HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19347I
ORDINANCE Na. 19347
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE RIVERFRQNT PARK
STUDY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. Based on its determination that development in the
Riverfront Park Area ~ the boundaries of which were identified as
the Willamette River on the north, the Ferry Street Bridge on
the west - Franklin Boulevard on the south, and t'h.~ I--5 Bridge on
the east} , could ultimately play a critical role in diversifying
the metropolitan area's economy and provide an unusual opportun~-
ity to accomodate development utilizing research activities at
the University of Oregon - the council instituted action on a
Riverfront Park Special Area Study in the summer of 1984.
B. The Council appointed a nine member committee comprised
of representatives from the Eugene Water & Electric Board,
Agripac, the University of aregon, residents of the area,
property owners in the area, the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, the
Eugene Planning Commission, and the Eugene City Council to
develop a draft Study. The committee completed the Study in the
spring of 1985 and published the draft Riverfront Park Study
Stud y} in April, 1985- which was widely distributed throughout
the City hover 500 copies published and circulated3.
C. A public hearing on the draft Study was held by the
Planning Commission on May 20- 1985 which was attended b y
approximately 75 persons, over 20 individuals presented oral
testimony, and the record was left open until May 29, 1985 fo r
submission of written testimony,
l- Ordinance
D. Seven lengthy study sessions were conducted by the
Planning Commission after the public hearing to address issues
raised concerning the Study, Based on the oral and written
testimony received by the Planning Commission and its awn
discussions and review, on June 24, 1985 the Planning Commission
submitted its recommendation to the Council that the Study be
adopted, subject to certain modifications,
E. After a walking tour of the primary portion of the
site, and a work session with the Planning Commission, the
Council conducted a public hearing on the Study and Planning
Commission recommendations on July 8 ~ 1985. Ten individuals
presented testimony at the hearing, and the record was left open
far submission of written comments until July 17, 1985.
F. At its meeting of July 17, 1985 the Council conceptu-
ally approved the Study as modified by the Planning Commission's
Attachment A thereto, and stated its intent to adopt the Study,
G. Adoption of the Study will necessitate a change in the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Plan} by
creation of a new land use designation, and that action was
initiated by the Council on July 17, 1985 in conformity with the
process described in Chapter IV of that Plan.
H. The Planning Department submitted the Study to the
Lane County Board of County Commissioners and the City of
Springfield for review and comment in connection with the
proposed amendment of the Plan and has satisfactorily responded
to their questions or concerns,
2- ordinance
I. Findings in support of the adoption of the Study and
Plan amendment are set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein
as though fully set forth. Additional findings and responses to
.issues raised at the public hearings are set forth in the Study,
the memorandum of the Planning Department to the Mayor and City
Council of July 5, 1985, the Memorandum of the Eugene Planning
Department to Interested Parties dated July 17, 1985, the
Memoranda of the Eugene Planning Department to the Board of
County Commissioners dated July 23, 1985 and August 12, 1985, and
the Memorandum of the Eugene Planning Department to the Mayor and
City Council of September 9, 1985 with attachments. All of those
findings are adopted and incorporated herein as though fully set
forth.
J. A public hearing on adoption of the proposed Study was
held before the City Council on September 9, 1955.
R. Based on the above record and findings, the City
Council concludes that the proposed Study, as amended, is
consistent with the Land Conservation & Development Commmission
Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, the unamended portion of the
Eugene~Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan upon adoption
of the Plan amendment to be considered contemporaneously here-
with}. and other applicable plans and policies. Issues of Plan
conformity such as regulation of toxic wastes and appropriate
height limitations within the Riverfront Park area can and will
be addressed in future more specific actions of the City such as
adoption of implementing zoning districts. application of those
zoning districts to the subject tracts, allowance of development
3~ Ordinance
through site review and conditional use permits, development of
general legislation on environmental wastes and other matters,
and siting and financing of public improvements on or near the
subject tracts. Implementation of the development proposed in
the Study may further necessitate action by other affected
entities such as amendment and modification of the North Campus
Plan by the University of Oregon and the State Board of Higher
Education .
NOW. THEREFQRE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS;
Section 1. The findings set forth above are adopted,
including the findings set forth in the Study and the attachments
referred to above and incorporated herein.
Section 2. The Riverfront Park Study as amended is adopted
as though fully set forth herein, as a special refinement plan
for the area described therein, and upon adoption of the amend-
ment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
being considered contemporaneously herewith, development within
its boundaries shall be in conformity with the policies and
objectives contained in the Study.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdic-~
Lion, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
independent provision and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
4- ordinance
Section 4. That the matters contained herein concern the
public welfare and safety. In order far this Ordinance and the
contemporaneous amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan Ordinance to be considered by the Land Conser-
vation and Development Commission for an amended acknowledgment
of compliance at the earliest possible time, it is necessary for
this Ordinance to be effective prior to the expiration of thirty
days, Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and
this Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage
by the City Council and approval by the Mayor,
Passed by the City Council this
9th day of Septembers 1985
e
~7~~~Yy ~~~ C~. y Recorder
Approved by the Mayor this
9th day,~E Septe er, 1985
Mayor
5-- Ordinance
Findl- ngs,
Goal ~. citizen Involvement
A. Goal 1 is intended to ensure that citizens have an opportunity, "to be
i Wool ved i n al 1 phases of the planning process."
B. A nine-member committee, comprised of representation from the University
of Dregon (2), the Chamber of Commerce, the Eugene Water and Electric
Board, AGRIPAC, property owners in Study Area, residents of the Study
Area, the Planning Commission, and the City Council developed the draft
Rive d rant Park Special Area Study over an appoximately eight month
period.
C. Five informational meetings were conducted to provide the community
including residents of the Fairmount and West University neighborhoods
and students and faculty of the University of Dregon information about
the draft Riverf rant Park Study. A total of about 100 people attended a] 1
of these meetings. While these were not public hearings, the Planning
Commi ssi on was made aware of comments made at these meetings prior to the
Commi ssi vn' s more formal public hearing process .
D. The.Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee ~MAPAC~, the designated
citizen advisory committee for the Metropolitan Plan, conducted a review
of the proposed Plan amendments on July 24, 1985. The meeting and agenda
item were announced i n accordance with Dregon' s Public Meetings Law.
E. Public hearings an the draft Study and related amendments to the
Metropolitan P1 an were conducted by the Eugene P1 anni ng Commi ssi on an May
20, 1985. At the May 20th hearing, the Commission voted to leave the
record open far written comments until May 29, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. Prior to
closing the public record, nineteen groups or individuals submitted
written testimony for the Commission's consideration.
Dn July 8, 1985, the Eugene City Counci 1 conducted public hearings on the
Planning Commission's recommended actions on the draft Riverf rant Park
Study and related amendments to the Metropolitan General Plan.
F. Dn August , 1985 the Lane County Planning Commission and Board conducted
a jai nt pub1 i c hearing on the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan P1 an
ref ated to the Riverf rant Park Study .
G. Dn July 24, 1985 the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan P1 an related to the
Riverf rant Park Study . Dn August 5, 1985 the Springfield City Counci 1
conducted a publ i c hearing an the Planning Commi ssi ons recommendations on
related amendments to the Metropolitan Plan.
H. Notice of meetings of planning commissions and elected officials from all
three jurisdictions occurred in accordance with State Law and individual
jurisdictional notice requirements.
I . Citizens of the metrapol i tan area have had opportunities to be involved i n
all phases of development and adoption of this Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General P1 an amendment and aciopti on process.
~X~ lI BIT,.
PAGE ~OF
J . Through the above processes, development of the draft Ri verfront Study and
related amendment to the Metropolitan Plan have met the intent of Gaal 1,
Citizen Involvement.
Goal Z. Land Use Plannin
A. Goal 2 establishes a consistent land use planning process throughout the _
State.
B. The Metropolitan Plan was adapted by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County
by Ordi Hance i n 1982 as f o11 ows
Eugene - Ordi Hance No. 18921 ~2-8-82}
Springfield -~ Ordinance Na. 5024 ~ 3--1-82 }
Lane County -Ordinance No, 856 ~2-3-82}
By reference, those adopting ordinances also adopted the working papers
which were developed as supporting documents to the Metropo 1 i tan Plan .
C. That portion of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan within the urban
growth boundary was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC} i n August 1982.
D. The Metropolitan Plan page I-4} identifies the role of refinement plans
by noting that it is important to augment the General Plan by "more
detai 1 ed refinement plans, programs and policies ."
E. Fundamental Principle #1, Page I I-1 of the Metropolitan Plan identifies i t
as a long-range policy document providing the framework within which more
detailed refinement plans are prepared. In accordance with this
principle, to date, Eugene has adopted aver fifteen refinement plans and
special area studies.
F. The draft Monitoring Report Table V-1} for the Metropolitan Plan shows
that in 1983 about 1,590 acres of undeveloped sight industrial land
existed within the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Almost seventy
percent X1,110 acres} of land within this category was within the City of
Eugene.
G, The draft Monitoring Report Table v-1} for the Metropolitan Plan shows
that i n 1983 Eugene had about 180 acres of undeveloped 1 and designated for
commercial use and 460 acres of land identified for medium density
residential use.
H . With the exception of the Special Light Industrial 1 and use category, land
al]ocations in the acknowledged Metropolitan Plan correspond to
anticipated future demand based on employment/population projections. In
order to respond to policy direction within the Plan to make efforts to
diversify the local economy, about 1,000 acres of Special Light Industrial
Land was identified to accommodate future locations of firms involved in
high technology activities which al sa require 1 arge tracts of 1 and ~ see
Page II-E-8 of the Metropolitan Plan for discussion of the Special Li ht
Industrial 1 and use deli nation g
g )
EXt11BIT
PAGE 2- OF~
I. Policy 1~, page III-B-5 of the Metrapolitan Plan and econometric
projections conducted for the City of Eugene by the firm of LeBI anc & Co.
€see "Markets & Services In Downtown Eugene", LeBlanc & Co., 1953} both
anticipate continued growth of downtown Eugene as an important economic
focus of the metropolitan area.
J. The broad direction established i n the draft Study i s consistent with the
Metropolitan Plan, e.g., local economic diversification, compact urban
growth, efficient use of existing publ i c faci 1 i ti es, Iii 11 amette Greenway
and open space issues. However, recognising that the "University
Research" land use designation proposed on page 6 of the draft Study is
inconsistent with the existing Metropolitan P1 an diagram, policy A6 of the
draft Study requires the City of Eugene to seek an amendment to the
Metropolitan Plan to rectify this inconsistency.
K. The modifications to the Metropolitan Plan which would resu 1 t from policy
4, page 5 of the draft Riverfrant Park Special Study, generally provide
for additional land for; 1} activities which are uniquely tied to
research occurring at the University of Qregon campus and would benefit
from the proximity involved in locating adjacent to the main campus area;
2} ancillary commercial activities which would primarily service the
operati ans within the Ri v~erfront Park development area; and 3} mul ti pl e
family housing to accommodate potential demands for employees of firms who
wish to 1 i ve i n proxi rni ty to their work.
L. Policy A6 of the draft Riverfrant Study directs that the City of Eugene
seek an amendment to the Metropolitan Plan to "designate a portion of the
property within the Riverfrant Park Study area owned by the University of
Gregon for `University/Research' activities".
M. The University of Qregon owns about lI acres in the Study area, over half
of which i s vacant or used far playing fields .
N. Policy A5~e}, as modified by the Planning Commission, ensures that
devel vpment i n the area wi 11 primarily be related to University of Qregon
activities and programs, r~
~. The Riverfrant Park Special Area Study requires an amendment to the
Metropolitan Plan because of changes in land use designations within the
Study area, and these changes are consistent with general direction
established for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area in the
Metropolitan Plan.
P. Based. upon existing Metrapolitan Plan policies and these findings, the
draft Ri verf rout Park Special Area Study and the proposed amendment to the
Metropolitan General P1 an satisfy the requirements of Goal 2, Land Use
Planning.
Goals 3. and 4. Agricultural and Forest Lands
A. Statewide Goals #3 and #4 are directed at preserving and maintaining
identified agri cul tura 1 and forest 1 ands .
B. Goal #3 generally defines agricultural land as predominantly Class I, II,
III and IIJ soils i n western Qregon.
EXHIBIT
PAGE ~ OF, ~
C. Goal #4 generally defines forest land as: ~~} possesing existing or
potential commercial timber value; ~Z} property which provides needed
watershed for wildlife and fisheries habitat and recreation; ~3} lands
where extreme conditions of climate, soil and topography require the
maintenance of vegetative saver irrespective of use; ~4} other forested
lands i n urban and agricultural areas which provide urban buffers, wind
breaks, wildlife, and fisheries habitat, livestock habitat, scenic
corridors and recreation use.
D. The Metropolitan Plan "Agricu1tural Land Working Paper and Addendum",
Gctvber 1981 and "Forest Lands Dorking Paper", September 1981 inventory
agricultural and forest 1 and within the Plan's jurisdictional boundary.
Land within the Ri verf rant area i s not identified i n this inventory.
E. The acknowledged Metropolitan Plan defines agricultural land page I1-E-
10} and forest land page I1-E-11} as being outside the urban growth
boundary.
F. The Riverfront Park Study area is within the urban growth boundary
acknowledged by the LCDC i n August 1982.
G. Based on these findings, the requirements of Goal #3, Agricultural Lands
and Goal #4, Forest Lands are satisfied.
Goal 5. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources
A. Goal 5, i s intended "To conserve open space and protect natural and sceni c
resources."
B. None of the area within the Riverf rant Study boundaries was identified in
the Metropolitan Plan, "Natural Assets And Constraints Working Paper",
1978 hand addenda} as containing significant Goal 5 rel ated areas .
C. Environmental analysis conducted as part of the Riverfront Park Study
shows that the riparian strip along the banks of the Willamette and
i sal ated stands of trees within the interior of the area are the extent of
significant habitat i n the Study area .
D. Policies 2 and 5, page I1I-E-3 and policy 25, page x11-C-1Q of the
Metrapol i tan Plan directs protection of natural features i n the context of
other planning policies,
E. Policy C2, page 9 of the draft Study identifies the Millrace as an
important historic and environmental feature, and directs that
development occurring in the Riverfront area maintain or improve visual
and pedestrian/bicycle access to it.
F. Pot i cy C1 of the draft Riverfront Park Special Area Study has madi f i ed by
the Planning Commissions directs implementation of an active management
program for the riparian strip a1 ong the Willamette River and retention of
the existing stands of significant trees in the interior of the Study
area.
G. Based on these findings, the draft Riverfront Park Study, the draft Study
and the proposed Metropolitan Plan amendment complies with Goal #5, "open
Spaces, Scenic, and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources" .
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE ~ OF. l ~'
Goal 6. Air, Water and Land Resources Qualit
A. Goal 6 addresses the quality of the State's air, water and land resources.
B. The Metropolitan Plan "Natural Assets and Constraints Working Paper",
1978 hand addenda, addresses Goal 6 issues.
C. Policies 20 and 23, page III-C-9 and III-C-14 of the Metropolitan Plan
direct development of regulations, plans and programs concerning water
quality.
D. Sections 9.636 through 9.662 of the Eugene Code govern emissions which
could impact air, water and land quality. These provisions are appl i cabl e
C~ ty-wide, i ncl ud~ ng the Ri verf rout Park area.
E. The Metropolitan area is a portion of the southern Willamette Malley air
shed, and its air qua1 ity i s affected by outside sources.
F, Development within the metropolitan area influences air quality through
the combined effects of point source emissions, entrained road dust, and
motor vehicle usage.
G. Based on these findings, provisions in Eugene`s land use code, and
policies contained in the Metropolitan General Plan, the development
envisioned in draft Riverfrvnt Park Special Area Study and the proposed
General Plan amendment can occur whi 1 e maintaining compliance with Goal 6,
Air, Water and Land Resources Qua1 i ty.
Goal 7. Areas Sub'ect To Natural Disaster and Hazards
A. Provisions contained i n Goal 7 are intended, "Ta protect 1 i fe and property
from disasters and hazards."
B. The "Natural Assets and Constraints Working Paper" of the Metropolitan
Plan, addresses Goal 7 i ssues i n the metropolitan area .
C. Map A--1 of the "Natural assets and Canstrai nts working Paper" and Map E of
the draft Riverfrvnt Park Special Area Study show that portions of the
Study area 1 i e within the f 1 ood plain .
D. Metropolitan Plan policies 2 and 3, page III-C-7 directly address
development standards i n f 1 oodway and f 1 oodway fringe areas .
E. Sections 9.604 through 9.6x7 provide standards for new development in FH,
Flood Hazard zoned land and prohibits development in designated floodways
along the Wi 11 amette River throughout the Ci ty.
F. Existing policies and ordinances, which apply to the Ri verf rout Park area,
as well as other parts of the City, comply with Gaal #7. Because the
Riverfrvnt Study and the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Plan will
follow these codes and policies, Goal 7, Natural Hazards i s satisfied.
Goal 8. Recreational Needs
A. Goal 8, Recreational Needs, i s intended to address "the recreational needs
of citizens of the state and visitors ."
EXHIBIT
PAGE ~ _0~~
B. The adopted diagram for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan designates parks and open space areas,
C. Table 1 of the working Paper on Parks and Recreation shows that the
metropolitan area has an inventory of about S,OZ~ acres of
Regional/Metropolitan Park and Open Space.
D. ~facant ,and underdeveloped 1 and wi thi n the Ri verf rout Park Study area
campri se about .9% of that inventory.
E. The Metropolitan Plan working Paper inventary included only those lands
used for park purposes or owned by a general purpose government for future
park and open space purposes.
F. Land wi thi n the Ri verf rout Park Study Area does not fall wi thi n these
categories and consequently none of the Study area was included in the
Metropolitan Plan inventory of park and open space .
G. Some of the Ri verf rant Park Study area was desi_g,nated for open space on
the Metropalitan Plan Diagram to reflect its use by the University of
Oregon.
H. In the context of potential redevelopment of University-owned property,
policy DZ, page IO of the draft Study require the City to "work with the
University of Oregon and developers in financing and developing amenities
to serve the Riverfront Park area."
I. A major east-west bicycle path the South Bank Trail}, which serves
recreational as well as transportation needs, passes through the Study
area,
J. Policies B7, page 8 and D4, page 1D of the draft Riverfront Park Special
Area Study will require retention of the east-west bicycle facility and
direct that it be relocated closer to the river as part of any
development in the area.
K. Based on these findings, the draft Riverfront Study and the proposed
Metropolitan Plan amendment comply with requirements of Goal #8,
Recreational Needs.
Goal _9. Economy
A, Goal 9 of the Statewide Goals identifies the need to, "diversify and
improve the economy of the state."
B. The ~ "Economic Warki ng Paper" ~ 1978} and the "Economic -~ Addendum" ~ 1981 ~
of the Metropolitan Plan describe the area's economy.
C. The Metropolitan Plan page IIZ-B-3I} establishes the goal of
divers~fy~ng the local economy.
D. Policy 17, Page III-B-6 of the Metropolitan Plan provided direction for
establishment of "special light industrial sites" to accommodate new
"large-scale, campus-type, light manufacturing uses."
E. The acknowledged Metropalitan Plan identifies seven individual. special
1 i ght i ndustri al sites i n the metropolitan area, with a total area of
about 1,040 acres.
Ex~~~~T ~
E
PAGE pE 1
5
F. Industrial sites identified i n the Metropolitan Plan are not i n ro~cimi t
P Y
to the University of Oregon campus.
G. Objective 1~, Page I I I-~B-4 of the Metropolitan Plan provides direction to
accommodate a mixture of office, commercial and industrial uses.
H. Policy 1Z, Page III-B-5 directs that efforts be maintained to stren then
the central business districts of Eu g
gene.
~. Policy 5.0, page 7 of the adapted I984 Community Goals and Policies
document, directs the City of Eugene to work with educational institution s
and to caordi Hate research activities with 1 oval efforts to attract firms.
J, Policy I,O, page 9 of the Community Goals and Policies document directs
that the City support the University of Oregon`s efforts in education
research, training, and technology development. '
K. The draft Riverfrant Study page 2} indicates that, "development in the
R~ verf rout Park i s i ntended to p1 ay a critical role i n the metropo 1 i tan
area's economy by providing an unusual opportunity to devely an
industrial area that su orts a P
~~ pp nd utilizes research activities of the
University of Oregon. The draft Study also notes that this type of
development is envisioned as a critical factor in attracting and formin
new i ndustri al activities because g
of the potential for the exchange of
concepts and techniques between University of Oregon researchers and
industries which produce and market related technologies .
L. Map A of the draft Study demonstrates that the Riverfront Park area is
adjacent to across Franklin Boulevards the main campus of the University
of Oregon.
M. Policy A5~e}, and the ro osed SD S ecial De ela '
P P p v pment D7str~ct Ito be
applied to portions of the Study areal direct that development in the
Ri verfront Park be pri marl ly related to University activities and
programs. Discussion under Policy A5(e~ emphasizes that general office
development should be located in downtown Eugene, and that commercial
development occurring i n the Ri verfront Park i s intended to serve the da -
Y
today needs of employees working in and nearby the development.
Consequently the draft Study and proposed implementing mechanisms res and
to the oal to diversif the loco ~ P.
9 Y 1 economy while avoiding conflicts with
other community-wide growth policies .
N. Based on these findings, the policies contained in the draft Riverfront
Study, the Study and the proposed amendment tv the Metropolitan Plan
comply with Goal 9, Economy.
foal 10, Housing
A. Gaa1 IG of the Statewide Goals is directed at providing for the housin
needs of the state's citizees. g
B. Objective 3, page III-A-3 of the Metropolitan Plan calls far locatin
residential deve]o ment in relation to g
P the availability of employment,
commercial services, public utilities and .facilities and transportation
modes.
EXHIBIT R ..
RACE ~, ,.~ 0~ !'~
C. Objective 4, Page III-A-3 of the Metropolitan Plan cal 1 s for the promotion
of generally higher residential densities within the existing urban
service area to encourage a compact urban growth form,
D. Policy 1?, page III-A-~G of the Metropolitan Plan encourages a variety of
housing i n and near the downtown area.
E. Policy 25, page III-A-6 suggests reducing on-site parking requirements
for residential development near the downtown area.
F, Policy 29, page III-A--1 encourages development of higher density
residential development near industrial and commercial centers.
G. Policy A4, page 5 of the draft Riverfront Park 5peci al Area Study, and
standards contained in the proposed Special Development District provide
the opportunity for multiple family housing to be included in development
of the riverfront area. '
H. Standards i n the Riverfront Park 5peci al Devel apment District provide for
multiple family housing to be developed: I} without specifying a density
1 i mi tati on ; 2} using the same height 1 i mi tati on that i s applied to al 1
development within the district; 3} using setback and coverage standards
consistent with medium density resi denti a1 districts; and 4} using
parking standards lower than those required for less centrally-located
multiple-family housing.
I. The Riverfront Park Study Area and the future employment center
anticipated there is located within one mile of medium and high density
residential development areas surrounding downtown.
J. Policy 2c, page III-F-S of the Metropolitan Plan recommends that, i n order
to address reductions in transportation related energy demands, medium
and high density residential development be encouraged within one mile of
downtown . Residential development occurring within the Study Area wi 11 be
1 ocated within one mi 1 e of the employment and commercial service resources
of the downtown area.
K. Future residential development will have access to the extensive existing
bicycle/pedestrian system i n the Riverfront Park Study Area.
L. Based on these findings, the draft Riverfront Study, and the proposed
Metropolitan Plan amendment, comply with Goal 1D, Housing.
Goal 11. Public Facilities and Services
A. Goal 11 of the Statewide Goals identifies the need to integrate land use
planning with the orderly and efficient provision of public services.
B. Fundamental Pri nci p1 e 3, page I I-1 of the Metropolitan P1 an identifies the
concept of compact urban growth as one of the basic themes of the
document.
C. Finding Zed}, page II-B-I of the Metropolitan Plan indicated that compact
urban growth results in "more efficient and less costly provision and use
of uti 1 i ti es, roads, and public services such as fire protection" .
EXHIBIT ~ ~ ~
f
P~~F
f3
QF 1 }
I
I
D. Partially in response to Goal ~1, Objective 8, page II-B-3 of the
Metropolitan Plan identifies the desirability of encouraging the use of
underdeveloped and vacant 1 and where services are avai 1 abl e .
E. Table 1 of the draft Riverfront Study shows that the entire study area
encompasses about 148 acres.
F. The draft Study concludes that the western portion of the study area has
been part of the City of Eugene since the 1814 ` s and a ful l range of urban
services i s avai 1 abl a to the entire study area.
G. The draft Riverfront Study, and the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan
Plan are consistent with the direction established in the Eugene-
Spri ngf i el d Metropolitan Area General Plan, and complies with Goal 11.
~oai 1~. Transportation
A. Goal 12, Transportation is intended to "encourage a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system."
B. The Eugene-Springfield Area 2040 Transportation Plan, the Metropolitan
Bikeway Plan and the Transportation Chapter of the Metropolitan Plan
address area-wide transportation issues and were considered i n the LCDC's
decision to acknowledge planning in the metropolitan area as being in
compliance with Statewide Goals in 1982.
C. T-2000 directs that development and transportation improvements be aimed
at avvidi ng Level of Service "E" .
D. T-24oo identifies Franklin Boulevard, which provides access to the
Riverfront area, as a ma jar metropolitan-area arterial .
E. Franklin Boulevard is under the jurisdictional responsibility of the
Oregon Department of Transportation ~ODOT~ and transportation
improvements affecting the street are controlled by that agency.
F. Objective 8, page I I1-F-4 of the Metropolitan P1 an identifies the need to
promote land use arrangements which will optimize use of existing and
planned transportation facilities. .
G. Policies 1~ f } and 6, page III-F-S of the Metropolitan Plan direct that
development and redevelopment which is served by the existing or planned
.transit system be encouraged and that new development include facilities
which will accommodate urban public transit as well as other a1ternatiave
transportation modes, e.g., bicycles.
H. The South Bank Bike Path described on page 56 i n the Metropolitan Bikeway
Master Plan cal 1 s for development of an independent bike path to parallel
the river bank between Ferry Street Bridge and I-5.
I . Policy 1~g} , page I I I~-Fw5 of the Metropolitan P1 an directs that pedestrian
facilities be developed in conjunction with major activity centers or in
conjunction with other modes of travel .
J. Appendi x C of the draft Ri verfront Study conta~ ns detai 1 ed analysis of the
level of development which could be accommodated abased on a theoretical
EXHIBIT
PAGE ~ OF. /
1 and use mi x ~ i n conjunction with various 1 evel s of alternative
transportation mode usage including transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and
carpool ~ , whi 1 e avoiding Level of Service "E" on Franklin Baul evard.
K. Appendix C of the draft Study contains a detailed analysis of ca ital
p
improvements for street improvements and major pedestrian crossin of
Franklin Boulevard and transit 9
which would be ~nvalved ~n accommodating
the maximum theoretical land use mix.
L. Criteria Z of the SD, Special Development District, as ro osed b the
P P Y
Planning Commission, directs that approval of a proposed develo ment
include demonstration that "Base • P
d on technical analyse s (party cul arty
with respect to transportation facilities, planned public facilities can
be shown to accommodate the requirements of the proposed develo ment" .
P
M. Policy BI, page 6 of the draft Study directs that the City of Eu ene work
with the are on De artment of 9
. •.9 p Transportation and Southern Pacific
Railroad to increase the number of access points to undevelo ed ro ert
P P P Y
within the Study area .
N. Pot i cy B2, page 1 of the draft Study directs that the City of Eu ene work
with Lane Transit District th 9
. e Una verse ty of aregon, and empl ayers i n the
R~verfront area to maximize the use of alternate modes of transportation.
a. Policy 63, page 7 of the draft Study directs that "The City of Eu ene use
its Ca ital Im rovement Pro ra 9 •
P p g mining process to identify projects, their
~mplementat~on schedules, and anticipated sources needed to provide
transportation facilities to service development in the Riverfront Study
Area.
P. Pot i cy B4, page 7 of the draft Study directs the City of Eugene to " ursue
construction of ra'ects intends P
. ~~ i~ p ~ d, by design and timing, to avoid Level of
Service E ~n the Franklin Boulevard corridor".
Q. Policy B7 of the draft Study directs that the City of Eu ene in
9
cooperation with developers and the University of aregon, develo a
comprehensive tan far an internal P
P bicycle system w~th~n new development
i n the Ri verfrout Park.
R. The draft Study and proposed General P1 an amendment coin 1 i es with Goal 12
P ,
Transportation because; 1~ emphasis is placed on encoura in and
provi di n foci l i ti es for 9 9
. 9 . +alternative modes of transportation; Z~
d~ recd on i s provided to avo~ d Level of Service "E" on Franklin Boulevard •
and 3} direction is established to expand the bicycle system in the
development area. .
13. Goal 13. Ener Conservation
A. Goal I3 of the Statewide Goals directs that "land and uses develo ed
the land shall be mono ed and contr P on
9 ol~ed sa as to max7m~ze canservat~an of
al 1 forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles" . .
B. Fundamental Pri nci p1 e #3, Page I I_I of the Metropolitan Plan re ui res that
urban develo ment occur in a ~ q
p compact configuration w~th~n the urban
service area.
EXHIBIT ~'
PAGE f O OF~_
C. Goal 1, page II-B~2 of the Metropolitan Plan addresses growth management
and the urban service area, cal 1 i ng for the efficient use of urban 1 ands.
D. Objective 8, page II-B-3 of the Metropolitan Plan encourages devela meet
P
of vacant, uderdeveloped and redevelopable land where services are
available and some public expenditures have a1 ready been made.
E. Objective 8, page I~I~F-4 of the Metropolitan Plan directs the city to
promote land use arrangements which will optimize use of existing and
planned transportation faci 1 i ti es and services and which wi l 1 provide
choices i n using alternative transportation modes.
F. Policy #~, Page II I-~F--5 of the Metropolitan Plan cantai ns recommendations
aimed at reducing transportation energy demand and increasing
opportunities for use of alternative modes, including
a} medium and high density residential development within a mile of
downtown Eugene;
b} encauragi ng existing employment centers to grow and diversify by
concentrating new commercial, governmental and light industrial uses
in them;
c} encouraging medium and high density residential development
within one-hal f mi 1 e of existing and future employment centers;
d} encouraging development and redevelopment in designated areas
which are relatively well seved by the existing or planned urban
public transit system.
G. Pal i cy #13, page I I I--J-~fi of the Metropolitan Plan encourages cooperation
and communication between citizens, utilities, and local governments,
concerning energy-related issues.
H. Policies B6 and B7 page 8 of the draft Riverfront Park Special Area Study
recognize th,e area's proximity to existing alternative transportation
faci 1 i ti es, particularly the ri verf rout bike path system, existing
bicycle-pedestrian bridge and railroad underpass.
~ . Pol ~ cy B2 of the draft Study cal 1 s fora significant effort to i ncorporate
transit faci 1 i ti es and improvements i nta future development plans for the
area.
J. Cost estimates for planned public improvements to meet transit needs in
the study area are included in Appendix C of the draft Study and
identified as a component i n financial planning for the area .
K. The Special Development District, which is part of the draft Stud
Y
requires that analysis be conducted to determine if planned ublic
P
faci 1 i ti es can accommodate the requirements of the proposed level opement.
L. Pal i ci es contained i n the draft Riverfront Spei cal Area Study cal 1 for an
intensity of development that will make the most efficient use of the
site, while recognizing environmental and open space needs of the area.
M. Policy A4 and development standards contained in the Plannin
Commission's ro osed SD S ecia ~ ~ g
p p p l Development D~str~ct, provide for a
ExHiaiT ~
PAGE ~ I OF. t ~-
mixture of uses including commercial and multiple family housin to
9}
occur as part of an overal 1 development.
N. Policy E2 in the draft Riverfront Park Special area Stud rovide
Y p
direction for cooperative work by the University of Oregon, Eu ene water
and Electric Board and the Cit g
y of Eugene on actions to improve the
efficiency of the two steam plants 1 orated i n the study area .
0. ~n thei r discussion of alternative sites for University Research the
Eugene Planning Commission concluded that the Riverfront Park Stud Area
~s well-located between the Universit Y
y of Oregon and downtown Eugene to
provide an energy-efficient land use relationship for University-related
research and related services,
P. Gbjective 6, page I1~-F-4 of the Metrapolitan Plan provides direction to
"improve the efficiency of energy use resulting from trans ortation
P
demands.
Q. Because of the Riverfront Park's proximity to other mad or acti v i t
centers, and the o ortunit to achie e Y
PP Y v an integrated mixture of land use,
the draft Study and proposed Plan amendment are consistent with existin
direction contained in the Metro olita g
p n Plan and comply with Goal 13,
Energy Canservat~on.
Goal 14. Urbanisation
A. Goal 14, Urbanization contains direction "To provide for an orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban land use" , and provides direction
concerning establishment of urban growth boundaries.
B. The Metropolitan Plan Diagram establishes the urban growth boundary which
was acknowledged as complying with Statewide Gaal s by the LCDC i n 1982 .
C. Page 13 of the draft Study notes that the western portion of the Stud
area was art of the o n final into Y
P g rporat~ on of the C~ ty of Eugene, whi 1 e
the eastern portion was annexed to Eugene i n the 192C' s.
d. The Metropolitan Plan Diagram establishes that the Study area is within
the acknowledged urban growth boundary.
E. Goal 14, Urbanization is not applicable.
Goal 15. Willamette Greenwa
A. 1n urban areas, Goal 15 is intended to provide criteria within which
development can occur consistent with the purpose of the Willamette
Greenway.
B. Goal 15 directs that use management stategies be developed for ro ert
P P Y
within the Greenway Boundaries.
C. Goal 15 directs that review of intensified uses in Greenway Boundaries
include findings that to the greatest degree possible, the devela meet
P
provide: 1} the maximum amount of open space, vegetation or landsca ed
area between the acti vi t and the river P
Y , and Z} necessary publ ~ c access to
and a 1 ang the river by appropriate 1 egal means .
EXHfBI~'
E
PAGE pE !
t
D. Policy 9, page III-D-~4 provides for specific use management
considerations and requirements of Goal I5, "Willamette Greenway," to be
included in local refinement plans.
E. Policy I0, page III-D-4 of the Metropalitan Plan directs that local and
state governments continue to proivde adequate public access to the
Willamette River.
F. Policy 5, page II I-D-4 of the Metropalitan P1 an directs that uses 1 ocati ng
along river corridors be compatible with the natural, scenic and
environmental qualities of those water features.
G. Policy D, page III~-D-4 of the Metropolitan Plan provides the ability of
local refinement plans and implementing ordinances to address specific
management and use considerations.
H. Section 9.60 of the Eugene Code provides local interpretation of Goal I5
and contains criteria which development occurring within Greenway
boundaries must meet.
I. Map A shows that in the area being proposed for diagrammatic change, the
southern Greenway Boundary i s 1 ocated along the Mi 11 race .
J. Policies C1, C~, C3, C4, D2 pages 9 and 10} of the draft Study, and the
proposed Special Development District all contain provisions which
address use management considerations.
K. Policy D4, page 10 of the draft Riverfront Study addresses public access
by requiring that in the context of any development occurring in the
Ri verf rant area, the existing bike-pedestrian path be relocated closer to
the river.
L. Policy C4 of the draft Study directs that development in the Riverfront
Park, when possible, maintain and enhance public access to the river.
M. Pal i cy CI has modi ~' i ed by the P1 anni ng Commi~~~si on} addresses public access
by establishing: 1} minimum setbacks of thirty feet; 2} two areas of
deeper setbacks which wi 11 accommodate intensive public use, i . e. , around
the Aut~en Bike Bridge and the east Millrace outfall; and 3} by
acknowledging that certain public access improvements could extend to the
river through the riparian strip .
N. An environmental analysis conducted as part of the Riverfront Study
identifies the existing riparian stri p along the riverbank as the most
significant environmental asset in the area.
D. Policy CI, page 8 of the draft Study has modified by the Planning
Cammi ssi an } directs that the riparian strip al ang the river be protected,
and identifies development and implementation of a management plan as a
method of achieving this objective..
P. The 5D, Special Development District has proposed by the Planning
Commission} requires that: 1} development in the Greenway comply with the
policies contained in the Metropolitan Plan, the Riverfront Study and
other applicable plans; and Z} land within the Willamette Greenway
Boundaries comply with applicable criteria contained in Chapter g of the
Eugene Code.
EXH161T ~ ~~ ~~~`~
w•
4
Q. Based on these findings, the draft Riverfront Study and the proposed
amendment to the Metropolitan General Plan comply with Goal 15, Wi 11 amette
Greenway.
pljfinelc
EXHIBIT ~ ......~.~....,~.,,~,.~.
P~G~..L`~....,.~DF ~