Planning Commission

MINUTES Joint Planning Commissions Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Work Session Springfield Library Meeting Room 225 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477 April 20, 2004 6 p.m. PRESENT: Steve Moe, Chair; William Carpenter, Vice Chair; Lee Beyer, Gayle Decker, David Cole, Greg Shaver, Springfield Planning Commission members; Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Adell McMillan, Rick Duncan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Mitzi Colbath, Eugene Planning Commission members; Juanita Kirkham, Chair; Steve Dignam, Vice Chair; Edwin Becker, James Carmichael, Chris Clemow, Mark Herbert, Vincent Martorello, Marion Esty, Lane County Planning Commission members; Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Manager; Stephanie Schulz, Lane County staff; Gary Darnelle, Lane Council of Governments Planning staff; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Eugene Planning staff; Greg Mott, Len Goodwin, Susie Smith, Springfield Planning staff; Meg Kiernan, City of Springfield Attorney. ABSENT: Jacque Betz, Lane County Planning Commission member. 1. Open Joint Meeting and Introductions Mr. Moe convened the Joint Planning Commission meeting. Those present introduced themselves. 2. Joint Work Session –Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary Greg Mott, City of Springfield Planning Manager, provided an overview of the proposed text, table and map amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) initiated by the Springfield City Council. He said the proposed amendments were intended to: • Clarify the relationship between the types of facilities projects included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) and the projects the appeared in local capital improvement plans. • Update the PFSP maps based on new statutory provisions • Reflect current conditions and planned regional wastewater facilities consistent with the MWMC Facilities Plan. • Resolve inconsistencies among metro-wide planning documents. MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County April 20, 2004 Page 1 of 3 Planning Commissions – Work Session  • Adopt a separate amendment process for the PSFP. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Mott explained the process for making changes to modify the Metro Plan. Mr. Mott said Type I Amendments included amendments to the text of the Metro Plan, or to a list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly impacted a public facility project identified which project served more than one jurisdiction. He said that Type I Amendments were forwarded to the planning commissions of the respective agencies and, following their recommendations, would be considered by the governing boards of all agencies. He added that if a Type I Amendment was not adopted by all agencies, the amendment would be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for resolution, noting that subsequent failure by agencies to adopt an MPC negotiated proposal would defeat the proposed amendment. He said if the amendment was adopted, all agencies would adopt identical ordinances. Mr. Mott said Type II Amendments included amendments to a list, location or provider of public facility projects that significantly impacted an identified public facility project that serves only the jurisdiction proposing the amendment. He said Type II amendments would be forwarded to the Planning Commission of the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, would be considered by the government board of the initiating agency. Mr. Mott said not all projects on a member agency’s Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list needed to be included on the PFSP, only those that had regional or significant impact. He added that the Metro Plan and the PFSP could not be applied retroactively to an existing CIP. Ms. Smith offered clarification of application of the Metro Plan to local CIPs. She said that wastewater facilities incorporated into the current and prior PFSPs were limited to pipes 24 inches and larger in diameter and pump stations. She added that the proposed amendments brought the plan into compliance with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). Mr. Herbert asked what was a CIP? He observed that the projects included in the plan were a list of vague, broadly defined projects in the $150 million range to be completed over a 12-15 year period. He expressed concern that the noted reference federal laws lacked specificity. Ms. Kiernan explained that specific federal rules and regulations were not included because the plan would then need to be amended every time Congress amended the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Federal Register or the terms of the Act. Furthermore, she said the broadness of the list was tied to the definition in the OAR on public facility projects, as the construction or reconstruction of a water, sewer or transportation facility within a public facility system that was funded or utilized by members of the general public. Ms. Smith stated that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) had both one and five year CIPs that were adopted annually following public hearings, review by the MWMC and adoption by the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, and by Lane County. She said the definitions for the purpose of the amendments under consideration were what were land use issues and what were provision of key urban service issues. Mr. Mott said that all three local governing bodies adopted and codified identical plan review processes in the 1990’s. He said he codes required that the planning commissions would develop the record and the elected officials would conduct public hearings based upon that record. He MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County April 20, 2004 Page 2 of 3 Planning Commissions – Work Session added that the codes stated that timeline, procedure, or any other aspects of the planning process for government initiated changes. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Smith said the MWMC adopted an updated financial plan in 2003 that included a number of policies for managing assets, developing budgets and financial forecasting, to provide for prudent management of MWMC assets. She added that the group of proposed MWMC projects was developed following a year long evaluation of potential projects that would achieve the desired results. She said the range of costs in 2004 dollars was between $144 million and $160 million. She added the 20-year escalated figure was approximately $173 million. Ms. Smith said the set of alternatives needed to be approved by the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) prior to implementation. Ms. Decker asked why schools were included while parks were not included. Mr. Mott replied that planning for schools were included in Goal 11,while parks were part of Goal 8. Mr. Dignam observed that there had been little interest from the public on the proposed amendments. Ms. Mott explained that public notification process and said he had received two e- mails, one letter, and no telephone calls. Mr. Rusch said he disagreed with the underlying assumption in the amendment process, that being the system of collecting and treating wastewater was efficient. He said during his three year tenure as a Planning Commissioner, nothing had come to the Planning Commission requested a review of the wastewater system. Ms. Smith responded that the MWMC had the responsibility of overseeing the administration of the wastewater facility. She added that the year long planning process yielded information that supported upgrading and improved efficiency of the water treatment plant, that resulted in cost savings. Mr. Herbert noted that the charter of the Joint Planning Commissions directed that the Joint Planning Commission’s role was to deal with the amendment process and not with the technical requirements of projects. Mr. Moe adjourned the Work Session meeting at 6:55 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) M:\2004\Joint\Planning Commission\jtpc040420.doc MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County April 20, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Planning Commissions – Work Session