HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Amendments to the Development Code Implimenting Adopted Changes to Metro Plan Chapter IVAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/10/2014
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Mark Metzger/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3775
Estimated Time: 15 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE: AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IMPLEMENTING
ADOPTED CHANGES TO METRO PLAN CHAPTER IV
ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is requested to conduct a first reading and public hearing concerning AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE
SECTION 5.14-100—METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES MADE TO CHAPTER IV OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. The hearing will be conducted jointly with the Eugene City Council
and the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
ISSUE STATEMENT: At issue is whether the proposed amendments to SDC Section 5.14-100 accurately implement the changes that were approved for Chapter IV of the Metro Plan. No new policies are being introduced into Section 5.14-100 other than those changes to
Metro Plan Chapter IV that were recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council last year.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance
2. Proposed Amendments to SDC Section 5.14-100 with Commentary
3. Staff Report
DISCUSSION: Chapter IV of the Metro Plan details the process for amending the Plan and the role the various jurisdictions play in approving those amendments. SDC Section 5.14-
100 contains the standards which implement the policies and procedures found in Chapter IV. Eugene and Lane County have comparable sections in their land use
regulations and will be acting on similar amendments.
As mentioned above, the proposed changes to Section 5.14-100 are intended to
implement the policy and procedural changes that were adopted last year. No new
policies are being introduced apart from those already approved. Under state planning law, comprehensive plan policies are intended to be implemented through
each jurisdiction’s local land use regulations (Development Code).
Attachment 2 contains the proposed amendments to SDC 5.14-100 in legislative
format with commentary.
On October 23, 2014, the Springfield Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed amendments. The Planning Commissions for Eugene and Lane County Planning who met jointly with Springfield also recommended approval to their elected officials.
The Staff Report (Attachment 2) contains findings which address the criteria for approving amendments to the Development Code. The attachment illustrates how
the new Chapter IV policies and procedures are proposed for implementation through the proposed changes to Section 5.14-100.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 7
Page | 1
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
SECTION 5.14-100 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS
OVERVIEW
Section Proposed to be Amended/Deleted Reason for Amendment
5.14-105-155 ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) required the establishment of
separate Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) for
Springfield and Eugene and was the impetus for the
Springfield Comprehensive Plan and the Envision
Eugene planning initiatives. This has resulted in the
need to amend Metro Plan Chapter IV to clarify which
governing bodies will participate in decision making
given the establishment of separate UGBs. Now that
Metro Plan Chapter IV has been amended, each
jurisdiction must amend its zoning regulations to be in
compliance with Metro Plan Chapter IV.
Section 5.14-100 Metro Plan Amendments
Commentary. Because the proposed text of SDC Section 5.14-100 is so different from the current
regulations, current SDC Section 5.14-100 is deleted in its entirety. However, as noted in the commentary
portions of proposed SDC Section 5.14-100, several current regulations are included in the amended text.
Note: Current text proposed to be deleted is shown as: [strike through]. Proposed text is shown as: text
added, beginning on Page 10.
Section 5.14-100 Metro Plan Amendments
Subsections
5.14-105 Purpose
5.14-110 Review
5.14-115 Definitions
5.14-120 initiation
5.14-125 Referral
5.14-130 Fee
5.14-135 Process and Criteria
5.14-140 Single Jurisdiction
5.14-145 Two Jurisdictions
5.14-150 Three Jurisdictions
5.14-155 Additional Regulations
5.14-105 Purpose
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 15
Page | 2
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
The Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) allows citizen initiated Type II Metro Plan
amendments at any time. Amendments that require a final decision from 1 or 2 jurisdictions shall be
concluded within 120 days of the initiation date. Amendments that require a final decision from all 3
governing bodies shall be concluded within 180 days of the initiation date. The City Council may initiate
a Type I or Type II Metro Plan amendment at any time. City Council initiated Metro Plan amendments
are not subject to the 120-calendar day review period specified in ORS 227.178. Metro Plan
amendments shall be made as specified in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and this Code.
5.14-110 Review
A. A Development Issues Meeting is encouraged prior to a formal Metro Plan amendment
application.
B. Metro Plan amendments are reviewed under the Type IV procedures of Section 5.1-140 of the
Springfield Development Code.
EXCEPTION: City Council initiated Metro Plan amendments are not subject to the 120 calendar day
review period as provided for in ORS 227.178. (6238)
5.14-115 Definitions
A. Amendment. An amendment to or change in: the text of the Metro Plan, refinement plan, or
functional plan; or the diagram of the Metro Plan, refinement plan or functional plan.
B. Metro Plan Amendment—Type I. Any change to the Metro Plan which: changes the urban
growth boundary or the jurisdictional boundary of the Plan; requires a goal exception not
related to a UGB expansion to be taken under Statewide planning Goal 2; or is a non-site specific
amendment of the Plan text.
C. Metro Plan Amendment—Type II. An amendment to the Metro Plan which is not otherwise a
Type I plan amendment and which changes the Plan diagram; or is a site-specific Plan text
amendment.
D. Metro Plan Amendment—Home City. Springfield is the home City for all site specific Type I and
Type II Metro Plan amendments East of Interstate 5. The City of Eugene is the home City for all
site specific Type I and Type II Metro Plan amendments West of Interstate 5. The applicability of
home City shall have no basis with respect to non-site specific Type I Metro Plan amendments.
E. Metro Plan Amendment—Initiation. Any of the 3 governing bodies may initiate a Type I Metro
Plan amendment at their discretion or, at their discretion, initiate a Type I Metro Plan
amendment on behalf of a citizen who has made the a request. Any of the 3 governing bodies or
a citizen who owns property that is the subject of the proposed amendment may initiate a Type
II Metro Plan amendment at any time.
F. Metro Plan Amendment—Regional Impact. Site specific Metro Plan amendments have regional
Impact if the change in plan designation or site location will:
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 15
Page | 3
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
1. Require an amendment of a functional plan including the Public Facilities Plan, a Natural
Resources Functional Plan or involves an amendment to TransPlan, determined by the
Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) to be regional in nature, in order to provide
the subject properties with an adequate level of necessary urban services or facilities; or
2. Have a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer or
transportation facilities of the non-home City; or
3. Affect the buildable land inventory in a way that impacts the regional supply by:
a. Significantly decreasing the net inventory of buildable land in the following plan
designation categories:
i. Medium Density Residential,
ii. High Density Residential,
iii. Commercial; or
b. Significantly increasing the net inventory of buildable land in the following plan
designation categories:
i. Low Density Residential,
ii. Special Light Industrial,
iii. Light-Medium Industrial,
iv. Heavy Industrial;
c. EXCEPTION: In the following 2 cases, a jurisdiction may:
i. Amend the plan designations to compensate for reductions in buildable
land caused by protection of newly discovered natural resources within
its own jurisdiction, or
ii. Change a plan designation to accommodate the contiguous expansion
of an existing business with a site specific requirement;
d. The non-home City may choose to participate in the site specific plan
amendment process, excluding amendments within city limits. The non-home
City may adopt a Resolution determining that the proposed amendment has
regional impact. Lane County shall participate in all Metro Plan amendments
outside of Springfield’s city limits.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 15
Page | 4
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
5.14-120 Initiation
A. An amendment to the Metro Plan can be initiated by the following persons or entities:
1. Type I—Non-Site Specific Text amendments, UGB/Plan Boundary Changes to Other Goal
Exceptions. Any of the 3 governing bodies:
a. The City Council may solicit a recommendation from the Planning Commission
before initiating this category of amendment.
b. A citizen may seek City Council initiation of a Metro Plan Type I amendment by
filing a written request with the City. A staff report on the request shall be
submitted to the City Council within 30 days of receipt of the request. At the
direction of 2 Councilors, the request will be placed on the City Council agenda
for discussion. The request will be considered denied if the City Council takes no
action within 60 days of the date the staff report is submitted to the council.
The City Council need not hold a public hearing on a private Type I amendment
request and may deny the request for any reason. A citizen seeking City Council
initiation of a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment shall own the property
subject to the amendment.
2. Type II Plan Diagram and Site Specific Text Amendments.
a. Inside the city limits: The Home City and citizens.
b. Between the city limits and the Plan Boundary: Any of the 3 governing bodies
and citizens.
i. The City Council may solicit a recommendation from the Planning
Commission before initiating this category of amendment. A citizen
initiating a Metro Plan Type II amendment shall own the property
subject to the amendment.
ii. A citizen may seek City Council initiation of a Metro Plan Type II
amendment subject to the above requirements regarding Metro Plan
Type I amendments initiated by the City Council at the request of a
citizen.
B. Amendments to the Metro Plan shall be initiated and considered at the following times:
1. The City Council may initiate a Type I or Type II Metro Plan amendment at anytime.
Consideration of this type of amendment shall begin immediately thereafter.
2. 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.
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 15
Page | 5
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
3. Consideration of a citizen 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 to commence within 3
months of the date of application submittal. The requested Metro Plan amendment will
be considered in the legislative proceedings of the refinement plan or special area
study. If the refinement plan or special area study process has not begun within the 3-
month period, the Metro Plan amendment application process shall begin immediately
following the 3-month period. The Director may exempt particular plan amendment
applications from postponement under this Subsection and require more immediate
review if the 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.
C. Citizen initiated Metro Plan amendment applications are filed in the planning office of the home
City if within the UGB, or with Lane County if outside the UGB and the amendment is not a
request to expand the UGB.
5.14-125 Referral
All Metro Plan amendments outside Springfield’s city limits are referred to the Eugene 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 inside the city limits are referred to
Eugene 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 shall approve the amendment in order to enact the amendment.
5.14-130 Fee
The applicant for a citizen initiated Metro Plan amendment shall pay an application fee in an amount
established by City Council Resolution. No application shall be processed until it is complete and
accurate and until the application fee is paid.
5.14-135 Process and Criteria
A. Type I.
1. Non Site-Specific—To become effective, a non-site specific Metro Plan Text Type I
amendment shall be approved by all 3 governing bodies.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 15
Page | 6
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
2. 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, shall be approved by all 3 governing bodies.
3. Site Specific—To become effective, a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment that
involves a UGB or Plan Boundary change shall be approved by the Home City and Lane
County.
EXCEPTION: If the non-home City, after referral of the proposal, determined that the
amendment has regional impact and, as a result of that determination, chooses to participate in
the hearing, all 3 governing bodies shall approve the amendment.
B. Type II.
1. Inside City Limits—To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II amendment inside the city
limits shall be approved by the Home City.
2. Between the City Limits and Plan Boundary—To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II
amendment between the city limits and the Plan Boundary shall be approved by the
Home City and Lane County.
EXCEPTION: If the non-home City, after referral of the proposal, determined that the
amendment has regional impact and, as a result of that determination, chooses to participate in
the hearing, all 3 governing bodies shall approve the amendment.
C. Criteria. The following approval criteria will be applied by the City Council in approving or
denying a Metro Plan amendment application:
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.
5.14-140 Single Jurisdiction
The following process is used to consider Metro Plan Type II amendments inside Springfield’s city limits.
A. Investigation and Report. Within 30 days after the Metro Plan amendment initiation date, the
planning staff shall investigate the facts bearing on the amendment 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 Planning Commission.
B. Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report, the
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 will be published in a
local newspaper of general circulation and mailed to the applicant and to persons who have
requested notice. At least 20 days before the hearing, notice of the hearing shall also be mailed
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 15
Page | 7
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
to the owners and occupants of properties that are the subject of the proposed amendment and
to property owners of record 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 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 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.
C. City Council Action. Within 45 days after the Planning Commission action on the proposed
Metro Plan amendment, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed
amendment. The Council’s decision shall be based solely on the evidentiary record created
before the Planning Commission. No new evidence will be allowed at the City Council hearing.
Within 30 days after the public hearing, the City Council shall approve, modify and approve, or
deny the proposed amendment. The City Council shall take this action by Ordinance with
adopted findings and conclusions on whether the proposal or a modified proposal meets the
approval criteria. The action of the City Council is final.
5.14-145 Two Jurisdictions
A. The following process is used to approve Metro Plan Type II amendments when Springfield is
the Home City and Lane County participates in the decision and Eugene does not participate
after consideration of a referral.
1. Investigation and Report. Within 30 days after a response is received from the City of
Eugene 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 of both affected
jurisdictions. The report will be mailed or delivered to affected and interested parties at
the time it is delivered to the 2 commissions.
2. Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report the
Planning Commission of both affected jurisdictions shall hold a joint public hearing to
consider the proposed Metro Plan amendment. The provisions of Section 5.14-140B.
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.
3. 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 solely on the evidentiary record created before the Planning
Commissions. No new evidence will be allowed at the governing body joint hearing.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 15
Page | 8
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
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
is the date the decision becomes effective.
B. The following process is used when the governing bodies do not enact identical decisions on the
proposed Metro Plan amendment:
1. The Metro Plan amendment will be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee
within 5 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 will 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.
2. If the plan amendment is denied because of lack of consensus or Committee inaction,
within 5 days the 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.
5.14-150 Three Jurisdictions
When the Three-Jurisdiction Process is Used. The following process is used to approve Metro Plan Type I
amendments and Type II amendments where all 3 jurisdictions participate in the decision.
A. Investigation and Report. Within 30 days after responses are 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 amendment was
submitted shall investigate the facts bearing on the application, prepare a report, and submit it
to the Planning Commissions of all 3 jurisdictions. The report will be mailed or delivered to
affected and interested parties at the same time it is delivered to the 3 Planning Commissions.
B. Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report, the
Planning Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County shall hold a joint public hearing
on the proposed plan amendments. The provisions of Section 5.14-140B. apply to the joint
Planning Commission hearing. Within 30 days after the proposed 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.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 15
Page | 9
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
C. Governing Bodies Action. Within 30 days after the last Planning Commission acts on the Metro
Plan amendment proposal, the governing bodies of Springfield, Eugene 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 will 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 proposal or modified proposal meets the approval
criteria. The actions of the governing bodies are final if all 3 governing bodies adopt identical
decisions. The date the last governing body acts is the date the action becomes effective. The
conflict resolution provisions of Section 5.14-145B. apply if the governing bodies do not adopt
identical Ordinances.
5.14-155 Additional Regulations
A. Process for Government-Initiated Plan Amendments. A different process, time line, or both, than
the processes and time limes specified in Sections 5.14-140, 5.14-145 and 5.14-150 may be
established by the governing bodies of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County for any government
initiated Metro Plan amendment.
B. Time Frame Waiver. The time frames prescribed in connection with the Metro Plan amendment
processes can be waived if affected property owners agree to the waiver.
C. Bar on Re-Submittal. No privately initiated Metro Plan amendment application to Springfield 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 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.
D. Relationship to Refinement Plan or Functional Plan Amendments. When a Metro Plan
amendment is enacted that requires an amendment to a refinement plan or functional plan
diagram or map for consistency, the Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the
refinement plan or functional plan diagram or map if no amendment to the refinement plan or
functional plan text is involved. When a Metro Plan diagram amendment requires a refinement
plan or functional plan diagram, or map and text amendment for consistency, the Metro Plan,
refinement Plan and functional plan amendments shall be processed concurrently.
E. 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 3 jurisdictions. Amendments
to the Metro Plan that result from State-mandated Periodic Review require approval by all 3
jurisdictions.
F. Severability of Plan Amendment Adoption Actions. When identical action is required of 2 or 3
governing bodies on a Metro Plan amendment, and the amendment results in a number of
different plan changes, the following applies; unless otherwise specified in the adoption
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 15
Page | 10
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
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 of the forwarding of only those changes for which there is no consensus to the
Metropolitan Policy Committee under Sections 5.14-145 and 5.14-150.
Section 5.14-100 Metro Plan Amendments
Commentary. The proposed text is based upon the Metro Plan Chapter IV amendment Ordinance 6304,
effective date December 18, 2013. The yellow highlighted text throughout are Springfield specific
modifications to the adopted ordinance text. The proposed text addresses all adopted Metro Plan
Chapter IV amendment polices except: 2.; 8.g.; and 11.
Subsections:
5.14-105 Purpose
5.14-110 Review
5.14-115 Metro Plan Amendment Classifications
5.14-120 Relationship to Refinement Plans, Special Area Studies or Functional Plan Amendments
5.14-125 Initiation
5.14-130 Approval Process
5.14-135 Criteria
5.14-140 Appeals
5.14-145 Limitation on Refiling
5.14-105 Purpose
Commentary. The proposed text contains text from the Metro Plan Chapter IV Introduction summarizing
the reasons why the Metro Plan needs to be periodically updated.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the long-range public policy
document that establishes the broad framework upon which Springfield, Eugene and Lane County make
coordinated land use decisions. While the Metro Plan is Springfield’s acknowledged land use policy
document, it may require update or amendment in response to changes in the law or circumstances of
importance to the community. Additionally, the Metro Plan may be augmented and implemented by
more detailed plans and regulatory measures.
5.14-110 Review
Commentary. The proposed text Subsections A. and B.) is from current Section 5.4-100.
A. A Development Issues Meeting is encouraged for citizen initiated amendment applications.
B. Metro Plan amendments are reviewed under Type IV procedures as specified in Section 5.1-140.
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 15
Page | 11
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
C. A special review, and if appropriate, Metro Plan amendment, shall be initiated if changes in the
Metro Plan basic assumptions 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.
5.14-115 Metro Plan Amendment Classifications
Commentary. This Section establishes a new classification where only Springfield approves or denies a
Type I Metro Plan amendment within the city limits. This classification reflects the HB 3337 outcome of
the establishment of a separate UGB for Springfield and Eugene.
A proposed amendment to the Metro Plan shall be classified as Type I, Type II or Type III depending
upon the number of governing bodies (Springfield, Eugene and Lane County)required to approve the
decision.
A. A Type I amendment requires approval by Springfield only:
1. Type I Diagram amendments include amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for land
inside Springfield’s city limits.
2. Type I Text amendments include:
a. Amendments that are non-site specific and apply only to land inside
Springfield’s city limits;
b. Site specific amendments that apply only to land inside Springfield’s city limits;
c. Amendments to a regional transportation system plan or a regional and public
facilities plan when only Springfield’s participation is required by the
amendment provisions of those plans; and
d. The creation of new Metro Plan designations and the amendment of existing
Metro Plan designation descriptions that apply only within Springfield’s city
limits.
B. A Type II amendment requires approval by Springfield and Lane County only:
1. Type II Diagram amendments include:
a. Amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for the area between Springfield’s city
limits and the Plan Boundary; and
b. An Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) or Metro Plan Boundary amendment east of
I-5 that is not described as a Type III amendment.
2. Type II Text amendments include:
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 15
Page | 12
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
a. Amendments that are non-site specific and apply only to Lane County and
Springfield;
b. Amendments that have a site specific application between Springfield’s city
limits and the Plan Boundary; and
c. Amendments to a jointly adopted regional transportation system plan or a
regional public facilities plan when participation by Springfield and Lane County
is required by the amendment provisions of those plans.
C. A Type III amendment requires approval by Springfield, Eugene and Lane County:
1. Type III Diagram amendments include:
a. Amendments of the Common UGB along I-5; and
b. A UGB or Metro Plan Boundary change that crosses I-5.
2. Type III Text amendments include:
a. Amendments that change a Fundamental Principle as specified in Metro Plan
Chapter II A.;
b. Non site specific amendments that impact Springfield, Eugene and Lane County;
and
c. Amendments to a jointly adopted regional transportation system plan or a
regional public facilities plan, when the participation of Springfield, Eugene and
Lane County is required by the amendment provisions of those plans.
5.14-120 Relationship to Refinement Plans, Special Area Studies or Functional Plan Amendments
A. In addition to a Metro Plan update, refinement studies may be undertaken for individual
geographical areas and special purpose or functional elements, as determined appropriate by
Springfield, Eugene or Lane County.
B. All refinement and functional plans shall be consistent with the Metro Plan. Should
inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan is the prevailing policy document.
Commentary. Proposed Subsection C. is based upon current SDC Subsections 5.14-155 D. and E.
C. When a Metro Plan amendment also requires an amendment of a refinement plan or functional
plan diagram map and/or text for consistency, the Metro Plan, refinement plan and/or
functional plan amendments shall be processed concurrently.
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 15
Page | 13
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
D. When a Metro Plan amendment is enacted that requires an amendment to a refinement plan or
functional plan map or diagram for consistency, the Metro Plan Diagram amendment
automatically amends the diagram or map if no amendment to the refinement plan or
functional plan text is involved.
E. An amendment of the Springfield Comprehensive Plan shall be processed as a Metro Plan
amendment and comply with the approval criteria specified in Subsection 5.14-135.
5.14-125 Initiation
Metro Plan amendments shall be initiated as follows:
A. A Type I amendment may be initiated by Springfield 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 this Code (See also Subsection E.)
B. A Type II amendment may be initiated by Springfield or Lane 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 this Code and the Lane Code (See also
Subsection E.).
Commentary. The proposed text is from current SDC Section 5.4-120B.3. with minor modifications.
EXCEPTION: Consideration of a property owner initiated Metro Plan amendment (Type I and II)
will be postponed by the Director 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
to commence within 3 months of the date of application submittal. The requested Metro Plan
amendment will be considered in the legislative proceedings of the refinement plan or special
area study. If the refinement plan or special area study process has not begun within the 3-
month period, the Metro Plan amendment application process shall begin immediately
following the 3-month period. The Director may exempt particular plan amendment applications
from postponement under this Subsection and require more immediate review if there is a
finding 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.
C. A Type III amendment may be initiated at any time by Springfield, Eugene or Lane County.
D. Only Springfield, Eugene or Lane County may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan, a
special area plan, Periodic Review or a 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 Springfield, Eugene and Lane County may initiate an update
of the Metro Plan at any time.
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 15
Page | 14
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
5.14-130 Approval Process
A. The initiating government body of any Type I, Type II or Type III amendment shall notify all
governing bodies of the intended amendment and the Type of amendment proposed within 20
days. If any governing body disagrees with the Type of proposed amendment, that governing
body may refer the matter to the process specified in Subsections E. or F. as appropriate
B. For any Type I, Type II or Type III amendment, a public hearing date shall be set for the
Springfield Planning Commission, and the Planning Commissions of Eugene and Lane County, as
applicable, within 90 days.
C. For Type I, Type II and Type III amendments, the Springfield Planning Commission and the
Planning Commissions of Eugene and Lane County, shall conduct a single or joint public hearing,
as appropriate, and forward that record and their recommendations to the Springfield City
Council and to their respective elected officials. The Springfield City Council and the
participating elected officials shall also conduct a public hearing, as appropriate, prior to making
a final decision.
D. If all participating governing bodies reach a consensus to approve a proposed Type II or Type III
amendment, substantively identical Ordinances effecting the applications shall be adopted.
Where there is no consensus to approve a proposed amendment, it may not be re-initiated,
except by either Springfield, Eugene or Lane County, for one year (See also Section 5.14-150).
E. 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 Springfield for further examination of the
issues in dispute and recommendation back to the governing bodies. If no recommendation is
made back to the governing bodies within 6 months, the plan amendment is denied.
F. 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 Springfield and Eugene for further
examination of the issues in dispute and recommendation back to the governing bodies. If no
recommendation is made back to the governing bodies within 6 months, the plan amendment is
denied.
G. If a plan amendment is denied because of a lack of consensus, the director of the jurisdiction
where the application originated shall issue a denial. For quasi-judicial amendments, the denial
shall include 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 government bodies. The decision of the planning
director is final.
H. When identical action is required of two or three government bodies on an amendment, and
the amendment results in a number of different plan changes, unless otherwise specified in the
adoption Ordinance of any of the government bodies, action by all of the government 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 no consensus as
specified under Subsections E. and F.,above.
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 15
Page | 15
Proposed Development Code Changes in Legislative Format
October 6, 2014
Commentary. Proposed Subsection I. is based upon current SDC Subsection 5.14-155 A. The section
implements Metro Plan Chapter IV, Policy 8 h.
I. A different process, time line, or both, than the processes and time lines may be established by
the governing bodies of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County for any government initiated
Metro Plan amendment.
5.14-135 Criteria
Commentary. The proposed text is based upon current text in SDC Subsection 5.4-135C. However,
Subsection B. has been modified as proposed.
A Metro Plan amendment may be approved only if the Springfield City Council and other applicable
governing body or bodies find that the proposal conforms to the following criteria:
A. The amendment shall be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals; and
B. Plan inconsistency:
1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not
make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
2. In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be
consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
5.14-140 Appeals
Adopted or denied Metro Plan amendments may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board (LUBA) or
the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) according to state law.
5.14-145 Limitation on Refiling
The City shall not consider a property owner-initiated Metro Plan amendment application if a
substantially similar or identical plan amendment has been denied by the City 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 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.
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 15
Page 1 of 21
Type IV Amendment to the Springfield Development Code
Staff Report
Project Name: Amendments to the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 5.14-100—Metro Plan
Amendments.
Nature of Application: To replace SDC Section 5.14-100 with a new policy section guiding the policies
and procedures for amending the Metro Plan that implement changes to Metro Plan Chapter IV—
Review, Amendments and Refinements.
Case Number: TYP413-00001
Project Location: City-wide legislative action
Date of Initiation: August 25, 2014
Date of DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment: August 25, 2014
Dates of Newspaper Notices: September 30, 2014, October XX, 2014
I. Executive Summary
On November 18, 2013, the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners approved amendments to Metro Plan Chapter IV which modified the process and
procedures for amending the Metro Plan (Springfield Ordinance 6304, Eugene Ordinance 20519 and
Lane County Ordinance PA-1300). The Chapter IV amendments were acknowledged by the Department
of Land Conservation and Development on December 12, 2013.
Each jurisdiction has local land use regulations which implement the policies and procedures set forth in
Metro Plan Chapter IV. Section 5.14-100 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) implements the
policies and procedures for processing and approving amendments to the Metro Plan. Changes to
Metro Plan Chapter IV require SDC Section 5.14-100 to be amended. The purpose of the proposed
amendments is to accurately implement the policies and procedures for amending the Metro Plan as
modified by the Chapter IV amendments.
SDC Section 5.6-115 describes the criteria to be used in approving an amendment to the SDC. It states
that in reaching a decision, the Planning Commission and the City Council must adopt findings which
demonstrate conformance with “1) the Metro Plan; 2) applicable State statutes; and to 3) applicable
State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
Based on its findings with respect to the criteria defined in SDC Section 5.6-115 for approving
amendments to the Springfield Development Code, staff finds the proposed amendments to SDC
Section 5.14-100 to be consistent with these criteria and recommend approval of the proposed
amendments.
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 21
Page 2 of 21
II. Procedural Findings
Procedural requirements for amending the Springfield Development Code (SDC) are described in
Sections 5.6-100 and 5.1-140.
SDC Section 5.6-105 indicates that the Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Council or a
resident of the City can initiate amendments to the SDC. Such amendments of are reviewed under a
“Type IV” procedure (Section 5.6-110) and require public hearings before the Planning Commission and
the City Council. Type IV procedures are detailed in Section 5.1-140 of the SDC. The proposed revision
to SDC Section 5.14-100 was initiated by the Director.
SDC Section 5.2-110 (B) requires that legislative land use decisions be advertised in a newspaper of
general circulation, providing information about the legislative action and the time, place and location of
the hearing.
Findings:
Finding #1. The City of Springfield initiated the proposed amendment to SDC Section 5.14-100. The
amendment is not site-specific and falls under the definition of a legislative action.
Finding #2. A “DLCD Notice Proposed Amendment” was e-mailed with mailed copies following to
the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on August 26, 2014 alerting the
agency to Springfield’s intent to amend SDC Section 5.14-100. The notice was mailed more than 35
days in advance of the first evidentiary hearing as required by ORS 197.610 (1).
Finding #3. Notice of the public hearing concerning the proposed amendments was published on
September 30, 2014 in the Register Guard, advertising the hearing before the Joint Planning
Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County on October 23, 2014. A second notice was
published on October XX, 2014 advertising the joint meeting of the Springfield and Eugene City Councils
and the Lane County Board of Commissioners on November 10, 2014. The content of the notice
followed the direction given in SDC Section 5.2-115 for legislative actions.
Finding #4. ORS 197.047(4) requires the local government to mail a notice to every landowner
whose property would be “rezoned” as a result of an amendment to planning policies that would limit
or prohibit land uses previously allowed in the affected zone. The proposed amendments to the
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County land use regulations do not change the allowed uses or zoning for
any property. Mailed notice is not required.
Conclusion: Procedural requirements described in SDC Sections 5.6-100 and 5.1-140, have been
followed. Notice requirements established by DLCD and the Oregon Revised Statutes for amending local
land use regulations have also been followed.
III. Decision Criteria and Findings
SDC Section 5.6-115 describes the criteria to be used in approving an amendment to the SDC. It states
that in reaching a decision, the Planning Commission and the City Council must adopt findings which
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 21
Page 3 of 21
demonstrate conformance with “1) the Metro Plan; 2) applicable State statutes; and to 3) applicable
State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
The purpose of the proposed SDC amendments is to implement changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan
that were recently adopted. Criterion #1—Conformance with the Metro Plan, examines the consistency
of the code changes with the changes to Metro Plan Chapter IV. In doing so, the findings below will
systematically compare the changes to the SDC with the adopted new Chapter IV statements and
policies.
Criterion #1 “Conformance with the Metro Plan”
Findings:
Finding #5. On November 18, 2013, the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane County
Board of Commissioners approved amendments to Metro Plan Chapter IV which modified the process
and procedures for amending the Metro Plan. [Springfield Ordinance 6304, Eugene Ordinance 20519
and Lane County Ordinance PA-1300]. The Chapter IV amendments were acknowledged by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development on December 12, 2013.
Finding #6. Each jurisdiction has local land use regulations which implement the policies and
procedures set forth in Metro Plan Chapter IV. Section 5.14-100 of the Springfield Development Code
(SDC) implements the policies and procedures for processing and approving amendments to the Metro
Plan.
Finding #7. Changes to Metro Plan Chapter IV require SDC Section 5.14-100 to be amended. The
purpose of the proposed amendments is to accurately implement the policies and procedures for
amending the Metro Plan as modified by the Chapter IV amendments.
Finding #8. Table 1. compares the amended Metro Plan Chapter IV policies and procedures with the
amended implementing regulations proposed for SDC Section 5.14-100.
Table 1. Comparison of Metro Plan Chapter IV and
Proposed Amendments to Springfield Development Code Section 5.14-100
Commentary. The proposed text is based upon the Metro Plan Chapter IV amendment Ordinance 6304,
effective date December 18, 2013. The yellow highlighted text throughout are Springfield specific
modifications to the adopted ordinance text. The proposed text addresses all adopted Metro Plan
Chapter IV amendment polices except: 2.; 8.g., 8.h; 9 and 11.
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
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
5.14-105 Purpose
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) is the long-range public policy document
that establishes the broad framework upon which
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County make coordinated
land use decisions. While the Metro Plan is Springfield’s
acknowledged land use policy document, it may require
update or amendment in response to changes in the
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 21
Page 4 of 21
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
augmented and implemented by more detailed plans
and regulatory measures.
law or circumstances of importance to the community.
Additionally, the Metro Plan may be augmented and
implemented by more detailed plans and regulatory
measures.
[There is no corresponding policy for this standard
in Metro Plan Chapter IV]
[There is no corresponding policy for this standard
in Metro Plan Chapter IV]
Policy 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.
Policy 2. The regional land information database shall
be maintained on a regular basis.
5.14-110 Review
A. A Development Issues Meeting is encouraged
for citizen initiated amendment applications.
B. Metro Plan amendments are reviewed under
Type IV procedures as specified in Section 5.1-
140.
C. A special review, and if appropriate, Metro
Plan amendment, shall be initiated if changes
in the Metro Plan basic assumptions 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.
[There is no corresponding standard for this policy in
this section of the Development Code. This is a
directive for an existing practice.]
Policy 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.
Policy 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;
5.14-115 Metro Plan Amendment Classifications
A proposed amendment to the Metro Plan shall be
classified as Type I, Type II or Type III depending upon
the number of governing bodies (Springfield, Eugene
and Lane County) required to approve the decision.
A. A Type I amendment requires approval by
Springfield only:
1. Type I Diagram amendments include
amendments to the Metro Plan
Diagram for land inside Springfield’s
city limits.
2. Type I Text amendments include:
a. Amendments that are non-
site specific and apply only to
land inside Springfield’s city
limits;
b. Site specific amendments
that apply only to land inside
Springfield’s city limits;
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 21
Page 5 of 21
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
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.
Policy 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:
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 III
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;
c. Amendments to a regional
transportation system plan
or a regional and public
facilities plan when only
Springfield’s participation is
required by the amendment
provisions of those plans;
and
d. The creation of new Metro
Plan designations and the
amendment of existing
Metro Plan designation
descriptions that apply only
within Springfield’s city
limits.
B. A Type II amendment requires approval by
Springfield and Lane County only:
1. Type II Diagram amendments include:
a. Amendments to the Metro
Plan Diagram for the area
between Springfield’s city
limits and the Plan Boundary;
and
b. An Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) or Metro Plan
Boundary amendment east
of I-5 that is not described as
a Type III amendment.
2. Type II Text amendments include:
a. Amendments that are non-
site specific and apply only to
Lane County and Springfield;
b. Amendments that have a site
specific application between
Springfield’s city limits and
the Plan Boundary; and
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 21
Page 6 of 21
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
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.
Policy 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.
c. Amendments to a jointly
adopted regional
transportation system plan
or a regional public facilities
plan when participation by
Springfield and Lane County
is required by the
amendment provisions of
those plans.
C. A Type III amendment requires approval by
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County:
1. Type III Diagram amendments include:
a. Amendments of the Common
UGB along I-5; and
b. A UGB or Metro Plan
Boundary change that
crosses I-5.
2. Type III Text amendments include:
a. Amendments that change a
Fundamental Principle as
specified in Metro Plan
Chapter II A.;
b. Non site specific
amendments that impact
Springfield, Eugene and Lane
County; and
c. Amendments to a jointly
adopted regional
transportation system plan
or a regional public facilities
plan, when the participation
of Springfield, Eugene and
Lane County is required by
the amendment provisions of
those plans.
[This standard corresponds to Policy 10 discussed
5.14-120 Relationship to Refinement Plans, Special
Area Studies or Functional Plan Amendments
A. In addition to a Metro Plan update, refinement
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 21
Page 7 of 21
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
below.] studies may be undertaken for individual
geographical areas and special purpose or
functional elements, as determined
appropriate by Springfield, Eugene or Lane
County.
B. All refinement and functional plans shall be
consistent with the Metro Plan. Should
inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan is the
prevailing policy document.
Commentary. Proposed Subsection C. is based upon
current SDC Subsections 5.14-155 D. and E.
C. When a Metro Plan amendment also requires
an amendment of a refinement plan or
functional plan diagram map and/or text for
consistency, the Metro Plan, refinement plan
and/or functional plan amendments shall be
processed concurrently.
D. When a Metro Plan amendment is enacted
that requires an amendment to a refinement
plan or functional plan map or diagram for
consistency, the Metro Plan Diagram
amendment automatically amends the
diagram or map if no amendment to the
refinement plan or functional plan text is
involved.
E. An amendment of the Springfield
Comprehensive Plan shall be processed as a
Metro Plan amendment and comply with the
approval criteria specified in Subsection 5.14-
135.
Policy 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
5.14-125 Initiation
Metro Plan amendments shall be initiated as follows:
A. A Type I amendment may be initiated by
Springfield 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 this Code
(See also Subsection E.)
B. A Type II amendment may be initiated by
Springfield or Lane 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
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 21
Page 8 of 21
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
subject to the limitations for such
amendments set out in the development
codes of the home city and Lane County.
[There is no corresponding policy for this
exception in Metro Plan Chapter IV. It is an
existing policy within the Development Code
which is intended to bar consideration of
proposed new Metro Plan amendment
concerning land which is part of a study that
is being considered for amendment by the
City.]
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.
in this Code and the Lane Code (See also Subsection E.).
Commentary. The proposed text is from current SDC
Section 5.4-120B.3. with minor modifications.
EXCEPTION: Consideration of a property owner
initiated Metro Plan amendment (Type I and II)
will be postponed by the Director 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 to commence within 3
months of the date of application submittal.
The requested Metro Plan amendment will be
considered in the legislative proceedings of the
refinement plan or special area study. If the
refinement plan or special area study process
has not begun within the 3-month period, the
Metro Plan amendment application process
shall begin immediately following the 3-month
period. The Director may exempt particular
plan amendment applications from
postponement under this Subsection and
require more immediate review if there is a
finding 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.
C. A Type III amendment may be initiated at any
time by Springfield, Eugene or Lane County.
D. Only Springfield, Eugene or Lane County may
initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan, a
special area plan, Periodic Review or a 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
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County may
initiate an update of the Metro Plan at any
time.
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 21
Page 9 of 21
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
Policy 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.
5.14-130 Approval Process
A. The initiating government body of any Type I,
Type II or Type III amendment shall notify all
governing bodies of the intended amendment
and the Type of amendment proposed within
20 days. If any governing body disagrees with
the Type of proposed amendment, that
governing body may refer the matter to the
process specified in Subsections E. or F. as
appropriate
B. For any Type I, Type II or Type III amendment,
a public hearing date shall be set for the
Springfield Planning Commission, and the
Planning Commissions of Eugene and Lane
County, as applicable, within 90 days.
C. For Type I, Type II and Type III amendments,
the Springfield Planning Commission and the
Planning Commissions of Eugene and Lane
County, shall conduct a single or joint public
hearing, as appropriate, and forward that
record and their recommendations to the
Springfield City Council and to their respective
elected officials. The Springfield City Council
and the participating elected officials shall also
conduct a public hearing, as appropriate, prior
to making a final decision.
D. If all participating governing bodies reach a
consensus to approve a proposed Type II or
Type III amendment, substantively identical
Ordinances effecting the applications shall be
adopted. Where there is no consensus to
approve a proposed amendment, it may not be
re-initiated, except by either Springfield,
Eugene or Lane County, for one year (See also
Section 5.14-150).
E. 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 Springfield for further examination of
the issues in dispute and recommendation
back to the governing bodies. If no
recommendation is made back to the
governing bodies within 6 months, the plan
amendment is denied.
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 21
Page 10 of 21
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
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.
[There is no corresponding policy for this standard in
Metro Plan Chapter IV. This section of the code is
proposed to provide administrative detail to Policy
8.e. above] .
[There is no corresponding policy for this standard in
Metro Plan Chapter IV. This section of the code is
proposed to provide administrative detail to Policy
8.e. above.]
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.
[There is no corresponding policy for this exception in
Metro Plan Chapter IV. This section of the code is
F. 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 Springfield and Eugene for further
examination of the issues in dispute and
recommendation back to the governing
bodies. If no recommendation is made back to
the governing bodies within 6 months, the plan
amendment is denied.
G. If a plan amendment is denied because of a
lack of consensus, the director of the
jurisdiction where the application originated
shall issue a denial. For quasi-judicial
amendments, the denial shall include 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
government bodies. The decision of the
planning director is final.
H. When identical action is required of two or
three government bodies on an amendment,
and the amendment results in a number of
different plan changes, unless otherwise
specified in the adoption Ordinance of any of
the government bodies, action by all of the
government 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 no consensus as specified under
Subsections E. and F., above.
5.14-140 Appeals
Decisions made by the Springfield City Council and
other applicable governing bodies to approve or deny a
Metro Plan amendment may be appealed to the
Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) as specified
in ORS 197.830 et seq.
Commentary. The proposed text is new.
EXCEPTION: Decisions made by the Springfield City
Council and other applicable governing bodies to
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 21
Page 11 of 21
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
proposed to provide administrative detail to Policy 8.f.
above.]
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.
approve or deny a Metro Plan amendment that is
subject to Land Conservation and Development
Commission review and approval, e.g. Periodic Review
or a UGB expansion larger than 50 acres, may be
appealed to Court of Appeals as specified in ORS
197.650 and 197.651.
[There is no corresponding standard for this policy in
this section of the Development Code. SDC Section
5.14-100 provides standards and process for Metro
Plan Amendments. The Code amendments under
consideration with this proposal are evidence that the
three governing bodies work jointly to develop Metro
Plan application procedures. This is a directive calling
for an existing practice.]
Commentary. Proposed Subsection I. is based upon
current SDC Subsection 5.14-155 A. The section
implements Metro Plan Chapter IV, Policy 8 h.
I. A different process, time line, or both, than the
processes and time lines may be established by
the governing bodies of Springfield, Eugene
and Lane County for any government initiated
Metro Plan amendment.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
[There is no corresponding standard for this policy in
this section of the Development Code. Each
jurisdiction routinely conducts studies, prepares
refinement plans and functional plans which
supplement the Metro Plan. This is a directive calling
for an existing practice.]
5.14-135 Criteria
Commentary. The proposed text is based upon current
text in SDC Subsection 5.4-135C. However, Subsection B.
has been modified as proposed.
A Metro Plan amendment may be approved only if the
Springfield City Council and other applicable governing
body or bodies find that the proposal conforms to the
following criteria:
A. The amendment shall be consistent with
applicable Statewide Planning Goals; and
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 21
Page 12 of 21
Amended Metro Plan Chapter IV Policies Proposed Implementing Standards for the
Springfield Development Code
Policy 11. Local implementing ordinances shall
provide a process for zoning lands in conformance with
the Metro Plan.
B. Plan inconsistency:
1. In those cases where the Metro Plan
applies, adoption of the amendment
shall not make the Metro Plan
internally inconsistent.
2. In cases where Springfield
Comprehensive Plan applies, the
amendment shall be consistent with
the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
[There is no corresponding standard for Policy 11 in
this section of the Development Code. This is a
directive calling for an existing practice. The
Springfield Development Code requires zoning to be
consistent with the Metro Plan designation for site
development approval (Section 5.17-125 A.]
[There is an administrative detail related to Policy 8. c.
which clarifies that the City shall not consider a
property owner initiated Metro Plan application if it is
substantially similar to one denied in the prior year.]
5.14-145 Limitation on Refiling
The City shall not consider a property owner-initiated
Metro Plan amendment application if a substantially
similar or identical plan amendment has been denied by
the City 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 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.
Conclusion: Table 1 shows that the proposed new Section 5.14-100 conforms to the substantive policies
found in Metro Plan Chapter IV, as amended in 2013.
Criterion #2 “Conformance with Applicable State Statutes”
The Oregon Revised Statutes have little to say about the process for amending local land use
regulations. It is clear that local jurisdictions are required to adopt land use regulations which
implement their local comprehensive plans. The proposed amendments to the Springfield Development
Code, are intended to implement Metro Plan Chapter IV, as amended, in November 2013.
Findings
Finding #13. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.175(2) states that … “each city and county in this
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 21
Page 13 of 21
state shall: (a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals
approved by the commission; (b) Enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans;
Finding #14. The proposed amendments to SDC 5.14-100, EC Section 9.7700 and LC Section 12.200
implement the amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan as required by ORS 197.175(2).
Finding #15. ORS 197.610 requires local jurisdictions to submit proposed comprehensive plan or land
use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development…
Finding #16. As noted in Finding #2, notice of the proposed implementing amendments to the
Springfield Development Code was provided to DLCD more than 35 days in advance of the first
evidentiary hearing concerning the amendments.
Finding #17. ORS 197.304 requires the establishment of separate Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs)
for Eugene and Springfield. Passage of this statute was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Refinement
Plan and the Envision Eugene planning initiatives.
Finding #18. Amendments to Metro Plan Chapter IV were adopted Eugene, Springfield and Lane
County on November 18, 2013 to implement ORS 197.304 and to clarify which governing bodies will
participate in decision making given the establishment of separate UGBs. The amendments to Chapter
IV were intended to support a framework for needed planning collaboration among the jurisdictions
while respecting the autonomy of each.
Finding #19. The Chapter IV changes preserve the Metro Plan as the acknowledged comprehensive
plan for the Eugene-Springfield area. The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are
summarized below.
• Three types of Metro Plan amendments are established by the amendments: Type I which
requires the participation of all three jurisdictions; Type II which requires the participation of the
home city and Lane County; and Type III amendments which may be enacted by the home city
alone. The current policy defines only two types of amendments: Types I and II.
• 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
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.
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 21
Page 14 of 21
• 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.
Finding #20. The proposed amendments to SDC Section 5.14-100, implement the amendments to
Metro Plan Chapter IV that were adopted in response to ORS 197.304. Table 1 referenced in Finding
#10 illustrates how the proposed changes to the Springfield Development Code implement the adopted
amendments to Metro Plan Chapter IV.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments conform to the applicable state statutes.
Criterion #3 “Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules”
Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals
SDC Section 5.14-135 C describes 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.
Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 calls for "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
of the planning process."
Finding #21. The proposed amendments to SDC Section 5.14-100 were the subject of legislative
public hearings advertised in the Register Guard on September 30, 2014. The Joint Planning
Commissions for Springfield, Eugene and Lane County are scheduled to consider the amendments in a
public hearing on October 23, 2014.
Finding #22. A second notice was published in the Register Guard on October XX, 2014 advertising
the November 10, 2014 public hearing with the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane
County Board of Commissioners.
Finding #23. The content of the notices followed the direction given in SDC Section 5.2-115 B.
Information concerning the proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code and the dates
of the public hearings were posted on the City of Springfield website. These web sites routinely include
information about upcoming and continuing planning matters.
Finding #24. Agenda notice and or agenda packets are routinely provided (primarily by e-mailed) to
interested parties who have asked for such notification. 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.
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.
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 21
Page 15 of 21
Finding #25. 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 #26. The purpose of the proposed amendments to SDC 5.14-100 is to implement changes to
Chapter IV of the Metro Plan that were adopted by Springfield, Eugene and Lane County.
Finding #27. 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 #28. The proposed changes to the Springfield Development Code implement amendments
to Metro Plan Chapter IV stemming from ORS 197.304. The most significant changes to Chapter IV 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
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.
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 21
Page 16 of 21
The proposed amendments to SDC Section 5.14-100 do not change the goal of Metro Plan Chapter IV,
which is to ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditions, needs, and attitudes of
the community. The proposed SDC 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 #39. This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The
City of Springfield does not have any agricultural zoning districts. These amendments do not apply
outside the urban growth boundary and, because of limitations on commercial and industrial
development without full urban services, generally do not apply outside the city limits. All land in the
City’s urban transition area carries City zoning. An exception to this goal was taken in 1982 when the
comprehensive plan was acknowledged.
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 #40. This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The
City of Springfield does not have any forest zoning districts. These amendments do not apply outside
the urban growth boundary and, because of limitations on commercial and industrial development
without full urban services, generally do not apply outside the city limits. All land in the City’s urban
transition area carries City zoning. An exception to this goal was taken in 1982 when the comprehensive
plan was acknowledged.
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 #29. 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. The Springfield natural
Resources Study contains inventories and a program for protection of upland, riparian and wetland
resources. SDC Sections 4.3-117 (Wetlands and Riparian Corridors), 3.3-200 (Drinking Water), 3.2-700
(Public land and Open Space), 3.2-800 (Aggregate Resources) and 3.3-900 (Historic District) contain
policies regulating Springfield’s Goal 5 resources. The proposed amendments to SDC 5.14-100 do not
change the resource policies found in these sections.
Finding #30. 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;
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 21
Page 17 of 21
(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 amendments to
SDC 5.14-100 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 #31. The Metro Plan Environmental Resources Element (Metro Plan pg. III-C-14) contains
polices addressing air, water and land resources quality. The Springfield Development Code contains
regulatory standards that protect air, water and land resources.
Finding #32. The amendment to SDC Section 5.14-100 does not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to any identified air, water or land resource
issues. No changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 6 are
affected by these amendments.
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 #33. The Metro Plan Environmental Resources Element contains policies addressing natural
hazards (Metro Plan pg. III-C-15). All known sites within Springfield that are subject to these hazards
(floodplain, erosion, landslides, earthquakes, and weak foundation soils) are inventoried through a
variety of sources. The proposed amendments to SDC 5.14-100 do 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 #34. The Metro Plan Park and Recreation Facilities Element contains policies addressing
recreational needs (Metro Plan pg. III-H-4). The proposed amendments to SDC 5.14-100 do not change
these policies.
Finding #35. Willamalane Park and Recreation District is the entity responsible for park planning,
development and maintenance in the urban transition area as well as the city limits. In 2013 the 2012
Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City of Springfield and Lane
County as a functional plan of the Metro Plan. The proposed amendments to SDC 5.14-100 do not alter
Willamalane’s responsibility to plan for or provide recreational programs or facilities.
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 21
Page 18 of 21
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 #36. The Metro Plan Economic Element contains policies (Metro Plan pg. III-B-4) addressing
economic development. Springfield 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.
Finding #37. The amendment to SDC Section 5.14-100 does not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to any economic development issues. No
changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 9 are affected by
these amendments.
Finding #38. 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 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 to SDC
5.14-100 do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands.
Goal 10 – Housing. This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate needed housing
types, such as multifamily and manufactured housing.
Finding #39. 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.
Finding #40. Lane County has adopted a coordinated population projection for 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.
Finding #41. The amendment to SDC Section 5.14-100 does not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to any housing issues. No changes to
supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 10 are affected by these
amendments.
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 #42. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public Services and Facilities Plan (PFSP) is a
refinement plan of the Metro Plan that guides the provision of Springfield’s public infrastructure,
including water, sewer, storm water management, and electricity. In addition, Springfield has an
adopted Capital Improvement Plan, as well as sewer and stormwater plans which project future service
needs, needed improvements and estimates costs for these improvements.
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 21
Page 19 of 21
Finding #43. The amendment to SDC Section 5.14-100 does not repeal, replace or void existing PFSP
or policy or Development Code regulations with respect to any public facilities issues. No changes to
supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 11 are affected by these
amendments.
Goal 12 – Transportation. The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system."
Finding #39. The Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) was adopted in March 2014. The TSP
is a functional plan of the Metro Plan which provides policies addressing Springfield’s transportation
facilities.
Finding #40. 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.”
Finding #41. 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."
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 21
Page 20 of 21
Finding #42. 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 amendments to SDC Section 5.14-100 do not repeal, replace or void existing
Metro Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to energy conservation. No changes to
supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 13 are affected by these
amendments.
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 #43. The Metro Plan “Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy” contains
growth management and urbanization policies (Sections C and E, pgs. II-C-3 and II-E-1).
Finding #44. The amendment to SDC Section 5.14-100 does not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to Springfield’s growth management or
annexation. No changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 14
are affected by these amendments.
Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway. Goal 15 sets forth procedures for administering the 300 miles
of greenway that protects the Willamette River.
Finding #41. 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.
Finding #42. The proposed amendment to SDC Section 5.14-100 does not change the City’s existing
standards for development with respect to the Willamette River Greenway. The Greenway provisions
allow development of permitted uses in the underlying zone, provided that all other Greenway
requirements are satisfied. The City’s adopted, acknowledged Greenway ordinance will not be changed.
Goals 16 through 19 – Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources.
Finding #45. 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 amendment to SDC Section 5.14-100, based on the findings included above,
are consistent with Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. It is the
conclusion of staff that the proposed amendments comply with this criterion.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation of Staff
Based on its findings with respect to the criteria defined in SDC Section 5.6-115 for approving
amendments to the Springfield Development Code, staff finds the proposed amendments to SDC
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 21
Page 21 of 21
Section 5.14-100 to be consistent with these criteria and recommend approval of the proposed
amendments.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Proposed Amendments to Springfield Development Code Section 5.14-100 in legislative format with
commentary.
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 21