HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 - 02 Amendments to Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/4/2013
Meeting Type: Work Session/Reg. Mtg Staff Contact/Dept.: Mark Metzger/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3775
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes/30 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER IV OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Hold a joint meeting with the elected officials of Eugene and Lane County to consider proposed
amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan. Conduct a first reading and public hearing concerning AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER IV; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The planning staffs and legal counsel for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County have prepared
amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan for the purpose of implementing ORS 197.304. The proposed amendments clarify each jurisdiction’s role in future Metro Plan amendments and
amendments to related documents.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments
2. Chart Comparing Current and Proposed Standards for Metro Plan Chapter IV 3. Draft Ordinance with timelines
4. Draft Ordinance without timelines 5. Staff Report and Findings
6. Planning Commission Recommendation
DISCUSSION:
ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) established separate Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) for Eugene and Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Plan and the Envision Eugene planning
initiatives. As these planning efforts are readied for adoption, amendments to Chapter IV are needed to clarify which governing bodies will participate in decision making given the
establishment of separate UGBs. The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are:
• Three types of Metro Plan amendments are established: Type I which may be enacted by the
home city alone; Type II which requires the participation of the home city and Lane County; and Type III amendments requires the participation of all three jurisdictions.
• The proposed amendments remove references to Metro Plan amendments with “regional
impact.” Removal of the regional impact language does not change similar language found in Chapter VI of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) which provides for multi-jurisdictional review of public facility projects which have a
significant impact on serving more than one jurisdiction.
• When governing bodies do not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the proposed amendments would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County
Commissioners and one or both of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield for resolution, depending on how many governing bodies are participating in the decision.
The Springfield Planning Commission conducted a joint public hearing on the Chapter IV
amendments with Eugene and Lane County on October 15, 2013. Each of the Commissions voted to recommend approval of the amendments with certain recommended changes. These
changes were incorporated in to the Proposed Chapter IV Amendments (Attachment 1). Staff notes, with respect to the recommendation to include timelines, that: (1) there is no statutory
timeline for comprehensive plan amendments; (2) a timeframe might unnecessarily restrict the process of the decision makers; and (3) there is really no enforcement mechanism for the existing
timelines. Eugene staff have not recommended the inclusion of such timelines. Council is being presented two draft ordinances for consideration: one including the timeline language and one
without. It may be necessary to reconcile the two ordinances before final action.
1
Chapter IV
Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements The Metro Plan is the long-range public policy document which establishes the broad framework upon which
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions. While the Metro Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document, it may be amended from time to time require update or amendment in response to
changes in the law or circumstances of importance to the community. Likewise, the Metro Plan may be augmented and implemented by more detailed refinement plans and regulatory measures.
Goal
Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the community.
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1. If the Metro Plan is to maintain its effectiveness as a policy guide, it must be adaptable to the changing
laws and the needs and circumstances of the community.
2. Between Metro Plan updates, changes to the Metro Plan may occur through Periodic Review and amendments initiated by the governing bodies and citizens.
3. Refinements to the Metro Plan are may be necessary in certain geographical portions of the community where there is a great deal of development pressure or for certain special purposes.
4. Refinement plans augment and assist in the implementation of the Metro Plan.
5. Enactment of ORS 197.304 required each city to separately establish its own Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and demonstrate that it has sufficient buildable lands to accommodate its estimated housing needs for twenty years.
Objectives
1. Maintain a schedule for monitoring, reviewing, and amending the Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan so it will remain current and valid.
2. Maintain a current land use and parcel information base for monitoring and updating the Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan.
3. Prepare refinement and functional plans that supplement the Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan.
Policies
1. A special review, and if appropriate, Metro Plan amendment, shall be initiated if changes in the basic
assumptions of the Metro Plan occur. An example would be a change in public demand for certain housing types that in turn may affect the overall inventory of residential land.
2. The regional land information database shall be maintained on a regular basis.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 6
2
3. All amendments A proposed amendment to the Metro Plan shall be classified as a Type I, or Type II or
Type III amendment depending upon the specific changes sought by the initiator of the proposal number of
governing bodies required to approve the decision. a. A Type I amendment shall include any change to the urban growth boundary (UGB) or the Metro
Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary) of the Metro Plan; any change that requires a goal exception to be taken under Statewide Planning Goal 2 that is not related to the UGB expansion; and any
amendment to the Metro Plan text that is non-site specific.
b. A Type II amendment shall include any change to the Metro Plan Diagram or Metro Plan text that
is site specific and not otherwise a Type 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 Metro Plan that result from state mandated Periodic Review or Metro Plan updates also shall be
classified as Type I or Type II amendments depending upon the specific changes that would result from these actions.
4. A Type I amendment requires approval by the home city.
a. Type I Diagram Amendments include amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for land inside the
city limits.
b. Type I Text Amendments include:
i. Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to land inside the city limits of the home city;
ii. Site specific amendments that apply only to land inside the city limits of the home city;
iii. Amendments to a regional transportation system plan, or a regional public facilities plan,
when only participation by the home city is required by the amendment provisions of those plans;
iv. The creation of new Metro Plan designations and the amendment of existing Metro Plan
designation descriptions that apply only within the city limits of the home city.
5. A Type II Amendment requires approval by two governing bodies. The governing bodies in a Type II are the home city and Lane County. Eugene is the home city for amendments west of I-5, and Springfield is
the home city for amendments east of I-5: [Derived in part from former Policy 5. b.]
a. Type II Diagram Amendments include:
i. Amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for the area between a city limit and the Plan Boundary;
ii. A UGB or Metro Plan Boundary amendment east or west of I-5 that is not described as a
Type I amendment.
b. Type II Text Amendments include: i. Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to Lane County and one of the
cities;
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 6
3
ii. Amendments that have a site specific application between a city limit of the home city
and the Plan Boundary;
iii. Amendments to a jointly adopted regional transportation system plan, or a regional public facilities plan, when only participation by Lane County and one of the cities is required
by the amendment provisions of those plans.
6. A Type III Amendment requires approval by all three governing bodies:
a. Type III Diagram Amendments include: [Derived in part from former Policy 5. b.]
i. Amendments of the Common UGB along I-5; and
ii. A UGB or Metro Plan Boundary change that crosses I-5.
b. Type III Text Amendments include:
i. Amendments that change a Fundamental Principle as set forth in Chapter II A. of the Metro Plan;
ii. Non site specific amendments that apply to all three jurisdictions; iii. Amendments to a regional transportation system plan, or a regional public facilities plan,
when the participation of all three governing bodies is required by the amendment provisions of those plans.
4. 7. Initiation of Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. A Type I amendment may be initiated by the home city at any time. A property owner may initiate an amendment for property they own at any time. Owner initiated amendments are subject
to the limitations for such amendments set out in the development code of the home city.
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 by the home city or county at any time. A property owner may initiate an amendment for property they own at any
time. Owner initiated amendments are subject to the limitations for such amendments set out in the development codes of the home city and Lane County.
c. A Type I III amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of by any one of the three
governing bodies (Note: this correction reflects adopted ordinance and code.) at any time.
c. d. Only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan, a special area study or Periodic Review or Metro Plan update.
e. Metro Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state required Periodic
Review of the Metro Plan, although any governing body may initiate an update of the Metro Plan at any time. [Derived from former Policy 10.]
5. The approval process for Metro Plan amendments, including the number of 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 Metro Plan Diagram amendments that involve a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 6
4
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 Metro Plan amendment that involves a UGB 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.
[Moved in part to Policy 5.]
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 (Public Facilities and Services Plan), etc.] in order to
provide the subject property with an adequate level of urban services and facilities; or
(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 Metro Plan designation without causing 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.
6. Public hearings by the governing bodies for Metro Plan amendments requiring participation from one or
two jurisdictions shall be held within 120 days of the initiation date. Metro Plan amendments that require a
final decision from all 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 Metro Plan amendment processes
can be waived if the applicant agrees to the waiver. [Moved in part to Policy 8. a.]
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.
[Moved in part to Policy 8. b.]
8. Adopted or denied Metro Plan amendments may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) according to applicable state
law. [Moved to Policy 8. e.]
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 6
5
9. The three metropolitan jurisdictions shall jointly develop and adopt Metro Plan amendment application
procedures and a fee schedule. [Moved in part to Policy 8. f.] 10. Metro Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state required Periodic Review of
the Metro Plan, although the governing bodies may initiate an update of the Metro Plan at any time.
[Moved to Policy 7. e.]
8. The approval process for Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. The initiating governing body of any Type I, II, or III Metro Plan amendment shall notify all
governing bodies of the intended amendment and the Type of amendment proposed. If any governing body disagrees with the Type of the proposed amendment that governing body may refer the matter to
the processes provided in 8(d) or (e) as appropriate.
b. When more than one governing body participates in the decision, the Planning Commissions of the bodies shall conduct a joint public hearing and forward that record and their recommendations to their
respective elected officials. The elected officials shall also conduct a joint public hearing prior to making a final decision. [Derived in part from former Policy 6.]
c. If all participating governing bodies reach a consensus to approve a proposed amendment,
substantively identical ordinances effecting the changes shall be adopted. When an amendment is not approved, it may not be re-initiated, except by one of the three governing bodies, for one year.
[Derived in part from former Policy 7.]
d. A Type II amendment for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the Chair of the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Mayor of the home city for further examination of the
issue(s) in dispute and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
e. A Type III amendment for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the Chair of the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield for further examination of
the issue(s) in dispute and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
f. Adopted or denied Metro Plan amendments may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) according to
applicable state law. [Derived from former Policy 8.]
g. The three governing bodies shall develop jointly and adopt Metro Plan amendment application procedures. [Derived from former Policy 9.]
h. Quasi-judicial Metro Plan amendments shall be decided within 120 days of initiation. Legislative
Metro Plan amendments will be decided within 180 days of initiation. [Derived from former Policy 6.] i. A different process, time line, or both, than the processes and timelines specified in 8b. through h.
above may be established by the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County for any government initiated Metro Plan amendment.
11. 9. In addition to the update of the Metro Plan, refinement studies may be undertaken for individual
geographical areas and special purpose or functional elements, as determined appropriate by each governing body.
12. 10. All refinement and functional plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan and should inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan is the prevailing policy document.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 6
6
13. Refinement plans developed by one jurisdiction shall be referred to the other two jurisdictions for their
review. Either of the two referral jurisdictions may determine that an amendment to the Metro Plan is
required. 14. 11. Local implementing ordinances shall provide a process for zoning lands in conformance with the Metro
Plan.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 6
Metro Plan Chapter IV Comparison Table—November 4, 2013
Metro Plan Chapter IV: Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements
Summary of Proposed Changes
Topic Current Metro Plan Proposed Change Rationale
Amendment
Types: Process
• Amendments are classified as Type I or Type II (See below under
amendment types: decision makers)
• Decision making process does not follow amendment types (i.e. Some
Type I amendments require participation of all three governing
bodies, some only require participation of two).
• Expand to three Amendment Types (I, II and III)
• Align Amendment Types with the number of
jurisdictions requires to approve the amendment.
Type I amendments require participation of just the
home city; Type II amendments require the
participation of the home city and Lane County; and
Type III amendments require the participation of
three governing bodies.
• Makes Metro Plan consistent with HB 3337.
• Amendment types are defined by the
participants required for decision making.
• Responds to the establishment of separate UGBs.
• Defines when jurisdictions may act alone as a
home city and when the County and or the non-
home city may participate.
Amendment
Types: Decision
Maker
Any change to the UGB or Metro
Plan boundary;
(currently Type I)
• All three governing bodies must approve a site specific UGB or Metro
Plan Boundary adjustments that cross the Willamette or McKenzie
Rivers or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin.
• The home city and Lane County must approve a site specific UGB
expansion or Plan boundary adjustment between city limits and plan
boundary. Non-home city receives referral and may participate as
decision make if determine regional impact (see below).
• All three governing bodies must approve
amendments of the common UGB along I-5 and for
UGB or Metro Plan Boundary changes that cross I-5.
• The home city and Lane County participate in a UGB
or plan boundary amendment east or west I-5 that is
not described above.
• Narrows the opportunity of the none-home city
to participate in UGB decisions by the home city
and the County.
Any change that requires a goal
exception to be taken under
Statewide Planning Goal 2 that is
not related to the UGB expansion
(Currently Type I)
All three governing bodies must approve amendments that involve a goal
exception not related to a UGB expansion.
This section is removed. Actions requiring an exemption to Statewide
Planning Goals that are not related to a UGB
expansion are very rare. The goal exception to
Statewide Planning Goal 15—Willamette River
Greenway to for construction of the new I-5 Bridges
and adjoining bike viaduct is the only one requested
in recent memory.
Virtually all goal exceptions are sought for UGB
expansions or for the development of resource lands
in rural areas.
Any amendment to the Metro
Plan text that is not site specific
or any change to a Fundamental
Principle in Chapter II (Currently
Type I)
All three governing bodies must approve. Add changes to the Metro Plan’s Fundamental Principles
to list of Type I non site specific text amendments
requiring the approval of all three jurisdictions.
The Fundamental Principles found in Chapter II of the
Metro Plan set forth the basic concepts of the Plan.
The Principles are not site specific. Changing one or
more of them fit the definition of a Type I
amendment.
Any change to the Metro Plan
Diagram or Metro Plan text that
is site specific and not otherwise
a Type I amendment (Currently
Type II)
Home City must approve No change Changes to the Metro Plan that are not site specific
would affect all jurisdictions. Participation of all
jurisdictions is appropriate for such amendments.
Amendments to a regional
transportation system plan, or a
regional public facilities plan,
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 Metro Plan that result from state mandated Periodic Review or Metro Plan updates also shall be
classified as Type I or Type II amendments depending upon the specific
changes that would result from these actions.
Chapter VI of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities
Either the home city, the home city and Lane County, or
all three governing bodies shall approve changes to the
Metro Plan as required by the amendment type (Type I,
II, or III). Plans with their own amendment provisions
shall be governed by those provisions.
The Public Facilities Plan, for example, contains its own
amendment provisions which are not affected by the
Consistent with the establishment of Type I, II, and III
amendments, changes to TransPlan, functional plans
or special area plans shall follow the amendment
process dictated by the amendment type.
Plans which have their own amendment provisions
are not affected by these changes.
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
Metro Plan Chapter IV Comparison Table—November 4, 2013
and Services Plan (Public Facilities Plan) contains amendment provisions
which are specific to that plan. Those provisions are not changed by
these amendments.
proposed changes to Chapter IV.
Creation of new Metro Plan
designations and amendment of
existing designation descriptions
that apply only within the city
limits of the home city.
All three jurisdictions must approve text amendments which are non-site
specific. Creation of a new Metro Plan designation is a text amendment
which is non-site specific.
Home city. The proposed change amendments will allow a home
city to independently approve new Metro Plan
designations which apply only within its city limits.
Regional Impact
An amendment will be considered to have Regional Impact if:
• It will require an amendment to a jointly adopted functional plan
[Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(TransPlan), Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities Plan), etc.] in order to
provide the subject property with an adequate level of urban
services and facilities; or
• It has a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage,
wastewater, or transportation facilities of the non-home city; or
• 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.
Language referencing “Regional Impact” is removed
from Chapter IV.
Removal of the regional impact language does not
change Chapter VI of the Public Facilities Plan which
provides for multi-jurisdictional review of public
facility projects which have a significant impact on
water, stormwater, wastewater and electrical
facilities serving more than one jurisdiction.
A Metro Plan amendment which causes a significant
impact on public facilities will be subject to the
provisions of Chapter VI.
Amendments to other functional plans and
refinement plans will be subject to the amended
Chapter IV processes unless those documents specify
a different amendment process like that found in the
Public Facilities Plan.
The establishment of separate UGBs has prompted
each city to establish their own inventories of
residential, commercial and industrial Lands. The
proposed change allows cities to act independently
to add or subtract land from their inventories so long
as these amendments do not significantly impact
public facilities outside of their jurisdiction.
Conflict
Resolution
When there is no consensus on an amendment (such as when one
jurisdiction approves and the other does not), the amendment is referred
to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for additional study, conflict
resolution and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
For Type II amendments, the amendments shall be
referred to the Chair of the Board and the Mayor of the
home city.
For a Type III amendment where there is no consensus,
the amendment shall be referred to the Chair of the
Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Mayors of
Eugene and Springfield for examination of the issue(s) in
dispute and recommendation back to the governing
bodies.
The MPC is comprised of two elected officials each
from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County.
When the MPC is considering metropolitan
transportation matters, the two members of the
Lane Transit District (LTD) Board serve as voting
members.
The change provides more flexibility for decision
makers to determine a conflict resolution method
that is tailored to the specific situation.
Timelines
Public hearings by the governing bodies for Metro Plan amendments
requiring participation from one or two jurisdictions shall be held within
120 days of the initiation date. Metro Plan amendments that require a
final decision from all three governing bodies shall be concluded within
180 days of the initiation date.
Quasi-judicial Metro Plan amendments shall be decided
within 120 days of initiation. Legislative Metro Plan
amendments will be decided within 180 days of
initiation.
Staff notes, with respect to the recommendation to include timelines that: (1) there is no statutory
timeline for comprehensive plan amendments; (2) a
timeframe might unnecessarily restrict the process of the decision makers; and (3) there is really no enforcement mechanism for the existing timelines.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2
1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER IV; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2013, the Springfield City Council approved a motion to initiate amendments to Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to reflect the establishment of separate
Urban Growth Boundaries for Eugene and Springfield stemming from the enactment of ORS 197.304, also known as HB 3337.
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Springfield are implemented by provisions of Section 5.14-100 of the Springfield Development Code; and
WHEREAS, following an October 15, 2013 joint public hearing with the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions, the Springfield Planning Commission, voted to recommended amendments to Chapter IV of the
Metro Plan amendments to the Springfield City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a joint public hearing on this amendment on November 4, 2013, with the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners, and is now ready to take action based on the
above recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and
WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the proposal meets the requirements of
the Metro Plan, Springfield Development Code and applicable state and local law as described in the findings attached as Exhibit A, and which are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield does ordain as follows: Section 1: Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is now amended to read as follows:
Chapter IV
Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements The Metro Plan is the long-range public policy document which establishes the broad framework upon which
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions. While the Metro Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document, it may require update or amendment in response to changes in the law or
circumstances of importance to the community. Likewise, the Metro Plan may be augmented and implemented by more detailed plans and regulatory measures.
Goal
Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the community.
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1. If the Metro Plan is to maintain its effectiveness as a policy guide, it must be adaptable to the changing laws and the needs and circumstances of the community.
2. Between Metro Plan updates, changes to the Metro Plan may occur through Periodic Review and amendments initiated by the governing bodies and citizens.
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 5
2
3. Refinements to the Metro Plan may be necessary in certain geographical portions of the community where there is a great deal of development pressure or for certain special purposes.
4. Refinement plans augment and assist in the implementation of the Metro Plan.
5. Enactment of ORS 197.304 required each city to separately establish its own Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) and demonstrate that it has sufficient buildable lands to accommodate its estimated housing needs for twenty years.
Objectives
1. Maintain a schedule for monitoring, reviewing, and amending the Metro Plan so it will remain current and valid.
2. Maintain a current land use and parcel information base for monitoring and updating the Metro Plan.
3. Prepare refinement and functional plans that supplement the Metro Plan.
Policies
1. A special review, and if appropriate, Metro Plan amendment, shall be initiated if changes in the basic assumptions of the Metro Plan occur. An example would be a change in public demand for certain housing types that in turn may affect the overall inventory of residential land.
2. The regional land information database shall be maintained on a regular basis.
3. A proposed amendment to the Metro Plan shall be classified as a Type I, Type II or Type III amendment depending upon the number of governing bodies required to approve the decision.
4. A Type I amendment requires approval by the home city.
a. Type I Diagram Amendments include amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for land inside the city
limits.
b. Type I Text Amendments include:
i. Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to land inside the city limits of the home city;
ii. Site specific amendments that apply only to land inside the city limits of the home city;
iii. Amendments to a regional transportation system plan, or a regional public facilities plan, when
only participation by the home city is required by the amendment provisions of those plans;
iv. The creation of new Metro Plan designations and the amendment of existing Metro Plan designation descriptions that apply only within the city limits of the home city.
5. A Type II Amendment requires approval by two governing bodies. The governing bodies in a Type II are the home city and Lane County. Eugene is the home city for amendments west of I-5, and Springfield is the home city for amendments east of I-5:
a. Type II Diagram Amendments include:
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 5
3
i. Amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for the area between a city limit and the Plan Boundary;
ii. A UGB or Metro Plan Boundary amendment east or west of I-5 that is not described as a Type I amendment.
b. Type II Text Amendments include:
i. Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to Lane County and one of the cities; ii. Amendments that have a site specific application between a city limit of the home city
and the Plan Boundary;
iii. Amendments to a jointly adopted regional transportation system plan, or a regional public facilities plan, when only participation by Lane County and one of the cities is required by the amendment provisions of those plans.
6. A Type III Amendment requires approval by all three governing bodies:
a. Type III Diagram Amendments include:
i. Amendments of the Common UGB along I-5; and
ii. A UGB or Metro Plan Boundary change that crosses I-5. b. Type III Text Amendments include:
i. Amendments that change a Fundamental Principle as set forth in Chapter II A. of the Metro Plan;
ii. Non site specific amendments that apply to all three jurisdictions;
iii. Amendments to a regional transportation system plan, or a regional public facilities plan,
when the participation of all three governing bodies is required by the amendment provisions of those plans.
7. Initiation of Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. A Type I amendment may be initiated by the home city at any time. A property owner may initiate an
amendment for property they own at any time. Owner initiated amendments are subject to the limitations for such amendments set out in the development code of the home city.
b. A Type II amendment may be initiated by the home city or county at any time. A property owner may initiate an amendment for property they own at any time. Owner initiated amendments are subject to
the limitations for such amendments set out in the development codes of the home city and Lane County.
c. A Type III amendment may be initiated by any one of the three governing bodies at any time.
d. Only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan, a special area study or Periodic Review or Metro Plan update. e. Metro Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state required Periodic Review
of the Metro Plan, although any governing body may initiate an update of the Metro Plan at any time.
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 5
4
8. The approval process for Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. The initiating governing body of any Type I, II, or III Metro Plan amendment shall notify all
governing bodies of the intended amendment and the Type of amendment proposed. If any governing body disagrees with the Type of the proposed amendment that governing body may refer the matter to
the processes provided in 8(d) or (e) as appropriate.
b. When more than one governing body participates in the decision, the Planning Commissions of the bodies shall conduct a joint public hearing and forward that record and their recommendations to their
respective elected officials. The elected officials shall also conduct a joint public hearing prior to making a final decision.
c. If all participating governing bodies reach a consensus to approve a proposed amendment,
substantively identical ordinances effecting the changes shall be adopted. When an amendment is not approved, it may not be re-initiated, except by one of the three governing bodies, for one year.
d. A Type II amendment for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the Chair of the Lane
County Board of Commissioners and the Mayor of the home city for further examination of the issue(s) in dispute and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
e. A Type III amendment for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the Chair of the Lane
County Board of Commissioners and the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield for further examination of the issue(s) in dispute and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
f. Adopted or denied Metro Plan amendments may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA) or the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) according to applicable state law.
g. The three governing bodies shall develop jointly and adopt Metro Plan amendment application
procedures.
h. Quasi-judicial Metro Plan amendments shall be decided within 120 days of initiation. Legislative Metro Plan amendments will be decided within 180 days of initiation.
i. A different process, time line, or both, than the processes and timelines specified in 8b. through 8h.
above may be established by the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County for any government initiated Metro Plan amendment.
9. In addition to the update of the Metro Plan, refinement studies may be undertaken for individual
geographical areas and special purpose or functional elements, as determined appropriate by each governing body.
10. All refinement and functional plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan and should inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan is the prevailing policy document.
11. Local implementing ordinances shall provide a process for zoning lands in conformance with the Metro Plan.
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 this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed separate, distinct and
independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 5
5
Section 4: Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 of the Springfield
Municipal Code 1997, 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 that date the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to those described in Sections 1 of this Ordinance.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ____ day of November, 2013 by a vote of _____ in
favor and _____ against.
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this _____ day of November, 2013.
____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST: _____________________________________
City Recorder
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 5
1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER IV; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2013, the Springfield City Council approved a motion to initiate amendments to Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to reflect the establishment of separate
Urban Growth Boundaries for Eugene and Springfield stemming from the enactment of ORS 197.304, also known as HB 3337.
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Springfield are implemented by provisions of Section 5.14-100 of the Springfield Development Code; and
WHEREAS, following an October 15, 2013 joint public hearing with the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions, the Springfield Planning Commission, voted to recommended amendments to Chapter IV of the
Metro Plan amendments to the Springfield City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a joint public hearing on this amendment on November 4, 2013, with the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners, and is now ready to take action based on the
above recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and
WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the proposal meets the requirements of
the Metro Plan, Springfield Development Code and applicable state and local law as described in the findings attached as Exhibit A, and which are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield does ordain as follows: Section 1: Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is now amended to read as follows:
Chapter IV
Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements The Metro Plan is the long-range public policy document which establishes the broad framework upon which
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions. While the Metro Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document, it may require update or amendment in response to changes in the law or
circumstances of importance to the community. Likewise, the Metro Plan may be augmented and implemented by more detailed plans and regulatory measures.
Goal
Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the community.
Findings, Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1. If the Metro Plan is to maintain its effectiveness as a policy guide, it must be adaptable to the changing laws and the needs and circumstances of the community.
2. Between Metro Plan updates, changes to the Metro Plan may occur through Periodic Review and amendments initiated by the governing bodies and citizens.
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 5
2
3. Refinements to the Metro Plan may be necessary in certain geographical portions of the community where there is a great deal of development pressure or for certain special purposes.
4. Refinement plans augment and assist in the implementation of the Metro Plan.
5. Enactment of ORS 197.304 required each city to separately establish its own Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) and demonstrate that it has sufficient buildable lands to accommodate its estimated housing needs for twenty years.
Objectives
1. Maintain a schedule for monitoring, reviewing, and amending the Metro Plan so it will remain current and valid.
2. Maintain a current land use and parcel information base for monitoring and updating the Metro Plan.
3. Prepare refinement and functional plans that supplement the Metro Plan.
Policies
1. A special review, and if appropriate, Metro Plan amendment, shall be initiated if changes in the basic assumptions of the Metro Plan occur. An example would be a change in public demand for certain housing types that in turn may affect the overall inventory of residential land.
2. The regional land information database shall be maintained on a regular basis.
3. A proposed amendment to the Metro Plan shall be classified as a Type I, Type II or Type III amendment depending upon the number of governing bodies required to approve the decision.
4. A Type I amendment requires approval by the home city.
a. Type I Diagram Amendments include amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for land inside the city
limits.
b. Type I Text Amendments include:
i. Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to land inside the city limits of the home city;
ii. Site specific amendments that apply only to land inside the city limits of the home city;
iii. Amendments to a regional transportation system plan, or a regional public facilities plan, when
only participation by the home city is required by the amendment provisions of those plans;
iv. The creation of new Metro Plan designations and the amendment of existing Metro Plan designation descriptions that apply only within the city limits of the home city.
5. A Type II Amendment requires approval by two governing bodies. The governing bodies in a Type II are the home city and Lane County. Eugene is the home city for amendments west of I-5, and Springfield is the home city for amendments east of I-5:
a. Type II Diagram Amendments include:
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 5
3
i. Amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for the area between a city limit and the Plan Boundary;
ii. A UGB or Metro Plan Boundary amendment east or west of I-5 that is not described as a Type I amendment.
b. Type II Text Amendments include:
i. Amendments that are non site specific and apply only to Lane County and one of the cities; ii. Amendments that have a site specific application between a city limit of the home city
and the Plan Boundary;
iii. Amendments to a jointly adopted regional transportation system plan, or a regional public facilities plan, when only participation by Lane County and one of the cities is required by the amendment provisions of those plans.
6. A Type III Amendment requires approval by all three governing bodies:
a. Type III Diagram Amendments include:
i. Amendments of the Common UGB along I-5; and
ii. A UGB or Metro Plan Boundary change that crosses I-5. b. Type III Text Amendments include:
i. Amendments that change a Fundamental Principle as set forth in Chapter II A. of the Metro Plan;
ii. Non site specific amendments that apply to all three jurisdictions;
iii. Amendments to a regional transportation system plan, or a regional public facilities plan,
when the participation of all three governing bodies is required by the amendment provisions of those plans.
7. Initiation of Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. A Type I amendment may be initiated by the home city at any time. A property owner may initiate an
amendment for property they own at any time. Owner initiated amendments are subject to the limitations for such amendments set out in the development code of the home city.
b. A Type II amendment may be initiated by the home city or county at any time. A property owner may initiate an amendment for property they own at any time. Owner initiated amendments are subject to
the limitations for such amendments set out in the development codes of the home city and Lane County.
c. A Type III amendment may be initiated by any one of the three governing bodies at any time.
d. Only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan, a special area study or Periodic Review or Metro Plan update. e. Metro Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state required Periodic Review
of the Metro Plan, although any governing body may initiate an update of the Metro Plan at any time.
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 5
4
8. The approval process for Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. The initiating governing body of any Type I, II, or III Metro Plan amendment shall notify all
governing bodies of the intended amendment and the Type of amendment proposed. If any governing body disagrees with the Type of the proposed amendment that governing body may refer the matter to
the processes provided in 8(d) or (e) as appropriate.
b. When more than one governing body participates in the decision, the Planning Commissions of the bodies shall conduct a joint public hearing and forward that record and their recommendations to their
respective elected officials. The elected officials shall also conduct a joint public hearing prior to making a final decision.
c. If all participating governing bodies reach a consensus to approve a proposed amendment,
substantively identical ordinances effecting the changes shall be adopted. When an amendment is not approved, it may not be re-initiated, except by one of the three governing bodies, for one year.
d. A Type II amendment for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the Chair of the Lane
County Board of Commissioners and the Mayor of the home city for further examination of the issue(s) in dispute and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
e. A Type III amendment for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the Chair of the Lane
County Board of Commissioners and the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield for further examination of the issue(s) in dispute and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
f. Adopted or denied Metro Plan amendments may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA) or the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) according to applicable state law.
g. The three governing bodies shall develop jointly and adopt Metro Plan amendment application
procedures.
h. A different process, time line, or both, than the processes and timelines specified in 8b. through 8g. above may be established by the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County for any
government initiated Metro Plan amendment.
9. In addition to the update of the Metro Plan, refinement studies may be undertaken for individual geographical areas and special purpose or functional elements, as determined appropriate by each
governing body.
10. All refinement and functional plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan and should inconsistencies
occur, the Metro Plan is the prevailing policy document.
11. Local implementing ordinances shall provide a process for zoning lands in conformance with the Metro Plan. 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 this Ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4: Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 of the Springfield
Municipal Code 1997, 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 that date the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of
Attachment 4, Page 4 of 5
5
Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to those described in Sections 1 of this Ordinance.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ____ day of November, 2013 by a vote of _____ in
favor and _____ against.
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this _____ day of November, 2013.
____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST: _____________________________________
City Recorder
Attachment 4, Page 5 of 5
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 1
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments
Staff Report and Findings
November 4, 2013
Applicants:
City of Springfield (initiated the amendment)
City of Eugene
Lane County
Local File Numbers:
Springfield File No. TYP411-0001
Eugene File No. MA 13-3
Lane County File No. 509-PA13-05171
Request:
To amend Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to reflect the
establishment of separate Urban Growth Boundaries as
required by Oregon Revised Statute 197.304
ProcedureType:
Type I Metro Plan Amendment
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Proposed Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments.
Attachment 2: Chart Comparing Current and Proposed Standards for Metro Plan Chapter IV.
Attachment 3: Recommendations of the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions
I. Executive Summary
The goal of Metro Plan Chapter IV (titled Metro Plan Review, Amendments and Refinements) is to
“ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the
community.” ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) required the establishment of separate Urban Growth Boundaries
(UGBs) for Eugene and Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and the
Envision Eugene planning initiatives. As these planning efforts are readied for adoption, amendments to
Chapter IV are necessary to make the Metro Plan consistent with the statute and to clarify which
governing bodies will participate in decision making. The amendments to Chapter IV are intended to
support a framework for needed planning collaboration among the jurisdictions while respecting the
autonomy of each.
The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are summarized below.
• Three types of Metro Plan amendments are established: Type I which may be enacted by the
home city alone; Type II which requires the participation of the home city and Lane County; and
Type III amendments requires the participation of all three jurisdictions. The current policy
defines only two types of amendments. Under the amended Chapter IV, adoption of the
Springfield 2030 Plan and other Springfield-specific amendments would be a Type I or Type II
decision approved with the participation of the City alone or the City and Lane County.
• Currently, all three governing bodies must approve a site specific UGB or Metro Plan Boundary
adjustments that cross the Willamette or McKenzie Rivers or that cross over a ridge into a new
basin. The proposed amendments would instead require all three governing bodies approve
only the amendments of the common UGB along I-5 and for UGB or Metro Plan Boundary
amendments that cross I-5.The proposed amendments remove references to Metro Plan
amendments with “regional impact.” Removal of the regional impact language does not impact
similar language that is found in Chapter VI of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 2
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities Plan) which provides for multi-jurisdictional review
of public facility projects which have a significant impact on water, stormwater, wastewater and
electrical facilities serving more than one jurisdiction. Amendments to other functional plans
and refinement plans will be subject to the amended Chapter IV processes unless those
documents specify a different amendment process like that found in the Public Facilities Plan.
• When governing bodies do not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the current policy
sends the matter to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The proposed amendments
would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and one or
both of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield, depending on how many governing bodies are
participating in the decision for further examination. The purpose of this proposed change to Ch
IV is to provide a conflict resolution mechanism that is flexible enough to apply to different
types of situations and specifically involves the appropriate decision makers.
The proposed amendments do not change the goal of Chapter IV, which is to ensure that the Metro Plan
is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the community. The proposed
amendments refine the amendment process to reflect the existence of separate UGBs.
The Springfield Planning Commission conducted a joint public hearing on the Chapter IV amendments
with Eugene and Lane County on October 15, 2013. Each of the Commissions voted to recommend
approval of the amendments with certain recommended changes. These changes were incorporated in
to the Proposed Chapter IV Amendments (Attachment 1). Staff notes, with respect to the
recommendation to include timelines that: (1) there is no statutory timeline for comprehensive plan
amendments; (2) a timeframe might unnecessarily restrict the process of the decision makers; and (3)
there is really no enforcement mechanism for the existing timelines.
Eugene staff have not recommended the inclusion of such timelines and, accordingly, it will be
necessary to reconcile the two ordinances before final action. The specific recommendations of each
Commission are contained in the Staff Report and Findings (Attachment 4).
Conclusion and Recommendation of Staff
This report includes findings demonstrating conformance with the criteria for approving Metro Plan
amendments found in Section 5.14-135(C) of the Springfield Development Code. Section 5.14-135 (C)
states:
“1. The amendment shall be consistent with the relevant Statewide planning goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
2. Adoption of the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.”
The same criteria for approving a Metro Plan amendment are found in Eugene Code 9.7730(3) and
Section 12.225(2) (a&b) of the Lane Code. Based on the findings of staff with respect to the approval
criteria cited above, staff find the proposed text amendments to Chapter IV the Metro Plan to be
consistent with these criteria and recommend approval of the amendment.
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 3
II. Procedural Requirements
Procedural requirements for Metro Plan amendments are described in Chapter IV. The amendment
procedures are reflected in each jurisdiction’s local land use codes. Sections 5.2-115, 5.4-135 and 5.4-
140 of the Springfield Development Code, and sections 9.7700 through 9.7750 of the Eugene Code, and
Lane Code Chapter 12.220 through 12.225 and 12.240 contain the amendment procedures and policies
found in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan.
Findings:
Finding #1. Section 5.14-115 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC), Eugene Code (EC) 9.7700,
and Lane Code 12.205 includes definitions of two types of amendments to the Metro Plan. Section 5.14-
115 (B.) and EC 9.7700(1) describes a Type I amendment as one which includes changes to the urban
growth boundary or the jurisdictional boundary of the plan, requires a goal exception not related to a
UGB expansion, or is a non-site specific amendment of the Plan text. This proposal is a non-site specific
text amendment to the Metro Plan. By the definition found in SDC Section 5.14-115, EC 9.7700(1) and
Lane Code 12.205, this proposal is a Type I amendment.
Finding #2. SDC Section 5.14-120 (1) states that a Type I non-site specific text amendment to the
Metro Plan may be initiated by any of the three governing bodies. This Metro Plan amendment was
initiated by a motion of the Springfield City Council on March 18, 2013.
Finding #3. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was filed with the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development on August 30, 2013.
Finding #4. SDC 5.14-135, EC 9.7730(1) (b) and LC 12.225 (1) (a) (i) states that to become effective, “a
non-site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment shall be approved by all three governing bodies.”
Finding #5. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Planning Commissions of Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County on October 15, 2013. The Joint Planning Commissions met on that date.
No testimony was offered at the hearing. Each Commission voted to recommend that their respective
elected bodies approve the Chapter IV amendments with some changes.
Finding #6. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene, Springfield
and Lane County on November 4, 2013.
Finding #7. SDC Section 5.2-115 (B), EC 9.7745(3), LC 12.025(2) and LC 12.040(2) require that
proposed land use actions be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation, providing information
about the legislative action and the time, place and location of the hearing.
Finding #8. Notice of the public hearings concerning this matter was published on September 26,
2013 in the Register Guard, advertising hearing before the Joint Planning Commissions on October 15,
2013. A second notice was published in the Register Guard on October 17, 2013 advertising the
November 4, 2013 public hearing with the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane County
Board of Commissioners. The content of the notices followed the direction given in SDC Section 5.2-115
B, EC 9.7735(3), LC 12.025(2) and LC 12.040(2).
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 4
Finding #9. Information concerning the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan Chapter IV and the
dates of the public hearings were posted on the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene websites.
These web sites routinely include information about upcoming and continuing planning matters.
Agenda notice and or agenda packets are routinely provided (primarily by e-mailed) to many interested
parties who have asked for such notification by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. Those notified
include local media outlets and newspapers, local utilities, school districts and partner agencies, local
state representatives, the Eugene and Springfield Chambers of Commerce, the Lane Homebuilders
Association, as well as various neighborhood groups and leaders. In addition, staff made informal
contact with 1000 Friends of Oregon and other local stakeholders who were thought to have an interest
in the amendments.
Conclusion:
The procedural requirements described in SDC Sections 5.2-115, 5.4-135 and 5.4-140, EC 9.7745 and EC
9.7735(3) and LC 12.210 through LC 12.245 have been followed. Notice requirements established by
DLCD for amending the Development Code have also been followed.
III. Decision Criteria and Findings
SDC Section 5.14-135 C, EC 9.7730(3) and LC 12.225 (2) describe the criteria to be used in approving an
amendment to the Metro Plan. In reaching a decision, the Planning Commissions and the City Councils
and County Commissioners must adopt findings which demonstrate that the proposal meets certain
approval criteria. These criteria and findings are shown below.
Criterion #1 “The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.”
Findings:
Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 calls for "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
of the planning process."
Finding #10. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Planning Commissions of Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County on October 15, 2013. The Joint Planning Commissions met on that date.
No testimony was offered at the hearing. Each Commission voted to recommend that their respective
elected bodies approve the Chapter IV amendments with some changes. These changes were
incorporated in to the Proposed Chapter IV Amendments (Attachment 1). Staff notes, with respect to
the recommendation to include timelines that: (1) there is no statutory timeline for comprehensive plan
amendments; (2) a timeframe might unnecessarily restrict the process of the decision makers; and (3)
there is really no enforcement mechanism for the existing timelines. Eugene staff have not
recommended the inclusion of such timelines and, accordingly, it will be necessary to reconcile the two
ordinances before final action. The specific recommendations of each Commission are contained in the
Staff Report and Findings (Attachment 4).
Finding #11. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene, Springfield
and Lane County on November 4, 2013.
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 5
Finding #12. Notice of the public hearings concerning this matter was published on September 26,
2013 in the Register Guard, advertising hearing before the Joint Planning Commissions on October 15,
2013. A second notice was published in the Register Guard on October 17, 2013 advertising the
November 4, 2013 public hearing with the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane County
Board of Commissioners. The content of the notices followed the direction given in SDC Section 5.2-115
B, EC 9.7735(3), LC 12.025(2) and LC 12.040(2). Information concerning the proposed amendments to
the Metro Plan Chapter IV and the dates of the public hearings were posted on the City of Springfield
and the City of Eugene websites. These web sites routinely include information about upcoming and
continuing planning matters. Agenda notice and or agenda packets are routinely provided (primarily by
e-mailed) to many interested parties who have asked for such notification by Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County. Those notified include local media outlets and newspapers, local utilities, school districts
and partner agencies, local state representatives, the Eugene and Springfield Chambers of Commerce,
the Lane Homebuilders Association, as well as various neighborhood groups and leaders. In addition,
staff made informal contact with 1000 Friends of Oregon and other local stakeholders who were
thought to have an interest in the amendments.
Goal 2 – Land Use Planning. Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's statewide planning
program. It says that land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and
that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the plan's policies into effect must be adopted.
Finding #13. Goal 2 requires that actions related to land use be consistent with acknowledged
comprehensive plans of cities and counties. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) is the acknowledged comprehensive plan that guides land use planning in Springfield,
Eugene and Lane County.
Finding #14. The goal of Chapter IV of the Metro Plan is to “Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to
the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes.”
Finding #15. ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) requires the establishment of separate Urban Growth Boundaries
(UGBs) for Eugene and Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and the
Envision Eugene planning initiatives. As these planning efforts are readied for adoption, amendments to
Chapter IV are needed to clarify which governing bodies will participate in decision making given the
establishment of separate UGBs. The amendments to Chapter IV are intended to support a framework
for needed planning collaboration among the jurisdictions while respecting the autonomy of each.
Finding #16. The proposed changes preserve the Metro Plan as the acknowledged comprehensive
plan for the Eugene-Springfield area. The amendments Chapter IV implement changes stemming from
ORS 197.304. The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are summarized below.
• Three types of Metro Plan amendments are established: Type I which may be enacted by the
home city alone; Type II which requires the participation of the home city and Lane County; and
Type III amendments requires the participation of all three jurisdictions. The current policy
defines only two types of amendments. Under the amended Chapter IV, adoption of the
Springfield 2030 Plan and other Springfield-specific amendments would be a Type II decision
approved with the participation of the City and Lane County.
• Currently, all three governing bodies must approve a site specific UGB or Metro Plan Boundary
adjustments that cross the Willamette or McKenzie Rivers or that cross over a ridge into a new
Attachment 5, Page 5 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 6
basin. The proposed amendments would instead require all three governing bodies approve
amendments of the common UGB along I-5 and for UGB or Metro Plan Boundary changes that
cross I-5.
• The proposed amendments remove references to Metro Plan amendments with “regional
impact.” Removal of the regional impact language does not change similar language that is
found in Chapter VI of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services
Plan (PFSP) which provides for multi-jurisdictional review of public facility projects which have a
significant impact on water, stormwater, wastewater and electrical facilities serving more than
one jurisdiction. Amendments to other functional plans and refinement plans will be subject to
the amended Chapter IV processes unless those documents specify a different amendment
process like that found in the Public Facilities Plan.
• When governing bodies do not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the current policy
sends the matter to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The proposed amendments
would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and one or
both of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield, depending on how many governing bodies are
participating in the decision.
The proposed amendments do not change the goal of Chapter IV, which is to ensure that the Metro Plan
is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of the community. The proposed
amendments refine the amendment process to reflect the existence of separate UGBs.
Goal 3 – Agricultural Land. Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands." It then requires counties to inventory
such lands and to "preserve and maintain" them through farm zoning.
Finding #17. This goal generally does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth
boundaries. The Metro Plan Diagram describes an Agriculture designation (Metro Plan II-G-9). The
amendments do not change Metro Plan policies concerning the Agriculture designation. The
amendments do not change the policies or standards regulating Eugene’s Agricultural Zone (EC 9.2000)
or Lane County’s Exclusive Farm Use Zone (LC 16.212) within the Metro Plan Boundary. The City of
Springfield does not have an agricultural zoning district.
Finding #18. The Environmental Resources Element includes policies addressing the use and
preservation of agricultural lands (Metro Plan III-C-3). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not
change these policies.
Goal 4 – Forest Land. 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 #19. This goal does not generally apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth
boundaries. The Metro Plan Diagram describes a Forest Lands designation. The proposed amendments
do not change Metro Plan policies concerning the Forest lands designation. Neither Springfield nor
Eugene has a forest zoning district. Lane County has Impacted and Non-Impacted Forest Zones (LC
16.211, LC 16.211). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change the County policies or
standards governing these districts.
Attachment 5, Page 6 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 7
Finding #20. The Environmental Resources Element includes policies addressing the use and
preservation of forest lands (Metro Plan III-C-5). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change
these policies.
Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. Goal 5 covers more than a
dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and wetlands. It establishes a process
for each resource to be inventoried and evaluated.
Finding #21. The Metro Plan Environmental Resources and Historic Preservation Elements contain
policies (Metro Plan pgs. III-C-3, III-I-2) addressing Goal 5 resource protection. Eugene and Springfield
have policies regulating the inventory and protection of Goal 5 resources in their respective
development codes. The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change the resource policies or
protections found in the Metro Plan or in the Eugene and Springfield development codes.
Finding #22. OAR 660-023-0250 (3) narrows the applicability of Statewide Planning Goal 5 to
comprehensive plan amendments (PAPA):
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA
affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use
regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5
resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating
that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area.
Subsections (a) through (c) above are not applicable to this request as the proposed Chapter IV
amendments do not create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision
adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5,
do not allow new uses that conflict with Goal 5 and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth
Boundary. Based on OAR 660-023-0250, Goal 5 is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. This goal requires local comprehensive plans and
implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as
groundwater pollution.
Finding #23. The Metro Plan Environmental Resources Element (Metro Plan pg. III-C-14) contains
polices addressing air, water and land resources quality. The proposed amendment to Chapter IV will
not alter the metropolitan area’s air, water quality or land resource policies. Eugene and Springfield
have regulatory standards that protect air, water and land resources in their respective development
codes. The proposed amendments do not change these standards.
Attachment 5, Page 7 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 8
Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. Goal 7 deals with development in places
subject to natural hazards such as floods or landslides. It requires that jurisdictions apply "appropriate
safeguards" (floodplain zoning, for example) when planning for development there.
Finding #24. The Metro Plan Environmental Resources Element contains policies addressing natural
hazards (Metro Plan pg. III-C-15). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change these policies.
All known sites within Eugene and Springfield that are subject to these hazards (floodplain, erosion,
landslides, earthquakes, and weak foundation soils) are inventoried through a variety of sources. The
proposed Metro Plan text amendment does not remove or exempt compliance with Code standards
that apply to development within these hazard areas.
Goal 8 – Recreational Needs. This goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas and facilities for
recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for them.
Finding #25. The Metro Plan Park and Recreation Facilities Element contains policies addressing
recreational needs (Metro Plan pg. III-H-4). The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change these
policies.
Finding #26. Parks and recreation facilities and programs are administered by park and recreation
agencies in Eugene and Lane County and by two park and recreation districts (River Road Park and
Recreation District and Willamalane Park and Recreation District). Willamalane serves the greater
Springfield area. River Road serves the River Road neighborhood in the North Eugene. These
amendments do not affect either city’s provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational
opportunities.
Goal 9 – Economic Development. Goal 9 calls for diversification and improvement of the economy. It
asks communities to inventory commercial and industrial lands, project future needs for such lands,
and plan and zone enough land to meet those needs.
Finding #27. The Metro Plan Economic Element contains policies (Metro Plan pg. III-B-4) addressing
economic development. Eugene, Springfield and Lane County adopted the Metropolitan Industrial
Lands Inventory Report and Metropolitan Industrial Lands Policy Report in 1993. These reports provided
the jurisdictions with a database and policy recommendations needed to plan for an adequate and
appropriate supply of industrial land. The proposed Chapter IV amendment does not change these
policies.
Finding #28. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires
cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic
objectives. The Eugene Commercial Land Study (October 1992) was adopted by the City of Eugene as a
refinement of the Metro Plan, and complies with the requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule.
The Springfield Commercial Lands Study was adopted in February 2000 as a policy document to guide
the provision of commercial land within in its planning jurisdiction. The amendments do not impact the
supply of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 – Housing. This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate needed housing
types, such as multifamily and manufactured housing.
Attachment 5, Page 8 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 9
Finding #29. The Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element addresses the housing needs
of current and future residents of the metropolitan area. The Element includes a projection of housing
need based on a coordinated population projection and polices (Metro Plan pg. III-A-7) aimed at
meeting the calculated need. The proposed Chapter IV amendments will not reduce available housing
capacity and will not impact needed housing.
Lane County has adopted a coordinated population projection for the Eugene and Springfield through
the year 2030. Projections of needed housing are based in part of this projection. Goal 10 requires that
communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units.
The proposed amendments do not impact the supply or availability of residential lands included in the
documented supply of “buildable land” that is available for residential development as inventoried in
the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services. Goal 11 calls for efficient planning of public services such as
sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire protection.
Finding #30. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public Services and Facilities Plan (PFSP) is a
refinement plan of the Metro Plan that guides the provision of public infrastructure, including water,
sewer, storm water management, and electricity. The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not affect
either city’s provision of public facilities and services.
Goal 12 – Transportation. The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system."
TransPlan (2002) is Eugene-Springfield’s local Transportation System Plan and is a functional plan of the
Metro Plan. TransPlan provides policies addressing transportation facilities and policies for the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area. The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the
following requirement:
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation
(including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the
local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected
conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the
amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management.
This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
Attachment 5, Page 9 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 10
The proposed amendments do not change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility, do not change the standards implementing a functional classification, do not
allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access with are inconsistent
with the functional classification of a transportation facility and will not reduce the performance
standards of a facility below the minimal acceptable level identified in the TSP. The level of
development currently permitted through existing code and zoning regulations will remain the same as
a result of this amendment. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal
12.
Goal 13 – Energy Conservation. Goal 13 declares that "land and uses developed on the land shall be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles."
Finding #31. The Metro Plan Energy Element deals with the conservation and efficient use of energy in
the metropolitan area and is meant to provide a long-range guide to energy-related decisions
concerning physical development and land uses. The Element contains policies (Metro Plan pg. III-J-3)
which support Goal 13. The proposed Metro Plan Chapter IV text amendments do not change these
policies and will not have a direct impact on efforts to conserve energy.
Goal 14 – Urbanization. This goal requires cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and
then plan and zone enough land to meet those needs.
Finding #32. The Metro Plan “Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy” contains
growth management and urbanization sections (Sections C and E, pgs. II-C-3 and II-E-1). The proposed
Chapter IV amendments do not change the policies contained in these sections.
Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway. Goal 15 sets forth procedures for administering the 300 miles
of greenway that protects the Willamette River.
Finding #33. The Metro Plan Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors and Waterways Element
includes policies for administering the Willamette River corridor as it passes through the Eugene-
Springfield area. The proposed Chapter IV amendments do not change these policies.
Goals 16 through 19 – Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources.
Finding #34. There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources within the Eugene or
Springfield Urban Growth Boundaries or the Metro Plan Boundary. These goals do not apply to this
proposal.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are consistent with the
statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Criterion #2. “Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.”
Attachment 5, Page 10 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 11
Findings:
Finding #35. The Introduction to the Metro Plan (Metro Plan pg. I-3) states that “Chapter IV of the
Metro Plan establishes the procedures for ensuring that the Metro Plan retains its applicability to
changing circumstances in the community. It includes procedures and time schedules for reviewing and
updating the Metro Plan, provides procedures for amending it and resolving conflicts, and recognizes
that refinement will be necessary where conflicts exist.”
Finding #36. Metro Plan Chapter II, “Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy
Framework, lists various Metropolitan Goals. The goal for Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and
Refinements states: “Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and
attitudes of the community (Metro Plan pg. II-B-3).
Finding #37. The proposed amendments support the goal of Chapter IV, which is to ensure that the
Metro Plan is responsive to change in the community. The proposed amendments to Chapter IV modify
the procedures by which amendments to the Metro Plan are processed.
Conclusion: The proposed Metro Plan text amendments do not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
V. Conclusion and Recommendation of Staff
Based on the findings of staff with respect to the criteria defined in Section 5.14-135 C of the Springfield
Development Code and EC 9.7730(3) Lane Code 12.225 (2) for approving a Metro Plan amendment; staff
find the proposed text amendment to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan to be consistent with these criteria
and recommend approval of the amendment.
VI. Attachments
Attachment 1: Proposed Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments.
(Attachment 1 to the Agenda Item Summary, November 4, 2013)
Attachment 2: Chart Comparing Current and Proposed Standards for Metro Plan Chapter IV.
(Attachment 2 to the Agenda Item Summary, November 4, 2013)
Attachment 3: Recommendations of the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions
Attachment 5, Page 11 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 12
Attachment 1
Proposed Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments
(Attachment 1 to the Agenda Item Summary, November 4, 2013)
Attachment 5, Page 12 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 13
Attachment 2
Chart Comparing Current and Proposed Standards for Metro Plan Chapter IV
(Attachment 2 to the Agenda Item Summary, November 4, 2013)
Attachment 5, Page 13 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 14
Attachment 3
Recommendations of the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions
The Planning Commissions for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County met jointly on October 15 in work
session and then conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed Metro Plan Chapter IV
amendments. The Planning Commissions deliberated separately and each voted on the proposed
amendments. Eugene, Springfield and Lane County each voted to recommend that their elected officials
approve the Metro Plan Chapter IV amendments with changes. Each Commission listed their
recommended changes separately. While the Commissions deliberated separately, many of the
recommendations overlapped in content with the other bodies. Staff has integrated the recommended
changes into the Proposed Metro Plan Amendments (Attachment 1). Shown below are the specific
recommendations provided by each of the Planning Commissions.
Eugene Planning Commission
The Eugene Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the Eugene City Council the adoption of
the proposed Amendments to the Metro Plan Chapter IV with the following changes:
At 7a, add "by any one of the three governing bodies…"
At 7b and 7c, Staff to correct wording to clarify.
At 7e, change wording to "Metro Plan, although the any governing bodies body may initiate…"
At 8, add wording that timelines in Type I and Type II amendments be established, at one to two
years, and all participating governing bodies must agree to any extension. (Passed 4-3 in concept
and 5-2 as worded. The 4-3 vote reflects reluctance by 3 commissioners to have any timelines.)
At 8 generally, add a requirement that in all proposed Metro Plan Amendments, the governing
body or bodies initiating an amendment shall notify all other governing bodies of the intended
amendment and Type of amendment proposed. In the event there is not consensus regarding
such Type determination, the same referral process outlined in 8c through 8e shall be
undertaken.
At 11, change wording to "Refinement plans developed adopted by one…"
General: recommend changing Type I to mean only requiring one governing body Type II, two
governing bodies and Type III all three governing bodies.
Lane County Planning Commission
The Lane County Planning Commission recommended Approval of Ordinance No. PA 1300 with the
following changes:
• Modify Policy 7 (a) “A Type I amendment may be initiated by any of the three governing
bodies.
• Modify Policy 7 (e) “Metro Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the
state required Periodic Review of the Metro Plan, although any of the governing bodies may
initiate an update of the Metro Plan.
• Replace policy 11 with new notification language something like this: “The initiating body of any
Type 1, II, or III metro plan amendment shall send notice to the other two governing bodies.”
• Add more detail to the findings (10, 11, and 12) associated with Criterion #1, Goal 1 Citizen
Involvement.
Attachment 5, Page 14 of 15
Metro Plan Chapter IV Amendments TYP411-00001
November 4, 2013 Page 15
Springfield Planning Commission
Ms. Bean, seconded, by Ms. Sallady, moved that the Springfield Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that the City Council approve with the following specific recommendations:
• Keep some form of a timeline for the process in place
• Revisit the conflict resolution to include not only the Mayor and the Chair of the BCC, or a
designee by the Mayor and Chair of the BCC; or, that they as a body, vote on who to send to
resolve the conflict.
Attachment 5, Page 15 of 15
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 1