Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Eugene City Hall–Council Chamber–777 Pearl Street October 11, 2005 6 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Develop- ment Department; Renee Grube, Library, Recreation and Cultural Services; Johnny Medlin, Carolyn Weiss, Public Works; Katherine Brotherton, City Attorney; Dan Arkin, Linda Swisher, Roxie Cuellar, Charles Biggs, Terry Connolly, Zachary Vishanoff, Kevin Matthews, Lisa Warnes, Mike Alltucker, Debbie Jeffries, John Etter, guests. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT AND REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Eugene Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan (CA 05-2, RA 05-1) An updated comprehensive plan for Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) is completed, following two years of public process and development. Based on the results of public outreach to thousands of Eugene residents, the PROS Comprehensive Plan provides concepts, principles, goals and strategies to guide preservation and enhancement of Eugene’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space system. Amendments to the Eugene Code, 1971 to delete section 9.9550 and amend section 9.8010. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to leave the record open until 5 p.m. on October 17, 2005. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2005 Page 1 Public Hearing  MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Eugene City Hall–Council Chamber–777 Pearl Street October 11, 2005 6 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, members; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Develop- ment Department; Renee Grube, Library, Recreation and Cultural Services; Johnny Medlin, Carolyn Weiss, Public Works; Katherine Brotherton, City Attorney; Dan Arkin, Linda Swisher, Roxie Cuellar, Charles Biggs, Terry Connolly, Zachary Vishanoff, Kevin Matthews, Lisa Warnes, Mike Alltucker, Debbie Jeffries, John Etter, guests. ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT AND REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Eugene Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan (CA 05-2, RA 05-1) An updated comprehensive plan for Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) is completed, following two years of public process and development. Based on the results of public outreach to thousands of Eugene residents, the PROS Comprehensive Plan provides concepts, principles, goals and strategies to guide preservation and enhancement of Eugene’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space system. Amendments to the Eugene Code, 1971 to delete section 9.9550 and amend section 9.8010. Mr. Lawless convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. He explained the role and functions of the Planning Commission and reminded the audience that the commission did not make final decisions on legislative matters; it made recommendations to the City Council. He asked that the meeting be orderly and fair to all parties wishing to speak and assured those present that the commission would listen carefully to all comments. He said that each speaker would have three minutes to testify, after which commissioners could ask questions of the speaker. Mr. Lawless opened the public hearing and called for the staff presentation. Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss stated that the PROS Comprehensive Plan was organized into six chapters that included a planning framework, implementation recommendations, strategies for achieving the vision, financing sources and evaluation measures. She said the PROS Comprehensive Plan was a refinement to the Metro Plan; however, unlike many refinement plans this one was primarily aspirational and did not rely on Chapter 9 for implementation. She said staff was proposing a housekeeping ordinance that would repeal the provisions in Chapter 9 that referred back to the 1989 parks plan. She anticipated the plan would be before the City Council in late November 2005 and she hoped it would be adopted by the end of the year. Ms. Weiss explained that projects and priorities were removed from the plan and placed in a separate MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2005 Page 1 Public Hearing document called the PROS Projects and Priorities Plan because the project list needed to be a document that retained flexibility and could be updated regularly to reflect the desires and needs of the community and new supplemental funding sources not currently known. She said if it was incorporated in the PROS Comprehensive Plan it would be a refinement to the Metro Plan and more difficult to amend. She said the PROS Projects and Priorities Plan would be presented to the City Council in January 2006 to be adopted by resolution; a public hearing would be held to provide for public involvement. Ms. Weiss pointed out that staff believed strongly in working with willing sellers on park projects and found that projects had the most success when working with the community and partners. She said that preference was reflected in the plan with a specific strategy. Regarding the inventory analysis, she related that only lands owned by the City of Eugene were included in the inventory; school properties and private recreation facilities were excluded because the City did not have ultimate control over those lands. She said that even when those facilities were included, the community needs assessment indicated people wanted recreation opportunities above and beyond what was currently available. Referring to a question at a previous meeting regarding sports parks held jointly by the City and 4J School District, she indicated those facilities were included in the inventory. Ms. Weiss described the public outreach process and changes to the plan since the draft had been presented to the commission in January 2005. She said that an extensive public outreach process reached over 3,000 citizens using various strategies including a statistically valid survey of Eugene households, a youth questionnaire, speaker’s bureau, communitywide forums and a Mayor’s advisory committee of 11 community members that guided the entire planning process and approved the draft plan. She said that there had been six additional public forums since January 2005 that collected comments on the draft plan and revised it based on that input. She said a meeting had also been held with the Lane County Board of Commissioners and as a result language had been added to the plan relating to land outside of Eugene’s urban growth boundary (UGB) to clarify that the City did not have jurisdiction in those areas, but wanted to work with property owners and governing jurisdictions in order to explore the feasibility of those projects. She remarked that individual notices were not provided to any property owners because of the breadth of the plan; however, staff had met with those owners who had expressed concerns. She noted receipt of the following written testimony: Letter from Charles Biggs dated October 11, 2005 Letter and related materials from Roxie Cuellar of the Homebuilders Association dated October 8, 2005 Mr. Lawless asked for declaration of any conflicts of interest. Mr. Hledik declared a potential conflict of interest based on his association with a business that owned land outside of the City limits but within the planning area. Mr. Belcher stated that he had worked on a project that was on the projects list. Mr. Lawless called for public testimony. Roxie Cuellar, Homebuilders Association, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, stated that homebuilders were supportive of parks, actively endorsed local parks bond measures and preferred to see an active, healthy park system throughout the area. She served on the PROS committee as a representative of the home- builders because the fortunes of homebuilders and parks were so closely related. She said it was typically residential land that was sacrificed for parks and the homebuilders paid system development charges (SDC). She listed four issues that she believed made the PROS Comprehensive Plan inconsistent with the Metro Plan: MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2005 Page 2 Public Hearing  • A map in Appendix B illustrated the planning area but the adoption process did not meet the requirements for amending the Metro Plan diagram • A stated need in Appendix B for an additional 1,623 of park land – The land was either coming from mostly residential land inside the UGB or land outside the UGB. There was no master plan that allowed local parks to be developed outside the UGB. • The projects list and maps should be included in the refinement plan. The Metro Plan addresses park and recreation facilities and speaks to not just existing but also anticipated acquisition of fu- ture parks. Without the maps the commission would not be able to refer to the Metro diagram and determine what land designations were impacted. • The Metro Plan requires that private recreation facilities be included in assessing the needs for local parks Dan Arkin, 655 Goodpasture Island Road, #28, Eugene, stated he was a member of the PROS committee and stressed that the plan was intended to be visionary while keeping in mind financial and other constraints. He said the idea was to combine existing facilities and ideas for new facilities and how those integrated into the region as people did not consider political boundaries when choosing recreational activities. He said the spirit of cooperation on the committee was remarkable and members represented a broad spectrum on community interests. He represented the interests of people with disabilities. He thought the planning process was inventive, inclusive and resulted in a document of which he was very proud. Mike Alltucker, Eugene Sand and Gravel, 3000 Delta Highway North, Eugene, said as an affected property owner he was concerned about the $250 million plan presented to the commission which reached beyond the City limits, the UGB and the Metro Plan boundary. He said the plan significantly amended the 1989 Parks and Recreation Plan and failed to do a proper job of inventorying existing open spaces accurately. He stated that the PROS Comprehensive Plan failed to prove a need. He said the Rivers to Ridges park planning document approved in 2003 had been touted as the genesis for much of the PROS plan but he did not feel it was consistent with Rivers to Ridges as the voluntary participation criteria were removed. He expressed concern that all of the descriptions for $250 million worth of projects, maps, capital priority projects, maintenance estimates and other costs were removed. He said the plan had serious impacts to the future buildable land inventory and transportation planning, but most importantly, removing the voluntary participation criteria set the City up to be in the condemnation business. He asked why, when the City refused to provide public services such as fire, police, water and utilities outside of the UGB, would it force City parks and parks planning into lands over which they had no jurisdiction. Terry Connolly, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, 1401 Willamette Street, Eugene, stated that the Chamber believed that parks, recreation and open space made a positive contribution to the overall quality of the community’s life and economy. He did not wish his comments to be perceived as critical of parks, PROS Committee members and staff. He viewed the plan as a land use matter that deserved the commission’s attention in that context. He said a primary concern with the PROS Comprehensive Plan was whether it was a truly comprehensive park plan if it did not take into account existing public land and private land that provide open space and recreational activities and perhaps more importantly for the commission, whether the plan was integrated with other ongoing planning activities such as Goal 5 natural resources or transportation and utilities. He said the Chamber believed, because of the finite amount of land within the UGB, that the PROS Comprehensive Plan must be coordinated with other planning activities that had a direct impact on the supplies of available land needed for commercial, residential and industrial purposes. He noted the plan concluded there was a future net need of over 1,600 acres for new parks, open space and recreation facilities. He raised two questions for the commission: MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2005 Page 3 Public Hearing are all the acres going to be found within the existing UGB and what the underlying zoning of those lands was. He asked how the public, the commission and the City Council could make an informed decision on the PROS Comprehensive Plan if it was not being measured against present-day inventories of buildable lands or the hundreds, if not thousands, of acres that had already been removed from the inventory for other public uses. He expressed concern that if the land use aspects were ignored at the present stage the city council would view the projects list as a budget document and not as a land use planning document, which would result in a parks comprehensive plan that was adopted outside of a land use process. Debbie Jeffries, RiverRidge Golf Course, 3800 North Delta Highway, Eugene, spoke as a property owner and recreational provider. She supported open space and recreational opportunities. She asked who authorized the City of Eugene parks staff to create the planning area and develop the PROS Comprehensive Plan within that broad planning area. She remarked that when RiverRidge was developed in 1988 the City of Eugene required a Willamette Greenway permit that waived the 100-foot setback for the greenway relative to the golf course but she had yet to see any plan, including PROS, which recognized the permit or location of the golf course. She pointed out her property was not in the City but the City had insisted on the permit even though the County had not required one, which caused her concern about the characterization of the plan as non-regulatory. She asked why the statistically valid survey did not include anyone outside of the City and notices of the planning process did not clarify that land outside of the City might be affected. She said that high school sports parks were included in the plan but acreages were not and that was significant because there were other areas that were also excluded, such as Goal 5 (1,300 acres) and Nature Conservancy (2,500 acres). She said the Metro Plan identified, within the City of Eugene, Eugene Country Club and Oakway Country Club as open space and those were not in the PROS Comprehensive Plan. She informed the commission that the Lane County counsel was preparing an opinion on the plan for the Lane County Board of Commissioners and asked that the record remain open until that opinion and a position by the County Board of Commissioners was available. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, requested that the record remain open until such time as projects, costs, priorities and the strategies, goals, objectives, visions and performance measures of the PROS Comprehensive Plan could be discussed together. He said that staff indicated that community wants had been determined and he asserted that wants were much different that community needs. He said the Type 5 procedures referenced in the briefing statement did not tell the public what criteria to speak to. He questioned whether there was compliance with individual refinement plans, specifically neighborhood refinement plans. He expressed concern with extending the greenway bike path system, which was a long-term goal of the community and the County and said that more details were provided in his written testimony. He also had specific concerns about language in Chapter 4.i.22 with respect to cessation of gravel mining and other wording with respect to interconnected paths along the Willamette River. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, Eugene, spoke about the privatization of parks that had implica- tions for acquiring land outside the UGB and handing it off to a developer. He asked the commission to view the plan as a “Trojan horse” which envisioned new parks that might get privatized. He said that a park in his neighborhood had been appraised during the summer and a developer had been offered incentives to place density on the parcel that would be traded. He said that moving the park would also result in the lost of tree canopy through removal of approximately ten trees. He said that the parks staff was not accountable to neighborhoods and survey results were skewed by how questions were asked; the polls were coercive. He referred to a recent situation in Santa Clara where residents were told the UGB had to be moved in order to have a park. He said the plan was imminent domain in sheep’s clothing and further that land could be conveyed to developers with no public hearing. He pointed out that the land MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2005 Page 4 Public Hearing outside of the UGB would not be developed but could be annexed for parks. John Etter, 85444 Teague Loop, Eugene, related that he had been involved in parks planning for many years. He recalled that parks plans in 1983 and 1989 looked across political boundaries and there was no problem as financial considerations and willing sellers kept things in check. He felt it was a good practice to look across immediate boundaries and encourage Lane County and other jurisdictions to consider how to relate on open space. He expressed concern that the plan would need assistance to make downtown open space issues occur. He said that a proposal had been submitted to planning staff and while it was not accepted, proposers were advised that zoning for downtown might help the downtown portion of the plan done in a way that would architecturally strengthen downtown. He hoped that a vision of downtown in 50 years could be created that would result in architecturally fine downtown core and not have parks become leftover lands because the private sector got there first. He said that perhaps interim zoning measures could be used to achieve that. He encouraged the commission to be open to asking for a design before zoning took place. Mr. Belcher asked if the point was that in order for the parks plan to succeed downtown there had to be zoning changes in the downtown plan to match. Mr. Etter replied that planning staff had indicated there was no way to implement his proposal short of the City purchasing the land. He hoped that the corridor from downtown to the river could be zoned in a way that kept development from preventing a plan from being implemented, perhaps with uses that were permitted for a limited number of years in order to make way for a future plan. Ms. Colbath asked if Mr. Etter wanted to see some permanence in zoning to assure that certain aspects of parks would continue in perpetuity. Mr. Etter replied that there were opportunities in downtown with all the open space that would be lost if buildings with a 100-year life were built on them. Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Etter to submit his proposal and any supporting information if the commission decided to leave the record open. Kevin Matthews, Friends of Eugene and Southeast Neighbors, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, quoted from the introduction to the PROS Comprehensive Plan and asserted that the plan did not live up to its aspirations from a technical, political and citizen involvement perspective. He said the community needed an updated parks plan but when the plan was not endorsed in its current form from the Homebuilders Association, the Chamber of Commerce and Friends of Eugene how could a community consensus be reflected. He asked that the record be held open for a week so that more specific suggestions for moving forward could be submitted. He said that “Design With Nature” by Ian McHarg illustrated comprehen- sive community planning in a vivid, technically robust, soulful and deeply meaningful way. He said that equity of upland wildlife resource could not happen when all of the upland wildlife habitat was in three neighborhoods; there should be equity in geography. He said there were many different inventory methods used in the plan and it was confusing. He said the plan should address the buildable land inventory with findings as some interest groups in the community felt it was an issue. He said a strong technical foundation that allowed everyone to agree on the facts would help the process move forward. He submitted for the record a display of the unique treasures of the woods of the south hills ridgeline and asked that it be returned to him at some point. Jim Welsh, Eugene Association of Realtors, 2939 Centennial Plaza, Eugene, stated that the association strongly advocated for healthy parks and recreation facilities and programs and the plan had much that was good and would enhance the quality of life for Eugene residents. He said regardless of how well the plan had been prepared there were still unanswered questions. He asked why the property acquisition MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2005 Page 5 Public Hearing portion of the plan was not part of the State-required comprehensive planning process. He said that issue had resulted in a lack of support for a plan that was needed. He said the comprehensive plan included considerations for housing, commercial and industrial development, transportation, utilities, environment and parks and open space. He noted that acquisition of new properties in 2005 included over 1,300 acres and asked where the acres would come from within the UGB or would they need to be part of an expansion of the UGB. He expressed concern that more property for parks and open spaces within the present UGB would reduce the present inventory of land for residential, commercial and industrial development. He commented that property acquisition was expensive, as were the extended costs of maintenance and administration. He said it would be easier if the parks plan was part of the overall comprehensive plan that could possible make room for taxpaying properties also in order to support those costs. He felt if those questions were answered appropriately the plan could go forward. Mr. Lawless invited comments and questions from the commission. Ms. Colbath acknowledged requests to leave the record open and suggested that if the commission decided to do so it should allow sufficient time for a response from the Lane County legal counsel so the commission could consider that during its deliberations. Ms. Muir said that it was uncertain when that response would be forthcoming and the commission’s schedule for consideration of the plan called for a recommendation on October 24, 2005, in order to keep the plan on schedule with the City Council. She noted there would be another opportunity for public comment on the plan at a City Council hearing tentatively scheduled for December 12, 2005. There was a general discussion of possible timelines and the consequences of changing any of the decision or action dates, with staff agreeing to research whether there was any flexibility in the schedule. Ms. Colbath, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to leave the record open until 5 p.m. on October 17, 2005. Mr. Duncan observed that the timeline for reviewing a document of the plan’s magnitude seemed too short. Ms. Muir replied that the parks planning staff tried to brief the commission continuously through the process. Mr. Belcher pointed out that the document before the commission was very different from the document originally presented and earlier comments were based on that original document. Ms. Colbath agreed with Mr. Belcher that the plan was a very different document. She was concerned about acting without the County’s response on Metro Plan issues. She hoped that the commission would be able to act in the timeframe that allowed consideration of the County’s response. Ms. Muir said the City’s legal counsel could respond to any of the commission’s concerns and encouraged them to submit their legal questions to staff and an opinion could be provided. Mr. Belcher commented that if staff was prepared to accept the commission’s recommendations if it acted during the time and with the information available then the commission should move forward. He cautioned that the commission might not have all of the information necessary to support the plan. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Belcher commended the PROS committee for an admirable job of public outreach, but the problem was that the plan was now in a different venue. He said it was the commission’s job to determine if the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2005 Page 6 Public Hearing plan fit into the land use goals of the community and met the City, State and metropolitan area legal requirements. He said while the plan might be excellent, if it did not meet legal requirements or conflicted with other goals the commission might not be able to support it. He was confused by references in the Agenda Item Summary to the City’s metro plan instead of the Metro Plan for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. He questioned why, if the reference was to the Metro Plan, there were not findings that spoke to the Metro Plan’s requirements for amendments. He asked for an answer before the commission moved forward. Mr. Hudspeth asked if staff would be responding to the specific questions raised by those testifying at the public hearing and whether those responses would be available to the commission next week. Ms. Muir said that staff would provide the commission with a point-by-point response to the questions that were raised. Ms. Colbath asked that staff specifically respond to questions raised regarding private recreation issues and whether the State required the Metro Plan to include private recreation, Rivers to Ridges voluntary participation specific criteria compared to the term “willing sellers” and inclusion of youth parks but not the acreage in the plan. She concurred with Mr. Belcher’s comments regarding the lack of findings regarding Metro Plan amendments. Mr. Hledik complimented the parks staff and PROS committee for a far-reaching and comprehensive look at the parks system many years into the future. He said the work was thorough and honest, but shared Mr. Belcher’s concern about activities beyond the UGB. He said that planning for Goal 5 resources, capital improvement programs and extension of any City services or facilities always stopped at the UGB and would appreciate a legal opinion by the commission’s deliberations on October 24, 2005, that would help him understand why the parks plan could or should look beyond the UGB. He reiterated his request for a staff analysis of the impact on the buildable lands inventory, particularly comparing the increase in the per thousand acres goals between the 1989 plan and the current plan. Mr. Duncan requested a copy of the questionnaire used to survey the community on park and recreation needs. He agreed that the plan was a good document and a great basis for future work but he wanted to see how it fit with other issues before the commission. He asked for information from staff on how other lands, such as those held by the Nature Conservancy, fit into the plan and changed numbers. He expressed surprise at the lack of findings with State goals and asked if those would eventually be provided. Ms. Muir said she would research the matter and report back to the commission. Mr. Belcher said that he was concerned not only with the lack of Metro Plan findings but also the lack of findings related to State land use goals. He restated the other questions he wanted answered: • What constraints or protections existed on the non-City land that could possibly be considered open space – were protections in perpetuity • How the process for adoption of the PROS Projects and Priorities Plan would move forward and could a resolution without a public hearing be used to approve projects in the future Mr. Duncan observed that neighborhood refinement plans were land use documents and if there were projects that acquired or changed lands within those plan boundaries it became a land use issue. He said the commission should have some information about the scope of the planned projects. Ms. Colbath asked for more information on ways to place land in permanent park status, particularly any discussions that the PROS committee might have had on the subject. She thanked all the PROS MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2005 Page 7 Public Hearing committee members for their hard work. Mr. Belcher asked for information on the specifics of the land swap related to the West University Neighborhood park. Mr. Lawless thanked those in attendance for a rich discussion of Eugene’s available land supplies and the interrelationship of planning activities. Mr. Lawless closed the public hearing and adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:15 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 11, 2005 Page 8 Public Hearing