Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 24, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Depart- ment staff; Greg Mott, Troy McAllister, Len Goodwin, City of Springfield staff; Meg Kieran, Springfield City Attorney; Susie Smith, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission staff; Dave Jewett, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission at- torney. Charles Biggs, guest. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Lawless, moved, seconded by Ms. Levis to approve the minutes of the Eugene Planning Commission of March 8 and April 12 as amended, and the Joint Planning Commission of April 20, 2004 as written. The motion passed unani- mously, 5:0. III. WORK SESSION/ACTION: METROPOLITANWASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION METRO PLAN/PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENTS Ms. McMillan, moved, seconded by Mr. Rusch to recommend to the City Coun- cil the amendments to the Metro Plan to include the waste water elements in Chapter G and the Glossary for Definitions. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Mr. Lawless, moved, seconded by Mr. Belcher to recommend to the City Council the amendments to the Public Facilities Services Plan including the amendment process. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. IV. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 24, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Depart- ment staff; Greg Mott, Troy McAllister, Len Goodwin, City of Springfield staff; Meg Kieran, Springfield City Attorney; Susie Smith, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission staff; Dave Jewett, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission at- torney. Charles Biggs, guest. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, members; Tom Coyle, ex officio member. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene. Mr. Biggs addressed the importance of the Willakenzie Plan in ensuring livability and compatibility. He asked that the Planning Commission, when hearing Hearings’ Officials decisions, receive legal advice to ensure that the City budget was not impacted in the future. He added the Willakenzie Plan was relevant related to land use issues, and it was important to ensure that the Willakenzie Plan was in compliance with the Metro Plan. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Belcher offered a correction to the March 8, 2004 minutes. Page 1, paragraph 4 should read: Ms. Muir announced that Ms. Levis was unable to attend the meeting and had asked that the Commission be provided a report done five years ago on how to develop public involvement plans. Mr. Lawless offered two corrections to the April 12, 2004 minutes. Page 1, at the bottom of the page, he said it should be noted that Mr. Lawless left the table at that time. Additionally, on page 4, paragraph 10, it should be noted that Mr. Lawless returned to the table. Mr. Lawless, moved, seconded by Ms. Levis to approve the minutes of the Eugene Planning Commission of March 8 and April 12 as amended, and the Joint Planning Commission of April 20, 2004 as written. The motion passed unani- mously, 5:0. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 2  III. WORK SESSION/ACTION: METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION METRO PLAN/PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Yeiter introduced the topic. He said purpose of the work session was to review the public testimony received at the April 20, 2004 joint Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Yeiter introduced City of Springfield and Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) staff. Mr. Mott provided the staff report. Mr. Mott reviewed the Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Amendment Criteria: • The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the land Conservation and Development Commission. • Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Mr. Mott said the proposed amendments discussed at the April 26, 2004 Joint Planning Commission meeting were housekeeping amendments, or, those absolutely required to be included by State law, specifically those items in Division 11 of the Administrative Rules, subsection 0020, that a public facility plan shall identify significant public facilities projects which are to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. Furthermore, public facility plans shall list the title of the project and describe each public facility project in terms of the type of facility, service area, and facility capacity. Mr. Mott said the proposed amendments that included Tables 4a, 4b, and 16a, and Maps 2 and 2a, were specifically intended to address that requirement of the Administrative Rule, adding that information did not exist in the existing public facilities plan. Mr. Mott noted information in Appendix B of the staff packet responded specifically to the requirements of that law. He added that the Metro Plan text specifically addressed the relationship of the PFSP and the information included specific to the projects. Mr. Mott said that the amendments made to the Metro Plan itself were limited to Chapter 3, Section G, and were intended to meet the test of internal consistency by adding new definitions for primary collection system and treatment facility systems. He said the new policy was G.9, as stated in the Staff Report and Findings. Mr. Mott said, “…the project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Information in the PFSP on project phasing and costs, on decisions on timing and financing of projects, are not part of the Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the Capital Improvement Programming and budget process of individual service providers.” Mr. Mott said the second proposed amendment to the PFSP was an amendment process that was specified in Administrative Rule 660-011-0045. Mr. Mott said the record that had been created demonstrated that the proposed amendments were consistent with the only law that applied to the amendment, Division 11. Furthermore, questions about Goal 6 were included in the Staff Report and Findings. He said the consistency test existed by virtue of actions taken in the PSFP needed similar actions undertaken in the Metro Plan, but policy G.9 connected the PSFP and the Metro Plan. Mr. Mott said staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Eugene City Council approving the proposed amendments based upon demonstration of their consistency MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 3 with the Criteria of Approval of Metro Plan Amendments. He added that the City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions met on April 18, 2004 to review the materials. Both were scheduled to take action on June 1, 2004. Mr. Yeiter said that the action requested of the Planning Commission was to forward a recommendation to the Eugene City Council to approve the proposed amendments based on the findings contained in the staff report included in the agenda packet. He added that a joint meeting of elected officials would be held on June 22, 2004 to review the proposed amendments. Mr. Yeiter said questions arose following the April 20, 2004 joint public hearing regarding responsibili- ties related to processing the updated wastewater management plan. Mr. Mott stated that the MWMC had conducted a lengthy investigation evaluation of what was necessary to accommodate State and Federal law, and had completed a facilities plan for the treatment plant that would serve as a benefit to the MWMC and the three jurisdictions which were served by the MWMC. He added that under ORS 223.314, system development charges (SDC) methodology and a plan to implement a treatment plant were exempt from ORS 195 and 197, and were not considered land use decisions. Mr. Mott iterated that it was the responsibility of the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, MWMC, the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) to undertake implementation of the plan. Mr. Yeiter said a Eugene City Council public hearing was scheduled for June 14, 2004 on the amend- ments. Mr. Yeiter provided clarification on staffing for the amendment process. He said City of Eugene staff had worked closely with the City of Springfield and MWMC staff throughout the process, and that the City of Springfield represented the staff from the various jurisdictions. In response to a question from Mr. Rusch regarding implications of the $167 million figure, Ms. Smith explained that the MWMC developed long range facility planning on a 20-year basis. She said the annual project list was $100 million, and that the incremental addition would be $44 million, required by overlaying new environmental requirements of MWMC’s discharge permit on top of existing plans for addressing capital needs. She stated that through the annual budget and capital improvement plan (CIP) processes, the list was refined. Ms. Smith noted that proceeding at this time was related to securing the least costly financing coupled with cash on hand and approved plans to enable going to the bond market in July 2005. In response to Mr. Belcher’s understanding of the Home Builders Association (HBA) argument that capacity significantly declined through the amendments, Ms. Smith said several things had occurred. MWMC completed a Master Plan in 1995 and 1996 that resulted in findings of both capacity shortfalls and adequate capacity. In the interim, the physical capacity was depleted. Secondly, she said there were different areas of capacity provisions in different treatment processes, several of which had constrained capacity. Thirdly, she said the HBA had consistently not acknowledged that the requirements of the new discharge permit constrained the capacity of the facilities, and cited examples of those constraints. Ms. Levis left the room at 12:05 p.m. Responding to Mr. Lawless’ question, Mr. Mott responded that TransPlan updates were required every three years, and that the next update would include MWMC Amendments. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Ms. Smith said that the SDC statutes had changed signifi- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 4 cantly since the 2003 Oregon legislative session. She described the newly developed methodology used to develop the 20 year plans to protect against double charging over time. She explained the relationship between SDCs and user rates, noting that lower SDCs resulted in higher user rates. Mr. Yeiter stated that the Planning Commission could forward land use related concerns to the City Council. In response to a question from Mr. Yeiter, Ms. Smith replied the MWMC had prepared a series of system wide packages for capital improvements, ranging from $144 million to $233 million, selecting the least expensive package with a contingency package, to forward to DEQ for approval. Mr. Mott said the two most expensive development related costs to the communities were related to infrastructure costs of stormwater and sanitary sewer, water, and transportation improvements. He said estimating costs on large public works projects were very complex. Mr. Belcher said the standard of proof fell on those opposed to the proposed amendments, and a compelling case had not been made. Ms. McMillan agreed the case in opposition had not been made and she said the proposed amendment was reasonable. Mr. Lawless expressed support of forwarding the recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendments. Mr. Rusch said he reluctantly accepted the amendments as housekeeping in nature. He expressed frustration that nothing other than water based systems was considered in the review process, and described several alternative systems. Ms. Smith said the trend in waste water treatment was headed toward the purple pipe that took the water and used it as a resource at the back end, getting it back into the communities as a supply. She said there was a reuse program in the MWMC 20-year project list intended to meet the temperature requirement, noting a market for the product needed to be developed. She added purple pipe standards were part of the State of California code, and that some communities in Southern California required inclusion of the purple pipe in infrastructure construction. Ms. McMillan inquired about the success of the poplar tree farm. Ms. Smith replied that the first phase of planting and infrastructure was completed, and the number one objective of land applying biosolids and irrigation with reuse/reclaimed water was very successful, from the perspective of workability, usability and cost effectiveness. She said the only question was whether there would be a market for the trees in ten years for pulp. The revenue received from the sale of the trees would be used to reduce waste water treatment rates. In response to a question from Mr. Biggs, Mr. Mott explained the process for amending the Metro Plan. He added there was no element in the proposed amendment that would enable the MWMC to expand into unapproved areas without approval by the City of Eugene. Ms. McMillan, moved, seconded by Mr. Rusch to recommend to the City Coun- cil the amendments to the Metro Plan to include the waste water elements in Chapter G and the Glossary for Definitions. The motion passed unanimously, MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 5  4:0. Mr. Lawless, moved, seconded by Mr. Belcher to recommend to the City Council the amendments to the Public Facilities Services Plan including the amendment process. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. City of Springfield staff and Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission staff left at 12:40 p.m. Ms. Muir arrived at 12:40 p.m. IV. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Ms. Muir agreed to notify Planning Commissioners via e-mail regarding the date and time of a special meeting. Mr. Yeiter reported that the Periodic Review package went to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. He added that questions regarding the natural resource element and an energy element had prompted questions. He said the package had been rolled over for another reading on June 2, 2004. He added the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield City Councils had approved identical packages. Ms. Muir reported that the unincorporated urban area of the Goal 5 inventory was adopted by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Ms. Muir stated that a notice of intent to appeal the Periodic Review work previously adopted by the City of Eugene had been received by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Ms. McMillan reported that the Historic Review Board (HRB) would conduct a public hearing on a proposed city landmark designation of an American Gothic farmhouse on River Road next week. Ms. Muir said the Planning Commission and the HRB would hold a joint meeting on June 28, 2004. She added that the June 7, 2004 Planning Commission meeting included a bus tour. Mr. Rusch said that he was on the North End Scoping Committee that had met one time in three years. Mr. Belcher said the City Club was scheduling a program in July on what we learned from the East Campus plan. He said Eugene Neighbors Incorporated (ENI), a non-profit organization, was offering a capacity building program on June 19, 2004. Ms. Muir said she would do Planning 101 presentations at the May 25, 2004 and two subsequent Neighborhood Leadership Council meetings. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 12:50 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040524.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2004 Page 6