HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1: Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment - Springfield
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing:
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment Proposal (Springfield side of I-5)
Meeting Date: March 13, 2012 Agenda Item Number: 1
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5508
ISSUE STATEMENT
The topic of this joint public hearing is a Lane County-initiated Metro Plan Diagram Amendment to
adjust the Metro Plan boundary on the east side of Interstate 5 (I-5) to be coterminous with Springfield’s
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Approval of this request would remove lands from the Metro Plan
boundary on the east side of I-5 and place these lands solely under Lane County’s jurisdictional
authority.
BACKGROUND
Last year, the Lane County Board of Commissioners initiated an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to make adjustments to the boundary of the Metro Plan.
This proposal is directly related to the five areas of concern identified by the board and discussed by the
joint elected officials over the past few years. The purpose of this particular amendment is to seek
jurisdictional autonomy on land use matters for the area that is outside of Springfield’s urban growth
boundary, but currently inside the Metro Plan boundary.
The current Metro Plan amendment under consideration is to reduce the size of the Metro Plan boundary
on the east side of I-5, with a resulting Metro Plan boundary that would be coterminous with
Adjustment of the Metro Plan boundary on the
Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB).
Eugene side is not part of the current Metro Plan amendment.
Lane County intends to propose a
Metro Plan boundary change on the Eugene side at a later date.
Currently, within the area between the UGB and the Metro Plan boundary, Lane County and the home
city (Springfield is the home city on the east side of I-5; Eugene on the west side) must both participate
as decision makers for any amendments to the Metro Plan, however, Lane County administers the land
use code for this area. Approval of this amendment would change that on the Springfield side of I-5,
resulting in Lane County having sole jurisdictional authority on all land use matters for land outside of
Springfield’s UGB.
Based on the Metro Plan’s amendment procedures, Eugene is required to participate in this proposal to
adjust the boundary on the Springfield side. The process includes a joint planning commission public
hearing and recommendation, followed by a joint elected official’s public hearing and action. All three
jurisdictions must approve the same Metro Plan boundary location for the proposal to take effect.
S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120313\S1203131.doc
In July, the joint planning commissions (Lane County, Springfield and Eugene) held the required public
hearing, and held a continued hearing in August. Following the close of the public hearing record, the
three planning commissions met jointly in October for deliberations and to provide recommendations to
their respective elected officials. The Lane County Planning Commission voted 7-2 to recommend
denial of the proposal to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. The City of Springfield voted 4-2
to recommend approval to the Springfield City Council, with a condition that the Springfield and Lane
County enter into an agreement to address concerns about authority over Springfield’s drinking water
wells. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the proposal to the
Eugene City Council. The Eugene Planning Commissioners who supported the proposal indicated they
did so because it was consistent with the approval criteria, and that the current Metro Plan structure was
not necessary for regional planning to continue, while those who did not support the proposal cited the
importance of regional planning.
At the November 30, 2011, City Council work session on this topic, follow up information was
requested on two related issues. Responses are provided below.
1.Approximately 1,327 people live in the area on the Springfield side between the UGB and the
Metro Plan boundary, and approximately 882 people live in the area on the Eugene side between
the UGB and the Metro Plan boundary.
2.According to Lane County Planning Staff, all but one of Lane County’s current Planning
Commission members was appointed by the previous Board of Commissioners.
As noted above, this proposed amendment only pertains to the Springfield side. The scope and timing
of a future County-initiated proposal to amend the boundary on the Eugene side of the Metro Plan has
not been established, and will be subject to a separate public process. Lane County has acknowledged
that, given the different circumstances on the Eugene side, such as the location of the Eugene Airport
outside of Eugene’s current UGB, Lane County’s proposal for the Eugene side may not precisely follow
Eugene’s UGB; it may propose to leave some areas that are located outside of Eugene’s UGB within the
new Metro Plan boundary so the City continues to have some decision-making authority in those areas.
The council’s participation in Lane County’s proposal to adjust the Springfield side of the Metro Plan
boundary may help the Eugene City Council identify some of the issues it will eventually consider when
a similar proposal is made for the Eugene side. The outcome of Envision Eugene, including the location
of Eugene's UGB, will be a factor in more specifically identifying those issues. It is anticipated that
Lane County will ask Eugene to consider the proposal as part of the Envision Eugene final adoption
process.
In addition to this Metro Plan amendment, a series of related amendments to the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan (RCP) are also being proposed. These amendments affect land outside of the
Metro Plan boundary. Therefore, only Lane County will need to consider these amendments.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Growth Management Policies
S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120313\S1203131.doc
COUNCIL OPTIONS
No action is required at this time; however, options will be provided at the time of City Council
deliberations and action.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTED MOTION
No recommendation or motion is suggested for the public hearing. A recommendation and suggested
motion will be provided for the City Council deliberations and action.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Memo from Lane County (Attachments provided under separate cover)
B.Draft Ordinance and Exhibits A-E
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen
Telephone: 541-682-5508
Staff E-Mail: alissa.h.hansen@ci.eguene.or.us
S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120313\S1203131.doc
For The Lane County Board of Commissioners Only:
intended
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) BY ADOPTING A NEW METRO
PLAN BOUNDARY THAT IS COTERMINOUS WITH THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EAST OF INTERSTATE 5;
AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
A.
Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for the City of Eugene are
implemented by Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
B.
Lane County now requests certain amendments the Metro Plan to enhance
equity among the Metro Plan partners and provide additional autonomy to Lane County.
C.
On February 9, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County
directed the Land Management Division to initiate an amendment to the Metro Plan to modify
the plan boundary east of Interstate 5 so that it is coterminous with the City of Springfield Urban
Growth Boundary.
D.
The proposal was reviewed at a joint public hearing with the Lane County
Planning Commission, the City of Springfield Planning Commission and the City of Eugene
Planning Commission on July 19, 2011, and August 16, 2011.
E.
The proposal was also reviewed at a joint public hearing with elected officials of
Lane County, the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene on March 13, 2012.
F.
Evidence exists in the record indicating that the proposal meets the requirements
of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, the Eugene Code, and applicable
state law.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) -
official Plan Diagram Map, as depicted in Section II-G pages 17 and 18 of the Metro Plan and
contained in Exhibit A to this Ordinance is hereby amended as shown on the Plan Diagram Map
contained in Exhibit B attached and incorporated herein, to reflect a new Metro Plan boundary
that is coterminous with the separate City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) east of
Interstate 5 as established by city and county ordinances. Although the exhibits show Metro
Plan land use designations, this Ordinance only amends the Plan Diagram Map by relocating
the Metro Plan boundary; this Ordinance does not have any effect on plan designations that
apply to properties within the current or new Metro Plan boundary and no previously adopted
land use designations shall be affected by this Ordinance.
Ordinance - Page 1 of 2
Section 2
. The Metro Plan – official Plan Boundary Map, depicted in Section II-G
pages 19 and 20 of the Metro Plan and contained in Exhibit C to this Ordinance is hereby
repealed and replaced with the amended Plan Diagram Map contained in Exhibit D attached
and incorporated herein, to reflect a new Metro Plan boundary that is coterminous with the City
of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary east of Interstate 5.
Section 3
. The prior policies and plan designations repealed or changed by this
Ordinance remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation thereof
prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 4
. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such section shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5.
Although not part of this Ordinance, the Eugene City Council adopts
findings and conclusions in support of this action as set forth in Exhibit E attached and
incorporated here by this reference.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
_____ day of ______________, 2012. _____ day of ______________, 2012.
_______________________________ _______________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - Page 2 of 2
TST S13
Exhibit E
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The following criteria analysis is categorized by Plan Document and Sections identified in
bold
, followed by staff’s findings. The elected officials of Eugene and Springfield may limit
their review the criteria solely related to LC Ch. 12, the Metro Plan and the Statewide
Planning Goals, Administrative Rules and Statues.
APPLICABLE LANE CODE CH. 16.400 RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CRITERIA
(6) Plan Adoption or Amendment - General Procedures. The Rural Comprehensive Plan,
or any component of such Plan, shall be adopted or amended in accordance with the
following procedures:
(a) Referral to Planning Commission. Before the Board takes any action on a Rural
Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to such Plan component, a report
and recommendation thereon shall be requested from the County Planning
Commission and a reasonable time allowed for the submission of such report and
recommendation. In the event the Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or
amendment applies to a limited geographic area, only the Planning Commission
having jurisdiction of that area need receive such referral.
Finding 1: This Plan Amendment proposal was initiated by Land Management Division staff at
the direction of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as a high priority item
in the adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program. Therefore, Lane County is the applicant in
this case.
There are five items contained in this amendment proposal. They are:
1. An amendment to the official Metro Plan diagram and boundary maps to
modify the Metro Plan boundary east of Interstate 5 so that the resultant
boundary is coterminous with the parcel specific Urban Growth Boundary that
has been developed by the City of Springfield;
2. An amendment to the official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan maps
to delineate the City of Springfield’s parcel specific UGB boundary location
pursuant to OAR 660-024-0020(2);
3. The adoption of correctly corresponding Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP)
designations to lands previously designated under the Metro Plan;
4. An update to the rural residential zoning of properties removed from the
Metro Plan to maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied
to lands within the RCP. This change will apply Lane Code 16.291 to
properties previously zoned under Lane Code 16.231 and;
5. An amendment to the RCP policies and Lane Code to apply existing Goal 5
Metro Plan Policies to Goal 5 resources removed from the Metro and amend
Lane Code 16.253 (Riparian Regulations) to maintain existing safe harbor
riparian setback regulations to lands removed from the Metro Plan.
Page 1 of 24
Exhibit E
Throughout these findings the amendments listed above are simply referred to as “this
amendment, “the(se) amendments” or “the(se) proposed amendments”.
These amendments include both RCP components, and an amendment to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
Item No. 1 is a Metro Plan Amendment and the other four items constitute an amendments to
the Lane County Rural RCP. As this Amendment deals with the Metro Plan, specific criteria
direct a tri-jurisdictional referral and review with the Lane County Planning Commissioners
(LCPC), and the Planning Commissioners of Springfield and Eugene, and the City Councils of
Springfield and Eugene.
Items 2 – 5, which are RCP amendments will require the sole recommendation of the LCPC to
the BCC. This is because once the Metro Plan boundary is adjusted to Springfield’s Urban
Growth Boundary, the geographic area will be subject to Lane County’s RCP within the sole
planning jurisdiction the Lane County. Therefore, items related to the RCP will be evaluated with
findings in these Code sections below. (Findings of consistency concerning the Metro Plan
components can be found later in this application in LC Ch. 12, and Metro Plan sections).
A staff report will be mailed to each of the Commissioners prior to the public hearing to assist in
their recommendations as required above. Therefore, this request is in conformance with the
criteria above.
(b) Planning Commission - Hearing and Notice.
(i) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before making
a recommendation to the Board on a Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an
amendment to such Plan component, and the hearing shall be conducted
pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 2: Again, there are five items involved in this proposal as explained above. LMD Staff is
required to harmonize and meet two different “process” criteria for both the Metro Plan and RCP
components for this proposal. Because staff is dealing with two sets of “process” criteria, staff
will use the more restrictive (or widespread) criteria. Thus, the requirements above will be
followed or exceeded for the processing of this proposal.
The Joint Planning Commission public hearing for this Proposal is scheduled to occur July 19,
2011 and will be conducted pursuant to Lane Code (LC) 14.300, LC 12.230-12.340, and the
Metro Plan. More than one hearing may be necessary in order for the Planning Commissions to
hear the matter and make their recommendations to the BCC and City Councils.
(ii) Notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given, pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 3 Notice of time and place of hearing will be accomplished pursuant to LC 14.300.
LMD staff will mail the required notice of the proposal to all owners of property located within
Springfield’s Metro Plan Boundary, east of the centerline of Interstate-5 Highway and
surrounding properties as required by Lane Code. Additionally, staff will mail a required Ballot
Measure 56 Notice along with the notice of proposal to affected property owners, and will
publish a legal advertisement for the proposal as required prior to the public hearing.
(iii) If an exception to State Planning Goals is to be considered during the hearing,
such exception shall be specifically noted in the notices of such hearing.
Page 2 of 24
Exhibit E
Finding 4: An exception to State Planning Goals is not being requested, therefore this criteria is
not applicable.
(iv) The proposed Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to
such Plan component, shall be on file with the Director and available for public
examination for at least 10 days prior to the time set for hearing thereon.
Finding 5: The proposed Amendment file is located in the LMD office and is available for public
examination during work hours.
(c) Planning Commission - Consideration With Other Agencies.
(i) In considering a Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to
such Plan component, the Planning Commission shall take account of and seek to
harmonize, within the framework of the needs of the County, the Comprehensive
Plans of cities, and the Plans and planning activities of local, state, federal and
other public agencies, organizations and bodies within the County and adjacent to
it.
Finding 6: Again, this proposal is both a RCP Amendment and a Metro Plan Amendment. In
making a recommendation to the Board, the Lane County Planning Commissioners shall seek
to harmonize within the framework of the needs of the County, the Metro Plan, and with the
Planning Commission bodies of Eugene and Springfield according to the criteria above.
(ii) The Planning Commission, during consideration of a Rural Comprehensive
Plan component or an amendment to such Plan component, shall consult and
advise with public officials and agencies, public utility companies, civic,
educational, professional and other organizations, and citizens generally to the
end that maximum coordination of Plans may be secured.
Finding 7: As part of the public hearing consideration of this proposal the Planning
Commissions shall consult and advise with others so that maximum coordination is secured
prior to their recommendations to the BCC and City Councils.
(iii) Whenever the Planning Commission is considering a Rural Comprehensive
Plan component, or an amendment to such Plan component, it shall be referred to
the planning agency of every city and county affected to inform them and solicit
their comments.
Finding 8: Even though this is a Lane County initiated Plan Amendment, it must be referred to
and reviewed by all three governing bodies (pursuant to Metro Plan Chapter IV Policy 5(a)) of
Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield because it in-part involves a Metro Plan Amendment.
LMD Staff has coordinated with the city of Eugene and Springfield planning agencies/staff and
they are able and willing to participate in this Amendment proposal.
(iv) The provisions of this subsection are directory, not mandatory, and the failure
to refer such Plan, or an amendment to such Plan, shall not in any manner affect
its validity.
Finding 9: LMD Staff has referred this proposal to the appropriate planning agencies affected,
as such this proposal has met the above criteria. Also, refer to Finding above.
Page 3 of 24
Exhibit E
(d) Planning Commission - Recommendation and Record.
(i) Recommendation of the Planning Commission on a Rural Comprehensive Plan
component, or an amendment to a Plan component, shall be by resolution of the
Commission and carried by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of its
total voting members.
Finding 10: Again, this proposal is a both a RCP Amendment and a Metro Plan
Amendment. Therefore, because this is a Joint Planning Commission public hearing as
explained in other Findings, the Planning Commission’s vote on each of their respective
individual items in this proposal must be carried out by an affirmative quorum vote.
(ii) The record made at the Planning Commission hearings on a Rural
Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to such Plan component and
all materials submitted to or gathered by the Planning Commission for its
consideration, shall be forwarded to the Board along with the recommendation.
Finding 11: The Joint Planning Commissions recommendation will be forwarded by LMD
staff to the BCC and City Councils for their consideration in additional public hearings scheduled
by LMD staff.
(e) Board Action - Hearing and Notice.
(i) After a recommendation has been submitted to the Board by the Planning
Commission on the Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to
such Plan component, all interested persons shall have an opportunity to be
heard thereon at a public hearing before the Board conducted pursuant to LC
14.300.
(ii) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given pursuant to LC
14.300.
(iii) If an exception to Statewide Planning Goals is to be considered during the
hearing, such exception shall be specifically noted in the notice of such hearing.
(iv) Hearings to consider amendments of the Plan Diagram that affect a single
property, small group of properties or have other characteristics of a quasi-
judicial proceeding shall be noticed pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 12: Another public hearing process before the BCC and City Councils will be
carried out after the Planning Commissions recommendation is received in LMD offices.
.
(f) Concurrent Consideration. The Board and Planning Commission may hold a single
joint meeting to consider the proposed Plan amendment consistent with the
requirements of LC 16.400(6)(e)(ii),(iii) and (iv) above.
(g) Board Referral. Before the Board makes any change or addition to a Plan
component, or Plan component amendment recommended by the Planning
Commission, it may first refer the proposed change or addition to the Planning
Commission for an additional recommendation. Failure of the Planning Commission
to report within 21 days after the referral, or such longer period as may be designated
by the Board, shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed change or addition. It
shall not be necessary for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on such
change or addition.
Page 4 of 24
Exhibit E
Finding 13: This is not a concurrent consideration proposal. Therefore, this criteria is not
applicable.
(h) Method of Adoption and Amendment.
(i) The adoption or amendment of a Rural Comprehensive Plan component shall
be by Ordinance.
Finding 14: If approved by the BCC, this proposal will be adopted with a formal
Ordinance.
(ii) The adoption or amendment shall be concurrent with an amendment to LC
16.400(4) above. In the case of a Rural Comprehensive Plan adoption, the Code
amendment shall place such Plan in the appropriate category. In the case of a
Rural Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Code amendment shall insert the
number of the amending Ordinance.
Finding 15: If approved by the BCC, the Code amendment shall insert the number of the
amending Ordinance.
(iii) The Board may amend or supplement the Rural Comprehensive Plan upon
making the following findings:
(aa) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below,
the Plan component or amendment meets all applicable requirements of
local and state law, including Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon
Administrative Rules.
Finding 16: This is classified as a Major Plan Amendment. Findings of consistency with
requirements of local and state law, Statewide Planning Goals, and Oregon Administrative
Rules are explained elsewhere within this application.
(bb) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below,
the Plan amendment or component is:
(i-i) necessary to correct an identified error in the application of the
Plan; or
(ii-ii) necessary to fulfill an identified public or community need for the
intended result of the component or amendment; or
(iii-iii) necessary to comply with the mandate of local, state or federal
policy or law; or
(iv-iv) necessary to provide for the implementation of adopted Plan
policy or elements; or
(v-v) otherwise deemed by the Board, for reasons briefly set forth in its
decision, to be desirable, appropriate or proper.
Finding 17: This Major Plan Amendment is consistent with criteria of LC
16.400(6)(h)(iii)(bb) (v-v) above.
(cc) For Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan
amendment or component does not conflict with adopted Policies of the
Rural Comprehensive Plan, and if possible, achieves policy support.
Page 5 of 24
Exhibit E
Finding 18: This proposal is not classified as a Minor Amendment. Therefore, this criteria
is not applicable.
(dd) For Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan
amendment or component is compatible with the existing structure of the
Rural Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the unamended portions
or elements of the Plan.
Finding 19: This proposal is not classified as a Minor Amendment. Therefore, this criteria
is not applicable.
(i) A change of zoning to implement a proposed Plan amendment may be considered
concurrently with such amendment. In such case, the Board shall also make the final
zone change decision, and the Hearings Official s consideration need not occur.
Finding 20: Zone changes are being requested as part of the Amendment. In such
cases, the BCC shall make the final zone change decision.
APPLICABLE LANE CODE CH. 16.252 CRITERIA
Lane Code Ch. 16.252 Procedures for Zoning, Rezoning and Amendments to
Requirements (RCP items)
(1) Purpose. As the Rural Comprehensive Plan for Lane County is implemented, changes in
zone and other requirements of this chapter will be required. Such Amendments shall be
made in accordance with the procedures of this section.
Finding 21: Item No. 4 in this proposed amendment is a proposal for a zone change for 81 Rural
Residential (RR) zoned properties within the current Metro Plan boundary area. This zone change
is intended to update the rural residential zoning of these properties removed from the Metro Plan
to maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to lands elsewhere within the
RCP. This change will apply Lane Code Ch. 16.291 (Rural Residential) to properties previously
zoned under Lane Code Ch. 16.231 (Rural Residential).
Furthermore, the zone changes are necessary to gain consistency with the Statewide Planning
Goal 14 Rule. Lands zoned RR under LC 16.231 have not been updated to comply with the
Statewide Planning Goal 14 Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules 660-004-0040, effective October
14, 2000) that has been adopted in other Lane County lands governed under the updated rural
residential zoning LC 16.290. Goal 14 prohibits urban use of rural lands. Any use, development or
division not consistent with the Goal 14 Rule will not be authorized on lands zoned under LC 16.231
within the Metro Plan area. Since Lane County is amending the Metro Plan boundary and Plan, we
are required to update the rural residential zoned lands within the Metro Plan area to comply with
the Goal 14 Rule as directed by OAR 660-004-0040(3)(b).
Staff has prepared a comparison analysis between uses and development authorized under LC
16.231 and LC 16.291, which is provided as Attachment 13 to the memo that these findings are
included with.
(2) Criteria. Zonings, rezonings and changes in the requirements of this chapter shall be
enacted to achieve the general purpose of this chapter and shall not be contrary to the
public interest. In addition, zonings and rezonings shall be consistent with the specific
Page 6 of 24
Exhibit E
purposes of the zone classification proposed, applicable Rural Comprehensive Plan
elements and components, and Statewide Planning Goals for any portion of Lane County
which has not been acknowledged for compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission. Any zoning or rezoning may be effected
by Ordinance or Order of the Board of County Commissioners or the Hearings Official in
accordance with the procedures in this section.
Finding 22: The rezoning of these properties will be enacted to achieve the general purpose of
this chapter and not contrary to public interest. Findings of consistency with other applicable RCP
provisions, and the Statewide Planning Goals are found elsewhere within this application. Should
the rezoning be approved by the BCC they will be in effect by this approved Ordinance.
(3) Initiation/Application.
(a) By Planning Commission. The zoning of unzoned properties, the rezoning of properties
and amendment of this chapter may be initiated by the Planning Commission upon its own
motion or upon petition by the Planning Commission upon request of the Board as provided
in LC 16.252(3)(b) below.
(b) By Board. The zoning of unzoned properties, the rezoning of properties and the
amendment of this chapter may be initiated by the Board in the form of a request to the
Planning Commission that it consider the proposed zoning, rezoning or amendment.
(c) By Applicant. Application for the zoning or rezoning of properties may be made by any
person as provided in LC 14.050.
Finding 23: This Amendment proposal was initiated by Land Management Division staff at the
direction of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as a high priority item in the
adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program. Therefore, Lane County is the applicant in this case.
The Lane County Planning Commission will consider this proposal at the scheduled Public Hearing
on July 19, 2011.
(5) Planning Commission Public Hearing and Notice -- Legislative Matters.
(a) The Planning Commission shall hold not less than one public hearing on each proposed
legislative zoning or rezoning and amendment to the requirements of this chapter.
(b) Notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given at least 10 days in advance by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the County or in the territory concerned.
(c) The Planning Commission shall review the Application or proposal and shall receive
pertinent evidence and testimony as to why or how the proposed change is inconsistent
with the criteria provided in LC 16.252(2) above for zoning, rezoning and amendment to the
requirements of this chapter. The Commission shall determine whether the testimony at the
hearing supports a finding that the proposal does or does not meet the required criteria, and
shall recommend to the Board accordingly that the proposal be adopted or rejected. The
Planning Commission and Board may hold one concurrent hearing.
Finding 24: The Lane County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on July 19, 2011
for this amendment proposal. Notice of hearing will exceed this provision and will be advertised in
the Register Guard, a general circulation newspaper at least 21 days prior to public hearing.
(6) Review Procedures. Applications for zoning or rezoning of specific properties shall be
heard by the Hearings Official pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 25: This proposal is being reviewed pursuant to LC Ch. 14.300 in the public hearing
process.
Page 7 of 24
Exhibit E
(7) Action by the Board.
(a) Unless the Board and Planning Commission hold a concurrent hearing, upon receipt of
an affirmative Planning Commission recommendation for legislative matters provided in LC
16.252(6) above, the Board shall schedule a public hearing as provided in LC 16.252(7)(b)
below. The Board may schedule such a public hearing in the absence of an affirmative
Planning Commission recommendation.
Finding 26: This proposal is not scheduled as a concurrent hearing, therefore this criteria is not
applicable.
(b) Prior to taking any action which would alter or modify a Planning Commission
recommendation or Hearings Official’s Order, the Board may first refer the proposed
alteration or modification to the Planning Commission or Hearings Official for a
recommendation. Failure of the Commission or Hearings Official to report within 20 days
after the referral, or such longer period as may be designated by the Board, shall be deemed
to be approval of the proposed alteration or modification. It shall not be necessary for the
Commission or Hearings Official to hold a public hearing on the proposed alteration or
modification.
Finding 27: Should the BCC modify the Lane County Planning Commission recommendation the
Board may choose to refer the proposed alteration or modification back to the Planning
Commission for their recommendation.
(8) Conditional Approval. The approving authority may impose reasonable conditions if the
application is approved to be completed within one year.
Finding 28: The approval authority may choose to impose reasonable conditions if this
application is approved within one year.
(9) Official Zoning Map.
(a) The location and boundaries of the various zones established by this chapter shall be
shown and delineated on maps covering portions of the County. These maps, upon their
final adoption, shall be known as the Official Zoning Map.
(b) The Zoning Map shall be established by ordinance. Subsequent amendments to the
Official Zoning Maps, either for establishing zoning for previously unzoned property or for
rezoning may be made by Ordinance or Order of the Hearing Authority in accordance with
the provisions of LC 16.014, LC 16.015, and this section.
Finding 29: Upon approval from the Board, the zoning maps will be updated and shall be known
as the Official Zoning Map(s), as established by the Ordinance.
APPLICABLE LANE CODE CH. 12 CRITERIA REVIEW
Lane Code Ch. 12.060 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, compliance with the provisions of
Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is required for any
review, amendment or refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan.
Page 8 of 24
Exhibit E
Finding 30: Findings of consistency with the provision of Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are
provided under Finding 54-59, below.
Lane Code Ch. 12.200 Purpose. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Element
The Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) allows citizen-initiated Type II Metro
Plan amendments to be initiated at any time. Amendments that require a final decision
from one or two jurisdictions shall have a public hearing before the appropriate
governing bodies within 120 days of the initiation date. Amendments that require a final
decision from all three governing bodies shall be concluded within 180 days of the
initiation date. The Board of Commissioners may initiate a Type I or Type II Metro Plan
amendment at any time. Metro Plan amendments shall be made in accordance with the
standards contained in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and the provisions of this Code.
Finding 31: This Amendment proposal was initiated by Land Management Division staff
at the direction of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as a high priority
item in the adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program. The proposal is classified as a Type I
Plan Amendment requiring a final decision from all three governing bodies (Eugene and
Springfield City Councils, and the Lane County BCC). The adoption and process of this
proposal shall follow the procedures and provisions contained in Ch. IV of the Metro Plan
combined with the procedures of Lane Code.
As noted in Finding 1 above, there are 5 separate elements to this proposal. Item number 1 is a
Metro Plan Amendment and the other four items are amendments to Lane County RCP. The
Metro Plan component will require a joint recommendation and the other four items related to
the RCP will require the sole recommendation of the LCPC. This is because once the Metro
Plan boundary is adjusted to Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary, the geographic area will be
subject to Lane County’s RCP within the sole planning jurisdiction the Lane County. Therefore,
only the item related to the Metro Plan will be evaluated with findings in these Code sections
below. (Findings of consistency concerning the RCP components can be found in LC Ch.
16.400 section elsewhere in this application).
Lane Code Ch. 12.210 Initiation of Plan Amendments.
(1) Who Can Initiate Metro Plan Amendments. An amendment to the Metro Plan can be
initiated by the following persons or entities:
(a) Type I Non-Site Specific Text Amendments, UGB/ Plan Boundary Changes or Other
Goal Exceptions: Any of the three governing bodies.
(i) The Board of Commissioners may solicit a recommendation from the planning
commission before initiating this category of amendment.
(ii) A citizen may seek council initiation of a Metro Plan Type I amendment by filing a
written request with the County. A staff report on the request shall be submitted to the
Board of Commissioners within 30 days of receipt of the request. At the direction of two
Board members, the request shall be placed on the Board agenda for discussion. The
request shall be considered denied if the Board takes no action within 60 days of the
date the staff report is submitted to the Board. The Board need not hold a public hearing
on a private Type I amendment request and may deny the request for any reason. A
citizen seeking Board initiation of a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment must own
the property subject to the amendment.
Page 9 of 24
Exhibit E
Finding 32: This proposal is a Type I Metro Plan amendment initiated by the Lane County
Board of Commissioners, and therefore consistent with this criteria per (1)(a) above.
(b) Type II Plan Diagram and Site Specific Text Amendments.
(i) Inside the City limits: The Home City and citizens
(ii) Between the City limits and the Plan Boundary: Any of the three governing bodies and
citizens.
(A) The Board may solicit a recommendation from the planning commission before
initiating this category of amendment. A citizen initiating a Metro Plan Type II amendment
must own the property subject to the amendment.
(B) A citizen may seek Board initiation of a Metro Plan Type II amendment subject to the
above requirements regarding Metro Plan Type I amendments initiated by the Board at
the request of a citizen.
Finding 33: This proposal is not a Type II amendment, therefore this criteria is not
applicable.
(2) When Plan Amendments Can be Initiated. Amendments to the Metro Plan shall be
initiated and considered at the following times:
(a) The Board may initiate a Type I or Type II Metro Plan amendment at any time.
Consideration of this type of amendment shall begin immediately thereafter.
Finding 34: The BCC directed LMD staff to initiate a Type I Metro Plan amendment as a
high priority item in the adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program.
(b) Citizen initiated Type II Metro Plan amendments may be applied for at any time. The
initial public hearing on an application shall take place within 60 days of acceptance of a
complete application.
Finding 35: This proposal is not a Type II Metro Plan amendment, therefore this criteria is
not applicable.
(c) Consideration of a privately initiated Metro Plan amendment shall be postponed if the
proposed amendment is also part of an existing planned refinement plan or special area
study adoption or amendment process or one that is scheduled on the Planning
Commission’s work program to begin within three months of the date the Metro Plan
amendment application is submitted. Such a requested Metro Plan amendment shall be
considered in the legislative proceedings on the refinement plan or special area study. If
the refinement plan or special area study process has not begun within the three month
period, the Metro Plan amendment application process shall begin immediately following
the three month period. The Planning Director may waive a particular plan amendment
application postponement under this subsection and require more immediate review if
the Planning Director finds that either there is a public need for earlier consideration or
that review of the proposed amendment as part of a general refinement plan or special
area study adoption or amendment process will interfere with timely completion of that
process.
Finding 36: This proposal is not a citizen initiated Metro Plan amendment, therefore this
criteria is not applicable.
Page 10 of 24
Exhibit E
Lane Code Ch. 12.215 Referral of Plan Amendment.
All Metro Plan amendments affecting land outside the city limits of either city shall be
referred to the other city for consideration of Regional Impact. Lane County shall
participate in the hearing and decision of all Metro Plan amendments outside the city
limits. All Metro Plan amendments affecting land inside the city limits of one city shall be
referred to the other city and Lane County so that they may participate as parties to the
hearing. All referrals shall occur within 10 days of the plan amendment initiation date.
Any referral that is provided for the purpose of determining Regional Impact shall be
answered by the referral jurisdiction within 45 days of receipt of the referral. Failure of a
jurisdiction to take action on the referral within 45 days from the date of referral shall be
deemed a finding of no Regional Impact.
If a referral jurisdiction adopts a resolution, ordinance, or order finding that the proposed
amendment has a Regional Impact that referral jurisdiction may participate in the
decision if they so choose. All jurisdictions participating in the plan amendment decision
process must approve the amendment in order to enact the amendment.
Finding 37: This proposal was initiated by Lane County and is being referred to the two
other participating cities; Eugene and Springfield. The proposal only involves land outside of the
Urban Growth Boundary under the current plan document of the Metro Plan. The County has
been coordinating with the both the City’s Planning agencies upon initiation of this Amendment
application. Both city planning jurisdictions have chosen to participate in this Metro Plan
amendment.
It is understood that all jurisdictions participating in the amendment process must approve the
Metro Plan component in order to enact this amendment.
Lane Code Ch. 12.225 Metro Plan - Approval of A Plan Amendment.
(1) Who Must Approve Plan Amendment.
(a) Type I.
(i) Non-Site Specific. To become effective, a non-site specific Metro Plan text Type I
amendment must be approved by all three governing bodies.
(ii) Site Specific. To become effective, a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment that
involves a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette or McKenzie River,
or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin, or that involves a goal exception not
related to a UGB expansion, must be approved by all three governing bodies. (See
Appendix "A)
(iii) Site Specific. To become effective, a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment that
involves a UGB or Plan Boundary change must be approved by the Home City and Lane
County. Exception: If the non-home City, after referral of the proposal, determines that
the amendment has Regional Impact and, as a result of that determination, chooses to
participate in the hearing, all three governing bodies must approve the amendment.
Finding 38: The Metro Plan Amendment is classified as a Type I amendment and will be
reviewed by all three governing bodies per (1)(a) above.
(b) Type II.
(i) Inside City Limits. To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II amendment inside the city
limits must be approved by the Home City.
(ii) Between the City Limits and Plan Boundary. To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II
amendment between the city limits and the Plan Boundary must be approved by the
Home City and Lane County. Exception: If the non-home City, after referral of the
proposal, determines that the amendment has Regional Impact and, as a result of that
Page 11 of 24
Exhibit E
determination, chooses to participate in the hearing, all three governing bodies must
approve the amendment.
Finding 39: This proposal is classified as a Type I Metro Plan amendment, therefore this
criteria is not applicable.
(2) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following criteria shall be applied by the
Board of Commissioners in approving or denying a plan amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
Finding 40: Findings of consistency of this proposed Metro Plan amendment with the
Statewide Planning Goals are explained elsewhere in this application.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Finding 41: As this amendment only reduces the total land area within the Metro Plan and
does not change or affect any existing Metro Plan goals or policies, the amendment does not
make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Lane Code Ch. 12.230 Metro Plan - Plan Amendment Approval Process
(3) Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report,
the Home City’s Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the
proposed Metro Plan amendment. At least 20 days before the hearing, notice of the
hearing shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation and mailed to the
applicant and to persons who have requested notice. If the proposed amendment is
quasi-judicial, at least 20 days before the hearing, notice of the hearing shall also be
mailed to the owners and occupants of properties that are the subject of the proposed
amendment and to property owners of record of property located within 300 feet of the
subject property. The content of the notice and conduct of the hearing on the
amendment shall be as required by this code and state law. The Home City’s Planning
Commission shall review the proposed amendment and receive evidence and testimony
on whether the proposed change can be justified under the approval criteria. Within 30
days after the public hearing and close of the evidentiary record, the Home City’s
Planning Commission shall adopt a written recommendation on the proposed
amendment. The recommendation shall contain findings and conclusions on whether the
proposal or a modified proposal meets the approval criteria.
Finding 42: Again, there are five items involved in this proposal as explained in earlier
findings. LMD Staff is required to harmonize and meet two different criteria for both the Metro
Plan and RCP for processing this proposal. Because staff is dealing with two sets of “process”
criteria, staff will use the more restrictive (or widespread) criteria. Thus, the requirements above
will be followed or exceeded for the processing of the proposal.
Notice of the joint Planning Commission Hearing will be mailed to property owners within at
least 300’ of the Metro Plan boundary. Based off criteria of approval above, Lane County will
receive the joint Planning Commission’s recommendation within 30 days after the close of the
evidentiary hearing. This recommendation shall contain findings and conclusions on whether the
proposal or a modified proposal meets the approval criteria.
Page 12 of 24
Exhibit E
Lane Code Ch. 12.235 Metro Plan - Plan Amendment Approval Process - Two
Jurisdictions.
(1) When the Two Jurisdictions Process is Used. The following process shall be used to
approve Metro Plan amendments when an amendment concerns land located outside of
the corporate limits of one of the cities and the other city has chosen not to participate in
the approval process.
(2) Investigation and Report. Within 30 days after a response is received from both
referral jurisdictions or within 50 days after the Metro Plan amendment initiation date if
no response is received, the planning staff of the home jurisdiction where the proposed
Metro Plan amendment was submitted shall investigate the facts bearing on the
application, prepare a report, and submit it to the Planning Commission. The report shall
be mailed or delivered to affected and interested parties at the time it is delivered to the
Commission.
(3) Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report,
the Planning Commissions of both affected jurisdictions shall hold a joint public hearing
to consider the proposed Metro Plan amendment. The provisions of LC 12.230 above
apply to the joint Planning Commission hearing and decision on a proposed Metro Plan
amendment. Within 30 days after the joint public hearing and close of the evidentiary
record, both Planning Commissions shall make a recommendation to their governing
bodies on the proposed Metro Plan amendment.
(4) Governing Body Action. Within 30 days after the date the last Planning Commission
acts on the Metro Plan amendment, the governing bodies of both affected jurisdictions
shall hold a joint public hearing on the proposed amendment. The governing bodies’
decisions shall be based on the evidentiary record created before the Planning
Commissions. No new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint hearing.
Within 30 days after the joint public hearing, both governing bodies shall approve,
modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan amendment. Both governing
bodies shall take action by ordinance with adopted findings and conclusions on whether
the proposal or modified proposal meets the approval criteria. The actions of the
governing bodies are final if they are identical. The date the last governing body acts
shall be the date the decision becomes final.
(5) Conflict Resolution Process. The following process shall be used when the governing
bodies do not enact identical decisions on the proposed Metro Plan amendment.
(a) The Metro Plan amendment shall be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee
within five days after the last governing body action. The Metropolitan Policy Committee
shall meet within 30 days of the referral to hear comments on the proposed amendment
from the applicant, staff of the affected jurisdictions and interested persons. The
committee may develop a recommendation to the governing bodies on the proposed
amendment. The Metro Plan amendment shall be denied if the committee fails to act
within 30 days of the referral date or if the governing bodies fail to adopt identical plan
amendment actions within 45 days of receiving a recommendation from the committee.
(b) If the plan amendment is denied because of lack of consensus or committee inaction,
within 5 days the planning director of the home jurisdiction where the application
originated shall issue a denial decision on the amendment containing findings and
conclusions on why the proposed amendment does not meet the approval criteria. Those
findings and conclusions may incorporate findings and conclusions previously adopted
by one or both of the governing bodies. The decision of the director is final.
Page 13 of 24
Exhibit E
Finding 43: All three governing jurisdictions have chosen to participate in this Metro Plan
Amendment, therefore the process of LC 12.240 below along with LC Ch. 16.400(6) shall be
followed.
Lane Code Ch. 12.240 Metro Plan - Plan Amendment Process - Three Jurisdictions.
(1) When The Three Jurisdiction Process is Used. The following process shall be used to
approve Metro Plan Type I amendments and Type II amendments where all three
jurisdictions participate in the decision.
Finding 44: This Type I Metro Plan amendment is being processed as a three
jurisdictional process.
(2) Investigation and Report. Within 30 days after responses are received from both
referral jurisdictions or within 50 days after the initiation date if no response is received,
the planning staff of the home jurisdiction where the proposed amendment was
submitted shall investigate the facts bearing on the application, prepare a report, and
submit it to the Planning Commissions of all three jurisdictions. The report shall be
mailed or delivered to affected and interested parties at the same time it is delivered to
the three Planning Commissions.
Finding 45: LMD staff will prepare and mail a written report to the Planning Commissions
of all three jurisdictions and mail the report to all affected and interested parties prior to the
Public Hearing. The report will also be available in LMD offices during normal business hours.
(3) Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report,
the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County shall hold a joint
public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan amendment. The provisions of LC 12.230(3)
above apply to the joint Planning Commission hearing. Within 30 days after the proposed
Metro Plan amendment hearing and close of the evidentiary record, each Planning
Commission shall make a recommendation to its governing body on the proposed Metro
Plan amendment.
Finding 46: A tri-jurisdictional joint Planning Commission Hearing is scheduled for July
19, 2011. As the criteria above directs, each Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to its governing body on the proposed Metro Plan amendment within 30 days
after the close of the evidentiary hearing. Eugene and Springfield Planning Commission will
make a recommendation to their City Councils on the Metro Plan item of this proposed
ordinance, and Lane County Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the BCC on
all five items of this proposed ordinance. The recommendation of all three Commissions shall be
forwarded to staff in LMD to compile and deliver the joint recommendations to the BCC for their
consideration and action in a subsequent public hearing.
(4) Governing Bodies Action. Within 30 days after the last Planning Commission acts on
the Metro Plan amendment proposal, the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County shall hold a joint public hearing on the plan amendment. The governing
bodies’ decisions shall be based solely on the evidentiary record created before the
Planning Commissions. No new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint
hearing. Within 30 days after the joint public hearing, each governing body shall approve,
modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan amendment. Each governing body
shall take action by ordinance with adopted findings and conclusions on whether the
Page 14 of 24
Exhibit E
proposal or modified proposal meets the approval criteria. The actions of the governing
bodies are final if they are identical. The date the last governing body acts shall be the
date the action becomes final. The provisions of LC 12.235(5) above apply if the
governing bodies do not enact an identical plan amendment.
Finding 47: After the Lane County Planning staff receives the last Planning Commission’s
recommendation, and within 30 days, Lane County will schedule a tri-jurisdictional governing
body public hearing to be held on the Amendment proposal. For the Metro Plan item, the
governing bodies decisions shall be based solely on the evidentiary record created before the
Planning Commission and no new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint
hearing. Each governing body will take action via separate jurisdictional (but identical)
Ordinances to approve, modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan Amendment.
Should the governing bodies not enact identical ordinances, the provisions of LC 12.235(5) will
apply.
Lane Code Ch. 12.245 Plan Amendment Processes - General Provisions.
(1) Process for Government Initiated Plan Amendments. A different process, time line, or
both, than the processes and timelines specified in LC 12.230, 12.235 or 12.240 above,
may be established by the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County for
any government initiated Metro Plan amendment.
Finding 48: A different process or timeline as specified in LC 12.230, 12.235, or 12.240
may be established by the governing bodies if they deem worthy.
(2) Time Frame Waiver. The time frames prescribed in connection with Type II Metro Plan
amendment processes can be waived if the applicant agrees to the waivers.
Finding 49: This is not a Type II amendment, therefore this criteria is not applicable.
(3) Bar on Resubmittal. No privately initiated Metro Plan amendment application
submitted to Lane County shall be considered if a substantially similar or identical plan
amendment has been denied within the year prior to the application date unless the facts
forming the basis for the denial have changed so as to allow approval. The Planning
Director shall determine whether the proposed amendment is substantially similar or
identical after providing the applicant with an opportunity to comment on the matter in
writing.
Finding 50: This is the first time this amendment has been proposed, therefore this
criteria is not applicable.
(4) Relationship to Refinement Plan Amendments. When a Metro Plan amendment is
enacted that requires an amendment to a refinement plan diagram or map for
consistency, the Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the refinement
plan diagram or map if no amendment to the refinement plan text is involved. When a
Metro Plan diagram amendment requires a refinement plan diagram or map and text
amendment for consistency, the Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments shall be
processed concurrently.
Finding 51: No changes to a Metro plan Refinement Plan are being proposed.
Page 15 of 24
Exhibit E
(5) Severability of Plan Amendment Adoption Actions. When identical action is required
of two or three governing bodies on a Metro Plan Amendment, and the amendment is a
number of different plan changes, the following applies. Unless otherwise specified in
the adoption ordinance of any of the governing bodies, action by all of the governing
bodies to adopt some but not all of the plan changes shall result in the adoption of the
changes for which there is consensus and the forwarding of only those changes for
which there is not consensus to the Metropolitan Policy Committee under LC 12.235(5)
and 12.240(4) above.
Finding 52: The Metro Plan amendment component is considered one plan change,
therefore this criteria is not applicable.
(6) Relationship Of Amendment Process To Metro Plan Update And Periodic Review. An
update of any element of the Metro Plan requires initiation and approval by all three
jurisdictions. Amendments to the Metro Plan that result from state-mandated Periodic
Review require approval by all three jurisdictions.
Finding 53: The Metro Plan amendment entails initiation and approval from all three
jurisdictions.
APPLICABLE METRO PLAN CRITERIA REVIEW
In addition to criteria identified elsewhere within this document, amendments to the Metro Plan
also require consistency with Goal IV, Policies 3 –7 and 10 of the Metro Plan, listed below:
3. All amendments to the shall be classified as a Type I or Type II
Metro Plan
amendment depending upon the specific changes sought by the initiator of the
proposal.
a. A Type I amendment shall include any change to the urban growth
boundary(UGB) or the Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary) of the
Metro Plan
; any change that requires a goal exception to be taken under
Metro Plan
Statewide Planning Goal 2that is not related to the UGB expansion; and
any amendment to the text that is non-site specific.
Metro Plan
b. A Type II amendment shall include any change to the
Metro Plan
Diagram or text that is site specific and not otherwise a Type
Metro Plan
I category amendment.
c. Adoption or amendment of some refinement plans, functional plans, or
special area plans may, in some circumstances, be classified as Type I
or Type II amendments. Amendments to the that result from
Metro Plan
state mandated Periodic Review or updates also shall be
Metro Plan
classified as Type I or Type II amendments depending upon the specific
changes that would result from these actions.
Finding 54 : This is a Type 1 amendment as is entails a modification to the Metro Plan
Boundary and is therefore consistent with this requirement.
4. Initiation of amendments shall be as follows:
Metro Plan
Page 16 of 24
Exhibit E
a. A Type I amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the
three governing bodies. (Note: this correction reflects adopted
ordinance and code.)
b. A Type II amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the
three governing bodies or by any citizen who owns property that is
subject of the proposed amendment.
c. Only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan,
a special area study or Periodic Review or update.
Metro Plan
d. The governing bodies of the three metropolitan jurisdictions may
initiate an amendment to the at any time. Citizen initiated
Metro Plan
Type II amendments may be initiated at any time.
Finding 55 : This Type 1 amendment has been initiated by Lane County and is
therefore consistent with this requirement.
5. The approval process for amendments, including the number of
Metro Plan
governing bodies who participate and the timeline for final action, will vary
depending upon the classification of amendment and whether a
determination is made that the proposed amendment will have Regional
Impact.
a. All three governing bodies must approve non-site-specific text
amendments; site specific Diagram amendments that
Metro Plan
involve a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette or
McKenzie Rivers or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin; and,
amendments that involve a goal exception not related to a UGB
expansion.
b. A site specific Type I amendment that involves a UGB
Metro Plan
expansion or Plan Boundary change and a Type II
Metro Plan
amendment between the city limits and Plan Boundary, must be
approved by the home city and Lane County (Springfield is the home
city for amendments east of I-5 and Eugene is the home city for
amendments west of I-5). The non-home city will be sent a referral of
the proposed amendment and, based upon a determination that the
proposal will have Regional Impact, may choose to participate in the
decision. Unless the non-home city makes affirmative findings of
Regional Impact, the non-home city will not participate in the decision.
c. An amendment will be considered to have Regional Impact if:
(1) It will require an amendment to a jointly adopted functional plan
[
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
,
(TransPlan)Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan
, etc.] in order to provide the
(Public Facilities and Services Plan)
subject property with anadequate level of urban services and
facilities; or
Page 17 of 24
Exhibit E
(2) It has a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage,
wastewater, or transportation facilities of the non-home city; or
(3) It affects the buildable land inventory by significantly adding to Low
Density Residential (LDR), Campus Industrial (CI), Light-Medium
Industrial (LMI), or Heavy Industrial (HI) designations or significantly
reducing the Medium Density Residential (MDR), High Density
Residential (HDR), or Community Commercial (CC) designations.
d. A jurisdiction may amend a designation without causing
Metro Plan
Regional Impact when this action is taken to: compensate for
reductions in buildable land caused by protection of newly discovered
natural resources within its own jurisdiction; or accommodate the
contiguous expansion of an existing business with a site-specific
requirement. e. Decisions on all Type II amendments within city limits
shall be the sole responsibility of the home city.
Finding 56:This amendment entails a Plan Boundary change that triggers one or
more of the criteria identified in Policy 5. a., therefore, all three governing bodies are
decision makers.
6. Public hearings by the governing bodies for amendments requiring
Metro Plan
participation from one or two jurisdictions shall be held within 120 days of the
initiation date. amendments that require a final decision from all
Metro Plan
three governing bodies shall be concluded within 180 days of the initiation
date. When more than one jurisdiction participates in the decision, the
Planning Commissions of the participating jurisdictions shall conduct a joint
public hearing and forward that record and their recommendations to their
respective elected officials. The elected officials also shall conduct a joint
public hearing prior to making a final decision. The time frames prescribed in
connection with Type II amendment processes can be waived if the
Metro Plan
applicant agrees to the waiver.
Finding 57: As this amendment requires a decision form all three jurisdictions, a
public hearing must be held within 180 from the formal initiation date. The formal initiation
date for this amendment is June 1, 2011. A public hearing for this amendment is scheduled
for July 19, 2011, which is within the required time specified. This will be a joint hearing of
the three Planning Commissions. The recommendation from the three Planning
Commissions will be forwarded to the elected officials who shall also conduct a joint public
hearing prior to making a final decision.
7. If all participating jurisdictions reach a consensus to approve a proposed
amendment, substantively identical ordinances affecting the changes shall be
adopted. Where there is a consensus to deny a proposed amendment, it may
not be re-initiated, except by one of the three governing bodies, for one year.
Amendments for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for additional study, conflict resolution,
and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
Page 18 of 24
Exhibit E
Finding 58: If consensus is reached to approve a proposed amendment, substantively
identical ordinances affecting the changes shall be adopted by the three jurisdictions.
10. updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state
Metro Plan
required Periodic Review of the , although the governing bodies may
Metro Plan
initiate an update of the at any time.
Metro Plan
Finding 59: This amendment is not part of a Periodic Review work program, but it was
initiated by Lane County BCC and is therefore consistent with this requirement.
APPLICABLE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS REVIEW
As directed by Lane Code Ch. 16.400(6)(h)(ii)(aa) for the RCP amendment items, LC
12.225(2)(a) for the Metro Plan amendment item, and ORS 197.175(2)(a), the proposal must be
consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals.
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To provide for widespread citizen involvement.
Finding 60: This goal requires that citizens and affected public agencies be provided an
opportunity to comment and participate on the proposed amendments. As part of this
application review process, public notification in the form of mailed notices was sent by LMD to
affected property owners, public agencies, local service providers, other interdepartmental
departments, and the Department of Land Conservation & Development (DLCD). Public notice
of the Planning Commission hearing and the Board of Commissioners hearings are published
once for each hearing in the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper. Additionally, a Ballot Measure
56 notice was mailed to all property owners affected by the proposed zone changes.
LMD has done a number of outreach actions for this item. On April 21, 2011 LMD staff held an
Open House Event in Harris Hall advertized on two different dates via a display advertisement
in the Eugene Register Guard. Additionally, LMD has created an informational webpage for this
item at:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/LMD/LandUse/Pages/MetroBoundary.aspx.
Given the above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 2: Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all
decisions and actions to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such
decisions and actions.
Finding 61: This goal requires governmental agencies to adopt land use plans and
implementation ordinances after public hearings are completed. Lane County has conformed to
the goal through adoption of the Rural Comprehensive Plan and the implementing ordinances
found in Lane Code Ch. 16. Lane County co-adopted the Metro Plan pursuant to Ordinance No.
883 which is a component of the RCP pursuant to LC 16.400(4)(a)(i). The County is required to
provide the public opportunities to comment and participate during the review of this (and any)
plan amendment proposal. The public hearing and notification process will be conducted
pursuant to applicable provisions in Lane Code Ch. 14.300, LC Ch. 16.400(6), LC Ch. 12, and
Metro Plan Ch IV.
Page 19 of 24
Exhibit E
Throughout this document staff has developed findings of consistency with a wide range of
applicable criteria listed above. The proposal must meet any and all of the criteria in order to be
implemented and adopted. Consistency with Goal 2 is derived through the public process along
with the complete set of findings of consistency with all the criteria.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Finding 62: This goal recognizes the importance of maintaining agricultural lands as
those that are defined under the goal. In western Oregon, agricultural land consist of
predominantly Class I through IV soils identified by the Soil Conservation Service and other
lands suitable for farm use taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic
conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm and irrigation purposes, existing land
use patterns, technological and energy input required for accepted farm practices. Lands in
other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby lands, shall be included as agricultural land in any event. Agricultural lands shall be
preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural
products.
There are many acres of agricultural lands within the Metro Plan area. This proposal is not
affecting the amount, changing the amount of agricultural lands base, nor is it changing the uses
allowed in the agricultural lands in Lane County. An item in this ordinance is simply changing
like-for-like Plan designations: from Metro Plan “Agriculture” to Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan “Agricultural” plan designations. Thus, lands previously governed under
the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane
County completed Goal 3 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the
application is consistent with Goal 3.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
This goal defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory them and adopt policies
and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest uses."
Finding 63: This goal promotes the importance of conserving forest lands for forest uses.
Forest Lands shall include lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including
adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other
forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
There some areas of forest land within the Metro Plan area. This proposal is not affecting the
amount, changing the amount of forest lands base, or changing the uses allowed in the forest
lands in Lane County. An item in this ordinance is simply changing like-for-like Plan
designations: from Metro Plan “Forest land” to Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan “Forest”
plan designations. Thus, lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 4
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 4.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
Page 20 of 24
Exhibit E
Finding 64: This goal directs jurisdictions to inventory, protect, and conserve natural
resources for present and future generations. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 5 requirements in the acknowledged Metro
Plan document Ch. III Environmental Resources Element, Goal 5 sections.
If adopted, the proposed amendments would apply existing Goal 5 policies currently contained
in the Metro Plan to lands removed from the Metro Plan and placed within the jurisdiction of the
RCP. Therefore no changes in existing goal 5 policies are being implemented through by these
amendments. Additionally, the “Safe Harbor” riparian protection regulations for areas within the
Metro Plan will be applied to lands removed from the Metro Plan. Based on this finding, the
application is consistent with Goal 5.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resource Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Finding 65: This goal requires adequate protection measures for preservation of air,
water and land. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly
completed the Goal 6 requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III
Environmental Resources Element, Goal 6 sections. No changes to Goal 6 elements are being
attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 6
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 6.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
Finding 66: This goal directs jurisdictions to adopt comprehensive plans that reduce the
risks to people and property from natural hazards. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 7 requirements in the acknowledged Metro
Plan document Ch. III Environmental Resources Element, Goal 7 sections. No changes to Goal
7 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro
Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County
completed Goal 7 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the
application is consistent with Goal 7.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where
appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
Finding 67: The goal’s requirements for meeting recreational needs, now and in the
future, shall be planned for by governmental agencies having responsibility for recreation areas,
facilities and opportunities. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene
jointly completed the Goal 8 requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III
Parks and Recreation Facility Element, section G. No changes to Goal 8 elements are being
attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 8
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 8.
Page 21 of 24
Exhibit E
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.
Finding 68: This goal states Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute to a
stable and healthy economy in all regions of the state. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 9 requirements in the acknowledged Metro
Plan document Ch. III Economic Element, section B. No changes to Goal 9 elements are being
attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 9
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 9.
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs for the citizens of the State.
Finding 69: This goal states plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers
of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the
financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and
density. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the
Goal 10 requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Residential Land Use
and Housing Element, section A. No changes to Goal 10 elements are being attempted with this
proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP
should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 10 requirements in its
acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 10.
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.
Finding 70: The goal states Urban and rural development shall be guided and supported
by types and levels of urban and rural public facilities and services appropriate for, but limited
to, the needs and requirements of the urban, urbanizable, and rural areas to be served. A
provision for key facilities shall be included in each plan. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane
County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 11 requirements in the
acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Public Facilities and Services Element, section H.
No changes to Goal 11 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously
governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain
approval. Lane County completed Goal 11 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the
above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 11.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Finding 71: Under this goal, transportation a transportation plan shall (1) consider all
modes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, pipeline, rail, highway, bicycle and
pedestrian; (2) be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs; (3)
consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing
combinations of transportation modes; (4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of
transportation; (5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; (6)
Page 22 of 24
Exhibit E
conserve energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving
transportation services; (8) facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local
and regional economy; and (9) conform with local and regional comprehensive land use plans.
Each plan shall include a provision for transportation as a key facility.
Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 12
requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Transportation Element, section
F. No changes to Goal 12 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously
governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain
approval. Lane County completed Goal 12 requirements in its acknowledged RCP and in the
Lane County Rural Transportation Plan; a special purpose plan of the RCP. Given the above
finding, the application is consistent with Goal 12.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy
Finding 72: This goal states land and uses shall be managed and controlled so as to
maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles.
Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 13
requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Energy Element, section J. No
changes to Goal 13 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously
governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain
approval. Lane County completed Goal 13 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the
above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 13.
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.
Finding 73: The Metro Plan area is not within an urban growth boundary. This proposal is
seeking to move the Metro Plan boundary corresponding with the adopted Springfield UBG in
phase 1 of this proposal. There is no foreseeable connection between the proposed Metro Plan
Boundary adjustment and future UGB expansions or annexations. Lands previously governed
under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval.
Lane County completed Goal 14 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above
finding, the application is consistent with Goal 14.
Goal: 15 Willamette River Greenway
To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural,
economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette
River Greenway.
Finding 74: The goal recognizes the importance to protect, conserve, and enhance areas
along the Willamette Greenway. Areas which contain this boundary within the Metro Plan area
are located along the river banks of the Coast and Middle Fork Willamette River. Lane County
requires Greenway Development Permits for intensification or changes of use or development
as defined in LC 16.254. The jurisdictional area of the Metro Plan was found to be in compliance
with Goal 15 on September 12, 1982.
Page 23 of 24
Exhibit E
Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this
amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 15 requirements in its acknowledged
RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 15.
Goal: 16 Estuarine Resources
Goal: 17 Coastal Shorelands
Goal: 18 Beaches and Dunes
Goal: 19 Ocean Resources
Finding 75: These four goals are geographically separated from the Metro Plan area.
Therefore, they are not applicable to this application.
Page 24 of 24