HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 18 Safe Harbor Approach to Complying with the Coordinated Population Forecast Obligations Arising from the City's Duties Under House Bill 3337
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
May 19,2008
Regular
Development ServIces
Office of City Attorney
Greg MottlBill Grile
Bill Van Vactor/Joe~
Leahy
726-3774/726-3619
746-9621
15 Minutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
ITEM TITLE:
Estimated Time:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
SAFE HARBOR APPROACH TO COMPLYING WITH THE COORDINATED
POPULATION FORECAST OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM THE CITY'S
DUTIES UNDER HOUSE BILL 3337.
Authorize staff to pursue the Safe Harbor approach (ORS 195.034) to comply with
City's coordinated population forecast obligations under House Bill 3337; and,
initiate a post acknowledgment plan amendment of the Metro Plan to adopt these, '
new figures.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Whether to authorize staff to pursue Safe Harbor procedure for required new
population projection and subsequent adoption into the Metro Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
1) Council Briefing Memorandum
2) ORS 197.304 (House Bill 3337)
3) April 2nd letter to Chair Faye Stewart, Chair of the Board of County
Commissioners, from Mayor Leiken
4) Letter from DLCD to Faye Stewart, dated April 28, 2008
5) Resolution adopted by the Board of County 80m.missioners on April 30,
2008
6) ORS 195.034, Alternate Population Forecast (Safe Harbor)
7) Adopted LCOG population
8) Proposed LCOG projection
9) Safe Harbor Calculation
10) EcoNorthwest Residential Lands Needs Analysis
Springfield staff has been diligently pursuing the tasks necessary to fulfill the
requirements ofHB 3337. Section 10fthe new law requires establishment of
separate urban growth boundaries for Eugene and Springfield. One step in the
process leading to the adoption of the new urban growth boundary is the
preparation of a coordinated population forecast as provided in OAR 660-024-0030.
The development of the population forecast is included in the Development Service
Department's 09 work program.
The City Council may recall that in October 2007 EcoNorthwest, as part of a
Preliminary Residential Lands Need Analysis, described three possible growth
scenarios at 1.3,% 1.7% and 2.1 % (Page 2, Attachment 10). At that time the
Council expressed a preference for a growth rate of 1.7% which results in'a 2030
population of 85,521. The Safe Harbor approach results in a 2030 population of
80,843. When balancing the risk and time frame involved in preparing a new
forecast rather than using a Safe Harbor approach, staff strongly recommends a
Safe Harbor. See discussion in Council Briefmg Memorandum.
It is our understanding that City of Eugene staff will soon discuss whether to
implement the Safe Harbor approach with the Eugene City Council.
MEMORANDUM
City of Springfield
Date: May 15,2008
To:
Gino Grimaldi
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
Subject:
Bill Van VactorlGreg Mott
Population Forecast
From:
ISSUE: Authorize staff to pursue Safe Harbor procedure for required new population projection and
subsequent adoption into the Metro Plan.
BACKGROUND: During 2007 LCOG (at the request of several cities) processed a coordinated Lane County
population forecast that slightly increased the total for several of the 12 cities in Lane County. At the same
time, towards the end of 2007, the Board of County Commissioners began considering the option of having
the County assume the responsibility of coordinated population projections in lieu of LCOG.
At a proceeding before the Board of County Commissioners to consider these issues the Mayor of Springfield
informed the Board of County Commissioners of the requirements ofHB 3337, and of the Safe Harbor
approach (ORS 195.034). The Mayor pointed out this approach would have minimal impact or cost to Lane
County (Attachment 3). Safe harbor simply extends the existing projection to the new later date or projects
the urban share of the county, as determined by the State Office of Economic Analysis, will remain constant to
the new later date.
On April 28th the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) sent a letter to the Board of
County Commissioners encouraging them to adopt LCOG's coordinated forecast (Attachment 4). However,
on April 30, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners rejected LCOG's population forecast and indicated
that it would assume responsibility for preparation of coordinated population forecasts and would do so as part
of the next periodic review process (Attachment 5). 'At this point in time Springfield staff is aware that the
periodic review process is not yet scheduled; that new rules may eliminate the requirement for counties to
undergo periodic review; and in either case, is not sure that waiting for the county to undertake periodic
review would comply with the City's required schedule for implementation ofHB 3337. Fortunately, there
are alternative methods to develop a coordinated population forecast and the most direct method is "Safe
Harbor."
Under ORS 195.034 (Attachment 2) there are several predicates to the successful use of the Safe Harbor
approach. First, the existing coordinated forecast must be more than 10 years old when the City initiates an
evaluation or amendment of its urban growth boundary. In our particular circumstance the forecast used by
Lane County and Springfield was prepared by LCOG in 1995, and therefore that requirement is met.
Additionally, this 1995 forecast was fora single metropolitan UGB and not for the respective UGB's
mandated by HB 3337.
The city has contracted with ECONorthwest to prepare our residential, commercial and industrial buildable
lands analysis. This analysis requires a population projection for at least a 20 year period beginning with the
initiation of the analysis. Consistent with this need, and with the provisions ofORS 195.034, ECONorthwest
has performed the calculations d~scribed in the statute. A copy of the adopted'LCOG population, proposed
LCOG projections and the Safe Harbor calculation is, attached (Attachments 7, 8 & 9 respectively).
The statute also provides that if Lane County does not take action on the City's proposed forecast within 6
months, the City may adopt the coordinated forecast with notice to the other local governments in the County.
The City needs to include the adopted forecast in the Comprehensive Plan as part of the post acknowledgment
plan amenqrnent (PAP A) process.
If all of those predicates are met, then the forecast is deemed to satisfy the requirements of statewide land use
planning goal 14 relating to urbanization to establish a coordinated 20 year population forecast for
Springfield's urban area. The City may then rely on its forecast as the appropriate basis upon which the City
and County will con~uct the evaluation of the City's urban growth boundary.
Attachment 1, Page 1
It is therefore our request that the City Council provide direction to staff to follow the process in ORS 195.034
(Safe Harbor) to determine the coordinated population forecast and initiate the subsequent and necessary
amendment to the Metro Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize staff to pursue the Safe Harbor approach (ORS 195.034) to
comply with City's coordinated population forecast obligations under House Bill 3337; and, initiate a post
acknowledgment plan amendment of the Metro Plan to adopt these new figures.
Attachment 1, Page 2
Chapt~r 197 - Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination
Page 1 of 1
197.304 Lane County accommodation of needed housing'- (1) Notwithstanding an
intergovernmental agreement pursuant to ORS 190.003 to 190.130 or acknowledged
comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary,'a city within Lane County that has a population
of 50,000 or more within its boundaries shall meet its obligation under ORS 197.295 to 197.314
separately from any other city within Lane County. The city shall, separately from any other city:
(a) Establish an urban growth bOWldary, consistent with the jurisdictional area of
responsibility specified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and
(b) Demonstrate, as required by ORS 197.296, that its comprehensive plan provides
sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide
, planiling goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. '
(2) Except as 'provided in subsection (1) -of this sectio~ this section does not alter or affect an
intergovernmental agreement pursuant to ORS 190.003 to 190'.130 or acknowledged
comprehensive plan provisions' adopted by Lane County or local governments in Lane' County.
[2007 c.650 S2]
ATTACHMENT
;;L
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/197 .html
5/6/2008
,~
~
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726-3700
FAX (541) 726-2363
April 2, 2008
, Chair Faye Stewart ,
Lane County Board of County ,Commissioners
125 East 8th Avenue '
Eugene, OR 97401
RE: Coordinated Population Forecast for the Springfield Urban Area
Dear Chair Stewart and Members of the Lane County Board of Commissioners:
House Bill 3337 (2007 Session) requires Eugene and Springfield to establish their own
Urban Growth Boundaries and demonstrate that their Comprehensive Plan provides
sufficient, buildable lands. In addition the law provides that in order to commence
compliance with the requirements of this law the inventory,' analysis and determination
is ,to be made within two years of the effective date of the act
Pursuant to this Legislative direction Springfield has been developing work tasks
necessary to meet our new requirements. We have'been following the gUidance
provided by LCDC in its Administrative Rule, OAR 660 Division 24, Urban Growth
Boundaries. One of the tasks identified in the rule is the need for Springfield to work
with Lane County to develop a coordin~ted population forecast for Springfield's Urban
Area.
The good news is that the 2007 Legislature also passed House Bill 3436 (now codified
in ORS 195.034) which modifies the requirement for the population forecast "safe
harbor rule." The law provides that a Oty and County may rely upOn a population
, forecast prepared by the Office of Economic Analysis, and if the share of Urban Area
population remains the same, the forecast is deemed to satisfy the statewide land use
planning goals..
What this, all means in a practical sense is that we will need to work with your staff in
disaggregating the Urban Growth Boundary Population Forecast currently used in the'
Metro Area and follow the safe harbor provisions of ORS 195.034. Our expectation is '
that this should have only a minimal impact on your staff workload. When we became
aware of this Report/population Forecast Projection Agenda ,Item we felt it was
important to give you a heads up that this task woulp be ,coming to you soon.
ATTACHMENT .3/. p~ I of 2-
. Faye Stewart
April 2, 2008
Page 2
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Greg Mott, Planning
Manager, at 726-3n4. Copies of ORS 197.304 and 195.034 are attached.
Sincerely yours,
~
.~fL-
cc: Mayor. Piercy
Angel Jones, Interim CitY Manager
Jeff Spartz, County Administrator
N:\City\PIanning Zoning\HB 3337\Ur tD stewart and ~doc
ATTACHMENT ~
,;
P'9'-2- of 2--
regon
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
Salem, Oregon 97301-2524
Phone: (503) 373-0050
First Floor/Costal Fax: (503) 378-6033
Second Floor/Director's Office: (503) 378-5518
Web Address: http://www.oregon.gov /LCD
Theodore R. Kulongoskt Governor
April 28, 2008
Faye, Stewart, Chair
Lane County Board of Commissioners
125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 9740 1
~
- SENT VIA E-MAIL
RE: Coordinated population forecasts
This department has provided several letters of comment to Lane County and the Lane
Council of Govemments (LCOG) regarding population forecasts for the county. The
intent of our involvement has been and continues to be to provide technical assistance to
help complete the project, and to try to point out areas and issues where we're concerned
the process or content may be vulnerable. We have, however, not been forthcoming
enough with what we believe has been done well. or with describing suitable options. We
hope to remedy that, at least some, with this letter.
Overall Responsibilitv
Statute and administrative rule make the county responsible for preparing population
forecasts for the county as a whole and for each urban area within the county. An
administrative rule that became effective in 2007 makes it clear that the forecasts must be
included in the comprehensive plan or in a document referenced by the plan, and adopted
using the procedures for amending the comprehensive plan (OAR 660-024-0030). '
Furthermore, the forecasts must be "coordinated." This means that '~he needs of all levels
of governments, semipublic and private agencies and the citizens of oregon have been
considered and accommodated as much as possible" (ORS 197.015(5)).
Pounlation Forecast Coordination in Lane County
It is our understanding that the population forecast coordination function has been carried
out by LCOG for many years. This coordinative function is expressly allowed in
ORS 195.025; that statute has not been amended recently, and the administrative rule on
forecasts does not change that in any way. The practice ofLCOG board adoption of the
coordinated forecasts is no longer adequate, however, so consideration and adoption by
the board of commissioners is appropriate and necessary.
It is also our understanding that forecasts have recently been coordinated by LCOG with
all the cities in the county. Those forecasts are the subject 'of our earlier comments. Please
note we have not, in any of our comments, suggested that LCOG' s coordination of the
forec~sts has been inadequate. WebeIieve the coordination that LeOa perfonned, in
ATTACHMENT~. \ cf 2-
Lane County Board of Commissioners
-2-
April 28, 2008
sometimes difficult circumstances, and resulting in a product agreed upon by each city,
has been excellent. We do not contend coordination needs to be done again.
Forecasts
An administrative rule provides some guidance on how to coinplete a forecast (OAR 660-
024-0030(2)). The forecast must be "developed using commonly accepted practices and
standards for population forecasting used by professional practitioners in the field of
demography or economics." Furthermore, it must'be "based on current, reliable and
objective sources and verifiable factual information, such as the most recent long-range
forecast for the county published by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA)."
Finally, the forecast "should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision."
OUf November 20~ 2007, letter to LCOG states: "We believe the county has the option of
forecasting the county population and allocating it to the cities..." We reiterate that
comment here, except that our reference to "cities" should instead be to "urban areas"
(i.e., the areas within urban growth boundaries).
WebeIieve that the statute and rule allow a county to prepare one forecast that is
"developed using commonly accepted practices and standards," for the county as a
whole, and then coordinate with affected local governments to determine where that
population shoutd go. The LCOG "high" forecast for the entire county does not precisely
equal the OBA forecast, but we believe that it is within a reasonable level of precision, so
it would satisfy the rule. This method has not been tested in the Land Use Board of
Appeals or a higher court, but other counties have used it and gained acknowledgment.
Conclusions
Several cities in Lane County have pressing planning needs that await a county decision
on population forecasts. We urge the county to proceed with consideration and adoption
of an amendment to the comprehensive plan to include coordinated population forecasts
for the entire county and for each urban area in the county, as outlined in this lettet. We
don't believe you need to change any of the forecasts as currently proposed, but we
suggest the explanation and findings be worded to reflect the basis for the forecasts as
described above, assuming the county chooses to adopt these forecasts into its
comprehensive plan. '
Yours truly,
Rob Hallyburton
Rob Hallyburton
Acting Deputy Director
1:\., .Lane\P AP As\Proposals\2007\Lanc County 011-07 Population\Lane Co 011-07 BOC letter 4-28-08.doc
cc:
Lane County (Laird, Howe, V orhes)
Cities (Connelly, Spies, Muir, Orile)
LCOG (Kent, Swank)
DLCD (Moore, Nichols, Gardiner, file)
ATTACHMENT -lj" Poe;<- ~ of- d-
LANE COUNTY
PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING, 125 EAST 8TH AVENUE, EUGENE, OR 97401/(541) 682-4203/FAX (541) 682-4616
May 6, 2008
WD caJjp/08025/T
Mayor and City Councilors
City of Springfield
225 North 5th
Springfield, OR 97477
To the Mayors and City Council Members of Cities in Lane County:
Enclosed you will find the recently adopted Lane County Board Resolution (08-4-30-12) relating to
population forecasts prepared by Lane Council of Governments (LCGG) for consideration by Lane
County under ORS 195.036. The Resolution was adopted in response to requests by cities to
update the previously adopted population forecasts.
Some of the outcomes in the Board Resolution were that:
The LCOG forecast will no longer be used;
At the next periodic review of the Lane County Comprehensive Plan the Board intends to
conduct a population forecast;
Requests may be made to the Board to conduct a forecast study earlier than the next Lane
County Comprehensive Plan review if the request is consistent with Lane Code 16.400(9).
The intent of the Resolution is to address population forecasts in the next periodic review and allow
for requests to prepare forecasts earlier as Special Purpose Plan amendments to incorporate updated
population projections. I expect that the Board may discuss developing additional guidelines and
criteria for evaluating individual requests for population forecasts that are made before the next
periodic review of the Lane County Comprehensive Plan.
Sincerely,
~~c3:
fed ~~z 6
Lane County Administrator
ATTACHMEJ ~T 5 - PAGE 1
pj\.SSr.:.G
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LANE COUNTY,
'OREGON .
RESOLUTION NO.
08-4-30-12
) IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A NEW
) POPULATION FORECAST FOR LANE
) COUNTY
WHEREAS~ Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) has prepared a population forecast
for Lane County; and
WHEREAS, LCOG and certain cities have petitioned the Board of County
Commissioners (Board) to adopt the LCOG population forecast into the Lane County
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the preparation of the LCOG forecast followed a process, and
resulted in conclusions, that are not necessarily the same as may have occurred if the
Board had initiated its own forecast; and
WHEREAS, concerned citizens and consulting demographers Winterbrook Planning
and ECONorthwest have provided' letters and testimony stating that in their opinion,
the LCOG forecast is not legally defensible; and
WHEREAS, the Board has reservations that the LCOG forecast can be made legally
defensible, and does not wish to assume responsibiJity for a forecast performed by a
different entity, under a different process than the Board may have followed; and.
WHEREAS, under ORS 195.036, Lane County has a statutory obligation, during the
next periOdic review of its comprehensive plan, to prepare and adopt a population
' forecast for the County and all the urban areas therein: and
, ,
WHEREAS, ORS 195.034 (HB 3436) provides an alternate population forecasting
method that cities may use prior to the Board adopting a' population forecast; and
WHEREAS, the practical effect upon the cities of the application of ORS 195.034 does
not appear to the Board to be materially different than if a Safe Harbor forecast
were adopted under OAR 660-024-0030(4); and
WHEREAS, Lane. Code 16.400(3)(b) provides that comprehensive plan components
addressing a single or special need, such as population forecasts, are deemed
"Special Purpose Plans";, and
WHEREAS, Lane'Code 16.400(9) provides that "amendments to Special Purpose Plans
may only be initiated by the County", but others "may request the Board initiate such
amendment"; and
ATTACHMEJ ~T 5 - PAGE 2
WHEREAS, Lane Code 16.400(9) further provides that requests for Special Purpose Plan
amendments "must set forth compelling reasons as to why the amendment should be
considered at this time, rather than in conjunction with a periodic Plan update"; and
WHEREAS, Lane Code 16.400(9) further provides that "an offer to participate in
oosts incurred" by the County shall accompany the request" for a Special Purpose Plan ..
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board received a' request dated February 4, 2008,from ten
Lane County cities to initiate a population forecast; however, the - request' did not comply
with all the requirements of Lane Code 16.400(9).
RESOLVED, that the LCOG forecast shall not be used, as the basis for.any future
forecast; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board intends to conduct a population forecast at the
next periodic review of the Lane County Comprehensive Plan; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board will entertain requests to conduct a forecast
earlier than the ne~ periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan, provided such requests
comply with the requirements of Lane Code 16.400(9); and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that .the County Administrator deliver a letter to all Lane
County cities advising them of the foregoing.
Adopted this 30th day of April
. 2008.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
LANE COUNTY, OREGON
By: ~~..2f.. ;I-
ATTACHMEl ~T 5 - PAGE 3
,Chapter 195 - Local Government Planning Coordination
Page 1 of 1
195.034 Alternate population forecast. (1) lfthe coordinating body under ORS 195.025 (1)
has adopted, within 10 years before a city initiates an evaluation or amendment of the city's
urban growth boundary, a population forecast as required by ORS 195.036 that no longer
provides a 20~year forecast for an urban area, a city may propose a revised 20-year forecast for
its urban area by extending the coordinating body's current urban area forecast to a 20-year
period using the same growth trend for the urban area assumed in the coordinating body's
current adopted forecast. '
(2) If the coordinating body has not adopted a forecast as required by ORS 195.036 or if the
current forecast was adopted more than 10 years before the city initiates an evaluation or
aniendment of the city's urban growth boundary, a city may propose a 20-year forecast for its
urban area by:
(a) Basing the proposed forecast on the population forecast prepared by the Office of
Economic Analysi~ for the, county for a 20-year period that commences when the city ~tiates
the evaluation or amendment of the city's urban growth boundary; and
l b) Assuming that the urban area's .share for the forecasted county population de~ined in
paragraph (a) of this subsection will be the same as the urban area's current share of the county
population based on the most recent certified population estimates from Portland State
University and the mostrecent data for the urban area published 'by the United States Census
Bureau.
(3)(a) lfthe coordinating body does not take action on the city's proposed forecast for the
urban area under subsection (1) or (2) of this section within six months after the city's written
request for adoption of the forecast, the city may adopt the extended forecast if:
(A) The city provides notice to the other local governments in the county; and
(B) The city includes the adopted forecast in the comprehensive plan:, or a document included
in the plan by reference, in compliance with the applicable requirements of ORS 19};{)10 to
197.650.
(b) If the extended forecast is adopted under paragraph (a) of this subsection consistent with
the requirements of subsection (1) or (2) of this section:
(A) The forecast is deemed to satisfy the requirements of a statewide land use planning goal
reiating to urbanization to establish a coordinated 20-year population forecast for the urban area;
and '
(B) The city may rely on the population forecast as an appropriate basis upon which the city
and county may conduct the evaluation or amendment of the city's urban growth boundary.
(4) The process for establishing a population forecast provided in this section is in addition to
and not in lieu of a process established by goal and rule of the Land Conservation and
Development Commission. [2007 c.689 91]
ATTACHMENT LP
hffon./lururul1PfT ~Qtp'nT' llcdnT'rJll 0" 'h,,",",1 11'1/'')(\(\0
Lane County Coordinated Population Projections
, Adopted February 24, 2005
~,~~~!~,tion Allocatl~t1 for Urban Growth Boundary Areas in Lane Count with Percent of For~casted County Population '
1990 282,912 190,180 763 7,950 3,176 1.081 6,334 4,596 785 3,207 _ 2,519 278 62,043 282,912
2000 322,977 222,503 969 8,890 3,9091,241 8,751 5,858 880 3,270 2,762 280 63,664 322,977
2004 333,350 231,420 1,050 9,450 4,440 1,300 9,310 6,000 900 3,780 3,660 330 61,710 333,350
2025 390,251 410.790 431,330 297,500 3,300 12,500 7,300 1,800 15,600 8,500 1,500 4,000 5,200 400 56,500 414,100
2030 410,362 ..~~~,960 453,558 314,700 4,200 13,400 8,000 2,000 17,200" ,_ ~~~o? " \7?? _"', , , ~,~,~~~ 5.600 410 56,000 437,060
1990 67.2% 0,3% 2.8% 1.1% 0.4% 2.2% 1.6% 0.3% 1 1% 0.9% 0.1% 21.9%
2000 68.9% 0.3% 2.8% 1,2o/~ 0.4% 2.7% 1.8% 0.3% 1,0% 0.9% 0.1% 19,7%
2004 69.4% 0.3% 2.8% 1.3% 0.4% 2.8% 1.8% 0.3% 1.1% 1.1% 0.1% 18.5%
2025 72.4% 0.8% 3.0% 1.8% 0.4% 3.8% 2.1% 0.4% 1.0% 1.3% 0.1% 13.8%
2030 72.9% 1.0% 3.1% 1.9% 0.5% 4.0% 2.3% 0.4% 0.9% - 1.3% 0.1% 13,0%
1990 and 2000 population figures are based on Census data, 2004 county figures are population estimates produced by the Population Research Center at PSU.
2004 UGB estimates are based on 2004 PSU city estimates and estimates of population outside cities inside UGBs If applicable,
.. Junction City population projection will be affected by prison construction although timing Is not known. Once prison construction moves forward, the projections will be modified.
>
""'3
'~
~
~
.~
Z
1-3
.J
/
~())
Appendix A
Population Forecasts for Urban Growth Boundary Areas in Lane County
November, 2007
~
~
o
f:L1
~
~
2006 City 2004 City 2004 UGB 2004 UGB Growth Rates 2030 UGB Updated 2030 2035 2030 UGB I 2035 UGf:l
Certified Certified Adopted Outside 15 Year 5 Year Adop1ed 15 Year 5 Year 15 Year 5 Year Pro~.2.~ed
1--. Population Population Population City Trend Trend Po ulation
-
Euaene 148595 -, 1----
144,640 --
Springfield 57065 55,350 .,-.---
-- -
- -
Eug/Spr 205,660 199,990 231,420 31 ,430. 1.270% 0.925% 314,700 320,589 295,353 341,474 309.267 314,700 335,198
Cobura 1075 1,050 1,050 0 1.888% 1.639% 4,200 _._-~ 1,588 1.849 1.723 4,200 4,200
---.
Q2!!.~ge Grove 9275 9,010 9,450 440 1.257% 1. 150% 13,400 13,122 12,785 13,957 13,537 -- 13,400 13,9~I
Creswell 4500 4,120 4,440 320 2.394% 2.862% 8,000 8,509 9,491 9,5n 10,929 8,509 9,~rr
Dunes Cltv .'-1"345 1,300 1,300 0 0.736% 0.985% 2,000 1,604 1,702 1,664 1,787 2.000 2,000
Florence 8270 7,830 9,310 .. 1,480 1.862% 1.605% 17,200 15,185 14.,291 16.652 15,47~ 17,200 18.862
Junc.tion City , 4965 4,910 6,000 1.090 1.634% 0.869% 9,800 ' 8.934 7}452 9,688 7,781 9,800 10.627
Lowell 955 900 900 0 0.83t % 1.600% 1,700 1,097 11.279 1,129 1,359 2,823 3.538
- -
Oakridge '----- 3680 3,680 3,780 100 1.106% 0.068% _4,050 4.946 3.860 5.225 3,873 ' 4,946 5,225
Veneta 4240 3,660 3,660 -Q 1.545% 3.622% 5,600 6,125 9,960 6,613 11 ,899 9,960 11,899
Westfir ~~I-' 330 330 0 1.115% O. ~84% 410 437 350 462 353 410 433
Outside' UGBs - 56,000
95415 9..?570 61,710 _-34,860 56,900 , 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
Total Cities 244,300 236,780 271,640 34.860 - 381,O6~ 382,232 35~, 111 408,290 377,983 387 ,94~ ,_315,516
-'--'- -
Total Forecast 339,715 _~?3,350 333,350 437,060 438,232 414,111 464,290 433,983 443,948 471,516
OEA Forecast 431,960 430,454 430,454 451.038 451,038 431 .960 451,038
~.{+5%) -- ..
, '453,558 ~~ ,451,977 473.590 473,590 453,~58 47~2gQ
Low(~5%j 410,362 408,931 4081931 428,486 , 428,486 410,362 428,486
Notes -
1 The orowth rates were computed u~lng 5 year and 15 yearregression trend analysis, 2001-2006 ~md 1991-2006 _~ __
--.,
2 }he 2004 ad~.~ forecast was n2!..ch~nged unless change was reQ~ested by the City. I
-.
3 The 2035 forecast uses 1he same rate choice as the 2030.1 I
4 The same rate that was used for the 2030 forecast was used for the 2035 forecast for each diY. --'-I-----, -
5 If the 2030 a~opted wal!...greater than the 15 year forecast, the 2030 adopted was selected for 2035. ..-
6 Lowell defined a 4.62%_growth,rate. I I _1-., I ' ____L-.-----
7 Florence, Juncllon CitY and Metro's 2035 forecasts were compute9_ by applying the 15 year rate !~ the 2004 adopted 2030 forecast.
r r I I -1-. I
L:\Research&Analysls\Coordinated Populatlon\Coordinated Population Revised 2007\FlnaIReport\FlnaIForecastsAppendixA.xls2l2212008
REVISED 4/29/2008
Source: OEA 2004 population forecast
Year Oregon
2000 3~436/750
2005 3,618/~OO
2010 3,843,900
2015 4,095,708
2020 4,359,258
2025 4,626,015
2030 4,891,225
2035 ' 5,154,793
2040 5,425,408
Change 2005 to 2030
Amount 1,273,025
% Change 35%
AAGR 1.2%
Lane County
323,950
333,855
347,494
365,639
387,574
,409,159
430,454
451,038
471,511
96,599
29%
1.0%
AAGR
2025-2030 1.12%
2030-2035 1.06%
::>
~
~
C
~
?i
y
1,02%
0.94%
This estimate uses the methods from ORS 195.034, assuming that the cities maintain
the a stable share of the County's population.
The County's population forecast is from the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis
forecast issued In 2004. We extrapolated the County's forecast based on the growth
rates In the OEA forecast.
~007
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Lane Springfield UGB Eugene
County Population % of County Population % of coun~
343,1406~A4S 1ft~%. .153,6go. '44.6%
409,159 76,844 18.8% 183,259 44.8%
413,332 77,627 18.8% 185,128 44.8%
417,548 78,419 18.8% 187,017 44.8%
421,806 79,2.19 18.8% 188,924 44.8%
426,108 80,027 18.8% 190,851 44.8%
430,454 80,843 18.8% 192,798 44.8%
434,495 81,602 18.8% 194,607 44.8%
438,573 82,368 18.8% 196,434 44.8%
442,689 83,141 18.8% 198,277 44.8%
446,844 83,921 18.8% 200,138 44.8%
451,038 84,709 18.8% 202,017 44.8%
S~tiri~fleld CItY tutiits ij,lffetf!Hte bf:!t:WE!~n
pOPJd,aUp!j 0.(0 of C()ul1q;,.tity limits and tJQ,a.
" ,~1J3~O , 16.1%' ' " l.~12S
6a,34S Hi.7% ' BAgs
69,Q45 1~.t% a,5~?
~9,749 l~.tllJo 8,61b
70A61. l~.7% a,isB
!i,t~O H~,1% 8,847
7iA95. 16.7% a,~:l:~a
n~58o. 16.70/0 9j022
1~,2.62 16.70/0 9,106
73,949, lE;;jofo 9,192-
741~4'~ ,16~10/0 ~,~1a
: :7.$,rj.~4_ J~~l0/0-.. ~t~.6,S
2007 Is actual population from the Population Research Center at PSU fur Lane County and Eugene
200715 the actual population for SprIngfield (57,320) plus pOpulation In the UGA (6,478)
2007 population In the Springfield UGA is based on:
2592 du
2000 Census estimate of persons per HH (2.65 In SF and 2.26 In MF)
Vacancy rate of 5%
ECONorthwest
ECONOMICS. FINANCE · PLANNING
Phone. (541) 687-0051
FAX. (541) 344-0562
Info@eugene.econw.com
Suite 400
99 W. 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401-3001
Other Offices
Portland · (503) 222-6060
Seattle · (206) 622-2403
15 October 2007
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Springfield Housing Stakeholder Committee
Bob Parker and Beth Goodman
PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS ANALYSIS
ECONorthwest is conducting housing needs analysis for the City of Springfield. The study is
intended to comply with statewide planning policies that govern housing, including Goal 10
(Housing),ORS 197.296, and OAR 660 Division 8. The priInary goals of this study are to (1)
project the amount of land needed to accommodate the city's future housing needs of all types,
and (2) evaluate the existing residential land supply within the Springfield Urban Growth
Boundary to determine if it is adequate to meet that need.
BACKGROUND
The City of Springfield has not conducted a housing needs analysis since the Eugene-Springfield
Residential Lands and Housing Study was completed in 1999. In the six years since the study was
completed, Springfield's population has increased by nearly 3,000 residents, an increase of more
than 5% over the six-year period.
The City of Springfield is interested in determining whether the City has sufficient land within-the
Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)to accommodate expected future housing needs. To
make this determination, this report presents a housing needs analysis consistent with
requirements of Goal 14, ORS 197.296, and OAR 660-008. Additionally, the analysis considers
the "safe harbor" provisions found in OAR 660-024. The primary product of the housing needs
analysis is an estimate the number of residentially zoned acres that will be necessary to
accommodate all types of housing for the next twenty years.
The 2007 Legislature passed HB 3337 which allows Springfield to establish a separate UGB.
Given that change, the City is conducting this study to evaluate the sufficiency of land available
for residential uses in its UGB. A complicating factor is that the City does not have a coordinated
population forecast.
, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
The renlainder of this memorandum presents preliminary findings from the Housing Needs
Analysis that ECO is in the process of drafting. The results presented here are based on a
range of growth forecasts, preliminary land inventory data developed by the City, and the
draft housing needs analysis complet~d by ECO. The data presented in this memorandum will
be refined and will ultimately depend on the City's coordinated population forecast.
ATTACHMENT \ (\ ~ ~ I cf q
Preliminary Findings: Springfield Housing Needs Analysis
15 Oct 2007
Page 2
GROWTH FORECASTS,
Prior to adopting the housing needs analysis, Springfield must have a population forecast to
project expected population change over the 20-year planning period (in this instance, 2008-
2028). On February 24, 2005, the Lane Council of Governments (LeGG) adopted a coordinated
population projection consistent with ORS 195.036. Lane County's forecast projected
Springfield's population as part of the Eugene-Springfield joint UGB. In order to conduct a
housing needs analysis, Springfield needs a population forecast for the Springfield portion of the
Metro UGB (essentiaUy, everything in the UGB east of 1-5).
Early in the project, ECO facilitated a series of discussions with the Stakeholder Committee
about population. Because the City did not have a separate forecast, EeG recommended that a
conservative figured be used for the initial needs analysis. Specifically, ECO proposed using the
same rate assumption that LeOG used for the .Metro DGB: 1.31% annually. BCO acknowledged
that the figure would probably underestimate growth in Springfield and that local decisionmakers
would almost certainly argue for a higher rate if a separate growth forecast was adopted.
Leoa is in the process of reviewing the regional population allocations. Staff requested ECO
develop forecasts based on the following rate assumptions: 1.31 %, 1.7% and 2.1 %. As
mentioned above, 1.31% is the growth rate assumption used for the Metro UGB in the adopted
2004 coordinated population estimate. The 1.7% figure is the average annual growth rate for
Springfield between 1990 and 2006. The, 2.1 % figure is the growth rate for the city since 1970
as shown in the LCOa report, "Regional Trends, Data for Sound Decision Making," (2006).
Table 1 summarizes historical and forecast population and employment in the Springfield City
Limits.
Table 1. Historical and forecast population and
employment, Springfield City Limits, 2008-2058
Low Medium High
Year (1.31%) (1.7%) (2.1%)
2006 57,065 57,065 57,065
2008 58,570 59,022 59A87
2025 73,074 78,608 84,695
2028 75,984 82,686 90,144
2030 77,988 85,521 93,970
Change 2008-2028
Number 17,414 23,664
Percent 30% 40%
AAGR 1.31% 1.70%
30,657
52%
2.10%
Source: u.S. Census, LCOG; forecasts calculated by ECONorthwest.
BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY
, The buildable lands inventory is the component of the analysis that requires the most follow-up
work. Staff are completing the BLI and are currently in the verification stage of the analysis.'!t is
possible the numbers will change based on the verification steps.
ATTACHMENT \DJ~c:?-d- q
Preliminary Findings: Springfield Housing Needs Analysis
15 Oct 2007
Page 3
Table 2 summarizes the residential buildable lands inventory. The results indicate that
Springfield has about 530 buildable residential acres within its UGB. The inventory shows about
303 net acres of vacant, 57 net acres of redevelop able, and 170 net acres ofunderutilized (infill)
land. It is notable that over 90% of the net buildable residential land in Springfield is in the low-
density designation.
Table 2. Total buildable residential land, Springfield UGB, 2007
Net
Underutilized Total Net Percent of
(infill) Buildable Acres Total Acres
159.8 480.6 91 %
6.1 38.4 7%
4.1 10.5 2%
170.0 529.5 100%
Plan
Designation
LDR
MDR
HDR
Total
Net
Vacant
270.7
27.3
4.9
303.0
Net
Redevelopable
50.1
4.9
1.4
56.5
Source: City of Springfield
The final step in a residential buildable lands inventory is to estimate the holding capacity of
buildable land. The holding capacity of residential land is measured in dwelling units and is
dependent on densities allowed in specific zones. In short, land capacity is a function of
buildable land and density.
The buildable lands inventory indicates that Springfield has about 530 acres of vacant,
redevelopable, and under-utilized residential land. Table 3 provides an estimate of how much
housing could be accommodated by those lands based on the needed densities identified in Table
5.1 ECO estimates that Springfield has capacity for 2,2 II dwelling units within the existing
UGB.
I The capacity analysis provides a more accurate assessment of how much housing could be built on residential land. It assumes
that any LOR or MDR tax lot with less than 10,000 square feet has a capacity of 1 dwelling unit. Tax lots above that size have a
capacity of the lot size in acres times the needed density in net acres. For tax lots with slope constraints, (all of which are in the
LDR designation). we assumed 50% of the needed density (3 DU/net acre). This is slightly higher than 2.7 DU per net acre
observed in the Mountaingate development.
ATTACHMENT ~ of- q
Preliminary Findings: Springfield Housing Needs Analysis
15 Oct 2007
Page 4
Table 3. Estimated development capacity,
Springfield UGB, 2007
Plan
Designation
LOR
MOR
HOR
Total
Total Net
Buildable
Residential
Acres
480.6
" 38.4
10.5
529.5
Capacity (In
DU)
1,788
308
115
2.211
Source: City of Springfield residential BLI; analysis by ECONorthwest
HOUSING NEEDS
Table 4 shows an estiInate of needed new housing units in Springfield during the 2008 to 2028
period. Depending on the population growth rate assumption, Springfield will need between
7,201 new dwelling units (low growth) and 12,678 new dwelling units (high growth) to
accommodate population growth between 2008 and 2028. These figures do not include new
group quarters. The forecast assumes 630/0 will be single-family housing types (single-family
detached and manufactured) and 37% will be multifamily.
The results indicate that Springfield will need to issue permits for between 360 and 634 new
dwelling units annually during the pi arming period. By comparison, Springfield averaged 300
dwelling units annually during the 1999 to 2006 period, and had a peak of 515 dwellings
approved in 2002.
ATTACHMENT jQc~q
Preliminary Findings: Springfield Housing Needs Analysis
15 Oct 2007
Page 5
Table 4. Demand for new housing units, Springfield, 2008..2028
Variable low (1.31%) Medium High (2.1%)
(1.7%)
Change in persons 17,41423,66430,657
minus Change in persons in group quarters 174 236 306
equals Persons in households 17,24023.42830,351
Average household size 2.54 2.54 2.54
New occupied DU 6,787 9,224 11,949
Single-family dwelling units
Percent single-family DU 630/0 63% 63%
New occupied single-family DU 4,276 5,811 7,528
Vacancy rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total new single~family DU 4,501 6,117 7,924
Multiple family dwelling units
Percent multiple family DU 370/0 37% 37%
New occupied multiple-family DU 2,511 3,413 4,421
Vacancy rate 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
New multiple family DU 2,700 3,670 4.754
Totals
equals Total new occupied dwelling units 6,787 9,224 11.949
Aggregate household size (persons/occupied DU) 2.54 2.54 2.54
plus Vacant dwelling units 414 563 729
equals Total new dwelling units 7,201 9,786 . 12,678
Dwelling units needed annually 360 489 634
Source: Calculations by ECONorthwest based on population forecasts and US Census data.
Table 5 shows the forecast of needed housing units by density in Springfield for the low,
medium, and high population growth increments. The forecasts shows land need in net and gross
acres. Net acres is the amount of land needed for hou,sing, not including public infrastructure
(e.g., roads) or services (e.g., schools or parks). Gross acres is the estimated amount of land
needed for housing inclusive of public infrastructure and services.
Under the low growth increment, the forecast indicates that Springfield will need about 1,000 net
residential acres, or about 1,200 gross residential acres to accommodate new housing between
2008 and 2028. The forecast results in an average residential density of7.2 dwelling units per net
residential acre and of 6.0 dwelling units per gross residential acre. The average residential
density between 1999 and 2006 was 6.26 dwellings per net acre. This represents an increase of
15% over historical levels.
ATTACHMENT JO t ~..?cfq
Preliminary Findings: Springfield Housing Needs Analysis
15 Oct 2007
Page 6
Table 5. Forecast of needed housing units by mix and density, Springfield, 2008..
2028
Density Net to Gross Density
(DU/net Net Res. Gross Res. (DU/gross
Housing Type New DU Percent res ac) Acres Factor Acres res ac)
Needed Units, Low Growth
Single-family types
Single-family detached 4,105 57% 5.5 746.3 18% 910.2 4.5
Manufactured in parks 72 1% ' 6.0 12.0 15% 14.1 5.1
Single-family attached 648 9% 7.5 86.4 15% 101.7 6.4
Subtotal 4,825 67% 5.7 844.7 1,025.9 4.7
Multi-family
Multifamily 2,376 33% 15.0 158.4 10% 176.0 13.5
Subtotal 2,376 33% 15.0 158.4 176.0 13.5
Total 7,201 100% 7.2 1,003.2 1,202.0 6.0
Needed Units, Medium Growth
Single-family types
Single-family detached 5,578 57% 5.5 1,014.2 18% 1,236.9 4.5
Manufactured in parks 98 1% 6.0 16.3 15% 19.2 5.1
, Condoff ownhomes 881 9% 7.5 117.4 15% 138.2 6.4
Subtotal 6,557 67% 5.7 1,148.0 1,394.2 4.7
Multi-family
Multifamily 3,229 33% 15.0 215.3 10% 239.2 13.5
Subtotal 3,229 33% 15.0 215.3 239.2 13.5
Total 9,786 100% 7.2 1,363.3 1,633.4 6.0
Needed Units, High Growth
Single-family types
Single-family detached 7,227 57% 5.5 1,313.9 18% 1,602.3 4.5
Manufactured in parks 127 1% . 6.0 21.1 15% 24.9 5.1
Condoffownhomes 1,141 9% 7.5 152.1 15% 179.0 6.4
Subtotal 6,557 67% 4.4 1 ,487.2 1,806.2 3.6
Multi-family
Multifamily 4,184 33% 15.0 278.9 10% 309.9 13.5
Subtotal 3,229 33% 11.6 278.9 309.9 10.4
Total 12,678 100% 7.2 1,766.1 2,116.1 6.0
Source: ECONorthwest
The final step in the housing needs analysis is to allocate housing :needs by plan designation to
determine the number of needed housing units and gross acres required to meet identified
housing needs for the 20-year period. Table 6 provides an allocation of housing units by
Springfield's three residential plan designations. It also provides an estimate of the gross acres
required in each zone to accommodate needed housing units. The acreages are based on the gross
density assumptions shown in Table 5. Based on Table 6, the needed density by plan
designations are:
· LDR....;. 5.5 DUlNet Acre; 4.5 DU/Gross Acre
· . MDR - 11.8 DU/Net Acre; 10 DU/Gross Acre
· HDR - 22.2 DU/Net Acre; 20 DU/Gross Acre
ATTACHMENT \bL~..~ d-q
Preliminary Findings: Springfield Housing Needs Analysis
15 Oct 2007
Page 7
Table 6. Allocation of needed housing units by plan designation, 2007-2027
Low Medium High
Plan Designation Growth Growth Growth
Percent of Need
LDR 59% 59% 59%
MDR 31% 31% 31%
HDR 10% 10% 10%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Needed Dwellings
LOR 4,234 517547.455
MDR 2,247 3,0533,956
HDR 720 979 1,268
Total 7,201 9,786 12,678
Needed Acres (Gross)
LOR 941 1,2791.657
MDR 225 305 396
HDR 36 49 63
Total 1,202 1,6332,116
Source: ECONorthwest
PRELIMINARY COMPARISON OF LAND CAPACITY AND NEED
Table 7 shows the capacity for residential development by plan designation. The results lead to
the following findings:
· Springfield has a need for additional residential land under any growth scenario. The
Springfield UGB has enough land for 2,111 new dwelling units. The housing needs
forecast projects a need for between ,7,200 and 12,678 dwellingunits.
· The Low Density Residential designation has a deficit of approximately 544 to 1,259
gross acres in the UGB.
· The Medium Density Residential designation has a deficit of approximately 194 to 365
gross acres in UGB.
· The High Density Residential designation has a deficit of approximately 30 to 58 gross
acres in the UGB. '
ATTACHMENT ~q
Preliminary Findings: Springfield Housing Needs Analysis
15 Oct 2007
Page 8
Table 7. Residential capacity for needed dwelling units by plan designation,
Springfield UGB, 2008..2028
Plan Designation
Needed Dwelling Units
LOR
MDR
HDR
Total
Capacity (Dwelling Units)
LOR 1,788
MDR 308
HDR 115
Total 2,211
Surplus (Deficit) . Dwelling Units
LOR (2,446) (3,966) (5.667)
MDR (1.939) (2.745) (3,648)
HDR (605) (864) (1,153)
Total (4,990) (7,575)' (10,467)
Gross Residential Acres Needed for Addition to UGB
LDR 544 881 1,259
MDR 194 275 365
HDR 30 43 58
Total 758 1,1991,682
Low
Growth
Medium
Growth
High
Growth
4.234
2,247
720
7,201
,5,7547,455
3,0533,956
979 1,268
9,786 12,678
1,7881,788
308
115
2,2112,211
308
115
Source: ECONorthwest
IMPLICATIONS
The preliminary analysis suggests Springfield will be able to justify a UaB expansion for
residential land. ORS 197.296 requires cities to consider land use efficiency measures if the
housing needs analysis finds that the City may not meet identified housing needs. The measures
are intended to increase the probability that the needed housing types will get built. Specifically,
the statute states:
(6) If the housing need determined pursuant to subsection (3)(b) of this section is greater
than the housing capacity detennined pursuant to subsection (3)(a) Qfthis section, the
local government shall take one or more of the foHowing actions to accommodate the
additional housing need:
(a) Amend its urban growth boundary to include sufficient buildable lands to
accommodate housing needs for the next 20 years. As part of this process, the local
government shall consider the effects of measures taken pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
subsection. The amendment shall include sufficient land reasonably necessary to
accommodate the siting of new public school facilities. The need and inclusion of lands
for new public school facilities shall be a coordinated process between the affected public
school districts and the local' government that has the authority to approve the urban
growth boundary;
ATTACHMENT ~ oF-q
Preliminary Fin~:Hngs: Springfield Housing Needs Analysis
15 Oct 2007
Page 9
(b.) Amend its comprehensive plan, regional plan, functional plan or land use
regulations to include new measures that demonstrably increase the likelihood that
residential development will occur at densities sufficient to accommodate housing needs
for the next 20 years without expansion of the urban growth boundary. A local
government or metropolitan service district thattakes this action shall monitor and record
the level of development activity and development density by housing type following the
date of the adoption of the new measures; or
(c) Adopt a combination of the actions described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
subsection.
(7) Using the analysis conducted under subsection (3)(b) of this section, the local
government shall determine the overall average density and overall mix of housing types
at which residential development of needed housing types must occur in order to meet
'housing needs over t~e next 20 years. If that density is greater than the actual density of
development determined under subsection (5)(a)(A) of this section, or if that mix is
different from the actual mix of housing types determined under subsection (5)(aXA) of
this section, the local government, as part of its periodic review, shall adopt measures that
demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at the
housing types and density and at the mix of housing types required to meet housing needs
over the next 20 years.
It is common for jurisdictions to adopt combinations of policies to manage growth and improve
the efficiency and holding capacity of land uses. Such policy groupings, however, are not
necessarily cumulative in their intent or impact. Polices that address similar issues may not be
mutually reinforcing. For example, having policies in residential zones for maximum lot size and
minimum density essentially address the same issue-underbuild in residential zones. Thus,
Springfield should carefully consider their policy programs and evaluate each policy option both
individually and in consideration of other policies.
ATTACHMENT
IDJ ~ q~q