HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 A Proposal to Amend the Metro Plan Boundary East of Interstate 5 Planning File #TYP411-00003 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/13/2012
Meeting Type:Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Steve Hopkins, DSD
Staff Phone No: 726-3649
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Preserve Hometown
Feel, Livability, and
Environmental Quality
ITEM TITLE: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE METRO PLAN BOUNDARY EAST OF
INTERSTATE 5. PLANNING FILE #TYP411-00003.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a joint hearing and first reading of the following Ordinance: AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) BY ADOPTING A NEW METRO
PLAN BOUNDARY THAT IS COTERMINOUS WITH THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EAST OF INTERSTATE 5;
AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Lane County is proposing to remove 8,128 acres from the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), east of Interstate 5.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Council briefing memo
Attachment 2: Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment Project Area
Attachment 3: Draft Ordinance
Attachment 4: Lane County staff report and packet
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Lane County has proposed amending the Metro Plan boundary to become
coincident with the newly refined Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). This
action will move 8,128 acres from the jurisdiction of the Metro Plan to the Lane
County Rural Comprehensive Plan. The planning commissions of Lane County,
Eugene and Springfield held a joint hearing on July 19, 2011. Two issues raised
during the hearing were especially significant to Springfield.
The first issue is Springfield’s role in decision-making outside the UGB. The
Metro Plan allows Springfield and/or Eugene to participate as decision makers for
any proposal within the Metro Plan boundary that is determined to be regionally
significant. If the proposal is approved, Springfield will no longer participate as a
decision maker on proposals of regional significance outside the UGB. Instead,
Springfield could participate only as an affected party with the right to appeal.
The second issue is protection of Springfield’s drinking water source.
Approximately 60% of Springfield’s drinking water comes from an area south of
the Mill Race that is outside the UGB but inside the Metro Plan boundary. At the
public hearing and in written testimony, SUB has expressed concern that the
proposal “could unintentionally weaken Springfield’s ability to protect its drinking
water source areas”.
The Lane County Planning Commission recommended 7:2 that the proposal be
denied. The Springfield Planning Commission recommended 4:2 that the proposal
be approved with the condition that an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
between Lane County and Springfield be established to help govern the Springfield
Utility Board’s drinking water resource area. The Eugene Planning Commission
recommended 3:2 that the proposal be approved.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 3/13/2012
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Greg Mott, Planning Manager
Steve Hopkins, Senior Planner
BRIEFING
Subject: Amendment to the Metro Plan boundary MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: Lane County is proposing to remove 8,128 acres from the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), east of Interstate 5.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Preserve Hometown Feel, Livability, and Environmental Quality
BACKGROUND:
Lane County is proposing to amend the Metro Plan boundary so it is the same (coincident) as the
Springfield UGB. The Lane County staff report contains a comprehensive discussion of the
reasons the county is requesting this amendment, and the associated actions that will implement
this Metro Plan Boundary amendment. For Lane County’s proposal to pass, it must be approved
by all three jurisdictions.
The Metro Plan Boundary and the Springfield UGB are only coincident at three locations: on the
eastern boundary, near the Riverbend area and at Hayden Bridge where it crosses the McKenzie
River. Refer to Attachment 2. There are 8,128 acres east of I-5 that are outside the Springfield
UGB, but inside the Metro Plan. The County’s proposal will remove those 8,128 acres from the
Metro Plan and place them into the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan. Chapter IV of the
Metro Plan contains the policies, objectives and procedures for amending the Metro Plan. It
allows Springfield and/or Eugene to participate as decision makers for any proposal within the
Metro Plan boundary that is determined to be regionally significant. Proposals that are
considered regionally significant include changes that significantly affect the buildable land
inventory, or have a demonstrable impact on water, storm drainage, wastewater or transportation
facilities of the non-home city. As a result, Springfield has authority to act as a decision maker
on proposals outside its UGB.
On July 19, 2011, the Planning Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County held a
hearing on Lane County’s proposal to amend the Metro Plan boundary. The hearing was closed
on August 26, but the record was left open until September 13. Deliberations occurred on
October 25.
Two issues raised during the Planning Commission hearing were especially significant to
Springfield. The first issue is Springfield’s role in decision-making outside the UGB. If the
proposal is approved, Springfield will no longer participate as a decision maker on proposals of
regional significance outside the UGB. Instead, Springfield could participate only as an affected
party with the right to appeal. The Council will need to determine if this is an appropriate level
of participation for the City of Springfield. The second issue is protection of Springfield
drinking water. Approximately 60% of Springfield’s drinking water comes from an area south
of the Mill Race that is outside the UGB but inside the Metro Plan boundary. The city’s
drinking water protections do not apply outside the UGB and the county does not have
regulations that specifically address all of the issues included in Springfield’s drinking water
protection plan. The Springfield Utility Board (SUB) has relied upon the City of Springfield
Attachment 1-1
MEMORANDUM 3/7/2012 Page 2
participating as a decision maker in this area to address their concerns regarding drinking water
source protection. At the public hearing and in written testimony, SUB has expressed concern
the proposal “could unintentionally weaken Springfield’s ability to protect its drinking water
source areas”. Although the city could participate in the public process, it would no longer have
the ability to deny a proposal that could negatively impact the drinking water source. The only
recourse would be the appeal process.
At the hearing on July 19, the Planning Commissions were presented with three options to
address the drinking water issue raised by SUB. Those options were:
1. Amend the Metro Plan boundary to be coterminous with the UGB, except for the drinking
water source areas. All Metro Plan policies would continue to apply in these areas
remaining within the Metro Plan boundary.
2. Amend the Metro Plan boundary to be coterminous with the UGB, and create a permanent
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to allow the City of Springfield to be a decision-maker
in all land use decisions and Rural Comprehensive Plan amendments that could impact the
drinking water resource areas.
3. Amend the Metro Plan boundary to be coterminous with the UGB, and request Lane County
adopt a drinking water protection plan for SUB’s drinking water resource areas.
The recommendations of the Planning Commissions on the proposal to amend the Metro Plan
boundary were not unanimous. The Lane County Planning Commission recommended 7:2 that
the proposal be denied. The Springfield Planning Commission recommended 4:2 that the
proposal be approved with the condition that an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between
Lane County and Springfield be established to help govern the Springfield Utility Board’s
drinking water resource area. The Eugene Planning Commission recommended 3:2 that the
proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The policy issues before the Council are:
1) should the Metro Plan boundary be amended, and
2) should Springfield retain decision-making authority outside its UGB, and
3) how the drinking water issue should be addressed.
Attachment 1-2
Metro Plan Boundary AdjustmentProject Area
G:\MapRequests\Miller_Keir\Metro_Plan_Boundary\Metro_Plan_Boundary_Adjustment_ID6_v10.mxd
Phase 1
Phase 2
Project AreaMetro Planning Boundary - ExistingUGB
Surface WaterRoads±
024Miles
The information on this map was derived from digital databases on the Lane County regionalgeographic information system. Care was taken in the creation of this map, but is provided “asis”. Lane County cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions or positional accuracy inthe digital data or the underlying records. Current plan designation, zoning, etc., for specificp arcels should be confirmed with the appropriate agency. There are no warranties, expressedor implied, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
024Miles
Lane County, Oregon
Drawn By:Date:Revised:4/5/20114/5/2011LCPWGRLAttachment 2-1
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO
PLAN) BY ADOPTING A NEW METRO PLAN BOUNDARY THAT IS COTERMINOUS WITH THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EAST OF INTERSTATE 5; AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND
SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT:
WHEREAS, Springfield Development Code Section 5.14-100 sets forth procedures for the
amendment of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan): and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2011, the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
jointly conducted a public hearing regarding the Metro Plan boundary amendment and the hearing was
continued to August 16, 2011 and;
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, the Springfield Planning Commission voted 4 to 2, to
recommend approval to the Springfield City Council of the Metro Plan boundary amendment, and to
create an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Springfield and Lane County to help govern
the drinking water source area; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2012, the elected officials of Lane County, the City of Springfield and
the City of Eugene jointly conducted a public hearing regarding the Metro Plan boundary amendment;
and
WHEREAS, evidence exists in the record indicating that the proposal meets the requirements of
the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Springfield Development Code and applicable
state law; and
WHEREAS, timely and sufficient notice of the public hearings, has been provided in accordance
with SDC Section 5.2-115; and
WHEREAS, the public record contains complete documentation of the Metro Plan boundary
amendment (Springfield file number - TYP411-00003; Lane County file number PA 11-5092) and hereby
is incorporated into the record for this proceeding by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council is now ready to take action on Metro Plan boundary
amendment based upon the above recommendation and the evidence and testimony already in the
record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing;
Attachment 3-1
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) - official Plan
Diagram Map, as depicted in Section II-G pages 17 and 18 of the Metro Plan and contained in Exhibit A
to this Ordinance is hereby amended as shown on the Plan Diagram Map contained in Exhibit B attached
and incorporated herein, to reflect a new Metro Plan boundary that is coterminous with the separate
City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) east of Interstate 5 as established by city and county
ordinances. Although the exhibits show Metro Plan land use designations, this Ordinance only amends
the Plan Diagram Map by relocating the Metro Plan boundary; this Ordinance does not have any effect
on plan designations that apply to properties within the current or new Metro Plan boundary and no
previously adopted land use designations shall be affected by this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Metro Plan – official Plan Boundary Map, depicted in Section II-G pages 19 and
20 of the Metro Plan and contained in Exhibit C to this Ordinance is hereby repealed and replaced with
the amended Plan Diagram Map contained in Exhibit D attached and incorporated herein, to reflect a
new Metro Plan boundary that is coterminous with the City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary east
of Interstate 5.
SECTION 3: The prior policies and plan designations repealed or changed by this Ordinance
remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation thereof prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and individual provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5: 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 its acknowledgement as
provided by 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.
SECTION 6: Although not part of this Ordinance, the City of Springfield City Council adopts
findings and conclusions in support of this action as set forth in Exhibit E attached and incorporated here
by this reference.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of ____ for and ___ against,
this ____ day of ______________, 2012.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield, this ____ day of _____________, 2012.
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Mayor
______________________________________
City Recorder
Attachment 3-2
(The interpretation and purpose of the Plan Diagram, and descriptions
of the land uses and symbols shown, are contained in Chapter II-G.)
4/08/04
The information on this map was derived from digital
databases on Lane Council of Governments’ regional
geographic information system. Care was taken in
the creation of this map, but it is provided "as is".
LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors,
omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data
or the underlying records. Current plan designation,
zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmed
with the appropriate governmental entity - Eugene,
Springfield, or Lane County - with responsibility for
planning and development of the parcel. There are no
warranties, express or implied, accompanying this product.
However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
VALID AT 11X17 SCALE ONLY
Exhibit A-1
Attachment 3-1
E ST
58T
H
ST
4
8T
H
S
T
CR O W R D 42ND
ST
O
A
K
W
AY
R
D
R
I
V
E
R
R
D
H
W
Y
99
N
S
EN
EC
A
RD
R
I
V
E
R
R
D
JASPE
R RD
GATEWAY
ST
C
HA
MB
ER
S
ST
I
-
5
I-5
BE
RTE
LS
EN
RD
I-5
PAR
K
AV
E
N
I-5
TE
RRY
G
A
M
E
F
A
RM
R
D
N
ECHO HOLLOW RD
DANEBO
35TH
ST
W 11TH AVE
RD
AG
ATE
W 5T
H AVE
BELTLINE RD
CHAD
W 1
ST AVE
W 7
T
H AVE
W 11TH AVE THUR
STON RD
E
A
M
A
Z
O
N
D
R
HE
ND
ER
SO
N
WILLAMETTE
ST
MAXWELL RD
ROYA
L AVE
SPRIN G
5TH
ST
DELTA HWY
GONYEA
CRE ST DR
ISLAND
PARK
31ST ST
1
9T
H
S
T
W D ST
E 40TH
GARDEN
WAY
BELT
LIN
E RD
32ND
ST
DONALD
ST
28T
H
S
T
E 30TH AVE
E 33R
D AVE
JEFFERSON
ST
HARLOW RD
W 28TH AVE
3 1 S T ST
E 18TH AVE
E 4 3 R D AV E
E 24TH AVE
COBURG RD
W 18TH AVE
A
IRPOR
T RD
CI
TY
V
IE
W
ST
H
ILYARD
ST
W 6T
H AVE
G
RE
EN
H
ILL
R
D
GREEN ACRES
MAIN ST MAIN
ST
IRV
INGTON DR
DILLARD
R
D
W 7T
H AVE
BAILEY
HILL
RD
GOODPA S T U RE
GR
EE
N
HIL
L
RD
MARCOLA RD
G
A
M
E
F
A
R
M
R
D
COMMER
CIAL
S
T
AG
ATE
S
T
NORKENZIE
RD
MOHAWK BLVD
GARFIELD
ST
AM
A
Z
O
N
PK
WY
H
W
Y
99
N
SPENCER CREEK RD
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
PATT
ER
SO
N
ST
F
R
A
N
K
L
I
N
B
LV
D
BARGE
R AVE
M cK ENZ IE HW Y
CA MP CREEK RD
WILLAGILLESPIE
W
A
M
A
Z
O
N
D
R
CAL YOUNG RD
H
AYD
EN
BR
IDG
E RD
P
I
O
N
E
E
R
P
K
W
Y
EU G-SPR
H
WY
AWBREY LN
FRANKLIN BLVD
N. DELTA HWY
FOX HOLLOW RD
L O R A NE HWY
C
O
B
U
R
G
R
D
HAY DEN BRIDGE RD
BEACON DR E
BELTLINE RD
C
LEAR LAKE RD
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
X
P
R
E
S
S
W
A
Y
WILLAMETTE ST
E 30TH AVE
ROOSEVE
LT BLVD
W IL L OW CRE EK RD
BAILEY H
I
L
L
R
D
CENT EN NIA L B LVD
NORTH
W
EST EXPRESS
WAY
C
O
BURG RD
HWY 58
S
P
R
I
N
G
FI
E
LD
-
C
R
E
S
W
E
LL
H
W
Y
GIMPL
HILL R D
MCKENZIE VIEW DRIVE
IRVING RD
ROYAL AVE
CREST DR
CRESCENT DR
I-105
HORN
BEACON DR W
W 13TH AVE
W 11TH AVE
W 29TH AVE
ND
ND
NDND NDND
ND
ND
ND
ND NDNDND
07,000ft
®
The information on this map was derived from digitaldatabases on Lane Council of Governments' regionalgeographic information system. Care was taken inthe creation of this map, but it is provided "as is".LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors,omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital dataor the underlying records. Current plan designation,zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmedwith the appropriate governmental entity - Eugene,Springfield, or Lane County - with responsibility forplanning and development of the parcel. There are nowarranties, express or implied, accompanying this product.However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
Eugene-SpringfieldMetropolitan AreaGeneral Plan
Plan Diagram
(The interpretation and purpose of the Plan Diagram, and descriptions of the land uses and symbols shown, are contained in Chapter II-G.)
04/12/11
ND
VALID AT 11x17 SCALE ONLY
UGB
Metro Plan Boundary
Coterminous UGB/Metro Plan Boundary
Railroads
Rivers and Ponds
Overlays:
Mixed Use Areas
Nodal Development Area
Willamette Greenway
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Nodal Development
Commercial
Major Retail Center
Heavy Industrial
Special Heavy Industrial
Light Medium Industrial
Campus Industrial
University Research
Government & Education
Parks and Open Space
Natural Resource
Sand and Gravel
Agriculture
Forest Land
Rural Residential
Rural Commercial
Rural Industrial
Airport Reserve
Coterminous UGB/Metro Plan Boundary (East of I-5)
Proposed Changes To:Exhibit B-1
Attachment 3-1
Exhibit
C-1
Attachment 3-1
A
Z
Y
X
W
V
U
T
S
R
Q P
C
B
Exhibit D-1
Attachment 3-1
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 1 of 24
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In support of Ordinance Nos. PA 1281, PA 1283, PA1284, and Ordinance No. 2 -12
The following criteria analysis is categorized by Plan Document and Sections identified in
bold, followed by staff’s findings. The elected officials of Eugene and Springfield may limit
their review the criteria solely related to LC Ch. 12, the Metro Plan and the Statewide
Planning Goals, Administrative Rules and Statues.
APPLICABLE LANE CODE CH. 16.400 RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CRITERIA
(6) Plan Adoption or Amendment - General Procedures. The Rural Comprehensive Plan,
or any component of such Plan, shall be adopted or amended in accordance with the
following procedures:
(a) Referral to Planning Commission. Before the Board takes any action on a Rural
Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to such Plan component, a report
and recommendation thereon shall be requested from the County Planning
Commission and a reasonable time allowed for the submission of such report and
recommendation. In the event the Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or
amendment applies to a limited geographic area, only the Planning Commission
having jurisdiction of that area need receive such referral.
Finding 1: This Plan Amendment proposal was initiated by Land Management Division staff at
the direction of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as a high priority item
in the adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program. Therefore, Lane County is the applicant in
this case.
There are five items contained in this amendment proposal. They are:
1. An amendment to the official Metro Plan diagram and boundary maps to
modify the Metro Plan boundary east of Interstate 5 so that the resultant
boundary is coterminous with the parcel specific Urban Growth Boundary that
has been developed by the City of Springfield;
2. An amendment to the official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan maps
to delineate the City of Springfield’s parcel specific UGB boundary location
pursuant to OAR 660-024-0020(2);
3. The adoption of correctly corresponding Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP)
designations to lands previously designated under the Metro Plan;
4. An update to the rural residential zoning of properties removed from the
Metro Plan to maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied
to lands within the RCP. This change will apply Lane Code 16.291 to
properties previously zoned under Lane Code 16.231 and;
5. An amendment to the RCP policies and Lane Code to apply existing Goal 5
Metro Plan Policies to Goal 5 resources removed from the Metro and amend
Lane Code 16.253 (Riparian Regulations) to maintain existing safe harbor
riparian setback regulations to lands removed from the Metro Plan.
Exhibit E-1
Attachment 3-1
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 2 of 24
Throughout these findings the amendments listed above are simply referred to as “this
amendment, “the(se) amendments” or “the(se) proposed amendments”.
These amendments include both RCP components, and an amendment to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
Item No. 1 is a Metro Plan Amendment and the other four items constitute an amendments to
the Lane County Rural RCP. As this Amendment deals with the Metro Plan, specific criteria
direct a tri-jurisdictional referral and review with the Lane County Planning Commissioners
(LCPC), and the Planning Commissioners of Springfield and Eugene, and the City Councils of
Springfield and Eugene.
Items 2 – 5, which are RCP amendments will require the sole recommendation of the LCPC to
the BCC. This is because once the Metro Plan boundary is adjusted to Springfield’s Urban
Growth Boundary, the geographic area will be subject to Lane County’s RCP within the sole
planning jurisdiction the Lane County. Therefore, items related to the RCP will be evaluated with
findings in these Code sections below. (Findings of consistency concerning the Metro Plan
components can be found later in this application in LC Ch. 12, and Metro Plan sections).
A staff report will be mailed to each of the Commissioners prior to the public hearing to assist in
their recommendations as required above. Therefore, this request is in conformance with the
criteria above.
(b) Planning Commission - Hearing and Notice.
(i) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before making
a recommendation to the Board on a Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an
amendment to such Plan component, and the hearing shall be conducted
pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 2: Again, there are five items involved in this proposal as explained above. LMD Staff is
required to harmonize and meet two different “process” criteria for both the Metro Plan and RCP
components for this proposal. Because staff is dealing with two sets of “process” criteria, staff
will use the more restrictive (or widespread) criteria. Thus, the requirements above will be
followed or exceeded for the processing of this proposal.
The Joint Planning Commission public hearing for this Proposal is scheduled to occur July 19,
2011 and will be conducted pursuant to Lane Code (LC) 14.300, LC 12.230-12.340, and the
Metro Plan. More than one hearing may be necessary in order for the Planning Commissions to
hear the matter and make their recommendations to the BCC and City Councils.
(ii) Notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given, pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 3 Notice of time and place of hearing will be accomplished pursuant to LC 14.300.
LMD staff will mail the required notice of the proposal to all owners of property located within
Springfield’s Metro Plan Boundary, east of the centerline of Interstate-5 Highway and
surrounding properties as required by Lane Code. Additionally, staff will mail a required Ballot
Measure 56 Notice along with the notice of proposal to affected property owners, and will
publish a legal advertisement for the proposal as required prior to the public hearing.
Exhibit E-2
Attachment 3-2
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 3 of 24
(iii) If an exception to State Planning Goals is to be considered during the hearing,
such exception shall be specifically noted in the notices of such hearing.
Finding 4: An exception to State Planning Goals is not being requested, therefore this criteria is
not applicable.
(iv) The proposed Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to
such Plan component, shall be on file with the Director and available for public
examination for at least 10 days prior to the time set for hearing thereon.
Finding 5: The proposed Amendment file is located in the LMD office and is available for public
examination during work hours.
(c) Planning Commission - Consideration With Other Agencies.
(i) In considering a Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to
such Plan component, the Planning Commission shall take account of and seek to
harmonize, within the framework of the needs of the County, the Comprehensive
Plans of cities, and the Plans and planning activities of local, state, federal and
other public agencies, organizations and bodies within the County and adjacent to
it.
Finding 6: Again, this proposal is both a RCP Amendment and a Metro Plan Amendment. In
making a recommendation to the Board, the Lane County Planning Commissioners shall seek
to harmonize within the framework of the needs of the County, the Metro Plan, and with the
Planning Commission bodies of Eugene and Springfield according to the criteria above.
(ii) The Planning Commission, during consideration of a Rural Comprehensive
Plan component or an amendment to such Plan component, shall consult and
advise with public officials and agencies, public utility companies, civic,
educational, professional and other organizations, and citizens generally to the
end that maximum coordination of Plans may be secured.
Finding 7: As part of the public hearing consideration of this proposal the Planning
Commissions shall consult and advise with others so that maximum coordination is secured
prior to their recommendations to the BCC and City Councils.
(iii) Whenever the Planning Commission is considering a Rural Comprehensive
Plan component, or an amendment to such Plan component, it shall be referred to
the planning agency of every city and county affected to inform them and solicit
their comments.
Finding 8: Even though this is a Lane County initiated Plan Amendment, it must be referred to
and reviewed by all three governing bodies (pursuant to Metro Plan Chapter IV Policy 5(a)) of
Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield because it in-part involves a Metro Plan Amendment.
LMD Staff has coordinated with the city of Eugene and Springfield planning agencies/staff and
they are able and willing to participate in this Amendment proposal.
(iv) The provisions of this subsection are directory, not mandatory, and the failure
to refer such Plan, or an amendment to such Plan, shall not in any manner affect
its validity.
Exhibit E-3
Attachment 3-3
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 4 of 24
Finding 9: LMD Staff has referred this proposal to the appropriate planning agencies affected,
as such this proposal has met the above criteria. Also, refer to Finding above.
(d) Planning Commission - Recommendation and Record.
(i) Recommendation of the Planning Commission on a Rural Comprehensive Plan
component, or an amendment to a Plan component, shall be by resolution of the
Commission and carried by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of its
total voting members.
Finding 10: Again, this proposal is a both a RCP Amendment and a Metro Plan
Amendment. Therefore, because this is a Joint Planning Commission public hearing as
explained in other Findings, the Planning Commission’s vote on each of their respective
individual items in this proposal must be carried out by an affirmative quorum vote.
(ii) The record made at the Planning Commission hearings on a Rural
Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to such Plan component and
all materials submitted to or gathered by the Planning Commission for its
consideration, shall be forwarded to the Board along with the recommendation.
Finding 11: The Joint Planning Commissions recommendation will be forwarded by LMD
staff to the BCC and City Councils for their consideration in additional public hearings scheduled
by LMD staff.
(e) Board Action - Hearing and Notice.
(i) After a recommendation has been submitted to the Board by the Planning
Commission on the Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to
such Plan component, all interested persons shall have an opportunity to be
heard thereon at a public hearing before the Board conducted pursuant to LC
14.300.
(ii) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given pursuant to LC
14.300.
(iii) If an exception to Statewide Planning Goals is to be considered during the
hearing, such exception shall be specifically noted in the notice of such hearing.
(iv) Hearings to consider amendments of the Plan Diagram that affect a single
property, small group of properties or have other characteristics of a quasi-
judicial proceeding shall be noticed pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 12: Another public hearing process before the BCC and City Councils will be
carried out after the Planning Commissions recommendation is received in LMD offices[lc1].
.
(f) Concurrent Consideration. The Board and Planning Commission may hold a single
joint meeting to consider the proposed Plan amendment consistent with the
requirements of LC 16.400(6)(e)(ii),(iii) and (iv) above.
(g) Board Referral. Before the Board makes any change or addition to a Plan
component, or Plan component amendment recommended by the Planning
Commission, it may first refer the proposed change or addition to the Planning
Commission for an additional recommendation. Failure of the Planning Commission
to report within 21 days after the referral, or such longer period as may be designated
by the Board, shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed change or addition. It
Exhibit E-4
Attachment 3-4
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 5 of 24
shall not be necessary for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on such
change or addition.
Finding 13: This is not a concurrent consideration proposal. Therefore, this criteria is not
applicable.
(h) Method of Adoption and Amendment.
(i) The adoption or amendment of a Rural Comprehensive Plan component shall
be by Ordinance.
Finding 14: If approved by the BCC, this proposal will be adopted with a formal
Ordinance.
(ii) The adoption or amendment shall be concurrent with an amendment to LC
16.400(4) above. In the case of a Rural Comprehensive Plan adoption, the Code
amendment shall place such Plan in the appropriate category. In the case of a
Rural Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Code amendment shall insert the
number of the amending Ordinance.
Finding 15: If approved by the BCC, the Code amendment shall insert the number of the
amending Ordinance.
(iii) The Board may amend or supplement the Rural Comprehensive Plan upon
making the following findings:
(aa) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below,
the Plan component or amendment meets all applicable requirements of
local and state law, including Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon
Administrative Rules.
Finding 16: This is classified as a Major Plan Amendment. Findings of consistency with
requirements of local and state law, Statewide Planning Goals, and Oregon Administrative
Rules are explained elsewhere within this application.
(bb) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below,
the Plan amendment or component is:
(i-i) necessary to correct an identified error in the application of the
Plan; or
(ii-ii) necessary to fulfill an identified public or community need for the
intended result of the component or amendment; or
(iii-iii) necessary to comply with the mandate of local, state or federal
policy or law; or
(iv-iv) necessary to provide for the implementation of adopted Plan
policy or elements; or
(v-v) otherwise deemed by the Board, for reasons briefly set forth in its
decision, to be desirable, appropriate or proper.
Finding 17: This Major Plan Amendment is consistent with criteria of LC
16.400(6)(h)(iii)(bb) (v-v) above.
Exhibit E-5
Attachment 3-5
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 6 of 24
(cc) For Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan
amendment or component does not conflict with adopted Policies of the
Rural Comprehensive Plan, and if possible, achieves policy support.
Finding 18: This proposal is not classified as a Minor Amendment. Therefore, this criteria
is not applicable.
(dd) For Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan
amendment or component is compatible with the existing structure of the
Rural Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the unamended portions
or elements of the Plan.
Finding 19: This proposal is not classified as a Minor Amendment. Therefore, this criteria
is not applicable.
(i) A change of zoning to implement a proposed Plan amendment may be considered
concurrently with such amendment. In such case, the Board shall also make the final
zone change decision, and the Hearings Official s consideration need not occur.
Finding 20: Zone changes are being requested as part of the Amendment. In such
cases, the BCC shall make the final zone change decision.
APPLICABLE LANE CODE CH. 16.252 CRITERIA
Lane Code Ch. 16.252 Procedures for Zoning, Rezoning and Amendments to
Requirements (RCP items)
(1) Purpose. As the Rural Comprehensive Plan for Lane County is implemented, changes in
zone and other requirements of this chapter will be required. Such Amendments shall be
made in accordance with the procedures of this section.
Finding 21: Item No. 4 in this proposed amendment is a proposal for a zone change for 81 Rural
Residential (RR) zoned properties within the current Metro Plan boundary area. This zone change
is intended to update the rural residential zoning of these properties removed from the Metro Plan
to maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to lands elsewhere within the
RCP. This change will apply Lane Code Ch. 16.291 (Rural Residential) to properties previously
zoned under Lane Code Ch. 16.231 (Rural Residential).
Furthermore, the zone changes are necessary to gain consistency with the Statewide Planning
Goal 14 Rule. Lands zoned RR under LC 16.231 have not been updated to comply with the
Statewide Planning Goal 14 Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules 660-004-0040, effective October
14, 2000) that has been adopted in other Lane County lands governed under the updated rural
residential zoning LC 16.290. Goal 14 prohibits urban use of rural lands. Any use, development or
division not consistent with the Goal 14 Rule will not be authorized on lands zoned under LC 16.231
within the Metro Plan area. Since Lane County is amending the Metro Plan boundary and Plan, we
are required to update the rural residential zoned lands within the Metro Plan area to comply with
the Goal 14 Rule as directed by OAR 660-004-0040(3)(b).
Staff has prepared a comparison analysis between uses and development authorized under LC
16.231 and LC 16.291, which is provided as Attachment 13 to the memo that these findings are
included with.
Exhibit E-6
Attachment 3-6
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 7 of 24
(2) Criteria. Zonings, rezonings and changes in the requirements of this chapter shall be
enacted to achieve the general purpose of this chapter and shall not be contrary to the
public interest. In addition, zonings and rezonings shall be consistent with the specific
purposes of the zone classification proposed, applicable Rural Comprehensive Plan
elements and components, and Statewide Planning Goals for any portion of Lane County
which has not been acknowledged for compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission. Any zoning or rezoning may be effected
by Ordinance or Order of the Board of County Commissioners or the Hearings Official in
accordance with the procedures in this section.
Finding 22: The rezoning of these properties will be enacted to achieve the general purpose of
this chapter and not contrary to public interest. Findings of consistency with other applicable RCP
provisions, and the Statewide Planning Goals are found elsewhere within this application. Should
the rezoning be approved by the BCC they will be in effect by this approved Ordinance.
(3) Initiation/Application.
(a) By Planning Commission. The zoning of unzoned properties, the rezoning of properties
and amendment of this chapter may be initiated by the Planning Commission upon its own
motion or upon petition by the Planning Commission upon request of the Board as provided
in LC 16.252(3)(b) below.
(b) By Board. The zoning of unzoned properties, the rezoning of properties and the
amendment of this chapter may be initiated by the Board in the form of a request to the
Planning Commission that it consider the proposed zoning, rezoning or amendment.
(c) By Applicant. Application for the zoning or rezoning of properties may be made by any
person as provided in LC 14.050.
Finding 23: This Amendment proposal was initiated by Land Management Division staff at the
direction of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as a high priority item in the
adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program. Therefore, Lane County is the applicant in this case.
The Lane County Planning Commission will consider this proposal at the scheduled Public Hearing
on July 19, 2011.
(5) Planning Commission Public Hearing and Notice -- Legislative Matters.
(a) The Planning Commission shall hold not less than one public hearing on each proposed
legislative zoning or rezoning and amendment to the requirements of this chapter.
(b) Notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given at least 10 days in advance by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the County or in the territory concerned.
(c) The Planning Commission shall review the Application or proposal and shall receive
pertinent evidence and testimony as to why or how the proposed change is inconsistent
with the criteria provided in LC 16.252(2) above for zoning, rezoning and amendment to the
requirements of this chapter. The Commission shall determine whether the testimony at the
hearing supports a finding that the proposal does or does not meet the required criteria, and
shall recommend to the Board accordingly that the proposal be adopted or rejected. The
Planning Commission and Board may hold one concurrent hearing.
Finding 24: The Lane County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on July 19, 2011
for this amendment proposal. Notice of hearing will exceed this provision and will be advertised in
the Register Guard, a general circulation newspaper at least 21 days prior to public hearing.
Exhibit E-7
Attachment 3-7
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 8 of 24
(6) Review Procedures. Applications for zoning or rezoning of specific properties shall be
heard by the Hearings Official pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 25: This proposal is being reviewed pursuant to LC Ch. 14.300 in the public hearing
process.
(7) Action by the Board.
(a) Unless the Board and Planning Commission hold a concurrent hearing, upon receipt of
an affirmative Planning Commission recommendation for legislative matters provided in LC
16.252(6) above, the Board shall schedule a public hearing as provided in LC 16.252(7)(b)
below. The Board may schedule such a public hearing in the absence of an affirmative
Planning Commission recommendation.
Finding 26: This proposal is not scheduled as a concurrent hearing, therefore this criteria is not
applicable.
(b) Prior to taking any action which would alter or modify a Planning Commission
recommendation or Hearings Official’s Order, the Board may first refer the proposed
alteration or modification to the Planning Commission or Hearings Official for a
recommendation. Failure of the Commission or Hearings Official to report within 20 days
after the referral, or such longer period as may be designated by the Board, shall be deemed
to be approval of the proposed alteration or modification. It shall not be necessary for the
Commission or Hearings Official to hold a public hearing on the proposed alteration or
modification.
Finding 27: Should the BCC modify the Lane County Planning Commission recommendation the
Board may choose to refer the proposed alteration or modification back to the Planning
Commission for their recommendation.
(8) Conditional Approval. The approving authority may impose reasonable conditions if the
application is approved to be completed within one year.
Finding 28: The approval authority may choose to impose reasonable conditions if this
application is approved within one year.
(9) Official Zoning Map.
(a) The location and boundaries of the various zones established by this chapter shall be
shown and delineated on maps covering portions of the County. These maps, upon their
final adoption, shall be known as the Official Zoning Map.
(b) The Zoning Map shall be established by ordinance. Subsequent amendments to the
Official Zoning Maps, either for establishing zoning for previously unzoned property or for
rezoning may be made by Ordinance or Order of the Hearing Authority in accordance with
the provisions of LC 16.014, LC 16.015, and this section.
Finding 29: Upon approval from the Board, the zoning maps will be updated and shall be known
as the Official Zoning Map(s), as established by the Ordinance.
APPLICABLE LANE CODE CH. 12 CRITERIA REVIEW
Exhibit E-8
Attachment 3-8
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 9 of 24
Lane Code Ch. 12.060 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, compliance with the provisions of
Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is required for any
review, amendment or refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan.
Finding 30: Findings of consistency with the provision of Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are
provided under Finding 54-59, below.
Lane Code Ch. 12.200 Purpose. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Element
The Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) allows citizen-initiated Type II Metro
Plan amendments to be initiated at any time. Amendments that require a final decision
from one or two jurisdictions shall have a public hearing before the appropriate
governing bodies within 120 days of the initiation date. Amendments that require a final
decision from all three governing bodies shall be concluded within 180 days of the
initiation date. The Board of Commissioners may initiate a Type I or Type II Metro Plan
amendment at any time. Metro Plan amendments shall be made in accordance with the
standards contained in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and the provisions of this Code.
Finding 31: This Amendment proposal was initiated by Land Management Division staff
at the direction of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as a high priority
item in the adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program. The proposal is classified as a Type I
Plan Amendment requiring a final decision from all three governing bodies (Eugene and
Springfield City Councils, and the Lane County BCC). The adoption and process of this
proposal shall follow the procedures and provisions contained in Ch. IV of the Metro Plan
combined with the procedures of Lane Code.
As noted in Finding 1 above, there are 5 separate elements to this proposal. Item number 1 is a
Metro Plan Amendment and the other four items are amendments to Lane County RCP. The
Metro Plan component will require a joint recommendation and the other four items related to
the RCP will require the sole recommendation of the LCPC. This is because once the Metro
Plan boundary is adjusted to Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary, the geographic area will be
subject to Lane County’s RCP within the sole planning jurisdiction the Lane County. Therefore,
only the item related to the Metro Plan will be evaluated with findings in these Code sections
below. (Findings of consistency concerning the RCP components can be found in LC Ch.
16.400 section elsewhere in this application).
Lane Code Ch. 12.210 Initiation of Plan Amendments.
(1) Who Can Initiate Metro Plan Amendments. An amendment to the Metro Plan can be
initiated by the following persons or entities:
(a) Type I Non-Site Specific Text Amendments, UGB/ Plan Boundary Changes or Other
Goal Exceptions: Any of the three governing bodies.
(i) The Board of Commissioners may solicit a recommendation from the planning
commission before initiating this category of amendment.
(ii) A citizen may seek council initiation of a Metro Plan Type I amendment by filing a
written request with the County. A staff report on the request shall be submitted to the
Board of Commissioners within 30 days of receipt of the request. At the direction of two
Board members, the request shall be placed on the Board agenda for discussion. The
Exhibit E-9
Attachment 3-9
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 10 of 24
request shall be considered denied if the Board takes no action within 60 days of the
date the staff report is submitted to the Board. The Board need not hold a public hearing
on a private Type I amendment request and may deny the request for any reason. A
citizen seeking Board initiation of a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment must own
the property subject to the amendment.
Finding 32: This proposal is a Type I Metro Plan amendment initiated by the Lane County
Board of Commissioners, and therefore consistent with this criteria per (1)(a) above.
(b) Type II Plan Diagram and Site Specific Text Amendments.
(i) Inside the City limits: The Home City and citizens
(ii) Between the City limits and the Plan Boundary: Any of the three governing bodies and
citizens.
(A) The Board may solicit a recommendation from the planning commission before
initiating this category of amendment. A citizen initiating a Metro Plan Type II amendment
must own the property subject to the amendment.
(B) A citizen may seek Board initiation of a Metro Plan Type II amendment subject to the
above requirements regarding Metro Plan Type I amendments initiated by the Board at
the request of a citizen.
Finding 33: This proposal is not a Type II amendment, therefore this criteria is not
applicable.
(2) When Plan Amendments Can be Initiated. Amendments to the Metro Plan shall be
initiated and considered at the following times:
(a) The Board may initiate a Type I or Type II Metro Plan amendment at any time.
Consideration of this type of amendment shall begin immediately thereafter.
Finding 34: The BCC directed LMD staff to initiate a Type I Metro Plan amendment as a
high priority item in the adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program.
(b) Citizen initiated Type II Metro Plan amendments may be applied for at any time. The
initial public hearing on an application shall take place within 60 days of acceptance of a
complete application.
Finding 35: This proposal is not a Type II Metro Plan amendment, therefore this criteria is
not applicable.
(c) Consideration of a privately initiated Metro Plan amendment shall be postponed if the
proposed amendment is also part of an existing planned refinement plan or special area
study adoption or amendment process or one that is scheduled on the Planning
Commission’s work program to begin within three months of the date the Metro Plan
amendment application is submitted. Such a requested Metro Plan amendment shall be
considered in the legislative proceedings on the refinement plan or special area study. If
the refinement plan or special area study process has not begun within the three month
period, the Metro Plan amendment application process shall begin immediately following
the three month period. The Planning Director may waive a particular plan amendment
application postponement under this subsection and require more immediate review if
the Planning Director finds that either there is a public need for earlier consideration or
that review of the proposed amendment as part of a general refinement plan or special
Exhibit E-10
Attachment 3-10
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 11 of 24
area study adoption or amendment process will interfere with timely completion of that
process.
Finding 36: This proposal is not a citizen initiated Metro Plan amendment, therefore this
criteria is not applicable.
Lane Code Ch. 12.215 Referral of Plan Amendment.
All Metro Plan amendments affecting land outside the city limits of either city shall be
referred to the other city for consideration of Regional Impact. Lane County shall
participate in the hearing and decision of all Metro Plan amendments outside the city
limits. All Metro Plan amendments affecting land inside the city limits of one city shall be
referred to the other city and Lane County so that they may participate as parties to the
hearing. All referrals shall occur within 10 days of the plan amendment initiation date.
Any referral that is provided for the purpose of determining Regional Impact shall be
answered by the referral jurisdiction within 45 days of receipt of the referral. Failure of a
jurisdiction to take action on the referral within 45 days from the date of referral shall be
deemed a finding of no Regional Impact.
If a referral jurisdiction adopts a resolution, ordinance, or order finding that the proposed
amendment has a Regional Impact that referral jurisdiction may participate in the
decision if they so choose. All jurisdictions participating in the plan amendment decision
process must approve the amendment in order to enact the amendment.
Finding 37: This proposal was initiated by Lane County and is being referred to the two
other participating cities; Eugene and Springfield. The proposal only involves land outside of the
Urban Growth Boundary under the current plan document of the Metro Plan. The County has
been coordinating with the both the City’s Planning agencies upon initiation of this Amendment
application. Both city planning jurisdictions have chosen to participate in this Metro Plan
amendment.
It is understood that all jurisdictions participating in the amendment process must approve the
Metro Plan component in order to enact this amendment.
Lane Code Ch. 12.225 Metro Plan - Approval of A Plan Amendment.
(1) Who Must Approve Plan Amendment.
(a) Type I.
(i) Non-Site Specific. To become effective, a non-site specific Metro Plan text Type I
amendment must be approved by all three governing bodies.
(ii) Site Specific. To become effective, a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment that
involves a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette or McKenzie River,
or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin, or that involves a goal exception not
related to a UGB expansion, must be approved by all three governing bodies. (See
Appendix "A)
(iii) Site Specific. To become effective, a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment that
involves a UGB or Plan Boundary change must be approved by the Home City and Lane
County. Exception: If the non-home City, after referral of the proposal, determines that
the amendment has Regional Impact and, as a result of that determination, chooses to
participate in the hearing, all three governing bodies must approve the amendment.
Finding 38: The Metro Plan Amendment is classified as a Type I amendment and will be
reviewed by all three governing bodies per (1)(a) above.
(b) Type II.
Exhibit E-11
Attachment 3-11
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 12 of 24
(i) Inside City Limits. To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II amendment inside the city
limits must be approved by the Home City.
(ii) Between the City Limits and Plan Boundary. To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II
amendment between the city limits and the Plan Boundary must be approved by the
Home City and Lane County. Exception: If the non-home City, after referral of the
proposal, determines that the amendment has Regional Impact and, as a result of that
determination, chooses to participate in the hearing, all three governing bodies must
approve the amendment.
Finding 39: This proposal is classified as a Type I Metro Plan amendment, therefore this
criteria is not applicable.
(2) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following criteria shall be applied by the
Board of Commissioners in approving or denying a plan amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
Finding 40: Findings of consistency of this proposed Metro Plan amendment with the
Statewide Planning Goals are explained elsewhere in this application.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Finding 41: As this amendment only reduces the total land area within the Metro Plan and
does not change or affect any existing Metro Plan goals or policies, the amendment does not
make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Lane Code Ch. 12.230 Metro Plan - Plan Amendment Approval Process
(3) Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report,
the Home City’s Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the
proposed Metro Plan amendment. At least 20 days before the hearing, notice of the
hearing shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation and mailed to the
applicant and to persons who have requested notice. If the proposed amendment is
quasi-judicial, at least 20 days before the hearing, notice of the hearing shall also be
mailed to the owners and occupants of properties that are the subject of the proposed
amendment and to property owners of record of property located within 300 feet of the
subject property. The content of the notice and conduct of the hearing on the
amendment shall be as required by this code and state law. The Home City’s Planning
Commission shall review the proposed amendment and receive evidence and testimony
on whether the proposed change can be justified under the approval criteria. Within 30
days after the public hearing and close of the evidentiary record, the Home City’s
Planning Commission shall adopt a written recommendation on the proposed
amendment. The recommendation shall contain findings and conclusions on whether the
proposal or a modified proposal meets the approval criteria.
Finding 42: Again, there are five items involved in this proposal as explained in earlier
findings. LMD Staff is required to harmonize and meet two different criteria for both the Metro
Plan and RCP for processing this proposal. Because staff is dealing with two sets of “process”
criteria, staff will use the more restrictive (or widespread) criteria. Thus, the requirements above
will be followed or exceeded for the processing of the proposal.
Exhibit E-12
Attachment 3-12
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 13 of 24
Notice of the joint Planning Commission Hearing will be mailed to property owners within at
least 300’ of the Metro Plan boundary. Based off criteria of approval above, Lane County will
receive the joint Planning Commission’s recommendation within 30 days after the close of the
evidentiary hearing. This recommendation shall contain findings and conclusions on whether the
proposal or a modified proposal meets the approval criteria.
Lane Code Ch. 12.235 Metro Plan - Plan Amendment Approval Process - Two
Jurisdictions.
(1) When the Two Jurisdictions Process is Used. The following process shall be used to
approve Metro Plan amendments when an amendment concerns land located outside of
the corporate limits of one of the cities and the other city has chosen not to participate in
the approval process.
(2) Investigation and Report. Within 30 days after a response is received from both
referral jurisdictions or within 50 days after the Metro Plan amendment initiation date if
no response is received, the planning staff of the home jurisdiction where the proposed
Metro Plan amendment was submitted shall investigate the facts bearing on the
application, prepare a report, and submit it to the Planning Commission. The report shall
be mailed or delivered to affected and interested parties at the time it is delivered to the
Commission.
(3) Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report,
the Planning Commissions of both affected jurisdictions shall hold a joint public hearing
to consider the proposed Metro Plan amendment. The provisions of LC 12.230 above
apply to the joint Planning Commission hearing and decision on a proposed Metro Plan
amendment. Within 30 days after the joint public hearing and close of the evidentiary
record, both Planning Commissions shall make a recommendation to their governing
bodies on the proposed Metro Plan amendment.
(4) Governing Body Action. Within 30 days after the date the last Planning Commission
acts on the Metro Plan amendment, the governing bodies of both affected jurisdictions
shall hold a joint public hearing on the proposed amendment. The governing bodies’
decisions shall be based on the evidentiary record created before the Planning
Commissions. No new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint hearing.
Within 30 days after the joint public hearing, both governing bodies shall approve,
modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan amendment. Both governing
bodies shall take action by ordinance with adopted findings and conclusions on whether
the proposal or modified proposal meets the approval criteria. The actions of the
governing bodies are final if they are identical. The date the last governing body acts
shall be the date the decision becomes final.
(5) Conflict Resolution Process. The following process shall be used when the governing
bodies do not enact identical decisions on the proposed Metro Plan amendment.
(a) The Metro Plan amendment shall be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee
within five days after the last governing body action. The Metropolitan Policy Committee
shall meet within 30 days of the referral to hear comments on the proposed amendment
from the applicant, staff of the affected jurisdictions and interested persons. The
committee may develop a recommendation to the governing bodies on the proposed
amendment. The Metro Plan amendment shall be denied if the committee fails to act
within 30 days of the referral date or if the governing bodies fail to adopt identical plan
amendment actions within 45 days of receiving a recommendation from the committee.
Exhibit E-13
Attachment 3-13
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 14 of 24
(b) If the plan amendment is denied because of lack of consensus or committee inaction,
within 5 days the planning director of the home jurisdiction where the application
originated shall issue a denial decision on the amendment containing findings and
conclusions on why the proposed amendment does not meet the approval criteria. Those
findings and conclusions may incorporate findings and conclusions previously adopted
by one or both of the governing bodies. The decision of the director is final.
Finding 43: All three governing jurisdictions have chosen to participate in this Metro Plan
Amendment, therefore the process of LC 12.240 below along with LC Ch. 16.400(6) shall be
followed.
Lane Code Ch. 12.240 Metro Plan - Plan Amendment Process - Three Jurisdictions.
(1) When The Three Jurisdiction Process is Used. The following process shall be used to
approve Metro Plan Type I amendments and Type II amendments where all three
jurisdictions participate in the decision.
Finding 44: This Type I Metro Plan amendment is being processed as a three
jurisdictional process.
(2) Investigation and Report. Within 30 days after responses are received from both
referral jurisdictions or within 50 days after the initiation date if no response is received,
the planning staff of the home jurisdiction where the proposed amendment was
submitted shall investigate the facts bearing on the application, prepare a report, and
submit it to the Planning Commissions of all three jurisdictions. The report shall be
mailed or delivered to affected and interested parties at the same time it is delivered to
the three Planning Commissions.
Finding 45: LMD staff will prepare and mail a written report to the Planning Commissions
of all three jurisdictions and mail the report to all affected and interested parties prior to the
Public Hearing. The report will also be available in LMD offices during normal business hours.
(3) Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report,
the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County shall hold a joint
public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan amendment. The provisions of LC 12.230(3)
above apply to the joint Planning Commission hearing. Within 30 days after the proposed
Metro Plan amendment hearing and close of the evidentiary record, each Planning
Commission shall make a recommendation to its governing body on the proposed Metro
Plan amendment.
Finding 46: A tri-jurisdictional joint Planning Commission Hearing is scheduled for July
19, 2011. As the criteria above directs, each Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to its governing body on the proposed Metro Plan amendment within 30 days
after the close of the evidentiary hearing. Eugene and Springfield Planning Commission will
make a recommendation to their City Councils on the Metro Plan item of this proposed
ordinance, and Lane County Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the BCC on
all five items of this proposed ordinance. The recommendation of all three Commissions shall be
forwarded to staff in LMD to compile and deliver the joint recommendations to the BCC for their
consideration and action in a subsequent public hearing.
Exhibit E-14
Attachment 3-14
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 15 of 24
(4) Governing Bodies Action. Within 30 days after the last Planning Commission acts on
the Metro Plan amendment proposal, the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County shall hold a joint public hearing on the plan amendment. The governing
bodies’ decisions shall be based solely on the evidentiary record created before the
Planning Commissions. No new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint
hearing. Within 30 days after the joint public hearing, each governing body shall approve,
modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan amendment. Each governing body
shall take action by ordinance with adopted findings and conclusions on whether the
proposal or modified proposal meets the approval criteria. The actions of the governing
bodies are final if they are identical. The date the last governing body acts shall be the
date the action becomes final. The provisions of LC 12.235(5) above apply if the
governing bodies do not enact an identical plan amendment.
Finding 47: After the Lane County Planning staff receives the last Planning Commission’s
recommendation, and within 30 days, Lane County will schedule a tri-jurisdictional governing
body public hearing to be held on the Amendment proposal. For the Metro Plan item, the
governing bodies decisions shall be based solely on the evidentiary record created before the
Planning Commission and no new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint
hearing. Each governing body will take action via separate jurisdictional (but identical)
Ordinances to approve, modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan Amendment.
Should the governing bodies not enact identical ordinances, the provisions of LC 12.235(5) will
apply.
Lane Code Ch. 12.245 Plan Amendment Processes - General Provisions.
(1) Process for Government Initiated Plan Amendments. A different process, time line, or
both, than the processes and timelines specified in LC 12.230, 12.235 or 12.240 above,
may be established by the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County for
any government initiated Metro Plan amendment.
Finding 48: A different process or timeline as specified in LC 12.230, 12.235, or 12.240
may be established by the governing bodies if they deem worthy.
(2) Time Frame Waiver. The time frames prescribed in connection with Type II Metro Plan
amendment processes can be waived if the applicant agrees to the waivers.
Finding 49: This is not a Type II amendment, therefore this criteria is not applicable.
(3) Bar on Resubmittal. No privately initiated Metro Plan amendment application
submitted to Lane County shall be considered if a substantially similar or identical plan
amendment has been denied within the year prior to the application date unless the facts
forming the basis for the denial have changed so as to allow approval. The Planning
Director shall determine whether the proposed amendment is substantially similar or
identical after providing the applicant with an opportunity to comment on the matter in
writing.
Finding 50: This is the first time this amendment has been proposed, therefore this
criteria is not applicable.
(4) Relationship to Refinement Plan Amendments. When a Metro Plan amendment is
enacted that requires an amendment to a refinement plan diagram or map for
consistency, the Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the refinement
Exhibit E-15
Attachment 3-15
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 16 of 24
plan diagram or map if no amendment to the refinement plan text is involved. When a
Metro Plan diagram amendment requires a refinement plan diagram or map and text
amendment for consistency, the Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments shall be
processed concurrently.
Finding 51: No changes to a Metro plan Refinement Plan are being proposed.
(5) Severability of Plan Amendment Adoption Actions. When identical action is required
of two or three governing bodies on a Metro Plan Amendment, and the amendment is a
number of different plan changes, the following applies. Unless otherwise specified in
the adoption ordinance of any of the governing bodies, action by all of the governing
bodies to adopt some but not all of the plan changes shall result in the adoption of the
changes for which there is consensus and the forwarding of only those changes for
which there is not consensus to the Metropolitan Policy Committee under LC 12.235(5)
and 12.240(4) above.
Finding 52: The Metro Plan amendment component is considered one plan change,
therefore this criteria is not applicable.
(6) Relationship Of Amendment Process To Metro Plan Update And Periodic Review. An
update of any element of the Metro Plan requires initiation and approval by all three
jurisdictions. Amendments to the Metro Plan that result from state-mandated Periodic
Review require approval by all three jurisdictions.
Finding 53: The Metro Plan amendment entails initiation and approval from all three
jurisdictions.
APPLICABLE METRO PLAN CRITERIA REVIEW
In addition to criteria identified elsewhere within this document, amendments to the Metro Plan
also require consistency with Goal IV, Policies 3 –7 and 10 of the Metro Plan, listed below:
3. All amendments to the Metro Plan shall be classified as a Type I or Type II
amendment depending upon the specific changes sought by the initiator of the
proposal.
a. A Type I amendment shall include any change to the urban growth
boundary(UGB) or the Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary) of the
Metro Plan; any change that requires a goal exception to be taken under
Statewide Planning Goal 2that is not related to the UGB expansion; and
any amendment to the Metro Plan text that is non-site specific.
b. A Type II amendment shall include any change to the Metro Plan
Diagram or Metro Plan text that is site specific and not otherwise a Type
I category amendment.
c. Adoption or amendment of some refinement plans, functional plans, or
special area plans may, in some circumstances, be classified as Type I
or Type II amendments. Amendments to the Metro Plan that result from
state mandated Periodic Review or Metro Plan updates also shall be
Exhibit E-16
Attachment 3-16
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 17 of 24
classified as Type I or Type II amendments depending upon the specific
changes that would result from these actions.
Finding 54 : This is a Type 1 amendment as is entails a modification to the Metro Plan
Boundary and is therefore consistent with this requirement.
4. Initiation of Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. A Type I amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the
three governing bodies. (Note: this correction reflects adopted
ordinance and code.)
b. A Type II amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the
three governing bodies or by any citizen who owns property that is
subject of the proposed amendment.
c. Only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan,
a special area study or Periodic Review or Metro Plan update.
d. The governing bodies of the three metropolitan jurisdictions may
initiate an amendment to the Metro Plan at any time. Citizen initiated
Type II amendments may be initiated at any time.
Finding 55 : This Type 1 amendment has been initiated by Lane County and is
therefore consistent with this requirement.
5. The approval process for Metro Plan amendments, including the number of
governing bodies who participate and the timeline for final action, will vary
depending upon the classification of amendment and whether a
determination is made that the proposed amendment will have Regional
Impact.
a. All three governing bodies must approve non-site-specific text
amendments; site specific Metro Plan Diagram amendments that
involve a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette or
McKenzie Rivers or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin; and,
amendments that involve a goal exception not related to a UGB
expansion.
b. A site specific Type I Metro Plan amendment that involves a UGB
expansion or Plan Boundary change and a Type II Metro Plan
amendment between the city limits and Plan Boundary, must be
approved by the home city and Lane County (Springfield is the home
city for amendments east of I-5 and Eugene is the home city for
amendments west of I-5). The non-home city will be sent a referral of
the proposed amendment and, based upon a determination that the
proposal will have Regional Impact, may choose to participate in the
decision. Unless the non-home city makes affirmative findings of
Regional Impact, the non-home city will not participate in the decision.
Exhibit E-17
Attachment 3-17
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 18 of 24
c. An amendment will be considered to have Regional Impact if:
(1) It will require an amendment to a jointly adopted functional plan
[Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(TransPlan), Eugene- Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan
(Public Facilities and Services Plan), etc.] in order to provide the
subject property with an adequate level of urban services and
facilities; or
(2) It has a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage,
wastewater, or transportation facilities of the non-home city; or
(3) It affects the buildable land inventory by significantly adding to Low
Density Residential (LDR), Campus Industrial (CI), Light-Medium
Industrial (LMI), or Heavy Industrial (HI) designations or significantly
reducing the Medium Density Residential (MDR), High Density
Residential (HDR), or Community Commercial (CC) designations.
d. A jurisdiction may amend a Metro Plan designation without causing
Regional Impact when this action is taken to: compensate for
reductions in buildable land caused by protection of newly discovered
natural resources within its own jurisdiction; or accommodate the
contiguous expansion of an existing business with a site-specific
requirement. e. Decisions on all Type II amendments within city limits
shall be the sole responsibility of the home city.
Finding 56:
This amendment entails a Plan Boundary change that triggers one or
more of the criteria identified in Policy 5. a., therefore, all three governing bodies are
decision makers.
6. Public hearings by the governing bodies for Metro Plan amendments requiring
participation from one or two jurisdictions shall be held within 120 days of the
initiation date. Metro Plan amendments that require a final decision from all
three governing bodies shall be concluded within 180 days of the initiation
date. When more than one jurisdiction participates in the decision, the
Planning Commissions of the participating jurisdictions shall conduct a joint
public hearing and forward that record and their recommendations to their
respective elected officials. The elected officials also shall conduct a joint
public hearing prior to making a final decision. The time frames prescribed in
connection with Type II Metro Plan amendment processes can be waived if the
applicant agrees to the waiver.
Finding 57: As this amendment requires a decision form all three jurisdictions, a
public hearing must be held within 180 from the formal initiation date. The formal initiation
date for this amendment is June 1, 2011. A public hearing for this amendment is scheduled
for July 19, 2011, which is within the required time specified. This will be a joint hearing of
the three Planning Commissions. The recommendation from the three Planning
Commissions will be forwarded to the elected officials who shall also conduct a joint public
hearing prior to making a final decision.
Exhibit E-18
Attachment 3-18
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 19 of 24
7. If all participating jurisdictions reach a consensus to approve a proposed
amendment, substantively identical ordinances affecting the changes shall be
adopted. Where there is a consensus to deny a proposed amendment, it may
not be re-initiated, except by one of the three governing bodies, for one year.
Amendments for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for additional study, conflict resolution,
and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
Finding 58: If consensus is reached to approve a proposed amendment, substantively
identical ordinances affecting the changes shall be adopted by the three jurisdictions.
10. Metro Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state
required Periodic Review of the Metro Plan, although the governing bodies may
initiate an update of the Metro Plan at any time.
Finding 59: This amendment is not part of a Periodic Review work program, but it was
initiated by Lane County BCC and is therefore consistent with this requirement.
APPLICABLE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS REVIEW
As directed by Lane Code Ch. 16.400(6)(h)(ii)(aa) for the RCP amendment items, LC
12.225(2)(a) for the Metro Plan amendment item, and ORS 197.175(2)(a), the proposal must be
consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals.
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To provide for widespread citizen involvement.
Finding 60: This goal requires that citizens and affected public agencies be provided an
opportunity to comment and participate on the proposed amendments. As part of this
application review process, public notification in the form of mailed notices was sent by LMD to
affected property owners, public agencies, local service providers, other interdepartmental
departments, and the Department of Land Conservation & Development (DLCD). Public notice
of the Planning Commission hearing and the Board of Commissioners hearings are published
once for each hearing in the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper. Additionally, a Ballot Measure
56 notice was mailed to all property owners affected by the proposed zone changes.
LMD has done a number of outreach actions for this item. On April 21, 2011 LMD staff held an
Open House Event in Harris Hall advertized on two different dates via a display advertisement
in the Eugene Register Guard. Additionally, LMD has created an informational webpage for this
item at:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/LMD/LandUse/Pages/MetroBoundary.aspx.
Given the above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 2: Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all
decisions and actions to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such
decisions and actions.
Exhibit E-19
Attachment 3-19
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 20 of 24
Finding 61: This goal requires governmental agencies to adopt land use plans and
implementation ordinances after public hearings are completed. Lane County has conformed to
the goal through adoption of the Rural Comprehensive Plan and the implementing ordinances
found in Lane Code Ch. 16. Lane County co-adopted the Metro Plan pursuant to Ordinance No.
883 which is a component of the RCP pursuant to LC 16.400(4)(a)(i). The County is required to
provide the public opportunities to comment and participate during the review of this (and any)
plan amendment proposal. The public hearing and notification process will be conducted
pursuant to applicable provisions in Lane Code Ch. 14.300, LC Ch. 16.400(6), LC Ch. 12, and
Metro Plan Ch IV.
Throughout this document staff has developed findings of consistency with a wide range of
applicable criteria listed above. The proposal must meet any and all of the criteria in order to be
implemented and adopted. Consistency with Goal 2 is derived through the public process along
with the complete set of findings of consistency with all the criteria.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Finding 62: This goal recognizes the importance of maintaining agricultural lands as
those that are defined under the goal. In western Oregon, agricultural land consist of
predominantly Class I through IV soils identified by the Soil Conservation Service and other
lands suitable for farm use taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic
conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm and irrigation purposes, existing land
use patterns, technological and energy input required for accepted farm practices. Lands in
other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby lands, shall be included as agricultural land in any event. Agricultural lands shall be
preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural
products.
There are many acres of agricultural lands within the Metro Plan area. This proposal is not
affecting the amount, changing the amount of agricultural lands base, nor is it changing the uses
allowed in the agricultural lands in Lane County. An item in this ordinance is simply changing
like-for-like Plan designations: from Metro Plan “Agriculture” to Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan “Agricultural” plan designations. Thus, lands previously governed under
the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane
County completed Goal 3 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the
application is consistent with Goal 3.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
This goal defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory them and adopt policies
and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest uses."
Finding 63: This goal promotes the importance of conserving forest lands for forest uses.
Forest Lands shall include lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including
adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other
forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
There some areas of forest land within the Metro Plan area. This proposal is not affecting the
amount, changing the amount of forest lands base, or changing the uses allowed in the forest
lands in Lane County. An item in this ordinance is simply changing like-for-like Plan
designations: from Metro Plan “Forest land” to Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan “Forest”
Exhibit E-20
Attachment 3-20
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 21 of 24
plan designations. Thus, lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 4
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 4.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
Finding 64: This goal directs jurisdictions to inventory, protect, and conserve natural
resources for present and future generations. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 5 requirements in the acknowledged Metro
Plan document Ch. III Environmental Resources Element, Goal 5 sections.
If adopted, the proposed amendments would apply existing Goal 5 policies currently contained
in the Metro Plan to lands removed from the Metro Plan and placed within the jurisdiction of the
RCP. Therefore no changes in existing goal 5 policies are being implemented through by these
amendments. Additionally, the “Safe Harbor” riparian protection regulations for areas within the
Metro Plan will be applied to lands removed from the Metro Plan. Based on this finding, the
application is consistent with Goal 5.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resource Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Finding 65: This goal requires adequate protection measures for preservation of air,
water and land. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly
completed the Goal 6 requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III
Environmental Resources Element, Goal 6 sections. No changes to Goal 6 elements are being
attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 6
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 6.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
Finding 66: This goal directs jurisdictions to adopt comprehensive plans that reduce the
risks to people and property from natural hazards. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 7 requirements in the acknowledged Metro
Plan document Ch. III Environmental Resources Element, Goal 7 sections. No changes to Goal
7 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro
Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County
completed Goal 7 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the
application is consistent with Goal 7.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where
appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
Exhibit E-21
Attachment 3-21
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 22 of 24
Finding 67: The goal’s requirements for meeting recreational needs, now and in the
future, shall be planned for by governmental agencies having responsibility for recreation areas,
facilities and opportunities. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene
jointly completed the Goal 8 requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III
Parks and Recreation Facility Element, section G. No changes to Goal 8 elements are being
attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 8
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 8.
Goal 9: Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Finding 68: This goal states Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute to a
stable and healthy economy in all regions of the state. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 9 requirements in the acknowledged Metro
Plan document Ch. III Economic Element, section B. No changes to Goal 9 elements are being
attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 9
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 9.
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs for the citizens of the State.
Finding 69: This goal states plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers
of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the
financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and
density. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the
Goal 10 requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Residential Land Use
and Housing Element, section A. No changes to Goal 10 elements are being attempted with this
proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP
should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 10 requirements in its
acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 10.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
Finding 70: The goal states Urban and rural development shall be guided and supported
by types and levels of urban and rural public facilities and services appropriate for, but limited
to, the needs and requirements of the urban, urbanizable, and rural areas to be served. A
provision for key facilities shall be included in each plan. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane
County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 11 requirements in the
acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Public Facilities and Services Element, section H.
No changes to Goal 11 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously
governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain
approval. Lane County completed Goal 11 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the
above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 11.
Exhibit E-22
Attachment 3-22
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 23 of 24
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Finding 71: Under this goal, transportation a transportation plan shall (1) consider all
modes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, pipeline, rail, highway, bicycle and
pedestrian; (2) be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs; (3)
consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing
combinations of transportation modes; (4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of
transportation; (5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; (6)
conserve energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving
transportation services; (8) facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local
and regional economy; and (9) conform with local and regional comprehensive land use plans.
Each plan shall include a provision for transportation as a key facility.
Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 12
requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Transportation Element, section
F. No changes to Goal 12 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously
governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain
approval. Lane County completed Goal 12 requirements in its acknowledged RCP and in the
Lane County Rural Transportation Plan; a special purpose plan of the RCP. Given the above
finding, the application is consistent with Goal 12.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy
Finding 72: This goal states land and uses shall be managed and controlled so as to
maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles.
Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 13
requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Energy Element, section J. No
changes to Goal 13 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously
governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain
approval. Lane County completed Goal 13 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the
above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 13.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,
to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
Finding 73: The Metro Plan area is not within an urban growth boundary. This proposal is
seeking to move the Metro Plan boundary corresponding with the adopted Springfield UBG in
phase 1 of this proposal. There is no foreseeable connection between the proposed Metro Plan
Boundary adjustment and future UGB expansions or annexations. Lands previously governed
under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval.
Lane County completed Goal 14 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above
finding, the application is consistent with Goal 14.
Goal: 15 Willamette River Greenway
To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural,
economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette
River Greenway.
Exhibit E-23
Attachment 3-23
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 24 of 24
Finding 74: The goal recognizes the importance to protect, conserve, and enhance areas
along the Willamette Greenway. Areas which contain this boundary within the Metro Plan area
are located along the river banks of the Coast and Middle Fork Willamette River. Lane County
requires Greenway Development Permits for intensification or changes of use or development
as defined in LC 16.254. The jurisdictional area of the Metro Plan was found to be in compliance
with Goal 15 on September 12, 1982.
Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this
amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 15 requirements in its acknowledged
RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 15.
Goal: 16 Estuarine Resources
Goal: 17 Coastal Shorelands
Goal: 18 Beaches and Dunes
Goal: 19 Ocean Resources
Finding 75: These four goals are geographically separated from the Metro Plan area.
Therefore, they are not applicable to this application.
Exhibit E-24
Attachment 3-24
Page 1 – Ordinance No. PA 1283
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LANE COUNTY, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283
WHEREAS, through Ordinance No. PA 1281, the partners of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) have jointly modified the boundaries of the Metro
Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary to amend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
(RCP) to apply RCP plan designations to lands removed from the Metro Plan pursuant to
ordinance no. PA 1281; and
WHEREAS, it is also necessary to adopt the City of Springfield’s parcel specific Urban
Growth Boundary location on official Lane County RCP plan and zone maps to comply with
OAR 660-024-0020(2); and
WHEREAS, the proposal was reviewed at a hearing of Lane County Planning
Commission on July 19, 2011, and August 16, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the proposal was also reviewed at hearing of the Lane County Board of
Commissioners on March 13, 2012; and
WHEREAS, evidence exists in the record indicating that the proposal meets the
requirements of the RCP, Lane Code and applicable state law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is now ready to take action.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County ordains as
follows:
Section 1. The Official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) - plan maps # 1701,
1702, 1703, 1802 and 1803, which are included as Exhibits A-E to this ordinance
are hereby repealed and replaced with the amended RCP plan maps # 1701,
1702, 1703, 1802 and 1803 included as Exhibits F-J attached and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 2. The Official RCP – zone maps # 1702, 1703, 1802 and 1803, which are included
as Exhibits K-N to this ordinance are hereby repealed and replaced with the
amended RCP zone maps # 1702, 1703, 1802 and 1803 included as Exhibits O-
R attached and incorporated herein by this reference.
IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE LANE COUNTY
RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY APPLYING PLAN
DESIGNATIONS TO LANDS REMOVED FROM THE
METRO PLAN PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. PA
1281; ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
PARCEL SPECIFIC UGB BOUNDARY ON OFFICIAL
LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAPS TO COMPLY WITH OAR 660-024-0020(2); AND
ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
Exhibit E-25
Attachment 3-25
Page 2 – Ordinance No. PA 1283
Section 3. The prior policies, plan and zone diagram designations repealed or changed by
this Ordinance remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in
violation thereof prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 4. 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
jurisdiction, such section shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
FURTHER, although not part of this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners
adopts findings and conclusions in support of this action as set forth in Exhibit “E” to Ordinance
No. PA 1281, incorporated here by this reference.
ENACTED this ______day of _______________, 2012.
__________________________________
Sid Leiken, Chair
Lane County Board of Commissioners
_____________________________________
Recording Secretary for this Board Meeting
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date Lane County
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Exhibit E-26
Attachment 3-26
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 1 of 13
TO: LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EUGENE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department/Land Management Division
PRESENTED BY: Keir Miller, Senior Planner
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 1) ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281 - IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING
THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) BY ADOPTING A NEW
METRO PLAN BOUNDARY THAT IS COTERMINOUS WITH
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
EAST OF INTERSTATE 5; AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND
SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
For The Lane County Board of Commissioners Only:
2) ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283 - IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING
THE LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
APPLYING PLAN DESIGNATIONS TO LANDS REMOVED
FROM THE METRO PLAN PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO.
PA 1281; ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PARCEL
SPECIFIC UGB BOUNDARY ON OFFICIAL LANE COUNTY
RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAPS TO COMPLY WITH
OAR 660-024-0020(2); AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND
SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
3) ORDINANCE NO. PA 1284 - IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING
THE LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
REZONING RURAL RESIDENTIAL LANDS REGULATED
UNDER LANE CODE 16.231, WHICH WERE REMOVED
FROM THE METRO PLAN PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO.
PA 1281, WITH UPDATED RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE
LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN LANE CODE 16.290 AND
ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
4) ORDINANCE NO. PA 1290 - IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING
THE LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
APPLY GOAL 5 INVENTORIES, POLICIES AND FINDINGS
OF THE EUGENE SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN TO THOSE LANDS REMOVED FROM THE
METRO PLAN BY ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281 AND
ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
ORDINANCE NO. __ -12 - IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING
LANE CODE CHAPTER 16 BY MODIFYING EXISTING
STREAM RIPARIAN REGULATIONS TO CONTINUE
APPLYING SAFE HARBOR SETBACKS TO GOAL 5
RIPARIAN RESOURCES ON LANDS REMOVED FROM THE
METRO PLAN BY ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281 (LC16.253)
Memo Date: February 15, 2012
1st Reading Date: February 22, 2012
2nd Reading / Public Hearing Date:March 13, 2012
5)
Attachment 4-1
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 2 of 13
I. ISSUE
Lane County is seeking to modify the boundaries of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan (the Metro Plan). Pursuant to Chapter IV, Policies 5.a and 6 of the
Metro Plan, this action requires a Joint Hearing before the Elected Officials of the Metro
Plan partners. Lane County is also proposing five related amendments to the Rural
Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which will be necessary if an amendment to the Metro Plan
Boundary is adopted. These related actions must be reviewed in a Public Hearing of the
Lane County Board of Commissioners.
II. PROPOSED MOTIONS
For all Metro Plan Partners:
Recommend approval of individual ordinances amending the Metro Plan boundary as
proposed by Lane County and so reflected in Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1281
(Attachment 1).
For Lane County: (Only if Ordinance No. PA 1281 is first approved)
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. PA 1283 (Attachment 2), Ordinance No. PA
1284 (Attachment 3) and Ordinance No. PA 1290 (Attachment 4) and Ordinance No.
__-12 (Attachment 21)
III. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Lane County has initiated a Type 1 amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan. The proposed amendment would change the Metro Plan diagram and
boundary maps to modify the Metro Plan boundary east of Interstate 5 so that the resultant
boundary is coterminous with the parcel specific Urban Growth Boundary that has been
developed by the City of Springfield.1
In addition to this boundary amendment, a series of related amendments to the Lane
County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) are also being proposed. These amendments
would:
Adopt the City of Springfield’s parcel specific UGB boundary location on official Lane
County Rural Comprehensive Plan maps to comply with OAR 660-024-0020(2).
Apply correctly corresponding Rural Comprehensive Plan designations to lands
previously designated under the Metro Plan.
Update the rural residential zoning of properties removed from the Metro Plan to
maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to lands within the
RCP.
Amend RCP policies to apply existing Goal 5 Metro Plan Policies to Goal 5 resources
removed from the Metro Plan
Amend Lane Code 16.253 (Riparian Regulations to maintain existing safe harbor
riparian setback regulations to lands removed from the Metro Plan).
1 In accordance with the requirement of House Bill 3337, the City of Springfield has “separately establish[ed]” its own
UGB. The revised UGB was reviewed and approved at a joint meeting of the Springfield City Council and the Lane
County Board of Commissioners on June 20, 2011.
Attachment 4-2
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 3 of 13
Staff was directed to undertake the boundary adjustment work in two separate phases.
Phase 1, which is the subject of this amendment, would adjust Metro Plan boundary
adjacent to the City of Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary. Phase 2 will focus on the
Metro Plan Boundary west of Interstate 5, adjacent to the City of Eugene’s UGB. Refer to
Attachments 5 and 6 for a project vicinity map and a more detailed map of the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 project areas.
It should be noted that the ultimate scope of the Phase 2 process has not yet been
established and is possible that the Phase 2 boundary amendments may leave portions of
rural Lane County (i.e., the Eugene Airport property or other areas) within the Metro Plan, if
those areas are not first included in a future UGB expansion. Phase 2 is not part of this
amendment and will be subject to a separate public process. Timelines for the Phase 2
process have not yet been established and are, to a degree, dependent upon the City of
Eugene’s timelines for compliance HB3337 and OAR 660-024-0020(2).
IV. BOARD HISTORY AND OTHER BACKGROUND
1982 – 1985: The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
acknowledges the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan as the official long-
range comprehensive plan (public policy document) for the Cities of Eugene and
Springfield (’82) and metropolitan Lane County (’85). The acknowledged plan establishes a
boundary that extends beyond the city limits and Urban Growth Boundaries of Eugene and
Springfield and into rural Lane County.
1990-2005: Controversial land use proceedings including the Blue Water Boats and the
Delta Sand and Gravel applications create tensions among the Metro Plan partners
concerning jurisdictional autonomy on site specific matters.
2007: House Bill 3337 was enacted to require Eugene and Springfield to establish
individual Urban Growth Boundaries providing a vehicle for the cities to exert more
autonomy from each other.
2008 – 2011: The City of Springfield carries out their HB3337 work program, which
culminates, in part, with an individual parcel-specific Urban Growth Boundary for the city.
June 1, 2009: During a meeting of the Joint elected Officials (JEO), The Board of
Commissioners (BCC) expressed their interest in regaining full jurisdictional autonomy for
land use matters outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries of Eugene and Springfield. The
JEO directs staff from all three jurisdictions to develop a work plan to make specific
changes to the Metro Plan to address the Board’s four areas of concern (see Attachment
7). The Metro Plan boundary issue is identified item “C” on that list.
February 9, 2011: The BCC directs the Land Management Division to initiate a Type 1
Amendment to adjust the boundaries of the Metro Plan as a component of the 2011 Long
Range Work Program.
March 11, 2011: Staff from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County conducts an initial
project coordination meeting.
April 21, 2011: LMD Staff hold a Public Workshop to describe the proposed Metro Plan and
RCP amendments to interested members of the public.
Attachment 4-3
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 4 of 13
June 20, 2011: The City of Springfield adopts Ordinance No. 1 - an ordinance amending
the Metro Plan to adopt the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and
Housing Element and to establish a separate Springfield UGB pursuant to ORS 197.304.
July 6, 2011: Lane County co-adopts the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential
Land Use and Housing Element and separate Springfield UGB via Ordinance No. PA 1274.
July 19, 2011: A joint hearing between the Lane County, Eugene and Springfield Planning
Commissions is opened. Public testimony is heard and the hearing is continued to August
16.
August 16, 2011: Additional testimony on the proposed Boundary amendment was heard.
The PCs close the public hearing but keep the record open four (4) additional weeks to
allow additional written testimony to be submitted.
October 25, 2011: Joint Planning Commission deliberations on the proposals were held.
The Lane County Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposal. The Planning
Commissions of Eugene and Springfield recommend approval.
V. DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS
A. Issue / Problem
Over the years there have been infrequent but highly politicized instances when the cities
have held a deciding vote in land use proceedings involving private property within another
governing body’s primary jurisdiction. This is possible because Ch. IV, Policy 7 of the Metro
Plan requires that any proposed amendments to the Metro Plan for property outside of a
city must be jointly approved by the County and the partner city (or cities) or otherwise, the
amendment shall be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for conflict
resolution. The current bylaws and operation of the MPC has made resolution unlikely if
one of the jurisdictions does not desire resolution. This has meant that each of the cities
possess, and in some cases have exercised, an ability to override the authority and will of
the County Commissioners and the adjoining City Council on proceedings which involve
property located entirely outside of their own city limits or the UGB.
Consensus among the Metro partners on amendments to the Metro Plan is logical.
However, this requirement may be too far reaching when it impedes the County’s ability to
make land use decisions on lands beyond both the city limits and the UGB.
As a remedy to this issue the BCC has directed staff to pursue a Type I Metro Plan
amendment (per Ch. 4, Policy 3. a) to modify the Metro Plan to make its boundaries
coterminous with the UGBs of Springfield (Phase 1) and Eugene (Phase 2) . This
modification would enable the cooperative partnership between the two cities and the
county to continue within the UGB but would prevent the cities from usurping decision
making authority on lands regulated by the county.
B. Proposed Amendments
Metro Plan
The Metro Plan is a broad public policy document. It sets forth general planning policies
and land use allocations and serves as the basis for the coordinated development of
programs concerning the use and conservation of physical resources, furtherance of
assets, and development or redevelopment of the metropolitan area. As such it is intended
to be adaptable to the changing needs of the communities which rely upon it. As a Metro
Attachment 4-4
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 5 of 13
partner, Lane County may initiate amendments to the plan at anytime to ensure that it
remains consistent with the needs of the County and its residents. An adjustment of the
Metro Plan boundary is a scenario contemplated within the Plan and procedures for
undertaking such a boundary amendment are specified within the Plan.
To address the Board’s concerns regarding jurisdictional autonomy, Lane County is
proposing an amendment to the official Metro Plan diagram and boundary maps to modify
the Metro Plan boundary east of Interstate 5. This modification would reduce the total land
area covered under the Metro Plan by approximately 8,128 acres (12.7 square miles) and
move the Metro Plan boundary so that it is aligned with the parcel specific Urban Growth
Boundary that has been developed by the City of Springfield. Attachment 8 depicts the
current Metro Plan boundary and the proposed plan boundary. Attachments Exhibits A and
B to Attachment 1 show these proposed changes to the official Metro Plan Diagram and
Boundary maps.
Because lands outside of Eugene’s UGB (west of interstate 5) will remain within the Metro
Plan boundary, Plan policies applicable to lands outside of the UGBs must be maintained
until the completion of Phase 2. Therefore, comprehensive policy amendments are not a
component of the Phase 1 process and this amendment is limited to diagram and boundary
map changes only. Staff has conducted an analysis of the text and policy amendments that
may be required as a component of Phase 2 but again, those amendments are not a
component of this proposal.
Rural Comprehensive Plan
To facilitate the change in the Metro Plan boundary, a series of related amendments to the
Rural Comprehensive Plan are also being proposed. These changes are only for Lane
County’s consideration and would:
Amend the official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Zone and Plan maps to
delineate the City of Springfield’s parcel specific UGB boundary location – As a
requirement of OAR 660-024-0020(2) the City of Springfield generated a refined map of
the UGB at a scale sufficient to determine its precise tax lot specific location. According
to the rule, county zone and plan maps must also be amended to show precise UGB
locations. Lane County’s existing zone and plan maps do show the UGB location at a
sufficient scale (1” = 1,000’) however, now that the City of Springfield has more
accurately identified the actual location of the UGB, Lane County is simply proposing to
amend zone and plan maps to depict the more accurate UGB as required by State law.
The current and proposed official plan maps are included as Exhibits A-J to
Attachments 2. The current and proposed official zone maps are included as Exhibits
K-R to Attachment 2.
Apply correctly corresponding RCP plan designations to lands previously designated
under the Metro Plan – This amendment would apply RCP plan designations to
properties that are removed form the Metro Plan. In other words, lands being removed
from the Metro Plan would be placed into plan designations that most closely match
designations which applied to the lands in the Metro Plan. For example, lands with a
“Forest Land” designation in the Metro Plan would receive a “Forest” designation within
the RCP. The following is a list of the current plan designations outside of the UGB
(east of I-5) and the proposed corresponding RCP plan designations that would be
applied to these lands if removed from the Metro Plan:
Attachment 4-5
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 6 of 13
Existing Metro Plan Designation Proposed Corresponding RCP
Designation
Agriculture A - Agriculture
Forest Land F - Forest
Parks and Open Space P - Parks
Rural Residential R - Residential
Sand and Gravel NR:M – Natural Resource: Mineral
It should be noted that properties outside of the UGB are already zoned under Lane
Code Chapter 16. Applying RCP plan designations to these properties will not result in,
or constitute a rezoning of, any properties. A map depicting the proposed RCP plan
designations is included as Attachment 9.
Update to the rural residential zoning of properties removed from the Metro Plan to
maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to lands within the RCP
– This change updates the residential zoning of 81 residentially zoned parcels by
removing the regulations contained in Lane Code 16.231 and applying the regulations
contained in LC 16.290. As a component of Lane County’s last Periodic Review cycle,
properties zoned residential within the RCP (LC 16.231) were updated with new zoning
regulations contained in Lane Code 16.291. These changes were promulgated by the
1994 Community Rule, (OAR 660-022). At that time the new zoning regulations were
not applied to lands within the Metro Plan boundary as part of Lane County’s RCP
Periodic Review work program. Therefore, the county is now proposing to update the
zoning for residential properties leaving the Metro Plan and coming under the authority
of the RCP. A map of these proposed zone change areas is included as Attachment
10. A copy of the existing (LC16.231) residential regulations is included as Attachment
11. A copy of the proposed residential regulations (LC16.290) is included as
Attachment 12. A table comparing the differences in Lane Code 16.231 and Lane Code
16.290 is included as Attachment 13.
Amend the RCP Goal 5 policies and Lane Code 16.253 – These updates would apply
existing Metro Plan Goal 5 Policies to Goal 5 resources on lands that are removed from
the Metro Plan and placed in the RCP. Unlike other policies contained in the Metro
Plan, Goal 5 policies are linked with specific Metro Plan inventories which cannot be
changed or updated without triggering an onerous Goal 5 inventory update pursuant to
OAR 660-023-0250(1). Furthermore, existing riparian regulations provide specific “Safe
Harbor” protections for Goal 5 Riparian Corridors as identified in the Metro Plan.
Changing or no longer applying these safe harbor protections would also trigger an
update of Lane County’s Goal 5 Inventory within the RCP. To address these issues
Lane County is proposing to: 1) adopt the existing Metro Plan Goal 5 policies within the
RCP for lands removed from the Metro Plan by Ordinance No. PA 1281 and 2) amend
Lane Code 16.253 in order to apply the Metro Plan Safe Harbor standards to riparian
corridors removed from the Metro Plan. The proposed RCP implementing language is
shown in legislative format as Exhibit A. The proposed Lane Code 16.253 code
updates are included in legislative format and are as part of Ordinance No. __-12
(Attachment 21)
Attachment 4-6
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 7 of 13
C. Policy Considerations
The fundamental regional policy consideration before the Board of Commissioners and the
elected officials of Eugene and Springfield is whether or not it is appropriate for Lane
County to possess the authority to exercise full jurisdictional autonomy on land use
decisions outside of Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary. As previously discussed, Ch.
IV, Policy 7 of the Metro Plan requires that any proposed amendments to the Metro Plan
(i.e. a plan amendment application) be jointly approved by the County and the partner city
or cities; otherwise the amendment is referred to the MPC for conflict resolution. However,
this requirement does not apply within the city limits of Eugene or Springfield, where the
cities may amend the Metro Plan without a review and decision by Lane County. This
relationship is possible because, in 1994, the cities and Lane County jointly amended the
participation and jurisdictional roles for different classification of Metro Plan amendments.
At that time the three governments agreed that the two cities would exercise full autonomy
for site-specific text and plan map amendments wholly within their respective city limits;
that each city and Lane County would jointly decide these same class of proposals when
located between the city limits of the “home city” and the home city’s UGB, and between
the home city’s UGB and Plan Boundary. The non-home city could opt in to these latter
two actions upon a determination of “regional impact.” All three government’s participation
remains a requirement for amendments to non-site specific plan text, to amendments to the
UGB or Plan boundary that cross the Willamette or McKenzie Rivers or a ridgeline into a
new basin, and amendments that involve a goal exception not related to a UGB expansion.
This arrangement has created a dynamic where the Cities enjoy autonomy from the County
inside their incorporated limits but this autonomy is not reciprocated in the rural portions of
Lane County located within the Metro Plan boundary. Further, implementation of HB3337
(ORS 195.034) will enable the cities of Eugene and Springfield to obtain an additional level
of independence from each other but at this time no such legislative solution currently
exists to provide the County similar independence.
Lane County is now seeking its own autonomy on land use matters outside the Urban
Growth Boundary of Springfield. Implementation of the proposed Metro Plan boundary
adjustment would provide some measure of autonomy. However, in addition to the
fundamental regional policy consideration articulated above, two additional unresolved
issues regarding the County’s proposal were identified during the course of the Joint
Planning Commission process. These issues are summarized below. Additional analysis
of these, and all other identified issues, can be found in the attachments associated with
the Planning Commission public hearing process.
Issue # 1: City of Springfield Drinking Water Protection
A policy consideration that has been identified by the Springfield Utility Board (SUB)
involves the drinking water supply for Springfield’s residents. SUB currently draws its water
supply from a combination of groundwater and surface water. Approximately 40% of
Springfield’s groundwater source area and 99% of its surface water source area lie outside
the Springfield UGB. Of the portion of Springfield’s groundwater source area that lies
outside the UGB, the majority lies within the Metro Plan boundary. Attachment 14 to this
memo is a map that identifies the portions of Springfield’s wellhead protection area and
surface water protection area, which lie between the UGB and the Metro Plan boundary.
According to SUB, this area accounts for approximately 76% of Springfield’s total
production capacity.
Attachment 4-7
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 8 of 13
From conversations that staff have held with SUB and testimony provided during the Joint
PC public hearing, it appears that the Utility’s fundamental concern is that if the Metro Plan
boundary is altered so that it is coterminous with Springfield’s UGB, the city will no longer
have a deciding vote on land use actions that may have an impact on its water source. As
an example, one possible scenario of concern cited by SUB involves the hypothetical
County approval of a plan amendment/zone change request from an Exclusive Farm Use
Zone to a Sand and Gravel Zone within SUB’s ground water source area. SUB has opined
that sand and gravel operations (among other types of land uses) have the potential to
degrade water quality and impact groundwater quantity. SUB is concerned that there is a
higher likelihood that such potentially detrimental land use actions would be approved if the
County were the sole decision maker on such actions.
SUB has indicated that they would prefer that the City of Springfield maintain its decision
making authority outside of the UGB. However, they have also expressed a desire to help
develop solutions that would provide drinking water safeguards while still meeting the
County’s goal of establishing jurisdictional autonomy. It is feasible that a range of different
mechanisms could be established to address SUB’s concerns and during the public
hearing before the Planning Commissions three possible options were identified by SUB
and the City of Springfield. These options are described below and are followed by County
staff responses:
Option 1. This option would amend the Metro Plan boundary to be coterminous with the
UGB, except for the SUB drinking water source areas. Metro Plan policies would
continue to apply in those areas remaining within the Metro Plan boundary.
Staff Response: This option would simply reduce the total area that would be transferred
from the Metro Plan into the Rural Comprehensive Plan and leave all of SUB’s delineated
groundwater and surface water resource areas within the Metro Plan. This option would
ensure that the existing procedures for multi-jurisdiction review of Metro Plan Amendments
would remain in place. However, this option would significantly reduce the land area
outside of the UGB, which the Lane County Board of Commissions have expressed a
desire to gain autonomy over. If this option is pursued then the revised Metro Plan
Boundary would not be coterminous with Springfield’s UGB. Instead the new plan
Boundary would follow the UGB in some areas and SUB’s delineated groundwater and
surface water resource boundary in other areas Currently there are approximately 8,128
acres east of I-5 that Lane County has proposed be transferred from the Metro Plan. SUB’s
delineated groundwater and surface water resource areas cover approximately 6,200 acres
outside of Springfield’s UGB and within the current Metro Plan Boundary. Therefore,
Option 1 would reduce the total area which the county is seeking autonomy over by
approximately 76%.
Option 2. This option would amend the Metro Plan boundary to be coterminous with the
UGB, and recommend that Lane County concurrently adopt some type of
drinking water protection plan to address protection of SUB’s drinking water
resource areas.
Staff Response: This option would have the County adopt a drinking water protection plan
outside of the UGB to protect SUB’s water source area. Adoption of such a plan would
presumably be a precursor to County adoption of a drinking water protection overlay zone
similar to the one that is in place inside Springfield. While this option would likely provide
the highest level of protection for Springfield’s water and enable the County to realize full
autonomy outside of the UGB, adoption of a drinking water protection plan would be a long
term solution, which is well outside the scope of the proposed boundary adjustment work.
Additionally, given the controversy that arose when the County recently considered
Attachment 4-8
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 9 of 13
adoption of a drinking water protection overlay zone, timing for such a proposal may not be
optimal.
Option 3. This option would establish a temporary IGA to allow adequate time for Lane
County to create and adopt a drinking water protection. According to Springfield
staff this option could be used to temporarily continue the existing protections of
the Metro Plan in a limited manner within a limited geographic area, as follows:
a. A Post-Acknowledgment Plan Amendment (PAPA) or zone change proposal for
property located within the drinking water source areas will require referral to the City of
Springfield;
b. The City of Springfield may choose to participate as a decision-maker if the City
Council prepares and adopts findings that determine the proposal could impact the
water quality or quantity within the drinking water source area;
c. The review by the City Council of Springfield will be limited to compliance with Goal 5
(Natural Resources) Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) and Goal 11
(Public Facilities and Services) as they apply to the protection of the drinking water
source area;
d. If the City of Springfield participates as a decision-maker, such participation shall
parallel the procedure specified in Lane Code and the Lane Rural Comprehensive Plan
regarding zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments, including fact-finding
hearings by the planning commission as a prelude to forwarding a recommendation to
the Springfield City Council, and a joint hearing of the City Council and Board of
Commissioners but limiting review to the provisions cited in “c.” above. Both
jurisdictions must approve the proposal.
At the August 16 continued Public Hearing, City of Springfield staff indicated Option 3 as
their as their preferred method for addressing the SUB issue.
Staff Response: Although this option is somewhat complex, it offers assurances to SUB
that potential impacts to drinking water outside the UGB will be reviewed and decided upon
by the City of Springfield (and Lane County) should the County choose not to enact a
drinking water protection plan. It also provides the County sufficient time and opportunity to
develop a drinking water protection plan should the County wish to terminate the IGA.
Regardless, this option would not provide autonomy to the County on a full range of issues
outside of the Metro Plan Boundary.
Consideration # 2 Robinson Land Division Issue
Over the last year the Board has received correspondence and heard public testimony
from resident Donna Robinson. Ms Robinson, together with her husband Thomas, own an
8.4 acre rural residential parcel located at 38054 McKenzie Hwy, Springfield (Map and tax
lot # 17-01-31-20-1500). This parcel is located outside of Springfield’s UGB but within the
Metro Plan boundary. Ms Robinson is interested in partitioning her property into two
separate parcels. Under the current rural residential zoning standards of Lane Code, the
minimum lot size for a land division on the Robinson’s property is 2 acres. However,
pursuant to Chapter II, Section G of the Metro Plan (page II-G-10), the minimum lot size for
a residential lot is 5 acres. This policy prevents a division of any property within the Metro
Plan boundary that is less than 10 acres in size. For similarly zoned properties outside of
the plan boundary the 5 acres minimum lot size requirement is not applicable and
properties may be divided into 2 acre parcels. In addition to the Robinson property, there
Attachment 4-9
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 10 of 13
are three other lots within the Phase 1 project area, which also contain enough acreage to
potentially partition under Lane Code but a division of these lots would also be prevented
by the above referenced Metro Plan Policy. These lots are:
17-01-31-20-1100 (4.1 acres)
17-01-31-20-1300 (4.7 acres)
17-02-36-24-1500 (7.2 acres)
Note: All properties located within the Phase 2 project area carry a minimum lot size
requirement of 5 acres or higher so this policy is not applicable west of Interstate 5.
Ms Robinson’s situation would be remedied if the Metro Plan Partners choose to adopt this
proposal. However, should the proposed Boundary amendments fail to pass, two
alternatives for addressing the Ms. Robinson’s issue were discussed during the Joint
Planning Commission public hearing and deliberations. They are:
Option 1. Amend the Plan Boundary within the immediate vicinity of the Robison
property. This “surgical boundary amendment” would achieve the same
result as Option 1 but would simply remove the Robinson property from
the Metro Plan and leave the remainder of the plan boundary in place.
This would option enable Ms. Robinson to pursue her land division
unencumbered from the minimum lot size requirements of the Metro Plan
but would leave the remainder plan boundary of the boundary in its
current location.
Staff Response: This option would resolve Ms Robinson’s issue but if applied only to
the Robinson property it may be perceived as unfair by other land owners with similar
zoning and circumstances.
Option 2. Amend the Plan language to remove the above referenced minimum lot
size policy to enable a minimum lot size of 4 acres or less instead of 5
acres. This “surgical policy amendment” would keep the Robinson
property within the Metro Plan but would address the 5 acre minimum lot
size requirement hampering division of the land.
Staff Response: If a new minimum lot size of 4 acres is established in the Metro Plan,
the Robinson issue would be resolved. This is because the Robinson property has
sufficient acreage (8.4 acres) to be divided into two 4+ parcels. However, the
Robinson site is the only property in the Phase 1 project area that would benefit by
adjusting the minimum lot size to 4 acres. Therefore, the issue of equity could also be
raised if this option is used. Concerns over equality could be resolved by removing the
5 acre minimum lot size policy altogether or modifying the policy to state that the
minimum lot size requirements of the underlying base zone shall be the minimum lot
size within the Metro Plan.
If any of these options are ultimately approved the total number of properties that could
be impacted is 4 and the maximum number of new lots that could potentially be
created countywide would be 9.
D. Planning Commission Review
On July 19, 2011, the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County
opened their joint evidentiary public hearing on this proposal. The hearing was continued to,
Attachment 4-10
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 11 of 13
and then closed on, August 16. The public record remained open through September 13
and deliberations were held on October 25.
During the course of the joint public hearing process Commissioners heard testimony both
for and against the proposal. Staff’s responses to this testimony is contained in the minutes
for the public hearing meetings, included as attachments 15-17 to this memo and also in
supplemental memos provided to the Planning Commissions, which are included as
attachments18-20. A complete record of public testimony submitted during the Planning
Commission process is available for review in the Land Management Division offices.
Testimony and other materials may also be viewed on the project website:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/LMD/LandUse/Pages/MetroBoundary.aspx
Recommendations
The Lane County Planning Commission recommended 7:2 that the proposal be denied.
The Eugene Planning Commission recommended 3:2 that the proposal be approved.
The Springfield Planning Commission recommended 4:2 that the proposal be approved
with the condition that an IGA between Lane County and Springfield be established to help
govern the Springfield Utility Board’s water resource area.
In addition, the Lane County Planning commission recommended that should the Board
agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the Metro Plan
amendment, the BCC find a remedy for the Ms. Robinson’s petition for an adjustment on
minimum lot size requirements of the Metro Plan. This recommendation was approved by
a vote of 7:1:1.
Finally, the Lane County Planning Commission recommended that the City of Springfield’s
parcel-specific UGB boundary be adopted on official Lane County Rural Comprehensive
Plan maps to comply with OAR 660-024-0020(2). The motion was approved unanimously,
9:0. This element of Lane County’s proposal is required by state law and was not
controversial during the course of the public hearing.
E. Findings of Fact
Detailed findings of fact supporting the proposed Metro Plan and RCP amendments are
provided as Exhibit E to Attachment 1.
F. Financial and/or Resource Considerations
Lane County currently administers land use and building permitting within the area
proposed for removal from the Metro Plan. Therefore, no significant near-term financial
or resource considerations for the County are anticipated. Over the long term, savings
will be realized by the County, Springfield, and to a lesser extent, the City of Eugene as
a result of the proposed Phase 1 boundary amendment. This is because fewer land
use actions will require a 2 or 3 jurisdiction hearings process. Multi-jurisdiction land use
proceedings are inherently more complex affairs than a single jurisdiction process and
are generally more costly for all parties involved. In addition, multi-jurisdiction
proceedings are often more controversial and can become drawn out, which may
increase costs.
Attachment 4-11
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 12 of 13
VI. ALTERNATIVES / ACTION
A. Joint Elected Official Alternatives/Options (for Metro Plan amendments)
At this time the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County may vote
individually to:
1. Recommend adoption of Ordinance No. PA 1281 (Lane County), Ordinance No.
TBD (Springfield) and Ordinance No. TBD (Eugene).
2. Recommend that Ordinance No. PA 1281 (Lane County), Ordinance No. TBD
(Springfield) and Ordinance No. TBD (Eugene) not be adopted.
3. Refrain from taking any action and request that staff provide additional information
or make modifications to the proposal.
If Option 1 is chosen then the elected officials of Springfield and Lane County may also
wish to take some action on the Springfield Planning Commission’s recommendation
regarding an inter-governmental agreement between Lane County and the City of
Springfield to help mitigate the potential water quality concerns identified by SUB.
B. Lane County - Alternatives/Options (for RCP specific amendments)
The Lane County Board of Commissioners may:
1. Adopt Ordinance Nos. PA 1283, PA 1284, PA 1290 and __-12 after first adopting
Ordinance No. PA 1281.
2. Not adopt Ordinance Nos. PA 1283, PA 1284, PA 1290 __-12.
3. Refrain from taking any action and request that staff provide additional information
or make modifications to the proposal.
Note: Ordinance Nos. PA 1283 and PA 1284, PA 1290 and __-12 are companion pieces to
Ordinances to PA 1281. No actions on these ordinances are needed if Ordinance No. PA 1281
is not first adopted.
C Recommendation
Staff recommends Option 1
VII. TIMING/IMPLEMENTATION
No emergency clause is necessary. If approved, the ordinances will become effective 30
days after adoption. Upon action on the Ordinances, staff will notify all parties of record and
the Department of Land Conservation and Development of the Board’s decision.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
Note: *Exhibits A-R of Attachment 2, Exhibits A-F of Attachment 3 and Attachments 8, 9, 10
and 14 have been provided in electronic format on the enclosed CD This is due to the
large format nature of these attachments and the costs associated with reproducing
them. Full size copies of these maps are available for viewing in the Board of
Commissioners office and the Land Management Division Offices.
1. Ordinance No. PA 1281
- Exhibit A: Current Metro Plan Diagram Map
- Exhibit B: Proposed Metro Plan Diagram Map
Attachment 4-12
Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment – Joint Elected Officials Agenda Cover Memo Page 13 of 13
- Exhibit C: Current Metro Plan Boundary Map
- Exhibit D: Proposed Metro Plan Boundary Map
- Exhibit E: Findings of Fact in Support of Ordinance Nos. PA 1281, PA 1283, PA
1284 and PA 1290
2. Ordinance No. PA 1283
- Exhibit A Current Official RCP Plan Map # 1701
- Exhibit B Current Official RCP Plan Map # 1702
- Exhibit C Current Official RCP Plan Map # 1703
- Exhibit D Current Official RCP Plan Map # 1802
- Exhibit E Current Official RCP Plan Map # 1803
- Exhibit F Proposed Official RCP Plan Map # 1701
- Exhibit G Proposed Official RCP Plan Map # 1702
- Exhibit H Proposed Official RCP Plan Map # 1703
- Exhibit I Proposed Official RCP Plan Map # 1802
- Exhibit J Proposed Official RCP Plan Map # 1803
- Exhibit K Current Official RCP Zone Map # 1702
- Exhibit L Current Official RCP Zone Map # 1703
- Exhibit M Current Official RCP Zone Map # 1802
- Exhibit N Current Official RCP Zone Map # 1803
- Exhibit O Proposed Official RCP Zone Map # 1702
- Exhibit P Proposed Official RCP Zone Map # 1703
- Exhibit Q Proposed Official RCP Zone Map # 1802
- Exhibit R Proposed Official RCP Zone Map # 1803
3. Ordinance No. PA 1284
- Exhibit A Current Official RCP Plan Map # 1701
- Exhibit B Current Official RCP Plan Map # 1702
- Exhibit C Current Official RCP Plan Map # 1802
- Exhibit D Proposed Official RCP Plan Map # 1701
- Exhibit E Proposed Official RCP Plan Map # 1702
- Exhibit F Proposed Official RCP Plan Map # 1802
4. Ordinance No PA 1290
- Exhibit A: Proposed Goal 5 Policy language (in legislative format)
- Exhibit B: Proposed Goal 5 Policy language (in final format)
5. Project Vicinity Map
6. Project Phase Map
7. JEO list of issues of concern
8. Before and After Metro Plan Boundary Illustration*
9. Proposed RCP Plan Designations Map*
10. Map of Proposed Rural Residential Zone Changes*
11. Existing Metro area Rural Residential zoning regulations (LC 16.231)
12. Proposed RCP area Rural Residential zoning regulations (LC 16.290)
13. LC16.231 and LC 16.290 Comparison Table
14. SUB map of water source areas within the existing Metro Plan boundary*
15. Meeting Minutes - July 19, 2011, PC Public Hearing
16. Meeting Minutes - August 16, 2011 PC Public Hearing
17. Meeting Minutes October 25, 2011 PC Deliberation
18. Joint PC Supplemental Memo # 1 (attachments not included)
19. Joint PC Supplemental Memo # 2 (attachments not included)
20. Joint PC Supplemental Memo # 3 (attachments not included)
21. Ordinance No. __-12, with proposed text changes to Lane Code 16.253 (in
legislative and final format)
Attachment 4-13
Page 1 – Ordinance No. PA 1281
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LANE COUNTY, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Lane County are
implemented by Lane Code Chapter 12; and
WHEREAS, Lane County now finds it necessary to make certain amendments the Metro
Plan to enhance equity among the Metro Plan partners and provide additional autonomy to
Lane County; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County
directed the Land Management Division to initiate an amendment to the Metro Plan to modify
the plan boundary east of Interstate 5 so that it is coterminous with the City of Springfield Urban
Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS, the proposal was reviewed at a joint public hearing with the Lane County
Planning Commission, the City of Springfield Planning Commission and the City of Eugene
Planning Commission on July 19, 2011, and August 16, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the proposal was also reviewed at a joint public hearing with elected
officials of Lane County, the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene on March 13, 2012; and
WHEREAS, evidence exists in the record indicating that the proposal meets the
requirements of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Lane Code and
applicable state law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is now ready to take action.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County ordains as
follows:
Section 1. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) - official Plan
Diagram Map, as depicted in Section II-G pages 17 and 18 of the Metro Plan and
contained in Exhibit A to this Ordinance and further amended by Ordinance No. PA
1274 is hereby repealed and replaced with the amended Plan Diagram Map
contained in Exhibit B attached and incorporated herein, to reflect a new Metro
Plan boundary that is coterminous with the City of Springfield Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) east of Interstate 5 as established by Ordinance No. 1274 and the
City of Springfield ordinance that co-adopted that separate Springfield UGB.
IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL
PLAN (METRO PLAN) BY ADOPTING A NEW
METRO PLAN BOUNDARY THAT IS COTERMINOUS
WITH THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD URBAN
GROWTH BOUNDARY EAST OF INTERSTATE 5;
AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY
CLAUSES.
Attachment 4-14
Page 2 – Ordinance No. PA 1281
Section 2. The Metro Plan – official Plan Boundary Map, depicted in Section II-G pages 19
and 20 of the Metro Plan and contained in Exhibit C to this Ordinance is hereby
repealed and replaced with the amended Plan Diagram Map contained in Exhibit D
attached and incorporated herein, to reflect a new Metro Plan boundary that is
coterminous with the City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary east of Interstate
5.
Section 3. The prior policies and plan designations repealed or changed by this Ordinance
remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation
thereof prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such section shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
FURTHER, although not part of this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners
adopts findings and conclusions in support of this action as set forth in Exhibit “E” attached and
incorporated here by this reference.
ENACTED this ______day of _______________, 2012.
_____________________________________
Sid Leiken, Chair
Lane County Board of Commissioners
_____________________________________
Recording Secretary for this Board Meeting
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date Lane County
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Attachment 4-15
(The interpretation and purpose of the Plan Diagram, and descriptions
of the land uses and symbols shown, are contained in Chapter II-G.)
4/08/04
The information on this map was derived from digital
databases on Lane Council of Governments’ regional
geographic information system. Care was taken in
the creation of this map, but it is provided "as is".
LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors,
omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data
or the underlying records. Current plan designation,
zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmed
with the appropriate governmental entity - Eugene,
Springfield, or Lane County - with responsibility for
planning and development of the parcel. There are no
warranties, express or implied, accompanying this product.
However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
VALID AT 11X17 SCALE ONLY
Attachment 4-16
E ST
58T
H
ST
4
8T
H
S
T
CR O W R D 42ND
ST
O
A
K
W
AY
R
D
R
I
V
E
R
R
D
H
W
Y
99
N
S
EN
EC
A
RD
R
I
V
E
R
R
D
JASPE
R RD
GATEWAY
ST
C
HA
MB
ER
S
ST
I
-
5
I-5
BE
RTE
LS
EN
RD
I-5
PAR
K
AV
E
N
I-5
TE
RRY
G
A
M
E
F
A
RM
R
D
N
ECHO HOLLOW RD
DANEBO
35TH
ST
W 11TH AVE
RD
AG
ATE
W 5T
H AVE
BELTLINE RD
CHAD
W 1
ST AVE
W 7
T
H AVE
W 11TH AVE THUR
STON RD
E
A
M
A
Z
O
N
D
R
HE
ND
ER
SO
N
WILLAMETTE
ST
MAXWELL RD
ROYA
L AVE
SPRIN G
5TH
ST
DELTA HWY
GONYEA
CRE ST DR
ISLAND
PARK
31ST ST
1
9T
H
S
T
W D ST
E 40TH
GARDEN
WAY
BELT
LIN
E RD
32ND
ST
DONALD
ST
28T
H
S
T
E 30TH AVE
E 33R
D AVE
JEFFERSON
ST
HARLOW RD
W 28TH AVE
3 1 S T ST
E 18TH AVE
E 4 3 R D AV E
E 24TH AVE
COBURG RD
W 18TH AVE
A
IRPOR
T RD
CI
TY
V
IE
W
ST
H
ILYARD
ST
W 6T
H AVE
G
RE
EN
H
ILL
R
D
GREEN ACRES
MAIN ST MAIN
ST
IRV
INGTON DR
DILLARD
R
D
W 7T
H AVE
BAILEY
HILL
RD
GOODPA S T U RE
GR
EE
N
HIL
L
RD
MARCOLA RD
G
A
M
E
F
A
R
M
R
D
COMMER
CIAL
S
T
AG
ATE
S
T
NORKENZIE
RD
MOHAWK BLVD
GARFIELD
ST
AM
A
Z
O
N
PK
WY
H
W
Y
99
N
SPENCER CREEK RD
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
PATT
ER
SO
N
ST
F
R
A
N
K
L
I
N
B
LV
D
BARGE
R AVE
M cK ENZ IE HW Y
CA MP CREEK RD
WILLAGILLESPIE
W
A
M
A
Z
O
N
D
R
CAL YOUNG RD
H
AYD
EN
BR
IDG
E RD
P
I
O
N
E
E
R
P
K
W
Y
EU G-SPR
H
WY
AWBREY LN
FRANKLIN BLVD
N. DELTA HWY
FOX HOLLOW RD
L O R A NE HWY
C
O
B
U
R
G
R
D
HAY DEN BRIDGE RD
BEACON DR E
BELTLINE RD
C
LEAR LAKE RD
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
X
P
R
E
S
S
W
A
Y
WILLAMETTE ST
E 30TH AVE
ROOSEVE
LT BLVD
W IL L OW CRE EK RD
BAILEY H
I
L
L
R
D
CENT EN NIA L B LVD
NORTH
W
EST EXPRESS
WAY
C
O
BURG RD
HWY 58
S
P
R
I
N
G
FI
E
LD
-
C
R
E
S
W
E
LL
H
W
Y
GIMPL
HILL R D
MCKENZIE VIEW DRIVE
IRVING RD
ROYAL AVE
CREST DR
CRESCENT DR
I-105
HORN
BEACON DR W
W 13TH AVE
W 11TH AVE
W 29TH AVE
ND
ND
NDND NDND
ND
ND
ND
ND NDNDND
07,000ft
®
The information on this map was derived from digitaldatabases on Lane Council of Governments' regionalgeographic information system. Care was taken inthe creation of this map, but it is provided "as is".LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors,omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital dataor the underlying records. Current plan designation,zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmedwith the appropriate governmental entity - Eugene,Springfield, or Lane County - with responsibility forplanning and development of the parcel. There are nowarranties, express or implied, accompanying this product.However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
Eugene-SpringfieldMetropolitan AreaGeneral Plan
Plan Diagram
(The interpretation and purpose of the Plan Diagram, and descriptions of the land uses and symbols shown, are contained in Chapter II-G.)
04/12/11
ND
VALID AT 11x17 SCALE ONLY
UGB
Metro Plan Boundary
Coterminous UGB/Metro Plan Boundary
Railroads
Rivers and Ponds
Overlays:
Mixed Use Areas
Nodal Development Area
Willamette Greenway
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Nodal Development
Commercial
Major Retail Center
Heavy Industrial
Special Heavy Industrial
Light Medium Industrial
Campus Industrial
University Research
Government & Education
Parks and Open Space
Natural Resource
Sand and Gravel
Agriculture
Forest Land
Rural Residential
Rural Commercial
Rural Industrial
Airport Reserve
Coterminous UGB/Metro Plan Boundary (East of I-5)
Proposed Changes To:
Attachment 4-17
Attachment 4-18
A
Z
Y
X
W
V
U
T
S
R
Q P
C
B
Attachment 4-19
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 1 of 24
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In support of Ordinance Nos. PA 1281, PA 1283, PA1284, and Ordinance No. __-12
The following criteria analysis is categorized by Plan Document and Sections identified in
bold, followed by staff’s findings. The elected officials of Eugene and Springfield may limit
their review the criteria solely related to LC Ch. 12, the Metro Plan and the Statewide
Planning Goals, Administrative Rules and Statues.
APPLICABLE LANE CODE CH. 16.400 RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CRITERIA
(6) Plan Adoption or Amendment - General Procedures. The Rural Comprehensive Plan,
or any component of such Plan, shall be adopted or amended in accordance with the
following procedures:
(a) Referral to Planning Commission. Before the Board takes any action on a Rural
Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to such Plan component, a report
and recommendation thereon shall be requested from the County Planning
Commission and a reasonable time allowed for the submission of such report and
recommendation. In the event the Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or
amendment applies to a limited geographic area, only the Planning Commission
having jurisdiction of that area need receive such referral.
Finding 1: This Plan Amendment proposal was initiated by Land Management Division staff at
the direction of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as a high priority item
in the adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program. Therefore, Lane County is the applicant in
this case.
There are five items contained in this amendment proposal. They are:
1. An amendment to the official Metro Plan diagram and boundary maps to
modify the Metro Plan boundary east of Interstate 5 so that the resultant
boundary is coterminous with the parcel specific Urban Growth Boundary that
has been developed by the City of Springfield;
2. An amendment to the official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan maps
to delineate the City of Springfield’s parcel specific UGB boundary location
pursuant to OAR 660-024-0020(2);
3. The adoption of correctly corresponding Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP)
designations to lands previously designated under the Metro Plan;
4. An update to the rural residential zoning of properties removed from the
Metro Plan to maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied
to lands within the RCP. This change will apply Lane Code 16.291 to
properties previously zoned under Lane Code 16.231 and;
5. An amendment to the RCP policies and Lane Code to apply existing Goal 5
Metro Plan Policies to Goal 5 resources removed from the Metro and amend
Lane Code 16.253 (Riparian Regulations) to maintain existing safe harbor
riparian setback regulations to lands removed from the Metro Plan.
Attachment 4-20
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 2 of 24
Throughout these findings the amendments listed above are simply referred to as “this
amendment, “the(se) amendments” or “the(se) proposed amendments”.
These amendments include both RCP components, and an amendment to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
Item No. 1 is a Metro Plan Amendment and the other four items constitute an amendments to
the Lane County Rural RCP. As this Amendment deals with the Metro Plan, specific criteria
direct a tri-jurisdictional referral and review with the Lane County Planning Commissioners
(LCPC), and the Planning Commissioners of Springfield and Eugene, and the City Councils of
Springfield and Eugene.
Items 2 – 5, which are RCP amendments will require the sole recommendation of the LCPC to
the BCC. This is because once the Metro Plan boundary is adjusted to Springfield’s Urban
Growth Boundary, the geographic area will be subject to Lane County’s RCP within the sole
planning jurisdiction the Lane County. Therefore, items related to the RCP will be evaluated with
findings in these Code sections below. (Findings of consistency concerning the Metro Plan
components can be found later in this application in LC Ch. 12, and Metro Plan sections).
A staff report will be mailed to each of the Commissioners prior to the public hearing to assist in
their recommendations as required above. Therefore, this request is in conformance with the
criteria above.
(b) Planning Commission - Hearing and Notice.
(i) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before making
a recommendation to the Board on a Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an
amendment to such Plan component, and the hearing shall be conducted
pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 2: Again, there are five items involved in this proposal as explained above. LMD Staff is
required to harmonize and meet two different “process” criteria for both the Metro Plan and RCP
components for this proposal. Because staff is dealing with two sets of “process” criteria, staff
will use the more restrictive (or widespread) criteria. Thus, the requirements above will be
followed or exceeded for the processing of this proposal.
The Joint Planning Commission public hearing for this Proposal is scheduled to occur July 19,
2011 and will be conducted pursuant to Lane Code (LC) 14.300, LC 12.230-12.340, and the
Metro Plan. More than one hearing may be necessary in order for the Planning Commissions to
hear the matter and make their recommendations to the BCC and City Councils.
(ii) Notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given, pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 3 Notice of time and place of hearing will be accomplished pursuant to LC 14.300.
LMD staff will mail the required notice of the proposal to all owners of property located within
Springfield’s Metro Plan Boundary, east of the centerline of Interstate-5 Highway and
surrounding properties as required by Lane Code. Additionally, staff will mail a required Ballot
Measure 56 Notice along with the notice of proposal to affected property owners, and will
publish a legal advertisement for the proposal as required prior to the public hearing.
Attachment 4-21
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 3 of 24
(iii) If an exception to State Planning Goals is to be considered during the hearing,
such exception shall be specifically noted in the notices of such hearing.
Finding 4: An exception to State Planning Goals is not being requested, therefore this criteria is
not applicable.
(iv) The proposed Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to
such Plan component, shall be on file with the Director and available for public
examination for at least 10 days prior to the time set for hearing thereon.
Finding 5: The proposed Amendment file is located in the LMD office and is available for public
examination during work hours.
(c) Planning Commission - Consideration With Other Agencies.
(i) In considering a Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to
such Plan component, the Planning Commission shall take account of and seek to
harmonize, within the framework of the needs of the County, the Comprehensive
Plans of cities, and the Plans and planning activities of local, state, federal and
other public agencies, organizations and bodies within the County and adjacent to
it.
Finding 6: Again, this proposal is both a RCP Amendment and a Metro Plan Amendment. In
making a recommendation to the Board, the Lane County Planning Commissioners shall seek
to harmonize within the framework of the needs of the County, the Metro Plan, and with the
Planning Commission bodies of Eugene and Springfield according to the criteria above.
(ii) The Planning Commission, during consideration of a Rural Comprehensive
Plan component or an amendment to such Plan component, shall consult and
advise with public officials and agencies, public utility companies, civic,
educational, professional and other organizations, and citizens generally to the
end that maximum coordination of Plans may be secured.
Finding 7: As part of the public hearing consideration of this proposal the Planning
Commissions shall consult and advise with others so that maximum coordination is secured
prior to their recommendations to the BCC and City Councils.
(iii) Whenever the Planning Commission is considering a Rural Comprehensive
Plan component, or an amendment to such Plan component, it shall be referred to
the planning agency of every city and county affected to inform them and solicit
their comments.
Finding 8: Even though this is a Lane County initiated Plan Amendment, it must be referred to
and reviewed by all three governing bodies (pursuant to Metro Plan Chapter IV Policy 5(a)) of
Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield because it in-part involves a Metro Plan Amendment.
LMD Staff has coordinated with the city of Eugene and Springfield planning agencies/staff and
they are able and willing to participate in this Amendment proposal.
(iv) The provisions of this subsection are directory, not mandatory, and the failure
to refer such Plan, or an amendment to such Plan, shall not in any manner affect
its validity.
Attachment 4-22
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 4 of 24
Finding 9: LMD Staff has referred this proposal to the appropriate planning agencies affected,
as such this proposal has met the above criteria. Also, refer to Finding above.
(d) Planning Commission - Recommendation and Record.
(i) Recommendation of the Planning Commission on a Rural Comprehensive Plan
component, or an amendment to a Plan component, shall be by resolution of the
Commission and carried by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of its
total voting members.
Finding 10: Again, this proposal is a both a RCP Amendment and a Metro Plan
Amendment. Therefore, because this is a Joint Planning Commission public hearing as
explained in other Findings, the Planning Commission’s vote on each of their respective
individual items in this proposal must be carried out by an affirmative quorum vote.
(ii) The record made at the Planning Commission hearings on a Rural
Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to such Plan component and
all materials submitted to or gathered by the Planning Commission for its
consideration, shall be forwarded to the Board along with the recommendation.
Finding 11: The Joint Planning Commissions recommendation will be forwarded by LMD
staff to the BCC and City Councils for their consideration in additional public hearings scheduled
by LMD staff.
(e) Board Action - Hearing and Notice.
(i) After a recommendation has been submitted to the Board by the Planning
Commission on the Rural Comprehensive Plan component, or an amendment to
such Plan component, all interested persons shall have an opportunity to be
heard thereon at a public hearing before the Board conducted pursuant to LC
14.300.
(ii) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given pursuant to LC
14.300.
(iii) If an exception to Statewide Planning Goals is to be considered during the
hearing, such exception shall be specifically noted in the notice of such hearing.
(iv) Hearings to consider amendments of the Plan Diagram that affect a single
property, small group of properties or have other characteristics of a quasi-
judicial proceeding shall be noticed pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 12: Another public hearing process before the BCC and City Councils will be
carried out after the Planning Commissions recommendation is received in LMD offices[lc1].
.
(f) Concurrent Consideration. The Board and Planning Commission may hold a single
joint meeting to consider the proposed Plan amendment consistent with the
requirements of LC 16.400(6)(e)(ii),(iii) and (iv) above.
(g) Board Referral. Before the Board makes any change or addition to a Plan
component, or Plan component amendment recommended by the Planning
Commission, it may first refer the proposed change or addition to the Planning
Commission for an additional recommendation. Failure of the Planning Commission
to report within 21 days after the referral, or such longer period as may be designated
by the Board, shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed change or addition. It
Attachment 4-23
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 5 of 24
shall not be necessary for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on such
change or addition.
Finding 13: This is not a concurrent consideration proposal. Therefore, this criteria is not
applicable.
(h) Method of Adoption and Amendment.
(i) The adoption or amendment of a Rural Comprehensive Plan component shall
be by Ordinance.
Finding 14: If approved by the BCC, this proposal will be adopted with a formal
Ordinance.
(ii) The adoption or amendment shall be concurrent with an amendment to LC
16.400(4) above. In the case of a Rural Comprehensive Plan adoption, the Code
amendment shall place such Plan in the appropriate category. In the case of a
Rural Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Code amendment shall insert the
number of the amending Ordinance.
Finding 15: If approved by the BCC, the Code amendment shall insert the number of the
amending Ordinance.
(iii) The Board may amend or supplement the Rural Comprehensive Plan upon
making the following findings:
(aa) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below,
the Plan component or amendment meets all applicable requirements of
local and state law, including Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon
Administrative Rules.
Finding 16: This is classified as a Major Plan Amendment. Findings of consistency with
requirements of local and state law, Statewide Planning Goals, and Oregon Administrative
Rules are explained elsewhere within this application.
(bb) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below,
the Plan amendment or component is:
(i-i) necessary to correct an identified error in the application of the
Plan; or
(ii-ii) necessary to fulfill an identified public or community need for the
intended result of the component or amendment; or
(iii-iii) necessary to comply with the mandate of local, state or federal
policy or law; or
(iv-iv) necessary to provide for the implementation of adopted Plan
policy or elements; or
(v-v) otherwise deemed by the Board, for reasons briefly set forth in its
decision, to be desirable, appropriate or proper.
Finding 17: This Major Plan Amendment is consistent with criteria of LC
16.400(6)(h)(iii)(bb) (v-v) above.
Attachment 4-24
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 6 of 24
(cc) For Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan
amendment or component does not conflict with adopted Policies of the
Rural Comprehensive Plan, and if possible, achieves policy support.
Finding 18: This proposal is not classified as a Minor Amendment. Therefore, this criteria
is not applicable.
(dd) For Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan
amendment or component is compatible with the existing structure of the
Rural Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the unamended portions
or elements of the Plan.
Finding 19: This proposal is not classified as a Minor Amendment. Therefore, this criteria
is not applicable.
(i) A change of zoning to implement a proposed Plan amendment may be considered
concurrently with such amendment. In such case, the Board shall also make the final
zone change decision, and the Hearings Official s consideration need not occur.
Finding 20: Zone changes are being requested as part of the Amendment. In such
cases, the BCC shall make the final zone change decision.
APPLICABLE LANE CODE CH. 16.252 CRITERIA
Lane Code Ch. 16.252 Procedures for Zoning, Rezoning and Amendments to
Requirements (RCP items)
(1) Purpose. As the Rural Comprehensive Plan for Lane County is implemented, changes in
zone and other requirements of this chapter will be required. Such Amendments shall be
made in accordance with the procedures of this section.
Finding 21: Item No. 4 in this proposed amendment is a proposal for a zone change for 81 Rural
Residential (RR) zoned properties within the current Metro Plan boundary area. This zone change
is intended to update the rural residential zoning of these properties removed from the Metro Plan
to maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to lands elsewhere within the
RCP. This change will apply Lane Code Ch. 16.291 (Rural Residential) to properties previously
zoned under Lane Code Ch. 16.231 (Rural Residential).
Furthermore, the zone changes are necessary to gain consistency with the Statewide Planning
Goal 14 Rule. Lands zoned RR under LC 16.231 have not been updated to comply with the
Statewide Planning Goal 14 Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules 660-004-0040, effective October
14, 2000) that has been adopted in other Lane County lands governed under the updated rural
residential zoning LC 16.290. Goal 14 prohibits urban use of rural lands. Any use, development or
division not consistent with the Goal 14 Rule will not be authorized on lands zoned under LC 16.231
within the Metro Plan area. Since Lane County is amending the Metro Plan boundary and Plan, we
are required to update the rural residential zoned lands within the Metro Plan area to comply with
the Goal 14 Rule as directed by OAR 660-004-0040(3)(b).
Staff has prepared a comparison analysis between uses and development authorized under LC
16.231 and LC 16.291, which is provided as Attachment 13 to the memo that these findings are
included with.
Attachment 4-25
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 7 of 24
(2) Criteria. Zonings, rezonings and changes in the requirements of this chapter shall be
enacted to achieve the general purpose of this chapter and shall not be contrary to the
public interest. In addition, zonings and rezonings shall be consistent with the specific
purposes of the zone classification proposed, applicable Rural Comprehensive Plan
elements and components, and Statewide Planning Goals for any portion of Lane County
which has not been acknowledged for compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission. Any zoning or rezoning may be effected
by Ordinance or Order of the Board of County Commissioners or the Hearings Official in
accordance with the procedures in this section.
Finding 22: The rezoning of these properties will be enacted to achieve the general purpose of
this chapter and not contrary to public interest. Findings of consistency with other applicable RCP
provisions, and the Statewide Planning Goals are found elsewhere within this application. Should
the rezoning be approved by the BCC they will be in effect by this approved Ordinance.
(3) Initiation/Application.
(a) By Planning Commission. The zoning of unzoned properties, the rezoning of properties
and amendment of this chapter may be initiated by the Planning Commission upon its own
motion or upon petition by the Planning Commission upon request of the Board as provided
in LC 16.252(3)(b) below.
(b) By Board. The zoning of unzoned properties, the rezoning of properties and the
amendment of this chapter may be initiated by the Board in the form of a request to the
Planning Commission that it consider the proposed zoning, rezoning or amendment.
(c) By Applicant. Application for the zoning or rezoning of properties may be made by any
person as provided in LC 14.050.
Finding 23: This Amendment proposal was initiated by Land Management Division staff at the
direction of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as a high priority item in the
adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program. Therefore, Lane County is the applicant in this case.
The Lane County Planning Commission will consider this proposal at the scheduled Public Hearing
on July 19, 2011.
(5) Planning Commission Public Hearing and Notice -- Legislative Matters.
(a) The Planning Commission shall hold not less than one public hearing on each proposed
legislative zoning or rezoning and amendment to the requirements of this chapter.
(b) Notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given at least 10 days in advance by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the County or in the territory concerned.
(c) The Planning Commission shall review the Application or proposal and shall receive
pertinent evidence and testimony as to why or how the proposed change is inconsistent
with the criteria provided in LC 16.252(2) above for zoning, rezoning and amendment to the
requirements of this chapter. The Commission shall determine whether the testimony at the
hearing supports a finding that the proposal does or does not meet the required criteria, and
shall recommend to the Board accordingly that the proposal be adopted or rejected. The
Planning Commission and Board may hold one concurrent hearing.
Finding 24: The Lane County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on July 19, 2011
for this amendment proposal. Notice of hearing will exceed this provision and will be advertised in
the Register Guard, a general circulation newspaper at least 21 days prior to public hearing.
Attachment 4-26
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 8 of 24
(6) Review Procedures. Applications for zoning or rezoning of specific properties shall be
heard by the Hearings Official pursuant to LC 14.300.
Finding 25: This proposal is being reviewed pursuant to LC Ch. 14.300 in the public hearing
process.
(7) Action by the Board.
(a) Unless the Board and Planning Commission hold a concurrent hearing, upon receipt of
an affirmative Planning Commission recommendation for legislative matters provided in LC
16.252(6) above, the Board shall schedule a public hearing as provided in LC 16.252(7)(b)
below. The Board may schedule such a public hearing in the absence of an affirmative
Planning Commission recommendation.
Finding 26: This proposal is not scheduled as a concurrent hearing, therefore this criteria is not
applicable.
(b) Prior to taking any action which would alter or modify a Planning Commission
recommendation or Hearings Official’s Order, the Board may first refer the proposed
alteration or modification to the Planning Commission or Hearings Official for a
recommendation. Failure of the Commission or Hearings Official to report within 20 days
after the referral, or such longer period as may be designated by the Board, shall be deemed
to be approval of the proposed alteration or modification. It shall not be necessary for the
Commission or Hearings Official to hold a public hearing on the proposed alteration or
modification.
Finding 27: Should the BCC modify the Lane County Planning Commission recommendation the
Board may choose to refer the proposed alteration or modification back to the Planning
Commission for their recommendation.
(8) Conditional Approval. The approving authority may impose reasonable conditions if the
application is approved to be completed within one year.
Finding 28: The approval authority may choose to impose reasonable conditions if this
application is approved within one year.
(9) Official Zoning Map.
(a) The location and boundaries of the various zones established by this chapter shall be
shown and delineated on maps covering portions of the County. These maps, upon their
final adoption, shall be known as the Official Zoning Map.
(b) The Zoning Map shall be established by ordinance. Subsequent amendments to the
Official Zoning Maps, either for establishing zoning for previously unzoned property or for
rezoning may be made by Ordinance or Order of the Hearing Authority in accordance with
the provisions of LC 16.014, LC 16.015, and this section.
Finding 29: Upon approval from the Board, the zoning maps will be updated and shall be known
as the Official Zoning Map(s), as established by the Ordinance.
APPLICABLE LANE CODE CH. 12 CRITERIA REVIEW
Attachment 4-27
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 9 of 24
Lane Code Ch. 12.060 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, compliance with the provisions of
Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is required for any
review, amendment or refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan.
Finding 30: Findings of consistency with the provision of Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are
provided under Finding 54-59, below.
Lane Code Ch. 12.200 Purpose. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Element
The Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) allows citizen-initiated Type II Metro
Plan amendments to be initiated at any time. Amendments that require a final decision
from one or two jurisdictions shall have a public hearing before the appropriate
governing bodies within 120 days of the initiation date. Amendments that require a final
decision from all three governing bodies shall be concluded within 180 days of the
initiation date. The Board of Commissioners may initiate a Type I or Type II Metro Plan
amendment at any time. Metro Plan amendments shall be made in accordance with the
standards contained in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and the provisions of this Code.
Finding 31: This Amendment proposal was initiated by Land Management Division staff
at the direction of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as a high priority
item in the adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program. The proposal is classified as a Type I
Plan Amendment requiring a final decision from all three governing bodies (Eugene and
Springfield City Councils, and the Lane County BCC). The adoption and process of this
proposal shall follow the procedures and provisions contained in Ch. IV of the Metro Plan
combined with the procedures of Lane Code.
As noted in Finding 1 above, there are 5 separate elements to this proposal. Item number 1 is a
Metro Plan Amendment and the other four items are amendments to Lane County RCP. The
Metro Plan component will require a joint recommendation and the other four items related to
the RCP will require the sole recommendation of the LCPC. This is because once the Metro
Plan boundary is adjusted to Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary, the geographic area will be
subject to Lane County’s RCP within the sole planning jurisdiction the Lane County. Therefore,
only the item related to the Metro Plan will be evaluated with findings in these Code sections
below. (Findings of consistency concerning the RCP components can be found in LC Ch.
16.400 section elsewhere in this application).
Lane Code Ch. 12.210 Initiation of Plan Amendments.
(1) Who Can Initiate Metro Plan Amendments. An amendment to the Metro Plan can be
initiated by the following persons or entities:
(a) Type I Non-Site Specific Text Amendments, UGB/ Plan Boundary Changes or Other
Goal Exceptions: Any of the three governing bodies.
(i) The Board of Commissioners may solicit a recommendation from the planning
commission before initiating this category of amendment.
(ii) A citizen may seek council initiation of a Metro Plan Type I amendment by filing a
written request with the County. A staff report on the request shall be submitted to the
Board of Commissioners within 30 days of receipt of the request. At the direction of two
Board members, the request shall be placed on the Board agenda for discussion. The
Attachment 4-28
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 10 of 24
request shall be considered denied if the Board takes no action within 60 days of the
date the staff report is submitted to the Board. The Board need not hold a public hearing
on a private Type I amendment request and may deny the request for any reason. A
citizen seeking Board initiation of a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment must own
the property subject to the amendment.
Finding 32: This proposal is a Type I Metro Plan amendment initiated by the Lane County
Board of Commissioners, and therefore consistent with this criteria per (1)(a) above.
(b) Type II Plan Diagram and Site Specific Text Amendments.
(i) Inside the City limits: The Home City and citizens
(ii) Between the City limits and the Plan Boundary: Any of the three governing bodies and
citizens.
(A) The Board may solicit a recommendation from the planning commission before
initiating this category of amendment. A citizen initiating a Metro Plan Type II amendment
must own the property subject to the amendment.
(B) A citizen may seek Board initiation of a Metro Plan Type II amendment subject to the
above requirements regarding Metro Plan Type I amendments initiated by the Board at
the request of a citizen.
Finding 33: This proposal is not a Type II amendment, therefore this criteria is not
applicable.
(2) When Plan Amendments Can be Initiated. Amendments to the Metro Plan shall be
initiated and considered at the following times:
(a) The Board may initiate a Type I or Type II Metro Plan amendment at any time.
Consideration of this type of amendment shall begin immediately thereafter.
Finding 34: The BCC directed LMD staff to initiate a Type I Metro Plan amendment as a
high priority item in the adopted 2011 Long Range Planning Program.
(b) Citizen initiated Type II Metro Plan amendments may be applied for at any time. The
initial public hearing on an application shall take place within 60 days of acceptance of a
complete application.
Finding 35: This proposal is not a Type II Metro Plan amendment, therefore this criteria is
not applicable.
(c) Consideration of a privately initiated Metro Plan amendment shall be postponed if the
proposed amendment is also part of an existing planned refinement plan or special area
study adoption or amendment process or one that is scheduled on the Planning
Commission’s work program to begin within three months of the date the Metro Plan
amendment application is submitted. Such a requested Metro Plan amendment shall be
considered in the legislative proceedings on the refinement plan or special area study. If
the refinement plan or special area study process has not begun within the three month
period, the Metro Plan amendment application process shall begin immediately following
the three month period. The Planning Director may waive a particular plan amendment
application postponement under this subsection and require more immediate review if
the Planning Director finds that either there is a public need for earlier consideration or
that review of the proposed amendment as part of a general refinement plan or special
Attachment 4-29
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 11 of 24
area study adoption or amendment process will interfere with timely completion of that
process.
Finding 36: This proposal is not a citizen initiated Metro Plan amendment, therefore this
criteria is not applicable.
Lane Code Ch. 12.215 Referral of Plan Amendment.
All Metro Plan amendments affecting land outside the city limits of either city shall be
referred to the other city for consideration of Regional Impact. Lane County shall
participate in the hearing and decision of all Metro Plan amendments outside the city
limits. All Metro Plan amendments affecting land inside the city limits of one city shall be
referred to the other city and Lane County so that they may participate as parties to the
hearing. All referrals shall occur within 10 days of the plan amendment initiation date.
Any referral that is provided for the purpose of determining Regional Impact shall be
answered by the referral jurisdiction within 45 days of receipt of the referral. Failure of a
jurisdiction to take action on the referral within 45 days from the date of referral shall be
deemed a finding of no Regional Impact.
If a referral jurisdiction adopts a resolution, ordinance, or order finding that the proposed
amendment has a Regional Impact that referral jurisdiction may participate in the
decision if they so choose. All jurisdictions participating in the plan amendment decision
process must approve the amendment in order to enact the amendment.
Finding 37: This proposal was initiated by Lane County and is being referred to the two
other participating cities; Eugene and Springfield. The proposal only involves land outside of the
Urban Growth Boundary under the current plan document of the Metro Plan. The County has
been coordinating with the both the City’s Planning agencies upon initiation of this Amendment
application. Both city planning jurisdictions have chosen to participate in this Metro Plan
amendment.
It is understood that all jurisdictions participating in the amendment process must approve the
Metro Plan component in order to enact this amendment.
Lane Code Ch. 12.225 Metro Plan - Approval of A Plan Amendment.
(1) Who Must Approve Plan Amendment.
(a) Type I.
(i) Non-Site Specific. To become effective, a non-site specific Metro Plan text Type I
amendment must be approved by all three governing bodies.
(ii) Site Specific. To become effective, a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment that
involves a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette or McKenzie River,
or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin, or that involves a goal exception not
related to a UGB expansion, must be approved by all three governing bodies. (See
Appendix "A)
(iii) Site Specific. To become effective, a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment that
involves a UGB or Plan Boundary change must be approved by the Home City and Lane
County. Exception: If the non-home City, after referral of the proposal, determines that
the amendment has Regional Impact and, as a result of that determination, chooses to
participate in the hearing, all three governing bodies must approve the amendment.
Finding 38: The Metro Plan Amendment is classified as a Type I amendment and will be
reviewed by all three governing bodies per (1)(a) above.
(b) Type II.
Attachment 4-30
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 12 of 24
(i) Inside City Limits. To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II amendment inside the city
limits must be approved by the Home City.
(ii) Between the City Limits and Plan Boundary. To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II
amendment between the city limits and the Plan Boundary must be approved by the
Home City and Lane County. Exception: If the non-home City, after referral of the
proposal, determines that the amendment has Regional Impact and, as a result of that
determination, chooses to participate in the hearing, all three governing bodies must
approve the amendment.
Finding 39: This proposal is classified as a Type I Metro Plan amendment, therefore this
criteria is not applicable.
(2) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following criteria shall be applied by the
Board of Commissioners in approving or denying a plan amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
Finding 40: Findings of consistency of this proposed Metro Plan amendment with the
Statewide Planning Goals are explained elsewhere in this application.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Finding 41: As this amendment only reduces the total land area within the Metro Plan and
does not change or affect any existing Metro Plan goals or policies, the amendment does not
make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Lane Code Ch. 12.230 Metro Plan - Plan Amendment Approval Process
(3) Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report,
the Home City’s Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the
proposed Metro Plan amendment. At least 20 days before the hearing, notice of the
hearing shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation and mailed to the
applicant and to persons who have requested notice. If the proposed amendment is
quasi-judicial, at least 20 days before the hearing, notice of the hearing shall also be
mailed to the owners and occupants of properties that are the subject of the proposed
amendment and to property owners of record of property located within 300 feet of the
subject property. The content of the notice and conduct of the hearing on the
amendment shall be as required by this code and state law. The Home City’s Planning
Commission shall review the proposed amendment and receive evidence and testimony
on whether the proposed change can be justified under the approval criteria. Within 30
days after the public hearing and close of the evidentiary record, the Home City’s
Planning Commission shall adopt a written recommendation on the proposed
amendment. The recommendation shall contain findings and conclusions on whether the
proposal or a modified proposal meets the approval criteria.
Finding 42: Again, there are five items involved in this proposal as explained in earlier
findings. LMD Staff is required to harmonize and meet two different criteria for both the Metro
Plan and RCP for processing this proposal. Because staff is dealing with two sets of “process”
criteria, staff will use the more restrictive (or widespread) criteria. Thus, the requirements above
will be followed or exceeded for the processing of the proposal.
Attachment 4-31
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 13 of 24
Notice of the joint Planning Commission Hearing will be mailed to property owners within at
least 300’ of the Metro Plan boundary. Based off criteria of approval above, Lane County will
receive the joint Planning Commission’s recommendation within 30 days after the close of the
evidentiary hearing. This recommendation shall contain findings and conclusions on whether the
proposal or a modified proposal meets the approval criteria.
Lane Code Ch. 12.235 Metro Plan - Plan Amendment Approval Process - Two
Jurisdictions.
(1) When the Two Jurisdictions Process is Used. The following process shall be used to
approve Metro Plan amendments when an amendment concerns land located outside of
the corporate limits of one of the cities and the other city has chosen not to participate in
the approval process.
(2) Investigation and Report. Within 30 days after a response is received from both
referral jurisdictions or within 50 days after the Metro Plan amendment initiation date if
no response is received, the planning staff of the home jurisdiction where the proposed
Metro Plan amendment was submitted shall investigate the facts bearing on the
application, prepare a report, and submit it to the Planning Commission. The report shall
be mailed or delivered to affected and interested parties at the time it is delivered to the
Commission.
(3) Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report,
the Planning Commissions of both affected jurisdictions shall hold a joint public hearing
to consider the proposed Metro Plan amendment. The provisions of LC 12.230 above
apply to the joint Planning Commission hearing and decision on a proposed Metro Plan
amendment. Within 30 days after the joint public hearing and close of the evidentiary
record, both Planning Commissions shall make a recommendation to their governing
bodies on the proposed Metro Plan amendment.
(4) Governing Body Action. Within 30 days after the date the last Planning Commission
acts on the Metro Plan amendment, the governing bodies of both affected jurisdictions
shall hold a joint public hearing on the proposed amendment. The governing bodies’
decisions shall be based on the evidentiary record created before the Planning
Commissions. No new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint hearing.
Within 30 days after the joint public hearing, both governing bodies shall approve,
modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan amendment. Both governing
bodies shall take action by ordinance with adopted findings and conclusions on whether
the proposal or modified proposal meets the approval criteria. The actions of the
governing bodies are final if they are identical. The date the last governing body acts
shall be the date the decision becomes final.
(5) Conflict Resolution Process. The following process shall be used when the governing
bodies do not enact identical decisions on the proposed Metro Plan amendment.
(a) The Metro Plan amendment shall be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee
within five days after the last governing body action. The Metropolitan Policy Committee
shall meet within 30 days of the referral to hear comments on the proposed amendment
from the applicant, staff of the affected jurisdictions and interested persons. The
committee may develop a recommendation to the governing bodies on the proposed
amendment. The Metro Plan amendment shall be denied if the committee fails to act
within 30 days of the referral date or if the governing bodies fail to adopt identical plan
amendment actions within 45 days of receiving a recommendation from the committee.
Attachment 4-32
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 14 of 24
(b) If the plan amendment is denied because of lack of consensus or committee inaction,
within 5 days the planning director of the home jurisdiction where the application
originated shall issue a denial decision on the amendment containing findings and
conclusions on why the proposed amendment does not meet the approval criteria. Those
findings and conclusions may incorporate findings and conclusions previously adopted
by one or both of the governing bodies. The decision of the director is final.
Finding 43: All three governing jurisdictions have chosen to participate in this Metro Plan
Amendment, therefore the process of LC 12.240 below along with LC Ch. 16.400(6) shall be
followed.
Lane Code Ch. 12.240 Metro Plan - Plan Amendment Process - Three Jurisdictions.
(1) When The Three Jurisdiction Process is Used. The following process shall be used to
approve Metro Plan Type I amendments and Type II amendments where all three
jurisdictions participate in the decision.
Finding 44: This Type I Metro Plan amendment is being processed as a three
jurisdictional process.
(2) Investigation and Report. Within 30 days after responses are received from both
referral jurisdictions or within 50 days after the initiation date if no response is received,
the planning staff of the home jurisdiction where the proposed amendment was
submitted shall investigate the facts bearing on the application, prepare a report, and
submit it to the Planning Commissions of all three jurisdictions. The report shall be
mailed or delivered to affected and interested parties at the same time it is delivered to
the three Planning Commissions.
Finding 45: LMD staff will prepare and mail a written report to the Planning Commissions
of all three jurisdictions and mail the report to all affected and interested parties prior to the
Public Hearing. The report will also be available in LMD offices during normal business hours.
(3) Planning Commission Consideration. Within 30 days after receipt of the staff report,
the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County shall hold a joint
public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan amendment. The provisions of LC 12.230(3)
above apply to the joint Planning Commission hearing. Within 30 days after the proposed
Metro Plan amendment hearing and close of the evidentiary record, each Planning
Commission shall make a recommendation to its governing body on the proposed Metro
Plan amendment.
Finding 46: A tri-jurisdictional joint Planning Commission Hearing is scheduled for July
19, 2011. As the criteria above directs, each Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to its governing body on the proposed Metro Plan amendment within 30 days
after the close of the evidentiary hearing. Eugene and Springfield Planning Commission will
make a recommendation to their City Councils on the Metro Plan item of this proposed
ordinance, and Lane County Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the BCC on
all five items of this proposed ordinance. The recommendation of all three Commissions shall be
forwarded to staff in LMD to compile and deliver the joint recommendations to the BCC for their
consideration and action in a subsequent public hearing.
Attachment 4-33
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 15 of 24
(4) Governing Bodies Action. Within 30 days after the last Planning Commission acts on
the Metro Plan amendment proposal, the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County shall hold a joint public hearing on the plan amendment. The governing
bodies’ decisions shall be based solely on the evidentiary record created before the
Planning Commissions. No new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint
hearing. Within 30 days after the joint public hearing, each governing body shall approve,
modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan amendment. Each governing body
shall take action by ordinance with adopted findings and conclusions on whether the
proposal or modified proposal meets the approval criteria. The actions of the governing
bodies are final if they are identical. The date the last governing body acts shall be the
date the action becomes final. The provisions of LC 12.235(5) above apply if the
governing bodies do not enact an identical plan amendment.
Finding 47: After the Lane County Planning staff receives the last Planning Commission’s
recommendation, and within 30 days, Lane County will schedule a tri-jurisdictional governing
body public hearing to be held on the Amendment proposal. For the Metro Plan item, the
governing bodies decisions shall be based solely on the evidentiary record created before the
Planning Commission and no new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint
hearing. Each governing body will take action via separate jurisdictional (but identical)
Ordinances to approve, modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan Amendment.
Should the governing bodies not enact identical ordinances, the provisions of LC 12.235(5) will
apply.
Lane Code Ch. 12.245 Plan Amendment Processes - General Provisions.
(1) Process for Government Initiated Plan Amendments. A different process, time line, or
both, than the processes and timelines specified in LC 12.230, 12.235 or 12.240 above,
may be established by the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County for
any government initiated Metro Plan amendment.
Finding 48: A different process or timeline as specified in LC 12.230, 12.235, or 12.240
may be established by the governing bodies if they deem worthy.
(2) Time Frame Waiver. The time frames prescribed in connection with Type II Metro Plan
amendment processes can be waived if the applicant agrees to the waivers.
Finding 49: This is not a Type II amendment, therefore this criteria is not applicable.
(3) Bar on Resubmittal. No privately initiated Metro Plan amendment application
submitted to Lane County shall be considered if a substantially similar or identical plan
amendment has been denied within the year prior to the application date unless the facts
forming the basis for the denial have changed so as to allow approval. The Planning
Director shall determine whether the proposed amendment is substantially similar or
identical after providing the applicant with an opportunity to comment on the matter in
writing.
Finding 50: This is the first time this amendment has been proposed, therefore this
criteria is not applicable.
(4) Relationship to Refinement Plan Amendments. When a Metro Plan amendment is
enacted that requires an amendment to a refinement plan diagram or map for
consistency, the Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the refinement
Attachment 4-34
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 16 of 24
plan diagram or map if no amendment to the refinement plan text is involved. When a
Metro Plan diagram amendment requires a refinement plan diagram or map and text
amendment for consistency, the Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments shall be
processed concurrently.
Finding 51: No changes to a Metro plan Refinement Plan are being proposed.
(5) Severability of Plan Amendment Adoption Actions. When identical action is required
of two or three governing bodies on a Metro Plan Amendment, and the amendment is a
number of different plan changes, the following applies. Unless otherwise specified in
the adoption ordinance of any of the governing bodies, action by all of the governing
bodies to adopt some but not all of the plan changes shall result in the adoption of the
changes for which there is consensus and the forwarding of only those changes for
which there is not consensus to the Metropolitan Policy Committee under LC 12.235(5)
and 12.240(4) above.
Finding 52: The Metro Plan amendment component is considered one plan change,
therefore this criteria is not applicable.
(6) Relationship Of Amendment Process To Metro Plan Update And Periodic Review. An
update of any element of the Metro Plan requires initiation and approval by all three
jurisdictions. Amendments to the Metro Plan that result from state-mandated Periodic
Review require approval by all three jurisdictions.
Finding 53: The Metro Plan amendment entails initiation and approval from all three
jurisdictions.
APPLICABLE METRO PLAN CRITERIA REVIEW
In addition to criteria identified elsewhere within this document, amendments to the Metro Plan
also require consistency with Goal IV, Policies 3 –7 and 10 of the Metro Plan, listed below:
3. All amendments to the Metro Plan shall be classified as a Type I or Type II
amendment depending upon the specific changes sought by the initiator of the
proposal.
a. A Type I amendment shall include any change to the urban growth
boundary(UGB) or the Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary) of the
Metro Plan; any change that requires a goal exception to be taken under
Statewide Planning Goal 2that is not related to the UGB expansion; and
any amendment to the Metro Plan text that is non-site specific.
b. A Type II amendment shall include any change to the Metro Plan
Diagram or Metro Plan text that is site specific and not otherwise a Type
I category amendment.
c. Adoption or amendment of some refinement plans, functional plans, or
special area plans may, in some circumstances, be classified as Type I
or Type II amendments. Amendments to the Metro Plan that result from
state mandated Periodic Review or Metro Plan updates also shall be
Attachment 4-35
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 17 of 24
classified as Type I or Type II amendments depending upon the specific
changes that would result from these actions.
Finding 54 : This is a Type 1 amendment as is entails a modification to the Metro Plan
Boundary and is therefore consistent with this requirement.
4. Initiation of Metro Plan amendments shall be as follows:
a. A Type I amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the
three governing bodies. (Note: this correction reflects adopted
ordinance and code.)
b. A Type II amendment may be initiated at the discretion of any one of the
three governing bodies or by any citizen who owns property that is
subject of the proposed amendment.
c. Only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, a functional plan,
a special area study or Periodic Review or Metro Plan update.
d. The governing bodies of the three metropolitan jurisdictions may
initiate an amendment to the Metro Plan at any time. Citizen initiated
Type II amendments may be initiated at any time.
Finding 55 : This Type 1 amendment has been initiated by Lane County and is
therefore consistent with this requirement.
5. The approval process for Metro Plan amendments, including the number of
governing bodies who participate and the timeline for final action, will vary
depending upon the classification of amendment and whether a
determination is made that the proposed amendment will have Regional
Impact.
a. All three governing bodies must approve non-site-specific text
amendments; site specific Metro Plan Diagram amendments that
involve a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette or
McKenzie Rivers or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin; and,
amendments that involve a goal exception not related to a UGB
expansion.
b. A site specific Type I Metro Plan amendment that involves a UGB
expansion or Plan Boundary change and a Type II Metro Plan
amendment between the city limits and Plan Boundary, must be
approved by the home city and Lane County (Springfield is the home
city for amendments east of I-5 and Eugene is the home city for
amendments west of I-5). The non-home city will be sent a referral of
the proposed amendment and, based upon a determination that the
proposal will have Regional Impact, may choose to participate in the
decision. Unless the non-home city makes affirmative findings of
Regional Impact, the non-home city will not participate in the decision.
Attachment 4-36
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 18 of 24
c. An amendment will be considered to have Regional Impact if:
(1) It will require an amendment to a jointly adopted functional plan
[Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(TransPlan), Eugene- Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan
(Public Facilities and Services Plan), etc.] in order to provide the
subject property with an adequate level of urban services and
facilities; or
(2) It has a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage,
wastewater, or transportation facilities of the non-home city; or
(3) It affects the buildable land inventory by significantly adding to Low
Density Residential (LDR), Campus Industrial (CI), Light-Medium
Industrial (LMI), or Heavy Industrial (HI) designations or significantly
reducing the Medium Density Residential (MDR), High Density
Residential (HDR), or Community Commercial (CC) designations.
d. A jurisdiction may amend a Metro Plan designation without causing
Regional Impact when this action is taken to: compensate for
reductions in buildable land caused by protection of newly discovered
natural resources within its own jurisdiction; or accommodate the
contiguous expansion of an existing business with a site-specific
requirement. e. Decisions on all Type II amendments within city limits
shall be the sole responsibility of the home city.
Finding 56: This amendment entails a Plan Boundary change that triggers one or
more of the criteria identified in Policy 5. a., therefore, all three governing bodies are
decision makers.
6. Public hearings by the governing bodies for Metro Plan amendments requiring
participation from one or two jurisdictions shall be held within 120 days of the
initiation date. Metro Plan amendments that require a final decision from all
three governing bodies shall be concluded within 180 days of the initiation
date. When more than one jurisdiction participates in the decision, the
Planning Commissions of the participating jurisdictions shall conduct a joint
public hearing and forward that record and their recommendations to their
respective elected officials. The elected officials also shall conduct a joint
public hearing prior to making a final decision. The time frames prescribed in
connection with Type II Metro Plan amendment processes can be waived if the
applicant agrees to the waiver.
Finding 57: As this amendment requires a decision form all three jurisdictions, a
public hearing must be held within 180 from the formal initiation date. The formal initiation
date for this amendment is June 1, 2011. A public hearing for this amendment is scheduled
for July 19, 2011, which is within the required time specified. This will be a joint hearing of
the three Planning Commissions. The recommendation from the three Planning
Commissions will be forwarded to the elected officials who shall also conduct a joint public
hearing prior to making a final decision.
Attachment 4-37
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 19 of 24
7. If all participating jurisdictions reach a consensus to approve a proposed
amendment, substantively identical ordinances affecting the changes shall be
adopted. Where there is a consensus to deny a proposed amendment, it may
not be re-initiated, except by one of the three governing bodies, for one year.
Amendments for which there is no consensus shall be referred to the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for additional study, conflict resolution,
and recommendation back to the governing bodies.
Finding 58: If consensus is reached to approve a proposed amendment, substantively
identical ordinances affecting the changes shall be adopted by the three jurisdictions.
10. Metro Plan updates shall be initiated no less frequently than during the state
required Periodic Review of the Metro Plan, although the governing bodies may
initiate an update of the Metro Plan at any time.
Finding 59: This amendment is not part of a Periodic Review work program, but it was
initiated by Lane County BCC and is therefore consistent with this requirement.
APPLICABLE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS REVIEW
As directed by Lane Code Ch. 16.400(6)(h)(ii)(aa) for the RCP amendment items, LC
12.225(2)(a) for the Metro Plan amendment item, and ORS 197.175(2)(a), the proposal must be
consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals.
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To provide for widespread citizen involvement.
Finding 60: This goal requires that citizens and affected public agencies be provided an
opportunity to comment and participate on the proposed amendments. As part of this
application review process, public notification in the form of mailed notices was sent by LMD to
affected property owners, public agencies, local service providers, other interdepartmental
departments, and the Department of Land Conservation & Development (DLCD). Public notice
of the Planning Commission hearing and the Board of Commissioners hearings are published
once for each hearing in the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper. Additionally, a Ballot Measure
56 notice was mailed to all property owners affected by the proposed zone changes.
LMD has done a number of outreach actions for this item. On April 21, 2011 LMD staff held an
Open House Event in Harris Hall advertized on two different dates via a display advertisement
in the Eugene Register Guard. Additionally, LMD has created an informational webpage for this
item at:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/LMD/LandUse/Pages/MetroBoundary.aspx.
Given the above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 2: Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all
decisions and actions to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such
decisions and actions.
Attachment 4-38
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 20 of 24
Finding 61: This goal requires governmental agencies to adopt land use plans and
implementation ordinances after public hearings are completed. Lane County has conformed to
the goal through adoption of the Rural Comprehensive Plan and the implementing ordinances
found in Lane Code Ch. 16. Lane County co-adopted the Metro Plan pursuant to Ordinance No.
883 which is a component of the RCP pursuant to LC 16.400(4)(a)(i). The County is required to
provide the public opportunities to comment and participate during the review of this (and any)
plan amendment proposal. The public hearing and notification process will be conducted
pursuant to applicable provisions in Lane Code Ch. 14.300, LC Ch. 16.400(6), LC Ch. 12, and
Metro Plan Ch IV.
Throughout this document staff has developed findings of consistency with a wide range of
applicable criteria listed above. The proposal must meet any and all of the criteria in order to be
implemented and adopted. Consistency with Goal 2 is derived through the public process along
with the complete set of findings of consistency with all the criteria.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Finding 62: This goal recognizes the importance of maintaining agricultural lands as
those that are defined under the goal. In western Oregon, agricultural land consist of
predominantly Class I through IV soils identified by the Soil Conservation Service and other
lands suitable for farm use taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic
conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm and irrigation purposes, existing land
use patterns, technological and energy input required for accepted farm practices. Lands in
other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby lands, shall be included as agricultural land in any event. Agricultural lands shall be
preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural
products.
There are many acres of agricultural lands within the Metro Plan area. This proposal is not
affecting the amount, changing the amount of agricultural lands base, nor is it changing the uses
allowed in the agricultural lands in Lane County. An item in this ordinance is simply changing
like-for-like Plan designations: from Metro Plan “Agriculture” to Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan “Agricultural” plan designations. Thus, lands previously governed under
the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane
County completed Goal 3 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the
application is consistent with Goal 3.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
This goal defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory them and adopt policies
and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest uses."
Finding 63: This goal promotes the importance of conserving forest lands for forest uses.
Forest Lands shall include lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including
adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other
forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
There some areas of forest land within the Metro Plan area. This proposal is not affecting the
amount, changing the amount of forest lands base, or changing the uses allowed in the forest
lands in Lane County. An item in this ordinance is simply changing like-for-like Plan
designations: from Metro Plan “Forest land” to Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan “Forest”
Attachment 4-39
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 21 of 24
plan designations. Thus, lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 4
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 4.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
Finding 64: This goal directs jurisdictions to inventory, protect, and conserve natural
resources for present and future generations. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 5 requirements in the acknowledged Metro
Plan document Ch. III Environmental Resources Element, Goal 5 sections.
If adopted, the proposed amendments would apply existing Goal 5 policies currently contained
in the Metro Plan to lands removed from the Metro Plan and placed within the jurisdiction of the
RCP. Therefore no changes in existing goal 5 policies are being implemented through by these
amendments. Additionally, the “Safe Harbor” riparian protection regulations for areas within the
Metro Plan will be applied to lands removed from the Metro Plan. Based on this finding, the
application is consistent with Goal 5.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resource Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Finding 65: This goal requires adequate protection measures for preservation of air,
water and land. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly
completed the Goal 6 requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III
Environmental Resources Element, Goal 6 sections. No changes to Goal 6 elements are being
attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 6
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 6.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
Finding 66: This goal directs jurisdictions to adopt comprehensive plans that reduce the
risks to people and property from natural hazards. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 7 requirements in the acknowledged Metro
Plan document Ch. III Environmental Resources Element, Goal 7 sections. No changes to Goal
7 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro
Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County
completed Goal 7 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the
application is consistent with Goal 7.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where
appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
Attachment 4-40
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 22 of 24
Finding 67: The goal’s requirements for meeting recreational needs, now and in the
future, shall be planned for by governmental agencies having responsibility for recreation areas,
facilities and opportunities. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene
jointly completed the Goal 8 requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III
Parks and Recreation Facility Element, section G. No changes to Goal 8 elements are being
attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 8
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 8.
Goal 9: Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Finding 68: This goal states Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute to a
stable and healthy economy in all regions of the state. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 9 requirements in the acknowledged Metro
Plan document Ch. III Economic Element, section B. No changes to Goal 9 elements are being
attempted with this proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed
under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 9
requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent
with Goal 9.
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs for the citizens of the State.
Finding 69: This goal states plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers
of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the
financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and
density. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the
Goal 10 requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Residential Land Use
and Housing Element, section A. No changes to Goal 10 elements are being attempted with this
proposal. Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP
should this amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 10 requirements in its
acknowledged RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 10.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
Finding 70: The goal states Urban and rural development shall be guided and supported
by types and levels of urban and rural public facilities and services appropriate for, but limited
to, the needs and requirements of the urban, urbanizable, and rural areas to be served. A
provision for key facilities shall be included in each plan. Within the Metro Plan area, Lane
County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 11 requirements in the
acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Public Facilities and Services Element, section H.
No changes to Goal 11 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously
governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain
approval. Lane County completed Goal 11 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the
above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 11.
Attachment 4-41
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 23 of 24
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Finding 71: Under this goal, transportation a transportation plan shall (1) consider all
modes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, pipeline, rail, highway, bicycle and
pedestrian; (2) be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs; (3)
consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing
combinations of transportation modes; (4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of
transportation; (5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; (6)
conserve energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving
transportation services; (8) facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local
and regional economy; and (9) conform with local and regional comprehensive land use plans.
Each plan shall include a provision for transportation as a key facility.
Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 12
requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Transportation Element, section
F. No changes to Goal 12 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously
governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain
approval. Lane County completed Goal 12 requirements in its acknowledged RCP and in the
Lane County Rural Transportation Plan; a special purpose plan of the RCP. Given the above
finding, the application is consistent with Goal 12.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy
Finding 72: This goal states land and uses shall be managed and controlled so as to
maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles.
Within the Metro Plan area, Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 13
requirements in the acknowledged Metro Plan document Ch. III Energy Element, section J. No
changes to Goal 13 elements are being attempted with this proposal. Lands previously
governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain
approval. Lane County completed Goal 13 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the
above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 13.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,
to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
Finding 73: The Metro Plan area is not within an urban growth boundary. This proposal is
seeking to move the Metro Plan boundary corresponding with the adopted Springfield UBG in
phase 1 of this proposal. There is no foreseeable connection between the proposed Metro Plan
Boundary adjustment and future UGB expansions or annexations. Lands previously governed
under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this amendment obtain approval.
Lane County completed Goal 14 requirements in its acknowledged RCP. Given the above
finding, the application is consistent with Goal 14.
Goal: 15 Willamette River Greenway
To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural,
economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette
River Greenway.
Attachment 4-42
Exhibit E to Attachment 1
Page 24 of 24
Finding 74: The goal recognizes the importance to protect, conserve, and enhance areas
along the Willamette Greenway. Areas which contain this boundary within the Metro Plan area
are located along the river banks of the Coast and Middle Fork Willamette River. Lane County
requires Greenway Development Permits for intensification or changes of use or development
as defined in LC 16.254. The jurisdictional area of the Metro Plan was found to be in compliance
with Goal 15 on September 12, 1982.
Lands previously governed under the Metro Plan will be governed under the RCP should this
amendment obtain approval. Lane County completed Goal 15 requirements in its acknowledged
RCP. Given the above finding, the application is consistent with Goal 15.
Goal: 16 Estuarine Resources
Goal: 17 Coastal Shorelands
Goal: 18 Beaches and Dunes
Goal: 19 Ocean Resources
Finding 75: These four goals are geographically separated from the Metro Plan area.
Therefore, they are not applicable to this application.
Attachment 4-43
Page 1 – Ordinance No. PA 1283
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LANE COUNTY, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283
WHEREAS, through Ordinance No. PA 1281, the partners of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) have jointly modified the boundaries of the Metro
Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary to amend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
(RCP) to apply RCP plan designations to lands removed from the Metro Plan pursuant to
ordinance no. PA 1281; and
WHEREAS, it is also necessary to adopt the City of Springfield’s parcel specific Urban
Growth Boundary location on official Lane County RCP plan and zone maps to comply with
OAR 660-024-0020(2); and
WHEREAS, the proposal was reviewed at a hearing of Lane County Planning
Commission on July 19, 2011, and August 16, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the proposal was also reviewed at hearing of the Lane County Board of
Commissioners on March 13, 2012; and
WHEREAS, evidence exists in the record indicating that the proposal meets the
requirements of the RCP, Lane Code and applicable state law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is now ready to take action.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County ordains as
follows:
Section 1. The Official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) - plan maps # 1701,
1702, 1703, 1802 and 1803, which are included as Exhibits A-E to this ordinance
are hereby repealed and replaced with the amended RCP plan maps # 1701,
1702, 1703, 1802 and 1803 included as Exhibits F-J attached and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 2. The Official RCP – zone maps # 1702, 1703, 1802 and 1803, which are included
as Exhibits K-N to this ordinance are hereby repealed and replaced with the
amended RCP zone maps # 1702, 1703, 1802 and 1803 included as Exhibits O-
R attached and incorporated herein by this reference.
IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE LANE COUNTY
RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY APPLYING PLAN
DESIGNATIONS TO LANDS REMOVED FROM THE
METRO PLAN PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. PA
1281; ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
PARCEL SPECIFIC UGB BOUNDARY ON OFFICIAL
LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAPS TO COMPLY WITH OAR 660-024-0020(2); AND
ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
Attachment 4-44
Page 2 – Ordinance No. PA 1283
Section 3. The prior policies, plan and zone diagram designations repealed or changed by
this Ordinance remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in
violation thereof prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 4. 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
jurisdiction, such section shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
FURTHER, although not part of this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners
adopts findings and conclusions in support of this action as set forth in Exhibit “E” to Ordinance
No. PA 1281, incorporated here by this reference.
ENACTED this ______day of _______________, 2012.
__________________________________
Sid Leiken, Chair
Lane County Board of Commissioners
_____________________________________
Recording Secretary for this Board Meeting
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date Lane County
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Attachment 4-45
6
7
3
4
8
2
5
9
1
34
30
19
35
18
31
11
16
21
20
29 28
36
15
1314
12
26 25
17
22
33
27
32
23
10
24
UPPER CAMP CREEK RD
TIKI LN
KICKBUSCH LN
TWIN FIRS RD
MILLICAN RD
M J CHASE RD
WORTH RD
MCKENZIE ACRES DR
TONGA LN
GEM STO NE RD
CHITA LP
CLEMENS RD
HEATHER DR
EMERALD WAY
E CEDAR FLAT RD
E A S T O N L N
PARTRIDGE LN
KEOLA LN
E A S T O F E D E N R D
MITTEN LN
POTTER LN
ERMI BEE RD
BOSCAGE LN
6
2
7
45 3 1
8 9
11
30 28
25
31
19
18
34
20
23
1
7
6
8 9
5
234
19
18
31
11
30
22
28
34
1617
12346 5
7 8 9
11
19
30
31
18
23
36
10
14
22
6
1
4
7
5 3
9
2
8
11
35
20
17
13
23
29
25
14