HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6242 06/15/2009
ORDINANCE NO. 6242
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER I, INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE SECTION OF THE EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING A POPULATION FORECAST FOR THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FOR THE PERIOD 2010 - 2030 AND THE PERIOD 2030-2035, AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
WHEREAS, ORS 197.304 requires the City of Springfield to establish, separately from any other
city in Lane County, an urban growth boundary (UGB), consistent with the jurisdictional area of
responsibility specified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and, demonstrate by December 31,
2009 that its comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within its UGB established pursuant
to statewide planning goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years as provided in ORS
197.296; and
WHEREAS, Statewide Land Use Goal 14 (the Urbanization Goal) requires establishment and
change of UGBs to be based on demonstrated need to accommodate long rang urban population,
consistent with a 20-year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments; and
WHEREAS, Oregon Administrative Rule 660-024-0030 requires cities to adopt a 20-year
population forecast for the urban area into the comprehensive plan or in a document referenced by the
plan; and
WHEREAS, the Urbanization Goal and Oregon Administrative Rule 660-024-0040 require a city's
UGB to be based on the adopted 20-year population forecast for the city's urban area and also requires
that the city's UGB provide sufficient supplies of land 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
WHEREAS, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the sole
acknowledged comprehensive land use plan for Springfield; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Plan contains a single, metropolitan-wide UGB that is based on a single,
metropolitan-wide population forecast; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to have a 20-year forecast as soon as possible in order to
meet its obligations under ORS 197.304 by the statutory December 31,2009 deadline; and
WHEREAS, Lane County is in the process of adopting a countywide coordinated population
forecast and hopes to be able to adopt a 2030 forecast for Springfield's urban growth area by June 17,
2009 in time for the City to use the county's forecast in meeting its statutory obligation under ORS
197.304; and
WHEREAS, the City would prefer to use the County's forecast if it is adopted by June 17, 2009;
and
WHEREAS, the City has coordinated extensively with the county staff and the Lane County Board
of Commissioners in order to enable the City to use the County's coordinated forecast; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the County will adopt the following coordinated forecasts for the
Springfield urban growth area for the years 2030-2035 by no later than June 17, 2009:
2030: 81,607
2031: 82,251
2032: 82,895
2033: 83,539
2034: 84,183
2035: 84,827
WHEREAS, if these figures are adopted by the County on or before June 17,2009, the City
intends to adopt these figures as its coordinated population forecasts; and
WHEREAS, the City's population forecast consultants have confirmed that the county's
proposed forecast is well within the narrow 2-percent range of uncertainty for an alternative statutory
forecast because of mismatches between the boundaries of the urban growth area and census block
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, as a precaution in case a Lane County coordinated forecast is not in place in time for
the City to use it in meeting its statutory obligations, the City has complied with alternative statutory
procedures.
NOW, THERHORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Metro Plan, Chapter I, Introduction, Purpose section, is hereby amended to add
and provide as follows:
"In order to achieve timely compliance with the statutory obligation under 2007 Or Laws
Chapter 650, the City of Springfield separately adopts the following population forecast for
the 20-year planning periods ending in the years 2030-2035: City of Springfield Jurisdictional
Area: 2030: 81,607; 2031: 82,251; 2032: 82,895; 2033: 83,539; 2034: 84,183; 2035: 84,827."
Section 2: The findings set forth in attached Exhibit A are adopted as findings in support of this
Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 6242
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 15th day of June, 2009 by a vote
of _2_Jn favor and -Lagainst.
Approved by the ~'fbh~lt:fi~<bl~~ringfield this i5tlulay of June, 2009.
dJt;}ll!::~--
ATTEST:
I1w huJZL
City Record~
IPlE\!~H1f[) & APP~OV~D
Aq TO FORM
-J\:l ~~\.",,". ~ l E. A\t"1.
DATE:_~ll3J bct
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
Exhibit A, Page 1
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 For the Planning Period
Extending Through 2029 Extending Through 2030
The UGB west of 219,275 221,515
1-5 (Eugene)
The UGB east of 81,684 82,616
1-5 (Springfield)
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)
Exhibit A, Page 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 adoptedforecast 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 etseq.
2
Exhibit A, Page 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 cQnstant
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 ofORS 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(l)(a), and Lane Code
l2.225G)(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 orat 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.
3
Exhibit A, Page 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 ofORS
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.l4-135(C) ofthe Springfield Development Code; Eugene Code
9.7730(3) and Section l2.225(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)
4
Exhibit A - Page 5
Staff report and [mdings 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 Springfiel'd 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 1-1:
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 ursuant to 2007 Or Laws Cha ter 689:
For Planning Period For Planning Period
Extendin Through 2029 Extendin Through 2030
For that portion ofthe
Eugene-Springfield urban
growth boundary that lies
west of the Interstate 5
Highway
For that portion oftht:
Eugene-Springfield urban
growth boundary that lies
east of the Interstate 5
Hi hway
219,275
221,515
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
5
Exhibit A - Page 6
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 currentforecast 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 ofORS 197.610 to 197.650.
6
Exhibit A - Page 7
(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 ofORS 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.
7
Exhibit A - Page 8
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 ofland
needed for each needed housing type for the next 20 years."l
In order for the cities to determine the number of units and amount ofland 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 forec;ast
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.
lA 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]"
8
Exhibit A - Page 9
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 ofORS 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 ofInterstate 5; and
3) proceed with the determinations required by ORS 197.296 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 ~o be completed by January 1,2010 becomes so outdated that it no longer provides
a basis for demonstrating compliance with the requirement ofHB 3337 and ORS 197.296 that the new
UGB provide sufficient buildable lands to accommodate estimated housing needs for the nest 20 years.
9
Exhibit A - Page 10
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 ofthis
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 ofORS 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 ofORS 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.
10
Exhibit A - Page 11
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
11
Exhibit A - Page 12
. 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 emailas 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 ofthe city's written request for adoption ofthe
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
200~ 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 Cod~
(SDC) Chapter 5, Section 5.l4-135(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
12
Exhibit A - Page 13
''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
residentiallandsfor 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 UGBsand
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
13
Exhibit A - Page 14
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 occurin
phases, over time, so that these new population figures are properly matched with new
DGBs 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 DGBs (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.
Goall - 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.
14
Exhibit A - Page 15
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 ofORS 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
ofthe buildable lands, and conduct an analysis of housing needs to determine the number
of units and amount ofland 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
15
Exhibit A - Page 16
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 2 I-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 ofthe
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 ofthis 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.
16
Exhibit A - Page 17
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 of7,125 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 of63,798 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 of221,5l5 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 of7,125 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. .
17
Exhibit A - Page 18
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)
GoalS - 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
18
Exhibit A - Page 19
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 oflocal 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 oftwo acres of
park land for each 1,000 population. The 2004 plan projects an increase of25,000
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 of2015 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 of2029.
3 Pag~ A-4, Willama1ane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan
19
Exhibit A - Page 20
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 ofland 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.
GoallO - 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 ofthe 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 1 0 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 roral
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.
)
20
Exhibit A - Page 21
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 thfough 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 dQes riot 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 U GB 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.
21
Exhibit A - Page 22
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-I is consistent with
these statutes and with OAR660-024, 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 ofthe 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 of286,000 and the adopted planning
horizon of 20 15 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
22
Exhibit A - Page 23
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
oflanguage 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.
23