Planning Commission

AGENDA LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, August 16, 2011 TIMES: 7:00 p.m. Public Hearings LOCATION: Harris Hall, Lane County Public Service Building 125 E. 8th Ave., Eugene, Oregon 97401 Joint with Eugene, Springfield, and LCPC Lane County complies with state and federal laws and regulations relating to discrimination, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. Anyone needing special accommodations (hearing impaired, language translation, chemical sensitivity needs, & large print copies of the agenda). Place your request at least 48 hours prior to the meeting by calling Chris Rogers at 541-682-3347. ITEM FORMAT A. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 PM Public Hearing continuation and possible Planning STAFF: Keir Miller & Deanna Wright Commissioner deliberations for the Metro Plan Boundary Amendment for PA 11-5092 to include the following items: 1. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281 - IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN BY REDUCING THE TOTAL LAND AREA WITHIN THE METRO PLAN EAST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND ADOPTING A NEW METRO PLAN BOUNDARY THAT IS COTERMINOUS WITH THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES. For The Lane County Planning Commission Only: 2. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283 - IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY APPLYING RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS TO LANDS REMOVED FROM THE METRO PLAN PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281, ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S 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 LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN LANE CODE 16.290 AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 11-XX-XX - IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE LANE CODE BY MODIFYING EXISTING STREAM RIPARIAN REGULATIONS TO APPLY SAFE HARBOR SETBACKS TO GOAL 5 RIPARIAN RESOURCES REMOVED FROM THE METRO PLAN BY ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281. LANE CODE 16.253. Approval of Minutes: October 20, 2010, December 21, STAFF: Kent Howe 2010, January 18, 2011, March1, 2011, March 15, 2011, June 21, 2011, July 21, 2011. Lane County Planning Commission Members: Tony McCowan, Chair; John Sullivan, Vice-Chair, Lisa Arkin; George Goldstein; Nancy Nichols; Robert Noble, Dennis Sandow; Ryan Sission; Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienick  Supplemental Memorandum #2 Memo Date: August 5, 2011 Public Hearing Date: August 16, 2011 TO: LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Keir Miller, Lane County Land Management Division SUBJECT: July 19, 2011, Continued Public Hearing on Proposed Metro Plan Boundary Amendment BACKGROUND / ISSUE Lane County is seeking to modify the boundaries of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (the Metro Plan). This action requires a Joint Hearing before the Planning Commissions of the Metro Plan partners. Lane County is also proposing four related amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which will be necessary if an amendment to the Metro Plan Boundary is adopted. These actions must be reviewed in a Public Hearing of the Lane County Planning Commission. On July 19, 2011, the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County held a joint public hearing on Lane County’s proposal. During the public hearing the commissioners heard testimony from the following parties:  Tamara Johnson – director of the Springfield Utility Board’s Water Department  Donna Robinson – private citizen  Kevin Mathews – representative for Friends of Eugene  Rodney Meyers – private citizen  Tim Marshall – representative for Knife River Corporation At the request of Mr. Mathews, the Commissions left the record open and continued the public hearing until August 16, 2011. Mr. Mathews requested that the record be kept open so that Friends of Eugene could provide additional information into the record in opposition to the proposal. At the drafting of this memo, Friends of Eugene had not submitted any additional information into the record, so a response from staff is not yet possible. The Planning Commissions also requested that staff return on the 16th with additional information and refined alternatives regarding the issue raised by the Springfield Utility Board . This additional information in presented in a memo from the City of Springfield and is included as Attachment 1. ALTERNATIVES / ACTION After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission is asked to consider testimony entered into the record of this hearing, deliberate on the merits of the proposal and either: 1. Recommend approval, 2. Recommend modification, or 3. Recommend denial. Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #2 Page 1 of 2 In addition, if Alternative 1 is chosen, the Planning Commission may offer a recommendation to the Board concerning an IGA with the City of Springfield to address SUB’s concerns as outlined in Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 1. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – City of Springfield memo concerning SUB issue Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #2 Page 2 of 2  Attachment 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE OF HEARING: August 16, 2011 PLANNING TO: Springfield Planning Commission COMMISSION FROM: Steve Hopkins, Senior Land Use Planner TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM ITEM TITLE: IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN BY REDUCING THE TOTAL LAND AREA WITHIN THE METRO PLAN EAST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND ADOPTING A NEW METRO PLAN BOUNDARY THAT IS COTERMINUS WITH THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLASUES (TYP 411-00003) ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to join with the Lane County and Eugene planning commissions in reconvening the continued public hearing of July 19, 2011 to accept additional testimony on the proposed Metro Plan amendment, close the hearing to deliberate on the merits of the proposal and either continue deliberation to a date certain or forward a recommendation of approval, modification or denial to the City Council. BACKGROUND SUMMARY On July 19, 2011 the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County held a joint public hearing on Lane County’s proposal to amend the Metro Plan boundary to become coterminous with the recently adopted Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). At the hearing, staff from the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) expressed concern that the amendment “could unintentionally weaken Springfield’s ability to protect its drinking water source areas” located in some of the areas between Springfield’s UGB and the existing Metro Plan boundary. The Planning Commissions accepted public testimony and requested additional information from staff regarding the issue raised by SUB. The record was left open and the hearing was continued until August 16. This memo contains the requested information and a proposal to resolve the drinking water issue. ISSUE 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) that provides for 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.  Attachment 1 3. Amend the Metro Plan boundary to be coterminous with the UGB, and request Lane County to concurrently adopt a drinking water protection plan for SUB’s drinking water resource areas. Springfield staff recommended option #3 because it was the only option that resulted in autonomous decision-making for the county, and maintained existing levels of protection for Springfield’s drinking water. However, Lane County staff was concerned with the limited time to create a drinking water plan, and felt that option #3 was beyond the scope of this project. DISCUSSION On July 26, 2011 staff from SUB, Lane County and Springfield met to discuss the issue of drinking water protection. Based on those discussions and the testimony received at the hearing, staff from Springfield and SUB drafted a modification of concept 2 using a temporary IGA to allow adequate time for Lane County to create and adopt a drinking water protection plan. This concept will 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. The modified option is sequenced as follows: 1. Amend the Metro Plan boundary to make it coterminous with the Springfield UGB. 2. Adopt an IGA between the city and county. 3. The IGA will sunset when Lane County adopts a Drinking Water Protection plan and regulations. Staff recommends this option because it limits the city’s scope of review to impacts on the city’s drinking water source areas; addresses SUB’s responsibility to protect the drinking water; and it confers to the County the maximum amount of autonomy in the short term and complete autonomy in the long term. Options  Attachment 1 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial. 3. Request additional information from staff. At the hearing, staff will address questions and welcomes feedback.  534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • www.friends.org Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 • fax (541) 474-9389 Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11 Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 th Central Oregon Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 August 8, 2011 Lane County Planning Commission Lane County 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene Planning Commission City of Eugene 777 Pearl Eugene, OR 97401 Springfield Planning Commission City of Springfield 255 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: Proposed Metro Plan boundary change Dear Planning Commissioners: 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit, charitable organization dedicated to working with Oregonians to enhance our quality of life by building livable urban and rural communities, protecting family farms and forests, and conserving natural areas. Please place these comments in the record of these proceedings, and notify us of any subsequent decisions. Before you is a proposal to remove all land beyond Springfield’s UGB – almost 13 square miles – from the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and place it under the sole jurisdiction of Lane County. This could compromise the Metro Plan’s integrity and relevance, due to the greatly reduced land base and the cities’ loss of control of important decisions that could negatively affect them. As you evaluate this proposal, we hope you will keep in the forefront of your minds the important purposes the Metro Plan is intended to achieve. According to the LCOG website: “The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, or Metro Plan, is this metropolitan area’s comprehensive plan. The Metro Plan planning process is an inter-jurisdictional effort among the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County, and its policies and diagram provide guidance on how land use, natural resources, public facilities, and the local economy should be developed, designed, and/or conserved over time.” Celebrating Thirty-five Years of Innovation The larger and more complex the planning needs of an area, the more important inter- jurisdictional planning becomes. As Oregon’s second-largest metropolitan area, it is understandable that the Eugene-Springfield area would have a regional planning structure. Regional planning offers a number of benefits. In densely populated areas, some problems cannot be solved within municipal boundaries. In addition, decisions made by one jurisdiction can have adverse impacts on other jurisdictions – as well as the environment. These impacts often spill over UGB and city boundaries. There are also valuable shared resources such as parks, rivers and open space that benefit residents throughout the area. Inter-jurisdictional planning is an effective approach to solving infrastructure and economic problems, addressing potentially negative impacts, and protecting common resources. The Metro Plan has been serving this purpose for many decades. While focused Metro Plan boundary changes intended to address specific, identified problems might be appropriate, the current proposal – which encompasses 8,182 acres for Phase One alone – seems grossly inappropriate. We strongly urge you to proceed with caution, and be sure you fully understand all the ramifications and possible untended consequences before making your recommendation. This Proposal Will Remove Checks and Balances It should be apparent that the intent of this proposal is to ensure that in the future, the county will be able to make unilateral decisions over the objections of one or both cities, regarding the subject lands. The county’s website for this proceeding states the following: “Why is Lane County undertaking this effort? Recent events, such as the “Blue Water Boats” land use decision and the inability of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) to reach consensus on Delta Sand and Gravel Co.’s application for an expansion of their quarry operations, have brought into focus problems of jurisdictional authority within the Metro area. Specifically, Commissioners have expressed frustration about the ability of the cities to override Board decisions on county land use issues.” (emphasis added) The cities should think carefully about the wisdom of this shift in power. What the county calls “problems of jurisdictional authority” are not real problems at all. They are instead just the long- standing rights that both cities have, which allow them to participate in some important land use decisions. Rarely, one or both cities may choose to disagree with the county. That is not a “problem,” that is participation. The Metro Plan was created as a power-sharing partnership, in which each of the three jurisdictions voluntarily placed its lands under the shared jurisdiction of the other two partners. This proposal directly conflicts with the very nature of the Metro Plan, because it retains the Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11 Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • th (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 Page 2 county’s powers to approve or disapprove Metro Plan amendments initiated by the cities, while removing all of the county-jurisdiction property that is subject to reciprocal restrictions. In other words, it is one-sided; Lane County is given sole authority over 8,000+ acres of land, but it gives up no authority over the other lands that are within the jurisdictions of Eugene and Springfield. If these amendments are approved, Lane County will no longer have anything at stake in the Metro Plan, in terms of affected land area, since all lands outside the cities’ UGBs would no longer be subject to the Metro Plan. Such a move would undercut the whole premise of the Metro Plan – shared authority over the lands of all the participating jurisdictions. Some may suggest to you that the cities’ interests could be protected by placing the land removed from the Metro Plan inside an “Area of Interest” via an intergovernmental agreement. However, such agreements generally provide nothing more than notification of a pending action by the county and an opportunity to comment. These are rights that the general public already enjoys. After hearing the concerns of the cities, the county would be free to proceed with its independent decision, regardless of the cities’ expressed desires. Put differently, there is nothing in an Area of Interest agreement that provides cities with any real decision-making authority. If this proposal were adopted, the authority of the cities would be reduced to that of a typical citizen, regarding the lands removed from Metro Plan. The Cities Should Consider These Three Major Concerns While the county has every right to ask for this unilateral, lopsided agreement, the cities have every right – and plenty of good reasons – to say no. Here are three major concerns we have identified, followed by a suggested revision to the proposal that would resolve them. 1. Cities Will Lose Ability To Prevent Harmful Land Use Changes. Most of the land proposed for removal from the Metro Plan is in the cities’ “backyard” – in close proximity to the homes of tens of thousands of people. If new uses were allowed with significant off-site effects, such as gravel mining, those effects could have a detrimental effect on nearby residents. The concerns of the Springfield Utility Board are an indication of this kind of effect, and while water quality is an important parameter that could be affected by development on these lands, there are others, as well. Increased noise, traffic and air quality problems often accompany poorly planned rural uses. The cities should consider retaining their current authority to say no to those occasional proposals that could harm the well being of city residents. 2. Cities Will Lose Ability To Protect Buford Park. The proposal will remove the entire Howard Buford Recreation Area from the Metro Plan, as well as the 1,270-acre Nature Conservancy acquisition that lies between the Park and the Willamette River. The Park has long been under the shared jurisdiction the county and cities, Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11 Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • th (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 Page 3 and in 1994, the Howard Buford Recreation Area Master Plan was adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The Park and surrounding natural areas are important regional assets and Eugene and Springfield should be at the table for master planning decisions. Under this proposal, the county could change management plans for the Park unilaterally; the cities should carefully consider whether such an arrangement would be in their citizens’ best interests. 3. Cities Will Lose Ability To Protect Future Urban Expansion Areas. The way that rural areas adjacent to a city’s UGB are used can have major implications for their future urbanization potential. If incompatible uses or excessive parcelization patterns are allowed, then the area will be much less able to meet the city’s needs down the road. Ideally, urbanizable lands are held in compatible interim uses until they are brought into the city. This is especially true when a city has limited expansion options. Springfield is highly constrained by natural barriers in nearly every direction, boxed in by two major rivers, an interstate highway, wetlands, floodplains, and rugged terrain. Wise use of what little land remains is critical. The areas proposed for removal from the Metro Plan are the last available pieces of land between the city core and the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. As shown on the attached annotated map, many of these areas are currently under consideration for urban expansion. Springfield has prepared an Economic Opportunity Analysis that contemplates a UGB expansion to provide 640 acres of industrial lands. Even after this current round of urban expansion has concluded, Springfield would be wise to maintain control of the remaining lands by retaining them in the Metro Plan. We know of no better tool – not even an urban reserves designation – for ensuring that these lands remain as high quality urbanizable land. These areas represent the future of Springfield; they are irreplaceable and their control should not be parted with lightly. While Phase Two is not currently up for review, Eugene will face similar concerns. Wetlands, the South Hills, the Willamette River and Interstate 5 combine to constrain Eugene’s growth options and increase the need for judicious protection of what little urbanizable land remains. Suggestion: A Significantly Scaled-Back Approach We understand and sympathize with the plight of small rural landowners such as Donna Robinson, who stated at an April 21, 2011 open house that she owns “one of 4 parcels actually restricted by the RR5 Metro Plan zoning.” Our understanding is that these parcels are between 4 and 8 acres in size, and so could theoretically be divided under the county’s RR-2 zoning, except that under the Metro Plan’s RR-5 designation, they cannot be. A revised proposal could be Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11 Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • th (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 Page 4 considered to amend the Metro Plan boundary to exclude these four small residential parcels, as well as others with similar characteristics. A red circle on the east end of the Metro Plan boundary is shown on the attached annotated map. We suggest that the current proposal be scaled back to remove only this area from the Metro Plan, for the following reasons: 1) Retains within the Metro Plan boundary Buford Park and the 1,270-acre Willamette Confluence Project. 2) Retains within the Metro Plan boundary all of SUB’s well fields. 3) Retains within the Metro Plan boundary all of the land that has been identified as potential industrial land in the ongoing UGB expansion process. 4) Retains within the Metro Plan boundary the last available pieces of land between the city core and the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. 5) Removes from the Metro Plan boundary the rural residential land that is subject to the RR-5 zoning conflict, including the land owned by Donna Robinson mentioned above. 6) Removes only land that is distant from the city center, which does not abut heavily populated areas, and which is not a major resource for Springfield’s future growth needs. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I will be in attendance at your August 16 hearing and hope that you will ask me any questions you may have about these issues. Sincerely, Mia Nelson Attachments: Springfield portion of Metro Plan map with annotations cc: Springfield City Council Springfield Utility Board Eugene City Council Ed Moore, DLCD Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11 Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • th (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 Page 5  I-5 PROPOSED UGB WELL EXPANSION AREA FIELD SPRINGFIELD METRO PLAN ANNOTATED BY UGB MIA NELSON, 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON AUGUST 2011 PARK DWAY WELL FLOO FIELD UGB FLO OD W PARK PRO AY POS EXP ED U WELL ANS GB WELL FIELD ION FLO ARE FIELD OD W A AY UGB I-5 UGB PRO POS WELL EDUUGB FIELD GB E UGB X PAN S ION UGB WIL LAM ARE AREA THAT 1000 ETT A (for E CON FRIENDS WOULD mer F Wild LUENC SUPPORT REMOVING ish EP pro ROJ per ty) ECT FROM METRO PLAN B UG BUFORD PARK I-5