The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance No. 20437O COUNCIL ORDINANCE NUMBER 20437 COUNCIL BILL NUMBER 5006 � � r r r • �- r SIGNED: October 13, 2009 EFFECTIVE: November 13, 2009 11 1 ORDINANCE NO. 20437 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE SECTION OF THE EUGENE - SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING SEPARATE POPULATION FORECASTS FOR THE CITIES OF SPRINGFIELD AND EUGENE FOR THE PERIOD 2010 — 2030 AND INCLUDING THE YEARS 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034 AND 2035; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: A. ORS 197.304 requires the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene, separately from any other city in Lane County, and based on the jurisdictional area of responsibility specified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan, to demonstrate as required by ORS 197.296, that its comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. B. Oregon Administrative Rule 660- 024 -0030 requires cities to adopt a 20 -year population forecast for the urban area into the comprehensive plan or in a document referenced by the plan. C. The Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the sole acknowledged comprehensive land use plan for Springfield and Eugene. D. The Metro Plan contains a single, metropolitan -wide population forecast. E. It is necessary for each city to have separate, 20 -year forecasts extending to at least 2030 in order to meet their obligations under ORS 197.304 by the statutory deadline of December 31, 2009, F. On June 17, 2009, the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted into the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan coordinated population forecasts for Springfield and Springfield's metro urban area east of 1 -5 and forecasts for Eugene and Eugene's metro urban area west of 1 -5 through the year 2035. G. The Cities have coordinated extensively with the county staff and the Lane County Board of Commissioners during the preparation of the coordinated population forecasts and support the forecasts adopted by Lane County as an amendment to the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance - Page 1 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The Metro Plan, Chapter I, Introduction, Purpose Section, is hereby amended to add and provide as follows: In order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopt the following forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas: 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Eugene - City Only Metro Urban Area West of 1 -5 Total Springfield - City Only Metro Urban Area East of 1 -5 Total 194,314 195,964 197,614 199,264 200,914 202,565 17,469 17,274 17,079 16,884 16,689 16,494 til If 1.ksu[c>��cY.if� - 1<C[ *. .1Ie • a 74,814 75,534 76,254 76,974 77,693 78,413 6,794 6,718 6642 6,567 6,491 6,415 These figures effectively provide coordinated projections for each city and the respective metro urban area east or west of 1 -5 for years ending 2030 through 2035, enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginning and ending years of the 20 -year planning period. Section 2 . The findings set forth in attached Exhibit A are adopted as findings in support of this Ordinance. Section 3 . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4 . This ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of acknowledgement as provided in ORS 197.625, whichever date is later, provided that by that date the Springfield City Council Ordinance - Page 2 of 3 and the Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to those described in Section 1 of this Ordinance. Passed by the City Council this 12` day of October, 2009 Approved by the Mayor this 1 3 day of October, 2009 K"4-7 rj-� - /. Mayor Ordinance - Page 3 of 3 Staff report and findings of compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide Goals, Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules for proposed Metro Plan Amendment adopting Lane County's coordinated population forecasts for Eugene and Springfield Applicant - The Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County File LRP 2009 - 00006: Amendments to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to provide Eugene and Springfield with separate, new 20 -year population forecasts. Nature of the Application - The applicants propose to amend the Metro Plan by adding the following text as the third paragraph of Chapter I, Introduction Purpose Section on Page 1 -1: "In order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopt the following forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas: 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Eugene - City Only 194,314 195,964 197,614 199,264 200,914 202,565 Metro Urban Area West of I -5 17,469 17,274 17,079 16,884 16,689 16,494 Total 211,783 213,238 214,693 216,148 217,603 219,059 Springfield - City Only 74,814 75,534 76,254 76,974 77,693 78,413 Metro Urban Area East of I -5 6,794 6,718 6,642 6,567 6,491 6,415 Total 81,608 82,252 82,896 83,541 84,184 84,828 These figures effectively provide coordinated projections for each city and the respective metro urban area east or west of I -5 for years ending 2030 through 2035, enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginning and ending years of the 20 -year planning period." Background The 2007 Oregon legislature adopted HB3337 by amending ORS 197 to add ORS 197.304(1)(a) &(b),(2) and (3). The provisions of this law require Eugene and Springfield, separately from any other city in Lane County, to perform the following: (a)Establish an urban growth boundary, consistent with the jurisdictional area of responsibility specified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and (b) Demonstrate, as required by ORS 197.296 that its comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. In addition to the two actions described above, the statute also requires the demonstration in (b) to be completed by December 31, 2009. In order for the cities to comply with this statutory provision, a new population forecast for each city for the next 20 years needs to be prepared and adopted into the comprehensive plan (Metro Plan), or in "a document included in the plan by reference," such as an inventory, functional plan, or other refinement plan. (NOTE: A city may choose to adopt its forecast into a separate plan document specific to its jurisdictional area as well as into the main plan text.) LCDC's Urbanization Goal, also known as Goal 14, was amended in 2006 to require that Urban Growth Boundaries be consistent with a "20 -year forecast." LCDC's interpretive rules flesh this requirement out. OAR 660 - 024 -0040 provides as follows: (1) The UGB must be based on the adopted 20 year population forecast for the urban area described in OAR 660- 024 -0030, [or in ORS 197.036] and must provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools parks and open space over the 20 year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule. The 20 year need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available information and methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level ofprecision. (4) The determination of 20 year residential land needs for an urban area must be consistent with the adopted 20 year coordinated population forecast for the urban area, and with the requirements for determining housing needs in Goal 10, OAR 660, division 7 or 8, and applicable provisions of ORS 197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490. Metro Plan Amendment Criteria The proposed amendment is a non -site specific amendment of the Plan tent. Therefore it is classified as Type I Metro Plan amendment that requires participation and adoption by all three governing bodies. Springfield, Eugene and Lane County adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Development Code (SDC) Chapter 5, Section 5.14- 135(C) (1 & 2), Eugene Code 9.7730(3), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a & b) include criteria of approval that require that the amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and that the amendment not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These additional potential criteria and the staff responses fill the remaining pages of this report; however, all of the following findings are made subject to the reservation that they may be wholly or partially pre - empted by 1 "Sec.3 A local govemment that is subject to section 2 of this 2007 Act [197.304] shall complete the inventory, analysis and determination required under ORS 197.296(3) to begin compliance with section 2 of this 2007 Act within two years after the effective date of this 2007 Act [January 1, 20081" 2 ORS 197.304(1) which says that "Notwithstanding an intergovernmental agreement ... or acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary," the cities of Eugene and Springfield shall both: (a) establish separate 20 year urban growth boundaries, and (b) demonstrate that their separate boundaries provide sufficient buildable residential lands for the next 20 years as required by ORS 197.296 (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planninE eoals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission As a preface to this section of the staff report it is useful to provide some context to what is being proposed in this amendment; why the only amendment being sought is a new population forecast for each city; and how this action will establish part of the necessary basis for future significant changes to the Metro Plan. Both cities know they have considerable work ahead of them as they undertake compliance with ORS 197.304. As the Back rg ound and Discussion sections in this report have already demonstrated, the new law that is the cause of this work is a significant departure from the laws and agreements that have bound the two cities and county together since the original acknowledgment process and two subsequent periodic reviews. There is no case law that provides guidance or defines nuance; there is no administrative rule that says how you interpret this law; and there is no precedent elsewhere to use as a model for this action. Eugene and Springfield have a single metro -wide UGB; they will soon have separate municipal UGBs. Eugene and Springfield have shared a single metro -wide buildable lands inventory because of the single UGB; they will soon have separate buildable lands inventories contained within their separate UGBs. Eugene and Springfield have shared a single metro - wide population and employment forecast because they've shared a single UGB and single buildable lands inventory; now they must begin this compliance process by adopting separate population forecasts into a comprehensive plan that still recognizes the current single, shared UGB and a single, shared buildable lands inventory. Will all references to a single population, a single UGB and a single buildable lands inventory be amended in this action? No. The proposed amendment is intended to start a lengthy process of Metro Plan amendments involving the creation of separate UGBs and separate inventories. All of those changes cannot be predicted; they must be based on compliance with the goals. That cannot occur in the absence of the facts necessary to support the changes. The fast step in that process (as explained previously) is adopting a new population forecast; the proposed amendment says we are undertaking this action to achieve timely compliance with the statutory obligations of the law. Timely compliance is a reference to the deadline imposed by our statutory obligations but also is meant to convey that we recognize the extent of this obligation and are beginning with the first step. Inserting the new coordinated forecasts and explanatory text on the first page on the first page of the first chapter of the Metro Plan provides the proper context for understanding how it relates to the rest of the Metro Plan. What might otherwise be seen as a conflict with different population figures and related findings elsewhere in the Plan is resolved by the explicit requirements of the 2007 statute and by the context and language of the amendment. In short: The new forecasts implement that statute. They address a new 20 -year planning period. The Metro Plan will evolve from its pre- HB3337 content and structure in phases as the cities complete their remaining implementation obligations under the new law, based on the new forecasts. A demonstration of compliance with the state -wide goals for this amendment, if required at all, is primarily related to Goals 1 and 2 as the remaining goals either don't apply within UGBs (3 & 4) or don't apply here in the Willamette Valley (16 -19); the other goals are not affected by a population forecast alone, but can have applicability when subsequent actions that rely upon the forecast are proposed. In spite of the indirect nature of the relationship between the proposed amendment and the goals, an explanation was provided explaining why this action was not contrary to the goals. Goal 1— Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. No amendments to acknowledged citizen involvement programs are proposed. The two cities and the county have acknowledged land use codes that are intended to serve as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. Chapter 5 of the SDC, Metro Plan Amendments; Public Hearings, prescribes the manner in which a Type I Metro Plan amendment must be noticed. Citizen involvement for a Type I Metro Plan amendment not related to an urban growth boundary amendment requires: Notice to interested parties; notice to properties and property owners within 300 feet of the proposal if site - specific; notice to neighborhood associations; published notice in a newspaper of general circulation; and notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing (planning commission). Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was mailed on August 21, 2009; notice was published in the Register -Guard on August 21, 2009; neighborhood associations were mailed notice on August 21, 2009; notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on July 16, 2009; notice of this proposal and the joint planning commission hearing was sent to the cities of Florence, Dunes City, Veneta, Junction City, Coburg, Creswell, Lowell, West Fir, Oakridge, and Cottage Grove on August 17, 2009. Another letter was sent to these same cities on September 10, 2009 notifying the elected officials that the joint planning commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County had conducted a public hearing on September 1, 2009 and that the results of that hearing was a unanim recommendation from the planning commissions supporting the Metro Plan text amendment as it appears on the first page of these findings under the heading Nature of the Application This same letter also included announcement of the joint elected officials hearing on the planning commission recommendation to be conducted on September 22, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Library Meeting Room of Springfield City Hall. Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherence to the citizen involvement processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the Springfield Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14 -135, Eugene Code Section 9.7735, and Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240. Goal 2 — Land Use Planning 0 To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. All land -use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed, revised on a periodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation ordinances. Implementation Measures — are the means used to carry out the plan. These are of two general types: (1) management implementation measures such as ordinances, regulations or project plans, and (2) site or area specific implementation measures such as permits and grants for construction, construction ofpublic facilities or provision ofservices. The current version of the Metro Plan was last adopted in 2004 (Springfield (Ordinance No. 6087; Eugene Ordinance No. 20319; and Lane County Ordinance No. 1197) after numerous public meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Officials. Subsequent to these Metro Plan adoption proceedings, the 2007 Oregon Legislature adopted new laws that applied specifically to Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. ORS 197.304 requires Eugene and Springfield to adopt separate urban growth boundaries based on the jurisdictional responsibilities contained in the Metro Plan, make a determination based on the provisions of ORS 197.296 that there are sufficient buildable lands within these UGBs to accommodate projected growth for the next 20 years, and to make this determination by December 31, 2009. In response to this mandate, Eugene and Springfield have undertaken a necessary step in compliance by initiating a post - acknowledgement plan amendment of the Metro Plan to establish new population forecasts for each city that will comply with the required planning period of 20 years beginning at the date scheduled for completion of this action by statute (12/31/09), and with the provisions of OAR 660 -024- 0040 which requires cities to have adopted population forecasts as a prerequisite to establishment of an urban growth boundary. The Metro Plan is the land use or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the Springfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the implementation measures required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as defined by ORS 197.015(5), must be coordinated with affected governmental units. Coordination means that comments from affected governmental units are solicited and considered. The 10 cities in Lane County not participating as decision - makers in this matter received letters explaining the proposal by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to adopt into the Metro Plan the coordinated population forecast prepared by Lane County and adopted into the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan on June 17, 2009. Goal 3 — Agricultural Lands To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. 5 The proposed amendment will provide a separate population forecast for Eugene and a separate population forecast for Springfield out to the year 2035. No other changes to the Metro Plan are included in this proposal. These changes do not affect Metro Plan consistency with this goal and in any case, this goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. (See also OAR 660 - 024 -0020) Goal 4 — Forest Lands To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. The proposed amendments do not affect Metro Plan consistency with this goal and in any case, this goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. (See also OAR 660 - 024 -0020) Goal 5 — Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. The Cities have finished all work required under Goal 5 during the most recent Periodic Review (completed in 2007). Population projections alone do not impact land inventories; subsequent analysis of these inventories may proceed with the population figures, but that analysis and subsequent actions must observe applicable goals, statutes and rules. The proposed amendment does not affect acknowledged Goal 5 inventories so this proposal does not create an inconsistency with the goal. (See also OAR 660 -023) Goal 6 — Air, Water and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. This goal is primarily concerned with compliance with federal and state environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources. An adopted population forecast for a new 20 -year period has no direct affect on or applicability to this goal. Any actions affecting inventories or land use or development that occur as a result of the population forecast are subject to the applicable goals, statutes and rules at the time those actions are undertaken. Goal 7 — Areas Subject to Natural (Disasters and Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards. The Metro Plan and the development ordinances of each city are acknowledged to be in compliance with all applicable statewide land use goals, including Goal 7. Population forecasts adopted into the comprehensive plan do not affect land use, development, or inventories. Subsequent actions based upon these forecasts and 0 that may impact this goal are required to address this applicability during the public review and hearings process. This goal is unaffected by a new or amended population forecast. Goal 8 — Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Willamalane and the City co- adopted the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan in 2004. This plan has a recommended standard of two acres of park land for each 1,000 population. The 2004 plan projects an increase of 25,000 citizens by the end of the adopted 20 -year planning horizon (2022) 2 Willamalane is a special service taxing district with the authorization to purchase, develop and maintain park facilities, but it has no authority or obligation for Goal 8 compliance; that responsibility lies with the City of Springfield after coordinating with the Park District. The Metro Plan has a horizon of 2015 therefore Willamalane's standard of two acres per 1,000 residents is a valid standard to the year 2015; anything beyond 2015 is not applicable to the Metro Plan even though Willamalane's plan extends to 2022. In the event Springfield adopts a new population forecast that extends the planning period to 2030 or later and there are subsequent impacts on the buildable lands inventories, the City will coordinate with Willamalane throughout these actions to maintain Goal 8 compliance through the new planning period of 2030. Goal 9 — Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. ORS 197.304 does not require an analysis of commercial and industrial lands inventories; the ORS 197.296 determination applies only to residential inventories; and OAR 660 - 024 -0040 allows a local government to review and amend the UGB "in consideration of one category of land need (for example, housing need) without a simultaneous review and amendment in consideration of other categories of land need (for example, employment need)." (OAR 660 - 024 - 0040(3)). The cities have chosen to expand the inventory analysis to include commercial and industrial land, both of which rely upon the same population forecast required by OAR 660 - 024 - 0040(1). The adoption of the population forecast does not directly affect this goal; however, the activities subsequent to the adoption of the population forecast will rely on this forecast as a basis for actions pursuant to the applicable goals. Adopting a new population forecast consistent with ORS 195.036 is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660 - 024 -0040 and OAR 660 -009 Economic Development. Goal 10 — Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The cities are required by ORS 197.304 to undertake an ORS 197.296 determination within two years of the effective date of the Act. The ORS 197.296 determination involves the inventory, supply and demand analysis of residential land use needs for the forecast population of the 20 -year planning period; this determination cannot occur without a population forecast. 2 Page A4, Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan 7 Adopting this new population forecast is also consistent with the requirements of OAR 660 -008 Interpretation of Goal 10 Housing and OAR 660 -0024 Urban Growth Boundaries because, once again, the population forecast must be adopted into the comprehensive plan before the residential lands determination can be confirmed and adopted into the comprehensive plan. Goal 11— Public Facilities and Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. A population forecast does not directly affect the public facilities plan until the buildable lands inventories necessary to support that forecast are adjusted. The location and/or density increases that will occur to support the new forecasts must be provided with adequate levels of urban services. In the event Springfield adopts new inventories or makes adjustments to permitted densities causing greater demand for public infrastructure, the City will evaluate these services and where necessary, propose additional Metro Plan amendments in compliance with this goal. Goal 12 - Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The transportation system plan is similar to the public facilities and services plan in that the transportation system is designed to accommodate future growth at densities prescribed in the plan's policies.. Land development cannot occur in the absence of infrastructure and that includes transportation; but neither the goal nor the OARS require an analysis of this service before changes are proposed to the inventories, even though those inventory changes cannot occur without the population forecast. The obligation in 197.304 to adopt new population forecasts before the inventory analysis is completed is consistent with the purpose and timing of transportation analysis required by Goal 12; OAR 660 -12 Transportation and OAR 660 -024 Urban Growth Boundaries. Goal 13 — Energy Conservation To conserve energy. 3. Land use planning should, to the maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and re -use vacant land and those uses which are not energy efficient. There are no requirements in the rule or statute that require the energy element of the plan to be amended to correspond with the new population forecast. Any subsequent changes to land use designations, including adjustments to the UGB must comply with the applicable provisions of this goal and interpretive rules. ' In fact, the transportation planning rule requirements in OAR 660 - 012 -0060 requiring an impact analysis on transportation systems as a result of UGB amendments "need not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim zoning that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary." (OAR 660 - 024 - 0020(1) (d). Goal 14 — Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. A new population forecast does not affect the existing UGB but the establishment of or change to a UGB cannot be undertaken unless there is an adopted population forecast for the 20 -year period upon which the buildable lands inventories are based. Since this determination, and hence the application of Goal 14, cannot occur without the population forecast, the cities must adopt a new population forecast to comply with the provisions of ORS 197.296 and ORS 197.304, the latter of which extends the planning horizon for Eugene and Springfield to 2029. The proposed amendment to Page I -1 is consistent with these statutes and with OAR 660- 024, the rule interpreting Goal 14. The preparation of the Lane County coordinated population forecast was undertaken in accordance with the guidelines and standards of Oregon Administrative Rule 660- 024 - 0030(1 & 2) and with ORS 197.610 to 197.650 as evidenced in the findings adopted by the Lane County Board of Commissioners on June 17, 2009 in support of Ordinance PA 1255 In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) to Include a Coordinated Population Forecast for Lane County and Each Urban Area within the County (Attachment 5). The cities of Eugene and Springfield are completing the requirements of the law regarding population forecasts by adopting the County's coordinated population forecast into the comprehensive plan (Metro Plan). Goal 15 — Willamette River Greenway To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the MIlamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. A population forecast has no direct affect on the implementation or continued compliance with Goal 15 as there is no direct affect on land use designations, densities or development standards as a result of a new population forecast. In the event that actions by the governing bodies subsequent to adoption of a new population forecast results in changes to designations, development standards or densities, those changes must be evaluated against all applicable goals, statutes and rules. Such evaluations will include Goal 15. Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources These goals do not apply to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area. Chl Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. The proposed population forecasts are necessary to comply with the new laws adopted by the 2007 Oregon legislature. These new laws effectively pre -empt certain provisions of the Metro Plan that might otherwise appear to stand in contradiction to new and separate population forecasts for each city: Vj "Notwithstanding an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to ORS 190.003 to 190.130 or acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary, a city within Lane County that has a population of 50,000 or more within its boundaries shall meet its obligation under ORS 197.295 to 197.314 separately from any other city within Lane County. " (ORS 197.304(1)) The adopted UGB population forecast of 286,000 and the adopted planning horizon of 2015 are found in various chapters throughout the text of the Metro Plan, TransPlan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan. This figure and planning horizon date are the result of actions that took place during the 13 years between 1994 and 2007 when Eugene, Springfield and Lane County were complying with the requirements of periodic review of the Metro Plan. The cities must now complete a new set of state - mandated tasks that will result in a number of amendments to the Metro Plan, including new, separate UGBs; new, separate buildable lands inventories; new, separate population forecasts; and a new 20 -year planning horizon. The cities are proceeding with the new population forecast first because the inventories and UGBs must be based on an adopted population forecast (OAR 660- 024 - 0040); neither City has ever had a separate population forecast that matched its municipal authority (city limits and future city limits as represented in the urban transition area). It is not necessary to replace all existing references to the 286,000 population forecast or the 2015 horizon because the proposed amendment references the preemptive language of ORS 197.304 and because the conversion of the Metro Plan to bring it into compliance with the new law will occur over time as work progress (UGBs, inventories, planning horizons, etc.). Existing Metro Plan policies do not foresee the obligations of this new law therefore there are no policies or sections of policies responsive to the changes that must be made to the text of the Metro Plan. See also the preface to Goals compliance on pages 5 and 6 of this report. - Attachments - 1. Copy of Notice of Proposed Amendment sent to Department of Land Conservation and Development on July 16, 2009 specifying the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County were proposing separate population forecasts for each city and urban transition area to be adopted into the Metro Plan 2. August 17, 2009 letter to the Mayors and Administrators of the ten incorporated cities in Lane County, and an August 18, 2009 letter to known interested parties, from the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County planning directors advising that Eugene, Springfield and Lane County were proposing to adopt the County's new, separate population forecasts for each city into the Metro Plan. The initial public hearing on the matter was scheduled for the planning commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County on September 1, 2009 in the Springfield City Hall. The joint elected officials would conduct a subsequent public hearing on September 22, 2009 also in Springfield City Hall. 3. Draft Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission hearing of September 1, 2009 4. September 10, 2009 letter to Mayors and Administrators of the ten incorporated cities in Lane County and known interested parties, from the Springfield Planning Manager on behalf of the Eugene and Lane County Planning Directors, advising of the action taken by the joint planning commissions on September 1, 2009 and notification of the joint elected officials hearing on September 22, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Springfield City Hall. 10 5. Lane County Agenda Item Memo (May 18, 2009); Ordinance No. PA 1255; Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan General Policies 1984, updated June 2009; Findings in Support of Ordinance No. PA 1255; and cover page and link to Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008 -2035, May 2009. 11 ATTACHMENT 1 'M 1 DLCD Notice of in person ❑ electronic ❑wiled ❑ Proposed Amendment THIS FORM MM BE RECEIVED BY DLCD AT LEAST 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIR,SI' EVIDEI?i URY HEARING PER OAS 197.616, OAR CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 18 f or uLCn t:xe c a,.. Jurisdiction: City of Springfield, Eugene and lane County Date of First Evidentiary Hearing : 09/01/2009 Local File Number. IlMO09 -00006 - Data of Final Hearing: 09/22PSoo9 Is this a REVISION to a previously submitted proposal? ❑Yes ®No Data submitted: July 16, 2009 ® Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment ❑ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ❑ Land Use Regulation Amendment ❑ Zoning Map Amendment ❑ New Land Use Regulation ❑ Urban Growth Boundary Amendment ❑ Transportation System Plan Amendment ❑ Other Briefly Summarize Proposal. Do not use technical terms- Do not write "See Attached' (limit 500 characters): The Cities of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County are proposing to adopt coordinated population forecasts prepared by Lane County for the two cities into the Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The Lane County Board. of Commissioners adopted these two projections into the Rural Comprehensive Plan on June 17, 2009. This proposed amendment is consistent with the inteAt, purpose and express language of ORS. 195.036 Has sufficient information been included to advise DLCD of the effect of proposal? ®Yes, tent is included For Map Changes: Include B'! = .x11' maps of Current and Proposed designation. ❑ Yes, Maps included Plan map changed from: To: Zone map changed from: To: Location of property (do not use Tax Lot): Previous density: New densty: Acres Involved: Applicable statewide planning goals: 0®0 ❑ 1 ❑❑❑0 ®❑0 ❑1Z ❑: ❑ ❑ ❑❑ Is an exception to a statewida-plAnning goal proposed? ❑ YES ® NO Goals: Affected state or federal agencies, local governments or special districts (It Is jurisdiction's responsibility to notify these agencies. DLCD only records this information): School District ##19; School District #4J; Springfield Utility Board; Eugene Water and Electric Board; Wil]amalane Park and Recreation District. Local Contact: Gregory Mott, PLuming Ylanag COS Phone: 541 - 726-3774'. Extension: 3774 Address: 225 Fifth Street City: Springfield Zip: 97477 Fax Number. 541 - 729-3689 E-mail Address: gmott&ispring6eld.onus DLCD file No. ATTACHMENT 1 —� ATTACHMENT 1 — SPRINGFIELD OREGON DATE: June 24, 2009 TO: . Larry French, Plan Amendment Program Specialist FROM: Gregory Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield Lisa Gardner, Planning Director, City of Eugene Kent Howe, Planning Director, Lane County - EU9 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan: Adopting a coordinated population forecast prepared by Lane County for Eugene and for Springfield for the years 2010 -2035. Local File No. of initiating Jurisdiction: LRP 2009 -00006 Local File No: of Co- Applicants Dear Mr. French: As you know, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County co- adopted the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) in 1982 as this metropolitan area's comprehensive land use plan. What you may not know is that certain provisions of the Metro Plan require all three jurisdictions to co -adopt amendments; other provisions require one of the two'cities and the county to co -adopt amendments; and yet other provisions require only a single jurisdiction to adopt an amendment. To lessen the confusion that such an arrangement might cause for your agency, the planning director's of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County will from this point forward submit a letter confirming our participation, as appropriate, with each notice ofproposed amendment. On behalf of the City of Springfield, the City of Eugene and Lane County, this letter serves as confirmation that all three jurisdictions are co- applicants for the above referenced post-acknowledgment plan amendment proposal. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact any of us at your convenience. Z , ott Planning Manager, City of Springfield U� a J-- Lisa Gardner Planning Director, City of Eugene , 7- l Kent Howe Planning Director, Lane County W ATTACHMENT _1- ATTACHMENT 1 — Proposed Text Amendment to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan 2004 Update Add the following text as the third paragraph of Chapter I, Introduction Purpose Section on Page I -1 of the Metro Plan: In order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 OrLaws Chapter 650 the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopt i the following coordinated population forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas for the planning periods ending in the years 2030 and 2035: City of Eugene Jurisdictional Area' For the year 2030: 210,216 For the year 2035: 219,059 City of Springfield Jurisdictional Area For the year 2030: 81,608 For the year 2035: 84,828 3 Inclodcs ail land within the mbm 'growth boundary west OH-5 Z Inchrdes all land within the urban growth boundary east of I -5 ATTACHMENT S -3 - ATTACHMENT 1 - LANE COUNTY RURAL COMI'RE iENSM PLAN GENERAL PLAN POLICIES 1984 ATTACHMENT 1 -1. - P' FINAL FORMAT UPDATED: January 1998 AprI1 2003 August 2003 December 2003 February 2004 January 2005 February 2008 June 2009 ATTACHMENT 1 — TABLE OF CONTENTS Part L• Introductory Material 1 Introduction to the Rural Comprehensive Plar 1 Introduction to the policies Component --3 History of the Policies Document 3 Cities, Co mm , m * ties and Rural Land &-----------4 Implementati Part IL Lane County General Plan Policies Goal One: Goal Two: Goal Three: Goal Four: Goal Five: Goal Six: Goal Seven: Goal Eight Goal Nine: Goal Ten: Goal Eleven: Goal Twelve: Goal Thirteen Goal F ourteen: Goat Fifteen: Citizen Involvement Land Use Plan Agricultural Lands Forest Lands Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources Historic Resources Mineral & Aggregate Resources Flora & Fauna Open Spaces & Scenic Areas Energy Water Resources Air, Water and Land Resources Water Quality Air Quality Areas Subject to Natural Disasters & Hazards Reaeational Needs Economy of the State Housing Public Facilities & Services Transportation Energy Conservation Urbanization Willamette Greenway Pact III: Coastal Resotrces Management Plan Policies Goal Sixteen: Estuarine Resources Goal Seventeen: ' Coastal Shore lands Goal Eighteen Beaches and Dunes Goal Nineteen: Ocean Resumes ATTACHMENT .1-5- ATTACHMENT 1 - FART I. INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL A. EVMODUCTION TO THE RURAL COMPREHENSNE PLAN The Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan applies to all unincorporated lands withm, the County beyond the Urban Growth Boundaries of incorporated cities in the County and beyond the boundary of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan Where these lands are beyond County jurisdiction (such as National Forest lands), the Plan applies but its application is regulated by federal law. In addition, it does contain provisions and representations of County posit on various issues, to be used by those agencies, such as the US Forest Service, in their own management actions, and also used in the event that lands not in County jurisdiction enter County jurisdiction. The Plan follows the format of the LCDC Statewide P lanning Goals, recognizing that they must be met by all local jurisdictions in Oregon It is composed of two major elements: 1. County General Plan Policies: For each LCDC Goal, there are one or more Policies to be applied by the County toward land use and other p lanni g ' and resource- management issues, in. the interests of compliance with sound p lanning principles and statewide pla nning law. Policies are binding commitments, but will be carried out within established work programs and over all County priorities. The application of Policies which call for any programs or studies will occur as County resources in terns of both staff and budgetary allocations permit 2. Plan Diagrams: Two major planning regions are identified for Lane County the Coastal Region and the Inland Region. For each, detailed representations of land use are depicted on maps, on Plan Diagrams. Land use regulation methods, such as zoning, are applied to carry out the intent of the designations. The application of the general plan is primarily through zoning. In fact planning and zoning designations are set forth on the same map. Chart One diagrams the relationship of these elements, and also indicates relationships with other portions of the County Comprehensive Plan The document now before the reader is one of the two above ,components —the County General Plan Policies document The Policies document is the broad, direction - setting portion of the Plan, and Lays out approaches for intet 3. of County p lant g needs and means of complying with State of Oregon p l:,,,ni g law. This law attaches great importance to local jurisdictions having adopted comprehensive plans which in turn meet the Teq+irei ents of Statewwide P lanrd g Goals. Accordingly, matters of interpretation concerning the General Plan are to be resolved in favor of compliance with these Goals, and the Plan itself shall be recognized as representing the County's best effort in meeting the requirements of LCDC and its policy expressions, including Goals. Page l ATTACHMENT 1-CP._ . ATTACHMENT a - )g 2 mr i ( c 7 > .. . . r . a� ■a �EQ . S 2 § 0. / $� ( . cr k ( )g 2 mr i ( k{ ƒto �§ §��( § / rA t$ t ki. 9 ( ? / ) \ ( { ATTACHMENTl�. a && §§k . > .. . . \� RR . a� ■a �EQ . / k{ ƒto �§ §��( § / rA t$ t ki. 9 ( ? / ) \ ( { ATTACHMENTl�. 13 ATTACHMENT 1 - B. INTRODUCTION TO THE COUNTY POLICIES COMPONHNT OF THE GDM AL PLAN � County Policies are broad, somewhat generalized statements that provide direction to County decision makers in their efforts to choose between competing uses for given resources, and in their efforts to solve historic problems and prevent new ones from occurring. The Policies cover complex topics and lay the groundwork for future actions of various kinds. The Policies expressed here apply to rural Lane County, outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries of cities and beyond the Plan Diagram Boundary of the EugeneSpring5eid Metropolitan Area General Plan. They are designed to be compatible with similar Policies —and planning efforts —of other governmental jurisdictions in the County.. In some respects, the Policies can be considered the basis of the County plan, in that they provide the lead, or the general direction, for subsequent County actions to deal with various land use and resource management decisions. In doing so, they are directly intended to fulfill the mandate of the LCDC statewide planning Goals. Four statewide planning Goals are not addressed in this d oc umen t the four "Coastal Goals" (LCDC Goals 16 -19). These, and Policies connected with them, are located in a special- purpose Coastal Resource Management Plan developed and adopted for use in the Coastal portion of the County. They should be used in concert with the "basic fifteen'.' Goals. Since they are special- purpose in nature, and deal more specifically with particular concerns of the Coastal area, conflicts may arise or be generated between the Coastal Policies and the "basic fifteen" and should be resolved in favor of the Coastal Policies until, and if one or the other conflicting statement is changed to eliminate the conflict. The Willamette Greemvay Goal is considered to be part of the "basic fifteen ". C HISTORY OF THE POLICIES DOCUMENT The Policies contained in this document were developed during a period of more than a year, beginning in early 1983. A process was devised at the beginning of the period to utilize existing working papers and to prepare a series of new working papers which, along with other sources, were to serve as the technical data based for the Policies. The Working Papers were written and published fcom mid-1981 to .early 1984. Each Working Paper contained information on a given topic or topics, and a number of them contained preliminary Policies which were drawn from. the information in the Papers and which were presented for initial discussion purposes. Hearings were held on the Papers as they were published. Each Planting Commission reported to the Board of County Cart r issi oners containing its reaction to the Paper and draft Policies. Often the Policy sta tements drew on sources other than the Working Papers -- existing County Plan information. (such as special- purpose plans or technical Audies),comments or testimony of individuals or groups appearing at the hearings, the judgment and views of Plaruring Commission members and so on —and so represented a broad array of perspectives and attitudes. Each Planning Page 3 ATTACHMENT .' . ATTACHMENT 1 — 1•. Commission Report cited information used in Policy development, in order to provide a firm basis for Policy use "The background information, including the Workmg Papers, is to be used to help interpret and understand General Plan approaches but is not itself designed to be adopted as legislative law. The Board formally adopted the Policies in February of 1984. Cities Wlu1e the Policies in this document are directed at Lane County government, it is clearly recognized that the County has a responsibility to, and must coordinate efforts closely with; the incorporated cities within its boundaries. Statewide p lanning law requires that each incorporated city develop and adopt its own land use plan which must itself comply with LCDC Goals. The plan must contain essentially the same elements as the County General Plan, with an additional element of an identified Urban Growth Boundary (required by Goal 14). Future urban growth for each city is to take place within that Boundary. In the case of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan, a mutual Boundary is adopted by both cities and the County. For all other cities, the County must ratify the cities UGBs by independent evaluation of, and adoption of, appropriate city plan provisions. Through this method, the County becomes responsible for a dministerin g the provisions of city plans within the city UGBs but outside of the corporate city limits. 'joint Agreements for Planning Coordination" drawn up between the County and each city lay the framework for cooperative action in the effort. Policies concerning Goal 14 in this document further indicate County posture toward city plans. County adoption of city plans,-or amendments thereto — ensures that conflicts between city plans and County Plan do not readily occur. Beyond carrying out the responsibilities outlined above, ORS 195.036 require's that the county "...establish and maintain a population forecast for the entire ma its bormdmy for use in maintaining and updating comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate the forecast with the local governments within its boundary. " Pursuant to this regnirement and OAR 660-024-0030, coordinated population forecasts have been developed and are adopted for Lane County and each of its urban areas. These figures are included in Table 1.1, below. , The Coordinated Population Forecasts included in Table 1.1 were developed for Lane County by the Portland State University Population Research Center except as noted. The methods, assumptions and data used to develop these forecasts are included in PSU's report: Popuzlation Forecasts for Lane County. its Cities. and Unincorporated Area 2008 -2035 dated May 2009. Page 4 ATTACHMENT I -cr ATTACHMENT 1 — s. characteristics of community development higher densities, for example. These areas are treated much as unincorporated communities are within the General Flan, in that they are solely under the County jurisdiction, and they are provided with specific land use designations and zoning reflective of their characteristics. They are not portrayed, however, with the broad 'co designation in most cases. For purposes of Plan administration, a parcel of land is either within a UGB or designated: community or it is not the deciding factor is the portrayal on the Plan Diagram Lands adjacent to such "boundaries are not considered to be within them until and if the boundaries are adjusted to accommodate them. Rural Lands Finally, lands considered as agricultural, forest or natural resources are lands not within any of the' above classifications. These lands include the vast majority of total Lane County acreage, and are under the jurisdiction of the County phis state and federal governments (National Forests). The Statewide Planning Goals and the Policies of this Plan limited substantial rural development. However, it is recognized that such development may occur provided it is consistent with the policies contained in this d ocument As stated earlier, the County Policies are intended to guide actions and decisions. .Although the policies have a common feature (Le., relating to one or more aspects of land use) they cover a broad range of topics and concerns. Because of this wide range, it is not reasonable to assume all policies are to be implemented in the same manner. Visualizing a policy as being in one or more of the following categories will provide a better understanding as to its application. Advisory- Policies These are statements describing the County's position on a certain topic or issue, generally but not always, relating neither to a subject, nor under the direct jurisdiction of the County, These policies are primarily intended to inform or influence the actions of other phrues. They do not have direct influence on the implementation of the General Plait through Plan Map designation, zoning of land or C.tmty Regulations. Examples: "Lane County recommends that no new wilderness areas he designated without a complete analysis of the revenue and employment impacts on Lane County. Where designations are made, negative employment and revenue impacts should be mitigated by increasing allowable timber harvests on other public lands." Commitment Policies These are statements describing a future action the County intends to undertake. The policies cover a variety of topics including - (a) guidance in County operations, procedures and relationships with other agencies, (b) recognition of state and federal Page 6 ATTACHMENT I-11- ATTACHMENT 2 — STATE OF OREGON County of Lane AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE } } ss. } 1, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1, I state that 1 am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. 1 state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of Letter regarding Proposed Amendment to tha Eugene- 5prin9,leld Metro Plan, adopting coordinated population forecasts sent to area Mayors and City ManageWAdministrators. (See attachment W) on August 17, 2009 addressed to (see Attachment . 131, by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. Brenda Jones Planning Admiriis ve Specialist STATE OF OREGON, dbunty of Lane 7 , 2009 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones, Admi strative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: DEYETTE KELLY NOTARYPUBUC•ORESM 0 MYCOMMISSIONEXPIRE�SAAUaA2077 My Commission Expires: g / I( ATTACHMENT 2 -1 ATTACHMENT 2 — August 17, 2009 City of Coburg PO Box 8316 Coburg, Oregon 97408 Honorable Mayor Volta City Council Members _! - , Lw Subject: Proposed amendment to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) adapting coordinated population forecasts prepared by Lane County for Eugene and Springfield. On June 17, 2009 the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance No PA 1255, amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by adding new population forecasts for Lane County and all cities in Lane County for the period 2010 -2035. The Board's action was in .compliance with ORS 195.036 Area population forecast; coordination. On July 16, 2009 the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County submitted a Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DCLD) stating their intention to amend the Metro Plan by adopting the coordinated population forecasts prepared by Lane County. The proposed Metro Plan text amendment win be added as the third paragraph an Page I -1, Chapter I, Introduction and Purpose Section and will read as.follcws: In order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopt the following forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas: These figures effectively provide .coordinated projections for each city's urban growth area's for years ending 2030 through 203% enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginning and ending-years of the 20 - year planning period. In the event either city needs to provide a forecast for a planning period that begins after 2010 that city shall determine the 20 -year forecast by adding 20% of the 2030 -2035 increment for each year beyond 2010. ATTACHMENT �-_ 2030 2035 Eugene — City 'paly 194,314 202,565 Urban Transition Area West of 1=5 17,469 16,494 Total 211.783 219.059 2030 2035 Springfield — City Only 74,814 78,413 Urban Transition. Area East of 1-5 6,794 6,415 Total 1 81.608 84428 These figures effectively provide .coordinated projections for each city's urban growth area's for years ending 2030 through 203% enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginning and ending-years of the 20 - year planning period. In the event either city needs to provide a forecast for a planning period that begins after 2010 that city shall determine the 20 -year forecast by adding 20% of the 2030 -2035 increment for each year beyond 2010. ATTACHMENT �-_ ATTACHMENT 2 — The notice to DLCD included proposed dates for public hearings to consider this Metro Plan amendment. On September 1, 2009 the joint planning commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County will conduct a public hearing at 6:00 pm. in the Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield OR, to hear any public testimony on this proposal. On September 22, 2009, the joint elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County will conduct a public hearing on this same proposal also at 6:00 p.m. in the Springfield City Hall. The testimony and evidence submitted into the record of the joint planning commission hearing will be entered into the record of the joint elected officials hearing. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact one of us at your convenience. Sincerely, Gregory Mott Planning Manager, City of Springfield lets( Lisa Gardner Planning Director, City of Eugene VK ctor, Lane County cc: City M Snag er/A dminictrat oI ATTACHMENT �- . ATTACHMENT 2 — 2009 Letter Re; e; Safe Harbor City of Coburg City of Coburg Honorable Mayor Volta City Manager Don Schuessler Mayors and Safe ager, Administrators or Co Box 8316 Box 8316 Co City Recorders Coburg, Oregon 97408 Coburg, Oregon 97408 City of Cottage Grove City of Cottage Grove Honorable Mayor Williams City Manager Richard Meyers 400 Main Street 400 Main Street Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 City of Creswell City of Creswell Honorable Mayor Hooker City Administrator Mark Shrives 285 E. Oregon Avenue 285 E. Oregon Avenue Creswell, Oregon 97426 Creswell, Oregon 97426 City of Bane City City of Dune City Honorable Mayor Hauptman City Recorder Amy Graham PO Box 97 PO Box 97 Dine City, Oregon 97493 Dune City, Oregon 97493 City of Florence City of Florence Honorable Mayor Brubaker City Manager Robert Willoughby 250 Highway 101 250 Highway 101 Florence, Oregon 97439 Florence, Oregon 97439 City of Junction City City of Junction City Honorable Mayor Coon City Administrator David Clyne PO Box 250 PO Box 250 Junction City, Oregon 97448 Junction City, Oregon 97448 City of Lowell City of Lowell Honorable Mayor Weathers City Administrator Chuck Spies PO Box 490 PO Box 490 Lowell, Oregon 97452 Lowell, Oregon 97452 City of Oakridge City of Oakridge Honorable Mayor Hampton City Administrator Gordon Zimmerman PO Box 1410 PO Box 1410 Oakridge, Oregon 97403 Oakridge, Oregon 97403 City of Veneta City of Veneta Honorable Mayor Brooker City Administrator Ric Ingham 88184 18' Street 8818418 Street Veneta, Oregon 97487 Veneta, Oregon 97487 City of westfir City of Westfir - Honorable Mayor Friedman City Recorder Beth Murray PO Box 296 PO Box 296 Westfk Oregon 97492. West&, Oregon 97492 ATTACHMENT 7--41. ATTACHMENT 2 - STATE OF OREGON County of Lane AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE } } ss, I, Brenda Jones, being first duly swom, do hereby depose and say as follows: _. „ .,6 1. I state that l am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. 1 state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of Letter regarding Proposed Amendment to the Eugene - Springfield Metro Plan, adopting coordinated population forecasts sent to interested parties 3. (See attachment °A') on August 98, 2009 addressed to (see Attachment "B '), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S, mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. Brenda Jones %.--- Planning Administrative STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane 2009 Personally appeared fhe above named Brenda Jones, Admi istrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: aFFicLUSEnL DEYETTHrQ:LLv o N0r0 81aNN0.. � 0 Mr COMM1681gNM08 AUG. 10,2011 M Commission Expires l5 11 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 2 — SPRINGFIELD - _4� R ; EGON August 18, 2009 To All Interested Parties, Subject Proposed amendment to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) adopting coordinated population forecasts prepared by Lane County for Eugene and Springfield. On June 17, 2009 the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance No PA 1255, amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by adding new population forecasts fox Lane County and all cities in Lane County for the period 2010 -2035. The Board's action was in compliance with ORS 195.036 Area population forecast; coordination. On July 16, 2009 the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County submitted a Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DCLD) stating their intention to amend the Metro Plan by adopting the coordinated population forecasts prepared by Lana County. The proposed Metro Plan text amendment will be added as the third paragraph on Page I -1, Chapter I, Introduction and Purpose Section and will read as follows: In order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopt the following forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas: 2030 2035 Eugene – City Only 194,314 202,565 Urban Transition Area West of I-5 17,469 16,494 Total 21L783 219.059 . 2030 2035 Springfield - 1* 6017 74,814 78,413 Urban Transition Area East of I-5 6,794 6,415 Total 81.608 PA X These figures effectively provide coordinated projections for each city's urban growth area's for years ending 2030 through 2035, enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginning and ending years of the 20 -ye2r planning period. In the event either city needs to provide a forecast for a planning period that begins after 2010 that city shA determine the 20 -year forecast by adding 20% of the 2030 -2035 increment for each year beyond 2010. ATTACHMENT '2. -6, ATTACHMENT 2 — The notice to DLCD included proposed dates for public hearings to consider this Metro Plan amendment On September 1, 2009 the joint pl anning commis sions of E ugene , Springfield and Lane County will conduct a public hearing at 6:00 pm. in the Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield Oli, to hear any public testimony on this proposal. On September 22, 2009, the joint elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County will canduct a public hearing on this same proposal also at 6:00 p.m. in the Springfield City Hall. The testimony' and evidence submitted into - the record of the joint planning commission hearing will be entered into the record of the joint elected officials hearing. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact one of us at your convenience. Sincerely, 0 Lisa Gardner Planning Director, City of Eugene 1 PIkgD ctor, Lane County cc: City Manager /Administrator ATTACHMENT 2 -7_. ATTACHMENT 2 — 8/18/2009 interested Parties. Population Maikdu Mike Farthing PO Box 10126 Eugene, Oregon 97440 Oregon Department of Health 442 A Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 DEQ 1102 Lincoln Street #210 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Ed Moore, AICP, S. Willamette Rep Cepafne of Land Conservation a oeve4ment ODOT DLCD Field Office Oregon i Management Perr District 5 Senior Permit Specialist 644 A Street Dave Box x 45 p 644 A Street PO Waldport Springfield, Oregon 97477 t, Oregon 97394 Springfield, Oregon 97477 Kristine Deschaine Fire Marshall 3620 Gateway Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Eugene Water & Electric Board Attn: Karl Morgenstern 500 E. 4 Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Land Watch Land County Robert Emmons 40093 Little Fall Creek Road Fall Creek, Oregon 97438 Corrine Shurton 247 Commercial St. NE #205 Salem, Oregon 97301 Mia Nelson 40160 E. 1" Street Lowell, Oregon 97452 Richard Meyers City Administrator City of Cottage Grove Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 Jerry Valencia 81732 Minnow Creek Lowell, Oregon 97452 City of Coburg City Recorder PO Box 8316 Coburg, Oregon 97408 Damon Kent, City Administrator City of Creswell PO Box 276 Creswell, Oregon 97426 Douglas DuPriest 777 High Street #200 Eugene, Oregon 97401 City of Cottage Grove Planning Department 400 E. Main Street Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 Mary Spankroy, City Recorder City of Dune City PO Box 97 Westlake, Oregon 97493 -0097 Community Development Director Community Development Director City of Administrator City of Florence Mike Miller— Public Works Junction City Planning Department 250 Highway 101 989 Spruce Street PO Box 250 Florence, Oregon 97439 Florence, Oregon 97439 Junction City, Oregon 9.7448 Kay Bork Junction City Planning Director PO Box 250 . Junction City, Oregon 97448 City of Lowell Chuck Spies PO Box 490 Lowell, Oregon 97452 -0347 City of Oakridge City Administrator PO Box 1410 Oakridge, Oregon 97463 City of Veneta City of Westfiir Carrie Connelly Jan Wellman, City Administrator City Recorder 975 Oak Street #700 PO Box 458 PO Box 296 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Veneta, Oregon 97487 -0458 Westfk, Oregon 97492 -9999 ATTACHMENT? 'ATTACHMENT 2 = Alice Doyle 78185 Rat Creek Road Cottage, Grove, Oregon 97424 Cathy Engbretson 32703 E Locust Street Coburg, Oregon 97408 R.S. Hledik PO Box 7428 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Norm Maxwell PO Box 99 Loraine, Oregon 97451 Pat Reilly 395 Marion Lane Eugene, Oregon 97404 Mike Tayhoe 1462 1 Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Lane County Land Management Matt Laird, Director 125 E. V Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Pam Driscoll 81394 Lost Creek Road Dexter, Oregon 97431 Michael Farthing PO Box 10126 Eugene, Oregon 97440 George Jessie 721 Aspen Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 William McCoy PO Box 599 Creswell, Oregon 97426 Andrea Riner 2177 N. Grand Eugene, Oregon 97404 Jery Valencia Brldgeway Contracting 87132 Minnow Creek Road Lowell, Oregon 97452 Robert Emmons Nena Lauinger 40093 Little Creek Road Fall Creek, Oregon 97438 Bill George Sunset View Ranch PO Box 305 Lowell, Oregon 97452 Mona Linstromberg 1420 Golden Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97404 Laura Potter Lane County Homebuilders 2053 Laura Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Bill Rogers 2050 W. 22ft' Eugene, Oregon 97405 Judy Volta PO Box 8318 Coburg, Oregon 97408 ATTACHMENT ?-9- - ATTACHMENT 3 - DRAFT MINUTES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF EUGENE_, SPRINGFIELD AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Springfield Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth Street — Springfield September 1, 2009 530 p.m. EUGENE PLANNING Hlesb7c, John Lawless.. PRESENT: Phillip Carroll, Chair; Rick Duncan, Randy SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frank Cross, Chair, Johnny Kirschen. mann, Vice Chair, Steve Moe, Sean VanGordon, Sheri Moore. LANE COUNTYPLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Lisa Arkin, Chair, Robert Noble, Vice Chair, Nancy Nichols, Joseph Sieldel- Zdzienicki, John Sullivan. Mr. Cross convened the meeting and explained the joint public hearing process. Mr. Cross called the Springfield Planning Commission to order. Ms. Arkin called the Lane County Planning Commission to order. Mr. Carroll called the Eugene Planning Commission to order. L BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE There was no business from the audience. IL LEGISLTATIVE PUBLIC BEARINGS A. Eugene- Spring$eld Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Text Amendment and Exception to Statewide Pla Goal 15 V amette River Greenway for Construction of it BicyclelPedestran Viaduct Beneath the Willamette River I-5 Bridge Mr. Cross opened testimony for the Springfield Planning Commission and called for conflicts of interests or ex parte contacts. There were none declared. Ms. Arkin opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission and called for conflicts of interest or expi rte contacts. There were none declared. Mr. Carroll opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission to order and called for conflicts of interest or ex pate contacts. Mr. Hledik had a potential conflict of hilarest with agenda item NERITES —Joint Planning Commissions -- September 1, 2009 City ofEugene, City of Springfield, Lane County ATTACHMENT -j' Page 1 Fv;:a� ATTACHMENT 3 - - DLL 11. A. Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Text Amendment and Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway for Construction of a Bicycle/Pedestrian Viaduct Beneath the Willamette River I -5 Bridge. He was employed by a construction company that could potentially bid on the project Mark Metzger, City of Springfield staff, explained there had been an error in the meeting location in the original public meeting announcement for tonight's meeting. The error had been corrected by sending out new written notices and e-mail notices and hand deliveries to interested parties. Additionally, a advertisement had been placed in the Register Guard with corrected information. A sign was posted at Harris Hall, the site originally published, indicating the location time and location change. This matter would be addressed by the Joint Elected Officials (JOE) on approximately'September 22, 2009, and any member of the public could address the JOE at that time. He noted there were only two occupied businesses or residences within the 300 foot notice area. There was a longer list of contacts who received information. Mr. Metzger explained this was a quasi- judicial hearing, and asked that those testifying focus on the criteria for approval of Metro Plan text amendments. He said an exception tdPlauning Goal 15 was under consideration. Goal 15 dealt with the Willamette Greenway. He referred to a chart on the wall that explained the process for exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 15. Mr. Metzger provided the staff report as outlined in the agenda packet The Eugene - Springfield area had one of the largest networks of riverfront bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the state. The cent connection between Eugene and Springfield was limited to the north side of the Willamette River. The extensive south bank Willamette River path system in Eugene ended at Interstate 5 (1 -5) because of the physical barriers created by both the existing I -5 bridges and the proximity of Franklin Boulevard (OR 126B) to the Willamette River. Users traveling between the two cities along the south side of the Willamette River must cross to the north side of the river near the 1 -5 bridge or divert to the shoulder, of Franklin Boulevard (OR 126B), a high speed arterial street Many planning documents, including the Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan, TrEmplan, the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Willamalane Park and Recreation District comprehensive Plan, call for the continuation of the Willamette River "South Bank Path° firm Eugene through Glemvood to Springfield. Construction of the South Bank Viaduct is essential to the continuation and development of the South Bank Path. Combined, the viaduct and path will provide safer, more pleasant opportunities for recreational and commuter bicyclists and pedestrians traveling between Eugene and Springfield. The proposed South Bank Viaduct would be about 16 feet wide and 1,100 feet in length. It would connect to the South Bank Path at the point where it currently diverted away from the river. The viaduct would elevate the bilre/pedesfrian path and move it away from the steep bank near the I -5 bridge, and return to the riverbank at a point where the South Bank Path could continue. The proposed viaduct structure would hug the shoreline, minimizin its impact on the river. Some fill or suppin-Eng columns may be placed in the river to support the viaduct as it bypassed the slope barrier. The final design far the viaduct structure was still being completed. An ODOT Transportatlon Enhancement Grant of approximately $1 million, along with $250,000 in Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) funds and approximately $140,000 in donated materials would be used to fund the South Bank Viaduct project The timing of the project would allow reuse of multiple concrete box beams from the Willamette River detour bridge on the viaduct project As the 1-5 MMMS —Joint PlanningC -- September 1, 2009 Paget City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County ATTACHMENT - DRAFT ATTACHMENT 3 —• M replacement bridges were completed, and the detour bridge was removed, the'South Bank Viaduct would be constructed Approval of this proposed Metro Plan amendment did not negate environmental review of the project The South Bank Viaduct would undergo NEPA review to assess p'atential environmental impacts ofthe final viaduct design and to secure the needed approval for construction of the structure. Ms. Moore commended staff for seeing the opportunity to move forward with the project and take advantage of the opportunities to reuse materials from the Willamette River detour bridge. Mr. Kirschenmann concurred with Ms. Moore, seeing the reuse as jecycling at its best. Mr. Cross called for public testimony. Jan Wostmann, 2645 Riverview Street, identified himself as the chair of the Laumlhill Valley Citizens Association He said the neighborhood supported the projects and urged the commissions make the necessary exception to the statewide planning goals. However, he pointed out a deficiency of the proposal. The South Bank bike trail did not connect to the adjacent LaurelhiIl Valley neigbborhood The association requested that the commissions take the necessary action to connect to the viaduct and the South Bank bike trail to the Laurelhill Valley neighborhood It was along overdue connection and would provide a. great opportunity to remedy this deficiency. Responding to questions from Planning Commissioners, Mr. Metzger referred to a map posted on the wall entitled Proposed South Bank Traduct. He noted the mission tonight was to focus on the Metro Plan amendments. While the Metro Plan amendments before the commissions neither supported nor opposed the connection proposed by Mn Wo stmarmn , the project was not within the purview of the issues before the commissions tonight. He opined Mr. Wostmann's request for a safe connection for the neighborhood was not unreasonable. Ms. Jerome, City Attorney for the City of Eugene, raised a point of order. It appeared the co had moved into deliberations from the public hearing process. She encouraged the commissions to conclude the public hearing and bring questions to staff during deliberations. Mr. Cross tailed for additional teatiaiony. There was no Dale wishing to offer additional testimony. Mr. Cross closed the testimony and the record for the Springfield Planning Commission. Mr. Carroll closed the pgblio hear ng and the record for the Eugene Planning C ommissi on. Ms. Arkin closed the public hearing and the record for the Lane County Planning Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Metzger explained the proposed amendment la nguag e had been reviewed by legal counsel from the three jurisdictions. Ms. Arkin hoped staff would be able to assist the citizebs of Imirelhill Valley to find similar special funding to improve public safety for the residents. Mr. Hledik found the findings well written and more than adequately addressed the criteria. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions— September 1, 2009 Page 3 City ofEugene, City of Springfield, Law County ATTACHMENT ° DRAFT ATTACHMENT 3 — K . I Mr. HIediic, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved bat the Eugene Planning Com- mission recommend to the City Council a text amendment to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan that added the following language: An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved by the cities ofEugme and Springfield and by Lane County authoriz- ing construction of a bike path viaduct beneath the I -5 bridges, along the south bank of the Willamette River. The exception authorizes construction of the bike path viaduct including the fill and removal of fill necessary to build the structure: This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660- 0040022(6) Willamette Greenway and the exception requirements of OAR 660- 004- 0015, this exception is hereby adopted as an amendmcat to the Metro Plan text, Policy D. IL Chapter III, Section D. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Mr. Noble, seconded by Mr. Siddel- Zdzienicki, moved that the Lane County Planning Commission recommend to the Lane County Board of County Com- 'missioners (BCC) a text amendment to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan that added the following language: An exception to State- wide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved by the cities of Eugene and Springfield and by Lane County authorizing construction of a bike path viaduct beneath the I -5 bridges, along the south bank of the Willamette River. The exception authorizes construction of the bike path viaduct including the fill and removal of fill necessary to build the structure. This exception satis- fies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660 -004- 0022(6) Willa- mette Greenway and the exception requirements of OAR 660-004 -0015, this ex- ception is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy D. II. Chapter III, Section D. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Kirscherunann, seconded by Ms. Moore, moved that the City of Springfield Planning Commission recommend to the Springfield City Council approval of Fire No. LRP 2009 -00005, the proposed Metro Plan text amendment adding a Goal 15 exception to policy D.11 of Chapter III, Section D. for the purpose of alw lowing fill to be placed within the Willamette Greenway for the construction of the South Bank Viaduct. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Cross announced this concluded the public hearing for the Willamette Greenway. B. Metro Plan Tent Amendments: New Population Forecasts for Eugene and Springfield Mr. Cross opened testimony for the Springfield Planning C mis sion. Ms. Arkin opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission. Mr. Carroll opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Co Greg Mott, Planning Director for the City of Springfield, offered the staff report He introduced Jason Deddrk, City ofEugme Planning Department and Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director. Mr. Matt distributed and reviewed the following handopts: _ MINUTES —Joint Planning Commissions — September 1, 2009 Page 4 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County ATTACHMENT "� DRAFT ATTACHMENT 3 — DRAFT • Chronology of key population forecast events. • Existing Proposed Plan Text • Memorandum dated September 1, 2009 to City of Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County Plan - ning Co from Greg Mott, Kent Howe, and Carolyn Weiss, subject TransPlan Horizon Year. The City of Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane County were proposing amending the Metro Plan by adding separate population forecasts for each city and their urban growth area. The forecasts were prepared by Lane County pursuant to the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.036 and were recently adopted into the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Metro Plan text amendments implemented stated population forecasting and land use planning statutes by providing separate coordinated population forecasts for the Eugene and Springfield jurisdictional areas of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Mr. Mott entered into the record the Portland State University (PSU) study. He noted the staff report was part of the record and included the findings adopted by the BCC in support of their amendment to the rural comprehensive plan. Mr. Cross called for public testimony. Michael Farthing, P.O. Box 10166, Eugene, represented Gordon Webb, who owned about 600 acres on the southeast edge of Springfield. Mr. Webb and Mr. Farthing were involved in the urban growth boundary (UGB) process and the population forecast was essential to the UGB process. He asked what would happen if the December 31 for House Bill (H.B.) 3337 compliance deadline was not met. He asked for a copy of the complete findings. He noted in the text of the plan amendment, the term "urban transition area" was used. He was not familiar with the term and asked for clarification. He also requested clarification of the language in the text which read "In the event that either city needs to provide a forecast for a planning period that begins after 2010, that city shall determine the 20 year forecast by adding 20 percent a the 2030 -2035 total population increment for each year beyond 2030." He did not understand why there was a 2030 figure and 2035 figure, and thought it was a 20 year period from 2010. He was struck by the precision of the population forecast, asserting `nothing could be that precise." He wished the figures were "fuzzier." He added that the numbers in the 2030 column, 211,783 and 81,608, did not add up to the existing forecast in the Metro Plan of 286,000 by 2015, and questioned the consistency of the figures in the current Metro Plan and the PSU study. He assumed the PSU study and what the planning commissions were being asked to adopt was an amendment to the Metro Plan and the 286,000 figure was invalid and inaccurate and would go away. Mr. Farthing generally agreed with the findings on Attachment 1-8, Urbanization, Goal 14, but he thought the population forecast was directly related to Goal 14, He asserted the finding language that said "the proposed ardendment to page I -1 is consistent with these statutes and with OAR 660.024" was a conclusion and not findings. He looked forward to following the process as it wound its way through the various governing bodies. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that Mr. Farthing had a number of questions and Mr. Sullivan did not know whether they were all germane to the discussion, He asked if staff could respond to those questions during deliberation. Noting there were no other members of the public Wishing to speak, Mr. Cross closed the public testimony for the City of Springfield. MINUTES —Joint Planning Commissions -- . September 1, 2009 Page 5 City of Eugene. City of Springfield, Lane County ATTACHMENT 7 -`y``. DRAFT' ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT Ms.- : Arles closed the public hearing for Lane County. Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing for the City of Eugene. Ile asked if there was a reason to keep the record open. Mr. Mott saw no legal reason to keep the record open if commissioners needed no additional infor- mation. Mr. Mott addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Farthing. Question: What happened if the cities of Eugene and Springfield did' not complete the requirement forH.B.3337? Answer: Ms. Jerome responded the statute did not specific a remedy so it would be the standard remedy under the law, which staff believed would be for someone to file a writ in Circuit Court to make the cities comply. She added that everyone was on track to complete the work and staff had every reason to believe both jurisdictions would comply with H.B. 3337 within the time- frame. Question: What did the term `urban transition area" mean? Answer. Referring to the handout.cntitled Existing Proposed Plan Text, Mr. Mott explained staff was `recommending the tables included in the handout with figures for each of the years be- tweea 2030 and 2035 to facilitate the completion of these projects without need to make addi- tional amendments to the Metro Plan text", as noted on the handout. He noted the term Metro Urban Area was used on the handout rather'than Urban Transition Area, Metro Urban Area re- feaed to the area between a land area between the city limits and the UGB. PSU had developed population figures for the Metro Urban Areas. Staff was proposing that the term Urban Transi- tion Area be replaced with the term Metro Urban Area. I& Howe explained that there was a TransPlan RTP requirement that would be off by five years. Thus, the contract with PSU covered an additional five years. Question: What did "In the event that either city needs to provide a forecast for a planning period that begins after 2010, that city shall determine the 20 year forecast by adding 20 percent of the 2030 -2035 total population increment for each year beyond 2030" refer to? Answer: Mr. Mohexplained the 20 percent solution referred to "c text "In the event that ei- ther city needs to provide a forecast for it planning period that begins after 2010 that city shall determine the 20 year forecast by adding 20 percent of the 2030 -2035 total population incre- ment for each year beyond 2030" referred to the mathematical formula representing five years, and allocating 20 percent to each ofthe years Although PSU would have addressed the ma- thematics differently, the 20 percent solution proposed by staff was reasonable. Question What caused the change is the Metro Plan population figure of 286,0007 MINUTES —Joint Planning Commissions — September 1, 2009 Page 6 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Jane County ATTACHMENT ° DRAFT ATTACHMENT 3 — a® Answer: Mr. Mott said the 286,000 figure did go away. That population forecast was used dur- ing periodic review in 1995 for a 20 year plan. The planning horizon was changing beyond 2015, and new projections were being used. Question. Related to Goal 14 findings. Answer: Mr. Mott said the findings were perfected through the public hearing process. Hear: ings were not static and subject to change based upon additional information. The JEOs would adopt the findings although it was the job of the planning commissions to make recommenda- tions to the JEOs based on findings and public testimony they receive. He added the rule was unequivocal. The inventory could not be validated for a 20 year period without a population forecast. In response to a question from Mr. Noble, Mr. Mott said the findings which Mr. Farthing thought were incomplete were those adopted by the BCC in the PSU report and coordinated figures. Ms: Jerome added said the findings were a matter of public record and had been adopted by Lane County. A more complete version would be provided to the elected officials. Ms. Brotherton explained the information before the commissioners was intended to be heads up and provide an opportunity for the commissioners to add clarification if they so choose. She noted in April 2009, the jointplanning commissions held a public hearing and recommended to elected offi- cials that they adopt some amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan as part of the work plan approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commissign CLCDC). The work plan required . that the planning horizon of TransPlan be adjusted to get in more in line with what it actually planned for. It planned for a population for the transportation study area. She displayed a map which illustrated the transportation study area Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Jerome explained on Goal 8 that the City of Eugene PROS comprehensive plan had not yet been adopted and therefore there was intentionally not refe- renced in the current process. The Goal l l findings could be updated based on commissioners' comments from this meeting before the issue went to the City Council. She added there would be further discussions on Goal 11 through the Eugene Comprehensive Lands (ECLA) process. Responding to questions from Mr. VaaGondon, Mr. Mott explained that the variation between the five year increments was irrelevant. Mr. Mott added that the term "safe harbor", as ref=ed to by the Division of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) director, was the "presumed, constant portionality". He noted•DLCD staff thought the safe harbor method did not adequately track the changes that occurred in population, movements due to aging and other factors. Mr. Mott added relying on portionality of 72 percent for Eugene and 28 percent for Springfield was a simplistic approach that the state was willing to accept in the ci v where cities were in crisis and had to have a population forecast and the counties were not acting as needed. Safe harbor was premised on tha existing OEA population forecast for Lane County in 2030 to be 434,000. M and ORA agreed that was no longer accurate, asserting the Lane County population would be 420,000 in 2030. The original premise of attempting to calculate the constant portionality Arad been ratcheted. down. If the 420,000 figure had Been used, the safe harbor numbers would have been even smaller. MM TPES- -Joint Planning Commissiops— - September 1, 2009 City ofEugene, City of Springfield, Lane County ATTACHMENT - �-7 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 3 - I& Dtmcan, seconded by Mr.13ledik, moved to recommend that the. elected of- ficials approve the Metro Plan amendment shown on page 1 ofthe staff memo- randum, with the amendments recommended m the provided hand-out (specifi- cally, the amendments adding the hreak -out for years 2031, 2032, 2033, and 2034; and replacing the term "Urban Transition Area" with the term "Metro Ur- ban Area') but deleting the last sentence from the amendments recommended in the provided hand -out (beginning with: "In the event . "). The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Mr. Noble, seconded by Ms. Nichols, moved to recommend that the elected offi- cials approve the Metro Plan amendment shown on page 1 of the staff memoran- dum, with the amendments recommended in the provided hand -out (specifically, the amendments adding the break -out for years 2031, 2032, 2033, and 2034; and replacing the term "Urban Transition Area" with the term "Metro Urban Area ") but deleting the last sentence from the amendments recommended in the pro-. vided hand -out (beginning with: `4n the event.. .' D. Ms. Arkin said she would support the motion but found the term Metro Urban Area confusing. She wished to have it further clarified when it was brought forward to elected officials. The motion passed unanim ously, 5 Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Kirsch en±mann, moved to recommend that the elected officials approve the Metro Plan amendment shown on page 1 of the staff memorandum, with the amendments recommended in the provided hand -out. (specifically, the amendments adding the break -out for years 2031, 2032, 2033, and 2034; and replacing the term "Urban Transition Area" with.the term "Metro Urban Area's but deleting the last sentence from the amendments recommended in the provided hand -out (beginning with: "In the event...'. The motion passed . 5:0. Mr. Noble, seconded by Ms. Nichols, moved that the Lane County�Flanning Commission close the record. The motion passed unanim ously, 5:0. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved that the Eugene Planning Com- mission close the record: The motion passed unanimo 4:0. Mr;Xrschedmann, seconded by Mr. VanGordon, moved that the Springfield pla nning Commission close the record. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend; that based on the Planning Commission's recommended population forecasts; the amendments to TrausPlan and the.Metro Plan recommended to the Eugene City CouncilMoard of County Commissioners on April 7, 2009, be adjusted to reflect the new population numbers. There was no second to the motion. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Hledrlr concluded that he was comfortable moving forward with the motion without holding an additional public hearing. MINUTES —Jonrt Planning Commissions — September 1, 2009 Page 8 City of Eugene, City of Springfield. Lane County ATTACHMENT �_ -6 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 3 — DRAFT Mr. Siekiel- Zdzienicld concurred an additional public hearing was not needed. Mr. Medik called the question. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. HIedik, moved to recommend, that based on the Planning Commission's recommended population forecasts, the amendments to TransPlaa and the Metro Plan recommended to the Eugene City Council on April 7, 2009, be adjusted to reflect the new population numbers.. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. . Mr. Siekiel- Zdzienicl i, seconded by Mr. Noble, moved to recommend, that based oil the Planning Commission's recommended population forecasts, the amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan recommended to the Board of County Commissioners on April 7, 2009, be adjusted to reflect the new popula- tion numbers. The motion passed unanim ously, 5:0. Mr. Kirscheffiann, seconded by Mr. VanGordon, moved to recommend, that based on the Planning Commission's recommended population forecasts, the amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan recommended to the Springfield City Council on April 7, 2009, be adjusted to reflect the new population num- bers. 'rile motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Cross adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:12009 minuter joint planning commimlow 090901.doc I� MINUTES —Joint Planning C ommissi ons— September 1, 2009 Page 9 City of Eugene, . City of Springfield, Lane County ATTACHMENT " ATTACHMENT 4 - AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON } }.ss. County of Lane } I, Brenda Jones, being first duly swom, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. 1 state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of Lettersent to Lane County Mayors, Council Members and City Managers r~: Proposed amendment to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (See attachment "A ") on September 10, 2009 addressed to (see Attachment "B"}, by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. �l Brenda Jones Planning Administrative pecialist STATE: OF OREGON,'County of Lane '/l 2009 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones, Ad Inistrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: LA i� COWISSION Na 420351 W COMMISSION EXPIRES ALa A 2011 La& La� My Commission Expires: ATTACHMENT � -j ATTACHMENT 4 — September 10, 2009 City of Coburg PO Box 8316 Coburg, Oregon 97408 Subject: Proposed amendment to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) adopting coordinated population forecasts prepared by Lane County for Eugene and Springfield Honorable Mayor City Council Members. On August 17, 2009 you received a letter from the planning directors of Eugene, Springfield and Lane Couuty that included a statement of intent to amend the Metro Plan to add new population forecasts for each city; a copy of the proposed text that would be included in Chapter I, Introduction and Purpose Section of the Metro Plan; and the time, data and location of joint public hearings before the planning commissions and the elected officials of Eugene; Springfield snd Lane County to hear testimony on this proposed amendment. Tins letter is intended to inform you that the joiut planning commissions conducted a hearing on September 1, 2009 and at the conclusion of that hearing recommended that the elected officials adopt revised text and forecast table that includes the years 2031, 2032, 2033 and 2034. Pe full text is attached to this letter.. Please be advised that the information you received on August 17 did not include a break-out of the years between 2030 and 2035; the teat you received Said: "In the event either pity 4eF4s to °vjge q orpca4 or 1t pig p �4 t�pt kpl� a 2 P..t 4 $ oit� 2q- Yea{ forecast by a }g 20 "/0 of the Q3D-2Q 5 me }e?}k for 9 e}r Year eYRg UiP• 49 ijangmg cog =40A and pup c Wy6 cefne,'# �s *g pp, f be erpFeteq }l} wad not intended and thereby bring ab subsequent are &ents to.the P a i incdnsistent witfi the purpose of this language_ The staff prepared alternative language prior to the hearing that assigned population figures for each of the years between 2030 and 2035 so that any required 20- year planning period that ended ip one'of these years.would already have an associated forecast; additionally, the text cited abovg y s deleted. T. ATTACHMENT je1 -2. ATTACHMENT 4 — For your information, the new figures for each of these years were derived by a linear extrapolation of the period between the adopted figures of 2030 and 2035, that is, each succeeding year's population increases by the same number as the preceding year. The consultairts who prepared the Lane County coordinated population forecast confirmed that sucP an extrapolation is a reasonable approach in forecasting the population for these years. The addition of these years with these figures has no effect on the forecast figures for the other cities in Lane County or the rural population forecast because the population, figures adopted for 2030 and 2035 do not change, and the increase each year, though identical, does not rely on a population other than what has already been forecast to reside in Eugene and Springfield. The joint elected officials will conduct a public hearing on the planning commission recommendations on September 22, 2009 at 6:00 pm. in the Library Meeting Room of Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street. If you have any questions.regarding this proposal, either in its initial form or current iteration, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, and on behalf of Eugene and Lane County Planning Directors, Gregory Mott Planning Manager, City of Springfield cc: City Manager/Admiuistrator ATTACHMENT -�i ATTACHMENT 4.- Proposed Metro Plan Text as Recommended by the Joint Planning Commissions ' "In order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield adopt the following forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas: 2030 Eugene — City Only 194,314 VLi�ca3r "J` ea West of 1 -5 17 �� tea.. 17,489. , Total 211.783 Springfield —City Only 74,814 East of 1 -5 6,794 Total 81.608 2035 195 9 64w§iM 1Ai ��J2, "_ter 202,565 Qa s C t sas iY'S }i8s1 7.6,494 is�as ± z 603 2191059 7,534: <i`�„e 3 ;`lfi;25?# : "S,9Z <;c'. 78,413 .-. ' 6, 6 �2j�t• �s�i? +65��`�ak�''.� fn 6,415 ' tM These figures effectively provide coordinated projections for each city's urban growth area for years ending 2030 through 2035, enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginning and ending years of the 20 -year planning period." (VOTE: The Joint Planning Commissions recommended that the interveningyears between 2030 and 2035 be added to the Metro Plan text and that "urban transition area" be replaced with "Metro Urban Area." All of these changes appear with a 25% gray screen for ease. of wemilfication. ATTACHMENT -4} -y ATTACHMENT 4 — 2009 Letter Re; -Safe Harbor Mayors and City Manager, Administrators or City Recorders City of Coburg Honorable Mayor Volta PO Box 8316 - Coburg, Oregon 97408 City of Cottage Grove Honorable Mayor Williams 400 Main Street Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 City of Creswell Honorable Mayor Hooker 285 E. Oregon Avenue Creswell, Oregon 97426 City of Dune City Honorable Mayor Hauptman PO Box 97 Dune City, Oregon 97493 City of Florence Honorable Mayor Brubaker 250 Highway 101 Florence, Oregon 97439 City of Junction City Honorable Mayor Coon PO Box 250 Junction City, Oregon 97448 City of Lowell Honorable Mayor Weathers PO Box 490 Lowell, Oregon 97452 rou City of Coburg City Manager Don Schuessler PO Box 8316 Coburg, Oregon 91408 City of Cottage Grove City Manager Richard Meyers 400 Main Street Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 City of Creswell City Administrator Mark Shrives 285 E. Oregon Avenue Creswell, Oregon 97426 City of Dane City City Recorder Amy Graham PO Box 97 Dune City, Oregon 97493 City of Florence City Manager Robert Willoughby 250 Highway 101 Florence, Oregon 97439 City of Junction City City Administrator David Clyne PO Box 250 Junction City, Oregon 97448 City of Lowell City Administrator Chuck Spies PO Box 490 Lowell, Oregon 97452 City of Oakridge Honorable Mayor Hampton PO Box 1410 Oakddge, Oregon 97403 City of Oakddge City Adminish Zimmerman PO Box 1410 Oakddge, Oregon 97403 City of Veneta City of Veneta Honorable Mayor Sharon Hobart-Hardin City Administrator Ric Ingbam PO Box 458 PO Box 458 Veneta, Oregon 97487 Veneta, Oregon 97487 City of Westffr Honorable Mayor Friedman PO Box 296 Westfir, Oregon 97492 City of Westar City Recorder Beth Murray PO Box 296 Westfi4 Oregon 97492 ATTACHMENT Al-16 ATTACHMENT 4 — STATE OF OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE } } ss. } County of Lane (,.Brenda Jones, being first duly swom, do hereby depose and say as follows: . t. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. 1 state that in my capacity as Secretary, I ptepared and caused to be mailed copies of Letter sent to Interested Parties re. proposed amendment to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (see attachment Wj on September 10, 2009 addressed to (see Attachment "B'), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. Planning Administrative STATE OF OREGON, -.County of Lane 10 , 2009 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones, Adrhinistrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act Before me: OFFl rE EEL DEYETTE KELLY NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON CISMON Na MY COM0.9�SSION EXPIRES AUG�16, 2011 My Commission Expires: � I S t ( Fk ATTACHMENT dl °� ATTACHMENT 4 — SPRINGFIELD 1A t OREGON � Jr4 [ vC�cATI` September 10, 2009 EUGENE Subject: Proposed amendment to the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Genial Plan (Metro Plan) adopting coordinated population forecasts prepared by Lane County for Eugene and Springfield. To All Interested Parties', On August 17, 2009 you received a letter from the planning directors of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County that included a statement of intent to amend the Metro Plan to add new population forecasts for each city; a copy of the proposed text that would be included in Chapter L Introduction and Purpose Section of the Metro Plan; and the time, date and location of joint public hearings before the planning commissions and the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to hear testimony on this proposed amendment. This letter is intended to inform you that the joint planning commissions conducted a hearing on September 1, 2009 and at the conclusion of that hearing recommended that the elected officials adopt revised text and forecast table that includes the years 2031, 2032, 2033 and 2034. The full text is attached to this letter. Please be advised that the information you received on August 17 did not include a break -out of the years between 2030 and 2035; the text you received said: "In the event either city needs to provide a forecast for a planning period that begins after 2010 that city shall detennine the 20- year forecast by adding 20%- the 2030 -2035 increment for each year beyond 2010." The planning commission, and public were concerned that this text could be interpreted in a way not intended and thereby bring about subsequent amendments to the Plan inconsistent with the purpose of this language. The staff prepared alternative language prior to the hearing that assigned population figures for each of the years between 2030 and 2035 so that any required 20- year planning period that ended in one of these years would already have an associated forecast; additionally, the text cited above was deleted. For your information, the new figures for each of these years were derived by a linear extrapolation of the period between the adopted figures of 2030 and 2035, that is, each succeeding year's population increases by the same number as the preceding year. The consultants who prepared the Lane County coordinated population forecast confirmed that such an extapolation is a reasonable approach in forecasting the population for these years. The addition of these years with these figures has no effect on the forecast figures for the other cities in Lane County or the rural population forecast because the population figures adopted for 2030 ATTACHMENT /-I --? AT IA Jd not change, and the increase each year, though identical, does not rei7 cru s� population other than what has • already been forecast to reside in Eugene and Springfield. The joint elected officials will conduct a public hearing on the planning commission recommendations on September 22, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Library Meeting Room of Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, either in its initial f = or current iteration, please contct me at your convenience. Sincerely, and on behalf of Eugene and Lane County Planning Directors, Gre Mott . Planning Manager, City of Springfield cc: City Manager/Administrator ATTACHMENT Ai O ATTACHMENT 4 - 'Proposed Metro Plan Text as Recommended by the Joint Planning Commissions "Id orderto achieve tlmely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield adopt the following forecasts fqr theirrespective jurisdictional areas: 2030 Eugene — City'Only 194,314 11�jba `" '7 West of 1 -5 17,469 Total 211,783 Springfield —City Only 74,814 Metbg� East of 1 -5 6,794 S ' O EM , /M.• ; t: u � ��. -.A. ��.n • d•'iY.SZVr µC• iY.Vrr y �...� • ,nY,H.y , • �� % �? aa 2' 1��93' 'i r ��i� w.'21', - 6'�J.�B �, - �, d6•.1.g �. .� t gpe , w�n 9aj f.. Y. - n � Z 4,•;` ' X i�: ��'> a�i ; 4 :�•'•yg3'^`i��iv'r._7�tfi9 3 6'642. r' 6, ' ' `lE% fi. r , oA 2035• 202,565 16,494 219:059 78,413 6,415 Total 81,608 82.252 ?• 82,896 ; " ;['' } t84�184 84,828 These figures effectively provide coordinated projections for each city's urban growth area for years ending 2030 through 2035, enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginning and ending years of the 20 -year planning period.' NOTE: The Joint Planning Commissions recommended that the intervening years between 2030 and 2035 be added to the.Metro'Plan text and that "urban transition area" be replaced with "Metro Urban Area." All of these changes appear with a 25% gray screen for ease bf fdQntfflcation. ATTACHMENT 41 -11- ATTACHMENT 4 — 1 TT 9/1112009 Interested Parties Population Mail -o6t.. Mike Farthing PO Box 10126 Eugene, Oregon 97440 Oregon Department of Health 442 A Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 DEQ 1102 Lincoln Street #210 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Ed Moore, AICP, S. Willamette Rep aepartmant of rand conservation & 0evelapment ODOT DLCD Field Office - Oregon Coastal management Dave Perry District 5 Senior Permit Specialist 644 A Street PO Box 4-51 644 A Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Waldport, Oregon 97394 Springfield, Oregon 97477 Kristine Deschaine Fire Marshall 3620 Gateway Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Eugene Water & Electric Board Attn: Kali Morgenstern 500 E. 4 Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Land Watch Land County Robert Emmons 40093 Little Fall Creek Road Fail Creek, Oregon 97438 Corrine Shurton 247 Commercial St. NE #205 Salem, Oregon 97301 Mia Nelson 40160 E. 1 d Street Lowell, Oregon 97452 Richard Meyers City'Administrator City of Cottage Grove Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 Jerry Valencia 81732 Minnow Creek Lowell, Oregon 97452 City of Coburg City Recorder PO Box 8316 Coburg, Oregon 97408 Damon Kent, City Administrator City of Creswell PO Box 276. Creswell, Oregon 97426 Douglas DUPriest 777 High Street #200 Eugene, Oregon 97401 City of Cottage Grove Planning Department 400 E Main Street Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 Mary Spankroy, City Recorder City of Dune City PO Box 97 Westlake, Oregon 97493-0097 Community Development Director Community Development Director City of Administmtor City of Florence ' Mike Miller— Public Works Junction City Planning Department 250 Highway 101 989 Spruce Street PO Box 250 Florence, Oregon 97439 Florence, Oregon 97439. Junction City, Oregon 97448 Kay Bark Junction City Planning Director PO Box 250 Junction City, Oregon 97448 City Of Lowell Chuck Spies PO Box 490 Lowell, Oregon 97452 -0347 City of Oakridge City Administrator PO Box 1410 Oakddge, Oregon 97463 City of Veneta City of Westfir Carrie Connelly Jan Wellman, City Administrator City Recorder 975 Oak Street #700 PO Box 458 PO Box 296 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Veneta, Oregon 97487 -0458 Westfir, Oregon 97492 -9999 ATTACHMEN ATTACHMENT 4 — . Alice Doyle Pam Driscoll Robert Emmons 78185 Rat Creek Road 81394 Lost Creek Road Nana Lovinger Cottage, Grove, Oregon 97424 Dexter, Oregon 97431 40093 Little Creek Road Fag Creek, Oregon 97438 Cathy Engbretson Michael Farthing Bill George 32703 E Locust Street PO Box 10126 Sunset View Ranch Coburg, Oregon 97408 Eugene, Oregon 97440 PO Box 305 Lowell, Oregon 97452 R S. Hledik George Jessie Mona Linstromberg PO Box 7428 721 Aspen Street 1420 Golden Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Springfield, Oregon 97477 Eugene, Oregon 97404 Norm Maxwell William McCoy Laura Potter PO Box 99 PO Box 599 Lane County Homebuilders Laraine, Oregon 97451 Creswell, Oregon 97426 2053 Laura Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Pat Reilly Andrea Riner Bill Rogers 395 Marion Lane 2177 N. Grand 2050 W. 22 j Eugene, Oregon.97404 Eugene, Oregon 97404 Eugene, Oregon 97405 Mike Tayhoe Jerry Valencia Judy Volta 1462 I Street Bridgeway Contracting PO Box 8316 Springfield, Oregon 97477 87132 Minnow Creek Road Coburg, Oregon 97408 Lowell; Oregon 97452 • Lane County Land Management Matt Laird, Director 125 E. 8th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 5 — Memo Date: May 18, 2009 Frst ReadinglPublic Hearing Date: June 3, 2009 Second Reading Date: June 17, 2009 sa_ TO: Board of County Commissioners — DEPARTMENT. Public Works, Land Management Division, Planning Department PRESENTED BY: Stephanie Schulz, Planner AGENDA ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE NO. PA 12551 in The Matter Of Amending The Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) By Adapting A Coordinated Population Forecast For Lane County And Each Urban Area Within The County; And Adapting Savings And Severabtilty Clauses. (Flo No. PA 0&5873) MOTION: For June 3.2009: Read the tine of the Ordinance and open the public hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1255 st 130 p.m. Conduct the hearing. After testimony has concluded and the Board has determined the form of the ordinance, then move to approve the W reading and set the second reading and possible adoption of Ordinance No. PA 1255 an June 17, 2009. For June 17.2009 Move adoption of Ordinance No. PA 1255 to amend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) to include a coordinated countywide population forecast for Lane County and each urban area within the county. 11. AGENDA UM SUMMARY The small Mies In Lena County have submitted a proposal to emend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Include a coordinated twenty year population forecast for the county and the cities within the county. Concurrently the Board Initiated a countywide coordinated population forecast project and contracted with the Portland State University. Population Research Center to prepare that forecast data. Population forecasts amused Inland use planning as a basis for determining the amount and type of housing needs to accommodate residents and to ensurd sufOderit thnd Is available for economic growth that provides jobs. Currently, the RCP does not include provkmiy coordinated population forecasts. Population forecasts are estimates of the future population of a given area and are based on an analysis of historic population growth and assumptions about future demographic and economic trends that are expected to occur. Forecasts reflect and incorporate expertise, judgments and decisions with respect to factors such as the Integrity of the base . data used, the appropriateness of the statistical model employed and the reliability of the assumptions considered. In short, forecasts are an educated best guess of what the future population of an area win be. '. CtdhWM W PA t22551 In She Metier OfAmardhV 17* Lena County Rear caeprd>4rtebe PM (RCP) To htdude A Coardhaded POVAdm FwMd Far Lane CMOV And FAM UtM NM" thf Mw Cnwi .And A ftft SH&VA td Grawft Chweee. Re no. PA 08-5 M Page t ATTACHMENT--'5-1 ATTACHMENT 5 . YL A. Board Action and Other History Since 1974 Lane County and several of the cities utilized the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to perform the regional coordination of planning activities, which included the development of population fcmc asting for local jurisdictions since 1977. As a local agency with staff experienced in planning analysis and demography, LCOG was a logical provider of this service. As of all counties or coordinating bodies in Oregon have been required to work with the cities to develop population forecasts for use by the county and cities in maintaining and updating comprehensive plans or other land -use planning activities. In 20D6, the Land Conservation and Development Cofnmiaslan (LCDC) promulgated OAR 660 - Division 24, which Included direction to counties to adopt and maintain coordinated 20 year population forecasts rea for the county and each urban a within the county. OAR 660 -024-0030. In early 2008, the Board of County Commissioners resumed responsibility for coordinated population forecasts under ORS 195.036. On June 27, 2006, the ten small titles in Lane County submitted an application to Land Mstagement requesting consideration of a Rural Comprehensive Plan Post Adinawiedgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) to adopt a coordinated twenty -year forecast proposed by the cities for the county and each city urban area in the c ounlyr. On August 5, 200B, the Board Of CgnmLssloners dimc%d slat# to begin a countywide coordinated population forecast project that would inoWde solicitation of appropriate consultant firms to , conduct the analysis required for the project. Th Portland State University Population Research Center was retained to prepare forecasts and the justificallon for those m1mbers. On September 5, 2008, Sprirpfteid notified Lane County that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DL.CD) was notified the cities of Eugene and sprkrgtield had Initiated a PAPA to the Mefro Plan to adopt new population forecasts for the dGes to Amply with the needed haling determination required by ORS 197.304 ( HB 3337 in 2007). On October 2, 2008, the PAPA application submitted by the small dfies was deemed complete and the first public hearing was scheduled. The Lane County Planning Commission salieduled a work session and Initial public heaft on December 1% 200& Referral notice of this hearing was malted to agencies and Interested parties and published in the Register Guard on November 28, 2008. The meeting was cancelled due.to adverse weather. Prior to the scheduled December 16, 20Q8 small city PAPA bearing, the L.ane.Caunty Planning Commission paitfcipated 1n, coordinated population forecasting for the mstdo cities through a joint hearing with the Metro t Vail planning commisswrr °s in Springfield City Hati onthe Afe6o Plan Safe Harbor separate populatfon for&mts proposed by Eugene and Springlietd fdrthe first time . under HB 3337. The three planning cornmlaslons each voted a separate recommendation to their elected otfidals, the vote from Lane County was to recommend adoptli n, In addition to the Metro Plea Populatioir Forecast PAPA hearing, the Lane County Planning Commission was invited, and many participated In ft PSU Countywide Population Forecast IOck off meeting held tn.Hards Hall an December 2, 2006. Two additional public meetings were held upon reuse of the draft PSU population forecasts, an February 26, 2009 and March 28. 2009. ddmfm No.PAM=!4t the AAARar ClAMWW".Tha Lane 0MV M1 c wVm h m W Planp%V)Ta k4*ACaaditW Popu4tlmPaeeast For Lam Carr y And EachuftnAmnWOMThe0o . And AdopftSwdriiP And avvmMcW-ft . (File No. PA 118-51iM . Pape 2 ATTACHMENT 5`--2- ATTACHMENT 5'- Two additional work sessions and two additional public hearings considering the small City PAPA were conducted by the Lane County Planning Commission, an January 6, 2009 and March 3, 2049. Ddliberations and a recommendation to approve the proposal were completed an Mlarch 17,20M. , The small cities initiated the PAPA In response to the statutory and administrative rule requirements that now pertain to the County. The small cities That have seen rapid growth over the past few years and those with recent water and sewer service capability Improvements propose that circumstances pertaining to the laws regarding population projetdlorts have changed suf ictently to require this amendment to update their population pr*cdons. Reevaluation of long range plans is under consideration In several of the small cities. Economic Opportunfty Analysis, Housing Needs Studies and other documentation that might necessitate amendments to city plans are being reviewed to ensure that urban services are adequate to handle populations which may exceed those projected in past planning efforts. The lack of countywide coordinated and adopted population forecasts, or the adoption of an unreasonable forecast which does not account far current trends poses significant problems for cities seetcing to create adequate long range plans and comply with applicable statewide plennlrg goals. a. Policy Issues The Board of Commissioners have the authority to adopt the coordinated population forecast for the county and urban areas within the county. Tha citys future public factitty, housing and transportation needs are based an future population farecasts that are as reasonable as can be expected with a twenty year horizon. The coordination between the county and.the twelve cities In Lane County to arrive at a coordinated forecast is based an Board policies and this process will determine the outcome of the first adopted countywide coordinated population projection of the twenty first century. C. , board Goals Adoption of this ordinance after conducing a public hearing supports the following Lane County Strategic Goals adopted by the Board: i • Provide opportunities for o'tiaen participation Ica decision making, voting, volunteerism end civic and community invoivernent • Contribute to appropriate community development In the areas of imnsportation and telecommunications Infrastructure. housing, growth management and land development D. Financial andfor.Resoiirce Considerations The tan small cities In Lane County combined funds to cover the application processing fee. A reasonably accurate and long term population forecast Is Important to 'right size' any Improvements to or construction of municipal Lnfrastruam projects such as water systems and sewage treatment plants. Funding for the planning, design, and construction of these facilities are. often a mix of System Development Charges and grandloan packgges from federal and state goverment Consequently, it is important for municipalities to have credible population projections for the targets developed for each city in this and other land use planning work. O dtnenue? b, PAMS/ rnTheM 2WOfMwdngTbe Lane Cantyft"CanP lftPlan(RW)Th hwfudaACoer kMW POPA" mFaemt Pon Lane ODW4And Each Wmo Any WiftMeC&Xlbr, And Adoring 5'MWAnd sevetaIft Ca ®es ifieNa.PAn&WM Page 9 ATTACHMENT 4- ATTACHMENT - 6 ' - - E. _%Criterfa/Analysls - . I. - r 17'! LC12.050 Method of Adoption mhd Amendment. (1) The adoption of the comprehensive plan or an amendment to such plan shay be by an ordinance. Ordinance No. PA 1255 is attached for consideration by the Board. FuxtrGs of compliance with applicable laws and ragulatlons are induded.as Exhibit B to the Ordinance. (2) The Board may amend or supplement the comprehensive plan upon a Anding at (a) an error In Ow plan; or (b) changed circumstances affecting or pertsining to the plan; or (c) a change In pubrrc pofky, or (d) a change In pubirc need based on a reevaluaLlon of factors affgdka the plan, provided fire amendment or supplement does not lmpsk ft purpose of Me plan as eatabffshed byLCII005 below. The findings of compliance with the above criteria are found In Exhibit S to the Ordinance. LC12.1105 Purpose. The board shalt adopt a comprehanalve plan. The general purpose othhe =Vmhanslveptan Is the guklhrg of the sodas, economic, and physical development of the County &best Fvmctte public health, 5=.rety, order, convenience, prosperMl and general web The Lore County Rural Comprehensive Plan Introduction Section illustrates the connectedness of the city and counly plans, and describes the co- adoption of each city's Comprehensive Plan as illustrated In the introduction. In addition to this visual representation of the relationship between the cities plans and the overall general county plan, Part I, Section D of the Rural Comprehensive Plan states: 'W fie the Policies in ft document are directed at Lane County govemmen4 rt is dearly recognized that the County has a responsibility to, and must coordinate a,4 closely with, the Incorporated dWas wNitn &s boundaries Statewide planning lawrequnas that each Grcorporated dh' develop and adopt its own fend use plan which mustself comply with LCDC Goals The plan musF cants n essertfa9y the same elements as the Coun(y General Plmr, w>7h an addZiand efemerrt cf en identiRed thban Growth Boundary (required by Goal 1�. Ellice urivan groxrtlu for each coy bib take place within that Boundary In the of the Eugeneprhtgfiefd Metropolrlan Area Plan; a mutual Boundaryls adopted bybotlr ales end Ure County Far al other Wia4 the Countymust r-ab7y Bra cities tiGf3's byTndependent evalustlon of, and adotipon of, app►opriate rttyplanprotrlsdons Through thismethod, theCount y becomes responalblefaradminih(wh itmprovlsfonsofdly plans wrlhln die city UGB's'but outside of the corporate d y Mnft VoWtAgmements for Ph rming Coordination' drawn up between flue County and each dyWay the 6amework far cooperative action In the effort' The coordinated population forecasts for each urbanajea provide a key component of the base data to support the policies and framework for long range planning necessary to meet municipal j needs for each local jurisdidlon particularly as it relates to urban growth. The countywide 1 population forecasts adopted In the RCP provide lira basis for allies to use two forecasts and coordLmte the population residing In urban areas with the remalnderof to population In rural Lam County. The erractrnent of the statutory and rule requirements applicable In Lana County and the urban areas adopts projections that are reasonable and sufficient for future planning odhare rro. PA 1255 / In"rho MarkrflrAmwdinQThe Lane Cour$r Ihre1 danP r� V+�%r) is mouoa nwommae Pq%A8 nFitPonLaneCmmWAgdEothUemnAwW *fn'nwMmob6AdAdoOngS r4pMditwl6ftdat ML t� Tlo. PA aeSe731 Page 4 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 5 – , n _roc purposes. Those adopted forecasts must then -be used by the cities for urban area planning under OAR 660- C24t=. Lane Code Chapter 16.400(6)(h)(!il)(aa) further requires the Board to make findings that the proposed amendment meets all' applkabte requirements of state and local law, Stafewlde Planning Goals and Oregon Admi ddrative Ruin See Sxh @k B. the findings, for detailed responses to all applicable laws, demonstrating compliance with this criteria. The Oregon Administralitis Rule 660 -024- 0030(2) states: 'forecagsj must take into account documented i mg -fern demographic trends as wag as recent events that have a reasonable likelihood of changing historical trends The . Population forecast Is an estknate which, alllnough based on the bad available Information and methodology, should not be held to an unreasonably hth level of predalon.' Local governments in Oregon have developed and adopted population forecasts for planning purposes since the Inception of the statewide planning program. The forecasts are used, for many purposes including; determining the size of Urban Growth Boundaries (UG13s), Capital Improvement planning, and other planning activities. For exarnlpte, Oregon State planning law (ORS 197295 — 197.295) requires cities to plan for needed halsing to accommodate population growth Inside urban growth boundaries. ORS 197.712 also requires Cities to ensure that sutflclernt land is available in urban growth boundaries for cammercial development and economic growth. Population forecasts are major determinates in these activities.* Coburg, Cottage Grove, oakridge, weamr, buns City, and Florence are not requesting a change to the 2005 adopted, coordinated population forecast for 2030. These dun are only requesting that Lane County include the forecasts adopted by the LCOG Board In February 2005 In the Rural Comprehensive Plan to address the requirements of OAR 6604024-00800) adopted in October 2006. These forecasts are an based on a consideration of bng term demographic trends In these communities, consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-024- 0030 as described In.Appendi x B to the small City PAPA application, the Report on Lane CW* Coordinated Population Forec 2025— 2030 (February 2005 Creswell; Junction City, Lowell, and Veneta are requesting Lane County to adopt Into the Rural Comprehensive Plan figures that have been prepared and subsequently modified to the Projections adopted by the LCOG Board in 2005. Data to support each dVs individual analysis and the methodologtes used to derive the new, updated 2030 population forecasts for them cilles are included in the application In the small oily PAPA application ApQendbr O. Lowell provided additional materfal.)n Appendix F to the application. The 2004105 LCOG c6ordifnated population process Included allocating population to the thirteen cities In the County based on the 2004 Office of Economic Analysis (OFA) forewfor Lane County. Historical population trends were used to compute future population using trend methodology for each city. The future growth trends were applied to a 2004 base UGB population. The 2004 base population was established using city 2004 population data from - Portland state University and housing' unit data from the Regional Land Iritormalion Database (housing units outside city limits but inside the UGB were multiplied by an average household stns and added to the 2004 city Qmit population to arrive at a UGB base populations). _ Odlnma N PA 1 2MIln The MalMrorAmw&v TM L" Cant' R=1 Gw r*wxlve ftR(RCP)7b kdWeACOWbanad P OPWOUPPMec" Wa Lam CMMVMEad2ftWkWW1t1n11WC =W,Ard ft AdcpSokwAndSeymot CINGe. Pogo 5 ATTACHMENT `_-5 ATTACHMENT 5 The proposed countywide population forecasts from the small cities are included In Exhibit A' to the ordinance which includes separate forecasts for the dies of Eugene and Springfield. This exhibit reflects the recommendation of the Lane County Planning Commission. Findings addressing the relevant criteria are Included in Exhibftno' and Include documentation reflecting the methodology and information supporting the forecasts presented by the small cities. Alternatively, there is an Exhibit 'K and SO that provides the methodology and findings for the PSU population forecasts that have been included in the small city PAPA record by action of the Board of Commissioners In May 2009. Previous drafts of the PSU forecasts were provided to the LCPC and give the Board additional evidence for consideration. In addition, the Board requested analysis and preparation of appropriate forecasts for the Eugene- SpdngWd urban area to reflect allocation of forecasted population east and west of interstate 6(1-5). These forecasts are included In the Exhibit W attached to this memorandum. F. Alternatives/Options Option J. Approve the Ordinance as presented. Dton 2 Revise the Ordinance as directed by the Board and retum for approval of the revised Ordinance on a data certain set by the Board. An alternative Exhibli'A' that reflects the PSU population forecast Is provided for the Board's consideration. op tion 3. Db not approve the Ordinance and deny the application. Innate a Post Acknowledgernent Plan Amendment for consideration of the PSU population forecast as 2. i . stand alone amendment and schedule hearings for that alternative forecast to be considered. IV. TIMINGAMPLEMEFITATiON The PSU contracted study has been ongoing since the Board actor In August 2008. The cities subrrrftied the application in June 2008 and need a decision by the Board In order to proceed with long range planning activities that depend on population forecasts. V. RECOMNiENIDATION The Lana County Planning Commission hold a work session on January 6, 2009. Public hearings were held on two dates, January B, 2009 and March 3, 2009. Commission deliberations were held on March 17, 2009. The Planning Commission recommendation of approval to the Board was'not unanimous, it was a'6.2 vote. There was extensive discussion regarding the eptiorib foj�fl coordinated population forecast for the entire county and all twelve urban areas. Soma planning commissioners considered forwafd'ng a'no optniW recommendation that would urge the Board to look closely at the numbers the cigrs are providing, consider the reasonablerese standard In thie OAR, and consider the Safe Harbor option provided by state low. The planning ccmmissioriars also noted It Ie important to understand that the dedsiori Has with the Board, despite any CiWs desires to have approval of the numbers they have put forth.and it was Important to move forward to be in compliance with applicable state laws requiring the coordinated forecast it is ultimately the Lane County - Ctt5mm No. PA 1=1 in The MaW brAman *Mm L.aiu Courtly Mimi C=p're5e WwPhn (RCP)7o 6tdudeACoardi WW PUP w na rLacarpieta eachumanmaawcumtnaCMM .NO AdWftsage AnaSewrOMdes.. GOMM Papa e ATTACHMENT 5`4e. ATTACHMENT 5 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LANE COUNRA ORDINANCE NO. PA 1255 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) BY ADOPTING A COORDINATED POPULATION FORECAST FOR LANE COUNTY AND EACH URBAN AREA WITHIN THE COUNTY; AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEV£RABILITY CLAUSES. (File No. PA 08 -5873) WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County, through enactment of Ordinance PA 883, has adopted the Lane County General Plan Policies document which is a component of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Lane Code 12.050 and 16.400 set forth procedures for amendments of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to adopt countywide coordinated population forecasts for Lane County and each urban area within the county to provide for long range planning and consideration for public infrastructure and community needs for the future consistent with state law, and WHEREAS, the small cities of Lane County proposed coordinated population forecasts that were reviewed at public hearings with the,Lene County Planning Commission on January 6 and March 3, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Board retained Portland State University Population Research Center to complete analysis.and conduct public process to develop coordinated population forecasts for Lane County and each urban area within the county and present the study and results to the Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, evidence exists in the record indicting that the proposals meet the requirements of Lane Code Chapters 12 and 16, and the requirements of applicable 'state and local law; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has conducted a public hearing and is now ready to take action; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County ordains as follows: The Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, General Plan Policies, Introduction, Section D, adopted by Ordinance No. PA 884 and amended thereafter Is further amended by adding the countywide coordinated population forecast table and text as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated here as if fully set forth. FURTHER, although not part of this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners adopts findings in support of this action as set forth in Exhibit 'B" attached and incorporated here. ATTACHMENT _'` ATTACHMENT 5 - I . -- Prior coordinated population forecasts adopted by the Board of County Commissioners before enacting this Ordinance shall remain In full force and effect following the effective date of this Ordinance until those plans are further updated or amended by the Board. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase of portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such section shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. ENACTED this /9 day of .Tr/" 2009. 1 . � - Peter Sorenson, Chair Lane County Board of County Commissioners Melissa Zimmer, Se Lane County Board o County Commissioners APPROVED AS To FORM Oate an County EOF a COU EL ATTACHMENT 967" ATTACHMENT 5 — LANECOUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GENERAL PLAN POLICIES 1984 ATTACHMENT ce I EXHIBIT A FINAL FORMAT UPDATED: January 1998 Apri12003 August2003 December 2003 February 2004 January 2005 February 2008 June 2009 ATTACHMENT 5 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I: Introductory Material 1 Introduction to the Rural Comprehensive Plan -1 Introduction to the Policies Component —3 History of the Policies Document 3 Cities, Communities and Rural Lan Implementation Part M Lane County General Plan Policies Goal One: Citizen Involvement Goal Two: Land Use Planning Goal Three: Agricultural Lands Goal Four•. Forest Lands . Goal Five: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources Historic Resources Mineral & Aggregate Resources Part III: Coastal Resources Management Plan Policies Goal Sixteen: Flora & Fauna Goal Seventeen Open Spaces & Scenic Areas Goal Eighteen Energy Goal Nineteen: Water Resources Goal Six: Air, Water and Land Resources Water Quality Air Quality Goal Seven: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters & Hazards Goal Eight. Recreational Needs Goal Nine: Economy of the State Goal Ten: Housing Goal Eleven: Public Facilities & Services Goal Twelve: Transportation Goal Thirteen: Energy Conservation Goal Fourteen Urbanization Goal Fifteen: Willamette Greenway Part III: Coastal Resources Management Plan Policies Goal Sixteen: Estuarine Resources Goal Seventeen Coastal Shore lands Goal Eighteen Beaches and Dunes Goal Nineteen: Ocean Resources ATTACHMENT 6-11 ATTACHMENT 5 — PART 1: INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL A. INTRODUCTION TO THE RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan applies to all unincorporated lands within the County beyond the Urban Growth Boundaries of incorporated cities in the County and beyond the boundary of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan. Where these lands are beyond County jurisdiction (such as National Forest lands), the Plan applies but its application is regulated by federal law. In addition, it does contain provisions and representations of County positions on various issues, to be used by those agencies, such as the US Forest Service, in their own management actions, and also used in the event that lands not inCounty jurisdiction enter County jurisdiction. The Plan follows the format of the LCDC Statewide Planning Goals, recognizing that they must be met by all local jurisdictions in Oregon. It is composed of two major elements: I. CountKGeneral Plan Policies: For each LCDC Goal, there are one or more Policies to be applied by the County toward land use and other planning and resource- management issues, in the interests of compliance with sound planning principles and statewide planning law. Policies are binding commitments, but will be carried out within established work programs and over all County priorities.' The application of Policies which call for any programs or studies will occur as County resources in terms of both staff and budgetary allocations permit. 2. Plan Diagrams: Two major planning regions are identified for Lane County —the Coastal Region and the Inland Region. For each, detailed representations of land• use are depicted on maps, on Plan Diagrams. Land use regulation methods, such as zoning, are applied to carry out the intent of the designations. The application of the general plan is primarily through zoning. In fact planning and zoning designations are set forth on the same map. Chart One diagrams the relationship of these elements, and also indicates'rela£amships with other portions of the County Comprehensive Plan. The document now before the reader fs one of the two above components --the County General Plan Pofiaes'document The Policies document is the broad, direction setting portion of the Plan, and lays out approaches for interpretation of County planning needs and means of complying with State of Oregon planning law. This law attaches great importance to local jurisdictions having adopted comprehensive plans''which in tom meet the requirements of Statewide PIanning Goals. Accordingly, matters of interpretation concerning the General Plan are to be resolved in favor of compliance with these Goals, and the Plan itself shall be recognized as representing the County's best effort in meeting the requirements of LCDC and its policy expressions, including Goals. Page 1 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 5 A4 a _ o a O � u Fe I w 089 0 a p 3 _ u, O O oNSH U C.+ y 9 y a a.. 0 P, w JS W Z 3 ATTACHMENT —t ATTACHMENT 5 - B. INTRODUCTION TO THE COUNTY POLICIES COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN County Policies are broad, somewhat generalized statements that provide direction to County decision makers in their efforts to choose between competing uses for given resources, and in their efforts to solve historic problems and prevent new ones from occurring. The Policies cover complex topics and lay the groundwork for future actions of various kinds. The Policies expressed here apply to Waal Lane County, outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries of cities and beyond the Plan Diagram Boundary of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan They are designed to be compatible with similar Policies -and planning efforts -of other gov jurisdictions in the County. In some respects, the Policies can be considered the basis of the County plan, in that they provide the lead, or the general direction, for subsequent County actions to deal with various land use and resource management decisions. In doing so, they are directly intended to fulfill the mandate of the LCDC statewide planning Goals. Four statewide planning Goals are not addressed in this document: the four "Coastal Goals" (LCDC Goals 16-19). These, and Policies connected with them, are located in a special- purpose Coastal Resource Management Plan developed and adopted for use in the Coastal portion of the County. They should be used in concert with the "basic fifteen" Goals. Since they are special- purpose in nature, and deal more specifically with particular concerns of the Coastal area, conflicts may arise or be generated between the Coastal Policies and the "basic fifteen" and should be resolved in favor of the Coastal Policies until, and if one or the other conflicting statement is changed to eliminate the conflict The Willamette Greenway Goal is considered to be part of the "basic fifteen ". tti • • t • • •u a • t. The Policies contained in this document were developed during a period of more than a year, beginning in early 1983. A process was devised at the beginning of the period to utilize existing working papers and to prepare a series of new working papers which, along with other sources, were to serve as the technical data based for the Policies. 711e Wprl mg Papers were written and published from mid -1981 to early 1984. Each Working Paper contained information on a given topic or topics, and a number of them contained preliminary Policies which were drawn from the information in the Papers and which were presented for initial discussion purposes. Hearings were held on the Papers as they were published. Each Planning Co mmissi on reported to the Board of County Commissioners containing its reaction to the Paper and draft Policies. Often the Policy statements drew on sources other than the Working Papers - existing County Plan information (such as special - purpose plans or technical studies),comments or testimony of individuals or groups appearing at the hearings, the judgment and views of Planning Commission members and w on -and so represented a Inroad array of perspectives and attitudes. Each Planning Pap 3 ATTACHMENT f t� ATTACHMENT 5 - Commission Report cited information used in Policy development, in order to provide a firm basis for Policy use. The background information, including the Working Papers, is to be used to help interpret and understand General Plan approaches but is not itself designed to be adopted as legislative law. The Board formally adopted the Policies in February of 1984. D. CITIES, COMMUNITIES AND RURAL LANDS Cities While the Policies in this document are directed at Lane County gov it is clearly recognized that the County has a responsibility to, and must coordinate efforts closely with, the incorporated cities within its boundaries. Statewide planning law requires that each incorporated city develop and adopt its own land use plan which must itself comply with LCDC Goals. The plan must contain essentially the same elements as the County General Plan, with an additional element of an identified Urban Growth Boundary (required by Goal 14). Future urban growth for each city is to take place within that Boundary. In the case of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan, a mutual Boundary is adopted by both cities and the County. For all other cities, the County must ratify the cities UGBs by independent evaluation of, and adoption of, appropriate city plan provisions. Through this method, the County becomes responsible for administering the provisions of city plans within the city UGBs but outside of the corporate city Limits. "Joint Agreements for Planning Coordination" drawn up between the County and each city lay the framework for cooperative action in the effort Policies concerning Goal 14 in this document further indicate County posture toward city plans. County adoption of city plans —or. amendments thereto — ensures that conflicts between city plans and County Plan do not readily occur. Beyond carrying out the responsibilities outlined above, ORS 195.036 requires that the county: "...establish and maintain a population forecast for the entire area withtn its boundary jar use in maintaining and updating comprehensive plan4 and shall coordinate the forecast With the local governments within its boundary. " Pursuant to this requirement and OAR 660-0244030, coordinated forecasts have been developed and are adopted for Lane County and each Of its urban are as. These figures are included in Table 1.1, below. ; The Coordinated Population Forecasts included in Table 1.1 were developed for Lane. County by the Portland State University Population Research Center except as noted. The methods, assumptions and data used to develop these forecasts are included in PSU's report Population Forecasts for Lane County its Cities and Unincorporated Area 20D8 -2035 dated May 2009. Page 4 ATTACHMENT$ ATTACHMENT 5 - Table 1.1: Coordinated Pooulatlon Forecasts for Lane Countv and fts Urban Areas Any updates or amendments to the forecasts included in Table 11 may only be initiated by lane County. Any individual or interested cities, however, may make a request for the Board to initiate such an update or amendment Requests must set forth compelling r easons as to why the update or amendment should be considered at the requested time, rather than in conjunction with a future periodic PIan update. An offer to participate in costs incurred by the County shall accompany the request. Amendments to these forecasts initiated by the Board shall fallow general procedures outlines in Lane Code 16.400(6). Commnnitiee - • -. Unincorporated communities are treated differently. They are identified as "community" on the Plan Diagrams, but are not given official Urban Growth Boundaries. Instead, the probable limits of growth over the planning period are reflected in the area within the "co designation, Since lands within these areas are under County jurisdictions, no joint Agreements are required, but development there must be justified by "committed lands" exceptions. Areas within rural Lane County qualifying as Exception areas on the basis of pre - committed uses are not necessarily "communities" as such, but do have some of the Page 5 ATTACHMENT G-!4 Forecast Period: 2010 2015 2020 2025 2029 2030 2035 Cobu ' 1 103 1.3871 1.394 2,6M 3 I6 3,363 4,251 1 Cottage Grove 9 957 10 11 12,261 12,737 12,858 13,542 Creswell 5,647 6,1102 3,2M 9,758 10,799 11 12,172 e Dunes City 1457 1,542 1,540 1,725 1,767 1 _ 1,823 to e Florence 11212 12 55 13,747 15,035 16.065 16,323 17.434 U Jundon C 6567 9,343 10.799 12.067 1 12.922 13.136 13.887 c Lowell 1.043 1.228 1 1.459 ;.714 1.960 2.022 2,345 Oakfldqe 3,859 4290 4 672 4,866 5 022 5 061 5280 Veneta 4,976 5 2 7,251 8,M 9,623 9 7 10 5 05 Wastfir 359 370 384 412 423 428 44a m Eugene only) 156 844 16 6609 176 1115.422 192 194.314 202.565 do eld on = 68.891 62 276 fib 577 70.1391 1 73,989 74.814 78.413 Metro Urban Area West of Interstate-5" 20.931 20380 19 18,R1 17,M) 1 7AM 18A94 - Metro Urban Area East of Interstate-S' 8,140 7,926 7,470 7,202 6,875 - 6,794 6,415 m EutienefSprinoffel d Total UGB Area 244 MB 257 269 380 281 836 291 080 293 391 303,88T o Uninm rated Area Outside a9 UGBs 58 531 55 0 54344 52 H6t SZ 1 52 261 51 634 F Lane Coun Total 349,516 36e,924 385 97 403,892 417996 421,522 437,207 ' any of Coburg forecasts based Upon analysis conducted by the firm Johnson and Raid and testimony provided by City of Coburg representatives to the lane County Board of Commission on June 3, 2909. ° Forecast based upon a 72% allocation of the total Metro UTA West of 1.5 and a 28% anoradon of the total Mehra UTA East of 1 -5. Any updates or amendments to the forecasts included in Table 11 may only be initiated by lane County. Any individual or interested cities, however, may make a request for the Board to initiate such an update or amendment Requests must set forth compelling r easons as to why the update or amendment should be considered at the requested time, rather than in conjunction with a future periodic PIan update. An offer to participate in costs incurred by the County shall accompany the request. Amendments to these forecasts initiated by the Board shall fallow general procedures outlines in Lane Code 16.400(6). Commnnitiee - • -. Unincorporated communities are treated differently. They are identified as "community" on the Plan Diagrams, but are not given official Urban Growth Boundaries. Instead, the probable limits of growth over the planning period are reflected in the area within the "co designation, Since lands within these areas are under County jurisdictions, no joint Agreements are required, but development there must be justified by "committed lands" exceptions. Areas within rural Lane County qualifying as Exception areas on the basis of pre - committed uses are not necessarily "communities" as such, but do have some of the Page 5 ATTACHMENT G-!4 ATTACHMENT 5 - characteristics of community development— higher densities, for example. These areas are treated much as. unincorporated communities are within the General Plan, in that they are solely under the County jurisdiction, and they are provided with specific land use designations and zoning reflective of their characteristics They are not portrayed, however, with the broad "community" designation in most cases. For purposes of Plan administration, a parcel of land is either within a UGB or designated: community or it is not —the deriding factor is the portrayal on the Plan Diagram. Lands adjacent to such "boundaries are not considered to be within them until and if the boundaries are adjusted to accommodate them Rural Lands Finally, lands considered as agricultural, forest or natural resources are lands not within any of the above classifications. These lands include the vast majority of total Lane County acreage, and are under the jurisdiction of the County plus 'state and federal governments (National Forests). The Statewide Planning Goals and the Policies of this Plan limited substantial rural development However, it is recognized that such development may occur provided it is consistent with the policies contained in this document E. IMPLEMSNTATION As stated earlier, the County Policies are intended to guide aeons and decisions. Although the policies have a common feature (i.e., relating to one or more aspects of land use) they cover a broad range of topics and concerns. Because of this wide range, it is not reasonable to assume all policies are to be implemented in the same manner. Visualizing a policy as being in one or more of the following categories will provide a better understanding as to its application Advisory Policies These are statements describing the County's position on a certain topic or issue; generally but not always, relating neither to a subject nor under the direct jurisdiction of the County. These policies are primarily intended to inform or influence the actions of other parties. They do not have direct influence on the implementation of the General Plan through Plan Map designation, zoning of land or County Regulations. Examples: "'La4County recommends that no new wilderness-areas be designated without a complete analysis of the revenue and employment impacts on Lane County. Where designations are made, negative employment and revenue impacts should be i mitigated by increasing allowable timber harvests on other public lands." I Commitment Policies These are statements describing a future action the County intends to undertake. The policies cover a variety of topics including (a) guidance in County operations, procedures-and relationships with other agencies, (b) recognition of state and federal Page 6 ATTACHMENT °!,°� ATTACHMENT 5 - LANE COUNTY RURAL CONTREHHNSIVE PLAN GENERAL FLAN POLICIES 1984 EXHIBIT A LEGISLATIVE FORMAT, additions shown in bold and underlined Deletions shown with a sW*,eihRmjh UPDATED: January 1948 April 03 August 2003 December 2003 February 2004 January 2005 February 2008 une 2009 ATTACHMENT!? ATTACHMENT 5 - ATTACHMENT - ! 7°11 ATTACHMENT 5 — 1. PART 1: INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL A. INTRODUCTION TO THE RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan applies to all unincorporated lands within the County beyond the Urban Growth Boundaries of incorporated cities in the County and beyond the boundary of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan. Where these lands are beyond County, jurisdiction (such as National Forest landsp, the Plan applies but its application is regulated by federal law. In addition, it does contain provisions and representations of County positions on various issues, to be used by those agencies, such as the US Forest Service, in their own management actions, and also used in the event that lands not in County jurisdiction enter County jurisdiction. The Plan follows the format of the LCDC Statewide Planning Goals, recognizing that they must be met by all local jurisdictions in Oregon It is composed of two major elements: 1. County General Plan Policies: For each LCDC Goal, there are one or more Policies to be applied by the County toward land use and other pluming and resource - management issues, in the interests, of compliance with sound planning principles and statewide planning law. Policies are binding commitments, but will be carried out within established work programs and over all County priorities. The application of Policies which call for any programs or studies will occur as County resources in terms of both staff and budgetary allocations permit. 2. Plan Diagrams: Two major planning regions are identified for Lane County—the Coastal Region and the inland Region For each, detailed representations of land use are depicted on maps, on Plan Diagrams, Land use regulation methods, such as zoning, are applied to carry out the intent of the designations. The application of the general plan is primarily through zoning. In fact planning and zoning designations are set forth on the same map. Chart One diagrams the relationship of these elements, and also indicates relationships with other portions of the County Comprehensive Plan. The d ocumen t now before the reader is one of the two above components —the County General Plan Polides:yl The Policies document is the broad, direction - setting portion of the Plan, and lays out approaches for interpretation of County planning needs and means of complying with State of Oregon planning law. This law attaches great importance to local jurisdictions having adopted comprehensive plan's which in turn meet the requirements of Statewide Planning Goals. Accordingly, matters of interpretation concerning the General Plan are to be resolved in favor of compliance with these Goals, and the Plan itself shall be .recognized as representing the County's best effort in meeting the requirements of LCDC and its policy expressions, including Goals. Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4-2�1 arogkT-- § \�� aft 2 S �§ §� 220 k ° EgKfUk� $ %) § ))§$ oil §§q ; f \ 6 z 2 u • ^. ; i § �\ \ 8 §0£8.82 >20 - ■ a § � © z _ / ) ) § 0 S ATTACHMENT F -n ATTACHMENT 5 — B. 114TRODUCITON TO THE COUNTY POLICIES COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN County Policies are broad, somewhat generalized statements that provide direction to County decision makers in their efforts to choose between competing uses for given resources, and in their efforts to solve historic problems and prevent new ones from occurring. The Policies cover complex topics and lay the groundwork for future actions of various kinds. The Policies expressed here apply to rural Lane County, outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries of cities and beyond the Plan Diagram Boundary of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. They are designed to be compatible with similar Policies —and planning efforts_-of other governmental jurisdictions in the County. In some respects, the Policies can be considered the basis of the County plan, in that they provide the lead, or the general direction, for subsequent County actions to deal with various land use and resource management decisions. In doing so, they are directly intended to fulfill the mandate of the I.CDC statewide planning Goals. Four statewide pknning Goals are not addressed in this document: the four "Coastal Goals" (LCDC Goals 16.19). These, and Policies connected with them, are located in a special- purpose Coastal Resource Ma_ nagement Plan developed and adopted for use in the Coastal portion of the County. They should be used in concert with the "basic fifteen" Goats. Since they are special- purpose in nature, and deal more specifically with particular concerns of the Coastal area, conflicts may arise or be generated between the Coastal Policies and the "basic fifteen" and should be resolved in favor of the Coastal Policies until, and if one or the other conflicting statement is changed to eliminate the conflict The Willamette Greemvay Goal is considered to be part of the "basic fifteen ". G HISTORY OF THE POLICIES DOCUMENT The Policies contained in this document were developed during a period of more than a year, beginning in early 1983. A process was devised at the beginning of the period to utilize existing working papers and to prepare a series of new working papers which, along with other sources, were to serve as the technical data based for the Policies. The Working Papers were written and published from mid -1981 to early 1984. Each Working Paper contained information on a given topic or topics, and a number of them contained pr eliminary Policies which were drawn from the information in the Papers and which were presented for initial discussion purposes. Hearings were held on the Papers as they were published. Each Planning Conn nission reported to the Board of County Commissioners containing its reaction to the Paper and draft Policies. Often the Polity statements drew on sources other than the Working Papers — existing County Plan information (such as special- purpose plans or technical studies),comme nts or testimony of individual's or groups appearing at the hearings, the judgment and views of Planning Commission members and so on —and so represented a broad array of perspectives and attitudes.. Each Planning Page 3 ATTACHMENT �` ATTACHMENT 5 - Commission Report cited information used in Policy development, in order to provide a firm basis for Policy use. The background information including the Working Papers, is to be used to help interpret and understand General Plan approaches but is not itself designed to be adopted as legislative law. The Board formally adopted the Policies in February of 1984. D. CITIES, COMMUNITIES AND RURAL LANDS hies While the Policies in this document are directed at Lane County government, it is clearly recognized that the County has a responsibility to, and must coordinate efforts closely with, the incorporated cities within its boundaries. Statewide planning law . requires that each incorporated city develop and adopt its own land use plan which must itself comply with L.CDC Goals. The plan must contain essentially the same elements as the {burdy General Plan, with an additional element of an identified Urban Growth Boundary (re by Goal 14). Future urban growth for each city is to take place within that Boundary. In the case of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan, a mutual Boundary is adopted by both dries and the County. For all other cities, the County must.ratify the cities UGBs by independent evaluation of, and adoption of, appropriate city plan provisions. Through this, method, the County becomes responsible for a dministerin g the provisions of city plans within the city UGBs but outside of the corporate city limits. "Joint Agreements for Planning Coordination" drawn up between the County and each city lay the framework for cooperative action in the effort. Policies concerning Goal 14 in this document further indicate County posture toward city plaits. County adoption of city plans --or amendments thereto — ensures that conflicts between city plans and County Plan do not readily occur. ' Beyond cassyfn¢ out the responsibilities outlined above. ORS 195.036 requires that the county: the local eovernments within its boundary." pap4 ... ATTACHMENT 1 5 - 7-9 The Coordinated Population Forecasts included in Table 1.1 were develoved for Lane County by the Portland State University Population Research Center except as ATTACHMENT 5 Unincorporated C are treated differently. They are identified as "community" on the Plan Diagrams, but are not given official Urban Growth Boundaries. Instead, the probable limits of growth over the planning period are reflected in the area within the "community" designation. Since lands within these areas are under County jurisdictions, no Joint Agreements are re but development there must be justified by "committed lands" exceptions. Areas within rural Lane County qualifying as Exception areas on the hams of pre- committed uses are not necessarily "CO as such, but do have some of the Page 5 ATTACHMENT " °° i mule i.r. �oormnmeo ro utanon roreCMS Tor Lane uountiv an as uroan Areas F orecast d : 2010 1 20161 020 2025 2029 2030 2035 C oburn , 11.103 t 87 394 • Z 828 3,216 3,363 4 251 g ottame Grove 957 10 616 11 424 12,281 12 656 13 642 V Creswell S,647 6 802 9,253 9,768 10 1 060 12 2 -E Dunes Cltv 1,467 1,542 1,640 1,T28 1,T$7 1 T77 1 823 y Fl orence 11,212 12,355 1[3 747 15 035 10.005 16 323 17,434 e c Junction City 6,567 9.343 110.799 12.067 12.922 3136 13,387 tl Lowell 7043 1226 1 59 1 714 1 660 022 , 2345 j Oakridge 3 59 4.290 1 4,672 4 866 5 022 5.061 '5 280 Veneta 4.976 5.9021 25 8.727 823 9 647 10 505 ast6r 359 370 384 .W423 3 426 448 a o 1 158 168 761 65 36 194 314 202 565 rin eld to enl 56 891 6 276 86 5 70 9 4 814 75 13 Metro Urban Area West of Interstate -5" 0 93 20 380 19 209 16 0 17 469 16 d Metro Urban Area East of Interstate -5" 8140 926 470 5 6 794 6.415 u nef5 n eld Total UGB Area 244 805 257191 269 380 267 0 293 391 303 887 Unlnco orated Area Outslde all UGBs 511531 55 900 54 344 52 1 52 261 Lane Coun Total 349 516 366 924 385 297 40S 6 421 522 497 207 CRY of Cabura foram is based umn maWs conduct ad 6v 1he fim Jahn n and Raid and le P v aravld d by City of C b' m nta5 tothelanaCounty 6 doff mmis "o June 3. 2089 " Fommst based upon e 7 atloca6on of the total Metro UTA West of Id and a 28% allocation of the toW Metre UrA East of 5. Unincorporated C are treated differently. They are identified as "community" on the Plan Diagrams, but are not given official Urban Growth Boundaries. Instead, the probable limits of growth over the planning period are reflected in the area within the "community" designation. Since lands within these areas are under County jurisdictions, no Joint Agreements are re but development there must be justified by "committed lands" exceptions. Areas within rural Lane County qualifying as Exception areas on the hams of pre- committed uses are not necessarily "CO as such, but do have some of the Page 5 ATTACHMENT " °° ATTACHMENT 5 — characteristics of community development— higher densities, for example. These areas are treated much as unincorporated communities are within the General Plan, in that they are solely under the County jurisdiction, and they are provided with specific land use designations and zoning reflective of their characteristics. They are not portrayed, however, with the broad "community" designation inmost cases. For purposes of Plan administration, a parcel of land is either within it UGB or designated: community or it is not—the deciding factor is the portrayal on the Plan Diagram. Lands adjacent to such "boundaries are not considered to be within them until and if the boundaries are adjusted to accommodate thew. Finally, lands considered as agricultural, forest or natural resources are lands not within any of the above classifications. These lands include the vast majority, of total Lane County acreage, and are under the jurisdiction of the County plus state and federal governments (National Forests). The Statewide Planning Goals and the Policies of this Plan limited substantial rural development. However, it is recognized that such development may occur provided it is consistent with the policies contained in this d m+men k E. Ev1PLEMENTATiON As stated earlier, the County Policies are intended to guide actions and decisions. Although the policies have a common feature (i.e., relating to one or more aspects of land use) they cover a broad range of topics and concerns. Because of this wide range, it is not reasonable to assume all policies are to be implemented in the same mariner. Visualizing a policy as being in one or more of the following categories will provide a better understa_riding as to its application Advisory Policies These are statements desai ing the County's position on a certain topic or issue, generally but not always, relating neither to a subject, nor under the direct jurisdiction of the County. These policies are primarily intended -to inform or influence the actions of other parties. They do not have direct influence on the implementation of the General Plan through Plan Map designation, zoning of land or County Regulations. Examples: %andCounty recommends that no new wilderness be designated without a complete analysis of the revenue and employment impacts on Lane County. Where designations are made, negative employment and revenue impacts should be mitigated by increasing allowable timber harvests on other public lands.' Commitment Policies These are statements descnI nng a future action the County intends to undertake. The policies cover a variety of topics including (a) guidance irr County operations, procedures and relationships with other agencies, (b) recognition of state and federal Page 6 ATTACHMENT &a ATTACHMENT 5 — Findings in Support of Ordinance No. PA 1255 Lane County Coordinated Population Forecast Portland State University, Population Research Center Rural Comprehensive Plan Adoption 2. 0 !ll 5. 21 7. Erbihit B Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008-2035 (May 2009) was prepared by the Population Research Center College of Urban and Public Affairs at Portland State University (PSU) over a period of time from August 2008 to May 2009. The Population Research Center produced long-term population forecasts for the County, the two largest cities of Eugene and Springfield, the shared Eugene - Springfield urban growth boundary area (UGB), the UGB areas for the County's remaining 10 cities, and for the unincorporated area outside the UGB-. The forecast horizon extends 27 years from 2008 to 2035, and the forecasts are produced in 5 -year intervals between 2010 and 2035. The County will use the forecasts to coordinate revisions of the comprehensive plans for each of these areas. The projections are benchmaiked to the Population Research Center's 2008 certified population estimates for the city and county populations. In 2008, Lane County's population was 345,880. The Eugene- Springfield UGB represents 70 percent of the county's population and that percentage does not change much during the forecast period. The 2008 population estimates for lane County's ten smaller cities are all under 10,000, ranging from 340 to 9,830 persons. These cities capture population increases from about 13 percent to over 18 percent throughout the forecast period. The share of the population that the non -UGB unincorporated area represents -decreases from about 17 percent to 12 percent This shift of persons residing in rural 'areas to more urbanized areas is a common trend throughout Oregon and the United States that has been ongoing for many years. Data used to develop the forecasts include vital statistics; population, land uso, building permit, and employment data; and school enrollments for districts within Lane County. Several diffirent demographic methods and models were employed to prepare the forecasts, including the development of cohort- component models far the County and larger areas, 'and'housing unit models for each of the county's smaller cities and the non -UGB unincorporated area. The cohort- component model incorporates rates of fertility, mortality, and migration. The housing unit model assumes a number of future added housing units, levels af.housing occupancy, and averages of the number of persons per household. Consideration was given to factors that influence Lane County's population dynamics, namely the population's ethnic and age composition, the number of annual births that occur, employment and commuting patterns, the number of building permits issued, and public school enrollment in the county's school districts. Fht am trends in the forecasts for the County and its sub -areas each suggest that there will be continuing increases in population, but at slightly decreasing rates from the beginning to the end of the forecast period. Ordinance No. PA 1255 Exhibit "B" Findings ATTACHMENT �a`� ATTACHMENT 5 - S. The downturn of the local economy is forecast to be more severe than that seen in the early 2000's and to not recover until the 2010's. Therefore, housing construction is forecast to be sluggish for a few years in most areas, but will accelerate after 2015. At that time the net in- migration of families with children, the elderly, and Hispanics is predicted to increase and continue throughout most of the forecast period. 9. The sub -areas in this study at times are called `cities' but are actually city urban areas, which refer to the area within the city limits combined with its corresponding UGB area outside city limits; or in other words, all of the area within the small city urban growth boundaries. 10. The PSU forecasts for Eugene and Springfield cities are for the:individual cities without the unincorporated UGB area, because they share a single UGB under the current Metro Plan boundary. The Eugene - Springfield UGB population estimated for each of the areas east and west of I -5 separately is forecast to follow current percentages, which is 72 percent for Eugene and 28 percent for Springfield. The share of the Eugene Springfield UGB will continue to be stable at around 70 percent of the county whole, with a slight increase during the forecast period. 1 L The unincorporated area of Lane County refers to the area outside of any city and UGB. This area is known as the `non -UGB unincorporated area' in the PSU Report, Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008 -2035 (May 2009). 12. Five of Lane County's cities, Lowell, Veneta, Dunes City, Coburg, and Westfir, either have a UGB that is identical, or nearly identical, to their city boundary. 13'. The other cities have a UGB outside their city limits where a portion of the city area's housing stock is located. Twenty-one percent of Florence's housing units are in its unincorporated UGB area. The percentage of housing that is located in the Eugene- Springfield and the Junction City unincorporated UGB areas is around 12 percent, and represents over 12,000 and over 300 housing units, respectively. The cities of Oakridge, Creswell, and Cottage Grove each have a UGB where between 3 and 6 percent of the housing units (in a range between 50 and 200 units) are located. 14. The annual certified population estimates from the U: S. Census represenf•the area within the city limits. If a city does not send annual housing and population data to the estimates program, its certified estimate is held constant to the previous year and may not account for recent changes. The population figures presented in the report Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008-2035 (May 2009), represent the 2008 certified estimates adjusted to incorporate the city UGB areas. Population forecasts for 2010 and beyond account for fluctuations in annual data that may have affected the previous data. 15. The 2010 -1040 population forecast for Lane County produced by Oregon's Office -of Economic Analysis (OEA) is used to gauge the Lane County forecast results. While the published OEA forecast currently available was produced in 2004, OEA is currently revising the forecast The Population Research Center works closely with OEA and had access to information regarding those revisions during the Lane County Population Forecast effort. Consequently, results reported for Lane County by the PSU report are very close to OEA's preliminary forecast, but slightly lower in the early part of the forecast period, and slightly higher toward the end of the period. The differences vary by no more than 2,700, or less than one percent, in any 5 -year time period. OrdinanocNo. PA 1255 Bxbibit °B" Findings ATTACHMENT 6`2?,_ ATTACHMENT 5 - 16. The ethnic and racial diversity in the population forecast includes base data of white non- Hispanics accounting for 86.2 percent of the County's population and all other ethnic minorities accounting for 13.8 percent Hispanics represent the Iargest share of the ethnic minority population (approximately 44.2 percent}, followed by AsiuRacifia Islanders (21.0 percent) followed by persons who identify themselves as more than one race (17.4 percent). Blacks and Native Americans represent about 1 percent, and 7.3 percent of the County's ethnic minority population, respectively. Of the total County population, Hispanics represent 6.1 percent 17. The total fertility rate in the County was 1.63 in 2000. This rate is somewhat lower than the State average of 1.98 children per woman in 2000, end even lower than the 1990 County rate (1.71). The trend of declining fertility rates over the past 2 decades is forecast to continue. A larger decrease in fertility rates has been offset by the increase of the female Hispanic population which is associated with higher fertility rates than the majority population of white non - Hispanics. Age - specific fertility rates in the County have shifted slightly in recent yearn and there has been an increase in the percentage of women statewide postponing child- bearing or deciding not to have children at all. In addition, there is now a smaller share of younger mothers than in the past 18. Occupancy rates in Lane County are higher than the statewide occupancy rate. Coastal cities (Dunes .City and Florence) have the lowest. occupancy rates due to vacation homes and seasonal housing. The places with the highest occupancy rates — above 96 percent - are Veneta, Westfir, and the Eugene-SpringfieId UGB. The average number of persons that occupy a household (PPH), or household size, is influenced by several factors; age and racialletlmic composition; share of elderly population versus the share of married couples and growing families due to the propensity of elderly to live alone, and changes in fertility rates and school enrollment. 19. By housing type, the PPH in single - family units (SFR) is typically higher than in multifamily residences (MFR), or mobile. homes. This is the case in Lane County, its unincorporated area, and most of its cities. In Junction City, however, the PPH is higher in mobile homes than in other housing types. The rates of increase in the number of housing units in Lane County and its cities and unincorporated area are similar to the growth rates of their corresponding populations for most of the ten smaller cities in Lane County. The pattern of population and housing change in the County also remains relatively similar. 20. Facilities such as nursing homes college dorms, and prisons are categorized as group quarters. In 2008, 3.0 percent of Lane County's population, or 10,669 persons, resided in group quarters facilities. The City of Eugene is home to about 82 percent of the County's group quarters population, with 90 percent of persons in group quarters residing within the Eugene - Springfield UGB. The forecast assumes the group gnaiters - population will remain fairly stable during the forecast period except in Junction City, where construction of a state prison and state hospital is planned for the early years of the forecast. 21. The mortality rate used to develop the forecast assumes that current mortality will improve during the forecast period and that the gender difference in life expectancy at birth will mostly maintain the current level: The ratan age at all births will slightly increase, which is consistent with the U.S., state, and county historical trends since the. 1960s. Ordinance No. PA 1255 FNkUt "B" Findings ATTACHMENT' ATTACHMENT 5 - 22. Migration rates are a more difficult demographic factor to estimate than the other factors, yet they remain a main factor affecting population changes in Lane County. Around three fourths of population growth in the County since 2000 is attributed to net migration (movers in minus movers out). The final projected net migration used in the forecast is a hybrid of the demographic method, time series, and economic growth analysis methods. Net migration was negative in the 1980s, and was about 10,000 residents (meaning 10,000 more persons moved out of Lane County than moved ink or 3.5 percent of total population. Net migration was positive in the 1990s, about 30,000 residents, or about 11 percent of the total population. The negative net migration in the 1980s was marked by Oregon's most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, while the large positive net migration in the 1990s was more prosperous, with strong job growth. From 2000 to 2008, population growth in Lane County due to net migration was estimated to be around six to seven percent Positive net migration was seen despite downturns in the economy in the first few years of the decade. The highest job increase since at least 2000 occurred in 2005, however, the economy was showing signs of weakening again in 2007 and hasn't yet recovered. Still, evidence continues to show signs of a positive in -flow of net migrates to Lane County. Net migration will be lower in the 2000s than in the 1990s and the downturn is expected to continue over the next few years. Net in- migration will regain vitality after 2015, however, due to an economic recovery. Due to the relatively larger population base that has been increasing since at least 1990, total net migration in the 2010s is projected to be slightly higher than in 1990 although it will be at lower rates. Net in- migration will accelerate some and will gain momentum until around,2030 when the magnitude lessens a bit 23. All population forecasts are based on a combination of a beginning population; various known, estimated, and predicted rates; and the forecasters' expertise and knowledge about future trends. The forecasts may err through imprecise data or unexpected shifts in demographic trends. Generally, forecasts for larger geographical areas, such as the entire county are more reliable than those for small areas, such as for a small city with fewer than 1,000 persons. These forecasts will be used as a guide to population growth over the next few years, and changes in local areas will surely affect populations in some cities, resulting in the actual population deviating from the numbers shown in the adopted forecasts. The differences between the forecast and actual populations will vary in magnitude and perhaps direction. 24. The forecasts presented in the PSU report Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008- 2035(May 2009) meet the requirement of Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 195.036 and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660- 024 -0030 which require counties in Oregon to coordinate with their cities to develop population forecasts for use by the county and cities in land -use planning activities. "The coordinating body under ORS 195.023(1) shall establish and maintain a population forecast for the entire area within its boundary for use in maintaining and updating comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate the forecast: with the local governments within its boundary. " The PSU report establishes population forecasts for all of Lane County and the urban areas within the county. The effort leading up to the report and development of the forecasts included three public meetings where city . reprwdntadves and interested parties provided testimony and spoke directly to the Ordinance No. PA 1255 Bxhlit'B" Fill& s ATTACHMENT -5-9v ATTACHMENT 5 — and other relevant factors affecting all of the lane County comprehensive plans. In addition to the public policy changes regarding responsibility of the Lane County Board for countywide coordinated population forecasts, HB 3337 (2007) requires a re- evaluation of population forecasts presented for the area within the current Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area single urban growth boundary. A single population forecast for that urban area is no longer useful under HB3337 direction enabling Eugene and Springfield to conduct residential buildable land studies and other studies separately so that each may consider having its own urban growth boundary and makes it necessary to produce future population projections based on the jurisdictional area and requirements of each of the two largest cities in Lane County. LC12.005 Purpose. The Board shall adopt a comprehensive plan. The general purpose of the comprehensive plan is the guiding of the social, economic and physical development of the County to best promote public health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare: . Lane Code Chapter 16A00(6)(b)(ili)(aa) further requires the Board to make findings- that the proposed amendment meets all applicable requirements of state and local law, Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon Administrative Rules. The proposed amendment meets the purpose section of LC Chapter 12 and is also in conformance with the applicable state and local laws, Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon Administrative Rules as discussed below. 27. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement This goal calls for the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases oftheplanning process. It requires each city and county to have a citizen involvementprogram. The citizen involvement process timeline presented below establishes adequate opportunities for citizen involvement and is found to be fully compliant with this goal. . On August 5, 2008, the Board of Commissioners directed staff to begin the coordinated population forecast project by solicitation of appropriate consultant firms to conduct the analysis required for the project using a process that would be open and provide ample opportunity for citizen involvement in the preparation and coordination of countywide population forecasts. On September 5,.200S, DLCD was notified the cities of Eugene and Springfield had initiated a post -ad mowledgement plan amendment to the Metro' Plan to adopt new population forecasts. for the cities to comply with the needed housing determination required by ORS 197.304 (HB 3337). The. Lane County Planning Commission participated in coordinated population forecasting for the metro cities through a joint hearing with the Metro planning commissions in Springfield City Hall on November 6, 2008 to hear testimony regarding the Metro Safe Harbor separate population forecasts proposed by Eugene and Springfield for the first time under HB 3337. The three planning commissions each voted a separate recommendation up to their elected officials, the vote from Lane County was to recommend adoption. Ordinance No. PA 1255 Exhibit °B" Findings ATTACHMENT °� ATTACHMENT 5 On December 2, 2008, the Lane County Planning Commission was invited, and many participated in the PSU Countywide Population Forecast Kick -off meeting held in Harris Hall. Two additional public coordination meetings were -held upon release of the PSU population forecasts, on February 26, 2009 and March 26, 2009. i The PSU effort was also presented in various ways during the LCPC public hearings and consideration of the small city PAPA requesting a coordinated countywide population forecast be adopted into the RCP. The LCPC ultimately recognized the Board would need to decide on the appropriate population forecasts. All of these proceedings gave interested parties and cities'an opportunity to coordinate and paiticipate in development of population forecasts for Lane County and utilized the adopted county citizen involvement program consistent with Goal. I 28. Goal 2: Land Use Planning This goal requires establishment of a land use planning process and policy framework to coordinate decisions and actions related to land use and assuring an adequate factual.basis for those decisions. The adoption of a countywide coordinated population forecast for Lane County and urban areas of the county fulfills this goal through the public involvement process under the coordinated policy framework as demonstrated in the public record on file in Land Management The cities and Lane County have coordinated this decision through the data consideration and analysis phase under contract with PSU. The public was provided ample opportunity for input and involvement in the process, as evidenced by over 300 exhibits in the public record for this project. Therefore adopting this amendment is fully consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. The Lane County Rural Comprehensive General Plan Policies, Introduction, illustrates the connectedness of the city and county plans, and describes the co- adoption of each city's Comprehensive Plan as illustrated in the introduction. In addition to this visual representation of the relationship between the cities plans and the overall general county plan, Part 1, Section D of the Rural Comprehensive Plan states: "While the Policies in this document are directed at Lane County governmeri; it 1 clearly recognized_ that the County has a responsibility to, and must coordinate efforts closely with, the incorporated cities within its boundaries. Statewide planning law requires that each incorporated city develop and adopt its own land use plan which must itself comply with LCDC Goals. The plan must contain essentially the same elements as the County General Plan, with an additional element of an identified Urban Growth Ba.undary (required by Goal 14). Future urban growth for each city is to take place within that Boundary. In the case of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan, a mutual Boundary is adopted by both cities and the County. For all other cities, the County must ratify the cities UGBs by independent evaluation of, and adoption of appropriate city plan provisions.. . Through this method, the County.becomes responsible for adminlstering the provisions of city plans within the city UGBs but outside of the corporate city limits. 'Joint Agreements for Planning Coordination' drawn up between the County and each city lay the frameworkfor cooperative action in the effort. " Orditm= No. PA 1255 Eabibit "B" Findings ATTACHMENT x-77 ATTACHMENT 5 - The coordinated population forecasts for. each urban area provide a key component of the base data to support the policies and framework for long range planning necessary tr meet municipal needs for each local jurisdiction particularly as it relates to urban growth. The countywide population forecasts adopted in the RCP provide the basis for cities to use those forecasts and coordinate the population residing in urban areas with the remainder of the population in rural Lane County. The enactment of the statutory and rule requirements now applicable in Lane County and the urban areas makes it necessary to adopt projections that are reasonable and sufficient for future planning purposes. The adopted forecasts, once part of the RCP, must then be used by the cities for the necessary urban area planning under OAR 660- 024 -0034. 29. Goal 9: Economic Development Goal requires theprovision ofadequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic opportunities to increase prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Population forecasts are a key .factor in det ermin in g future land needs to serve as location for businesses and companies that provide jobs in Lane County communities. The urban growth boundaries of cities are planned for a twenty year future need as determined by Economic Opportunity Analysis and other documentation that would support amendments and adjustments to UGB's. The lack of a coordinated and adopted forecast, or the adoption of an unreasonable forecast which does not account for current trends poses a significant hurdle to cities seeking to create adequate long range economic, residential and infrastructure development plans. Therefore, adoption of a countywide coordinated population forecast is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9. 30. Goal 10: Housing Goal 10 requires availability of adequate numbers of needed housing to meet the needs of the citizens of the state Population forecasts are used in determining the amount and type of housing needed to accommodate the projected population growth for 20 years. Housing needs also planned for and determined by urban areas. Housing Needs Studies and other analysis or documentation that supports amendments to the current adopted population forecasts were reviewed. Accurate population forecasts will ensure that cities may determine whether urban services are adequate to handle populations which may exceed those projected in past planning efforts. Adoption of a coordinated reasonable forecast that accounts for current trends complies with this Statewide Planning Goal. 31. Goal 11. Public Facilities and Services This goal calls for planning and developing a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement ofpu_blic facilities and services to serve as a frameworkfor urban and rural developments. Planning for adequate public facilities and infrastructure requires an accurate population forecast. The design and construction of public facilities such as municipal water and wastewater treatment facilities requires a reasonable population forecast for sufficient supply of infrashucture over a twenty year planning period. The countywide coordinated population forecast will provide the basis for compliance with this Statewide Planning Goal. Ordinance No. PA I255 Exhrbit'B" Finding ATTACHMENT 41�;«. °� ATTACHMENT 5 — 32. Goal 12: Transportation This goal cdlls for providing and encouraging a safe, convenient and economic transportation system to serve the people. Planning for adequate transportation system facilities requires an accurate population forecast. The design and construction of roads, public transportation and associated facilities requires a reasonable population forecast for sufficient budgeting and planning to construct in a timely manner these facilities over a twenty year planning period. The countywide coordinated population forecast will provide the basis for compliance with this Statewide Planning Goal. 33. Goal 14: Urbanization Goal,.7 requires the orderly and efficient transition f rom rural to urban land use. The adoption of updated population forecasts for the county and urban - areas of the county would provide a basis for the twenty year planning for urban area needs in the cities: Establishment and . change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on demonstrated need to accommodate urban populations consistent with twenty year population forecasts coordinated with affected governments. The adoption of this amendment is consistent with this applicable Statewide Planning Goal. 34. Remaining Statewide Planning Goals not specifically mentioned above are not implicated by the amendment of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan adopting coordinated countywide population forecasts and the RCP compliance with those Goals remain unaffected by this action. Conclusion Findings of Compliance The adoption of countywide coordinated population forecasts for Lane County and the urban areas of the county as demonstrated in these findings and supporting documents referred to here and incorporated by reference, is found to be in compliance with all applicable statewide planning goals, administrative rules and the Lane County Comprebensive Plan. The PSU report, Population Forecasts for .Lane Courty,'its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008- 2035(May 2009) is fully incorporated here by reference, contains the supporting documentation, analysis, and responses to relevant comments and questions prior to the date of its publication regarding forecasts for each of the urban areas of the county and provides additional support for this action. OrdinanceNo.m 1255 fiabrbit "8" Findings ATTACHMENT ' ra Population -Forecasts for Lance County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008 -2035 0 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 5 - Prepared by: Population Research Center College of Urban and Public Affairs Portland State University May 2009