HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project
Meeting Date: January 11, 2006 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Jim Carlson
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5524
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session provides an opportunity for the Mayor and City Council to discuss the current status
of the River Road and Santa Clara Transition Project. David Reed, the transition manager, will be
present to discuss progress which has been made and the current public involvement efforts being
undertaken in this area.
BACKGROUND
Issues involving the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods have seen continuous activity for at
least the last 25 years. The installation of sanitary sewer service to resolve an identified groundwater
pollution problem in the 1990s created controversy in the neighborhoods. The adoption of the Eugene-
Springfield Metro Plan in 1982 led to an effort referred to as urban transition involving Lane County and
the cities of Eugene and Springfield. This intergovernmental effort resulted in the transfer of Awbrey
Park from Lane County to the City, an intergovernmental agreement which calls for the City to
administer land use and building permits in the unincorporated area, and an agreement related to the
transfer of county roads to the City in exchange for Lane County road fund resources.
The Metro Plan also called for the adoption of a “River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan” which
was completed in 1987and remains the refinement plan for the area. The Metro Plan also requires that
all new development in the area take place inside the city limits. This has resulted in several hundred
small-scale annexations since 1980, many of which are non-contiguous to the main part of the City.
Currently, approximately 40% of the land area of both River Road and Santa Clara are within the city
limits, about 40% of the residential units in Santa Clara and 30% of the residential units in River Road
are inside the city. Essentially all of the commercial properties in the two areas are within the city.
River Road and Santa Clara Urban Services Committees were jointly formed by Lane County and
Eugene in 2000 and issued their Final Report and Recommendations in September 2002. “The
committees recommended that the City and County appoint a high-level staff position to oversee the
transition process. The transition manager would supervise studies, committees, programs, and policies
related to improving urban services in River Road Santa Clara.” In the FY04 budget process, the City
identified some residual bond fund resources which were dedicated to this effort. In FY2004, a Fiscal
Analysis of Urban Services in River Road and Santa Clara was prepared by ECONorthwest as a part of
the effort and David Reed and Associates was chosen as the Transition Manager. David and his team
have been working over the past two years to serve as a resource and communication link for City staff,
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060111\S060111A.doc
County officials, elected officials and residents. He has formed a River Road Santa Clara Task Force
made up of residents from both inside and outside the city to assist him in developing a transition plan.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The River Road/Santa Clara transition project is a very broad project which touches on all five of the
City’s goals. “Safe Community” is addressed in issues related to the transition of fire and emergency
medical services in the neighborhood and the equitable provision of police services. “Sustainable
Development” is at the heart of concerns related to the preservation of “neighborhood character” and the
protection of heritage values. “Accessible and Thriving Culture and Recreation” is addressed with
issues of parks and open space acquisition and development and the preservation of the services and
facilities offered by the River Road Park and Recreation District. “Effective, Accountable Government”
is addressed in several of the governance and voice issues being discussed by the task force. Finally,
“Fair, Stable and Adequate Financial Resources” is probably the bottom line of the ongoing debates
since the tax rates and charges to city residents are higher (for a higher level of service) than that paid by
non-city residents. This final issue was the reason for the Fiscal Analysis referred to earlier.
Most of the related City policies are contained in the Metro Plan, Chapter II, Plan Principals. 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 urban growth boundary.
(Fundamental Principle 6, page II-1)
COUNCIL OPTIONS
This work session is designed to allow for discussion between the City Council and the Transition
Manager.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends continuing the efforts of the transition project in FY07.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to continue support in FY07 for the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project.
ATTACHMENTS
A. January 11, 2005, memorandum from David Reed entitled River Road/Santa Clara Transition
Project -- Progress Report
B. River Road/Santa Clara Transition and Heritage Strategy White Paper
C. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Plan Chapter II (in legislative format)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Jim Carlson
Telephone: 682-5524
Staff E-Mail: james.r.carlson@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060111\S060111A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
MEMO TO: Mayor Piercy and City Councilors
FROM: David Reed, RR/SC Transition Manager
SUBJECT: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project -- Progress Report
DATE: January 11, 2006
Background
In the spring of 2004, the City of Eugene contracted with David Reed & Associates as the River
Road/Santa Clara Transition Manager. Reed assembled a three-member transition team and has
been working with stakeholders to lay a foundation for preparing a transition plan. A twelve-
member Task Force has been developing a framework for strategic guidance of the project, and
helping implement a public participation plan to actively engage residents in the planning
process.
Mission Statement
“To establish a partnership with residents of River Road and Santa Clara, city and county staff and elected officials,
and special district providers, for the purpose of preparing a Transition Plan. The Plan will enable a smooth and
orderly transition of urban services in ways that preserve community and neighborhood values, retain where
feasible community institutions, and forge anew and creative methods and practices for the most effective and
efficient delivery of urban services.
Heritage and Transition Framework
Jim Rapp, Portland municipal governance specialist, prepared a 50-page white paper outlining
potential transition and heritage initiatives for unincorporated areas of River Road and Santa
Clara. The Task Force has been working for the last several months to come to agreement on
themes and key strategies that will provide a framework for the transition plan. (Task Force
members have demonstrated consistent commitment to the project: average attendance for ten
meetings has been at 80%, and eleven of the twelve members are original appointees). Three
themes emerged from this exercise:
1. Landscape Theme – a vision of how River Road and Santa Clara could transition into a
preferred future, including the visual and functional look and feel of neighborhoods.
2. Institutions Theme – ways to sustain and in some cases, expand key community institutions.
3. Governance Theme – goals for partnering and implementing a strategic transition plan.
The Task Force has identified institutions and qualities that are highly valued by the community.
These “legacy attributes” help provide a focus for the “Framework” with emphasis on preserving
heritage qualities of River Road and Santa Clara.
This exercise has facilitated a process for citizen representatives to better understand complex
issues associated with RR/SC service delivery, governance, and community visioning, and has
provided a means for the group to organize and frame a direction for the project. The result is a
potential structure for the transition planning effort that reflects priorities of the Task Force as
stakeholders representing diverse community interests and concerns.
Equally important, the “Framework” provides a structure for engaging City and County staff and
service providers in a similar exercise in order to evaluate the feasibility of ideas and
compatibility with current priorities.
Public Participation
A public participation plan includes goals and methods for involving the community in the
transition planning process. We have also developed the following materials to facilitate public
outreach: a brochure, an urban services guide with a series of neighborhood maps, and a
collection of reference material and background reports located at the volunteer library in River
Road. Small-group workshops facilitated jointly by the Transition Team and the Task Force
began in October and will continue through the spring of 2006. These workshops are designed to
identify what residents value in their neighborhoods and to determine priorities and concerns.
The River Road and Santa Clara community organizations, informal groups of neighbors,
seniors, parents, and organized community groups are also hosting community workshops.
Outcomes of the two pilot sessions are posted on our website, and we will continue to post
results of the public sessions as they occur (www.rrsctransition.info).
Information distilled from this process will address questions critical to testing and refining
heritage and transition elements of the “Framework” including community priorities and
implementation strategies.
Community Visioning and Strategic Planning
Two major outcomes are anticipated from the Framework planning efforts: (1) a Community
Visioning Plan, and (2) a Strategic Transition Plan.
Community Vision, Goals, Policies
A potential outcome of the “Framework” process is the collective future vision that River Road and Santa
Clara residents have for livability, sense of community and neighborhood, and protection of “heritage”
assets. Identifying neighborhood strengths/weaknesses and opportunities/constraints will be fundamental.
Strategic Transition Plan
The transition plan will include a vision statement, goals, and strategies to achieve the mission, as well as
an implementation plan with short-term, interim, and long-term strategies and actions that fulfill
benchmarks of voice, equity, trust, and collaboration. Issues and concerns such as the annexation process
will be addressed through creative solutions that maximize community support and minimize impacts.
Project Timeline – What’s Next
Our target for preparation of the first complete draft of the “RR/SC Framework” is June 2006.
Subsequently, a statistically valid opinion survey will test basic concepts and priorities, and
background reports will document the process and highlight major outcomes.
Preparation of a Conceptual Transition Plan with ample opportunities for refinement and public
review is anticipated for the remainder of 2006 and 2007, including adoption of a RR/SC
Transition Plan.
Attachment: Rapp White Paper – River Road/Santa Clara Transition and Heritage Strategy
RR/SC Transition Plan DRAFT
Adaptive Planning Process
11/07/05
June ’06 Oct. ’06 - June ‘07
Heritage and Transition Heritage and Transition
Framework—Task Force Framework—Service Providers
Background
Themes City of Eugene
Report
Strategies Lane County
Options Special Districts
Conceptual
Transition Plan
Public Outreach
Opinion Background
Discovery/ Neighborhood and Neighborhood & Community
Report
Survey
Exploration Community Pilots Outreach
Public Review
Final Transition
Plan
ATTACHMENT B
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA
TRANSITION AND HERITAGE STRATEGY
WHITE PAPER
----- Review Draft -----
For discussion purposes only
Prepared by
James H. Rapp Consulting
3113 NE Skidmore Street
Portland, Oregon 97211
Prepared 8-18-05; revised 11-24-05
TABLE OF CONTENTS
River Road/Santa Clara Transition and Heritage Strategy
White Paper
____________________________________________________
Goals and Key Issues 1
Assumptions and Limitations 3
Structure and Process 4
Benchmarks 6
Developing a Transition and Heritage Strategy 7
Fire Protection and EMS 9
Library Services 14
Neighborhood Governance 17
Parks, Open Space and Natural Areas 19
Land Use Planning 24
Recreation Services 28
Streets 35
Surface Water Management 39
Public Safety, Solid Waste Collection, 41
Water Supply, Sanitary Sewer
Goals
This River Road/Santa Clara Transition and Heritage Strategy White Paper is intended to contribute to an
effective community transition plan for the territory within the Eugene/Springfield Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) in the River Road and Santa Clara communities. The suggestions herein encompass an array of
potential urban service delivery opportunities and options that the City of Eugene, local special service
districts and other service providers, and the citizens of River Road and Santa Clara could consider to
assist in the transition of these neighborhoods as future urbanization occurs. The options identified are
intended to be of equal usefulness to the City, other service providers, and the neighborhoods in fostering
a creative dialogue on urbanization impacts and in reaching mutual agreement on effective strategies to
sustain current and historic community institutions and heritage in the face of the changes brought about
by annexation and urbanization.
Key Issues
Prior annexation and urbanization and in the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods have been
driven by such factors as the demand for extending urban services to new developments, utility
extensions, the development of individual existing lots, local landowner preferences, and the needs of
local governments and service providers. The result is a checkerboard of gerrymandered and sometimes
isolated incorporated territory, often as small as individual 5,000 square foot residential lots.
Approximately 30% of River Road and 40% of Santa Clara has been incorporated into the City of Eugene
to date.
From the perspective of the City of Eugene, and perhaps some special service districts, the foregoing
situation may contribute to making service provision difficult to manage, in addition to raising issues of
service and tax equity between in-City and unincorporated residents and property owners. Matters are
further complicated in that the unincorporated areas of River Road and Santa Clara are not simply served
by Lane County (or even served by the City under agreement with the County). Portions of the two
neighborhoods are served by two independent fire protection districts, two water districts, and a parks
and recreation district.
The range of land uses across the two neighborhoods are also very diverse, including large lot
residential, agricultural lands and homes, newer subdivisions, commercial centers and older business
uses, aging and brand new public institutions, public parklands, river floodplain and riparian areas, and
even an adjacent railroad maintenance yard (this last use is just outside the neighborhood boundary).
Existing streets exhibit the same range – recently improved urban arterials “morph” into treed rural roads;
newer neighborhood streets are curbed and developed with sidewalks, but older streets are often
minimally paved with drainage swales as the norm.
Based on published materials, most prominently the 2002 River Road/Santa Clara Urban Service
Committee report, and discussions with service providers and the 2005 River Road/Santa Clara
Transition Task Force, services such as police protection, sanitary sewer and water supply appear to be
generally satisfactory (due to governance, condition of the infrastructure, and/or other factors). The real
and perceived impacts of urbanization on certain other services - transportation, library, parks, fire
service, and perhaps surface water - appear to be of greater concern for a variety of reasons. Some of
these services originate with the City, some with Lane County, and some with special service districts.
Annexation and urbanization often brings new and more reliable water and sewer services, paved roads,
improved public safety services, and new community facilities such as libraries and parks. Nonetheless,
urbanization and annexation can also spell change in the form of more noise, busier streets, new and
unfamiliar neighbors, the loss of trees and undeveloped open spaces (albeit some of these “open” spaces
will be privately held, and not necessarily land suitable or available for the public domain), the demise of
long standing area institutions (both local public service providers and private businesses), and “forced”
connections to sewer and water lines based on public health concerns. For those already living in areas
recently or about to be annexed, such changes can quickly “sour” whatever positive benefits annexation
1
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
can bring. Development may exacerbate the feelings of an erosion of livability and community heritage
that perhaps has come with prior annexations. In fact, even infrastructure improvements such as urban
level road upgrades may be perceived as reducing livability.
In reviewing the September 2002 report of the Urban Services Committee, this latter form of reaction,
perhaps engendered by perceived poor experiences with prior annexations in these neighborhoods, and
while not ubiquitous or universally held, appears to hold sway with many residents and stakeholders in
River Road and Santa Clara. Many participants in the Urban Services Committee’s work, who otherwise
evidenced some support for the City, recognized that prior annexations may not have necessarily been
expedited most effectively or carefully. Balancing this, most residents who participated appear to
understand that ultimately River Road and Santa Clara will fully urbanize and become part of the City of
Eugene through annexation. The critical issues are how this occurs and within what time frame.
As the City of Eugene, other service providers, and the community contemplate the future incorporation of
the remaining territory within River Road and Santa Clara into the City, an urban transition and heritage
strategy that can be generally supported by, and that addresses the needs of, the River Road and Santa
Clara communities is an important initiative. A suite of options and potential actions that address the
concerns of area residents, businesses and landowners with respect to their sense of community
heritage, preservation of local institutions, loss of control and governance, and retention of some of the
“look and feel” of the present day neighborhoods, is appropriate in assuring that when and if these
communities join the City that they do so with the least dislocation and discontent possible. This White
Paper outlines such options and actions that might for the basis of neighborhood plans and strategies.
2
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Assumptions and Limitations
Fiscal and Legal Implications
1. . The financial and tax implications of urbanization and annexation
to the City of Eugene is not directly addressed by this White Paper. EcoNorthwest Inc. has
already conducted such an analysis, and it is assumed that such implications of urbanization and
annexation have been or will be assessed elsewhere. Similarly, an analysis of the legal and
statutory options available to municipalities in the State of Oregon with respect to urbanization
and annexation was not conducted, except insofar as urban transition and heritage initiatives and
options identified in this White Paper take into consideration the general limitations of such legal
issues.
The “Inevitability” of Urbanization and Annexation
2. . The goal of this White Paper is to identify
initiatives and options that foster and support a real sense that urbanization and eventual future
annexation does not necessarily mean an absolute loss of heritage, control and community. This
being said, practically all the service options outlined in the White Paper are annexation “neutral”
– many options can be part of strategies and positions the community (or local governments) may
want to pursue under ANY circumstances, and such options may be useful regardless of the
current or future circumstances influencing the pace of annexation. The neighborhoods in
question will, nonetheless, eventually become part of the City and its governance, based on the
simple facts that River Road and Santa Clara are within the UGB, and that considerable parts of
both neighborhoods are already annexed.
Applicability within State Land Use Law.
3. Research focused on Oregon examples, and the
recommended initiatives and options in this White Paper are generally feasible under Oregon
land use law and the stipulations of ORS 199 and 222, which govern annexation options in
Oregon, and OAR 191, which is specific to the Lane County Boundary Commission, and other
applicable State regulations and policies. A comprehensive legal and statutory compliance
analysis of each option is, however, well outside the scope of this White Paper, and any selected
options should be examined with the caveat that additional research may be required.
Applicability within Local and Regional Policy
4. . Identified initiatives and options considered the
policies and authorities of the City, and other impacted service providers, and take into account
applicable regional policies and adopted plans accordingly. This does not mean, however, that
useful and effective options were omitted simply because they were contrary to an adopted local
or regional policy. Differing from the above stated general standard for compliance with State
statutes, non-compliance with adopted local or regional policy was not a “default” criteria for
dropping an urban transition or heritage option. All things being otherwise equal, if the policy or
ordinance changes necessary to make an otherwise effective option feasible were within the
authority of local or regional government, such options have been included.
Comprehensive Nature of the Analysis.
5. This White Paper does not purport to explain each
initiative and option in its entirety, or to be a complete and authoritative feasibility analysis for
each. The initiatives and options described herein appear to hold promise for the community, but
only the test of the public process will decide what works and what doesn’t. That will be the
responsibility of the City, local service providers, the two neighborhoods, and other impacted
citizens and stakeholders. The White Paper is an outline of ideas that the neighborhoods could
promote – or local governments offer. The White Paper is a starting place – not a final “plan” or a
“strategy”.
3
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Structure and Process
In developing the service options and associated advantages and challenges presented in this White
Paper, the 2002 River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Committee report was the primary starting
point, along with other city and regional plans and publications, in determining which services were
most important to the neighborhoods.
Written factual background summaries for selected services were presented to the impacted service
provider(s) for review. The service providers were also asked to provide information updating activities
and programs that perhaps were not in place when the published materials were developed. The
consulting team also listened carefully to the observations and concerns of the River Road/Santa
Clara Transition Task Force, and at other community forums where service delivery questions were
discussed and debated.
Options were developed by thinking about potential solutions to the neighborhood issues and
concerns based on the consulting team’s expertise and experience, by considering activities and
programs already underway by local service districts and governments, by researching and
understanding applicable solutions developed in other communities in Oregon, and by listening
carefully to what was being said at Transition Task Force meetings and in other community forums.
The outcome the this approach is well over fifty different options spread across twelve different
“Advantages”“Challenges”
services, nearly all with associated and summaries, and several with
“What Another Community Has Done”.
sections entitled The intent is to introduce as full of an “A to
Z” set of options as possible. The point of the White Paper is to present - but not select – ideas that
might be useful to the neighborhoods and service providers. Even if an option has significant practical
limitations, an element of that option might “improve” another. By presenting even those options with
major practical limitations to implementation, the neighborhoods, the Task Force, and local service
providers have good “sideboards” within which to hone in on the most feasible and useful options.
Services addressed in this White Paper include:
?
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
?
Recreation Services
?
Library Services
?
Land Use Planning
?
Neighborhood Governance
?
Streets
?
Parks, Open Space and Natural Areas
?
Surface Water Management (Storm Water)
?
Public Safety (Police Protection)
?
Water Supply
?
Sanitary Sewer
?
Solid Waste Collection and Recycling
For most of the above services, an individual White Paper chapter including a separate evaluation and
sets of specific options, have been prepared. Each chapter addressing a single service includes options
classified as ”Transition” and/or “Heritage”. For some such services, the listed options have been further
classified as applying exclusively to River Road or Santa Clara, and in some cases “Miscellaneous”
service options are identified. This neighborhood classification is typically used where an individual
neighborhood is served by a single purpose special district (such as River Road Parks and Recreation or
Santa Clara Fire). Water supply, solid waste collection and recycling, public safety, and sanitary sewer
services are consolidated into a single chapter, as explained in the introduction to that chapter.
4
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
The terms “Transition” and “Heritage” are generally defined as (please note that in some cases the choice
of classification between a Transition or Heritage option will not always be absolute):
Transition
1. – An option that will assist the neighborhood(s), City and/or a current neighborhood
service provider to effectively adjust to a gradual trend of annexation and urban development.
Such options, while important, do have fewer or less direct benefits in preserving or enhancing
traditional neighborhood governance, appearance, and institutions.
Heritage
2. – An option which could have clear and direct benefits in preserving and/or enhancing
traditional neighborhood governance, appearance, and institutions.
The reader is also cautioned to keep several things in mind in reviewing these service options:
“Advantages” and “Challenges”
1. The length and number of listed for each option should not be
seen as an indicator of the viability of a given option (e.g.: an option with six listed “challenges”
and only two listed “advantages” is not necessarily one that should be rejected).
2. Not all the options listed for a given service are intended to be supported or implemented (by the
neighborhoods, City and/or service providers). Choices will have to be made. Similarly, the
implementation of options for every service is not anticipated. Choices may perhaps have to be
made to move forward with a small suite of options that best support community transition and
heritage priorities.
3. Many options, both within a given service category and between services, overlap and are inter-
related. Others may tend to cancel each other out or conflict. Neighborhood residents and
businesses, the City, and other service providers should use the options as starting points in
developing effective transition and heritage strategies. There may even need to be a separate
strategies and plans for each neighborhood.
5
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Benchmarks
In undertaking research for this White Paper, and identifying initiatives and options that may work for the
City of Eugene, other local service providers, and the communities of River Road and Santa Clara, six
“unifying” categories were considered. Although the options contained herein are listed by service type,
they could as well have been listed by the categories below. These categories could potentially be
“themes” around which one or more transition and heritage strategies coalesce. Note: In many instances
these categories will overlap. For example, initiatives and options involving local fire protection service
could be discussed in the context of Governance, Institutions, and/or Services.
Governance
1. - Options that preserve, or perhaps create, processes that provide residents,
business owners, and landowners in the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods with a
sense of community and of having an effective voice over their future.
Institutions
2. – Options that preserve or create institutions (such as community centers, volunteer
fire brigades, etc.) that sustain or strengthen the distinct neighborhood identity of the urbanizing
areas.
Communications
3. – Options that preserve or create outlets and processes for communicating
within the neighborhoods, not just for the purpose of assuring that residents know what is going
on in the community, but to also foster a sense of neighborhood identity as well.
Landscape
4. – Options that allow urbanizing areas to preserve some of the physical attributes of a
more rural or suburban community, such as differing street standards, open space, preservation
of agricultural lands, lot and housing types, etc.
Phasing
5. – Options to phase or time incorporation within the benchmark of feasibility under
Oregon statutes. This is not necessarily limited to physical phasing. For instance, the options
identified could be a simple as phasing of a City fee.
Services
6. – Options for services that are designed primarily to enhance current provisions in the
urbanizing areas in ways that address existing community needs, not those of the fully developed
“post-incorporation” community (but that still have “utility” for future residents and businesses).
Additionally, in identifying and analyzing the White Paper initiatives and options, the four major themes
identified in the 2002 River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Committee Report were used as
“benchmarks” against which the relevance and potential effectiveness of each option was tested. The four
,
themes/benchmarks are: Trust, Voice, Equity, and Collaboration as defined in the 2002 report. These
themes, having been distilled by the very people thinking most deeply about the impact of urbanization
and annexation, and being based on what is perceived as being unsatisfactory in the past, provided a
unique opportunity to filter results through the lens of the local communities. A fifth benchmark used was
Assumptionsand Limitations
statutory and policy feasibility, as described in the section of this White
Paper.
6
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Developing a Transition and Heritage Strategy
As indicated in the opening paragraph of this White Paper, the service options identified are intended to
be of equal usefulness to the City, other service providers, and the neighborhoods in fostering a creative
dialogue on urbanization impacts and in reaching mutual agreement on effective strategies to sustain
current and historic community institutions and heritage in the face of the changes brought about by
urbanization. An effective means of building consensus and defining just what it means to “sustain current
and historic community institutions and heritage” is through the development of a Transition and Heritage
Strategy.
This White Paper is intended to be the starting point from which such a strategy or strategies can be
established. Accordingly, and in the spirit of using this White Paper as a “handbook”, a few suggestions
for structuring and working through a River Road/Santa Clara Transition and Heritage Strategy follow:
1. What’s the difference between an option (as presented in this White Paper) and a strategy?
?
option
An is a focused change addressing a limited activity or a variation of a single
service. The impact could be significant for the service, but doesn’t necessarily result in
outcomes addressing larger community issues and goals.
?
strategy
A brings together a set of options, activities, positions, and actions that can
span several services, and that when taken together can advance long term community
goals and desired outcomes.
2. Why create a strategy at all? Why not pick a set of options and independently implement
them?
?
Any option could be selected and worked on independently and “in the moment”, but the
long term impacts might not be understood (or may prove to have been misunderstood).
?
Neighborhoods are dynamic and complex entities, and rarely can problems (and effective
solutions) be boiled down to a single issue or option.
?
The risk is run that separately implemented options may conflict with each other or cancel
each other out. A strategy can reduce this risk.
?
A strategy is more than a grouping of options, it articulates a series of principals and
outcomes that help the community stay focused on the “big picture”.
3. What are the elements of an effective strategy?
?
The most effective strategy is based on a clearly stated and agreed to mission or vision
and set of goals. A less effective strategy doesn’t include an agreed to mission and set of
goals.
?
An effective strategy has clear structure and boundaries – in this case perhaps the
boundaries of River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods and/or by limiting the strategy
to just a couple of service areas (it might even turn out that the two neighborhoods
warrant separate strategies).
?
The strategy with the best chance of success is the one that ends up with a unified
“theme” or “themes” and a set of desired outcomes consistent with the stated vision and
goals. The Transition Task Force may wish to consider the six “unifying” categories
Benchmarks
defined under the section of this White Paper as a starting point in
developing a theme or themes.
?
Implementation actions that are clearly within the authority or ability of the group adopting
the strategy are most effective. The more the group has to rely on others to implement a
strategy, the more problematic things become. This will be a particular and major
challenge for River Road and Santa Clara, Transition Task Force is an ad-hoc advisory
7
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
committee that end when the project ends (but presumably well before any agreed to
strategies and actions can even begin to be implemented).
?
The elements (or “options”) included in a strategy should relate to and support one
another. Better yet, success for “Option A” should also have a direct positive impact on
“Option D”. A strategy consisting of unrelated actions is little or no strategy at all.
?
All that being said, there will always be trade-offs – don’t adopt a strategy that is so
constrained by rules or processes or “lets be practical” that the “vision” is lost.
4. Who would implement a strategy?
?
The River Road/Santa Clara Transition Task Force in and of itself does not have much
authority to implement strategies impacting services delivered by other agencies – except
the authority of a well thought out and promoted strategy. The Task Force needs to
consult early and often, and work closely, with area service providers and community
members to assure the timely and consistent implementation of any strategy.
?
The Task Force needs to think tactically about what long-term and established group or
groups are best positioned to carry forward its ideas – Community Organization, Special
District, County, City, etc.
5. What measures or benchmarks might be used to decide which options should become part
of a strategy?
?
The benchmarks under in the 2002 Urban Services Committee report – Trust, Voice,
Equity, and Collaboration.
?
The degree to which the selected options and strategies are compatible with State law,
regional policy, and local ordinances.
?
The extent that options are clearly feasible within the boundaries of the two
neighborhoods.
?
The elements of an effective strategy (as described under #3 above).
?
The degree to which partners in advancing the strategy or option are to be found (see #4
above).
?
At a “gut” level, do the options just seem “feasible”.
8
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Current Situation
River Road
Fire protection and emergency medical service (EMS) in the River Road neighborhood is provided to both
in-City and non-City residents and businesses by the City of Eugene Fire and Emergency Services
Department. Service to non-City residents and businesses in this neighborhood is accomplished via a
contract with the River Road Water District, an arrangement based on the need for a neighborhood-based
governmental contracting partner and (presumably) the central role of adequate water supply in fire
suppression. A small area of the River Road neighborhood west of North Eugene High School is serviced
by the Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection District. There are no City or Fire District fire stations in River
Road, although a new City station opened nearby in the Santa Clara neighborhood in mid-2005, and
Santa Clara Rural Fire’s Station No. 1 is also nearby.
Santa Clara
The Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection District provides fire protection and emergency medical services
(EMS) to non-City properties in the Santa Clara neighborhood that are primarily east of Stark Street and
north of Beltline Road (although there is some territory west of Stark at the far north of the neighborhood
that is served by Santa Clara Fire). Santa Clara Fire has two fire stations along the Santa Clara
neighborhood stretch of River Road, one close to Beltline Road and a northerly station near Awbrey Park.
Santa Clara Fire also serves properties outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (and the neighborhood
boundary) to the north and to the east, but this territory is relatively lightly populated (approximately 200
homes out of the 4,500 in the entire Santa Clara Fire service district). Continued annexation of Santa
Clara neighborhood properties to the City, or a withdrawal of service by Santa Clara Fire to only areas
outside of the UGB, could obviously spell the end of this Fire District. Fire District management also
indicates that the City decision in 2002 to provide direct fire protection services to Santa Clara’s in-City
properties, rather than contract with the District, created a significant fiscal imbalance between revenues
and the cost of continued service to the balance of the neighborhood.
Lane Rural Fire/Rescue serves a smaller area of non-City properties within the Santa Clara neighborhood
west of Stark Street. Lane Rural operates four stations, with the closest to the Santa Clara neighborhood
located west of the Northwest Expressway at Irvington Street, just outside the neighborhood boundary. In
addition to fire suppression and EMS, Lane Rural has provided ambulance service for over 20 years.
Lane Fire also includes the Northwest Industrial Corridor, and a large rural, unincorporated area outside
of the UGB (representing about 70-75% of the entire area of the Fire District). The “high value” industrial
property within Lane Rural makes a substantial contribution to the Fire District’s relatively low tax rate for
the level of services offered, and also means, in contrast to Santa Clara Fire, that Lane Rural could more
easily survive the City’s annexation of its service territory within the Santa Clara neighborhood.
For many years, Eugene Fire contracted with these two fire districts to also protect in-City properties in
the Santa Clara neighborhood. The City elected in July 2002 to provide direct fire protection and EMS to
in-City residents and businesses, and established a temporary fire station in the neighborhood. A new
City station adjacent to these temporary quarters opened in the Santa Clara neighborhood in the mid-
2005.
Presently, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue has a “first response” agreement with Eugene Fire that assumes that
first response from Eugene will balance first response from Lane Rural (e.g.: there is no monetary
exchange for calls). Santa Clara and Eugene have a similar agreement (Eugene however compensates
Santa Clara for “first response” calls to City residents). The incidence of “first response” calls declined
when Eugene Fire opened its interim fire station in 2002, and this decline should continue with the
opening of the permanent City fire station in mid-2005.
9
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Both Lane Rural and Santa Clara Fire have a volunteer firefighter component supporting fire protection
services, and both fire districts represent that the volunteers are essential to providing viable fire
protection service to the neighborhood. The City of Eugene cannot actually permit volunteer brigades
based on its current collective bargaining agreement with the firefighters union. This particular provision
has been in place for approximately 15 years. Lane Fire/Rescue has a collective bargaining agreement
with the same union but has nonetheless continued to sustain a volunteer service.
In the past, Lane Rural Fire and Santa Clara Fire have considered the possibility of a merger, but these
talks did not yield such an outcome. Lane Rural Fire has expressed concern that a merger with Santa
Clara could eventually (if the pace of annexation continues) result in a higher tax rate for the consolidated
district than presently enjoyed by the property owners within Lane Fire. This circumstance could result if
“out-of-UGB” residential properties are all that remain from the original Santa Clara Fire District.
Transition and Heritage Options
River Road
Insofar as there are no fire districts servicing the River Road neighborhood, the question of transition and
heritage strategies in this neighborhood appear almost moot. Nonetheless, the issue of the continued
viability of the River Road Water District, which both maintains local waterlines and retails water (obtained
from the Eugene Water and Electric Board) to non-City properties, and contracts for City fire protection for
those same non-City properties, provides reason to consider some transition or heritage options. If the
Water District were to go out of business, there would be no local neighborhood institution via which the
City could pass-through fire services to non-City properties (except theoretically the River Road Parks
and Recreation District).
Transition Options
?
Option No. 1: EWEB Contract
- The City and the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB)
negotiate a contingency agreement for River Road fire protection service, with EWEB assuming
the current role of the Water District, if the River Road Water District were to cease operations.
Advantages: EWEB is a firmly established governmental agency, and would not face a
shrinking customer and tax base such as the River Road Water District will
experience as incorporation continues apace.
Challenges: The role of fire service contractor may not interest EWEB
?
Option No. 2: Fire District Contract
– The City contracts with Santa Clara or Lane Fire to
protect unincorporated residents and businesses in River Road (again only if the River Road
Water District were to cease operations).
Advantages: May help to sustain local institutions (e.g.: the two fire districts) already in the
business of fire protection
Challenges: Neither Santa Clara Fire nor Lane Fire may have the operational capacity to
expand to River Road, nor the ability to develop needed physical infrastructure;
Eugene Fire is expanding in the general area already (e.g.: new Santa Clara City
fire station)
?
Option No3: City Provides Non-City Fire Protection Service without Pass-Through
.
Contract
- The logical conclusion once all properties within River Road are incorporated (but one
that creates issues of equity until that happens – see Challenges below)
Advantages: City is already the provider for all residents and businesses in River Road, either
directly or through contract wit the local water district
Challenges: Absent another solution (see above), if the River Road Water District were to
cease operations before the neighborhood was fully incorporated, the City may
10
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
be placed in the difficult circumstance of being compelled to provide service to
unincorporated properties in consideration of overarching public safety concerns
without any form of compensation
Heritage Options
?
None
– Eugene Fire is already the service provider for all fire protection and EMS to all residents
and businesses in River Road. There are essentially no “heritage” services or characteristics to
be sustained for this service (except perhaps that a Santa Clara Fire or Lane Fire expansion into
River Road might help sustain those two Fire Districts as the amount of non-City property shrinks
due to incorporation).
Santa Clara
A significant transition is already underway in Santa Clara with the opening of the City’s new fire station in
2005 (and the City’s prior decision in 2002 to provide direct service to in-City residents and businesses in
this neighborhood).
Transition Options
?
Option No. 1: Continue Current Fire District Services
– Lane Fire/Rescue and Santa Clara
Fire continue to provide fire protection and EMS services to all non-City properties within their
respective zones until such time as the neighborhood is fully incorporated.
Advantages: Sustains two institutions and governance options with a long-standing presence
in the neighborhood (including the volunteer fire service)
Challenges: The expanded presence of Eugene Fire (e.g.: direct service to City residents by
Eugene Fire rather than contract service thru the two Fire Districts) combined
with gradually decreasing fire district service territories and changing service
needs and costs may test the two District’s viability and resources (most
particularly Santa Clara Fire).
?
Option No. 2: Fire Districts Serve Entire Neighborhood
– The assumption of service to in-City
properties by Eugene Fire in 2002, combined with the construction of a new City fire station in
Santa Clara renders this option moot.
?
Option No. 3: Expand Fire District Services
– Santa Clara Fire and/or Lane Fire contracts with
the City to once again provide services to all in-City properties in Santa Clara, and/or potentially
to take over the City’s contract with the River Road Water District for fire protection in the River
Road neighborhood. Again, the circumstance described in the preceding Option No. 2 makes this
alternative essentially moot.
Advantages: Creates a uniform agency and level of fire service between the two
neighborhoods; sustains important community institution(s) and local governance
opportunity
Challenges: Requires a highly unlikely reversal on the part of the City of Eugene with respect
to fire service to in-City properties in Santa Clara; the resources of Santa Clara
and/or Lane Fire may be over extended by such an expansion.
?
Option No. 4: City Assumes Service to All Santa Clara Properties
– The two Fire Districts in
Santa Clara withdraw from all direct fire protection and EMS service to non-City properties inside
the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and the City contracts with the Santa Clara Water District to
provide fire service to the entire neighborhood (as is presently done in River Road with the River
Road Water District).
11
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Advantages: Puts local fire service within the UGB under a single provider; as incorporation
proceeds Eugene Fire will eventually be the sole provider anyway.
Challenges: Potentially important local institutions, such as the volunteer firefighter corps, will
be lost; a form of local neighborhood governance (service on district boards) is
also lost; the Santa Clara Fire District in particular is left with significantly reduced
territory to serve and would probably no longer be financially viable; issues
surrounding the continued long-term viability of the Santa Clara Water District are
similar to River Road (see above); the Water District may not have an interest in
being a fire service contractor.
?
Option No. 5: Lane and Santa Clara Fire Merge
– Such an option could be combined with the
expansion, status quo or withdrawal options described above. As described under “Current
Situation” above, this option has been discussed previously between the two Fire Districts. In a
scenario where most of Santa Clara Fire’s territory within the UGB is annexed to City of Eugene,
a merger may be the only practical way for remaining homes within the former Santa Clara Fire
District to receive fire service.
Advantages: Reduces the number of fire service providers in the neighborhood, helps to
sustain a locally governed institution (including volunteer brigades); avoids the
issue of some out-of-UGB residents losing fire protection services
Challenges: Prior merger discussions have not been successful; ultimately a merged district’s
tax rate could increase over current rates, potentially resulting in reduced
services; merger would not stop the pace of incorporation and the resultant
decline in territory serviced by the merged Fire District
Heritage Options
The preceding transition options beg the question for what is may be the biggest “heritage” factor in
neighborhood fire service: the fate of the corps of community members that come together to protect their
neighbor’s lives and property through volunteer service with the two fire districts. Note: the following
options would of necessity have to be made in concert with other decisions to continue or modify fire
district services within the UGB.
?
Option No. 1: Let the Volunteer Services Lapse –
The two Fire Districts, faced with a
potentially declining recruitment base (e.g.: residents of non-City properties within their service
territories are declining because the pace of annexation is quickening), could simply allow the
volunteer corps to lapse over time. Note: Lane Fire/Rescue claims to be very successful in
recruiting volunteers from outside of its service territory, thus mitigating some of this concern.
Advantages: None (to the Fire Districts) excepting some current administrative and training
costs may not be incurred; City of Eugene would not have to create a volunteer
service (as per options below).
Challenges: May create staffing shortages for the Fire Districts that can only be mitigated by
increased payroll; means the end of long established community institutions
?
Option No. 2: Sustain the Current Volunteer Services -
From the perspective of preserving
community heritage there is less to be gained by working to sustain a volunteer corps that
primarily serves as the training and testing ground for future paid professionals. This may make
this option more or less important within the context of a community heritage strategy depending
on the emphasis and needs of the two Districts in recruiting volunteers.
Advantages: Sustains an important outlet for community involvement; keeps Fire District
operational costs down
Challenges: The “pool” of potential volunteers may shrink as more property in Santa Clara is
annexed (see caveat under Option No. 1 above)
12
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
?
Option No. 3: Create Eugene Fire Volunteer Service
- As Eugene Fire currently has no
volunteer firefighter program, this may be a considerable institutional change for this City service
(especially since the current City collective bargaining agreement prohibits a volunteer
firefighters). Nonetheless, there is no essential difference between a fire service volunteer
program and volunteer programs in library, parks, and other services, and this is something many
cities encourage and promote, except of course for the much greater probability that fire service
volunteers will be faced with life threatening and liability incurring situations.
Advantages: Provides an outlet for present and future residents who wish to volunteer in the
area of public safety; indirectly sustains a current Santa Clara community
institution
Challenges: Eugene currently has no volunteer service, and such an option may not “fit”
financially or operationally within City Fire Department plans; the City’s current
collective bargaining agreement will not allow the City to “employ” volunteer
firefighters.
Miscellaneous Options
?
Miscellaneous Fire Option No. 1: Community Meeting Space -
Another potential “heritage”
option for the fire service, albeit unrelated to the volunteer institution, but relevant to sustaining
community neighborhood activity nodes, is for fire station facilities to incorporate community and
event meeting space (such as available at the River Road Parks and Recreation District facility).
A “Phase 2” expansion of the City’s new fire station would include such meeting space, and
Santa Clara Fire’s Station No. 2 near Awbrey Park has a community meeting room that
accommodates 50.
Advantages: Provides a highly visible and stable locus for the community; reinforces the role
of the “fire hall” as a community center (and perhaps encourages expanded
community involvement in volunteer service, etc.)
Challenges: Current and under construction City fire service facilities do not have the space,
or staffing, to accommodate regular community meetings and events
What Another Community Has Done
There are numerous examples that can be found of fire districts that provide the sole fire protection and
EMS service within incorporated cities. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFR) in Washington County,
Oregon provides fire protection and EMS services in unincorporated county areas and in several
incorporated cities, and currently maintains six fire stations with volunteer components. As TVFR has
grown, several all-volunteer fire brigades and stations have been absorbed into the District and a serious
commitment has been made to sustain and employ this volunteer contingent. As with any volunteer
opportunity, success and longevity depend on clear guidelines, training, and real work responsibilities
being provided to the volunteer corps.
13
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Library Services
Current Situation
There appears to be two primary neighborhood issues with respect to library services in River Road and
Santa Clara. First, there are no public library facilities in either neighborhood, irrespective of the potential
operating jurisdiction (city, county or special district) or status of a community member as an in-city or
non-city resident. There are actually only three City library branches in all of Eugene, thus while the lack
of a branch within either Santa Clara or River Road may be an issue with local neighborhood residents,
there are many other neighborhoods in Eugene in similar circumstances. The nearest City library is within
an approximate 15 minute drive of the two neighborhoods - the Eugene’s Bethel branch library west of
Highway 99.
Second, non-city residents do not have the option of using their “own” (e.g.: county) library service at all,
simply because Lane County does not provide library services. The non-profit Lane Library League has
promoted the idea of library district(s) in the County, and voters recently approved the formation of a
library district in the Creswell community coincident with the local school district boundary. This localized
service does not, however, benefit River Road and Santa Clara residents (although it may provide the
seed for longer term regional options to library services). Thus, all River Road and Santa Clara residents
must leave their neighborhoods to access library services, and non-city residents must incur the expense
of purchasing non-resident library cards from the City of Eugene (although this is true for all non-residents
wishing to use Eugene’s library facilities).
A new – and small - volunteer library opened in mid-2005 on the south side of Beltline Road in the River
Road neighborhood. This volunteer effort has been supported by the Lane Library League and friends of
the Eugene Library and has received in-kind professional advice from City Library staff and other in-kind
support. The volunteer library has also benefited from support from the two neighborhoods in the form of
cash donations, in-kind assistance, and book donations.
The most basic library service need and question is and will probably always remain, “where is my
neighborhood branch?” Current City of Eugene library expansion plans do not identify either River Road
or Santa Clara as the top priority for a new branch library (a new branch in southwest Eugene is “top-
rated”), nor do long-range plans contemplate anything like a library branch in every Eugene
neighborhood. In the absence of a neighborhood library branch, programs such as access provisions for
special populations, or in-kind or other support for the new volunteer library, could have positive impacts
with respect to actual and perceived library service levels in River Road and Santa Clara.
Transition and Heritage Options
Transition Options
Given the lack of “direct” (exclusively in the sense of there being no Santa Clara or River Road branch
library) library services in either neighborhood, transition options are limited.
Option No. 1: Fee Reductions or Waivers –
A fee-for-card approach mitigates tax inequity issues for
non-City residents using City facilities, although it does not mitigate any “ability to pay” issues, something
theoretically accommodated by a tax supported public service. “Improving” access to library services for
special populations (seniors, youth) through fee reductions or waivers could be considered. Special
access provisions for youth cards have been previously considered but rejected by the Eugene City
Council.
Advantages: Provides tangible evidence of City support for neighborhood needs; costs to the
City could be relatively low; recognizes that there are special needs populations
meriting special consideration
14
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Challenges: May generate equity concerns among City residents; a “special populations”
policy would have to be applied City-wide; costs may be low in comparison to
other City operational budgets, but may be high within the context of the City
library budget.
Option No2: Support for Volunteer Library –
. There are already some mutual support activities (such
as in-kind professional advice) underway between the volunteer library and the City. The City may wish to
consider an agreement with the volunteer library group for other support such as shared circulations,
priority call at surplus book sales or donations, and access to surpluses computers (or City computer
“buys”).
Advantages: Provides tangible evidence of City support for a new neighborhood institution;
costs to the City’s overall budget could be relatively negligible
Challenges: Costs in the context of the City Library budget could be more significant
Option 3: “Storefront” Library –
Library services could be located and operated as part of existing
community institutions and facilities (such as the River Road Parks and Recreation District). Location
within schools or other public buildings might also be considered, as well as in separate commercial
building space, or even as part of the space occupied by a specific commercial business.
“Storefront” services could range from simple drop off/pick up depots, to the once more common book-
mobile (an option that has declined over time due to high relative costs in most communities), to
computerized book kiosks within commercial businesses, to leased or donated space (although this last
option would save only on any initial capital costs of a new branch library building).
Advantages: A potentially lower cost means (compared to a full branch library) to provide
physical library services in the two neighborhoods; potential for cooperation and
strengthening of existing community institutions (such as the Parks District or
volunteer library)
Challenges: Operational costs may not be within the means of the City Library Department
budget; a storefront library program may have to be developed City-wide and
River Road and Santa Clara may not be the “first in line”
Heritage Options
As the only library service for River Road and Santa Clara is either through the City of Eugene’s Library
or through the start-up Santa Clara volunteer library, it may appear to be inconsistent to discuss any
library services alternative as a heritage option, in the sense that “heritage” implies a well established
neighborhood resource or characteristic meriting preservation. Nonetheless, given the limited number of
institutions in either neighborhood that provide for place-named centers of community activity and
gathering, options that could facilitate the creation of such centers are appropriately considered under this
heading.
?
Option No1: Multi-jurisdictional Library Cooperative –
. Regional library districts, or library
cooperatives consisting of county, city and special libraries, have been formed in many
communities. The Lane Library League has been promoting this idea. Such co-ops may be
underwritten (in part at least) by regional library tax measures, and participating libraries may be
compensated for circulations to parties in other jurisdictions by “per circ” reimbursements funded
by the tax measures. This tax option is easiest to implement if there is already a jurisdiction
providing library service region-wide (e.g.: a county), although there are no technical (but
probably many policy or budget) reasons why Lane County could not “sponsor” a co-op in this
way
It would be an open question whether a co-op consisting of the city libraries of Eugene,
Springfield and Junction City would deliver enough “critical mass” to support a co-op. The
addition of the recently approved Creswell library district and other districts in the future (perhaps
encompassing many smaller communities in Lane County), could help provide such critical mass.
15
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
In the long-term, a library cooperative might also generate the capital for the expansion of
physical libraries, although in cooperative examples identified in Oregon, the individual co-op
members retain primary responsibility for their own capital needs.
Advantages: Eliminates equity issues of city or non-city residency, everyone would be citizen
of the cooperative; the potentially larger tax base, broader population
demographics, and larger geographic area of the co-op may facilitate taxpayer
support; at least initially the co-op can be formed and grow through
intergovernmental agreements (e.g.: a new special district does not necessarily
have to be voted in)
Challenges: It is not within the authority of the City to create such an entity on its own,
negotiations with multiple groups could be protracted; in Lane County it may not
be a simple as to start with intergovernmental agreements “binding” together
existing institutions covering most of the possible new service territory; formation
of a co-op would not necessarily lead to library branches being physically located
in River Road or Santa Clara (or anywhere else for that matter).
?
Option No. 2:City Branch Library -
Probably most central to the perceived library service
needs and aspirations of the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods is the lack of a branch
library in either of these communities. Nonetheless, with only three library facilities in the City, it
would appear to be hard to argue that the lack of a library branch in these neighborhoods is any
greater inequity than other parts of the City currently experience. In any event, the capital or lease
cost of a new library branch, combined with an estimated (by the City) annual operating cost of
$600,000, does not appear to bode well for new branch facilities in River Road or Santa Clara (or
anywhere else in the City) in the near future. Furthermore, the library co-op model discussed in
Heritage Option No. 1 above would not in and of itself solve this problem.
Advantages: “Solves” the most central issue in one action; provides the physical facility for
what will probably be the “ultimate” library service provider; provides a potential
neighborhood “center”.
Challenges: Prioritization of a new branch would probably have to be an outcome of a City-
wide process; even if prioritized, the capital or lease funding (and operational
costs) of a new branch library may not be available
What Another Community Has Done
In other regions, multi-jurisdictional library co-ops have been most typically formed where there is an
existing county service and a multiplicity of city libraries. This is not the case in Lane County, where there
is no county system, and few city systems. The Washington County (Oregon) Cooperative Library System
is a long established (mid-1980’s) example of such a cooperative. It must be cautioned that the
Washington County co-op is distinguished from the Lane situation in that the co-op came on the scene
with a full roster of member city library departments and library buildings already in place. Nevertheless, a
co-op may be something to consider, especially as it could draw in county taxpayers to the library funding
picture. Clackamas County (Oregon) has also formed a city/county library cooperative and been
successful in securing taxpayer support in the past. Both these cooperatives have recently, however, had
funding measures rejected by the voters.
16
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Neighborhood Governance
Current Situation
Governance is not a “service” in the sense of the other services – parks, fire protection, planning, water
supply, etc. - discussed as transition and heritage options in this White Paper. Governance per se was
also not called out as a stand-alone topic in the 2002 River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Committee
report. Nonetheless, effective neighborhood governance is a benchmark both in the 2002 Committee
report and in many of the ideas presented in this White Paper, such as formation of a library cooperative,
sustaining existing special districts, etc.
There are two neighborhood governance ideas which merit discussion outside of the specific framework
of any of the particular urban service options described in this White Paper – City Council representation,
and the authority of City-recognized Community Organizations. City residents within the two
neighborhoods can participate fully in City governance, up to and including service on City elected and
appointed bodies. All area residents can do the same for County bodies and programs. Notwithstanding
this, and given the annexation and urbanization transitions that Santa Clara and River Road are going
through, most neighborhood attention may probably be primarily focused now and in the future on City
actions, programs and policies.
The City of Eugene City Council identified “launch a neighborhood initiative” as one of their eight priority
issues for 2005, and is currently considering an action plan defining this initiative. This could be a
potential vehicle for changes to neighborhood governance in Eugene (and for many of the other options
discussed elsewhere in this White Paper).
River Road
River Road is completely within a single City of Eugene Council ward (Ward #7). Most of the River Road
neighborhood is in County Commission District #4 (a small portion is in District #1). The River Road
Community Organization has been very active. In addition, River Road has its own parks and recreation
district and a water district
Santa Clara
Santa Clara is split between two wards (Wards #7 and 5) along the axis of River Road. The neighborhood
is represented at the County by Commission District #1. The Santa Clara Community Organization is
active; and Santa Clara is served by two fire districts (Santa Clara and Lane) and a local water district.
Transition and Heritage Options
Transition Options
In the sense that sustaining or improving neighborhood governance can sustain the heritage of a
community, all such options are discussed below as such.
Heritage Options
?
Option No1: City Council Representation
. - Equal representation and population requirements
often render it impossible to make political boundaries coincident with neighborhood boundaries.
Nonetheless, action by the City to re-apportion Council wards, either by including both
neighborhoods within a single ward, or by having the dividing line along the axis of Beltline Road
(thus making the ward boundaries more consistent with accepted neighborhood boundaries)
might make neighborhood residents feel their access to City elected officials was improved (or at
least simpler). There could be a similar adjustment by the County to divide Districts #1 and #4
completely along Beltline Road. The City of Eugene did a major reapportionment after the 2000
17
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
census which reduced the number of Council wards in the area from three to two, but in the
normal course of events would not undertake another change until after the 2010 Census.
A large scale annexation in the neighborhoods that brought in a significant number of new
citizens to the City could merit a “mid-decade reapportionment. The City could under such
circumstances elect to reapportion the wards prior to the next census, using results from 2000.
The current wards contain approximately 17,500 persons per ward so it would have to be a very
large annexation, for example all remaining unincorporated territory in River Road. The current
in-City areas of River Road and Santa do not have enough population to establish wards
coincident with neighborhood boundaries.
Advantages: Makes neighborhood access to elected officials “simpler”; allows the
neighborhoods to speak as “one voice” to “one elected representative”.
Challenges: “One person, one vote” requirements and population distribution and numbers
may not make re-apportionment as described herein feasible
?
Option No. 2: Community Organization Recognition -
The City has provided “limited”
recognition to the River Road and Santa Clara Community Organizations, even though these two
organizations also represent a substantial number of non-City residents. Presently, “limited
recognition” means that City funding for public information and newsletters is pro-rated based on
the percentage of in-City residents in the neighborhood, and the City does not provide staff or
financial support for any Community Organization outreach activities or supplies.
The City might want to consider full (or fuller) Community Organization recognition for Santa
Clara and River Road even though the neighborhoods are not fully annexed (simply as a good
will gesture if nothing else). The City could also consider lowering the threshold for full community
organization recognition.
Advantages: Treats the two neighborhoods as full (or fuller) members of the larger City
community, which over time they are expected to become; builds goodwill.
Challenges: May raise equity issues with other Community Organizations that already
represent fully annexed neighborhoods
?
Option No3: Expand Community Organization Responsibilities –
. The City could examine
ways to further “empower” Community Organizations by sending a variety of City policy and
program decisions to the Community Organization for review and recommendations
Advantages: Gives the local neighborhood a more direct voice in a variety of City decision-
making actions; could attract a wider variety of citizens to serve on community
organization boards and participate in meetings
Challenges: Would have to be a policy applied City-wide to community organizations; adds
another step to City decision-making processes (and potentially one than could
take a long time to complete); any community organization recommendations
would be advisory (which could add to discontent if recommendations aren’t
followed); may be practically difficult to sort out issues that are appropriate to
refer to the community organizations
?
Option No. 4: Sustain Existing Special Districts –
As noted above and elsewhere in this White
Paper, both neighborhoods have a number of localized special districts – parks, fire, and water –
.
that still provide important services within the communityThis circumstance is probably an
important contributor to the continued strong sense of community in both neighborhoods, even as
incorporation and development changes the areas from rural to urban/suburban. Please see
specific transition and heritage options regarding these districts (and Advantages and
Challenges) elsewhere in this White Paper.
18
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Parks, Open Space and Natural Areas
Current Situation
Parks, Open Space and Natural Areas are addressed separately from Recreation Services for three
reasons. The current forms of local delivery of these services suggests a logical division between
recreation and parks (for instance the City of Eugene operates parks services out of the Public Works
Department, and recreation services out of a Recreation, Library and Cultural Services Department).
Secondly, open space preservation (and/or the gradual disappearance of open space even if such space
is simply privately owned “fallow” land of no distinct conservation value) is a key “driver” in how residents
of communities in transition react to growth. Finally, the proximity of both neighborhoods to the Willamette
River corridor, and, in the case of Santa Clara, proximity to the Eugene/Springfield Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB), provide unique opportunities for preserving open space elements that can help to
sustain elements of a neighborhood’s rural heritage over time.
As discussed in more detail under the Recreation section of this White Paper, the River Roads Parks and
Recreation District provides recreation services and maintains one park (Emerald Park) in the River Road
area, but does not otherwise manage open spaces or natural areas. There is no comparable special
district serving Santa Clara. The City of Eugene operates its parks and open space services through a
division of the Public Works Department. Lane County also provides parks services, and is the operator
of two riverside boat landings on the Willamette River adjacent to the Santa Clara neighborhood.
The City of Eugene has undertaken or is currently planning numerous parks upgrades and acquisitions in
the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods, primarily utilizing development-generated system
development charge (SDC) funds and the 1998 City parks and open space bond measure to fund these
improvements. The City of Eugene is presently concluding the final public involvement phase for its Draft
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, which includes a proposed community park in
Santa Clara, a number of neighborhood park acquisitions, and a linear park and natural area along the
Willamette River. The City of Eugene is also in the process of completing a natural features inventory, to
comply with new rules required by Statewide Planning Goal 5, with particular emphasis on wetlands and
stream corridors. A stream corridor acquisition program is funded through storm water user fees, with
several priority acquisitions in the Santa Clara area.
In addition, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (provider of regional sanitary sewer
services) has acquired a large amount of open space north of Santa Clara for poplar farms, biosolids
management, and seasonal wastewater treatment. Given the uses contemplated for these Wastewater
Commission sites, however, public usage as accessible open space may obviously be greatly limited, if
not altogether proscribed.
Finally, a proposal has under public review for a UGB “land swap” and development agreement involving
properties both within Santa Clara and in another part of the City that would secure a new 77 acre site in
the northwest portion of the Santa Clara community. Some residents of the Santa Clara community have
proposed an alternative park and recreation development scenario including re-use of a closed Santa
Clara elementary school, extension of the Willamette River Greenway trail, and additional neighborhood
parks (including a community garden/agricultural “heritage” park). Currently this land swap proposal has
been shelved.
River Road
The Willamette River Greenway immediately abuts the eastern edge of the River Road neighborhood
from a wastewater treatment plant in the northeast corner of the community to the neighborhoods
southernmost boundary. Except for one small privately owned lot, the City of Eugene’s 67 acres of river
greenway is continuous and adjacent to the River Road neighborhood, and a west bank pedestrian and
bikeway has been constructed for most of this length. Greenway improvements and facilities such as river
19
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
access points and facilities, signage, and other park activity nodes are otherwise limited. There are three
named parks associated with the greenway – Rasor, Jacobs, and Westbank - with parking improvements,
restrooms, and picnic area (at Jacobs).
In addition to active sports fields associated with schools, there are three major parks in River Road –
Emerald Park (operated by the River Road Parks and Recreation District); the 5-acre Bramble wood Park
operated as a neighborhood park by the City; and the City’s future 20-acre Walnut Grove Park, a “natural
area" including a pond and stream and western pond turtle habitat. In addition, there is the smaller
Rosetta Place Park, a 1.2 acre neighborhood park. City parks (including the Greenway) are maintained
and operated out of the Parks and Open Space division of the City Public Works Department. Mapping
would indicate that with a few exceptions, most natural stream corridors, open water, and wetlands in the
River Road neighborhood have been significantly altered or eliminated by prior development.
Santa Clara
In contrast to the River Road neighborhood, the eastern boundary of the Santa Clara community does not
immediately abut the Willamette River – considerable acreage of larger farm and estate tracts sit between
the Santa Clara neighborhood and the river. These intervening tracts are also outside of the
Eugene/Springfield UGB. Greenway lands have not been acquired and therefore no trails or Greenway
public facilities presently exist, although Lane County does own and operate two riverside facilities –
Whitely Landing and Hillman Landing.
Santa Clara does not have a local parks and recreation district as is the case with River Road. The City
owns and operates several parks in the Santa Clara neighborhood. These parks are managed out of the
Parks and Open Space division of the City Public Works Department. The largest and oldest is Aubrey
Park which was recently renovated with 1998 parks bond funds. This park includes neighborhood park
facilities, natural areas and a stream corridor (Spring Creek). The 6-acre Arrowhead Park is also slated
for a mixed neighborhood/natural development and includes a portion of Flat Creek. Other City parks in
Santa Clara include Terra Linda, Lone Oak, Filbert Meadows, Ferndale and Wend over. Mapping would
indicate that, with a few exceptions, most natural stream corridors, open water, and wetlands have been
significantly altered or eliminated by prior development.
Transition and Heritage Options
The City of Eugene could provide services that will facilitate the urban transition of the River Road and
Santa Clara neighborhoods by engaging in acquisitions that preserve lands for a range of open space
activities – significant natural areas, river access, neighborhood parks, and sports fields. Even the
preservation of ordinary wood lots and farm fields can provide a feeling that the community is securing
some of its rural heritage. By identifying and designating a wide range of remaining natural systems in a
community, by adopting policies that call for such lands to be preserved either by city acquisition or by
set-asides in the development process, and by designing creative compensation policies for landowners
through SDC credits, density transfers and the like, communities can both grow in population AND
sustain significant open space resources. The system can in part become “self-perpetuating” once the
development community experiences the added value accruing to developable lands abutting the
resource lands they have “bypassed” or dedicated as an outcome of City and community heritage
policies.
An important consideration in any space transition and heritage strategy is integration with other transition
and heritage options. In the case of this “Parks, Open Space and Natural Areas” section of this White
Paper, a significant opportunity exists for integration with surface water management plans and
programs. Surface water master planning is underway by the City and Lane County, as is periodic review
of the City’s comprehensive plan including protections for specified stream corridors for both open space
and surface water quality and quantity benefits. Open space preservation goals can be strengthened by
considering surface e water benefits and vice versa. Please see the separate “Surface Water
Management”, “Streets and Transportation” and “Planning” sections of this White Paper for additional
discussion.
20
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Please note: For the Parks, Open Space and Natural Areas section of this White Paper, transition and
heritage options are not sorted by specific neighborhood. In addition, some options discussed under the
Recreation section of this White Paper may be suitable for joint implementation with the Parks, Open
Space and Natural Area options discussed below.
Transition Options
The transitions options identified below are those that, while relevant to the current River Road and Santa
Clara situations, could be applied in any neighborhoods in the City, and that don’t necessarily have a
direct impact in sustaining a neighborhood’s rural “look and feel”. In addition, as noted above and under
the “Planning” and “Surface Water Mamagement” sections of this White Paper, prior development has
altered or eliminated most continuous stream corridors in these neighborhoods, and left few undeveloped
tracts of any sort within the current UGB. Therefore options for additional open space preservation may
be limited, at least beyond those being identified by current City parks planning processes and
negotiations.
Option No. 1: Park and Open Space Upgrades and Acquisitions -
Continue to upgrade existing parks
and open spaces, and/or acquire new parks and open spaces as development processes and associated
development dedications, credits, and System Development Charge (SDC) collections allow.
Advantages: City already has a program underway funded by SDC’s and parks bonds; builds
on the resources already established in the neighborhoods; development
dedications require no or low out of pocket costs
Challenges: Properties available through development dedications may not necessarily be
those of most “value” with respect to neighborhood “heritage” or long range City
plans; in Santa Clara such an approach does not address potential for an
extension of the river greenway
Option No. 2: Designation of Parks Capital Funding
– The City could set aside the SDC funds
collected in River Road and Santa Clara, and dedicate said funds exclusively to neighborhood park
capital projects and land acquisitions.
Advantages: Assures locally generated SDC parks fees are spent locally; potentially expands
the capacity of the City (and in the case of River Road, the Parks and Recreation
District) to serve these neighborhoods.
Challenges: Level of SDCs are calculated based on entire City need, and allocation to the
neighborhoods may be contrary to overall parks capital plans; State statutes
governing SDC calculations may not allow such a segregation; segregation of
parks funding in this manner may set a precedent other neighborhoods will want
to follow; neighborhood by neighborhood allocation of SDCs City-wide could
reduce funding for Santa Clara and River Road; increase in capital facilities
means increasing operational costs for which there may not be funding
Heritage Options
As noted above, the continued presence of even farm fields and ordinary woodlands can play an
important role in sustaining the rural “feel” of a neighborhood. Heritage options in the context of this White
Paper section are those that directly address the issue of preserving the rural “look and feel” of the River
Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods. Heritage options for open space could focus on preserving to the
extent practicable the remaining segments of stream corridors, woodlands, wetlands and other natural
areas left in the two neighborhoods. It is assumed, however, that there is no means by which the City can
effectively facilitate or regulate the preservation of remaining “ordinary” farm lands except by changes to
the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
21
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
?
Option No1: Emphasize Parks Acquisition over Parks Development –
. Such an approach
focuses on the shrinking inventory of open spaces and undeveloped lands in the two
neighborhoods and emphasizes acquiring the land base now and deferring improvements and
upgrades to the future.
Advantages: Preserves lands now that could be “lost” to other uses if limited City parks
resources are “divided” between parks acquisition and development priorities
Challenges: Some residents may feel that current parks need to be developed to their
potential before new lands are brought into public ownership
?
Option No. 2: Emphasize Open Space and Natural Area Acquisitions over more “Active”
Park Site Acquisitions
- Similar to the preceding option except it puts additional priority on
acquiring lands that preserve woodlands, stream corridors, wetlands, etc. as compared to lands
that are suitable for development into park sites dedicated to more active uses (everything from
playgrounds structures to ball fields).
Advantages: Preserves lands now that could be lost if City parks resources are “divided”
between active and passive parks acquisition priorities
Challenges: Some residents may feel that neighborhood and sports parks are a greater need
in the community
?
Option No3: City Development Policies -
. Adopt new or revised land use and development
policies that emphasize open space and natural area preservation and that require new or
revised specific types of park and open space protections, set-asides and dedications, impact
fees, and integration with other City policies and plans (such as surface water management).
Advantages: City could choose to emphasize open spaces and natural areas with its land use
regulatory authority
Challenges: Local land use authority can only go so far, even if City and regional plans
effectively “backstop” such authority; would require a City-wide policy decision
?
Option No. 4:Greenway Acquisition and Development
- The proximity of both neighborhoods
to the river corridor is not necessarily readily apparent. An open space component of a heritage
strategy could include developing and improving sites, access, signage, and infrastructure that
highlight the river and draw community residents (and citizens from other areas) to this special
resource. The river corridor (in conjunction with the UGB) also provides another significant
“heritage” function – forming a distinct “green” boundary that tells visitors and residents alike that
they have arrived in the River Road and Santa Clara community, a place where river vistas and
sense of place is still part of a urbanizing landscape.
Advantages: Preserves the most significant open space amenity left in or adjacent to both
neighborhoods; potentially provides access to lands and water that can
accommodate a wide variety of natural area, passive and active recreation
amenities.
Challenges: There is no greenway along the Santa Clara section of the river and the location
of the river outside of the UGB does not facilitate active City participation in
acquisition and development (nor acquisition through development dedications);
in both neighborhoods there is considerable development (and in the case of
Santa Clara considerable distance) between the river and the north-south River
Road arterial; cost of greenway acquisition and improvements
What Another Community Has Done
The City of Sherwood, Oregon developed a program to preserve in public ownership nearly all of that
community’s stream corridor, wetlands, significant woodlot, and vistas, even as it became the fastest
22
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
growing (by percentage) city in Oregon in the 1990’s. Based on Sherwood’s parks and open space
master plan adopted in 1992, about 19% of the gross area within the UGB was planned to be set aside as
open space by build-out (including active sports and recreation lands associated with school district
property). Sherwood also took an active role in preserving key river corridors outside of the local UGB by
forging partnerships with other natural area providers (in this case the Metro regional government and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service), particularly in the creation of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge
and Tonquin Geologic Area Significant Natural Area.
23
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Land UsePlanning
Current Situation
Both River Road and Santa Clara have been transitioning from rural unincorporated neighborhoods to
urbanized communities for many years. The City has had planning authority over the entirety of both
neighborhoods via intergovernmental agreement with Lane County for close to 20 years, although some
public statements by some County Commissioners in early 2005 indicated that the County might be
reconsidering this agreement (to date there has been no further public action in such a direction). The
neighborhoods are undergoing gradual and incremental annexation and urbanization ranging from
relatively major subdivisions to large lot partitions to in-fill or redevelopment. Rural subdivision patterns
are being supplanted by contemporary developments, older commercial businesses must compete with
new shopping centers on Beltline Road, and open fields and woodlots are disappearing. Some older
county jurisdiction roads are being re-constructed to full City collector and arterial standards. Population
and traffic is increasing. New residents are arriving with different demands and perspectives from those
neighbors that may have lived in River Road and Santa Clara for decades. Services that have been
provided for years by local institutions (such as local parks and water districts) are under new pressures
to address a new “generation” of citizen needs, and service districts are experiencing declining revenues
as due to annexation and shifts to City service providers.
The situation described above is not unusual or unique to Santa Clara or River Road. Such
circumstances have been repeated across Oregon and the nation for decades as rural communities grow
and become urban neighborhoods and cities. Given economic realities, population growth, land use laws
(both neighborhoods are within Eugene/Springfield Urban Growth Boundary and thus long slated for
urbanization), changing demographics, property rights issues and more, both River Road and Santa
Clara will continue to incorporate and urbanize. A key neighborhood issue therefore is the extent to which
these two neighborhoods (and the City) can cooperatively identify the most important elements of their
“rural” heritage and act to preserve such attributes even as incorporation and development advances
apace. Other sections of this White Paper describe a range of options with respect to services such as
public safety, parks and recreation, and streets. This “Planning” section focuses on the broader land use
planning context within which such services are delivered.
The City (in some cases in partnership with Lane County) has several planning initiatives underway that
will impact and potentially benefit River Road and Santa Clara. Many of these initiatives are described
herein and in other sections of this White Paper, including a master surface water management plan, a
review of “context sensitive” street standards, and parks systems upgrades. Eugene is also undertaking a
“periodic review” (a process mandated by Oregon land use planning statutes) of its Comprehensive Plan
that will include protections for specific stream corridors. Such protections are consistent with
neighborhood Heritage strategies outlined in the streets, parks and open space and surface water
sections of this White Paper.
River Road
River Road, particularly south of Horn Street, is characterized by long east-west blocks. Between Horn
and Howard Street there are many long north-south blocks and some long local streets that simply dead
end. These street patterns would “date” the area as older than other parts of the neighborhood. River
Road north of Howard to Beltline Road has a subdivision and local street pattern that looks more typically
urban than south of Howard (e.g. blocks are shorter, there is more regular pattern of connectivity between
streets, etc.), although the pattern is still very grid-like. The Bramblewood Park development is an
exception to this characterization, exhibiting a mix of cul-de-sac and curvilinear streets that indicate a
more recent subdivision.
There appears to be only a couple of tracts left in the River Road neighborhood that could accommodate
substantial new residential development, therefore the potential for most new housing will be limited to
single lot or small tract projects, or re-development. Newer commercial development is concentrated
24
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
along Beltline Road with older commercial development along portions of River Road. Approximately 29%
of River Road has been annexed to the City of Eugene.
The City of Eugene has just announced a historic sites survey and study for River Road. Such an
undertaking obviously serves the development of a neighborhood heritage strategy well, and should both
inform and be part of any suite of heritage options selected as an outcome of this White Paper.
Santa Clara
The subdivision pattern of local streets in Santa Clara is generally more uniform than in the case of River
Road. As a general characterization, subdivisions in the more southerly parts of this neighborhood look
much like that between Howard and Beltline in the River Road community. Subdivisions gradually
become more “contemporary” (e.g.: more cul-de-sacs and grid-like with fewer perfectly rectangular, 2:1
ratio lots) the further north one goes in Santa Clara. There is also a high coincidence between these more
contemporary subdivisions and incorporation into the City. In contrast to River Road, approximately 40%
of the neighborhood has been annexed. While there are more and larger undeveloped tracts in Santa
Clara than in the River Road neighborhood, Santa Clara is still relatively close to build-out (at least based
on the parameter of larger tracts that could be subdivided). In-fill and redevelopment is always a
possibility especially in older parts of the neighborhood. Commercial development is concentrated along
Beltline Road.
Transition and Heritage Options
Lower or differing housing densities, “rural” building design standards, provisions for preserving treed
streetscapes and existing street sections, requirements and improvements supporting neighborhood
commercial zones, and open space retention are all potential elements in preserving the rural and
community heritage and identity of River Road and Santa Clara. These and other alternatives are
discussed service by service in other sections of this White Paper. Nonetheless, the most effective way to
analyze alternatives and reach consensus on such a diversity of planning and services issues is probably
NOT how they are treated within the context and limitations of this White Paper (e.g.: through taking up
each issue separately). Simply put, the best way to reasonably assure that selected transition or heritage
strategies or elements consider all the options available, and more importantly consider different service
options as they play off against one another, is through a comprehensive neighborhood planning effort.
River Road/Santa Clara
Transition Options
Transition and heritage options are not distinguished for the purposes of this White Paper section (see
the discussion under “Heritage Options” below). Also, note that many of the Transition and Heritage
Options discussed elsewhere in this White Paper under Parks, Streets, and other service topics have
important planning elements and impacts. The two options discussed below are those not touched on
directly elsewhere in this White Paper.
Heritage Options
?
Option No. 1: Neighborhood Transition Planning and Facilitation
– This option is effectively
underway and funded by the City. One outcome, for instance, will be this White Paper, and
another may be a set of strategies that the City and neighborhoods (and other stakeholders such
as existing local service districts – water, fire and recreation) can agree to and implement.
Conceivably, some elements of the 1987 River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan could be
updated and/or expanded as part of a neighborhood refinement plan in conjunction with the
current transition planning effort.
Advantages: Is already funded and underway; addresses a relatively broad range of service
issues; allows for the practical and strategic selection of heritage options;
establishes a vehicle for the entire community to participate in planning their
25
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
future; upon adoption; outcomes such as a new community vision or
neighborhood refinement plan for River Road and/or Santa Clara could
potentially be part of amendments to the outdated 1987 Urban Facilities Plan.
Challenges: Would not have the policy status given to a City ADOPTED plan or policy, may
not be as comprehensive or enforceable as a neighborhood or city-wide
comprehensive plan; may be perceived as a City effort and not one impacted
special district service providers necessarily have a stake or commitment in
?
Option No2: Develop Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan(s) –
. These could be
independent, or a component, of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which is currently undergoing
Periodic Review.
Advantages: Deals with a broad range of heritage and planning issues in a comprehensive
manner; allows for the practical and strategic selection of the most effective and
feasible heritage options; establishes a vehicle for the entire community to
participate in planning their future; upon adoption, provides for a benchmark of
community agreement and consensus
Challenges: Cost of and commitment to such a process may prove prohibitive; timing,
financial feasibility, and prior policy decisions may favor simply proceeding with
incorporation first (or selecting a couple of heritage programs in isolation); other
planning issues may legitimately have priority within the City; such a planning
processes may reveal more divisions within the neighborhoods than are
presently perceived; issues of equity may arise with other neighborhoods wanting
their “own” plan; integrating AND administering a series of neighborhood plans
with a required overall City plan will be a challenge.
?
Option No. 3: Neighborhood Centers –
Both neighborhoods have been considered forvarious
planning options to create neighborhood centers or “nodes” based around commercial services.
The presence of historic (or even contemporary) town centers is a vital element in any heritage
and community building strategy. As noted under the “Recreation” section of this White Paper,
the River Road Parks and Recreation facility at Emerald Park seems to perform many
neighborhood center functions, albeit not commercial ones. The City of Eugene has also
established a small Lower River Road Nodal Development Area (also referred to as the Rasor
Park Mixed Use Area, named after a local parks space within the river greenway) to encourage
community oriented redevelopment.
Experience elsewhere suggests that revitalized neighborhood center nodes have common
characteristics such as relatively narrow primary commercial streets, some mix of nearby public
or quasi-public services and facilities (parks, libraries, theatres, restaurants), and a viable stock of
architecturally interesting commercial structures built close to the street (and more or less
contiguous with each other -- often for several blocks). Neither River Road nor Beltline Road
generally fit this profile. Beltline is dominated by contemporary “inward-looking” commercial
development interspersed with transitional older commercial development. River Road is
characterized by scattered older commercial structures set back from the street. In both cases,
the roadways are wide and very busy, thus functionally dividing potential node(s) in half. Given
this lack of “natural” attributes of successful neighborhood nodes, it will be a challenging and
probably a capital intensive effort to create such nodes in along River Road and Beltline Road
(note: the City currently has no plans for node creation along Beltline Road. Plans for River Road
are highlighted below).
Creation of functioning neighborhood centers might be accomplished by establishing a series of
smaller neighborhood nodes folded into existing commercial or mixed use developments, but
serving areas defined by, rather than subdivided by, major roadways (e.g.: you simply don’t try to
get people across a busy roadway in the course of strolling around “their” neighborhood center).
More capital intensive neighborhood node creation (at least with respect to traditional City and
property owner obligations) could be facilitated by diverting thru-traffic to other arterials and fully
26
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
re-designing River Road and Beltline (at least for intermittent sections) to lower classifications,
applying traffic calming retrofits to such select areas (the City of Portland has an extensive traffic
calming initiative that has been applied to major streets), and/or building grade-separated
pedestrian crossing structures.
Advantages: Viable neighborhoods are greatly enhanced by neighborhood centers that foster
a sense of place and common neighborhood activity and interaction; centers are
vital in preserving the neighborhood’s place name and thus its heritage
Challenges: The built configuration of present commercial centers and abutting streets do not
lend themselves to supporting viable neighborhood centers; capital infrastructure
costs to remove “barriers” to viable neighborhood centers could be high
Option No. 4: Neighborhood Infill Strategies –
The City is currently developing “infill” strategies
plans and policies for the Eugene as a whole. In Eugene and in other communities that practical
application of “building up, instead of out” is often resisted by local neighborhoods in reaction to
perceived higher densities, “incompatible” housing styles and other issues. Careful planning and
site design can help in mitigating such concerns, while attracting new residents, businesses and
investment that may help re-vitalize the neighborhood.
Advantages: Neighborhoods can be greatly enhanced by new residents, businesses, and
building; gradual infill can have less overall impact to existing community
character than major new developments or market driven increases in housing
density and population permitted by general zoning upgrades, infill development
can be “directed” to “clusters” where abutting streets, design guidelines and prior
development facilitate better integration into the neighborhood
Challenges: The “sum” of neighborhood by neighborhood infill strategies may be counter to
overall City density goals and requirements; even relatively modest infill
development may generate concerns about neighborhood rural or suburban
values being lost; in the new world of Measure 37 “takings” issues it may be
more difficult to limit infill
What Another Community Has Done
With respect to neighborhood nodes, the City of Portland, Oregon is notable for the seemingly
rd
“spontaneous” emergence of many vibrant neighborhood centers (NW 23, Clinton, Alberta, Hawthorne,
Belmont, and North Mississippi). These revitalized neighborhood nodes have common characteristics
such as relatively narrow primary commercial streets, and a viable stock of architecturally interesting
commercial structures built close to the street (and more or less contiguous with each other -- often for
several blocks). Neither River Road nor Beltline Road fit this profile. Another interesting characteristic of
Portland’s success is that, while the City of Portland and the Portland Development Commission have
had important roles, many of these revitalizations have taken hold without significant (or at least primary)
government intervention or involvement.
27
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
.
Recreation Services
Current Situation
River Road
Recreation services in River Road are provided by the long established River Road Parks and Recreation
District and by the City of Eugene. The District operates Emerald Park, including a community center,
indoor pool, fitness center, and outdoor recreational facilities. The District offers adult, youth and family
sports and recreational programs. The District also operates two other sites offering recreation classes –
The Annex at Hillcrest and River Road and Gymnastics NW on Prairie Road. The City of Eugene makes
an annual $100,000 payment to the River Road Parks and Recreation District allowing in-City residents of
River Road to use District facilities and programs at in-District rates. This payment is fixed and does not
increase as the Districts costs increase or as tax revenues decline with annexations to the City. There is
no reciprocal agreement or payment permitting River Road non-City residents to use City facilities at in-
City rates. District facilities and programs are also used by Santa Clara neighborhood residents who pay
out-of-District fees.
City recreation services are provided through Eugene’s Library, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department. A wide variety of City recreation services are available to River Road residents at venues
and sites around Eugene. An after-school recreation program is administered by the City of Eugene at
Kelly Middle School in River Road, funded by a Project Rising Expectations Grant in partnership with
Eugene District 4-J Public Schools. Specific City of Eugene parks facilities are discussed in more detail
under the “Parks, Open Space and Natural Areas” section of this White Paper. Eugene’s City-owned
parks are operated and maintained by the City Public Works Department.
Presently, the River Road Parks and Recreation District devotes over three times the rate of taxes per
$1,000 to recreation services than does Eugene. To be fair, however, economies of scale are reflected in
the portion of Eugene’s tax rate that is devoted to recreation services, and no multi-purpose taxing entity
is probably ever going to exceed the commitment of a single-purpose agency serving a smaller
community. Therefore, tax rates devoted to recreation are not a very useful barometer relative to level of
service.
There have been recent discussions between the City of Eugene and the River Road Parks and
Recreation District addressing the stage at which all or nearly all of River Road is incorporated and the
circumstances and terms under which the District might “sunset” as a special district. Issues such as
transfer of District staff, continuation of benefits, interim governance, and like concerns have been the
primary focus. These discussions are currently on hold.
Santa Clara
No publicly owned and/or operated community or recreation centers are located in the Santa Clara,
except for the Gymnastics NW facility operated by the River Road Parks and Recreation District. City
recreation services are provided through Eugene’s Library, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.
A wide variety of City recreation services are available to Santa Clara residents at venues and sites
around Eugene. The City administers an after-school recreation program at Madison Middle School in
Santa Clara, funded by a special tax levy that expires in June 2007. Also, in partnership with Eugene
School District 4J, the City jointly developed and administers the artificial surface playing field at North
Eugene High School.
All parks within the Santa Clara neighborhood are owned and operated by the City. Lane County
operates two riverside boat launches that are close-by but outside of the formal neighborhood boundary
and the UGB. Please see the section of this White Paper entitled “Parks, Open Space and Natural Areas”
for more discussion.
28
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
There are no recreation services directly (e.g.: at in-City or in-District fee rates) available to non-City
Santa Clara residents, as there is no neighborhood parks and recreation district as in River Road and
Lane County does not provide recreation services. All Santa Clara residents may use River Road Parks
and Recreation District facilities and programs by paying out-of-District fees. Non-City Santa Clara
residents can also use City of Eugene recreation facilities and programs by paying out-of-City fees.
Transition and Heritage Options
River Road
Given the apparent popularity with both tax- and fee payers of the River Road Parks and Recreation
District, and limited City recreation programs delivered physically within the neighborhood, the City of
Eugene and River Road Parks and Recreation District may consider focusing on solutions that perpetuate
the District for as long as possible, rather then in negotiating for the end of the District. A viable River
Road Parks and Recreation District may also present some opportunities to provide more in-
neighborhood recreation services in Santa Clara (see options below).
Please note that some of the options discussed herein for perpetuating the River Road Parks and
Recreation District may face significant legal and practical limitations. Put most simply, at the point at
which properties in the District are fully incorporated into the City, the District would have no property left
to tax to generate operational funds. Even if alternative funding could be found, under State statute (ORS
222.510) the continued operation of the District would not be permitted. Any continuance of the District
past the point of complete incorporation into the City would have to involve the City withdrawing from
providing recreation services to the neighborhood (or the City as a whole), and ceding such services to an
expanded District or some other provider (such as Willamalane Parks and Recreation). These and related
issues are discussed later in this section of the White Paper.
Santa Clara
The above discussion regarding on the River Road Parks and Recreation District begs the question of
what happens in Santa Clara, which has no comparable neighborhood governed recreation services. At
some point in the past, an expansion of River Road Parks and Recreation to include Santa Clara might
have been a potential option. The pace of large tract incorporation and new development in Santa Clara,
and the other issues surrounding the continuance of the District, even within its current service territory,
may render expansion as an idea whose “time has passed”.
Alternatively, the River Road Parks and Recreation District could effectively expand to Santa Clara by
contracting with the City to take over City recreation services in that neighborhood. Issues mitigating
against this is the financial ability of the River Road Parks and Recreation District to undertake any
necessary capital improvements (or lease of suitable space) in Santa Clara, the presently limited scope of
City recreation programs delivered physically within the neighborhood, and whether a sufficient funds
transfer could be obtained from the City so that District taxes collected from the River Road neighborhood
were not, in effect, partly “transferred” to Santa Clara to subsidize new programs and/or facilities. Finally,
there might be some reaction on the part of River Road residents over “their” parks and recreation
district’s attention and finances being “diverted” by Santa Clara expansion obligations.
Important note: Although the options presented below are organized into “transition” and “heritage”
alternatives and also further sorted by neighborhood, this is only for the purposes of clarity and
description. There may be many reasons for two or more options to be selected and combined into an
overall strategy for recreation services to River Road and Santa Clara.
Transition Options
Recreation service transition options are those alternatives that support continued recreation programs
and services in one or both of the neighborhoods, but for which the ultimate outcome is the eventual
replacement of the locally governed service with a City-wide or regional option.
29
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
?
River Road Transition Option No. 1: Immediate River Road Parks and Recreation District
Dissolution
– The Districtwould simply cease operations and dispose of its assets as it sees fit
and to the extent there is a market for such assets.
Advantages: Recognizes the probable “ultimate” parks and recreation service configuration for
River Road under current regional policy (e.g.: City provides services within its
boundaries)
Challenges: Eliminates a popular and successful community institution perhaps “before its
time”; means the loss of a local governance option for the neighborhood;
potential lose of a community “center” (if no operator for Emerald Park is found)
?
River Road Transition Option No. 2: Dissolution Agreement with City –
Negotiate an
agreement with the City for transition decision-making, timing of dissolution, disposal or transfer
of assets, and transfer of employment of District staff (note: such an agreement has been the
subject of active discussion between the District and the City in the past year, and could still be a
pragmatic element of an overall strategy for sustaining the District for a considerable period of
time).
Advantages: Provides clarity to the timing of the District’s dissolution, disposal of assets, future
of District employees, etc.
Challenges: Local investment in and support of the District may diminish once the transition is
underway; may send the wrong message to District taxpayers and patrons (e.g.:
that the District no longer needs community support or patronage).
?
River Road Transition Option No. 3: Contract for Recreation Services through City -
Negotiate an agreement with the City that specifies long-term decision-making arrangements,
timing of the transition of the District from a direct to a contract service provider, disposal or
transfer of assets, and transfer of employment of District staff.District would continue as a
governance body but all services would be supplied by the City under contract (similar to how the
City provides fire protection services to all of River Road through a contract with the River Road
Water District).
Advantages: Provides clarity to the timing of the District’s disposal of assets, future of District
employees, etc.; continues an element of neighborhood governance in recreation
service delivered to River Road (e.g.: the District would still be an independently
governed special district)
Challenges: Local investment in and support of the District may diminish once the transition is
underway; still eliminates many elements of local control; may weaken and
diminish status of the District as a key local institution
?
Santa Clara Transition Options –
As there are currently no “resident’ recreation services for
non-City property in Santa Clara, there are no services to transition and thus no transition options
to delineate. Options for recreation services to this neighborhood are discussed under Santa
Clara Heritage Options below.
Heritage Options
Heritage options are those that will sustain the River Road Parks and Recreation District as a viable
neighborhood service provider for the foreseeable future or create other viable entities for providing
neighborhood governed recreation services.
?
River Road Heritage Option No. 1: Maintain Current Service Arrangements –
Continue to
provide River Road Parks and Recreation District services as at present with the current out-of-
District fees and City payment structure. A major impediment to the long-term viability of this
option is the continued pace of annexation combined with factors as increases in operating costs
30
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
and the fixed level of City support payments. Practically speaking, for the “status quo” to be
maintained in the long-term the City would have to agree to some sort of scheduled increase in
support payments tied to a benchmark such as the consumer price index, land values or the rate
of decline in the Districts tax base due to annexation.
Advantages: Status quo is maintained, element of local governance (e.g.: locally elected
special district governing board) is maintained
Challenges: As incorporation of properties in River Road continues, the District’s tax base will
shrink - eventually to the point that the combination of taxes, City payments, and
out-of-District program fees may no longer adequately or logically support District
services and facilities; at the point at which the District is down to one property
(theoretically this would be Emerald Park) an annual City transfer payment of
approximately $1.2 million would be required (note: this estimate is based on the
current District operating budget).
?
River Road Heritage Option No. 2: Expand Current Agreement with City
– With respect to
just the River Road neighborhood, include provisions in a modified agreement with the City
allowing City resident fees for non-City residents wishing to use City programs and facilities.
Note: see further discussion below on Santa Clara for additional related options.
Advantages: Mirrors the current accommodation that Eugene makes for City residents in River
Road wishing to use District facilities and programs; encourages cooperation
between City and District services
Challenges: Potentially draws off patronage from District facilities and programs; also to the
extent that District payments to the City under such an agreement may
counterbalance current City payments to the District, and the District’s operations
may be a net loser.
?
River Road Heritage Option No. 3:Expand District Services within River Road
- Expand
services beyond current agreements between the City and District by developing a contract
whereby the District continues and expands its “home grown” services and potentially buys
additional services from the City (or from other service providers for that matter), OR the City
simply contracts with the District to be the direct provider of all recreation services in the
neighborhood. Note: in some respects this option is not all that different from some of the
agreements that are currently in place or being considered. The important distinction is the
central benchmark that all parties would start from – that the District needs to be preserved as a
community institution and primary service provider for as long as possible (rather than the District
needs to negotiate its orderly dissolution). This same “benchmark” can apply to other heritage
options discussed herein
Advantages: The District would maintain its autonomy and status as an important home
governed entity; a growing service provider is more likely to succeed as a long-
term service provider; concerns over the future status of district employees, the
gradual erosion of the district’s tax base through annexation, keeping SDC
revenue within the neighborhood, etc. could be further mitigated through contract
terms.
Challenges: The District probably could not provide all the recreation services available
through the City (suggesting the possible need for “reverse” cost reimbursements
to Eugene to make City programs available to River Road); some River Road city
residents may prefer direct service by Eugene; the City provides many recreation
services to River Road (just not physically within River Road); other things being
equal (such as adequate funding and other resources) the City could probably
bring some cost efficiencies to recreation programming being a larger entity than
even an expanded District
31
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
?
Santa Clara Heritage Option No1: Expand River Road Parks and Recreation District
.
Services to Santa Clara –
The City could contract with the River Road Parks and Recreation
District to serve in-City Santa Clara residents in manner roughly similar to how the Eugene Water
and Electric Board (EWEB) retails water services through the two local water districts, how the
City provides fire protection through the River Road Water District, and how the City used to
contract with Santa Clara Fire for fire protection services to in-City residents of that neighborhood.
Advantages: Potentially provides the District with more revenue and patronage by expanding
its base; the District would potentially strengthen its autonomy and status as an
important home governed entity; doesn’t require voter approval of a District
boundary change; provides Santa Clara with more direct access to neighborhood
governed recreation services; opens up opportunities for District developed and
operated community facilities in Santa Clara.
Challenges: Not every City recreation program offered in or for Santa Clara may be in the
interest of, or feasible for, the River Road Parks District to operate; revenues
generated by a Santa Clara expansion may not match demand for services; the
City provides many recreation services to Santa Clara (just not physically within
Santa Clara); patrons of the District may prefer that the District concentrate
exclusively on River Road; some Santa Clara in-City residents may prefer direct
service by Eugene; doesn’t necessarily solve the issue of service to non-City
residents; cost of building the necessary physical recreation facilities.
?
Santa Clara Option No. 2: Expand River Road Parks and Recreation District Boundaries to
Santa Clara –
River Road incorporates Santa Clara into its special district service and taxing
boundary.
Advantages: Potentially strengthens the Parks District and improves its chances of
“longevity”; gives Santa Clara a new governance option and neighborhood
service around which to build and sustain its sense of community.
Challenges: Some Santa Clara residents may prefer City recreation services (and being able
to obtain such services for in-City recreation fees); boundary change requires a
vote; pace of annexation and new development in Santa Clara may make this an
idea whose “time has passed”; the City provides many recreation services to
Santa Clara (just not physically within Santa Clara); patrons of the District may
prefer that the District concentrate exclusively on River Road; new taxes and
fees generated by the expansion of the District may not be sufficient to meet
Santa Clara’s demands for District services; cost of building the necessary
physical recreation facilities.
Miscellaneous Options
Miscellaneous options are those that do not fit “neatly” within the definitions of transition and heritage
options and/or that contemplate changes that could significantly impact both the River Road and Santa
Clara neighborhoods and/or the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area as a whole.
?
Miscellaneous Option No. 1: Create or Expand a Regional Recreation Service Provider
-
Current State statutes do not allow for special districts to operate within cities if the city and the
district provide the same service. Thus, for some options discussed above, the City of Eugene
would have to “opt out” of recreation services if the River Road Parks and Recreation District
were to continue in any form once its entire service territory was incorporated into the City.
If the City were to opt out of recreation services, the River Road Parks and Recreation District
could theoretically contract with the City or expand its boundaries to serve the entire City.
Alternatively, and technically at least significantly more possible than a River Road “take-over”,
the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District (currently the recreation services provider in the
32
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
City of Springfield and parts of Lane County) could step in by contract or a voter approved
boundary expansion. The scenario of River Road “morphing” into a regional service provider is
obviously very remote, and even a Willamalane expansion would entail considerable effort and
negotiation.
Advantages: Provides for a “recreation-centric” regional service provider; resolves all issues of
resident and non-resident access to facilities and programs; potentially frees up
City taxing authority for other services; taxing for recreation on a regional basis
may be more attractive to the voters and may be more cost efficient
Challenges: Represents an almost unimaginable change for the River Road Parks and
Recreation District, and a considerable change for Willamalane; does nothing for
the issues of local neighborhood governance or heritage, and essentially acts
counter to these concerns; local officials and/or voters may not be sympathetic to
creating or expanding a regional recreation services authority
?
Miscellaneous Option No. 2: Create New Community Center(s) -
As demonstrated by the
functioning of River Road’s Emerald Park complex, some form of community center may be
important to the survival of a sense of distinct “place” for the Santa Clara neighborhood,
especially in light of the challenges in creating a Santa Clara/Beltline Road neighborhood
commercial node (see further discussion under the section of this White Paper entitled
“Planning”). There has been talk in the past of converting a de-commissioned school on River
Road to a Santa Clara community center. Purchase and rehabilitation cost, building code issues,
and operational costs and management have all complicated this discussion.
Advantages: The very fact and function of new neighborhood community center(s) is the
“advantage”.
Challenges: Cost of purchasing, building or rehabilitating a center; cost of operating a center;
finding a center operator
?
Miscellaneous Option No. 3: Alternatives to New “Dedicated” Community Center
-
Alternatives that could at least “backfill” some of the functions of a neighborhood community
center could be community space in local City offices or Fire District fire halls, or lease (by the
City or some other entity) of commercial space in neighborhood commercial nodes. The fiscal
and operational viability of leasing commercial space or converting single purpose public facilities
could be increased by aggregating several disparate activities – recreation, volunteer library,
public safety storefront – in a single location.
Advantages: The very fact and function of new neighborhood community center(s) is the
“advantage”; leasing of commercial facilities (or multi-use of public facilities) may
be a less cost intensive and a faster way to establish community centers than via
a standalone, City owned facility.
Challenges: Cost of leasing or rehabilitating a center; cost of operating a center; finding a
center operator; feasibility of using current single purpose public facilities for
multi-purposes
?
Miscellaneous Option No. 4: Designation of Parks Capital Funding
– As an approved new
City policy, as part of an all-encompassing agreement with the River Road Parks and Recreation
District, or as part of the implementation of another heritage or transition option described herein,
the City could set aside the development-generated System Development Charges (SDC) funds
collected in River Road and/or Santa Clara, and dedicate said funds exclusively to neighborhood
recreation capital projects and land acquisitions.
Advantages: Assures local parks fees are spent locally; potentially expands the capacity of
both the City and Parks District to serve the neighborhood(s) directly
33
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Challenges: Level of SDC’s are calculated based on entire City need and allocation to the
neighborhoods may be contrary to overall parks capital plans; segregation of
parks funding in this manner may set a precedent that other neighborhoods will
want to follow; increase in capital facilities means increasing operational costs for
which there may not be funding; depending on how SDC and other capital funds
are currently allocated, a neighborhood “earmarking” policy could actually reduce
funding to River Road and Santa Clara
What Another Community Has Done
There are examples of parks districts in other regions that provide in-city parks services. For instance, the
Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District provides all parks and recreation services within the City of
Beaverton. Closer to home, the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District provides similar service to the
City of Springfield. Both these districts serve areas larger than just these cities, however, and current
State statute does not allow for special districts to operate within fully incorporated city territory if the city
and the district provide the same service.
34
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Streets
Current Situation
Information reviewed concerning neighborhood desires with respect to streets and transportation (such as
the 2002 River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Committee report) indicates that preservation of rural
streetscapes in the face of urbanization is second perhaps only to parks and open space as a transition
issue impacting the two neighborhood’s rural heritage. The challenge in River Road and Santa Clara is to
assure public safety and avoid problems as traffic volumes growth, while sustaining physical elements of
the neighborhood’s rural heritage, such as older treed street sections.
Safety and traffic flows are obviously paramount concerns, but other values can be given significant
consideration. The City of Eugene is reasonably compelled to require full improvements at the time of
redevelopment or redevelopment, simply because an adjacent new housing project can be required to
make such upgrades as part of an overall development approval, or for traffic or safety considerations
Nonetheless, given that (at least with local streets) the issue of rural vs. suburban standards will often be
most strongly felt in older developed neighborhoods, there may be opportunities for the City to facilitate
the preservation of “heritage” streetscapes by balancing neighborhood needs with City-wide standards.
The surface street transportation systems in both neighborhoods include County and City jurisdiction
roads. County and City built roadways differ somewhat both because some County roads are older and
reflect the standards of the past, and because current standards are not necessarily consistent between
the two jurisdictions. More recently constructed roads exhibit common standards irrespective of
jurisdiction, as the City of Eugene has exercised functional transportation planning authority over River
Road and Santa Clara for nearly 20 years by intergovernmental agreement with Lane County.
The City and County have developed a series of other agreements for coordinating street maintenance
and improvements in River Road and Santa Clara, and in other areas within the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB). Maintenance agreements specify individual streets as a City or County responsibility irrespective
of legal jurisdiction. The most current agreements identify and assign responsibility for a long list of
specific streets in the Santa Clara and River Road neighborhoods. The City and County also enter into
agreements to fund and construct upgrades to roads in “mixed” jurisdiction areas.
There are some distinctions that can be made between the two neighborhoods when it comes to streets,
primarily based on the pattern of older development and the opportunity for new or more recent
development. These are described below. For the purposes of discussing transition and heritage options
addressing streets and transportation, however, the two neighborhoods will be treated herein together.
With the caution that these are generalized descriptions with many exceptions, the pattern (and attendant
implications) of neighborhood street patterns, could be described as follows:
River Road
River Road, particularly south of Horn Street, is characterized by long east-west blocks. Between Horn
and Howard Street, there are many long north-south blocks and some long local streets that simply dead-
end. These street patterns would “date” the area as older than other parts of the neighborhood.
River Road north of Howard to Beltline Road exhibits a subdivision and local street pattern that looks
more typically contemporary and urban than areas south of Howard (e.g. blocks are shorter, there is more
regular pattern of connectivity between streets, etc.), although the pattern is still very grid-like. A
subdivision to the west of Bramblewood Park is an exception to this characterization, exhibiting a mix of
cul-de-sac and curvilinear streets that indicate a more recent subdivision.
There appears to be only a couple of tracts left in the River Road neighborhood that could accommodate
substantial new residential development, therefore most opportunities to upgrade streets through
35
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
development processes will be limited to single lot or small tract projects (or through City/County special
assessment processes).
Santa Clara
The pattern of local streets in Santa Clara is generally more uniform than with River Road. As a general
characterization, local streets in the more southerly parts of Santa Clara look much like local streets
between Howard and Beltline. Streets gradually become more curvilinear and “contemporary” (e.g.: more
cul-de-sacs and grid-like with fewer perfectly rectangular, 2:1 ratio lots) the further north one goes in
Santa Clara. There is also a high coincidence between these more contemporary subdivisions and
incorporation into the City. While there appear to be more undeveloped tracts than in River Road, the
neighborhood is still relatively close to build-out, at least based on the parameter of platted lots.
Generally, the contrasting pattern of development between the two neighborhoods may have the practical
implication of making preservation of local streetscapes more of an issue in River Road than in Santa
Clara, in the sense that there appears to be a greater number of “rural” street sections left in River Road .
Transition and Heritage Options
Transition Options
Other than continuing to sustain the current cooperative efforts between the City and Lane County with
respect to road jurisdiction, maintenance, and improvements, there are no “transition” options in Santa
Clara and River Road as such. Potential standards and programs below all address heritage options
(e.g.: those that will help to sustain aspects of the neighborhood’s historic rural character).
Heritage Options
?
Option No. 1: Street Tree Preservation -
When existing rural streets are upgraded, the City
could develop a suite of options that help to preserve street trees and vistas. These options can
apply to arterials and collectors as well as local streets. Such accommodations could include
offsetting street sections within the right-of-way, reducing lane width, eliminating or reducing
sidewalks on one or both sides, or building the street section closer than normally permitted to
existing developments if the expected life span of the trees is greater than that of the existing
development (e.g.: when the older structures are replaced, preferred setbacks can be re-
established but the longer-lived trees will still be there).
Advantages: Preserves a very significant streetscape element; addresses a specific and
significant issue of concern for many neighborhood residents; the City Code
already includes provisions for designating and preserving “heritage” trees
Challenges: Available right-of-way and age and/or location of abutting development may
make such accommodations difficult; could involve significant variance from City
standards; probably needs to be implemented as a City-wide option
?
Option No2: Leave Local Streets “As-is” -
. If residents on local (and perhaps minor collector)
streets express a clear preference for open ditch drainage, no sidewalks, narrower sections
and/or other “historic” characteristics of the street, the City could let matters remain as-is. This
could be relatively straightforward action where lots abutting a residential street are essentially
built-out. In such cases, the City would simply be continuing the status quo. In other cases, where
continued infill or redevelopment increases densities, surface water flows, or traffic levels,
conventional upgrades standards (and connectivity requirements) could be triggered when pre-
determined thresholds are reached.
Presently, the City of Eugene’s backlog with respect to paving unimproved streets and replacing
worn infrastructure on other local streets is so great that “as-is” is in effect the City operational
policy. Local streets are typically only upgraded in response to resident demand.
36
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Advantages: Preserves existing local streetscapes; City is probably unlikely to improve local
streets without substantial pressure from residents; eliminates any sense (or
reality) of dislocation among current residents to the extent that improvements
may narrow front yards, cut down trees, increase traffic and attendant noise;
narrower (presumably) paved street sections can deter traffic speeds and “short-
cut” traffic; the City backlog in improving local streets is so great that “as-is” is in
effect the de-facto operational policy.
Challenges: May perpetuate safety, drainage or other problems associated with the older
street section (if such problems in fact exist); retaining older street sections may
require increased maintenance costs
?
Option No. 3:Local Street Transitions -
When existing local (and perhaps minor collector)
streets are extended by new development, the City could consider utilizing the improvement level
of the older section (or adopting some middle ground such a matched street widths, eliminating
sidewalks, etc.) in building the new extensions. This approach should, however, be appropriately
mitigated where the street is or becomes an access to a major activity center such as a school or
park. City street standards are currently being reassessed with respect to narrower street
sections, curb-less streets, and a variety of other “minimum” design parameters. If applied to local
and collector streets in River Road and Santa Clara, these new standards could help address
street transition and upgrade concerns/
Advantages: Better preserves existing local streetscapes; provides for uniformity along
individual streets (e.g.: avoids having improvements transition back and forth to
differing standards); City street standards are currently being modified to permit
narrower streets and other options that may help to preserve local character.
Challenges: Residents of newer sections may prefer to have urban level street improvements;
opportunity for the City to obtain full standard streets through development
dedications may be lost; may not be desirable where the extension means the
street becomes an access to a significant traffic generator
?
Option No. 4: Connectivity –
Many older neighborhood residents like their long dead-ended
older streets. Absent some over-riding and significant public safety or access concern, the City
could moderate its requirements for connectivity in association with deferring upgrades of local
street sections (see options above). As a middle ground, the City could perhaps acquire right-of-
way connections without building the actual connection, and/or initially limit connectivity to
pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike lanes.
Advantages: Preserves existing local streetscapes; limits any sense (or reality) of dislocation
among current residents to the extent that improved connections may increase
traffic and attendant noise; right-of-way acquisition preserves options for physical
connections in the future; when associated with bike and pedestrian connectivity
may reduce some vehicle trips
Challenges: Deferring connectivity contrary to one of the goals of connectivity – reducing
dependence on and length of vehicle trips; opportunity for the City to obtain full
standard streets through development dedications may be lost; the State
Transportation Rule makes connectivity and the provision of non-vehicular
alternatives (such as pathways and bikeways) among the key considerations in
transportation planning and improvements.
?
Option No. 5: Traffic Calming -
A variety of effective and proven improvements are available to
slow traffic and deter “short-cutting” of through traffic into local residential neighborhoods. Such
traffic calming measures can go a long way to preserving the “feel” of a local street, even as
community and traffic increase around the neighborhood. These “calming” improvements include
speed humps, traffic circles, median islands, narrowed pedestrian crossings, etc.
37
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Advantages: Already a City program; may help mitigate impacts of decisions to upgrade
and/or connect streets; avoids to a great extent any policy and uniformity issues
associated with varying standards for individual neighborhoods; traffic calming
improvements - besides the safety benefits – can be used to help connect
neighborhoods across busy streets
Challenges: Such improvements can be relatively expensive; some view such improvements
as annoying to dangerous to simply too costly relative to the benefit
?
Option No. 6: Arterial and Collector Upgrades -
In addition to applying some or all of the ideas
above, the City might consider deferring complete urban street upgrades to higher traffic volume
thresholds than presently applied. (Note: the term “threshold” is used generically. The City does
not have a street upgrade policy triggered by measured levels of service)
Advantages: Preserves existing streetscapes; defers high costs associated with arterial or
collector upgrades
Challenges: Safety, maintenance and traffic volume issues for street functioning as arterials
or collectors without the physical capacity to do so properly; higher volume
thresholds may be reached at a juncture where financing or priorities for such
improvements are low; as arterials and collectors serve larger “constituencies”
than just the neighborhoods they pass through, not all users may be sympathetic
to “heritage” considerations
What Another Community Has Done
The City of Eugene is its own best example for some of options outlined above. The City already has a
traffic calming program underway. The City has also been examining “Context Sensitive Design”
Standards for at least one Eugene neighborhood (Crest Drive). The ideas presented above are simply
some potential elements of a “context sensitive” reconsideration of the street standards applied to Santa
Clara and River Road.
The City of Wilsonville, Oregon has a longstanding street tree preservation policy that has been applied to
all levels of street classifications. Connectivity can be deferred, sidewalks eliminated, building-to-curb
setbacks reduced, street sections shifted within the right-of-way, and even rights-of-way reduced or re-
routed. The threshold in the decline in level of service that warrants street upgrades are also set higher in
Wilsonville than in some other communities. This policy is also applied to preserve wetlands and other
sensitive lands in Wilsonville that are impacted by street extensions or upgrades. The City of Wilsonville
also waives selected street standards in older neighborhoods in favor of preservation of the historic
character of such areas. These policies have been applied to all street classifications – arterials,
collectors and local streets
38
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Surface Water Management
Current Situation
The City of Eugene and Lane County share surface water management responsibilities in the River Road
and Santa Clara neighborhoods. The City and County are jointly undertaking a joint surface water master
plan for the two neighborhoods. Reviewed materials (such as the 2002 Urban Services Report) don’t
perceived
identify any major surface water issues in the neighborhoods, although this could change as
additional subdivision and infill occurs and older properties redevelop with more impermeable surfaces (or
when a major storm event or particularly wet winter season causes significant flooding and drainage
problems). Those concerns that are expressed in the 2002 Committee report primarily speak to storm
water quantity and localized flooding issues such as:
?
Yard debris removal and illegal dumping (presumably with respect to the impact on localized
flooding from clogged catch basins)
?
Destruction and alteration of natural drainage channels and streams.
?
Need for better planning and regulation of building and development practices that impact
drainage.
Water quality issues are simply not mentioned in the 2002 Urban Services Report. Further examination or
events could reveal more universal concerns, as surface water management has become a major driver
of community planning in other Oregon communities (as well as other parts of Eugene).
City of Eugene officials have identified a range of issues that past and present circumstances may not as
yet been “brought to the fore” in the minds of neighborhood residents. These include:
?
The number of drywells in the two neighborhoods that may not comply with current environmental
regulations
?
Lack of an approved basin and surface water master plan(s) and regulations for the
neighborhoods (the City and County have such plans and regulations in development)
?
Lack of water quality protections and TMDL standards for local waterways (these efforts are also
underway by the City and County)
Concerns over the ability of rural surface water systems to handle urban flows are many and legitimate,
although public agencies and private engineers have over the last 15 years been developing many
“greenfrastructure” solutions to both surface water quality and quantity concerns. Clean Water Services
(formerly the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County) and its partner cities, and Portland’s
Bureau of Environmental Services, have pioneered many innovative and effective techniques, some of
which have the side “benefit” of preserving more “rural type” landscapes and streetscapes. Although
these solutions work best when undertaken in a comprehensive manner (e.g.: “ridgetop to streambed”
solutions that include site design, vegetative cover, “green streets”, sensitive lands preservation, surface
permeability limitations, and more), individual surface water system components (for instance, bio-swales)
do have individual utility when applied in situations that best support their effectiveness.
Transition and Heritage Options
Surface water management appears to have few distinct transition or heritage impacts for River Road and
except
Santa Clara, for the impacts of various road drainage options on existing streetscapes and/or the
benefits of preserving natural, drainage and stream corridors for both open space and surface water
management benefits. These benefits, especially when combined with other potential community
strategies, such a context sensitive street design and open space preservation, can be significant. These
are discussed briefly below and reiterated in specific options discussed under the “Planning”, Streets and
Transportation”, and “Parks and Open Space” sections of this White Paper
39
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Option No. 1: Street Drainage
- In the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods, “greenfrastructure”
surface water management solutions can “backstop” some of the rural streetscape preservation ideas
discussed elsewhere in this White Paper. One option is retention of open drainage ditches - re-constituted
as bio-swales - that provide for many water quality and quantity benefits that are lost or that have to be
engineered in conventional piped solutions to storm run-off. Adoption of such standards would
compliment any changes in street section standards that preserve rural street appearance.
Option No. 2: Integration with Open Space Preservation
- Another iteration of greenfrastructure
solutions approaches is to incorporate water quality/quantity treatment or retention ponds directly into
open space and park facilities, helping to control water flows and quality while also providing an open
space and visual amenity. The preservation and restoration of streams and other natural water features,
riparian zones, wetlands, 100-year floodplain, and natural drainage systems also can make significant
contributions to water quality and flood management without resorting to “engineered” solutions.
40
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Public Safety - Solid Waste Collection - Water Supply -
Sanitary Sewer
Two other services were included in River Road and Santa Clara Urban Services Committee report
published in 2002 - public safety, and water supply. Sanitary sewer service was not discussed as a
separate topic in the 2002 Committee report, although the “forced” sewering of both neighborhoods in the
late 1980’s appears to be a nadir in neighborhood/City relations in the minds of many long-term residents.
Sewer service as a transition or heritage issue appears to be moot at this point and will not be
further discussed in the context of the transition or heritage options outlined in this White Paper.
In addition, the impacts of differences in County and City standards and rates for solid waste collection
and curb-side recycling have been recently raised by the City.
Based on the above referenced 2002 Committee report and other documents reviewed, the level and
quality of police, solid waste and water supply services seem to be generally satisfactory (or at least
acceptable) to the two neighborhoods. It should be noted, however, that some City and County officials
consider that public safety services are more problematic than the “average” neighborhood resident may
perceive. These issues are summarized below.
Nonetheless, based on documented perceptions within the neighborhoods, few transition issues and
even fewer heritage opportunities attach themselves to these three above referenced services (sanitary
sewer is excluded). Therefore, the following section departs from the standard White Paper format, and
only briefly discusses one or two issues and ideas for each service.
Public Safety
A review of documents evaluating community needs and perceptions indicates that public safety services
are generally not an overarching issue of concern in River Road or Santa Clara. This notwithstanding,
Lane County officials do perceive serious public safety service issues county-wide, and are developing a
public safety service proposals in response. In early 2005, Lane County was discussing sponsoring a
ballot measure in November 2006 that would form a Public Safety special service district. Approval and
implementation of such a measure could shift the equation with respect to County resources available to
Santa Clara and River Road, although as a County-wide measure the service district would not
necessarily have more impact on River Road or Santa Clara than any other part of the County. This
notwithstanding, the County appears as of writing not to be proceeding with this initiative.
Both Santa Clara and River Road benefit from the presence of City, County and/or State law enforcement
based on municipal boundaries, road jurisdictions, inter-agency agreements, and “undocumented”
practice. The “gerrymandered” pattern of City and County jurisdiction in both the River Road and Santa
Clara neighborhoods can, however, make it particularly challenging for local law enforcement agencies to
distinguish between their own citizens and other residents (although the onset of in-patrol car computers
and other technology has made this a simpler matter than in the past). It is not unknown in areas
transitioning from one jurisdiction to another that the law enforcement agency most proximate to the
public safety incident will respond (particularly to emergency or major crime incidents) simply because
public safety agencies often see it in the interest of overall local public safety to respond to calls and
crimes in the community irrespective of jurisdictional status.
These are reasonably common issues in urban/rural transitions throughout Oregon and elsewhere, and
the complications are sometimes mitigated by one law enforcement agency (typically the county sheriff)
“withdrawing” from their jurisdictional territory in favor of a more proximate city police department. Such
withdrawals are not necessarily memorialized by intergovernmental agreement.
Alternatively, some County sheriffs offices have developed (and taxed for) “enhanced patrol”
services on in-county lands immediately adjacent to cities that begin to take on urban
characteristics as a result of population growth.
41
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
Although the more “informal” withdrawal option described above works in many “transitioning”
communities, it does raise issues of tax equity and can mean that less significant crimes and
misdemeanors don’t get the full attention of public safety services. Short of an enhanced patrol option or
public safety district solution, where a single law enforcement agency provides full service to all residents
and businesses, the gerrymandered nature of the Santa Clara and River Road neighborhoods may work
against “rationalizing” police services until such time as the entire area is incorporated. Then again, the
current arrangements do not seem to be excessively problematic under present circumstances.
Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and recycling was an issue not addressed in the Urban Services Committee’s 2002
report. Recently, City officials expressed a concern over a perceived service and rate inequity between in-
City and non-City solid waste collection customers in River Road and Santa Clara. Typically in many, if
not most, other communities (at least in Oregon) the local government franchises out solid waste
collection, curb-side recycling and yard debris pick-up to private haulers. Rates and service levels are
established by multi-year franchise agreements. To the extent that rate and service differences between
City and County residents and businesses in River Road and Santa Clara is a problem, an
intergovernmental agreement for solid waste haulers whereby the City’s and County’s franchise
terms – service standards, services offered, rates, etc. - are made identical may resolve the issue.
Water Supply
The River Road and Santa Clara Water Districts provide for “retail” water supply delivery and water
system maintenance for non-City properties in these two neighborhoods. The two water districts are also
responsible for maintaining and replacing local water transmission infrastructure. The Eugene Water and
Electric Board (EWEB) provides direct service to City residents, and “wholesales” water supply to the two
local water districts.
The nature, regulation and complexity of contemporary water supply systems are such that the current
system of direct provision or “wholesale” delivery through EWEB is really the only viable approach. In fact,
with the only remaining functions of the two water districts being “pass-through” water retailers
and maintainers of the local delivery system, there is little substantial benefit left to sustaining
these districts, absent some benefit as a neighborhood governed institution that has some
measure of control over rates. Practically speaking, however, such small districts have little or no
leverage in dictating rates or supply in a way that would appreciably benefit their local customers.
The same applies to the role of the two water districts in maintaining and improving transmission
infrastructure. Again, this function may have some neighborhood control benefits, but practically speaking
such small water districts may be severely restrained fiscally in their ability to make major capital
improvements on their own.
For River Road’s non-City residents, perhaps the most important “transition” benefit of the River
Road Water District is in the District’s role as the contractor with the City for City fire protection
services. Absent the Water District’s intergovernmental contracting authority, or an expansion of a
neighboring rural fire protection district, parts of River Road could be theoretically be unprotected with
respect to fire suppression. The only other River Road neighborhood institution that could take this role
on (even theoretically) is the River Road Parks and Recreation District, which is a very unlikely choice.
42
River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper
DRAFT
11-24-05
Service provider Review
ATTACHl\IENT C
Chapter II
Fundamental Principles and
Growth IVlanagementpoUcy Frame\vork
A. Fundamental I)rinciples
There are seven gi:inyjpJ~;:,)h>fH+6-that are fundamental to the entire A1etro Plan. They
are impHcitly included in the various individual Metro Plan components, These Fundamental
Principles are:
1.
The A1etro Plan is a long-range policy document providing the fnnnework within which
more detailed refinement plans are prepared. This concept is discussed in more detall in
the Introduction (Chapter I).
,.,
To be meaningful, the Metro Plan requires cooperation by an 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. Exarnples where cooperation is essential include planning and
implementation of a transportation system, development of a metropolitan-wide energy
plan, mctropolitan-vv'ide analysis and resolution of certain housing issues, and planning
lor areas outside the urban groWth boundary (UGB) and within the Plan Boundary.
3~
The /v/etm Plan and most of its elements an~ orienh..:d to and require that urban
development occur in a compact configuration \\'ithin lj)gi)}<;;tmp9ljJiH\UGB{+'fH{:';~{j;'J:ih<6i+
Elaboration of this principle is treated in },b,~;ooi~kh~L;';.Sections
of this chapter, and Li}the Public Facilities and Services E01ernent in Chapter m.
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 docu;m~nt 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 l'vfetro Plan is rnoditled. A variety of potential solutions to consistency
problems exisC including modification to the Metro Plan or alteration to the
implementation techniques themselves.
),
The zoning process shall be monitored and adjusted to meet current urban land use
demands through the planning period for all land use categories.
ll-A-J
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 UGR
7. The M~etro Plan \-vas developed to meet the supporting facilities and services necessary to
serve a population of
k'^",?!nmayn1:;"'-H'ax;he4-he.-!~jf"""of..a4k+--t~W-Y<i~af,.1,{f(fG.;-{kpi;-ofld.ing-'dfX)n--t{:1",'Yi.ofl{;..of.gfi:.,,<"'1:11;
Il-A-2
B. l\1etropolitan Goals
~~1t;:~~~:I~;lWL..\;r...jn .~.il~~:h0 'r11':)*,~~x';:i,',n'*J'/i~';~;;~~~::~:~=~1;;:~~~~~!:;::~;~~~~~~~~~;I~~:
ffit!: v; dlKlI iL{tU-t:!t,:/'!!tm-€+efHecfrt~\{jJ1nh~r. n r. Ud~;'lr~Ll;lgnIils;.nJ~.n.t~t~jJilChllilJ~Lt~:,Jii&trR:.:d~.{n
R2yjsDX,jlgjKl)djn~n~~,g.nQ,J~.f;xlx.ts:JJ)sgkD:",,;-'t.fl;6Y'"<:H'&i~+-to-+he..eHti'I''€...P/-(#'i:,.'''i:''-tl'K>)'-i:\ffJ
!H,,'hld0d.h0;:e..a:5'-V.,,~g"H,'i-.tit+jtt."'-<:;;.8:l-t"Hh€Y'{-lPfh?ar..in.ttl<'.;.P!^!tl't;
Growth Management HmJ.t~i>,.lJrh-'~-e'I~~~{S{;'c.A1:~
)"""""Use urban, urbanizable, and rural lands efliciently.
~",_=._.._EncoUfage orderly and efli.cient conversion of land from rurai to urban uses in respons(~
to urban needs, taking into account Inetropolitan and statewide goals.
l__~=_Protect rural lands best suited fix non~urban uses from incompatible urban encroachrnent.
Residenthd Land lJse and Housing
1""""..",Provide viable residential communities so all residents can choose sound. affordable
housing that meets individual needs.
E-conHnlyE~9.n~mJ.is;
1,,~~~=Broaden, improve, and diversi[)' the metropolitan economy \vhile maintaining or
enhancing the environment
Environmental Resources
,L'.,uuProwct valuable natural resources and encourage their wise managernem and proper use
and reLIse, reflecting their special natural assets,
'; ....Maintain a variety of open spaces within and on thc~ fringe of the developing area.
;;L.",,,.Yrotect life and property from the effects of natural hazards,
4. Provide a healthy and attractive envirol1lnent.,tQ~tM~ljnKSk01JjJLLg.Dit((h::(w,\~L{ltS;EJ for the
metropolitan population.
\ViHamette River Greenway, River Corridors,. and \Vatenvays
Protect, conserve. and enhance the natural, scenic, environmental. and ec\mornk qualities
of river and \vaterway corridors.
II-B-l
Environmental Design
.L~==Secure a safe, dean, and comfortable environment ,>vhieh is satistYing to the mind and
sen ses.
2. __Encourage the developrnent of the natural, social, and economic environment in a manner
that is harrnonious with our natural setting and maintains and enhances our quality of lite.
3. ;~;;;;;;.:;;;;;;(~r(~ate and preserve desirable and distinctive qualities in Jocal and neighborhood areas.
Transportation
l'.________-_-..yrovide an integrated transportation and !and use system that supports choices in rnodes
of travel and development patterns that \vill reduce reliance on the automobile and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.
2. .Enhance the Eugene~SpringfieJd metropolitan area's quality of life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
" Balanced.
. Accessible,
. Efficient
.. Safe,
. Interconnected,
. Environmentally responsible,
" Supportive ofresponsible and sustainable development.
· Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts, and
'" EconomicaHy viable and financially stable.
Public Facilities and Services
L.provide and maintain public t~1cilities and services in an dJlcient and environmentaHy
responsible manner.
f,_-Provide public facilities and services in a rnanner that encourages orderly and sequential
growth.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
L__provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities to serve the diverse needs of the
community's citizens.
Il-B-2
Historic Preservation
J"",,,,,,,,,,,Preserve mW,J~jt~u,:~;,.reminders of our origin and historic development as links between
past, present, and future generations.
Energy
.L
,.,,)vlaximize the conservation and emcient utilization of all types of energy.
.')
",,,,Develop environrnentally acceptable energy resource alternatives.
Citizen Involvement
J.,.................Continue to develop, maintain, and refi.ne programs and procedures that maximize the
opportunity for meaningful, ongoing citizen involvement in the community's planning
and planning implementation processes consistent with mandatory statevdde planning
standards.
Metro Plan Review, Ameudmentl1, and Refinement~
,. ",,,,,,,,,Ensure that the A1etro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes
or the com m unity-t.tH.J..ts--i.-ll.Hy.tn-tBgmctJ;;<(}.\v.it:1t'5-tlffOHHi:1tH"d--SHbltl,€fl'f3.hn-s-.
n~B-J
H-B-4
C. Growth JVlanagement Goals, Findings, and Policies
To effectively control the potential 11)r urban sprawl and scattered urbanization, compact growth
and the urban (UGB),';{jP.-~{}iH"H>ft-{,f)fh:<:<pl5' are, and will remain, the primary
growth management techniques for directing geographic patterns of urbanization in the
community. In general, this means the ti.lling in of vacant and underutilized lands, as weJI as
redevelopment inside the UGB.
Outward expans i on 0 f the t"i{~h~d{':ictHfb(tfts-er.v.h:.{~. {il'e'H~",*5.<;1<cfi'B{;d..in.tb~'.GI,:,,'i-s,.H)'U OB, \vill
occur only when it is proven necessary according to the policies set forth in this Metro Plan,
particularly in this element.
Goals
L
2.
3.
Findings and Policies
]findings
I. Many metropolitan areas within the United States that have not implemented geographic
grcf\';th management techniques sutler from scattered or leapfrog urban growth that
leaves vacant and underutiHzed land in its pat.h 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 growih 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, agricuHurallands, and open space from
prernature urban development.
c. i\lorc efEcient use ofIimited file! energy resources and greater use of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities due to less miles of streets and less auto dependence than
othenvis~~ "vould be required.
a.c-j
I 8.
d. Decreased acreage of leapfrogged vacant land, thus resulting in more efficiem and
k:ss 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 fz)1" a
given investment in transit equipment and the like.
<')
_1,
The disadvantages of a too-compact UGB can be a disprop0i1ionate1y 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 UGH and city limits
affect land and housing costs. These include site characteristics, interest rates, state and
federal tax laws, existing public service availability, and fllture public facility costs.
4.
Periodic evaluation of land ust..: needs compared to land supply provides a basis for
orderly and non-excessive conversion of rural land to urbanizable land and provides a
basis ftH' public action to adjust the supply upw'ard in response to the rate of consmnption.
"
,/.
Prior to the latc~ 19605, Eugene and Springfield had no growth managernent policy and,
therefore, growth patterns were generally dictated by natural physical characteristics.
6.
Mandatory statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and DeveJoprnent
Commission (LCDC) require that all communities in the state establish OOBs 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,
"yhich is consistent '.vith the concept, and
limitations on urban scatteration into unincorporated areas, as ilrst embodied in the 1990
Plan.
In addition to Finding 7 above, evidence that the UGB.,s,ep,'i<,-<h:il":'.a..is an effective growth
management tool includes the tdlowing:
a. Consistent reduction over time ofvacam 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
it Increase since 1970 of the proportionate share of residential buBding perrnits
issued within cit.y lirnits.
II-C-2
9. Reduction in the USi..: of zoning provisions and regulatory processes that favor singJe-
family detached dwellings on standard size parcels would increase the opportunity to
realize higher net residential densities than are presently occurring, particularly in ne\vly
developing areas.
10. A variety of public services are provided by Lane County and special service districts to
unincorporated portions oftbe Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
G~}illf:>)
.;.,.P-St'-m4,{m,.-i;t1'bHHtZah.h},.J<lnd-Hlfi:H-~(H::.{h-f.\'ffk:;1€+t~7
- .
2-; Eit'0i;)1;!1'(3;ge'-('Hkl'+Y'({;iHJ.e-ff-i,;'-le l'1t'-,XHl-Vx' rs-ioi,::-of-iw,::d...tl'Ol'n-'l'Ul'a:l..to- 'W'-!J-<fH--il-,<e-s-;,n-l'l:;!3P,:\J1'3i:'; .to
Hfhm+fl<;v,;,,4~,,-tdk-ffi .~~ 1;, lO' a<":CZ-ffi1~'tfBf:'B-~lta n an j;tut 0"\\ d <: t~~-~:' :&;
Objedives
1. Continue to minimize urban scatteration and sprawl by encouraging compact grmvth 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 frorn premature urbanization.
5. \Vhen 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 fCll'm to provide tor growth while preserving
the special character ofthe metropolitan area.
8, Encourage developmem of suitable vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelopab1e land
where services are available, thus capitalizing on public expenditures already made tl.Jf
these services.
H "C-J
9. Protect life and property from natural hazards and natural disasters.
10. Allow smaller outlying communities the opportunity to plan for their O'Nn futures \vithout
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 ineHiciencies by providing t{)r 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 c.ompact urban growth. The provision of all urban services shall be
concentrated inside the UGH.
2. The GGB shaH lie along the outside edge of existing and planned rights-of way that fi)rm
a portion of the UGB so that the full right-of:.\vay is \vithin the UGB.
3. Control of location, timing, and financing of the major public investments that directly
iniluence the growth form of the metropolitan area shall be planned and coordinated on a
metropolitan-\vide basis.
4. Lane County shall discourage urban development in urbanizable and rural areas and
encourage compact development of outlying communities.
5. To rnaintain the existing physical autonomy of the smaller outlying communities, urban
development on agricultural and rural lands beyond the
shall he restricted and based on at least the following criteria:
a. Preservation and conservation of natural resources.
b. Conformity w'ith the policies and provisions of the Lane Coun~y R.ural
Comprehensive Plan that borders the metropolitan area.
c. Contcmnance with applicable mandatory statewide planning goals.
6. Outlying cornrnunities close to Springfield and Eugene shall be encouraged to develop
plans and programs in support of compact urban development.
7. ConVl:rsion of rural and rural agricultural land to urbanizable land through Metro Plan
amendments expanding the ;"erVlf{?.UH.lll- shall be consistent with
mandatory statewide planning ggoal.
g, Land within the UGB may be converted from urbanizable to urban only through
annexation to a city when it is 1(.Hmd that:
1I-C-4
a. A minirnum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area
in an orderly and eft1cient rnanner.
b. There will be a logical area and time within which to deliver urban services and
facilities. Conversion ofurbanizable land to urban shaH also be consistent \,./ith
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.
1 {}, 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
UJDX",,4tkJt,can be employed in urban transition areas.
12. When the fblJowing criteria are met, either Springfield or Eugene may annex land which
is not contiguous to its boundaries,
a, 'fhe area to be annexed will be provided an urban service(s) \vhich is (are) desired
innnediately by residents/property ovmers,
b, The area to be annexed can be serviced (with minimum level ofl~D;.Mdlj.mJ}t;;'i}litL~~
.~n-s:Lservices as directed in the }"fetro Plan) in a timely and cost-etllcient manner and
is a logical extension of the city's service delivery system.
b. The annexation proposal is accompanied by support '0/ithin the area proposed for
annexation from the owners of at least haJfthe land area in the affected territory.
a signed annexation agre{,~ment or initiation of a transition plan; and
upon concurrence by the serving jurisdiction,_;,-e','<{:l'ill:i~l:l'ih';Fi'aj.'i:\'i..(<;m("ik'IH,}r~eff-K;{~S..f1:'-F
n.
14, Both Eugene and Springfield shaH examine potential assessment deferral programs for
low-income households,
15. Creation of new serv ice districts or zones of benefit within the Jtl-f.fSBw4:te-Hf!+'1~1~u
Ik'Jmsl~)ry_J~t\:mtlarl<e:,"ofthe Aletro Plan shalI be considered only when all ofthe
following criteria are satisfi.ed:
a. There is no other method of delivering public services which are required to
mitigate against extreme health hazard or public safety conditions.
h. The three metropolitan area general purpose governments concur with the
proposal to t(mn the service district or zone of henefit
Il-C-5
c, TIle 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 elt)' occurs \\'1thin the planning period,
d, The servicing c.ityis not capable of providing the full range ofurbanJk):LUli~~j~lJ1g
services in the short term, although it is recognized that urban.J~%::LUH~~..4n~
services 'Ni11 be provided by a city consistent with adopted public facilities plans
and capital improvement programs.
e, The d1strict or zone of bend it \,<,ill contract\vith the appropriate city for interim
service delivery until afffi&'HitioH"'gnn!;{~~4)0 the
16,
Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and provided with the
required minimum level of urbanJ5~;fc:1iLis.s.;'Hld services. Wllile the time frame for
annexation may vary, anl1exation 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 watfr and dectrical
service providers within the 1.JOB.
! 18.
As annexations to citits occur over time, existing~11\fiqLservice districts within the UGH
shall be dissolved. The cities should consider developing intergovernmental agreements,
\vhich address transition issues raised by annexation, v/ith atTected speciill 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 UGH.
b. Provide continued and comprehensive rural level services to property and people
outside the UGB.
c, Provide rnore dlicient service delivery and more efficient governmental structure
for serving the immediate urban fringe.
20. Annexation ofterr1tory to existing service districts within the UGH shaH occur only when
the following criteria are met:
a. Immediate annexation to a city is not possible because the required fl'dMk,
nXh.1jJmmtJtXt.;,1.9fji$;Y-~~}Ibi.n-t~1::;j.Uti~0j~ml.services cannot be provided in a timely
rnanner (within five years, as outlined in an adopted capital improvements
program).
fl-C-6
b, Except for areas that have no fire protection, affected property owners have
signed consent to annex agreements 'with the applicable city which meet lhe
"tFi'p-10-!HB-JBf'ity"ur<:)qHjf<iH'H-eHts4-t~le~:52JJ~is:ttnu::'d_UJ__Qr~RQ,n annexation law,
Such annexations shan be considered as interim service delivery solutions until ultimate
annexation to a city occurs.
21 , When unincorporated territory ,vi thin the UGB is provided with any neVi urban service,
that service shall be provided by the following method (in priority order),
a, Annexation to a city;
b, Contractual annc~xation agreements "'lith a city;
c. Annexation to an existing district (under conditions described previously in Policy
#l9:.Lm; or
d. Creation ofa new service district (under conditions described previously in Policy
#'14,15~)~
22. Cities shall not extend water or 5afl:*al'r'5eW-l.->;'1~:,~~2tS\Yi~t~I service outside city limits to
serve a residence or business without first obtaining a valid "tdp-k-majBf1ty" annexation
petition, a consent to annex agreement, or }'d1~Jl"a health hazard annexation__bJt;,qJtiX~~,
23, Regulatory and tiscal incentives that direct the geographic allocation of growth and
density according to adopted plans and policies shaH be examined and,when practical,
adopted.
24. To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban grmvth addressed in the text
and on the /'vletro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of nevy 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
,':,'ervices Plan"aH:.l "i!,crn:J.fiw< (J-r-tJH'/h--.-4r-ew;nStu-dy, consider the orderly provision and
financing ofpubJic 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 of this section. any
development taking place in an urbanizable area
shaH be designed to the development standards ofthe 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 si:ze for caJnpus
industrial designated areas shall be 50 acres and the minimum lot size flir all other
H-C-?
designations shaH be 10 acres. .t'\;ny..kt1'.-tHli10F-fefH10fe:;:e die 1)1.:1. bri:]:0l'..Ht>+.n-:!:l-HH'l01'0'$
h,)..h0.Q,r-eah.H.:\-'ffHhis area O~i lit) de\! ~~kOp0d'-i:)f'+HH-j{;I:di;:.vd-ot~d..kHHi.w.ig"f'B<lHln:.-t-h0"aJ.t<:H:;.""'fH
<2..ciJi"HBJ..bffi~-G'HHHi:\,'.h>'a'Rf0e..tll'Ht.tl'lb.+e.t"Stj'3:;'*'OH.ld'f><,,;"a""nr'H0i'lHH.>..tB-r.{JH.'N~i:l---tl{ft.i;i:!l'H~
'" .... l~.~ t' .....'
a. The approval of a conceptual plan for ultimate development at urban densities in
accord with applicable plans and policies.
b. Proposed land us(~s and densities conform to applicable plans and policies.
c. The owner of the propclty has signed an agreement \-vith the adjacent city which
provides:
(l)
The owner and his or her successors in interest are obligated to support
annexation proceedings should the dty, at its option, initiate annexation.
(2)
The owner and his or her successors in interest agree not to challenge any
annexation ofthe subject property.
ii
\- )
The O\vner and his or her Sllccessors in interest will acquire city approval
GJr any subsequent new use, change of use, or substantial intensification of
use of the propeliy. The city will not withhold appropriate approval ofthe
use arbitrarily if it is in compliance with applicable plans, policies, and
standards, as interpreted by the city, as vv'dl as the conceptual plan
approved under subsection a above.
27. .A.ny lot uD{ler tIve acres in size to be created in
require t")ii'Y""'''''i;H;;+y'.agH,.;;jHmB<:.milizing the following additional
standards:
a. The property "'iill be owned by a governmental agency or public utility.
b. A majority of parcels located \vithin 100 feel of the property are smaller than five
acres.
c. No more than three parcels are being created:"B:H.h;"~;5..o1~){'i:,;,;+~;;;;c"hg-,~){;'.d.
28. The siting of all residences on urbanizable lots served by on-site se\vage disposal systems
shaH be reviewed by Lane County to ensure the etlicient future conversion of these lots
to urban densities according to ldetro Plan assumptions and minimurn density
requirements.
29. The approval oron-site sewage disposal systems klf rural and urbanizab1e aJea uses and
developments shall be the responsibility of Lane County, subject to: la) applicable state
law; (0) the criteria for the creation of new lots in Policies 26~H;;md 27 above; (c) the
H-C.g
requirement br 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 diversitlcation, on-site sewage disposal systems shall he
aJlowedt()r industrial development and for commercial df.:vclopment allowed within
Campus Industrial designated areas in conjunction with annexation to a city, when
extension of U1QPubllc :;e'wer.; \'y:ilsJQ):ynt<;.;LSysti,:J::CLhare-imrnim:nt or fwe--isjdentified as
part of an approved capital improvement prograrn.
31. Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to involve aiTected local
governments and other urban service providers in development of future, applicable
Metro Plan revisions, including amendments and updates.
1"
_ L-.
Pk!fhb^fl{1%+i1+~t~VBS.*"i'.+.)(~B"e'-"Vi11:lSi'i}i,.:....nH~..,\wbl'e:y...M.e{3\dow",i{Wi":Hf)[~.h{ti;..be{~'l
idmH; fi0i.1. a,.;..anotl"cF .a.!t:cfn,*i~"-g."o:w.1lt"HI,€~.ct.:...P,'i<)+"\-<:f-i:\:1{!:iHtiHiH}fth{;)11<t'*,iHh11Hi'
f'Yk,ti'ifpu!ittm ..P/;m-ti-p-<:k"t:0;.:;nfntB;'g+Wi:'FHJHiH ital.g:r-ov'it! ,'!3tudy,.};yi,t(.!y..ilHid,?:d. bY"t\.II..tIH'<<:?{,
f1.H;--tH'pi:'~i+iH:H,:r:0H'~~:M4.3'rHFH{?Hts;"'.;ktl.I'~3{?'<;~:'HIp.l{'-l{i;;;\;...:+:hi'':;'>:i-tudy..vii.ll.i:IH'IHd0.H'l
;::.0, i;pa,H\ti'\i{?.m:i~~J)'01Y-F,fpuhj.i{;:,'<,HsH,'OctfHJ..po-l-ky i; ~\;:1 ; i::.: ;;ti ;:Hs--{+f.f;~tl{1FH-,<3dugf<:,w{h..iHH).e'Hdt
33. If expansion ofthe tJGB 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 oCRoyal AVerH.le,
Note: For other rf.:Jated policy discussion, seeJb.~ Public Facilities and Services Elementj!}
kb,m:t~r,m-G ,
[H'-9
II-C-! 0
D. ~:Hgen-e""a-nd"".st}.r"iugf1cl4..Jurisdictional Responsibility
The division of responsibility IljLm~;Jl\!ImlUi)DDl;il}Djngcbetween the nvo cities is the Interstate 5
Highway,
L[-D~l
II-D-2
E. Urban and UrbanizahleLand
This section addresses the need to aHovv for the orderly and economic extension of public
services, the need to provide an orderly conversion of urbanizablc 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 (UOB) as used in this section. refer to the ,"v{efro Plan Glossarv.
. .
The undeveloped (urbanizable) area '.vithin the DGB, separating urban and urbanizable land from
rural land, has been carefully calculated to include an adequate supply to meet dernand for a
projected population of through the end of the planning period (201~{H}):' -\VHh
th{~+Hklition-(lftht:.-Hfhili\--re-se-f'v':.;-HrB+\\:;';-HPP1'("x-i+Ha!.eI;y..:i-fj.;gn{-~-tl:)--3~JJ~C4}'dfktiti{mHt'pe"1f}Ii.:>t,.,m4*.~
1.lf'{',OltJH'j,:,t'fiHf:-(l--he-Y*l-fK]--th,"'-pH:j.e{c!f),:l.'!l-f3f'<:!h\.k"n-.*{:",.the-'Yf:'a~'--:"U).i~},. H OWf..:ver, un less the
community consciously decides to limit future expansions of the UGH, one of several ways to
accommodate grov.1:h, that boundary will be expanded in future plan updates so that before
201~~wcl- it yvill include more urbanizable area reflecting future population and employment needs
than that no\\' depicted on the Metro Plan Diagram. Accordingly, periodic updaks ofland use
needs and revision of the UGB to reflect extensions ofthe planning period \vill ensure that
adequate surplus urbanil.ab1e land is always availahle.
The key to addressing the needs stated at the beginning of this section is not so much the
establishment of an UGH, hut 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 9i,!"wef-_\yg_$.t~w~n~rtrunk Jines. arterial streets, and water
trunk lines. Most capital improvement programs are "middle-range" t.ype plans geared three to
six years into the future, The time between annexat.ion and the point of fi.nished 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 Cornmission approvaL
1 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
availabi IItv).
4. Construction of the private development (induding local extension of streets, sidewalks.
~Wi!-Ff3)~~:E'[~S;);Yi;UI:r, water, tHtduekctricity_ and const.ruction of d\veUing units or
businesses).
II -E-1
The time period between initiating annexation and sale of a home or opening ofa business varies
but can easily take from two to six years.
Large-scale and timely annexations ofundeve1oped and underdeveloped areas should be
encouraged to enhance the opportunity for compact urban growth, an efficient land use pattern,
and a \vell-planned supporting arterial street system,
The approachd*';0xpH;:s~;('?d:.i-n..th,<}.f~}1~}w;+l.g..gmflhk~ 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 vvHlnot only allow for the conversion ofurbanizable to
urban land through annexation but will allmv the cities the opportunity and flexibility to plan lOf
and provide nrbanj}li(iliti.9s.VJld services on a large scale. The six-year minimum wiB aHow the
cities and other providers of urban services to develop coordinated capital irnprovernent
programs in accordance with the /'vletro Planadopl-0.d..g-0H\":'r-aj,p+(lfi. Such coordinated capit.al
irnproveUlent programs can and should be dosely related to implementation of annexation plans,
l!')-<je--Fi..g'i'<;f3fI-i-€
The ]lde/ro Plan will he updated hefore undeveloped surplus urban lands are exhausted.
The six- to ten-year low density residential land surplus should he 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, Aietro Plan assumpt.ions, and ldetro Plan Goals,
particularly those goals deaEng with promotion of economic development and diversity.
Improved monitoring techniques made possible by the g~'(l-gmf3h-i-€.{~atil.sy::"il;:HlI\~~Ki.l:,m.f\U,".$LlI~l
111.fr;'UlmlA9r01~10h~~Q.n~~l1.I:. .~[jUl-lty. .n~I". ~p).. .1~}rm~rb:;):.Qi~J~l~(::~;lx~:L~t~.J1.}E1..Qs9gr9J!i;j.(;
InthnxwJ19n.Sx:'ils<.wJQISJ should allow such rnonitoring to occur, The monitoring information
should be provided on a jurisdictional basis and on the metropolitan level.
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shaH cooperatively monitor and periodically report on
development trends and land supply l~x 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 lLwtJtJ9SupplY\:'i]esponsive to demand in keeping with th(~
IfundamentaI I:principIes of the lvIetro 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 Planinduding, lOr exarnpJe:
I. Orderly economic provision ofpuhlic facilities and services (maintenance and
development of capital improvement programs),
2, A vailability of sullident Jand to ensure a supply responsive to demand.
II-E-2
I 3.
Compact urban gro\vth,tHC lud: cg,.dfW1i'k)fHnemnWithifl.+hf.c~'0Hff;;,~fl3'+l:H;BFV.k';~HHB~t
ht4i;}fi,,';.'.,'0-Ft','er:;;(1tt--Hf-tHcbHltl7:i3.bl,:;.fiXll<:JS'h).'Hl'fkHt.
4,
Cooperation with other utilities and providers of urban services to ensure coordination
\vith their respective capital improvement programs.
{J.E-3
n-E-4
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 communit,:r'. Both River Road and Santa Clara have:
. Vnique 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 \v11ich, \vith adequate urban services,
can be developed at increased densities; in River Road, relatively large developed lots exist
which could be further devdoped by their owners.
The future of both the River Road and Santa Clara areas will playa critical role in the growth of
the metropolitan area, For some years, ofJicials oCtane County and Eugene have cooperatively
discussed methods of delivering services to these neighborhoods.
These discussions have continually tbcused on t'l'<lO 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 ofJogical growth and increased densities?
Int1ation has drastically increased the need to balance these two potentially divergent objectives,
The etl(~cts of contimwd int1ation can be mitigated by identifying and implementing a solution to
the servicing issue.
A unique set of circumstances has occurred which lends direction to resolution ofthe service
delivery questions for both River Road and Santa Clara.
1. As pan of the acknowledgement process f()r the !vfetro Plan, the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) r-a:;-<lirected that a servicing plan be developed for
both River Road and Santa Clara and tbat Eugene provide those services.
2. Discussions between Eugene officials and state and county representatives ofthe River
Road and Santa Clara area have led to reconsideration of Eugene's policy to provide
services to these neighborhoods only aileI' annexation to the City of Eugene of both areas
has occurred,
II-F- ]
3. Preliminary reviev>/ 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 ,>vhich led to a set of findings, objectives,
and policies f()r inclusion in the Metro Plan and ultimately will lead to delivery of urban services
to the River Road and Santa Clara areas in cooperation \vit11 the residents of these
neighborhoods. That situation is as follows,
The City of Eugene constructed and o,vns the main Sitititury se'?age}):ai:ih~\y.(+lj.;x 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 deliH.:r k\.~.LJlr.~!iH.tJh~,tW.i~;~,and services in a tirnely manner). Eugene
will pursue annexation only in accordance ,>vith applicable state laws and \"vilJ not use these
mechanisms to circumvent the process, In every case, Eugene will make every reasonable
atternpt to provide tor 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-Stmta Clara Urlj(1n
Facilities Plan ,"vhieh is responsive to the basic service infrastructure which is either in place or
contemplated lor these areas. An in.tegral part of the implernentation phase of the River Road-
Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan is a financing mechanism which takes into aCC(Junt the
financial abilities of residents/property owners and the City of Eugene to pay tor service delivery
in that area.
The t{)JJowing findings, o~jectives, and policies retlect the situation that evolved:
'Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1. Land supply in the River Road and Santa Clara areas is of metropolitan-v{ide
significance.
2. In order to achieve urban densities, urban services, induding ptlblic'~"ffiitHf:v
fiewersWi.\.~i.t~.w~j.wr}~J'yjs.~, must be provided.
]. For a long period of tiTne, officials of Lane County and Eugene have rnade great eHorts to
resolve the service delivery problems tor hoth River Road and Santa Clara.
4. The history and pattern of development in River Road-J\P(LSanta Clara have resulted in
the creation of two unique metropolitan neighborhoods.
5. The most cost-effective method of service delivery is through annexation.
Il-F-2
I 9.
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 totaHy undeveloped areas.
8.
The 1970 CH2M Hill Sewerage System StUiZV River Road-S'ama (-;lara publication
demonstrates the feasibility of proy iding SfHlltary ~~e"Yer~;WQ~~;~~:~t~X-..::i-gX.'xj.x~ to the River
Road-.,,~.nQ...Santa Clara area in a manner consistent with the Eugene-Springfield
lHetropolitan rVaste Treatment Alternmives Report (208 Facilities Plan) and the l'vfetro
Plan.
The CH2l'll I:EILpubHcation defined study boundaries and made population projections
which are different than those contained in the Metro Plan; modifications to these factors
is occurring as pan 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 Urhan Facilities Plan has been completed.
12,
Based on the River Road<S'anta Clara Groundwater Study. Final Technical Report,
February, 1980 by Sw'eet, Edwards, and Associates, Inc., the Oregon Environmental
Quality Commission(r~Q() found on April 18, 1980, that:
ii. The River Road/~Siinta Clara shallO\v aquifer is generally contaminated with fecal
coliform organisms in excess of drinking\vater and body contact standards,
b, Existing nitrate-nitrogen concentrations \yithin the area exceed the planning target
on the average.
c. About 73 percent of the nitrate-nitrogen pollutants (and, by analogy, a similar
share ofthe fecal colif<.mn contaminations) result from septic tank effluent.
Septic tank pollutants can migrate rapidly to the ground\.vater from drain fields 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 ilTigation 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
CeJ~i),tavvarded Eugene a grant to build a ~:t)we.:.'lY~l~l~W;:W;Lsystem to replace the
i~dividual septic systems in use thwughoutRiver Road and 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 S6,<l,it.W'~.fl~h~~\!.<lt.~E.system according to the
F;n virOnmetl.ta')':Pl:Ht-e;"ti;'HT.A.g-t,'OOJEl~L\' s time trame have not been successfu I.
Objectives
1. Ensure the availability ofland in River Road and Santa Clara f()r urban levels of
development.
2. Capitali7,e on existing public expectations by providing TImher public services Vdlich will
allow the River Road and Santa Clara areas to achieve urban densities.
3. Deliver a h1l1 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 'Ivhich will take into account the financial ability of the residents to
pay for service delivery and thi.~ 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-S'anta Clara Urban Facilities plan developed cooperatively by Lane County, the
City of Eugene, and the residents and property owners aUhe two areas.
6. Eliminate groundvlater pollution from individual septic tank disposal systems in River
Road and Santa Clara.
Policies
1. Eugene shaH develop methods c.f financing improvements in the River Road and Santa
Clara areas \vhich are responsive to the unique situation of res idents and property owners,
as \ovell as the City of Eugene.
2. Eugene \vill plan, design, construct, and maintain ownership ofthe entire ,~aniwry
5e;';'i-e1'}~;f,~?,},t~(a}s:r system that services the River Road and Santa Clara areas. This will
involve extraterritorial extension \vhk.h will be suppcnied by Lane County before the
Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission and aU other applicable bodies.
3. Annexation of the River RoadHmJdS(intqJ]i]r~ areas ,vill occur only through strict
application of state laws and local policies (e.g., ability to extendJ;;;)::w:tJIJ..G1S;iliti.t:.$...m~.g
services in a timely manner). In each case, Eugene will make every rc:asonable attempt to
provide h)f annexation only on a voluntary basis and according to prior individual
property annexation agreements,
{I.FA
4. The City of Eugene shall provide urban services to the River Road and Santa Clara
neighborhoods upon annexation. In the rneantime, to reduce the groundvvater pollution
problem, Eugene will extend (;;eWefS-1Y.(~.$1~}:\:~~~~L;?,~rY.i.;::~)o developed properties.
5. Using the CH2tytJJi.1l report as a foundation, d10rts to prepare more detailed engineering
studies which will provide the basis for a capital improvement program to sewer the
River Road-imduSanta Clara areas in a manner consistent with the above policy direction
shaH proceed.
6. No part.icular section of the Metro Plan shaH be interpreted as prohibiting the process of
incorporation of a new city in River Road-.amt.Santa Clara in accordance \vith ORS 199
and 221 < This means that:
a. As a comprehensive planning document, no particular section afthe AIetro Plan
shall be used in isolation to evaluatf,,~ different courses of action.
b. The phrase "process of incorporation" refers to the specific steps of incorporation
outlined in OH~#f.lfl..R{.~t&e'4-S{:atttt~QE.s 199 and 221.
c. This policy does not negat.e the requirement. of public :';:~nitary :';ewer;:\:\5J~~t~~1~Al~~r
~9XXjS;9 as a minimum level of key urban.t?-s;i.!i.t.h~7~..i}.n~J services. Any institutional
solution to providing urban sefY'kes in the River Road-.J:HJJLSanta Clara area;?
rnust provide public safl-}tafy..sew-€mW~~l~.w~lfr.~~Qi~~ tn address LCDC
requirements and to protectpublk health and safety in r(~solving groundwater
pollution problems. Public ;;anitary ~;ewersJt51~J.~D'y~jJ.i;r..~~t):.lf,2 itf€.i?..also required
to achieve higher than septic tank level of urban residential densities and to utilize
etTiciently valuable n1etropolitan~scale buildable land,
IH-S