Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 11 06 Complete Memo to Pc's 1 M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield To: The Planning Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County From: Gregory Mott, Planning Manager Date: October 30, 2008 Subject: Metro Plan Text Amendments: New Population Forecasts for Eugene and Springfield Issue The 2007 Oregon legislature amended ORS 197 Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination by adding ORS 197.304(1) (a&b), (2) and (3) which state in part: “a city within Lane County that has a population of 50,000 or more shall meet its obligation under ORS 197.295 to 197.314 separately from any other city within Lane County. The city shall...establish an urban growth boundary, consistent with the jurisdictional area of responsibility specified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and demonstrate... that its comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary...to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years.”1(Emphasis added) The housing need determination required by this statute cannot be completed without a new 20-year population forecast for each city. A population forecast cannot be used for this purpose until it has been adopted into the comprehensive plan or a document included in the comprehensive plan by reference.2 The existing Metro Plan population forecast is the aggregated total for the metro region, not for each city, and extends only to the year 2015. The cities are proposing separate population forecasts for the planning period 2009-2029 or 2010-2030 depending upon the completion date of their obligations under ORS 197.304, and that these forecasts be based upon the safe harbor methodology as provided in ORS 195.034. The following text is proposed to be added to Chapter 1 of the Metro Plan: In order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield adopt the following “safe harbor” forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas pursuant to 2007 Or Laws Chapter 689: For the Planning Period Extending Through 2029 For the Planning Period Extending Through 2030 The UGB west of I-5 (Eugene) 219,275 221,515 The UGB east of I-5 (Springfield) 81,684 82,616 1 ORS 197.296 specifies that the 20 year period for the needed housing determination “commences on the date initially scheduled for completion of the periodic review or legislative review.” The cities consider the provisions of ORS 197.304 as a mandate for a legislative review of the buildable lands inventories of both cities and that this review must be completed within two years of the effective date of the 2007 Act [January 1, 2008]. 2 Ref. ORS 195.034(3)(a)(B) 2 Discussion The legislative mandate calling for separate UGBs for Eugene and Springfield also requires separate needed housing determinations to be completed by December 31, 2009. The housing determination is essentially an analysis that demonstrates that housing need can be accommodated by existing land capacity (inventory) or that projected need exceeds the existing land capacity.3 Either determination has its own conclusion and appropriate response that eventually will be articulated within the comprehensive plan, but the determination cannot be made without a population forecast for the appropriate planning period: “Cities must adopt a 20-year population forecast for the urban area consistent with the coordinated county forecast...the adopted forecast must be included in the comprehensive plan or in a document referenced by the plan.” (OAR 660-024-0030 Population Forecasts) and; “The UGB must be based on the adopted 20-year population forecast for the urban area described in OAR 660-024-0030, and must provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open space over the 20-year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule.” (OAR 660-024-0040 Land Need) The critical provisions in the administrative rule are: 1) the UGB must be based on the population forecast; and 2) the forecast is for each urban area, i.e., the municipality within the UGB. No previous coordinated population process has ever included separate forecasts for Eugene or Springfield therefore there are no forecasts, recent or otherwise, for either city. Population forecasting is regulated by ORS 195 and by the interpretive rules of OAR 660-024-0030. There are basically two processes that may be used to create population forecasts that can be adopted into comprehensive plans. The first, and until the 2007 legislative session, only process to create population forecasts is found in ORS 195.036: “The coordinating body under ORS 195.025(1) shall establish and maintain a population forecast for the entire area within its boundary for use in maintaining and updating comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate the forecast with the local governments within its boundary.” The methodology for the forecasts required by ORS 195.025(1) is described in OAR 660-024- 0030(2) as follows: “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, and 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). The forecast must take into account documented long-term demographic trends as well as recent events that have a reasonable likelihood of changing historical trends. The population forecast is an estimate which, although based on the best available information and methodology, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision.” 3 Ref.. ORS 197.296 et seq. 3 The 2007 Oregon legislative session included new provisions to ORS 195 by adding 195.034 Alternate Population Forecast. In summary, this provision allows cities to adopt a “safe harbor” forecast that relies on the assumption that the urban area’s current share of the county population will remain constant for a 20-year planning period based on the forecast for that 20-year period prepared by the Office of Economic Analysis. The baseline relationship is established by “the most recent certified population estimates from Portland State University and the most recent data for the urban area published by the United States Census Bureau.” (195.034(2)(a & b) (See also Attachments 3 and 6) This alternate forecast process is only available to cities “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 amendment of the city’s urban growth boundary.” (ORS 195.034(2)) As this memorandum and the enclosed staff report point out, the Metro Plan contains a single population forecast for the metro area and not for each city; the forecast applies to a single metro area urban growth boundary, not separate urban growth boundaries required by ORS 197.304; the adopted planning period extends only until 2015, not 2029 or 2030; and the requirements of ORS 197.304 serve as a mandate to perform a legislative review of the cities residential lands inventory to determine sufficiency of that inventory for a 20-year planning period. Additional Information The proposal is classified as a Type I Metro Plan amendment because it is a non-site specific text amendment. Amendments to the Plan text that are non site-specific require approval by all three governing bodies to become effective (See SDC 7.070(1)(a), Eugene Code 9.7730(1)(a), and Lane Code 12.225(1)(a)(i)). The planning commissions will conduct the initial evidentiary hearing and then forward the record of this hearing and a recommendation to their respective elected officials. The planning commissions may take this action collectively or independently as the circumstances provide. The elected officials will then conduct a joint public hearing on the amendments and make a decision based on the record of evidence created before the planning commissions and any new evidence that might be entered into the record of the hearing before the elected officials. Each governing body may approve, modify and approve, or deny the proposed amendment. However, all three governing bodies must adopt identical ordinances to complete the amendment process. There are two additional population forecasts currently underway within Lane County. On August 20, 2008 the Board of Commissioners adopted Board Order 08-8-19-1 directing staff to commence a countywide coordinated forecast effort for ultimate consideration as a post-acknowledgment plan amendment to the Lane County Comprehensive Plan consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-024-0030 . On October 2, 2008 an application to amend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan for new population forecasts for the Cities of Florence, Dunes City, Veneta, Junction City, Coburg, Creswell, Cottage Grove, Lowell, West Fir and Oakridge was deemed complete by Lane County. The proposed Metro Plan amendment is not at odds with or at counter purposes to these other population forecast activities. The Lane County initiative will result in a coordinated population forecast for the county and all cities within the county. Eugene and Springfield have already requested Lane County adoption of the safe harbor methodology for the two new urban areas created by ORS 197.304; the county is not prevented from taking such action by ORS 195. The proposal by the 10 small cities seeks to amend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, not the Metro Plan. In addition, Appendix E of the small cities’ submittal includes a table that identifies the proposed coordinated population forecast for all cities in Lane County, including Eugene and Springfield, and that table shows Eugene’s 2030 population forecast at 221,515 and Springfield’s 2030 population forecast at 82,616; these are the same figures Eugene and Springfield submitted to DLCD (Attachment 3) and which appear on the first page of this memorandum and the fist page of the enclosed staff report. 4 Conclusion The proposed Metro Plan amendments are necessary to allow each city to comply with part of its obligations under ORS 197.304. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of ORS 195.034, ORS 197.296, and OAR 660-008, 660-009, 660-012, and 660-024. The enclosed Staff Report demonstrates additional conformance by identifying how these proposals satisfy the criteria for Plan amendment in Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135(C) of the Springfield Development Code; Eugene Code 9.7730(3) and Section 12.225(2)(a&b) of the Lane Code. Alternatives/Options There are several options available to the planning commissions: Continue the hearing to a date certain to allow additional testimony and/or respond to questions by the commissions or public; Leave the record open for a specific period of time to allow additional testimony and rebuttal and either reconvene in a joint session or in individual venues; Close the record and deliberate. Upon conclusion of deliberations, the planning commissions may choose to: Forward a recommendation to adopt the proposal to their respective elected officials; Forward a recommendation to adopt a modified proposal to their respective elected officials; Forward a recommendation to not adopt the proposal to their respective elected officials. Attachment Attachment 1 Analysis and Findings of compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules (This document includes 6 attachments) 1 Staff report and findings of compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide Goals, Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules for proposed safe harbor population forecasts for Eugene and Springfield Springfield File LRP 2008-00009/Eugene File MP-08-02: Amendments to the Metro Plan to provide Eugene and Springfield with separate, new 20-year population forecasts. Applicant The Cities of Eugene and Springfield Nature of the Application The applicants propose to amend the Eugene–Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) by adding the following text as the third paragraph of Chapter I, Introduction Purpose Section on Page I-1: In order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650, the cities of Eugene and Springfield adopt the following safe harbor forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas pursuant to 2007 Or Laws Chapter 689: For Planning Period Extending Through 2029 For Planning Period Extending Through 2030 For that portion of the Eugene-Springfield urban growth boundary that lies west of the Interstate 5 Highway 219,275 221,515 For that portion of the Eugene-Springfield urban growth boundary that lies east of the Interstate 5 Highway 81,684 82,616 Safe Harbor Statute The subject amendments are proposed pursuant to Section 2 of the “safe harbor” population forecast statute adopted by the 2007 legislature in order to allow the cities of 2 Eugene and Springfield to timely meet their obligations under the separate-urban-growth boundary statute adopted by the same 2007 legislature. ORS 2007 Oregon Laws Chapter 689, codified as ORS 195.034, provides as follows: (1) If the 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 amendment 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 Analysis for the county for a 20-year period that commences when the city initiates the evaluation or amendment of the city’s urban growth boundary; and (b) Assuming that the urban area’s share for the forecasted county population determined 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 most recent data for the urban area published by the United States Census Bureau. (3)(a) If the 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 197.610 to 197.650. 3 (b) If the extended forecast is adopted under paragraph (a) of this subsection consistent with the requirements in subsection (1) or (2) of this section: (A) The forecast is deemed to satisfy the requirements of a statewide land use planning goal relating 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. Applicable standards and procedures The applicable standards and procedures for adoption of the subject amendments are provided by the above statute and applicable provisions of ORS 197.610 to ORS 197.650, commonly known as the Post-Acknowledgment Plan Amendment, or PAPA, statutes. While it is relatively straightforward, the 2007 safe harbor forecast statute is new and has not yet been subject to authoritative interpretation through LCDC rulemaking. Accordingly, staff recommends a conservative approach to avoid unnecessary delay and litigation. This means following additional normally-applicable plan-amendment procedures and adopting additional findings insofar as they can reasonably be provided consistent with the cities’ statutory obligations to complete key forecast-dependent tasks by January 1, 2010. At the same time, each city should adopt severability clauses and findings that protect its ability to defend its action based upon its own reading of what the safe harbor statute actually requires. Background The 2007 Oregon legislature adopted HB3337 by amending ORS 197 to add ORS 197.304(1)(a)&(b),(2) and (3). The provisions of this law require Eugene and Springfield, separately from any other city in Lane County, to perform the following: (a)Establish an urban growth boundary, consistent with the jurisdictional area of responsibility specified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and (b) Demonstrate, as required by ORS 197.296 that its comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. 4 The statute also requires that, by January 1, 2010, each City must: “(a) Inventory the supply of buildable lands within the urban growth boundary and determine the housing capacity of the buildable lands; and (b) Conduct an analysis of housing need by type and density range, in accordance with ORS 197.303 and statewide planning goals and rules relating to housing, to determine the number of units and amount of land needed for each needed housing type for the next 20 years.”1 In order for the cities to determine the number of units and amount of land needed for housing for the next 20 years,, a new population forecast for each city for the next 20 years needs to be prepared and adopted into the comprehensive plan (Metro Plan), or in “a document included in the plan by reference,” such as an inventory, functional plan, or other refinement plan. (NOTE: Consistent with the conservative approach recommended above, a city may choose to adopt its forecast into a separate plan document specific to its jurisdictional area as well as into the main plan text.) LCDC’s Urbanization Goal, also known as Goal 14, was amended in 2006 to require that Urban Growth Boundaries be consistent with a “20-year forecast.” LCDC’s interpretive rules flesh this requirement out. OAR 660-024-0040 provides as follows: (1) The UGB must be based on the adopted 20-year population forecast for the urban area described in OAR 660-024-0030, [or in ORS 197.036] and must provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools parks and open space over the 20-year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule. The 20-year need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available information and methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. (4) The determination of 20-year residential land needs for an urban area must be consistent with the adopted 20-year coordinated population forecast for the urban area [or with an adopted ORS 197.034 safe harbor forecast], and with the requirements for determining housing needs in Goal 10, OAR 660, division 7 or 8, and applicable provisions of ORS 197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490. 1A section of the 2007 legislation that was not included in the statute provides: “A local government that is subject to section 2 of this 2007 Act [197.304] shall complete the inventory, analysis and determination required under ORS 197.296(3) to begin compliance with section 2 of this 2007 Act within two years after the effective date of this 2007 Act [January 1, 2008]” 5 While it is clear that the work required by ORS 197.296(3) must be completed by a date certain, the statute is not as precise regarding the timing or sequence of other requirements of the Act. For example, the statute does not explicitly provide that separate UGBs must be established before the ORS 197.296(3) work is complete; or that the UGBs must be established within two years of the effective date of the Act; or that there is a deadline to comply with the provisions of ORS 197.296(6) in terms of “amending its urban growth boundary to include sufficient buildable lands to accommodate housing needs for the next 20 years.”2 It is unclear whether the statute allows a city to “complete” the inventory, analysis and determination required under ORS 197.296 by adopting them as Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendments subject to revision at the time of adoption of its Urban Growth Boundary. DLCD, the LCDC, and LUBA have all taken the position that a city cannot complete its obligations under ORS 197.296 as a whole without adopting a final decision to expand or retain its existing Urban Growth Boundary. DLCD v. City of McMinnville, 41 Or LUBA 210 (2001). Although it is not certain, coordination meetings of staffs for the cities, the county, and DLCD have resulted in a consensus that HB 3337 probably creates an exception to the McMinnville rule by setting an explicit deadline for completion of specific steps along the way. Staff believes that the ORS 197.296 determination can best be implemented by following these steps: 1) adopt new, separate 20-year population forecasts into the comprehensive plan for the Eugene urban area and the Springfield urban area; 2) assume for study purposes that each city’s current UGB is that part of the acknowledged Metro UGB within its jurisdictional area as defined by the Metro Plan, i.e., its side of Interstate 5; and 3) proceed with the determinations required by ORS197.296 and establish their separate UGBs consistent with all applicable statutes, goals, and rules based on (1) and (2). If the inventories, analyses, and determinations that HB 3337 requires to be completed by January 1, 2010 reveal that one or both of the cities need to expand the UGB to satisfy projected need, then formal establishment of the larger UGB or UGBs would require evaluation and comparison of alternative expansion areas consistent with ORS 197.298, which establishes a tiered system generally favoring inclusion of non-resource lands before resource lands, and other applicable requirements of the Urbanization Goal, other statewide goals, and LCDC’s interpretive rules. 2 Notwithstanding the absence of a specific deadline, HB 3337 implicitly requires that the entire process, including establishment of each city’s separate UGB, be completed before the “inventory, analysis, and determination” required to be completed by January 1, 2010 becomes so outdated that it no longer provides a basis for demonstrating compliance with the requirement of HB 3337 and ORS 197.296 that the new UGB provide sufficient buildable lands to accommodate estimated housing needs for the nest 20 years. 6 Discussion The determination required by ORS 197.296 is that the comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within the urban growth boundary to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. Neither the inventory of buildable lands nor the UGB can be established or amended without a 20-year population forecast, the subject of this proposed Metro Plan amendment. ORS 195 establishes the requirement for coordinated population forecasts: 195.036 Area population forecast; coordination. The coordinating body under ORS 195.025(1) shall establish and maintain a population forecast for the entire area within its boundary for use in maintaining and updating comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate the forecast with the local governments within its boundary. (Emphasis added) As amended in 2007, at the same time that HB 3337 was heard and adopted, ORS 195 now also establishes an alternate safe harbor population forecast process and methodology that replace those set forth in ORS 195.036 and LCDC’s implementing rules. The new statutory safe harbor is available if a city initiates an evaluation or amendment of its UGB and the current adopted forecast was adopted more than 10 years before the initiation of the evaluation. Its standards and procedures replace those otherwise required; that’s the whole purpose and effect of a safe harbor. As a result, the evidence and findings need only address the requirements of the statute. To be conservative and avoid unnecessary litigation, this staff report and the proposed findings also address and document consistency with otherwise applicable state land use goals and rules and local plan amendment standards and procedures, and the commissions should allow testimony concerning the applicability and effect of any such goal, rule, or policy. However, the city will reserve the right to defend its decision, whatever it may be, based solely upon what the safe harbor statute actually requires. The full text of the safe harbor statute is set forth at pages 1 - 3 above. It is apparent that the mandate of ORS 197.304 requires a new 20-year population forecast; that such a forecast must be consistent with the 2007 statute’s requirement of two separate UGBs rather than a single metro-UGB (as currently exists in the Metro Plan); and that the forecast must be adopted into the Metro Plan well before the cities complete the tasks subject to the statutory December 29, 2009 deadline. Our review of ORS 195.034 has determined that the cities are eligible to pursue the safe harbor alternate population forecast for the following reasons: 1. The coordinating body has not adopted a forecast as required by ORS 195.036. The existing 20-year planning horizon of the Metro Plan extends only to 2015; the ORS 197.304 mandate requires a planning horizon out to at least 2029. 7 2. The existing population forecast is a metro-wide forecast based on a single metropolitan UGB; the ORS 197.304 mandate requires each city, separately from any other city, to establish an urban growth boundary and determine that sufficient buildable lands are contained within that urban growth boundary to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. Eugene and Springfield have never had separate UGBs or separate buildable lands inventories or separate population forecasts. 3. The two year deadline for the ORS 197.296(3) work requires an efficient and reliable population forecast methodology and process. Not surprisingly, considering that it was adopted at the same time as HB 3337, ORS 195.034 satisfies these considerations more favorably than available alternatives. 4. The cities have initiated the safe harbor process and have requested that the county adopt the proposed safe harbor forecasts. On May 19, 2008 and June 11, 2008 the Springfield City Council and Eugene City Council, respectively, endorsed the safe harbor alternate population forecast methodology and process and initiated a Metro Plan amendment that would incorporate into the Metro Plan an ORS 195.034(2) population forecast for Eugene and Springfield. On June 25, 2008 the planning directors of Eugene and Springfield submitted a letter (Attachment 1) to the Lane County Board of Commissioners requesting that the Board of Commissioners, in their newly reestablished role as coordinating body for Lane County coordinated population forecasting, adopt the safe harbor alternate population forecast for Eugene and Springfield. On July 21, 2008, City of Springfield staff sent an email (Attachment 2) to Lane County staff requesting the Board of Commissioners to include language in a proposed Board action [entering into a contract with Portland State University to conduct a coordinated population forecast for the County] that would not preclude other jurisdictions within Lane County from seeking the safe harbor alternate population forecast. On August 27, 2008, City of Springfield staff mailed a “Notice of Proposed Amendment” to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (Attachment 3) communicating that the cities of Eugene and Springfield had initiated amendments to the Metro Plan to adopt new population forecasts, pursuant to ORS 195.034, to comply with the needed housing determination required by ORS 197.304. The notice included the same proposed text that appears on the first page of this report. The notice to DLCD is prescribed in ORS 197.610 and is required to be submitted at least 45 days prior to the initial public hearing. 5. The two cities have provided notice to the other local governments in the county. On October 6, 2008, the planning directors of Eugene and Springfield sent a letter (Attachment 5) to the Mayors and City Administrators of the ten incorporated cities in Lane County advising them that the cities of Eugene and Springfield were pursuing the safe harbor alternate population forecast as provided in ORS 195.034. The letter further 8 advised that the joint planning commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County would be conducting a joint public hearing on this proposed comprehensive plan amendment on November 6, 2008 in the Springfield City Hall. Lane County staff was provided with a copy of one of these letters by email as an example of the larger mailing. 6. The county has not yet taken action on either of the cities’ proposed forecasts. It is unclear exactly what the statute means by “take action” when it says that a city may adopt the safe harbor forecast if “the coordinating body does not take action on the city’s proposed forecast . . .within six months of the city’s written request for adoption of the forecast.” Considered in light of the purpose of the safe harbor, which is to enable cities to meet their obligations to provide adequate and up-to-date land supplies under various state planning laws, goals, and rules, the term “take action” must mean the formal adoption by the coordinating body of another valid forecast for the requisite 20-year period under ORS 195.036 and LCDC’s implementing goals and rules. 7. The proposed forecasts correctly interpret and apply the methodology prescribed by the safe harbor statute as follows: (a) As explained in more detail below, the proposed forecasts are based on the population forecast prepared by the Office of Economic Analysis for a 20-year period that commences when the city initiates the evaluation or amendment of the city’s urban growth boundary. Each city will initiate the evaluation of its urban growth boundary in 2009 when it conducts public hearings on the tasks required by HB 3337. (b) As explained in more detail below, each of the proposed forecasts assumes that its urban area’s share for the forecasted county population determined under paragraph (a) will be the same as its urban area’s current share of the county population based on the most recent certified population estimates from Portland State University and the most recent data for its urban area published by the United States Census Bureau. Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria The proposed amendment is a non-site specific amendment of the Plan text. Therefore, except to the extent pre-empted by ORS 197.304, it is classified as Type I Metro Plan amendment that requires participation and adoption by all three governing bodies. Springfield, Eugene and Lane County adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Development Code (SDC) Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135(C) (1 & 2), Eugene Code 9.7730(3), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a & b) include criteria of approval that require that the amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and that the amendment not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These additional potential criteria and the staff responses fill the remaining pages of this report; however, all of the following findings are made subject to the reservation that they may be wholly or partially pre-empted by ORS 197.304(1) which says that 9 “Notwithstanding an intergovernmental agreement . . . or acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary,” the cities of Eugene and Springfield shall both: (a) establish separate 20-year urban growth boundaries, and (b) demonstrate that their separate boundaries provide sufficient buildable residential lands for the next 20 years as required by ORS 196.296. (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; As a preface to this section of the staff report it is useful to provide some context to what is being proposed in this amendment; why the only amendment being sought is a new population forecast for each city; and how this action will establish part of the necessary basis for future significant changes to the Metro Plan. Both cities know they have considerable work ahead of them as they undertake compliance with ORS 197.304. As the Background and Discussion sections in this report have already demonstrated, the new law that is the cause of this work is a significant departure from the laws and agreements that have bound the two cities and county together since the original acknowledgment process and two subsequent periodic reviews. There is no case law that provides guidance or defines nuance; there is no administrative rule that says how you interpret this law; and there is no precedent elsewhere to use as a model for this action. Eugene and Springfield have a single metro-wide UGB; they will soon have separate municipal UGBs. Eugene and Springfield have shared a single metro-wide residential lands inventory because of the single UGB; they will soon have separate residential lands inventories contained within their separate UGBs. Eugene and Springfield have shared a single metro-wide population and employment forecast because they’ve shared a single UGB; now they must begin this compliance process by adopting separate population forecasts into a comprehensive plan that still recognizes the current single, shared UGB and a single, shared residential lands inventory. Will all references to a single population, a single UGB and a single buildable lands inventory be amended in this action? No. The proposed amendment is intended to start a lengthy process of Metro Plan amendments involving the creation of separate UGBs and separate inventories. All of those changes cannot be predicted; they must be based on compliance with the goals. That cannot occur in the absence of the facts necessary to support the changes. The first step in that process (as explained previously) is adopting a new population forecast; the proposed amendment says we are undertaking this action to achieve timely compliance with the statutory obligations of the law. Timely compliance is a reference to the safe harbor alternative forecast method, but compliance with statutory obligations (plural) also is meant to convey that we recognize the extent of this obligation and are 10 beginning with the first step. Also, by inserting this text on the first page of the first chapter of the Plan, we believe the proper context is provided for this initial action; what may be perceived as a conflict with a different population figure elsewhere in the Plan is resolved by the explicit requirements of the 2007 statute and the language of the amendment explaining that the new forecasts implement that statute and address a new 20-year planning period and that the conversion from pre-HB3337 structure will occur in phases, over time, so that these new population figures are properly matched with new UGBs and new inventories as they are established. A demonstration of compliance with the state-wide goals for this amendment, if required at all, is primarily related to Goals 1 and 2 as the remaining goals either don’t apply within UGBs (3 & 4) or don’t apply here in the Willamette Valley (16-19); the other goals are not affected by a population forecast alone, but can have applicability when subsequent actions that rely upon the forecast are proposed. In spite of the indirect nature of the relationship between the proposed amendment and the goals, an explanation was provided explaining why this action was not contrary to the goals. Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The two cities and the county have acknowledged land use codes that are intended to serve as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. Chapter 5 of the SDC, Metro Plan Amendments; Public Hearings, prescribe the manner in which a Type I Metro Plan amendment must be noticed. Citizen involvement for a Type I Metro Plan amendment not related to an urban growth boundary amendment requires: Notice to interested parties; notice to properties and property owners within 300 feet of the proposal if site-specific; notice to neighborhood associations; published notice in a newspaper of general circulation; and notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing (planning commission). Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was mailed on October 14, 2008; notice was published in the Register-Guard on October 17, 2008; notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on August 27, 2008; notice of this proposal and the joint planning commission hearing was sent to the cities of Florence, Dunes City, Veneta, Junction City, Coburg, Creswell, Lowell, West Fir, Oakridge, and Cottage Grove on October 6, 2008. Lane County received a copy of the DLCD notice and a sample copy of one of the letters sent to the other Lane County cities. Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherence to the citizen involvement processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the Springfield Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135, Eugene Code Section 9.7735, and Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240. 11 Goal 2 – Land Use Planning To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed, revised on a periodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation ordinances. Implementation Measures – are the means used to carry out the plan. These are of two general types: (1) management implementation measures such as ordinances, regulations or project plans, and (2) site or area specific implementation measures such as permits and grants for construction, construction of public facilities or provision of services. The current version of the Metro Plan was last adopted in 2004 (Springfield (Ordinance No. 6087; Eugene Ordinance No. 20319; and Lane County Ordinance No. 1197) after numerous public meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Officials. Subsequent to these Metro Plan adoption proceedings, the 2007 Oregon Legislature adopted new laws that applied specifically to Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. ORS 197.304 requires Eugene and Springfield to adopt separate urban growth boundaries based on the jurisdictional responsibilities contained in the Metro Plan and to make a determination based on the provisions of ORS 197.296 that there is sufficient buildable lands within these UGBs to accommodate projected growth for the next 20 years Under the new law, by December 31, 2009, the cities must inventory the supply of residential lands within their separate urban growth boundary areas, determine the housing capacity of the buildable lands, and conduct an analysis of housing needs to determine the number of units and amount of land needed for each needed housing type for the next 20 years. In response to this mandate, Eugene and Springfield have undertaken a necessary step in compliance by initiating a post-acknowledgement plan amendment of the Metro Plan to establish new population forecasts for each city that will comply with the required planning period of 20 years, and with the provisions of OAR 660-024-0040 which requires cities to have adopted population forecasts as a prerequisite to establishment of an urban growth boundary. The Metro Plan is the land use or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the Springfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the implementation measures required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as defined by ORS 197.015(5), must be coordinated with affected governmental units. Coordination means 12 that comments from affected governmental units are solicited and considered. The 10 cities in Lane County not participating as decision-makers in this matter received letters explaining the proposal by Eugene and Springfield to seek the safe harbor alternate population forecast as provided in ORS 195.034. A comment letter from DLCD dated October 2, 2008 (Attachment 4) raises certain issues, which are addressed as follows: 1. A concern that the cities have not yet made the “request” for adoption called for by the safe harbor statute. Staff and counsel believe that the explicit request set forth in the June 25, 2008 letter (Attachment 1) constitutes the required request. 2. A concern that the cities adopt a 20-year forecast that reflects a period that begins with the year the forecast is adopted and concludes 20 years later, i.e. 2009-2029 or 2010- 2030. The provisions of applicable laws and rules require a 20-year planning period; the forecast includes two calculations; one for the period 2009-2029 and one for the period 2010-2030 in order to adjust to the period consistent with the cities compliance with ORS 197.296. It is not our intent to suggest that a 19-year period or a 21-year period is allowed by law, but merely to advise this hearing process that a figure can be calculated using the safe harbor methodology for the 20-year planning period required by law. 3. A concern that the estimated population in Springfield’s urban transition area is represented as 7,125 in “Table 9” but also as 6,478 in notes beneath the table (Attachment 9 of Attachment 3). Staff apologizes for any confusion caused by the attachments sent to DLCD as part of the exhibits for this proposed Metro Plan amendment. The attachment combines “certified figures” which reflect the populations for Eugene and Springfield city limits as certified by Portland State University for the year 2007; and estimates of the urban transition area population based on number of dwelling units by type multiplied by the average household size for these types of dwelling units. The number of units was derived from a 2005 query of total residential addresses in the urban transition area stored in the Regional Land Information Database; average household size was provided by the 2000 census. This figure was further refined by applying a 5% vacancy rate. The alternative calculation for urban transition area population provided with this table is a simple share distribution, that is, Eugene’s share of this population is 72.8% and Springfield’s share is 27.2%. This apportionment is continued for the 20-year planning period, consistent with ORS 195.034 and results in population projections for Eugene and Springfield that maintain proportional population relationships between each city and the county and each city’s urban transition area and the county; and between each city. 13 Neither urban transition area figure is a “certified” population figure, but the larger figure is consistent with the methodology provided in ORS 195.034; the smaller figure is consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-024-0030(2) regarding commonly accepted practices and standards of population forecasting. Using the larger figure of 7,125 and the certified figure of 57,320 provides Springfield a total of 64,445 or 18.7% of the County-wide total. Using the smaller figure of 6,478 and the certified figure of 57,320 provides a figure of 63,798 or 18.5% of the county-wide total. OAR 660-024-0030 specifies as follows: (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, and 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). The forecast must take into account documented long-term demographic trends as well as recent events that have a reasonable likelihood of changing historical trends. The population forecast is an estimate which, although based on the best available information and methodology, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. Staff believe that the proportional share methodology provided in ORS 195.034 allows Eugene and Springfield to assert that this provision also applies to population estimates for the urban transition area; the .2% difference reflected in the two estimates referenced in the 10-2-08 letter from the State falls within the discretionary tolerances anticipated by OAR 660-024-0030 that the forecast is an estimate that should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. 4. A concern that the Eugene population represents 44.8% of the county-wide total but the 20-year projection of 221,515 represents 51% (51.4% actually). The attachment does not allocate Eugene’s share of the 31,430 people in the urban transition area. By deducting Springfield’s allocation of 7,125 Eugene is left with 24,305; when this figure is combined with the certified figure of 153,690 the total allocation becomes 177,995 or 51.8% of the county-wide total, a proportional share that clearly falls within the discretionary tolerances foreseen in OAR 660-024-0030. 5. A concern that Springfield is allocated all of the 20-year population projected outside city limits but within the urban growth boundary. The preceding explanation addresses this concern; a safe harbor population forecast for Eugene and Springfield maintains the existing proportion of urban transition area population for Eugene (72.8%) and Springfield (27.2%) through the 20-year planning period. This precise distribution is reflected in the population figures that appear on page 1 of this report. 14 Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. The proposed amendment will provide a separate population forecast for Eugene and a separate population forecast for Springfield out to the year 2029. No other changes to the Metro Plan are included in this proposal. These changes do not affect Metro Plan consistency with this goal and in any case, this goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. (See also OAR 660-024-0020) Goal 4 – Forest Lands To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state’s forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. The proposed amendments do not affect Metro Plan consistency with this goal and in any case, this goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. (See also OAR 660-024-0020) Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. The Cities have finished all work required under Goal 5 during the most recent Periodic Review (completed in 2007). Population projections alone do not impact land inventories; subsequent analysis of these inventories may proceed with the population figures, but that analysis and subsequent actions must observe applicable goals, statutes and rules. The proposed amendment does not affect acknowledged Goal 5 inventories so this proposal does not create an inconsistency with the goal. (See also OAR 660-023) Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. This goal is primarily concerned with compliance with federal and state environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources. An adopted population forecast for a new 20-year period has no direct affect on or applicability to this goal. Any actions affecting inventories or land use or development that occur as a result of the population 15 forecast are subject to the applicable goals, statutes and rules at the time those actions are undertaken. Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards. The Metro Plan and the City’s development code are acknowledged to be in compliance with all applicable statewide land use goals, including Goal 7. Population forecasts adopted into the comprehensive plan do not affect land use, development, or inventories. Subsequent actions based upon these forecasts and that may impact this goal are required to address this applicability during the public review and hearings process. This goal is unaffected by a new or amended population forecast. Goal 8 – Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. Unlike planning for its residential, commercial or industrial land needs under Goals 9 and 10, planning for a city's recreational needs is largely a matter of local choice. The applicable statutes, Statewide Planning Goals and administrative rules are not prescriptive as to the amount of park land that a city must have to serve its population. Willamalane and the City of Springfield co-adopted the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan in 2004. This plan has a recommended standard of two acres of park land for each 1,000 population. The 2004 plan projects an increase of 25,000 citizens by the end of the adopted 20-year planning horizon (2022).3 Willamalane is a special service taxing district with the authorization to purchase, develop and maintain park facilities, but it has no authority or obligation for Goal 8 compliance; that responsibility lies with the City of Springfield after coordinating with the Park District. The Metro Plan has a horizon of 2015 therefore Willamalane’s standard of two acres per 1,000 residents is a valid standard to the year 2015; anything beyond 2015 is not applicable to the Metro Plan even though Willamalane’s plan extends to 2022. In the event Springfield adopts a new population forecast that extends the planning period to 2029 or later and there are subsequent impacts on the buildable lands inventories, the City will coordinate with Willamalane throughout these actions to maintain Goal 8 compliance through the new planning period of 2029. 3 Page A-4, Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan 16 Goal 9 – Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens. The adoption of the population forecast does not directly affect this goal. The amendments do not affect the amount of land designated or zoned for commercial use and will have no direct impact on the existing supply of or any existing commercially designated land. Therefore, the proposed code amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9. Adopting a new population forecast consistent with ORS 195.034 is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-024-0040 and OAR 660-009 Economic Development. Goal 10 – Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The cities are required by ORS 197.304 to complete part of the Goal 10 process (ORS 197.296(3)) within two years of the effective date of the Act. The ORS 197.296(3) determination involves the inventory, supply and demand analysis of residential land use needs for the forecast population of the 20-year planning period; this determination cannot occur without a population forecast. Adopting this new population forecast is also consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-008 Interpretation of Goal 10 Housing and OAR 660-0024 Urban Growth Boundaries because, once again, the population forecast must be adopted into the comprehensive plan before the residential lands determination can be confirmed and adopted into the comprehensive plan. The amendments do not impact the supply of residential lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 10. Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. A population forecast does not directly affect the public facilities plan until the buildable lands inventories necessary to support that forecast are adjusted. The location and/or density increases that will occur to support the new forecasts must be provided with adequate levels of urban services. In the event Springfield adopts new inventories or makes adjustments to permitted densities causing greater demand for public infrastructure, the City will evaluate these services and where necessary, propose additional Metro Plan amendments in compliance with this goal. 17 Goal 12 - Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. 4 The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is implemented at the local level. The TPR (OAR 660-012-0060) states that amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. The proposed amendment does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. Therefore, Goal 12 is not implicated by this amendment. Goal 13 – Energy Conservation To conserve energy. 3. Land use planning should, to the maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and re-use vacant land and those uses which are not energy efficient. There are no requirements in the rule or statute that require the energy element of the plan to be amended to correspond with the new population forecast. Any subsequent changes to land use designations, including adjustments to the UGB must comply with the applicable provisions of this goal and interpretive rules. Goal 14 – Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. A new population forecast does not affect the existing UGB but the establishment of, or change to, a UGB cannot be undertaken unless there is an adopted population forecast for the 20-year period upon which the buildable lands inventories are based. Since this determination, and hence the application of Goal 14, cannot occur without the population 4 The text of Goal 12 only specifies the required elements of a transportation plan. 18 forecast, the cities must adopt a new population forecast to comply with the provisions of ORS 197.296 and ORS 197.304, the latter of which extends the planning horizon for Eugene and Springfield to 2029. The proposed amendment to Page I-1 is consistent with these statutes and with OAR 660-024, the rule interpreting Goal 14 Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. A population forecast has no direct affect on the implementation or continued compliance with Goal 15 as there is no direct affect on land use designations, densities or development standards as a result of a new population forecast. In the event that actions by the governing bodies subsequent to adoption of a new population forecast results in changes to designations, development standards or densities, those changes must be evaluated against all applicable goals, statutes and rules. Such evaluations will include Goal 15. Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources These goals do not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area. (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. 20-year population forecasts are necessary to comply with the new laws adopted by the 2007 Oregon legislature. Arguably, these new laws effectively pre-empt certain provisions of the Metro Plan that might otherwise appear to stand in contradiction to new and separate population forecasts for each city: “Notwithstanding an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to ORS 190.003 to 190.130 or acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary, a city within Lane County that has a population of 50,000 or more within its boundaries shall meet its obligation under ORS 197.295 to 197.314 separately from any other city within Lane County.” (ORS 197.304(1)) The currently adopted UGB population forecast of 286,000 and the adopted planning horizon of 2015 are found in various chapters throughout the text of the Metro Plan, TransPlan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan. This figure and planning horizon date are the result of actions that took place during the 13 years between 1994 and 2007 when Eugene, Springfield and Lane County were complying with the requirements of periodic review of the Metro Plan. The cities must now complete a new set of state- mandated tasks that will result in a number of amendments to the Metro Plan, including 19 new, separate UGBs; new, separate buildable lands inventories; new, separate population forecasts; and a new 20-year planning horizon. The cities are proceeding with the new population forecast first because the inventories and UGBs must be based on an adopted population forecast (OAR 660-024-0040); neither City has ever had a separate population forecast that matched its municipal authority (city limits and future city limits as represented in the urban transition area). It is not necessary to replace all existing references to the 286,000 population forecast or the 2015 horizon because the proposed text adopting an alternate “safe harbor” population forecast with a 2029 horizon is not inconsistent with the 2015 forecast that is the basis for the current Metro Plan. The conversion of the Metro Plan to bring it into compliance with the new law will occur over time as work progress (UGBs, inventories, planning horizons, etc.). Existing Metro Plan policies do not foresee the obligations of this new law therefore there are no policies or sections of policies responsive to the changes that must be made to the text of the Metro Plan. See also the preface to Goals compliance on pages 9 and 10 of this report. Attachments 1. June 25, 2008 letter to the Lane County Board of Commissioners from Eugene and Springfield Planning Directors requesting safe harbor population forecast 2. July 21, 2008 e-mail from Springfield staff to Lane County staff requesting inclusion of language in proposed Board action to allow jurisdictions to seek safe harbor population forecasts while the County undertakes new coordinated population forecasts 3. Copy of Notice of Proposed Amendment sent to Department of Land Conservation and Development on August 27, 2008 specifying the cities of Eugene and Springfield were proposing a safe harbor population forecast to be adopted into the Metro Plan 4. October 2, 2008 comment letter from the Department of Land Conservation and Development to the City of Springfield regarding the proposed safe harbor population forecast proposed for inclusion in the Metro Plan 5. October 6, 2008 letter to the Mayors and Administrators of the ten incorporated cities in Lane County from the Eugene and Springfield planning directors advising that Eugene and Springfield were seeking safe harbor population forecasts and that the initial public hearing on the matter was scheduled for the planning commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County on November 6, 2008 in the Springfield City Hall. 6. Work sheet for determining “safe harbor” population forecast for Eugene and Springfield. 20 Calculating Safe Harbor Population (ORS 195.034(2) “(a) Basing the proposed forecast on the population forecast prepared by the Office of Economic Analysis for the county for a 20-year period that commences when the city initiates the evaluation or amendment of the city’s urban growth boundary; and (b) Assuming that the urban area’s share for the forecasted county population determined 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 most recent data for the urban area published by the United States Census Bureau.” Certified Population (2007) % of County % of Metro Area Lane County 343,140 N/A N/A Eugene 153,690 44.7% 73% Springfield 57,320 16.7% 27% Estimated Urban Transition Area Population 31,430* Eugene allocation @ 73% of Metro Area: 22,893 Springfield allocation @ 27% of Metro Area: 8,537 Total Population % of County % of Metro Area Eugene 176,583 51.46% 72.8% Springfield 65,857 19.19% 27.2% OEA Forecast for Lane County 2029 2030 426,108 430,454 Safe Harbor Forecast Eugene @ 51.46% of County 219,275 221,515 Springfield @ 19.19% of County 81,684 82,616 * Estimates by LCOG, 2004, derived from total residential addresses in the urban transition area by dwelling unit type, 2000 Census data for average household size for owner-occupied/renter-occupied and average vacancy rate for owner-occupied/renter- occupied.