HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19348ORDINANCE NO. 19348
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TQ THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL.
PLAN; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
1. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Metro Plank was adapted by the Eugene City Cauncil on July 28,
1984 and amendments thereto were subsequently adopted on February
8- 1982 by Eugene Ordinance No. 18927, on Fe bruray 15. 198 4 b y
Eugene Ordinance No, 19229, on October 22- 1984 by Eugene Ordi-
nance No. 19293, and on July 17- 1985 by Eugene Ordinance No.
19341.
2. In 1984 the City Council adopted a work program and
citizen involvement process far studying property of the Univer-~
sity of Oregon near the Willamette River. A nine member committee
was appointed to draft a Riverfront Park Study.
3. The objectives of the Riverfront Park Study were to
develop short--term and long-term directions for land use develop-
ment in the study area. 0n April 4. 1985 the Draft Riverfront
Park Study issued.
4. 0n May 20, 1985 the Eugene Planning Commission conduct-
ed a public hearing on the draft Riverfront Park Study. Work
sessions of the Planning Commission were held on May 30, June 3,
June 14 - June 11, June 17 - June 24, and July 1. 198 5 o n i s s ue s
concerning the Study,
5. On ,Tune 24, 1985 the Planning Commission voted to
recommend to the City Council adoption of a modified Riverfront
1- Ordinance
Park Study and early adoption of an amendment to the Eugene~-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plank changing
the designation far University-owned property within the Study
area from "Open Space" and "Government/Education" to "University
Research".
6. On July 17, 1985 the City Council conceptually approved
the draft Riverfront Park Study and initiated an amendment to the
Metro Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission,
7. Initiation of the plan amendment prior to completion of
the mid--period review was because economic diversification i s a
high priority for the City of Eugene, early processing of such
an amendment will provide the opportunity for site development
during the 1986 construction season, and an early amendment is
needed as a prerequisite for forming a tax increment district in
the Study area ,
$. Findings in .support of the adoption of this plan
amendment are set forth in Exhibit A and are incorporated herein
as though fully set forth, Additional findings and responses to
issues raised in the public hearings are set forth in the draft
Riverfront Park Study of April, 1985- the findings contained in
Eugene Ordinance 19347 adopted contemporaneously herewith, the
Memorandum of the Planning Department to the Mayor and City
Council dated July 8. 1985, the Memorandum of the Eugene Planning
Department to Interested Parties dated July 17- 1985, the Memo
randa 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
2- Ordinance
Council of September 9, 1985 with attachments. All of these
findings are adopted and incorporated herein as though fully set
forth.
9. 0n September 9, 1985 a public hearing was held before
the Eugene City Council on the proposed plan amendment.
14. Based on the above record and findings, the Eugene City
Council concludes that the plan amendment set forth below is
consistent with Land Conservation & Development Commmission
Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, with the unamended portion of
the Eugene~Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan, and with other
applicable City plans and policies. Certain issues of Goal
conformity, e.g, 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
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, Moreover, prior to development of this property
as allowed by this plan amendment, other affected entities may
need to take complementary actions such as amendment and modifica-
tion of the North Campus Plan by the University of Oregon and the
State Board of Higher Education.
NQW, THEREFQREr
THE CITY QF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FQLLQWS:
3- Ordinance
Section 1. The findings set forth above are adopted with
the findings contained in the amendments and in the original
Metro Plan which are incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. Pages II-E-2 through II-E-~16 of the Metro Plan
describing various land use designations are amended to create a
new category of "University/Research" and that text is amended to
include the following language:
"15. University/Research
"This category represents property which is lcoated
in proximity to the University of Oregon campus. It is
primarily intended to accomodate light industrial,
research and development, and office uses related to
activities, research, and programs of the University of
Oregon, The designation also allows for mixed use
development, including a limited range of retail and
service uses and multiple family dwellings. Commercial
activities in this category are intended to serve the
day-to-day needs of employees working in and nearby
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 diversif i-
cation of the metropolitan area's economy by providing
an opportunity to develop industrial activities which
support and utilise research programs of the University
of Oregon . "
Section 3. The Plan Diagram in the Metro Plan is amended
to designate the following properties as identified by their Tax
Lot number, "University/Research":
Map Lot
17033224 5300
17033221 300
17033214 100
17033214 201
17033214 1440
17433214 1600
17033214 1800
17033214 2000
17033214 2100
17033323 1900
17033323 1800
4- Ordinance
17033323 1441
17033323 1340
Such properties are as designated in the map marked "Exhibit A"
to Lane County ordinance No . PA 904, which map is adopted and
incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
Section 4. 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-
tion, 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 5. That the matters contained herein concern the
public welfare and safety. In order for the Land Conservation
and Development Commission to consider this amendment 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 immedi-
ately upon its passage by the City Council and approval by the
Mayor. and ratification by the Lane Council of Governments Board.
Passed by the City Council. this
9th day of September, 1985
Q,tLt,~ ~ Gt~~
~pu`~~ ~ • Ci y Recorder
Approved by the Mayor this
9th da S to er, 1985
t
Mayor
5~- Ordinance
Findings
Goal 1. Citizen Involvement
A. Goal 1 is intended to ensure that citizens have an opportunity, `~to be
i nvo1 ved i n all phases of the planning process."
B, A nine-member committee, comprised of representation from the University
of Oregon ~2}, the Chamber of Commerce, the Eugene dater and Electric
Board, AGRIPAC, property owners in Study Area, residents of the Study
Area, the Planning Commission, and the City Council developed the draft
Riverfront 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 Oregon} information about
the draft Riverfront Park Study. A total of about 10D people attended all
of these meetings. While these were not public hearings, the Planning
Commission was made aware of comments made at these meetings prior to the
Commission'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 Oregon ` s Public Meetings Law.
E. Public hearings on the draft Study and related amendments to the
Metropolitan Plan were conducted by the Eugene Planning Commission on May
20, 1985. At the May 24th hearing, the Commission voted to leave the
record open for written comments until May 29, 1985 at 5:04 p.m. Prior to
closing the public record, nineteen groups or individuals submitted
written testimony for the Commission's consideration,
On July 8, 1985, the Eugene City Counci 1 conducted publ i c hearings on the
Planning Commission's recommended actions on the draft Riverfront Park
Study and related amendments to the Metropolitan General Plan.
F. Gn August , 1985 the Lane County P1 anni ng Commission and Board conducted
a joint public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Plan
related to the Riverfront Park Study . .
G. On July 24, 1985 the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan P1 an ref ated to the
Riverfront Park Study. 0n August 5, 1985 the Springfield City Council
conducted a public hearing on the Planning Commissions recommendations on
related amendments to the Metropolitan Plan.
H. Notice of meetings of planning commissions and elected officials from al 1
three jurisdictions occurred in accordance with State Law and individual
jurisdictional notice requirements.
I . Citizens of the metropolitan area have had apportuni ti es 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~1161T.,_._,~
PAGE ~p~'
J . Through the above processes, level apment of the draft Ri verf rant Study and
related amendment to the Metropolitan Plan have met the intent of Goal 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 adopted by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County
by Ordinance i n 1982 as fol 1 ows:
Eugene - Drdi Hance No . 18927 ~ 2-8-82 ~
Springfield - Ordinance No. 5024 (3-1-82)
Lane County - Grdinance No. 856 ~Z-3-82~
By reference, those adopting ordinances also adopted the working papers
which were developed as supporting documents to the Metropolitan 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 19$2.
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 "mare
detailed refinement plans, programs and policies."
E. Fundamental Principle #1, Page II-1 of the Metropolitan Plan identifies i t
as a 1 ong-range policy document providing the framework within which more
detailed refinement plans are prepared. In accordance with this
principle, to date, Eugene has adopted over fifteen refinement plans and
special area studies.
F. The draft Monitoring Report Table ~-1} for the Metropolitan Plan shows
that in 1983 about 1,590 acres of undeveloped light industrial .land
existed within the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Almost seventy
percent ~1,11D 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 in 1983 Eugene had about 180 acres of undeveloped land 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, 1 and
allocations 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 1 acal economy, about 1, 000 acres of Special Light Industrial
Land was identified to accommodate future locations of firms involved in
high techno'1 ogy activities which also require 1 arge tracts of 1 and ~ see
Page II-E-~8 of the Metropolitan Plan for discussion of the Special Light
Industri a1 1 and use deli gnati one .
EXHIBIT
PAGE ~- OF~
~. Policy 1~, page I1I-B~-5 of the Metropolitan Plan and econometric
projections conducted for the City of Eugene by the firm of LeBI anc & Co .
see "Markets & Services 1n Downtown Eugene", LeBlanc & Co., 1983} 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 public facilities, Willamette Greenway
and open space issues. However, recognizing that the "University
Research" land use designation proposed on page 6 of the draft Study is
i nconsi stem with the existing Metropolitan P1 an diagram, pot i cy A6 of the
draft Study requires the City of Eugene to seek an amendment to the
Metropolitan P1 an to rectify this i ncansi stency.
~. The modifications to the Metrapol i tan P1 an which would result from pot i cy
4, page 5 of the draft Riverfront Park Special Study, generally provide
fvr additional land for: 1~ activities which are uniquely tied to
research occurring at the University of Oregon 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
operations within the Riverfront Park development area; and 3) multiple
family housing to accommodate potenti a1 demands for employees of firms who
wish tv 1 i ve i n proximity to their wank.
L. Policy A6 of the draft Riverfront Study directs that the City of Eugene
seek an amendment to the Metropolitan Plan to "designate a portion of the
property within the Riverfront Park Study area owned by the University of
Oregon for 'University/Research' activities" .
M. The University of Oregon owns about 71 acres in the Study area, over half
of which i s vacant or used for p1 ayi ng fields.
N. Policy A5~e~, as modified by the Planning Commission, ensures that
development i n the area wi 11 primarily be ref ated to University of Oregon
activities and programs. f-
O. The Riverfront 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 Metropolitan Plan policies and these findings, the
draft Riverfront Park Special Area Study and the proposed amendment to the
Metropolitan General Plan satisfy the requirements of Goal ~, Land Use
Planning.
Goals~3. and 4. Agr~cultura~ and_Forest Lands
A. Statewide Goals #3 and #4 are directed at preserving and maintaining
identified agricultural and forest 1 ands .
B. Goal #3 generally defines agri cut tural 1 and as predami nant1y C1 ass 1, II ,
1IT and 1V soi 1 s i n western Oregon.
ExH1B1T
R
PAGE ~ OF ~~,,.
C. Goal #4 generally defines forest land as: ~1~ possesing existing or
potential commercial timber value; ~2} property which provides needed
watershed for wi 1 dl i f e and fisheries habitat and recreation; ~ 3~ 1 ands
where extreme conditions of climate, soil and topography require the
maintenance of vegetative cover irrespective of use; ~4~ other forested
lands in urban and agricultural areas which provide urban buffers, wind
breaks, wi 1 dl i fe, and fisheries habitat, 1 i vestock habitat, sceni c
corridors and recreation use .
D. The Metropolitan Plan "Agricultural Land Working Paper and Addendum",
October 1981 and "Forest Lands Working Paper", September 1951 inventory
agricultural and forest 1 and within the P1 an' s jurisdictional boundary.
Land within the Riverfront area i s not identified i n this i nventary.
E, The acknowledged Metropolitan Plan defines agricultural land page 11-E-
10~ and forest land page 1I-E-11~ as being outside the urban growth
boundary.
F. The Riverfront Park Study area is within the urban growth boundary
acknowledged by the LCQC i n August 1982.
G. Based on these findings, the requirements of Gaal #3, Agricultural Lands
and Goal #4, Forest Lands are satisfied.
Goal 5. open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources
A. Goal 5, is intended "To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic
resources."
B, None of the area within the Ri verf rout Study boundaries was identified i n
the Metropolitan Plan, "Natural Assets And Constraints Working Paper",
1918 hand addenda} as containing significant Goal 5 ref 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 in the Study area.
D. Policies 2 and 5, page I1I-E-3 and policy 25, page III-C-1a of the
Metropolitan 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 i t.
F. Pot i cy C1 of the draft Riverfront Park Special Area Study ~ as modified by
the Planning Commissions directs implementation of an active management
program for the riparian strip along the Wi 11 amette 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
ti
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 Gaal 6 i ssues.
C. .Policies ZO and Z3, page 111-C-9 and 111-C-10 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 1 and quality. These provisions are appl i cabl e
City-wide, including the Ri verf rant Park area .
E. The Metropolitan area is a portion of the southern Willamette Valley air
shed, and its ai r qual 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 i n draft Ri verf rant 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 Quality.
Goal 7. Areas Subject To Natural Disaster and Hazards
A. Provisions cvntai ned 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 metropal i tan area.
C. Map A-1 of the "Natural Assets and Constraints Working Paper" and Map E of
the draft Ri verf rout Park Special Area Study show that parti ons of the
Study area 1 i e wi thi n the f 1 ood p1 ai n .
D. Metropolitan Plan policies Z and 3, page 111-~C-7 directly address
development standards i n f 1 oodway and f 1 oodway fringe areas .
E. Sections 9.604 through 9.607 provide standards far new development in FH,
Flood Hazard zoned land and prohibits development in designated floodways
a1 ong the Wi 11 amette River throughout the• Ci ty.
F. Existing pot i ci es and ardi nances, which apply to the Ri verf rout Park area,
as well as other parts of the City, comply with Goal #7. Because the
Ri verf rout Study and the proposed amendment to the Metrapol i tan P1 an wi 11
fol 1 ow these codes and pal i ci es, Goal 7, Natural Hazards i s satisfied.
Goal S. Recreational Needs
A. Goal S, Recreational Needs, i s intended to address "the recreational needs
of citizens of the state and visitors."
.;
~ r~
PAGE ., p~
B, The adopted diagram for the EugenewSpringfield Metropolitan Area General
P1 an designates parks and open space areas,
C. Table x of the working Paper on Parks and Recreation shawl that the
metropolitan area has an inventory of about 5,DZD acres of
Regional/Metropolitan Park and Open Space.
D. vacant ,and underdeveloped land within the Riverfront Park Study area
comprise about , 9% of that inventory.
E. The Metropolitan Plan Working Paper inventory 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 Riverfront Park Study Area does not f al 1 within these
categories and consequently none of the Study area was included in the
Metropo1 i tan Plan inventory of park and open space .
G. Some of the Riverfront Park Study area was designated for open space vn
the Metropolitan Plan Diagram to reflect its use by the University of
Oregon.
H. ~n the context of potential redevelopment of University-awned property,
policy D~, page 10 of the draft Study require the City to "work with the
dni versi ty of Oregon and developers i n 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 Bl, page 8 and D4, page 10 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 i n the area.
K. Based on these findings, the draft Riverfront Study and the proposed
Metropolitan Plan amendment comply with requirements of Goal #$,
Recreational Needs.
Goad 9. Econom
A. Goal g of the Statewide Goals identifies the need to, "diversify and
improve the economy of the state."
B. The"Economic Working Paper" ~~918} and the "Economic - Addendum" X1981}
of the Metropolitan Plan describe the area's economy.
C. The Metropolitan Plan page ~iI--B_31} establishes the goal of
diversifying the local economy.
D. Policy 17, Page II~--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 Metropolitan Plan identifies seven individual special
light industrial sites in the metropolitan area, with a total area of
about 1,aD0 acres.
ExH~B~T
PAGE QE ~ ~ . `
f
F. Industrial sites identified i n the Metropal i tan Plan are not i n proximity
to the University of Oregon campus.
G, Objective 1Z, Page III-B-~4 of the Metropolitan Plan provides direction to
accommodate a mi xture of office, commercial and industrial uses.
H. Policy 12, Page III-B-5 directs that efforts be maintained to stren t
g hen
the central business districts of Eugene .
I. Policy 6.0, page 7 of the adapted 1984 Community Goals and Policies
document, directs the City of Eugene to work with educational institutions
and to coordinate research activities with 1 ocal efforts to attract firms .
J, Policy 1.D, 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 Riverfront Study (page Z~ indicates that, "development in the
Riverfront Park is intended to play a critical role in the metropolitan
area's economy by providing an unusual opportunity to develop an
industrial area that supports and utilizes research activities of the
University of Dregon." The draft Study a1 so notes that this type of
development is envisioned as a critical factor in attracting and forming
new industrial activities because 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 Bou]evard} the main campus of the University
of Oregon .
M. Policy AS~e~, and the proposed SD, S ecia1 Develo ment District to
p p ~ be
applied to portions of the Study areal direct that development in the
Ri verfront Park be primarily 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 verf rant Park i s intended to serve the day-
to-day needs of employees working in and nearby the development.
Consequently the draft Study and proposed implementing mechanisms respond
to the goal to diversify the local 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 to the Metropolitan Plan
comply with Goal 9, Economy.
Goal 1Q,_Housing
A. Goal 10 of the Statewide Goals is directed at providing for the housing
needs of the state's citizens.
B. Objective 3, page III~A-3 of the Metropolitan Plan calls for locating
residential development in relation to the availability of employment,
commercial services, publ7c utilities and facilities and transportation
modes.
EXHIBIT ~
PACE ~ OF. !
C. Objective 4, Page III-A-3 of the Metropolitan Plan calls for the promotion -
of generally higher residential densities within the existing urban
service area to encourage a compact urban growth form.
D. Policy I7, page III-A-6 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-7 encourages development of higher density
residential devel opmen't near industrial and commercial centers .
G. Policy A4, page 5 of the draft Riverfront Park Special Area Study, and
standards contained in the proposed Special Development District provide
the opportunity for multiple family housing to be i ncl uded i n development
of the riverfront area. '
H. Standards in the Riverfront Park Special Development District provide for
multiple family housing to be developed: I} without specifying a density
limitation; Z} using the same height limitation that is applied to all
development within the district; 3} using setback and coverage standards
consistent with medium density residential districts; and 4} using
parking standards lower than those required for less centrally-located
multiple-family hausi ng.
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. Pot i cy 2c, page III-F-5 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 . Resi denti al. devel opment occurring within the Study Area wi 11 be
located within one mile 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 in the Riverfront Park Study Area.
L. Based on these findings, the draft Riverfront Study, and the proposed
Metropolitan Plan amendment, comply with Goal I0, Housing.
Goal rt ~ . Public Facilities and Services
A. Goal 1I of the Statewide Goals identifies the need to integrate land use
p1 anni ng with the orderly and efficient provision of public services.
B. Fundamental Principle 3, page I I-I of the Metropolitan Plan identifies the
concept of compact urban growth as one of the basic themes of the
document.
C. Finding 2~d} , page I I--BwI of the Metropolitan .Plan i ndi cated that compact
urban growth results i n "more efficient and 1 ess costly provision and use
of uti ] i ti es, roads, and public services such as fire protection" .
~HIBIT ~ ~~
E
F~OF -~.......~OF ~
k
D, Partially in response tv Goal 11, Objective S, 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 Gi ty of Eugene since the 1870' s and a f ul 1 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 e1 d Metropvl i tan Area General P1 an, and complies with Goal 11.
Goal 1Z. Transportation
A, Goal 12, Transportation is intended to "encourage a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system."
B. The Eugene~Springfield Area 2000 Transportation Plan, the Metropolitan
Bikeway Plan and the Transportation Chapter of the Metropolitan Plan
address area-wide transportation issues and were considered in the LCDC's
decision to acknowledge planning in the metropolitan area as being in
compliance with Statewide Goals i n 1982 .
C. T-2004 directs that development and transportation improvements be aimed
at avoiding Level of Service "E" .
D. T-2000 identifies Franklin Boulevard, which provides access to the
Riverfront area, as a ma j or metropolitan-area arteri a 1.
E. Franklin Boulevard i s under the jurisdictional responsi bi 1 i ty of the
Oregon Department of Transportation ~ODOT} and transportation
improvements affecting the street are controlled by that agency.
F. Objective 8, page III-F-4 of the Metropolitan P1 an identifies the need to
promote 1 and use arrangements which wi 11 opti mi ~e use of existing and
planned transportation faci 1 i ti es. .
G. Policies 1~f} and 6, page III-F-5 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 wi 11 accommodate urban public transit as wel 1 as other al ternati ave
transportation modes, e.g., bicycles.
H. The South Bank Bike Path described on page 56 i n the Metropolitan Bikeway
Master Plan calls for development of an independent bike path to parallel
the river bank between Ferry Street Bridge and I-5,
I . Policy 1~ g} , page III-F-5 of the Metropvl i tan Plan directs that pedestrian
facilities be developed in conjunction with major activity centers or in
conjunction with other modes of travel .
J. Appendix C of the draft Riverfront Study cantalns detailed analysis of the
level of development which could be accommodated abased on a theoretical
~XH~B~T
PaG~ ~ OF
land use mix} in conjunction with various levels of alternative
transportation mode usage ~inc1uding transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and
carpool } , whi 1 e avoiding Level of Service "E" on Frankl i n Boulevard.
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 g•
• ,• which would be involved ~n accommodating
the max ~ mum theoret~ cal 1 and use m~ x.
L. Criteria 2 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 "Bas P
• •, ed.an technical analysis ~part~cularly
with respect to transportation fac~l~tles}, planned public facilities can
be shown to accommodate the requirements of the proposed develo ment" .
P
M. Policy B1, page 6 of the draft Study directs that the City of Eu ene work
with the Dre on De artment o g
. • •.g p f Transportation and Southern Pacific
Railroad to increase the number of access points to undeveloped ra ert
P P Y
within the Study area.
N. Pot i cy B2, page 7 of the draft Study directs that the City of Eu ene work
with Lane Transit District t g
he Uni verse ty of Dregon, and employers i n the
Ri verf rant area tv maximize the use of alternate modes of transportation .
0. Policy B3, page ? of the draft Study directs that "The City of Eu ene use
its Ca ital Im ravement Pro r 9 •
• P p g amm~ng process to ~dent~fy projects, their
~mplementat~on schedules, and anticipated sources needed to provide
transportation facilities to service development in the Riverfront Study
Area.
P. Policy B4, page 7 of the draft Study directs the City of Eugene to " ursue
P
construction, of pro j ects i mended, 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
g
cooperation with deve]opers and the University of Oregon, develo a
cam rehensive tan for an inte P
P P rnal bicycle system w~th~n new development
7 n the R~ verf rout Park.
R. The draft Study and proposed General P1 an amendment complies with Goal I~
Transportation because: 1} emphasis is placed on encouragin and
provi di n foci 1 i ti es far g
9 alternative modes of transportation; 2}
direction i s provided to avoid Level of Service "E" on Franklin Bout evard •
and 3} direction is established to expand the bicycle system in the
development area.
~3. Goal 13. Ener Conservation
A. Goal I3 of the Statewide Goals directs that "land and uses develo ed on
the land shall be mono ed and contr P
g o11ed so as to maximize conservation of
al 1 forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles" .
B. Fundamental Principle #3, Page I I•~1 of the Metropolitan Plan re ui res that
urban develo ment occur in q
p a compact conf~gurat~on w~th~n the urban
service area.
EXHIBIT _ ~k'
PAGE ~ O OF l
C. Goal 1, page II-B-2 of the Metropolitan Plan addresses growth mana ement
g
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 encoura es develo ment
9 p
of vacant, uderdeveloped and redeve]opable land where services are
avai 1 abl a and some publ ~ c expenditures have already been made .
E. Objective H, page III-F-4 of the Metropolitan P1 an directs the ci t to
Y
promote land use arrangements which will optimize use of existing and
planned transportation facilities and services and which will rovide
choices i n usi n alternative trans p
g portation modes.
F. Policy #~, Page III-F-5 of the Metropolitan Plan contains recommendations
aimed at reducing transportation energy demand and increasin
opportunities for use of alternative modes i g
nclud~ng:
a~ medium and high density residential development wi thi n a mi 1 e of
downtown Eugene;
b} encouraging existing employment centers to grow and diversify b
Y
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,deve1opment and redevelopment in designated areas
which are relatively well seved by the existing or planned urban
public transit system.
G. Policy #13, page III-J -6 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 Ri verf rout Park Special Area Stud
y
recognize th.e area's pr~oxi mi ty to existing alternative transportation
faci 1 i ti es, particularly the ri verfront bike path system, exi sti n
b~ cycl e- edestr~ an bri d e and rai g
P g 1 road underpass.
I. Policy B2 of the draft Study calls far a significant effort to incor orate
transit facilities and i m r P
p ovements into future development plans for the
area.
J. Cost estimates far 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
requires that anal sis be conducted y'
y to determine 7f planned public
faci 1 i ti es can accommodate the requirements of the proposed develo ement.
p
L. Policies contained i n the draft Ri verfront Spei cal Area Stud cal 1 for an
Y
intensity of development that will make the most efficient use of the
site, whi 1 e recagni zi ng environmental and open space needs of the area.
h'1. Policy A4 and development standards contained in the Plannin
Commission's ro osed SD S ecial Develo g
P p ~ P pment District, provide for a
EXHIDIT
PAGE ~ ~ OF. 1 ~-~'
mixture of uses including commercia] and multiple famil housin
occur as art Y 9} to
p of an overall deve]oprnent.
N. Policy E2 in the draft Riverfront Park S ecial Area •
direction fo P Study provide
r cooperative work by the University of Oregon, Eugene Water
and Electric Board and the City of Eugene on actions to im ro
efficienc of the two stea ~ P Ve the
Y m plants 1 orated ~ n the study area .
D. In their discussion of alternative sites for Uni versi t
Eu ene Plann' ~ ~ y Research, the
9 ing Commission concluded that the Riverfront Park Stud Area
is well-located between the Universit of y
y Oregon and downtown Eugene to
provide an energy-efficient land use relationship for Universit -relit
research and related ser ' Y ed
vices.
P. Objective 6, page III-F-4 of the Metropolitan Plan rovides d'
"Improve the efficienc o P erection to
y f energy use resulting from transportation
demands.
Q. Because of the Riverfront Park's proximity to other ma 'or a t' '
centers, and the o ortuni t t ~ c ~ vi ty
pp y o ache eve an ~ ntegrated mixture of 1 and use,
the draft Study and proposed Plan amendment are consistent with existin
direction contained in the Metro o1itan Pla g
p n and comply with Goal 13,
Energy Conservation.
Goal 14. Urbanization
A. Goal 14, Urbanization contains direction "To rovide far an orderl
efficient transi ti P „ Y and
. , on from rural to urban 1 and use ,and provides direction
concerning establishment of urban growth boundaries.
B. The Metropolitan Plan Diagram establishes the urban rowth boundar '
was acknowl ed e g Y which
g d as complying with Statewide Goals by the LCDC i n I982.
C. Page I3 of the draft Study notes that the western ortion of the S
p tudy
area was part of the original incorporation of the City of Eugene, while
the eastern portion was annexed to Eugene i n the 1920' s.
D. The Metropolitan Plan Diagram establishes that the Stud area is '
the acknowl ed ed u Y wi the n
g rban growth boundary.
E. Goa ] 14, Urbanization i s not applicable .
Goal 15. Willamette Greenwa
A. In urban areas, Goal 15 is intended to rovide criteria withi '
p n which
development can occur consistent with the ur ose of the Wiliam
P p ette
Greenway.
B. Goal 15 directs that use management state ies be develo ed for r
within the Green a g P p vperty
w y Boundari es.
C. Goal 15 directs that review of intensified uses in Greenwa Bo '
include fin Y undaries
dings that to the greatest degree possible, the develo ment
provide: 1) the maximum amount of o en p
p space, vegetation or landscaped
area between the acts vi ty and the river; and 2) necessary ubl i c access to
and a l on the ri ver b a ro ri at P
9 y pp p e legal means.
~xH~s1T
i
I
i
PAGE pF ~
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 Metropolitan Plan directs that local and
state governments continue to proivde adequate public access to the
Willamette River.
F. Policy 5, page III-D-4 of the Metropolitan 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 9, 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 9.26a 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 is located along the Millrace.
J. Policies C1, C2, 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 verfront area, the existing bike-pedestrian path be relocated c1 oser to
the river.
L. Policy C4 of the draft Study directs that development in the Riverfront
Park, when pvssi bl e, maintain and enhance public access to the river.
M. Policy C1 has modified by the Planning Commissian~ addresses public access
by establishing: l} minimum setbacks of thirty feet; 2~ two areas of
deeper setbacks which will accommodate intensive public use, i.e., around
the Autzen 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
Commission} directs that the riparian strip along the river be protected,
and identifies development and implementation of a management plan as a
method of achieving this objective.
P. The SD, Special Development District has proposed by the Planning
Cammi ssi one requires that: 1 ~ development i n the Greenway comply with the
policies contained in the Metropolitan Plan, the Riverfront Study and
other applicable plans; and 2~ land within the Willamette Greenway
Boundaries comply with applicable criteria contained in Chapter 9 of the
Eugene Cade.
~XH(B(T ~ .~ ..~..... .
..
4' ~, ~ r
~. Based on these findings, the draft Riverfront Study and the proposed
amendment to the Metropal i tan General P1 an comply with Goal ~5, iii 11 amette
Greenway.
pljfine~c
IrXH f BIT ~ ~ ~ ~ -T.w.~.w~..~
R~~I`~.~..._..~a~ 1