGB may be converted from urbanizable to urban only through annexation to a city when it is found that: II-C-4 a. A minimum level of key urban facilities and services 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 ofurbanizable land to urban shall also be consistent with the Metro Plan. 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 thakw~ich 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~.y~.urb.~....£aci!iti~s and_services as directed in the Metro Plan) in a timely and cost-efficient manner a~d is a logical extension of the city's service delivery system. b. 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. Police, fire and_emergency medical services may be provided throu. ,v~h extraterritorial extension w_With a signed annexation agreement or initiation of a transition plan; and upon concurrence by the serving jurisdiction., ~v,~n,~....:,~..: ~ ~v,^.~:~_ ~,- .... ;~ fo~ 14. Both Eugene and Springfield shall examine potential assessment deferral programs for low-income households. 15. Creation of new SPeCie! service districts or zones of benefit within the ya'~oA;~q~l ............. E.._!.~! BO ~,A ~.4~ .............. und~bo ........ s-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. II-C-5 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...faci!i.ties...and services in the short term, although it is recognized that urban...faci!.itii~iiii~ ................................. services will be provided by a city consistent with adopted public facilities plans and capital improvement programs. e. The district or zone of benefit will contract with the appropriate city for interim service delivery until a~ncxation annexed to the appropriate city. 16. Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and provided with the required minimum level of urban~..faci!~ities~and services. While the time frame for annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land transitions from urbanizable to urban. 17. 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. As annexations to cities occur over time, existing specia[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. 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. 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!ex~e!...of.key...urban_..faci!iti.es..and..services cannot be provided in a timely manner (within five years, as outlined in an adopted capital improvements program). II-C-6 b. Except for areas that have no fire protection, affected property owners have signed consent to annex agreements with the applicable city wrier-meet-the "ttipte'majet4ty"~iu~r~aen~-oflheconsistent with Oregon annexation law. Such annexations shall be considered as interim service delivery solutions until ultimate annexation to a city occurs. 21. 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; b. Contractual annexation agreements with a city; c. Annexation to an existing district (under conditions described previously in Policy ,, ~,,~, or d. Creation of a new service district (under conditions described previously in Policy #-r41~). 22. Cities shall not extend water or --~* ~ ......~ sewe~g.~.~t~.::gr service outside city limits to serve a residence or business without first obtaining a valid "ttqCe-majehty" annexation petition, a consent to annex agreement, or whe~n_a health hazard annexation is require_rd. 23. 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. To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text and on the Metro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential construction, but not necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling units per gross acre over the planning period. 25. When conducting metropolitan planning studies, particularly the Pubic Facilities and ................ *--,-, ............. o,~, 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. Based upon direction provided in Policies ~__, ¢8, and -232..4_ of this section, any development taking place in an urbanizable area or "~' ......... 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 II-C-7 designations shall be 10 acres. Any lot '--a~- +:~ c~,, .... :.~ ~ d rb abl ill ~ply .............. 6 gtan ~ s: Creation of new p~c~ls in th~ u ~iz e ~ea w co with a. ~e approval of a conceptual plan for ultimate development at urban densities in accord with applicable plans and policies. b. Proposed l~d uses and densities confo~ to applicable plans and policies. c. ~e owner of the property has si~ed ~ a~eement with the adjacent city which provides: (1) The owner ~d his or her successors in interest ~e obligated to support a~exation proceedings should the city, at its option, initiate ~exation. (2) The owner and his or her successors in interest a~ee not to challenge any a~exation 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 wit~old approphate approval of the use arbitrarily if it is in compli~ce with applicable plans, policies, and stand,ds, as inte~reted by the city, as well as the conceptual plan approved under subsection a above. 27. Any lot under five acres in size to be created in urb~izable area will require ~;+ ....... +-~ ' ' ' -- ..... ~ ...... ~ a~ccmcnt utd]zmg the following additional st~d~ds: 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. 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. 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 the creation of new lots in Policies 26~ and 27 above; (c) the II-C-8 requirement for the siting of residences in Policy 28 above; (d) requirements of Policy 30; and (e) the requirements for special heavy industrial designated areas. 30. 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 sewer-s-wastewater system is are-imminent or are-B_identified as part of an approved capital improvement program. 31. Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to involve affected local governments and other urban service providers in development of future, applicable Metro Plan revisions, including amendments and updates. 33. 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~h.e_.. Public Facilities and Services Element. i..¢ Ch_. apter:clII-G. II-C-9 Jurisdictional Responsibility The division of responsibility for mctronolitan olanninE between the two cities is the Interstate 5 Highway. Lane County jurisdiction is l~etw¢cn~thc urb~:n growth bQundar~ {UGB~ and Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary,; and the county has joint resnonsibiliw with Euge~-e between the city limits and UGB west Qfthe Interstate 5 Hi,way and with Springfield between the city limits and UGB cast of the Interstate 5 Hi~ay. u ......... Sstatc law (1981) provides a mechanism for creation of a new city in the River Road and Santa ciara area. R~caL~_c~, Plan Chapter IV and intergovernmental a.m'eemcnts to resolve specific issues of iurisdiction. II-D-1 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 Plan Glossary. The undeveloped (urbanizable) area within the UGB, separating urban and urbanizable land from rural land, has been carefully calculated to include an adequate supply to meet demand for a projected population of 286,00Q,....,,, O0 through the end of the planning period (20.1500).4 With .................. .r ........ v.,,J ..... v,~v ........ for **'~,-,. ;,'ear,~,,,,,,.'ma'~ However, unless the community consciously decides to limit future expansions of the UGB, one of several ways to accommodate growth, that boundary will be expanded in future plan updates so that before 201_500 it will include more urbanizable area reflecting future population and employment needs than that now depicted on the Metro Plan Diagram. Accordingly, periodic updates of land use needs and revision of the UGB to reflect extensions of the planning period will ensure that adequate surplus urbanizable land is always available. The key to addressing the needs stated at the beginning of this section is not so much the establishment of an 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 sewer-g(aste~ater...tmnk 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: 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, sewevs~:~te=~ate.:::_..=[, water,, and electricity, and construction of dwelling units or businesses). ............. prcjccticn rangc for *'~^ II-E-1 I 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, .......... ,4 ~, ~u^ c~, .... ~ ..... .... ~, ....................... ~ ~,~,,~,mc, 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 ofurbanizable to urban land through annexation but will allow the cities the opportunity and flexibility to plan for and provide urban...£aci!ifie.s....an_...d 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 Metro Plan,~,~,,},~,,,~~,,,~,,~ ..... ~,~ plan. Such coordinated capital improvement programs can and should be closely related to implementation of annexation plans. The 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 geogm~ie data-sys~R~egional Land h3~p~.~fion Da~;.~!2~.~ p.~..~r~.~...~p~3~y...~I~!~).~ f~P.~r!y referred to as the Geom'anhic Information S~stem (GIS) should allow such monitoring to 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 sufficient land to ensure that the supply isresponsive to demand in keeping with the Ffundamental P__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. II-E-2 3. r~ _ .,.~ompact urban 4. Cooperation with other utilities and providers of urban services to ensure coordination with their respective capital improvement programs. II-E-3 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 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) ~as 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. II-F- 1 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. Based on these three conditions, a situation evolved which led to a set of findings, objectives, and policies for inclusion in the Metro Plan and 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 se-nita-~psewage~ast.e~a, ter 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 k.~y...urb~...faci!i.ti.~s...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 Plan is 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-san/taT sewer-s~g~.~e.,,&serv.:==:~..e, 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-...ar~dSanta Clara have resulted in the creation of two unique metropolitan neighborhoods. 5. The most cost-effective method of service delivery is through annexation. II-F-2 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 accommodating new development needs in totally undeveloped areas. 8. The 1970 CH2M Hill Sewerage System Study, River Road-Santa Clara publication dR.emonstrates the feasibility of providing sanitary se, wcrs~:~.a~r....s.~.i.c~ to the River oad- and Santa Clara area in a manner consistent with the Eu~'~'~'~'i~eld Metropolitan Waste Treatment Alternatives Report (208 Facilities Plan) and the Metro Plan. 9. The CH2M ~ublication 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 Plan has 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~(EQQ 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 LEPAZawarded Eugene a grant to build a sev,~er-~.~.~.~system to replace the i~i'~i~iual septic systems in use throughout River Road anci"Santa Clara according to a II-F-3 prescribed time frame. 15. Efforts toward incremental and voluntary annexation of River Road and Santa Clara properties to Eugene and connection to the sewer-wastewater system according to the · ~;~-~1 D~4-~-~ A ~ , · ~ ......................................... E ............................. ~,,,ncy~:~:~ s time frame have not been successful. 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 sa~it~y sewet~as~wa~er 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. I3. Annexation of the River Road_and_.S.anta...~.lar......g areas will occur only strict through application of state laws and local policies (e.g., ability to extend:.k~.:~grb=:.,~g~,.:~cilitie~=,,..,,~ an=::::.:::~ 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. II-F-4 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 sewer-s-wastewater service to developed properties. 5. Using the CH2~:i~!,! 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 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 ~QRS 199 and 221. c. This policy does not negate the requirement of public s ...... : sewers~st.~wa~e...r s.e~.i.c.e as a minimum level of key urban..hci!i.ties....artd services. Any institutional ~'~;ihii~;i~ to providing urban services in th'~'"h~;"~;~d--...and Santa Clara areas must provide public sanitary scwcrswastewatter se~_~ice to a~dress LCDC requirements and to protect public health and safety in resolving groundwater pollution problems. Public sanitary sewers~as.te~.ater...se~i.ce ar~-is...also required to achieve higher than septic tank level of U~b~';;'~i~i'~'i'"'~'~nsiti~" and to utilize efficiently valuable metropolitan-scale buildable land. II-F-5 G. Metro Plan Diagram The Metro Plan Diagram is a generalized map and graphic expression of the goals, objectives, and recommendations found elsewhere in the Metro Plan. 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 Plan. Likewise, statements in this section that prescribe specific courses of action regarding the community's future should be regarded as policies. Projections indicate a population of approximately '>er aao'm~ .ma is exoected to --';' reside n~a work in the metropolitan area around the year 201500. The allocation of living, working, and recreational areas and supporting public facilities shown on the Metro Plan Diagram in this section and on the Public Facilities Maps__i_n__Appendix A ~ generally responds to that projection. The Metro Plan Diagram represents the land use needs and supporting facilities necessary to serve a certain number of people rather than a point in time. The process used to allocate land uses ion the Metro Plan Diagram, fully documented in the Technical Supplement, can be repeated for any population. Finally, the Metro Plan Diagram 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 _s_ubsequently amended was not tax lot-sp_e_cific,_a.!__t_h_9_u~__eException areas werear-e site specific, with exact designation boundaries shown in supporting working papers. Th~_use of the Regional Land Information Database (l~L!Dldata for long-range planning studies led to the decision to base the Metro Plan Dia.gram on RLID data, as described below. The Metro Plan Diagram 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 process of referrals between the three bodies will also determine issues of metropolitan significance on a case-by-case basis. Major Influences The Metro Plan Diagram 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. · ~-~, .... -~' .... ~, ............ r ....... Arca 1990 Plan, predecessor of this document; particularly the concept of compact urban growth. II-G-1 3. Adopted neighborhood refinement and community plans~_ ~'~-~-~,,v,-.o t ..... ~ -, :- r~,.._,~,~_,v,,~, I .,~c*~-,,, 4. Adopted special pu~ose ~d ~nctional plans~w~-,,,v,~or ..... ~ :~ ~'~'~-~w~- I ~c,~ m~ 5. Info~ation generated t~ou~ preparation of working papers (1978 and 1981) used in the update process. Those papers ~e on file in the plying dep~ments of Eugene, Springfield, ~d Lane County, as well as the Lane Council of Gove~ents (LCOG). Their most si~ificant provisions ~e contained in the Technical Supplement of the Metro Plan, phnted ~d available under separate cover. Subjects examined include public se~ices and facilities; enviromental assets ~d constraints, including a~culmral l~d, the economy, housing, and residential l~d use, and ener~, all in te~s of existing conditions ~d projected demand. Land Use Designations Land use designations shown ion the Metro Plan Diagram 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 Dia~am desi.gnations have been transitioning to a parcel-specific dia~am. As part of this transition, the boundaries of Plan desi.gnation areas in the metropolitan UGB are determined on a case-by-case basis, where ........no varcel-snecific desienation has been adorned. ~c) ,,~ --,~^' ............................ zomng ,, ....... ,,, ........ ,c ertan an uses are not in v ua o metropolitan-wide significance in terms of size or location because of their _s_pecial nature or limited extent. Therefore, it is not advisable to account for most of them on the Metro Plan Diagram. The Dia.m'am's depiction of land use designations is not intended to invalidate local _z_o_n_ ing or land uses which are not sufficiently ~._n...t_._e_n_sj_ve or l_arge e_n_o__u. ~e.h to be included on the Metro Plan Diagr_am~ The Plan designation of parcels in the Metro Plan Dia~am is parcel-specific in the followin~ cases: 1 Parcels shown on the Metro Plan Dia~am within a clearly identified Plan designation, i.e., parcels that do not border more than one Plan desi..enation; 2. ~ L~a_nds~_o...u_[s_(d..~_t_.h..e__.[J__G_B w!_t_hi_.n_ the Metr~o__plan 3 Parcels withg_ar_c_el-specificdesi.gnations adopted through__th~c_i~ti__z_e_n=in_itiated Plan amendment process; 4 Parcels shown on a parcel-specific refinement plan map that has been adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan Dia~am. There is a need for continued evaluation and evolution to a parcel-specific dia.gram? The Metro Plan desi.gnation descriptions below, Metro Plan policies, adopted buildable lands inventory. II-G-2 analyses, refinement plans, and local codes provide .guidance to local jurisdictions in determining the appropriate Plan desi..~mation of parcels that border more than one Plan desi..~nation within the metropolitan UGB. 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 Plan Diagram. 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 new dwelling Iunits constructed during 1986 to 1994, the net density was 7.05 dwelling units per acre in the estimated overall residential net density for all residential development has climbed ~om 5.69 dwelling units per me in 1986 to 5.81 dwelling units per acre in 1994. This Metro Plan, including the Metro Plan Diagram, calls for an overall average of about six dwelling units per ~oss acre for new construction throu~ 2015, the pla~ing period. By realizing this goal, the community will benefit ~om more efficient ener~ use; presemation of the maximum amount of productive a~culmral land; use of vacant leftover parcels where utilities are already in place; and more efficient, less costly provision of utilities ~d semices to new areas. This hi~er overall average density can only be achieved if the cities explore, and when feasible, in li~t 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. II-G-3 · -~--,,--, ..... ~ ..... .~ .... v ..... , will be modified, as necessary, to ~ensure...~ on- going, adequate, available land supply to meet needs. See also Urban and Urb~'~gie Land; ~ ....... ~ on page_-~ , in this section. Commercial This designation on the Metro Plan Diagram includes only the first threet~o 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.Tfl ~-..4~1.1 +1-,~ .1 .... l^~a h,l-~l., .... 1. ' -, ~,v .... ~ ..... , ..........v ............. commcrclal 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 lan desi ation This .... ~ .................. 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 Plan Diagram) 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: II-G-4 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. 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 11th 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. II-G-5 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: 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. II-G-6 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 also accommodate new uses likely to benefit from local advantage 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 fa. ci!iti~a.~d..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-s::::pu=:Ih,:of Springfield) Sanitapy scwcrWastewater 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.pr Eugene) The minimum level of key urban...£aci!i.fi.e.a..~d 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. II-G-7 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 ~^-,'~,~ ' ....... mUmon 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 shall be designed to 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 Plan Diagram) 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 TransPlan are 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: II-G-8 · 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. Willamette River Greenway The Willamette River Greenway Boundary is shown on the Metro Plan Dia..m-am 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 ..... s ................................ .~, the South Hills fidgeline, 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 Plan policies. 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 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 Plan Diagram. Those not yet in public ownership are based on environmental constraints, such as excessive II-G-9 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 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 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 !II-G ........... v'~ .... _--,---j. II-G-10 The minimum lot size for rural residential areas ~-,~a ~..,~:a~, T.~.~. o ...... areas shall be +u.. five acres Exceptions All new exceptions to~ residential~ eommemial~ industfial~ or gove~ent non-resource ~et~o P/an Dia~ desi~ations or uses outside the UOB require application of~et~o ~l~n ~endment procedures { in Chapter IV. ~d : , .~ ......A, Those new or exp~ded exertions must meet requirements of statewide plying goals ~d administrative roles ~d must comply with applicable Metro Plan policies. Back~ound info~ation on all adopted exception areas is detailed in the Exceptions ~ Working Paper and~ Addendum. Within adopted exception ~eas, uses ~d densities must be consistent with zoning ~d Metro Plan desi~ations ~d policies. Ch~ges to use, density, or zone which ~e not consistent with the Metro Plan require a Metro Plan mendment following the process in Chapter IV. Such amendments must be accomp~ied by an explanation of the reason for the amendment (proposed use, intensity, size, timing, available ~d proposed se~ice and facility improvements) ~d must be in compliance with other applicable Metro Plan policies and the following chtefia: 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 se~ices (refer to Policy G.27 in Cha~ter III-O~~ ~; .............. - Lack of natural hazards; ~d . Compatibility with resource lands adjacent to the exception area. The list of exceptions and site-site~specific maps, which ~e amendments to the Metro Plan, ~e contained in Appendix C. Airport Reserve L~ds which may be acquired by Eugene at some ~ture time in co~ection with M"&!~n Sweet Fid&Ai~oa, and for which an exception to statewide plying goals must be taken, if the zoning is changed ~om Exclusive Fa~ Use/Commercial Ai~oa Safety Combining (E-40/GAS zone). Universi~/Researeh This category represents propeay which is located in proximity to the University of Oregon campus. It is phmmly intended to accommodate li~t industrial, rese~ch ~d development, ~d II-G-11 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 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). II-G-12 Urban Growth Boundary This s/le-spe~F~line separates urban and urbanizable lands from rural lands. -'- _uxv ~-~,,-~ :~ ~p~ UGB population is 286, the year 2015 ~ ..... ~ -~ ......... , ............ ~ ......... The location of the UGB results from enviro~ental, social, and economic ~alysis in te~s of supply ~d dem~d, which is basic to this entire Metro Plan. Accordingly, LCDC Goal 14's establis~ent of UGB cdteha 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 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. II-G-13 Translation of the identified natural assets and constraints into limitations 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 Plan Diagram 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 Plan Diagram 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 Plan Diagram 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 Plan text and Metro Plan Diagram allow for retention of the most productive agricultural lands when balanced with other planning goals. 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. II-G-14 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_have-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. ...... .,, ,.,. ...... ~J. tax lot-spec]tic where It Is coterminous with city hm]ts, where it has been determined throu~ the annexation process~ and where it falls on the outside edge of~ planned ri.ghts-of-way. In other places, the UGB is determined on a case-by-case basis throu.e.h interp_r_e_t_a_tion of the Metro_Plan P!~.B_o__und_ari_.'.e.s. Map in this__Me_tro__Pdan and the following factors (see Metro Plan Plan. Boundaries Map Key); · Protection of A~.m-icultural Lands · Protection of Forest Lands · Ridgeli~n_e_ (~Dr_ _ai_n__age_ B a_s_ !_n_) · Orderly and Economic Public Services · Floodway Fringe_ · Protection of Wetlands · Protection of Sand and Gravel Resources · Airport Protection · Existing Development and Services (City Limits) · Mee_t_Economic Goals · Meet Housing Goals II-G-15 Metro Plan Plan Boundary The Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary) _..defines that area shown on the Metro Plan Dia~am that includes Springfield, Eugene, and uninco~orated urban, urbanizable, rural, ami a..m'icultural lands exclusive of areas encompassed in the Lane County Rural Co~t~rehensive. Plan~ With modification to the boundary of the adjacent Lane County Rural Comprehensiv'e Plan, th~Plan Boundary will represent the 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 Insert Metro Plan Diagram (Exhibit C) II-G- 18 Urban Growth Boundary Location Description Keyed to Metro Plan Plan Boundaries Map For a-an up-to-date map showing areas where the UGB is tax lot-specific, i.e., where thc UGB and city limits are the same, throu~ annexations or to the ~ existing v ....... ~ .............. j ..... ~. ..... L, contact the L~e Council of Gove~ents(LCOG). Copies ~e on file at LCOG and the pla~ing offices of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. As explained in Chapter II-~G, the N~n~.~ was developed considering the seven hctors in LCDC Statewide P!~ng Goal 14: Urbanization. The following matrix outlines key hcto; '" h ' iii ¢~"~;h~idered to dete~ine the location of the UGBur~an ~¢wtS Sounaarv where it is not taX"i; Metro Plan Urban Growth B~.da, ~ ~v~ap Map = ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ = ~ ~ ~ Key '= ~ m '~ ~ A-B · · · B-C O O C-D · · · · · · D-E E-F · · · e F-G · · G-H · · · e H-I · · e I-J · · J-K · · · · · K-L · · · · · · L-M M-N · · · · · N-O · · e O-P · · · · · P-Q · · · · · Q-R · · · · R-S · · · · · S-T · T-U · e U-V · II-G-22 V-W · · · · W-X · X-Y · Y-Z · · · Z-A · · · · II-G-23 Chapter III Specific Elements A. Residential Land Use and Housing Element The Residential Land Use and Housing Element addresses the housing needs of current and future residents of the metropolitan area. Land in residential use occupies the largest share of land within the urban 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 Statew~e~P~mi3~ Housing 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 land supply and ~v:.,: ........ ~, ......... housing demand, .......... s existing housing problems~ and the demo~aphic characteristics ~-of the expected future population. Numcrou:, fF=actors that_were reviewed to develop a projection of future housing demand;_were;~'---c--.s. projected number of 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. ....... ~, tThe policies in this elemcnL!i~t:d provide dkection for the local jurisdictions in p~epadng zoning and development regulations to ad&ess ~e housing needs. Each jurisdiction will be responsible to implement the policies contained in th~ o ~:;~_,:~, ~,~ R~sidential Land Use and Housing Element. At the time of the a~ual monitoring report, info~ation on pro~ess made to realize this policy direction will be made available, in that proceaa; As local jurisdictions implement this ~lement of the Metro Plan, they wiff ~ involved in the ~alyz~is of the suitability of ~residential desi~ations in te~s of density and location and, based on this analysis may propose changes, ~ .................... ~ o.o, to the Metro Plan Dia~. III-A- 1 Goal Provide viable residential communities so all residents can choose sound, affordable housing that meets individual needs. ,Findings and Policies .Thc findings and policies in this element are organized by the followim, seven tooics related to housing and reside~nt_ial land.'_ " · Residential Land Supply and Demand · Residential Density · Housing Type and Tenure · Desi..ma and Mixed Use · Existing Housing Supply and Nei..v. hborhood~ · Affordable, Special Need, and Fair Housing · Coordination Residential Land Supply and Demand Findings 1. By 2015, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan UGBStudy Area is projected to reach a population of 256.000 ....vccn -m~ r~n and 31 ~This is a 29 p~ment increase ~om the estimated 2000 c~nsus population 22~,~00~ 2. Averag~ household size has b~n d~c]ining both nationally and locally due to a v~ty of factors. This trend will result in the need for more dwelling units to house population ~owth. 3. Based on the 201 ~ projected population ~d average household size, there is a n~ed for b~tween 40,000 ~d 49,000 new housin~ units in the Bugene-Spfin~fidd UGB b~tw~n 1992 and 201~. 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 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 III-A-2 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 ofbuildable land that will be available within the UGB until the year 2015. Supply and Demand Analysis in Acres [ Low J Medium High[ Density Density Density Total SUPPLY Total Net Buildable Acres for Housing 4,780 828 195 5,802 Flat Buildable Acres 3,159 777 192 4,129 15-25 Percent Sloped Land 913 41 1 955 Eugene 605 39 1 645 Springfield 307 2 1 310 Steep Sloped (>25 percent) Buildable Acres 708 9 1 718 Eugene 341 2 0 343 Springfield 367 6 1 374 DEMAND Low-High Range Residential Demand Remaining After Subtracting Demand Met byBuildable Lots 3,298-4,225 523-641 120-147 3,941-5,013 Land Demand for Housing Displaced by Redevelopment 27 0 0 27 Total Expected Residential Land Demand - 1992-2015 3,840 589 135 4,564 Low-High Range Residential Land Demand- 1992-2015 3,325-4,252 523-641 120-147 3,968-5,040 Difference between Total Buildable Supply and Expected Residential Land Demand in Acres* 940 239 60 1,238 Notes' Tntal~ may cli{~'~r ,t,,~ ~ ro,,~.~;.~g. ^ ..... ptions 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-3 Supply and Demand Analysis in Units Low Medium High ] Density Density DensityI Total SUPPLY Total Units on Buildable Acres 28,681 13,078 6,760 48,519 Units on Flat Buildable Acres 21,797 12,432 6,720 40,949 Units on 15-25 Percent Sloped Land 5,403 632 39 6,074 Eugene (same density as flat) 4,175 624 35 4,834 Springfield (6 4 DU/acre) 1,228 8 4 1,240 Units on Steep (>25 percent) Sloped 1,482 14 1 1,497 Buildable Acres Eugene (6 3 DU/acre) 1,023 6 0 1,029 Springfield (6 1.25 DU/acre) 459 8 1 468 DEMAND Low-High Range Residential Demand Remaining After Subtracting Demand Met 22,873- 8,384- 4,200- 35,457- by Buildable Lots & Infill 29,042 10,270 5,145 44,457 Unit Demand for Housing Displaced by Redevelopment 149 0 0 149 Total Expected Residential Unit Demand- 1992-2015 26,449 9,432 4,725 40,606 Low-High Range Residential Unit 23,022- 8,384- 4,200- 35,606- Demand- 1992-2015 29,191 10,270 5,145 44,606 Difference between Total Buildable Supply and Expected Residential land Demand in Units* 2,232 3,646 2,035 7,913 ~: y o 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. 7. In 1995, approximately 28 percent of the buildable residential land supply did not have public services, primarily wastewater~cwer. 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, an~d neighborhood commercial~,-e~. 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-4 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 facilities will be expensive. 12. Since adoption of the Metro Plan, the supply of residential lands has been reducedas.a result of compliance with nevat~;,cl--, affccted ~d~m~n~~-~-~ 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 ofbuildable residential land within the UGB for the 20-year planning period at the time of Periodic Review. A.4 Use annexation, provision of adequate public facilities and services, rezoning, redevelopment, and infill to meet the 20-year projected housing demand. III-A-5 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.8 Require 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 Densi ,ty 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 densitys of 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 Plan targeted 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 acre6) for new development over the planning period. For new dwelling units 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. s 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. 6 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-6 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-7 A. 15 Develop a wider range of zoning options such as new zoning districts, to fully utilize existing Metro Plan density 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 Plan density ranges. Housine 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/Spring[ield? (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-8 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 outfight use in low-density residential zones if the local jurisdiction's prescribed standards are met. Design and Mixed Use7 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. 7 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-9 Existing Housing Suppl~' and Neighborhoods Findings 28. Accommodating residential growth within the current UGB encourages in-fill, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of thc existing housing stock and neighborhoods. 29. As thc age of the housing stock reaches 25 years, thc need for rehabilitation, wcatherization, 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/SpringfieM Consolidated Plan, about 16 percent of all occupied rental units of thc metropolitan housing stock are considered to bc in sub-standard condition. 31. Local government has had and will continue to have a role in preserving the aging housing stock. Preserving thc housing stock has numerous benefits to thc community because much of the older housing stock represents affordable housing. In addition, upgrading thc 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. AffordableS~ Special Needg~ and Fair Housin~ 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 8 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.] 9 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-10 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, 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. l0 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 for a family of three in Lane County is $27,150; 30 percent = $678/month.) ~ 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- 11 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-12 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- 13 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 throu..mhout the s_t_ate_ for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon'_s · · ,, .~ ..... :c., ~.~: .......,~ .......... c,,.^ e,~,^ ,, the Eugene-Spri gfi _Clt~zens~ =,~ ....... ., ....... v ................. .~ ........... , n eld 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 diversi[v the metropolitan economy while maintaining or enhancing thc III-B-1 I Findings, Objectives,~ 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. B:as~d:::po::d:a~ fro~:: th~::2.000 ~,S~:: ~u~u~, ~h~Local per capita income in !999 for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area wasis lower than for Oregon as a ~h0ie ~d~ the Portland metropolitan area but; 6. In 2000, the unemplo~ent rate in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area was ......... ~ ......... force .................. , c.g., I 8~. 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. III-B-2 98. 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. 40__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. The provision of adequate public facilities and services is necessary for economic development. 4-3.1...!~. There are presently inefficiently used resources in the metropolitan area, including land, labor, and secondary waste products. -1-3.1..;2. 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 (Gat~a.y)..and south Springfield industrial areas, the Highway 99N industrial area, Country Club Road, Chad Drive, and the Mohawk-Northgate area. -14!3. 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, ~s well as for the provision of an adequate supply of affordable housing. -1-51..3. 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. 46.!..5. C...am_p__u_s~ industrial firms prefer city services. e~:,l light industrial firms have varied site location requirements, prefer -1-71~. Camvuso~ ..... 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. III-B-3 Objectives 1. Improve thc 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. 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 III-B-4 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 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. III-B~5 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, 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. I B.26 In order to provide locational choice and to attract new c~ampu_s_spcc, ia! I/g~ht 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 III-B-6 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. III-B-7 Insert Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element (Exhibit B) III-B-9 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. Thc ~;';~ ^c~ ........ `4 ~-~---~`4 ..... .~ ........ / ~,,~,,v,,on. The jurisdictional area of the Metro Plan (i.e., Metro Plan Boundary} was found to be in compliance with Goal 15 on Sentember 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 the Greenway 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. III-D-1 .......... v ....... ,~ ...... on. Thc Greenway boundaries, as adopted by thc three jurisdictions, have been digitized in thc Regional Land Information Database (RLID) and arc shown - - ....................... pcasiblc a~L~Ja~v on ....... v,,-:,-~ .... Plan Ddiagram. = ~w ............. ., .... ~, ....... ar E~uture acquisition areas; and uses allowed within thc Greenway remain thc primary responsibility of thc local jurisdictions. This clement, however, provides thc basis for a coordinated effort by Bugcnc, Springfield, and Lane County. 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 o f riv._er__..an_ d w__atmrway 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. III-D-2 [ 6. Eugene, and Springfield, ~d_L~_ne 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 o,i September 12. 1982 ..... ,~;,-.--*'~ .......... :..-.~ ..... t',7 .......... 15. 8. The followinv r~ .... ,a.;,... r, ~..: .... t/t~ermits are ~. '~ .... v ........ ., ........ required by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County to implement Statewide Planning Goal 15 within their respective areas o f iurisdiction as defined in Chanter II-D' r^. any ;~*-~:c-~*:^- a. The City of Eugene requires Greenwav.. Permits for any.. activity in thc Willamette Greenway involving intensification of use. change in use, b. The City of Springfield requires a Discretiona .ry Use Permit for any change or intensification of use, or construction that has a si~nificanl 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. III-D-3 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. ,4 ~ , ........ ~ cor'Adors. Objectives 1. Encourage use of fiver and watc~ay co~dors to ~lfill open space, recreation, ~d resource protection needs. 2. Ensure that development occu~ng within fiver and watc~ay condors is responsive to and provides protection of these valuable na~ral assets. 3. Encourage, where appropriate ~d in keeping with Grccnway goals, development that respects thc quality of byers and watc~ays ~d provides a v~cty of oppo~nitics for cnjo~cnt of those resources by thc public. 4. Encourage coordinated water pla~ing and thc development of thc ~ca's watc~ays, where approphate, as pa~ of thc arca's open space and p~k 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. III-D-4 D.5 New 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.6 New industrial development that locates along the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers shall enhance natural, scenic, and environmental qualities. D.7 Potential 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.8 Within 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. D.-1-0~ Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the Willamette River Greenway. D.4~l......0Aggregate 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.4-3!_!_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) I-5 right of way crossing the Willamette River and within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line, for purpose of constructing a temporary detour bridge, implementing the conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use Approval (Springfield Journal SHR 2003-00115) and removing the temporary detour bridge after completion of the permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) Willamette Greenway; the exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part III-D-5 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 #t.3D,! !, Chapter III, Section D. III-D-6 E. Environmental Design Element The Environmental Design Element is concerned with that broad process which molds the various components of thc urban ama 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 satis .fying to the mind ~m_d _senses, 2. Encourage the development of the natural, social, and economic environment in a manne, ._t~hatJ_s_.harmon_ious with our natural setting and maintains and enhances our quality of life. 3. Create and preserve desirable and distinctive qualities in local and nei..v, hborhood areas Findings, Objectives, and Policies Findings III-E-1 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 III-E-2 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. 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.3 The 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.4 Public 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.6 Local 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). III-E-3 E.7 The development of urban design elements as part of local and refinement plans shall be encouraged. E.8 Site 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. 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 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 TransPlan Study Area.12 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, t,~o:~,^~, ..,:~,. ,~.: ........ ~. 14 The TransPlan Study ~eais an aream.edfor lranscomli_on, modehng.laurposes.__The_296,5(~(l. Pmi_e_c_ted population for this.area.includes ~e...estimated 20.!5...p.oculation o_£2.8.6,!)0_0 for the. L[GBplus an additional...!.0.,5.00 pro. iected..popula~ion £or..the. !ranspc~_.rt. ation~a!ysis.Zones that extend..be.~ond the. UGB. III-F-1 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. 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 b.v the following four topics related to transportation; · Land Use · Transportation Demand Management · Trans_portation Sy_5_t___e_m.._Improvement5 · System-Wide · Roadwa3c. s · Transit · Bicycle · P_ed._e..s_tfi_~ · Goods Movement · Other Modes · Finance Land Use Findings III-F-2 1. The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) (1992) states that Oregon's land use development patterns have tended to separate residential areas fi.om 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 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-fi.iendly 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. III-F-3 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 lB 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; · 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. III-F-4 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 to technical assistance and economic incentives. Policies F. 1 Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern. 13 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 con'idors, 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 14. TDM addresses federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 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 See Glossary for the definition of nodal development. III-F-5 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 moming 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). 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.7 Increase the use of motor vehicle parking management strategies in selected areas throughout the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. F.8 Implement 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 III-F-6 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. 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 HousehoM 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. III-F-7 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. 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 on the 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. III-F-8 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. 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 Model forecasts 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 all users, including the transportation disadvantaged population. III-F-9 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. 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 require bikeways 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 III-F- 10 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. 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 the Metro Plan Diagram receives municipal water, wastewater, fire, and police services. III-F- 11 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. 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 iocal 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 Plan as 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 TransPlan demonstrate 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 III-F-12 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. 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.33 Support 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. III-F-13 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. 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 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 Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental Principles, and Chapter II-£]~, 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 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 facilities. As required by Goal 11, the Public Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location~4 of the water, wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land 24 The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities maps is determined through local processes. III-G-1 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 of the 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 Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and budget processes of individual service providers. The policies listed provide direction for public ~d private developmental and pro,am decision- making reg~ding urban hcilities and se~ices. Development should be coordinated with the pla~ing, financing, and construction of key urban hcilities and se~ices to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these hcilities. 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 ~5 Goal 11 also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In this metropolitan area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (Trans Plan). III-G-2 The findings and policies in this element are organized by the following four topics related to thc, provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range of urban facilities and services, including wastewater service, may be found under any of these topics, althou.gh 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 · Electricity · Schools · Solid Waste · Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary · Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary 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 Plan identifies 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 Plan finds 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. III-G-3 5. With the improvements specified in the Public Facilities and Services Plan project 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, and 3 in the Public Facilities and Services Plan. 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. 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 TransPlan are 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.2 Use 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, 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 Plan for 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 and 3, requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan, except for the following: III-G-4 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 proiects included in the PFSP to serve land desi.m~ated Urban Reserve prior to the removal of the Urban Reserve desi.maation, which proiects sha!130~ removed from the PFSP at the time of the next Periodic Review of the Metro Plan,: G.4 The 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.6 Efforts 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: Water Findings 11. 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 III-G-5 projects on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities map does not confer rights to a groundwater source. 12. Known and potential..m'oundwater pollution exists in the metropolitan area. Known and potential sources of ~oundwater pollution include septic tank wastes,, industrial, commercial, and residential runoff; leakage from sanitary, sewer pipes; leaking from sanitary, landfills; a..ericultural non-point sources (spraying and animal wastes); chemical and petroleum spills,__at3d __natural contaminants (arsenic_)_. 13. Beneficial uses of..m'oundwater 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, ~9~z~g~.~.~.~.~.~..,,~~,~E9~ Chapter III-C.. [.gTff~gt~:Resources Element) Policies G.9 Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, EWEB and SUB, shall ultimately be the water service providers within the UGB. G. 10 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. 11 Ensure that water main extensions within the UGB include adequate consideration of fire flows. G. 12 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 will require establishing standards, as well as coordinated source and delivery systems. Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stormwater Findings I 14-~. 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. III-G-6 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." 1.~4. 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. 1 TS. 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. 186. 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. 19g. 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. 2.04-8. 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. 2..!..-1-9. 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. 222-0. 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. 23g-1-. Filling in designated floodplain areas can increase flood elevations above the elevations predicted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) models, because the III-G-7 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. 13 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. G. 14 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. 15 Consider wellhead protection areas and surface water supplies when planning stormwater facilities. III-G-8 G. 16 Manage or enhance waterways and open stormwater systems to reduce water quality impacts from runoff and to improve stormwater conveyance. G. 17 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.18 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. 19 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 242-3. 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.20 The 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 ¢5-2--3. 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 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. 26-24. 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 III-G-9 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." 2'7-2-5. 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 elementary and high school attendance areas near new development. 2.8g6. 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. 29-2--7. 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. 3.!3-2-8. 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. 3.!g9. 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 III-G-10 G.21 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.22 Support financial and other efforts to keep neighborhood schools open and to retain schools sites in public ownership following school closure. G.23 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 I 32g0. 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 G.24 The Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan, as updated, shall serve as the guide for the location of solid waste sites, including sites for ine~ 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 III-G-11 Findings I 33g-1-. 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. [ 3~. Land application ofbiosolids, 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. I ~..5g-3. 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.25 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 Plan Diagram, the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, the Regional Wastewater Biosolids Management Facility, and agricultural sites used for land application ofbiosolids 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. G.26 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. III-G-12 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 3634. 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. 373~. 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. 38.~36. 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. }.~}3-7-. Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0090 require state and local jurisdictions to identify and protect riparian corridors. 4038. 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.27 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.28 Locate 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. G.29 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. III-G-13 G.30 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.31 Measures 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.32 New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside the UGB. Financin~ Findings 4!3-9. ORS 197.712(2)(e) states that the project timing and financing provisions of public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions. 4240. 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. 434t-. 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. 4443. 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. 4543. 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. 4644. The assessment rates of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County are each different, creating inequitable financing of some infrastructure improvements in the metropolitan area. Policies G.33 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 thc affected jurisdiction(s). III-G- 14 G.34 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.35 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.36 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.37 Explore other funding mechanisms at the local level to finance operations and maintenance of public facilities. G.38 Set wastewater and stormwater fees at a level commensurate with the level of impact on, or use of, the wastewater or stormwater service. G.39 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- 15 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 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. 'KIDD A .*~A~A~ ,1~ ;~ 1~ ...... ,1~ ....... 11 ..... 1 .... ,4 A .... A 4: ..... 1. III-H-2 3~_. ._The level_o..~_e_rvice for parks and recreation facilities in the metropolitan area was last evaluated in 1989. At that time, regional fi.gures 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 District are preparing Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plans. These plans will update the re.m,'onal parkland inventory,, and make comparisons to regional standards, which will provide a more detailed analysis of_ke_gg2ip._n.._aJ__par_k_s_up~]z._a_.n_._d_. demand. 54. 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: III-H-3 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. 65.. 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 Plan as 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. 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. III-H-4 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 p_r_Q_~_e_s s ~_s. 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.4 Encourage the development of private recreational facilities. H.5 Develop 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-5 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. To varying a ..... · ~,~r~,~,~o, Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene are implementing programs of historic preservation and awareness. o,~ ............... .~ ......................... d. There remain many sections of the metropolitan area in which no surveying has been done to locate historic an~d 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 III-I-1 for the protection and preservation of sites, structures, objects, and areas of historic significance. 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. 1.2 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. 1.3 Explore the feasibility of a metropolitan non-profit historic preservation development organization to bring together public and private funding sources. 1.4 Periodically review state and federal programs intended to assist in preservation of historic and archaeological sites for possible use in connection with local implementation programs. 1.5 Monitor and evaluate the effect of these actions on other adopted policies and the metropolitan area as a whole. II1-1-2 1.8 Local governments shall pursue grants from all available sources to assist with the I identification and evaluation of .......... ~ .... Mstoncally si. ,enificant sites. III-I-3 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 not written 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 t.vpes of enemy. 2. D evel0P_e_.nY_i_r_q _nr~_e~nt a_l_l_v__ac c ept ab l_e_..e_..n_..e_r e__.v r e s_p_u_r ~ q.._a_! t_e_ m a~tj_v..e_5_._ Findings, Objectives, and Policies Findings 1. Energy conservation measures can serve as an energy source by making limited energy supplies serve greater numbers of users. III-J-1 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 Oreanization of Petroleum Exnortine Countries (OPEC)nations. r~.,..,~. ...... , ,,.~ v .............v,,v ........ r:,- ......... energy w~th 43_. Energy savings can be obtained by utilizing forms of energy other than electricity or fossil fuels for space heating. 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. 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. :7__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. 9_7_. Solar energy can provide a significant amount of the energy used for the metropolitan area hot water heating and can provide cost-effective supplementary space heating when used in basic, simple, passive systems. 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. Waste heat from metropolitan area industrial processes can be used for space heating of nearby buildings. III-J-2 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. 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. III-J-3 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. 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. III-J-4 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 encouraged as 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. 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. III-J-5 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.-1-71~d-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 EYectrYc Power Plan. III-J-6 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 Plan included a recommendation that a permanent citizens advisory committee be established. That recommendation was implemented by the three goveming 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 Plan were Itransferred to the Joint Planning Commission Committee (JPCC) in 1990. The JPCC is made up of two .planning commissioners from_Eugene, Springfield, and La_n_e_.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 pro,ams and procedures that maximize the opportunity for meaningful, ong__o_i_n.g citizen involvement in the community's planning and .p21_aan_ _i._.ng implementation .processes consistent with mandatory statewide plannin_g standards. Findings, Objectives, and Policies Findings III-K-1 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 Plan is 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 of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) shall also serve as non-voting, ex- officio members of MPC. III-K-2 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 Plan that 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. III-K-3 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 level for resolving intergovernmental planning issues, including proposed Metro Plan amendments. III-K-4 Chapter IV Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements The Metro Plan is the long-range public policy document which establishes the broad framework upon which Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions. While the Metro Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document, it may be amended from time to time. Likewise, the Metro Plan may be augmented and implemented by more detailed refinement plans and regulatory measures. Goal Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the community. Findings, Objectives, and Policies Findings 1. If the Metro Plan is to maintain its effectiveness as a policy guide, it must be adaptable to the changing needs and circumstances of the community. 2. Between Metro Plan updates, changes to the Metro Plan may occur through Periodic Review and amendments initiated by the governing bodies and citizens. 3. Refinements to the Metro Plan are 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. Objectives 1. Maintain a schedule for monitoring, reviewing, and amending the Metropolitan Area General Plan so it will remain current and valid. 2. Maintain a current land use and parcel information base for monitoring and updating the Metropolitan Area General Plan. IV-1 3. Prepare refinement and functional plans that supplement the Metropolitan Area General Plan. Policies 1. A special review, and if appropriate, Metro Plan amendment, shall be initiated if changes in the basic assumptions of the Metro Plan occur. An example would be a change in public demand for certain housing types that in turn may affect the overall inventory of residential land. 2. The regional land information database shall be maintained on a regular basis. 3. All amendments to the Metro Plan shall be classified as a Type I or Type II amendment depending upon the specific changes sought by the initiator of the proposal. a. A Type I amendment shall include any change to the urban growth boundary (UGB) or the Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary) of the Metro Plan; any change that requires a goal exception to be taken under Statewide Planning Goal 2 that is not related to the UGB expansion; and any amendment to the Metro Plan text that is non-site specific. b. A Type II amendment shall include any change to the Metro Plan Diagram or Metro Plan text that is site specific and not otherwise a Type I category amendment. c. Adoption or amendment of some refinement plans, functional plans, or special area plans may, in some circumstances, be classified as Type I or Type II amendments. Amendments to the Metro Plan that result from state mandated Periodic Review or Metro Plan updates also shall be classified as Type I or Type II amendments depending upon the specific changes that would result from these actions. 4. Initiation of Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows: a. A Type I amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the three ....... ~ amendment. (Note: this co~ection reflects adopted ordinance and b. A Type II amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the three governing bodies or by any citizen who owns property that is subject of the proposed amendment. c. Only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan, a special area study or Periodic Review or Metro Plan update. IV-2 d. The governing bodies of the three metropolitan jurisdictions may initiate an amendment to the Metro Plan at any time. Citizen initiated Type II amendments may be initiated at any time. 5. The approval process for Metro Plan amendments, including the number of goveming bodies who participate and the timeline for final action, will vary depending upon the classification of amendment and whether a determination is made that the proposed amendment will have Regional Impact. a. All three governing bodies must approve non-site-specific text amendments; site specific Metro Plan Diagram amendments that involve a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette or McKenzie Rivers or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin; and, amendments that involve a goal exception not related to a UGB expansion. b. A site specific Type I Metro Plan amendment that involves a UGB expansion or Plan Boundary change and a Type II Metro Plan amendment between the city limits and Plan Boundary, must be approved by the home city and Lane County (Springfield is the home city for amendments east of 1-5 and Eugene is the home city for amendments west of 1-5). The non-home city will be sent a referral of the proposed amendment and, based upon a determination that the proposal will have I Regional Impact, may choos~,~toparticipate in the decision. Unless the non-home city makes affirmative findings of Regional Impact, the non-home city will not participate in the decision. c. An amendment will be considered to have Regional Impact if: (1) It will require an amendment to a jointly adopted functional plan [Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan), Eugene- Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan), etc.] in order to provide the subject property with an adequate level of urban services and facilities; or (2) It has a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage, wastewater, or transportation facilities of the non-home city; or (3) It affects the buildable land inventory by significantly adding to Low Density Residential (LDR), Campus Industrial (CI), Light-Medium Industrial (LMI), or Heavy Industrial (HI) designations or significantly reducing the Medium Density Residential (MDR), High Density Residential (HDR), or Community Commercial (CC) designations. d. A jurisdiction may amend a Metro Plan designation without causing Regional Impact when this action is taken to: compensate for reductions in buildable land caused by protection of newly discovered natural resources within its own IV-3 jurisdiction; or accommodate the contiguous expansion of an existing business I with a site-specific requirement. e. Decisions on all Type II amendments within city limits shall be the sole responsibility of the home city. 6. Public hearings by the goveming bodies for Metro Plan amendments requiring participation from one or two jurisdictions shall be held within 120 days of the initiation date. Metro Plan amendments that require a final decision from all three governing bodies shall be concluded within 180 days of the initiation date. When more than one jurisdiction participates in the decision, the Planning Commissions of the participating jurisdictions shall conduct a joint public hearing and forward that record and their recommendations to their respective elected officials. The elected officials also shall conduct a joint public hearing prior to making a final decision. The time frames prescribed in connection with Type II Metro Plan amendment processes can be waived if the applicant agrees to the waiver. 7. If all participating jurisdictions reach a consensus to approve a proposed amendment, substantively identical ordinances affecting the changes shall be adopted. Where there is a consensus to deny a proposed amendment, it may not be re-initiated, except by one of the three governing bodies, for one year. Amendments for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for additional study, conflict resolution, and recommendation back to the governing bodies. 8. Adopted or denied Metro Plan amendments may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) according to applicable state law. 9. The three metropolitan jurisdictions shall jointly develop and adopt Metro Plan amendment application procedures and a fee schedule. 10. Metro Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state required Periodic Review of the Metro Plan, although the governing bodies may initiate an update of the Metro Plan at any time. 11. 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. 12. All refinement and functional plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan and should inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan is the prevailing policy document. 13. Refinement plans developed by one jurisdiction shall be referred to the other two jurisdictions for their review. Either of the two referral jurisdictions may determine that an amendment to the Metro Plan is required. IV-4 14. Local implementing ordinances shall provide a process for zoning lands in conformance with the Metro Plan. IV-5 IV-6 Chapter V Glossary The purpose of the Glossary is to define commonly used terms, ag ugcd 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. _D_epartment of Housing and Urban Development's (HU__D_)HUD's-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. 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. 8:7. 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 98. Density bonus: A mechanism used in incentive-based zoning that allows a developer to build at higher densities in retum for providing more open space, building affordable housing, or some other public amenity. 1~0~9. 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. 1._1_0.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. 12-1-. 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. 145. Extension of urban facilities: Construction of the facilities necessary for future service provision. 154. 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. 165. Finding: Factual statement resulting from investigations, analysis, or observation. 176. 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. 18g. Floodway: The normal stream channel and that adjoining area of the floodplain needed to convey the waters of a 100-year flood. 19__8. 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. 204-9. Groundwater: Water that occurs beneath the land surface in the zone(s) of saturation. 2120. Impervious surface: Surfaces which prevent water from soaking into the ground. Concrete, asphalt, and rooftops are the most common urban impervious surfaces. v-2 22__g-1-. 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. 23-2-3. 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. 2~42-3. Key urban facilities and services: Minimum level: Wastewater service, stormwater service, ~ranspggat~pg,::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. 2~5~. 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.) 2~-2-5. 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. 2~-2-6. 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 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. (Note: Assumes boundaries between the area of the Metro Plan and the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan will coincide.) 2__9__.. Metro Plan Diagram: A graphic depiction in the Metro Plan of: (a) the land use planned for the metropolitan area; and (b) the goals and policies embodied in the text and elements of the Metro Plan. Information includes land use designations and the UGB. 30g-7-. 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 Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary). V-3 31 ~z8. Mixed use: A building, project or area of development that contains at least two different land uses such as housing, retail, and office uses. 3229. Mode: The transportation system used to make a trip, such as automobile, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, or paratransit. 3330. 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 towards 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 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. V-4 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 Plan are 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 mn-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 Plan can 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 Plan element 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 homesites with limited public services, and which are not suitable, necessary or intended for urban use. V-5 ~,~,.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. 54:.45, Single-family detached: A free-standing dwelling unit that does not share any walls or the roof with another dwelling unit. 35.46. 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. 36.47. 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. 37.48. 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. I 38.49~. 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. 39._5_0~Underdeveloped land: The vacant or redevelopable portion of land not having the highest and best use allowed by zoning. 40.51. 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. 4-1-:.52..Undeveloped land: Land that is vacant or used for agricultural purposes. 4-~..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. 4-3~.54. Urban lands: Lands located within an incorporated city. v-6 ~ .... ,~ ...... :~,^a ,,,;m th 2-0 -yea ptanni g population 4&56. Urban water and wastewater service provision: The physical connection to the water or wastewater system. 46:.57, Urbanizable land: Urbanizable lands are those unincorporated lands between the city limits and the UGB. 4%.58. 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.) 48:.59. 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 Exhibit B Metro Plan Chapter III-C. Environmental Resources Element Note: This document shows proposed changes to Chapter III-C of the Metro P/an. It is a draft in legislative format. It is a product of the metropolitan-wide policy component of the Eugene- Springfie/d Metropo//tan Natura/ Resources Study (NR Study) and the Lane County component of the study, for the area outside the urban growth boundary. Additions are shown in double underline. Deletions are shown in strlkcout. The draft includes proposed changes to the element resulting from the NR Study, which include new and amended findings to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5 as implemented in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660 Division 23. This draft also includes amendments to the policies for Goal 3: Agricultural Lands, and Goal 4: Forest Lands, which are products of a separate Periodic Review study. 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 Nat'ural Area; ~'s ^ n,,, r~.~.,~, c,~ ......... ~ .... andLane Countv's-Howard Buford Recreation Area (Mt. Pisgah),kand Willamalane Park and Recreation District's Ea~tgatc:...}¥opd!an_d_s~ 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 I 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 islands and 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. Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 1 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). 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. Planning can ensure the coexistence of city and nature; one example is the ~i4ham~tle~Aver Greenway. The Environmental Resources Element provides broad direction for maintaining and improving our natural urban environment. Other elements in the Metro P/an that provide ,~-~ ~;~,,~ ,~,~,~..~ ,,, more detail with particular aspects of the natural environment: G cema, ax, R~¥ er C omdors and ~..m~aY.~;.....Environm~!!t~!_D~s~gn;_P.ub!ic__~i.!i.fi.~ ~.~!d...Se~35..c~.s; a=3~.....dParks and Recreation Facilities ~d ~'~ ....... m~ Ta~;~,, ~ .... ........................ ~- v,~ .... ~. The emphasis in the Enviromnental Resources E.!~m~n[.~s e!emcnMs the protection of wate~ays as a valuable ~d i~eplaceable component of the overall natural resource system impo~ant to the metropolitan area. Wate~ays addressed in thc ~~ c ~,, ;,~, ~ ,,W;~ ..... m~ v; .... Greenway and Public Facilities and Services elements ~,iver r-,,~,~ ...... ................................................................... , ........... ~-~ .... Wa~." While some gY..:~EI~!P, repetition is unavoidable, the GreenwaE...C.!e~Beu. LtEat s~ion emphasizes the intrinsic value River wate~ays for enjo~ent ~d active and passive use by residents of the area. Th_~;~9 public /~acfliti es....eJ.:::~men.............[..:d~glg. W......i l!! c=9:mp qaCnt.==gg~!!~&g~ alt...... [[a.!:reso...p:rcx... 5ys[e.n.::::l iJ...!.!h......~., co nt?.................~: o f th:::................. >¥.atcr a~d....s.torm..wat.er, sYst~m.$ .~ The pub!icfaci!i..ti~a....d.~mgi!Li.~.d, ud:~.s, fin. d.i. Bgs an:~:~..poli ci es related to watem, avs, groundwate!-,:O)finki~gwater, protection, the Clean Water Act, and the The inventories conducted as the basis for this element and the~,ooal~-,~4-o,-;o, ,,w-~,-,, .... · ,~o, and policies contained herein; address n ............. ' ........... -Statewlde Planning Goals }..,...~,:..:~:,....~.,...a!!d.=.~..and interpret those goals in the context of the needs and circumstances of the metropolitan area. Lan e C o u n ty..g!! ~...[!~!.~....~'~i! !~5..~?..[..:~P[!!3.g.~gl!l, an d E u g e n c c o m wetlands., ri:parian corridors, and wildlife habitat tbr the area between the UGB and the Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary). The three local governments .joj~)~ly adopted Metro Plan ~ex~.~.... ~ a~.:p..9.~ixy~.~.q!:~gd~.=~ent=. ~...t~q..:!:~.gEnv: (Class I Stream ~Riparian Protection regq!gl, ixms,_Lane Code Chapter 16.253) to inclement Goal 5 and .~ggen~ w~r~...uM:egaki.!~g..~;.~rk ~p ~mplv with Goal 5 co~idors, and wildlife habitat within their respective urban growth boundaries for adogl:ig!!.by Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 2 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). This element of thc Metro P/au o~ganizes the findings and .pg!..!cics into ~.~ories related to S.~a!,~y. id~..E!am:~.iug Goals 3...., ~.,.=5, %aud 7_.~ Agricultural Lands=£(~.p:~! }) Riparian Con'idors. Wetlands,. and Wildtif~ Habita[.~oa!.SA Ha ard.s.. ( O.o.a! 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. .............. include Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 3 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). Findings, and .Policies A_xricultural Lands (GLga1 3) Finding~ -1-5!. 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. 465. 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. g83. Where urban and agricultural lands abut, farm use management problems are frequently created. Policies $C...!.. 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. 8C.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. 9C.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 Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 4 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). 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.t.s.t~.~.s.~.~.~.>:.~.~..~.~.~:..~.~.~.~..~z.~.::[~:[~.~L[~gy.[~c~[~.~ of the Metro Plan but outside the UGB. Lao.d.~.....~./..~hi.~.....t. he...~U;~B...~5.!h...agri.c.u.!./.ura!...~.oils or that are used for <gficultur8.!...;p.ul~oses are not entitled to protection under these policies. a. Encourage agricultural activities by preserving and maintaining agricultural landq 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 prqjects that benefit agricultural use with minimum environmental degradation in accordance with existing state and federal regulations. o 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~ Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 5 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). 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 Workin.~ Paper: Agricultural Lands shall be used to determine the appropriate division requirements for lands zoned EFU/RCP. k. Conversion of rural agricultural land to urbani×able land shall follow the process and criteria set forth in Goals 3 and 14. 1. Regard non-agricultural uses within or adjacent to agricultural lands as being subject to the normal and accepted agricultural practices of that locality. 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 committed exception 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 4-3..._4.... The statewide goal definition for forest is based upon: (a) U.S. Department of Agriculture soils information translated into a potential forest growth productivity rating Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 6 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). and (b) existing forest cover. Many soils in the metropolitan area have forest growth potential. Existing forest cover consists of coniferous and deciduous hardwood forests located primarily in the hills south of Eugene and Springfield and of riparian (streamside) forests along rivers, streams, ponds, and sloughs. -145. 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 44C.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. -1-5.C:..~ 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 on M',ztr~'; Platt rural lands outside the UGB. When other policies of the Metro Plan establish a greater importance for uses other than commercial forests, Lane County shall protect those other values by applying appropriate implementation measures. 40C.7 In addition to any of the above policies, these policies apply to forest lands within the :,,,: ~.~ :..; .... 1 ~, ..... 4,,,:,~ ~!gP.:.~PF!.)S!:~!~5:;::of the Metro Plan but outside the UGB: a. Conserve forest ~ .... e~:~:¢ (~::t;~:::~P,t:):~3:gg.:u::::~.::gl2~2:)n; i=~:~g:: Og~:::J~!.~?;:~:~:tj:!~:g:: 9:~: ~: r ~: ~:~::::t:~;~ :SP CCi es. as the lead in g sound and ~,ddt~fe resources and to ro~,~dc fo recreat~c hal oppo~xunmes and a~FIC U Hie ............. ~ .............. ~ ........................... ~ ........, Forest land shall include lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses in.....d~-a.~.lJ.~J:gg.:in.[ QL~:grhY lands which are Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 7 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). wi!d!.i..fe...r~.so u~ces,. 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. 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). 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~J;~pgi:~ or replacement of existing residences ....... , c ...... :`4 ...... ,~, ~c ..... `4 A ................................... .~ }, ................. }, ..... Forest Lands if they are ........... A ......... +~ F .... F .... + ....... ; F +1., ...... ; .... ,; .... +; ..... Dwellings shall be allowed in the F-2/RCP zoning district as provided in Lane C.9de...16.,21L The minimum land division size for the F-1/RCP zone and the F-2/RCP zone shall comply with Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 8 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). New structures must comply with the Siting and Fire Safety Standards of Lane .Code_!6.~2!.0...and....!..6...2.!.L 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. The effects ofa prqjected 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. ~ if the land divisien is for the v--v ....... v .......o ~- existing ............................................... F ......... ~aXI~IZO folio i g Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 9 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 10 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). Encourage the consolidation of forest land ownership in order to form larger, more viable forest resource units. 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 ~j:gl~ ~g!~p[!~i~ :~:~:~d::g~:~rg~5(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. Lands designated within the Metro Plan as 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 by-x...5,j.t....!Lyesidences 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. Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 11 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). (2) Impacted Forest Land (F-2/RCP) zone characteristics: (a) Predominantly ownerships developed bY....7~.i.[!/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. ~arian Corridors, Wetlands~ and Wildlife Habitat £Goal 5) Findings Literature searchData from the Oregon Natural Herit&ge ProgramX.acquired in 2000) and interviews with specialists resulted in the identification of sites with sp.~.!.95...of conce::....__.._......._......._.!TB~ o?...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 g4.._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. riparian corridors :tbr the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary, The inventory ~on....~sist_~..~c.i!...0.....~.c~}:~.:~rg!~?~.~...Q~g0:g~.~pa~nmnt of Forest~..5[!~.~g~..~!4~si~.~q~.[~.p.~...!~.~p~~ p3j~s, and aeria!A¢!3otg~aphs. The boundaries of signi:fi.c..~.0~[0pafian cm~idors were determined usin g...[hg...sl~nda?=:~:......~ setbac...............................~...~i..i:5..l~&fi'o:...........~.., al...........[ shown on the inventoD~ g~...~>.!.!.~.~'.~.;........7.5...ik~[.[[p!a!!d..i?~m..th<...~op of each bank: atong.;4]~ streams with average annual stream flow ~'eater than 1000 cubic feet per second; and 50 /~.~L.PP!.~P:.~::~rP!P..~.b.~...~PP...9~f::~Ch.~9~:.g~p.pg all streams with Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element,Page 12 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). wetlands for the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary. The inventory..- consisted 10. Lane County,._Springfic!d, and Eugene jointly c===~ o!n_pleted the Goal 5 requirements lbr .wi ldli fe t.:::::::::~:::::~::..' ..........~3b..~:~a.::~::.~: fo...........[..~...grc:~ ~.~.' be.............[~y.~e=~ th............~.u._...~....¢~.~d...:[be=ffl ¢~LB.gp~J~dary,=T=h.e..~ nye:_....gto.~, ~onsi s.t~.d...o.:~.d:a.ta fi~.m..the Ore go~LNa~t.ur~!...Herit, a~e...Prog~ao3...~ud..!he...~rego~_. ~.epartm en t ofFish and Wildlife~ which included: threatened, endangered~ and sensitive wildlifc 5p~.~:~:%.habita==......Li...B~P~;~[~P.B.~ sensitive bird site inventories:....an............~!.::~vildli:~ ~:_.::[~_Sp~j,~59f=~onc X and/or habitats of concern identi fled and mapped by the Ore,on Depamnent ofFish, and Wildlife. The Goal 5 wetland and riparian con'idor requiren__==!ents of apply!no Goal 5 rec uiremems to this )ortion of the metro area xvil0JiJ~ d___9~s not~ ~ ,fldh le habitat includes only those sites where one or more of the followino conditions exist' lt~e habitat has been documented to erfonn a life s~pp.o.~....fim.~.ti..o.u.., for s~5!d.!.i..:F~ ~p:~igs, Jj:~:~,.~d.by the ~bderal endan=_~gered species Ol'bW the State of Oregon as a th._.==reatened, endan~_.. =_=gered~!Lse= nsitiv~ w ldlit~ ~ecieg the tnabitat has documented occurrences of more than incidental us.~..::~ a a sensitive bird nestin~ ro~sting, or watering resource site for Qsp~ 0r ~'eat blue pop.u!..ati.o~....obiectives Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission; or the area is identified and mapped bv the 11. ~prin~field and Eugene are required were .... a,~,-,~t~; ....... "~ ;" 2003 to complete Goal 5 Policies -t-8C.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 pmy.¢n.t..ems.km, and protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values, vegetation, and wildlife values of those areas. 4-9C 9 Loo,~l -,. ......... ,.~ ,,1~,,11 A ....1 .... lb..i .... ,41 .... 1 o^,+..,-,h, f ...... ,=,~t.; .......A 5!?:l[...~p~plgt.....2..p,...5~parate study to meet its req.M!.r~9.~[~....k~.p.C!%[!!.~....0p.~[..~....P~ul._~., fo_....r Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 13 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). wetlands, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat within the UGB Lane County and the re_..spective city. j.oi.nfiy...i~,..i.!l adop!, the inventory, and protectioJLmeasures for the area outside the city limits and inside the UGB. g6C..!0Local governments shall encourage further study (by specialists) of endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species in the metropolitan area. -2-7.C..!.!.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. ~v Creek ~Prope~ty owners may pursue effo~s to protect natural vegetation and easements,...pu_h!ic....acq.ui$i!io!!.,, donation,, land trusts.,....~[c.,; and local ggy. cro.m.~!!ts_grc encouraged to assist in these effo~s. ::}:Newly identified Wetland, riparian con'idor~x?r wildlife habitat natural .................. .,~.,,,,,...,~o ,, sites i.:!.~.8i.d~....l!.~.e...UGB i dcr~tified a~e~:`ad~p~...~)f..~h.e....ap.p~i~ab~e...G.~.al..`5`."i`r~v.~nt~y...~f..signi~ sites, that have not been previously considered for inclusion in the inventor%shall be addressed in the following manner: a. The jurisdiction within which the natural resource is located shall inventory study the site: accor...........JiBg to the req[[i!~P!~!.![5.iP..!bg. Goa~.. ......... J...~... ad............~jn.i:~rati?~,= :..~. mle~.~; Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 14 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). b. Upon the completion of the r' .......... v...smd~, the affected jurisdiction shall determine within ten days whether the identified natural resource is si~ificant according to the adpptc~¢ significance criteria o:f~he affected sdiction ......... ~ ..... ....,.,,,~,~'~,.,.~.. ..... This decisNm ...... c. If the newly Jde~!tJ.fi~d sits a .... " .... ~ ..... ...... ' determined significant ' ~six months the affected jurisdiction shall ?n__3plete the ~t a Goal 5 re:::: .~luirements tbr the site. which includes id~o.!ifi~.d, fOr.protection ................... , .................... , d. Th~g_~fit~.d jnris_4[c_tj_oa~will noti fy ~ with-affected property owners and interested parties throughout the process. I g-9~.j..~These policies apply to the4~udd~:n,g--.(~c&-14e:r~rw~ Confluence Heronry on the Willamette River. Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 15 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). (6) --L-a~g~-'m~wm~d-J-Sp~'-~g-t-i-etd shall pur~6a.gqo~m~)~,o~ection o:f t~u)~,y-:- A land ex cha~s been ..... ~ ...... ~ ................ t~ Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 16 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). (~)a. The heronry shall be protected by a Natural Resource desj.gmatio!3:.ggth........?Metro Plan Diagram, protective '~;,~t: ..... a .................................................... o,,~ ............. zonings, and the..application of restrictions identified below. f2)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, 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. (r3)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. (4)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, and wildlife habitat concerns. (-5)e. Park use on the island should be discouraged by the state. 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. 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, at, d butside the UGB, dated January 2004, adopted and incorporated here, shall be used to identify wetlands for purposes of notif.ving 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. Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element,Page 17 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). 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 si,gjnificant 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. Findln~s 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. Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element,Page 18 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). including potentJa]_~onfl~3dth J!~5:&g!!:tgl7:J:gd ~;etlan-dS, riparian con:idors, mad wildlife habitat The pern~itting.p!7:9~.~5.5 of the De amnent of Geolo -and Mineral Industries ............ ~DOGA M'ILx55!!. require rj5~afim~ con'idors, and wildlife habitat for these exisfin_g?perations. Future Metro Plan not and DOGAMI regulations. 4OC.,..!.8 Sand and gravel s.it.~8 Jde!!ti.fi.~.c!...as...si. gnificant b.y._tbe...&~t.r2..P, lq.tt, resource areas shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the Goal 5 Rule. ~om pre,nature urban Open Space (Goal 5) Finding~ Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element,Page 19 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). -2-3..1.5.. 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. ;2-316. Compact urban growth results in pressure on open space within the current urban .... ...... ~ 47:~.' ~("' ~'~ Programs for preserving quality open space within the projected "~-~ ............. ....... ,,,,~,, [~¢,B:become more important as the area grows. .2-5.1...'~. 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. _~k718. 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 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. v?:C~.2~0.:.~: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. 24~):~..21When 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 29.:!~:?:~: 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. Major sources of noise in the metropolitan area are airplanes, highway traffic, and some industrial and commercial activities. Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element,Page 20 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). .34-21. The~Eugene Mar!on ............. Analysis, ~Apfil 2000, was found to be in compliance with state ai~o~ noise standards by the State of Oregon Depa~ment of Enviromental Quality :~ ~ ....... 1981. 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. Policies &2~i';..:}~Design of new street, highway, and transit facilities shall consider noise mitigation measures where appropriate. ~2,~-3~,}.2.}.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. g4C.~4Local 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 ~~ G~al_L6) Findings 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. 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. Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element,Page 21 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). I $Z~. Some pollutants affecting metropolitan air and water quality originate outside the metropolitan area. 426. Based on monitori~lg work performe~!....)2~Lthe Lane Re-ional Air Pollution A2encv ! a:.....r!d...LR A P..A...$.ub m.:i.tted documentation demonstrating that the area m.eets the carbon monoxide standards since a yiolatio.::::::=........................B.g[' tt=3¢...~.~ght-hour standa=[fJ:' ha...........5...n.......p.[pccur ~.:Sh:::}f~..J...?.~.0=~: ~.....[.2~:~. ~g~p=~ .~ monoxide. The_Or.ggon Depamnent of Environmenta=[Quality (DEQ) forwarded the r=~g..[4:s:si tic at io~...,.............1zr, eque at.. t.....9..th...., p,..:U:...., s:=, En vi to......................11:g!~nta= ..[ Pro t.......................~.g.t{pg..Aggn~x=(EpA)...:~ggi ona=........! Qffi.c:e .i~! Seatt!.e......!~n...J.anuarv....!~.94,..EPA red:e.sjgnated the E.ug.e, ne.rSprj~gfield area to attainment status for carbon monoxide. The area is currently in a 20-year maintenance period. Since redesi~n~p.~...ther~.~Y..~....~99`n````1~Q~y~ip~.~[{p`~`~`5``p.~[~19...~.~p.p.~p9~?.5.i.~.~ PM! 0 st,mda~td).,.....~he ..LiRAPA B.t)ard. J.~.~...approved the p!~m.....T!.~. PM..!..9..plml boundarv,:.j:s. ~pA. cjTmi_n_ous with 7'~57Ue/~rztt~}:~9:~; A major(ty of the unpaved streets identified as high_ .th.e....LR.AP.A..B.gard...~.o.n.c.! u d ed..th aL~.!o...~m~.8p.ortat.i.on..rm!.a.t~d...c:o~.tm!.meas.u.m.s necessary for complim~ce with the PM 1.0 Standard. LRAPA is currently in .~p~.~.i.d not meeting Natioual Arab~cut Air Oua//tv Standards (non-attainment areas). Most of the .~g.~!~9~..S!~.~.~!gped bv LRAPA for in response to the 1970 federal Clean Air Act. It is amended periodically to respond to current issues. Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element, Page 22 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). 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. 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). 93?. 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. 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 jurisdictionl 33-~-3.?~:~ 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 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. -24~.:~6. 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. -2-2C.2.'~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: Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element,Page 23 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). 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. _a-3~i~.~8Local governments shall encourage changes to state and federal air quality regulations relating to development of fine particulate standards and related monitoring techniques. ~36C.~9Prior 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 Finding~ 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. 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. 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 ~.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 the adjacent land area that must be reserved to discharge a one-percent-chance flood in any given year. 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 Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element,Page 24 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). shall be protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values, their open space and recreational potential, and their value to water resources. I 4~.~.3:.} 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. ,24(...~3 Eugene shall maintain and improve ..... ~ ~,~4,.,~ ~,~ ~.~. ,~,,~,~ hillside development regulations. LCOG: L.'INA TURALRESOURCESIGOAL51METRO NR STUD Y~POLIClqMETRO PLAN DRAFT CHAPTER IIIC LEGISLATIVE FORMAT 030204 UNANNOTATED. DOC Last Saved: March 2, 2004 Exhibit B: Proposed amendments to Chapter III-C, Environmental Resources Element,Page 25 of 25 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). Exhibit D FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE- SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TO ADOPT AS PART OF PERIODIC REVIEW METRO PLAN HOUSEKEEPING REVISIONS, A NEW METRO PLAN CHAPTER III-C: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT, A NEW METRO PLAN DIAGRAM; AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES. The following criteria from Springfield Development Code 7.070(3), Eugene Code 9.7730(3), and Lane Code 12.225(2) shall be applied by the elected officials in approving or denying an amendment to the Metro Plan: (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. The Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane County Board of Commissioners make the following findings with respect to the criteria set forth in Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3) and Springfield Development Code 7.070(3), and Lane Code 12.225(2): The following information, analysis, reports, minutes and materials are included along with other material, in the record of this proceeding. While this supporting background material may not all be specifically mentioned or referenced in the findings, they provide most of the factual basis for these findings. 1. February 10, 2004 minutes and staff notes of the Joint Work Session and Public Hearing of the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and Lane County Board of Commissioners; and minutes and staff notes of the March 15 Springfield City Council, March 10 and April 12 Eugene City Council, and March 17 and May 12 Lane County Board of Commissioners. 2. Testimony submitted for the February 10, 2004 Public Hearing of the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and Lane County Board of Commissioners; 3. September 23, 2003 Planning Commission Joint Work Session and June 3, 2003 and June 17, 2003 Joint Public Hearing staff notes and minutes; and staff notes and minutes for the Eugene Planning Commission, November 3, 2003, Springfield Planning Commission, November 4, 2003, and Lane County Planning Commission, November 18, 2003. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 1 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. 4. Testimony submitted for the June 3, 2003 and June 17, 2003 Planning Commission Joint Public Hearing and comments submitted at the May 7, 2003 Public Workshop on the Metro Plan amendments. Criterion #1: Springfield Development Code Section 7.070(3)(a), Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3)(a), and Lane Code 12.225(2)(a): The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Findings of consistency with this criterion are presented for three Metro Plan amendments: 1. Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions (Exhibit A) 2. Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element (Exhibit B) 3. Metro Plan Diagram (Exhibit C) Goal 1--Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The following findings of consistency with Goal 1 pertain to Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The Metro Plan designates the Joint Planning Commissions Committee (JPCC) as the official public involvement body for the Metro Plan. The JPCC is comprised of two planning commissioners from the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County. As part of the Periodic Review Work Program adoption process, the JPCC approved the following public involvement plan for Periodic Review projects: · An Interested Parties Mailing List will be maintained throughout the Periodic Review process and it will be used to notify those listed of significant events such as workshops, forums, CAC work, public hearings, etc. · Workshops will be conducted to keep the public informed about the status of all work tasks and the Metro Plan. · Newspaper Ads and News Releases will be prepared and released to the local media prior to all events. · Flyers, Fact Sheets, and Frequently Asked Questions papers will be prepared and distributed throughout the process, as needed. · Presentations by project staff to local citizen and special interest groups will continue to be available on request. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 2 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. · Public Hearings will be held on all changes to the Metro Plan text or diagram. On April 26, 2003, more than twenty days prior to the June 3, 2003 joint planning commission public hearing, 3,884 notices of the June 3 and June 17, 2003 public hearings were mailed to all property owners affected by the Metro Plan Diagram amendments, to all property owners outside the UGB and within the Metro Plan boundary, and to the Periodic Review Interested Parties Mailing List. The notice described the amendments in detail. A Periodic Review Newsletter was included with the notice and was sent to the interested parties list as well as affected property owners. A total of 5,500 newsletters were mailed. Notice of the Metro Plan amendments joint public hearings was published in the Register- Guard on May 4 and May 13 and in the Springfield News, April 30, 2003, at least twenty days prior to the public hearings. All of the materials related to these Metro Plan diagram amendments were posted on the web site www.lcog.org/metro and this web site was advertised in all notices and the newsletter. A wall map showing the Metro Plan diagram amendments was posted at the City of Eugene and City of Springfield planning offices. News releases were provided to the media on April 23 and May 6, 2003. A Public Workshop was held on the proposal on May 7, 2003. Notice of the workshop was provided in: the news releases; the April 30, 2003 and May 4, 2003 newspaper display ads; and the Periodic Review Newsletter which was distributed as described in the previous paragraph. About 37 people attended the May 7 workshop and several people provided oral or written comment. For the most part, staff responded to questions posed by workshop participants. Fact sheets, flyers, reports, and other written materials were provided at the workshop and available before and during the public involvement process. All of the materials related to these Metro Plan text and diagram amendments were posted on the web site www.lcog.org/metro or via a link to the City of Eugene web site: www.ci.eugene.or.us/NRS/eugene.htm by April 30, 2003. This Metro Plan amendment proposal is subject to the public notification and hearing processes adopted by the City of Springfield in SDC 7.100, City of Eugene in EC 9.118 to 9.136, and Lane County in LC 12.240. The amendments were considered at joint public hearings before the Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County Planning Commissions on June 3 and June 17, 2003. Notice of the Planning Commissions public hearings was published in the Register-Guard on May 13, 2003. Written notice of the Joint Planning Commissions public hearing was mailed to all affected property owners and interested parties. Following a recommendation from the planning commissions, the Springfield and Eugene City Councils and Lane County Board of Commissioners held a duly noticed, on the record, joint public heating to consider approval, modification, or denial of the amendments on February 10, 2004. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received drafts of the text and diagram amendments in compliance with Periodic Review requirements. Notice of the Metro Plan Diagram amendments was sent to DLCD on Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 3 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. May 2, 2003, at least 45 days prior to the June 17, 2003 public hearing on the Metro Plan Diagram amendments. These processes afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1. Goal 2--Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planningprocess and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The following findings of consistency with Goal 2 pertain to Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. This proposal to amend the Metro Plan text and Diagram is consistent with Plan amendment provisions found in the Metro Plan, as codified in the Eugene Code, Springfield Development Code and Lane County Code. The Metro Plan is an acknowledged comprehensive plan, pursuant to provisions specified by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. On May 25, 1995, DLCD formally acknowledged the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan Periodic Review Work Program, following adoption of the work program by the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane County Board of Commissioners. This action initiated the Metro Plan text changes. The amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C are one of the products that implement the requirements of the Periodic Review Work Task pertaining to the Metropolitan Natural Resource Study. The amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram to remove Urban Reserve designations were initiated by the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Eugene and Springfield City Councils at individual meetings following a joint work session of the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County elected officials on November 29, 2000. All three elected bodies directed staff to proceed with Metro Plan amendments to remove the Urban Reserve designation from the Metro Plan text and diagram. Metro Plan Diagram updates for consistency with locally-adopted refinement plans is an expansion of the Metro Plan housekeeping amendments Periodic Review Work Task. These amendments are processed as Type II Metro Plan amendments. Two joint public hearings before the three metropolitan planning commissions were held: June 3, 2003 and June 17, 2003. Provisions in the Springfield Development Code (SDC 7.010 to 7.110), Eugene Code (EC 9.118 to 9.136), and Lane Code (LC 12.240) specify the means by which the Metro Plan may be amended. This proposal, and the process for reviewing the requested amendments, follow the procedures outlined in the Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County Codes, thus conforming with the established land use planning process consistent with Goal 2. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 4 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base to support the Metro Plan amendments, as Goal 2 requires. Further, the Goal 2 coordination requirement is met. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the review of the amendments was coordinated with all affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to: Lane County, Springfield, City of Eugene, School District 4J; and the following state agencies: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and Oregon Department of Transportation. There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Goal 3--Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions and Metro Plan Diagram make no changes to agricultural land policies or designations in the Metro Plan. Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions and Metro Plan Diagram are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 3. The following findings of consistency with Goal 3 pertain to amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C. The amendments apply to agricultural land outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) and inside the Metro Plan boundary. The amendments make clear that lands within the UGB with agricultural soils or that are used for agricultural purposes are not entitled to protection under these policies. The changes to Goal 3, Policies C.4. a, k, m and n incorporate references for compliance with applicable state regulations. The changes to Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan Goal 3, Policy C.4. d, complies with the Goal 3 administrative rule prohibiting dwellings for contemplated farm use, and deletes the portion of this policy that allows a temporary mobile home for contemplated farm use. Goal 3 Policy to "explore better methods of identifying agricultural lands" is deleted, and revised to require that agricultural lands be identified pursuant to the Goal 3 Rule. Therefore, the amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 3. Goal 4--Forest Land: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to 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. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 5 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions and Metro Plan Diagram make no changes to forest land policies or designations in the Metro Plan. Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions and new Metro Plan Diagram do not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 4. The following findings of consistency with Goal 4 pertain to amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C. The amendments apply to forest land outside the UGB and inside the Metro Plan boundary. The change to Goal 4, Policy C. 7. c. incorporates the correct reference to the ORS that authorizes the designation of marginal lands. The change to Goal 4, Policy C. 4. g. requires divisions of forest land to comply with the forest Rule, OAR 660-006. Policy C. 4. f. establishes that dwellings shall be allowed as provided in OAR 660-06. Policy C. 4. h. establishes the siting and fire safety standards of OAR 660-006 for new structures. Policy C. 4. i. limits park and recreation uses to those consistent with Goals 3 and 4. Policy C. 4. o. that directs the land division standards in the F-2 to be studied is deleted, because the land division standards are established by OAR 660-006. Policy C. 4. n. recognizes the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only mechanism regulating the growing and harvesting of forest tree species on commercial forest lands unless Goal 5 resource sites have been determined to be more important through the Goal 5 process. Therefore, the amendments with Metro Plan Chapter III-C are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 4. Goal 5--Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions make no substantive changes to policies or findings for open spaces, scenic and historic areas, and natural resources. Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions are found to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5. The following findings of consistency with Goal 5 pertain to the Metro Plan Diagram Amendments. The Metro Plan Diagram updates in the Eugene UGB better reflect adopted refinement plans, zoning actions, and development approvals, which have already been through a goal analysis and acknowledged by DLCD. Therefore, the updates will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 5. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments to remove Urban Reserves do not change adopted policies or resources related to Goal 5 because the underlying designation is retained. Therefore, the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 5. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 6 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments in the Springfield UGB do not significantly affect resources subject to Goal 5 because the Diagram amendments make no change in the number of acres of land designated Natural Resource. Therefore, the Metro Plan Diagram amendments in the Springfield UGB do not affect consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 5. The following findings of consistency with Goal 5 pertain to amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 660, Division 23) requires local governments to inventory and evaluate Goal 5 resources and to develop land use programs to conserve and protect Goal 5 resources identified for protection. Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 5 requirements in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 660, Division 23) for wetlands, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat for the area between the UGB and the Metro Plan boundary and the amendments implement the Goal 5 requirements. The amendments document the Goal 5 process, update text in the Metro Plan, and direct the use of adopted inventory maps to identify significant resources for purposes of considering protection measures specified in the amendments. Lane County addressed the Goal 5 requirements in effect at the time of applying Metro Plan designations, zoning, or permitting mineral and aggregate operations outside the UGB, including addressing 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. Therefore, the amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Goal 6--Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram make no changes to policies or designations affecting air, water and land resources quality. Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C amendments, and new Metro Plan Diagram do not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 6. Goal 7--Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 7 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions and the Metro Plan Diagram make no changes to policies or designations affecting areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revision and Metro Plan Diagram do not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 6. The following findings of consistency with Goal 7 pertain to amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C. The amendments to Chapter III-C make no substantive changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan affecting areas subject to natural disasters and hazards and will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 7. Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County development code regulations implement Goal 7 and are consistent with Goal 7. The amendments to Chapter III-C do not affect the development codes. Continued compliance will occur through protections established by the floodplain development regulations of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Therefore, the amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 7. Goal 8--Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions make no substantive changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan affecting recreational needs and facilities. The revisions clarify the intent of existing adopted policy. The Metro Plan Chapter III-C makes no changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan affecting recreational needs and facilities. Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions and Metro Plan Chapter III-C do not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 8. The following findings of consistency with Goal 8 pertain to the Metro Plan Diagram Amendments. The Metro Plan Diagram updates in the Eugene UGB better reflect adopted refinement plans, zoning actions, and development approvals, which have already been through a goal analysis and acknowledged by DLCD. Therefore, the updates will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 8. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments to remove Urban Reserves do not change adopted policies or resources related to Goal 8 because the underlying designation is retained. Therefore, the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 8. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 8 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The City of Eugene Parks Department provides park and recreational facilities in Eugene and the Willamalane Park and Recreation District provides this service in Springfield. In Springfield, none of the Metro Plan Diagram amendments affect Parks and Open Space designations. Therefore, the Metro Plan Diagram amendments do not affect consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 8. Goal 9--Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, andprosperity of Oregon's citizens. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions make no substantive changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan affecting economic development. The revisions clarify the intent of existing adopted policy. The Metro Plan Chapter III-C makes no changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan affecting economic development. Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions and Metro Plan Chapter III-C do not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 9. The following findings of consistency with Goal 9 pertain to the Metro Plan Diagram Amendments. The Metro Plan Diagram updates in the Eugene UGB better reflect adopted refinement plans, zoning actions, and development approvals, which have already been through a goal analysis and acknowledged by DLCD. Therefore, the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 9. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments to remove Urban Reserves do not change adopted policies or land supply related to Goal 9 because the underlying Plan designation is retained and the areas lie outside the UGB. Therefore, the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 9. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments in Springfield UGB will have no impact on the adopted buildable commercial and industrial lands inventories. Approximately 4.25 acres of land designated "Commercial" on the Metro Plan Diagram are proposed to be re-designated "Low Density Residential." The affected property is a developed residential neighborhood zoned "Low Density Residential." The proposed Metro Plan amendment will make the Plan designation consistent with the zone designation and existing character of the neighborhood. This property was not part of Springfield's inventory of vacant commercial land. Therefore, the Metro Plan Diagram amendments in the Springfield UGB will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 9. Goal 1 O--Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 9 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions make no substantive changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan affecting housing. The revisions clarify the intent of existing adopted policy. The Metro Plan Chapter III-C makes no changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan affecting housing. Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions and Metro Plan Chapter III-C do not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 10. The following findings of consistency with Goal 10 pertain to the Metro Plan Diagram Amendments. The Metro Plan Diagram updates in the Eugene UGB better reflect adopted refinement plans, zoning actions, and development approvals, which have already been through a goal analysis and acknowledged by DLCD. Therefore, the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 10. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments to remove Urban Reserves do not change adopted policies or land supply related to Goal 10 because the underlying Plan designation is retained and the areas lie outside the UGB. Therefore, the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 10. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments in the Springfield UGB will have no significant impact on the adopted buildable residential lands inventory. A 54 acre site designated "Low Density Residential" is proposed to be re-designated "Government and Education." The subject site is owned by EWEB and serves as Eugene's Water Treatment Plant. The site is zoned Public Land and Open Space. The proposed change in the Metro Plan Diagram brings the designation into consistency with existing zoning and use of the land. The subject property is not listed as available land on Springfield's inventory ofbuildable residential land. A second amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram will make it consistent with an acknowledged amendment to the East Main Street Refinement Plan. The refinement plan amendment changed the designation for a .28 acre parcel from "Low Density Residential" to "Mixed Use Commercial." The subject property was located adjacent to existing commercial property on Main Street. The mixed-use designation will allow up to 40% of the site to be developed with residential uses. The proposed amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram will make the same change from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Commercial for the parcel. The amendment to the refinement plan was found to have no significant impact on the inventory ofbuildable residential land. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments in the Springfield UGB will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 10. Goal Il--Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 10 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments do not affect the provision of facilities or services and do not change project lists in the December 2001 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). The Metro Plan Chapter III-C makes no changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan affecting public facilities and services. Therefore, the Metro Plan Chapter III-C and Metro Plan Diagram do not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 11. The following findings of consistency with Goal 11 pertain to the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions do not change currently adopted and acknowledged Metro Plan policies related to public facilities and services, except the following amendment in the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions to add subsection "d" to Metro Plan Policy G.3. This amendment addresses the changes that will be needed as a result of the removal of Urban Reserves from the Metro Plan Diagram. G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public Facilities and Services Plan for 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 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 shall be removed from the PFSP at the time of the next Periodic Review of the Metro Plan. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 11 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions do not affect the provision of facilities or services. This proposal does not change project lists in the December 2001 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). Therefore, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions do not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 11. Goal 12--Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The following findings of consistency with Goal 12 pertain to the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The proposals will not significantly affect any of the roads in the metropolitan area. The proposals will not affect the road projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation System Plan (TransPlan). TranPlan was adopted in the fall of 2001, effective November 31, 2002, and published as the December 2001 TransPlan. Section 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule requires evaluation of a comprehensive plan amendment to determine if the amendment significantly affects a transportation facility. The Metro Plan amendments and updates do not: change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; change standards implementing a functional classification system; allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or reduce the level of service of a facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in TransPlan. The Metro Plan Diagram updates in the Eugene UGB better reflect adopted refinement plans, zoning actions, and development approvals, which have already been through a goal analysis and acknowledged by DLCD. Therefore, the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 12. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments in the Springfield UGB and amendments to remove Urban Reserves will not significantly affect a transportation facility and will not affect compliance with policies or projects contained in TransPlan, a functional refinement to the Metro Plan, acknowledged as complying with the requirements of Goal 12. Therefore, the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 12. Goal 13--Energy Conservation: To conserve energy. The following findings of consistency with Goal 13 pertain to the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. This Goal is not relevant because the amendments do not involve any additional development that would consider energy conservation systems, or the recycling and reuse of vacant and Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 12 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. per the guidelines associated with Goal 13. The amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 13. Goal 14--Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The following findings of consistency with Goal 14 pertain to the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram updates and amendments in the Springfield UGB and diagram updates in the Eugene UGB. The amendments do not convert land from rural to urban use. Therefore, the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 14. The following findings of consistency with Goal 14 pertain to the Metro Plan Diagram amendments to remove Urban Reserves: The existing underlying Metro Plan Diagram designation for urban reserves will not change. These diagram amendments are required because, based on the information and conclusions in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Urban Reserve Analysis and Alternatives Report, June 2001, the existing Urban Reserves are not in compliance with OAR 660 Division 21. These amendments are proposed to complete the Urban Reserve Work Task in the Periodic Review Work Program. The Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Urban Reserve Analysis and Alternatives Report, June 2001, was prepared during the first phase of this work task. The report evaluates existing and alternative urban reserve areas within the context of the OAR and concludes that, due to the construction of the administrative rule, the current and alternative areas do not meet the requirements of the rule. Therefore, the amendments comply with Statewide Planning Goal 14. Goal 15--Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The Metro Plan Chapter III-C makes no changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan affecting the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, Metro Plan Chapter III-C amendments do not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 15. The following findings of consistency with Goal 15 pertain to the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions. The Metro Plan text amendments do not affect adopted Metro Plan policies related to the Willamette River Greenway. Existing Metro Plan finding #8 on page III-D-3 of the Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 13 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. document, Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Draft May 23, 2003 is amended as follows (additions in bold, deletions in strike-out): "8. The following r-.,_~,,~...l.,,~,.,.,...,j.:k;1;,,, .,,~r' ~.,;, .,..., ..... pPermits are required by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County to implement Statewide Planning Goal 15: fc, r 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." These amendments are proposed to reflect the current practice of implementing Goal 15 in the Metro Planning area. The amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 15. The following findings of consistency with Goal 15 pertain to the Metro Plan Diagram. The Metro Plan Diagram amendments propose showing the Willamette River Greenway as an overlay on the Metro Plan Diagram. This will not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 15 because no change in the boundary is proposed. Therefore, the new Metro Plan Diagram does not affect Metro Plan consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 15. Goals 16 through 19 (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources): Not applicable to the Metro area. Criterion//2: Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3)(b), Springfield Development Code 7.070(3)(b), and Lane Code 12.225(2)(b): Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 14 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions address changes which have been approved over time; changes resulting from Periodic Review tasks already completed and approved by the three governing bodies; and changes resulting from reformatting other chapters of the Plan that were not subject to Periodic Review, but which remained in the old format. The Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions will create internal consistency in the Metro Plan. Thus, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent and the proposed revisions are consistent with this criterion. The Metro Plan Chapter III-C and the new Metro Plan Diagram are consistent with the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions and, thus, do not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Therefore, these amendments do not affect Metro Plan consistency with this criterion. CONCLUSION Based on the findings set forth herein, the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane County Board of Commissioners conclude that the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element, and Metro Plan Diagram are consistent with relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission and adoption of the Metro Plan amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Exhibit D: Findings in Support of Adopting Ordinance for the Eugene-Springfield Page 15 of 15 Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) Housekeeping Revisions, Metro Plan Chapter III-C, and the Metro Plan Diagram.