HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6248 10/19/2009
.';1' .....-'" !_.
ORDINANCE NO. 6248
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER I, INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE SECTION OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING SEPARATE POPULATION FORECASTS FOR THE CITIES OF SPRINGFIELD
AND EUGENE FOR THE PERIOD 2010 - 2030 AND INCLUDING THE YEARS 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034 AND 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 and the City of Eugene, separately from any other city in
Lane County, and based on the jurisdictional area of responsibility specified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan, to
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; 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 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the sole acknowledged
comprehensive land use plan for Springfield and Eugene; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Plan contains a single, metropolitan-wide population forecast; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for each city to have separate, 20-year forecasts extending to at least 2030 in order to
meet their obligations under ORS 197.304 by the statutory deadline of December 31, 2009; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2009 the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted into the lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan coordinated population forecasts for Springfield and Springfield's metro urban area east of 1-5 and
forecasts for Eugene and Eugene's metro urban area west of 1-5 through the year 2035; and
WHEREAS, the Cities have coordinated extensively with th'e county staff and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners during the preparation of the coordinated population forecasts and support the forecasts adopted by
lane County as an amendment to the lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the joint planning commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County conducted a public hearing on
September 1, 2009 on the proposed amendment of the Metro Plan adding population forecasts to the Metro Plan text for
Springfield and Springfield's metro urban area east of 1-5; and Eugene and Eugene's metro urban area west of 1-5; and
where one person testified on this proposal; and
WHEREAS, the joint planning commissions forwarded unanimous recommendations of approval to their
respective elected officials to amend the Metro Plan by adding population forecasts for Springfield and Springfield's
metro urban area east of 1-5 and Eugene and Eugene's metro urban area west of 1-5 prepared by Lane County and
adopted by Lane County on June lih, 2009 as Ordinance PA 1255; and
,;t
WHEREAS, the joint planning commission recommendation included adding the years 2031, 2032, 2033 and 2034
with corresponding population forecasts extrapolated from the Lane County adopted figures for the years 2030 and 2035
included in Ordinance PA 1255; and
WHEREAS, the planning directors of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County coordinated the hearings of the joint
planning commissions and the joint elected officials with the ten small cities in Lane County and with all interested parties
who had appeared before, or otherwise provided testimony to, the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County planning
commissions on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Conducted a joint public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan amendment, as
modified by the joint planning commissions, on September 22, 2009 with the Eugene City Council and the Lane County
Board of Commissioners, and has considered the testimony and evidence in the record of this proceeding and is now
ready to act on this proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 their statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of
Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopt the following forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas:
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Eugene - City Only
194,314
195,964
197,614
199,264
200,914
202,565
Metro Urban Area West of 1-5 17,469
17,274
17,079
16,884
16,689
16,494
Total
211.783
213.238
214.693
216.148
217.603
219.059
Springfield - City Only
74,814
75,534
76,254
76,974
77,693
78,413
Metro Urban Area East of 1-5 6,794
6,718
6,642
6,567
6,491
6,415
Total
81.608
82.252
82.896
83.541
84.184
84.828
These figures effectively provide coordinated projections ff?r each city and the respective metro urban area east or
west of 1-5 for years ending 2030 through 2035, enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginning
and ending years of the20-year planning period.
ORDINANCE NO. 6248
)
Section 2: The findings set forth in attached Exhibit A are adopted as findings in support of this Ordinance.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of 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.
Section 4: Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 of the Springfield
Municipal Code 1997, this ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of passage by the City Council and
approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of acknowledgement as provided in ORS 197.625, whichever date is later,
provided that by that date the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted
ordinances containing identical provisions to those described in Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 19thdayof Oc tober I 2009 by a vote of --Lin
favor and ~a~ainst.
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this 21stday of October2009.
(
Mayor
ATTEST:
~/~
City Recorder
~[~~~W[[D) ~' tQ~~~(0)~~[[))
AS TO FORM
8~.L (/c--~
DATE: /eJ/6 /o~
OFFICE OF CITY ATT RNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 6248
.;r:
EXHIBIT A - P1
Staff report and, findings of compliance with the Metro Plan
and Statewide Goals, Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon
Administrative Rules for proposed' Metro Plan Amendment
adopting Lane County's, coordinated population forecasts
for Eugene and Springfield
Applicant -
The Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County
File LRP 2009-00006: Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Met;ropolijan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
to provide Eugene and Springfield with separate, new 20-year population forecasts.
Nature oi the Application -
The applicants propose to amend the 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 forec~ for their respective jurisdictional areas:
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Eugene - City Only 194,314 195,964 197,614 199,264 200,914 202,565
Metro Urban Area West of 1-5 17,469 17,274 17,079 16,884 16,689 16,494 '
Total 211.783 213.238 214.693 216.14& 217.603 219.059
Springfield - City Only 74,814 75,534 76,254 76,974 ", 77,693 78,413
Metro Urban Area East of 1-5 6,794 6,718 6,642 6,567 "'6,491 6,415
Total 81.608 82.252 82..896 83.541 84.1 84 84.828
These figures effectively provide coordinated projections for each city's. urban growth area for years ending 2030 through
2035, enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginning and ending years, of the 20-year planning
period. "
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 Eug~e 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 ofresponsibility
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 accnmmodate estimated housing needs for 20 years.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 4
;r
EXHIBIT A - P2
In addition to,the two actioDS descnned above, the statute also requires the demonstration in (b) to be completed
by December 31, 2009.1 '
In order for the cities to comply with this statutory provision, a new papulation 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: A
city may choose to. adapt its forecas.t into a separate plan document specific to its jurisdictional ,area as well ,as
into the main plan text)
LCDC's Urbanization Goal, also kno.wn as Gaal14, was amended in 2006 to. require that Urban Growth
Boundaries be consistent witlt a ''2O-year forecast." LCDC's interpretive rules flesh this req'Quement 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 197.036J and must provide for needed housing,
employment imdother urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools parks and
open space over the 20-year planning period consistent ..,vith 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 methodolog:U!S, should not be held to an unreasor.ahly high level
of precision.
(4) The determination of 20-year reside.".tialland needs for an urban area m~t be consistent
with the adopted 20-year co~rdinated population forecast for the urban area, and with the
requirements for determining, housing, needs in Goal 1 O,OAR 660, division 7 or 8, and
applicable provisions afORS 197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490.
Metro Plan Amendment Criteria
The proposed amendment is a non-site specific amendment of the Plan text. Therefore it is classified as Type I
Metro Plan amendment that requires participation and adoption by all three governing b(jdies. Springfield,
Eugene and Lane County adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their respective implementing
ordinances and codes. Springfield DevelopmentCode (SDC) Chapter 5" Section 5.14-135(C) (1 & 2), Eugene
Code 9.7730(3), and Lane Code 12225(2) (a & b) include criteri~ 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 staffresponses fill the remaining pages of this report; ho.wever, all of
the following :findings are :made subject to. the reservation that they may' be who.lly or partially pre-empted bY'
ORS 197.304(1) which says that"Notwithstanding an interg9vemmental ,agreement.. .. or ,acknowledged
comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary;" the ,cities of Eu:gene and Springfield shall both:
(a) establish separate 20-year urban growth ba,mdaries, and
(b) demonstrate that th.eir separate boundaries provide stdficient huildable residential lands for
the next 20 years as required by ORS 197.296~
1 "Sec.3 A local govemmeJ?t that is subject to section 2 oftbis 2007 Act [197304] shall complete the inventory, analysis and
determination required under 0&5 197.296(3) to begin compliance with section 2 oftbis 2007 Act within two years after the effective
date of this 2001 ~{January 1~ 2003]" ,
ATTACHMENT 1 - 5
)"
EXHIBIT A - P3
( a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide nlannin!! 20als adonted bv the Land
Conservation ,and DeveloDment 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 co~iderable 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 adm;Tli~:trative rule that says how you interpret
this law; and there is no precedent elsewhere to use as a model for this action. Eugene and Spr..ngfield have a
single metro-wide UGB;theywill soon have separate municipal DGBs. Eugene and Springfield have shared a
single metro-wide buildable lands inventory because of the single UGB; they will soon have separate buil<hIDle
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 and single buildable lands
inventory; now they must begin this compliance process by adopting sep.a.-rate population forecasts into a
comprehensive plan that still recognizes the current single, shared UGBand a smgle, shared buildable lands
~~~. .
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 adoptirig a new population fo~.cast; the proposed
amendment says we are undertaking this action to achieve timely compliance with the stiitutory obligations of
the law. Timely compliance is a reference to the deadline imposed by our statutory ,obligations but also is meant
to convey that we recognize the extent of this obligation ,and ,are be~nnln,g with the fiIst step~
Inserting the new coordinated forecasts and explanatory text on the first page on the first page of the first
chapter of the Metro Plan provides the proper context for tmderstanding how it relates to the,rest of the Metro
Plan. What might oth~ be.seen as ,aconflid: with different population figures 'and related findings
elsewhere in the Plan is resolved- by the ,explicit requirements of the 2007 statute and by the context ,and
language of the amendment. In short: The new forecasts implement that statute. They address, a new 20-year
planning period. The Metro Plan will evolve from its pre-HB3337 content and structure in phases as the cities
~mplete their remaining implementation obligations under the new law, based on the new forecasts~
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.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 6
'..-
:r
EXHIBIT A - P4
Goall - ~en Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program thai insures the opportunity for. citizens to be involved
in all phases of the planning process.
No amendments to acknowledged citizen involvement programs are proposed. 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, prescribes 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 urb3.? 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 ina newspaper of general circulation; and notice to the Department of Land Conservation and .
Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the initial evidentiaryhea..ring (planning commission).'
Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was mailed on August 21, 2009; notice was published in the
Register-Guard on August 21,2009; neighborhood associations were mailed notice on August 21, 2009; notice
of the first evidentiary he&-ing was provided to DLCD on JUly 16,2009; notice oftbis proposal and the joint
planning commission hearing was sent to the cities of Florence, Dunes City, Veneta, JWlction City, Coburg,
Creswell, Lowell, West Fir, Oakridge, and Cot"w.ge Grove on August 17,2009. Another letter was sent to these
same cities on September 10, 2009 notifying the elected officials that the joint planning coIDII1issioDS of
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County had conducted a public hearing on September 1, 2009 and that the results
of that hearing was a unanimous reco.mmendation from the planning commissions supporting the Metro Plan
text amendment as it appears on the first page of these findings u:b.der the heading Nature of the Application.
This same letter also included a;nnouncement of the Joint elected officials hearing on the planning commission
recommendation to. 'be conducted on September 22,2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Library Meeting Room of
Springfield City Hall.
Requirements under Goall are met by adherence to the citizeninvolvemen:t processes required by the Metro
Plan and implemented by the Springfield Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14-1?5, Eugene ,Code
Section 9.7735, and Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240. .'.
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 (0 take into
account changing public policies and circumstances~ in accord with a schedule set farth in the
plan.' Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected
gavemmen.tal units during preparation review and revision of plans and implementation
ordinances.
Implementation Measures .-:... are the means used to cahy out the plan. These are of two general
types: (1) management implementation measures such as ordinances, regulations or project
plans, and (2) site 07 area specific implementation measures such as permits and grants for .
construction, construction of public facilities or provision of services.
\
ATTACHMENT 1 - 7
:r
EXHIBIT,A - P5
The current v~ion 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 specmcallyto 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, ,
make a determIDation based on th~ provisions of ORS '197296 that there are suffiCient buildable lands within
these UGBs to accommodate projected growth for the next 20 years, and to make this determination by
December 31, 2009. In respopse 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 beginning at
the date scheduled for completion of this action by statute (12/31/09), and vlith 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 };Jetro P/a-1'l 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 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,
Springfield and Lane County to adopt into the Metro Plan the coordinated population forecast prepared by Lane
County and adopted into the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan on June 17, 2009.
Go~d 3 - Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
The proposed amendment will provide a separate population forecast for Eugen~ and a separate population
forecast for Springfield out to the year 2035. 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 w;iopted, 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 maldng possible economically oefficient forest practices that' assure the continuous
growing and harvesting of forest tree species as th~ 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 adopt~d, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. (See also OAR 660-024-0020)
ATTACHMENT 1 - 8
'I'
EXHIBIT A
P6
Goal 5 - Op~:n 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 !he 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 L~d Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and Icrt1d resources of the state.
This goal is primari.1y concerned with compliance with federal and state environmental quality statutes, and how
this compliance is achieved as development proceed$ 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 dev'elopment that occur as a result of the population
forecast are subj ect to the applicable goals, ~..atutes 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 development ordinances of each city 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, ~ 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.
Go~d 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 recreationql facilities including destination resorts.
Willamalane and the City cQ-aclppted the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan in 2004. This plan has a
recommended standard of ~ ~res of park land for each 1,000 population. The 2004 plan projects an increase
of25,OOO citizens by the end of the adopted 20-year planning horizon (2022).2 Willamalaneis a special service
taxing district with the authorization to purchase, develop an4 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 Willanialane's ~dard 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 2030 or later and there are subsequent impacts on the buildable lands inventories,
the City will coordinate with Will~alane throughout these actions to maintain Goal 8 compliance through the
new planning period of 2030.
2 Page A-4, Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan
ATTACHMENT 1 - 9
EXHIBIT A P7
Goal 9 - Eco~omic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital
to the heaZth, welfare, and prosperity .of Oregon's citizens.
ORS 197.304 does not require an analysis of commercial, and industrial lands inventories; the ORS 197296
determination applies only to residential inventories; and OAR 660-024-0040 allows a local government to
review and amend the U GB "in consideration of one category of land need (for example, housing need) without
a simultaneous review and amendment in consideration of other categories of land need (for example,
employment need)." (OAR 660-024-0040(3)). The cities have chosen to exPand the inventory analysis to
include commercial and industrial land, both of which rely upon the same population forecast required by OAR
660-024-0040(1). The adop~on of the population forecast does not directly affect this goal; however, the
.activities subsequent to the adoption of the population forecast will rely on this forecast as a basis for actions
pursuant to the applicable goals. Adopting a new population forecast consistent with ORS 195.036 is consistent
with the provisions of OAR 660-024-0040 and OAR 660-009 Economic Development.
Goal 1 0 - Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens -of the state.
The cities are required by ORS 197.304 t~ undertake an ORS 197.296 determination within two years of the
effective date of the Act. The ORS 197.296 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.
Ad9pting 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..
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of pu:blic facilities and services
to ~,erve as a frameworkfor urban and rural development.
A population forecast does not directly affect the public facilities plan until the buildable lands inventories
necessary to support that fo~ec~ 'are adjusted. The location ap.d/or density increases that will occur to support
the new forecasts inust 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, propo.se additional Metro Plan amendments in
compliance with this goal. .
Goal 12 .. Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
The transportation system plan is similar to the public facilities and services plan in that the transportation
system is designed to a~commodate future growth at densities prescnoed in the plan's policies. Land
development cannot occur in the absence of infrastructure and, that includes transportation; but neither the goal
ATTACHMENT 1 -10_
.
EXHIBIT A P8
nor the O~ require an analysis of this service before changes are proposed to the inventories,3 even though
those inventory changes cannot occur without the population forecast The obligation in 197.304 to adopt new
population forecasts before the inventory analysis is completed is consistent with the purpose' and timing of
transportation analysis required by Goa112; OAR 660-12 Transportation and OAR 660-024 Urban Growth
Boundaries.
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 oftbis goal and interpretive rules. .
Gcal14 - 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 UGE 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
bl:lildable lands inventories are based. Since this determination, and hence the application of Goal 14, cannot
occur without the population 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 P,age I-I is consistent with these statu1es and with OAR 660-
024, the rule intei-preting Goa114. '...
The preparation of the' Lane County coordinated population 'forecast was undertaken in accordance with the
guidelines and standards of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-024-0030(1 & 2) and with ORS 197.610 to
197.650 as evidenced in the findings adopted by the Lane County Board of Commissioners on June 17, 2009 in
support of Ordinance P A 1255 In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP)
to Include a Coordinated Popu1~tlbn Forecast for Lane County and Each Urban Area within the County
(Attachment 5). The cities of Eugene and Springfield are completing the requirements of the law regarding
population forecasts by adopting the County's coordinated population forecast into the comprehensive plan
(Metro Plan).
3 In fact, the, transportation planning rule requirements i:p. OAR 660-012-0060 requiring an impact analysis on transportation systems
as a resuh ofUGB amendments '~eed not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land,
either by retaining the zoning that ~ assigned prior to inclusion in the bQundary or by assigning interim. zoning that ,does not allow
develqpment that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the
boundary." (OAR 660-024-0020(1) (d).' ,
ATTACHMENT 1 - 11
EXHIBIT A - P9
Goal 15 - Wipamette 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
Gree7!Way. .
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, statutesap.d rules. Such evaluations will include Goal ~ 5.
Goa116 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands~ Goal 18 Beache8 and Dunes, 9d Goal 19
04;ean Resources .
These goals do not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
(b) Adontion of the amendment must not make the ,Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The proposed population forecasts are necessary to comply with the new laws adopted by the 2007 Oregon
legislature. 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 contraryJ a city within Lime 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 adopted UGB population forecast of286,000 and the adopted planning horizon of2pi5 are found in
various chapters throughout the text of the Metro Plan, TransPlan and the Public Faciliti~s 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 new, separate UGBs; new, separate buildable lands inventories;
new, separate population forec~; and a new 20-year planning horizon. .
The cities are proceeding with ilie 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 ~ad 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 amendment references the preemptive language ofORS 197.304 and ,
because 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 '5 and 6 of this
report.
ATTACHMENT 1 -12
'.~
EXHIBIT A - P10
- Attachments -
1. Copy of Notice of Proposed Amendment sent to Department-of Land Conservation and Development on July
16, 2009 specifying the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County were proposing separate population
forecasts for each city and urban tninsition area to be adopted into the Metro Plan
2. August 17, 2009 letter to the Mayors .and Administrators of the ten incorporated cities in Lane County, and an
August 18, 2009 letter to known interested parties, from the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County planning
directors advising that Eugene, Springfield and Lane County were proposing to adopt the County's new,
separate population forecasts for.each city into the Metro Plan. The initial public hearing on the matter was
scheduled for the planning cQ!llI11issions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County on September 1, 2009 in the
Springfield City Hall. The joint elected officials would conduct a subsequent public hearing on S~tember 22,
2009 also in Springfield City Hall.
3. Draft MinUtes of the Joint Planning Commission hearing of September 1, 2009
4. September 10, 2009 letter to Mayors and Administrators of the ten incorporated cities in Lane County and
, lmown inter~sted parties, from the Springfield Planning Manager on behalf of the Eugene and Lane County
Planning Directors, advising of the action taken by the joint planning commissions on September 1, 2009 and
notification of the joint elected officials hearing on September 22, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Springfield City
Hall. '
5. Lane County Agenda Item Memo (May 18, 2009); Ordinance No.. P A 1255; Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan General Policies 1984, updated June 2009; Findings in Support of Ordinance No. P A
1255; and cover page and link to Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area
2008-2035, May 2009. .'
ATTACHMENT 1 - 13
EXHIBIT A - P11
.
!1
DLCD Notice of
Proposed Amendment
in person 0 ei.:ctronlc 0 mailed 0 '
..
THIS FORM: MUST BE RECEIVED BY DLCD AT LEAST
45 DAyS PRIOR TO THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY BEARING
PER ORS 197.610, OAR CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 18
t ~'r IJLCD t !'SI.:' ( 1111~
Jurisdiction: City of Springfield, Eugene and lane County Date of First Evidentiary Hearing': 09/0~J21l09"
Local HIe Number. LRP2009-00006 Date af.Final Hearing: 09122/2009
Is this ~ REVISION to a preViQ~5ly submitted proposal'? Dyes ~No D~e submitted: July 16, 2009
f.81 Comprehensi1Je Plan Text Am€ndment 0 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
o Land Use Regulz-Jon Amendment 0 Zoning Map Amendment
0' New'Land Use Regulation 0 Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
o Transportation System Plan Amendment 0 Other:.
Briefly Summarize Proposal. Do not use technical terms_ Do (lot write IISee AttachedJl(Iimit 500 characters):
The Cities ofEug~ne, Spr1ngfi~ld and Lane County are proposing to adopt cnordinated population
foreasts prepared lTf Lane Coun1y for the two cities into the Eugene-Springfie1d Metropolitan Ar~a
General Plan.. The Lane County Board of Commjs~oners adopted these two projections into the Rural
Comp~hensive Plan on June 17, 2~09. This proposed amendment is consistent with the int~~t, purpose
and expns~ language of ORS, 195.036 .
Has sufficient information been included to advise DLCDcf the effect of proposal? ~Yesl text is includ€d
For ~ap Changes: JncJude8:h~11D maps of Current and Proposed designation. 0 YesJ.M'ap~ Inclu.ded
, Plan map changed from: To:
Zone map changed from: Tc~. .~.
Location of property (do not use Tax lot):
Previous density: New density: Acres involved:
Applicable statewide planning goals: .
b 2 3 4 '5 6 7 08 r& 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19.
~~DOOOO ~[g]DDD[g]D~DOO
Is an exception to a statewide.'pl~ning goal proposed? 0 YES I8l NO G~ls:
Affected state or federal agencies, local governments or special dis.tricts O~ is jurlsdictionJsresponsibiJity to notify these
agencies. DLeO only records this information): :
School District #19; School District #4.J; Springfield lltilitY Board; Eugene Water and Electric 'Board;
Willamalane Park and Recreaii1lD District.
Local Contact Gregor,. Matt, P~g Manager, CO~
Address: 225 Fifth Street
Fax Number: 541-729-3689
phone: 541-726-3774". Extension: 3774
City: Springfield Zip: 97477
E-mail Address: gmott@d.springtield..or.u3
OLeo file No.
ATTACHMENT 1 -14
'.
. .
EXHIBIT A - P12
SPRJNGFIELD \
'."A,
SUBJECT:
June 24, 2009 .
Larry French, Plan Amendment Program. Spe;cialist
Gregory- Matt, Planning Manager, City of Springfield
Lisa Ga:r~er, Planning :pirector, City of Eugene
Kent Hu!ye, Planning Director, Lane County ,
Proposed Amendment of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Gen~ Plan:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Adopting a ~oordinated" p~pulation forecast prepared by"Lane County for
Eugene and for Sp~g:field for the years 2010-2035..
,Local File No. of Initiating Jurisdiction: LRP 2009-00006
Local File No. of Co-Applicants
Dear Mr. French:
As you k:now~ Eugene, Springfield and Lane County co-adopted the Euge~e-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Nfetro Plan) in 1982 as this metropolitan area's comprehensive
land use plan. What you may not know is that certain provisions of the Metro Plan require all
threejurisdictionsto co-adopt amendments; other provisions require one of the two 'cities and the
county to co-adopt amendments; and yet other provisions require only a single jurisdiction to
adopt an amendment. To lessen the confusion that such an arrangement might cause for your
agency, the planning director's of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County will from.this point ,
forward submit a letter COTrfiTTT1;ng our participation, as appropriate, with each noti.c~ of proposed
amendment On hehalf of the City of Springfielq, the city of Eugene and Lane Courity, this
letter serves as confirmation that all three jurisdictions are co-applicants for the abov~ referenced
post-aclrn.owledgment plan amendment proposal. If you have .any questions regarding this
matte;r please contact any ofus at your convenience. .
~v ". ~
.~ott ":, \
Planning Manager, City of Springfield
Us~~er~ ~
Plann;" e Director, City of Eugene
.
Br ( 5:( L- FiJI--
Kent Howe .
Planning Director, Lane Cotmty
ATTACHMENT 1 - 15
EX H IS I T A - P 1 3
ProPosed Text Amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
2004 Update
Add the following text as the third paragraph of Chapter 1, Introductipn Purpose Section
on Page I-I of the Metro Plan:
In order to achieY,e timely compliance with their statutory obHganoDS under 2007
Or Laws Chapter"liS{) the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopt
the fonowing coordinated p(}pula1ion forecasts for their nspedive julisdi&;tional
areas for the plg:nnrng periods ending in the years 2030 and 2035: '
City ofE~gene Jurisdictional !\real
For the year 2030:
For the year 2035:
City of Springfield Jurisdictional Area2
210,216
219,059
For the year 2030:
For the year 2035:
81,608
84,828
1 Includes all land withiri the mban"growth b~dary West ofI-5
2 Includes all land within the urban growth boundary east of 1-5
ATTACHMENT 1 - 16
.
. I
".
LA..NE COUNTY
RURAL CO~SIVE PLAN
GENERAL PLAN POUCIF51984
".
,
-.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 17
EXHIBIT A - P14
EXHIBIT A
FlNAlFORMAT
.
UPDATED:
January 1'998
April2003 .
August 2003
December 2003
February 2004
January 2005
February 2008
June 2009
"'-
EXHIBIT A - P15
TABLE OF CON1E'ITS
Introductm:y Material ,1
Introductiop to the Rural Comprehensive ~1
~troducti.on to the Policies Component 3
History of the Policies Document 3
Cities} Conmnmities and Rmal Lands 1.
Implementation 6
Part I:
Part II:
Lane"t:ounty General Plan Policies
Citizen Involvement
Land Use Planning
Agrlcnltmal Lands
Forest Lands
Open Spaces)' Scenic and :Historic Areas and Natural ResOUIces
H:j.storic Resources
:Nf..ineral & Aggregate Resources
Flora & Fauna
Open Spaces & Scenic Areas
Energy
WateI' Resources
AIr, Water and Land Resources
Water Quality
AIr Quality
Goal Seven: Areas Subject to Natural D:isasters & Hazards
Goal Eight Recreational Needs
Goal Nme: Economy of the State
Goal Te:rt H~g
Goal Eleven: Public Facilities & Services
Goal Twelve: Transportation
Goal Thirteen: Energy Conservation
, Goal Fourteen: Urbanization
Goal F~.... "'. Willamette Greenway
Part ITI; Coastal Resobxces Management Plan Poli.cie~
Goal One:
Goal Two:
Goal Three:
Goal FOUI:
Goal Five:
Goal Six:
,.
Goal Sixtee:n= Estuarine ResOUl'ces
Goal Seventeen: . Coastal Shore lands
Goal Eighteen: Bea4tes and Dunes
Goal Nineteen; Ocean Resources
, ATTACHMENT 1 - 18
EXHIBIT A - P16
PART 1= INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
A. INTRODUCTION TO THE RURAL CO~REHENSIVE PLAN
The Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan applies to all unincorporated lands Within the
, County beyond the Urban Growth Boundaries of incorporated cities in the County and
beyond the boundary of the Eugene-S~gfield Metropolitan Area Plan.. Where these lands
are beyond County~jurisdiction (such as National FOl'est lands), the Plan applies but its
application is regulated by federal law. In addition, it does contain provisions and
, representations of County positions on various issues, to be used by those agencies, such as tb..e
US Forest Service, in their O"WIl. ID.anagementactionsl and also useq, in theeve:t:J.t thatJands r..ot
in County jurisdiction enter County jurisdiction. '
The Plan follows the format of the LCDC State'wide Planning Goals, recognizing that they
. must be met by an local jurisdictions in Oregon. It is composed of two majO!' elemerits:
1. County General Plan Policies: For each LCDC Goal, there are one at more Policies to be
applied by the County toward land use and other planning" and re5ource.:.management
issues] in the interests of compliance with sound pla.TIDing principles and statewide
planning law. Po1:icies are binding commitments, but will be carried out within
established work progr~ and over aD. County priorities. The application of Policies
which call for any programs or studies will occur as County resources in terms of bpth
staff and budgetary allocations pe:tmit
2 Plan Diagrams: Two majOI' pI.a:nni:ng regions axe identified for Lane County-the Coastal '
Region and the Inlimd Region For each;. deta;iled representations of land use axe
depicted on maps, on Plan Diagrams. Land ~e regulation methods,~ch, as ~onin~ are
applied to carry out the intent of the designationsw The application of the g~eral plan is
. primarily through zoning. In fact plarming and zoning designations axe sef.forth on the
same map.
Cllart One diagrams the relationShip of these elements, and also indicates :relationships with
other portions of the County Comprehensive Plan. '
. .. , .
The document now-. b~oie the :reader' is one of the wo above compon~1s-the County
General Pla:nPolicies~'doCument The Policies document is the broad, direction-setting portion
of the ~ and lays oat approaches for inteJ:p1'etation of County planning needs and means
of complying with State of Oregon planning law. This law attaches great importance to local
jurisdictions having adopted comprehensive plans which in tum meet the requirements' of
Statewide Planning Goals. Accordingly, matters of interpretation conceming' the, General
Plan axe to be resolved in favor of compliance 'with these Goals, and the Plan itself shall be
:recognized as representing the Countys best effort :in meeting the requirements Of LCDC and
its policy 'expressionS, including Go~
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1 9
r-
~
a..
I
<C
I-
'-
OJ
-
:c
><
w
EUOENE":SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA PLAN
(Includes all land within plan boundaries )
SMALL AREA PLANS
XAMPLE:
ORrn SPRINGFillLD
PECIAL PURPOSE PLANS
EXAMPLES:
METRO BIKE PLAN I.
-2000 TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
CHART ONE
CONWREHENSlVEPL~NFORLANECOUNTY
(includes all adopted general and detailed plans)
PLANS "FOR SMALL INCORPORATED
CITIES
(Areas within Urban Growth
Boundaries but
outside City Limits)
_ COTTAGE GOVE
CRESWELL
OAKRIDGE
WESTFIR
PLAN
LOWELL
COBURG
JUNCTION CITY
VENETA
FLORENCE
DUNES CITY
LANE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
, (Includes all unincorporated. lands beyond
Metropolitan Plan Boundary and
Smlfll City Urban Growth Boundaries)
;'PLAN POLICIES
-COASTAL ]?LAN DIAGRAM
-INLAND PLAN DIAGRAM '
o
N
I
~
SINGLE PURPOSE PLAN'
(May include both metrq,
rural and small city areas) .
I-
Z
w
::2E
:c
(.)
<C
l-
I-
<C
EXAMPLES:
-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
-PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
-COASTAL IU!S9~CES MANAGEMENT PLAN
. .
. It""
,.
EXHIBIT A - P18
B. INTRODUCTION TO THE COUNTY POllCIFS CO:MPONENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN '
County Policies' axe broad.. somewhat g~ed statements that provide dIrection to
County decision make1'S In their efforts to choose betv-le€Il, competing uses .for given
resources.. and in their efforts to solve h;istoric problems and prevent new on~ from
occmring. The Policies cover complex topics and lay the groundwork fat fu.tu:re actions
of various kinds. The Policies expressed here apply to mral Lane County, outside of the
Urban Growth Bomu:laries of cities and beyond the Plan Diagram Boundary of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan They are designed to be '
comp'atible witn__ simi1at Policies-and planning efforts-of other gOV'emmental
ju:risdicti<;ms in the County.
In some respects, the Policies can be considered the bCkl"ia of the County plan, in that
they provide the leadl or the general d:ixecti~ for subsequent County actions to deal
with various land use and resource management d~ons. In doing so] they are
directly intended to fulfill the mandate of the LCDC statewide plararing Goals.
Four state-wide planning Goals are not addressed in this document the fO"ln: IICb~
Goalsll (LCDC Goals 16-19). These, and Policies connected with them, arelocated in a
special-purpose Coastal Resource Management Plan developed and adopted for use in
the CoCl$ta1 portion of the County. They should be used in concert -with the "basic
fifteen~' Goals. Since tlwJ axe special-purpose in nature, and deal more specifically with
particu1ar conce:z:nS of the Coastal area.. conflicts may arise or be generated between the
Coastal Policies and the "basic fifteenll and should be resolved in favor of ~e Coastal
Polides "!JI1ti1, and if One ox the other conflicting statem.ent is' changed to eliminate the
conflict .
The Willamette Greenway Goal is considered to Pe part of the If},asic fifteen". .'..
C. HISTORY OF THE POUCIES DOCUMENT
The Policies contained in this document were developed during a period of more ~
a year, begi:nning in early 1983. A process was devised at the beginning of the period
to utilize existing working papers and to prepare a series of new working papers
w~ along ~tft... ot1i.er sources, were to serve as the techniczu data based for the
Policies.. The ~ork!ng Papers were written and published frolIl mid-1981 to .eaxly
, 1984. ' Each Working Paper contained information on a given topic Ot topics, and a
number of them contained prelimi:nary Pqlicies which were drawn from the
, information in the Papers and which were presei:tted for initial discussion pmposes.
Hearings were held on the Papers as they were puP~d Each Planning Commission
- reported to the Board of COt1I1ty Commissioners containing its reaction to the Paper
and chaft Po1icies.. Often the Policy statements drew on sources other than the
Workirig Papers-existing County Plan information' (such as special-purpose plans or ,
technical studies),comments or testimony of individuals or groups appearing at the
hearings., the judgment and views of Planning cOmmission members and so on-and
so represented a ~oad array of perspectives and attitudes. Each Planning
ATTACHMm31 - 21
EXHIBIT A - P19
, Ct;1IIIIIIission Report cited infOl'II1atian used in Policy development, in order to provide
. a firm basis, for Policy use.. . The background infonnation, including the WorkiDg
Papers, is to be ~d to help l.r.lb,tJJ.et and lJIlderstand General ~ approaches but is
not itself desig;1ed to be ado.pted as legislative law. The BOald formally adopted the
Policies in February of 1984.
D. QTIES, COMMUNITIES AND RURAL lANDS
Dties
While'the Policies in this document are directed at Lane County govemment, 'it is
clearly recognized that the County :has a respOIlSlDility to, and must coordinate efforts
closely witJ.~, the incoIpOIated citi~s within its boundaries. Statewide plamring law
requires that each incOlpOIated citcjdevelop a..""1.d adapt its awn land use plan which
must: i:tself comply with LCDC, Goals., The plan must contain essentially the same
elements as the C01inty Gene:ra1 Plan, with an' additional element of. an identified
Urban Growth Boundary (required by' Goal 14). Futme urban growth fer each city is .
to take place within that Boundary. In the case ai the Eugene..Springfi.e1d Metropolitan
Area Plan, a mutual Boundary is adopted by both cities and. the County. For all o+l1er
cities~ the County must ratify the cities UGBs by mdependent evaluation of, and
adoption ~f, appropriate city plan provisions.
Through this method, the County becomes respo~le for ad:rrriniste1:ing the
provisions of city plans within the city UGBs but outside of the corporate city limits.
'cnnt Agreements for Planning Coordination" dra"WIl up between the County and each
city lay the frameWork for cooperative action in the effort. Policies concerning Goa114
in this doetmlent further indicate County postaIe towaxd city plans. County adoption
of' city plans-or' amendments thereto--e;n.suxes that cOnflicts between city plans and
Countj Plan do not readily OCCUI'. . "
BeyO?d canying out the responsibilities outlined above, OBS 195.036 xeqmre's that the ,
. coonty:
. .
"...establish and maintain apopziiatianforecastfor the entire area' within #3 boundary far U3e
in mo;intaining and updating comprehensive. plQJ13, and shan coordinate the forecast with the
local gavemmen~ wi.tfz~ its boundary. JJ .
.
Pursuant to this teqdirement and OAR 660-024-0030, coordinated population'forecasts
haVe been developed and are adopted for Lcu:te County and each of its urban areas.
These figores cqe included in Table 1.1, below. "...
The Coordinated Population Forecasts included in Table 1.1 were developed ror Lane
County by the Portland State University Population Research Center except as noted.
The methods, assumptions and data used to develop these forecasts are included in
PSU's J;'eport: Population Forecasts for Lane C~ty, i~ Cities. and Unincorporated
, Area 2008-2035 dated May 2009.
. Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1 - 22
'.-
EXHIBIT A,.- P20
Table 1.1: Coordinated Population Forecasts for ~ne County and its Urban Areas
Forecast Period: ' . 2010 2Q15 2020 2025 2029 2030 2035
Co burri' 1:103 1,387 1,394 2,628 3,216 3,363 4,251
In CottaGe Grove 9,957 10,a16 11 ,424 12,261 12,737 12,856 13,542
~
C3 Creswell 5,647 6802 8,263 9,758 1 0,799 11.060 12,172
"iii Dunes Cftv 1',457 1,542 1,840
E 1,726 1,767 1,m 1 ,82'3
C1J
~ Florence 11,212 12,355 .13,747 15,03:5 16,065 16,323 17,434-
c
::2 Junction City 6,567 9,343 10,799 12,067 12,922 13,136
c 13,887
c.J
CD Lowell ' - 1,043 1,228 1,459 1,714 1,960 2,022 2345
c
j OakridQe 3,859 4,290 4,672 4,866 5,022 5,061 5,280
,
Veneta 4,976 5,902 7,251 8,727 9,623 9,847 10,505
Westfir' ~5S 370 384 412 423 426 448
cu EUQene (city onlv) 156,844 166,609 176,124 185,422 192,536 Hi4,314 202,565
~ SorinQiield (citv onlv)
< 58,891 ' 62,276 66,5n 70,691 73,989 74,814 78.413
e Metro Urban Area West of Interstate-s- 20,931 19,209 . 18,521 17,680 17,469
15 20,380 16,494
:E ,
Metro Urban Area East of I nterstate-5"*'" a, 140 7,926 7,470 7j202 6,875 6,794 6A15
..
u:J EUQene/Sorincrfield Total UG8 Area 244,806 257,191 269,380 281,836 291,OaO 293,391 303,887
ta Unincorporated Area Outside all UGBs
~ 58,531 55,900 '54,344 52,861 52,381 52,261 51,634
Lane County Total 349,516 366,924 385,297 403,892 417.996 421,522 437,207
· C1ty of Coburg forecasts based upon analysis conducted by the firm Johnson and Reid and testimony provided by .city of Coburg
representatives to the Lane County Board of Commissioners on June 3, 2009.
- Forecast based upon a 72% allocation of the total Metro UTA West of 1-5 and a 28% anocation of the total Metro ttrA East of 1-5.
. .Any updateS or amendments to the fotecasts included in Table 1.1 ~y only Pe
initiated by Lane CotII1.i:y. Any individual or interested 'cities, however/'~Y make a
reqnest for the Board to initiate such an update or amendment Requests mast set forth. .
compelling reasons as to why the update or amendment should be considered at the
requested time, rather than in conjtmction with a future periodic Plan update. An offer
to participate in costs, , inCUrred by the County shall accompany. the request.
Amendments to tl1ese ~orecasts initiated by the Board shall fonow general pI~cedures
OQ.tlines.in Lane. CiJ.~e ),6.400(6). '.
Communities
Unincorporated communities are treated differently. They a;re identified ~
"COII1IIl11I1ity" on the Plan Diagrams" but are not given official Urban Growth
BOUIi~. . Insteadl the probable limits of growth over the pJ.aiming period are,
reflected in the area within the "cOlI1IIl1JIl:ity" designation. Since la:nds within these
areas- ate under County jurisdictions" no Joint Agreements are required, but
development there must be justified by "crininu:tted lands", exceptions.
Areas within I'tl+al Lane County qualifying as Exception areas .on the basis Of pre-
cOJJ.u.uiLLed uses are not nec~arily lICOmmtIIli:ties" ~ su.~ but ~o have som~ of the
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1 - 23 '
EXHIBIT A - P21
cha:racteristics of community development-higher densitiesl for ~ple.. These areas
~ treated much as, unincmyorated ~~ti.es are within the General ~, in that
they at~ solely under the C~ jurisdiction,. and they are provided with sp~ land
use designations and zoning reflective of their characteristics. They are not portrayed,
however} with the broad Jlcommuni-fi' desigriation in most cases. For purposes of Plan
admi:nistrati~ a parcel of land is either within a UG8 or designate~ community or it
is ~ot-the deciding factor is the portrayal ~ the Plan DiagIml. 1..ands adjacent to
such l'boundaries are not considered to be within them until and if the boundarieS axe
adjusted to accomrrl.Odate them.
Rural Lands
F:i:naTIYJ lands considered as agricui-tural, foxest or natural resources are lands not
"Within any of the' above classifications. These lands include the vast majority of totai
Lane Ccnmty acreageJ and are under the jurisdiction of the Ccrunty plus state and
federal goveimnents (N~tional Forests). The Statewide Plamring Goals and the
Policies of this Plan limited substantial rural development. However} it is recognized
that such development: may 'occur pxo"\rided it is consistent with the policies contained
in this document . I
E. IMPLEMENTATION
As stated earlierJ the County Policies are intended to guide ~ctions and, deci.s:ions.
Although the policies have a common feature (ie." relating to one 01' more aSpects of
land use) they cover a broad range of topi.cs and. concerns. Because of this wide range,
it is not re~onable to assume all policies are to be imple:m.ented in the same :rpanne:r.
Visu.a1iz:i:ng a policy as being in one or more of th~ following categories will provide a,
better understanding'as to its application.
Advisory -Policies
. .
These are statements describing the County's p9Silion .on a certain topic or issue;
generally but not always, relating neither to ,a subject, nor under the direct jurisdiction
of the County. These policies ate primarily intended to inf~ or influence the actioIlS
, . of other parties. They do not have ~ect Influence on the implementation of' the
General p~ ~oU:~ f1a.n Map designation, zoning of laI,td or Coonty Re~tions.
Expmples: "Lane cOunty recommends that no new wilderness areas be de~gnated
without a complete analysis of the revernie and employment impacts on Lane Cou:i1.ty.
Where desigtlations axe made, nega~e emploJ+nent and revenue impacts should be
mitigated by increasing allowable timber harvests. on otheJ;' pu~1ic lands." .
Commitment Policies
. .
Th~e ate statements d~scr.ibing. a future acti~ the County :intends to undertake.. The
policies cover a variety of topics including' (a) guidance in Countyoperationsl
ptocedme5 and relationships :with other agenciesl (b) recognition of state and federal
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1 - 24
EXHIBIT A - P22
AFFIDAVlT OF SERVlCE
5T ATE OF OREGON }
} ss.
County of Lane ' }
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn) do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that 1 am a Secretary for the Planning Divisi~n of the Development
Services Department) City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. J state that in my capacity as SecretaryJ I ~repared and caused to be
mailed copies of Letter regarding Proposed Amendment to the
Eugene-Springfield Metro PianJ adopting coordini:lted population
f~recasts sent to area Mayors and City Managers/Administrators.
. .
(See attachment IIAD) on August 17, 2009 addressed to (see Attachment
JlB)1 by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage
fully prepaid thereon.
".
Brenda Jones
Planning Admiriistra ve Specialist
STATE OF" OREGO.N," County of Lane
. ,1 J 200"9 Pef5~nally appeared the above named Brenda ~onesJ
Admi strative Specialist, who aCKDowledged the foregoing instrument to be their
voJuntaryact. Before me:
. OFACIAL SEAL
DEVETTE KEllY,
'. NOTARY PUSUC - OREGON
COMMISSION NG.420351
MY COMMISSION ~'(PlRES AUG. 15, 2011
, ,
~f~ .
My Commission Expires: ct lis / II
. I .
ATTACHMENT 1 ~ 25
EXHIBIT A - P23
.,
August 17,2009
city of Coburg
PO Box 8316
Coburg~ Oregon 97408...
Honorable Mayor Volta
City Council M~bers
Subj ect: Proposed amendment to' the Eugene'"!Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) adopting coordinated population forecasts prepared by Lane County for Eugene
and Springfield.
On June 17, 2009 the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance No P A 1255,
amendtng the, Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by adding new population forecasts for
Lane County and all cities in Lane County for the period 2010-2035. ,The Board's action was in
,complianc,e with' ORS 195.036 Area population forecast; coordination.
On July.16, 2009 the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County submitted a Notice of
Proposed Amendment to the Department of Lm;td Conservation and Development (DCLD)
stating their intention to amend the Metro Plan by adopting the coordinated population forecasts
prepared by Larie County. The proposed Metro Plan text amendment will be adde~ as the third
paragraph on Page I-I, Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose Section and will read as.follows:
, . . .
IiI order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or
Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopt the
fonowing forecasts for their respective jurisdictional are33: .
Eugene - City '~. :
Urban Transition Area West ofl-5
Total
2030
194,314,
.17,469
. 211,,783
2'030
74,814
6,794
81,,608
2035
202,565
16,494
219.059
Springfield - City Only
Urban Transition Area East ofl-5
Total
2035
78,413
6,415
84.828
These figal-es effectively provide ,coordinated projections for each city's urban
growth area's for years ending 2030 through 2035, enabling them 10 'meet state
req~ments concerning the beginning and ending.years of the 2Q...yearplanning
period. In the event either city needs to provide a forecast' for a planning period that
begins after 2010 that city ~aD determine the 20-year forecast by adding 20% of the
2030-2035 increme~ for each year beyond 2010.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 26
EXHIBIT A P24
The notice to DLCD included proposed dates for public hearings to consider this Metro Plan
amendment On September 1,2009 the joint planning. co:mmissions of Eugene, Springffeld and
Lane Comrty will conduct a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. in the Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth
Stre~ Springfield O~ to hear my public testimony on this proposal. On September 22,2009,
the joint elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane Cotmty 'Will condu~ a public hearing
on this same proposal also at 6:00 p.m. in the Springfield City Hall. The testimony and evidence
submitted into the record of the joint pla.nning commission hearing will be entered into the
record of the j oint elected officials hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact one OfllS a:tYOln" convenience.
Sincerely,
Gregory Matt
Planning Manager, City of Springfield
()~~
Lisa Gardner
Planning Director, City of Eugene
,
g "Director, Lane County
'.
cc: CityMa:nagerJAd-m;";:-'~ACHMENT 1 -27
I
2009 Letter Re; Safe Harbor
Mayors and City.~anager,
ArlmiT1i~rtrators or-.City Recorders
:'
City of Coburg
Honorable Mayor Volta
PO Box 8316
Co~ Oregon 97408
city af Cottage Grove
Honorable Mayor Williams
400 Main Street
Cartage Grove, Oregon 97424
I City of Creswell
Honorable Mayor Hooker
285 Eoo Oregon Avenue
CresweR Oregon 97426
I City of Dune City
Honorable ':Mayor Hauptman
PO Box 97
Thme City, Oregon 97493
.. City of Florence
Honorable Mayor Brubaker
250 Highway 101
Flor~ce, Oregon 97439
City of Junction City
Honorable Mayor Coon
PO Box 250
Jl.mction City, Oregon 97448
City of Lowell
. Honorable Mayor Weathers
PO Box 490
Lowell, Oregon 97452
. City of Oakridge
Honorable Mayor ~
PO Box 1410
Oakridge, Oregon 97403..
City ofVeneta
Honorable Mayor Brooker
88184 18th Street '
Veneta, Oregon 97487
. City ofWestfir
Honorable Mayor Friedman
PO Box 296
Af~~~on?~9f8
EXHIBIT A - P25
City of Coburg
City Manager Don Schuessler
PO BOA 8316
Co~ Oregon 9740.8
city of Cottage Grove
City Manager Ricbard Meyers
400 Main Street
Cottage Groye, Oregon 97424
city of Creswell
City A~sfrator Mark Shrives
285 E. Oregon.A venue
CreswelL Oregon 97426
CitY of Dune City
City Recorder Amy Grahc;m
POBox97 .
D1me City, Oregon ~7493
City of Florence
City Manager Ro'bert Willoughby
250 Highway 101
Florence, Oregon 97439
City Q~ JlII1clion City
City Adm.ii:rlstrator David Clyne
PO Box 250
Junction ~ity, Oregon 97448
. .
City ofLoweTI
. City Administrator Chuck Spies
PO Box 490
Lo~ll,cnegon91452
, . City of Oakridge
City Admi:nistrator Gordon Zimmerman
PO Box 1410
Oakridge, Oregon 97403
City of V eneta
City AdministratorRic Ingham
8818418th Street
Veneta, Oregon 97487
City ofWestfir .
City Recorder Beth Murray
PO Box 296
Westfir, Oregon 97492
EXHIBIT A - P26
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON }
}ss.
Count{ of lane }
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose arid say as fonows:
1. ! state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Divi~ion of the Development
. Services Department, City of Springfield) Oregon.
2. -I state that in my capacity as Secretary) I prepared and caused to be
maH~d copies of Letter regarding PropoSed Amendment to the
Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan, adopting coofdinated population
forecasts sent to interest~d parties
3. . (See attachment "Aj on August 18,21109 addressed to (see Attachment
118), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage
fully prepaid thereon.
Brenda Jones.
Planning Administrative
. .
-
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
. air /<;1 . , 2009 Personally appeared .llie above ~arned Brenda Jones,
Adm' Istrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their
voluntary ad.. Before me: .
. OffiC'~S~L
. DEYETTE KEllY
. NOTARYPUBUC~OREGON
COMM~ION NO. 42fJ351
MY COMMISSION ~PlAES AIJQ.1~ 2Q11
kflk ~f1i
My Commission Expires: '? //S / / I '.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 29
EXHIBIT A - P27
August 18, 2009
To All Interested Parti~,
Subject: Proposed amendment to. the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(}lfetro Plan) adopting coordinmed population forecasts prepared by Lane County for Eugene
and Springfield. '
On J1me 17,2009 the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance No PA 1255,
amending the ~ane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by adding new population forecasts for
Lane County and all cities in Lane County for the period 2010-2035. ,The Board's action was in
compliance with ORS 195.036 Area popuZationforecasr, coordination.
On July 16, 2009 the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane Co~ submitted a Notice of
Proposed Amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DCLD)
stating their intention to amend the Metro Plan by adopting the coordinated populati9n forecasts
prepared by Lane County. The proposed Metro Plan text amendment will be added as the third
paragraph on Page I-I, Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose Section and will read as follows:
, In. order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations under 2007 Or
Laws Chapter 650, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County ..~dopt the
following forecast3 for their respective juri'utictionaI area:!: .
2030 2035
Eugene -City Only 194,314 202,565
Urban Transition Area West ofl-5 17,469 16,494
Total 211..783 219..059
.. 2030 ,2035
Springfield:- C~ ~ 74,814 78,413
Urban Transition Area East ofl-5 6,794 6,415
Total 81..608 84..828
These figures effectively provide coordinated projediom for each city's urb~
growth area's for years ending 2030 through 2035:2 enabling them tn meet state
requirements concemmg the begummg and ending years of the ~O-year plamrl.ng
period. In the event either city need:! to' proVide a forecast for a planning period that
begins after 2010 that city shaD determine the 20-year forecast by adding 20% of the
2030-2035 increment for each year beyond 2010.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 30
E xH IS I T A - P 2 8
The notice to DLeD included ptoposed dates far pub4c hearings to consider this Metro Plan
amendment On September 1] 2009 the joint p1ffi'1Tt;Tlg commissions ofEugen~ Springfield and
Lane Co1mty vr.ill. conduct a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. in the Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield OR., to hear any public testimony on this proposal. On September 22,2009]
the joint elected. officials ofE~ene, Springfield and Lane County will cOnduct a public hearing
on this same proposal also a:t 6:00 p.m.. in the Springfield City Hall The testimony and evidence
submitted into the record of the joint plarining commission hearing "Will be entered into the
record of the joint elect-ed officials hearing.
If you have any qu~stions regarding this proposal, please contact one of us at your convenience. I
Sincerely]
Gregory Matt .
Platming Manager] City of Springfield
USa .~
Lisa Gardner
Platming Director, City of Eugene
cc: CityManagerlA~ACHMENT 1 - 31
8/1812009
I nterested Parties '.
Population MaiI-out":
Mjke Farthing
PO Box 10126
EugeneJ Oregon 97440
Ed Moore, AICP. S. VVil1amette R~p
OLeO Field Office '.-..
644 A Street
Springfield I Oregon 97477
Kristina Deschajne
Fire Marshall .
3620 Gateway street
Springfield. Oregon 97477
Corrine Shurton
247 Commercial St NE #205
. Salem. Oregon 97301
Mia Nelson
40160 E. 1 st Street
Lowell, Qregon 97452
Richard Meyers
City Administrator
City of Cottage Grove
Cottage Grove) Oregon 97424
Oregon Department of Health
442 A Street
Springfield. qregon 97477
Deparbnent of Land CQnservation & Development
Oregon Coastal Management
Dave Perry
PO Box 451
Waldport, Oregon 97394
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Attn: Karl Morgenstern
500 E. 4th Avenue
Eug~ne, Oregon 97401
Jerry Valencia
81732 Minnow Creek
Lowell, Oregon 97452
city of Coburg
City Recorder
PO Box 8316
Coburg, Oregon 97408
Damon Kent, City Administrator
City of CresWell
PO Box 276
Creswell. Oregon 97426
..
Community Development DirectOr ....:, " Conimun~ Develop~ent Directo"r
City of Aorence : '. Mike Miller - Public Wprks
250 Highway 101 989 Spruce Street .
Fflorence, Oregon 97439 Florence, Oregon 97439. ,
Kay Bark
Junction City Planning Director
PO Box 250
.Junction City) O~gon 97448
City of Veneta
Jan W~nman, City Administrator .
PO Box 458
Veneta, Oregon 97487..Q458
city of Lowell
Chuck Spies
PO, Box 490.
Lowell, Oregon 97452-0347
city of Westfir
City Recorder
PO Box 296
lffteH'M~f1 ~7 -!.9!il999
EXHIBIT A - P29
DEQ
1102 Lincoln Street #21 a
Eugene. Oregon 97401
ODOT
District 5 Senior Permit Specialist
644 A Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Land Watch Land County
Robert Emmons
40093 Little Fall Creek Road
Fali Creek, Oregon 97438
Douglas DuPriest
777 High Street #200
Eugene, Oregon 97401
City of Cottage Grove
Planning Department
400 E. Main Street
C?ottage Grpve, Oregon 97424
Mary Spankroy I City Recorder
City of Dune City
PO Box 97
Westlake, Oregon 97493-0097
city of Administrator
Jundion City Planning Department
PO Box 250
Junction City. Oregon 97448
city of Oakridge
City Administrator
PO Box 1410
OakridgeJOregon 97463
Carrie Connelly
975 Oak Street #700
Eugene. Oregon 97401
Alice Doyle
78185 Rat Creek Road
cottageJ Grove) Oregon 97424
Ccrthy Engbretson
32703 E Locust street
Coburg) Oregorl 97408
R.S. Hledik
PO Box 7428
Eugene) Oregon 974Q1
Norm Maxwell
PO Box 99
~oraineJ OregtJn 97451
Pat Reilly
395 Marion Lane
Eugene] Oregon 97404
Mike Tayhoe
1462 I street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Lane County land Management
Matt Laird J Director
125 E. 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
EXHIBIT A - P30
Pam Drlscon
813S4 Lost Creek Road
DexterJ Oregon 97431
Robert Emmons
Nena Lovinger
40093 Little Creek Road
Fall Creek, Oregon 97438
Michael Farthing
PO Box 10126
Eugene) Oregon 97440
8m ,George
Sunset View'Ranch
PO 80x 305
Lowell, Oreg,on 97452
George Jessie
721 Aspen Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Mona Unsfrornberg
1420 Golden Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97404
, 'NllIiam McCoy
PO 80x 599
CresweIl, Oregon 97426
Laura Fotter
Lane County Homebuilders
2053 Laura Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Andrea Riner
2177 N. Grand
EugeneJ Oregon 97404
Bill Rogers
2050 W. 22nd
Eugene1 Oregon 9740S
Jerry Valencia .
Bridgeway Contracting
87132 Minnow Creek Road
Lowell) Oregon 97452
Judy Volta
PO Box 831 S
Coburg. Oregon 97408
ATTACHMENT 1 - 33
EXHIBIT A - P31
DRAfT
MINUTES
JOlNT PUBliC HEARING OF
EUGENE., SPRINGFIELD AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS
- Springfield Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth Street--.springfield
September 1, 2009
5;30 p.m.
EUGENE PLANNING~.O~SIONERS PRESENT: Phillip Carroll, Chair; Rick Dunca,n; Randy
ffiedik, .John Lawless.
SPRINGFIELD PLANNING C011MISSIONERS PRESENT: Frank Cross, Chair; Johnny KiIschen-
m..ann, Vice Chair; Steve Moe, Sean VanGorden, Sheri Moore.
LANE COUNTY PLANNING C011MISSIONERS PRESENT: Lis~ Ar.ki:n, Chair; Robert Noble, 'li<:e
Chair; Nancy Nichols, Joseph Siekiel-Zdzienicki, John Sullivan.
::Mr. Cross convened the meeting and expl~ed the joint public hearing process.
Mr. Cross called the Springfield Planning Commissir;m to aider.
:Ms. Arkin called the Lane County Pla.ntting Commissjon to order,
Mr. Carroll called the Eugene Planning Commission to order.
L
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There was no business from the audience.
II. LEGISLTATIVE P~LIC HEARINGS
A. Eugene-Springfield l\Ietropolitan Area General Plan (l\1etro PIan) Text Amendment and
Exception to St~te1tide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway for Construction of a
BicyclelPedestr:fan Viaduct Beneath the Willamette River 1-5 Bridge
Mr. Cross opened testimony for the Springfield Planning Cqmmission and called for conflicts of interests
or ex parte contacts. There were noite declared. .
~.. Arkin opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission and called for conflicts
of interest or .ex parte contacts. There were nqne .declared. '
:MI. Carroll opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission to order and called for
conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. :Mr. IDedik had a potential conflict of interest with agenda item
:MINUTES-Joint Planning COIIlIIIissions-
ATTACHMENT 1 - 34
September 1, 2009
Page 1
p"\ "'" A ......
EXHIBIT A - P32
oMF'
II. A EiIgene-Springfield -Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Text Amendment and Exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River' Greenway for Coostruction of a BicyclelPedestrian
. Viaduct Beneath the Willamette River 1..5 Bridge.. He was employed by a tonstrnction company that .
t;ould potentially bid on the project
Mark Metzger, City of Springfield staff: explained there had been an error in the meeting location in the
original public meeting announcement for tonighf s meeting. The error had been corrected by sending
out new written notices and e...ma1l notices and hand deliveries to interested parties. Additionally, a
. advertisement had been placed in the Register Guard with corrected information.. A sigr;t was posted at
Har.ris Hall, the site originally published, indicating the location time and loca#on change.. 11:tis matter
would be.addressed by-the Jomt Elected Officials (JOE) on approximately SePtember 22,2009, and any
member of the public could address the JOE at that time. He noted there were only two occupied
businesses or residences within the 300 foot notice area. There was a longer list of contacts who
received iIiformation.
:Mr. Metzger explained this was a ,quasi-judicial hearing, and asked that those testifying focus on the
criteria for approval.ofMetto Plan text amendments. He said an exception to'Pl.a:nning 003115 was
under consideration. Goal 15 dealt v.ith the Willamette Greenway. He referred to a chart ,on the wall
that explained the process for exceptions, to Statewide Planning Goal 15 .
lYlr. Metzger provided ~e staff report as outlined in the agenda packet The Eugene-Springfield area had
one of the largest networks of riverfront bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the state. The CllII'eIlt
connection between Eugene and Springfield was limited to the north side of the Willamette River. The
extensive ~outh bank Willamette Riyer path system in Eugene ended at Interstate 5 (1-5) because oithe
physical baniers created by both the existing 1-5 bridges and the proximity of Franklin Boulevard (OR
126B) to the Willamette River. Users traveling between the two cities along the south side of the .
Willamette River must cross to the north side of the river near the 1-5 bridge or divert to the shouldt:;rs of
Franklin Boulevard (OR 126B), a high speed arterial street.
Many planning documents, including the Central Lane MFO Regional Transportation Pl~ TransPlan,.
the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Willamalane Park and Recreation District comprehenSive Plan, call
for the continuation of the Willamette River c'South Bank Path'~ from Eugene through GlenWood to
Springfield. Construction of the South Bank Viaduct is essential to the continuation and development of .
the South Bank Path. Combined, the viaduct and path will provide safer, more pleasant opportunities for
recreational and commuter bicyclists and pedestrians traveling between Eugene and Springfield.
The proposed South B~ Viaduct would be about 16 feet wide and 1,100 feet in length. It would
connect to the South B~ :P~tli at the point where it currently diverted' away from the river. The viaduct
would elevate the bike/pedestrian path and move it aWay from the steep bank near the 1-5 bridge, and
return to the riverbank at a point where the South B3nk. Path could continue. The proposed viaduct
structure would hug the shoreline, mmtml7Tng its impact on the river. Some:fill or supporting columns
may be placed hi the river to support the viaduct as it byp~ed the slope barrier. The:final design for the
~aduct Structc:re was still being completed.
, An OnOT Transportation EnhancemeIit Grant of approximately $1 millio~ along with $250,000 in
Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) funds and approximately $140,000 in donated materials
would be used to fund the South Bank.Viaduct project. The timirig of the project would allow.reuse of
. multiple cOIicrete box beams from the Willamette River detour bridge on the viaduct project As the 1..5
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions- September 1,2009
ATTACHMENT 1 - 35
Page 2
EXHIBIT A P33
DRAfT
replacenient bridges were completed, and the deto~ brid~ was removed, the 'South Bank Viaduct would
be constructed.. .
Approval of this proposed Metro Plan arp.endment did not negate environmental review of the project
The South Bank Viaduct would undergo ~A review to assess pOtential environmental impacts of the
. final viaduct design and to secure the needed approval for construction of the structure. .
:Ms. Moore connnended staff for seeing the opportunity to move forward Vtith the project and take "
advantage of the opportlmities to reuse materials from the Willamette River detour bridge.
1fr. KiI'scheTrn:m1T1 conci.trred with Ms. Moore, seeing the reuse as recycling at its best
,~
1Y.fr. Cros~ caned for public testimony.
J an W ostmann, 2645 Riverview Street, identified himself as the chair of the LaureIbill Valley Citizens
Association. He said the neighborhood supported the proj ects and urge4 the commissions make the
necessary exception to" the statewide planning goals. However, he pointed out a deficiency of the
proposal The South Bank bike trail did not connect to the adj acent LaureThill Valley neighborhood. The
association requested that the COIIIIpissions take the necessary action to connect to the viaduct and the
South Bank bike trail to the LaureThill Valley neighborhood. It was a long overdue cmmecti.on and
would provide a gre~t opportunity to remedy this deficiency.
Responding to questions from Planning Co:mmissioners, 1fr. Metzger ref~ed to a m.ap posted on the
wall entitled Proposed South Bank Viaduct. He noted the mission tonight was to focus on the Metro Plan
amendments. While the Metro Phm amendments before the commissions neither supported nor oppo~ed
the connection proposed by lVIr. W ostnurrmn, the proj ect waS not within the purview of the issues before
the commissions tonight. He opined 11r. W ostm.ann' s request for a safe connection for the neighborhood
, Was not lII;Irea::ionable.
Ms. Jerome, City Attorney for the City of Eugene, raised a point of order. It appeared the',,~ommissionS
had moved into deh"'berations from the public hearing process. She encouraged the 9oIDII1iS'~;ions to
conclude the public "hearing and bring ~estions to' staff during deUberations. . ,.
:Mr. Cross.called for additional testiniony. There was "no one wishing to offer additional testimony.
:Mr. Cross closed the te~~ and the rec?Id for the Springfield Planning CoJD?rlssion.
. . "
Mr. Cauoll closed the pil:bIlc..hearing and the record fei the Eugene Planning.Commission.
: :.. . .
Ms. Arkin closed the puolic hearing and the record for the Lane County Planning Commission.
" "
In response to a question from :Mr. Carro1l, Mr. MetZger explained the proposed amendment language
, had been reviewed by legal counsel from the three jwisdictions.
Ms. Arkin hoped staffwould be able to assist the citizens of Laure Thill Valley to find similar special
funding to improve public safety for the residents" '
" :MI. IDedik found the findings wen written and more than adequately addressed the criteria.
~S-Joint Plamrlng Commissions-- September 1, 2009
ATTACHMENT 1 - 36
Page 3
EXHIBIT A - P34
DRAFT
Mr. Eledik; seconded by MI. Lawles~ moved that the Eugene Plmm-me Com-
mission recommend to the City Co1ID.ci1 a text amendment to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan that added the following language:
, An exception ~ Statewide Planning Goa115 Wi1la:mette River Greenway, was
approved by the citie$ of Eugene and Springfield and by Lane Cotmtyanthori:z.. ."
ing construction of a bike path viaduct beneath the 1-5 bridges, along the south
.bank of the Willamette River. The exception authorizes constroction ofthebik.e
path viad;uct including the fill and removaJof fill necessary to build the structure.
This exception sati.sfi~s the criteria of Oregon Administra;tive Rules (OAR) 660-
004-0022 ( 6) Willamette Gre~way and the exception requirements of OAR 660-
004-0015, this exception is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan '
text, Policy D. II. Chapter ill,' Section D. The motion passed unanimously) 4:0.
Mr. Noble, seconded by Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, moved that the Lane County
Planning Commiss~on recommend to the Lane County Board of County Com-
. missioners (BeC) a text amendment to the Eugene-Spiingfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan that added the following langUage: An exception to State~
wide Pl ~rT'miT1 e Goal 15 Willainette Ri"'l-er Greenway was approved by the cities
of Eugene and Springfield and by La:ne County authorizing constnlction of a
bike path viaduct beneath the 1-5 bridges, along the south ban..lc of the Willamette
River. ,The exception authorizes construction of the bike path viaduct including
the :fill and r,emo~ of fill necessary to build the structure. This exception satis-
fies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660~OO4-0022(6) Willa-
mette, Greenway and the exception requirementS of OAR 660-004-0015, this ex-
ception is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy D. II.
Chapter ill, Section D. '. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Kirscherrmmm. seconded by Ms. Moore, moved that the City of Springfield
Planning Oommission recOIIJID.end to the Springfield City Councif approval of
File No. LRP 2009-00005, the proposed Metro Plan text amendniep.t adding a
Goal 15 exception to policy D .11 of Chapter ill, Section D. for the .purpose of al-
lowing fill to be placed within the Willamette Greenway for the construction of
the South Bank Viaduct The motion passed TmMliTT'lously) 5:0.
Mr.Crossannoanced this conclu4ed the public hearing for the Willamette Greenway.
B.. Metro Plan ~~ ~~ndment5: New :Population Fore~asts for Eugene and Springfield
:.
Mr. Cross oPened testimony for the Springfield Planning ~6mmission.
Ms. Arkin opened the public hearing for the Lane County Pknning Commission.
Mr. Catroll 9Pened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission.
Greg. Matt, Planning Director for the City of Springfield, offered the staff report. He. introduced Jason
Dedrick, City of Eugene Planning Department and Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director.
:MI. Matt distributed ~d reviewed the fnllo$g handO:uts: .
MlNUTES-Joint Plamrlng Commissi<ms-- September 1,2009
ATTACHMENT 1 - 37
Page 4
...-.._ A_
"
EXHIBIT A - P35
ORAFl
. 'Chronology ofkey population forecast events.
. Existing Proposed Plan Text.
· Memorandum dated September 1,2009 to City of Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County Plan-
ning Commissions from Greg Matt, Kent ;Howe, and Carolyn Weiss, subject TransPlan Horizon
Year. '
The City of Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane Coonty were proposing amending the Metro Plan
by adding separate population forecasts for each city and their mban growth area. The forec3.;)'is
were prepared by Lane County pursuant to'the provisions of Oregon Revised StatUtes (ORB) 195.036
and were' recently a9.opted into the Lane County RUral Comprehensive PIan.. The proposed Metro
Plan text amendmerits implemented stated population forecasting and land use planning statutes by
providing sep~-ate coordinated population forecasts for the Eugene and Springfield jurisdictional
areas of the Eugene-Springfie1d Metropolitan Area General Plan.
:Mr. Matt entered into the record the Portland State University (pSU) study. He noted the staff report
was part of the record and included the findings adop,ted by th~ Bee in support of their amendment
to the roralcomprehensive plan.
Mr. Cress called for public te~ony.
Michael Farthing, P.O. Box 10166, Eugene, represented Gordon Webb, who oVt-ned about 600 acres
on the southeast edge of Springfield. 111'. Webb and 11r. Farthing were involved in the mban growth
boundary (UGB) process and the population forecast was essential to the UGB process. He asked
what would happen if the De~ember 31 for House Bill (HB.) 3337 compliance deadline was not met.
He asked for a copy of the complete findings. He noted in the text of the plan amendmen~ the term
"urban transition area" was used. He, was not familiarwith the tenD. and asked for clarification. He
also requested .clarification of the language in th~ text which read: "In the event that either city needs
to provide a forecast for a planning period that begins after 2010, that citY shall detennine the 20 year
foreCast by adding 20 percent of the 2030-2035 total population increment for each year beyond .
2030." He did not understand why there was a 2Q30 figure and 2035 figure, and thoUght it'was a 20 '
year period from 2010. He was struck by the precision of the population forecast, ass~g "nothing
could be that precise." He wished the figures were "fuzzier." He addc;d that the numbers in the 2030
column, 211,783 and 81,608, did not add up to the existing forecast in the Metro Plan of 286,000 by
2015, and questioned the co:p.sistency of the figures in the ctm'entMetro Plan and the PSU study. He
, assumed the PSU stUdy and what the planning commissions were being asked to adopt was an
amendment to the Metro Plan and the 286~OOO figure was invalid and inaccurate and would go away.
Mr. Farthing generany'a~ed with the findings on Attachment 1-8, Urbanization, Goal 14, but he
thought the popu1aii~ f~~cast was directly related to Goal 14. He asserted the finding language that
said I~e proposed mhendment to page I-I is consistent with these statutes and with OAR 660.024"
was a conclusion and not findings. He looked forward to following the process' as itwound its way
through the various governing bodies. .
Mr.' Sullivan expressed concern that Mr. Farthing had.a number of q1.1estions and Mr. Sullivan did not
know'whether they were all germane to the discussion. He asked if staff could respond to those
questions during dehoeration. .
Noting there were no other members of the pu~1ic -wishing to speak, Mr. Cross closed the public
testimony for the City of Springfield.
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions-
ATTACHMENT 1 - 38
September 1,2009
Page 5
EXHIBIT A ~ P36
DRAFT
Ms~ 'AIkin closed the PU?lic hearing for Lane C~.
:M'r~ Carron closed the public hearing for the City of Eugene. He asked if there was a reason to keep
the ~cord open. .
11r. Matt saw niJ legal reason to keep the record open if commissioners needed no additi~ infor-
:ri:1ation.
1fr. Matt addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Farthing.
Question: What happened if the cities of Eugene and Springfield did not .complete the requirement
for H..B. 3337?
Answer: Ms. Jerome responded the statute .did not spec.ific a remedy so it would be the staI;1dard
remedy UIi.der the law, which staffbelieved woUld be for someone to file a writ in Circuit Court
to make the cities comply. She added that everyone was on track to complete the work and st4ff
had every reason to believe both jurisdictions v/ould co:mply with H.B. 3337 within the time-
frame.
Quem071: What did the term "urbaz:, transition area" mean?
. Answer: Referring to the handout entitled Existing Proposed Plan Text, :Mr. Matt exp1a:ined
staff was "recommending the tables included in the handout with figures for each of the years be~
tween 2030 and 2035 to facilitate the completion of these projects without need to make addi-
tional amendments to the Metro Plan text", as noted 'on the handout He noted the term Metro
Urban Area was used on the handout rather than Urban Transition Area, Metro Urban Area re-
ferred to the area betweena land area between the city limits and the UGE. PSU had developed
population figures for the Metro Urban Areas. Staffwas proposing that the term Urban Transi-
tion Area be replaced with the term Metro Urban Area.
. .
:Mr. Howe explained that there was a TransPlan RTP requirement that would be ot:fby five years.
Thus, the contract with PSU covered an additional five years. .
. Q.uestion." What did ''In the event that either city needs ~o provide a forecast for a planning period
that begins after 2010, that city shall detennin~ the 2Q year forecast by adding 20 p~ent of the
2030-2035 total population increment for each year beyond 2030" refer to?
Answer: Mr. ~oft.eiplain~d the 20 perce:r;1t solution referred to in the text ''In the eVent that ei-
ther city n~eds to provide a forecast for a planning period that begins after 2010, that city shall
determine the 20 year forecast by adding 20 percent of the 2030-2035 total population incre-
ment for each year beyond 2030:17 metred to the ~ematical fonnula representing five.years,
and ~ocating 20 percent to each of the years. .Altnougb. PSU would lmve atldressed the ma-
, ~ematics differep.t1y, the 20 ~ercent solution proposed by staffwas reasqnable. '
Question: What caused the change m the Me~o Plan popnlation figure of286~OOO?
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions-- ,
ATTACHMENT 1 - 39
September 1, 2009
Page 6
....-.. -
EXHIBIT A - P37
oRAFT
'A!uwer: Mr. Moo said the 286,000 figure did go away. 1'Mtpopulatian forecast was used dur-
ing periodic review in 1995. for a 20 year plan.. The planning h~on was chan~g beyond
2015, and new projections were being os~d.
Question: Related to Goa114 findings.
Answer: :Mr. Mottsaid the findings were perfected through the public hearing process. H~- .
~gs were not, $tic and subject to change based upon additional information. The JEGs would
adopt the findings although it was the jQb of the planning coIIIIIrissions to make I'eCOIImlenda-
ti~ to tJ1e rEGs based on findings and public testimony they receive. He added the rule w~
unequivocal. The inventory could not be validated for a 20 year period without a population
fQre(:ast.
In response to a question from:Mr. Noble, Mr. Matt said the findings which:Mr. Farthing thought
were incoriIplete Were those adopted by the BCC in the PSU report and coordinated figures. .
. ,
Ms. Jerome added said the findings were a matter of public record and had been adopted by Lane
County. A more complete version would be provided to the elected officials.
Ms. Brotherton explained the information before the co:rm:i:rissioners was intended to be heads up and
provide an opportunity for th~ commissioners to add clarification if they so choose. She noted in
April 2009, the joint-planning commissions held a public hearing and r~ommended to eleged offi-
cials that they adopt some amendm~ts to TransPlan and the Metro Plan as part of th(: work plan
approved by the Land Conservation and Dev~lopment ConnnissiQn (LCDC). The work plan required
that the planning horiz'on of TransPlan be adjusted to get in more in line with what it actually
planned for. It planned for a population for the transportation study area. She display~d a map
which illustrated th,e transportation study area.
. .
Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms.. Jerome explained on Goal 8 that the City of:E;ugene
PROS comprehensive plan had not yet been adopted and therefore there was intenti~y notrefe-
renced in the current'proc~ss. The Goal!1 :fi:q.dings ~ould be updated based on c~sioners' ,
comments from this meeting before the issue went to the City Council. She added there would be
further dis~ons on Goal I! through the Eugene Comprehensive Lands (ECLA) process.
. .
Responding,to questions from Mr. V ~Gordcm; Mr. Matt explained that the variation between the
fiye year increments was melevai:J.t 11r. Mott added that the term "safe harbor", as referred to by the
DiviSion of Land Gons~tion and Deve1o~ent (DLCD) director, was the "presumed; constant
portionalitt~. He n"EJted..nLCD $ff thought the safe harbor method di~ not adc;quately track the
changes that.occurred in 'population movements due to aging and other factors. Mr. Mott added
relying on portionality of 72 percent for Eugene and 28 percent for Springfield wasasimp1istic
approach that the state was willing to accept in the ci:rWmstances wJ:tere cities were in crisis and had
to have a population forecast and the counties were not ~cting as needed. S~e harbor was premised
on the. existing OEA population forecast for Laij,e COllllty in 2030 to be 434,000. PSU and OEA
agreed that was no "longer accurate, asserting the Lane County population would be 420,000 in 2030.
The original pre.r;nise of attempting to calculate the constant portionaIity Pad been. nrtcheted dmva If
the 420,000 fi~e had been used, the safe harbor numbers would have been ~ ~er.
MINUTES-Joint Planning CQIII]DjssioJIS-
. - .
ATTACHMENT 1 - 40
SeptemQer.l,2009 '
Page 7
DRAFT
EXHIBIT A - P38
DRAFT
. ~. Thmcan, seconded by MI. Hledik, moved to IeCQIDIIlend that the elected of-
ficials approve the Metro Plan amendment shown on page 1 of the staff memo-
randum, with the amendments recommended in the provided hand-out (specifi-
cally, the amendments adding the break-out for ~ars 203-1, 2032, 2033, and
2034; and replacing the term '~rban Transition Area" with the tenn "Metro Ur-
ban Area") but deleting the last sentence from the amendments recommended in
the provided,hand-out (beginning with: "In the event. .j. The motion passed
~TUmlmously3 4:0.
:Mr. Noble, seconded by Ms. Nichols, moved to recommend that the elected offi-
cials approve the Metro Plan amendment shown on page 1, of the staff memoran...
dum, with the amendmen~ recommended in the provided ~d-out (specifically,
the amendments adding the break-out for years 2031,2032,2033, and 2034; and
replacing the term '"Urban Transition A!ea'3 with the term. "Metro Urban Area')
but deleting the last sentence from the amendments recommended :in the pro-
vided hand-out (beginning with: "In the event. . .').
Ms. Arkin said she would support the motion but found the term Metro Urban Area confusing. She
wished to have it further clB:ri:fied when it was brought forward to elected officials.
The motion passed un~niTT1ously, 5:0.
Ms. Moore, seconded by :Mr. Kirschenmann, moved to recommend that the
elected officials approve the Metro PlaIi amendment shown on page 1 of the ,staff
memorandum, with the amendments recommended in the provided hand~out
(specificalIy, the amendments adding the break-out for years 2031, 2032, 2033,
and 2034; and replacing the term '~rban T:rmsition Area" with the term "Metro
Urban Area") but deletirig the last sentence from the amendments recommended
in the provided hand-out (beginning with: "In the event. . .''). The moqon passed
onnwn;mously,5:0.
':Mr. Noble, seconded by Ms. Nicho:\g, moved that the Lane County .Planning
Commission close the record. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Law1<:ss, moved thafthe Eugene Planning Com-
mission close the record. The motion p3;Ssed lm::mimously, 4:0.
\Mr:\KirscheDmann, seconded by Mr. VanGorden, moved that the Springfield
Planiring Commission close the record. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Carroll, moved to .recOIDIilend;. that based on the piaiming Commission's
recommended population forecasts~. the amenchnents to TransPlan mid the. Metro
Plan recommended to the Eugene City CouncillBoard of County Commissioners
on April 7, 20093 be adjusted to reflect the new population numbers. There was
no second to the motion.
Following a brief discussion, Mr. medik cOncluded that he was comfortable moving forward with the
motion without holding an additional public hearing. .
:MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions--
ATTACHMENT 1 -41
September 1, 2009
Page 8
P\"A~
"-.
EXHIBIT A - P39
DRAFT
. . . MI. Sieidel-Zdzienicki concutted an "additional public hearing was not needed.
Mr. Hledik called the question.
Mr. Lawless,' seconded by:Mr. Hledik:, moved to recQIIIID.end, that based on the
, Plamrlng Commission's recommended population forecasts, the amendments to
TransPlan and the Metro Plan recommended to the Eugene City Council on
April 7, 2009, be adjusted to reflect the new population numbers., The motion
~~sed nmmimonsly, 4:.0. . .
:Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, seconded by Mr. Noble, moyed to recommend, that
based on the Planning Corrimissicn' s recommended population forecasts, the
amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan recommended to the Board of
County Commissioners on April 7,2009, be adjust~ to reflectthe new-popula-
tion nUmbers. . The motion p~sed una:niniously, 5 :0.
:MI. Kirschenmann, seconded by Mr. VanGordon, moved to recommend, that
based on the Planning Commission's re.commended population forecasts, the
amendments,to TrmsPlan and the Men-o Plan recommended to the Springfield
City Council on April 7, 2009, be adjusted to reflect the new population num-
hers. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
11r. Cross adjoumed the meeting at 7:55 pm..
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m:\2009 mimltesljaint planning commissions 090901.doc
..
DRAFT
MlNUTES-Joiirt Plamrlng Commissions- September 1,2009
ATTACHMENT" - 42 .
Page: 9
,""
EXHIBIT A - P40
AFFIDA V1T OF SERYlCE
STATE OF OREGON }
}ss.
County of Lane }
), Brenda Jones1 being first duly sworn) do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development
Services Department, Cft\j of Springfield) Oregon.,
2. ,) state that in my capacity as Secretary) I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of Letter sent to Interested Parties re: Proposed
amendment to the Eugene-Spnngfield ldetropoJitan Area General
Plan (See attachm~nt gAn) on Sep~ember 10, 2009 addressed to (see
Attachment DB)) by causing said letters to b~ placed in a U.S. 'mail box
with postage fuUy prepaid theref?n.
Brenda Jones
Planning Administrative
STATE OF OREGOoN, C-ounty of Lane
rbt/J /0 , 2009 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
, Ad inistrative Specialist, who acknowledged the "foregoing instrument to be their
voluntary act. Before me:
. QfAClAlSEAl '
o DEYETIE KELLY
NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON
"0 COMMISSION NO. 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 2011
~,~.
My Commission Expires: c( //5/11
1 t I
ATTACHMENT 1 - 43
EXHIBIT A P41
September 10, 2009
. .
S1;lbjecbPropose4 ameridP1ent to the Eugene7Springtield Metropolitan Area GeneIal Plan
CM,etro :plan) adopting coordinat~d population forecasts prepared by Lane County f~:t Eugene
and S~gtield. ..' . . , ',' .
To All, Interested Parties"~
On August 17,2009 you received a letter from the planning directors of Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County that included a statement of intent to amep.d the Metro Plan to add new population
forecasts for each city; a copy of the proposed text that would be included in Chapter I,
Introduction and Puipose Section of the Metro Plan; and the time, date and location of joint
public hearings before the pla:rm.i.D.g commissions and the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield
and Lane County to hear testimony on this proposed amenclm~t. .
This letter is intended to infonn you that the j oint planning commissioIis' conducted a hearing on
September 1,2009 and at the conclusion of that hearing recommended that the ele~ed officials
adopt revised text and forecast table that includes the years 2031,2032,2033 and 20~4. The full
text is attached to this letter. ..
Please be advised that the information you received on August 17th did not include a break-out of
the years between 2030 and 2035; the text you received said: "In the event either city needs to
provide a forecast for a pla.rJ$g period that begins after 2010 that city shall detemrine the 20-
year forecast by adding 2Q~".6fthe 2030-2035 increment for each year beyond 2010." The
pla.mring commission, ~aff.and public were concerned that this text could be interpreted in a way
not iritended and thereby bring about subse'quent am~ndments to the Plan inconsistent with the
purpose of this language. The staff prepared a1temativ~ language prior to the hearing that .
assigned population figures for each of the years between 2030 and 2035 So that any required 20-
year planning period that ended in one of these years would already have an associated forecast;'
additionally, the text cited above was deleted.
F or your informatio~ the new figures for each of these years were derived by a linear
extrapolation of the period between the adopted figures of2030 and 2035, that is, each
succeeding year's population increases by the same number as the preceding year. The
consultants who prep~ed the Lane Courrty coordinated population-"forecast confumed that such
an extrapolation is a reasonable approach in forecasting the population for these years. The
addition of these years with these figures has no effect on the forecast figures for the other cities
in Lan~ County or the rural population forecast because the population figures adopted for 2030
, A"TT ACHMENT 1 - 44
EXHIBIT A - P42
- ana2U35" -do not c.tiange;,. and the increase each year~ though identical" does n~t ~~-aL .
poPuIation other than what has ,already been forecast to reside in Eugene and Springfiel<i
The joint elected officials will co~d:uct a public ,hearing on the planning commi.ssidn"
"recommendations on September 22, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.' in the Library Meeting Room. of
Springfield City,Hall, 225 Fifth Street.
. . .
If you have any ~estions regarding tb.i$ proposal, either in its initial fonn'or current iteration,
please c6n~ct me at yom convenience., , . ' . '.
Sincerely, ~d on beha1f ofEug~e and Lane Co~ ?lanning Direc;toIS,
Gre Matt. :
Planning Manager, City of Springfield
cc: City Manager! Administra:tor
ATTACHMENT 1 - 45
EXHIBIT A
'Proposed Metro Plan Text.as Recommended by the Joint Planning Commissions
P43
"lri order to achieve tirneIycompIiance with ~heir statutory obligations under 2007 Or Laws Chapter 6501 the Cities of
Eugene and'Springfield adopt the followin? forecasts f9r their 'respective jurisdictional areas:
2030
iQl~Bf~~~~:!~t~91~~{-~:~~\~~r~~I~:
"';:.$"'~~P~',
. ';1 034
'.iiw::JIa~::~i1
Eugene -City'Only
.. '
194J314
. .
~"b~I~~;:1i;;'~;;~:.4~ ~~t.i' ':).I~.,:-:~.I::.~ 1;~:~.~~ u..:~.J. ~1~~.~r'".~a,::4~.L!!{~':;5~'!Wf..",~-o:"t~"'~ ~.~
':L:J::J'".9o.~,.,~.~,:,~~~~~.}i11,97. 614:f,'l .~';1.~,r.; ~ lS9:264'~';:r~~~:!,:j200. 91~
~:J=e :..!.':U"'II~'~~ I......t -:-~' ~\':I'..r. -:- o:-:! l~. ,J..~::.. "~~"l"'- .Q .;....~ :;.....,..:!I...'.~.U..,.!L""Z:~~"lit:..~=.:.:,,-..:: ,,'.!.:... ~ \.J~
, .
M~W~t1fEt~N~W1i West of 1~5 17,,469
=g_~I":':I,..r~lI~'O:I";'~iI....b"..1&olto
!7~?l1~r~~t3~~~~,~~~itt)Z~~t~~~~~~~;lt~~~:'~~~
Tota1211.783
'~;f~~~*;4t~'~~~~4~:$~~~~i~FIlij~~~~;~~8~?~~~~~~~~
Springfield - City Only 74J814
z~~~4 ~.~~~~:'r::~ '~'~7~;i~4./rjJ5tr:~1~;~Z{~~J~~~~~~f~11J~~
M]itg:Qrh~"tL~f~~ East of )-5 6J 794
~l?jl~:~~~::, ::~:,.1: .~;'~~~~A::i.(.:/,.!r:. '~:~!~~?, ::~ "~::.f~.'~;~;;~~.~~,~lli
Total 81,608
822Si . ~ ..:,'" ,i, '82 89'6 . ~ ~",:.": :':g:fS41; ~:. /..'n::;::~ 84:1'84-
. .. '. ,.. ..". ,....1 :. eo J _.. ~..\.; J I~'~i~;' j~ t~~~
2035 .
202}565 .
;1.6,,491
219:059
78,,413
6A15
84.828
These figures effectively provide coordinated projections-for each citVs urban growth area for years ending 2030 through
2035, enabling them to meet state requirements concerning the beginnin'g and ending years of the 2o-year planning
period/'
NOTE: The Joint Planning Commi~ions recommended that the intervening years between 2030 and 2035 be added to '
the Metro'Plan text and that '~urban t~nsition areau be replaced with "Metro Urban Area.11 All of these changes appear
with a 25% gray screen for ease :of i~~~tificatio'n. '
ATTACHMENT 1 - 46
9111/2009
Interested Parties..
Population MaiJ~ut.
Mike Farthing
PO Box 10126
Eugene! Oregon 97440
Ed Moore} AJCP, S. VVillamette Rep
OLeo Fie!d Office ..~
644 A street
Springfield, Oregon 974n
Kristina Deschaine
Fire M~rshaIl
3620 Gateway Street
Springfield! Oregon 974n
Corrine Shurton
247 Commercial St. NE #205
Salem} Oregon 97301
Mia Nelson
40160 E. 1 st street
LowelJ, Oregon 97452
Richard Meyers
. City 'Administrator
City of Cottage Grove
,Cottage Grovel Oregon 97424
Community Development Director
City of Florence ..
250 Highway 101
'Florence, Oregon 97439
Kay Bark ,
Junction City Planning Director
PO Box 250
Junction City, Oregon 97448
city of Veneta
Jan Wellman, City Administrator
PO Box 458
Veneta, Oregon 97487 -0458
EXHIBIT A - P44
'"
Oregon Department of Health
442 A Stree~
Springfield! Oregon 97477
DEQ
1102 Lincoln' Street #210
Eugene! Oregon S7401
. Department of Land Conservation & Development
Oregon Coastal Management
Dave Perry .
PO Box 451
""aJdpart, Oregon 97394
ODOT
District 5 Senior Permit Specialist
644 A Street
Springfield! Oregon 974n
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Attn: Karl Morgenstern
500 E. 4th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
land Watch land County
Robert Emmons
40093 little Fall Creek Road
Fall Creek, Oregon 9743.8
Jerry Valencia
81732 Minnow Creek
Lowen, Oregon 97452
Douglas DuPriest
'777 High Street #2QO
Eugene) Oregon 97401
Citf of Caburg
City Recorder
PO Box 8316
Coburg, Oregon 97408
city of Cottage Grove '
Planning Department
400 E. Main Street
Cottage Gr~ve, Oregon 97424
Damon Kent, City Administrator
City of Creswell
PO Box 276 .
Creswell; Oregon 97426
Mary Spankroy, City Recorder
City -of Dune City
PO Box 97
Westlake, Oregon 97493-0097
Community Development Director
Mike Miller ~ Public Works
989 Spruce Street
AorenceJ_Oregon 9743$.
City of Admipistrator
Junction City Planning Department
PO Box 250
Junction City, Oregon 97448
City of Lowen
Chuck Spies
PO Box 490
Lowell, Oregon 97452-0347
City of Oakridge
City Administrator
PO Box 1410
Oakridgel Oregon 97463
City of Westfir
City Recorder
PO 80x 296
Westfir\ p~on 97492-9999
A TT ACnMEI\JT 1 - 47
Carrie Connelly
975 Oak Street #700
Eugene! Oregon 97401
Aljce Doyle
78185 Rat Creek Road
cottage, Grove) Oregon 97424
Cathy Engbretson
32703 E Locust street
Coburg1 Oregon 97408
R. S. Hledik
. PO Box 742S
'Eugene) Oregon 97401
Norm Maxwell
PO Box 99
Loraine) Oregon 97451
Pat ReiHy
395 Marion Lane
Eugene) Oregon. 97404
Mike Tayhoe
1462 I Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Lane County Land Management
Matt Laird) Diredor
125 E. ath Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
EX H I BIT A - .p 4 5
Pam Driscoll
81394 Lost Creek Road '
Dexter, Oregon 97431
Robert Emmons
Nena Lovinger
40093 UttJe Creek Road
Fail Creek) Oregon 97438
Michael Farthing
PO Box 10126
Eugene, Oregon 97440
8iII George
Sunset View Ranch
PO Box 305
Lowell, Oregon 97452
George Jessie
721 Aspen Street .
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Mona Unstromberg
1420 Golden Avenue"
Eugene, Oregon 97404
WiUiam McCoy
PO .Box 599 "
Creswell, Oregon 97426
Laura Potter
Lane County" Homebuilders
2053 Lauia Street
Springfielct Oregon 97477
Andrea Riner
2177 N. Grand
. Eugene, Oregon 97404
8il1 Rogers.
2050 W. 22nd
Eugene) Oregori 97405
Jerry Valencia
Bridgeway Contracting
87132 Minnow Creek Road
Lowell! Oregon 97452
Judy Volta
PO Box 8316 ,
. Coburg, Oregon 97408
ATTACHMENT 1 - 48
EXHIBIT A - P46
, AFF1DAVlT OF SERVICE
S1 ATE OF OREGON. }
lss,.
County of Lane }
I, Brenda JonesJ"being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as foUows:
1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development
Services I~epartment, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as Secretary) I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of Letter sent to Lane County Mayors, Council Members
, and City ltI!anagers ~: Proposed amendment to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (See attachment IJAD) on
September 10, 2009 addressed to (see Attachment JAB"), by causing said
letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postagefuJJy prepaid thereon.'
Brenda ones
Planning Administrative
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~hh1D~ .
~I I 2009 Personally appeared t~e above named Brenda Jones,
Ad Inistrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregQing instrument to be their
volunta act. Before me:
.,
OFFICIAL SEAL
DEVETTE KELLY
N~ARYPUBUC.OREGON
COMMISSION No. 420351
~Ik-.~ .
My Commission ExPires: <;l' //,S //1
;ra"'t: :.
DEYETTE KELLY
NOTARYPUBUC.OREGON
CONMISSlON NO.420351 "
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 201.1
,
,
" !..
ATTACHMENT 1 - 49
EXHIBIT A P47
September 1 O~ 2009
City ofCobmg
PO Box 8316
. Coburg, Oregon" 97408
Subj ect: Proposed amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) adopting coordinated population forecasts PrePared by Lane County for Eugene
and Springfield.
Honorable Mayor
City Council Members
On August 17~ 2009 you received a letter from the planning directors of Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County that included a statement of intent to amend the Metro Plan to add new population
forecasts f?I each city; a copy of the proposed text that would be included in Chapter I~
Introduction and Purpose Section of the Metro Plan; and the time~ date and locatio~ of joint
public hearings before the planning commissions and the elected officials ofEugen~~ Springfield
~d Lane Comty tc:> hear testimony qn this proposed amendment '.
This letter is intended to inform you that the j oint planning commissions conducted a hear.jng on
September 1, 2009 and at the conclusion of that hearing recommended that the elected omcials
adopt revised text and forec~ table that includes the years 2031~ 2032, 2033 and 2034. t\1~ full
text is attached to this .Jetter. . .,
Please be advised that the furormation you received on August 17th did not include a break-out of
th~ y~~ petween 2030 and 203"5; ~~ t~;t yotJ. re~~iyeP. s~4: "In the ~ent e~ Fi~ :qe~4s to
movi4~ ~ for:Fc~ for ~ pl~~ PrHR4 ~~ RF~ ~#f2R~q ~~~ cftr ~R~ 4~1~~ t4e~Q-
Y73t fo~c~ p~ ~Q.~g 2~% of the 2030:-2p~o inbtefq.Mt for ~~cp. ye<J! Pf'yop.q. 2QlP." Th~
fl~~ GOfltffS~lo~!~ ~d pu~lff wF ~p+tcern~~ #m tffis tbxF fP.Rl~ ~e ~,~et~q ffi fl war .
not mtended" and thereby bring about subsequent amendilients to. the Plan mCOnslstent Wlth the
ptlIlJose of this language. . The staff prepared alternative language prior to the hearing that
assigned population figmes for each of the ye~ between 2030 and 2035 so that any required 20- ;
year planning period that end~d: ip. one' of these years, would already have an associated forecast;
additionally ~ the text cited abov~ 'was deleted.
. ..". .
ATTACHMENT 1 - 50
EXHIBIT A - P48
F,or your info:rmatio~ the new figures for each of these years were derived by a linear
extrapolation,ofthe period between the adopted figures of2030 and 2035, that is, each
succeeding year's population increases by the same number as the preceding year. The .
consultaiits who prepared the Lane COl.mty coordinated population forecast confumed that such
an extrapolation is a reasonable approach in forecasting the population for these years. The
addition of these years with these figmes ~ no effect on the forecast figures for the other cities
in Lane County or the rural population forecast because the population figures adopted for 2030
and 2035 do not change, and the increase each year, though identical, does not rely on a
population other than" v-rha:t has already been forecast to reside in Eugene and SpringfielcL
The joint elected officials will conduct a public hearing on'the pla:nning commission
recommendations on September 22, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Library Meeting Room of'
Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street
If you have any questions regarding this proposal, either in its initial form or current iteration, ,
please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely, and on behalf of Eugene and Lane County Planning Directors,
Gregory Matt
Pla:nning Manager, City of Springfield
'.
cc: City~ger/Admini~ACHMENT 1 - 51
"
EXHIBIT A - P49
Proposed Metro Plan Text cis Recommended by the Joi~t Planning COrTlmissions .
. . .
, ..
illn order to achieve timely compliance with their statutory obligations und'er 2007 Or Laws Chapter 6501 the Ctties af
, .
Eugene and Springfi.eld adopt the ~ollowing forecasts for their respective jurisdictional areas:
2030
~Q~~~~~l~~::~
:,f@~~lfr~71r
Eug'ene - Ci~ Only
194}314
~~~- ."""'!:...... ~
195;'9647:i~
'.:t1t~.; ~"''4, U...-: j;..:~ j
l'&~~:~\t
~~'"':.~.fo"'m"~':,~~-r,!t.~!.';'~~ :04.r..~~:,~;"l.~Zff'I!"=1
~l' ?-~~;19g.;2 64~:i!'~fai;'}~;:;.'1QOO, 914
~;;:"":"':':":i~:;'!n::.;.~..:.:J''' 'S.':.!Ju,.:'f.k~~~':I::.;::...;?~ 'Il"~
. . . .
;:'~~'"=:ce':~;:":3~~~~~.al"'~~ ~
'\It A'e.+;'otUr' ca~""'''r'''~e'''a''<" West of 1-5
k.'11:.....1.~~.:.:..:~...:".:!l~... 17}469 . .
r- ~r'i'>~
2Q1~
~iu1i~~~~~1j!fj~~~7:gJ]:~r~,~~~~~~:~g~J{t!.~~161~~~
..
:2~'i!1' e;~~3:'.8l1:'~:~J.;~~.tti-l';'4:::'~~6" ;f3" ,~1\'~~;~;S~2''':11:-61''7''1'''''4'' ~8 '::;2,j;'1""';~\6::0~3~'
Qt.J:. '.~::;,i.;II~r..;;~L" ~ J ..I~):T':'t~u..,;~.,~. ,. .,.~ n. ~ 'J:,
.- ....... .....t,;Jf:.,:t::~L.......-!i. ...........I..~.J~.~.I....:_ ..-..........:.... .,. ......~...N.t._.. ....
T ota I
"211.783
Springfield - City Only 74}814
. ~ir534~~.~:.~.t:~:;;~";~'ig~5,t. ~~~;:!~,fm~l"f{~74:l~.5~t:1J~~: !~7i"g93
,~'r.:,! '""'1....' i~.l. i.1,-;~ t: 1~~""1 .....::,J~. I ~'.~~:1~.~~1:~~i; 04'f." ;:J......1..:Lr....J}i~..:\~I;\.!l~. " I "'I'~:~""':'''''t
~:i.~e.!!:t'r:'a~...fU"!'-.J;i11.a" ~~A",;:r:'.e'IT-a';, East of, 1-5
~L.:.... ~....,'-~~..;,'~t'l;'r."".~ 6}794
-.J?" ,. ~'" : :..:':11.. 1....- io. ':"':,. :'~:-:oI:\.l~:r' ," .JJ~:.....~:: .1"'""..'.~.',.1e;..,.. ~.".'. ~,;.;,' ~.....':..t",04.:,':'I
6'718 ;'!l; ""~',. ',~. "'i 6 642' ..,.... '.'~";~iT'.;'1!--6'5;-1; .".;;.t1i:t",: ,:;'J:;'! 6-491
~ I. ,',:.. ': ~ :Ii:'~" \"l;:.~:. li'", ~.::i "(-d,}o': ~~! :.".l:.i~~1;~~.&,f.rt .:,/' ;otI~ ~.r~'~: -:'~'~:~';:'::~;-'~'.I ~I ,.. u
Total 81.608
.1." :,,".'. .' t I : ....:.. "l~: I' r",:'.1 :: I:" ..1'.. I. . I.:' :,' . .~ ~I "'l~: (1. 1 .,.. 1 F.:.~ ~":
82,252':~ .'::~ ';"'.~;,: :"8i"896l~ '::"'':;\~''.j. '83;541\~.t ~";'.'~;.';-.:84-184
. .....r.. _.... i. .1 '.::::.\..)".1'. ._i.-:_ .. ';1r':,.1.i"~:'. ~:~.1.: ~~;~);:.__ .'_ _"'_
2035
~02}565
J. 6,494
21.9.059
78A13
6A15
84.828
These figures effectively provide coordinated projections for each citYs urban gtowth area for years ending 2030 through
2035,} enabling them to meet state requiremen-ts concerning the beginning and ending years of the 2a-year planning
. .
period.16
NOTE: The Joint Planning Commissions recommended that the intervening years between 2030 and.2035 be added to
the Metro Plan text and that ilu.~balJ. tra~sition area11 be replaced with "Metro Urban Area.u All of these changes appear
with a 25% gray screen for- ea,se fif id"e.ritification. . ,
ATTACHMENT 1 - 52
2 Oil' Letter Re; ,Safe Harbor
Mayors and City~anager,
Administrators or City Recorders
"
City of Cobmg
Honorable Mayor Volta
PO Box 8316
Coburg, Oregon 97408
. (:ity of Cottage Grove :
Honorable Mayor W111;~m~
400 Main Street
Cottage Grove~ Oregon 97424
City of Creswell
HonoraP1e Mayor Hooker
285 E. Oregon Avenue
Creswell, Oregon 97426
City of Dune City
Honorable Mayor Hauptman
PO Box 97
Dune City, Oregon 97493
City of Florence
Honorable Mayor Brubaker
250 Highway 101
Florence, Qregon 97439
City of Junction City
Honorable Mayor Coon
PO Box 250
Jmction City, Oregon 97448
city of Lowell
Honorable Mayor Weathers
PO Box 490
Lowell, Oregon 97452
. '. City of Oakridge
Honorable Mayor Hampton
PO Box 1410 '
Oakridge, Oregon 97403.
City ofVeneta
Honorable Mayor Sharon Hobart-Hardin
PO Box 458
Veneta, Oregon 97487
city ofWestfir
Honorable Mayor Friedman
PO Box 296
, Westfir, ~~n 97492
ATTACHMENT 1 - 53
EXHIBIT A - PSO
'City of Coburg
City ~ger Don Schuessler
. PO Box 8316
Cob1II'& Oregon 97408
'. City of Cottage Grove
City Manager Richard Meyers
400 Main Street
Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424
. City of Creswell
City Admi:nistrator Mark Sbrives
285 E. Oregon Avenue
Creswell, Oregon 97426
City ofThme City
City Recorder Amy Grahain
PO B'ox 97
Dune City, Oregon 97493
city of Florence
City Manager Robert Willoughby
250 Highway 101
Florence, Oregon 97439
city of Junction City
City Administrator David Clyne
PO Box 250 .
Junction CP:Y:J Oregon 97448 '
City of Lowell .
City Administrator Chuck Spies
PO Box 490
, Lowell, OregQn 9745~
City of Oakridge
City Administrator' Gordon Zimmerman
PO Box 1410
Oakridge, Oreg<?n 97403
City of V eneta
City Administrator Ric Ingbain
PO Box 458
Veneta, Oregon 97487
City ofWestfir
City Recorder Beth Murray
PO Box 296
Westfir, Oregon 97492
I 0
EXHIBIT A - P51
. ,
w"
5 Ge-
10;
~ .
...... -.. ~
. ..,..
Memo Dat~ May 181 2009
mt ReadingIPublic Hearing Date: June~" 2009
Second ReacfU1g. Date: June 17 J 2009
TO:
DEPARTMENT:
PRESENTED BY:
AGENPA ITEM Tl11.E.:
aoard of County CommissJoners
o Pubr!C Works, Land Managenient Division, Flanning Department
Stephanie Schu~ Planner . .
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1255/ln The Matter Of Amending The
lane County Rural Comprehensve Plan (RCP) By Adopting A
Cocldina1ed PopuJaticn Forecast For Lane County And Each
Urban Ares Wit"'lln The County; And Mopting Savi.ngs And
Severability ClaUSes.. (Ale No. PA 08-5873)
I.
MOTION:
. ,
For June 3, 2009: Read the tille of the OrdInance and open the pub!!c hearing en OrdInance
No.. PA 1255 at 1 :30 p.m. Conduct the hearing.. Afiar tastimony has ccndudsd and 1he Board
hasdetermlned the f()fi11 of the ordinance, 1hen move to" appro\-'S the flrst reading and sat tha
secOnd reading and pQSaible adoption of Ordinance No. FA 1255 on June 17J 2009"
For June 17. ~009; Mava adoption of Ordinance No" PA 1255 to amend the lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan (RCP) to include a coordinated countywide poPulaiiGn forecaz! for lane
County and each urban area within the county.
DII
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
The smaD cities 1n Lane County have submitted ~ propOsal to amend the LaneCo~ Rural
Comprehensive Plan to Include a coordinated twenty year ,population forecast for 1he 'c;ounty
and the cmes within the county" Concurrently the Board Initiated a ccuntyMde COQrdlnated
population forecast project and con~ with the Portland State University, Population
o Research Center to prepare that forecast data.. Population forecasts an;I ~ed In land ~
planning as a basIs for detennlnlng .the amount and type of hQusl~ needs to accomqlodate ".
, resIdents and to enSUl"S suffldetit land Is available for economic growth that provides jobs.
, CUrrently. the ~cP d~ nat Jn~lude previously coori:fiJ1ated POPUlation fo~ "
. \
-:.~ .
". " 0
01. BACKGROUNb#lMPUCAnONS ~F A~l1ON
. .
Population forecasts are estimates of the future papulatIon of a given area and are based on an
. analysis of ,hIstoric p'opulation growth and assumptlons SbQut future demQgraphlc and economic
trends that are expected to occur. Forecasts reflect and Incorporate expertIse. Judgments and
~ecfslo"ns with respect to fadars such as the integrity oflhe base data used, the .
appropriateneSs of the statistical model employed and "the reliabiJity Of Ihe assumptions
considered.. In short forecasts are an educateq best 'guess of what the future population of an
area will be. ", )..." " " .' .
'.\
0rdIrIsnaI No. PA 12e5/ln The Maler Of Amending The l.dJ Ccuntr R1nI Ccmp~ flBn (RCP) To TnckJde A. CccrdIr18ted
hpJ;dIcn Farecast F<< lJnJ QQlly And fadl uman Art:e WII1k1 The ~ Am.Adopllng &Mngs And ~~..
(FDa No. PA Q8.S873)
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1 - 54
.-. -EXHIBIT A - P.52
A. Board Action and Other History
Since 1974 Lane County and seVeral of the cities utilimd the .Lane Counci of Governments
(lCOG) to perform the regional coordinallcn of planning ,activWssJ which induded the
development of population fcreca~ng for local jurisdictions since 1977. M a IccaJ agency with
staff expenencsd In planning artalysis and demography. LCOO was a logicaf provider of this
service.. '
As of.19901 all counties or COCJrdlnating bodies in Oregon have been required to work with the
cffles to develop popu_lal1on forecas1s for use by the county and dties 1n maintaining, and ,
updating comprehensfve plans or other land-use plannJng activities.. In 20061 the Land . _
Consef'l'21ion and Development Commission (LCDC) promulgated OAR 660- DMsicn 24. wtUch
lnduded diraction 10 counties to adopt and maJrrtaln. coordinated 2Q-year population forecasis
for the county and each urba-n area within ttlEt county. OAR 6fjQ-<J2+-<J030.
In early 20081 the Board of County Commissioners resumed responsibBity for ccordinated
population forecasts under QRS 195..036,. On June 27. 2OOB1 the ten smaDcffies in Lane County ,
submitted an appHcatic.., to Land Managei"ilent requesting consideration of a RlJraI
Comprehensive Plan Post AckoowIedgement PIan Amendment (PAPA) to edo-~ s coordinated .
tNSnty-year forecast proposed by the clItes for the county and each ~J urban area in t~ C91JI1t1~ '
On August S, 2008. 100 Board c;:f Commissioners din;ca-cd staff to begin a countywide CXlrdlnated
population fof'6CaSt project that would incfuda S!JlJolaiJon of appropriate coiisUltant finns to .
conduct the analysis required for the project. The PcrUand state Unive~ity PopuJafion Research
Center was retained to prepara forecasts and 1he justifk:ation for those nurnbels.
On September ~,20081 Springfield notified Lane County that the Department of Land '
Conservation and Development (OLCD) was nptifled 1he cities of Eugene and ~fleld had
initiated a PAPA to the Metro Plan to adopt new population forecasts for the cities to comply with
the needed housIng determination required by ORS 197.304 (HB ~7 in 2091).
On October 2. 2008. the PAPA appUcaffon submftted by the Small eWes was deemed c;cmplete
and 1he first public hearing was scheduled. .The lane County Planning Commission s~uled a
, work session arid Initial pubRc hearing 00 December 16, 2QOS. Referral notIce 9f this bearing was
. mailed to agencies and'interested parties and published in the Register Guard on November 261
2008. The 'meeting Was canceDed due.to adverse weather..
Prior to the scheduled December 16. ~ sma" city PAPA hearlng~ 1he Lane c:auntY Planning' ,
Convnlssloli pai1l~ .'n, coordinated. population forecasting far the metln dUes thrt;Jugh a ]oint
hearing with the Met:o Qty'~ plaMlng ~mmlssion.s 10 Springfield CIty HaD an 1he Metro Plan
Safe Harbor separate population forecasts proposed by Eugene and SprIngfield fOr the fi~ lIme ,
lIlder HB 3337. The three plarining commissIons each 'VOted a separate recommendation to 1heir
elected oftIcfa!s. the vote from, Lane ~ was to ~m~ adoptlon~'
, .
.In addition to the Metro Plan Population Forecast PN3A hearing) the Lane County Planning
CommIssion was Invited. and many partidpated In the PSU Countywide population Forecast KIck..
off meeting held In Harris Hall on December 2. 2008,. Two additional pubic meetings were held
upon release of the draft PSU populatIon forecasts. on February 2~1 2009 and March 26J 2009,.
EXHIBIT A - P53
Two additicnalwork sessions and two additicJnaJ pubfic hearings considering the Small City PAPA
were conducted by the Lane County Pfamiing Comrnisslonll en January 6, 2009 and March 3,
200S. DefiberatkJns and a recommenda1icn to approve the propo$!l were completed en' March
17. 2009.
The smaD cffies.lnftiated the PAPA 1n response to the staMory and administraiive rule ' .
requirements triat now pertaIn to the ClJunty. The smali cities 1hat have seen rapid growth ever
the past. few years and those with recent water and ~wer service capability Jinprovements
propose 1ha1 cifcumstances pertaIning to t1e laws regarding poptisticn projections have
ch~nged sufficIently t~ require this amandii1E3nt to update 1hslr population projections.
Reevaluation of Iong~nge plans is under consideration In several of the small cmes. 8::cncmic
Opportunity Anaiysis,.Hcusing Needs Studles and other dOC1Jmentaticn that might necessitate
amendments to city plans are belng revieYJed to ensure that urban s~rvices are adaquate to
hand,~ populations which may exceed those projected in past pfannirlQ etrorta. The lack of
collntywide coordinat~d and adopted pcpuJa1ion fe.~sts, or the adoption of an u~ollable
forecast which does not account for current trends poses sfgnif1C3nt problems for cftIes seeklng
to create adequate long range plans and comply W11h applIcable statewide p{anning goals.
S~ PcUcy Issues
The Seard of Commissioners have the authority to adopt the c:00r01naied population foratast for
the county and urbEn areas within 1ne county. The city's future PublIc facility; housir~ and
lransportaoon needs are based on future population forecasts that are as reasonabta as can be
e~ed with a twent'! year horizon. The coQ~ination be~Neen the county and . the twelve cities
In Lane CoUilty to arrive at a coordinated forecast Is based 9" Board polides and th~ p~ss
wiIl determine the outcome of the first adopted countywide coordinated population projection of
the twenty first century.
c. Board Goals
Ac;loptJon of thIs. ordTnance after conducting a publIc hearing supports the following ~ne ~ty
Strategic Goals adopted by the Board:. .~
· Provide opportunities for aDzen participation In ~cIslon making1 yoUng, vclunteeri8TTl and
civic and community InvOlvement , . '
· Contrlbute to appropriate community development In the areas, of transportation and
telecommunications infrastrudure, housIng. grOwth management end land development
. !
Flnancl~1I aridlQr:Resource Considerations
-. .
The ten sman cities In "Lane County combined funds to cover the appHcatJon processing fee. A
rea~onably accurate and long tenn .populatlon fore~st Is Important to TIght sf%e' any
Improvements to or constructi~ of municipal InfrastruCt1;Jre proj~ such as water systems and
sewage treatment plants. Funding for the plannIng, design. and construction of these facUities
are. often a mix of System Development Charges and grantJIoan packages from federal ~nd
, state government COnsequently, it is Important for municipalities to have credibte popula1ion
projections for the targets develQped for each city in this and o1her land use planning work.
..
D.
~nce 'Ne. PA 1255/ In The Matter Of .Amending The Lane, County Rural ComprehensfVe pm" (ReP.) To Include A Cccrdlnated
Papulation MJnH:ast Far Lane OJunty And ~th UTban Mea WlIhfn The Oulty; And Adqptfng Savfrvs.Ana Sevei'abiit1 CaUSl!lS.
(Ra No. PA D8-!5B73) . .
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1 -56.
EXHIBIT A P54
E. '. :.CritsrialAnaIysls
LC12J]5Q Method of Adoptian and Amendment.
(1) TIle adoption of' the comprehensive plan or an amendment to sud1 plan shall be by an
ordinance.' .'
Ordinanca No.. PA 1255 Is aitached for consideration by the Board. FindIngs of cornpffance with
appficable la~ and regulatIons are induded as Exhibit B ~o the Ordinance.
(2) The Board may amend or supprement the comprehensive plan upon a fInding at
(a) an.f;fTOr In the plan; cr . . .
(b) changed circutmlances affsctlng or pertaining to the planJ. or
(a) a change in public policy; or ,
(d) a Change in public need based on a reevaluat.'ofl af factas s.ffecting the
plan; provided, the amendrrient pr supplement dues not lmP8Ir tm3 purpose
of the plan 8S established by LC12. D05 b61ow~ .
The finc:Ungs of compliance with the above aiterla are found In exhibit B to the Ordinance.
LC12.005 Purpose... .
The board shall adopt a comprahens.va plan. rr~ gen~'aJ pl.ifP!Jse of the CtJmpt2hensive plan
Is the guic!lng of the socJaJ, economlc; and physical c;leveJopmspJ of the Coonty ta ~st pfomote
public heal,,;. sa~J orderJ convenience, ptosperiiy'and gensra/ welfara.
The Lane 'County Rural Comprehensiw Plan Introduction Section InUSirate9 the connecSdr~
of the city and ccurWj plans, and describes the co-adoptiQf1 of each city's Comprehensive Plan
8S iUustrated )n the introduction. In addition to 1hls visual representation of the relationship
. betweEn the cities plans and the overeD general county planJ Part I. Section D of the RUral
ComprehensIve Flan states:
-WhDa tha Pdicie.s in this document are directed at Lane CoonI.y govemm~~, it is cfearly
recognizsd that the County has a re.sponsibRity'fo, and mu:st ~Jna~ effats closely with. the
incarporated cities wlthin Ils boUndaries.. Statewide planning law reqiJiras that each incorporatec!
city develop and adopt its own land use plan which must R.self cOmply wilh LCDe Gc;!ais. The
plan muit contain essentiallY the ~ elements 118 the County General PI1m with an additional
element of an identified Urban Growth BoundCf11Y (required by GooJ 14). FutLre urban:growth for
each city Is to fakB place within that Boundsty. In the case of the Eugene-Spr/nglield .
Mel1!Jpditan Araa'Plan~ s mU;tua/ Boundary Is adopted by both cities and the County. For aD
other cities., the County must ratify the cities UGB~ by /ndeperldent evaluatiOn at and acJoptlo,n
of, appropriate city platf prOv/skJn3. . . .
Through. this meth<Jd, fh!3 County becomes respon:sJble for adminlsteringthe provisions of clty
plans within the r;ilyt!~B.Js 'but outside of the corporate dty Ilmits. ';Joint Agreements for
Planning Coordinatioh' diawn up betvmen the County and each city lay ~ ~or/( for
~peratfve action in the effort.
The coordInated popUlation b-ecasts for each luban area provide. a key comPonent of the base
data to support the policies and framework fer long range planning necessary to meet municipal
needs for each local jurlsdictJon particularty as It re~tes to urban growth. The countywide
PopUlation forecasts "adopted In the RCP provide the. basis for cities to use those forecasts and
coordinate the population residing In urban areas with the remalnder.of the population In iiJraJ
Lane CQunly. The enactment of the statutory and rule requirements appiicabfe In Lane County
and the urban areas adopts prcjedlons that ara reasonable and sufficient for future planning
~ No.: PA 12S51 In The Maller' Of AmendIng The l.ane CQunty RtnI eanprehenslve Plan (RCP) To la:fude A ~na~
PcpuJaUcn Farecast Fa'l..aM 0Ulty AId Each Urtian.Area'MttiIh TheOiunly; And Adaptfng'Savfngs And SeveriilbiRly Causes..
(RIll No. PA ~73)
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1 - 57
! .
i
,
I
EXHIBIT A -:- P55
purpoSes.. Those adopted ft)recasm m~t then .be used by the cities for urban area pJannlrlg
under OAR 66~24-0030.
Lane Code Chapter 16.400(6)(h)(lJlJ(aa) further requires the Board to make finding:s that the
proposed amendment meets all appllcabJe requirements of state and local law, stc$wfde
Planning Goals end Oregon AdmiilJstrative Rules.
See E;(hibit 8, the findlngs1 fer datafied responses 10 all applicable Jaws, dernonstrming compl1ancs
with this criteria..-.. , , .
The 'Oregon AdmJnis1rafi'.r"'e Rule 560-024-0030(2) states: .
Mforeca;St[s] mu~ take Into aCCOl.Jnt dacumented long-term demographie trends as well
as recent events that have a reasonable /ikali'hcod of changing historical trends. The .
popuJatlan forecast Is an estlmate which, althoUgh basad on the best avsi7;;b1e
information 'and mathcdolcgYJ should not be held to an unraaSOiJabiy high level of
precJsioh. II
. .
Local governments In Oregon have developed an~ adopted population forecas1s for planning
purposes sines the JnceptiQn of 1he stateNi~e plannIng program.. The forecasts are used for
. . many purposeslncludJng; deterrnJn~ng the :size of Urban GrowtJ150underles (OOBs). tat:ilal
Im~ment plannlng~ and o1her planning activities. For exE!'1lple. Oregon Sfa~ pl2nrdng ~w
(ORS 197.295 - 197.296) requireS c.~es to plan for needed tlOtislng to accommodaie .
population growth insIde urban groYi1h boundanes. ORS 197..712 also requires cities to ensure
that sufficient land is avaiiable in urban growth boundaries for ccmmerclal development and
economIc growth.. PopulaUon fDracasts are majoi determinates in these ,activities..
CQburg, Ccttage Grt;)ve, Oskridge. WestfirJ b~es City) and FlorenCe are not requesting a
, change to the 2005 adoptedJ coordinated populatlon ~st for 2030. These citles are only
raquesting that Lane County include the forecasts adopted by the LCOG Board in Fabrua.ry
2005 in \he Rural Comprehensive Ftan to address the requirements of OAR SSo-m4-0030(1)
adopted in October 2006. These forecasts are all based on a aJnsideration of long term
demtlgraphf(: trends In these communitieS, conslstsnt with the requlmments of OAR 660-024-
0030 as described In AppendlxB to the Small CIty PAPA application, the Report on ~
. County qaordlnatsdPopulation Forecast 2025 - 2030 (February 2(05). :
Creswell~ Junction City) Lowell) and Veneta are requesting Lane County to adopt lnta the Rural
Comprehensive Plan flgures that have ~n prepafe(;i and subsequently modified to the
ProjectIons adopted by the LCOG Board In 2005. Data to support each city's fndivid~1 analysis
and the methodologies I:lsed 10 cIerIw the new) updated 2030 population forecasts fcrthese
~es are Jnc'!"ded In the ~ppJlcaUon In the sman city PAPA application ApfEKldJx D. LoweD
provided addItional rt:Jaleflal..fn AppendIx F 10 the applIcation. '
The 200410S,LCOG c60rdinated population process Included allocating population to the
thirteen cities in the County based on the 2004 Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) fcreca~ for
Lane CoUf.1ty.. Historical population trends were used to comp~e future population usfng 1rend
methodology for each dty. The future growth trends wej-e applied to a 2004 base UGB
population.. The 2004 baSe population was established using city 2004 pcnJufation data from
. Portland state UnIversity and housIng' unit data from the Regional Land Irtformatlcn Oa~basa
(housing units outsIde city limits but Inside" the UGB were multJplJed by an average household
size and added. to the 2004 city Droll popUlatIOn to arrive at a UGB base population)..
'.. Ordf~BIlC:8 No. p~ 1255 J 1n The Malter or 1menCIng The Lane ~ Rur:al c:ompr,hensIYe PIan (RtP) To Ir1dbde A COOrdnat8d
PcIp:JIafJcJn M1n3C3&t F<< Lane County ~ Each Urban hea W1thln The Ccmty; Md AdD~ Savfngs k1J ~1Ity 0auA8..
. (FIle NQ. PA 08-5!73) , ..
Page. 5
ATTACHMENT 1 - 58
- ' EXHIBI,T A -P56
The proposed countyw;de population forecasts from the smaU cities are inducted In Exhibit aA"
tD the ordinance which incudes separate forecasts for the ciies of Eugene and Springfield.
This exhibit reflects the recommendatkm of the lane County Planning Commission. f9ndings
addressing the relevant criteria are lnduded IJ1 Exhibit -B- and indud~ dCCtJmenta1!on refledIng
the methOOology and Information supporting the forecasts presented by the smaD a"ties..
Alternatively. there Is an ExhibitllA- and t3J1 that provides the methodolcgj and findings forihe
PSU populatiqn forecasts that have been Included in the small city PAPA record by action of the
BoaJ1;i of CommIssioners In May 2009.. Previous drafts of the P5U forecas1s were provided to
~a LCPC and give the Board additronal evid~ncs for t:ensideraiioil. In additiqn, the Soard
requested anaJ~i5 ~nd preparation of appropriate foreCasts for the Eugene-SprLl1gtlekl urban
area 10 refled alIoc:itif;ln of forecasted popufation east and 'west of Interstate'5 (1-5). Thesa
forecasts are included In the Exhibit .A- attached 10 1his memorandum.
F. Alternatives/Options
Oution 1. Approva the Ordinanc;:e as presented..
Ootinn 2. Re'Jise tha OrdJnance as. dlrecled by the Board and return for appro~ of the revised'
Ordinance on a data csrtain set by the Board" An ait~mathie EJehibit SA- that refleds ihe PSU
population fore~st Is provided for the BoardJs consIderatio.:Pj. .
Ootion S" Db not approva the Ordinan~and deny the appUcation. Inmate a Post
AcknQwiedgement Plan Amendment for consideraflOil of the PSU population foracast as a .
stand aione amendment and schedule hearings for that alternative forecast to be cornsid~d.
,
I .
i
IV. TIMINGnMPLEMENTATION
Too PSU contracted siudy has been ongoing since 1he sOard a~ in August 2008" The cities
submitleq "the applicatIon In June 2008 and neeP a declsion by the Board In Of'd2r to proceed
.' ~ith long range pIa,n.ning actMties that depend on' population fo~ts.. '.'.... '
~ RECOMMENDAnON
The Lane County Planning Commission. held a Work session on January 6, 2009... Public
he~rings Were held en tvlo df]tes, January 6, 2009 and March ~ 2099.. Comm~sfon
deliberations were held on March 17., 2009. The Planning Commission recommendation of
approval to the Boa~ V(as'not unanimous. it was a 5:2 wte. , There was ex1en$Ne dIscussion
regarding the options .ror~ coordInated population forecast for the entire county aOO ~IJ "twelve
urban areas.. Some planning cOmmISsIoners considered. forwarding a -no opinionll .,
recommendation that wo~1d urge the Board to look closely at the numbefS:the cltYs are .
providIng, consider the reasonableness standard In ttit3 OAR, and consider the Safe Harbor
option provided by ,state law. .The planning cOmmissioners also noied It is ilDporkint to
understand that the decision Des with the Boardl despit~ any City's desires to have approval of
the numbers they 'have put forth..and it was important to move forward to be In ccmpnanee with
,applIcable s~te I~ws requiring the coordlnate<:f forecast It is ultimately 1he LaJ:1e County
()p:Bna~C8 No. PA 1255 / In !he Matrsr Of Amenc:llng The lBrie" Cca.lnt.y R1DI Ccm~ p~ (RCP)-To lnduck! A Caardlnaf.ed
Papulaffcn Forecast For Lane ~ And Each Urban Area Wftttln The County; And Adopting SiMngs And SewtabRlly Cau5e:s.."
(FiB Ne. PA~) .
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1 - 59
"
EXHIBIT A - P57
Board'~ decision and responsibirJty~ Comm!ssfon reasonlng throughout the. prtJCeS?, and pubflC .
~mony received into the record Is set forth In 1I1e Minutes' of proceedings, which are attached.
The Lane County Planning Commission was invited and paiticipated in the PSU forecast pUQl1c
process, and the minutes of those pubiic meetings are also attached.. The Pfanning
Commission defaberauons and vote on the small dty PAPA induded discussion of the timing
and 'content of1he PSU forecast.work in relation to the.SmaIl City PAPA and It was exp~sed
that if the PSU numbers arerele~sed dose to the same time that the Smail CIty PAPA is befor~
the Boord, the 'Boartrs decisIon could be affeded by the PSU forecast
VI.. FOtlOW-UP'-'-.--
Notice of Board action wm 00 provided to OLeO and all interested 'parties.
Vlt ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. PA 1255
exhibit -A71 Population Forecast of small city PAPA
8chibit zB:t Fmdings
2. AJtema1a ExhIbit MA- & Exhibit -a- pre~jt7lg t.?te PSU ~~ and separated Eugene-
Springfield urban area fcrscasm
3.. Plannlng Commission work session and pubiic hearing minutes
B.. January 5J 2009
b. March 3) 2009
c.. March 17 J 2009
4. . Public Meeting minutes - PSU Ccordipated PopuJalion Forecast
B. December 2. ,2008
b. February 2SJ 2009
C. March 26y 2009
5. Comments receIved Into the pubJlo record are avaIlable In Lana Management fer ace review
Table of Contents - P,SU file
..
~~ Ne. PA 1.255/ In The Matter Of Amendng The Lana CDunt;y Rlln5I Compehenstve ~n W) To'lrCude A Coadb.albd '
.. Pat:litIation Faf!lC8St F<< L.arte Cooofy'~ Each ~ ~ WiBlln The County; fw;1 AdoptIng ~ Nd &lYerabtllly Causes... .
(fIe No.. fA 08-5813)
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - 60
, .
EXHIBIT A -. P58
p . ~qi=i.-~
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LANE COUN1Y,~~U
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1255
IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE LANE
COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP)
BY ADOPTING A COORDINATED POPULATION
FORECAST FOR LANE COUNTY AND EACH
URBAN AREA WITHIN THE COUNTY; AND
ADOPTING SAVINGSAND SEVERABILITY
CLAUSES. (File No. PA 08-5873)
WHEREAS. the Board of County Commissioners of 'lane County. through en~c1ment of
.Ordinance PA 883, has adopted the Lane County General Plan Policies document which is a
component of the Lane County ~uml Comprehensive ,Plan; and '
)'/HEREAS) Lane Code 12.050 and 16.400 set forth procedures for amendments of the
Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan; and '
WHEREAS) it is necessary to amend the L~ne County Rural Comprehensive Plan to
adopt countywide coordinated population forecasts for Lane County and each urban area within
the county to provide'for long range planning and consideration for public infrastructure and
community needs for the future consistent wi1h state law; and
WHEREAS, the small cities of Lane County proposed coordinated population forecasts
that were reviewed at public hearings with the Lane County Planning Commission on January 6
and March 3. 2009; and
WHEREAS) the Board retained Portland State University Population Research Center to
complete analysis and conduct public process to develop coordinated population forecasts for
Lane County and each urban area within the county and present the study and results to the
Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS. evidence exists in the record indicting that 1he. proposals meet th~ '
requirements of Lane Code Chapters 12 and 16. and the requirements of applicable state and
local law; and
WHEREAS) the Board of County Commissioners has conducted a public hearing and is
now ready to take action;
NOW, THER~F6RE. the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County ordains as
follows: .
The Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, General Plan Policies. Introduction,
Section 0, adopted by Ordinance No. PA 884 and amended thereafter is further
amended by adding the countywide coordinated population forecast table and text as
set forth in Exhibit \I A'tl attached and incorporated here as if fully set forth.
FURTHER. although not part of this Ordinance. the Board of County Commissioners
adopts findings in support of this action as set forth in Exhibit -8" attached and incorporated
h~re. . , . '
ATTACHMENT 1 - 61"
'J .
EXHIBIT A - PSg
Prior coordinated population forecasts adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
before enacting this Ordinance shall remain in run farca and effect following the
effective date of this Ordinance until those plans are further updated or amended by the
Board.
If any section, subsection. sentence, clause phrase of portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdictionl such
section s,haJl be deemed a separate) distinct and independent provision) and such
holding shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
ENACTED t~i5 n,'8 day of J u~
. 2009.
/Jtr~
Peter Sorenson, Chair
Lane County 80ard of County Commissioners
, "
Melissa Zimmer. Se
Lane COunty Board of County'Commissioners
APPROVED AS TO F..ORM
",
".
. .
ATTACHMENT 1 - 62
i ~" ,
EXHIBIT A - .P60
EXHIBIT A
FINAL FORMAT
LANE COUNTY
RURAL COlvfPREHENSIVE PL.AN
GENERAL PLAN POUCIES 1984
UPDATED~
January 1998
Apri12003
August 2.003
December 2003
February 2004
January 2005
February 2008
June 2009
ATTACHMENT. 1- 63
\,f ,
EXHIBIT A - P61
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introductory Material 1
Introducti?n to the Rural Comprehensive Plan-l
Introduction to the Policies Component 3
History of the Policies Document 3
Gties, Communities and Rural Lands i
~?lementatiQn 6
Lane County General Plan Policies
Part I~
Part II:
Goal One:
Goal Two:
Goal mee:
Goal Four:
Goal Five:
Goal Six:
Gqal Seven:
Goal Eight
Goal Nine:
Goal Ten:
Goal Eleven:
Goal Twelve:
Goal1'hi$en:
Goal Fourteen:
Goal Fifteen:
Citizen Involvement
Land Use Planning
Agricultural Lands
Forest Lands
Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Ar-eas and Namal ResoU1C€S .
Historic ResoUIces
1'"fineral &. Aggregate Resources
Flora & Fauna
Open Spaces & Scenic Areas
Energy
Water Resources
Air, Water and Land ResoUI<:es
Water Quality
Air Quality
Areas Subject to Natural Disasters &: Hazards
Recreational Needs
Economy of the State
Hbusing
Public Facilities & Services
Transportation
Energy Conservation
Urbanization
Willamette Greenway
Part ill: Coastal KesOUIces Management Plan Policies
Goal Sixteen: Estuarine Resources
Goal Seventeen: Coastal Shore lands
Goal Eighteen: Beaches and Dunes
Goal Nineteen: Ocean Resources
ATTACHMENT 1 '- 64
\,1 "
EXHIBIT A
P62
PART 1: INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
A. INTRODUCTION TQ mE RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan applies to all unincorporate.d lands within the
County beyond the Urban Growth' Boundaries of incorporated cities in the County CL.,d
beyond the boun~a.ry of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan. 1Nhere th~ lands
are beyond County jurisdiction (such as National Forest lands)J the Plan applies but its
application is regulate:! by f.ederal law. In addition, it does contain provisions and
representations of County positi~.s on various issues} to be used by those agencies, such as the
US Forest Service, in their own ~geinent actions, and also use~ in the event tl;1.at lands not
.' iIlCoun~ jurisdiction ent~ County jurisdiction.
, The ~~ follo-w:s the format of the LCDC St:ate"Wide PlarJrlng Goals, recognizing that they
must be met by all local jurisdictions in Oregon. It is composed. of two major elements:
1. County Ge.."T1eral Plan Policies: For eac...~ LCOC Goal, there are one or more Policies to be
applied by the Count-j toward land use and other planning and resoUIc-e-rnanagement
issues, in the interests of compliance with sound planning principles and statewide
planning law. Policies are binding commitments, but will be carried out within
established work programs and. over all County priorities..' The application of Policies
. which call for any programs or studies will occur as County resources in terms of both
. staff and budgetary allocations permit
~ Plan Diagrams: Two major planning regions are identified for Lane County-the Coastal
Region and the Inland Region. For each, detailed representations of land. use are
depicte~ on maps, on Plan .Diagrams. Land use regulation methods, Such as zoning, are
applied to carry out the intent of the designatioIlS. The application of the geI:t€I'al plan is
. primarily through zoning. In fact planning and zoning designations are set forth on the
J
same map.
Otart One diagrams the relationship of these elements} and also indicates 're1ati.onship~ with
other portions of the C01D1ty Comprehensive Plan.
T'ne document Il:oW'.. before the reade:r is one of the two above cOIhponents-the County
General Plan Policies ~tIocument. The PolicieS doctI.Ii:1ent is the broad, direction-setting portio;n
of the Plan, and lays out approaches for interpretation of County planning needs and means
of complying with State of Oregon planning law. ~ l~w attaches great importance to local
jurisdictions having adopted comprehensive plans ..which in tarn meet the requirements of
Statewide Planning Goals. Accordingly, matters of interpretation concerning. the General
Plan are to be resolved in favor of compliance "With these Goals, and the Plan itself shall be
recognized as representing the County's best effort in meeting the requ:irem~ts of LCDC and
its policyexpressirins, including Goals. .
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1 -65
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD :METROPOUTAN
AREApLAN .."
(Includes all land within plan boundaries)
)>
-I
-I
)>
(")
:I:
s:
m
z
-I
--I- '
I
C'l
C'l
SMALL AREA PLANS
XAMPLE:
ORTH SPRINGFIELD
SPECIAL PUR.PQSE .PLANS
LES:
METRO BIKE PLAN
-2000 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CHART ONE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR. LANE COl.1NTY
(includes all adopted general and detailed plans)
PLANS FOR SMALL INCORPORATED
CITIES
. (Areas within Urban Growth
Boundaries/but
outside City Limits)
COTIAGE GaVE
CRESWELL
OA.K1UDGE'
WE~TFIR
PLAN
LOWELL
COBuRG
ntNCTION CITY
VENETA
FL01tENCE
DUNES CITY
"..
LANE cOUNTY GENERAL PLAN,
(Includes all unihcotporated landsbcyond
Metropolitan P181l Bo~daty and
Stnall City Urban Growth Boundaries)
-PLAN POLICIES
-COASTAL PLAN DIAGRAM
-INLAND PLAN DIAGRAM
SINGLE Pl.J'.ttPOSE PLAN
(May-include both metro.
rora! and small city areas)
EXAMPLES:
-SOLID W ASTB MANAGEMENT PLAN
-p ARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
-COASTAL RESOU'RCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
rn
><
:I:
-
OJ
-
-I
)>
I
""U
C'l
U)
LA .
EXHIBIT A - P64
B.
'.
INTRODUCrION TO THE (.:OUNTY POLICES COMPONENT OF THE ,GENERAL
PLAN
..' .
County PoIiciesare broad, somewhat genel'alized statements that provide direction to
County decision makers in their efIorts to choose between competing uses for given
resources, and in their efforts' to solve historic problems and prevent new ones from
occurring, The Policies cover complex topics and lay the groundwork for future actions
or various kinds. The Policies expressed here apply to rural Lane County, outside of the
Urban Growth Boundaries of cities and beyond the Plan Diagram Boundary of ~e
Eu.gene-Sp~eld' Metropolitan Area General PIan. They are designed to 'be
compatible "With similar Polides-and planning efforts-of oth~ goverru:i1ental
jurisdictions in the County,
In some r~spects, the Policies can be tonsideI~d the basis oI the .county plan, in that
they provid'e the lead,. or the general, direction, for, subsequent County actionS to deal
with various land use anq I€SOUICe mana.gement decisions. In doing so,~ey are
dir.ect1y intended to fulfill the mandate of the Lax: statewide planning Goals.
Four state1-vide pl~ Goals are not addresSed in this docume~t the four IICoastal
Goalsll (LCDC Goals 16-19). These, and Policies connected with them, are located in a
special-purpose Coastal Resource Management Plan developed and adopted Ior use 'in
the Coastal portion of the County. They should be used in concert with the "basic
fift-een" Goals. Since they are special-purpose in nature, and deal ~re specifically with
particu1ax concerns of the Coastal area, conmcts may arise 01' be .generated between the
Coastal Policies and the l'basic fifteenll and should be resolved in favor of the Coastal
Policies until, and if one or the other conflicting statement is chang-€d to eliminate the
confllct. .
The Willame~e Greenway Goal is considered to be part of the 11basic flft-een".
C. HISTORY OF THE POUCIES DOC1J1.!ENI'
1l1e Policies containe~ in this docm:nent ~ere d~veloped during a period of mOI.e than .
a year, be~g in early 1983. A proces~ was devised at the beginning of the period
to utilize existing working papers and to prepare a series of new working papers
which, along~th other soun:es, were to serve'as the technical data based for the
Policies. The Working Papers were written and published from mid-19Bl to early
1984. Each W or:Eng Paper contained information on a given topic or topics1 and a
number of them contained. preliminary Policies which were drawn' from the
~ormati.on in the Papers and which.were pre~~ted ~OI irdtial discussion purposes.
Hearings were held on the Papers as they were published. Each Planning Comr:nission
report.ed to the Board of County ~ommis5ioner5 containing its reaction to the Paper
and draft Policies. Often the Policy statements drew onSOUIces other than the
Working Paper~ting County Plan information (such as special-purpose plans or
technical studies),comments or testimony of individuals or groups appearing 'at the
hearings" the jud~t and views, of Planning Commission members and 50 on-and
so . represented a, broad array of perspectives and attitudes. Each. Planning
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1 - 67
"~. .
EXHIBIT A - P65
Commission Rep<;>rt cited UiIonnation used iI:t Policy development, in order to provide
a firm basis for Policy use. The background information, including the Working
Papers, is to be used to help interpret and understand General Plan approaches but is
not itseU designed t~ be adopted as legislative ~w. The Board formally adopted the
Policies in February of 1984. '
D. OTIES, COM1v1UNITIES AND RURAL LANDS
Cities
While the Policies in this document are directed at Lane County government, it is
dearly recognized that the County has a respo:nsibility to} and must coordinate efforts
closely with, the i."'1ccrporated cities within its botlI1daries. Statewide planning law
requires that each incorporated city develop and ~dopt its own land u.se plan which
must itself comply with LCDC Goals. The plan must contain .essentially the same
elements as the County General Plan, with an additional element of an identified
Urban Growth Boundary (required by-Goa! 14). Future urban growth for each city is
to take place within that Boundary. In the case of the Eugene--Springfield Metropolitan
Area Plan, a mutual Boundary is adopted by both cities and the County. For all other
cities, the County must ratify the due; UGBs by independent evaluation of, and
adoption of, appropriate city plan provisions.
1brough this method, the County becomes responsibl~ for admi:ni.stering the
, provisions of city plans within the city UGBs but outside of the corporate city limits.
\lJ qint Agreements for Planning Coordinationll drawn up between the County and each
dty lay the framework for cooperative action in the effort Polid.es-conceming Goal 14
. in this document further indicate County posbire toward city plans. County adoption
of city plans-:..or. amendments theretcr-ensures that conflicts between city plans and
County Plan do' not t-eadily occur.
Beyond carrying out the responsibilities outlined above, ORS 195.036 requires '.that the
county:
"...establish dnd maintain a population forecast far the entire area within its boundary for use
in maintaining and updating comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate the forecast with the
local gav~en~.wiihin its boundary. ..
. Pursuant to this rt:!quirement and OAR 660-024-0030, coordinated population forecasts ,
have been developed and ar~ adopted for Lane County and each of its urban areas.
.These figures are included in Table 1.1, below. :
'.
The Coordinated PopuJ.atian Forecasts included in Table ~.1 were developed for Lane
County by the Portiand State l!niversity Population'Research Center except as noted.
The methods, assumptions and data used to develop these forecasts are included in
PSU's report Population Forecasts for Lane County" its Gties and Unincorporated
Area 2008-2035 dated May 2009. .
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1 - 68
~.
EXHIBIT A -P66
T bl
d P I r F
a e 1.1: Coordinate oou a Ion, orecas ts for Lane County and its Urban Areas
Forecast Period: 2010 2015 2020 2025 2029 2030 2035
Coburg" 1,103 1,387 1.394 2.628 3,216 3.363 4,251
I Cottage Grove 9,957 10,616 11.424 - 12.261 12.737 12,a5S 13,542
;a
CJ Creswell 5,647 6,802 8,263 9.758 10,799 11.060 12,172
"ii , ,
E Dunes Clty 1,457 1,542 1,640 1,726 1,7'67 1,m .1.823
UJ
~ Florence 11,212 12,355 13,747 15.035 16.065 16,323 17,434
c
6 JunctJon City 6,507 9.343 10.799 12,067 12,922 13,136 13,887
CJ
II Lowell .~ 1.043 1.228 1.459 1,714 1960 2.022 2,.345
c
G:I OakrfdQe 3',859 4,290
..J 4.672 4,866 5,022 5061 5280
Veneta 4.976 5,902 7,251' 8,n7 9,623 9847' 10505
Westfir ' I 35B 370 384 412 423 426 448
. .
lIS E~ena (city only) 156.844 166,609 176.124 185.422 192.536 194.314 202.~
e Springfiafd ~city onlv)
< 58,891 62,276 66Sn 70.691 73.989 74 814 78413
~ Metro Urban Area West af lnterstate-S'" 20,931 20.380 19.209 18,521 17,680 17.469 16,494
II
~
Metre Urban Area East of Interstata-S" 8,140 7,926 7,470 7 ;2.02 6,875 6,794 S,415
a:J EUQsne/Springfield Total UG8 Area 244,806 257,191 269,380 281,836 291.080 293,391 303 887
"iii 52.381
"0 UninaJroorated Area Outside all UGBs .58,531 55,gOO 54,344 52,861 52.261 51.634
~
Lane County Total 349,516 366,924 385,297 403,892 417,996 421,522 437,207
.. City of Coburg forecasts based upon analysis conducted by the firm Johnsen and Reid and testimony provided by-City of Coburg
rePresentatives Lo the Lane County Board of Ccmmissioner:s on June .3, 2009.
... Forecast based upon a 72%, alloca1ion of the total Metro UTA West ~f 1-5 and a 28% allocation of !he tetal Metre IJTA East of 1-5.
'Any updates or amendments to the forecasts iI:tcluded in Table 1.1 may. only be
initiated by Lane County. Any individual or interested titie, however, maY: make a
request for the Board to initiate such an update or amendment. Requests must'set forth
compelling reasons as to why the update or amendment should be considered at the
requested time,'rather than in conjunction with a future periodic Plan update. An offer
to participate in costs incuned by the County shall accompany the request
Amendments to these forecasts initiated by the BoCU'd shan follow general procedmes
outlines in La.n~.~ode 16.400(6). '
Communiti~.. ~...
Unincorporated communities 8.I~ treated ~erent1y. They are identified as
"community" on the Plan Diagrams, but aie not given official Urban Growth
Boundaries. Instead, the probable limits of growth over the planning period are
reflected in the area within the "community" desigI;lation. Sinc;:e lands within these
areas are under Co~ty Jurisdictionsl no Joint Agreements are required, but
development there must be j~tifi.ed by lJc;:ommitted lands" exceptiDru?
Areas. wi~ rural Lane County qualifying as Exception areas on the basis of pre- ,
committed uses are not necessarily "communitiesB as such, but do have some of the
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1 ~ 69
'J~ .
EXHrSIT A - P67
characteristics of community development-higher densities, for example. Thes12 areas
are treated much as. unincOrp9rated communities are within the General Plan, in that
they are solely und~r the County jutisc;Uction, and they are provided witl1 specific' land
use designa tions and zo~ reflective of their characte~tics: Th.ey ~e not portrayed,
however, with the broad ncommunityll designation in mostca.ses. For purposes of Plan
administration, a parcel of land is either within a UGH or designated: community or it
is not-the deciding factor is the portrayal on the Plan Diagram Lands adjacent to
such I1boundaries are not cOi1sidered to be within them until and if the boundaries are .
adjusted to accommodate them.
Rural Lands ..~-..
Finally, lands considered as agricultural" forest ~r natural resources are lands not
within any of the above classifications. These lands include the vast majority of total
Lane County acreage, and are under the jurisdiction of, the County plus state and
federal governments (National Forests). , The Statewide Planning Goals and the
Policies of this' Plan limited substa.,tial rural development. However.. it is recognized
that such development may occ:ux provided it is consistent with the policies contained
in this docUment.
R IMPLEMENT AnON
As stated earlier, f;he County Policies are int.ended to guide actions and decisions.
Although the policies have,a cornman-feature (i.e., relating to one or mor.e aspects of
land use) they cover a broad range of topics and concerns. Because of this wide range,
it is not reasonable to assume all policies are to be implemented,in the same manner.
Visualizing a policy as being in one or more of the following categories will pIovid~ a
better nnderstanding as to its application.
AdvisorY Policies
..
These are statements descr:ibing the County's position on a certain topic or issue;
genercilly but not always, relating neithel' to a subject, nor under the direct jurisdiction
of the Courtty. These policies are primarily intended to inform or influence the actions
of other parties. They do not have ,direct influence on the implementation of the
-- Gener,al P1~ ~ough Plan Map designation, z6ning of land ~r County RegulatioIlS.
Examples: "Lan,E. County recommends that no new wilda:ness areas be 'designated
without a complete analysis of th-erevenue and employment impacts on ~e County.
Where designations are made, negative empI~ym.ent and revenue impacts should be
mitigatedby mcreasing allowable ~ harveSts on other pu~I1c lands."
Commitment Policies
These are statements descnoing a future action the County intends to undertake. The
policies cover a variety of topics including' (a) guidance in County operations,
procedures, and relationships with other agencies, (b) recognition of state and f~der~
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1 - 70
. I ~ ·
EXHIBIT A - P68
_::~
EXHIBIT A
LEGISLATIVE FORMAT:
. Additions shown in bold and underlined
Deletions shown with a Etrikethre\:;J~h
LANE COUNTY
RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'
GENERAL PLAN POUCIES 1984
."
UPDATED:
Janu~ 1998
Apri12003
August 20'03
December 2003
February 2004
JanuaIy 2005
Febx1lary 2008
Tune 2009
. .
.. .. . . .-
ATTACHMENT 1 - 71
-. .1. .
. .
..: a.a.
EXHIBIT A - P69
ATTACHMENT 1 - 72
,; __t .
EXHIBIT A - P70
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I: Introductory Material 1
Introduction to the Rural Comprehensive Plan---l
Introduction to the Policies Component 3
History of the Policies Document 3
. Cities, Communities and Rural Lands 1
lmplementation 5 .2
Part II:
Lane..County General PIan PoIid.€s
Goal One:
Goal Two:
Goal Three:
Goal Four:
Goal Five:
Goal Six:
Goal Seven:
Goal Eight:
Goal Nine:
Goal Ten:
Goal Elev-en:
Goal Twelve:
Goal Thirteen:
Goal Fourteen:
Goal Fifteen:
Gtize..... Involvement
Land Use Planning
Agricultural Lands
Forest Lands
Open'Spaces, Scenic a.Tld :Historic Areas and Natural Resources
Historic Resomces
Mineral & A-g.gregate Resources
Flora & Fauna
Open Spaces & Scenic Areas
Energy
Water ~e5oUIces
Air, Water and Land Resources
Water Quality
Air Quality
Az-eas Subject to Natural Disasters &: HCl;Zatds
Reaeational N e€ds
Economy of the State
Housing
Public F aciIities & Services
Transportation
Energy Co~tion
UrbaniZation
Willamette Greenway
Part ill: Co~ ~OUIces Management Plan Policies
Goal Sixteen: Estuarine Resources
Goal Seventeen: Coastal Shore lands . .
Goal Eighteen: BeaChes and Dunes
Goal Nineteen: Ocean Resources
ATTACHMENT 1 - 73
.'.
" ~( .
EXHIBIT A - P71
PART 1: INTRODUcrORY MATERIAL
A. INTRODUCTION T9 THE RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Lane County Ruxal Compr-ehensive Plan applies to all unincorporated lands within the
County beyond the Urban Growth Bounda..-ries of incorporated cities in the County and
beyond t~e boundary of the Eug~ne-Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan. V'lhere these lands
are beyond County. jurisdiction {such as National Forest lands), the Plan applies but its
application is regulated by federal law. In addition, it does contain provisions and
representations of County positions on variouS issuesl to be used by those agencies, such as the
US Forest Service.. in their own management actionsl and also used in the event that lands not
in C6unty jurisdiction enter County jurisdiction.
The Plan follows the fennatof the LCOC Statewide Planning Goals, recognizing that they
must be met by all local jurisd.Tctions in Oregon. It is composed of two major elements:
1. County General Plan Polici€s: For eac..~ LCDC:Goal, t:hete are one or more Policies to be
applied by the County toward land use and other planning and r~oUIce-II1aI12agement
issues, in the interests of compliance with sound planning principles and statewide
planning law. Poli:d.es are bindi.Tlg commitments, but will be -carried out within
established work prog:razr.s and over all County priorities. Tne application of Policies
which call fer any programs or 5i:'.ldies will occur as County resomc.es in terms of both
staff and budgetary ~ocations permit.
2. Plan Diagrams: Two m3.jor planning regions axe identified for Lane County-the Coastal
;Region and the Inland Region. For each, detailed representations of land use are
depict~d on maps, on Plan Diagrams. Land use regulation methods, such as zoning, are
applied to carry out the intent of the designaijoIlS. The application of the ~eral plan is
primarily through zoning. In fact planning and zoning designations are set forth on the
same map.
Chart One diagrams the relationship of these elements, and also indicates relationships with
other portions of the County Comprehensive Plan. .
The document ~OW. before; the reader is one of the two above components-the County
General Plan PoliPes:~ocument The Policies document is the broad, "diiection-setting portion
of the Plan, and lays out approaches for interpretation of County planning needs and means
of complying 'With St:ate of Oregon planning law. 'This law attaches great importance to local
jurisdictions having adopted comprehensive planS..which in turn meet the reqoi:remenis of
Statewide Planning Goals. AccordinglYI matters of interpretation concerning the General
Plan are to be resolved in favor of compliance with .these Goals, and the Plan itself shall be
.recognized as representing the Countis best effort in meeting the.requi.rements ofLCDC and
its policy expressions, including Goals. .
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1 - 74
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPQUTAN
AREA PLAN. "
(Includes all land within plan boun.daiies)
)>
-i
-i
)>
(")
::I:
3:
m
Z
-i
.....
SMAIL AREA.PLANS
LE:
I
-.I
CJ1
. .
'.
PECIAL PURPOSE PLANS
LBS:
METRO BIKE PLAN
-2000 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
, CHART ONE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LANE CouNtY
(includes all adopted general and det~i1ed platlS)
PLANS ..FOR SMALL INCORPORATED
CITIES
(Areas wiLhin Urban Growth
Boundaries but
outside City Limits)
COTTAGE GaVE
CRESWELL
OAK1UDGE
WESTFIR
PLAN
LOWELL
COBURG
JUNCTION CITY
VENETA
FLORENCE
DUNES CITY
1l
LANE cou'NTY GENERAL PLAN
(Includes all u-rlincotpomted lands beyond
Metropolitan Plan Boundary and
Small City Urban Growth Boundaries)
-PLAN POLICIES
-COASTAL PLAN DIAGRAM
-lNLAN'D PLAN DIAGRAM
S~GLEP~OSEPLAN
(May include both metro.
rural and small cIty areas)
EXAMPLES:
-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
-P.ARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
-COASTALltESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
m
><
.. ::I:
-
OJ
-
-i
)>
I
-c
-.I
~
'i 't' )1
EXHIBIT A - P73
B.
'INTRODUCTION TO THE COUNTY.POUCIES COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN
. County Policies are broad, somewha t generalized statements that provide direction to
County decision makers in their efforts to choose between competing uses for given
resources, and in their efforts to solve historic problems and prevent new ones from
occurring. The Policies cover complex topics and lay the groundwork for future actions
of various kinds. The Policies eXpresse~ here apply t? rural ~e County, outside of the
Urban Growth Boundaries of dtie; .and beyond the Plan Diagram Boundary of the
Eugene-Sprin~eld Metropolitan Area General Plan. They. are designed to be
compatible With similar Policies-and planning efforls-of other governmental
jurisdictions in the County.
In some respects, the Policies can be considered the basis of the CoUntypbn, in ilia t
they provide the lead, or the general direction, for subsequent County actions to deal
with various land use and resource management decisions. In doing 50, they are
ditectly intended to fulfill the mandate of the lCDC statewide pI~'Pling Goals.
Four statewide planning Goals are not addressed in this document: the four acoastal
-Goals" (LCDC Goals 16-19). These, and Policies connected with them, are located in a
special-purpose Coastal E,esourc-e Ma.Tlagement Pian developed aJ,.,d adopred for use in
the Coastal portion of the County. They should be used in conc~rt 'With the "bask
flfteen" Goals. Since they are special-purpose in nature, and deal mor-e specifically with
particuJ.ar conc-erns of the Coastal area, conflicts may arise or be generated between the
Coastal Policies and the "basic fifteenll and should be r-esolved in favor of the Coastal
Policies until, and if one or the other conflicting statement.is changed to eliminare the
c;:onflict
The Willamette Greenway Goal is considered to be part of the IIbasic fifteenll.
C .HJSTORY OF TIlE POUCIF5 DOCUMENf
The Po1i9-es contained in this document were developed during a period of more than
a year, beginning in early 1983. A process was devised at the beginning of the period
to utilize existing working papers and to prepare a series of new working papers
which, along with other sources, were to serve as the technical data based for the
Policies. Th;e Working Papers were written and published from mid-1981 to early
1984. Each WoriOng Paper contained information on a' given topic or topics, and a
number of them contained preliminary Policies which. were drawn from the
information in the Papers and which were pres.~ted for initial discussion purposes.
Hearings were held on the Papers as they were published. Each Planning COIiunission
reported to the Boar~ of County Commissioners containing its reaction to the Paper
an~ . draft Policies. Often .the Policy statements drew on sources other than the
Working Papers-existing County Plan infonnation (such as special-purpose plans or
technical studies),comments or testimony of individuals or groups appearing at the
hearings, the judgment and views of Plann,ing Commission members and so on-and
so represented a broad array of perspectives and attitudes, Each Planping
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1 - 76
'0 "'.
E:XHIBIT A - P74
Commission Report cited inforIi'lation used in Policy development, in order to. provide
a fmn basis for Policy. use. The background information, including the Working
Papers, is to be used to help interpret and understand General PIan approaches but is
not itself designed to be adopted as legislative law. The Board fonnally adopted the
Policies in February of 1984.
D. cmES, COMMUNITIES AND RURAL LANDS
~
While the PoIicies in this document ar~ directed at Lane County government, it is
clearly recognized that the County has a responsibility to, and must coordinate efforts
closely with, the incorporated cities within its boundaries. S~tewide planning law
requires that each incorpQratedcity develop and aqoptibiown land use Plan which
must itself comply with LCDC Goals, The plan must contain essentially the saine
elements as the County General Plan, with an additional element of an identified
Urban Growth Boundary (required by Goal 14). Futm'e urban growth foream city is
to take place wifrJn that Boundary. In the case of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area Plan, a mutual Boundary is adopt-ed by both cities and the County. for an other
cities, the County must ratify the cities UGBs by independent evaluation of, and
adoption of, appropriate city plan provisions.
-
Through this. method, the County becomes r-esponsible for administering the
provisIOns of city plans -within the city UGBs but outside of the corporate city limits.
"Joint Agreements for Planning Coordination" drawn up betw.een the County and each
city lay the framework for cooperative action in the effort. Polides concerning Goal 14
in this document further indicate County posture toward dty plai1s. County adoption
of city plans-ar amendments the:retQ-€I1SUIes that conflicts between. city plans and
County Plan do not readilyOCCUI. . _.
Beyond carrying out the res-ponsibilities outlined a:bove..ORS 195.036 requfres that
the coanty:
"_.establish and maintain a l1oDulation foreCtZSt for the entire area within its bounJarv (or
use in mmntainint? anti "Ddanne comDrehensive Dlans, and shaH coordinate the forecast with
tlte local eovernmenu within its boundarv. "
. Pursuant t~\. this req,iliement and OAR 66O-{)24-0030p coordinated l'opulation
forecasts have been develolJed and are' adopted fDT Larie C01IIlty and each. of its
urban areas. These figures are included in Table 1.1, below. .
. .
1l1e Coordinated Population Forecasts included in Table 1.1 were develo-ped for
Lane County by the Portland State University Population Research Center excel't as
noted. The methods, assumptions and data used to develop these forecasts are
included in PSU's report: Pooulation Forecasts for Lane Countv. its Cities and
Unincornorated ,Mea 200g..2035. ~ated Mav 2009. . . .
. Page 4' . .
ATTACHMENT 1 - 77
... *
EXHIBIT'A - P75
2030 2035
363 4251
12 8SS 13 542
11 Q60 121 2
1777 1823
18 323 17434
13136 13 887
2022 2345
4866 5 Of31 .5280
9847 . 10 505
426 448
194314 202 565
;4 S14 18 413
16494
.
'"iii
'0,
...
Eu ne/S nn "eld Tab' UGB Area
Unlnco orat~ Area OutsIde all UG8s
lane Coun Tobl
244 806
58 531
349 516
269 380 281.836 291 080 293 391 3Q3 887
52861 52.381 52261 51 634
385297 4n3892 411996 421 522 4372tJ7
11 CIty of CObU1Q forac:as1s based ucon anal-ysis condud2d bV the firm Johnson and Reid and tastimonv t1ravided bv Citv of Coburo
representatives to the Lane County Board of Commissioners on June 3. 2QQ9.
.. Forecast based una n% anocatfon of the total Metro UTA West of 1-5 and a 2B% alloc::dJon of the total Metro lIrA East of 1-5.
Anv updates or amendments to the forecasts included in Table 1.1 may only be
initiated by Lane County. Any individual or interested cities. however, may make a
request for the Board to initiate such an update or amendment. Requests "must set'
forth compelling reasons as to why the update 01" am~ndment should be considered
at the requested time, rather than in conjtmdion with a rotate 't'eriodic Plan U1'date..
An offer to participate in costs incmred by the Co~ty shall accompany the request.
Amendments. to these forecasts initiated by. the Board shall follow. .general
procedures outlines in Lcine Code 16AOO(6l. .
'.
c · ti" '.
ommunl es '., '
Unincorporated c~unj.~es are trea,teq differently. They are identified as
"communityn on the Plan Diagrams, but, ~e not given official Urban Growth
Boundaries. Instead, the probable limits of growth over the planning ,period are
reflected' in. the area within the !'community' designation. Since lands within these
areas are under. County jurisdictions, no J oint Agreements' are required, but
development there must be justified by IJcommitted landsll exceptions.
. Areas within rural Lane County quaIifyipg as Exception areas on the basis of pre-
c~mmitted uses are not necessarilyllcommunities11 as such, but do have .~ of the
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1 - 78
i "" .
EXHIBIT A :... P76
characteristics of coD'1.n1unity development-higher deIlSities, for example. These ~eas
are treated much as unincorporated conununities are within the General Plan, in that
they are solely under the County jurisdiction, and they are provided with specific land
use designations and zoning.re.f1ective 91 their characteristics. They are not portrayed,
however, with the broad "community".designationin most cases. For purposes of Plan
administration, a parcel of. land is either within a DGB or designat~d: community or it
is not..;...the deciding factor is the. portrayal on the Plan Diagram. l.ands adjacent to
such l'OOunda,ries are not considered to be within them until and if the boundaries are
adjusted to accommodate than.
Rmal Lands ."~
Finally, . lands considered as agricu.ltliIal,forest. or natural resources. are lands not
within any of the above classifications~. These lands include the vast majority of total
Lane County acreage; cqid are under the jurisdidion of the County plus state and
federal governments (National Forests). The Statewide Planning Goals and the
Policies of this Plan limited substantial nual developlnent. However, it is recognized
that such development may occur provided it is consistent lYith the policies contained
jn this document. .
E. ThfPLElvfENI'ATION
As stated e~lier, the County' Policies are intended to .gUide actions and decisions.
Although the policies have a common feature (i.e., relating to one or more aspects of
land use) they cover a broad range of topics and conceIns. Because of this wide range,
it is not reasonable to assume all policies are to be implemented in the same manner.
VISUalizing a policy as being in one or more .of the following categories will provide a
~tter understanding as to its application.
Advisory Policies
"
These are statements describing the' County's position on a certain topic or issue;
generally but not always, relating neither to a subject; nor under the direct jurisdiction
of the County. These policies "are primarily intended to infOIII1 or influence the acti~
of other parties. They do n9t have direCt' influence on the implementation of the.
General ~an tlu:~ugh Plan Map designation, zoning <!f land ~r County Regulations.
Examples: Iltan~..County recommends that no new wilderness areas be designated
Without a complet~ analysis or the revenue and employment impacts on ~e County.
Wi1E~re designations are inade, negative employment and ~evenue impacts should be
mitigated by increasing allowable timber harvests on other public lands. n .
. Coirunitment policies
.These ate statements descn"bing a future action the County intends to undertake. The
policies cover a ,variety . of topics inclu~g (a) guidance in Ccnmty operations,
procedures and relationships ~th oth~ agenciesl (b) !ecognition of state and federal
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1 - 79
· )ri. ,.
EXHIBIT A - P-77
EDrlbit B
Fmdings'In Sup"port of
Ordinance No. PA 1255
Lane County Coordinated Population Forecast
Portland State University, Population Research Center
Rural Comprehensive Plan Adoption.
1. Population Forecasts for lAne County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008-2035
<^'fay 2009) was prepared by the Population Research Center College of Urban and
Public Affairs at Portland State University (pSU) over a period of time from August
2008 to May 2009.
2. The Population Research Center produced long-term. population forecasts for' the
County, the two largest cities of Eugene and Springfield, the shared Eu.gene-Springfield
uroan growth. boundary area (UGE), the UGB areaS for the County's remaining 10
Cities, and for the unincoIpOrated area outside the DGBs. The forecast horizon extends
27 yem from 2.008 to 2035, and the forecasts are produced in '5-year intervals between
2010 and 203"5. The County will use the forecasts to coordinate revisions of the
comprehensive plans for each of these areas. The projections are benchmarked to the
Population Research Center's 2008 certified population ~ates for the city arid
county populations.
3. In 2008, Lane County's population was 345,880. The Eugene-Springfield UGB
represents .70 percent of the county's population and that percentage does not change
much during the forecast period. .
4. The 2008 population estimates for Lane County' s t~ smaller cities are all under
10,000, ranging from 340 to 9,830 persons. These cities capture population increases
from about 13 percent to over 18 percent throughout the forecast period.
5. The share of the population that the non-UGB unincorporated area represents'decreases
from. about 17 percent to 12 percent. This shift of persons residing in rural"areas to
more urbanized areas is a common trend throughout Oregon and the United States that
has been ongoing' for many years. . .
6. Data used to develop the forecasts include vital statistics; popUlation, land use, building ,
permit, and employment da~ and school emoIlments for districts within Lane County.
Sev.eral different demograp~c methods and models were employed to prepare the
forecasts, inqlumng the development of cohort -component models for the County and
larger areas, and -'housing unit models f9r each 'Qf the cqunty~s smaller cities and the
non-UGB Unincorporated area~ The ~hort-component model incorporates rates .of
fertility, mortality, and migration. The housing :unit model assumes a number of future
added housing units, levels of.housing oc~ancy, and averages of then~ber of
persons per household. Consideration was given to factors that influence Lane COllD:ty's
population dynamics, namely the population's ethnic and age composition, the number
of annual births that occur, employment and commuting patterns, the number of
building permits" issued, and public school enrollment in the county's school districts.
7. Future trends in. the for~casts for. the County and its sub-areas each suggest that there
will be continuing increases in population, but at slightly decreasing rates from the
" . 'beginning to the end of the forecastperiod.
Ordinance No. P A 1255
Exhibit '13" Findings
1
ATTACHMENT 1 - 80
. ~ }l
EXHIBIT A - P78
8. The downturn of the local economy is forecast to be more severe than that seen in the
early 2000' s and to not recover until the 2010's. Therefore, housing construction is
forecast to be sluggish for a few years in most area.s, but will accelerate' after 201 S. At
that time the :Aet in-migration of families with children, the elderly, and Hispani~ is
predicted to increase and continue thropghout most of the forecast p~od.
9. The sub-areas in this study at times are called 'dties' but are ,actually city urban areas,
which refer to the area within the city limits combined with its corresponding UGB area
oulside city limits; or in other words, all 'of the area within the small city urban .growth
boundaries. '
10. The PSU forecasts for Eugene and Springfield cities are for the individual cities without
the unincorporate;d U GB area, because they share a single 'UGB under the current
Metro Plan boundary. The Eugene-Springfield UGB population estimated for each of
the areas east and west of 1-5 separately is forecast to follow current percentages, which
is 72 percent for Eugene and 28 percent for Springfield. The share of the. E1.1gene-
Springfield UGB will continue to be stable at around 70 percent of the county whole,
with a slight increase during the forecast period.
11. The unincorporated area of Lane County refers to the area outside of any city and UGB.
This area is known as the 'non-UGB unincorporated area' in the PSU Report,
Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cines and Unincorporated Area 2008-2035
(May 2009).
12. Five of Lane County's cities, Lowell, Veneta, Dunes City, Coburg, and \Vestfir, either
have a UGE that is identical, or nearly identical, to their city boundary. .
13'. The other cities have a UGB outside their city limits where a portion of the city area's
housing stock is located. Twenty-<>ne percent of Florence' s housing units are in its
unincorporated UGB area The percentage of housing' that is located in the Eugene-
Springfield and the Junction City unincorporated UGB areas is around 12 percen~ and
represents over 12,000 and over 300 housing units, respectively. The cities of
Oakridge, Creswell, and Cottage Grove each have a DGB where between 3 and 6
percent of the housing units (in a range between 5.0 and 200 units) are located..,;
14. The annual certified population estimates from the U. S. Census represenfthearea
within the city limits. If a city does not send annual housing and population data to the
estimates pro~ its certified estimate is held constant to the previous year ~d may
not account .for recent changes. The population figures presented in the report
. Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008-2035
(M"ay 2009), represent the.2008 certified estimates adjusted to incorporate the city UGB
areas.Populatian forecasts for 2010 and beyond account for fluctuations in annual data
that may have afrected the. previous. data.
15. The 2010-2040' population forecast for Lane County produced by Oregon's Office .of
Economic Analysis (DEA) is used to. gauge th~ Lane County forecast reSults. While the
published OHA forecast currently available w~s produced' in 2004, DBA is currently
reVising the forecast The Population Research Center works closely with DBA and
had access to information regarding those revisions during the Lane County Population
Forecast effort. Consequently, results reported for Lane County by the PSU report are
very close to. OEA'g preliminary forecast, but slightly lower in the early part of the
forecast period, and slightly higher toward the end, of the period. The differences vary
by no more than 2,700, or less than one percent., in any 5-year time period.
OrdiDanceNo. PA 1255
Exhibit "En Findings
2
ATTACHMENT 1 - 81
~ )1
EXHIBIT A - P79
16. The ethnic and racial diversity in the population forecast includes base data of white
non-Hispanics accounting for 86.2 percent of the Coun'ty's population and all other
etlmic minorities accounting for 13.8 percent HispaI:1ics represent the largest share of
the ethnic minority population (approximately 44.2 percent), followed by AsianlPacific.
Islanders (21.0 percent) followed by persons who identify themselves as more than one
race (17.4 Pen:ent)7 Blacks and Native Americans represent about 1 percent, and 7.3
percent of the ~unty's ethnic minority population, respectively. Of the total County
population, Hispanics represent 6.1 percent
17~ The total fertility rate in the County was 1.63 in 2000. This rate is somewhat lower
than the State~average of 1.98 clnldren per woman in 2000, and even lower than the
, 1990 County rate (1.71). The trend of declining fertility rates over the past 2 decades is
forecast to continue. A larger decrease in fertility rates has been offset by the increase
of the female Hispanic population which is. asSociated with higher fertility rates than the
. majority population of white non-Hispanics. Age-specific fertility rates in the County
have shifted slightly in recent years and there has b~n an increase in the percentage of
women, statewide postponing child-bearing, or deciding not to have crJldren at all. In'
addition, there is now a smaller share of younger moth~ than in the past.
18. Occupa..iJ.cy rates in Lane County are higher than the statewide occupancy rate. Coastal
cities (Dunes CitY and Florence) hav~ the lowest, occupancy rates due to vacation
homes and 'Seasonal housmg. The places with the highest occupancy rates - above 96
percent - are Veneta, Westfir, and the Eugene-Springfield UGB. The average number
of persons that occupy a household (PPH), or household size, is influenced by several
factors; age and racial/ethnic composition; share of elderly populatioTI: versus the share
of married couples and growing families due to the propensity of elderly to live alone,
and changes in fertility rates and school enrollment
.19. By housing type, the PPH ill single-family units (SFR) is typically higher than in
multifamily residences (MFR), or mobile homes. This is the case in Lane County, its
unincorporated area, and most of its cities. In Junction City, however, the PPH is higher
in mobile homes than in other housing types. The rates of increaSe in the ri'f:1mber of
housing units in Lane, County and its cities and unincorporated area are sinnlar to the
growth rates of their corresponding populations for most of the, ten smaller cities in
Lane County. The.. pattern of population and housing change in the County also
remains relatively similar.
20. Facilities such as nursing homes; college dorms, and prisons are categorized as group .
quarters. In 2008, 3.0 percent of Lane CountY s population, or-lO,669 persons, resided
in group quarters facilities. The City of Eugene is home to about 82 percent of the
County's grdup "quarters population, with 90 percent of persons in. group quarters
residing within .the Eugene-Springfield DGB. The for~cast assumes the group quait~rs
. populatio~ will remain fairly stable during the forecast period except ih Junction City,
where construction of a state prison and state hospital is planned for the ~ly years of
the forecast.
21. The mortality rate used to 'develop the forecast assumes that current ,mortality will
improve during' the forecast period and that the gender difference in life expectancy at
birth Will mostly maintain the current level. The mean age at all births will slightly
increase, which is consistent with the U..S., state, and coUnty historical trends since the.
1960s.
Ordinance No. PA 1255
Exhibit uB" Findings
3
ATTACHMENT 1 - 82
.. ~ ....
EXHIBIT A - PSD
2~. Migration rates are a more' difficult demographic factor to estimate than the other
factors, yet they "remain a main factor affecting population changes in Lane County.
Around three fourths of population growth in the County since 2000 is attributed to net
migration (movers in minus movers out). The fin~l projected net migration used in the
forecast is a hybrid of the demographic method, time series, and economic growth
analysis methods. Net migration was negative in the 19805, and was about 10,000
residents (me?-ni.ng lO,OOO more persons moved out of Lane County than moved in}, or
3.5 percent oftatal population. Net migra~on was positive in the 1990s, about 30,000
residents, or about 11 percent .of the total population. The negative net migration in the
1980s .was m.arked by Oregon's most severe economic downturn since the Great
Depression, while the large positive net migratio~ in the 1990s was more prosperous,
with strong job growth. From 2000 to 2008, population growth in Lane County due to
net migration was estimated to be around six to seven percent. Positive net migration
was seen despite downturns in the economy in the first few years of the decade. The
highest job increase since at least 2000 occurred in 2005; however, the economy was
. showing signs of weakening. again in 2007 and hasn't yet recovered. Still, evidence
continues to show signs of a positive in-flow of net migrants to Lane County. Net
migration will be lower in the 20005 than in the 19905 and the downturn 'is expected to
contL.,ue over the next f~w years. Net in.;.n;rigration will regain vitality after 2015,
however, due to an economic recovery. Due to the relatively larger population base
that bas been increasing si:nce at least 1990, total net migration in the 20105 is projected
to be slightly higher than in 1990 although it will b~ at lower rates. Net. in-migration
will accelerate some and will gain momentum until around 2030 when the magnitude.
1 ) b.t . .
essens a 1. .. .
23. All population forecasts are based on a combination of a beginning population; various
known, estimated, and predicted rates; and the forecasters' expertise and knowledge
about future trehds. The forecasts may err through imprecise data .or unexpected shifts
. in demo~pbic.trends. Generally, foreC3Sts for larger geographical areas, such as the
entire county are more reliable than those for ~mall ar~, such as for a small.city with
fewer than 1,000 persons.. These forecasts will be used as a guide to populatiod growth
over the next few years, and~hanges in local areas will surely affect pop1;llations in
some cities, resulting in the actual population deviating from the numbers shown in the
adopted forecasts. The differences between the forecast and actual populations will
vary in magnitude and perhaps direction.
24. The forecasts presented" in the PSU report Population Forecasts for Lane CountyJ its
Cities and :.fJnl~corporated Area 2008-2Q35(May 2Q09) :meet the requirement of
Oregori Revised. Statute (ORS) 195.Q36 and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-
024-0030 which require counties in Oregon to coordinate with ~eir cities to develop
population forecasts for use by the county and cities in land~use planning activities.
"The coordinating body under ORS 195.025(1) shall establish a,Jd maintain a
population forecast for the entire ar.ea Within its boundary for Use in maintaining and
updating. comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate the forecast' with the' local
governments within its boundary. n. The PSU report establishes population forecasts for
all of Lane County and the urban areas within .the county. The ~ffort leading up to the
report and development of the forecasts included three public meetings where city
representatives. and "interested "parties provided testimony and spoke directly to the"
Ordi:canceNo. FA 1255
Exhibit "E" Findings
4
ATTACHMENT 1 - 83 .
. .-(. ;w
EXHIBIT A - P81
collective and unique needs and issues in each of the cities of Lane County; These
concerns and an. the testimony and evidence was taken into consideration as described
in the PSU report Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cities and Unincorporated
Area 2008-2035 (May 2009) adopted and incorporated here by this reference. The
small cities and Eugene and Springfield provided input into the coordinated forecast, as
evidenced in the record of proceedings and process for the report. The efforts of PSU
and Lane County throughout tlie process, including th~ public hearing on the proposed
coun~de population forecasts adopted in the Lane County Rural Comprehensiv~
Plan (RCP) provided more than adequate coordination with local governments and
other interested parties. . .
25. As a part of the coordination process, the City of Coburg submitted additional
infonnation, including a study the City had cpm.missioned from Johnson Reid, a land
use economics consulting fum. The study, titled Estimate of Long-Term Population
Growth Rates in Co burg, Oregon, provided more detailed infonnation concerning the
population forecast for the City of Coburg, a city currently of around 1,000 persons.
That study and the testimonyabo'ut the findings of the study that aceompanied its
'submission on June 3, 2009, are adopted and incorporated here by this reference. The
Coburg study considered factors that were not consider~ or, in the opinion of J o~aSOn
Rei'd, were not sufficiently considered in the PSU ;report Population Forecasts for Lan.e
CountyJ its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2008-2035 (May 2009). Inciuded in the
Johnson Reid analysis were the supplemental facts of the probable increase in the
number of manufacturing jobs in Cobur:g, the employment trends in Eugene ai"1d
Springfield., Coburg's commitment to change as expressed in its adopted
Comprehensive Plan and other documents, and the calculated size of Coburg's
developing infrastructure. ~ased on these additional factors, the Johnson Reid study,
provided a more detailed and slightly different forecast for Coburg's population. While
the difference may be significant for the. City of Coburg population forecasts, the
. change in the adopted for~ included in the Rep made no statistically significant
difference for the County forecast as a whole and did not make a substantial 'c;:hange to
any section of the ordinance prior to adoption. :.,
26. This Ordinance amends the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, and such
'amendment shall be by Ordinance as stated in Lap.e Code Chapter 12.050, -Method of'
Adoption and Amendment LC12.050(2),iS found to be met as follows: The Board
may amend or supplement the comprehensive plari upon a finding of: .
(a) an. error in the plan; or .
(b) changeq. cir.;cum.stances affecting or pertaining to the planJ' or
(c) a chang!! in "public policy,' or
(d) a change in public need based on a reevaluation of factors affecting the
. plan~' provided, the amendment or suppleme1t~ does not impair the purpose of
the plan as established.by LC12.005 below. .
The amendment to, adopt a coordinated. population forecast into the RCP is necessary
based on changes in public need, policy and circumstances affecting COinprehensive plans
throughout" Lane County. Public policy changes now codified in state law that direct the
responsibility for adapting the ,coordinated forecasts as part of or by reference in a
comprehensive plan to the Lane County Board of Commissioners as the decision body
for the couilty and its urban areas has required -a re-evahiation of population Jorecastirig -
Ordinance No. P A 1255
ExhIbit '13" Findings
5
ATTACHMENT ,1 - 84
..., )11
EXHIBIT A
P82
and other relevant factors affecting all of the Lane County comprehensive plans. IIi
addition to the public policy changes regarding responsibility of the Lane County Board
for countyWide 'coorpinated population forecasts, HB 3337 (2007) requires a re-
evaluation of .population forecasts presented for the area' within the current
Eu.gene/Springfield Metropolitan Area single urban growth .boundary. A single
population fore~t for that urban area is no longer useful under HB3337 direction
enabling Eugene ap,d Springfield to conduct residential buildable land studies and other
studies separ~tely so that each may consider having.its own Urban growth boundary and
makes it necessary to produce future population projections based on the jurisdictional
area and requir.ements of each of the two largest cities in Lane County.
LC12.005 Purpose. The Board shall adopt a comprehensive plan. The general
purpose of the compreh.ensive plan is the guiding of the social>> economiC, and physical
development of the County to best promote public health>> safety, order, convenience,
prosperity and general welfare..
LmeCode Chapter 16.400(6)(n)(iii)(aa) further requires tlte Board to make findings
that the proposed amerUImen.t meets all applicable requirements of state and local
law. Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon Administrative Rules.
The proposed amen<hnent meets the purpose section of LC Chapter 12 and is also in
conformance ",vith the applicable state and Iocal1aws, Statewide Planning Goals and
.Oregon Administrative Rules as discussed below.
27. Goal!: Citizen 1J.volvement
This goal calls for the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning
process. It requires each City and county to have a citizen involvement program. .
The citizen involvement process timeline presented below. establishes adequate
opPortunities for citizen involv'ement and is fomid to be fullyC()Ii1pliant with thi~ goal.
On August 5, 2008, the Board of Commissioners directed staff to begin the cootdmated
. population forecast project by solicitation of appropriate consultant fums to conduct the
analysis required for the project.using a process that would be open and provide ample
'opportunity for citizen involvement in the preparation .and coordination of countywide
population forecasts. . .
On Septenib~ 5;-..2008, D~CD was notified the cities of Eugene and Springfield had
initiated a poSt-aCknowledgement plan amendment to the Metro Plim to adopt new
population foiecasts, for the cities to comply with the needed housing determination'
required by ORS 197.304 (HE 3337). The Lane County Planriing Commission
participated in coordinated population forecasfuig for the metro cities through a joint
hearing with the Metro planning commissions in Springfield City HaIl on November 6,
2008 to hear testimony regarding the Metro Safe Hatbor separate pop~ation forecasts
proposed by Eugene' and Springfield for the first time under HE 3337. The three
planning COminiSsiODS each voted a separate recommendation up to their elected officials,
the vote from Lane County was to recommend adoption.
. .
Ordinance No. PA 1255
Exhibit ~" F.indings
6
ATTACHMENT 1 - 85
. ,;.r, .
EXHIBIT A - pa3
9n December 2, 2008, the Lane UJunty Planning Conunission was invited, and many
participated in the PSU Countywide Population Forecast Kick-offmeeting held in Harris
Hall. Two additional public coordination meetings were -held upon release of the PSU
population forecasts, on February 26, 2009 and March 26, 2009.
The PSU effort 'was also 'presented in various ways during the LCPC public hearings and
consideration of the small city PAPA requesting a coordinated countywide population
forecast be adopted into the RCP. The LCPC ultimately recognized the Board would
need to decid~ on the appropriate population forecasts. AIl of these. proceedings gave
interested parties and cities 'anopportunity to coordinate and participate 'in development
. of population forecasts for Lane County and utilized the adopted county citizen
involvement program consistent with.Goal. 1
28. Goal 2: Land Use Planning This goal requires establishment of a/and use planning
process a'nd policy framework to coordinate decisions and actions related to land use
and assuring an adequate fact'..4cl basis jor those 4et:isions.
The adoption of a countyWide coordinated population forecast for Lane County and
urban areas of the county fulfills this goal through the' public involvement p~s
under the coordinated policy framework as demonstrated in the public record on file in
Land Management. The cities and Lane County have coordinated this decision through
the data consideration and analysis phase under contract with PSU. The public was
provided ample opportunity for input and involvement in the process, as evidenced by
over 300 exhibits in the public record for this project Therefore adopting this
amendment is fblly consistent Vlith Statewide Planning Goa12.
The Lane County R~ Comprehensive General Plan Policies, Introduction, illustrates
the connectedness of the city and county plans, and describes the co-adoption of each
city's Comprehensive Plan as illustrated in the introduction. In addition to this visual
representation of the relationship between the cities plans and the ov~l general
county plan, Part 1, Section D of the R~ Comprehensive ~lan states: ::.:.
"While the PolicieS in this document are directed at Lane County ga'vemme~ it is
clearly recogniz2d. that the County has a responsibility to~ and must coordinate efforts
closely with~ theincorpordted citie3 within. its boundq.nes. S~atewide planning law
requires t~at each inco.rporated city develop and adopt its own land use plan. which
must itself comply With LCDC Goals. The plan must contain essentially tJ...e jame
elem2nts as.: the.:. County General Plan, with an additional element of an .identzJied
Urban Growth Ho.undary (requir.ed by Goal 14). Future urban growthfor each city is
to take place within that Boundary. In the case of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan.
Area Plan, a mutual Boundary is adop'ted by. both ci.Jies and the County. For an other
dties, . the County must ratify thf! cities tJ(jlJs by independent evaluation oj; and
adoption of, appropriate city plan provisions. -
Through this method. the Co~nty becomes respo~ible jar administering the provisions
of dty plans within t1ze r;ity UGEs' but outside. of the r;orporate city limits. ~oint
Agreements for Planning Coordination' drawn up between the' County and each city
.. lay the framework for cooperative action in the effort. :11
Ordinance No. P A 1255
Exh.ibit "II" Findings
7
ATTACHMENT 1 - 86
. ~ '"
EXHIBIT A - P84
The coordinated population forecasts for. each urban area provid~ a key component of
the base data to support the policies and framework for. long range planning necessary
. to meet ~unicipal needs for each local jmisdiction particularly as it relates to urban
growth. The countywide population forecasts adopted in. the ReF provide the basis for
cities to use those forecasts and coordinate the population residing in urban areas with
the remainder of the population in rural Lane County. The enactment of the statutory
and. rule requirements' now applicable in Lane County and the urban areas makes it
necessary to adopt projections that are reasonable and sufficient for future. planning
. purposes. The adopted forecasts, once part of the Rep, must then be used by the cities
for the necessary urban area planning under OAR 660-024-0030.
29. Goal 9: Economic Development GoaZ9 requires the provision of adequate opportunities
throughout the sta~e far a van"ety of economic opportunities to increase prosperity of
Oregon's citizens.
Population forecasts are a key factor in determining future land needs to serve as
location for bt:JSmesses and companies that provide jobs in Lane County communities.
The urban grovrth boundaries of cities a..-re p~anned for a twenty year future need as
detenni'"1ed by Economic Opportunity Analysis and other documentation that would
support amendments and adjustments to UGB's. The lack of a coordinated and
a~opted forecast, or the adoption of an unreasonable forecast which does not account
for current trends poses a significant hurdle to cities seeking to create adequate long
range economic, residential and infrastruc~e development plans. Therefore, adoption
of a countywide coordinated papulation forecast is ~nsistent with Statewide Planning
Goal 9.
3 O. Goal 10: Housing Goal] 0 requires availability of adequate numbers of needed housing
'to meet the needs of the citizens of the state. .
Population forecasts are used in determining the amount and type ofhousing"J;leeded to .
accommodate the projected population growth for 20 years. Housing needs"are also
planned for and determined by ,urban areas" Housing Needs Studies and other analysis
or documentation that supports amendments to the cuuentadopted population forecasts
were reviewed. AccUrate population forecasts will ensure that cities may detemri.ne
whether urban services are adequate to handle popUlations which may exceed those
pI-oj ected in past planning efforts. Adoption of a coordinated reasonable forecast that
accounts for..~~~t tr~~s. complies with this Statewide Planning Goal.
. 31.. Goal 11. Public FacilitieS and Services 1iiis goal calls for planning and developing a
timelyl of~erly, and efficient arrangement of ~blic facilities and service3 to serve as a
frame:yc;orkfor urban and rural developments. "
Planning for adequate public facilities. and infrastructure requires an acarrate population
. forecast. The design and construction of public facilities such as municipal water and
wastewater treatment facilities requires a reasonable population fore~t for sufficient
supply of infrastructure over a twenty year planning period. The countywide coordinated
population forecast Will ~vide the basis for compliance \Villi this Statewide Planning
~~ .
Ordinance No. PA 1255
Exhibit "B" Findings
8
ATTACHMENT 1 - 87
I< " l!P
EXHIBIT A - P85
32. Goal 12: T~sportation This goal calls for providing and encouraging a safe,
convenient and economic tran.rportatidn system to serVe the people.
Planning for adequate transportation system" facilities requires an accurate population
forecast. The design and construction of roads, public tranSportation and ~sociated
facilities requires a reasonable population forecast for sufficient budgeting and planning
. to construct in a timely man..':1er these fac~lities over a twenty year planning period.. The
county\vide coordinated population forecast will provide the basis for compliance with
this Statewide_ Planning Goal.
33. Goal 14: Urbanization Goal 7 requires the orderly and efficient transition from rural to
urban land use.
The. adoption of updated population for~ts for the rounty and urban' areas of the
county would provide a basis for the twenty year planning for urban area needs in the
cities: Establishment.. and change of urban growth boundaries sball be based on .
demonstrated need to accommodate urban populations consistent with twenty year
population forecasts ~ordinated with affected governments. The adoption of this
amendment is consistent with this applicable Statewide Planning Goal.
34. Remaining Statewide Planning Goals. not specifically mentioned above are not
implicated by the amendment of the Lane County. Rural Comprehensive Plan adopting
coordinated countywide population forecasts and the. Rep compliance with those Goils
remain unaffected by this action.
Conclusion Findings of Compliance .
The adoption of countywide coordinated population forecasts for Lane County and the
urban areas of the county as demonstrated in these findings and supporting documents
r~feued to here and incorporated by reference, is found to be in compliance with all
applicable statewide planning go31s, administrative rules and the Lmi~ CounrJ'
Co~prehensive Plan.. Tbe PSU report, Population Forecasts fOr Lane County, "its Cities.rand Unincorporated Area 2008-2035(}rfay 2009) is fully incorporated here 'by reference;
contains the supporting documentation; analysis, and responses. to relevant cotm::nents and
questions prior to the date of its publication regarding forecasts for each of the .urban areas
of the county and provides additional support for this action.
Ordinance No. P A 1255
9
ATTACHMENT 1 - 88
Exhibit "B" Fmdings
. ~ h
EX H I B'I T A - P 8 6
TO REVIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT GO TO UNK: http:l~.1aneccurrtv.orqiPfannino/P(Jcufation fc~ms.~
- -. .
DOCUMENT CAN ALSO BE REVElWED AT THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNfNG DEPARTh1ENr
BRENDA JONES 541..726-3610 (Q) 225 FIFTH STREET . .,. .' ~
, Population .Forecasts for
Lane Co.unty, its Cities and
Uniu corp orated Area
2'008~2035
, .
jl
Ii
Prepared by~
Population Research Center
~onege of Urban and Public Affairs
Portland State Unive.rsity
May 2009 .
. .
4' .
. .
. .
:.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 89